Foreign Policy

So the United States government justifies murder in the case where it supports our constitutional doctrine. If something is worth fighting for, then it is also worth killing for.

Now the United States obviously condemns terrorist action. But in reality, on some fundamental level, we operate much the same way terrorist organizations do. That is to say, if we do not agree with the way something is, we will not hesitate to use deadly force. Killing thousands of innocents in the process? Acceptable, as long as they are not our own. How is this different from the actions of terrorist organizations? They believe in something so strongly that they are willing to take innocent lives in the process of fighting for those beliefs.

The most alarming aspect is that 50% of the US population (Assuming the voting pop. is representative of the entire pop.) condones this foreign policy.

Sept 11, 2001 = About 3500 dead due to terrorist actions
Iraqi deaths since March 2003 = over 100,000 according to a study by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health

Who are the real terrorists?

You're trying to make moral equivelencies and are missing badly.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Wow, you got me there...good solid response. I really would like to hear what conservatives have to say about this. I don't understand what makes our taking of innocent life any less abhorrent than the taking of innocent lives by terrorists. We hide behind a blanket of "democracy" and suddenly it becomes ok. I don't buy it.

Edit: P.S. I haven't missed one bit on my moral equivalencies. Terrorists are working towards a goal and taking civilian life becomes necessary in achieveing that goal. We are no different. It's wrong no matter how you look at it.

Thrasher how many of those 100,000 deaths have been done by Americans? If you read in the paper you see "car bomb kills 12 Iraqis", "suicide attack kills 20 Iraqis", and so on. Unless the U.S. is behind these personal attacks and not the terrorist, I don't see your point.

We are trying to get the terrorist and it's obvious they'll kill their own people to get to us.

Oh, the 100,000 was referring only to deaths caused by US troops, according to the study anyways. That's what causes such concern

How many of the alledged 100,000 the US is supposed to be responsible for were killed by torture? How many were killed by poison gas? How many were killed execution style? How many were raped before being killed? How many were killed and dumped into mass graves to conceal the fact?

I'm sorry, until I see prove I'm calling BS on the U.S. troops killing over 100,000 Iraqis..

I'm guessing you would rather have the taliban running afganistan, and Sadaam running Iraq?

Wow, you got me there...good solid response. I really would like to hear what conservatives have to say about this. I don't understand what makes our taking of innocent life any less abhorrent than the taking of innocent lives by terrorists. We hide behind a blanket of "democracy" and suddenly it becomes ok. I don't buy it.

Edit: P.S. I haven't missed one bit on my moral equivalencies. Terrorists are working towards a goal and taking civilian life becomes necessary in achieveing that goal. We are no different. It's wrong no matter how you look at it.

You'll get a good response when you've put together a rational point. You've equated the attacks of 911 with the war in Iraq. They are not equivelent.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/terrorism
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Just what in that definition did the troops in Iraq perform? Wait, don't tell me. I bet you're so open with that definition that you'd consider a parent a terrorist because they coerced their kids into doing their homework. Or, is it only death that has you in a bind.

Its horrendous that anyone died. The fact someone was killed does not mean that it was a terrorist act. Death is an end. Terrorism is a means.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

And who defines terrorism? America? England? People in power obviously. Ask them if they think theyir actions are terrorist and they will say no, obviously just as America denies that they can do any wrong in the world.

America's view on the rest of the world is so crooked, as long as their people aren't involved they couldn't care less.

I'll give you the fact that our actions are not terroristic by definition, that was meant merely to provoke thought. However, we went abroad with the full knowledge that our actions would result in loss of civilian life. We KNEW that innocents would die, yet we proceeded anyways. And we continue to kill thousands more.

Terrorists intent to kill in order to make a statement, to fight for what they believe in. We intend to promote democracy with the full knowledge that thousands will die, to fight for what we believe in. So on the pathetic, immoral, way to suck at being alive-o-meter, terorists rate a 1, and we rate a 2. Yay for us.

Thrasher how many of those 100,000 deaths have been done by Americans? If you read in the paper you see "car bomb kills 12 Iraqis", "suicide attack kills 20 Iraqis", and so on. Unless the U.S. is behind these personal attacks and not the terrorist, I don't see your point.

We are trying to get the terrorist and it's obvious they'll kill their own people to get to us.
The ultimate irony is that terrorism is now more rampant in Iraq, because Saddam was deposed - with the excuse that we were combatting terrorism. Not that I would wish Saddam on his people - it's just obvious that our intentions were not so clear (i.e.: every public reason given was a lie or a mistake), hence no proper plan was instituted. There's still no plan.

Defined as terrorism or not, we sure haven't made life any easier on the people we were "liberating".

Personally, I only care about our country, but all this damned political gaming has cost us hundreds of BILLIONS. Not acceptable, in my book.

Every conflict the US or any country has ever been involved in produces civilian casualties. It's an unfortunate part of conflict and a given when combat happens. When Napoleon was marching on Moscow there were civilian casulaties too. So?

The only good thing about all this that every self pronounced terrorist or wanna be terorist has made tracks for Iraq. If they'd stayed home we'd have never been able to take them all on. They're doing us a favor by making it a terror summit or Celebrity Death Match. When one yahoo gets crushed the next fruitcake martyr wanna be steps up for a thrashing. They're all in one place now!

The big show is now going on! Meet the 72 virgins- no waiting!!!

Every conflict the US or any country has ever been involved in produces civilian casualties. It's an unfortunate part of conflict and a given when combat happens. When Napoleon was marching on Moscow there were civilian casulaties too. So?
Were the majority of the US conflicts really necessary? When war is waged, no matter who gets killed in the crossfire in between the two parties is scratched off as collateral damage...well that's how it's suppose to be except the Americans like to call the other peoples tactics terrorism while they follow the good book.

The only good thing about all this that every self pronounced terrorist or wanna be terorist has made tracks for Iraq. If they'd stayed home we'd have never been able to take them all on. They're doing us a favor by making it a terror summit or Celebrity Death Match. When one yahoo gets crushed the next fruitcake martyr wanna be steps up for a thrashing. They're all in one place now!

The big show is now going on! Meet the 72 virgins- no waiting!!!
Let me know when the "good guys" start winning and then maybe they will go home. Since the war was oficially "won", there have been more and more killings of the troops, what's going on?
America can keep sending their children to their deaths, all in the name of what?

The only good thing about all this that every self pronounced terrorist or wanna be terorist has made tracks for Iraq. If they'd stayed home we'd have never been able to take them all on. They're doing us a favor by making it a terror summit or Celebrity Death Match. When one yahoo gets crushed the next fruitcake martyr wanna be steps up for a thrashing. They're all in one place now!

The big show is now going on! Meet the 72 virgins- no waiting!!!
It must be nice having such a simple view of this issue. Seriously though, I mean no personal attack, it just annoys me that people don't relaize that our actions in Iraq have bred terrorists in the middle east for the next 30 years. Note to the uninformed out there: the anti-American Sentiment in the Mid East is characterized by a rejection of our POLICIES in that region (Israel support, Troops in Suadi Arabia, etc.). Perpetuating these shitty policies solves nothing.

Also, most of the people in Iraq are not terrorists, they are insurgents that grew up in Iraq and are fighting against an outside occupying force that they don't agree with. Terrorists are still afoot in other nations, Mid Eastern and Western, so if you sleep better at night because you think they're all in Iraq that's fine, you're just wrong.

there countries never had a stable society in the first place so those people don't really know any better. All they learn is what to believe and what not the stand for. it may have something to do with their religon. Anybody could be a leader in those countries. Which is why there is still alot of corupt unruly things that go down.

We are trying to get the terrorist and it's obvious they'll kill their own people to get to us.

