Something just occurred to me that I think that many have glossed over or missed. We went into Iraq hopeful that the Iraqi people would liberate themselves and we would simply go to Baghdad and take out Saddam and the Republican guard while thye kep the rest of the nation off of us. Right?
Well, it has not worked out that way and many are sneering now because of it. "See Iraq does not want you there, they see you as colonizers not liberators. You should have helped them to overthrow their governemnt or allowed them to do all the work themselves."
Isn't that almost exactly what we were hoping for? A SHORT war with Baghdad, while the rest of the people liberated themselves? And it is still not happening. We are sending out pamphlets, radio broadcasts and the like telling the people to revolt and they are still too afraid to. What have you revolutiuon types to say about that?
Something just occurred to me that I think that many have glossed over or missed. We went into Iraq hopeful that the Iraqi people would liberate themselves and we would simply go to Baghdad and take out Saddam and the Republican guard while thye kep the rest of the nation off of us. Right?
Well, it has not worked out that way and many are sneering now because of it. "See Iraq does not want you there, they see you as colonizers not liberators. You should have helped them to overthrow their governemnt or allowed them to do all the work themselves."
Isn't that almost exactly what we were hoping for? A SHORT war with Baghdad, while the rest of the people liberated themselves? And it is still not happening. We are sending out pamphlets, radio broadcasts and the like telling the people to revolt and they are still too afraid to. What have you revolutiuon types to say about that?
Something just occurred to me that I think that many have glossed over or missed. We went into Iraq hopeful that the Iraqi people would liberate themselves and we would simply go to Baghdad and take out Saddam and the Republican guard while thye kep the rest of the nation off of us. Right?
Well, it has not worked out that way and many are sneering now because of it. "See Iraq does not want you there, they see you as colonizers not liberators. You should have helped them to overthrow their governemnt or allowed them to do all the work themselves."
Isn't that almost exactly what we were hoping for? A SHORT war with Baghdad, while the rest of the people liberated themselves? And it is still not happening. We are sending out pamphlets, radio broadcasts and the like telling the people to revolt and they are still too afraid to. What have you revolutiuon types to say about that?
" and they are still too afraid to " or don't want to.
I would say education ( and some kind of resistance movement ) on What Saddam and they world are all about. Ask them do you want to govern yourselves or live under the only conditions you've ever known.
Hahha yes lets do that, its just that simple! Get off the bong Jim. How pray tell do you educate an oppressed fearful people full of propaganda under the thumb of a cruel dictator?
Quote:
Jimmac almost understands the war but turns left at Albuquerque:
Who knows we might liberate them only to find them going right back into this situation in a few years. And you know it's their right to do that whether we like it or not.
Or, god forbid, we may just liberate them and things work out as we hope they will.
Quote:
Jimmac becomes an isolationist:
The only thing I'm asking is given that there are many countries in the world with this situation do we intend to liberate them all? I think that's beyond even our reach.
So you admit then that they DO need liberating? Even if we can't help everyone why not help these people if we can?
Quote:
Jimman shows us his scar he got in the 'nam:
I remember another war where we were going to keep a people free from communism ( and kick some north Vietnamese ass ). Well that isn't exactly what happened is it? After a while we found the situation was much more complex and wasn't what we thought ( for them or us ).
Yeah sure the Iraqi "war" is a hell of a lot like the Vietnam "military action". Uh huh, sure. Try to draw some more pertinant parallels than the above. By your logic we can compare the Iraqi war to WWII as well. We went in there to free people and things got more complex. Are you against WWII too Jimmac?
We are sending out pamphlets, radio broadcasts and the like telling the people to revolt and they are still too afraid to. What have you revolutiuon types to say about that?
I was thinking about that too. I think it could be interpreted in either way:
1. It just proves the repressive nature of the Iraq regime.
2. It just proves that they don't want US-style liberation.
What's interesting to me is that it's even happening in the south, where they did have a revolution that was put down in 1992.
