No Shariff wasn´t an angel. But still he was, as you say, an overwhelming_elected leader of the country. He was ousted by a military coup.
Should any legally elected head of government in any of the three democratic countries of which I am a citizen, dismantle one by one eevery institution able to check his power, and thus dismantle demcoracy, I'd be hoping the military does its duty and ousts the elected hack.
Quote:
Now what is more importent: A government that supports US or democracy?
A democracy should be preferred, as it's shown it's more beneficial to deal with, on the long term.
In the absence or unavalaibility of democracy, better a dictator more like Anwar al-Sadat or King Hussain than one closer to Hafeth al-Assad or Saddam Hussain.
Personally, I believe demcoracies should start articulating a more coordinated global policy, aiming at fostering stability, development, and democracy as much as possible. But that'll have to wait till I make my coordinated coups in several of the main G7 powerhouses.
Quote:
Turkmenistan have all the potential to become the new Iraq. Its rather scary to read about the country since it sounds like iraq twenty years ago. And up until the need for runways in the war against Afghanistan the country was becoming more and more isolated from international relations as an answer to the conditions in the country.
Turkmenistan, like most of its fellow former Soviet Stans, is basically the same local party bosses who fashioned themselves ?democratic leaders of the people?. It seems that following the failed 1991 communist oldtimers' coup, the Stans hastily seceded form the Union to avoid the same democratisation that was taking place in russia at the time.
Many of them have the potential to become quite nasty. So they should, in my opinion, be assisted, and warned, so to encourage them to follow a path similar to that of Taiwan, or South Korea, or several Hispanophone countries of the Americas, which improved politically in the late nineteen-eighties and early nineties.
Quote:
If I read you right there could be three reasons for keeping Turkey out:
1) Economy, which you say would be stupid since the structure of the Turkish economy is better than of those countries we accept. I agree and Despite I´m not a fan of EU (I see it as a bad Implementation of the otherwise great idea of european unification) I´m glad that the econimical factor is not the reason.
If the economic, political, and human right criteria, for admittance are set to the lowest so to accept a Slovakia or a Croatia, then there's no reasonable cause to keep Turkey out.
I believe Turkey's current levels of either human-rights, political, or economic development are below that of a First-World democracy, and so not quite ready but then so are most of the new Eastern members.
But then it seems the EU, rather than wanting to be a strictly First-World democracies' joint, had decided to be a ?Common Indo-European Christian Club? instead, so screw them.
Quote:
2) The Turk/Greek problem. I think the attitude in most european countries are like "GET OVER IT ALREADY!" So even if its a huge problem for Greece and a smaller one in Brussel it would never be a reason for the general public to hold Turkey out. And a vast majority doesn´t want to accept it.
The EU's dishonest attitude is een in its treatment of the Cypriot question.
The small Middle-Eastern island has been told it'd be admitted in the Union, supposedly on the condition it puts an end to its ethnic conflict and initiates re-unification. However, should the two halves reach an agreement, only the Greek side will is admitted anyway!.
Greece, whose treatment of its Turkish minority in Thrace, and of its Slavic minorities in Macedonia, is far below the standards of all other current EU members including the Mediterranean ones, has no other motivation in opposing Turkey's admittance, other than because it's made of Turks.
Quote:
3) that leaves one reason. The human rights question. The European human right declaration has to be fulfilled to be accepted in EU and that includes things like leaving death penalty as a way of punishment (just to take one example) and Turkey hasn´t taken the nessesary steps.
Well, to my knowledge there's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and then there's a European Convention on Human Rights, which are not quite the same thing.
Should the level of economic development suitable for a First-World country be reached by Turkey, a sufficient compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights is still indispensable for admittance (but perhaps Greece should be ousted for failure to comply, but they have the Parthenon and the Attalos Portico and other bibelots, and so are treated with way too much indulgence).
Quote:
4) Some in turkey claim that its the christian europe that won´t accept a muslim country.
Former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing admitted as much.
Quote:
But even for me as a atheist its importent that those minimum conditions are met. Religion can not make respect for human life relative. Especially not in a union that is going to be more tight in the next few years.
Formally, Turkey is more secular than most countries already in the EU. Islam still has a doctrine problem with the notions of religously-neutral state and religously-neutral civil society, which are precisely what make religion tame.
