So evidently the Times is not giving all the news. What a surprise.After the Iraqi cabinet voted in approval, Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker met in Baghdad to sign the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
Both diplomats hailed the event as a “historic” one — not an overstatement as their meeting was the fruit of many months of deliberations and negotiations.
Reportedly, SOFA has a sister document whose details are yet to be made public. Radio Sawa reported that Zebari and Crocker signed “another long-term strategic agreement, which the U.S. ambassador said would shape relations between the two countries in all areas for years to come.” It’s actually surprising that there’s no mention of this second document anywhere in the media.
US Bashing
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2008/1 ... ement.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Did I blame a political party?
I just said that the war was unreasonable and unneeded.
I think those numbers are not correct.
When Saddam Hussein was leading that country people might not have been allowed to say what they wanted on the street, but they were able to go on the street without having to be affraid to be blasted into pieces by some fanatic, or shot at, or worse.
He was a horrible man, but as sad as it might sound, he was what kept the country from turning into what it is now. Now there are terrorists there, now there are religious fanatics, now there are more people there that hate the US than ever before.
And one more thing: I do have a pretty good memory and I have seen revisionist history here in Europe in the past 60 years plentiful.
Thanks
I just said that the war was unreasonable and unneeded.
I think those numbers are not correct.
When Saddam Hussein was leading that country people might not have been allowed to say what they wanted on the street, but they were able to go on the street without having to be affraid to be blasted into pieces by some fanatic, or shot at, or worse.
He was a horrible man, but as sad as it might sound, he was what kept the country from turning into what it is now. Now there are terrorists there, now there are religious fanatics, now there are more people there that hate the US than ever before.
And one more thing: I do have a pretty good memory and I have seen revisionist history here in Europe in the past 60 years plentiful.
Thanks
And you know what? That is true again today. Iraq is quiet.When Saddam Hussein was leading that country people might not have been allowed to say what they wanted on the street, but they were able to go on the street without having to be affraid to be blasted into pieces by some fanatic, or shot at, or worse.
However, you leave out the rapes regularly committed by Uday and Qsay.
You leave out the torture rooms. You leave out the torture of the Olympic teams for bad performance. You leave out "The Republic of Fear"
You leave out the 100 or 200 a day murdered by Saddam's goon squads.
But yes. Other than that it was all kites and butterflies.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
How is it quiet in Iraq today?
From all that I know it is now worse than it was. Back then you were in danger if you opened your mouth against Saddam Hussein, sure, now you are in danger by going to the market or going to school.
Not sure how that is better. Violence against women and honorkillings have also increased as has religiously motivated violence.
I would not call this better. Generally the entire region is now more unstable than ever. As I said, with Hussein in place Iran had a counteragent, now they do whatever they want. Simple as that. I also dont think that the US will have an easy time getting anyone to support doing something about it after the Iraq war- desaster.
Besides there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at least not at the time.
From all that I know it is now worse than it was. Back then you were in danger if you opened your mouth against Saddam Hussein, sure, now you are in danger by going to the market or going to school.
Not sure how that is better. Violence against women and honorkillings have also increased as has religiously motivated violence.
I would not call this better. Generally the entire region is now more unstable than ever. As I said, with Hussein in place Iran had a counteragent, now they do whatever they want. Simple as that. I also dont think that the US will have an easy time getting anyone to support doing something about it after the Iraq war- desaster.
Besides there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at least not at the time.
Hey folks,
In Iraq, its a no-win situation. All over the planet, when the Brits left their empire, they seemed to set up countries designed to maximize subsequent turbulence and discord. It may not have been intentional, but is sure seems to have been a pattern.
An Anglophile friend says it is only because we see the countries by comparison to their oh-so-civilized state when the Brits were there. Maybe so, maybe no.
But Iraq is just another example of that pattern. And the Iraqis don't belong together any more than the NAU.
In Iraq, its a no-win situation. All over the planet, when the Brits left their empire, they seemed to set up countries designed to maximize subsequent turbulence and discord. It may not have been intentional, but is sure seems to have been a pattern.
