|
Post by MC Habber on Oct 27, 2006 21:41:00 GMT -5
For most of the last 4 years, the US administration has shown precious little concern for international opinion. Polls this summer showed that at least 30% of Europeans believed that the US is the biggest threat to international stability. The US recieved more votes than any other country, including Iran and North Korea. So . . . the US doesn't care about international opinion, and the international community doesn't care about the US. At least until they want/need something. Don't get me wrong -- I think US politics is waaayyyy off base in a number of areas, but it seems that they've decided to go it alone because no one else will come with them. Wrongly, pigheadedly they continue on their way doing what they thinnk they need to do. In Canada we wait and wait and wait until the tipping point/decision point has past and then say either "we were right not to do it" or "sorry it took us so long to get here". No conviction, no principle . . . floundering until we move because we have to. If Moses were leading us we'd still be wandering in the desert. I think that Trudeau and Mulroney made some terrible decisions, but at least they acted, as opposed to everyone that has followed them and has ruled by poll. Ah yes, Bush trumpets the fact that he makes decisions. He's a decider. Better to make the wrong decision (every time) than no decision at all. Apparently. we wait and wait and wait until the tipping point/decision point has pastSounds like the US* response to climate change. *Actually it was the response of most countries.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 27, 2006 23:39:03 GMT -5
For most of the last 4 years, the US administration has shown precious little concern for international opinion. Polls this summer showed that at least 30% of Europeans believed that the US is the biggest threat to international stability. The US recieved more votes than any other country, including Iran and North Korea. I don't think the US cares what the international community thinks about them ... What I find more worrying is how the US doesn't realise how they're perceived nor how their actions affect the rest of the world. As I read once on the BBC, to paraphrase "Americans see the rest of the world as being just like them, only sometimes poorer" and "have little to no understanding of complex social, religious and cultural issues". I'd venture that most Americans still think that the world backs them up (or at least thinks their actions are positive and made with the best of intentions) in the war in Irak, they see themselves as the heroes of the Western world, not as the bully many people see them as. Interesting, though unrelated, articles: www.commondreams.org/views03/1020-11.htmwww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.htmlconsortiumnews.com/2006/031906.html
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 28, 2006 1:14:18 GMT -5
Taken from cbs.com re: an interview Richard Clarke gave to Lesley Stahl on 60 minutes. (dated Mar. 21, 2004) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser (Richard Clarke) to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."
Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.
"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."
Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'
"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer." That's how the whole "weapons of mass destruction" premise began....and we know how the "mission" has been morphed and twisted since. My heart goes out to the armed forces who must do the bidding of the leaders. Somehow a story like this gets lost in the U.S. In Canada, we get bent out of shape and people are turfed if someone in power misappropriates a few million in taxpayers' $$. The Bush administration sent their armed forces to invade a country (and they're still mired and dying there long after Dubya landed on that aircraft carrier in full gear saying Mission Accomplished) that had nothing to do with 9-11. Nothing. Bush even said it himself a few weeks ago in a press conference. Watch this awkward tap dance..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Oct 28, 2006 1:42:01 GMT -5
In Canada, we get bent out of shape and people are turfed if someone in power misappropriates a few million in taxpayers' $$. The Bush administration sent their armed forces to invade a country (and they're still mired and dying there long after Dubya landed on that aircraft carrier in full gear saying Mission Accomplished) that had nothing to do with 9-11. Nothing. Bush even said it himself a few weeks ago in a press conference. Watch this awkward tap dance..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWMInteresting. He says that things are not worse in Iraq than they were before the invasion, and offers up 9-11 as proof of that. Then he blows up his own argument by admitting that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 28, 2006 8:54:08 GMT -5
I performed for a big U.S. company this year. One of the honchos was a retired USAF pilot...served during the tail end of Vietnam and the first Gulf War.
