|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 26, 2006 9:26:00 GMT -5
The real problem is the rest of the world where over 50% would rejoice at the bombing of America and would bestow fame, money and virgins on the families of the martyrs that kill themselves in suicide bombing. Apparently, Suddan was offering USD $25,000 to the families of any suicide bomber who carried out his/her mission. It was proven to be wrong later on. Ok, agreed then. But, what about the WMD? What about pushing the UN out of the way.? Actually the USA did stand by and do nothing. It's called Rwanda. I was supposed to go with my regiment back in '94, but (luckily) I was promoted and posted out of Kingston before the deployment got off the ground. And I still have friends dealing with what they saw over there even today. But the point is there were many countries who knew what was going on and only a very few who cared to do anything. The WWE wrestling match analogy doesn't fit, HFLA. If the USA is representing one corner, Iraq the other, then how one side be the referee too? I'd say that's a pretty loaded fight and the ref got away light by being hit with a chair. You were doing fine until the last sentence. I guess armchair quarterbacks must equate to the Western press. No one can deny another nation's right to survival. The Iraqi situation could have been handled much differently. Bush and his cronies lied to the international community and now they're stuck in a mess they've created. These facts have not been addressed in any of your posts. Not once. It's all about killing people who resent having foreign troops on their soil. So, does the USA have a viable solution for leaving Iraq? I know they used to, but that involved the UN taking over. But, darn! The UN was pushed out of the way. Forgot about that. BTW, you won't have to worry about Iran. Israel will take care of that after their next election. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 26, 2006 20:48:09 GMT -5
The real problem is the rest of the world where over 50% would rejoice at the bombing of America and would bestow fame, money and virgins on the families of the martyrs that kill themselves in suicide bombing. Apparently, Suddan was offering USD $25,000 to the families of any suicide bomber who carried out his/her mission. It was proven to be wrong later on. Ok, agreed then. But, what about the WMD? What about pushing the UN out of the way.? Actually the USA did stand by and do nothing. It's called Rwanda. I was supposed to go with my regiment back in '94, but (luckily) I was promoted and posted out of Kingston before the deployment got off the ground. And I still have friends dealing with what they saw over there even today. But the point is there were many countries who knew what was going on and only a very few who cared to do anything. The WWE wrestling match analogy doesn't fit, HFLA. If the USA is representing one corner, Iraq the other, then how one side be the referee too? I'd say that's a pretty loaded fight and the ref got away light by being hit with a chair. You were doing fine until the last sentence. I guess armchair quarterbacks must equate to the Western press. No one can deny another nation's right to survival. The Iraqi situation could have been handled much differently. Bush and his cronies lied to the international community and now they're stuck in a mess they've created. These facts have not been addressed in any of your posts. Not once. It's all about killing people who resent having foreign troops on their soil. So, does the USA have a viable solution for leaving Iraq? I know they used to, but that involved the UN taking over. But, darn! The UN was pushed out of the way. Forgot about that. BTW, you won't have to worry about Iran. Israel will take care of that after their next election. Cheers. In the WWF wrestling analogy, the Sheites and Sunnis are killing eachother and each time we stop a killing in one corner, the other side cheats. Saddam had to be eliminated no matter what . WMD, $25,000 reward. Just like Hitler, he had to go. Rwanda needs to be addressed too, but the same people that complain about our invading Iran complain that we don't invade Rwanda. The UN and Hans Blix. They are as useless as teates on a bull. If the twentyninth resolution didn't work, the 30th stern warning won't either. Like a Hyde Corner preacher and his Athiest heckler, neither will convince the other. Mistakes were made. Mistakes are always made. Something had to be done. We did it. WW II was ended quickly and lives were saved with decisive action in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We've tried everything else. Now we need decisive action in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Next stop, Pakistan and Indonesia. Last stop, France?