I was thinking about that too. I think it could be interpreted in either way:
1. It just proves the repressive nature of the Iraq regime.
2. It just proves that they don't want US-style liberation.
What's interesting to me is that it's even happening in the south, where they did have a revolution that was put down in 1992.
Brutally put down. 10's of thousands murdered. The revolutionary types and their families were likely wiped out, so who is left? The fearful ones who will not revolt unless the "conditions are just right". What are those conditions?
We had a larger ground force then than now. And if we had "invaded" they would have still revolted. There is only one difference now. We threw them under the bus once and now they don't trust us not to do it again. If we were truly there as an invasion force we would have sent at least as many troops as the last time we were there. The US knows that it cannot hold an entire country hostage with as small a force as is there now. It is a liberation force, not an invasion force. Think Harald, I know it hurts your ego to be wrong, but think. We are not invading, we are truly trying to liberate the Iraqis.
Hahha yes lets do that, its just that simple! Get off the bong Jim. How pray tell do you educate an oppressed fearful people full of propaganda under the thumb of a cruel dictator?
Or, god forbid, we may just liberate them and things work out as we hope they will.
So you admit then that they DO need liberating? Even if we can't help everyone why not help these people if we can?
Yeah sure the Iraqi "war" is a hell of a lot like the Vietnam "military action". Uh huh, sure. Try to draw some more pertinant parallels than the above. By your logic we can compare the Iraqi war to WWII as well. We went in there to free people and things got more complex. Are you against WWII too Jimmac?
It's similar in that we don't think like them. Their values aren't ours. It's a volitile situation that could easily spread beyond it's boarders ( just like Viet Nam ). Also there is some doubt as to the movtivations for us being there ( just like Viet Nam ). You don't need the same geography for those things. You assume they think like us. Big mistake, but don't worry you're in good company. What usually happens in those cases is the more powerful attempt to remake the less powerful's ideals in their own image. Also in WWII There was no choice we were attacked and war was everywhere and thrust upon us. Not really quite the same situation as now.
Also watch trying to put words ( I didn't say ) into my mouth. Now you can go back and play soldier. But, take a chill pill before you reply with all that adrenaline next time.
The US knows that it cannot hold an entire country hostage with as small a force as is there now. It is a liberation force, not an invasion force. Think Harald, I know it hurts your ego to be wrong, but think. We are not invading, we are truly trying to liberate the Iraqis.
I think this is misguided logic. There's a saying in the world today, something to the effect of "The Klan don't wear hoods anymore, they wear three piece suits."
An invasion is not what it would traditionally have been. Economy has become the true power, not military. The fall of the U.S.S.R. proved that. An invasion in this day and age wouldn't be a massive military force, it'll be the tentacles left behind after the 'liberation' troops leave the country.
So no, this isn't a traditional invasion, but those don't exist so much anymore. At least, not in the 'first world'. The 'first world invasion' doesn't wear a helmut anymore, it wears a three piece suit.
When the US stays out of Saddam's way he becomes a territorial aggressor. He is worse than the Shah or Ayatollah.
I don't mean stay out of his way if he attempts to invade other countries; remember, containment is one of my conditions. (And I supported Gulf War I, too, when you were but a young pup.) What I mean is, stay out of their internal affairs. Don't give their liberals a reason to unite with their conservatives. Guess who's protesting against the US war right now - young Iranians who would a) otherwise hate Saddam and b) otherwise be relatively pro-American.
Quote:
quote:
-------------
Those are most of the countries surrounding Iraq. The best way to become a liberal democracy is to have neighbors that are liberal democracies.
-------------
Eh... no. Didn't work for the USSR. We had to cripple their economy and thereby cause unthinkable human suffering to get them to crumble. I think a war to kill the badman and then lots of international aid to help rebuild is better.
Here's the article in the New Republic from whence the idea came into my head. It's by a political scientist who wrote a book called "The Sanctions Paradox" which you might be interested in.