He detests this Bush administration. Says the invasion is all about oil and other major corporate interests. Iraq was the weakest country (or so they thought) in the Middle East, after 10 years of U.S.-imposed sanctions following the first Gulf War. They were looking for any excuse to get in there, and 9-11 gave it to them...regardless of how many times the reasons to invade (and stay) have been changed and rationalized.
He said many veterans share this sentiment....they hate seeing soldiers (ab)used in this way.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 28, 2006 13:08:09 GMT -5
In Canada, we get bent out of shape and people are turfed if someone in power misappropriates a few million in taxpayers' $$. The Bush administration sent their armed forces to invade a country (and they're still mired and dying there long after Dubya landed on that aircraft carrier in full gear saying Mission Accomplished) that had nothing to do with 9-11. Nothing. Bush even said it himself a few weeks ago in a press conference. Watch this awkward tap dance..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWMBush used 9/11 to substantiate every mistake decision he's made. I'm not sure if I was watching this at the time, but it is familiar. It's part of his address to the USA announcing the war with Iraq. Bush directed these comments directly to the Iraqi people, "... now listen carefully to this warning. Do not destroy oil wells ..."Please see Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.)or "Once that oil starts flowing and money coming ... there's no question how much money is there ... and it's going to get better ... as the oil flows and the budget increases ...""If it wasn't for the oil, nobody would be there. Nobody would worry about it." Dr. Sam Kubba, Author, Iraqi Businessman. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 28, 2006 16:33:36 GMT -5
Not a total failure. Saddam is gone. Some Iraqui's are dead. Still a lot of bad guys left to kill. We are being too careful. It's a civil war. The Shietes hate the Sunnis, they both hate the Kurds. They all hate their women. Not a clue which side to support. They are all bad. I don't shead tears when they are shot, bombed or if they are nuked.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 28, 2006 17:18:18 GMT -5
True, the Iraqi oil wells are all in-tact. A direct quote, "Former undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz (now president of the World Bank Group) claimed that increased Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war." Please see The $2-trillion WarTrue. So that leaves Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korean president Kim Il Sung, Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad. Two of these countries harbour the terroists you're looking for. When is it their turn? Why just Iraq? Some? Or selective. It wasn't one before the coalition went in. And when they eventually pull out the killing will be on a genocidal scale. Iraq will be defenseless and Iran ready. Once Iranian Islam becomes the dominant belief, they we'll see a near world conflict. If this is the criteria then add China and Saudi Arabia to the countries I mentioned above. Oh, just a sec ... The Saudis are responsible for 7% of the US GDP. And how big a trading partner is China. This is exactly what Islamic clerics were hoping for. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Oct 28, 2006 17:43:08 GMT -5
For the last few years, the standard response to any criticism of the invasion has been "Would you like to see Saddam still in power?" I think we've reached the point where I can safely answer "yes." Replacing a bad thing with an even worse thing is not a positive action.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 28, 2006 21:17:03 GMT -5
For the last few years, the standard response to any criticism of the invasion has been "Would you like to see Saddam still in power?" I think we've reached the point where I can safely answer "yes." Replacing a bad thing with an even worse thing is not a positive action. That response is to deflect any references to WMD or oil. Don't forget Bush when he said, "mission accomplished." Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 28, 2006 21:49:10 GMT -5
For the last few years, the standard response to any criticism of the invasion has been "Would you like to see Saddam still in power?" I think we've reached the point where I can safely answer "yes." Replacing a bad thing with an even worse thing is not a positive action. "Sigh" I lived under a dictatorship and I have the scars to prove it. That's what stemmed my blind support to get rid of Saddam. For the GOOD of the Iraqi people. However..... From a geopolitical point of view, I rather have Saddam there counterbalancing Iran. The Americans thought that by invading, they will solve a few problems. They GROSSLY underestimated the volatility and enmity of the Iraqi's have fpr each other. Worse still, they undrestimated Iran. When one underestimates ones enemies, either one regroups and changes strategy or one is doomed to repeat their failure. The only thing the US can doi is either engage the Iranian people and destabilize the support for the regime OR go to war with them.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 28, 2006 23:48:01 GMT -5