An Anglophile friend says it is only because we see the countries by comparison to their oh-so-civilized state when the Brits were there. Maybe so, maybe no.
But Iraq is just another example of that pattern. And the Iraqis don't belong together any more than the NAU.
"In Iraq, its a no-win situation."
Here's the big picture...
The middle east today is no more violent than it ever has been, only the players have changed.
1948 - Arab-Israeli War - 15,000 dead
1956 - Suez Crisis - 7,000 casualties, 2000 dead
1967 - Six Day War - 50,000 casualties, 16,000 dead
1967 - War of Attrition - 6000 dead
1973 - Yom Kippur War - 60,000 casualties, 15,000 dead
1978 - Soviet/Afghanistan War - 1,015,000 dead
1980 - Iran/Iraq War - 600,000 dead
1982 - Lebanon War - 10,000 dead
1990 - Gulf War - 100,000 dead
2001 - War in Afghanistan - 5000 dead
2003 - Iraq War - 50,000 dead
2006 - Lebanon War - 1200 dead
These numbers are rough and somewhat conservative in some cases (Wikipedia) and do not reflect civilian casualties. Those estimates are just as scary.
It looks like the Middle East is more stable now than it ever has been. The presence of the US in the region since 2001 looks like a stabilizing force based the first 50 years of Israel's existence. That btw, is the defining event that gave rise to the last 60 years of war in the ME. The Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979 is the event that has defined the modern War on Terror, not 9/11. Sept. 11 was simply the latest and greatest terrorist act that finally gave the US a Pearl Harbor like moment. We started paying attention.
This thing has ben going on for 60 years, people! George Bush did not start this war. Every president since Harry Truman has ignored the problem and every president since Nixon is to blame for the current situation. GWB is the first president to actually do something to address the real war mongers in the region. Argue his tactics, that's fair game. But, man oh man, we have to do something to curb this murderous ideology before the nukes start flying. Or worse.
BS
Here's the big picture...
The middle east today is no more violent than it ever has been, only the players have changed.
1948 - Arab-Israeli War - 15,000 dead
1956 - Suez Crisis - 7,000 casualties, 2000 dead
1967 - Six Day War - 50,000 casualties, 16,000 dead
1967 - War of Attrition - 6000 dead
1973 - Yom Kippur War - 60,000 casualties, 15,000 dead
1978 - Soviet/Afghanistan War - 1,015,000 dead
1980 - Iran/Iraq War - 600,000 dead
1982 - Lebanon War - 10,000 dead
1990 - Gulf War - 100,000 dead
2001 - War in Afghanistan - 5000 dead
2003 - Iraq War - 50,000 dead
2006 - Lebanon War - 1200 dead
These numbers are rough and somewhat conservative in some cases (Wikipedia) and do not reflect civilian casualties. Those estimates are just as scary.
It looks like the Middle East is more stable now than it ever has been. The presence of the US in the region since 2001 looks like a stabilizing force based the first 50 years of Israel's existence. That btw, is the defining event that gave rise to the last 60 years of war in the ME. The Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979 is the event that has defined the modern War on Terror, not 9/11. Sept. 11 was simply the latest and greatest terrorist act that finally gave the US a Pearl Harbor like moment. We started paying attention.
This thing has ben going on for 60 years, people! George Bush did not start this war. Every president since Harry Truman has ignored the problem and every president since Nixon is to blame for the current situation. GWB is the first president to actually do something to address the real war mongers in the region. Argue his tactics, that's fair game. But, man oh man, we have to do something to curb this murderous ideology before the nukes start flying. Or worse.
BS
Skipjack,
When was the last time you heard in the news about a market blowing up?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewa ... ver--11599
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_fallujah.html
Picture caption:
In an Iraqi child’s drawing, American might slays the monstrous insurgency.
==
Added:
Note the Iraqi flag is bigger than the American flag. The implication is that we gave the Iraqi people their country back. The kid gets it. "Out of the moths of babes...."
