Human Shields (What are they thinking?) - Page 3

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Did communist Vietnam really turn out as dangerous as was said?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Shouldn't you give 20/20 hindsight some credit?

[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>I don't have a great understanding of Vietnam, but my current understanding is that Vietnam fell because we were "holding a line" w/o a clear endgame rather than conquering a country outright. Things could have been different if the objective was different (or we could have lost just the same, as well, but there would be no ambiguity over it).</strong><hr></blockquote>\\


Most experts have the opinion that it was an unwinable war. Short of nukes of course. The Vietnamese who were only vaguely aware of the larger issues were defending their homeland. That's all they knew. What would you do?

New,

The prowar argument back then was that if Viet Nam fell then all of asia would be communist in no time. It was called the " Domino Effect ". The inference being that we were next.

So much for prowar hysteria.

The war itself had been going on for something like 200 hundred years. Yes you heard right. This disagreement had been going on before even the french got into it. It was kind of a traditional disagreement between the north and south. Just like today the reasons this happened were not so simple. But when we got into it and started turning their farmlands into craters they saw us as invaders. I'd seriously doubt that average citizen knew anything about democracy vs communisim. They just knew that the soldiers came in and blew up their village.

The vietnamese were fighting jungle war fair and guess what? They were better at it ( it was their home turf after all ). Also I don't believe the U.S. wanted to win. That would stop the profits for the chemical companies who made napalm amongst other things.

I was number 100 in the draft lottery and was only days before I was to report for my physical before they stopped the draft. You guys are so lucky. You can choose. Back then was a very scary time to be american, male, and 18.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>Shouldn't you give 20/20 hindsight some credit?</strong><hr></blockquote>
20/20 hindsight? in not familiar with the term.
Seems the american approach to Vietnam after the war has been far more successful. The country is currently the fastet growing economy in the regions, and is finally opening up to the rest of the world.

Makes you wonder what korea would have been like if the US and China hadn't poured armes and soldiers into each side, and then sepparated them completely.

20/20 hindsight means it is easy to see the outcomes of certain causal events once you are looking back upon them. Past outcomes are "obvious" now, but not so clear once you are in the time trying to see the future.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>

Right, that what I thought it meant.

The consequence of being able to look back and recognize mistakes should be to learn from them.

The war shouldn't have been fought because it was un-winnable (I actually belive it was winnable), but because it was totally unnecessary and a catastrophe for the region and its people.

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Right, that what I thought it meant.

The consequence of being able to look back and recognize mistakes should be to learn from them.

The war shouldn't have been fought because it was un-winnable (I actually belive it was winnable), but because it was totally unnecessary and a catastrophe for the region and its people.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's why I sort of agree with that other guy just not in the way he means. Viet Nam never again. Please.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

You could learn any number of things by looking back upon it- like doing a full scale invasion instead of just holding a line indefinitely and taking casualty after casualty or don't draft 18 yr olds... No one really can pin down what the "right" thing to learn out of a selection of things. Hopefully, you take the right things into account when dealing with future situations.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>You could learn any number of things by looking back upon it- like doing a full scale invasion instead of just holding a line indefinitely and taking casualty after casualty or don't draft 18 yr olds... No one really can pin down what the "right" thing to learn out of a selection of things. Hopefully, you take the right things into account when dealing with future situations.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Their eventual hope was to train the south to defend itself. Well, that didn't quite work.

I think if we are to learn anything from Viet Nam it is to be very sure of your motives and the viability of getting into such a conflict in the first place.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>When did I ever advocate sanctions? There are always more than two solutions to a problem. Unless you really believe in all that "Good versus Evil" crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What do you advocate?

[quote]<strong>I said that there are examples all over the world of how non-violent, internal reform and regime-change has been successful, while US meddling never has.
I can see how this claim is disturbing to you, but you've really made no case against it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Non-violent internal reform & regime change happens every 4 or 8 years in the United States. Of course it happens everywhere, you've yet to point out where it's happened in a place comparable to modern-day Iraq.

And that is already quite problematic with Iraq. Seems like one motive is thrown on top of the other. Just to make the case for war. no matter what.

And then there is <a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html" target="_blank">Stuff like this.</a>

how the hell is one to believe in the motive of democratization when even the semi-democratic processes are bent and manipulated.

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>And that is already quite problematic with Iraq. Seems like one motive is thrown on top of the other. Just to make the case for war. no matter what.

