[quote]This absolutely does NOT count. Regardless of motivation (I am aware many believe this was only about oil), we stopped the raping of Kuwait.<hr></blockquote>
Bush Sr. (and the US military and the media) constantly referred to the reason for the Gulf War as being the "Liberation of the Kuwaiti People" or the "Liberation of Kuwait".
What was so wrong with leveling with the American people, (or not assuming the US public are total idiots), and coming clean, and saying that the reason for the Gulf War was to protect oil supplies?
Yes, Kuwait was 'liberated', sort of, loosely speaking, from the brutal Iraqi invasion to reinstating the Kuwaiti Emir and Royal Family. Sort of 'out of the fire and back into the frying pan'. Kuwait is not exactly a fine example of all that that America is so popularly espoused to champion, namely democracy, human rights, life-liberty-and-happiness, etc etc. After all America doesn't support evil brutal regimes, do we? Ummmmmm....
[quote]We also were more than capable of completely invading Iraq and removing its military and government. GHWB said no, depsite extreme objection from Norman S. and company. The reasons were two fold: 1) It wasn't the original goal of the mission. 2) It might DESTABILIZE the region if Saddam fell at the drop of a hat. This is why I support his decision at the time, while many others criticize it. We PREVENTED more unstability with our actions. Iraq was ready to take on Saudi Arabia and more importantly, Israel. Had Israel gotten involved, we could have had a true Holy War. We saw to it that Israel didn't respond to the SCUD attacks in order to prevent their entrance and the subsequent Holy War.<hr></blockquote>
A comprehensive and well-referenced report on the Gulf War is at this link: It a few details that CNN etc etc missed
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
[QB]
Bush Sr. (and the US military and the media) constantly referred to the reason for the Gulf War as being the "Liberation of the Kuwaiti People" or the "Liberation of Kuwait".
What was so wrong with leveling with the American people, (or not assuming the US public are total idiots), and coming clean, and saying that the reason for the Gulf War was to protect oil supplies?
QB]<hr></blockquote>
They did say that all the time I remember it very well I was living in Israel back then and scuds were falling all around ....and it was widely discussed that this war is about Oil, Stability in the ME and stopping Sadam from moving into Saudi Arabia...
Can you get this into your head ?
It was about oil and about liberating Kuwait ....can a mission not have two objectives ?
What's your problem ?
In the end the result of this whole thing was positive ! re the overall stability of the ME and Oil so what's your point exactly ?
Good lets move on ...
I call on you to answer my challenge again !
SJO, Harald and others, you were claiming that the US is a destabilizing force in the ME and that its uses its influence to stir things up and that way sell more weapons to competing sides and cause wars, prooooooove it !
I have put a challenge to all you clever people out there:
I have given quite a few examples of US bringing peace and stability to the middle east,( that's what people call foreign policy.. ged it Einstein ?) now can any of you put your money where your mouth is and.....
Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ?
[quote]It was about oil and about liberating Kuwait ....can a mission not have two objectives ?<hr></blockquote>
Oh come on. If Kuwait wasn't rich in oil, nothing would have been done to oust Saddam. And the Kuwaiti people were not "liberated". The regime there remains totally repressive, specially for the native people there. But Westerners and theose in the oil industry, naturally, get preferential treatment. How many times does the industrialized world step in to repel invasions if there aren't economic or $$ motives? Answer is a big round zero.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Oh come on. If Kuwait wasn't rich in oil, nothing would have been done to oust Saddam. And the Kuwaiti people were not "liberated". The regime there remains totally repressive, specially for the native people there. But Westerners and theose in the oil industry, naturally, get preferential treatment. How many times does the industrialized world step in to repel invasions if there aren't economic or $$ motives? Answer is a big round zero.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But I bet you that the western world is happy that Pakistan and India have stepped down the rethoric somewhat. What an ugly mess it would be for those two nations to go a each other with nukes.
Interestingly enough India seems to be not too bothered with foreigners advice.
But then again, 1 billion people, and the most productive film center in the world <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
Oh, looooook everybody! SJO posted another conspiracy link. Another anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-US link! I'm shocked!
Of course you think it is a great account because that's what you believe happened.
You know what else? I don't buy your claim that nothing would have been done, if not for the oil. I do agree that protecting oil was a motivation, as it should have been.