Keep going with the siege mentality,muscletang, it's the only viable argument that you have left.

NAot everything that happens in Iraq is directly related to the US.

Sure it was the US that foolishly decided that US style democracy would work in modern Iraq.However, there are segments of the Iraqi community that will never accept it,and will continue to use force to get their own way.YAou could call it terrorism if you like and Iwon't disagree with you.After all, it's exactly what the servants of the world's biggest terrorist organisation is doing in Iraq right now.

"Were the majority of the US conflicts really necessary?"

Are we going to eroneously project 2005 values and knowlewdge into the past again? "They shoulda known this and they shoulda done that."

"When war is waged, no matter who gets killed in the crossfire in between the two parties is scratched off as collateral damage..."

Unfortunately yes. Read your world history.

"well that's how it's suppose to be except the Americans like to call the other peoples tactics terrorism while they follow the good book."

Come on, even you know what terrorism is. When has The US , GB, France or Belgium sent suicide bombers into a civilian area?

Porsche guy if the US was not in Iraq the bad guys would be fighting other Iraqis and there'd soon be a civil war.

"NAot everything that happens in Iraq is directly related to the US." Not everything the US does is directly related to New Zealand either!

Are we going to eroneously project 2005 values and knowlewdge into the past again? "They shoulda known this and they shoulda done that."
Take the past 10 years. It's the same mentality and ideology the Americans have today. And then try answering my question again.

Unfortunately yes. Read your world history.
I know this part is true. This is why I said it, you forgot to include the second part of my statement saying that America has a hard time scratching off their own as collateral damage instead use the word terrorism to make them look mean and evil.

Come on, even you know what terrorism is. When has The US , GB, France or Belgium sent suicide bombers into a civilian area?
Like I've always said, the people in power right now call it terrorism, the "terrorists" call themselves martyrs. I won't leave it up to someone else to tell me what's what. Are you telling me that there has never been an instance where America has used "terrorism"? Give me your own definition of terrorism and watch me give some fine examples. America has to be the biggest hypocrite the world has ever seen.

Porsche guy if the US was not in Iraq the bad guys would be fighting other Iraqis and there'd soon be a civil war.
How do you know for sure that if the US didn't invade Iraq and destroy it that things would have been worse?

[QUOTE=Twitch1]

Come on, even you know what terrorism is. When has The US , GB, France or Belgium sent suicide bombers into a civilian area?
[QUOTE]

It's about time you faced facts Twitch1.

Terrorists without money send suicide bombers on their missions.

Rich terrorists use tanks, missiles and cluster bombs.

AAs for Britain,France and Belgium, I haven't heard reports of them bombing civilian areas.The only rich nations that routinely do that are Israel and the US.

10 years ago Clinton was firing off occassional cruise missles into Afghanistan. No you can't project today's values and knowledge to that time that short ago. Knowing what we know now about al Qaida I'd imagine a different approach would have been applied.

"Terrorists without money send suicide bombers on their missions." HAHAHAHAHA!

I guess that puts canada and new zealand in the terrorist category since they are poor 3rd world nations.

"Terrorist" is a matter of perspective but the definition is dictated by the majority of the world.

Stop what you're doing right now and ask the nearest person to you "What is a terrorist?" and nothing else. Are they going to say Great Britian or the USA? Hell no!

10 years ago Clinton was firing off occassional cruise missles into Afghanistan. No you can't project today's values and knowledge to that time that short ago. Knowing what we know now about al Qaida I'd imagine a different approach would have been applied.

"Terrorists without money send suicide bombers on their missions." HAHAHAHAHA!

I guess that puts canada and new zealand in the terrorist category since they are poor 3rd world nations.

"Terrorist" is a matter of perspective but the definition is dictated by the majority of the world.

Stop what you're doing right now and ask the nearest person to you "What is a terrorist?" and nothing else. Are they going to say Great Britian or the USA? Hell no!

Insulting my country will do you no good unless you can actuaully come up with something that could just conceivably hold water.Lowest unemployment in years, strongest position against the US dollar in years, lowest interest rates in years, best pay I've been getting in years......Makes your suggestion of 3rd world standards in my country rather laughable.Do your homework next time.

As for your other question,I post from home.Just out of interest, I asked my neighbor,'who is the most dangerous terrorist alive today?'

His answer......."George Bush,of course"

It's only America that likes him , and only half of America at that.He's a disgrace to the office of President,and he's weakening and cheapening your country.

10 years ago Clinton was firing off occassional cruise missles into Afghanistan. No you can't project today's values and knowledge to that time that short ago. Knowing what we know now about al Qaida I'd imagine a different approach would have been applied.
So you mean to tell me that the whole American ideology has drastically chnaged withen the last decade?

I guess that puts canada and new zealand in the terrorist category since they are poor 3rd world nations.
LOL, if you think that Canada or New Zealand are third world countries then America's education is worse then I thought.

Stop what you're doing right now and ask the nearest person to you "What is a terrorist?" and nothing else. Are they going to say Great Britian or the USA? Hell no!
1. The media does a good job of telling the dumb public on what is a terrorist and what are terrorist activities. They use that word like theres no tomorrow. By definition, there are a lot more things that are "terrorism" that aren't reported because it doesn't involve the middle-east nor the Islamic religion. I asked both my neighbours and fellow classmates who they thought was a bigger threat to America. Geroge came out on top with 7 out of 10 votes.

Gee just because some busybody jamoke in a backwater cesspool calls the US president a terrorist- it must be so! The fantasy is totally over about the pretend utopia of how your country is so superior to the US. Anyone can check out the escallating violent crime rate stats in NZ. It's easy to find more sites than I can count. Do YOUR homework homeboy and quit perpetuating the myth of your perceived societal superiority for it smacks of bigitry and elitism. For someone that allegedly wants stats to back everything up why is it OK for you to drop to the level of carping about everyday Americans and their society? It's more than US foreign policy. You bitch about America TV shows being imported into your quaint land in one thread in some rambling discourse about how our society is poisoning your. Total paranoia! Maybe you're smoking the stuff that the folks down your way are smoking more and more- says your news sources.


Your fixation on George Bush is unhealthy. There is nothing that is affecting you on a daily basis outside of your mind that is detracting from your income, nutrition, freedom to move about or general well being that Bush as anything to do with personally.

Is he out to get you taranooki? If you just can't bear the thought of US involvement in Iraq perhaps it's time to seek information about assisted euthanasia for yourself since it's oblious the idea is consuming your very soul.

Raz- you state "Were the majority of the US conflicts really necessary?" That's where I said projecting what we know in 2005 to the past is bankrupt philosophy. You ask for facts, OK me too. What conflicts exactly could have been avoided knowing what we knew at the time, not what we know in hindsight from 2005? French-Indian War? War of 1812? Revolutionary War? What?

The US is engaging in Gunboat Diplomacy, just as it did in the early 1900's. Using force to make things go the way they want it to. I agreed 100% with going after Osama and the Taliban, to forestall any continuing terrorist efforts. Moving into Iraq should have been done years earlier when Saddam ignored the cease fire treaties and thumbed his nose at the world.

The US isn't fitting into the definition of terrorism, for the motivation isn't to reach goals through the use of terror. Perhaps a more pertinent definition is oppression.

(www.m-w.com):


Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Function: noun
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

Simply, the US needs to get out of Iraq now that Saddam has been removed (justly) from power. Any lingering in Iraq will further the oppression being visited upon the Iraqi people.

I agree wholeheartedly with the estimation that the actions of the US in Iraq is fostering a new generation of terrorists for the next few decades. Every son who has had family killed will be a perfect target for recruitment. I think the US "experts" about Iraq are missing one very pertinent idea: they do not really understand the Arab mindset, and are proceeding along the lines that western theories and actions are generally accepted. They're not. And until they DO learn that, the US is set up for failure. Not military failure, but the failure to achieve permanent change.