Quote:
Political scientists Jeffrey Kopstein and David Reilly, of the University of Toronto and Niagra University, point out in their examination of the economic and political freedoms in the post-communist world that the former communist countries currently enjoying the greatest freedoms were geographically closest to the Soviet Union's noncommunist perimeter. The authors conclude, "This suggests the spatially dependent nature of the diffusion of norms, resources, and institutions that are necessary to the construction of political democracies and market economies in the postcommunist [sic] era." In other words, the closer you are to liberal democracies, the easier it is for you to become a liberal democracy.
If you read the article, it does agree with the hawks that one way to democratize is for external forces to overthrow dictators. The political scientists cited in the article refer to this as the second wave of democratization, from 1943 to 1962: e.g., Germany and Japan. But it also talks about a third wave, in more recent times, in which the revolutions came about internally: e.g., The Soviet Union.
I suppose one way of boiling this all down is to ask whether you're a "second-waver" or "third-waver." They've both been effective in the past.
By the way, I want to commend you on your extended essay on the previous page of this thread. Nicely written. Now if we could just keep you to that kind of writing rather than your usual tripe.
I think this is misguided logic. There's a saying in the world today, something to the effect of "The Klan don't wear hoods anymore, they wear three piece suits."
An invasion is not what it would traditionally have been. Economy has become the true power, not military. The fall of the U.S.S.R. proved that. An invasion in this day and age wouldn't be a massive military force, it'll be the tentacles left behind after the 'liberation' troops leave the country.
So no, this isn't a traditional invasion, but those don't exist so much anymore. At least, not in the 'first world'. The 'first world invasion' doesn't wear a helmut anymore, it wears a three piece suit.
Get over your hatred of Bush and your fear of war and see how silly you sound sir. This is not an invasion except int he sense that our forces have invaded the country to remove Saddam. We are not there to stay in a colonial sense like many here and in the media are trying to push. We will help Iraq to rebuild when all is over, but for now we have to put the circumstances in place for a new Iraq to emerge. The First thing needed is the removal of Saddam, which will not happen without the use of force. So we are on step one. When step one is over there will be many more steps. It will not be until at the very earliest, step 2, that we really know whether the US is there as a colonial force or as liberators as we contend. Wait till step 2, that is the step after Saddam is removed, killed, whatever.
You assume they think like us. Big mistake, but don't worry you're in good company.
Yeah my mistake. I thought they didn't like being tortured and terrorized. What exactly is your point here? They don't think like us so we should leave them to their to suffering and let their evil dictator continue to amass WMD, and spread more hatred and propaganda about the US. Great plan.
You still haven't proven anything beyond a cursory relationship between the situation and application of force in Vietnam vs whats going on in Iraq right now. But thats ok, I didn't expect you to.
Quote:
Also watch trying to put words ( I didn't say ) into my mouth.
Where did I do this exactly? I only asked you questions, Jimbo.
Speaking of which, good try at evading these:
How pray tell do you educate an oppressed fearful people full of propaganda under the thumb of a cruel dictator?
Even if we can't help everyone why not help these people if we can?
Quote:
But, take a chill pill before you reply with all that adrenaline next time.
What adrenaline? My one exclamation mark? Ohhhhh look out I'm fired up!! <--- Uh-oh... TWO exclamations points its Shock and Awe time!
I don't mean stay out of his way if he attempts to invade other countries; remember, containment is one of my conditions. (And I supported Gulf War I, too, when you were but a young pup.) What I mean is, stay out of their internal affairs.
So we remove the economic sanctions then?
What keeps Saddam from developing naughty weapons?
Quote:
If you read the article, it does agree with the hawks that one way to democratize is for external forces to overthrow dictators. The political scientists cited in the article refer to this as the second wave of democratization, from 1943 to 1962: e.g., Germany and Japan. But it also talks about a third wave, in more recent times, in which the revolutions came about internally: e.g., The Soviet Union.