When was the last time you heard in the news about a market blowing up?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewa ... ver--11599
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_fallujah.html
Picture caption:
In an Iraqi child’s drawing, American might slays the monstrous insurgency.
==
Added:
Note the Iraqi flag is bigger than the American flag. The implication is that we gave the Iraqi people their country back. The kid gets it. "Out of the moths of babes...."
Last edited by MSimon on Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Here is a bit from the novel "Naked Lunch" by William Burroughs
A rout of Mullahs and Muftis and Musseins and Caids and Glaouis and Sheiks and Sultans and Holy Men and representatives of every conceivable Arab party make up the rank and file and attend the actual meetings from which the higher ups prudently abstain. Though the delegates are carefully searched at the door, these gatherings invariably culminate in riots. Speakers are often doused with gasoline and burned to death, or some uncouth desert Sheik opens up on his opponents with a machine gun he had concealed in the belly of a pet sheep. Nationalist martyrs with grenades up the ass mingle with the assembled conferents and suddenly ex- plode, occasioning heavy casualties.... And there was the occasion when President Ra threw the British Prime Minister to the ground and forcibly sodomized him, the spectacle being televised to the entire Arab World. Wild yipes of joy were heard in Stockholm. Interzone has an ordinance forbidding a meeting of Islam Inc. within five miles of the city limits.
http://www.geocities.com/dr_benway_tangier/page125.html
A rout of Mullahs and Muftis and Musseins and Caids and Glaouis and Sheiks and Sultans and Holy Men and representatives of every conceivable Arab party make up the rank and file and attend the actual meetings from which the higher ups prudently abstain. Though the delegates are carefully searched at the door, these gatherings invariably culminate in riots. Speakers are often doused with gasoline and burned to death, or some uncouth desert Sheik opens up on his opponents with a machine gun he had concealed in the belly of a pet sheep. Nationalist martyrs with grenades up the ass mingle with the assembled conferents and suddenly ex- plode, occasioning heavy casualties.... And there was the occasion when President Ra threw the British Prime Minister to the ground and forcibly sodomized him, the spectacle being televised to the entire Arab World. Wild yipes of joy were heard in Stockholm. Interzone has an ordinance forbidding a meeting of Islam Inc. within five miles of the city limits.
http://www.geocities.com/dr_benway_tangier/page125.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
My view is that the US is generally way ahead of the UK, so I'm rather with Skipjack's view on things, here in the UK we have a rather almost at times, third world country now..
> Britain is turning into one of the most terrifying places for privacy
> and liberty that I can think of at the moment
Indeed, and it gets worse every day, so worse, that its almost impossible to imagine what crazy law they will bring in next.
> when the Brits left their empire, they seemed to set up countries
> designed to maximize subsequent turbulence and discord.
> It may not have been intentional, but is sure seems to have been
> a pattern.
I read about that in a government handbook (Not classified..) its a common stratagy to get other countries to fight each other and waste time and resources than to fight us the UK. (Its also a tactic apparent in our poltical system, where rather than cooperate on things, people are constantly stabbing each other in the back and trying to ruin what is there..)
> Britain is turning into one of the most terrifying places for privacy
> and liberty that I can think of at the moment
Indeed, and it gets worse every day, so worse, that its almost impossible to imagine what crazy law they will bring in next.
> when the Brits left their empire, they seemed to set up countries
> designed to maximize subsequent turbulence and discord.
> It may not have been intentional, but is sure seems to have been
> a pattern.
I read about that in a government handbook (Not classified..) its a common stratagy to get other countries to fight each other and waste time and resources than to fight us the UK. (Its also a tactic apparent in our poltical system, where rather than cooperate on things, people are constantly stabbing each other in the back and trying to ruin what is there..)
Let me add to the point BSPhysics made.
