I agree the World maybe safer place without Saddam in office, but did America
have to go on full War and start this mess? The initial act for war was a lie..It was a mistake..The story was changed..War is serious stuff!! There are other more intelligent methods to take power, solve problems and situations rather then pull a trigger and kill. Seems it is working in N.Korea,w ho admits it is making and has nukes..It is easy to sit back in front of our computers and write on this forum, but so many people have died,suffered and new uprisings in Iraq because of the call from Bush. Yesterday,alone, 688 + shiites died in a stampede. These are humans!! The UN had no say to Iraq..actually they were correct the entire time..They never found any WOMD!! The World had no say either, Many countries would not agree to join the coalition without proper proof..Bush had his own, stubborn vision and ignored the rest of the World.He knew what he wa after. The only reason why the US has "friends" or allies are because of political and economic ties. I am still amazed how soon we all forget and can even be persuaded to think. I still think Iraq will have a serious payback to come..not only to the US, but World.
{OT} New Orleans Vs. Iraq
No worries!
Check out www.imageshack.us. Free and easy image hosting with cut 'n paste thumbnails for forums. If someone want to see the larger image, all they have to do is click on it.
Check out www.imageshack.us. Free and easy image hosting with cut 'n paste thumbnails for forums. If someone want to see the larger image, all they have to do is click on it.
-
Machinesworking
- Posts: 11551
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Seattle
A couple things to keep in mind. First of all, is a democracy a way for all the people of Iraq to actually get a voice? Remember that something like 20% of the nation are sunni, and 70% are Shiite. The sunni minority was favored in Saddam's time, now it's VERY possible that they are effectively shut out of the democratic process by the shiite majority. Remember that America is made up of many different versions of christianity, not any one has total control, whereas Iraq will prove to be problematic at best.robtronik wrote:I believe it is the right thing we are doing over there despite the risk and the cost we've incurred so far over there. The alternative to our solution is apparent every day in Iraq - those that would have us leave would create the very thing that has damned that region for the last several decades....
And frankly, I think it is shameful for U.S. citizens to call for the withdrawl of our troops before we finish what we have started over there with the support of the Iraqi people and the need to institutue the beginnings of a working democracy.
We're looking at the possibility of another Yugoslavian type disaster here. Democracy not bringing peace into the area, but the resurgence of old hatreds.
I urge any person who is of the mind you are to do their research on our continual involvement in the middle east. The underlying thought that we have let extreme fundamentalism flourish by our lack of concern is flawed. Our continual political maneuvering, complete with bombings and outright CIA and military coups is the problem, not some sort of hatred of "freedom" etc.
When Afghanistan was able to get rid of the Russian military presence through a small fundamentalist resistance, when Iran got rid of a dictator that the US and England helped into power through a fundamentalist movement. It was these and other events that created the terrorists. Basically the involvement of CIA and military forces from other countries in middle eastern government creates the sort of hatred you see in the terrorists. Fundamentalism is a way for a young Afghani soldier to run up to a tank with nothing more than a molotov cocktail.
So the fact that the US military is over there, creating "democracy", is in fact creating terrorists. Not necessarily what we are supposedly over there for. The sad part to me is that we don't care.
Peak oil is a possibility, and we want it all. Iran and Venezuela are the only two countries left that aren't friendly towards us in the top five oil reserves on the planet. Iraq, Canada, and Saudi Arabia are now secured.
claudek wrote:The real WOMD is OIL.
What is Bush really thinking?
"Cool. look at all that water. HMMM...I shoulda gone swimming during my 6 week vacation. Hey, get Carl Rove on the phone! Lets figure out how to use THIS tragedy as well as we used 9-11 for the campaign. I know. I'll say.."Mother Nature, BRING IT ON!" YEEEHAWWWWWWW!!! I'm a genius. Daddy would be so proud.
[Interpretation. We all know that he can't articulate in complete sentences without a crayon and dashed lines on the paper to tell him where to draw the pretty letters...]
F*** Bush
15" PB 2.5 Ghz, 4 Gig RAM, 750 GB HD, Live 9 still no cue points or program change messages?!?. Doesn't do shit.
I understand the arguments about how their is a risk that we are creating more terrorists with our involvement in the middle east.
I have to ask, pray tell, how is this risk any different BEFORE we got rid of the Taliban and Afghanistan. If I remember correctly, we've been attacked and plotted against by terrorists way before we invaded and rid those countries of their leadership.