I suppose one way of boiling this all down is to ask whether you're a "second-waver" or "third-waver." They've both been effective in the past.
You completely ignore how absoultely horrible the humanitarian cost of this "third wave" is. Stalin alone killed 16+ million of his own civilians. The Soviet empire lived for 40 years in starvation and disease. Just unthinkable human suffering.
Would you really say that is a preferrable route? Are we really not supposed to care what happens to those people?
And like I said, we couldn't do in the USSR what we are doing in Iraq. Because we have the military power to cut the head off of the regime we do it, we couldn't have done the same to the USSR.
To me there is no question, I think it would be a tragedy to leave a starving and disease-riddle people with a brutal regime and "I hope you guys figure out how to make your country better someday." It is unthinkable at this point.
There is an old saying, "Once you see it, you are involved." We have seen the devastation in Iraq, we can't do anything but what we're doing now.
Get over your hatred of Bush and your fear of war...
My post had nothing to do with either. I do not like Bush, but my dislike of the man has nothing to do with my belief that there are colonial tendencies in this act. You can see it in a lot of what the U.S. does, even from before Bush. Look into the actions of the IMF for a good introduction to what we could call 'the new colonialism'.
How do you justify our relative inaction in Africa?
Shouldn't you be asking that question of France? (not to say that the US shouldn't do something about it, but by all means France should be allowed to attempt to finish what they start) ...or how about another antiwar favorite- "What problem?"
Comments
Well, it has not worked out that way and many are sneering now because of it. "See Iraq does not want you there, they see you as colonizers not liberators. You should have helped them to overthrow their governemnt or allowed them to do all the work themselves."
Isn't that almost exactly what we were hoping for? A SHORT war with Baghdad, while the rest of the people liberated themselves? And it is still not happening. We are sending out pamphlets, radio broadcasts and the like telling the people to revolt and they are still too afraid to. What have you revolutiuon types to say about that?
Originally posted by NoahJ
Something just occurred to me that I think that many have glossed over or missed. We went into Iraq hopeful that the Iraqi people would liberate themselves and we would simply go to Baghdad and take out Saddam and the Republican guard while thye kep the rest of the nation off of us. Right?
Well, it has not worked out that way and many are sneering now because of it. "See Iraq does not want you there, they see you as colonizers not liberators. You should have helped them to overthrow their governemnt or allowed them to do all the work themselves."
Isn't that almost exactly what we were hoping for? A SHORT war with Baghdad, while the rest of the people liberated themselves? And it is still not happening. We are sending out pamphlets, radio broadcasts and the like telling the people to revolt and they are still too afraid to. What have you revolutiuon types to say about that?
Eh?
Originally posted by NoahJ
Something just occurred to me that I think that many have glossed over or missed. We went into Iraq hopeful that the Iraqi people would liberate themselves and we would simply go to Baghdad and take out Saddam and the Republican guard while thye kep the rest of the nation off of us. Right?
Well, it has not worked out that way and many are sneering now because of it. "See Iraq does not want you there, they see you as colonizers not liberators. You should have helped them to overthrow their governemnt or allowed them to do all the work themselves."
Isn't that almost exactly what we were hoping for? A SHORT war with Baghdad, while the rest of the people liberated themselves? And it is still not happening. We are sending out pamphlets, radio broadcasts and the like telling the people to revolt and they are still too afraid to. What have you revolutiuon types to say about that?
" and they are still too afraid to " or don't want to.
See above.
Jimmac idealized:
I would say education ( and some kind of resistance movement ) on What Saddam and they world are all about. Ask them do you want to govern yourselves or live under the only conditions you've ever known.
Hahha yes lets do that, its just that simple! Get off the bong Jim. How pray tell do you educate an oppressed fearful people full of propaganda under the thumb of a cruel dictator?
Jimmac almost understands the war but turns left at Albuquerque:
Who knows we might liberate them only to find them going right back into this situation in a few years. And you know it's their right to do that whether we like it or not.
