Iraqi crisis explained...

[The Grammar Police]

Dozer, your response to those irreverant and bickering two clowns is truly gentlemanly. If I wore a hat (which I don't) I would doff it to you, Sir!

(If Tannin took to me with a terrible misquote like that, I'd take to him with a sharp stick.)

 

[Howell]

Each time Hand Blix makes a report the stock market takes an up-tick. Each time our CIC make a report our stock market takes an up-tick.

It's the uncertainty of world events that is causing our economy to tank. Once this stupid thing in Iraq is resolved one way or another things will pick up.
---------------
I can easily see how the deveopment of a free and democratic Iraq will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Once the people of palestine see how prosperous Iraq has become. This would be some of the best fruit of a war. This is my hope.

 

[The Giver]

Tannin, that'z not fair. You can't compare the United Ztatez and Hitler'z Germany.

(Why not?)

Becauze. .... Well, I can't think of a reazon why not, but it'z not fair.

(What are you saying? That it's not fair but you can't actually think of a reason why not?)

No! .... Well ... allright, yez. Anyway, I don't have to think of a reazon. My friend The Giver will be along in a minute, and he will be able to think of lotz of reazonz!

(Well, doubtless you are right, small furry one. But why are you suddenly so keen to take The Giver's side? Nothing to do with bananas, is it?)

No! Nothing to do it bananaz!

(Oh yes it is.)

No it'z not! I would never zell out my zoul for a handful of bananaz!

(Yes you did!)

No I didn't! Didn't! Didn't! Didn't!

(Did!)

Did not! It waz becauze he liked my poem.

(He what?!)

He said how good my poem waz.

(You ... sold out ... your ... good ... opinion ... because ... The Giver ... liked ... your ... stupid ... poem.)

No!

Yez.

No.

It wazn't like that! It waz juzt a purely intellectual meeting of mindz.

(Hmmmm....)

You know what? I'm not even going to bother with doing a check list comparing the appeasement policies of pre-war Europe with those of the formerly great Europe of today. Nor am I going to compare Saddam's flagrant violations of not only the Gulf War cease fire but also of 17 other U.N. binding resolutions with Hitler's disavowal of the Treaty of Versailles.

I say this because it occurred to me after reading the discussion between Tannin's left hand and his right, which I quote above, that any such comparison should not judged by it's fairness but rather by it's relevance. And as an American it's relevance to the questions we Americans must answer for ourselves today is dubious. Why? Because it does one little good to be fair, politically correct, and lauded by the European hordes if we are dead.

European Public Opinion was brought into this conversation as an argument against going to war should that become necessary. Mercutio obviously holds the opinion of the European Public in high regard. I disagree. Nuff said.

By the way, it was not George Bush who brought the willingness to go to war into our collective psyche here in America - It was 9-11-2001.

 

[Pradeep]

Each time Hand Blix makes a report the stock market takes an up-tick. Each time our CIC make a report our stock market takes an up-tick.

It's the uncertainty of world events that is causing our economy to tank. Once this stupid thing in Iraq is resolved one way or another things will pick up.
---------------
I can easily see how the deveopment of a free and democratic Iraq will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Once the people of palestine see how prosperous Iraq has become. This would be some of the best fruit of a war. This is my hope.

The best thing about all the war talk is that the Aussie dolla has reached a 3 year high to the US dolla. Of course tourism is going to hit the skids when the tanks roll in on Bangdad so it's a double edged sword.

its.fubar, do you mind telling us what country you are from and what you first language is?

 

[Mercutio]

[quote="The Giver]By the way, it was not George Bush who brought the willingness to go to war into our collective psyche here in America - It was 9-11-2001.[/quote]

So you aren't willing to accept that 9-11 was predicated by certain misguided foreign- or at least blatantly pro-Israeli policies on the part of the US?

 

[The Giver]

Merc,

So you aren't willing to accept that 9-11 was predicated by certain misguided foreign- or at least blatantly pro-Israeli policies on the part of the US?

Are we hunting down al-Qaeda because of it's pro-Palestinian policies? You see there is no more association between al-Qaeda's pro-Palestinian leanings and why we are hunting them down then there is between our pro-Israel policies and September 11.

Do the French like our pro-Israel policies? No. Have they flown airplanes in any buildings in NYC? No.

Do the Russians like our pro-Israel policies? No. Have they flown airplanes into any buildings in NYC? No.

Do the Chinese like our pro-Israel policies? No. Have they flown airplanes into any buildings in NYC? No.

And I could go on and on and on. The fact is that the end does not justify the means. When you can make that judgement about a situation such as we can regarding fundamental Islamic Terrorism, the "means" and the "end" become two separate and distinct issues to be resolved.

That does not mean that I think we should not increase our efforts to help resolve the Palestinian question. In fact there is considerable effort being put into resolving that now.

 

[Mercutio]

At this point we come to a question of globalism. The French, Russians and Chinese are all respected entities in US diplomacy (I might also point out that they all have "the bomb").