For the last few years, the standard response to any criticism of the invasion has been "Would you like to see Saddam still in power?" I think we've reached the point where I can safely answer "yes." Replacing a bad thing with an even worse thing is not a positive action. "Sigh" I lived under a dictatorship and I have the scars to prove it. That's what stemmed my blind support to get rid of Saddam. For the GOOD of the Iraqi people. However..... From a geopolitical point of view, I rather have Saddam there counterbalancing Iran. The Americans thought that by invading, they will solve a few problems. They GROSSLY underestimated the volatility and enmity of the Iraqi's have fpr each other. Worse still, they undrestimated Iran. When one underestimates ones enemies, either one regroups and changes strategy or one is doomed to repeat their failure. The only thing the US can doi is either engage the Iranian people and destabilize the support for the regime OR go to war with them. The Mahdi (or Mehdi) militia is growing in leaps and bounds....as they believe the US has invaded, destroyed, and is now buying and selling their country/region out from under them. I fear the worst all the way around. If the U.S.-led coalition finds itself in a truly no-win situation....help us all. Stephen Harper better smarten up as well. He reminds me of a bad beer: Bush Light. This is my fourth and last post on politics on this board. I swore never to throw my hat in....it gets me too worked up. I will direct you all, though, to a hub of articles from brilliant journalists who are reporting from the actual scenes of events throughout the world. I go there once in a while to balance out or to get a different perspective on what we're fed daily on Fox News, CNN, and CBC. www.zmag.org/weluser.htm
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 30, 2006 20:03:31 GMT -5
Mr. Gwynne Dyer provided this excellent viewpoint. Note what is left of the Arab League and how potentially volatile the American political scene could turn out. 22 October 2006
No Good Exit Strategy
By Gwynne Dyer
Landlubbers usually get maritime analogies wrong. "Changing course" is not cowardice; it's the sensible thing to do if the ship is headed for the rocks. "Cutting" (the anchor cable) "and running" (before the wind) is what you do when the storm is raging, the anchor is dragging, and the ship is being driven onto a lee shore. And only very stupid rats do not leave a sinking ship.
About four years too late, the Masters of the Universe are having second thoughts about the wisdom of the whole misbegotten enterprise in Iraq. Washington swirls with leaks, like the secret report by Colonel Pete Devlin, the US Marine Corps chief of intelligence, that US troops in Anbar province, the heartland of Sunni resistance, control nothing beyond their own bases, and that the Iraqi government has no functioning institutions in the province. And senior Republicans are seeking an exit strategy that will absolve their party from blame for the disaster that is today's Iraq.
The long-term domestic political strategy is clear: blame the Iraqis themselves. William Buckley, conservative editor of the National Review, is already writing things like "our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000." We did our best for them, but they let us down.
That argument may well persuade American voters in the long run, because they have never had much knowledge of Iraq, nor much interest in it. But if, as expected, the Republicans lose control on one or both houses of Congress this November, then the Democrats will make President Bush's last two years in office miserable with Congressional investigations into the lies used to justify the invasion and the staggering incompetence of the occupation. So either Mr Bush must be persuaded to change course, or else the Republican Party must put some distance between itself and Bush. That's where the Republican grandees come in.
The Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission co-chaired by the first President Bush's secretary of state, James Baker, will present its recommendations for future strategy in Iraq -- essentially, for an exit strategy -- in December or January. It is as an attempt by the grown-ups in the Republican Party to separate the current President Bush from the ignorant ideologues who encouraged him to invade Iraq and still refuse to admit their mistake, but it will not succeed in that aim, for two reasons.
One is that there is no longer any good exit strategy from Iraq. American military deaths there will probably exceed one hundred this month for the first time since January, 2005. At least 3,000 Iraqis are being killed each month, but a recent study by a team of epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University suggests that it may be as high as 15,000. The country is just as likely to break up if American troops stay as if they leave, and the ISG's talk of seeking help from Syria and Iran to stop the rot is sheer fantasy.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, returning early this month from a two-week tour of the Middle East, said: "Most of the leaders I spoke to felt the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath has been a real disaster for them. It has destabilised the region." But nobody feels that getting deeply involved with the Bush administration's policies as the American adventure in Iraq nears its end is wise or even safe.