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 26, 2006 22:15:35 GMT -5
Apparently, Suddan was offering USD $25,000 to the families of any suicide bomber who carried out his/her mission. It was proven to be wrong later on. Ok, agreed then. But, what about the WMD? What about pushing the UN out of the way.? Actually the USA did stand by and do nothing. It's called Rwanda. I was supposed to go with my regiment back in '94, but (luckily) I was promoted and posted out of Kingston before the deployment got off the ground. And I still have friends dealing with what they saw over there even today. But the point is there were many countries who knew what was going on and only a very few who cared to do anything. The WWE wrestling match analogy doesn't fit, HFLA. If the USA is representing one corner, Iraq the other, then how one side be the referee too? I'd say that's a pretty loaded fight and the ref got away light by being hit with a chair. You were doing fine until the last sentence. I guess armchair quarterbacks must equate to the Western press. No one can deny another nation's right to survival. The Iraqi situation could have been handled much differently. Bush and his cronies lied to the international community and now they're stuck in a mess they've created. These facts have not been addressed in any of your posts. Not once. It's all about killing people who resent having foreign troops on their soil. So, does the USA have a viable solution for leaving Iraq? I know they used to, but that involved the UN taking over. But, darn! The UN was pushed out of the way. Forgot about that. BTW, you won't have to worry about Iran. Israel will take care of that after their next election. Cheers. In the WWF wrestling analogy, the Sheites and Sunnis are killing eachother and each time we stop a killing in one corner, the other side cheats. Saddam had to be eliminated no matter what . WMD, $25,000 reward. Just like Hitler, he had to go. Rwanda needs to be addressed too, but the same people that complain about our invading Iran complain that we don't invade Rwanda. The UN and Hans Blix. They are as useless as teates on a bull. If the twentyninth resolution didn't work, the 30th stern warning won't either. Like a Hyde Corner preacher and his Athiest heckler, neither will convince the other. Mistakes were made. Mistakes are always made. Something had to be done. We did it. WW II was ended quickly and lives were saved with decisive action in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We've tried everything else. Now we need decisive action in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Next stop, Pakistan and Indonesia. Last stop, France? Well, there are several theories as to how the Iraqi conflict came to a head, HFLA. One of them intrieges me the most. The US and their allies were fed bogus information by Jihadists, so as to provoke an invasion. I saw this theory presented on television by a 'former terrorist'. He said the intelligence was fabricated, the invasion provoked so as to recruit a new generation of Jihadists. Very, very plausible. So much so that I fear that we may soon have to defend our way of life whether we want to or not. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 26, 2006 22:45:53 GMT -5
In the WWF wrestling analogy, the Sheites and Sunnis are killing eachother and each time we stop a killing in one corner, the other side cheats. Saddam had to be eliminated no matter what . WMD, $25,000 reward. Just like Hitler, he had to go. Rwanda needs to be addressed too, but the same people that complain about our invading Iran complain that we don't invade Rwanda. The UN and Hans Blix. They are as useless as teates on a bull. If the twentyninth resolution didn't work, the 30th stern warning won't either. Like a Hyde Corner preacher and his Athiest heckler, neither will convince the other. Mistakes were made. Mistakes are always made. Something had to be done. We did it. WW II was ended quickly and lives were saved with decisive action in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We've tried everything else. Now we need decisive action in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Next stop, Pakistan and Indonesia. Last stop, France? Well, there are several theories as to how the Iraqi conflict came to a head, HFLA. One of them intrieges me the most. The US and their allies were fed bogus information by Jihadists, so as to provoke an invasion. I saw this theory presented on television by a 'former terrorist'. He said the intelligence was fabricated, the invasion provoked so as to recruit a new generation of Jihadists. Very, very plausible. So much so that I fear that we may soon have to defend our way of life whether we want to or not. Cheers. I certainly acknowledge that things have not gone well. Mistakes have been made. Lots of them. It makes no difference to me if there were or weren't WMD's. It's like WW II. It doesn't matter if Hitler invaded Poland or not. There were enough reasons to oust him. Auschwitz, Austria........... Saddam invaded Kuwait. He gassed the Kurds. Set the oil wells on fire. Ignored the UN. WMD is a tiny piece of the puzzle that peace mongers cling to. Our mistake is not being vigilant enough. Losing the lives of our youth to stand between the Sunnis and Shietes as they fire at eachother is ridiculous. Time for zero tolerance and serious consequences. THe punishments must be sufficiently severe to make both sides stop. Bush does not want this war. It has had a terrible reflection on his presidency and legacy. To think that Chainey is happy counting his Haliburton profits while his reputation and party are dropping is shortsighted. Nobody wants out of Iraq more than the Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 27, 2006 9:41:12 GMT -5
WW II was ended quickly and lives were saved with decisive action in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We've tried everything else. Now we need decisive action in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Next stop, Pakistan and Indonesia. Last stop, France? I think this was the biggest mistake the US made. They did not enter WWI or WWII until it affected them. Ever since the internationally community looks upon the US as the great defender but also looking for the underlining reason why they are doing it .... because they always have an ulterior motive. No one thinks the US are in a conflict helping out of the goodness of their heart, now they are merely seen as protecting their own interests. Maybe the US should not get involved anymore and see how the world gets on?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 27, 2006 10:00:05 GMT -5