And then there is <a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html" target="_blank">Stuff like this.</a>

how the hell is one to believe in the motive of democratization when even the semi-democratic processes are bent and manipulated.</strong><hr></blockquote>

God, don't they ever learn?

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />

[quote] What do you advocate? <hr></blockquote>
Something like <a href="http://www.portoalegre2003.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/2I2OM/home.htm?user=reader" target="_blank">this?</a>
[quote] Non-violent internal reform & regime change happens every 4 or 8 years in the United States.<hr></blockquote> And who imposed that system upon you? the french?

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong> And who imposed that system upon you? the french?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm apparently a bit thick tonight, what does this mean? Seriously, not trying to be snide.

I will try to refrain from expressing too much opinions here, so i'll just address a few facts my functioning brain happens to remember, approximately.

Re: examples of US political and military action forcibly bringing democratic changes on countries it invaded.
Germany, Japan, Italy.
And while Panama isn't quite a shining example of a benevolent democracy, it's certainly in better shape than during the 80s.
Other than that, the US certainly had a part in orienting several South American countries under its influence toward liberalisation and democratisation.



Re: Vietnam
Unlike in the Korean war, the US wasn't really focused in that conflict, and if the successive South Vietnam presidents were supposedly its puppets, it was a very lousy puppeteer. The South Vietnam regime lacked the resolve to win against the communists, whether on the battlefields, or in the hearts of the Vietnamese. Moreover it lost all credibility among the Vietnamese, including non-communists, many of whom sided with or supported the Viêt-Cong, who at least, were Vietnamese patriots. And at the time, it seemed the US wasn't at all intent to offer some alternative to communism to which Vietnamese could rally.
For from the Vietnamese point of view, it wasn't an ideological war, but one of defending the homeland.
Familiarisation with some broad lines in Vietnamese history might have been useful to any distant superpower wishing to intervene there.
While some succeeded in conquering that country sometimes, for a while, like the giant neighbouring China in times when its power was peaking, or France which in the 19th century had a technological advantage there. Yet these conquests were never enduring or a calm ones.
For Vietnam is a very resilient nation, as the Mongols found out by the humiliating defeat at the hand of the military commander Tran Hung Dao in 1287.
The origin of Vietnam and its tough core are in the North (where the communist republic originally was), and its history is one of exapansion southward, devouring the kingdom of Champa in the process, notably.

Vietnam is still suffering today, but its present plight has more to do with the regime wihch ruled it since victory than from the war itself.
Here again, one can look at South Korea, which had largely recovered thirty years after the war, for some comparison.
While a non-communist South Vietnam might not have replicated South Korea's achievement, I dare make the educated guess it might've probably been better than its current reality.

[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>

I'm apparently a bit thick tonight, what does this mean? Seriously, not trying to be snide.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point is that you chose it yourself.

And that you probably wouldn't have been happy if the french, which helped you back then, had taken a more agressive role in this process.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
Re: examples of US political and military action forcibly bringing democratic changes on countries it invaded.
Germany, Japan, Italy.<hr></blockquote>This isn't really relevant at all. Since we're talking full-scale international war here. These nations where agressor. They were imposing their system of rule on other nations forcibly. That's why we had a war.
To some extent the reasons for WWII in Europe can be traced back to WWI where again, said countries where forcing their rule upon each other.
With the millions dead, WWI and WWII are hardly examples of success, but utter failures of modern nations, that we strive to avoid again.
[quote]And while Panama isn't quite a shining example of a benevolent democracy, it's certainly in better shape than during the 80s.<hr></blockquote>
Panama is a 100 year long history of meddling. Where did Noriega receive his training? He had a personal CIA salary of $100,000 a year until Carter removed him from the US payroll in 1977.
3000 civilians are said to have died when he was finally "arrested". What a mess.
[quote]Other than that, the US certainly had a part in orienting several South American countries under its influence toward liberalisation and democratisation.<hr></blockquote> I'm not sure I follow you? Cleaning up their own mess you mean?

Concerning Korea all I can say is that if you look at the countries that got to decied their own faith after WWII, they seem to have managed quite it quite well. To bad nobody had any faith in the koreans ability to do this. The US and Russia share the blame here.
Same with Vietnam, Blame the french.