Those motivated to acts of terror - in the US, in Israel, in Ireland, whereever - do so because their opinion is in no way represented in peaceful discourse. The people who are motivated to blow themselves up in the name of Allah/establishment of Palestine/establishment of a unified Ireland aren't doing it because they (probably legitimately) feel that their viewpoint is not represented (perhaps even censored) with any agency with the power to affect change.

What the US does has a grave impact on the balance of power all over the world. I mentioned this in a previous post, but just as an example, Israel wouldn't be much of a state, surrounded by Arabs as it is, without American military aid.
The guys who blew up the two towers did it because they didn't feel they had another choice in furthering their cause. I'm not going to say what they did wasn't wrong, but it also isn't like any of those guys was standing around twirling their mustaches, wringing their hands and cackleling "I am EEEEEvilllll". They thought they were doing something that was at least justified.

Anyway, the more things that the US does, that the rest of the world doesn't like, the more people get pushed to what we in the US would consider an extremist viewpoint, and the more people who hold extremist viewpoints, the more things like 9/11 are going to happen.

In short, if we're going to throw our weight around, we should at least give consideration to what "our weight" does in regard to the conditions of the rest of the world.

 

[Howell]

In short, if we're going to throw our weight around, we should at least give consideration to what "our weight" does in regard to the conditions of the rest of the world.

I just got off the hot-line with the state department. They said, "No friggen crap." They also insinuated that Islamic extremists were upset with your hobbies and lifestyle and since they can't work it out with you directly they would probably just plant a bomb somewhere.

They said you didn't get the message with 9/11.

 

[Howell]

Wait, I just got another call. It turns out that my lifestyle choices are annoying to the extremists too. I guess we're all in the same boat now.

 

[Tannin]

By the way, it was not George Bush who brought the willingness to go to war into our collective psyche here in America - It was 9-11-2001.

Huh?????

What a ridiculous thing to say! What on earth has 911 got to do with Iraq?

 

[The Giver]

At this point we come to a question of globalism. The French, Russians and Chinese are all respected entities in US diplomacy (I might also point out that they all have "the bomb").

Those motivated to acts of terror - in the US, in Israel, in Ireland, whereever - do so because their opinion is in no way represented in peaceful discourse. The people who are motivated to blow themselves up in the name of Allah/establishment of Palestine/establishment of a unified Ireland aren't doing it because they (probably legitimately) feel that their viewpoint is not represented (perhaps even censored) with any agency with the power to affect change.

What the US does has a grave impact on the balance of power all over the world. I mentioned this in a previous post, but just as an example, Israel wouldn't be much of a state, surrounded by Arabs as it is, without American military aid.
The guys who blew up the two towers did it because they didn't feel they had another choice in furthering their cause. I'm not going to say what they did wasn't wrong, but it also isn't like any of those guys was standing around twirling their mustaches, wringing their hands and cackleling "I am EEEEEvilllll". They thought they were doing something that was at least justified.

Anyway, the more things that the US does, that the rest of the world doesn't like, the more people get pushed to what we in the US would consider an extremist viewpoint, and the more people who hold extremist viewpoints, the more things like 9/11 are going to happen.

In short, if we're going to throw our weight around, we should at least give consideration to what "our weight" does in regard to the conditions of the rest of the world.

Mercutio this not so complicated an issue as we tend to make it sometimes. Terrorism is either right or it is wrong. Which ever it is, and I think we both agree that it is wrong, we can not our change our position as to it's morality based on whether we sympathize with the cause of those who practice it or not.

All of those who are terrorists come from nations which have legal standing within the world community - even the Palestinians. The legal governments of those nations are charged with conducting foreign policy on the behalf of their citizenry. No one else is legally authorized to do so. If they disagree with their own nations policies or are otherwise dissatisfied with their government, let them work to achieve political reform within that nation. That's the proper way for them to air their grievances. If that means they must revolt against their government, then so be it. We did it here in the U.S. in 1776 and they can do it also.

In short, lets work on what is wrong with terrorism and not what is wrong with us.

 

[Jake the Dog]

In short, lets work on what is wrong with terrorism and not what is wrong with us.

why not work on both, or at least on "Why the US is a target for terrorism attacks"?

 

[fool]

All of those who are terrorists come from nations which have legal standing within the world community - even the Palestinians. The legal governments of those nations are charged with conducting foreign policy on the behalf of their citizenry. No one else is legally authorized to do so. If they disagree with their own nations policies or are otherwise dissatisfied with their government, let them work to achieve political reform within that nation. That's the proper way for them to air their grievances. If that means they must revolt against their government, then so be it. We did it here in the U.S. in 1776 and they can do it also.

Putting on my devils advocate hat.
Your absolutely right. Unfortunately if a people rise up in arms against oppression their going to do it against whomsoever they hold, rightly or wrongly, responsible for that oppression. As the US is materially aiding the proper targets of those disenfranchised people who have become either terrorists or their fellow travellers that means that, from the point of view of an Al Qaieda or Hammas (bad spelling I’m sure) the US is a legitimate target, the only question they face is the strategic value of attacking the US.