But I bet you that the western world is happy that Pakistan and India have stepped down the rethoric somewhat. What an ugly mess it would be for those two nations to go a each other with nukes.
Interestingly enough India seems to be not too bothered with foreigners advice.
But then again, 1 billion people, and the most productive film center in the world <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
later.....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, how true.
India is carpet bombing us with those terrrible 'Bollywood' films. This is nearly as bad
[quote]Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ?<hr></blockquote>
The international oil industry is (arguably the largest) influence in US foreign policy in the middle east, because of our addiction to and gluttony of fossil fuels, together with Washington's Luddite attitude towards sustainable energy development and indifference towards increasing global environmental pollution casued by fossil fuel burning and its increasingly alarming effects. Now with the current administration, which is headed by oilmen and answers to oil, America looks to be headed towards increased reliance on fossil fuels. This is insanity in the extreme. America could be a net exporter of energy resources, but our domestic and foreign policy is aligned solidly against this, resulting in a huge flow of $US to Middle East States, many of them which harbor terrorists and terror organizations which in turn are funded by oil money, much of which derives from our bondage to gasoline and gasoline products. The Gulf War resulted in US troops being stationed permanently in Saudi Arabia, which in turn resulted in Osama bin Laden (a former CIA asset) to turn renegade and attack us in a classic example of "blowback".
The failure and refusal to implement programs to develop alternative energy sources on a worthwhile scale is both absurd, counter productive and anti-American in principle. The example set by President Reagan in 1980 perfectly illustrated this blatant shortsighted attitude: one of the first things he did was publicly rip out the solar panels which the Carter Admin had installed in the White House in a symbolic one-finger-salute against sustainable energy development.
I recall reading that over 50% of the entire Wall St portfolio is dependent directly and indirectly on energy. Obviously, inertia and vested interest is a major factor in this sad state of affairs and the dragging of heels, but I would volunteer that this combination of domestic and foreign policy, ie our addiction to oil has resulted in warfare, not only in the Middle East, but also rebounded onto American soil too. Not to mention those 100s of $$$$billions on taxpayer funds to support an industry which not only supports terrorists but threatens the entire planet.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Oh come on. If Kuwait wasn't rich in oil, nothing would have been done to oust Saddam. And the Kuwaiti people were not "liberated".</strong><hr></blockquote>
SJO please tell me this -
Why is this a bad thing ? and why do you think this is an example of bad US policy ?
I just don't get your logic... would you have preferred if the US just sat on its hands and did nothing ? Oil prices would soar, the entire fragile stability of the ME would have been in jeopardy and one of the world's most dangerous dictators would have gained more power ... what's your suggestion ?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
How many times does the industrialized world step in to repel invasions if there aren't economic or $$ motives? Answer is a big round zero.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think again , what about Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Israel/Palestine .. all these are conflicts where there is no direct US financial interests involved but the US is a major player contributing either politically, economically or militarily towards peace and stability in these cases .. and there are more examples....
remember what I said before ?
Things are not black and white ... it's all mixed - the good and the bad..... why can't you accept this and instead of demonizing the US try and find more constructive ways of criticizing real faults (of which I agree there are plenty of).
Let us not foget that it is these "oil men" in the White House who want to bring more oil production into the US to REDUCE our dependence on foreign oil. Thinking that this nation is going to ween itself off fossil fuels in even 20 years is insane. I agree we need to spend more money on alternative fuel development, That, I will give you.
And SJO's assault on conservatives continues with the Regan comment. Never mind that we had some of the worst economic times in history while Carter was office. Never mind that he will probably go down in history as one of the most inneffective Presidents EVER.
Now for the war: The article you posted is so obviously anti-Bush and anti-war it is laughable. It doesn't surpise me in the least though., coming from you. I read it. It, like many other things you post here, draws conclusions. My version of the war of course contains the same dates and historical facts. It is simply this:
The US intervened because it wanted to expel Saddam from Kuwait and of course, protect its oil interests. A determination was obviously made that it would take "X" number of troops to do this. This buildup of about 400,000 US troops took awhile. When we were ready, we went in after an ultimatum was issued. If you remember, numerous diplomatic solutions were tried involving the UN. Saddam refused to back down, and we attacked.
