So which country is next.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I agree with Axel's disagreement with this paragraph For me, there was a lot of idealism in the whole "Iraqi freedom" operation (if to assume its proponents really believed it was about freedom for Iraqis).
Yes, platitudes and sentiment are essential to get public backing for this type of operation, as important as obscuring the not-so popular motives like long-term oil access, reconstruction contracts, strategically placed military bases (they're slowly surrounding China! have you noticed?), revenge, not seen to be "taking shit", moving the war on terror away from US soil, and trying to prepare a world suitable to Western economic interests. Nothing inherently irrational there I might add, Bush is just looking out for number one.
Before doing anything in Iraq, a tough "roadmap to peace" should have been implemented in Israel and stuck to. If Bush wanted to get tough on terror AND be taken seriously, Israel should have been the primary focus. Iraq should have been handled simultaneously by the UN; yeah I know its frustrating but eventually the US and UK would have managed to manoeuvre the UN into acting against Saddam. It would have taken longer but there was no real hurry only that perpetuated by the US administration and political momentum. Bush could have held onto the support he had immediately after 9/11 and beyond. The danger now is that there will be a rushed hand over to ill prepared Iraqi "leadership" and a increasingly volatile environment for years to come. I don't think it has increased the chances for democratic growth in the region, though I hope I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
And the problem with this is what? That the murderous regimes aren't still around? Or that we possess the will and the means to undertake these actions where most other countries on the planet lack both the will and the means. Most of you all are just sheep waiting for the slaughter, blissfully ignoring any threat to your own way of life until it comes crashing down on you in your back yard. As long as they feel they're not directly affected, the rest of the world can play their morallistic games, living in their fantasy lands of blind idealism, living off their rampant anti-Americanism, without actually having to take a stand and do anything meaningful.
The problem is that the methods are unnecessarily bloody and short-sighted (and not that well thought through) and WILL have direct and undesireable effects for everyone else.
[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Before doing anything in Iraq, a tough "roadmap to peace" should have been implemented in Israel and stuck to. If Bush wanted to get tough on terror AND be taken seriously, Israel should have been the primary focus.

What does Israel have to do with Iraq? In any event, various roadmaps have been tried for decades. The Palestinians and their supporters will only accept the eventual destruction of Israel, so there doesn't seem to be much room to negotiate. Western democracies do not negotiate under the gun. Well, US and Israel don't anyway. If the Palestinians want to be taken seriously they need to stop deliberately blowing up children. As long as their population supports these tactics, and as long as the Arab world and Palestinian supporters elsewhere continues to support these tactics, there will be no peaceful solution beteen Israel and the Palestinians. Israel's best bet, until terrorism is abandoned, is to finish the wall.
Iraq should have been handled simultaneously by the UN; yeah I know its frustrating but eventually the US and UK would have managed to manoeuvre the UN into acting against Saddam.
How would we have maneuvered the UN into acting against Saddam? Too many parties on the security council were too highly motivated to a) keep Saddam in power and b) attemt to play power politics and use the UN to dictate US policy. France flat out refused to agree to any (more) resolutions explicitly authorizing the use of force under any circumstances whatsoever. As even the most casual observer of Iraq was aware, the only way to get them to even remotely comply with any of the UNSC resolutions was under threat of force. Remove the threat of force and you remove the Iraqi's reason to comply. France and Russia knew this of course, which is why they told Iraq they would not allow UN backing forcing Hussein to comply with UNSC resolutions.
It would have taken longer but there was no real hurry only that perpetuated by the US administration and political momentum.
Easy to say when you're not the country with 150,000 military personnel sitting in the desert. From a military perspective, waiting any longer than necessary gives great advantage to the enemy who is allowed to greatly harden his defenses. Waiting twelve years to go in was certainly sufficient. If the UN had any will to be a meaningful player in the situation, they had over a decade in which to act.
Bush could have held onto the support he had immediately after 9/11 and beyond.
Based on the international communities failure to follow through on promises made to Afghanistan, I'm not sure if that support was worth much to begin with.
The danger now is that there will be a rushed hand over to ill prepared Iraqi "leadership" and a increasingly volatile environment for years to come. I don't think it has increased the chances for democratic growth in the region, though I hope I'm wrong.
Our plan has always been to try to get an Iraqi-run government up as quickly as possible. Like Afghanistan though, just because the government is up and running doesn't mean we are pulling out right away. We will still be there for some time.
The problem is that the methods are unnecessarily bloody and short-sighted (and not that well thought through) and WILL have direct and undesireable effects for everyone else.
And yet nobody else has offered any realistic alternatives. Appeasement? While that is the route favored by many of the players in the UN, that is historically doomed to fail. Negotiate? You would have to start off with the premise that it was acceptable to leave Hussein in power for that to og anywhere. Then you would have to get past the 12 years of games played with the UN and believe that finally, this time he would act in good faith. We could of course have threatened him, since we know he responds favorably when threatened by force, in the hopes of having to avoid actually going to war. Wait a minute we did that. And it was undermined by France in particular, with a good deal of help from Russia and Germany. Use of economic force? We already tried that one with little desirable effect. But we could have just given the inspectors more time. Yeah, right. Like anything had been accomplished going that route over the last 12 years other than some level of containment. Besides, that would be asking us to put our security into the hands of inspectors who refused to live up to their responsibilities (par for the course for a UN body). Besides, aren't these the same inspectors who are now saying that Iran's hidden centrifuges and weapons grade plutonium (with no civilian applications) aren't evidence of a nuclear weapons program?
In any event, I would love to hear what some realistic options would have been.