 

[The Giver]

By the way, it was not George Bush who brought the willingness to go to war into our collective psyche here in America - It was 9-11-2001.

Huh?????

What a ridiculous thing to say! What on earth has 911 got to do with Iraq?

It has everything to do with 9-11. I recall shortly that after GWB gave his speech to the Congress and to the American people following 9-11, in which he put forth the idea of a war on terrorism, that the idea was scoffed at by many at SR. But I can assure that it was taken very seriously here in America. President Bush said then that the United States would no longer tolerate any nation sponsoring terrorism. We as a people are resolved to see this war thorough.

The public dialog and debate regarding the need to do something about Iraq began here in America shortly after 9-11. The subject then moved to the U.S. Congress where again it was debated last fall. The Congress authorized the President to take military action to disarm Iraq if need be. Late last fall the President moved the debate to the U.N. where it was agreed upon unanimously in the form of a Security Council resolution that Iraq had one last chance to disarm. So the history of this matter began shortly after 9-11-01, some 18 months ago. This has hardly been a "rush to war". The President has quite properly and methodically tested the idea against public opinion, within the Congress, and within the United Nations. In short - he has done it "right".

Iraq is a State Sponsor of terrorism. What terrorist organizations they sponsor and who the target of those groups might be is not relevant. The day is coming soon when they will no longer sponsor terrorism.

We will not tolerate State sponsored terrorism. Whether the target of that terrorism is ourselves, or Russia, or the Philippines, or Indonesia, or the U.K., or even Oz.

That's what 9-11 has do with Iraq.

 

[The Giver]

In short, lets work on what is wrong with terrorism and not what is wrong with us.

why not work on both, or at least on "Why the US is a target for terrorism attacks"?

Yes of course we must work on these things.

 

[its.fubar]

I thought I would throw in another equation?

what is the military ?
it of course is a Unit or a commodity of men and material with its sole purpose is to defend a country or attack an perceived aggressor or an aggressor of fantasy .

now let us look at the material this costs a great deal of money of the taxpayers contributions and obviously they wish a return on their investment and naturally nobody expects these vast amount of material tobe destroyed in some warehouse without being used.so from time to time they are expected to be taken out of storage and used.

now let us look at the vast area that the military occupies this of course cost a great deal of money and of course subsistence to maintain this level of efficiency, and is of course a benefit to the community which is situated in nearby areas in many cases it is the sole income for the civilians in that area and obviously it would have a devastating affect on these people as far as work is concerned if suddenly it wasn't there anymore and of course the area .


which leads me to an obvious conclusion.
the military is like any other company it has to show his owners and stockholders' they are showing a profit in other words taken out dusted off and used ones in while So it's very existence can be vindicated.

 

[The Giver]

All of those who are terrorists come from nations which have legal standing within the world community - even the Palestinians. The legal governments of those nations are charged with conducting foreign policy on the behalf of their citizenry. No one else is legally authorized to do so. If they disagree with their own nations policies or are otherwise dissatisfied with their government, let them work to achieve political reform within that nation. That's the proper way for them to air their grievances. If that means they must revolt against their government, then so be it. We did it here in the U.S. in 1776 and they can do it also.

Putting on my devils advocate hat.
Your absolutely right. Unfortunately if a people rise up in arms against oppression their going to do it against whomsoever they hold, rightly or wrongly, responsible for that oppression. As the US is materially aiding the proper targets of those disenfranchised people who have become either terrorists or their fellow travellers that means that, from the point of view of an Al Qaieda or Hammas (bad spelling I’m sure) the US is a legitimate target, the only question they face is the strategic value of attacking the US.

Well that's a good point worthy of discussion. There are I think a few ways to address these problems. First of all, and most obvious, is to eliminate the U.S. as being a realistic target of opportunity. We are working on this here and other nations are also improving their national security as well.

We must also eliminate the "Strategic" value of attacking us. The only way I can see of doing that is either to give them everything they want, or never give them anything they want. I believe the latter is proper course of action.

In short we must remove the option of attacking us from their game card.

We of course must continue to work hard to resolve the Palestinian problem which once resolved will take a lot of the fire out of the belly of the beast. If we can achieve this, then we can end 99% of this crap.

 

[its.fubar]

All of those who are terrorists come from nations which have legal standing within the world community - even the Palestinians. The legal governments of those nations are charged with conducting foreign policy on the behalf of their citizenry. No one else is legally authorized to do so. If they disagree with their own nations policies or are otherwise dissatisfied with their government, let them work to achieve political reform within that nation. That's the proper way for them to air their grievances. If that means they must revolt against their government, then so be it. We did it here in the U.S. in 1776 and they can do it also.