That maisntream ?moderate? Islam is less accomodating of a secualr state than the most fundamnetalist of fundamnetalist Christians, and that Islam's influence on a sizable part of Turkey's population, still very traditional, would be the only worrisome ground here. However, the actual problem they have with Turkey here, is that it's full of Muslims.
Quote:
If its for a fifth reason we want to keep out Turkey please state it.
I believe as much as stated above, that Turkey is simply considered ?not-really European? given that it is seen as fully and forever lost to Christendom since Constatinople fell in the hands of Mehmet II in 1453.
Quote:
You have rejected the economical reason as well as the human rights one (which I claim is the right one) and I have rejected the others. If you have another please say so
I suppose I explained why I think Turkey was rejected and some less or just as worthy candidates admitted, and what in my opinion should have been the proper route taken.
If necessary, I could clarify further.
Quote:
In Goldsteins post he is trying to say no harm was done anywhere and that simply isn´t true.
I say many things, some of them untrue, but where fo i say ?no harm was done anywhere??
Quote:
The presens of troops in Pakistan and the preversion of the current "government" is not good for the citizents of pakistan.
The presence of U.S. troops in Paksitan is insignificant, precisley for not to hinder the stability of Pakistan;s current government, which is the U.S.' biggest asset in that counbtry. that is also the reason why it keeps shower favours on Pakistan while democratic Inmdia begs to become the U.S.' premier partner in the Subcontinent
Later addition:
Quote:
Would the american troops allow an uprising to tumble Mussharraf if the social pressure became strong enough? No because it needs stability. The same goes for Turkmenistan. And for Tajikistan even if its considerable more mudded.
The American troops would not in a position to allow or disallow an uprising, and the presence of any substantial number of such troops in the country would put Paiksitan;s stability at risk. Besides, Musharraf seems to be doing fine in that department, to the satisfaction of all concerned.
As for the Central European Stans, the more significant presence of U.S. troops there, for the time being, could be likened to that in some less than palatable countries during the second half of the twentieth century (think Francoist Spain), which didn't turn all that bad after all.
Countries around Afghanistan were authoritarian well before the U.S. operation there, and all Western countries including from Europe or North America have correct relations (?buddies?) with them (except Iran, still shunned by the U.S.).
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
One special note about this:
No. Those countries was becoming more and more isolated from the interenational society. No one was buddies with these countries before the war.
Before 1990, these countries were locked up as part of the Soviet empire. From 1990 to 2000 they certainly opened up to varying degrees, and established correct ties with lots of countries, Western, East Asian, South Asian, Muslim, even with Israel.
Quote:
And the presents of US troops will stop all development (like in Saudi Arabia) for the better.
The only reason Saudi Arabia remains such a backward mediaeval autocracy is because of the ruthless regime of the House Sa'ud and of the huge influence of extreme Wahabi clerics on the ignorant population. The only impact the presence of U.S. troop had there is that it made some Jihadis go ballistic, unbelievers soiling the holy land and all that.
These troops were there at the demand of the local royals to protect them from Saddam Hussain; and now that he's gone, they're leaving, which I believe puts the future of House Sa'ud under a big question mark.
I´m already in bed so my answer to your post must wait to tomorrow. But I´ll make a few easy points:
1) Croatia is not among the ten new countries to be accepted into EU. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus are the ones.
2) Valery d'Estaing is an elderly man and not the voice of europe. You can´t use him as a withness for why some states are accepted in Eu and why some aren´t. And more and more people are coming to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have him as the chairman of the group preparing the new convention. Among those over half of those politicians working on the Convention.
3) If you read the reports from the state department on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan you´ll see that the situation actually have gone in the wrong direction in the last years. Its not USSR continued but a reverse from better times in mid 90s.
5) "I say many things, some of them untrue, but where fo i say ?no harm was done anywhere??". You surely dont see any problems in US troops being anywhere. Not in former USSR republics, not in Saudi Arabia, not in pakistan. At least Groverat agreed with me (until you changed his mind )
5) Stability is key when you have to count on a friendly leaders to stay there. But I´m not gonna lose sleep over the saudi royal familys future either, soo good night
I´m already in bed so my answer to your post must wait to tomorrow. But I´ll make a few easy points:
1) Croatia is not among the ten new countries to be accepted into EU. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus are the ones.
Sorry, I was misled by a piece of news (last March, I think) according to which Croatia's candidacy was backed by the EU Parliament. So it's not actually admitted yet, all the better.