[Jason Menard]

does the result of the victory against the brutal dictator (we agree on that one) have so far fullfilled your expectations?
Yes. It's pretty much going like I expected it to.
Is it idealism and plattitudes to ask about why so much dead bodies on both sides?
Is it plain (anti-)american evil, or is it in part because the american government have put their soldiers in kind of an uncontrolable situation.
Are these the only choices? I think many had no concept about what this kind of operation entails. And I'm not talking about the Bush administration. If it's not living up to people's expectations, it's most likely because these people had no basis with which to form any realistic expectations to begin with. The Bush administration said this would take a long time and would be a rather nast affair. They;ve been saying it from the beginning. It amazes me how naive people can be sometimes (and again, I'm not talking about the Bush admin). The situation are forces are in is not anything that was unexpected.
If your government wants to win a war for the minds and the hearts of the Iraquis, my question is: have they analized those minds and hearts enough before that war (like Eisenhower quote: plans are useless, but planing is indispensable). Or do they see them as little children open for indoctrination (bad) or political education (good).
The winning of hearts and minds is a means to an end. We have been in Northern Iraq for quite some time, and we have had a great deal of contact with Iraqi anti-Hussein elements in and out of Iraq since at least the last 12 years. We have fought in muslim countries before. We are well aware of their culture and while it's popular for some in the media to say we don't, such a view is highly simplistic.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
What does Israel have to do with Iraq? In any event, various roadmaps have been tried for decades. - Try, fail, try again. What does Israel have to do with Iraq? The opportunity to form a base for peace in the ME perhaps? The chance to show the world that Bush was serious about tackling all terror even if it might upset some people at home? A chance to build real support and credibilty? At the very least he could have silenced all the "Bush loves oil" critics. 9/11 provided a renewed vigour in persuing world peace. The effort put into getting Saddam could have been put to better use in Israel and the consequences would have been further reaching. Hell, he could have even pursuaded the French! And no one would be worrying about "who's next", probably the biggest source of anti-US sentiment around.
How would we have maneuvered the UN into acting against Saddam? - By acheiving the above and through more boring diplomacy, same as they've always done.
As even the most casual observer of Iraq was aware, the only way to get them to even remotely comply with any of the UNSC resolutions was under threat of force. Remove the threat of force and you remove the Iraqi's reason to comply. France and Russia knew this of course, which is why they told Iraq they would not allow UN backing forcing Hussein to comply with UNSC resolutions. - Apparently Iraq new this too but certain last ditch efforts by them were never pursued. Seems Bush got all worked up and forgot what "threat" actually meant!
From a military perspective, waiting any longer than necessary gives great advantage to the enemy who is allowed to greatly harden his defenses. Waiting twelve years to go in was certainly sufficient. - He was getting weaker and weaker. Another twelve years might have finished him off. Plenty of time to concentrate on Israel, make some roads into weening the US off ME oil (which would give an opportunity to put some real economic pressure on our allies in the ME), and strengthen other carrot/stick policies. The Iraq invasion unleashed what Saddam promised, warfare in the streets of Bahgdad, plus another generation of US haters. And the world ain't safer and you've got a big bill.
Based on the international communities failure to follow through on promises made to Afghanistan, I'm not sure if that support was worth much to begin with. - That implies that succesive US Administrations are better at keeping their promises. Well I suppose the US do bomb when they say they will!
Our plan has always been to try to get an Iraqi-run government up as quickly as possible. Like Afghanistan though, just because the government is up and running doesn't mean we are pulling out right away. - I know, but its getting more desperate. A rush job could be as bad as Saddam staying for an extra twelve years.
Like anything had been accomplished going that route over the last 12 years other than some level of containment. - Containment seems to be doing ok in N Korea (albiet a bit hairy at times). If we increasing the pressure using a fraction of the resources used and earmarked for the current conflict, who knows what might have worked.
inspectors who refused to live up to their responsibilities - No, they just didn't live up to Bush's expectations. It doesn't follow that they were incompetent. At the worst they lacked support. Something else to concentrate on.
In any event, I would love to hear what some realistic options would have been. - That was a realistic option, you just didn't like it Anyway, its a start. Someone else have a go...
Granted, Bush is a hardball president but his priorities are all mussed up and he lacks faith in what his own experienced intelligence agencies advise.