Syria's Baathist regime counts 2,000 Iraqi refugees crossing its border every day, and contemplates with horror the prospect of inheriting Anbar province and perhaps the whole "Sunni triangle" of Iraq. Bashar al-Assad's regime in Damascus is based on Syria's Alawite (Shia) minority, and so many more Sunni militants could shift the balance in Syria in favour of the Muslim Brotherhood and another Sunni uprising. But becoming associated with American policy in the region would only make the risk of revolution worse.
Saudi Arabia is urgently building a 550-mile (875-km.) high-tech fence along the full length of its border with Iraq in anticipation of a flood of jihadis and refugees heading south when Iraq breaks up, but it will not intervene in some futile attempt to stop it. Iran expects to benefit from close links with the Shia parties that dominate most of Arabic-speaking Iraq, but has no incentive to save the United States from humiliation or even to prevent the break-up of Iraq. Why should it?
The other reason that the ISG's recommendations will be ignored is that far too many people have already been killed for Mr Bush and his advisors to admit that their "war of choice" was all a mistake. As Vice-President Dick Cheney told Time magazine this month: "I know what the president thinks. I know what I think. And we're not looking for an exit strategy. We're looking for victory."
What they really need is a strong-man who could hold Iraq together and support their policies in the region. Somebody like Saddam Hussein, perhaps, but Washington lost control of him long ago, and besides he's due to hang later this year. So it may yet come to the Famous Final Scene, with people scrambling onto helicopters from the roofs of the Green Zone in Baghdad.No Good Exit Strategy
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 30, 2006 20:46:12 GMT -5
Gwynne is usually gold -- and is again.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 6, 2006 11:28:45 GMT -5
War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.
And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.
In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.
The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000.
A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.
News of the war games results comes a day before judges are expected to deliver a verdict in Saddam Hussein war crimes trial.
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:
- "A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
- "Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic -- especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
- "Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
- "The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."
- "Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."
- "A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
[/li][/ul] CNN
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 6, 2006 15:43:41 GMT -5
Maybe they should do a simulation to see what happens if you shoot yourself in the foot.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 8, 2006 2:41:11 GMT -5
If the US wants peace in Iraq, they need to install a strong leader who can be decisive. I believe that Mike Milbury is available.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 23, 2006 13:24:54 GMT -5
Is it time to partition Iraq? Think they'll go for a "three nations within a nation" idea? The Case For Dividing Iraq
With the country descending into civil war, a noted diplomat and author argues why partition may be the U.S.'s only exit strategy
Iraq's national-unity government is not united and does not govern. Iraqi security forces, the centerpiece of the U.S.'s efforts for stability, are ineffective or, even worse, combatants in the country's escalating civil war. President George W. Bush says the U.S.'s goal is a unified and democratic Iraq, but we have no way to get there. As Americans search for answers, there is one obvious alternative: split Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shi'ite states.
The case for the partition of Iraq is straightforward: It has already happened. The Kurds, a non-Arab people who live in the country's north, enjoy the independence they long dreamed about. The Iraqi flag does not fly in Kurdistan, which has a democratically elected government and its own army. In southern Iraq, Shi'ite religious parties have carved out theocratic fiefdoms, using militias that now number in the tens of thousands to enforce an Iranian-style Islamic rule. To the west, Iraq's Sunni provinces have become chaotic no-go zones, with Islamic insurgents controlling Anbar province while Baathists and Islamic radicals operate barely below the surface in Salahaddin and Nineveh. And Baghdad, the heart of Iraq, is now partitioned between the Shi'ite east and the Sunni west. The Mahdi Army, the most radical of the Shi'ite militias, controls almost all the Shi'ite neighborhoods, and al-Qaeda has a large role in Sunni areas. Once a melting pot, Baghdad has become the front line of Iraq's Sunni-Shi'ite war, which is claiming at least 100 lives every day...More...
|
|
|
Post by Tattac on Nov 24, 2006 5:01:14 GMT -5
I didn't even mean nukes. If you could cordon off all traffic to and from the country. Nothign gets in, nothign gets out ... and get international sanctions against the country. Then you let them rot. The US is the only country capable of such a feat. Surround the country, and cut off its bloodlines. And you are the one who is talking about "social injustice"??
