Iraq anyone? or North Korea?

[welsh]

as their constitution now. So yes, it is likely, and perhaps soon, maybe within the next six months even. ....

]America never learns from its mistakes in foreign policy and always just tries to look after number 1 without taking the rest of the world into account.

Dude, study history more often. Ever hear of Somalia?

They install puppet dictatorships and try to create power balances that keep countries weak while looking after their own interests.

We install dictatorships? Are you retarded?

They are only giving reconstruction contracts to nations that sent military support in Iraq (e.g. no good German engineers aloud) and just want to keep the oil safe.

Riiight, like they wouldn't do the same. Let's let the people who actually supplied Saddam against us and bashed the coalition and hoped for our failure get a piece of the pie? I repeat my question...are you retarded?

But if the US want to the policemen of the world (Bush called Howard deputy sheriff in the Asia Pacific region ha, ha), they have to remain impartial and help the third world, even though it will hurt them to do so.

Like I said, study up on history, read up on Somalia.

Paladin Solo/King- In the past I have come to your defense asking people to not flame you just because you were uninformed. While I appreciate your willingness to engage in debates many people here have informed you that you don't know your facts.

For example-

(1) US involvement in Somalia was, in part, a move taken in compliance with US interest. US showed an interest in taking a leadership role in UN humanitarian interventions at the beginning of what the old George Bush called, the New World Order. Leadership often means putting in the forces necessary to carry out some operations.

(2) US has either established or maintained numerous very violent dictatorships during the Cold War. Pinochet (Chile), Mobutu (Zaire), Doe (Liberia), Saddam (Iraq), The Shah (Iran), Marcos (Philippines), etc. Know your history.

(3) Writing a constitution and establishing a democracy are very different things. Afghanistan is run by a group of very nasty local warlords that have a history of not working together. The process of state formaiton in Afghanistan is still very undecided.

This is not meant just for you, but for all posters. I don't like playing board cop here and are willing to tolerate what I think are stupid posts. But I do not want to see you or anyone else, initiate a flame war here.

You PS, who have numerous times shown your ignorance and lack of knowledge on this board, calling someone else retarded and in need of a history lesson, is purely ironic.

Though shalt show good manners on this board.

Or I will fry your ass.

 

[John Uskglass]

(2) US has either established or maintained numerous very violent dictatorships during the Cold War. Pinochet (Chile), Mobutu (Zaire), Doe (Liberia), Saddam (Iraq), The Shah (Iran), Marcos (Philippines), etc. Know your history.

Bullokcs. We supported everyone we could get our hands on, and not BECAUSE they where dictatorships. We just wanted to isolate the Soviets. The goal was not to support Dictatorship's fpr Dictatorship's sake-it was to isolate a much, much worse enemy who did create Dictatorships for Dictatorship's sake (at least in the intermediate term...yes, I have read Marx).
The one possible exception is Pinochet, and Ainde was one pathetic president who sank the economy and basically made Chile a field for ethier Soviet or Fascist dictators, and I think that America made the right choice, though IT might not have been ours to make.

(3) Writing a constitution and establishing a democracy are very different things. Afghanistan is run by a group of very nasty local warlords that have a history of not working together. The process of state formaiton in Afghanistan is still very undecided.

Would not go that far. They have the most powerful nation in the history of the world backing them up, they have a constitution, a trustable, sane president.
Y

Many of you misunderstand what ethnic homogeny does to a nation. For instance, look at the Weichmark (damn spelling). Lot of homogeny there, but did that work out? In many situations, such as Iraq, three drastically opposing, yet almost equal sides, can actually help a situation. Sure, the Shia are in the majortiy, but once you combine an agenda with the Kurds, Shiites and the Turkmen on one side (such as the creation of a theocracy) it is hard to fail. Think of it as a cultural system of checks and balances.

world’s resources would be stretched to breaking point and the Yanks would have to lose their wasteful lifestyle (as would the rest of the world boo hoo). No more cheap labour and true free trade would result in America going suicide bomber style and nuking everything to maintain power

You either have no faith in humanity or think that all us "Yanks", as you so politely put them, are some kind of passive-agressive cappuccino drinking, nuclear bomb dropping badasses.
Thank you for the compliment, but not many of us want to see a nuclear war, and would give up some of our so called "decedance" to stop it.