Putting on my devils advocate hat.
Your absolutely right. Unfortunately if a people rise up in arms against oppression their going to do it against whomsoever they hold, rightly or wrongly, responsible for that oppression. As the US is materially aiding the proper targets of those disenfranchised people who have become either terrorists or their fellow travellers that means that, from the point of view of an Al Qaieda or Hammas (bad spelling I’m sure) the US is a legitimate target, the only question they face is the strategic value of attacking the US.

Well that's a good point worthy of discussion. There are I think a few ways to address these problems. First of all, and most obvious, is to eliminate the U.S. as being a realistic target of opportunity. We are working on this here and other nations are also improving their national security as well.

We must also eliminate the "Strategic" value of attacking us. The only way I can see of doing that is either to give them everything they want, or never give them anything they want. I believe the latter is proper course of action.

In short we must remove the option of attacking us from their game card.

We of course must continue to work hard to resolve the Palestinian problem which once resolved will take a lot of the fire out of the belly of the beast. If we can achieve this, then we can end 99% of this crap.

If the U.S. was really interested in resolving the problem they would se to that they were not still relying on fossil fuels and start looking for a reliable form of Transport that did not include gasoline and because if there was no oil in iraq there would be no WAR because who would fight for a Sand Heep?

 

[its.fubar]

another equation to think about ?

this guy who's sitting in the head office on Pennsylvania street 116 I hope I got the address right? what is his track record not very good is it ?
when he was sitting in that other house in the lone star state he wasn't showing much of a result was he never starting work before 10:00 in the morning and going home at 02:00 in the afternoon,never making a decision by himself always letting somebody else make the decision So would have more time to play golf, he gets into Pennsylvania avenue by default and starts dictating to the world, this man is terrifying! when will world war three start ?

 

[The Giver]

Putting on my devils advocate hat.
Your absolutely right. Unfortunately if a people rise up in arms against oppression their going to do it against whomsoever they hold, rightly or wrongly, responsible for that oppression. As the US is materially aiding the proper targets of those disenfranchised people who have become either terrorists or their fellow travellers that means that, from the point of view of an Al Qaieda or Hammas (bad spelling I’m sure) the US is a legitimate target, the only question they face is the strategic value of attacking the US.

Well that's a good point worthy of discussion. There are I think a few ways to address these problems. First of all, and most obvious, is to eliminate the U.S. as being a realistic target of opportunity. We are working on this here and other nations are also improving their national security as well.

We must also eliminate the "Strategic" value of attacking us. The only way I can see of doing that is either to give them everything they want, or never give them anything they want. I believe the latter is proper course of action.

In short we must remove the option of attacking us from their game card.

We of course must continue to work hard to resolve the Palestinian problem which once resolved will take a lot of the fire out of the belly of the beast. If we can achieve this, then we can end 99% of this crap.

I want add one more solution to this problem which is going to bring The Giver haters out of the woodwork here to pounce on me.

And that is, if all else fails, and if we must to protect the citizens of our country and of those who are friends, we will go in and give the people of the nations who are oppressed a government which does not oppress them.

 

[The Giver]

its.fubar,

The reason nations have strong militaries is so that they don't have to use them.

While I agree alternative fuel sources badly need to be developed, I do not agree that oil has anything to do with the situation in Iraq.

 

[Pradeep]

It's ironic that currently the US administration is trying to bully the Turkish parliament (the sole Islamic democracy?) into voting to allow all that military equipment sitting offshore to be unloaded and used in the war. Threatening to withdraw billions in aid etc. Jeez if it was just a crackpot dictator they could roll right thru the country on the way to Baghdad, no need for permission.

Well intentioned tho it may be, has there ever been an occasion where the US has put in some puppet regime which hasn't ended up in a civil war?

 

[Pradeep]

I thought I would throw in another equation?

what is the military ?
it of course is a Unit or a commodity of men and material with its sole purpose is to defend a country or attack an perceived aggressor or an aggressor of fantasy .

now let us look at the material this costs a great deal of money of the taxpayers contributions and obviously they wish a return on their investment and naturally nobody expects these vast amount of material tobe destroyed in some warehouse without being used.so from time to time they are expected to be taken out of storage and used.

now let us look at the vast area that the military occupies this of course cost a great deal of money and of course subsistence to maintain this level of efficiency, and is of course a benefit to the community which is situated in nearby areas in many cases it is the sole income for the civilians in that area and obviously it would have a devastating affect on these people as far as work is concerned if suddenly it wasn't there anymore and of course the area .


which leads me to an obvious conclusion.
the military is like any other company it has to show his owners and stockholders' they are showing a profit in other words taken out dusted off and used ones in while So it's very existence can be vindicated.

I believe the task of the US military is to do what the CinC tells them.

And it's true that war is good for big business (the debt of war being put on the evergrowing deficit pile of course). If the cost of petrol hits the $3-$4 dollar per gallon mark people won't be able to fill their guzzling V8 donks and there will be panic in the streets

 

[its.fubar]

its.fubar,

The reason nations have strong militaries is so that they don't have to use them.