Okay Twitch: Sorry it took me a while to get around to this, but here is why our country is not safer because of Iraq.

Several months ago I had the privelege of interviewing Dr. Herrmann, Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University, he is director of the Mershon Center, has studied the Middle East since the 1970's, and consulted with the NSC (I believe) during Bush 41's term. Point being, he knows his shit.

What he said is this:
1) Throughout the 70's and 80's we supported for better or worse autocratic regimes in the Middle East, partly to keep a lid on anti-Americanism and partly (in the case of Iraq) to contain the Shi'a revolution in Iran. The reason why these regimes, and this is very important, aren't really anti-American is because it is not in their best interest. Rulers of Middle Eastern countries know that if they appear to aggressive to the west they will face punitive measures, especially economic and diplomatic sanctions. Worst case for them they get invaded. The reason why you saw Qadafi, Hussein and other leaders shake their first at the US in the last several decades is to keep themselves from being overthrown. Essentially, institutionalized anti-Americanism was only a bone that leaders threw to their populations, little if any harm was really meant towards the west. By suddenly instituting democracy in the Middle East the source of the true anti-Americanism now has a direct outlet to the government and policy making.

2) Terrorists don't care about our culture if we keep it in our country, changes in Islam are not really because of Western influences. What's more is that with a majority of people in the ME being under 30, they welcome the technology and the spread of economic globlization. What terrorists don't like are the POLICIES of the US. If you are not familiar what these may be, consider our longstanding backing of Israel, our troops in Saudi Arabia (the most religious of states int he region) where women don't wear traditional dress and drive cars, and the punitive policy we have had to promoting democracy in the region. Simply put, we have thrown, shaken, and manipulated this region of the world too much for their liking. Invading Iraq under the pretense of WMD's when we couldn't eventually find them DOES NOT HELP THIS VIEW OF THE UNITED STATES. I can't say this enough, it only perpetuates the anti-americanism that we are now giving a direct outlet to government.

I know it's easy to say we're fighting the war over there and so we are safer now, but sorry bud, it's not so simple in the world of politics.

Okay Twitch: Sorry it took me a while to get around to this, but here is why our country is not safer because of Iraq.

Several months ago I had the privelege of interviewing Dr. Herrmann, Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University, he is director of the Mershon Center, has studied the Middle East since the 1970's, and consulted with the NSC (I believe) during Bush 41's term. Point being, he knows his shit.
<snip>
I know it's easy to say we're fighting the war over there and so we are safer now, but sorry bud, it's not so simple in the world of politics.

The war on terrorism is not designed to eliminate terrorists or those who support terrorists.

There are those who dislike the American way of life (copied by many nations, applied with their own twist, labeled as being nationalistic and totally different, then bad mouths the US... pathetic). The US has no plans to eliminate these nations (YET).

There are those who choose to do battle with America, those who chose to harm America, its citizens, its interests and its way of life. These are the ones the US will take the fight to, to kill as many as can be killed.

Yes, they will just be replaced by others, then the US will do the same, again. Pursue them in their own lands. Threaten any nation/state that harbors, supplies or funds them. There's no "nicey nice talking" to them as some foolish politicians and naive individuals think may work. This is a war -- politicians are not needed until the enemies say they want to talk.

Sept 11, 2001 = About 3500 dead due to terrorist actions
Iraqi deaths since March 2003 = over 100,000 according to a study by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health

Who are the real terrorists?

From the following website:
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/#count

Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that over 10,000 civilians died in the conflict.

The min/max numbers for the IBC, as of 1 minute ago was: 21,239 / 24,106.

From the following website:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/casualties.html

(April 21, 2005)
Civilian Iraq deaths: 16,214 to 18,491

From the following website:
http://zfacts.com/p/Iraq-war-casualties.html

(31 October, 2004)
Johns Hopkins study of Iraqi deaths, published in the Lancet
"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.

Choosing your own "facts" to support, eh, thrasher? :grinyes:

There are those who choose to do battle with America, those who chose to harm America, its citizens, its interests and its way of life. These are the ones the US will take the fight to, to kill as many as can be killed.

Yes, they will just be replaced by others, then the US will do the same, again. Pursue them in their own lands. Threaten any nation/state that harbors, supplies or funds them. There's no "nicey nice talking" to them as some foolish politicians and naive individuals think may work. This is a war -- politicians are not needed until the enemies say they want to talk.
Kill to what end Franko? Yes we can kill and kill, overthrow governments around the globe but to what point? What's your end game here? I'm sorry but any politician should know that any action has to have a resolution, yours has explicitly shown that it has none.

Look, immediate action as was taken in Afghanistan is criticized by a select few, and I am not one of them. However, hasty wars like that in Iraq get us into binding situations (10-15 years if we really want to do it right) that anger people in that region of the world. The fact is, the terrorists (behind all the rhetoric they tout) are not fighting a holy war, if they were Al Qaeda would not have taken U.S. stinger missiles in the 80's, if Saddam Hussein wanted us dead, why did he and his Baath Party love us in the same aforementioned decade? If you really look at the history of our politics in the middle east it should become evident that islamic fundamentalists are not fighting our culture. As I have said already (well actually cited a respected authority in the field) this terrorism is a reaction to specific U.S. policies. Fighting a continuous war is only going to perpetuate this problem.

*Note- I'm not saying we can sit down and talk "nicey nice" to terrorists, that is foolish. What we can do is change our policy agenda in that region of the world so as to overtime take away their basis for anti-Americanism (while again, taking immediate defensive, not "pre-emptive" action).

Side note- Anyone else here realize that the US is not alone in the war on terror that in fact the US is one of the last nations to really join this struggle? So why has the US been weakening alliances when those are the very institutions that make a "war" like the war on terrorism an easier fight?

There are those who choose to do battle with America, those who chose to harm America, its citizens, its interests and its way of life. These are the ones the US will take the fight to, to kill as many as can be killed.

Yes, they will just be replaced by others, then the US will do the same, again. Pursue them in their own lands. Threaten any nation/state that harbors, supplies or funds them. There's no "nicey nice talking" to them as some foolish politicians and naive individuals think may work. This is a war -- politicians are not needed until the enemies say they want to talk.
Kill to what end Franko? Yes we can kill and kill, overthrow governments around the globe but to what point? What's your end game here? I'm sorry but any politician should know that any action has to have a resolution, yours has explicitly shown that it has none.

Look, immediate action as was taken in Afghanistan is criticized by a select few, and I am not one of them. However, hasty wars like that in Iraq get us into binding situations (10-15 years if we really want to do it right) that anger people in that region of the world. The fact is, the terrorists (behind all the rhetoric they tout) are not fighting a holy war, if they were Al Qaeda would not have taken U.S. stinger missiles in the 80's, if Saddam Hussein wanted us dead, why did he and his Baath Party love us in the same aforementioned decade? If you really look at the history of our politics in the middle east it should become evident that islamic fundamentalists are not fighting our culture. As I have said already (well actually cited a respected authority in the field) this terrorism is a reaction to specific U.S. policies. Fighting a continuous war is only going to perpetuate this problem.

*Note- I'm not saying we can sit down and talk "nicey nice" to terrorists, that is foolish. What we can do is change our policy agenda in that region of the world so as to overtime take away their basis for anti-Americanism (while again, taking immediate defensive, not "pre-emptive" action).

Side note- Anyone else here realize that the US is not alone in the war on terror that in fact the US is one of the last nations to really join this struggle? So why has the US been weakening alliances when those are the very institutions that make a "war" like the war on terrorism an easier fight?