[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Most experts have the opinion that it was an unwinable war. Short of nukes of course.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Some experts. We won our war despite the complete mismanagement of the Johnson Administration. By the end of the Nixon Administration, the war, by all measures, was won. Then came the Ford Administration with its self-perceived trembling legitimacy plus the democratically controlled House and Senate who threw our hard-won victory away.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The Vietnamese who were only vaguely aware of the larger issues were defending their homeland. That's all they knew. What would you do?&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Vietnamese villagers could look forward to midnight visits from the local VC who would publicly execute government officials loyal to the Saigon Government. Think of a bunch of thugs coming to your town and killing the mayor after raping and killing his wife and children. THAT"S what the people knew, that's how the North won Hearts and Minds. But anything's acceptable in the cause of Peace, eh?

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;New,

The prowar argument back then was that if Viet Nam fell then all of asia would be communist in no time. It was called the " Domino Effect ". The inference being that we were next.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
No, the inference was that other countries in SE Asia would fall to the Communists. (I remember being laughed at in 1969 for saying that). Go see "The Killing Fields" and enjoy Dith Pran's rousing Domino Effect adventures in the Worker's Paradise.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;So much for prowar hysteria.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
Hysteria....

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The war itself had been going on for something like 200 hundred years. Yes you heard right. This disagreement had been going on before even the french got into it.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
Our Viet Nam War started when (FRENCH Educated) Ho Chi Minn started the Communist Movement in Viet Nam. He threw out the French Army, consolidated his hold on the North, and then went after the South.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;It was kind of a traditional disagreement between the north and south. Just like today the reasons this happened were not so simple.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
It couldn't be simpler. One group wanted to enslave the other.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;But when we got into it and started turning their farmlands into craters they saw us as invaders.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
The Hmong Tribespeople didn't. Neither did a bunch of other Vietnamese.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I'd seriously doubt that average citizen knew anything about democracy vs communisim. They just knew that the soldiers came in and blew up their village.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

And if they didn't fight the Americans, the VC would come and 'deal with' anyone (and their family) who didn't do his duty for Ho Chi Minn.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The vietnamese were fighting jungle war fair and guess what? They were better at it ( it was their home turf after all ). &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
Tell that to the Navy SEALs of the time. You might find some disagreement there.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Also I don't believe the U.S. wanted to win.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
The men fighting the war wanted to win, but our military was hamstrung by Political Authority until Nixon was elected and started to kick the crap out of the North. Even under Nixon, there were still ridiculous restrictions. The Red River Dikes in the North, if bombed, would have flooded half of the North and they would have starved. But that would have irritated the Quislings here at home. Back then, we couldn't irritate Quislings (much less call them that to their faces). We had the goddamned war won and the North Vietnamese Army bottled up in the North when we left. The South Vietnamese Army was up to the task of defending their country. Well, we left that American Sphere of Influence, but the Soviet Union didn't. The North Vietnamese came south after we were gone. Congress, OUR CONGRESS, refused to allocate funds to help the South Vietnamese, so the North -backed up by the Soviet Union- rolled up the country in a completely conventional campaign (infantry, tanks, etc.). We couldn't even supply air support from our carriers... we just let it happen. When it was clear that America wasn't going to help, the South collapsed.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;That would stop the profits for the chemical companies who made napalm amongst other things.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
Irrelevant.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I was number 100 in the draft lottery and was only days before I was to report for my physical before they stopped the draft.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
So you weren't heading to Canada or had beer and aspirin ready to get yourself classified 4F (beer and aspirin taken together before a physical were supposed to throw your blood work so far out of whack, that you'd be rejected as unfit for the military). You didn't try for Conscientious Objector Status?

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You guys are so lucky. You can choose. Back then was a very scary time to be american, male, and 18.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
That's written "American", if you don't mind.

The draft was wrong and completely inconsistent with a country that prides itself on individual rights.

Things in that regard are better, but the selective service should be disbanded. And military salaries should be increased significantly. I don't think that you'll ever see a draft in the United States again. And if the lessons of history are retained, then I don't think that you'll ever see a ten year 'police action' involving the United States again. The lessons of Viet Nam are:

1. Fight only if your national self interest demands it (Iraq qualifies, BTW).
2. Win the Sonofabitch Immediately.
3. Completely understand your End Game.


New:

Talk to some older Norwegians about how much fun it was to live under the Nazi occupation (sort of a way to get a 'feel' for Life Today in Iraq). Remember V. Quisling? The war in Europe ended 7May45. Yet, "fighting" in Norway didn't end for about a week after that. The good people of Norway rose up, bless 'em, and chased their Nazi oppressors into the hills and hunted them down like the animals that they were (and I cheer, laugh and applaud the Norwegians of that time for having done so).
Then when the Nazis were dead, they stopped fighting.

