<strong>The sad story is that many arab people prefer to live under a dictature rather than a democratia build by the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course, this isn't all altruism and bleeding hearts for the fate of the Iraqi people. A lot of this is of course looking for American lives, or at least that's the thought.
<strong>The more the merrier I say. I'd like to see Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn and Bahbrah chained together to protect a Baby Milk Factory.
Steady that aim, soldier, and take your time about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>Nice one, groverat.
I remember after Sep.11 many Americans asking, "Why do so many people in the world hate/dislike us so much?" Guess you have just provided an answer for them.
It appears that Turkey does not seem to like the U.S. (or maybe just her postering president) much either. Where to now I wonder...
- T.I.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: The Installer ]</p>
<strong>No, I'm not saying every other regime change was, I'm saying they can be. And there are a lot of examples in South America and Asia as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bloodless revolutions against brutal military dictators in South American!? PLEASE point one out. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
A lot of those nations can't have a soccer match without killing 6 thousand people.
[quote]<strong>Almost all of them, Romania would be the perfect example. Saddams secret police are nothing compared to Securtate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bloodless? No.
I believe I said "bloodless", don't try to twist what I say.
Again, if you can give me a real, tangible example of a people going through a bloodless revolution with circumstances strongly resembling the Iraqis' then feel free to bring it up. Remember to include the dictator that has used horrible chemical and biological weapons against his own people.
[quote]Bloodless revolutions against brutal military dictators in South American!? PLEASE point one out.
A lot of those nations can't have a soccer match without killing 6 thousand people. <hr></blockquote>
Well, the process of going from military dictatorship to democracy has been far less bloody for most of these countries, than the installment of the dictatorships was. Considering the relationship between the US and some of these dictators, I'd say US influenced regime-change in has been by far bloodier than the process of getting rid of these dictators.
BTW, I used the term regime-change and not revolution at this particular point.
The fotball comment is just silly.
[quote]bloodless? No.
I believe I said "bloodless", don't try to twist what I say. <hr></blockquote>
Concerning Romania, I never said it was bloodless, I said Ceausescu was comparable to Saddam. Worse maybe. Now you are twisting my words.
But many of the other regime-changes were bloodless or close to it. And the leaders weren't exactly doves either.
[quote] Again, if you can give me a real, tangible example of a people going through a bloodless revolution with circumstances strongly resembling the Iraqis' then feel free to bring it up. Remember to include the dictator that has used horrible chemical and biological weapons against his own people. <hr></blockquote>
Now your just being plain stupid. Give me a real tangible example of where the US, or any other super/colonial power, installed a successful, secular democracy to relieve a local dictator. The burden of proof should be on the war-advocators.
Not to mention where international law approves of this.
Now your just being plain stupid. Give me a real tangible example of where the US, or any other super/colonial power, installed a successful, secular democracy to relieve a local dictator. The burden of proof should be on the war-advocators.
Not to mention where international law approves of this.
It appears that Turkey does not seem to like the U.S. (or maybe just her postering president) much either. Where to now I wonder...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
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.
The last time that we listened to domestic and international peace-niks, Viet Nam fell. Cambodia followed.
Never Again.
Never Again.
This surgery has to happen. There is no other option. We are not going to let Saddam or his morally retarded son support human scum who will kill more Americans (and we don't want to see anymore Americans killed, do we?).
Besides, you think that Gulf War One was an exercise in ass-kicking? Just y'all wait. We're going to make Iraqi Armed Forces envy their brothers on the 'Road of Death'.
Aries 1B
Helping the USMC Be Prepared one tank at a time. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
UPDATE:
There IS a way that this could be a 'bloodless war'!
From Newsmax:
[quote] Iraqi Soldiers Ready to Surrender
There are lots of jokes about French soldiers carrying white flags with them, but now it's the Iraqi troops who are preparing to surrender.
"Morale is low in the Iraqi army and many soldiers are preparing white flags of surrender, we are told by someone in northern Iraq who recently interviewed two defectors from Saddam Hussein's army," the Washington Times reported today.
One, a captain who defected from the 5th Mechanized Division of the 1st Corps, based near the northern city of Kirkuk, said the heavy division was only 35 percent combat-effective. Morale is so low that younger soldiers speak openly about surrendering before a shot is fired, he said.
The second escapee, a senior noncommissioned officer, defected from the same division's 34th Brigade, based south of the northern city of Mosul. He said that only 6 of the 28 tanks in his care worked.