Maybe the US should not get involved anymore and see how the world gets on? I believe that was Dubya's original plan: back to isolationism. Howver, 9-11 changed all that.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 27, 2006 11:37:17 GMT -5
Maybe the US should not get involved anymore and see how the world gets on? I believe that was Dubya's original plan: back to isolationism. Howver, 9-11 changed all that. I am not so sure that 9-11 changed it franko. The muslim and anti-american countries of the world all agree on one thing .... leave us alone. They do not want anything to do with America. If the US were going to revert back to isolationism then the Arabs had no reason to attack them.... they attacked them because they werent isolationists. I really think the US should go the isolationist route once more. The rest of the world will sort itself out after they all stopped fighting .... and when the fighting stops they can look at the carnage and shrug and say "not my problem". I hate to see where 130 odd countries woudl be without US foreign aid ... the problem would solve itself in a generation or two because they'd all be dead of disease, hunger, famine, or war. These people were fighting long before the US arrived, and will be fighting long after they leave too.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 27, 2006 18:43:45 GMT -5
I believe that was Dubya's original plan: back to isolationism. Howver, 9-11 changed all that. I am not so sure that 9-11 changed it franko. The muslim and anti-american countries of the world all agree on one thing .... leave us alone. They do not want anything to do with America. If the US were going to revert back to isolationism then the Arabs had no reason to attack them.... they attacked them because they werent isolationists. I really think the US should go the isolationist route once more. The rest of the world will sort itself out after they all stopped fighting .... and when the fighting stops they can look at the carnage and shrug and say "not my problem". I hate to see where 130 odd countries woudl be without US foreign aid ... the problem would solve itself in a generation or two because they'd all be dead of disease, hunger, famine, or war. These people were fighting long before the US arrived, and will be fighting long after they leave too. For the USA to go into isolationism is wrong on so many different levels that it's not even funny. First and foremost, what do you think props up the US dollar? The power vacuum will cause so many rifts that we might as well start building nuclear bomb shelters right now. Pakistan-India, China-Japan, Soviets unleashing a wave of terror against their breakaway states, Israel and the rest of the Middle East starting Armageddon, Iran on a bing to become the next Persian Empire, major sea lanes controlled by any nation with a rusty canoe and a gun, the Turks and Russians want to declare the Black Sea as their territory. Who is going to stop that? Ukraine? Bulgaria? Georgia? Romania? The ONLY country in the world that can sail into the Black Sea and NOBODY will dare to stop them is the US Navy. They can suck the wind out of any self declared territorial BS by any nation. Without them, how long before nations declare 200 mile sailing sovereignty over their surrounding sea lanes? How many wars will result from that ALONE? How long before China and Russia build nuclear reactors for their "friends"? And on and on and on AND ON! It's fashionable in Canada to smugly bash American foreign policy but I don't see any concrete alternative solution. And if there are any solutions offered, they are so self centered that they make the Americans look like Boy Scouts. I may disagree with some of their policies but I rather have them as the sole superpower then anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 27, 2006 21:37:04 GMT -5
I am not so sure that 9-11 changed it franko. The muslim and anti-american countries of the world all agree on one thing .... leave us alone. They do not want anything to do with America. If the US were going to revert back to isolationism then the Arabs had no reason to attack them.... they attacked them because they werent isolationists. I really think the US should go the isolationist route once more. The rest of the world will sort itself out after they all stopped fighting .... and when the fighting stops they can look at the carnage and shrug and say "not my problem". I hate to see where 130 odd countries woudl be without US foreign aid ... the problem would solve itself in a generation or two because they'd all be dead of disease, hunger, famine, or war. These people were fighting long before the US arrived, and will be fighting long after they leave too. For the USA to go into isolationism is wrong on so many different levels that it's not even funny. First and foremost, what do you think props up the US dollar? The power vacuum will cause so many rifts that we might as well start building nuclear bomb shelters right now. Pakistan-India, China-Japan, Soviets unleashing a wave of terror against their breakaway states, Israel and the rest of the Middle East starting Armageddon, Iran on a bing to become the next Persian Empire, major sea lanes controlled by any nation with a rusty canoe and a gun, the Turks and Russians want to declare the Black Sea as their territory. Who is going to stop that? Ukraine? Bulgaria? Georgia? Romania? The ONLY country in the world that can sail into the Black Sea and NOBODY will dare to stop them is the US Navy. They can suck the wind out of any self declared territorial BS by any nation. Without them, how long before nations declare 200 mile sailing sovereignty over their surrounding sea lanes? How many wars will result from that ALONE? How long before China and Russia build nuclear reactors for their "friends"? And on and on and on AND ON! It's fashionable in Canada to smugly bash American foreign policy but I don't see any concrete alternative solution. And if there are any solutions offered, they are so self centered that they make the Americans look like Boy Scouts. I may disagree with some of their policies but I rather have them as the sole superpower then anyone else. And I totally agree. If we want the US as the superpower they are we have to be willing to accept the positive and the negative of that ..... I just think the rest of the world , or more correctly people who complain about the US tactics, should get a small taste of what the world would be like without US getting involved. Know any nice Arabic tutors?