Don't know how the current generation of Norwegian males became so pussified compared to their Steel-balled Grandfathers that they can't seem to recognize a dictator or cheer when someone makes to kill the sonofabitch. Go to the War Museum in Oslo (I was there in May, 1995, 50th anniversary of the end of WW2, btw) and refresh, and revell in, your ancestral memories...

Aries 1B

[quote]Originally posted by Aries 1B:
<strong>

Don't know how the current generation of Norwegian males became so pussified compared to their Steel-balled Grandfathers that they can't seem to recognize a dictator or cheer when someone makes to kill the sonofabitch. Go to the War Museum in Oslo (I was there in May, 1995, 50th anniversary of the end of WW2, btw) and refresh, and revell in, your ancestral memories...

Aries 1B</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you want to know if Norwegian are pussies, it's simple : send a troop of mercenary to invade their countrie, and see how they react. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

You can not compare someone who struggle for his countrie and someone who wants to do a war elsewhere. What is the courage to beat a nation one hundred less military powerfull than your ? : no courage.

The pussie vs courageous argument is not valid. The pro or con war argument is based upon others considerations.

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
This isn't really relevant at all. Since we're talking full-scale international war here. These nations where agressor. They were imposing their system of rule on other nations forcibly. That's why we had a war.
To some extent the reasons for WWII in Europe can be traced back to WWI where again, said countries where forcing their rule upon each other.
With the millions dead, WWI and WWII are hardly examples of success, but utter failures of modern nations, that we strive to avoid again.
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: New ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's true.
However the management of post WW2 by US and his allies was fine, Roosevelt learn the lessons of the failure of post WW1, and managed to avoid a new one.
Roosevelt was a great man, and manage the best of the twenty centuries US foreign policy.

Then some people builded europe to avoid war between europeans in the future, they create step by step europe. Europe is not perfect, but with her help no war is possible between friendly countries. Nato help also, but it's more an alliance with US vs the east during the cold war.

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
Re: examples of US political and military action forcibly bringing democratic changes on countries it invaded.
Germany, Japan, Italy.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong> This isn't really relevant at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is relevent in the context of examples of a democratic system successfully implemented forcibly after an armed conflict, rather than resulting from internal processes.

I. G.: And while Panama isn't quite a shining example of a benevolent democracy, it's certainly in better shape than during the 80s.
[quote]<strong>Panama is a 100 year long history of meddling. Where did Noriega receive his training? He had a personal CIA salary of $100,000 a year until Carter removed him from the US payroll in 1977.
3000 civilians are said to have died when he was finally "arrested". What a mess.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which in no way contradicts what I said, that the Panamenian situation improved in the decade following a direct military and political interference by the U.S., and as a direct consequence of that interference.

I. G.: Other than that, the US certainly had a part in orienting several South American countries under its influence toward liberalisation and democratisation.
[quote]<strong>I'm not sure I follow you? Cleaning up their own mess you mean?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course, and a good thing too, unless one believes one should leave one's mess for others to clean up. And I was very disappointed they didn't do the same in Iraq in 91 (which wasn't exclusively their mess but in which they had a substantial part).

[quote]<strong>Concerning Korea all I can say is that if you look at the countries that got to decied their own faith after WWII, they seem to have managed quite it quite well. To bad nobody had any faith in the koreans ability to do this. The US and Russia share the blame here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure I understand your argument. South Korea certainly succeeded both in the domain of economic development as well as in that of achieving full democratisation. U.S. patronage had a share in both, along with its share of the blame in backing the dictatorship during the darker years.
The U.S.S.R. had its share in installing the Stalinist regime of Kim Il Sung in North Korea which still starves and murders its people as a matter of policy. I beleive any further detailed comparison between the two Koreas is unnecessary.

[quote]<strong>Same with Vietnam, Blame the french.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's very different with Vietnam, as there both halves of the country were unified under the pro-Soviet communist mantle.
France, and later the U.S. share the blame in the loss of Vietnam for the West, for not having groomed a local alternative to the communists which could have won sufficient local support.
In contrast, the British were very successful in their own South-East Asian police action: in Malaya, Sabah, and Sarawak (present day Malaysia) in the late 50s and early to mod-60s. On the military side they completely crushed the communist guerillas, while on the political side they left the premices with a strong and stable Western-friendly and staunchly anti-communist regime, with wide local popular support.
Now, there's a waning empire if there ever wasone, which in some cases, knew how to retire both gracefully and tastefully.