Understand that if we did nothing post 9/11 (as many of you are advocating), then we'd be at least in the same position as we were during the lead up to 9/11 - which was the worst terror attack in our history (not including Pearl Harbor, of course).
Its obvious that we had to do something - and treating terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war against the united states culminated in 9/11. Now that we have declared war on these guys - including those who would provide state sponsorship - we have changed the game and gone on the offensive.
How many of you guys read the Iraqi blogs (the one's in english)? How many of you also only get your news from regular media? How many of you judge the success of what we do by the numbers of the dead?
The military seems to get their mission. The president understands their mission. As uncomfortable as the Iraqi's are with their current situation, they get our military's mission. Hell, as a total validation, the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq get the mission (which is why they are so fundamentally opposed and will die and do anything at any cost to stop it). There are many in America and our allied states (Britian, Japan, Australia w/ troops) and others with political support that get it.... but yet, those that criticize the effort just can't get it?
I can completely understand the criticisms about the execution of the plan - more troops needed there; better security; etc.... There is always a better way to execute. But the plan about going to war against terrorists is sound and the right thing to do. Criticism of the execution is the right thing to do - BUT only if it is for improving the chances of our success and completing the goal(s). Not for disengagement.
Disengagement led to 9/11 - before we had done any of the aforementioned acts of "atrocity" against these guys...
With regard to the "washing" comment about democracy being a process and not an event.... I would say, with all due respect, that you have no idea what you are talking about. It took many years for Germany and Japan. It took many years for the U.S. to reach a stable democratic system. If you expect a country that was damaged under fascist rule to turn on a dime and expect that an immediate withdrawl is imminent, then you haven't done your historical research into what the timeframes are and the steps needed to go through this type of fundamental change.
Look - a baby first being born is a human. But you wouldn't leave that human to fend for itself, even though it has the capacity to eventually be self sufficient. You tend to that human until it has the capacity, will, and means to be self sufficient.
Yes a democracy is being voted in, but that doesn't mean, to carry the analogy, that it will be immediately self sufficient. If we leave, this will be seen as a bigger betrayal than any invasion and execution of middle east policy than anything ever before done to that region.
(I'm also of the opinion that those that wish to get out are ultimately not concerned about the welfare of others, but mostly for themselves and their own immediate comforts.)
We owe it to them. And frankly, there isn't a nation that has the capacity, will, and obligation to do this than the U.S. for helping build a democracy..... it sure as hell would make things go better, of course, if there was the commitment by the U.N. and member nations that we've committed. But this is how its shook out thus far.....
And the "sign up" criticism - can't do it. Too old. they wouldn't have me anyway... but I can provide that other valuable commodity - Political Will. I speak up in favor of the plan where I can because we can't let criticism of the goals be underminded. We need to let the criticism enable us to achieve our goals, not stop from doing them.
.02,
rob.
I have to ask, pray tell, how is this risk any different BEFORE we got rid of the Taliban and Afghanistan. If I remember correctly, we've been attacked and plotted against by terrorists way before we invaded and rid those countries of their leadership.
Understand that if we did nothing post 9/11 (as many of you are advocating), then we'd be at least in the same position as we were during the lead up to 9/11 - which was the worst terror attack in our history (not including Pearl Harbor, of course).
Its obvious that we had to do something - and treating terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war against the united states culminated in 9/11. Now that we have declared war on these guys - including those who would provide state sponsorship - we have changed the game and gone on the offensive.
How many of you guys read the Iraqi blogs (the one's in english)? How many of you also only get your news from regular media? How many of you judge the success of what we do by the numbers of the dead?
The military seems to get their mission. The president understands their mission. As uncomfortable as the Iraqi's are with their current situation, they get our military's mission. Hell, as a total validation, the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq get the mission (which is why they are so fundamentally opposed and will die and do anything at any cost to stop it). There are many in America and our allied states (Britian, Japan, Australia w/ troops) and others with political support that get it.... but yet, those that criticize the effort just can't get it?
I can completely understand the criticisms about the execution of the plan - more troops needed there; better security; etc.... There is always a better way to execute. But the plan about going to war against terrorists is sound and the right thing to do. Criticism of the execution is the right thing to do - BUT only if it is for improving the chances of our success and completing the goal(s). Not for disengagement.
Disengagement led to 9/11 - before we had done any of the aforementioned acts of "atrocity" against these guys...