Or, god forbid, we may just liberate them and things work out as we hope they will.
Jimmac becomes an isolationist:
The only thing I'm asking is given that there are many countries in the world with this situation do we intend to liberate them all? I think that's beyond even our reach.
So you admit then that they DO need liberating? Even if we can't help everyone why not help these people if we can?
Jimman shows us his scar he got in the 'nam:
I remember another war where we were going to keep a people free from communism ( and kick some north Vietnamese ass ). Well that isn't exactly what happened is it? After a while we found the situation was much more complex and wasn't what we thought ( for them or us ).
Yeah sure the Iraqi "war" is a hell of a lot like the Vietnam "military action". Uh huh, sure. Try to draw some more pertinant parallels than the above. By your logic we can compare the Iraqi war to WWII as well. We went in there to free people and things got more complex. Are you against WWII too Jimmac?
Originally posted by NoahJ
We are sending out pamphlets, radio broadcasts and the like telling the people to revolt and they are still too afraid to. What have you revolutiuon types to say about that?
I was thinking about that too. I think it could be interpreted in either way:
1. It just proves the repressive nature of the Iraq regime.
2. It just proves that they don't want US-style liberation.
What's interesting to me is that it's even happening in the south, where they did have a revolution that was put down in 1992.
Originally posted by jimmac
" and they are still too afraid to " or don't want to.
See above.
So you are saying that they like it under Saddam and there is no way they would free themselves? Not even with outside military help?
Originally posted by BRussell
I was thinking about that too. I think it could be interpreted in either way:
1. It just proves the repressive nature of the Iraq regime.
2. It just proves that they don't want US-style liberation.
What's interesting to me is that it's even happening in the south, where they did have a revolution that was put down in 1992.
Brutally put down. 10's of thousands murdered. The revolutionary types and their families were likely wiped out, so who is left? The fearful ones who will not revolt unless the "conditions are just right". What are those conditions?
Originally posted by Harald
We weren't invading then.
We had a larger ground force then than now. And if we had "invaded" they would have still revolted. There is only one difference now. We threw them under the bus once and now they don't trust us not to do it again. If we were truly there as an invasion force we would have sent at least as many troops as the last time we were there. The US knows that it cannot hold an entire country hostage with as small a force as is there now. It is a liberation force, not an invasion force. Think Harald, I know it hurts your ego to be wrong, but think. We are not invading, we are truly trying to liberate the Iraqis.
Originally posted by dviant
Hahha yes lets do that, its just that simple! Get off the bong Jim. How pray tell do you educate an oppressed fearful people full of propaganda under the thumb of a cruel dictator?
Or, god forbid, we may just liberate them and things work out as we hope they will.
So you admit then that they DO need liberating? Even if we can't help everyone why not help these people if we can?
Yeah sure the Iraqi "war" is a hell of a lot like the Vietnam "military action". Uh huh, sure. Try to draw some more pertinant parallels than the above. By your logic we can compare the Iraqi war to WWII as well. We went in there to free people and things got more complex. Are you against WWII too Jimmac?
It's similar in that we don't think like them. Their values aren't ours. It's a volitile situation that could easily spread beyond it's boarders ( just like Viet Nam ). Also there is some doubt as to the movtivations for us being there ( just like Viet Nam ). You don't need the same geography for those things. You assume they think like us. Big mistake, but don't worry you're in good company. What usually happens in those cases is the more powerful attempt to remake the less powerful's ideals in their own image. Also in WWII There was no choice we were attacked and war was everywhere and thrust upon us. Not really quite the same situation as now.
Also watch trying to put words ( I didn't say ) into my mouth. Now you can go back and play soldier. But, take a chill pill before you reply with all that adrenaline next time.
Originally posted by NoahJ
The US knows that it cannot hold an entire country hostage with as small a force as is there now. It is a liberation force, not an invasion force. Think Harald, I know it hurts your ego to be wrong, but think. We are not invading, we are truly trying to liberate the Iraqis.