[quote]Originally posted by zKillah:
<strong>The Islamacists now hold sway in Turkey. It is a temporary aberration, I hope. Hopefully in the next elections a friendlier parliament will be elected.</strong><hr></blockquote>I understand that the government as such is quite embarrassed by the "No thank you" vote. They were all for it, it is just that many of its own members voted against it reflecting people's opinion (apparently 80% of the population is against the U.S. attacking Iraq), which is maybe as it should be.

-------
the following from <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02508565" target="_blank">http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02508565</a>

[Prime Minister] Gul said his priority was to protect the economy.

"The government will evaluate the situation calmly. Whatever measure has to be taken will be taken. There is no need for concern," he said.

Sources close to the AKP said the decision had come as a big shock to its leaders. "The issue of resubmitting the motion may be raised, but it would be difficult," one source said.

Several influences may have borne on the result. Deputies were disturbed by anti-war demonstrations on the streets of Ankara and by messages from their constituents. They may also have been irritated by rancour creeping into discussion, public and private, of terms for deployment offered by Washington.

Sharp divisions in Europe over the wisdom of military action raised doubts in party ranks. President Ahmet Necdet Sezer had also questioned the constitutionality of the resolution -- no small matter for a party already viewed by the powerful military with deep suspicion for its Islamist roots.

- T.I.

Nice sig TI.

Happy to see your special guest star apparence here from time to time.

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>And then there is <a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html" target="_blank">Stuff like this.</a></strong><hr></blockquote>Now that does really surprise me. Not.

- T.I.

[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>Nice sig TI.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Bonjour, my little "Old European" friend

This one just for you: "See that the President, the Cabinet and staff are informed. If cut out of the information flow, their decisions may be poor, not made, or not confidently or persuasively implemented." - Donald Rumsfeld

- T.I.

[quote]Originally posted by Aries 1B:
<strong>Some experts. We won our war despite the complete mismanagement of the Johnson Administration. By the end of the Nixon Administration, the war, by all measures, was won. Then came the Ford Administration with its self-perceived trembling legitimacy plus the democratically controlled House and Senate who threw our hard-won victory away.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Clearly, you've never seen the video of footage of the Saigon embassy being evacuated by helicopter during Nixon's administration. Nixon didn't win the war. Nixon had a policy of 'vietnamization', which was basically pull out the U.S. troops and let the Vietnamese fight their own battle.

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Something like this?</strong><hr></blockquote>

An anti-US website?

[quote]<strong>And who imposed that system upon you? the french?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Way to dodge the question yet again!

Immanuel:

Don't even try, it's not worth it. New sponsors appeasement because that's the new global policy idea in Europe. They don't have to worry about it because they aren't going to be the ones who have to clean up the mess when it all goes sour.

--

powerdoc:

[quote]<strong>However the management of post WW2 by US and his allies was fine, Roosevelt learn the lessons of the failure of post WW1, and managed to avoid a new one.
Roosevelt was a great man, and manage the best of the twenty centuries US foreign policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Point of fact: Harry Truman is the president who ended the war (in two mushroom clouds) and the president behind post-war rebuilding (thought it continued after his term).

[quote]<strong>Europe is not perfect, but with her help no war is possible between friendly countries.</strong><hr></blockquote>

...within Europe, not the world. The EU isn't going to change the world to a peaceful place.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>...New sponsors appeasement because that's the new global policy idea in Europe.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's just dishonest to use the term 'appeasement' in this situation.

STRAW-MAN.

You use the term because it's easy to attack, not accurate. Try making accurate accusations instead.

I think the debate is between "containment" and "prevention," not appeasement per se.

I general, I feel like this and other threads around here are at best tangential to the basic issues of this Iraq thing. Seems kind of pointless to argue about whatever we're arguing about in here at this point when there such a lack of focus to the debate.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>It's just dishonest to use the term 'appeasement' in this situation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What's a better term to use for a foreign policy whose aims are to back down from enforcing international law against a mass-murdering madman?

I'm open to new terms.

Buon brings in "containment" and "prevention" (which are essentially synonymous). Containment is something you do to an enemy that you are on equal footing with or at least could pose a real danger to you. It was our policy with Soviet Russia and I suppose in Europe's very weakened military state that's how it views any nation of reasonable military power. You can treat the symptoms, we can cure the disease.