With regard to the "washing" comment about democracy being a process and not an event.... I would say, with all due respect, that you have no idea what you are talking about. It took many years for Germany and Japan. It took many years for the U.S. to reach a stable democratic system. If you expect a country that was damaged under fascist rule to turn on a dime and expect that an immediate withdrawl is imminent, then you haven't done your historical research into what the timeframes are and the steps needed to go through this type of fundamental change.
Look - a baby first being born is a human. But you wouldn't leave that human to fend for itself, even though it has the capacity to eventually be self sufficient. You tend to that human until it has the capacity, will, and means to be self sufficient.
Yes a democracy is being voted in, but that doesn't mean, to carry the analogy, that it will be immediately self sufficient. If we leave, this will be seen as a bigger betrayal than any invasion and execution of middle east policy than anything ever before done to that region.
(I'm also of the opinion that those that wish to get out are ultimately not concerned about the welfare of others, but mostly for themselves and their own immediate comforts.)
We owe it to them. And frankly, there isn't a nation that has the capacity, will, and obligation to do this than the U.S. for helping build a democracy..... it sure as hell would make things go better, of course, if there was the commitment by the U.N. and member nations that we've committed. But this is how its shook out thus far.....
And the "sign up" criticism - can't do it. Too old. they wouldn't have me anyway... but I can provide that other valuable commodity - Political Will. I speak up in favor of the plan where I can because we can't let criticism of the goals be underminded. We need to let the criticism enable us to achieve our goals, not stop from doing them.
.02,
rob.
"Oh darnit !! all those oil tankers and pipelines..Daddy and I are gonna lose alot $ on this one....Maybe Iran ain't such a bad idea afterall"kabuki wrote:claudek wrote:The real WOMD is OIL.
What is Bush really thinking?
Mac G4 Quicksilver 1000GHz / Motu 828 /OSX 10.3.9
&
Mac Ibook G4 800GHz OSX 10.3.9 /Core Audio/M Audio Oxy 8
PC: ASUS 2.8 GHz P4 / XP
Live 5.02
&
Mac Ibook G4 800GHz OSX 10.3.9 /Core Audio/M Audio Oxy 8
PC: ASUS 2.8 GHz P4 / XP
Live 5.02
This just shows me what a terrorist could do to cause damage..Break some major water pipelines, damns and would cause major havoc.This is a good example of it, but mather nature was in the bad mood.
Mac G4 Quicksilver 1000GHz / Motu 828 /OSX 10.3.9
&
Mac Ibook G4 800GHz OSX 10.3.9 /Core Audio/M Audio Oxy 8
PC: ASUS 2.8 GHz P4 / XP
Live 5.02
&
Mac Ibook G4 800GHz OSX 10.3.9 /Core Audio/M Audio Oxy 8
PC: ASUS 2.8 GHz P4 / XP
Live 5.02
You assume here that the US had no responsibility of 9/11.robtronik wrote: I have to ask, pray tell, how is this risk any different BEFORE we got rid of the Taliban and Afghanistan. If I remember correctly, we've been attacked and plotted against by terrorists way before we invaded and rid those countries of their leadership.
Understand that if we did nothing post 9/11 (as many of you are advocating), then we'd be at least in the same position as we were during the lead up to 9/11 - which was the worst terror attack in our history (not including Pearl Harbor, of course).
Its obvious that we had to do something - and treating terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war against the united states culminated in 9/11. Now that we have declared war on these guys - including those who would provide state sponsorship - we have changed the game and gone on the offensive.
The US had a hand in creating Al Quaeda. Bin Laden family has/had connections with Bush family. A lot of their weapons came from US and Europe.
Not to mention the many unanswered questions about the "attack" itself.
I think thats just what happened to the US - its like a big baby with a LOT of power and very little common sense, and also a compulsive liar twisting the 'truth' to suit its own means.robtronik wrote:
Look - a baby first being born is a human. But you wouldn't leave that human to fend for itself, even though it has the capacity to eventually be self sufficient. You tend to that human until it has the capacity, will, and means to be self sufficient.
Its a scary situation.
o.k. that is one point of view.
But listen, this is the point I'm trying to make. Of course, we contributed to the environment that led up to 9/11. Lots of greviances from those who become radicalized during administrations prior to the current Bush presidency.
THAT is the environment that led up to 9/11. This is NO fault of the current president.
So, in return, he evaluated the past policies and mistakes and decided that the status quo (including our own self interest, at the expense of the middle east people) had to change. And it had to change fast.
Taliban. Out.
Saddam. Out. (Please note that each had the opportunity not to be militarily invaded. Bush outright told each of those nations leaders they had a choice. They both ignored that choice.)