Your article is crap. Of course there as a delay in expelling Saddam. Of course it took from August/September until February to complete the buildup. do you think massive military builups happen overnight?
My favorite quote from the article is this:
[quote]Of course, Bush could have easily liberated Kuwait as early as August through pursuing a diplomatic settlement, and could have pursued the Iraqi or Soviet peace initiatives of the past weeks, saving the country and environment much destruction. The "liberation" of Kuwait was as phony and hypocritical as the Gulf war itself.
<hr></blockquote>
Opinion. Unsupported opinion. We did try a peaceful solution.
Or, there is this:
[quote] The Gulf war was a great triumph for George Bush, establishing him as the leader of the Neoimperialist World Order. <hr></blockquote>
It is understandable that the US would take military action to protect the oil supply or any other vital resource. What is annoying to me is the continuous self-righteous drivel about "promoting democracy and freedom" and liberating helpless people from evil regimes. Just be honest...thats all I ask...
[quote]I just don't get your logic... would you have preferred if the US just sat on its hands and did nothing ? Oil prices would soar, the entire fragile stability of the ME would have been in jeopardy and one of the world's most dangerous dictators would have gained more power ... what's your suggestion ?<hr></blockquote>
To learn from past mistakes perhaps? Don't go throwing money and arms at maniacs! The US supplied Saddam Hussein with money and arms during it's war against Iran, (as did the USSR and others), enabling Iraq by 1990 to become one of the worlds largest militaries.. Then what happened?
The CIA and the Pentagon supplied the Afghan Mujahadeen with funds, high tech weapons and expertise, then abandons Afghanistan once the Soviets got lobbed out, contributing to a power vacuum during which period (1994/5) the Taliban came into being, allowing the al Qaida group a sanctuary ...and then look what happened.
[quote]Think again , what about Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Israel/Palestine .. all these are conflicts where there is no direct US financial interests involved but the US is a major player contributing either politically, economically or militarily towards peace and stability in these cases .. and there are more examples<hr></blockquote>....
Incidentally...how can there be cases where there are "no direct US financial interests" yet at the same time the US is "being a major player contributing politically), *economically and militarily*? Sounds like some kind of contradiction.
But your 2nd point...my mistake...The US has many times intervened in the past in situations which are not just tied solely to economics, and more on behalf of enforcing ideological muscle. For example, toppling democratically elected governments because we don't like them, and supporting regimes that routinely murder their citizens. Chile under Pinochet anyone?
Indonesia under Suharto (over 1 million East Timorese slaughtered by Indonesian troops using US equipment, money and arms, and with Washington's approval). Even recently, the attempted "Country Club" coup in Venezuela had a US connection...and Chavez, despite his extreme socialist stance *was* democratically elected. There's just 3 notorious cases...there are more. Honduras? 20,000 civilians killed in Nicaragua? etc etc
[quote]remember what I said before ?
Things are not black and white ... it's all mixed - the good and the bad..... why can't you accept this and instead of demonizing the US try and find more constructive ways of criticizing real faults (of which I agree there are plenty of).<hr></blockquote>
I am definitely not demonizing the US ...more perhaps having a shy at those who are in a position of leadership here..and selling out to big oil every time for short term gain, with terrible results in the longterm. Regarding "taking 20 years to wean ourselves off oil"...that statement has a built in redundancy when this Administration is doing its absolute damnedest to stymy alternative resource development, and go after oil/fossil fuel exploitation as if it's the only energy source that counts for anything. Perhaps its because this White House mob has close friends in corrupt corporate oilmen who run companies into the ground, is run by oil men, and answers to oil men as well as the big 3 in Detroit. They are beholden to them and their wealthy buddies, more interested in a few privileged parties getting rich quickly, while at the same time sticking the big finger at America's future generations.
To abandon the path of energy independence is crazy, and criminal.
I think that coming when it did, as the first major over-seas military action (Greneda and Panama were not major) since Vietnam and all the conflicting internal strife and emotions that conflict left us with, I think that we would not have gone in without the need to protect our oil resources.
I have almost no problem with the war, I've cometo see that it may not have been the wrong thing to do . . . at the time, though, I protested in the streets like crazy.