If your goal is merely to keep yourself safe then no worries, mate, the US will happily provide you with that as it has for years. We can keep Saddam from attacking others, sure, but can we keep him from murdering his own en masse? Can we "contain" him without policies that murder his people en masse? Europe has had 12 years to enact such a plan and she seems more interested in internal affaris while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die. Now when the US comes to do what it thinks is right a shrill scream comes that we must have peace even if there isn't peace for the Iraqi civilian today (since I don't consider dying of easily-preventable disease and malnutrition "peace").

I'm just so sick with the left wing media only talking about anti-war all the time. Case in point I live in central texas, austin to be exact ok so about a 1,000 people downtown protesting -that got a lot of press- and now about 20-30,000 people in katy, Tx demonstrating their support for america. The Polls say it across the world too, and averages out to be 59% for action 41% for containing, without a UN resoulation its 55%, 35%, 10% both. Sheesh people think of the benefits if Saddam was out of there, and the future generation of irag, could grow out of its strife with the rest of the world. These ani-war people its so sad, about 75% of them it seems is purely political, if it was a democrat in the office, it'd be completely different. All the media seems to be about is making it too difficult. Fortunately tho through all this, it seems like the system is working, with america's constant pressure, with/without war iraq is going to be looked at by the people of the world with a magnifying glass. Also it seems these anti-war mongers are waging a totally different type of war, one of which is disgusting, a PR war.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

...within Europe, not the world. The EU isn't going to change the world to a peaceful place.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Of course i meant within Europe, i don't see how it can bring peace to the whole world.
This was an euro-centrist thought

[quote] Point of fact: Harry Truman is the president who ended the war (in two mushroom clouds) and the president behind post-war rebuilding (thought it continued after his term). <hr></blockquote>
yes, Truman did a good job too. . But i think that he was in the line of Roosevelt. I read some interview of Roosevelt : i find him impressive.

[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
As far as I can tell it wasn't the islamist that tipped the vote. It was the secular guys. The president was in favor of the vote. Strange huh?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where do you get your information from?

"The parliament vote was 264-250 in favor, with 19 abstentions. But speaker Bulent Arinc nullified the decision because it was four short of the required majority." - AP


The Turks need the US very much more than the other way around. But maybe they dont: if this is a real change in orientation for the Turks. Joining forces with the Islamacist forces outside Turkey will be a setback to Turkeys security, both militarily and economically, not to speak of their social development. US reaction to this will probably wait til the next elections to see whether the Islamacists are really that entrenched in that country.

Turkey has been forgiven many sins for its co-operation. If the Islamacists think that now that Turkey has modern military hardware they can go about and solve their Kurdish problem militarily, theyll get a rude awakening.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>An anti-US website?</strong><hr></blockquote>No, not really. But I guess you won't be reading that story in "USA Today".

- T.I.

[quote]Originally posted by The Installer:
<strong>I understand that the government as such is quite embarrassed by the "No thank you" vote. They were all for it, it is just that many of its own members voted against it reflecting people's opinion (apparently 80% of the population is against the U.S. attacking Iraq), which is maybe as it should be.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

They were not. Otherwise, inter-party disciple would have been excised. Obviously it was not.

[quote]Originally posted by The Installer:
<strong>No, not really. But I guess you won't be reading that story in "USA Today".

- T.I.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Like many other British media outlet, The Guardian is an Arabist media outlet, catering to the large Muslim population there. Basically, youre reading the anglicized version of al-jazeera.

[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

What's a better term to use for a foreign policy whose aims are to back down from enforcing international law against a mass-murdering madman? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Straw-man....

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>but why was the Vietnam war fought in the first place? Thats a much more important question.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why do you think? Why do you think Russia sent troops to Soviet satellites to keep them Soviet satellites?

So we're all in agreement that the Human Shields are A.O.K?

[quote]Originally posted by zKillah:
<strong>Like many other British media outlet, The Guardian is an Arabist media outlet, catering to the large Muslim population there. Basically, youre reading the anglicized version of al-jazeera.</strong><hr></blockquote>I really wonder where you get all that from, zKillah. And even if that were the case, it would take nothing away from the story, anti-American as it may appear.

For what it's worth, the story appeared in today's "Observer", a U.K. Sunday paper.

- T.I.

Well now at least half of the human shields have found out what most of us already concluded for them. They got pissed because iraqi officials (or less corretly a Iraqi humanitarian organisation) told them where to stand and what to shield. And it wasn´t care centers or hospitals but oil producing facilities and the like. And now they are going home.

Good choice.

[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>