You know who screwed up the Middle East? The British when they carved up the Ottoman Empire. The States created were for British convenience. They definitely were not made with the view of creating nations of self governing people. I must add that self governing was tried but when dictators took over in the various places no significant effort was made to oust them.
And then in the 20s the British promoted The Mufti of Jerusalem who became best friends of the Austrian Corporal in WW2. In fact the Mufti raised two divisions of Muslim SS for the express purpose of - well you know the story - or can find it out if you are interested.
"Mein Kampf" is still a best seller in the ME - you can look it up.
The Americans have been left to clean up the mess.
BTW Saddam's Baath Party was modeled on National Socialism. As is the Baath Party of Syria. Assad, who runs Syria is Baath Party. A look at the wiki on the Baath Party would be instructive.
Now I was under the impression that the Euros hated Nazis. But I guess Nazis in the Middle East are a stabilizing force. German Nazis bad. Arab Nazis good. Well you can do business with them - and there is good money in it.
Or how about the Oil for Food UN scheme. There are more than a few in America who called it "Oil For Palaces and Weapons". Search - TotalFinaElf "Maurice Strong" - a Canadian guy who helped finance Saddam. TotalFina was a Belgian Company. There was a merger in 1999 and it changed its name a bit.
And what was the worst thing the Europeans used to say about Americans in the years leading up to the defeat of Saddam? That the embargo on Iraqi Oil was starving the Iraqi people. Actually it was Saddam doing that. Those he favored got the goods. Those he didn't favor were allowed to pound sand. If they weren't pounded into the sand. But you know really. It was all kites and butterflies. And if not kites and butterflies there was no news. Out of sight out of mind.
Now obviously all this history - past and current - is not being reported much. But if you have an interest the information is out there.
You know who screwed up the Middle East? The British when they carved up the Ottoman Empire. The States created were for British convenience. They definitely were not made with the view of creating nations of self governing people. I must add that self governing was tried but when dictators took over in the various places no significant effort was made to oust them.
And then in the 20s the British promoted The Mufti of Jerusalem who became best friends of the Austrian Corporal in WW2. In fact the Mufti raised two divisions of Muslim SS for the express purpose of - well you know the story - or can find it out if you are interested.
"Mein Kampf" is still a best seller in the ME - you can look it up.
The Americans have been left to clean up the mess.
BTW Saddam's Baath Party was modeled on National Socialism. As is the Baath Party of Syria. Assad, who runs Syria is Baath Party. A look at the wiki on the Baath Party would be instructive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_PartyGermany was seen as an anti-colonial power and friend of the Islamic world; cultural and economic exchange and infrastructure projects as the Baghdad Railway supported that impression. According to Paul Berman, one of the early Arab nationalist thinkers Sati' al-Husri was influenced by Fichte, a German philosopher and Nazi precursor, famous for his nation state socialism economic concepts, his antisemitic stance and his important influence on the German unification movement.
Now I was under the impression that the Euros hated Nazis. But I guess Nazis in the Middle East are a stabilizing force. German Nazis bad. Arab Nazis good. Well you can do business with them - and there is good money in it.
Or how about the Oil for Food UN scheme. There are more than a few in America who called it "Oil For Palaces and Weapons". Search - TotalFinaElf "Maurice Strong" - a Canadian guy who helped finance Saddam. TotalFina was a Belgian Company. There was a merger in 1999 and it changed its name a bit.
And what was the worst thing the Europeans used to say about Americans in the years leading up to the defeat of Saddam? That the embargo on Iraqi Oil was starving the Iraqi people. Actually it was Saddam doing that. Those he favored got the goods. Those he didn't favor were allowed to pound sand. If they weren't pounded into the sand. But you know really. It was all kites and butterflies. And if not kites and butterflies there was no news. Out of sight out of mind.
Now obviously all this history - past and current - is not being reported much. But if you have an interest the information is out there.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
Sudan is an even better example of the UK mismanagement in how they left their colonies. And, yeah, we've had to deal with the results (but let's recall that at least the UK is our biggest ally in these endeavors). The Belgians get the blame for Congo, which is beyond horrific.