"He said the whole division was at about 25 percent effectiveness and most soldiers were hiding their white flags," said the Times' source.
Intelligence sources in northern Iraq, where CIA Special Operations Group officers and Army Special Forces are active, report dozens of defectors in recent weeks.
The folks in Baghdad, meanwhile, are still ignoring their dictator's order Wednesday to dig trenches in preparation for war, the Boston Globe reported today.
"Five years ago, people would come in and change at the slightest hint of fighting," a 25-year-old named Salman told the Globe. "Now we are used to this atmosphere."
<hr></blockquote>
So take heart, peace-niks! If the rank and file Iraqi soldier is smart, he'll shoot his officer(s) and surrender.
<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>
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>Well, the process of going from military dictatorship to democracy has been far less bloody for most of these countries, than the installment of the dictatorships was. Considering the relationship between the US and some of these dictators, I'd say US influenced regime-change in has been by far bloodier than the process of getting rid of these dictators.
BTW, I used the term regime-change and not revolution at this particular point.
The fotball comment is just silly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The South American question is unrelatable to Iraq. In the South American nations our government decided to support and arm rebel groups (or the dictator) to install what we wanted. (This is the route Al Gore proposed taking against Iraq when asked during the Presidential debates, btw.)
[quote]<strong>Concerning Romania, I never said it was bloodless, I said Ceausescu was comparable to Saddam. Worse maybe. Now you are twisting my words.
But many of the other regime-changes were bloodless or close to it. And the leaders weren't exactly doves either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And since you don't know what the forthcoming war will be like you cannot make a judgement that it will be more bloody. We are 12 years more advanced militarily than Persian Gulf 1.0 and the vast majority of weapons we used then were dumb (although they showed the smart ones on TV). It is very very possible that we get through this with significantly less loss of civilian life.
[quote]<strong>Now your just being plain stupid. Give me a real tangible example of where the US, or any other super/colonial power, installed a successful, secular democracy to relieve a local dictator. The burden of proof should be on the war-advocators.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>The last time that we listened to domestic and international peace-niks, Viet Nam fell. Cambodia followed.
Never Again.
Never Again.
This surgery has to happen. There is no other option. We are not going to let Saddam or his morally retarded son support human scum who will kill more Americans (and we don't want to see anymore Americans killed, do we?).
Besides, you think that Gulf War One was an exercise in ass-kicking? Just y'all wait. We're going to make Iraqi Armed Forces envy their brothers on the 'Road of Death'.
Aries 1B
Helping the USMC Be Prepared one tank at a time. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
UPDATE:
There IS a way that this could be a 'bloodless war'!
From Newsmax:
So take heart, peace-niks! If the rank and file Iraqi soldier is smart, he'll shoot his officer(s) and surrender.
<strong>The South American question is unrelatable to Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So why did you ask me to elaborate on it? I think its related because it shows that US foreign policy has never been about making things better for the people.
[quote] And since you don't know what the forthcoming war will be like you cannot make a judgement that it will be more bloody. We are 12 years more advanced militarily than Persian Gulf 1.0 and the vast majority of weapons we used then were dumb (although they showed the smart ones on TV). It is very very possible that we get through this with significantly less loss of civilian life.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, you might win it very easily, at least the first part. But you don't know that. UN estimates on possible civilian casualties are disturbing. Not only casualties of the direct combat, but of the humanitarian situation that follows. With the destruction of the infrastructure.
I'm really more concerned with what comes after the war. The US ambitions for the region laid down in "The National Security Strategy" are very disturbing. The whole idea of imposing freedom on the world by war is quite self-contradictory. Being in favor of a war because its easy to win is pure hypocrisy.
History repeating itself.
[quote]Again, if you can give me a real, tangible example of a people going through a bloodless revolution with circumstances strongly resembling the Iraqis' then feel free to bring it up. Remember to include the dictator that has used horrible chemical and biological weapons against his own people. (...)
guess that means you can't.<hr></blockquote>
You're making up rules that are impossible to play by, and being childish at the same time. I've given plenty of good examples. Deal with them.
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).
[quote]<strong>So why did you ask me to elaborate on it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because you said you could. I'm all about giving people rope to hang themselves with.
[quote]<strong>I think its related because it shows that US foreign policy has never been about making things better for the people.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This may be one of the more foolish and bitter things I've ever seen you post.