^Excellent post.

Kill to what end Franko? Yes we can kill and kill, overthrow governments around the globe but to what point? What's your end game here? I'm sorry but any politician should know that any action has to have a resolution, yours has explicitly shown that it has none.

How long should the US wait for Saddam/Iraq to prove he had no WMDs? Until tens of thousands of Americans pay with their lives for the indecision? The time for talking ran out for Saddam. It was time for politicians to step aside and let the military arm to flex its muscles. It's almost time for the politicians to step in again with new government. It's a cycle or haven't you noticed?


<snip>
The fact is, the terrorists (behind all the rhetoric they tout) are not fighting a holy war, if they were Al Qaeda would not have taken U.S. stinger missiles in the 80's, if Saddam Hussein wanted us dead, why did he and his Baath Party love us in the same aforementioned decade. If you really look at the history of our politics in the middle east it should become evident that islamic fundamentalists are not fighting our culture. As I have said already (well actually cited a respected authority in the field) this terrorism is a reaction to specific U.S. policies. Fighting a continuous war is only going to perpetuate this problem.

If you look at the history (ancient and modern) of the Middle East, its people, its tribes and the ever-changing alliances/animosities, it would become even more evident that this is literally business-as-usual for the region.

The US is playing along with this phenomenon and has brought along its alliance cards to suit the needs for the "moment" (alliance with the mujahadeen against the Soviets, with Iraq against Iran, etc.).

Terrorism in the region has evolved from the very successful training efforts of the Soviet's KGB which, ironically, came back to kick their ass out of Afghanistan. It has evolved into a cancer that attacks American, allied, Russian, Iraqi, Muslim and other interests/people, led by extremists who couldn't care less about the Koran and its teachings... an aberration of "ever-changing alliances/animosities." There are no policies that will placate these extremists, whether the policies are American or not. Hence, they have to be rooted out in order to stabilize the region. The problem may perpetuate but once the cancer is eventually cut out, we'll just have to deal with whatever else crops up in the region.

The US isn't there to "fix" this phenomeon - the US is there to stabilize the region (and I believe this is what most of the nay-saying Democrats and Republicans get hung up on).

Again, politicians are needed when it's time to talk - don't forget that strategies are formed (guess by whom?) for politicians to execute and if unsuccessful, the military steps in to "lend a hand" if required.

The circumstnces surrounding the war have shown that the Bush administration's agenda was not to remove Saddam from power. I find it funny that the White House pointed to the fact that Saddam was in violation of 17 UN declarations, and used this as evidence that Saddam needed to be removed from power. Then Bush said Saddam could stay if UN and US weapons inspections demands were met. Then he said that the inspections were going nowhere, after a very short period of time. Then he said that Saddam needed to be removed from power, again, based on bullshit evidence that the Iraqi's had the capability to launch an attack on the US using WMD's. And, when the UN was no longer serving its purpose, the US initiated an aggressive attack on Iraq in violation of the Nuremberg Princpile, which the US was instrumental in writing back in the 40's.

Funny, also, that the CIA has said repeatedly that no evidence of a connection between Iraqi gov. and al Qaeda ever existed. Funny that the Czech gov. said that a meeting between Mohammed Atta and senior Iraqi gov. officials never took place, as Rumsfeld said there was "bulletproof evidence" of, in his words. Not to mention that Iraq had NO capability to launch ICBM's, had they even had the ability to build such weapons. And considering that no solid evidence exists to show they even had the capability to produce such weapons, the probability of Iraqi was next to nothing.

Funny that northern Iraqi terrorist groups were claimed to be in bed with the Saddam regime. Yet those terrorist groups had political aspirations that made them an enemy of Saddam's regime, and they inhabited an area not under Saddam's control, rather an area policed by British and US planes.

It's also kind of weird that Halliburton, a company which Dick Cheney is a former CEO of, was awarded a NO BID contract by the US military that gave them exclusive rights to mine the oilfields and rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. And then they charged astronomical prices to ship gas into Iraq for their needs, which they could do since Halliburton had exclusive cotracting rights. Oh yeah, then there was the thing where Cheney denied having anything to do with it. BUT, Halliburton's stocks had plummeted in the last few years due to lawsuits. Did I mention that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world? Who gives a shit if they don't export very much oil, that's because they didn't have the capability to. But you can bet that Halliburton stands to gain a whole lot of capital once the Iraqi oil infrastructure has been built up. Mega profits for Halliburton, and cheap oil for the US. BTW, forgot to mention that an e-mail from a US Army Corps of Engineers official said that the Halliburton contract had been arranged with the Vice Prez's office. Well done, Cheney, well done.


I could care less if the US goes after known terrorists organizations and governments that harbor terrorists. But when bullshit excuses and outrageously falsified information is used to justify a war that ends up killing more innocents than militants, something is wrong. The hypocrisy of using the UN only when it serves the purposes of the US, and then turning its back on the UN and committing countless acts of human rights violations, is abhorrent. The funny thing is, Bush duped more than half of all consenting voters in the US, as well as our pathetic excuse for congress, that the war justified and necessary. Pathetic, just pathetic.

<snip> The funny thing is, Bush duped more than half of all consenting voters in the US, as well as our pathetic excuse for congress, that the war justified and necessary. Pathetic, just pathetic.

Yes, that is funny. That's what it really boils down to, huh? Still pissed off that Bush won the election, that more Americans disagree with you on whether the war was justified or not, that more Americans support Bush on his foreign policies. Yes, that is indeed, funny. :grinyes: :grinyes: :grinyes:

The circumstnces surrounding the war have shown that the Bush administration's agenda was not to remove Saddam from power.

It was absolutely about removing Saddam for power.


I find it funny that the White House pointed to the fact that Saddam was in violation of 17 UN declarations, and used this as evidence that Saddam needed to be removed from power. Then Bush said Saddam could stay if UN and US weapons inspections demands were met. Then he said that the inspections were going nowhere, after a very short period of time. Then he said that Saddam needed to be removed from power, again, based on bullshit evidence that the Iraqi's had the capability to launch an attack on the US using WMD's. And, when the UN was no longer serving its purpose, the US initiated an aggressive attack on Iraq in violation of the Nuremberg Princpile, which the US was instrumental in writing back in the 40's.

I agree here. The UN should have been ignored to start with. There was no need to point out that the UN passed 17 resolutions that it didn't enforce.


Funny, also, that the CIA has said repeatedly that no evidence of a connection between Iraqi gov. and al Qaeda ever existed. Funny that the Czech gov. said that a meeting between Mohammed Atta and senior Iraqi gov. officials never took place, as Rumsfeld said there was "bulletproof evidence" of, in his words. Not to mention that Iraq had NO capability to launch ICBM's, had they even had the ability to build such weapons. And considering that no solid evidence exists to show they even had the capability to produce such weapons, the probability of Iraqi was next to nothing.

That was one connection I never believed was there. al Queada was not getting funded by Iraq and was a seperate and distinct issue. Iraq never had ICBMs but they did have SCUDS which easily reach Isreal who they've bombed before.

Funny that northern Iraqi terrorist groups were claimed to be in bed with the Saddam regime. Yet those terrorist groups had political aspirations that made them an enemy of Saddam's regime, and they inhabited an area not under Saddam's control, rather an area policed by British and US planes.

Kurds are terrorists? Thats a new one around here.

It's also kind of weird that Halliburton, a company which Dick Cheney is a former CEO of, was awarded a NO BID contract by the US military that gave them exclusive rights to mine the oilfields and rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure.

