Bush No, America Yes
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote: How? I don't know, and I don't have proof So what are you on about then?? Alvaro Mendez wrote: But I refuse to believe that they wanted to liberate the Iraqis, more than the North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, Cubans, etc... That's not the primary reason stated for going in. In case you have not heard yet, there was decision made based on poor intelligence, though as the Deulfer(sp?) report recently stated Saddam was quite busy getting things setup for building up WMDs(and why do imagine?) as soon as he got enough people to agree to drop sanctions (which apparently were not working very well). If for whatever reason we went into another country, everyone would be saying well why Iran(for example), and not Iraq or N.Korea, etc.... Alvaro Mendez wrote: The man can't even say "nuclear" for Christ's sake. Yeah, I can see how a man's pronunciation could effect his leadship ability. Alvaro Mendez wrote: GWB started the mess Not true. This mess has been ongoing for a while now. It's just that others have done precisely fuck all about it. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stovesbrianwelsch wrote: That's not the primary reason stated for going in. In case you have not heard yet, there was decision made based on poor intelligence Thats the worst excuse they could come up with, not only were the reports so vague and obviously full of errors that even Bush should be able to spot it, the goddamn world was shouting it in the ears of the Bush regime. If they want to use it as an excuse, they are either total idiots, or deaf and blind. brianwelsch wrote: Not true. This mess has been ongoing for a while now. It's just that others have done precisely f*** all about it. No it hasn't, where did you get that idea from?, Saddam was leading the country with an iron fist. The violence was mostly performed by the Saddam regime, and it wasn't even nearly in the proportion of what is going on now. When you invaded, you removed every possibility of a slow but stabil move to democracy. Now, every group in the country wants a piece of the power, and the situation is building up to a regular civil war. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Marc Clifton wrote: Well, if you're republican, it seems you don't much give a damn about America's popularity opinion with different countries. If you're democrat, it seems that you want the rest of the world to fight our wars for us. That observation deserves a 5. What would be the right way to look at it? In reality who would want to make their decisions in life based on a popularity poll, it would seem to be the ultimate form of peer pressure. Personally I tend to discount the opinion of others outside the US based on the differences in their self interests and ours. The US has historically been criticized for being to early or to late into a war, as over involved or overly isolationist, so its hard to see where that will change anytime soon, as each group follows its own self interests. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
I fear you miss my point. It was that people from "friendly" countries are still able to make the distinction between GWB policy and the american "John Doe" (IMHO, this could change if GWB is reelected). Doug Goulden wrote: The US has historically been criticized for being to early or to late into a war, as over involved or overly isolationist, so its hard to see where that will change anytime soon, as each group follows its own self interests I don't think it will ever stop: it's impossible to get unanimity, there will always be somebody to critisize whatever decision is made. However, when it's about foreign policies, the US should also have a ear for what the others can say, because it's also in its interest to have allies rather than dealing with neutral or even hostile countries.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
The only thing that I find amazing is that I am supposed to give a shit about what a bunch of loosers think of me. I feel better when the world, especially the Europeans, don't like us than when they do. It means we are obviously doing things correctly - considering that they never have managed to do so. Lets face it, the US is saddled with the task of cleaning up the mess Europe left behind. Europe deserves W - its karma. Are there any polls taken to determine what American opinions are about the rest of the world? It seems that such a poll would be far more apropos. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote: We pursuaded our intelligence to come up with anything that may suggest that Iraq was creating WMDs to attack us Yeah and the CIA forced the Russians to come to the same conclusion. If you actually read the Dueffler (sp?) report you will see that Saddam made an effort to mislead people about his capabilities. Obviously the man wanted to mislead and he succeeded. While you are doing your reading, you might want to read the conclusions that they came to about his desire to reconstitute his capabilities after the sanctions were dropped. You might recall that France, Russia, and China were all expressing an interest in dropping sanctions. Fueled no doubt by the kickbacks they were recieving from Saddam's manipulation of the Food for Oil program. What would he have done after the sanctions were done? He had had some contact with UBL and Al Quada before 9/11 (no he didn't participate I didn't say that), but there is no reason to think he would have been unwilling to provide intelligence, knowledge, or material support to them. Al Quada had already investigated using chemical attacks in their Afghanistan training camps, I have little doubt they would jump at the oppurtunity to do so here in the US or in Europe. The real difference between most European's and Americans is philosophical. We feel the need to be able to defend ourselves in a preemptive manner if necessary. The European community feels we should wait to repond to threats only after they are well formed. The US has a history of using your approach, Pearl Harbor, the Spanish American War (the battleship Maine), and 9/11 are each examples of this. No American president who wants to have to explain why they allowed chemical weapons to get into the hands of terrorists to a Congressional commitee. As for the problems in Iraq, I don't mean to downplay them, however, I would rather have our military confront people like Zarqawi in Iraq than our firefighter and police face him and his like here. War is a horrifying spectacle that should be avoided whenever possible, but the problem we are facing in Iraq now is the same threat we faced in Afghanistan, extremist Muslims. The war there now has very little to do with the thug we removed from power, but the US needs to confront that threat wherever we see it. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: Yeah and the CIA forced the Russians to come to the same conclusion. Houla, wait a minute[^] Doug Goulden wrote: Fueled no doubt by the kickbacks they were recieving from Saddam's manipulation of the Food for Oil program No doubt? Waoh. Just remember the only reason there's no american name on the Duelfer's report is that "the names of American individuals cannot be publicly disclosed under privacy laws". For the moment, it's easy to thrown the blame on one side or another[^]. For the moment, there are plenty of affirmations but a lack of proof. Let's wait for Volcker presided commission[^] findings, perhaps things will become clearer. Doug Goulden wrote: He had had some contact with UBL and Al Quada before 9/11 So has the US! Doug Goulden wrote: the battleship Maine Some experts still believe the explosion aboard the Maine was accidental[^]. This example could then even be used to claim how an event can be manipulated to help the public opinion to go to war. Doug Goulden wrote: The European community feels we should wait to repond to threats only after they are well formed. It's true european community is much more cautious towards War because it has known it too often on its soil, and in the recent times in its most horrible and destructive ways. Most of the european people have kept in their collective memories the consequences of such events, and that war is not only beautiful pictures on CNN. Nonetheless, I don't believe this tendency to Pacifism can explain why most of european people don't agree with US policy on Iraq. Many believe it will create more problems and threats rather than solving them: preemptive wars can cause more troubles than they ca
-
The only thing that I find amazing is that I am supposed to give a shit about what a bunch of loosers think of me. I feel better when the world, especially the Europeans, don't like us than when they do. It means we are obviously doing things correctly - considering that they never have managed to do so. Lets face it, the US is saddled with the task of cleaning up the mess Europe left behind. Europe deserves W - its karma. Are there any polls taken to determine what American opinions are about the rest of the world? It seems that such a poll would be far more apropos. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan Shannon wrote: Lets face it, the US is saddled with the task of cleaning up the mess Europe left behind. Europe deserves W - its karma. Is that why the US is asking for UK troop support in Bahgdad? Oh-no, that's just Stan's powers of selective observation springing up again. NB: Stan - Spelling note: Losers not loosers Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Yeah and the CIA forced the Russians to come to the same conclusion. Houla, wait a minute[^] Doug Goulden wrote: Fueled no doubt by the kickbacks they were recieving from Saddam's manipulation of the Food for Oil program No doubt? Waoh. Just remember the only reason there's no american name on the Duelfer's report is that "the names of American individuals cannot be publicly disclosed under privacy laws". For the moment, it's easy to thrown the blame on one side or another[^]. For the moment, there are plenty of affirmations but a lack of proof. Let's wait for Volcker presided commission[^] findings, perhaps things will become clearer. Doug Goulden wrote: He had had some contact with UBL and Al Quada before 9/11 So has the US! Doug Goulden wrote: the battleship Maine Some experts still believe the explosion aboard the Maine was accidental[^]. This example could then