As for listing Bosnia on that list of interventions . . . I think that we did virtually nothing there and let massacres happen almost within view of UN troops . . . I think of Bosnia as serious failure of nerve by the US . . . we should have done what we did in Kosovo there... without apologies
are you surprised SDW? .
. . I for one know that we should protect our interests . . . but I think that we should be honest about it and we should very seriously strive to NOT be dependant on foriegn interests . . .
I would also say one thing about the 'repressive' regimes in the ME . . I think that many of teh countries there are lacking in the civil structures and values to allow democracy to exist . . . the poeple on the "street" seem to not want rights, women's rights, freedom of religion and expression etc . At least in Kuwait they have money for schools etc.
in fact they have so much money in kuwait that kuwaities don't need to work, they have a very very giving welfare system and everyody gets to go to school free... including college in America . . . I don't know what you mean by repressed . . but it sure isn't that they are lacking for comfort, liesure and all the stuff money can buy.
I think Americans as I have met them in the US and outside are really nice people, open to talk to strangers and pretty easy going.
That said, I think the foreign policy of the US is what leaves Europeans (me included) somewhat sceptical. Why all this isolation from the world? Kyoto, ICC, Anti-mines, NMD, etc.
I wish that that man in the White House would be wiser and try to make positive changes rather than the old "kill'em all" approach.
It isn't the most difficult thing in the world, really. Man has been to the Moon, how hard can it be to end poverty in the World?
oh and BTW, I am concerned with civil rights in the US. This war on terrorism bites its own tail, and has the potential to undermine civil rights , like the right to have accusations tried before a court. Don't say I didn't mention it....
So end of it; I like the US, Americans and America. Don't like that dude in the White House, and the no tolerance attitude
Peace from Europe</strong><hr></blockquote>
...sucks. you can say it. but please, if your stuff's together in Denmark, be at least as concerned for civil rights in the Middle East as you say you are for same in the US.
[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: fantastic happy dinner man ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by fantastic happy dinner man:
<strong>
...sucks. you can say it. but please, be at least as concerned for civil rights in the Middle East as you say you are for same in the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yodamaster is from Denmark. With the anti-immigration tide rising swiftly in Europe, Europe is already seeing a host of "civil rights" issues here. Yodamaster, its easy to say that but Denmark was nearly all white. Rassmussen, the Danish PM is the first and most right-wing anti-immigrant in Europe. Le Pen and Fortyn came later. Now some color is being added, Denmark and other European countries are experiencing "civil rights" issues. A little hypocritical I think when the US is host to millions from around the globe for two centuries.
And fantastic happy dinner man (very funny) was wise to point out Middle East. Is Anti-American hatred so prevelent here that you cannot see past US and look at what is happening in Middle East. Half the population have practically no rights. And don't get me started on China's record or Mynammar or Tibet or .... :-)
[quote]But the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians started while Clinton was in office<hr></blockquote>
The current conflict started when Sharon decided to go for a walk on the Temple Mount. Its nice that you think that everything revolves around Clinton, but it should be interesting to see how you connect the dots on this one.
[quote]And fantastic happy dinner man (very funny) was wise to point out Middle East. Is Anti-American hatred so prevelent here that you cannot see past US and look at what is happening in Middle East. Half the population have practically no rights. And don't get me started on China's record or Mynammar or Tibet or .... :-)<hr></blockquote>
Not quite so black and white in the Middle East. A portion of those with no rights in the Middle East also reside inside Israel, they just happen to be Israeli Arabs [technically they do have rights, there is just a large gap between theory and practice].
Might be best not to mention China to bolster your argument. Every US president has rolled over on human rights in China, whether Rep or Demo. After all a market of over 1 billion people is just too tantalizing to corporate interests, not to mention all that cheap labor. To be very clear most other--read European--politicians and multinationals feel the same way.
If any doubt that US foreign policy doesn't revolve around the security of petroleum assets should ponder this: a majority of the hijackers on the 9/11 flight held Suadi passports, the leader of Al Qaeda is a Saudi, the Saudi populace is one of the largest contributors to the madrassas, and yet the US maintains fully normalized diplomatic relations with SA and has yet to really raise any significant protest over any of this, besides the usual press releases stating "concern". SA ,of course, has kindly made statements about keeping the oil flowing and has broken with OPEC on production quotas. This not without some self-interest, as oil money keeps the [Islamic] revolutionary friction down to a minimum.