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 24, 2006 11:29:24 GMT -5
I didn't even mean nukes. If you could cordon off all traffic to and from the country. Nothign gets in, nothign gets out ... and get international sanctions against the country. Then you let them rot. The US is the only country capable of such a feat. Surround the country, and cut off its bloodlines. And you are the one who is talking about "social injustice"?? Actually if you read the post prior to the one you quaoted I clearly said "I am not saying I agree with such tactics" ....... That's because the US are pussy-footing around and fighting the only type of war the "extremists" can win. The US has the capability to send these countries back to medieval times .... they just won't do it because they fear international backlash. Not saying I agree with it ... but the world expects the US to be the international police force. Now the US went out and basically took this role upon themselves: Cuba, Cold War, Afghanistan #1, Vietnam, Korea ... and now Iraq, Afghanistan#2, and North Korea. The only country capable of stopping anyone is the United States. If we expect them to protect us, then we have to live with their methods. If we do not want or need their protection then we have to live with social injustice in North Korea, China, Iraq, and keep our mouths shut. I know the arguement is that these wars have more to do with oil than social injustice ... again we need oil too. I wonder where we'd be if the US turned a blind eye? But again ... the wolrd expects the US to jump to the rescue. The only way they could have ensured victory and accomplish the task of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein (for whatever agenda they had) and not have people mass death and destruction was to cut off all possible economic/commericial ties to the country. Then the Iraqi people would settle the matter themselves. What would you suggest? I can tell you this though, a strongly worded letter was not going to work. And diplomacy only works if there is a middle ground both parties can work towards .... mediation was not going to work here.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 24, 2006 20:03:14 GMT -5
Favorite team poll:
a) Sunni's b) Shietes c) Kurds d) None of the above
|
|
|
Post by Tattac on Nov 27, 2006 8:53:28 GMT -5
And you are the one who is talking about "social injustice"?? Actually if you read the post prior to the one you quaoted I clearly said "I am not saying I agree with such tactics" ....... In fact I did read it. That's because the US are pussy-footing around and fighting the only type of war the "extremists" can win. The US has the capability to send these countries back to medieval times .... they just won't do it because they fear international backlash. Not saying I agree with it ... but the world expects the US to be the international police force. Now the US went out and basically took this role upon themselves: Cuba, Cold War, Afghanistan #1, Vietnam, Korea ... and now Iraq, Afghanistan#2, and North Korea. The only country capable of stopping anyone is the United States. If we expect them to protect us, then we have to live with their methods. If we do not want or need their protection then we have to live with social injustice in North Korea, China, Iraq, and keep our mouths shut. You. Not the world. Is it really only the United States? Actually almost any country can bring another one back to medieval times. If it is what you imply by “stopping” Or do you mean destroying someone altogether? Otherwise it’s impossible to stop a group of fanatics. The world has been living with social injustice for quite some time now. It will keep living with it no matter what the US is doing. Nobody knows. It could have been much better too. It is not only oil I believe. There was no oil in Serbia. And again…not the world. Some European countries and Israel…maybe…but definitely not the whole wide world. And rescue?? This whole thread suggets that there was no need in rescuing anybody (exept the people of Iraq of course...but why now? why Iraq? ...hmmm....let me re-read all those articles posted above) Of course not! Who is talking about mediation and diplomacy? I believe smart politicians can find other tools....uh-oh....I should not have watched Casino Royale yesterday....