even be used to claim how an event can be manipulated to help the public opinion to go to war. Doug Goulden wrote: The European community feels we should wait to repond to threats only after they are well formed. It's true european community is much more cautious towards War because it has known it too often on its soil, and in the recent times in its most horrible and destructive ways. Most of the european people have kept in their collective memories the consequences of such events, and that war is not only beautiful pictures on CNN. Nonetheless, I don't believe this tendency to Pacifism can explain why most of european people don't agree with US policy on Iraq. Many believe it will create more problems and threats rather than solving them: preemptive wars can cause more troubles than they ca
K(arl) wrote: Houla, wait a minute[^] With due respect Karl, a quote from Al Jazeera? Yuch.... I've read quotes in other places as well that the Russians were sure that Saddam still had weapons as well. In general I try to not rely on onfo from the Fox News Channel or Al Jazeera, they tend to be to biased in my mind. K(arl) wrote: No doubt? Waoh. Just remember the only reason there's no american name on the Duelfer's report is that "the names of American individuals cannot be publicly disclosed under privacy laws". For the moment, it's easy to thrown the blame on one side or another[^]. For the moment, there are plenty of affirmations but a lack of proof. Let's wait for Volcker presided commission[^] findings, perhaps things will become clearer In my mind anyone in the US who traded illegally with Saddam and his regime should be tried for treason. Call me uptight but supporting someone illegally who is a threat to the US should be imprisoned for a very long time. I don't draw a distinction between Europeans and Americans in this..... Allies and citizens shouldn't undermine the process of containment. K(arl) wrote: Some experts still believe the explosion aboard the Maine was accidental[^]. This example could then even be used to claim how an event can be manipulated to help the public opinion to go to war. You're good my friend ;), I knew that when I made the comment. I wondered if someone would catch it or not. It does point to the fact that not only will te US react strongly to an attack against its citizens but also that initial conclusions can be wrong. I don't know that I would agree that data was manipulated in the case of the Maine, it seems that experts still disagree. BTW Hyman Rickover who was mentioned in the article you linked to was the creator of the US Navy's nuclear power program. He was a very driven, and intelligent man, near single handedly starting the development of the Naval Reactors program. K(arl) wrote: t's true european community is much more cautious towards War because it has known it too often on its soil, and in the recent times in its most horrible and destructive ways. Most of the european people have kept in their collective memories the consequences of such events, and that war is not only beautiful pictures on CNN. Nonetheless, I don't believe this tendency to Pacifism can explain why most of european people don't agree with US p
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: So? Are you saying that we have to deal with all of them at the same time? Are you saying we should have dealt with a different one? I'm saying that if invading countries for the sake of "spreading freedom" is going to be our mission from now on (which in 2000 GWB said he wouldn't do), then we need to consider who we invade a lot more carefully. For starters, lets get rid of the bearded bastard right here close to us, just 90 miles south of the Florida Keys. He's been causing grief to his people and the people of Central and South American countries for the past 45 years. When's it his turn? Mike Mullikin wrote: Gee your right! To hell with the fact that Iraqi children were starving. To hell with the fact that SH was defying UN sanctions. He was contained. He was contained. He wasn't a threat. Why did we go to war again? Did the children begin starving after 9/11? Why did no one else care about Iraq's starving children back when they actually began starving? Clinton didn't care and neither did Bush 1, who was in a better position to act on it. Do you really think GWB really cares about Iraq's starving children? The UN sanctions are the UN's problem. Mike Mullikin wrote: I wonder if you will be prepared to blame Kerry for EVERYTHING that happens in the US during his term? Doubtful. I'm not like you Mike. I don't think Kerry is a direct descendant of Jesus Christ. If the man makes mistakes or screws up big time, I'll say it. I want a good leader, whatever party he comes from. I supported GWB, even as he was getting ready to invade Iraq. Having come from a totalitarian regime (the one 90 miles away from us), I support any action that helps bring dictators to their end. However, it's foolish to think that GWB acted properly across the board; from choosing the moment to invade, to his continued inability to bring peace to the region long after ending the main conflict. Mike Mullikin wrote: A president can still conduct business and do his job while outside Washington DC. In fact, every POTUS has 4+ hours of briefings every day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. A US Senator MUST participate in Congressional committees and vote to be effective. For the 8 years Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee he was absent 76% of the time.[^] John Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee too and he missed half of the public hearings. Be