Not only that, but you are totally ignorant of how rescources develop.
Look at England. They had ammased such a magnificent navy that there was barely a tree left standing. What did they think of? Steel ships. The truth is that human inginuity is much greater then what you are suggesting. When the supply of oil becomes scarce, what makes you think that in that almost distant future we will not have synthetic oil, or hydrogen based engines?

America never learns from its mistakes in foreign policy and always just tries to look after number 1 without taking the rest of the world into account.

Ill readily admit that sometimes the American populace can act like a ostrich just to protect it's world view, but the leaders (you know, the people that matter in a Federal Republic or Representative Democracy?) can learn. Look at Roosevelt during WW2. He knew that he had to help stop the Nazis, for he knew that they would target America at some point. Wilson learend as much, so he went into the war on the Allied side.

They install puppet dictatorships and try to create power balances that keep countries weak while looking after their own interests.

O, yeah, just like Iraq huh? Whoops, wrong on that.
I suppose it would be better, in your *enlightened* opinion that Osama resestablishes a Nuclear caliphate? And you think that a Mid East without law and order TODAY can become a democracy sometime in the future?

are only giving reconstruction contracts to nations that sent military support in Iraq (e.g. no good German engineers aloud)

Why would they reward someone who actively tried to check American power with the fruits of it? IT is like sharing the secret of ICBM technology to China because it is unfair that only ourselves and the Russians have it.

‘invade someone when the polls are down’

Actually, Bush had the most amount of support of any American president in my life time after September 11 and before Iraq. Sorry kiddo, wrong again.

also causes a great problem in that Turkey wont let Kurdistan have its independence fearing destabilisation

Wrong again. There has not been a singel attack against Turkish interests by the PKK or it's derivitves in months. Kurdistan has no problem with being a part of the modern Turkey. Frankly, the current regiem's platform was peace with the Kurds, and he has done it-Kurdish is tought in school, is allowed everywhere......

 

[Wooz]

Welsh wrote:

Afghanistan is run by a group of very nasty local warlords that have a history of not working together. The process of state formation in Afghanistan is still very undecided.

I think the same goes for Iraq, which explains, without justifying, the brutality of Saddam's regime, as he tried to hold the place together by whatever means possible. Another similarity I find with Afghanistan is its "liberation" by a foreign superpower.

The main opressing regime abolished, the pressure on those rival provinces has been lifted, and it seems it's pretty unlikely that left to themselves in the current situation, being used to be led by a monarch/absolute leader they would collaborate without somebody forcing them to. The first candidate to that kind of thought are the Islamic funamentalist leaders that have a lot of the people's support, being a religion. The second are the Americans that think they can bring peace to a country by attacking it.

Both sides assume the Iraqui people are a bunch of sheep waiting to be driven. The only way Iraq won't turn into either a US-led or an Ayatollah-led "people's dictatorship" is ensuring in a peaceful way those provinces to cooperate. I don't believe the US went into taht country for that.
And before you post it, no, I don't believe in the good-will of the US to actually do what I mentioned above, although they may officially declare it. Wars are not fought for moral reasons. Wars are fought for power and money. And I am aware that the vision of those provinces peacefully cooperating and singing Kumba-ya by a fire altogether is somewhat too optimistic.

The main problem with the American presence is that, contrary to some people think, it doesn't lower the terrorist threat, it just plants more seeds from which new sucide fanatics will sprout, and gives more fuel to fundamentalist groups to make people believe in the urgence of a "holy war" between fundamentalist-led middle-east countries and the west.