Comments
One was an internal affair, the other wasn't.
mika.
<strong>It was about oil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And this is a bad thing... why?
Bush Sr. (and the US military and the media) constantly referred to the reason for the Gulf War as being the "Liberation of the Kuwaiti People" or the "Liberation of Kuwait".
What was so wrong with leveling with the American people, (or not assuming the US public are total idiots), and coming clean, and saying that the reason for the Gulf War was to protect oil supplies?
Yes, Kuwait was 'liberated', sort of, loosely speaking, from the brutal Iraqi invasion to reinstating the Kuwaiti Emir and Royal Family. Sort of 'out of the fire and back into the frying pan'. Kuwait is not exactly a fine example of all that that America is so popularly espoused to champion, namely democracy, human rights, life-liberty-and-happiness, etc etc. After all America doesn't support evil brutal regimes, do we? Ummmmmm....
<a href="http://www.derechos.org/human-rights/mena/kuwait.html"; target="_blank">http://www.derechos.org/human-rights/mena/kuwait.html</a>;
[quote]We also were more than capable of completely invading Iraq and removing its military and government. GHWB said no, depsite extreme objection from Norman S. and company. The reasons were two fold: 1) It wasn't the original goal of the mission. 2) It might DESTABILIZE the region if Saddam fell at the drop of a hat. This is why I support his decision at the time, while many others criticize it. We PREVENTED more unstability with our actions. Iraq was ready to take on Saudi Arabia and more importantly, Israel. Had Israel gotten involved, we could have had a true Holy War. We saw to it that Israel didn't respond to the SCUD attacks in order to prevent their entrance and the subsequent Holy War.<hr></blockquote>
A comprehensive and well-referenced report on the Gulf War is at this link: It a few details that CNN etc etc missed
<a href="http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/gulfwar10.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/gulfwar10.htm</a>;
[QB]
Bush Sr. (and the US military and the media) constantly referred to the reason for the Gulf War as being the "Liberation of the Kuwaiti People" or the "Liberation of Kuwait".
What was so wrong with leveling with the American people, (or not assuming the US public are total idiots), and coming clean, and saying that the reason for the Gulf War was to protect oil supplies?
QB]<hr></blockquote>
They did say that all the time I remember it very well I was living in Israel back then and scuds were falling all around ....and it was widely discussed that this war is about Oil, Stability in the ME and stopping Sadam from moving into Saudi Arabia...
Can you get this into your head ?
It was about oil and about liberating Kuwait ....can a mission not have two objectives ?
What's your problem ?
In the end the result of this whole thing was positive ! re the overall stability of the ME and Oil so what's your point exactly ?
Good lets move on ...
I call on you to answer my challenge again !
SJO, Harald and others, you were claiming that the US is a destabilizing force in the ME and that its uses its influence to stir things up and that way sell more weapons to competing sides and cause wars, prooooooove it !
I have put a challenge to all you clever people out there:
I have given quite a few examples of US bringing peace and stability to the middle east,( that's what people call foreign policy.. ged it Einstein ?) now can any of you put your money where your mouth is and.....
Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ?
Oh come on. If Kuwait wasn't rich in oil, nothing would have been done to oust Saddam. And the Kuwaiti people were not "liberated". The regime there remains totally repressive, specially for the native people there. But Westerners and theose in the oil industry, naturally, get preferential treatment. How many times does the industrialized world step in to repel invasions if there aren't economic or $$ motives? Answer is a big round zero.
<strong>
Oh come on. If Kuwait wasn't rich in oil, nothing would have been done to oust Saddam. And the Kuwaiti people were not "liberated". The regime there remains totally repressive, specially for the native people there. But Westerners and theose in the oil industry, naturally, get preferential treatment. How many times does the industrialized world step in to repel invasions if there aren't economic or $$ motives? Answer is a big round zero.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yup.
My words exactly.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
But I bet you that the western world is happy that Pakistan and India have stepped down the rethoric somewhat. What an ugly mess it would be for those two nations to go a each other with nukes.
Interestingly enough India seems to be not too bothered with foreigners advice.
