 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Get a grip people: the Sauds are generally as glad to see us gone as you guys are that we leave, though they won;t say it in public. The fact is that we will still jump to protect the Sauds at the drop of a hat if it comes to that, and we will still sell them billions of dolars of top-notch Us hardware.
|
Are you sure about this? With our troops out, we now can really frank about the Saudi regime. They pulled our chain because of the base.
Now, if they face a revolution, I sincerely doubt we will do a thing. If they are attacked by a powerful neighbor, our attitude will depend upon whether the attack was unprovoked or not. We used to simply stay out of Arab-Arab wars. I think going back to this policy might be a good thing.
I remember, though, how many in the US wanted to declare war on Saudi Arabia when they used the oil weapon on us in '73. I think the next time they try such a thing, they are toast.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
Bush will not p1ss off the Saudis - too much oil there. GWI was really about saving the Saudis, not itty bitty Kuwait. No question though that the Saudis run one of the most repressive regimes in the region though. With the threat of Iraq gone, the Saudis have few security concerns now - Iran possibly but not likely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Whether troops shot first or people in the crowd is irrelevant as both the word of local civilians and the official army line are suspect. This is just what happens when you have an occupying force in a country that doesn't particularly appreciate the occupier. Troops will get shot at and troops will have reason to believe that a bullet with their name on it is waiting for them around every corner, in every crowd... Best training in the world or not, mistakes will be made.
Good reason for not 'liberating' countries where the populous might not like you.
Chances are the bases are being moved to Qatar or one of those other emirates on any permanent basis, not Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Oh really? You don't think that Iraqis might dislike our presence in their country a little more then say French or Germans or Japanese or South Koreans |
Um, no, not really. What makes you so certain that there is something fundamentally different about Iraqis than, say, the Japanese of 1945? Let's turn the question around: What reasons would those other countries have for liking the US better than the Iraqis?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The saud sit on top of the world largest know oil reserve, about twice that of Iraq at number 2. They are one fo the biggest customers of US weaponry out there. The sauds get more time at the Bush ranch than anyone else bu Tony. Face it Ned, but the political forces workign for a Washington relation with Riyahd are far more powerful than transiatory public moods of indignation. We might not save the Sauds form internal revolt (anymore than we did the Shah) but if anyone threatens them form the outside, we WILL be there to save thier asses. |
Unfortunately, he is right. We don't like the current government in power in Saudi Arabia, but it's hard to imagine what it could be repalced with. There is very strong fundamentalist pressure in Saudi Arabia, much worse then in Iraq. Most of the present opposition to the current regime are Islamists who would most likely be worse then the current regime, they might well actively harbor Bin Laden.
I can't imagine the consequences of something like "Operation Arabian Freedom"? Unlikely Iraq where many are grateful for our liberation and many were waving American flags, in Saudi we'd be dealing with a hateful population that would resist us bitterly, and they would be certain to use guerilla warfare agaisnt us in the deserts and cities. Worse, they would probably hole themselves up in Mecca and Medina? Can you imagine the US bombing those cities, or even worse storming their gates!? That would be the type of thing that would cause a war between civilizations, just what Bin Laden wants.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:27
|
|
OF course they don't like us but they also didn't like Saddam either and that didn't stop them from licking his boot for 30 years now did it? I'm hoping we can hold it tegether for a year or so that way we'll be able to draft a new constitution and set up a more agreeable government.
BTW The U.S. will have long term bases in Iraq; just ask the Germans, Japanese, Bosnians, Italians, Kosovars, Koreans...
Last edited by Oerdin on 30-04-2003 at 22:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Um, no, not really. What makes you so certain that there is something fundamentally different about Iraqis than, say, the Japanese of 1945? Let's turn the question around: What reasons would those other countries have for liking the US better than the Iraqis? |
The fact is the Japanese, even in 1945, offered far less resistance to US occupation once the war was over then the Iraqis are offering now. Could you imagine a significant military presence staying in Iraq for more then 50 years as it has in Japan? Japanese leaders were primarily responsible for the conflict that was fought, while in Iraq the people have a significant animosity to US policy even without the propagandizing by Saddam.
EDIT - Ah, you already addressed this, I hate when that happens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
FYI, I have seen video of bullet holes in the school occuppied by the US troops. I have also heard that the firefight went on for hours.
But, of course, the Iraqi's were fighting for hours without weapons. |
The Telegraph reports:
quote:
There were bullet holes in two windows of a class room and some bullet marks on the walls. |
The Independent notes that:
quote:
Yet there are no bullet holes visible at the front of the school building or tell-tale marks of a firefight. The place is unmarked. By contrast, the houses opposite – numbers 5, 7, 9, and 13 – are punctured with machine-gun fire, which tore away lumps of concrete the size of a hand and punched holes as deep as the length of a ballpoint pen. Asked to explain the absence of bullet holes, Lt-Col Nantz said that the Iraqi fire had gone over the soldiers' heads. We were taken to see two bullet holes in an upper window and some marks on a wall, but they were on another side of the school building. |
The reports don't contradict each other, but one does not tell the full story. Is the Independent lying, or were those bullet holes on the other side of the building, away from the firefight?