I think this is misguided logic. There's a saying in the world today, something to the effect of "The Klan don't wear hoods anymore, they wear three piece suits."
An invasion is not what it would traditionally have been. Economy has become the true power, not military. The fall of the U.S.S.R. proved that. An invasion in this day and age wouldn't be a massive military force, it'll be the tentacles left behind after the 'liberation' troops leave the country.
So no, this isn't a traditional invasion, but those don't exist so much anymore. At least, not in the 'first world'. The 'first world invasion' doesn't wear a helmut anymore, it wears a three piece suit.
Originally posted by groverat
When the US stays out of Saddam's way he becomes a territorial aggressor. He is worse than the Shah or Ayatollah.
I don't mean stay out of his way if he attempts to invade other countries; remember, containment is one of my conditions. (And I supported Gulf War I, too, when you were but a young pup.) What I mean is, stay out of their internal affairs. Don't give their liberals a reason to unite with their conservatives. Guess who's protesting against the US war right now - young Iranians who would a) otherwise hate Saddam and b) otherwise be relatively pro-American.
quote:
-------------
Those are most of the countries surrounding Iraq. The best way to become a liberal democracy is to have neighbors that are liberal democracies.
-------------
Eh... no. Didn't work for the USSR. We had to cripple their economy and thereby cause unthinkable human suffering to get them to crumble. I think a war to kill the badman and then lots of international aid to help rebuild is better.
Here's the article in the New Republic from whence the idea came into my head. It's by a political scientist who wrote a book called "The Sanctions Paradox" which you might be interested in.
Political scientists Jeffrey Kopstein and David Reilly, of the University of Toronto and Niagra University, point out in their examination of the economic and political freedoms in the post-communist world that the former communist countries currently enjoying the greatest freedoms were geographically closest to the Soviet Union's noncommunist perimeter. The authors conclude, "This suggests the spatially dependent nature of the diffusion of norms, resources, and institutions that are necessary to the construction of political democracies and market economies in the postcommunist [sic] era." In other words, the closer you are to liberal democracies, the easier it is for you to become a liberal democracy.
If you read the article, it does agree with the hawks that one way to democratize is for external forces to overthrow dictators. The political scientists cited in the article refer to this as the second wave of democratization, from 1943 to 1962: e.g., Germany and Japan. But it also talks about a third wave, in more recent times, in which the revolutions came about internally: e.g., The Soviet Union.
I suppose one way of boiling this all down is to ask whether you're a "second-waver" or "third-waver." They've both been effective in the past.
By the way, I want to commend you on your extended essay on the previous page of this thread. Nicely written. Now if we could just keep you to that kind of writing rather than your usual tripe.
Originally posted by bunge
I think this is misguided logic. There's a saying in the world today, something to the effect of "The Klan don't wear hoods anymore, they wear three piece suits."
An invasion is not what it would traditionally have been. Economy has become the true power, not military. The fall of the U.S.S.R. proved that. An invasion in this day and age wouldn't be a massive military force, it'll be the tentacles left behind after the 'liberation' troops leave the country.
So no, this isn't a traditional invasion, but those don't exist so much anymore. At least, not in the 'first world'. The 'first world invasion' doesn't wear a helmut anymore, it wears a three piece suit.
Get over your hatred of Bush and your fear of war and see how silly you sound sir. This is not an invasion except int he sense that our forces have invaded the country to remove Saddam. We are not there to stay in a colonial sense like many here and in the media are trying to push. We will help Iraq to rebuild when all is over, but for now we have to put the circumstances in place for a new Iraq to emerge. The First thing needed is the removal of Saddam, which will not happen without the use of force. So we are on step one. When step one is over there will be many more steps. It will not be until at the very earliest, step 2, that we really know whether the US is there as a colonial force or as liberators as we contend. Wait till step 2, that is the step after Saddam is removed, killed, whatever.