Whats so weird about that? There are only four companies in the world that could do the job. Halliburton is the only US company that could do it, why shouldn't they get the job? And for the kicker - it was Clinton administration that gave that the nobid contract got underway. The claim you're making is a red herring http://bmonday.com/archive/2004/02/10/517.aspx


And then they charged astronomical prices to ship gas into Iraq for their needs, which they could do since Halliburton had exclusive cotracting rights.

Can you provide any proof of that? Having an exclusive contract does not mean that they are riding roughshod with their billing. The few times their billing was in question, the oversight committee found it and fixed it. Exactly what is supposed to happen.

Oh yeah, then there was the thing where Cheney denied having anything to do with it. BUT, Halliburton's stocks had plummeted in the last few years due to lawsuits. Did I mention that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world? Who gives a shit if they don't export very much oil, that's because they didn't have the capability to. But you can bet that Halliburton stands to gain a whole lot of capital once the Iraqi oil infrastructure has been built up. Mega profits for Halliburton, and cheap oil for the US.

So your best arguement is sour grapes? You're bent out of shape because a company is going to make a profit? Or are you bent out of shape because Dick was once involved with the company?


BTW, forgot to mention that an e-mail from a US Army Corps of Engineers official said that the Halliburton contract had been arranged with the Vice Prez's office. Well done, Cheney, well done.

Right back to the original contract being awarded by Clinton.


I could care less if the US goes after known terrorists organizations and governments that harbor terrorists. But when bullshit excuses and outrageously falsified information is used to justify a war that ends up killing more innocents than militants, something is wrong. The hypocrisy of using the UN only when it serves the purposes of the US, and then turning its back on the UN and committing countless acts of human rights violations, is abhorrent. The funny thing is, Bush duped more than half of all consenting voters in the US, as well as our pathetic excuse for congress, that the war justified and necessary. Pathetic, just pathetic.

Again, you're right. The UN was a waste of breath. Should have been ignored and disolved long ago. Nothing was falsified nor was it outrageously so. Its to bad that nearly half the voters here have been led by the nose into believing half assed allagations and intentionally misleading rhetoric.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

It was absolutely about removing Saddam for power.




Yogs I know you meant "from" power, but the slip of typing "for" power is just as true, in a sense.

Yogs I know you meant "from" power, but the slip of typing "for" power is just as true, in a sense.

I did intend to type 'from'. I would disagree that the alternate would be true as no additional power was to be gained because of the war. Thats not to say he wouldn't have, but I don't see it in this case.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I was thinking that some power over the flow of oil would be obtained; I imagine that the longer that the US stays in Iraq, the more oil will flow our direction - at a Halliburton/US directed price.

was one connection I never believed was there. al Queada was not getting funded by Iraq and was a seperate and distinct issue. Iraq never had ICBMs but they did have SCUDS which easily reach Isreal who they've bombed before.

Agreed, but the administration pointed to the fact the Iraq was a threat to the US, not to Israel.



Kurds are terrorists? Thats a new one around here.

Lol, not the Kurds, the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group, who sought a seperate Islamic state from Iraq. Once again, used by Bush administration to point to the fact the Iraq harbors terrorists.


Whats so weird about that? There are only four companies in the world that could do the job. Halliburton is the only US company that could do it, why shouldn't they get the job? And for the kicker - it was Clinton administration that gave that the nobid contract got underway. The claim you're making is a red herring [[/url="http://bmonday.com/archive/2004/02/10/517.aspx";]http://bmonday.com/archive/2004/02/10/517.aspx[/url]
Can you provide any proof of that? Having an exclusive contract does not mean that they are riding roughshod with their billing. The few times their billing was in question, the oversight committee found it and fixed it. Exactly what is supposed to happen.


The article is called, "The Truth about Halliburton", published in Forbes. You need university library access to look at it online, but here's an excerpt from it:

The Iraq deployment was Halliburton's toughest LOGCAP job yet, involving seven times as many troops as in the Balkans, far closer to active combat. And unlike in Bosnia, where it did virtually all the work itself, KBR handed off most of its business in Iraq to subcontractors--or "subs," as they're called.

But it was utterly unprepared to manage them. According to key former KBR executives who worked in Iraq, the company never assembled the teams needed to negotiate and supervise subcontracts, purchase supplies and equipment, and document what it was doing. "The first people I needed were subcontract administrators, and what I got were carpenters and plumbers," says one former KBR project manager. "The system to execute the work was woefully undermanned."

"The top LOGCAP managers were crying for people," says another former KBR executive in Iraq. "Two or three times a day we would call, asking for procurement people, IT help, finance people to keep the books. Houston couldn't get them to us. The company did not throw enough resources at the problem soon enough. There comes a point where you lose control. People started talking shortcuts--'We'll do it verbally, and we'll document tomorrow.' Well, tomorrow you have more work. Eventually it just collapses of its own weight." Dozens of KBR subcontractors have gone unpaid for months; at least two have filed suit.

Because of the staffing shortages, sound business procedures simply weren't followed. For example, according to a company SEC filing, the Pentagon is withholding payment on $224 million in dining-hall charges. Auditors found that, among other problems, Halliburton was charging for meals that were never served to troops. A former KBR executive told FORTUNE of a case in which a sub billed for feeding 4,700 soldiers every day for months, when no more than 2,500 ever showed up to eat. In fact, the sub had been hired to provide for 4,700 soldiers, but no one at KBR had told the sub to cut back.

So far, the reports issued by Pentagon auditors, the GAO, and other agencies have found more than $1.8 billion in "unjustified" or "undocumented" charges--as well as sweeping systemic problems in Halliburton's record keeping, systems, supervision, and staffing. The reports complain that the company has refused to provide required information--or has misled auditors about its efforts to seek competitive prices. Pentagon auditors have recommended that the federal government withhold payment on 15% of Halliburton's LOGCAP billings in Iraq.

Several problems that have surfaced are of the jaw-dropping variety--subs charging $100 to wash a 15-pound bag of laundry, and so forth. Especially telling was an October 2004 Pentagon audit of the RIO contract. Out of $875 million in charges it examined, $108 million was deemed "questionable" or "unreasonable." This included Halliburton's claim to have spent $27.5 million to ship to Iraq liquefied gas it had purchased in Kuwait for just $82,100--a fee the audit calls "illogical." (A Halliburton spokeswoman responded that the company delivered "vital services for the Iraqi people at a fair and reasonable cost, given the circumstances.")

In March, a federal grand jury in Illinois filed the first criminal charges involving Halliburton's work in Iraq. Jeff Alex Mazon, a 36-year-old former Halliburton procurement manager who had worked for the company for seven years, was charged with fraud, accused of taking a $1 million kickback for awarding an inflated government subcontract to a Kuwaiti firm. The managing partner of the Kuwaiti firm, a significant KBR sub, was also charged.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. A couple hundred million is worth noting, I think. And why should Halliburton have gotten the contract in the first place? The compnay was in turmoil following asbestos litigation and lawsuits that cost the company around 5 billion. They were under investigation by the SEC for their business practices in Nigeria and Brazil. The company was known to have business management issues, so why would they be awarded such a large and important contract? Arranged by the VP's office?


So your best arguement is sour grapes? You're bent out of shape because a company is going to make a profit? Or are you bent out of shape because Dick was once involved with the company?

Nope, the whole Halliburton issue isn't really that important to me. I admit that most of the issue is finger pointing between the sides, with some peculiarities that suggest that the government preferentially awarded the contract to a company ill suited for the job, given its lack of good management.

Nothing was falsified nor was it outrageously so.