|
|
|
Post by Tattac on Nov 28, 2006 6:18:51 GMT -5
"History teaches that history teaches us nothing", GWF Hegel
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 28, 2006 6:44:05 GMT -5
"History teaches that history teaches us nothing", GWF Hegel Ah, to judge by that quote I would say you are a keen student. All is not lost, then. Would that more of the world shared such awareness and chose not to act on every whim, especially those which are malevolent.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 28, 2006 6:49:35 GMT -5
"History teaches that history teaches us nothing", GWF Hegel The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” - Socrates
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 28, 2006 7:06:26 GMT -5
"History teaches that history teaches us nothing", GWF Hegel The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” - Socrates If only Bush (and others) knew that.
|
|
|
Post by duster on Nov 28, 2006 14:55:14 GMT -5
I'm hoping Bush and co. are aware that there is no such thing as history, only biography. If not, they should be. However, yesterday's villain eventually becomes someone's hero...
HA may be right about Iran's aspirations in the Gulf. Most Iranians I know or knew called themselves Persians and were very nationalistic. They are not suicidal however ( well, most of them anyway) and any attempt vs Israel is bound to involve direct action from the U.S., Europe and the Israelis especially. I still maintain nothing changes in the near future.
I think we may be seeing the beginning of a Cold War pitting Shi'ites vs Sunni, with Russia and the U.S. watching carefully. Hegel's quote is bang on.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 28, 2006 22:19:03 GMT -5
I'm hoping Bush and co. are aware that there is no such thing as history, only biography. If not, they should be. However, yesterday's villain eventually becomes someone's hero... HA may be right about Iran's aspirations in the Gulf. Most Iranians I know or knew called themselves Persians and were very nationalistic. They are not suicidal however ( well, most of them anyway) and any attempt vs Israel is bound to involve direct action from the U.S., Europe and the Israelis especially. I still maintain nothing changes in the near future. I think we may be seeing the beginning of a Cold War pitting Shi'ites vs Sunni, with Russia and the U.S. watching carefully. Hegel's quote is bang on. In my opinion..... It is not about Shias versus Sunnis. At best, this is a sperficial that manifests itself the most in Iraq. This is a community based conflict and even if it gets to ethnic cleansing, it does not present a danger to anyone but themselves and foreign forces. The bigger worry is that Isral has no intent of letting anyone threaten their existence. Iran scores points amongst it's people and the Arab world by ratcheting the rhetoric. As long as there is only rhetoric, Israel does not feel threatened. When the rhetoric is combined with weapons of mass destruction, then at what point can things get out of hand? Can they get out of hand? The leader of the Hezbollah stated that he did not expect things to get that far out of control that there wasa war. So we have rhetoric and WMD's...... If is difficult for Canadians to understand the mentality of people who are constantly in a state of conflict like Israel. It is also difficult for Canadians to understand the overwhelming nationalism that drives some countries. On both sides, the moral filters tend to be put aside when driven by survival or blinding nationalism. Unlike Russia and US, Israel and Iran feel that the other side WILL do whatever they deem necessary and the world be damned. Mutually Assured Destruction will not work here. As they saying goes....desperate people will do desperate things.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 29, 2006 16:09:53 GMT -5
Worth noting that Iranians are Persians, not Arabs, and there is little love lost between Iran and the Arab world. The commonality of these two ethnic groups is Islam (and an abiding hatred of of Israel). So, while there is likely to be no collaborative action between these two groups, quasi-clandestine operations under the banner of jihad are tolerated if not publicly endorsed by Arab leaders.