Alvaro Mendez wrote: For starters, lets get rid of the bearded bastard right here close to us, just 90 miles south of the Florida Keys. He's been causing grief to his people and the people of Central and South American countries for the past 45 years. When's it his turn? Ahhh! So it's OK to perform "regime change" as long as you dislike the regime. Alvaro Mendez wrote: Do you really think GWB really cares about Iraq's starving children? Dunno, but his admin is the ONLY group that did anything to stop it regardless of other motives. Alvaro Mendez wrote: I'm not like you Mike. I don't think Kerry is a direct descendant of Jesus Christ. Considering I don't believe in JC your point is moot. ;P Seriously, I don't think Bush is perfect. Far from it. I just see a serious double standard being applied to him that has not applied to his predecessors. In life, you can't always sit on your hands and do nothing, hoping the bad guys will fade away. Isn't Castro a perfect example? Alvaro Mendez wrote: to his continued inability to bring peace to the region long after ending the main conflict. I think it's naive to think it's been a long time. I also think it's disingenuous to say the entire region is without peace. A few hotspots only a year after invading a country in one of the most volitile locations on Earth (middle east) is pretty damn good. Considering every crackpot with an RPG is there wreaking havoc, I'd say it's bloody amazing. Alvaro Mendez wrote: I don't give a crap about Kerry and Edwards record Mike. All I can say is "Be careful what you ask for." "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
brianwelsch wrote: That's not the primary reason stated for going in. In case you have not heard yet, there was decision made based on poor intelligence Thats the worst excuse they could come up with, not only were the reports so vague and obviously full of errors that even Bush should be able to spot it, the goddamn world was shouting it in the ears of the Bush regime. If they want to use it as an excuse, they are either total idiots, or deaf and blind. brianwelsch wrote: Not true. This mess has been ongoing for a while now. It's just that others have done precisely f*** all about it. No it hasn't, where did you get that idea from?, Saddam was leading the country with an iron fist. The violence was mostly performed by the Saddam regime, and it wasn't even nearly in the proportion of what is going on now. When you invaded, you removed every possibility of a slow but stabil move to democracy. Now, every group in the country wants a piece of the power, and the situation is building up to a regular civil war. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: goddamn world was shouting it in the ears of the Bush regime. The way I remember they were saying we believe he has WMDs or at least it is very likely, just give the inspectors some more time to find them. We thought 12 years was long enough to come clean with the records of how WMDs were destroyed. Though we haven't found them, why would he continue to play games? Some of the news on the oil-for-food scams is starting to paint the picture. jan larsen wrote: No it hasn't, So terrorism is a new phenomenon then?? jan larsen wrote: When you invaded, you removed every possibility of a slow but stabil move to democracy Oh, sorry, I forgot about those elections they were holding where Saddam got 100% of the vote. Elections are a crucial first step. Now if they could only hold Valid elections, with multiple candidates. Maybe, say in January. jan larsen wrote: Now, every group in the country wants a piece of the power Great!! At least that will be an option now. jan larsen wrote: the situation is building up to a regular civil war. No sense speculating on that, time will tell, though my bet is it won't happen. At least not until the new gov't has a chance to run for a bit. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
jan larsen wrote: goddamn world was shouting it in the ears of the Bush regime. The way I remember they were saying we believe he has WMDs or at least it is very likely, just give the inspectors some more time to find them. We thought 12 years was long enough to come clean with the records of how WMDs were destroyed. Though we haven't found them, why would he continue to play games? Some of the news on the oil-for-food scams is starting to paint the picture. jan larsen wrote: No it hasn't, So terrorism is a new phenomenon then?? jan larsen wrote: When you invaded, you removed every possibility of a slow but stabil move to democracy Oh, sorry, I forgot about those elections they were holding where Saddam got 100% of the vote. Elections are a crucial first step. Now if they could only hold Valid elections, with multiple candidates. Maybe, say in January. jan larsen wrote: Now, every group in the country wants a piece of the power Great!! At least that will be an option now. jan larsen wrote: the situation is building up to a regular civil war. No sense speculating on that, time will tell, though my bet is it won't happen. At least not until the new gov't has a chance to run for a bit. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stovesbrianwelsch wrote: The way I remember they were saying we believe he has WMDs or at least it is very likely Then you share the memories of the Bush regime, I guess that makes them happy. I think the word most state leaders used about Saddam having WMD's was 'probably' which is far from even 'likely', and nowhere near 'very likely'. brianwelsch wrote: So terrorism is a new phenomenon then?? I was talking about the situation in Iraq. brianwelsch wrote: Oh, sorry, I forgot about those elections they were holding where Saddam got 100% of the vote. Elections are a crucial first step. Now if they could only hold Valid elections, with multiple candidates. Maybe, say in January. Of course Saddam would never install a Democracy, but revolutions aren't allways violent. We have, in a historical context, recently observed the fall of the largest dictatorship in the modern era, namely the fall of the USSR. In the light of that, how can anyone believe it impossible for the Iraqi people to liberate themselves? brianwelsch wrote: Great!! At least that will be an option now. Yep, without Saddams control, the fanatics are now arming themselves and blows up foreigners, Iraqis, women, children, dogs, well everything. Great! indeed... brianwelsch wrote: No sense speculating on that, time will tell, though my bet is it won't happen. At least not until the new gov't has a chance to run for a bit. Ehrm..., I think time is telling, if various groups of armed people, of the same origin, killing each other isn't civil war, what is it then? Seeing that the death toll increases by the hour, why do you think that the situation suddenly gets better? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
brianwelsch wrote: That's not the primary reason stated for going in. In case you have not heard yet, there was decision made based on poor intelligence Thats the worst excuse they could come up with, not only were the reports so vague and obviously full of errors that even Bush should be able to spot it, the goddamn world was shouting it in the ears of the Bush regime. If they want to use it as an excuse, they are either total idiots, or deaf and blind. brianwelsch wrote: Not true. This mess has been ongoing for a while now. It's just that others have done precisely f*** all about it. No it hasn't, where did you get that idea from?, Saddam was leading the country with an iron fist. The violence was mostly performed by the Saddam regime, and it wasn't even nearly in the proportion of what is going on now. When you invaded, you removed every possibility of a slow but stabil move to democracy. Now, every group in the country wants a piece of the power, and the situation is building up to a regular civil war. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
K(arl) wrote: Houla, wait a minute[^] With due respect Karl, a quote from Al Jazeera? Yuch.... I've read quotes in other places as well that the Russians were sure that Saddam still had weapons as well. In general I try to not rely on onfo from the Fox News Channel or Al Jazeera, they tend to be to biased in my mind. K(arl) wrote: No doubt? Waoh. Just remember the only reason there's no american name on the Duelfer's report is that "the names of American individuals cannot be publicly disclosed under privacy laws". For the moment, it's easy to thrown the blame on one side or another[^]. For the moment, there are plenty of affirmations but a lack of proof. Let's wait for Volcker presided commission[^] findings, perhaps things will become clearer In my mind anyone in the US who traded illegally with Saddam and his regime should be tried for treason. Call me uptight but supporting someone illegally who is a threat to the US should be imprisoned for a very long time. I don't draw a distinction between Europeans and Americans in this..... Allies and citizens shouldn't undermine the process of containment. K(arl) wrote: Some experts still believe the explosion aboard the Maine was accidental[^]. This example could then even be used to claim how an event can be manipulated to help the public opinion to go to war. You're good my friend ;), I knew that when I made the comment. I wondered if someone would catch it or not. It does point to the fact that not only will te US react strongly to an attack against its citizens but also that initial conclusions can be wrong. I don't know that I would agree that data was manipulated in the case of the Maine, it seems that experts still disagree. BTW Hyman Rickover who was mentioned in the article you linked to was the creator of the US Navy's nuclear power program. He was a very driven, and intelligent man, near single handedly starting the development of the Naval Reactors program. K(arl) wrote: t's true european community is much more cautious towards War because it has known it too often on its soil, and in the recent times in its most horrible and destructive ways. Most of the european people have kept in their collective memories the consequences of such events, and that war is not only beautiful pictures on CNN. Nonetheless, I don't believe this tendency to Pacifism can explain why most of european people don't agree with US p