I can't agree with you there. Bush repeatedly sopke of Saddam making WMD's in the few months before asking congress for an Iraq resolution. All evidence up until now has shown this to be false. And Rumsfeld said there was "bulletproof evidence" that Mohammed Atta was in Baghdad in 2001. Funny thing is, George Tenet has gone out of his way to make it clear that no such evidence was ever provided to the administration. In fact, Atta was living in the US at the time, according to CIA reports.

to bad that nearly half the voters here have been led by the nose into believing half assed allagations and intentionally misleading rhetoric.

To be completely honest, I don't disagree with removing Saddam from power. His reign caused the deaths of between 1-2 million Iraqi's, many through executions of his own people. But why now? Why on the heels of 9/11? The White House was able to make up some quick facts that would hold long enough for Congress to make a decision. Not that some of the blame doesn't fall on Congress, it most certainly does. I just don't agree with our national leaders misleading and making up information to justify a war. The whole thing was so random and chaotic, it just doesn't make sense.

I was thinking that some power over the flow of oil would be obtained; I imagine that the longer that the US stays in Iraq, the more oil will flow our direction - at a Halliburton/US directed price.

I would tend to agree here. Most inital reports on the cost effectiveness of rebuilding the oil infrastructure have indicated that on the short term, our involvement will cost more than it will returb. But considering that Irad does have the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, once an infrastructure is in place, that's a lot of capital to go around.

Exactly. Oil prices are falling, and Pres. Bush has announced he's "taking action" to do something about oil prices. I wouldn't be surprised if tankers are already unloading to bulk up the US strategic reserve and subsidizing the oil companies' stockpiles as well. I'm sure Halliburton or other companies will take their profits, but taking as much oil as they can and charging 1/2 the prices the Iraqis would have will still net everyone a substantial profit.

How long should the US wait for Saddam/Iraq to prove he had no WMDs? Until tens of thousands of Americans pay with their lives for the indecision? The time for talking ran out for Saddam. It was time for politicians to step aside and let the military arm to flex its muscles. It's almost time for the politicians to step in again with new government. It's a cycle or haven't you noticed?
Ok, so let me get this straight, you expect Saddam Hussein to let an international weapons inspection team into his country when back in the 90's a US SPY WAS FOUND ON ONE OF THE TEAMS?! Honestly, if the US doesn't play by the rules, then how can we expect Iraq to? And guilty until proven innocent? Under that idea every post-Communist kleptocracy of the Eastern Bloc should have been invaded by the US to make sure that warheads from the former USSR didn't fall into the wrong hands. Sorry but your logic here is fundamentally flawed.

If you look at the history (ancient and modern) of the Middle East, its people, its tribes and the ever-changing alliances/animosities, it would become even more evident that this is literally business-as-usual for the region.

Terrorism in the region has evolved from the very successful training efforts of the Soviet's KGB which, ironically, came back to kick their ass out of Afghanistan. It has evolved into a cancer that attacks American, allied, Russian, Iraqi, Muslim and other interests/people, led by extremists who couldn't care less about the Koran and its teachings... an aberration of "ever-changing alliances/animosities." There are no policies that will placate these extremists, whether the policies are American or not. Hence, they have to be rooted out in order to stabilize the region. The problem may perpetuate but once the cancer is eventually cut out, we'll just have to deal with whatever else crops up in the region.

The US isn't there to "fix" this phenomeon - the US is there to stabilize the region (and I believe this is what most of the nay-saying Democrats and Republicans get hung up on).
Lets look at the cultural background (excuse my spelling in this section). You have the Kurds, Azeri, Arabs and Turks in this region (I'm forgetting one forgive me). They are the predominant players in the region with regards to power politics. When you really look at it, there are surprising similarities between the ME and Europe prior to WWI. You have five major players all hankering for land and relative power and they pander to nationalism (note in the ME nationalism refers to Kurdish ehtnicity and such) to gain people's support. The point of this analogy is that the situation is resolvable but it will not be accomplished by some outside force laying heavy sanctions (diplomatic or economic) or even worse using military force.

Where I disagree with you mostly Franko is that I think the US should work to fix the problem and not necessarily through stabilization. Through incentive-based progams (MCA is one that I do agree with) the US can promote more responsible and liberal government (liberal in this case meaning that which protects liberty) without creating the havoc and anti-Americanism that I see the war in Iraq as creating.

Historical Note- Since you seemed to bring up history Franko I want to make sure we are clear on one thing. Back in the 1950's the British began to lose control of Iraq when their "advisors" became a little too involved in the establishment of democracy. Through this fault the Baath party that we once loved, now hate, came to power. The question I pose to you is this: We have gone into Iraq partly to create another "friend" in the region, what are we going to do when neighboring countries of Iraq pressure it to take action contrary to our interests? Do we let them take their own course and maintain legitimacy or do we keep them on our side and risk the stability of the country?

Ok, so let me get this straight, you expect Saddam Hussein to let an international weapons inspection team into his country when back in the 90's a US SPY WAS FOUND ON ONE OF THE TEAMS?! Honestly, if the US doesn't play by the rules, then how can we expect Iraq to? And guilty until proven innocent? <snip>

Welcome to the world of "unwritten" international foreign policy. I'm sure you are not alone when you think that there are only American spies in this world. Everybody else playing by the rules? That's like the anti-nukes here in the US back in the 80's demanding that the US disarm unilaterally. Please, let's get some sense of realism here.

<snip>The point of this analogy is that the situation is resolvable but it will not be accomplished by some outside force laying heavy sanctions (diplomatic or economic) or even worse using military force.

And on what historical (or astrological) junction do you base your declaration "that the situation is resolvable..." or is this another perfect example of pure conjecture? Answer me this: How come Clinton, Bush Sr., Raygun, Carter, etc. (or other nations for that matter) could not resolve the situation? You will, one day, have to accept that we are not there to resolve the "phenomenon" I mentioned before. It is really very easy to play Monday night QB.

Where I disagree with you mostly Franko is that I think the US should work to fix the problem and not necessarily through stabilization. Through incentive-based progams (MCA is one that I do agree with) the US can promote more responsible and liberal government (liberal in this case meaning that which protects liberty) without creating the havoc and anti-Americanism that I see the war in Iraq as creating.
It's a dangerous assumption that the situation can be "fixed" because who are we to decide that there is a problem in the first place? Republican and Democrat administrations realized this long ago. For all we know, the people in that region are happy as p*gs-in-sh*t with the way alliances/animosities are in constant flux -- perhaps, it really is their "way of life". One day, you will simply have to accept that the best realistic approach is to continually buy time, i.e., stabilize the region, which requires a dynamic set of foreign policies to address issues/scenarios as they come up. Static/Maginot policies become passe' in short order.

It's like that "hump" when you realize and, later accept, that the ONLY reason the US is in the Middle East is because of oil. Once you've done that, boy, everything else becomes clearer, and I mean CLEARER. Did I ever tell you that there really is no Santa Claus?

Historical Note- Since you seemed to bring up history Franko I want to make sure we are clear on one thing. Back in the 1950's the British began to lose control of Iraq when their "advisors" became a little too involved in the establishment of democracy. Through this fault the Baath party that we once loved, now hate, came to power. The question I pose to you is this: We have gone into Iraq partly to create another "friend" in the region, what are we going to do when neighboring countries of Iraq pressure it to take action contrary to our interests? Do we let them take their own course and maintain legitimacy or do we keep them on our side and risk the stability of the country?
Ever changing alliances/animosities. If your foreign policy is unable to address the ever changing landscape, you lose control. Remember, we are there to stabilize the region, not a country.

If there is no problem then why intervene? Why lie to the world that you are going in for peace when it's just about oil?

Why can't America tell the truth for once, are they scared? If so, of whom?

If there is no problem then why intervene? Why lie to the world that you are going in for peace when it's just about oil?