But there it is: most of those new members are no more (and sometimes less) developed than Turkey whether it has to do with the economy, democracy, or human rights. The treatment of the Cyprus problem further illustrates this bias.
To precise my opinion, I believe the EU should have emphasised more on content: shaping itself as an integrated political entity, before even thinking about further enlargement. It would have given some time to develop to the eastern and southeastern European countries, so they can be more of an asset than a burden when they join. If the record of the German reunification is any indication, then the absdorbtion of so many of those relatively backward countries is going to be costly, and to make it harder to proceed with that much needed shaping of the Union.
Quote:
2) Valery d'Estaing is an elderly man and not the voice of europe. You can´t use him as a withness for why some states are accepted in Eu and why some aren´t. And more and more people are coming to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have him as the chairman of the group preparing the new convention. Among those over half of those politicians working on the Convention.
Giscard expressed openly what is a common sentiment. Given that the new member-states are no more advanced than Turkey, the reason they're in and Turkey's out is more than obvious.
I do hope there's enough opposite sentiment to balance that.
And it's about damn time more people find out what a putz Giscard really is.
Quote:
3) If you read the reports from the state department on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan you´ll see that the situation actually have gone in the wrong direction in the last years. Its not USSR continued but a reverse from better times in mid 90s.
I did notice that trend, but it does not contradict the general assessment of the regimes there (often the former party apparatus), nor that it's still far better than it was in the eighties.
Internal instability, external destabilising factors (like armed fundamentalist groups), and economic uncertainties due to haphazarad reforms, led to a marasme on the second half of the decade. Similar things happened to several ther former Soviet block countries.
Quote:
5) "I say many things, some of them untrue, but where fo i say ?no harm was done anywhere??". You surely dont see any problems in US troops being anywhere. Not in former USSR republics, not in Saudi Arabia, not in pakistan.
I see no inherent problem in such presence. Then there's the difference in scope in a massive presence of U.S. as was the case in Saudi, the more modest deployment in some Central Asian countries, and the insignificant presence as is the case in Pakistan. I don't deny problems could arise from that presence.
Quote:
Stability is key when you have to count on a friendly leaders to stay there. But I´m not gonna lose sleep over the saudi royal familys future either, soo good night
Bunge: It's not a total removal of troops, but we're withdrawing all but about 400 people from SA. The story broke a few weeks ago.
Cheers
Scott
Yeah, I had heard about the reduction of troops, but not a withdrawl. Plus, the announcement of the reduction came after Al Queda announced they were going to attack in Pakistan, Morocco and Saudia Arabia.
Yeah, I had heard about the reduction of troops, but not a withdrawl. Plus, the announcement of the reduction came after Al Queda announced they were going to attack in Pakistan, Morocco and Saudia Arabia.
Sure. I actually hadn't heard about any threats to attack. The spin the admin gave it was that once the Iraq war was over, and once Iraq no longer posed a serious threat to SA, there was no reason to keep the troops (what, 3500 or so?) there.
And it also helps with, you know, the fact that the US military presence there is a sore spot for lots of folks.
But as I understand it, all but about 400 will be withdrawn. Those who remain will be there sheerly for "training purposes."
BTW, did anyone else hear that one of the targets in SA was a fairly well-known CIA front? I seem to remember hearing this (perhaps on NPR), and I *think* the person said that it either was or is a front. Anyway.
Sorry, wrong again giant. Ari no longer works for the White House so no matter what he ever said or when he said it, we have to pretend that he never represented the President.
Sorry, wrong again giant. Ari no longer works for the White House so no matter what he ever said or when he said it, we have to pretend that he never represented the President.
Don't you understand obfuscation?
heh. It looks like that's going to be the case for a bunch of people. Karen Hughes, Ari, CT Whitman, the entire original economic team....
Looks like the night of the long knives or something.
I don't see how Fleischer's statement disputes what you quoted me as saying.
Tell me, were Bush & Blair *not* making the humanitarian case for months?
Does Fleischer saying that mean that Bush & Blair didn't actually say all of that stuff about the atrocities of Hussein?
Interesting...
You know, it's screwed up enough when people try to lie about events that happened a decade ago, but we're talking about the past couple of months. Are you nuts? What do you think you are doing? In the words of the White House (as if reality wasn't already enough): "[WMD] is what this war was about and is about." This is what it has always been about. You aren't going to change that.