Nobody is against Hussein being eliminated, and arguing that we want him back is just silly. The questions are three, however:
1. Did we expend too much of our political capital on our unilateral action? Do the benefits of the solution measure up to the costs? Both in lives and ability to gain support from other countries? I hesitate to sully the discussion with dollars, but there's that, too.
2. Was the plan executed well? I said from the start that it looked like they were going in with very little in the way of a plan, and it certainly has looked like it has been throughout, "We'll see what happens, and throw more resources at the problem if we need to till it goes away." Doesn't sound any better than the UK's handling of their colonies, in fact worse.
3. Will the results be better than what was there to begin with? Sure, Hussein was a horrific dictator. But will the current regime remain stable (if you can call it that now), and will the end result be better lives for Iraqis in the long-run. Or, more utilitarianly, will it result in less threat to the USA? Only history will tell this.
I can be sanguine with the efforts of warfare, and in trying to produce results. And, contrary to what many would say about the motivation for being there being treasure, I'm willing to admit that we have at least somewhat plausible deniability (especially given the cost) on that, and can claim a moral high-ground. But the question in the end will be whether or not the costs are paid out in dividends. Sure, if Iraq becomes the next South Korea, that's wonderful.
But it sure as heck looks a lot more like North Korea at the moment. Sure, it was never butterflies and kites. But it sure as heck still isn't. We're committed at this point, of course, the experiment can't be abandoned at the half-way point (that would be worst). But only history will tell if the decision was worthwhile. It's somewhat easier for us to be sanguine about the costs when we've lost a small fraction of the lives that the people of Iraq have lost. I hope that they can take their massive casualties, and see what they have gained during the course of them occuring. But if they can't, it wouldn't be very surprising, would it? From a historical perspective? In a culture where family is not just first, but family is all, and the idea of "nation" is considered ridiculous.
The extremists are as bad as Nazis or worse, sure. But they're not in any way Nationalists. That concept simply doesn't obtain in the ME. I love the line from "Lawrence of Arabia" where Peter O'Toole first meets Anthony Quinn's character, an arab chief. Lawrence says, "I'm looking for the Arabs." And Quinn's character responds, "I don't know of these Arabs. I know of Hawitat and Haritha, and other tribes. Arabs, no."
Religious fanaticism has a tenor all it's own. Once defeated, the German nationalists couldn't keep their spirit (the "werewolves" legend is pathetic, and just proves this). With Al Queda, each defeat just makes them more determined to get revenge. It's a very different phenomenon.
Which is why you don't generally have to fight nations in this war, but have to fight terrorist cells instead. You don't disagree with Obama's designs to get Bin Laden, do you? Only by killing such fanatics are we going to be safe. Nations, good or bad, can be negotiated with.
I'll make a prediction: Amedinijad is out of office in the next election - they've already ousted one of his ministers. The people of Iran (especially those in Tehran), have had enough of the damage he's done to Iran's standing in the international arena. And, sure, the Mullahs will decide, and support him generally. But they've had their own problems of late with charges of corruption. They're going to have to give, or potentially face an insurrection inside their own country.
Appearing reasonable to Iran right now is exactly the right tactic to take. The new regime won't like us, precisely, but we'll get concessions from them that'll make things more secure in the ME.
The second phase of the Iraq occupation (the first was the actual ground invasion) is over - McCain couldn't make a lot of political hay over the war, simply because we've gotten to the point where we're talking handover. Not meaning leaving entirely, but the retreat to bases, and having the day-to-day policing of the state left to the Iraquis. It's a done deal. What everyone is saying now is basically, "Well, the experiment has been put in place, and the Americans can't just continue to fight forever. Now we see the results of the experiment, and if they pay off."
Time to collect the data now that we've set it up. Later we can analyze it. Talk to you in about ten years. Or twenty. About the time it took for our intervention in Afghanistan against the Soviet dictators there to produce Al Queda.