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 27, 2006 9:30:06 GMT -5
So if the US cut off all their foreign aid then "the world" would be ok with it? The US spends the most (I believe) in foreign aid than any other country. To me that is the US "rescuing" a country in some small fashion. The US are so blind in their foreign aid they even helped Afghanistan during the war with Russia, Iraq and Iran during their wars ... of course they have their agendas and reasons for doing it.
But I don't hear Bono crying for the US to increase their foreign aid, but he sooks all day and twice on Sunday (Bloody Sunday) when it comes to Canada's foreign aid, even though we forgave all foreign aid owed to us, something the US did not do.
There is more than one way to rescue a country ... when there is a war, the world turns to see the US's response, when their is aid needed, disaster, famine, or corruption, the world looks to the US. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is..... The tsunami hit Indonesia the US gave hundreds of millions of dollars in support, people resources, etc ... what did the world do when Katrina hit the US? (and I dont ask that in jest ... I truly would like to know what the international communities contribution was .. I know what Canada's was) To me it is only natural for the international community to turn to the economic juggernaut for help militarily and economically ....
From where I stand the US are really damned if they do and damned if they dont ... a great deal of interests internationally hate them for having their noses into everything, but want their money ..... and if they turn away they will cry foul, and if they help they will say we dont need you.
But you still didnt answer my question. What would you suggest the US to do?
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 27, 2006 10:31:32 GMT -5
So if the US cut off all their foreign aid then "the world" would be ok with it? The US spends the most (I believe) in foreign aid than any other country. Actually, as a percentage of the GNI, the US ranks 21st in the world (as of 2004). Canada is 14th. In terms of actual dollars donated, yes, the US is first, but that's just because they have the most to give. It's sort of like Bill Gates looking at you and me and saying "I gave $1 million, I've done my part, what did you do?" www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/3/35389786.pdfThere is more than one way to rescue a country ... when there is a war, the world turns to see the US's response, when their is aid needed, disaster, famine, or corruption, the world looks to the US. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is..... The tsunami hit Indonesia the US gave hundreds of millions of dollars in support, people resources, etc ... what did the world do when Katrina hit the US? (and I dont ask that in jest ... I truly would like to know what the international communities contribution was .. I know what Canada's was) To me it is only natural for the international community to turn to the economic juggernaut for help militarily and economically .... As Spiderman said, with great power comes great responsibility. They could very easily give up their super-power status, if they wanted to. As for Katrina, in keeping with the Gates analogy, if Bill's house burns down, are you going to be sending him some canned goods? The US themselves aren't even bothering to rebuild New Orleans all that well, why should the rest of the world step in? From where I stand the US are really damned if they do and damned if they dont ... a great deal of interests internationally hate them for having their noses into everything, but want their money ..... and if they turn away they will cry foul, and if they help they will say we dont need you. See above, with the Spidey thing. I don't have much sympathy for those (people or nations) who want all the glory and respect, but none of the negatives that come with it.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 27, 2006 11:30:00 GMT -5
So if the US cut off all their foreign aid then "the world" would be ok with it? The US spends the most (I believe) in foreign aid than any other country. Actually, as a percentage of the GNI, the US ranks 21st in the world (as of 2004). Canada is 14th. In terms of actual dollars donated, yes, the US is first, but that's just because they have the most to give. It's sort of like Bill Gates looking at you and me and saying "I gave $1 million, I've done my part, what did you do?" www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/3/35389786.pdfAs Spiderman said, with great power comes great responsibility. They could very easily give up their super-power status, if they wanted to. As for Katrina, in keeping with the Gates analogy, if Bill's house burns down, are you going to be sending him some canned goods? The US themselves aren't even bothering to rebuild New Orleans all that well, why should the rest of the world step in? From where I stand the US are really damned if they do and damned if they dont ... a great deal of interests internationally hate them for having their noses into everything, but want their money ..... and if they turn away they will cry foul, and if they help they will say we dont need you. See above, with the Spidey thing. I don't have much sympathy for those (people or nations) who want all the glory and respect, but none of the negatives