 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
"read between the lines"?
I am sorry, but there IS NOT BETWEEN THE LINES. what was written is what was said. Now, if you have some deperate need to infer some hatred of the Us from my commnets or the commnets of other, go ahead, but that says far more about you state of mind and being than mine.
quote:
It never ceases to amaze me that there are those who so hate America or George Bush that they can be against the liberation of the Iraqi because the US and George Bush did it. Even if there is some uncertainty as to their future, what is very clear is that the Iraqi people are now free of Saddam, a dictator who exceeded Stalin in his brutality. This seems to suggest that the left does not really care for the fate of an oppressed people - at least so long as the people are oppressed by an anti-American regime. |
Ned: I cna only say to you what I said to Evil_Eric.
Your constant statements that "the left hates America, the left hates people" tell us far more about your state of mind than anyting else. Maybe one day you can move beyond your deeply held biases, which color how you read what other people say. |
GePap, you personally are much too sensible to mindlessly oppose everything Bush favors or support ever dictator who opposes the US. Because of this, I actually listen to what you have to say.
But there are many, including many prominent Democrats, who seem to be against the war only because Bush is in favor. I will go so far as to accuse the Repuplicans of the same crime when many opposed Clinton's liberation of Kosovo. What I am saying, and I hope you now understand me, is that there are some who let their polictical beliefs override the realities of the events. This is true of both the left and the right.
The reality here is that the Iraqi people are now free of Saddam.
I call upon all in this forum to rejoice in the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam. This is a day when humanity took a giant leap forward!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Aww, let's not be nasty at him/her. OT-newbies and US-patriot-youngsters are cute already at invididual level, but when these two are combined... You can't be mad at him/her, such a cute, furry member he/she is[quote]
i wasn't being nasty. i was merely giving an example of their logic turned against them.
[quote]It's hard to read between the lines on someone who's just posting one-liners... |
no doubt. but he's posted a few multi-liners as well. 
quote:
I call upon all in this forum to rejoice in the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam. This is a day when humanity took a giant leap forward! |
ned, as much as it makes me happy to see iraqis free of saddam, i don't think we'll really have won anything until iraq has a vibrant, functioning democracy, which will only occur if reconstruction goes reasonably well.
i also beg to differ on the last part of your post. a giant leap forward for humanity? no--a leap forward for iraq. a negligible benefit for virtually everyone else.
we can still lose this leap forward, if we let things slide. we can't --we mustn't-- let our current military victory be the end of it. we need engagement in that part of the world, and we need to help them rebuild and help them develop a democratic government.
if we leave things alone in iraq as we seem to have in afghanistan, this war and the soldiers who sacrificed themselves for it will have died in vain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
Concern about the post-Saddam era is shared by all, including Bush. We want and expect a democratic government. I have listened to the Kurdish and other Iraqi opposition leaders talk ecstatically about the future. They all have high hopes. They are also, I believe, firmly pro-US and only lukewarm, at best, about the UN.
However, concern about the details of a post-Saddam government was never sufficient to justify opposition to the war -- that is, unless one really believed that all America ever wanted was the Iraqi OIL to implement a Zionist plot.
As to the concern that we did not have final UN authority, or that some of our former allies were against us, is still not sufficient to avoid liberation of the Iraqi people. The failure at the UN was singularly caused by France. Their reasons for opposing the US and the UK appear to be based on their own agenda to position the EU as an "independent" power lead by France. France, not the US, caused the split in Europe.
I note now that there are many Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, who strongly backed the war and president Bush. Lieberman is another. But Gore, Kerry and president Clinton all opposed the war. They were wrong. The democrats should recognize this and only nominate candidates who were pro-war from the beginning.
Clinton for president!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
no doubt. but he's posted a few multi-liners as well.
ned, as much as it makes me happy to see iraqis free of saddam, i don't think we'll really have won anything until iraq has a vibrant, functioning democracy, which will only occur if reconstruction goes reasonably well.
i also beg to differ on the last part of your post. a giant leap forward for humanity? no--a leap forward for iraq. a negligible benefit for virtually everyone else.
we can still lose this leap forward, if we let things slide. we can't --we mustn't-- let our current military victory be the end of it. we need engagement in that part of the world, and we need to help them rebuild and help them develop a democratic government.
if we leave things alone in iraq as we seem to have in afghanistan, this war and the soldiers who sacrificed themselves for it will have died in vain. |
We did alright by Japan, Germany and South Korea. Afghanistan is now doing well. But I do agree that we failed Afghanistan when we did not do more to end the civil wars that followed the Russian evacuation in the late '80s. We also failed the people of Iraq when we listened to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to stay out of Iraq in '91. We seem to get into trouble when we turn things over to others to manage before a stable government is in place or when serious security threats remain (I am thinking of Sourth Korea in '50.)
