 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm a bit disappointed. PLATO was, once, one of the reasonable folks who seemed to be grounded in reality. Now it's as if he's drunk the kool-aid... :sad: |
Okay. Glad you asked.
The war in Iraq was about two things:
1.) Political power (on a nation-state level), and
2.) Reshaping the face of the Middle East ( in the end analysis, #2 is the same as #1)
So, why does everybody think that it was about the "immediate" threat, WMD's, and Al-Qaeda? Simple really.
The WMD issue was the only one that had international standing. The US had to try to force the UNSC's hand in order to get tacit legal cover for an invasion. 1441 accomplished this. The fact that they were unable to obtain a follow-up resolution speaks to the lack of real hard evidence of WMD. BUT, 1441 gave us the cover we needed along with the nebulous intelligence.
The "immediate" threat issue and the al-Qaeda ties were also very dubious intelligence that was used to rally an American public that needs a reason to send their kids to war. In the shadow of 911, this was a great rallying cry.
However, to say that these are the real reasons that we went to war is what is really akin to being on the kool-aid. 
Still dissapointed?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
|
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bipolarbear
Whne I was protesting Bush when he came to my area, a rude Bush supoorter (they were all quite rude actually, and that's just b/c I'm liberal, but b/c they were) after flipping me off told me that Kerry was pro-war, however, I think that was an earlier Kerry comment that he later flip flopped on.
Last time i heard, he was anti war. |
Kerry's real position may never be know. It appears that he supported a military posture with hopes that it would not be used except as a last resort. In his opinion there were still options left. In the admins, there wasn't. I don't believe that he was as inconsistent in his thinking as he was in his his talking. However, I suppose, we judge the man on what he does and says, not what he is supposedly thinking.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
|
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
Okay, now that I think I hit a reply to everybody, I will expand on my reasoning a bit.
US influence and economic power in the Middle East had been diminishing for close to a decade. While we saw some benefit from the coalition that "liberated" Kuwait. (I use liberated loosely since we restored an autocratic government). The overall influence of the US was beginning to be overshadowed by France, Germany, and Russia. (Funny how those are the ones that really opposed the war the strongest.). Iraq was rejoining the international economic community through back channels managed mainly by the French.
Iran was beginning to see more activity with French, Russian, German, and even British economic contacts. The Saudi's, while professing to be our friends, were following a decidely anti-American agenda and were financing it in other countries. Even Egypt was drifting farther from the US despite our annual $3 billion bribe. The US had politically isolated itself from Iraq, Iran, and to a large extent Pakistan. We had poor relations with Yemen. About the only countries in the Middle East that we could really count on were Kuwait, Bahrain, and to some large extent Qatar.
The new Russia combined with the old Europe was weakening the US ability to determine direction in a part of the world that was definately in our national interest (It really is all about the oil ).
With these factors in place, combined with an almost total lack of democracy in the region, set the stage for a US powerplay. We had the ability both militarily and politically to gain the foothold for a great experiment. Not only would we try to crush the anti-US elements and bring "friendly" democracies to power, but we would be able to drastically diminish our "allies" influence as well. We would be able to have a large US troop presence on the ground which is a major political influence for weaker countries. We would be able to reshape the economic picture once things settled down.
If the goal of the US President is to maintain US power in the world, then I submit that Bush persued that goal in the most expediant way possible. Weather or not it was the most prudent will be for the next generation to reflect back on and decide.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Seeker
|
 |
London Ontario
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
"The one thing that it appears the admin was successful on was concealing the real reason we are at war."
i.e keeping christian zionist nutballs happy by taking out israels bogeyman "bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you" and all that bs.
when does the us get to see all that positive recriprocal crap out of the special relationship they (usa and israel) share?
EDIT: I hope you cant tell but im so ****ing trashed right now I just spent 80 dollars on rum and coke I even tried to karaoke in a bar ina hick southwestern ontario I just heard the worst ****in version of 'the day the music died' I EVER heard in my life it was like hell on earth ****in heelll on earth
EDIt EDIT there was this hottt blonde who got pawed by her ******* boyfriend and left the place she was hot but i'm glad she freed up the pool table
Last edited by Seeker on 21-11-2004 at 13:19
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-11-2004 09:25
|