But then again, 1 billion people, and the most productive film center in the world <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
later.....
Of course you think it is a great account because that's what you believe happened.
You know what else? I don't buy your claim that nothing would have been done, if not for the oil. I do agree that protecting oil was a motivation, as it should have been.
<strong>
yup.
My words exactly.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
But I bet you that the western world is happy that Pakistan and India have stepped down the rethoric somewhat. What an ugly mess it would be for those two nations to go a each other with nukes.
Interestingly enough India seems to be not too bothered with foreigners advice.
But then again, 1 billion people, and the most productive film center in the world <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
later.....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, how true.
India is carpet bombing us with those terrrible 'Bollywood' films. This is nearly as bad
as nuclear war and a bad dose of dehli belly.
:-)
The international oil industry is (arguably the largest) influence in US foreign policy in the middle east, because of our addiction to and gluttony of fossil fuels, together with Washington's Luddite attitude towards sustainable energy development and indifference towards increasing global environmental pollution casued by fossil fuel burning and its increasingly alarming effects. Now with the current administration, which is headed by oilmen and answers to oil, America looks to be headed towards increased reliance on fossil fuels. This is insanity in the extreme. America could be a net exporter of energy resources, but our domestic and foreign policy is aligned solidly against this, resulting in a huge flow of $US to Middle East States, many of them which harbor terrorists and terror organizations which in turn are funded by oil money, much of which derives from our bondage to gasoline and gasoline products. The Gulf War resulted in US troops being stationed permanently in Saudi Arabia, which in turn resulted in Osama bin Laden (a former CIA asset) to turn renegade and attack us in a classic example of "blowback".
The failure and refusal to implement programs to develop alternative energy sources on a worthwhile scale is both absurd, counter productive and anti-American in principle. The example set by President Reagan in 1980 perfectly illustrated this blatant shortsighted attitude: one of the first things he did was publicly rip out the solar panels which the Carter Admin had installed in the White House in a symbolic one-finger-salute against sustainable energy development.
I recall reading that over 50% of the entire Wall St portfolio is dependent directly and indirectly on energy. Obviously, inertia and vested interest is a major factor in this sad state of affairs and the dragging of heels, but I would volunteer that this combination of domestic and foreign policy, ie our addiction to oil has resulted in warfare, not only in the Middle East, but also rebounded onto American soil too. Not to mention those 100s of $$$$billions on taxpayer funds to support an industry which not only supports terrorists but threatens the entire planet.
SDW, lets see your version of the Gulf War, or are you just disagreeing with me on a typical kneejerk reaction again?
<strong>
Oh come on. If Kuwait wasn't rich in oil, nothing would have been done to oust Saddam. And the Kuwaiti people were not "liberated".</strong><hr></blockquote>
SJO please tell me this -
Why is this a bad thing ? and why do you think this is an example of bad US policy ?
I just don't get your logic... would you have preferred if the US just sat on its hands and did nothing ? Oil prices would soar, the entire fragile stability of the ME would have been in jeopardy and one of the world's most dangerous dictators would have gained more power ... what's your suggestion ?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
How many times does the industrialized world step in to repel invasions if there aren't economic or $$ motives? Answer is a big round zero.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think again , what about Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Israel/Palestine .. all these are conflicts where there is no direct US financial interests involved but the US is a major player contributing either politically, economically or militarily towards peace and stability in these cases .. and there are more examples....
remember what I said before ?
Things are not black and white ... it's all mixed - the good and the bad..... why can't you accept this and instead of demonizing the US try and find more constructive ways of criticizing real faults (of which I agree there are plenty of).
[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
Let us not foget that it is these "oil men" in the White House who want to bring more oil production into the US to REDUCE our dependence on foreign oil. Thinking that this nation is going to ween itself off fossil fuels in even 20 years is insane. I agree we need to spend more money on alternative fuel development, That, I will give you.
And SJO's assault on conservatives continues with the Regan comment. Never mind that we had some of the worst economic times in history while Carter was office. Never mind that he will probably go down in history as one of the most inneffective Presidents EVER.