While I agree alternative fuel sources badly need to be developed, I do not agree that oil has anything to do with the situation in Iraq.

well it seems the USA doesn't have such a strong military after all because you have been using it quite a bit in the last number of years ?

are you going there to help the Iraq people ?

 

[The Giver]

Well intentioned tho it may be, has there ever been an occasion where the US has put in some puppet regime which hasn't ended up in a civil war?

Can you name those nations? I can't think of any.

 

[The Giver]

its.fubar,

The reason nations have strong militaries is so that they don't have to use them.

While I agree alternative fuel sources badly need to be developed, I do not agree that oil has anything to do with the situation in Iraq.

well it seems the USA doesn't have such a strong military after all because you have been using it quite a bit in the last number of years ?

No they haven't. BTW - I said so that they don't have to use them. I didn't say so that they will never have to use them.

are you going there to help the Iraq people ?

Play your troll games with someone else. You're boring me.

 

[its.fubar]

Well intentioned tho it may be, has there ever been an occasion where the US has put in some puppet regime which hasn't ended up in a civil war?

Can you name those nations? I can't think of any.

IRAN,South Vietnam,Panama ,Honduras .shall I go on NOW Who is THE TROLL?

 

[The Giver]

Well intentioned tho it may be, has there ever been an occasion where the US has put in some puppet regime which hasn't ended up in a civil war?

Can you name those nations? I can't think of any.

IRAN,South Vietnam,Panama ,Honduras .shall I go on NOW Who is THE TROLL?

Play your troll games with someone else. You're boring me.

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio this not so complicated an issue as we tend to make it sometimes. Terrorism is either right or it is wrong. Which ever it is, and I think we both agree that it is wrong, we can not our change our position as to it's morality based on whether we sympathize with the cause of those who practice it or not.

I seem to recall something about a revolution of an oppressed people in 1776 against a lawful goverment that was fulfilling its obligations as a sovereign.

Were the initial actions (The Boston Tea Party, for example) of our founding fathers terrorism?

After the revolution we developed the Articles of Confederation, which placed much of the power of government in the hands of the several states... until a bunch of farmers started what came to be called Shay's Rebellion. While the armed actions of that mob did not meet any particular military success, they WERE enough to literally bring down the government of the time, bringing about the Consitution and its stronger central government (incidently, the division between the Consitution and the Articles very neatly forms the basis for progressive/conservative division in American politics. Conservatives throughout our history have stood up and made a call for "States Rights" at the expense of the federal government). Farmers attacking courthouses and armories sounds a lot like what we might call terrorism.

OK. A less clear cut example: Nat Turner, slave turned preacher in the days before our civil war, started the most extreme slave uprising in our history. He and his followers killed more than 60 whites before ultimately being decimated by an organized militia.

Nat Turner did something wrong, but possibly morally justifiable. Nat Turner was not enfranchised. His lot in life was intolerable (if we accept on general principle that slavery is an intolerable state which, I think is a fair premise). He had no hope for better life, save the reward of his faith. He had NOTHING TO LOSE, and his actions became the definition of "terror" in the years that followed.

What's the difference between the actions of Shay's Rebellion and Turner's Uprising? Who got to write the history books? White and Black?

I think maybe the only difference between terror and revolution is which pipe bomb you're on.

 

[The Giver]

I seem to recall something about a revolution of an oppressed people in 1776 against a lawful goverment that was fulfilling its obligations as a sovereign.

Were the initial actions (The Boston Tea Party, for example) of our founding fathers terrorism?

No they were acts of civil disobedience. A lot art in today's world. As I recall, there was no violence involved with the Boston Tea Party. As for the Boston massacre - unless one is willing to call the throwing of snowballs at British troops terrorism, I don't see a connection there either.

After the revolution we developed the Articles of Confederation, which placed much of the power of government in the hands of the several states... until a bunch of farmers started what came to be called Shay's Rebellion. While the armed actions of that mob did not meet any particular military success, they WERE enough to literally bring down the government of the time, bringing about the Consitution and its stronger central government (incidently, the division between the Consitution and the Articles very neatly forms the basis for progressive/conservative division in American politics. Conservatives throughout our history have stood up and made a call for "States Rights" at the expense of the federal government). Farmers attacking courthouses and armories sounds a lot like what we might call terrorism.

This is a rebellion isn't it? This is what OBL should be doing in the KSA if you ask me. I don't see that as terrorism.

OK. A less clear cut example: Nat Turner, slave turned preacher in the days before our civil war, started the most extreme slave uprising in our history. He and his followers killed more than 60 whites before ultimately being decimated by an organized militia.

Nat Turner did something wrong, but possibly morally justifiable. Nat Turner was not enfranchised. His lot in life was intolerable (if we accept on general principle that slavery is an intolerable state which, I think is a fair premise). He had no hope for better life, save the reward of his faith. He had NOTHING TO LOSE, and his actions became the definition of "terror" in the years that followed.

What's the difference between the actions of Shay's Rebellion and Turner's Uprising? Who got to write the history books? White and Black?