that come with it. Well thats my point... everyone wants the US to spread their wealth, but then to just go away. To use your Bill Gates analogy, he could give us all on here a million dollars and not even notice but he doesn't. Because he likes to know how his money is being spent and where it is going .... the US can not be expected to do any less. So the rest of the world is allowed to turn their backs and cry poor when the US needs help, but the US has to help out. I think not. I only suggest what would happen if the US turned its back on the rest of the world .... I am not saying I agree with the US .... but if they did the third world countries would become 7th world countries... The opposite of your statement is true as well .... the US does not have to have much respect for the rest of the world that wants them to help, but none of the negatives that come with it. You dont want them to help ... well then don't come begging either.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 27, 2006 11:49:20 GMT -5
Well thats my point... everyone wants the US to spread their wealth, but then to just go away. To use your Bill Gates analogy, he could give us all on here a million dollars and not even notice but he doesn't. Because he likes to know how his money is being spent and where it is going .... the US can not be expected to do any less. So the rest of the world is allowed to turn their backs and cry poor when the US needs help, but the US has to help out. I think not. I only suggest what would happen if the US turned its back on the rest of the world .... I am not saying I agree with the US .... but if they did the third world countries would become 7th world countries... The opposite of your statement is true as well .... the US does not have to have much respect for the rest of the world that wants them to help, but none of the negatives that come with it. You dont want them to help ... well then don't come begging either. I don't know Skilly. There's the usual mutual support that goes with being neighbours; firefighting and search and air rescue are only two. However, Canada has always offered assistance to the USA when disasters hit and vise versa. For instance, immediately following 9/11 I had to prepare my troop, the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), for deployment to NYC. My troop spent a week in Trention waiting for the word to go in, but it never came. The USA wanted to handle this themselves. And, as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned, I needn't tell you of their contribution to those stranded travelers when their flights were banned from flying into US airspace. But, I do understand your point. Many countries have asked the USA for international support only to criticize the way in which they provide it. However, as a former serviceman, the one area I'm particularly grateful for their support is in NATO operations. See the Balkans for that. However, like you pointed out earlier, many countries, while appreciative of the US's support in international conflict, are leary about what they want in return for such services, or what agenda the US may have by getting involved in the first place. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 27, 2006 12:28:07 GMT -5
Well thats my point... everyone wants the US to spread their wealth, but then to just go away. To use your Bill Gates analogy, he could give us all on here a million dollars and not even notice but he doesn't. Because he likes to know how his money is being spent and where it is going .... the US can not be expected to do any less. Actually, the point is the rest of the world wants the US to do their share. You stated that the US was largest foreign aid donor. On a per capita basis they are not. Not even close. There are 20 countries in the world who have somehow managed to give more, without the Bill Gates insistence on telling them how to spend it. Actually, to you complete your analogy, what you are saying is that Bill Gates can give us a million dollars, but he then gets to tell us where to live, where to send our kids to school, what car to drive, what job to have, what color to paint our rooms... Are you asking him to "help" or to "buy?" So the rest of the world is allowed to turn their backs and cry poor when the US needs help, but the US has to help out. I think not. I think so. What would you have othewise? Hey Ethiopia, we send you all kinds of foreign aid, now it's your turn, send us a billion dollars? Hey Skilly, this is Bill Gates, I want you to sell your house, because mine burnt down, I gave some aid, and now it's your turn to buy me one? Again, great power, great responsibility. Who is the more noble person? Bill Gates giving 1% of his wealth, or the single mother giving 5% of hers? I only suggest what would happen if the US turned its back on the rest of the world .... I am not saying I agree with the US .... but if they did the third world countries would become 7th world countries... And yet again, the question is are they doing their part? 20 countries give more, and yet everyone thinks the US is the "biggest" donor. The opposite of your statement is true as well .... the US does not have to have much respect for the rest of the world that wants them to help, but none of the negatives that come with it. You dont want them to help ... well then don't come begging either. I think the rest of the world wants the US to help. The fact is they are not to their capabilities. Which is the real problem.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 27, 2006 12:32:11 GMT -5