Mike
Nobody is against Hussein being eliminated, and arguing that we want him back is just silly. The questions are three, however:
1. Did we expend too much of our political capital on our unilateral action? Do the benefits of the solution measure up to the costs? Both in lives and ability to gain support from other countries? I hesitate to sully the discussion with dollars, but there's that, too.
2. Was the plan executed well? I said from the start that it looked like they were going in with very little in the way of a plan, and it certainly has looked like it has been throughout, "We'll see what happens, and throw more resources at the problem if we need to till it goes away." Doesn't sound any better than the UK's handling of their colonies, in fact worse.
3. Will the results be better than what was there to begin with? Sure, Hussein was a horrific dictator. But will the current regime remain stable (if you can call it that now), and will the end result be better lives for Iraqis in the long-run. Or, more utilitarianly, will it result in less threat to the USA? Only history will tell this.
I can be sanguine with the efforts of warfare, and in trying to produce results. And, contrary to what many would say about the motivation for being there being treasure, I'm willing to admit that we have at least somewhat plausible deniability (especially given the cost) on that, and can claim a moral high-ground. But the question in the end will be whether or not the costs are paid out in dividends. Sure, if Iraq becomes the next South Korea, that's wonderful.
But it sure as heck looks a lot more like North Korea at the moment. Sure, it was never butterflies and kites. But it sure as heck still isn't. We're committed at this point, of course, the experiment can't be abandoned at the half-way point (that would be worst). But only history will tell if the decision was worthwhile. It's somewhat easier for us to be sanguine about the costs when we've lost a small fraction of the lives that the people of Iraq have lost. I hope that they can take their massive casualties, and see what they have gained during the course of them occuring. But if they can't, it wouldn't be very surprising, would it? From a historical perspective? In a culture where family is not just first, but family is all, and the idea of "nation" is considered ridiculous.
The extremists are as bad as Nazis or worse, sure. But they're not in any way Nationalists. That concept simply doesn't obtain in the ME. I love the line from "Lawrence of Arabia" where Peter O'Toole first meets Anthony Quinn's character, an arab chief. Lawrence says, "I'm looking for the Arabs." And Quinn's character responds, "I don't know of these Arabs. I know of Hawitat and Haritha, and other tribes. Arabs, no."
Religious fanaticism has a tenor all it's own. Once defeated, the German nationalists couldn't keep their spirit (the "werewolves" legend is pathetic, and just proves this). With Al Queda, each defeat just makes them more determined to get revenge. It's a very different phenomenon.
Which is why you don't generally have to fight nations in this war, but have to fight terrorist cells instead. You don't disagree with Obama's designs to get Bin Laden, do you? Only by killing such fanatics are we going to be safe. Nations, good or bad, can be negotiated with.
I'll make a prediction: Amedinijad is out of office in the next election - they've already ousted one of his ministers. The people of Iran (especially those in Tehran), have had enough of the damage he's done to Iran's standing in the international arena. And, sure, the Mullahs will decide, and support him generally. But they've had their own problems of late with charges of corruption. They're going to have to give, or potentially face an insurrection inside their own country.
Appearing reasonable to Iran right now is exactly the right tactic to take. The new regime won't like us, precisely, but we'll get concessions from them that'll make things more secure in the ME.
The second phase of the Iraq occupation (the first was the actual ground invasion) is over - McCain couldn't make a lot of political hay over the war, simply because we've gotten to the point where we're talking handover. Not meaning leaving entirely, but the retreat to bases, and having the day-to-day policing of the state left to the Iraquis. It's a done deal. What everyone is saying now is basically, "Well, the experiment has been put in place, and the Americans can't just continue to fight forever. Now we see the results of the experiment, and if they pay off."
Time to collect the data now that we've set it up. Later we can analyze it. Talk to you in about ten years. Or twenty. About the time it took for our intervention in Afghanistan against the Soviet dictators there to produce Al Queda.