Also, Iran has provided the Arab nations with the example of a country in the region thumbing its nose at the infidel arbiters of who should or shouldn't develop nuclear energy and/or weapons. Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and non-Arab Turkey have all recnetly declared their intentions to pursue the development of nuclear energy, ostensibly for peaceful purposes.
The fun just never ends.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 29, 2006 17:10:50 GMT -5
It is now going to be more and more apparent that he Middle East could ignite. If Iran keeps going on it's present course, it is likely to be much more then a regional war. The interesting part of this is that it could be US, Israel and most of the Arab countries against Syria and Iran. How is that for strange bed-fellows. This article also goes to my contention that most in the region see US hegemony as the far lesser evil and that the US invasion of Iraq was invited and supported by countries in the region.
As for those who contend that the US invaded so as to steal Iraqi oil, well, they need to learn a thing of seven about geo-politics. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2686609&page=1~~~~~~~~~~~~ Saudi will intervene in Iraq if U.S. withdraws: Nov 29, 2006 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Using money, weapons or its oil power, Saudi Arabia will intervene to prevent Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from massacring Iraqi Sunni Muslims once the United States begins pulling out of Iraq, a security adviser to the Saudi government said on Wednesday. Diplomats and analysts say Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors, led by heavyweight Saudi Arabia, fear that the sectarian violence could spill into large-scale civil war between Shi'ites and Sunnis and set off a political earthquake far beyond Iraq. Nawaf Obaid, writing in The Washington Post, said the Saudi leadership was preparing to revise its Iraq policy to deal with the aftermath of a possible U.S. pullout, and is considering options including flooding the oil market to crash prices and thus limit Iran's ability to finance Shi'ite militias in Iraq. "To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks — it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse," Obaid said. The article said the opinions expressed were Obaid's own and not those of the Saudi government. "To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region," he said. An official Arab source sought to play down the comments. (Normally, the Saudi tend to do things very quietly but for this guy to talk like this and not censored, it means that he is an "unofficial" mouth piece.)"Saudi Arabia is worried about a new Iran imposing its political agenda on the region. We don't want Iran and its allies to have a free hand and free control," he said. "Iran knows that it is vulnerable and that Saudi Arabia has the upper hand and maintains real weight and power." (Saudi Arabia can survive on cheap oil, Iran can not thus the "upper hand"statement. )A Western diplomat based in Riyadh said Saudi Arabia was already funding Sunni tribes in Iraq. "I don't doubt for a second that they do pump money to the tribes, that's the Saudi way of doing things. But if they sent in troops it would be a bloodbath," he said. President Bush will meet Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Jordan on Wednesday to discuss a surge in Sunni-Shi'ite violence in Iraq. Bush has said he does not support calls for a U.S. pullout from Iraq, but he is expected soon to receive proposals for possible changes in U.S. policy in Iraq from a bipartisan panel. Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter and a close U.S. ally, fears Shi'ite Iran has been gaining influence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq ousted Saddam Hussein. Obaid said if the United States begins withdrawing from Iraq, "one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis." Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said any intervention could only be determined by the course of events. "Until we see what happens and how the situation is going to develop and the implications for those countries it is important to consider the possibilities but who will do what will be determined by the course of events," he told Reuters. Obaid listed three options being considered by the Saudi government: - providing "Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance," including funding and arms. - establishing new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. - or the Saudi king "may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half … it would be devastating to Iran … The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shi'ite militias in Iraq and elsewhere. (Kuwait, UAE are probably in on this and they can easily crash Iranian production. Unlike their neighboors, Iran needs the oil revenue amd it would cause an economic collapse for a country that depends solely on oil to sustain 70 million. Syria will instantly collapes without Iranian money. As for the Hezbollah? They are buying support, I wonder how popular they will be if they can't fill outstreched hands. )
|
|
|
Post by duster on Nov 29, 2006 20:02:58 GMT -5
Strange bedfellows indeed...
- U.S., Europe, Israel and most of the Arab League including the Saudis, stand against Iran and Syria
- Syria supports the Sunni in Iraq as do the Saudis, but also support the Shia and Aoun's Christians in Lebanon vs the Western and Israeli supported Sunni, Druze, Falange Christians
- Iran is allied with Syria and supports the Shia. However, it opposes the Syrian supported Sunni in Iraq.
Can you say Byzantine?
|
|