People who are really concerned about the future of Iraq need to ask the US to stay engaged and not demand that we withdraw and turn Iraq over to the UN. Chirac is the true menace to Iraq's future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
However, concern about the details of a post-Saddam government was never sufficient to justify opposition to the war -- that is, unless one really believed that all America ever wanted was the Iraqi OIL to implement a Zionist plot. |
Why is this not sufficient? If Bush shows the same dedication to rebuilding Iraq that he did to rebuilding Afghanistan the world will be in a far worse position then it was before, certainly the ME. It is no help to us or the Iraqi people if another lame-o takesover a few years down the road.
quote:
As to the concern that we did not have final UN authority, or that some of our former allies were against us, is still not sufficient to avoid liberation of the Iraqi people. The failure at the UN was singularly caused by France. Their reasons for opposing the US and the UK appear to be based on their own agenda to position the EU as an "independent" power lead by France. France, not the US, caused the split in Europe. |
Its as legitimate to say that the US went for war based on their own agenda. Perhaps its worth taking notice that the vast majority of French and Europeans for that matter were against the war and 2 years of badly done US diplomacy wasn't enough to convince them otherwise.
"We're not gonna have a vote cause France is just gonna veto it" What a wussy excuse from a Texan. Bush never had a chance at winning that vote.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
Ah... but it wasn't the US with the mandate to rebuild Afganistan... it was the UN. The entire operation was a UN mandate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
And yet the US has failed in giving it the attention and resources it needs considering it was a mainly US objective.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
Eric, your whole "left hates America" thing is weak. I believe David Floyd was the only person against the war who wanted a US military defeat. And he's a libertarian (of sorts). And to address the whole "Clinton" thing. Bush lied about everything. He lied about why we're attacking Iraq, used 9-11 to sell it to the American people, and used played upon peoples' religious faith to sell it. And all things being equal, if Clinton did these things and was in office, no, I wouldn't have supported it. I vehemently opposed the Kosovo bombings. But I supported Afghanistan.
I'm truly happy for any people that are liberated. And as I said before, I'll bite my tongue, admit I'm wrong, and pat Bush on the back if a free, democratic Iraq emerges from the rubble.
Ned: Mr. Clinton never publically said he opposed the war. In fact, numerous memos were released showing he supported it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
The US didn't have any choice. The UN set up the meeting for the Afgani opposition, and then ratified that opposition.The Afghans are responsible for their own internal security and political cohesion.
The fact that the country has devolved into tribal groups again, is a stark advertisement for the benefits of unilateral action, rather than the failed multilateral approach that the UN brings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
The UN failed and fails because its decision making process is byzantine and indecisive.
Had the US installed its own choice of interim leadership, and developed a system of local governance linked to state governance, whilst holding ultimate ability to rescind, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
The UN just had a meeting, got a bunch of Afghans to 'lead' their country, and just left them to it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by spiritof1202
The UN failed and fails because its decision making process is byzantine and indecisive.
Had the US installed its own choice of interim leadership, and developed a system of local governance linked to state governance, whilst holding ultimate ability to rescind, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
The UN just had a meeting, got a bunch of Afghans to 'lead' their country, and just left them to it. |
Yeah, thats how it worked, it didn't have anything to do with the US coming up far short of the money it promised to give. It was a primarily US initiative, yet quickly afterwards the US pulls out the lionshare of its forces and expects the rest of the world to shoulder the brunt of the cost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
Hang on... The US ALREADY bore the brunt of the cost, by the military operation that it implemented.
Are you insinuating that the US should pay for world peace?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
The US wan't obligated to intervene.
If you think people will be "grateful" when we invade, kill a few of them, leave a good portion of their infrastructure in shambles, and then leave, saying "hey, we paid for a lot of stuff we dropped on you, you should be grateful" then you'd better look to your security and disaster preparedness plans.
The US has certainly in many, many instances done quite well aiding and abetting corrupt leaders in return for nice, lucrative contracts for politically connected American companies. (United Fruit and M. A. Hanna being the two biggest in this hemisphere)
So yeah, if we choose to intervene by force in what we designate to be a problem to our security interests, we'd better either pay to clean up the mess, and maybe even improve it a bunch, or else accept that a lot of pissed off people with long memories will want to stick it to us in any way they can.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by spiritof1202
The US didn't have any choice. The UN set up the meeting for the Afgani opposition, and then ratified that opposition.The Afghans are responsible for their own internal security and political cohesion.
The fact that the country has devolved into tribal groups again, is a stark advertisement for the benefits of unilateral action, rather than the failed multilateral approach that the UN brings. |
Actually, that's far more a matter of US policy than the UN. We chose to operate on the ground primarily through proxies, strengthening our "allies" from the NA with equipment, money, and training.
We then paid lip service to the central government, which had no tax base, since there was no infrastructure, no employment base and no industrial base. The Karzai government was paralyzed to begin with.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The US wan't obligated to intervene.
If you think people will be "grateful" when we invade, kill a few of them, leave a good portion of their infrastructure in shambles, and then leave, saying "hey, we paid for a lot of stuff we dropped on you, you should be grateful" then you'd better look to your security and disaster preparedness plans.