[Joe King]

One of the worst things is the feeling that everything Bush does is about winning the next election. It would be a bit cynical to say that was why we went to war (and I dont think it was), but it has certainly given Bush a lot of photo opportunities (ie landing on the carrier) and sound-byte exposures. The big worry is that the war is backfireing some what with the american public opinion turning against continued occupations, and Bush may start to look elsewhere for an "easy" moral boosting victory (like he expected Iraq to be). Somalia or Syria anyone?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
[QB][/QB]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
We were constantly told that Bush wanted to invade to steal their oil and give it to his friends in the oil industry.

.. I was lier.
So which country should be next in your opnion as terror is still there so war on terror should also be there ?? and the countries who were building nuke are now open (exa: Iran).
So it was not for oil.. I agree.
Even it was for terrorist (who had invisible link with Iraq).. I agree.
It was for regime change (puppet setup).. I agree.
so Which country is next ??
As per me.. now there WONT be any war (in the name of anything).

[R K Singh]

But you notice the intresting thing.
there was regime change/war in Afghanistan also .. but there was no US troop to stop 'after-war' gurrila fight.
Oh yes I forgot.. what has Afghanistan to offer ???

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
He does not believe that the misgivings shown by recent polls in the United States exist. As for the Iraqis, his experience while travelling round the country is that "there is enormous gratitude for what we have done".
Joe

The differnce between theater and cinema is that you see what you want to see in theater but in cinema(motion picture) you see what you are shown.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Syria is next. It's low hanging fruit.
Already the forces are probing the air defense with strikes on
refugee camps.
Beruit used to be a very nice place to go on holiday. It will be again. Winter in Moscow is really brutal.
Iraq used to be in the center. Divide and conquer has evolved into divide and clean up.
Iran is now going to allow nuclear inspectors.
Syria is cracking down on terrorist.
Saudi's are cracking down on terrorist.
The third army has been driven into the heart of the beast. In fifty years the mid east will be straightened up.
[ November 14, 2003: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]

[Gustavo Torreti]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Here is historical anecdote of mutual mis-understanding of 2 groups from the "history of the part of the world, so instructive to get an idea what tyranny really is" (as you might say):
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/spanish/os_sertoes/rebellion.html
Don't claim that Iraq/Canudos is the same story (Saddam was a cynic, brutal opressor, Conselheiro a crazy leader of desperate people).
But it has something in common: American don't understand Iraqies.
And if I were an american GI over there, I wouldn't think much about Iraqies either, I would count the days until comming back home. But you know better.

Well, Axel, this story has some poetry in there I could help cleaning.
There are a few things the article I'd like to talk about. It shall be up to you all ckecking if there is any sort of connection with the rest of this thread
Canudos

a charismatic religious leader named Antonio Conselheiro walked from city to city in the Northeastern backlands preaching a socialistic form of Christianity. As he traveled he gathered followers, and in 1893 this group formed a settlement named Canudos amidst rocky, desert-like terrain. The town attracted the pious and the poor, many of whom were dissatisfied with the new Republican government. Eventually over 20,000 people came to reside in Canudos.

Antonio was a priest. He had been followed by those people not because they were "dissatisfied with the new Republican government", but 'cause they had nothing at all. Almost all of his followers were commoners, peasants of a land with no farm that struggled for life everyday ( at the same time, those in the government had a very fine livin', thanks for asking).
So, this priest had created a 20.000 people city in the middle of nowhere (no food, no water in a few hundred miles, the burning sun as strong as in a desert), and he also managed to make it a good place to live.

(...) Other accounts say that the communistic economy within Canudos was seen as a threat by the young Republic. In any case, it was a disagreement over a shipment of building materials that initiated the war.

