|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 11, 2003 18:47:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 12, 2003 1:27:43 GMT -5
yes, he bothered to think a little about it and question the strategy of attacking Iraq at that time, but he's still mostly concerned about possible implications on US goals and interests. so, forgive me but I still see it as another case of me, me and only me. R. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 14, 2003 23:39:29 GMT -5
That's a natural reaction from the US. For those in power, it's almost always about 'me'. By now they should be seeing visions of Vietnam. I doubt Dubbya does, though. See anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 22, 2003 22:55:02 GMT -5
We whupped dem good!
The US has to do the things that are unpopular and thankless.
We spend a lot of money and lose a lot of good young lives, but Saddam was unquestionably an "Evil Doer" and he had to be stopped.
As Davey Crockett said, you have to do what you believe is right, not just what is easy or popular.
The Ambassador from France would still be eating hor-dourves and debating the wording of the positively final last and most recent resolution condemning the proposition vis-a-vis the position papers seeking a consensus of like minded procrastinators.
Dubya's message is, "It's done, now deal with it!"
Now let's get the oil flowing to pay for it!
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 23, 2003 12:52:42 GMT -5
I'll be the token a*hole and say I saw it all coming (though I certainly was not the only one). You can look it up on this forum if you care to.
Now, I take no particular pride in seeing my predictions come to pass, inevitable as I saw them to be (and I was not alone). But I truly wonder at the rah-rah jingoism evinced by some. Economic self-interest? Desire for revenge for 9/11 however misguided? Blind acceptance of the US as *the* torch-bearer of righteousness?
Too many among us have repressed sado-fascistic agendas inherited from childhood that persist into our aduilt years. And these are reflexively projected onto the "enemy". Without thinking.
Ask the Iraqis how they want *their* country run. Doesn't agree with the US perception of *democracy*? Tough sh!t. This isn't Kansas.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 25, 2003 0:05:22 GMT -5
Ask the Iraqis how they want *their* country run. Doesn't agree with the US perception of *democracy*? Tough sh!t. This isn't Kansas. I'm starting to worry about the result of the US influence over a long period.... the US will try to impose an economic and social model straight out of the IMF textbooks (ie, no economic barriers or tariffs, minimal state control over the economy, etc), and I think they'll bail when that doesn't work (imposing theories on real life never really works). With security at an acceptable level they'll say they did their share, and a few years later as Iraki society falls apart a new Hussein will emerge, possibly not even a secular leader, and we(and Irakis) will be worse off than ever. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 25, 2003 0:10:52 GMT -5
Dubya's message is, "It's done, now deal with it!" Now let's get the oil flowing to pay for it! The rest of the Western world is saying: "You did it, you deal with it." If the US wants help in dealing with it, it has to give up some control as well. And the US went in against international advice and even their patently faked rationale has been thoroughly disproven (how many more months can they spend there and still claim there are WMD that were imminent threats weeks before invasion ?), so there's really very little motivation for the rest of the world to help out the US, other than pity for the poor Iraqis who are just pawns. And the Arab world is saying - "watch them get the oil flowing before all other services, as suspected they're just after our oil" |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 30, 2003 10:59:14 GMT -5
Ok. This is non-hockey related so here goes.
The U.S. was attacked. The ones who did it are all dead and can't be punished. What do we do?
There are still hundreds of thousands of people who will do the same thing if they aren't stopped. We can't catch them all before they finish their plotting and we can't wait until after the crimes are committed to act.
1. We shore up our defenses as best we can but it's impossible to stop all attacks.
2. We word a tough resolution that France and Germany can debate for a few years. "NO!"
3. We symbolically take some names and kick some ass.
4. We slow down the plotters.
5. We kill a few innocent people in the process of stopping the bad guys. It's a big world and we will make some mistakes.
6. We put a lot of hurt on the plotters and their neighbors.
7. If we have to wipe out some of the Saudi Royalty, our alleged friends, so be it. If we want to make an omlette we have to break a few eggs.