Doug Goulden wrote: We fought anyone who attacked us, each other, and the land itself to create a country from a wilderness. In general we were the brashest, loudest, most independent people from Europe and around the globe. Stole land, exterminated the locals whether they attacked or not and spread disease. Add to the list: greedy, cruel, unprincipled. I think your view of American history must have come from watching Disney films :)
-
K(arl) wrote: Houla, wait a minute[^] With due respect Karl, a quote from Al Jazeera? Yuch.... I've read quotes in other places as well that the Russians were sure that Saddam still had weapons as well. In general I try to not rely on onfo from the Fox News Channel or Al Jazeera, they tend to be to biased in my mind. K(arl) wrote: No doubt? Waoh. Just remember the only reason there's no american name on the Duelfer's report is that "the names of American individuals cannot be publicly disclosed under privacy laws". For the moment, it's easy to thrown the blame on one side or another[^]. For the moment, there are plenty of affirmations but a lack of proof. Let's wait for Volcker presided commission[^] findings, perhaps things will become clearer In my mind anyone in the US who traded illegally with Saddam and his regime should be tried for treason. Call me uptight but supporting someone illegally who is a threat to the US should be imprisoned for a very long time. I don't draw a distinction between Europeans and Americans in this..... Allies and citizens shouldn't undermine the process of containment. K(arl) wrote: Some experts still believe the explosion aboard the Maine was accidental[^]. This example could then even be used to claim how an event can be manipulated to help the public opinion to go to war. You're good my friend ;), I knew that when I made the comment. I wondered if someone would catch it or not. It does point to the fact that not only will te US react strongly to an attack against its citizens but also that initial conclusions can be wrong. I don't know that I would agree that data was manipulated in the case of the Maine, it seems that experts still disagree. BTW Hyman Rickover who was mentioned in the article you linked to was the creator of the US Navy's nuclear power program. He was a very driven, and intelligent man, near single handedly starting the development of the Naval Reactors program. K(arl) wrote: t's true european community is much more cautious towards War because it has known it too often on its soil, and in the recent times in its most horrible and destructive ways. Most of the european people have kept in their collective memories the consequences of such events, and that war is not only beautiful pictures on CNN. Nonetheless, I don't believe this tendency to Pacifism can explain why most of european people don't agree with US p
Doug Goulden wrote: I try to not rely on onfo from the Fox News Channel or Al Jazeera, they tend to be to biased in my mind you're right, I used the first link I fought: maybe this one is less polemical[^] Doug Goulden wrote: In my mind anyone in the US who traded illegally with Saddam and his regime should be tried for treason I hope it would be the same in France, but I doubt about it. Some of the political men potentially involved are too powerful, have too much influence and too many relations :sigh: Doug Goulden wrote: You're good my friend I try :) I am even studying US history just to be able to unmask some of the vicious history distorters who populate this forum ;P Doug Goulden wrote: I have a theory about that Why not? I have no real argument to oppose it. Doug Goulden wrote: The problems we face in Iraq I see as a multi part problem. The Shia majority seems to resent us being there but by and large seem relatively patient as long as thy see progress. Al Sadr is more of a marginal character trying to gain influence while Al Sistani holds control over the majority Agreed, agreed and agreed. Doug Goulden wrote: If the Iraqi government can connect with Al Sadr, and involve him in the political process, it seems there is hope we can get cooperation I disagree there, because I don't think Iraqis will see Allawi as something else than an US puppet. I don't believe Allawi's government will ever have any real power. However, I think Sistani and other Shias clerics will be able to drag Al Sadr on the political field and push him to stop his counter-productive fight. Shias have everything to winfrom a democratic Iraq, why should they put that in bargain with an armed revolt? Doug Goulden wrote: Al Zarquawi and his kind are the true danger in Iraq I rather see the unsolved problem of the relations between Iraqi religious and ethnic groups are the biggest danger for Iraq's future (as you mention). I see Zarquawi as a danger for now, but if the US Army avoids he can flee the country, I bet he will be eliminated quiet soon. As you mentioned earlier, even the Sunnis are fed up with him and the other foreign fighters.