So, imagine another peasant (I truly hope I'm using this word properly), far away in another town, that hears other people are getting a good life in Canudos. People like him, that had nothing at all, now had land to plant his good and food to eat.
And people went there. And the city grew bigger. More people started living there.
Please notice that Canudos had it own law and government (that was probably only Antonio), and that was the growing threat the (republic) government was afraid of. If this feudal flashback spread to other towns (build like Canudos or a taken republic city), that would mean a big civil war (Huge generalization, wasn't it?).

Local authorities claimed that Conselheiro had not paid for the materials, and in October 1896 they sent an expedition of soldiers to get payment.

So, the soldiers were sent to get tax money. Then the soldiers were killed.
Two more times, soldiers were sent to destroy Canudos, and two more times they failed.
Making a long story short, the final assaut at Canudos had 5000 soldiers, and it is said that the only survivors of Canudos were a child, a woman and an old man. They were 20.000 farmers.

Eventually the Brazilian government built a dam and flooded the site of Canudos, but in severe droughts the site reappears.

Totally out of reality, but still cute.
There is no dam in there (desert like conditions means no water), so nothing resisted time but the story itself.
Droughts (lack of rain, I presume) is a common situation in there.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
We have fought in muslim countries before. We are well aware of their culture and while it's popular for some in the media to say we don't, such a view is highly simplistic.

For some reason, I am getting feelers that GWB is trying to get out of Iraq ASAP.. I for one will never forgive him if he does that. He has to stay there (IMHO), even if it takes a gazillion years to get Iraq secure

[HS Thomas]

Where haven't the US Army been ? That might be good enough reason to invade.
Australia
India
West and Southern Africa
Ummmm. They have been every where else!
regards

[Mapraputa Is]

Where haven't the US Army been ?
"The following list indicates approximately 234 times that the United States has utilized military forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict to protect U.S. citizens or promote U.S. interests.
Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798 - 1993"
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

For some reason, I am getting feelers that GWB is trying to get out of Iraq ASAP.. I for one will never forgive him if he does that. He has to stay there (IMHO), even if it takes a gazillion years to get Iraq secure

I was thinking about the same thing. Lately, however, I think that it might be a good idea for the Iraqs themselves to get rid of these "insurgents". It's already tough enough knowing who the good guys are.. if you equip the iraqi police force enough(providing support, weapons, etc), they could probably do a better job... in any case, you would lessen the negative arabic PR machine

[Paul McKenna]

If there is any truth in this article I will be totally disgusted with GWB. If he does make a premature exit out of Iraq, it will be a big loss of face for US in the international arena.
Another thought, if they are planning to exit by July 2004 why in the world does he need 84 billion dollars???
[ November 16, 2003: Message edited by: Paul McKenna ]

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Where haven't the US Army been ?
"The following list indicates approximately 234 times that the United States has utilized military forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict to protect U.S. citizens or promote U.S. interests.
Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798 - 1993"
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

So that leaves Australia, India, Pakistan, Britain, parts of N Europe.
Once the US has cleared that lot, it can invade itself. Hang on a minute - that's what they call elections.
Why don't we just have elections world-wide. So long as we don't have to vote for GWB ? OR we keep GWB after his state visit and send TB over (or IDS ) Howard (AUS) for France .....or any better ideas.
regards
[ November 16, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Jason Menard]