[quote]<strong>Yes, you might win it very easily, at least the first part. But you don't know that. UN estimates on possible civilian casualties are disturbing. Not only casualties of the direct combat, but of the humanitarian situation that follows. With the destruction of the infrastructure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The UN's estimates on continued sanctions and humanitarian concerns are also disturbing.
Given a choice between the two, I'll take the one that gives the people a chance at real self-governing by forcibly ousting their oppressor.
[quote]<strong>I'm really more concerned with what comes after the war. The US ambitions for the region laid down in "The National Security Strategy" are very disturbing. The whole idea of imposing freedom on the world by war is quite self-contradictory. Being in favor of a war because its easy to win is pure hypocrisy.
History repeating itself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What history is Bush wanting to follow? Others are pushing the idea of "containment", and they even use the word.
We aren't fighting Communism here, competely different.
[quote]<strong>You're making up rules that are impossible to play by, and being childish at the same time. I've given plenty of good examples. Deal with them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you make impossible claims and shriek when called on them as if you expect the mere fact that you make the claim to be backing enough. You've given ONE example (Romania) when pressed and even that isn't comparable.
but why was the Vietnam war fought in the first place? Thats a much more important question.
Of course it could have been won, with clear objectives, no press present etc. etc. But to what end?
Did communist Vietnam really turn out as dangerous as was said? Aren't relations with Vietnam quite good now, considering the circumstances? And haven't the been improving a lot lately?
So was the killing worth it? The Vietnamese are still suffering from the after-effects of that war so are many americans.
<strong>The UN's estimates on continued sanctions and humanitarian concerns are also disturbing.
Given a choice between the two, I'll take the one that gives the people a chance at real self-governing by forcibly ousting their oppressor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote]What history is Bush wanting to follow? Others are pushing the idea of "containment", and they even use the word.
We aren't fighting Communism here, competely different. <hr></blockquote>
same shit, new wrapping.
[quote] And you make impossible claims and shriek when called on them as if you expect the mere fact that you make the claim to be backing enough. You've given ONE example (Romania) when pressed and even that isn't comparable. <hr></blockquote>
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.
Comments
<strong>The sad story is that many arab people prefer to live under a dictature rather than a democratia build by the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course, this isn't all altruism and bleeding hearts for the fate of the Iraqi people. A lot of this is of course looking for American lives, or at least that's the thought.
<strong>The more the merrier I say. I'd like to see Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn and Bahbrah chained together to protect a Baby Milk Factory.
Steady that aim, soldier, and take your time about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>Nice one, groverat.
I remember after Sep.11 many Americans asking, "Why do so many people in the world hate/dislike us so much?" Guess you have just provided an answer for them.
It appears that Turkey does not seem to like the U.S. (or maybe just her postering president) much either. Where to now I wonder...
- T.I.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: The Installer ]</p>
<strong>
Oh, honestly, this is surely true even if those numbers are miniscule.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If we want to talk about the miniscule numbers, then a good argument could be made that there are hawks that are psyched to kill some sand niggers.
<strong>No, I'm not saying every other regime change was, I'm saying they can be. And there are a lot of examples in South America and Asia as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bloodless revolutions against brutal military dictators in South American!? PLEASE point one out. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
A lot of those nations can't have a soccer match without killing 6 thousand people.
[quote]<strong>Almost all of them, Romania would be the perfect example. Saddams secret police are nothing compared to Securtate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bloodless? No.
I believe I said "bloodless", don't try to twist what I say.
Again, if you can give me a real, tangible example of a people going through a bloodless revolution with circumstances strongly resembling the Iraqis' then feel free to bring it up. Remember to include the dictator that has used horrible chemical and biological weapons against his own people.
A lot of those nations can't have a soccer match without killing 6 thousand people. <hr></blockquote>
Well, the process of going from military dictatorship to democracy has been far less bloody for most of these countries, than the installment of the dictatorships was. Considering the relationship between the US and some of these dictators, I'd say US influenced regime-change in has been by far bloodier than the process of getting rid of these dictators.
BTW, I used the term regime-change and not revolution at this particular point.
The fotball comment is just silly.
[quote]bloodless? No.
I believe I said "bloodless", don't try to twist what I say. <hr></blockquote>
Concerning Romania, I never said it was bloodless, I said Ceausescu was comparable to Saddam. Worse maybe. Now you are twisting my words.
But many of the other regime-changes were bloodless or close to it. And the leaders weren't exactly doves either.