Seriously, you should try "reading" things before you post. No need to go back all the way to the start of the thread, just four or five posts back. Before you do that, please "read" http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=phenomenon&x=10&y=18 so that you can catch up, although you have a bit of a jog from there.

Why can't America tell the truth for once, are they scared? If so, of whom?

This coming from a :loser: Canadian :loser: Liberal :loser: whose government has an outstanding "truth" and ethics record? :grinyes: :grinyes: :grinyes:

Yes, we're scared. We're scared of ignorance masquerading as intelligence.

You should try to make more sense of things. First you say "who are we to say theres a problem in the first place?". Then you say there should be a way to stbalize the region, from what, in accordance to whom?
You see something, you don;t know if it's a problem, you don't know if the eople involved in it aren't happy. Sounds like a good way to waste billions of dollars.
Yes, I'm a Canadian and it automatically makes me a Liberal. With that logic then all Americans are Try answering instead of sarcsm

...
Lets look at the cultural background (excuse my spelling in this section). You have the Kurds, Azeri, Arabs and Turks in this region (I'm forgetting one forgive me). They are the predominant players in the region with regards to power politics. When you really look at it, there are surprising similarities between the ME and Europe prior to WWI. You have five major players all hankering for land and relative power and they pander to nationalism ...




One salient point is that these 5 major players are also subdivided by religious boundaries; Sunnis, Shiites, and other Muslims, as well as some Christians are all mixed into the pot.

The many many subdivisions and confused nature of the area is what I think is keeping the region from being stable. Other nations going in to try to democratize or organize or any other -ize just stirs them all up, and turns them against whichever group is trying to ize them. Then, when the izer has left, they return to their squabbles.

You should try to make more sense of things. First you say "who are we to say theres a problem in the first place?". Then you say there should be a way to stbalize the region, from what, in accordance to whom?
You see something, you don;t know if it's a problem, you don't know if the eople involved in it aren't happy. Sounds like a good way to waste billions of dollars.

Haven't read back, have you? :grinno: :grinno: :grinno:

Yes, I'm a Canadian and it automatically makes me a Liberal. With that logic then all Americans are Try answering instead of sarcsm

Before you start asking sarcastically about America telling the truth, you should start at home and work out YOUR Canadian :loser: Liberal government's :loser: "phenomenon" :loser: (hint, hint) with telling the truth. SIMPLE enough? Also, slow down a little bit when typing... you're dribbling...

One salient point is that these 5 major players are also subdivided by religious boundaries; Sunnis, Shiites, and other Muslims, as well as some Christians are all mixed into the pot.

The many many subdivisions and confused nature of the area is what I think is keeping the region from being stable. Other nations going in to try to democratize or organize or any other -ize just stirs them all up, and turns them against whichever group is trying to ize them. Then, when the izer has left, they return to their squabbles.

Yes, and Britain tagged the US to play stabilizer. France had her turn, too. I wonder who'll be next on the tag team?

You've got to figure Russia's running scared with China eyeing the oil/gas under the Siberian peninsula -- I'll bet you the US and its allies will tag team with Russia. Talking about shifting alliances/animosities, huh?

It's all a mess; the more people there are stirring the pie, the worse it will get. If China eventually has their turn in the Middle East, it's going to get ugly.

It's all a mess; the more people there are stirring the pie, the worse it will get. If China eventually has their turn in the Middle East, it's going to get ugly.:1:
I posted in this thread a while ago butr refused since then until now.

It's all a mess; the more people there are stirring the pie, the worse it will get. If China eventually has their turn in the Middle East, it's going to get ugly.

From http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html:

"The two countries with the highest rate of growth in oil use are China and India, whose combined populations account for a third of humanity. In the next two decades, China's oil consumption is expected to grow at a rate of 7.5% per year and India’s 5.5%. (Compare to a 1% growth for the industrialized countries). It will be strategically imperative for these countries to secure their access to oil.
<snip>
-- The U.S. will need to keep increasing American military presence in the region to ensure our access to the remaining oil. This will mean further U.S. embroilment in Middle East conflicts, more anti-American sentiment, and a deepening rift between the West and the Islamic world.
-- Tension between the U.S. and China due to growing Chinese intervention in the Middle East to ensure its own access to oil and Chinese arming of Middle Eastern countries hostile to the U.S. and its allies."
<snip>

Previous posts regarding our "involvement" (Raz, note that this word is different from "intervention") in the Middle East boiling down to OIL have been labeled cynical by both Republicans but mostly Democrats.

Since it is CLEAR and a FACT that the US and its allies aren't the only ones involved in the Middle East to get to the oil, I think it's about time we ALL band together to refocus our strategic needs: that is, consume less of the stuff.

Until we are able to be of one mind as to our priorities, discussions about the Middle East will continue to be finger-pointing, bi-partisan (and anti-American, for our foreign dependents) and non-productive. If you choose to remain hung up on technicalities (Iraq and the invasion are but a pimple on an elephant's *ss compared to what's coming up), then, you've missed the overall picture, in which case, okay, let's keep the status quo.

Haven't read back, have you? :grinno: :grinno: :grinno:



Before you start asking sarcastically about America telling the truth, you should start at home and work out YOUR Canadian :loser: Liberal government's :loser: "phenomenon" :loser: (hint, hint) with telling the truth. SIMPLE enough? Also, slow down a little bit when typing... you're dribbling...
Can you possible look for any other scapegoats?
Yes Canada has a Liberal goverment....And?
America has a Republican goverment...So?
You wanna try telling me what your point is from all that?

Can you possible look for any other scapegoats?

You want ME to tell you who else could be possibly blamed for the Liberal Canadian government's ethical issues? Ummmm, Canadian Liberals?

Yes Canada has a Liberal goverment....And?
America has a Republican goverment...So?
You wanna try telling me what your point is from all that?

Ummm, America isn't the :loser: LOSER :loser: here?

Seriously, you've got to read back, man.... :disappoin

Since it is CLEAR and a FACT that the US and its allies aren't the only ones involved in the Middle East to get to the oil, I think it's about time we ALL band together to refocus our strategic needs: that is, consume less of the stuff.
Glad we can agree on something here Franko, and yes that is the crux of the issue in the Middle East. They have something the rest of the world wants, and basically the rest of the world will put their short term needs over the long term stability in the region.

Several people here have already touched upon it, one of the reasons why the different ethnic groups can't seem to get any common agreement or long standing peace is that they keep having their systems shaken up or controlled by someone that doesn't really understand the problems in that region (as good as people like Silvan are, they can't beat the political minds in the Mid East). Because of that, while I support the liberalization (again this meaning the promotion of basic liberties, not the conventional "liberalism" that we know in the US) of the region, I support it in a non-militaristic fashion. While it might seem rational that if we want to reshape a country we should start from the ground up, this just doesn't work in the Mid East (I don't really feel like going into why).

Because of this view, I support incentive based programs to promote human rights. An example of this is the MCA (which I would like to learn more about but from what I've read it seems like a good start).

Anyways, just trying to steer the discussion away from personal bickering and more onto the track of if the Western world wants to ensure or lead the Mid East to greater human rights, what is the proper method by which to accomplish this?

Glad we can agree on something here Franko, and yes that is the crux of the issue in the Middle East. They have something the rest of the world wants, and basically the rest of the world will put their short term needs over the long term stability in the region.

Yes, but the sad thing about it is that if one nation does not put their short term needs over anything else, the leaders of that nation will be criticized and judged to have been derelict in their duties to their nation. At home and abroad, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Several people here have already touched upon it, one of the reasons why the different ethnic groups can't seem to get any common agreement or long standing peace is that they keep having their systems shaken up or controlled by someone that doesn't really understand the problems in that region (as good as people like Silvan are, they can't beat the political minds in the Mid East).