The chance to show the world that Bush was serious about tackling all terror even if it might upset some people at home?
We are serious about tackling all terrorism, which is one reason our support for Israel is so strong. Last polls I saw indicated that the overwhelming majority of US citizens strongly favor continued backing of Israel. I could easily turn it around though, and point out that if Europe were remotely interested in tackling terrorism, they would put a halt to their support of Arafat and Palestinian terrorists. It's not just the Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians keeping these guys in business.
The effort put into getting Saddam could have been put to better use in Israel and the consequences would have been further reaching.
We've been the only major players in Israeli-Palestinian peace initiatives for quite some time now. Hell, even the Palestinians think that we're the only ones who can realistically have any impact on the situation. Yet despite the depth of our engagement in the situation, little has been accomplished. Whenever we get any momentum, those who will not tolerate anything but Israel's destruction get in the way. We've even tried to go along with the farce that is Arafat's "government" and give him the chance to show that he's willing to halt terrorist attacks targetted at civillians, yet he will not. Many in the world, including many in countries with centuries long traditions of anti-Semitism, continue to urge us to halt all support for the only democracy in the region, as if that would actually have the effects they desire. Again, those who would think along such lines are deluding themselves. Things would get more dangerous. There will be no peace in the region until the Palestinians are ready for peace, until the Palestinians renounce terrorism, until the Palestinians accept that the only solution is two separate states living in peace, and until the Palestinians accept that they must abandon their demands for "the right of return", which will never be allowed to happen in our lifetimes.
Hell, he could have even pursuaded the French!
Why bother?
And no one would be worrying about "who's next", probably the biggest source of anti-US sentiment around.
They should be worrying about who's next. We tried for too long to play nice and be everybody's friend, and it didn't get us anywhere. At this point, a healthy dose of fear would do some people some good. We're in this for big stakes, and it's probably about time people recognize that fact.
How would we have maneuvered the UN into acting against Saddam?[/qb] - By acheiving the above and through more boring diplomacy, same as they've always done.
Historically, European's value diplomacy, even if it doesn't achieve anything. It is the diplomatic process itself, the rituals involved, and the sense of cultural superiority that is manifested through the most-often false belief that all the world's problems can be solved through diplomacy. Hey if it takes fifty years and millions of other people die in the meantime, as long as the problem is eventually solved through diplomacy, everybody can feel good about themself. Americans on the other hand, generally favor action. Diplomacy has an important role to be sure, but there is the realization that diplomacy is a finite course and not all problems can be solved through it. Fifty years and millions more lives are not generally considered acceptable prices to pay just so we don't have to get our own hands dirty.
Apparently Iraq new this too but certain last ditch efforts by them were never pursued. Seems Bush got all worked up and forgot what "threat" actually meant!
A threat is only good if it's backed up with action. It seems the UN has long since forgotten this. "Last ditch" efforts had been made by Hussein on and off over the past twleve years. As the UN had proven quite toothless, and since he had assurances from those countries interested in keeping him in power, his interest was only to keep stringing the process along. It got to the point where we weren't about to let the UN make our threats an empty one.
He was getting weaker and weaker. Another twelve years might have finished him off.
And what is this analysis based on? He had received recent weapons and technology from France, Germany, and Russia. He was continuing to move his oil through Syria and Turkey. He certainly wasn't suffering. The same people who decried UN sanctions in the first place would have been just as happy to have left them in place for another decade or more. You can't have it both ways. And while Hussein may have been happy to remain in power, even under sanctions, for another twleve years, and while the European powers may have been happy with this situation as well, the Iraqi people were not overly thrilled with the situation.
Plenty of time to concentrate on Israel
Because everybody knows that we are the only third party capable of influencing both sides of that situation.
make some roads into weening the US off ME oil
This I agree with. We actually have sizable oil resources of our own. Unfortunately we have many of our refineries shut down because it is more cost effective to import oil than it is to drill and refine our own. This along with the "I want it both ways" liberals who block efforts at further oil exploration in places such as ANWR. We don't have to be dependant on ME oil, but we let ourself continue to be. I would rather support the revitalization of the Russian oil fields and raising our production back up, while researching alternative energy, but politicians on both sides don't seem willing to take the necessary steps.
And the world ain't safer and you've got a big bill.
Any large buildings come tumbling down in the center of London lately? I didn't think so.
That implies that succesive US Administrations are better at keeping their promises.
Yep.
Our plan has always been to try to get an Iraqi-run government up as quickly as possible. Like Afghanistan though, just because the government is up and running doesn't mean we are pulling out right away. - I know, but its getting more desperate. A rush job could be as bad as Saddam staying for an extra twelve years.
If we increasing the pressure using a fraction of the resources used and earmarked for the current conflict, who knows what might have worked.
Hell, we're not even spending close to enough on this war. We need to be spending far more. In WW2, we spent 130% of our GDP on the war. For Vietnam, we spent 104% of our GDP. This war is only at about 1% of our GDP. We need to spend more, not less.
No, they just didn't live up to Bush's expectations. It doesn't follow that they were incompetent. At the worst they lacked support. Something else to concentrate on.
No, they refused to simply report facts. The continued deception shown by the Iraqis was clearly in violation of the mandate, yet the weak inspector's refused outright to declare the Iraqis in violation, even though they clearly were.
Granted, Bush is a hardball president but his priorities are all mussed up and he lacks faith in what his own experienced intelligence agencies advise.
He is a hardball President, and that is exactly what we need right now. He broke with the tradition of trying to make people outside of this country happy at the expense of our own policies. Your statement that he lacks faith in US intelligence however isn't backed up by anything though.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Why don't we just have elections world-wide. So long as we don't have to vote for GWB ?