I was taught in school that both were rebellions. What difference are you referring to? I'm not following you.

I think maybe the only difference between terror and revolution is which pipe bomb you're on.

Yes and one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. But a rose by any other name is a rose, and someone trying to kill you by any other name, is someone trying kill you. In such a case there is no need to understand the politically correct moniker of the fellow who is trying to kill you in order to defend your own life.

I'm not sure to be honest where you're going with this. But if what you trying to point out is that the definition of "terrorist" is to a degree relevant to who it is he is terrorizing, I will grant you that. Yet there is a broader definition which will suffice.

 

[its.fubar]

Well intentioned tho it may be, has there ever been an occasion where the US has put in some puppet regime which hasn't ended up in a civil war?

Can you name those nations? I can't think of any.

IRAN,South Vietnam,Panama ,Honduras .shall I go on NOW Who is THE TROLL?

Play your troll games with someone else. You're boring me.

it seams that when you don't like a answers you accuse people of being a Troll "Hardly sporting old boy" can you dispute these governments were not put in place by the U.S.

 

[The Giver]

its.fubar,

I will answer you. However I am only interested in having a serious discussion. If you would like to as well then we'll have no problems.

As for the countries you listed, lets first revisit what the criteria was put forth in Pradeeps statement - "Well intentioned tho it may be, has there ever been an occasion where the US has put in some puppet regime which hasn't ended up in a civil war?"

Note that there are two qualifiers - A) Puppet regimes put in place by the U.S. Government. B) Followed by civil war in that nation.

Now your list of nations so far and my thoughts as to whether they qualify;

Iran - Yes that is one. Though the coup which brought the Shah to power did not involve direct U.S. Military intervention.

South Viet Nam - Sorry, the civil war was underway long before U.S. Involvement.

Honduras - I know there was a CIA involved coup but I'm not aware of any civil war.

Panama - As with Honduras there was a CIA involved coup but again I'm not aware of any civil war.

I stand ready to be corrected if I'm off target on any of these. But please provide a reference source to verify anything you come up with.

I asked Pradeep to name them only because I could not think of any nations which qualified. I was not denying that there were any which qualified.

 

[fool]

Let me, for the sake of argument, and to stop this discussion turning into a rerun of several of the more rancorous threads over at the other place, explain what I mean by the term Liberal Democracy, (henceforth LD),. In the context of this, and any subsequent post’s I make in this thread, but not necessarily in any other context, an LD has
1. Universal Suffrage.
2. Independent Judiciary
3. Separation of church and state
4. Consensual Policing
5. The right to free speech and free association.
I’m neither ask nor expect anyone else to agree with this definition, only that when I use the term you recognise this is what I mean.

Ok then.
It is the lack of these conditions that lead to the disenfranchisement which in turn produces a fertile breeding ground for politically motivated violence. When that violence erupts it is all to easy to conflate the background causes with the nature of the act itself. I remember being woken up by the Brighton bomb. In the immediate aftermath a portion of the British public was all for sending 2para down the falls road. But it wasn’t until political negotiations started that any form of progress in Northern Ireland was possible. I cant help wondering weather the US isn’t embarking on a similar cycle right now. As The Giver stated if there is a lasting peace in Israel/Palestine which both sides can live with then “99% of the crap will stop”, unfortunately I cant see negotiations even beginning without a freeze on the settlements and a cessation of the suicide bombings and even then there wont be an agreement without the razing of the majority of the settlements in occupied territory, none of which seems to be in the offing.

Oh yes, before I get to the point, the purpose of a strong military is to use it. The US military is always in use. Most of the time the use it is put to is focusing the attention of whoever the US is talking to. It’s the one of the big sticks that mean the US generally doesn’t have to shout.

But I digress, more even than I intended to.
Suppose we get rid of SH, suppose he doesn’t manage to broaden the war by attacking Israel, suppose we find an Aladdin’s cave of WMD, suppose there are less civilian casualties than you get on a busy weekend in Johannesburg, suppose the whole thing, start to end, takes a fortnight. Suppose, in short, that it goes so well that the textbooks get rewritten.
What will we have achieved? Unless Iraq becomes an LD what’s to stop the same thing happening again in five or ten years? As Iraq does not have a homogenous population, indeed its population is not only heterogeneous, but as far as I have been able to gather riven by factional tension, and has no tradition of democracy to return to, how are we to suppose that Iraq will become an LD without extensive, long term external help? Who’s going to oversee that process, who’s going to implement it and who’s going to fund it? Because I cannot see the point of knocking the bugger down if someone just as bad pops up in his place.
A lot of people have drawn analogies with WW2, most of them, to be frank, annoy me, but I would say that WW2 may have ended in 45 but it wasn’t over until the Marshal plan had taken effect. Indeed there is a strong argument that this proposed war is merely the continuation of the first gulf war. That the failure to finish what we started, which precluded the rebuilding of Iraq, has led us directly into the current situation. What I want to know and what’s not being spoken about, at least, and I may just be poorly informed, as far as I’ve heard, is how we know were not going to repeat the mistake that was made at the end of the gulf war. Which itself was a repeat of the mistake made at the treaty of Versailles.