Well thats my point... everyone wants the US to spread their wealth, but then to just go away. To use your Bill Gates analogy, he could give us all on here a million dollars and not even notice but he doesn't. Because he likes to know how his money is being spent and where it is going .... the US can not be expected to do any less. So the rest of the world is allowed to turn their backs and cry poor when the US needs help, but the US has to help out. I think not. I only suggest what would happen if the US turned its back on the rest of the world .... I am not saying I agree with the US .... but if they did the third world countries would become 7th world countries... The opposite of your statement is true as well .... the US does not have to have much respect for the rest of the world that wants them to help, but none of the negatives that come with it. You dont want them to help ... well then don't come begging either. I don't know Skilly. There's the usual mutual support that goes with being neighbours; firefighting and search and air rescue are only two. However, Canada has always offered assistance to the USA when disasters hit and vise versa. For instance, immediately following 9/11 I had to prepare my troop, the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), for deployment to NYC. My troop spent a week in Trention waiting for the word to go in, but it never came. The USA wanted to handle this themselves. And, as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned, I needn't tell you of their contribution to those stranded travelers when their flights were banned from flying into US airspace. But, I do understand your point. Many countries have asked the USA for international support only to criticize the way in which they provide it. However, as a former serviceman, the one area I'm particularly grateful for their support is in NATO operations. See the Balkans for that. However, like you pointed out earlier, many countries, while appreciative of the US's support in international conflict, are leary about what they want in return for such services, or what agenda the US may have by getting involved in the first place. Cheers. I obviously don't include Canada when I speak of the internationally community. Canada will always be there for the US, and even though they walk heavy and carry a big stick, the US will always be there for us too. During 9-11, my mother and I called (she had 2 beds and I had 1) the local authorities to offer housing for the stranded passengers. The authorities were trying to keep them together at that point, and even though many finaly made it out into local homes, none sadly came to ours. (I guess they had more than enough offers). So yes, I know full well what Canada-US relations are like, and we have grown to the point where we can voice our opinions of one another. Other countires voice their hatred, then come running with their hands out .... I don't know how you can have it both ways. If you don't want them in your country then dont accept their gifts and tell them to get out ... if you do appreciate their support then show it.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 27, 2006 12:36:38 GMT -5
I think the rest of the world wants the US to help. The fact is they are not to their capabilities. Which is the real problem. Charity begins at home .... What are those countries doing for themselves. And should the US be chatised for using that money to create employment within their borders, help their homeless, help their more unfortunate citizens. The US also has one of the world's largest debts, and a great deal of that debt is borrowing to give foreign aid... so should the US go further in debt to help others and turn a blind eye on their own citizens? Again this is just a different viewpoint and not my own .... playing a little devil's advocate. EDIT: To take it another step further. The thing with capabilities is that they are constantly changing. How much is Columbia giving? Is every country expected to give the same percentage of their GDP? If so, what is the poor country's contribution? Even when you go to the bank or declare bankruptcy you have to liquidate all your assests before they will give you money. How much money, not %, does the US give? It is probably more than most nations combined ..... yet they are frowned upon. Imagine if they gave nothing..... the glass is half full , no its empty.
|
|
|
Post by Tattac on Nov 28, 2006 7:02:10 GMT -5
The US are so blind in their foreign aid they even helped Afghanistan during the war with Russia, Iraq and Iran during their wars ... of course they have their agendas and reasons for doing it. Exactly! They were not blind; they had their agendas and reasons. They created those regimes. You reap what you sow. You are talking like other countries did nothing to help them. I remember that Russia was ready to help. The US said, “No, we are fine.” I bet other countries offered their help too and received the same answer. You are talking like the world is 100% united in this issue. The world is huge…and different. Every little part of it has its own agenda and reasons for doing or not doing something. When? Now? After they created all this mess? Well…I don’t know. Should I?
|
|