Aaah, finally an interesting discussion. And all my favorite people (Kharn, Welsh and others) are participating! Splendid!
I'm glad USA overthrew Saddam's regime and I think it would be good if they allowed internationalist forces to take over in Iraq. I can think of at least two reasons for this:
1) Presence of multinational troops in Iraq would give Coalition's intervention additional credibility. There would be no grounds on which European hipocrites could accuse USA of illegal occupation of Iraq.
2) Maintaining law and order would be considerably easier if there were more troops.
This military operation has in a way backfired on USA, and Bush's administration in particular. Weapons of mass destruction haven't been located yet, occupation is draining a lot more money from US budget than anticipated, cuts in healthcare and education and constant casualties in Iraq have detrimential effect on public support for the intervention and for republican regime in general. Still, overthrowing of Saddam is likely to ensure that people of Iraq have better future, and considering how much oil that country posseses, that future will be very bright and could arrive sooner than anyone hoped. What's more, when USA chose to intervene with disregard of decisions of US Council, they shook the very grounds of this useless and incompetent organization. With some luck, this might even lead to complete cancellation of UN and its replacement with a more competent and efficient organization. Some of you might be shocked by my grim views of international peace organization, but there are many reasons why I find UN to be nothing but a waste of funds. For example, this 'peace' organization never managed to stop a single war in its whole history. Examples: North Korea, Vietnam, Falkland, Middle East, Iraq, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq again... Whether its a minor local conflict or an international war, UN has completely and utterly failed in its role of a peacekeeping organization. I can tell you from my personal experience - here in Croatia, UN troopers, with all their tanks and weapons, were the laughing stock of both our and enemy soldiers. The unit were my friend's dad was used to engage in skirmishes with the enemy right before their eyes, within borders of what was supposed to be a demilitarized area! Not only does UN fail in its peacekeeping duties, but other UN's organizations such as UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO, FAO and others are completely inefficient in performance of their tasks. Want more examples? More than 50 million people die of starvation
every year. Nothing was done to prevent the destruction of city of Dubrovnik by the aggressor during the war in Croatia (that city is supposedly protected by UNESCO, mind you). Nobody intervened when talibans destroyed millenia old statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. With all FAO's help, African countries still have neolithic agriculture and their people are starving. I ask you, what is the purpose of existence for an organization so weak and incompetent? Hopefully, it won't be long until its shut down completely, because financing a bureaucracy so huge and inefficient is a waste of money that we could spend far more productively.
As for North Korea issue, I think any present action against them would be rushed. It would most likely provoke China and possibly cause them to invade Taiwan. A war between America and China would be inevitable. Even though USA would most likely win, simply because China would be isolated and with no hope of enduring a prolonged war, there would always be a possibility of a nuclear conflict, which would truly be a disaster for everyone... except us Fallout fans, because we would finally get a chance to experience our fantasies in real life.
I believe USA should wait a few more years to see how situation evolves. Democratic changes are likely to happen in China, and if not, North Korean communist regime isn't likely to last much longer - North Korea can't survive in complete isolation like it did in the past 50 years (as their economy is completely ruined and its people are starving), so it will have to open up to the world, primarily to its democratic neighbour - South Korea. End of isolation means influx of information and knowledge, as well as improvement of life conditions. Sociologically, a massive unrest or rebellion is most likely to happen when life standard is improving. So you see, the current regime in North Korea will collapse eventually, and it will no longer pose a serious threat.
What worries me more is Taiwan, and Chinese intentions concerning that matter. In my opinion, USA should protect Taiwan at any cost. If China is crazy enough to annex that island even at the cost of war against America, let it be so. They will completely lose their credibility and whole world will stand side by side with USA, united against China. But I sincerely doubt even China would undertake such a radical move. They keep openly threatening to take hostile action against Taiwan, but they've been doing so for the past fifty years.
About JFK, some of his decisions regarding foreign policies were rushed and very dangerous, but I admire his courage, determination and honesty. He was the only American president in 20th century that tried to shut down Federal Reserves and print interest-free, debt-free money which would be used to finance the state budget. Ever since 1911. (when Federal Reserves were founded) US state debt to the banks constantly kept increasing, and in mid-nineties it exceeded 5 trillion dollars. Kennedy simply wanted to change this trend and put the bankers out of business. Secret international society of bankers used their influence over CIA and certain circles in US military to carry out his assassination. Interestingly, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. all have connections with the assassination. For example, at time of murder Richard Nixon was on a plane flying
out of Dallas, and Bush's phone number was found in the address book of Jack Ruby's friend. What's even more interesting is that last president (before Kennedy) who started to print interest-free money (the popular "greenbacks") was Abraham Lincoln, and we all know how his life ended. Here's one paragraph of an article in London Times which appeared shortly after first greenbacks were introduced:
"If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
Need I mention that UK government (which was likely under complete control of the secret bankers' society, after all, English were at that time known as "bankers of the world") supported the civil war in America, and the sole reason why it didn't openly join the Confederacy and help them defeat Lincoln's Union is because it would have caused massive unrest and displeasure in United Kingdom - namely, the people of United Kingdom were strongly opposed to slavery and they simply wouldn't put up with their government allying their country with those that condone it.
Ah, but I got a little carried away with my conspiracy theories. Anyway, what I wanted to say about JFK is that he by all means
wasn't the worst president in the history of America. He was simply a little clumsy with foreign policies (like many other presidents - look at Bush Jr.), but his death may have been one of the worst tragedies that ever befell United States of America, because it further strengthened the grip that various shadowy corporate organizations have over their government.