[quote] Again, if you can give me a real, tangible example of a people going through a bloodless revolution with circumstances strongly resembling the Iraqis' then feel free to bring it up. Remember to include the dictator that has used horrible chemical and biological weapons against his own people. <hr></blockquote>
Now your just being plain stupid. Give me a real tangible example of where the US, or any other super/colonial power, installed a successful, secular democracy to relieve a local dictator. The burden of proof should be on the war-advocators.
Not to mention where international law approves of this.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>
Now your just being plain stupid. Give me a real tangible example of where the US, or any other super/colonial power, installed a successful, secular democracy to relieve a local dictator. The burden of proof should be on the war-advocators.
Not to mention where international law approves of this.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
:eek: <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
It appears that Turkey does not seem to like the U.S. (or maybe just her postering president) much either. Where to now I wonder...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
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>
:eek: <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you for your fine contribution.
<strong>
Thank you for your fine contribution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon New.
You can't be serious with that question. You live in Europe and you ask questions like that?!! Do I have to feed the troll?
Never Again.
Never Again.
This surgery has to happen. There is no other option. We are not going to let Saddam or his morally retarded son support human scum who will kill more Americans (and we don't want to see anymore Americans killed, do we?).
Besides, you think that Gulf War One was an exercise in ass-kicking? Just y'all wait. We're going to make Iraqi Armed Forces envy their brothers on the 'Road of Death'.
Aries 1B
Helping the USMC Be Prepared one tank at a time. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
UPDATE:
There IS a way that this could be a 'bloodless war'!
From Newsmax:
[quote] Iraqi Soldiers Ready to Surrender
There are lots of jokes about French soldiers carrying white flags with them, but now it's the Iraqi troops who are preparing to surrender.
"Morale is low in the Iraqi army and many soldiers are preparing white flags of surrender, we are told by someone in northern Iraq who recently interviewed two defectors from Saddam Hussein's army," the Washington Times reported today.
One, a captain who defected from the 5th Mechanized Division of the 1st Corps, based near the northern city of Kirkuk, said the heavy division was only 35 percent combat-effective. Morale is so low that younger soldiers speak openly about surrendering before a shot is fired, he said.
The second escapee, a senior noncommissioned officer, defected from the same division's 34th Brigade, based south of the northern city of Mosul. He said that only 6 of the 28 tanks in his care worked.
"He said the whole division was at about 25 percent effectiveness and most soldiers were hiding their white flags," said the Times' source.
Intelligence sources in northern Iraq, where CIA Special Operations Group officers and Army Special Forces are active, report dozens of defectors in recent weeks.
The folks in Baghdad, meanwhile, are still ignoring their dictator's order Wednesday to dig trenches in preparation for war, the Boston Globe reported today.
"Five years ago, people would come in and change at the slightest hint of fighting," a 25-year-old named Salman told the Globe. "Now we are used to this atmosphere."
<hr></blockquote>
So take heart, peace-niks! If the rank and file Iraqi soldier is smart, he'll shoot his officer(s) and surrender.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Aries 1B ]
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Aries 1B ]</p>
<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>
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>Well, the process of going from military dictatorship to democracy has been far less bloody for most of these countries, than the installment of the dictatorships was. Considering the relationship between the US and some of these dictators, I'd say US influenced regime-change in has been by far bloodier than the process of getting rid of these dictators.
BTW, I used the term regime-change and not revolution at this particular point.
The fotball comment is just silly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The South American question is unrelatable to Iraq. In the South American nations our government decided to support and arm rebel groups (or the dictator) to install what we wanted. (This is the route Al Gore proposed taking against Iraq when asked during the Presidential debates, btw.)
[quote]<strong>Concerning Romania, I never said it was bloodless, I said Ceausescu was comparable to Saddam. Worse maybe. Now you are twisting my words.
But many of the other regime-changes were bloodless or close to it. And the leaders weren't exactly doves either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And since you don't know what the forthcoming war will be like you cannot make a judgement that it will be more bloody. We are 12 years more advanced militarily than Persian Gulf 1.0 and the vast majority of weapons we used then were dumb (although they showed the smart ones on TV). It is very very possible that we get through this with significantly less loss of civilian life.
[quote]<strong>Now your just being plain stupid. Give me a real tangible example of where the US, or any other super/colonial power, installed a successful, secular democracy to relieve a local dictator. The burden of proof should be on the war-advocators.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess that means you can't.
<strong>The last time that we listened to domestic and international peace-niks, Viet Nam fell. Cambodia followed.
Never Again.
Never Again.