Ya know what's going to be really amusing is the reaction in some parts of the world when the citizens of this country re-elect him in 2004. That's enough reason itself to vote for him.

[Andres Gonzalez]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I don't think we will invade N. Korea because of the effect that would have on S. Korea. I think Syria is more likely then Lebanon because Syria runs Lebanon anyway. I don't think anything will happen though until the situation in Iraq is cleared up.

I don't think the US will invade N. Korea because they know that N. Korea is not afraid of them. I believe the Koreans have had the guts to stand in front of the US government and show them that if they get attacked, they will respond back. That doesn't happen with countries like syria, irak.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Andres Gonzalez:
I don't think the US will invade N. Korea because they know that N. Korea is not afraid of them.

You sound like you admire them. The truth is though that North Korea is very much afraid of the US, but that's quite besides the point. The US will not attack North Korea because within 20 minutes of hostilities beginning, Seoul would be a smoking hole.

[HS Thomas]

Indonesia, Latin America , Chile. Perhaps those cancelled orders for war-craft may be kicked back into life.
The US being the prime beneficiary. 87 billion dollars ? pooh-pooh.

And while Iraq is being re-built Sadaam sends tapes promising to re-claim Iraq....We are getting some grainy footage of soldiers getting tough and hitting women and children.
Is anyone still sure this isn't the proverbial crap just waiting to hit the White House ? If Bush gets through this one unscathed, this is one very sick place. It'll be interesting to say hte least, to see how he faces the Anti War protesters here. (if he does)
Lloyds was hit years ago by the IRA - consequence : stepped up security
and eventually a problem greatly reduced with a relatively strong Irish economy.
What next ? Catherine Zeta Jones takes up the cause and channels arms for Welsh liberation. Ogie Oggie Oggie Oi Oi Oy. (- which is actually a Cornish tradition latched on to by Welsh singer Max Boyce.)
regards

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Ya know what's going to be really amusing is the reaction in some parts of the world when the citizens of this country re-elect him in 2004. That's enough reason itself to vote for him.

What makes you think we lost that reaction when he was first elected ?
It has just escalated !

GWB in a top hat, tails and Texan boots.

regards

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
We are getting some grainy footage of soldiers getting tough and hitting women and children.

Thanks for re-affirming the stereotype.
If Bush gets through this one unscathed, this is one very sick place.
Get's through what unscathed? What is a sick place? I figured I would let you explain instead of just assuming the worst.
It'll be interesting to say hte least, to see how he faces the Anti War protesters here. (if he does)
Why would he even pay attention to them? Do they have anything worth saying? "Uh... You shouldn't have gone into Iraq man. Saddam was our bro, man. Uh... $%@$ the bloody US!"
Lloyds was hit years ago by the IRA - consequence : stepped up security and eventually a problem greatly reduced with a relatively strong Irish economy.
Yeah, there's a good analogy for you. Way to trivialize things. If I may paraphrase another rancher, with so many people actually buying into such condescension, trivializations, and fatally flawed equivalincies, you guys probably actually wonder why we ignore you so readily.

[Andres Gonzalez]

[jason:] You sound like you admire them.
hmm... I think you are correct. And I think many people admire them because it is the first country (I don't think there's any other) that have freely said what they think about the US government and its decisions.
I was very dissapointed after knowing that many of the reasons Mr. Bush used in his speech to justify the war in irak were not true. But I do not want to go into this again (not even mentioning the arsenal of WMD they've found in Irak ). In fact, CBS showed a documentary couple days ago, regarding the war in Irak and all this. Very interesting.
[jason:]
The truth is though that North Korea is very much afraid of the US, but that's quite besides the point. The US will not attack North Korea because within 20 minutes of hostilities beginning, Seoul would be a smoking hole.
I don't agree with you, but that's ok. It is probably the "same 20 minutes" it took to sweep Irak. The good thing is that the US government will not need to come up with a brilliant "speech" to justify the attack against N. Korea. They have admitted they have WMD.
Anyways... I guess we'll all end up killing each other, for whatever reason

[Jason Menard]