8. On to Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia. (France has nukes too and we aren't too fond of them either)
If the Hab's want to win the cup, we have to beat up a few teams along the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by ethan on Sept 30, 2003 17:22:48 GMT -5
We whupped dem good! The US has to do the things that are unpopular and thankless. We spend a lot of money and lose a lot of good young lives, but Saddam was unquestionably an "Evil Doer" and he had to be stopped. As Davey Crockett said, you have to do what you believe is right, not just what is easy or popular. The Ambassador from France would still be eating hor-dourves and debating the wording of the positively final last and most recent resolution condemning the proposition vis-a-vis the position papers seeking a consensus of like minded procrastinators. Dubya's message is, "It's done, now deal with it!" Now let's get the oil flowing to pay for it! Unfortuantely, quite a large % of the american population did not think that invading iraq was right.... Here we are, more than half a year and thousands of killed, injured and maimed INNOCENT iraquis later (not too mention all of the u.S and Brit soldiers that have lost their lives), NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND.... which was supposedly his main reason for going to war against the will of the vast majority of the world. Saddam Hussein was a scumbag of the worst kind... sort of like Truman really (except that saddam tortured his own citizens while truman bombed the he@#@ out of strangers) but you know what,there are a lot of those types of rulers all around the world... many of them the Bush administation has close ties to (Saudi arabia comes to mind immediately) Not to forget that Ford, Carter and Regan basically set up Saddam's regime, (and the taliban as well) and had no problems with him until he decided not to tow the U.S line... the war in Iraq was about Oil, as is the current, ILLEGAL, occupation. Might is right, that has always been the case in world politics, and that's fine, but don't buy into the propaganda machine that tries to spin it as a humanitarian and defensive mission. With no Weapons of mass destruction, and a military that was wiped out in a few weeks, Iraq never was a real threat to the U.S at least not physically. the BIllions spent on the war, could just as easily have been spent on dealing with aids in africa, which would have been a humanitarian deed that didn't require bombing innocent people back to the stone age. I'm half american, and there is a lot about the country that admire and respect... It's foreign policy is not one of those things, and really, the majority of the intellectual class feels very much the same way. P.S Stop knocking the French, they have their problems, but sticking up to a bully/cowboy is something to be admired, not insulted (I know, I know, too bad they weren't as quick to stand up to Hitler, but hey, in sticking up to bush they've at least made a step in the right direction!) Go habs go! |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 1, 2003 23:23:46 GMT -5
P.S Stop knocking the French, they have their problems, but sticking up to a bully/cowboy is something to be admired, not insulted (I know, I know, too bad they weren't as quick to stand up to Hitler, but hey, in sticking up to bush they've at least made a step in the right direction!) The French really have no lessons to take from the Americans about standing up to evil. The French declared war on Germany in september 1939. The Americans had Germany declare war on them well over 2 years later, on december 11th 1941. It's not as if the Americans had made up their own minds on the matter. The Americans wind up looking good simply because the US is a very large, populous and powerful country; doesn't make them any better than the French who died in large numbers fighting the Germans, but who happened to be outnumbered. If anything, it's the US who are cowards for bowing out of the league of nations and thereby not being in wwii from the start - had there even been a start with a strong LN. Well, Americans not caring about international peacemaking organisations isn't anything new. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 2, 2003 10:14:51 GMT -5
If anything, it's the US who are cowards for bowing out of the league of nations and thereby not being in wwii from the start - had there even been a start with a strong LN. They played the geopolitic card to the hilt and let the Europeans bash each others brains out for the last time. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 2, 2003 10:20:40 GMT -5
We whupped dem good! The Ambassador from France would still be eating hor-dourves and debating the wording of the positively final last and most recent resolution condemning the proposition vis-a-vis the position papers seeking a consensus of like minded procrastinators. More likely the French Ambassador would be asking TotoalElfFn if they approve the newest, latest, greatest resolution. Poor France, they lost out on the trillion dollar rip off they so carefully negotiated. |
|