What do you think you are doing? In the words of the White House (as if reality wasn't already enough): "[WMD] is what this war was about and is about." This is what it has always been about. You aren't going to change that.
I am not disputing what Fleischer said at all. I'm just talking about the things Bush and Blair had been saying for months before the war.
I'm wondering this, does Fleischer saying that mean that Bush & Blair no longer made appeals about the humanitarian issue, because that's what you quoted me as saying.
You didn't quote me as saying what the war was "about" because I don't know what the war was "about". To claim to know the internal motivations of GeeDub is never something I claimed to know.
So what the hell is your point? How is posting that quote from Fleischer a refutation of what you quoted me as saying?
Anyone remember Scott Ritter? He was the the former weapons inspector who claimed that Iraq was all but disarmed and no longer represented a threat, re. WMD. The Bush administration dissed him from here to the Mississippi and back, and the media predictably followed suit, and he all but disappeared from public view.
Looks like he was the man who was telling the truth. Yes, the Bush admin was lying to start a war.
Looks like he was the man who was telling the truth. Yes, the Bush admin was lying to start a war.
Once effective inspection regimes have been terminated Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months.
Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.
Comments
Originally posted by Anders the White
No Shariff wasn´t an angel. But still he was, as you say, an overwhelming_elected leader of the country. He was ousted by a military coup.
Should any legally elected head of government in any of the three democratic countries of which I am a citizen, dismantle one by one eevery institution able to check his power, and thus dismantle demcoracy, I'd be hoping the military does its duty and ousts the elected hack.
Now what is more importent: A government that supports US or democracy?
A democracy should be preferred, as it's shown it's more beneficial to deal with, on the long term.
In the absence or unavalaibility of democracy, better a dictator more like Anwar al-Sadat or King Hussain than one closer to Hafeth al-Assad or Saddam Hussain.
Personally, I believe demcoracies should start articulating a more coordinated global policy, aiming at fostering stability, development, and democracy as much as possible. But that'll have to wait till I make my coordinated coups in several of the main G7 powerhouses.
Turkmenistan have all the potential to become the new Iraq. Its rather scary to read about the country since it sounds like iraq twenty years ago. And up until the need for runways in the war against Afghanistan the country was becoming more and more isolated from international relations as an answer to the conditions in the country.
Turkmenistan, like most of its fellow former Soviet Stans, is basically the same local party bosses who fashioned themselves ?democratic leaders of the people?. It seems that following the failed 1991 communist oldtimers' coup, the Stans hastily seceded form the Union to avoid the same democratisation that was taking place in russia at the time.
Many of them have the potential to become quite nasty. So they should, in my opinion, be assisted, and warned, so to encourage them to follow a path similar to that of Taiwan, or South Korea, or several Hispanophone countries of the Americas, which improved politically in the late nineteen-eighties and early nineties.
If I read you right there could be three reasons for keeping Turkey out:
1) Economy, which you say would be stupid since the structure of the Turkish economy is better than of those countries we accept. I agree and Despite I´m not a fan of EU (I see it as a bad Implementation of the otherwise great idea of european unification) I´m glad that the econimical factor is not the reason.
If the economic, political, and human right criteria, for admittance are set to the lowest so to accept a Slovakia or a Croatia, then there's no reasonable cause to keep Turkey out.
I believe Turkey's current levels of either human-rights, political, or economic development are below that of a First-World democracy, and so not quite ready but then so are most of the new Eastern members.
But then it seems the EU, rather than wanting to be a strictly First-World democracies' joint, had decided to be a ?Common Indo-European Christian Club? instead, so screw them.
2) The Turk/Greek problem. I think the attitude in most european countries are like "GET OVER IT ALREADY!" So even if its a huge problem for Greece and a smaller one in Brussel it would never be a reason for the general public to hold Turkey out. And a vast majority doesn´t want to accept it.
The EU's dishonest attitude is een in its treatment of the Cypriot question.
The small Middle-Eastern island has been told it'd be admitted in the Union, supposedly on the condition it puts an end to its ethnic conflict and initiates re-unification. However, should the two halves reach an agreement, only the Greek side will is admitted anyway!.
Greece, whose treatment of its Turkish minority in Thrace, and of its Slavic minorities in Macedonia, is far below the standards of all other current EU members including the Mediterranean ones, has no other motivation in opposing Turkey's admittance, other than because it's made of Turks.