Al Q. - infiltrated, world cooperation on dismantling them as much as possible.
In place of these fascist governments, something closer to a democratic process and government(s) are being helped along and put in place. Understand that a democracy is about giving people a choice in their government's decisions... something that have been denied in those regions for many years (and in some cases, decades... or NEVER).
This is absolutely the difference between past policy decisions by the U.S. and the current direction we have taken under Bush.
This is the point - we aren't doing the same things that led up to 9/11 anymore. We are instituting fundamental change and providing REAL support to the PEOPLE of the region (w/ all the hardships that come along with that - thanks to the fascist, islamo terrorist orginizations) rather than the governments.
If that isn't a fundamental change from the past, then I don't know what is.
And ultimately, my point is this: If we had carried on in the same ways we had pre 9/11 in a post 9/11 world, then we would have assured ourselves more attacks.
But we didn't. And thank goodness for that. Now its time to hunker down and work on helping fix that region and get them integrated into the world's econcomies.
Understand that the collective economies of the middle east COMBINED are still less than the GDP of Spain (aside from Saudi). Think about that. Self rule with some prosperity and respect by the world's leading nations would do wonders to undermine the islamo fascist organizations that currently hold sway over those that believe it is the west's fault they are downtrodden, poor, and governed in an ill manner.
One of the things that I hope for out of all this, is that we also, in the U.S. begin to seriously create alternative fuel sources from Oil as well. Its apparent that this dependency has created problems in our policy decisions pre 9/11. That, and the rising prices, aren't good for us either.
.02,
rob.
But listen, this is the point I'm trying to make. Of course, we contributed to the environment that led up to 9/11. Lots of greviances from those who become radicalized during administrations prior to the current Bush presidency.
THAT is the environment that led up to 9/11. This is NO fault of the current president.
So, in return, he evaluated the past policies and mistakes and decided that the status quo (including our own self interest, at the expense of the middle east people) had to change. And it had to change fast.
Taliban. Out.
Saddam. Out. (Please note that each had the opportunity not to be militarily invaded. Bush outright told each of those nations leaders they had a choice. They both ignored that choice.)
Al Q. - infiltrated, world cooperation on dismantling them as much as possible.
In place of these fascist governments, something closer to a democratic process and government(s) are being helped along and put in place. Understand that a democracy is about giving people a choice in their government's decisions... something that have been denied in those regions for many years (and in some cases, decades... or NEVER).
This is absolutely the difference between past policy decisions by the U.S. and the current direction we have taken under Bush.
This is the point - we aren't doing the same things that led up to 9/11 anymore. We are instituting fundamental change and providing REAL support to the PEOPLE of the region (w/ all the hardships that come along with that - thanks to the fascist, islamo terrorist orginizations) rather than the governments.
If that isn't a fundamental change from the past, then I don't know what is.
And ultimately, my point is this: If we had carried on in the same ways we had pre 9/11 in a post 9/11 world, then we would have assured ourselves more attacks.
But we didn't. And thank goodness for that. Now its time to hunker down and work on helping fix that region and get them integrated into the world's econcomies.
Understand that the collective economies of the middle east COMBINED are still less than the GDP of Spain (aside from Saudi). Think about that. Self rule with some prosperity and respect by the world's leading nations would do wonders to undermine the islamo fascist organizations that currently hold sway over those that believe it is the west's fault they are downtrodden, poor, and governed in an ill manner.
One of the things that I hope for out of all this, is that we also, in the U.S. begin to seriously create alternative fuel sources from Oil as well. Its apparent that this dependency has created problems in our policy decisions pre 9/11. That, and the rising prices, aren't good for us either.
.02,
rob.
well, why would anyone come to our aid, when the world view is that we are a bunch of selfish, fat heathens that would rather empirically rule over other nations than fix our own?
And I think elemental was suggesting more along the lines of, Al qaeda is the US's bad cop. Whenever they need "trouble" to take attention from govt blunders, or whenever the press starts to question the tactics or motives of the govt, there's Bin Laden, creating a tide of fear, to take all of our attention off problems at home.
Oh and I love being right...
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1001051313
And I think elemental was suggesting more along the lines of, Al qaeda is the US's bad cop. Whenever they need "trouble" to take attention from govt blunders, or whenever the press starts to question the tactics or motives of the govt, there's Bin Laden, creating a tide of fear, to take all of our attention off problems at home.
Oh and I love being right...
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1001051313