Which is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants.

 

[welsh]

(2) US has either established or maintained numerous very violent dictatorships during the Cold War. Pinochet (Chile), Mobutu (Zaire), Doe (Liberia), Saddam (Iraq), The Shah (Iran), Marcos (Philippines), etc. Know your history.

Bullokcs. We supported everyone we could get our hands on, and not BECAUSE they where dictatorships. We just wanted to isolate the Soviets. The goal was not to support Dictatorship's fpr Dictatorship's sake-it was to isolate a much, much worse enemy who did create Dictatorships for Dictatorship's sake..

How can you say Bullocks and yet also agree with the position. Whatever the reason, the US fear of the Soviet expansion led to the support, establishment and maintenance of dictatorships around the globe.

That many of these dictatorships led not only to significant human rights violations within their territory, that we did subvert democratic movements to support US interest, and that we turned a blind eye or supported some of the most ruthless despots of the past century is hardly contestable. That the Soviets did the same is also not contestable.

Whether this policy was a "success" is also debateable. Yes the Cold War ended and communism didn't spread much. But as George Kennan pointed out early in the Cold War, the Soviets were collapse upon their own weak economies anyway. Hell by the 1960s the Soviets and the Chinese were at odds.

Perhaps had we placed greater faith in the ideals of democracy some of the problems we face today might have been avoided.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Welsh, every move every country makes is in their interests in some form or another. So if you say that doesn't mean we don't look out for others, then in fact, noone looks out for another. We didn't give a hoot about Somalia until Time magazine began printing those articles remember? At least, I think that is when it began.

 

[quietfanatic]

The one possible exception is Pinochet, and Ainde was one pathetic president who sank the economy and basically made Chile a field for ethier Soviet or Fascist dictators, and I think that America made the right choice, though IT might not have been ours to make.

What 'right choice'? The choice to install a fascist general who murdered thousands of free thinking students as opposed to an ineffectual slightly leftist politician who was no hard assed Communist.

Would not go that far. They have the most powerful nation in the history of the world backing them up, they have a constitution, a trustable, sane president. ..........


Think of it as a cultural system of checks and balances.

Interesting, we will just have to wait and see.

I am obviously very cynical but not without optimism. It would be nice if we had infinite resources but I doubt that will happen.

The truth is that human inginuity is much greater then what you are suggesting. When the supply of oil becomes scarce, what makes you think that in that almost distant future we will not have synthetic oil, or hydrogen based engines?

We might, but we won't give it to poorer nations because of greed and the fact that we don't want more competition. If America was no longer a superpower I think the more radical elements of leadership might just panic.

O, yeah, just like Iraq huh? Whoops, wrong on that.
I suppose it would be better, in your *enlightened* opinion that Osama resestablishes a Nuclear caliphate? And you think that a Mid East without law and order TODAY can become a democracy sometime in the future?

Iraq war is for oil, revenge after gulf war and something for Bush to shoot at.

Why would they reward someone who actively tried to check American power with the fruits of it? IT is like sharing the secret of ICBM technology to China because it is unfair that only ourselves and the Russians have it.

Unfortunately many good companies in Germany and France are blocked when their expertise is needed. We should be beyond economic looting and pillaging.

Actually, Bush had the most amount of support of any American president in my life time after September 11 and before Iraq. Sorry kiddo, wrong again.

I meant the non-US people. BUT anyway RIP US reputation (unless your presidents have been really bad)

Wrong again. There has not been a singel attack against Turkish interests by the PKK or it's derivitves in months. Kurdistan has no problem with being a part of the modern Turkey. Frankly, the current regiem's platform was peace with the Kurds, and he has done it-Kurdish is tought in school, is allowed everywhere......

Kurdistan might just have a problem with Iraq and/or Turkey stealing all their oil.

For all posters.