 

[its.fubar]

its.fubar,

I will answer you. However I am only interested in having a serious discussion. If you would like to as well then we'll have no problems.

As for the countries you listed, lets first revisit what the criteria was put forth in Pradeeps statement - "Well intentioned tho it may be, has there ever been an occasion where the US has put in some puppet regime which hasn't ended up in a civil war?"

Note that there are two qualifiers - A) Puppet regimes put in place by the U.S. Government. B) Followed by civil war in that nation.

Now your list of nations so far and my thoughts as to whether they qualify;

Iran - Yes that is one. Though the coup which brought the Shah to power did not involve direct U.S. Military intervention.

South Viet Nam - Sorry, the civil war was underway long before U.S. Involvement.

Honduras - I know there was a CIA involved coup but I'm not aware of any civil war.

Panama - As with Honduras there was a CIA involved coup but again I'm not aware of any civil war.

I stand ready to be corrected if I'm off target on any of these. But please provide a reference source to verify anything you come up with.

I asked Pradeep to name them only because I could not think of any nations which qualified. I was not denying that there were any which qualified.

You draw a fine line between what is meant by military intervention and government involvement,if I understand this correctly you are saying the CIA does not have a military wing,

as far as Honduras is concerned haven't you heard that there is a ongoing civil war there may be not as large as this civil war between the north and south of your country but needless to say people die each day with weapons in their hands fighting their own government.

you are correct in stating that the civil war between south Vietnam and the north was started before American involvement but needless to say the American government continue to keep it going.

as for Panama the American government installed that dictator Against the wishes of the normal Panamanians and what happened after was a blood bath we all saw on television what happened to the political opposition being clubbed down on the streets I admit it is not a true civil war but it was as near as you can get.

Iran- the Shah was installed by the U.S. government and was dethrone by a civil war or how would you define the change of government there through normal voting at the ballot box maybe.

This is only a few of the places in this world where American involvement has led to civil unrest there of course are many more.
unfortunately I do not believe it is the every day American people which are to blame more your government and your financial institutions are the real criminals.

 

[The Giver]

But I digress, more even than I intended to.
Suppose we get rid of SH, suppose he doesn’t manage to broaden the war by attacking Israel, suppose we find an Aladdin’s cave of WMD, suppose there are less civilian casualties than you get on a busy weekend in Johannesburg, suppose the whole thing, start to end, takes a fortnight. Suppose, in short, that it goes so well that the textbooks get rewritten.
What will we have achieved? Unless Iraq becomes an LD what’s to stop the same thing happening again in five or ten years? As Iraq does not have a homogenous population, indeed its population is not only heterogeneous, but as far as I have been able to gather riven by factional tension, and has no tradition of democracy to return to, how are we to suppose that Iraq will become an LD without extensive, long term external help? Who’s going to oversee that process, who’s going to implement it and who’s going to fund it? Because I cannot see the point of knocking the bugger down if someone just as bad pops up in his place.

There's no guarantees that whatever Government is put in place will last. All we can do is give them the opportunity. I would imagine that a conference will be held similar to the one which was held for Afghanistan where an agreed upon transition to a new government will be negotiated by all of factions within Iraq.

I agree that long term support is going to be needed for the establishment of a lasting democracy. And that a stabilizing force will be needed such as that which is in Afghanistan for as long as it takes for the new government to take root. After some initial economic aid which I'm sure will come from America, Iraq should be able to support it's own economic recovery from oil sales. Contracts with France and Russia exist for billions of dollars already. To my way of thinking let's leave them in place and the French and Russians pay for rebuilding Iraq through oil purchases.

A lot of people have drawn analogies with WW2, most of them, to be frank, annoy me, but I would say that WW2 may have ended in 45 but it wasn’t over until the Marshal plan had taken effect. Indeed there is a strong argument that this proposed war is merely the continuation of the first gulf war. That the failure to finish what we started, which precluded the rebuilding of Iraq, has led us directly into the current situation. What I want to know and what’s not being spoken about, at least, and I may just be poorly informed, as far as I’ve heard, is how we know were not going to repeat the mistake that was made at the end of the gulf war. Which itself was a repeat of the mistake made at the treaty of Versailles.

The only way the mistake could be repeated would be if Saddam caves in and finally decides to pro-actively disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and comply with all of the other binding security council resolutions. That is the only way I can envision him remaining in power. The chances of him doing that are very slim.

If there is war, Saddam will be removed and the wmd will be destroyed.

 

[The Giver]

its.fubar,

I gave you Iran already. The remainder of the countries though are not as cut and dry as Iran though.