3) that leaves one reason. The human rights question. The European human right declaration has to be fulfilled to be accepted in EU and that includes things like leaving death penalty as a way of punishment (just to take one example) and Turkey hasn´t taken the nessesary steps.
Well, to my knowledge there's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and then there's a European Convention on Human Rights, which are not quite the same thing.
Should the level of economic development suitable for a First-World country be reached by Turkey, a sufficient compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights is still indispensable for admittance (but perhaps Greece should be ousted for failure to comply, but they have the Parthenon and the Attalos Portico and other bibelots, and so are treated with way too much indulgence).
4) Some in turkey claim that its the christian europe that won´t accept a muslim country.
Former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing admitted as much.
But even for me as a atheist its importent that those minimum conditions are met. Religion can not make respect for human life relative. Especially not in a union that is going to be more tight in the next few years.
Formally, Turkey is more secular than most countries already in the EU. Islam still has a doctrine problem with the notions of religously-neutral state and religously-neutral civil society, which are precisely what make religion tame.
That maisntream ?moderate? Islam is less accomodating of a secualr state than the most fundamnetalist of fundamnetalist Christians, and that Islam's influence on a sizable part of Turkey's population, still very traditional, would be the only worrisome ground here. However, the actual problem they have with Turkey here, is that it's full of Muslims.
If its for a fifth reason we want to keep out Turkey please state it.
I believe as much as stated above, that Turkey is simply considered ?not-really European? given that it is seen as fully and forever lost to Christendom since Constatinople fell in the hands of Mehmet II in 1453.
You have rejected the economical reason as well as the human rights one (which I claim is the right one) and I have rejected the others. If you have another please say so
I suppose I explained why I think Turkey was rejected and some less or just as worthy candidates admitted, and what in my opinion should have been the proper route taken.
If necessary, I could clarify further.
In Goldsteins post he is trying to say no harm was done anywhere and that simply isn´t true.
I say many things, some of them untrue, but where fo i say ?no harm was done anywhere??
The presens of troops in Pakistan and the preversion of the current "government" is not good for the citizents of pakistan.
The presence of U.S. troops in Paksitan is insignificant, precisley for not to hinder the stability of Pakistan;s current government, which is the U.S.' biggest asset in that counbtry. that is also the reason why it keeps shower favours on Pakistan while democratic Inmdia begs to become the U.S.' premier partner in the Subcontinent
Later addition:
Would the american troops allow an uprising to tumble Mussharraf if the social pressure became strong enough? No because it needs stability. The same goes for Turkmenistan. And for Tajikistan even if its considerable more mudded.
The American troops would not in a position to allow or disallow an uprising, and the presence of any substantial number of such troops in the country would put Paiksitan;s stability at risk. Besides, Musharraf seems to be doing fine in that department, to the satisfaction of all concerned.
As for the Central European Stans, the more significant presence of U.S. troops there, for the time being, could be likened to that in some less than palatable countries during the second half of the twentieth century (think Francoist Spain), which didn't turn all that bad after all.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Countries around Afghanistan were authoritarian well before the U.S. operation there, and all Western countries including from Europe or North America have correct relations (?buddies?) with them (except Iran, still shunned by the U.S.).
Originally posted by Anders the White
One special note about this:
No. Those countries was becoming more and more isolated from the interenational society. No one was buddies with these countries before the war.
Before 1990, these countries were locked up as part of the Soviet empire. From 1990 to 2000 they certainly opened up to varying degrees, and established correct ties with lots of countries, Western, East Asian, South Asian, Muslim, even with Israel.
And the presents of US troops will stop all development (like in Saudi Arabia) for the better.
The only reason Saudi Arabia remains such a backward mediaeval autocracy is because of the ruthless regime of the House Sa'ud and of the huge influence of extreme Wahabi clerics on the ignorant population. The only impact the presence of U.S. troop had there is that it made some Jihadis go ballistic, unbelievers soiling the holy land and all that.
These troops were there at the demand of the local royals to protect them from Saddam Hussain; and now that he's gone, they're leaving, which I believe puts the future of House Sa'ud under a big question mark.
Not that I'd lose any sleep over that.
1) Croatia is not among the ten new countries to be accepted into EU. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus are the ones.