AG: hmm... I think you are correct. And I think many people admire them because it is the first country (I don't think there's any other) that have freely said what they think about the US government and its decisions.
People have admired opressive dictatorships before, so I guess it's not surprising. What amazes me, well maybe not, is the naivitie people have about the DPRK. In people's anti-American lust, they don't seem to really feel the need to actually educate themselves on matters such as the North Korean situation, as long as they are taking a stand against the US they are happily oblivious to what that position might represent.
JM: The truth is though that North Korea is very much afraid of the US, but that's quite besides the point. The US will not attack North Korea because within 20 minutes of hostilities beginning, Seoul would be a smoking hole.
AG: I don't agree with you, but that's ok.
You don't have to agree with me, but it's the truth. The DPRK has an unbelievably massive amount of artillery deployed within striking range of Seoul. It is their intent to use this artillery at the first sign of hostilities to flatten the capital of South Korea. If the US and ROK were to act pre-emptively, they could get some of it, but in all likelihood not enough, even if we used nuclear weapons against those positions.
[ November 16, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
If there is any truth in this article I will be totally disgusted with GWB.

Though I could not read the link but what news I have, I can say you miss to read between lines.
No, they are not planning to exit by July 2004. So be happy.
They are just saying that 'occupation of Iraq' wont be there but military presence will be there. Its just word-playing which is very common in politics.
AW there is election in Dec'04 and he has to do some thing to say to its fellow citizen that he has not put his soldiers in death well.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

What makes you think we lost that reaction when he was first elected ?

I was shocked/amused, when I used to get forwarded mails in which GWB will be compared to Chimpanzee.... (and was thinking why ??)
Now I am thinking, what mails I will get on his second term

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The US will not attack North Korea because within 20 minutes of hostilities beginning, Seoul would be a smoking hole.

Good point.
Is message that if you want to do what you want keep one country as hostage ??
So the fault of Saddam was that he followed UN instructions and could not hold Kuwait as hostage
AW Foreign ministry of Korea issued this excuse for not following UN instructions.

[Joe Pluta]

What exactly did you find amusing about comparisons of the most powerful man in the world to a chimpanzee?
Would you find it amusing to see comparisons of ABV and a donkey? JRC and a water buffalo? VP and a camel?
Just wondering what you think is funny.
Joe

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
They should be worrying about who's next. We tried for too long to play nice and be everybody's friend, and it didn't get us anywhere.

Yes, friends of countries like Saudi Arabia (16 hijacker were from there). Another big friend is Pakistan. (Did anyone say that it is being ruled by dictator ?? OR it supports terrorism.)
Oh I just recollected war on terror is not for the countries which have link with terrorism but with the country for which there are invisible links with no proof and which has things to offer and has done something 20yrs back.
AW I think welcome of GWB in Australia must have shown US friends' trouble in their native places.
I think major countries were Australia, UK and Japan in coallition of 42 countries.
And I was thinking why Australia was supporting but now I know even it was not supporting.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
What exactly did you find amusing about comparisons of the most powerful man in the world to a chimpanzee?

I was amused on a fact that, first citizens choose a president and then they make fun of their president. [At that time I was least intrested in world politics.]
Would you find it amusing to see comparisons of ABV and a donkey? JRC and a water buffalo? VP and a camel?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .. have you seen any show of "Movers and Shekhars" currently being aired as "Carry on Shekhar" on SAB TV.
I would love to see.
The difference is I might feel shame on India's politicians but for sure you would not like to do so for US politicians. [though I know by now that all politicians are same all over world.]

[Joe Pluta]

I would love to see.
Okay, just checking.
Joe

[HS Thomas]

Jason Menard : Thanks for re-affirming the stereotype.
Which stereotype? Tough US soldiers hitting Iraqi women and children?
Well that's what we saw on last night's News.
Jason Menard: Get's through what unscathed? What is a sick place? I figured I would let you explain instead of just assuming the worst.
Get through the Iraqi debacle. The world is one sick place.
Jason Menard: Why would he even pay attention to them? Do they have anything worth saying? "Uh... You shouldn't have gone into Iraq man. Saddam was our bro, man. Uh... $%@$ the bloody US!"
Why is he visiting Britain,then ? I'd say the AWP have everything to do with it.
Jason Menard: Lloyds was hit years ago by the IRA - consequence : stepped up security and eventually a problem greatly reduced with a relatively strong Irish economy.
Jason Menard::
Yeah, there's a good analogy for you. Way to trivialize things. If I may paraphrase another rancher, with so many people actually buying into such condescension, trivializations, and fatally flawed equivalincies, you guys probably actually wonder why we ignore you so readily.
Oh ! I forgot , Ireland has no oil. That does trivialise things. The fact that in the Lloyds case there were warnings which were acted on and few people were killed does make it less trivial also.