This surgery has to happen. There is no other option. We are not going to let Saddam or his morally retarded son support human scum who will kill more Americans (and we don't want to see anymore Americans killed, do we?).
Besides, you think that Gulf War One was an exercise in ass-kicking? Just y'all wait. We're going to make Iraqi Armed Forces envy their brothers on the 'Road of Death'.
Aries 1B
Helping the USMC Be Prepared one tank at a time. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
UPDATE:
There IS a way that this could be a 'bloodless war'!
From Newsmax:
So take heart, peace-niks! If the rank and file Iraqi soldier is smart, he'll shoot his officer(s) and surrender.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Aries 1B ]
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Aries 1B ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Viet Nam fell because of the anti war crowd?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Were you even alive then?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>The South American question is unrelatable to Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So why did you ask me to elaborate on it? I think its related because it shows that US foreign policy has never been about making things better for the people.
[quote] And since you don't know what the forthcoming war will be like you cannot make a judgement that it will be more bloody. We are 12 years more advanced militarily than Persian Gulf 1.0 and the vast majority of weapons we used then were dumb (although they showed the smart ones on TV). It is very very possible that we get through this with significantly less loss of civilian life.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, you might win it very easily, at least the first part. But you don't know that. UN estimates on possible civilian casualties are disturbing. Not only casualties of the direct combat, but of the humanitarian situation that follows. With the destruction of the infrastructure.
I'm really more concerned with what comes after the war. The US ambitions for the region laid down in "The National Security Strategy" are very disturbing. The whole idea of imposing freedom on the world by war is quite self-contradictory. Being in favor of a war because its easy to win is pure hypocrisy.
History repeating itself.
[quote]Again, if you can give me a real, tangible example of a people going through a bloodless revolution with circumstances strongly resembling the Iraqis' then feel free to bring it up. Remember to include the dictator that has used horrible chemical and biological weapons against his own people. (...)
guess that means you can't.<hr></blockquote>
You're making up rules that are impossible to play by, and being childish at the same time. I've given plenty of good examples. Deal with them.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
[quote]<strong>So why did you ask me to elaborate on it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because you said you could. I'm all about giving people rope to hang themselves with.
[quote]<strong>I think its related because it shows that US foreign policy has never been about making things better for the people.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This may be one of the more foolish and bitter things I've ever seen you post.
[quote]<strong>Yes, you might win it very easily, at least the first part. But you don't know that. UN estimates on possible civilian casualties are disturbing. Not only casualties of the direct combat, but of the humanitarian situation that follows. With the destruction of the infrastructure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The UN's estimates on continued sanctions and humanitarian concerns are also disturbing.
Given a choice between the two, I'll take the one that gives the people a chance at real self-governing by forcibly ousting their oppressor.
[quote]<strong>I'm really more concerned with what comes after the war. The US ambitions for the region laid down in "The National Security Strategy" are very disturbing. The whole idea of imposing freedom on the world by war is quite self-contradictory. Being in favor of a war because its easy to win is pure hypocrisy.
History repeating itself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What history is Bush wanting to follow? Others are pushing the idea of "containment", and they even use the word.
We aren't fighting Communism here, competely different.
[quote]<strong>You're making up rules that are impossible to play by, and being childish at the same time. I've given plenty of good examples. Deal with them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you make impossible claims and shriek when called on them as if you expect the mere fact that you make the claim to be backing enough. You've given ONE example (Romania) when pressed and even that isn't comparable.
Of course it could have been won, with clear objectives, no press present etc. etc. But to what end?
Did communist Vietnam really turn out as dangerous as was said? Aren't relations with Vietnam quite good now, considering the circumstances? And haven't the been improving a lot lately?
So was the killing worth it? The Vietnamese are still suffering from the after-effects of that war so are many americans.
Seems to me like an enormous waste.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>The UN's estimates on continued sanctions and humanitarian concerns are also disturbing.
Given a choice between the two, I'll take the one that gives the people a chance at real self-governing by forcibly ousting their oppressor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote]What history is Bush wanting to follow? Others are pushing the idea of "containment", and they even use the word.
We aren't fighting Communism here, competely different. <hr></blockquote>
same shit, new wrapping.
[quote] And you make impossible claims and shriek when called on them as if you expect the mere fact that you make the claim to be backing enough. You've given ONE example (Romania) when pressed and even that isn't comparable. <hr></blockquote>
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>Did communist Vietnam really turn out as dangerous as was said?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shouldn't you give 20/20 hindsight some credit?