-
Doug Goulden wrote: We fought anyone who attacked us, each other, and the land itself to create a country from a wilderness. In general we were the brashest, loudest, most independent people from Europe and around the globe. Stole land, exterminated the locals whether they attacked or not and spread disease. Add to the list: greedy, cruel, unprincipled. I think your view of American history must have come from watching Disney films :)
And the difference between us and anyone else was what? Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Doug Goulden wrote: I try to not rely on onfo from the Fox News Channel or Al Jazeera, they tend to be to biased in my mind you're right, I used the first link I fought: maybe this one is less polemical[^] Doug Goulden wrote: In my mind anyone in the US who traded illegally with Saddam and his regime should be tried for treason I hope it would be the same in France, but I doubt about it. Some of the political men potentially involved are too powerful, have too much influence and too many relations :sigh: Doug Goulden wrote: You're good my friend I try :) I am even studying US history just to be able to unmask some of the vicious history distorters who populate this forum ;P Doug Goulden wrote: I have a theory about that Why not? I have no real argument to oppose it. Doug Goulden wrote: The problems we face in Iraq I see as a multi part problem. The Shia majority seems to resent us being there but by and large seem relatively patient as long as thy see progress. Al Sadr is more of a marginal character trying to gain influence while Al Sistani holds control over the majority Agreed, agreed and agreed. Doug Goulden wrote: If the Iraqi government can connect with Al Sadr, and involve him in the political process, it seems there is hope we can get cooperation I disagree there, because I don't think Iraqis will see Allawi as something else than an US puppet. I don't believe Allawi's government will ever have any real power. However, I think Sistani and other Shias clerics will be able to drag Al Sadr on the political field and push him to stop his counter-productive fight. Shias have everything to winfrom a democratic Iraq, why should they put that in bargain with an armed revolt? Doug Goulden wrote: Al Zarquawi and his kind are the true danger in Iraq I rather see the unsolved problem of the relations between Iraqi religious and ethnic groups are the biggest danger for Iraq's future (as you mention). I see Zarquawi as a danger for now, but if the US Army avoids he can flee the country, I bet he will be eliminated quiet soon. As you mentioned earlier, even the Sunnis are fed up with him and the other foreign fighters.
K(arl) wrote: I don't believe Allawi's government will ever have any real power The only power that Allawi's government has is the authority that has been given to him by the US. The real power that he has is to "bridge the gap" until elections can be held. With luck and a lot of hard luck the Shia majority and the other factions will use the nationalism they have been displaying and the US can start to lessen its presence after the elections. The recruitment of Iraqi's to staff their police and National Guard is very important to that. I hope that it can work, if a few years from now we can look back and see that there has been a large measure of success in the Iraqi's governing themselves, it will be interesting to see the effects on the neighboring nations like Iran and Syria. The most important thing in this working though is going to be the perception by the Iraqi people and all of the factions of fairness. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
jan larsen wrote: The violence was mostly performed by the Saddam regime, and it wasn't even nearly in the proportion of what is going on now. :wtf: You're crazy!! "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: You're crazy!! So, you think that all the groups now fighting each other were there before you invaded?, why? And the regular kidnappings?, remember, it is not only foreigners that are the victims, it is also Iraqis that are kidnapped for ransoms. Torture and murder is also still very popular in the Baghdad area I hear. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
And the difference between us and anyone else was what? Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Err...none. That was my point! You were painting a rather misty eyed picture of the people who settled/invaded the Americas. I was pointing out that there was nothing romantic about it. The people were the same mix of good, bad and ugly you find anywhere. I think the only characteristic you can assign to all of them is that they were adventurous.