If I do say something correct me if I'm wrong and visualize a teenager while reading my signature.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Actually Hydrogen cars have already been made, now just for mass production and a little luck! And whatever the reason for the war in Iraq, it turned out good. You complain that we install dictators and are responsible for the murders of many innocents, yet you don't say anything about the Iraqis who are now free?

 

[quietfanatic]

The war has had good outcomes but it is a shame that they were just useful for propaganda and not the real motivation for going to war, whatever the government might say.

 

[Wooz]

PS wrote:

yet you don't say anything about the Iraqis who are now free?

free?

On Saturday a car was sprayed with gunfire from U.S. soldiers while trying to pass a convoy in Tikrit. According to Agence France Presse:


"Police in Tikrit and Salahaddin province, along with the car's sole survivor, have insisted a U.S. convoy opened fire on a blue Chevrolet Caprice as it tried to pass, riddling it with bullets and killing the driver, a second man, a woman and her nine-year-old child."

One month ago a tank drove over a prominent Shiite Muslim cleric in the Sadr City, a suburb of Baghdad and killed him. The CPA described this as a "traffic accident."

Forty Iraqi demonstrators throughout Iraq were shot dead by U.S. soldiers during the aftermath following the capture of Saddam Hussein.


You will excuse my cinysm, but a country with occuping armies is *not* "free". If a government that isn't either a US or Islamic fundamentalist-led masked dictatorship comes out of the whole mess, we'll talk about freedom.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Dude, they have now taken part in poles. Sure that's not much, but it's progress. They are more free now than when Saddam was in office. Also, did the French mention why the US soldiers opened fire on the car? Perhaps because the car maybe wasn't supposed to get close to the convoy due to recent attacks. Yes it's tragic, but Wooz, do you really give a damn? I find it also very one sided, perhaps the mob was becoming a threat, traffic accidents happen everywhere all the time, it happened in Iraq many times before we were there, your point? You can't just name what happened, you got to say why, was it paranoia? A threat posed to the soldiers? Anger? Or an honest mistake?

 

[toresica]

They are more free now than when Saddam was in office.

AFAIK, under Saddam, the Iraquis were actually more free then many Islamic states - for example, women didn't have to wear those headdresses that cover their faces.

Don't quote me on that, though - I don't know for sure.

 

[Ozrat]

True.

Not only that, but "back in the day" they also had some of the highest educational and medical standards in the Middle East.

But you don't hear that on Fox...

Like what was said before, Sadaam was anti-Islam and only partially accepted it for popularity amonst the citizens.

 

[Paladin Solo]

You also don't hear it on CNN, your point? I saw something on that on the History Channel though.

 

[Mohrg]

Yes the History Channel, best station on TV.

Mohrg

 

[Wooz]

Ps wrote:

Dude, they have now taken part in poles. Sure that's not much, but it's progress

I'm sorry I don't understand these two sentences. Are you saying the fact that the Polish army takes part in the occupation has anything to do with freedom?

Also, did the French mention why the US soldiers opened fire on the car?

There you go with your nationalist ramblings again, with the evil frenchies conspiring to sabotage news. AFP is a serious news source, not a government-led propaganda agency.

Whatever the reason may be, the troops opened fire as a reaction to a potential threat. The thing is, you don't shoot people just because you're afraid they may do something to you. I'm sure there could be other ways to stopping that car, one of them could be shooting the tires.

Yes it's tragic, but Wooz, do you really give a damn?

No, that's why I bother posting it on this thread.

perhaps the mob was becoming a threat

mob?
I wrote:

Forty Iraqi demonstrators throughout Iraq

That means probably 10-20 people at most at each demonstration. 20 people in a demonstration are hardly a threat to soldiers in tanks. They could have used rubber bullets like the ones the Israeli army does.

traffic accidents happen everywhere all the time, it happened in Iraq many times before we were there

Of course, tanks run over important political figures daily, all over the world, it's a well-known fact. My wrong.