2) Valery d'Estaing is an elderly man and not the voice of europe. You can´t use him as a withness for why some states are accepted in Eu and why some aren´t. And more and more people are coming to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have him as the chairman of the group preparing the new convention. Among those over half of those politicians working on the Convention.
3) If you read the reports from the state department on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan you´ll see that the situation actually have gone in the wrong direction in the last years. Its not USSR continued but a reverse from better times in mid 90s.
5) "I say many things, some of them untrue, but where fo i say ?no harm was done anywhere??". You surely dont see any problems in US troops being anywhere. Not in former USSR republics, not in Saudi Arabia, not in pakistan. At least Groverat agreed with me (until you changed his mind
5) Stability is key when you have to count on a friendly leaders to stay there. But I´m not gonna lose sleep over the saudi royal familys future either, soo good night
Originally posted by groverat
[B]
And the terror attacks in SA came *after* we announced we were leaving. Kind of makes you question the terrorist motives.
We're completely withdrawing Saudi Arabia? Please let the UP and Reuters know because I haven't seen any news of the sort.
Originally posted by bunge
We're completely withdrawing Saudi Arabia? Please let the UP and Reuters know because I haven't seen any news of the sort.
Bunge: It's not a total removal of troops, but we're withdrawing all but about 400 people from SA. The story broke a few weeks ago.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by bunge
We're completely withdrawing Saudi Arabia? Please let the UP and Reuters know because I haven't seen any news of the sort.
tsk, tsk bunge,
You are a VERY NAUGHTY BOY.
try Google News, it's yummy.
Originally posted by Anders the White
I´m already in bed so my answer to your post must wait to tomorrow. But I´ll make a few easy points:
1) Croatia is not among the ten new countries to be accepted into EU. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus are the ones.
Sorry, I was misled by a piece of news (last March, I think) according to which Croatia's candidacy was backed by the EU Parliament. So it's not actually admitted yet, all the better.
But there it is: most of those new members are no more (and sometimes less) developed than Turkey whether it has to do with the economy, democracy, or human rights. The treatment of the Cyprus problem further illustrates this bias.
To precise my opinion, I believe the EU should have emphasised more on content: shaping itself as an integrated political entity, before even thinking about further enlargement. It would have given some time to develop to the eastern and southeastern European countries, so they can be more of an asset than a burden when they join. If the record of the German reunification is any indication, then the absdorbtion of so many of those relatively backward countries is going to be costly, and to make it harder to proceed with that much needed shaping of the Union.
2) Valery d'Estaing is an elderly man and not the voice of europe. You can´t use him as a withness for why some states are accepted in Eu and why some aren´t. And more and more people are coming to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have him as the chairman of the group preparing the new convention. Among those over half of those politicians working on the Convention.
Giscard expressed openly what is a common sentiment. Given that the new member-states are no more advanced than Turkey, the reason they're in and Turkey's out is more than obvious.
I do hope there's enough opposite sentiment to balance that.
And it's about damn time more people find out what a putz Giscard really is.
3) If you read the reports from the state department on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan you´ll see that the situation actually have gone in the wrong direction in the last years. Its not USSR continued but a reverse from better times in mid 90s.
I did notice that trend, but it does not contradict the general assessment of the regimes there (often the former party apparatus), nor that it's still far better than it was in the eighties.
Internal instability, external destabilising factors (like armed fundamentalist groups), and economic uncertainties due to haphazarad reforms, led to a marasme on the second half of the decade. Similar things happened to several ther former Soviet block countries.
5) "I say many things, some of them untrue, but where fo i say ?no harm was done anywhere??". You surely dont see any problems in US troops being anywhere. Not in former USSR republics, not in Saudi Arabia, not in pakistan.
I see no inherent problem in such presence. Then there's the difference in scope in a massive presence of U.S. as was the case in Saudi, the more modest deployment in some Central Asian countries, and the insignificant presence as is the case in Pakistan. I don't deny problems could arise from that presence.
Stability is key when you have to count on a friendly leaders to stay there. But I´m not gonna lose sleep over the saudi royal familys future either, soo good night
Goodnight.
Originally posted by ena
tsk, tsk bunge,
You are a VERY NAUGHTY BOY.
try Google News, it's yummy.
Let's see ... does it mention complete withdrawal?
(reads link)
Nope.
Duh.
Originally posted by midwinter
Bunge: It's not a total removal of troops, but we're withdrawing all but about 400 people from SA. The story broke a few weeks ago.