The US has certainly in many, many instances done quite well aiding and abetting corrupt leaders in return for nice, lucrative contracts for politically connected American companies. (United Fruit and M. A. Hanna being the two biggest in this hemisphere)
So yeah, if we choose to intervene by force in what we designate to be a problem to our security interests, we'd better either pay to clean up the mess, and maybe even improve it a bunch, or else accept that a lot of pissed off people with long memories will want to stick it to us in any way they can. |
Afghanistan was a problem. The UN agreed with us. Pretty much every civilized nation in the world is dealing with terrorists. The US, as per usual, did the heavy lifting, yet again... and then went with the consensus on the administration of Afghanistan.
In all the UN's wisdom, they installed this regime, then let them get on with it. There isn't any amount of cash that could have helped this devolution to tribalism.
The UN needed to keep their hands on the reins, to deal with the situation when it got out of hand.
You can't put a security band-aid after the fact.
The US is looking to be involved in the Iraqi administration... they've learnt the error of trusting the UN now.
Also, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are corporate profit centers.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Actually, that's far more a matter of US policy than the UN. We chose to operate on the ground primarily through proxies, strengthening our "allies" from the NA with equipment, money, and training.
We then paid lip service to the central government, which had no tax base, since there was no infrastructure, no employment base and no industrial base. The Karzai government was paralyzed to begin with. |
First, I see no problem with having allies or "proxies", as long as it is in our security or economic interests.
Regarding Afghanistan... it wasn't our administration to meddle in. We'd already ratified the administration. Afganistan, although its "broken", isn't a current security threat to the US. We only need to use UNSC's resolution to solve those issues.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by spiritof1202
Afghanistan was a problem. The UN agreed with us. Pretty much every civilized nation in the world is dealing with terrorists. The US, as per usual, did the heavy lifting, yet again... and then went with the consensus on the administration of Afghanistan.
|
Of course it's a problem - it had been one for years, and mostly ignored. We could have confined attacks to al Qaeda targets and their immediate Taleban support, without really giving a **** about Qandahar and Mullah Omar.
quote:
In all the UN's wisdom, they installed this regime, then let them get on with it. There isn't any amount of cash that could have helped this devolution to tribalism.
|
The "regime" had to be installed, but it didn't have to be emasculated by a withdrawal of force, coupled with a lack of money. The food supply of the whole country comes from two valleys/plains areas, one around Qandahar heading southwest almost to Iran, and the other in the Khowst-Ghazny area that's a real hotbed of Taleban / al Qaeda activity, due to proximity of Hekmatyar's forces and the road to Parachinar.
Establishing effective occupation forces in the major cities and the open, food producing regions, while funding and stepping up training of Afghani national police and military forces would have helped a lot.
quote:
The UN needed to keep their hands on the reins, to deal with the situation when it got out of hand.
You can't put a security band-aid after the fact.
|
Occupation forces piss people off - especially armed people with nothing in particular to live for.
quote:
The US is looking to be involved in the Iraqi administration... they've learnt the error of trusting the UN now.
|
The US wasn't looking to the UN for "guidance" in dealing with Afghanistan - we wanted to hand it off and wash our hands to the greatest extent we could get away with it.
quote:
Also, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are corporate profit centers. |
Iraq has a shitload of oil, Afghanistan is a major potential conduit for oil and LNG from ex-Soviet republics, and also had quite a large market share in a number of gemstone markets - Lapis, certain opals, etc. Enough to make decent livings by third world standards for quite a few people. They don't need much, and don't expect much, but 24 years of "degraded" targets and facilities is a lot to overcome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Don't forget the heroin. Comin back with a bang!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
The United States went into Afghanistan because they were harboring terrorists. It wasn't supposed to be a nation building excersize. But they can be grateful that is was the US that was offended and not some other less generous people. In any case they are better off than they were before regardless.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by spiritof1202
First, I see no problem with having allies or "proxies", as long as it is in our security or economic interests.
|
Our proxies are among the *******s that are part of the current problem.
quote:
Afganistan, although its "broken", isn't a current security threat to the US. We only need to use UNSC's resolution to solve those issues. |
Afghanistan was never a security threat to the US. It was a power vacuum in which a mobile security threat was able to fluorish.
By that token, Iraq is not a security threat to the US, so we could just pack up and go home. Until the next time...
We spent around 110 billion on this war, in less than a month of fighting, and a few months of buildup. (Counting the current supplemental budget request)
That's more than we've spent in unilateral foreign aid in more than a decade. Hell, even the administration admits the root causes (and necessary solutions) are economic and political. We can spend the rest of our national existence fighting fanatic barbarians at the gates, or we can do something about the root causes of the problems, and maybe, if we're real smart, create some marketplaces for something besides weapons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Well I am. The root cause in this instance was that they rammed a few jetliners into some buildings...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2003 03:28
|