I would tend to disagree with you on this because each ethnic group is out to protect their own interests themselves, although their primary interest isn't oil. Keep in mind that the modern "nation" of Saudi Arabia only came about in 1932 after 180 years of shifting alliances/animosities between tribes and/or neighboring nations/kingdoms of fellow "believers". Whether or not "infidel" outsiders get involved, they will still bicker/battle amongst themselves, although outside involvement definitely accelerates the events.

Because of that, while I support the liberalization (again this meaning the promotion of basic liberties, not the conventional "liberalism" that we know in the US) of the region, I support it in a non-militaristic fashion. While it might seem rational that if we want to reshape a country we should start from the ground up, this just doesn't work in the Mid East (I don't really feel like going into why).

I'm with you on liberalization of the region (YES, PLEASE!... see below) but the how is where it gets sticky.

<snip>
Anyways, just trying to steer the discussion away from personal bickering and more onto the track of if the Western world wants to ensure or lead the Mid East to greater human rights, what is the proper method by which to accomplish this?

You cannot have and enjoy human rights (as we know them) in environments that limit/prohibit the exercise of such because the most important tenets are missing: freedom and liberty (as in liberalization or to become more liberal as in "not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms"). I.e., no-can-do in dictatorships, authoritarian states/monarchies, and banana republic-type governments. I guess that's why the US and its allies are trying something they know that works -- democracy.

You cannot have and enjoy human rights (as we know them) in environments that limit/prohibit the exercise of such because the most important tenets are missing: freedom and liberty (as in liberalization or to become more liberal as in "not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms"). I.e., no-can-do in dictatorships, authoritarian states/monarchies, and banana republic-type governments. I guess that's why the US and its allies are trying something they know that works -- democracy.
My problem with the immediate and total implementation of democracy (especially by an outside force) is that democracy is a state of mind. THat is, for a true republic to function citizens MUST have a sense of political efficacy. If a new system of government is just given to them, it's success is all but guaranteed.

Now here is where most people would throw the large percentages of Iraqi voters into the argument but here's what I have to say to that. While a large percentage in the first election is encouraging, to me the greatest indicator will be ten years down the line when someone tries to again manipulate the system (as the Baath party originally did). If the populus is able to lawfully vote this man out of power it will show a real sense of understanding and sense of efficacy towards the system. However this true test has yet to pass.

Also, while implementing a democracy sounds very noble, I do not believe the means justify the ends (see terrorism arguments and the whole 10-year commitment thing). Therefore, a more gradual process I belive is in order. THe way I see this is using economic and diplomatic relations (the latter perhaps being the least effective) to coax repressive regimes into laxing policies for trade benefits. The reason why I see an incentive based program as the only one that has a legitimate chance of working is that by using punitive measures we are only making sure that no forward progress is made by these nations.

I would like to support a quick fix to this problem, unfortunately I just don't see the quick solution as working well in the long run.

My problem with the immediate and total implementation of democracy (especially by an outside force) is that democracy is a state of mind. THat is, for a true republic to function citizens MUST have a sense of political efficacy.<snip>
Yes, I agree that democracy is a state of mind which you are either "born into" (as in folks born in "free" states) or "grow into" (as in folks who have moved into "free" states). Political efficacy will come as people learn to exercise their freedoms more and more.

<snip> While a large percentage in the first election is encouraging, to me the greatest indicator will be ten years down the line when someone tries to again manipulate the system (as the Baath party originally did). If the populus is able to lawfully vote this man out of power it will show a real sense of understanding and sense of efficacy towards the system. However this true test has yet to pass.
Yes, and a journey of a thousand of miles starts with one step. Here we are almost 229 years later and we're still trying to manipulate the system.

Also, while implementing a democracy sounds very noble, I do not believe the means justify the ends (see terrorism arguments and the whole 10-year commitment thing). Therefore, a more gradual process I belive is in order.<snip>
The proof will be in the pudding. In ten years, I may well agree with you or you may have to say, "Now, I believe."


THe way I see this is using economic and diplomatic relations (the latter perhaps being the least effective) to coax repressive regimes into laxing policies for trade benefits.
Neither worked for Saddam, remember? The only folks who benefited were Saddam, his cronies, UN officials and esteemed businessmen from the US, France, England, Russia, etc.

The reason why I see an incentive based program as the only one that has a legitimate chance of working is that by using punitive measures we are only making sure that no forward progress is made by these nations.
With no malice or disrespect intended towards our Muslim brothers, one has to understand what "Imshallah" (God/Lord willing) means to them. If events turn out one way, it is because God willed it. If events turn out
another way, it is because God willed it. With Saddam gone, the majority of Iraqis who turned out to vote believed it was because God willed it; Iraqis from the other sect who chose not to vote did not believe then, but almost certainly do now, that it was because God willed it (hence their rush to be included in the democratic processes in post-election Iraq).

I would like to support a quick fix to this problem, unfortunately I just don't see the quick solution as working well in the long run.
Give democracy ten years, then. It's the best they have... no, they have ever had.

Give democracy ten years, then. It's the best they have... no, they have ever had.
It seems the more you and I discuss this the closer you and I seem to get. however, I would disagree with you on the final statement you made and I find it an important historical note that (now that we are in Iraq) could hold a key lesson.

This note is that during Britain's decolonization following WWII, one of their withdrawals was from their "mandate" Iraq. During this period of time they attempted to democratize Iraq, considering that they wanted a friend in the region and something to point to following their decolonization. Now, the British started off with a huge advantage compared to the US and that is that they were a recognized and (to an extent) accepted power in the region. Unlike the US they had been there already and their presence was not a surprise.

However, ten years+ down the line, the Baath Party (in a manner reminiscent of Hitler's rise to power) was able to manipulate the system sufficiently to give them disproportionate power, and eventually the dictatorship. The reason for the Baath party's ascendence was largely because British advisors had become too involved with the shaping and running of the government, and with this wedge of distrust, the Baath Party was able to disenfranchise the foreign power and lobby popular support for themselves.

My fear is that the US, with a clear objective of establishing a "friend" in the region (not even the innocuous decolonization of the British) will follow a similar path and find a similiar result (unless we revert back to force). Can this be avoided? Sure, but unless we realize this possibility long in advnace, the chances of averting it are not so great.

<snip>
However, ten years+ down the line, the Baath Party (in a manner reminiscent of Hitler's rise to power) was able to manipulate the system sufficiently to give them disproportionate power, and eventually the dictatorship. The reason for the Baath party's ascendence was largely because British advisors had become too involved with the shaping and running of the government, and with this wedge of distrust, the Baath Party was able to disenfranchise the foreign power and lobby popular support for themselves.
The Iraqis will have to learn from their own history, learn to fend for themselves as "Iraqis" rather than sectarian groups, and learn how to live free. You can lead a horse to water...

My fear is that the US, with a clear objective of establishing a "friend" in the region (not even the innocuous decolonization of the British) will follow a similar path and find a similiar result (unless we revert back to force). Can this be avoided? Sure, but unless we realize this possibility long in advnace, the chances of averting it are not so great.
The US has history in propping up puppet governments to support and protect US vested interests. So do the British, Spaniards, Portugese, Dutch, French, Germans, Russians, etc. I'm afraid that the mold has already been set and that what you fear may well come to pass. Sad, isn't it? But it does buy time. Rather than widespread chaos in the region that would encompass neighboring states, stabilization becomes the immediate priority.

thrasher you silly boy.... you know that these people don't care how many rag heads get killed in their own country to achieve US goals..... The US is fighting terrorists... and if the rest of the world won't help then the US will kill them too!