Cheers
Scott
Yeah, I had heard about the reduction of troops, but not a withdrawl. Plus, the announcement of the reduction came after Al Queda announced they were going to attack in Pakistan, Morocco and Saudia Arabia.
Originally posted by bunge
Yeah, I had heard about the reduction of troops, but not a withdrawl. Plus, the announcement of the reduction came after Al Queda announced they were going to attack in Pakistan, Morocco and Saudia Arabia.
Sure. I actually hadn't heard about any threats to attack. The spin the admin gave it was that once the Iraq war was over, and once Iraq no longer posed a serious threat to SA, there was no reason to keep the troops (what, 3500 or so?) there.
And it also helps with, you know, the fact that the US military presence there is a sore spot for lots of folks.
But as I understand it, all but about 400 will be withdrawn. Those who remain will be there sheerly for "training purposes."
BTW, did anyone else hear that one of the targets in SA was a fairly well-known CIA front? I seem to remember hearing this (perhaps on NPR), and I *think* the person said that it either was or is a front. Anyway.
Originally posted by groverat
Certainly wasn't the entire reason. I remember Bush & Blair making the humanitarian case for months.
Let's see what the official white house word is:
As White House spokesman Ari Fleischer noted two months ago: "[WMD] is what this war was about and is about."
http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/...oped-headlines
welcome back to the real world.
Originally posted by giant
welcome back to the real world.
Sorry, wrong again giant. Ari no longer works for the White House so no matter what he ever said or when he said it, we have to pretend that he never represented the President.
Don't you understand obfuscation?
Originally posted by bunge
Sorry, wrong again giant. Ari no longer works for the White House so no matter what he ever said or when he said it, we have to pretend that he never represented the President.
Don't you understand obfuscation?
heh. It looks like that's going to be the case for a bunch of people. Karen Hughes, Ari, CT Whitman, the entire original economic team....
Looks like the night of the long knives or something.
Certainly wasn't the entire reason. I remember Bush & Blair making the humanitarian case for months.
Tell me, were Bush & Blair *not* making the humanitarian case for months?
Does Fleischer saying that mean that Bush & Blair didn't actually say all of that stuff about the atrocities of Hussein?
Interesting...
Originally posted by groverat
I don't see how Fleischer's statement disputes what you quoted me as saying.
Tell me, were Bush & Blair *not* making the humanitarian case for months?
Does Fleischer saying that mean that Bush & Blair didn't actually say all of that stuff about the atrocities of Hussein?
Interesting...
You know, it's screwed up enough when people try to lie about events that happened a decade ago, but we're talking about the past couple of months. Are you nuts? What do you think you are doing? In the words of the White House (as if reality wasn't already enough): "[WMD] is what this war was about and is about." This is what it has always been about. You aren't going to change that.
Be a man and deal with it.
What do you think you are doing? In the words of the White House (as if reality wasn't already enough): "[WMD] is what this war was about and is about." This is what it has always been about. You aren't going to change that.
I am not disputing what Fleischer said at all. I'm just talking about the things Bush and Blair had been saying for months before the war.
I'm wondering this, does Fleischer saying that mean that Bush & Blair no longer made appeals about the humanitarian issue, because that's what you quoted me as saying.
You didn't quote me as saying what the war was "about" because I don't know what the war was "about". To claim to know the internal motivations of GeeDub is never something I claimed to know.
So what the hell is your point? How is posting that quote from Fleischer a refutation of what you quoted me as saying?
Looks like he was the man who was telling the truth. Yes, the Bush admin was lying to start a war.
Looks like he was the man who was telling the truth. Yes, the Bush admin was lying to start a war.
Once effective inspection regimes have been terminated Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months.
- Scott Ritter, testimony to Congress in September of 1998
Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.
- Scott Ritter, December 1998 in New Republic
Yep, quite the trustworthy source. An asshole pedophile who also happens to be a liar and a media whore.
Originally posted by groverat
To claim to know the internal motivations of GeeDub is never something I claimed to know.
Well, considering this is a democracy, that knowledge is absolutely critical. That's kinda the whole point of the political system.
As for why we went to war:
White House: "weapons of mass destruction ? that is what this war was about and is about"
You can't BS your way out this time.
Originally posted by giant
Well, considering this is a democracy, that knowledge is absolutely critical. That's kinda the whole point of the political system.
As for why we went to war:
You can't BS your way out this time.
Well said!