Now for the war: The article you posted is so obviously anti-Bush and anti-war it is laughable. It doesn't surpise me in the least though., coming from you. I read it. It, like many other things you post here, draws conclusions. My version of the war of course contains the same dates and historical facts. It is simply this:
The US intervened because it wanted to expel Saddam from Kuwait and of course, protect its oil interests. A determination was obviously made that it would take "X" number of troops to do this. This buildup of about 400,000 US troops took awhile. When we were ready, we went in after an ultimatum was issued. If you remember, numerous diplomatic solutions were tried involving the UN. Saddam refused to back down, and we attacked.
Your article is crap. Of course there as a delay in expelling Saddam. Of course it took from August/September until February to complete the buildup. do you think massive military builups happen overnight?
My favorite quote from the article is this:
[quote]Of course, Bush could have easily liberated Kuwait as early as August through pursuing a diplomatic settlement, and could have pursued the Iraqi or Soviet peace initiatives of the past weeks, saving the country and environment much destruction. The "liberation" of Kuwait was as phony and hypocritical as the Gulf war itself.
<hr></blockquote>
Opinion. Unsupported opinion. We did try a peaceful solution.
Or, there is this:
[quote] The Gulf war was a great triumph for George Bush, establishing him as the leader of the Neoimperialist World Order. <hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Neoimperialist World Order? Isn't it time for this guy to get cable?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
To learn from past mistakes perhaps? Don't go throwing money and arms at maniacs! The US supplied Saddam Hussein with money and arms during it's war against Iran, (as did the USSR and others), enabling Iraq by 1990 to become one of the worlds largest militaries.. Then what happened?
The CIA and the Pentagon supplied the Afghan Mujahadeen with funds, high tech weapons and expertise, then abandons Afghanistan once the Soviets got lobbed out, contributing to a power vacuum during which period (1994/5) the Taliban came into being, allowing the al Qaida group a sanctuary ...and then look what happened.
[quote]Think again , what about Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Israel/Palestine .. all these are conflicts where there is no direct US financial interests involved but the US is a major player contributing either politically, economically or militarily towards peace and stability in these cases .. and there are more examples<hr></blockquote>....
Incidentally...how can there be cases where there are "no direct US financial interests" yet at the same time the US is "being a major player contributing politically), *economically and militarily*? Sounds like some kind of contradiction.
But your 2nd point...my mistake...The US has many times intervened in the past in situations which are not just tied solely to economics, and more on behalf of enforcing ideological muscle. For example, toppling democratically elected governments because we don't like them, and supporting regimes that routinely murder their citizens. Chile under Pinochet anyone?
Indonesia under Suharto (over 1 million East Timorese slaughtered by Indonesian troops using US equipment, money and arms, and with Washington's approval). Even recently, the attempted "Country Club" coup in Venezuela had a US connection...and Chavez, despite his extreme socialist stance *was* democratically elected. There's just 3 notorious cases...there are more. Honduras? 20,000 civilians killed in Nicaragua? etc etc
[quote]remember what I said before ?
Things are not black and white ... it's all mixed - the good and the bad..... why can't you accept this and instead of demonizing the US try and find more constructive ways of criticizing real faults (of which I agree there are plenty of).<hr></blockquote>
I am definitely not demonizing the US ...more perhaps having a shy at those who are in a position of leadership here..and selling out to big oil every time for short term gain, with terrible results in the longterm. Regarding "taking 20 years to wean ourselves off oil"...that statement has a built in redundancy when this Administration is doing its absolute damnedest to stymy alternative resource development, and go after oil/fossil fuel exploitation as if it's the only energy source that counts for anything. Perhaps its because this White House mob has close friends in corrupt corporate oilmen who run companies into the ground, is run by oil men, and answers to oil men as well as the big 3 in Detroit. They are beholden to them and their wealthy buddies, more interested in a few privileged parties getting rich quickly, while at the same time sticking the big finger at America's future generations.
To abandon the path of energy independence is crazy, and criminal.
I have almost no problem with the war, I've cometo see that it may not have been the wrong thing to do . . . at the time, though, I protested in the streets like crazy.
As for listing Bosnia on that list of interventions . . . I think that we did virtually nothing there and let massacres happen almost within view of UN troops . . . I think of Bosnia as serious failure of nerve by the US . . . we should have done what we did in Kosovo there... without apologies
are you surprised SDW? .