 

[its.fubar]

its.fubar,

I gave you Iran already. The remainder of the countries though are not as cut and dry as Iran though.

isn't it enough of a fact that a foreign government is involved in domestic dispute in a country which is not there's should be a warning, a red flag, saying this is not right and should not be tolerated,the majority of time`s this happens it has nothing to do with what the people of that land wants it is more a case of power and financial gain for the few, is that not so.

 

[The Giver]

its.fubar,

I gave you Iran already. The remainder of the countries though are not as cut and dry as Iran though.

isn't it enough of a fact that a foreign government is involved in domestic dispute in a country which is not there's should be a warning, a red flag, saying this is not right and should not be tolerated,the majority of time`s this happens it has nothing to do with what the people of that land wants it is more a case of power and financial gain for the few, is that not so.

I am unaware of any time the U.S. has intervened in a foreign nation simply to expand it's power or for purposes of financial gain in well over 100 years. To find such an instance you'll have to go back to the War with Mexico of the 1840's, or the War with Spain of 1898. Even in those cases you must honestly examine whether or not the people of the nations benefited from the intervention along with whatever gain the U.S. ascertained for itself. That is if you have any desire whatsoever to actually to be fair minded about it.

Each event must taken by itself and examined carefully to ascertain the reasons behind the intervention. You must look at each within the geo-political context of the times in which it occurred. You must also come to grips with what the standards of western civilization where at the time. It is simply not possible for you or anyone else to take all of the instances of U.S. intervention in the affairs of a foreign nation over a span of 100 years, lump them all together and draw any valid conclusions from them.

Nice try though.

 

[The Giver]

its.fubar,

I intentionally avoided going into any detail responding to your comments about the interventions you list below earlier. I did so because they have little or noting to do with Iraq and I don't wish to ruin this thread for everyone else by straying far afield. But since this seems an important issue to you, and because you seem to think that my lack of a detailed response earlier was some sort of concession on my part, I will go into some detail about each of the interventions listed now.

But if you wish to continue the discussion further yet - please start a new thread where we can do so without bothering everyone else.

You draw a fine line between what is meant by military intervention and government involvement,if I understand this correctly you are saying the CIA does not have a military wing,

The CIA does not a have military "wing". They have in the past "employed" supported, advised, trained and armed militia from various countries in which they have been involved for specific missions but this hardly constitutes a military "wing".

as far as Honduras is concerned haven't you heard that there is a ongoing civil war there may be not as large as this civil war between the north and south of your country but needless to say people die each day with weapons in their hands fighting their own government.

Wrong. There is no civil war in Honduras - period. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

you are correct in stating that the civil war between south Vietnam and the north was started before American involvement but needless to say the American government continue to keep it going.

Yes we did in an effort to stem the spread of communism throughout south east asia. This is a perfect example of where taking an intervention out of the geo-political context of the time in which it occurred leads one to draw a false conclusion.

as for Panama the American government installed that dictator Against the wishes of the normal Panamanians and what happened after was a blood bath we all saw on television what happened to the political opposition being clubbed down on the streets I admit it is not a true civil war but it was as near as you can get.

Wrong on all counts. The U.S. did not put him into power. Blood bath? WTF? 300 civilian casualties is a blood bath? There was no blood bath. Noriega was indicted on drug trafficking charges in 1988 here in the U.S.. Relations with the U.S. further soured when he annulled the results of the Presidential election which he lost in 1989 and declared himself head of state. His doing so was the final straw which led to the invasion.

Iran- the Shah was installed by the U.S. government and was dethrone by a civil war or how would you define the change of government there through normal voting at the ballot box maybe.

Yes this is the only valid example of a civil war. A civil war which took place after 25 years of stability. It is a bit much to attach any significance to the fact that the CIA helped to bring him to power when you are evaluating the causes of the Islamic revolution which took place 25 years later.

This is only a few of the places in this world where American involvement has led to civil unrest there of course are many more.
unfortunately I do not believe it is the every day American people which are to blame more your government and your financial institutions are the real criminals.

Oh nonsense. Look - you've done a piss poor job of researching all of the above. You need to go back and do your homework and this time try to be objective and accurate. Garbage in -garbage out.

Again - if you want to continue this discussion, start a new thread.

 

[its.fubar]

The Giver:

I do not know how you can come to the conclusion that what I've been writing about has nothing to do with Iraq it has everything to do with it!what I'm suggesting is that over a long period of time the American politics is to control and influence the politics of the world Hence the Iraq crisis,your president has already made it quite clear when he stated you are for us or against us and regardless of what the U.N. decides it will be the American way.

no one's country should have the right to dominate the world's politics and have no illusions just because you have one or two yes man countries on your side and a number of other countries which only god knows what tactics was used on them such as "I'm going to make you an offer that you cannot refuse " doesn't mean that you have the rights as a country to do as you like .

I would accept a war was avoidable with Iraq If there was a unanimous decision from the united nations without interference from the USA after all possibilities has been exhausted .

and one last thing never forgets it was American politics that installed Saddam Hussein in the beginning and gave hin the possibility to wage war against Iran with America's blessing.