You can't just name what happened, you got to say why, was it paranoia? A threat posed to the soldiers? Anger? Or an honest mistake?

My point is that under that conditions you can hardly say that those people are "free".

 

[Paladin Solo]

Dude, I said French because you said you got it from a French media, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

Dude, I didn't mean tanks running over people, I meant ACCIDENTS. The soldiers said it was an accident, but I suppose to you that everything we say are lies!

You know what, since bad things happening to a country is a sign of non-freedom, I'm going to go look up articles of hmm...France or Germany, or Russia to see how free they are. If I see somewhere that an important official got killed accidentally, or some demonstrators/protesters were killed, or if a police shootout led to the killing of a few people, then this surely means they aren't free!

And poles was a typo, I meant polls.

 

[Ozrat]

You also don't hear it on CNN, your point? I saw something on that on the History Channel though.

My point is that Fox wouldn't be freely giving out information that tells the public about the benefits under Sadaam's government that were available until US tariffs and whatnots prevented such things from being available.

I highly doubt that the History Channel was reporting on what Iraq was like 10-20 years ago.

 

[Wooz]

PS wrote:

I'm going to go look up articles of hmm...France or Germany, or Russia to see how free they are. If I see somewhere that an important official got killed accidentally, or some demonstrators/protesters were killed, or if a police shootout led to the killing of a few people, then this surely means they aren't free!

Important officials do not get killed "accidentally". Much less run over by tanks. Don't be so naive.

And YES, whatever country/society in which police shootouts led to the death of its citizens, and where people are killed in demonstrations, isn't a country where the citizens are free.

Neither is a society in which an organized force breaks up a manifestation/protest using violence. Check Italy's history in the 30's and what the "fascii" were.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

They are more free now than when Saddam was in office.

AFAIK, under Saddam, the Iraquis were actually more free then many Islamic states - for example, women didn't have to wear those headdresses that cover their faces.

Don't quote me on that, though - I don't know for sure. (too late )

That is a culturally ignorant comment, as the vast majority of islamic women who wear those headdresses prefer to do so. Keep in mind that a country, depending on its culture, has certain dress codes that are enforced by law. I remember a case around my area in which a woman was fighting a dress code fine because she was trying run a hotdog stand near a busy street wearing only a skimpy g-string (she lost the case BTW). Either way, only the most extremist of islamic states (Afghanistan) force their women to wear the headresses that cover their faces.

And it's funny that several people can bitch and say in an ill-informed manner that the US mowed down 40 demonstrators, ran over a cleric in a tank GTA style, and that the Iraqi's were better off and more free under Saddam's regime, yet leave out facts like demonstrators narely, if ever, existed in his regime because of the dire consequences to themselves and their friends and families, or that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were executed by him (some with tanks BTW), not to mention the threat that he represented to the countries around him.

Go Saddam go. The pseudo-cynics love you.

And by the way Idiota Solo, STFU, do some research before you begin to talk shit, and ummm, STFU again. You're giving the youth of america a bad rep.

And Ozrat, since I'm in such an offensive mood, I'm going to call you Bill O'Reilly from now on. :p

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Important officials do not get killed "accidentally". Much less run over by tanks. Don't be so naive.

Don't be so blindly biased. You are taking the situation out of context. Maybe in a country that is not torn apart by war, it wouldn't be necessary to drive huge fucking tanks around, and accidents do happen. Were you there, or your source for that matter, when the incident occured?

And YES, whatever country/society in which police shootouts led to the death of its citizens, and where people are killed in demonstrations, isn't a country where the citizens are free.

Nearly all countries have had violent and deadly demonstrations in their past, therefore, you're suggesting that no citizen is free. If I was to follow that chain of logic, that would make me an anarchist.

Neither is a society in which an organized force breaks up a manifestation/protest using violence. Check Italy's history in the 30's and what the "fascii" were.

Funny, isn't that an important part of civil disobediance, or do you not consider tear gas and rubber bullets violent.