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/new...4/30/wirq30.xml
http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=401718
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
The fact is the Japanese, even in 1945, offered far less resistance to US occupation once the war was over then the Iraqis are offering now. |
Perhaps. Satellite TV hadn't been invented yet and at the very least, there were far fewer reporters in Japan in 1945 than there are in Iraq today. The media of 1945 was far more of a puppet to US interests than today. Also note that Japan suffered far more civillian casualities at the hands of the US than Iraq has. And there is that little matter of an atomic bomb or two...
quote:
Could you imagine a significant military presence staying in Iraq for more then 50 years as it has in Japan? |
Today? no. Twenty years ago I couldn't imagine the European Union, let alone Poland ever joining.
quote:
Japanese leaders were primarily responsible for the conflict that was fought, |
Same is true in Iraq.
quote:
while in Iraq the people have a significant animosity to US policy even without the propagandizing by Saddam. |
Not sure what you mean here. IIRC, Japan was also subject to a US led trade embargo before the war. They certainly had no reason to love Americans before or after the war.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Whatever the case the dissent that we see in Iraq wasn't at the same level in Japan. |
That's actually my point. We didn't see any Japanese dissent but it is highly unlikely that the reason was because there was none. Japanese culture even today is both racist and xenophobic. In 1945, Americans were considered inferior barbarians, almost subhuman.
quote:
There is strong anti-americanism in Iraq it was there before the 1st GW and it was in the surrounding countries as well. |
Perhaps you can show some evidence of this. While I've certainly seen anti-American protestors in Iran and Israel, I don't recall much of a history of Iraqi protestors before the war.
quote:
More then half of its neighbouring countries support terrorism, why am I even argueing, this is a waste of my time. |
No argument from me. 
quote:
They like that Saddam is gone but they will like it even better when both Saddam and Bush are gone. |
Undoubtably, however since we are, in fact, there and in control, it would be a disservice to leave before the country achieves some measure of stability. The US only entered Iraq on Mar 21. IIRC, the US stayed in control of Germany for years after the war was over.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Gunkulator, any number of history books on the subject of the occupation of Japan will not even hint at the levels of opposition we have seen in only the first month in Iraq. They have had a long time to collect eyewitness accounts on both sides, its just not there.
My point was that US soldiers shooting innocent civilians is a natural product of an occupation of Iraq, whether there were gunmen in the crowd or not. Whether you believe the people support US troops being their or not the troops actually know they don't and they are justifiably scared. The best we could do for the Iraqis and our own reputations is allow the UN to run the show now.
I'm not saying UN troops wouldn't have the same problems, just that they would suffer less criticism for it in the Arab press and we would have someone else to blame.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
I never understood the bad rap some people give the UN in Bosnia. I don't think you could possibly have a more difficult job of trying to keep peace there. In all of its peace keeping missions I think the UN has done admirably considering the situations that existed beforehand.
Anyway, giving the UN run of the show does not necessarily mean that the US should pull out completely but perhaps negotiate an independant role where it can still carry out necessary military operations but leave the administering and urban policing (the most difficult jobs) to the UN. Somewhat like in Afghanistan, and this time funding won't be a problem because of oil.
Whatever you feel will happen, this would quash much of the criticism thrown at the US today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
I never understood the bad rap some people give the UN in Bosnia. I don't think you could possibly have a more difficult job of trying to keep peace there. In all of its peace keeping missions I think the UN has done admirably considering the situations that existed beforehand.
Anyway, giving the UN run of the show does not necessarily mean that the US should pull out completely but perhaps negotiate an independant role where it can still carry out necessary military operations but leave the administering and urban policing (the most difficult jobs) to the UN. Somewhat like in Afghanistan, and this time funding won't be a problem because of oil.
Whatever you feel will happen, this would quash much of the criticism thrown at the US today. |
gsmoove, you do know about Sebrenicia, don't you?
Also, there is a recent movie out concerning an incident where soldiers from opposing sides were caught in no mans land. Both sides wanted the UN to come to rescue the soldiers. They did, but the French and UK commanders countermanned the order even as the UN troops were in the middle of no mans land rescuing the troops. The UN sergeant and his men were ordered to leave.
The asserted reason for the order was that it was too dangerous for the UN troops to get involved.
The lunacy of the order needs no explanation. But it was this same lunacy that caused Sebrenicia. The UN troops would have had to actually engaged the Serbs in combat in order to save the people of Sebrenicia. But, as has been often said here, such actions are too dangerous for UN peacekeepers.
Crap! I say. Pox on the UN peacekeepers. The examples of their perfidy in allowing massacres of innocent civilians by armed militias and terrorists is legion. Since the UN SC is nominally in charge and gives the orders, nothing will change unless the UN SC changes. But, as we have seen in the case of Iraq, the UN SC is essentially dysfunctional. It's internal divisions condemn it ultimately to effeteness. It has the pantomime of power, but the reality of smoke and illusions. Nothing will ever change this. We all know this to be true.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2003 20:18
Almost every interview I've seen with Iraqis they want the US out, whether or not they're pleased with the removal of Saddam, except of course those Iraqis backed by the US government. C'mon, your head is in the sand, try again.
|