Jimmac said:
You assume they think like us. Big mistake, but don't worry you're in good company.
Yeah my mistake. I thought they didn't like being tortured and terrorized. What exactly is your point here? They don't think like us so we should leave them to their to suffering and let their evil dictator continue to amass WMD, and spread more hatred and propaganda about the US. Great plan.
You still haven't proven anything beyond a cursory relationship between the situation and application of force in Vietnam vs whats going on in Iraq right now. But thats ok, I didn't expect you to.
Also watch trying to put words ( I didn't say ) into my mouth.
Where did I do this exactly? I only asked you questions, Jimbo.
Speaking of which, good try at evading these:
How pray tell do you educate an oppressed fearful people full of propaganda under the thumb of a cruel dictator?
Even if we can't help everyone why not help these people if we can?
But, take a chill pill before you reply with all that adrenaline next time.
What adrenaline? My one exclamation mark? Ohhhhh look out I'm fired up!! <--- Uh-oh... TWO exclamations points its Shock and Awe time!
I don't mean stay out of his way if he attempts to invade other countries; remember, containment is one of my conditions. (And I supported Gulf War I, too, when you were but a young pup.) What I mean is, stay out of their internal affairs.
So we remove the economic sanctions then?
What keeps Saddam from developing naughty weapons?
If you read the article, it does agree with the hawks that one way to democratize is for external forces to overthrow dictators. The political scientists cited in the article refer to this as the second wave of democratization, from 1943 to 1962: e.g., Germany and Japan. But it also talks about a third wave, in more recent times, in which the revolutions came about internally: e.g., The Soviet Union.
I suppose one way of boiling this all down is to ask whether you're a "second-waver" or "third-waver." They've both been effective in the past.
You completely ignore how absoultely horrible the humanitarian cost of this "third wave" is. Stalin alone killed 16+ million of his own civilians. The Soviet empire lived for 40 years in starvation and disease. Just unthinkable human suffering.
Would you really say that is a preferrable route? Are we really not supposed to care what happens to those people?
And like I said, we couldn't do in the USSR what we are doing in Iraq. Because we have the military power to cut the head off of the regime we do it, we couldn't have done the same to the USSR.
To me there is no question, I think it would be a tragedy to leave a starving and disease-riddle people with a brutal regime and "I hope you guys figure out how to make your country better someday." It is unthinkable at this point.
There is an old saying, "Once you see it, you are involved." We have seen the devastation in Iraq, we can't do anything but what we're doing now.
Originally posted by NoahJ
Get over your hatred of Bush and your fear of war...
My post had nothing to do with either. I do not like Bush, but my dislike of the man has nothing to do with my belief that there are colonial tendencies in this act. You can see it in a lot of what the U.S. does, even from before Bush. Look into the actions of the IMF for a good introduction to what we could call 'the new colonialism'.
I have no fear of war.
Originally posted by groverat
Because we have the military power to cut the head off of the regime we do it....
How do you justify our relative inaction in Africa?
How do you justify our relative inaction in Africa?
I don't.
And to quote myself, as I always have to do with you because you have a severe reading comprehension and retention problem:
I am ashamed of the US's lack of initiative on that...
Remedial reading courses. Look into them.
I am ashamed of the US's lack of initiative on that...
groverat, ditto for our governments.
Would you like to also make a statement on the billions of dollars of aid from the international community that hasn't arrived for Afghanistan?
To all, how bout that support from you know who for factions rather than a unified power....how bout that democracy for Afghanistan?
Reports, and movie "Return to Kandahar" reveals that Afghanistan is actually sitll being ruled by old Warlords!
Originally posted by bunge
How do you justify our relative inaction in Africa?
Shouldn't you be asking that question of France? (not to say that the US shouldn't do something about it, but by all means France should be allowed to attempt to finish what they start) ...or how about another antiwar favorite- "What problem?"