. . I for one know that we should protect our interests . . . but I think that we should be honest about it and we should very seriously strive to NOT be dependant on foriegn interests . . .
I would also say one thing about the 'repressive' regimes in the ME . . I think that many of teh countries there are lacking in the civil structures and values to allow democracy to exist . . . the poeple on the "street" seem to not want rights, women's rights, freedom of religion and expression etc . At least in Kuwait they have money for schools etc.
in fact they have so much money in kuwait that kuwaities don't need to work, they have a very very giving welfare system and everyody gets to go to school free... including college in America . . . I don't know what you mean by repressed . . but it sure isn't that they are lacking for comfort, liesure and all the stuff money can buy.
<strong>
Yes, how true.
India is carpet bombing us with those terrrible 'Bollywood' films. This is nearly as bad
as nuclear war and a bad dose of dehli belly.
:-)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah , just louder and longer... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>Hi All,
I think Americans as I have met them in the US and outside are really nice people, open to talk to strangers and pretty easy going.
That said, I think the foreign policy of the US is what leaves Europeans (me included) somewhat sceptical. Why all this isolation from the world? Kyoto, ICC, Anti-mines, NMD, etc.
I wish that that man in the White House would be wiser and try to make positive changes rather than the old "kill'em all" approach.
It isn't the most difficult thing in the world, really. Man has been to the Moon, how hard can it be to end poverty in the World?
oh and BTW, I am concerned with civil rights in the US. This war on terrorism bites its own tail, and has the potential to undermine civil rights , like the right to have accusations tried before a court. Don't say I didn't mention it....
So end of it; I like the US, Americans and America. Don't like that dude in the White House, and the no tolerance attitude
Peace from Europe</strong><hr></blockquote>
...sucks. you can say it. but please, if your stuff's together in Denmark, be at least as concerned for civil rights in the Middle East as you say you are for same in the US.
[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: fantastic happy dinner man ]</p>
<strong>
...sucks. you can say it. but please, be at least as concerned for civil rights in the Middle East as you say you are for same in the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yodamaster is from Denmark. With the anti-immigration tide rising swiftly in Europe, Europe is already seeing a host of "civil rights" issues here. Yodamaster, its easy to say that but Denmark was nearly all white. Rassmussen, the Danish PM is the first and most right-wing anti-immigrant in Europe. Le Pen and Fortyn came later. Now some color is being added, Denmark and other European countries are experiencing "civil rights" issues. A little hypocritical I think when the US is host to millions from around the globe for two centuries.
And fantastic happy dinner man (very funny) was wise to point out Middle East. Is Anti-American hatred so prevelent here that you cannot see past US and look at what is happening in Middle East. Half the population have practically no rights. And don't get me started on China's record or Mynammar or Tibet or .... :-)
The current conflict started when Sharon decided to go for a walk on the Temple Mount. Its nice that you think that everything revolves around Clinton, but it should be interesting to see how you connect the dots on this one.
[quote]And fantastic happy dinner man (very funny) was wise to point out Middle East. Is Anti-American hatred so prevelent here that you cannot see past US and look at what is happening in Middle East. Half the population have practically no rights. And don't get me started on China's record or Mynammar or Tibet or .... :-)<hr></blockquote>
Not quite so black and white in the Middle East. A portion of those with no rights in the Middle East also reside inside Israel, they just happen to be Israeli Arabs [technically they do have rights, there is just a large gap between theory and practice].
Might be best not to mention China to bolster your argument. Every US president has rolled over on human rights in China, whether Rep or Demo. After all a market of over 1 billion people is just too tantalizing to corporate interests, not to mention all that cheap labor. To be very clear most other--read European--politicians and multinationals feel the same way.
If any doubt that US foreign policy doesn't revolve around the security of petroleum assets should ponder this: a majority of the hijackers on the 9/11 flight held Suadi passports, the leader of Al Qaeda is a Saudi, the Saudi populace is one of the largest contributors to the madrassas, and yet the US maintains fully normalized diplomatic relations with SA and has yet to really raise any significant protest over any of this, besides the usual press releases stating "concern". SA ,of course, has kindly made statements about keeping the oil flowing and has broken with OPEC on production quotas. This not without some self-interest, as oil money keeps the [Islamic] revolutionary friction down to a minimum.
[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>