Mike
This thread whoud have perhaps been entitled "difference of opinion"?, as it seems to be so with a lot of topics... Everybody just gets heated up in debates and gets all fired up of course some punches going to be thrown. But thats because of button-pushing etc... its all just difference of opinion.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
Not sure what your point means? Should we cease debating because it's just "a difference of opinion?" Isn't the point of debate to try to change people's minds on these subjects? So that their opinion changes?
Or are you worried that we're shedding more heat than light? From what I can see, the debate has mostly stuck to facts, and not just incendiary rhetoric. Or am I too close to it?
Anyhow, to summarize my point, we in America have struck off all on our own on some rather dangerous enterprises worldwide. Not without potential benefits, yes, but it's not always easy for everyone to see things from our perspective. Given that, it doesn't seem at all remarkable to me that our popularity worldwide is not all that high in many quarters. Whether or not that criticism is valid or not. Fear of change alone will cause people to be critical of our moves.
By the way, they're just as critical when we do nothing. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. It's really not something we can worry that much about. Focus less on the level of criticism, and more on how much co-operation we're able to actually obtain worldwide.
Mike
Or are you worried that we're shedding more heat than light? From what I can see, the debate has mostly stuck to facts, and not just incendiary rhetoric. Or am I too close to it?
Anyhow, to summarize my point, we in America have struck off all on our own on some rather dangerous enterprises worldwide. Not without potential benefits, yes, but it's not always easy for everyone to see things from our perspective. Given that, it doesn't seem at all remarkable to me that our popularity worldwide is not all that high in many quarters. Whether or not that criticism is valid or not. Fear of change alone will cause people to be critical of our moves.
By the way, they're just as critical when we do nothing. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. It's really not something we can worry that much about. Focus less on the level of criticism, and more on how much co-operation we're able to actually obtain worldwide.
Mike
Mike, you pretty much sum up what I was trying to say.
Of course Saddam Hussein was bad, no question about it, but with all the money spent and the lives lost, the situation in the region has not improved that much, if at all.
The reason why he was not removed during the first golf war, or at least some time before he finally was captured was that everyone back then KNEW that he was a stabilizing factor in the region. Heck thats what we learned in highschool here, when we asked our teachers why the heck noone took that bastard down right away during the first golf war (it even was the topic of some US tv shows).
It also seems quite a lot of a coincidence to me that Iran is daring to do their nuclear programme now, why now? First Iraq wont do anything against it (no military power anymore).
Second the US cant do anything about it (other than negociate or throw some tough remarks) since they not get any support from the European Union for that, maybe GB (they are good at kissing the US ass for some reason), but not France, not Germany, not Italy nor anyone else(maybe some of the new members, but they are not that important). Of course one can always act allone, but that does not make you any friends (last 8 years?) and it is a rather dangerous Spiel. Besides the US economy wont be able to support yet another war that does nothing but cost tax- money. The economy of the rest of the world suffers when the US suffers, which reduces the chances for support even more.
Of course Saddam Hussein was bad, no question about it, but with all the money spent and the lives lost, the situation in the region has not improved that much, if at all.
The reason why he was not removed during the first golf war, or at least some time before he finally was captured was that everyone back then KNEW that he was a stabilizing factor in the region. Heck thats what we learned in highschool here, when we asked our teachers why the heck noone took that bastard down right away during the first golf war (it even was the topic of some US tv shows).
It also seems quite a lot of a coincidence to me that Iran is daring to do their nuclear programme now, why now? First Iraq wont do anything against it (no military power anymore).
Second the US cant do anything about it (other than negociate or throw some tough remarks) since they not get any support from the European Union for that, maybe GB (they are good at kissing the US ass for some reason), but not France, not Germany, not Italy nor anyone else(maybe some of the new members, but they are not that important). Of course one can always act allone, but that does not make you any friends (last 8 years?) and it is a rather dangerous Spiel. Besides the US economy wont be able to support yet another war that does nothing but cost tax- money. The economy of the rest of the world suffers when the US suffers, which reduces the chances for support even more.