In the case of the World Trade Centre there were warnings that it was a target, but those weren't acted on at all, I believe. Who trivialised things there ?
America ignores everyone, even itself. That's what's frightening.
regards
[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Andres Gonzalez:
I don't think the US will invade N. Korea because they know that N. Korea is not afraid of them. I believe the Koreans have had the guts to stand in front of the US government and show them that if they get attacked, they will respond back.
N Korea is afraid of the US, that's why they admitted to having a nuclear programme in the first place. Unfortunately the threat to S Korea is very real, especially Seoul, where around 80% of S Korea's population resides (including its immediate satellite towns). That appears to be the only given in this scenario. Its a shame Jong-il doesn't have the guts to stand down and allow the country to begin unification (and get himself a decent haircut to boot), but that's not likely anytime soon.

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: Okay, just checking.
I am suffering when you do not post in MD, Joe. What the hell is your reason for not talking to us? Just it.
[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
We are serious about tackling all terrorism, which is one reason our support for Israel is so strong. Last polls I saw indicated that the overwhelming majority of US citizens strongly favor continued backing of Israel. - Which would explain all the pro-Israeli UN vetos which show that the US is not being even-handed in its treatment of terror or in its quest for peace in the ME.
It was obvious there was a renewed stronger push for peace in Israel just before the Iraq invasion. This was pure politicking designed to deflect criticism of US. I'm not saying it was a bad move because it is consequences that matter not motives, especially with so many agendas flying around. Iraq would indeed make a lovely shiny beacon of democracy in the ME, yet one already exists, Israel, one in dire need of support and help and above all an even handed approach, including even the deployment of peacekeepers
In addition, far better surely to pour resources used in Iraq into Afghanistan and finish off properly what was started there, in a war that the US "got away with" politically. Let the world see how regime change would work on a country who's people were just as, if not more, persecuted by their regime before moving on to everyone's favourite bad guy in Baghdad. A visible success story there would been far more effective than shots of Saddam's statue being pulled down.
if Europe were remotely interested in tackling terrorism, they would put a halt to their support of Arafat and Palestinian terrorists. - Yeah, Europeans positively thrive on terror :roll:
We've been the only major players in Israeli-Palestinian peace initiatives for quite some time now. Hell, even the Palestinians think that we're the only ones who can realistically have any impact on the situation. - The fate of the Palestinians is effectively in US control since the US is the only nation capable of curbing Israel's excesses.
Richard: Hell, he could have even persuaded the French!
Jason: Why bother? - Better meals for the Army?
We're in this for big stakes, and it's probably about time people recognize that fact. - I don't think anybody doubts that. Stakes isn't a word I'd have chosen though, you make it sound like one big gamble.

[HS Thomas]

Richard Hawkes : A visible success story there would been far more effective than shots of Saddam's statue being pulled down

Propoganda or what !
More recent long shots show that there were only a few people around the statue, not the crowds one was led to believe at the time.
Still reading Salam Pax slowly and it's difficult to believe that Iraq is not capable of or far from leading it's rebuilding in a democratic Islamic way. There are lots of precedents in other Islamic societies in history.

Richard: Hell, he could have even persuaded the French!
Jason: Why bother? - Better meals for the Army?

They would have provided a good meals on wheels service.
regards
[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Joe Pluta]

Which stereotype? Tough US soldiers hitting Iraqi women and children?
Well that's what we saw on last night's News.
Oh my gosh. Uncorroborated Al-Jazeera photos. And so nicely photographed! Anybody care to venture a guess why these rabidly anti-civilian troops would tie up women and children, yet NOT take the film from the photographers? This reminds me of Iraq's Minister of Defense saying there were no troops anywhere near Baghdad.
Oh well. The pictures will provoke who they are intended to provoke, and the rest of us will take them at their real worth, which is zero. At any rate, don't expect more from me on this thread. I just reviewed who was saying what, and there's really nothing new here, just more of the same people saying the same thing. Keep up the good fight, Jason, I don't know how you find the energy.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

Map: I am suffering when you do not post in MD, Joe. What the hell is your reason for not talking to us?
(laughing) Map, I'm just not getting too involved in these America-bashing sessions. First off, Jason does a great job of defending America - I've yet to see a coherent thought that opposes his points. And second, other than the side conversation about the entire Israel/Palestine conflict, there's really nothing new here, and certainly nothing I deem necessary to respond to.
Except for those Al-Jazeera photos. It was too funny. I mean, I can just picture the American soldiers sitting around saying, "Wait, don't tie up little Halla until the Al-Jazeera guy is done loading his camera!" Some people will believe anything...

Joe