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.
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.
So tell me, what are the costs associated with the Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz approach? Have you thought about them? Or have you completely ignored them? Can you describe what could go wrong and what must be done to avoid those problems? And does it looks like we are attempting to avoid those problems? 500 words or less, 1-inch margins.
I don't know why only the US seems to give a crap about Afghanistan right now. You answer me, you're the one in Canada.
I suppose it's the same reason the UN lets everything fall to shit, you tell me.
Why? Because we said we would take care of them.
We stated uniquivocably that we would aid dramatically in reconstructing Afghanistan and helping it become a new nation.
What have we done?
Why don't many people around the world trust the US? because we have repeatedly made such promises and not carried through: Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Columbia (all goes to arms against drugs) South and Central American countries, Chile etc etc.
I know that it feels like anti-Americanism and therefore something that should be brushed aside with a "liberal" claptrap disclaimer . . . but I think that it is worth considering no matter how icky it feels
We should stick to the plans like we did with the Monroe Doctrine
So tell me, what are the costs associated with the Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz approach? Have you thought about them? Or have you completely ignored them? Can you describe what could go wrong and what must be done to avoid those problems? And does it looks like we are attempting to avoid those problems? 500 words or less, 1-inch margins.
I will happily do so if you will explain to me what this Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz approach is that you're referring to and what the hell it has to do with the topic.
Specific to Iraq I'll happily tell you.
Sanctions kill 274 people a day. The US war to oust Saddam will succeed in due time and the sanctions will be lifted. Iraq will then be able to move forward (with a nicer government (democracy, autocracy, I don't think it matters so long as it is positive)) using their oil resources to rebuild their nation. In the interim the UN and the war coalition will give them shitloads of aid.
Risks:
civilian casualties in war
possibly pissing off terrorists
possible destabilization of Iraq
-or-
We allow half-assed inspections to continue with sanctions ongoing for an indefinite period of time. Hussein retains control and the civilians die by the tens of thousands (malnutrition, disease, police squads).
Risks:
civilian casualties from sanctions
possible pissing off terrorists
--
pfflam:
Quote:
Why? Because we said we would take care of them.
We stated uniquivocably that we would aid dramatically in reconstructing Afghanistan and helping it become a new nation.
What have we done?
We have given then hundreds of millions of dollars and will continue to do so. We are helping them a great deal.
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.
What makes you think I can't remember the moronic things you write? I like to have you repeat them so other people can see how myopic you are.
So, you'll support a war in Iraq when you know that there are other areas of the world that need help sooner. If you repeat yourself for everyone else to see, they'll also see that your motives are indefensible. I think that bears repeating on your part.
...that there are other areas of the world that need help sooner...
...in your opinion, but you would never claim to be playing armchair world leader, right? What makes you the authority of what situations across the globe demand greater priority, anyway?
AND they're going to misquote me and redirect the conversation somewhere else.
Classic.
Thanks guys.
I guess you kind of DID answer my question with your silence.
Hmmm. A tantrum, and in color! On the previous page, I tried to suggest some possibilities to what I think was your question. Maybe you could address those. And New, to whom I think your question was most directly addressed, is attending to real life for the time being.
Actually, I believe that's based at least partially on groverat's decisions. He's a proponent of attacking the dictatorships that are weak enough to destroy while using other methods to attack those regimes that are too powerful to attack directly (like North Korea).
Iraq is more powerful than any sub-saharan African nation. The humanitarian crisis in Iraq is no bigger than the African crisis (this is conjecture, feel free to refute it.) But put the two together and...something doesn't add up.
Give me an example of an African nation that's in more need of military intervention than Iraq. Because even you are not too stupid to realize that international aid has not been put on hold for this action.
Actually, I believe that's based at least partially on groverat's decisions.
...assuming you were successful in capturing the real essences of what he has posted earlier. Considering your penchant for re-interpretation, I don't think it is wise of you to say what Groverat has said. Why don't you leave it up to him to describe what he is saying in response to your points?
Quote:
...But put the two together and...something doesn't add up.
Oh, it's groverat's opinion that doesn't. Funny.
Yeah, the limited, broken pieces that you picked-up and paraphrased to suit your own motives. Something tells me you no longer speak of what Groverat was speaking.
Give me an example of an African nation that's in more need of military intervention than Iraq.
The whole premise of your philosophy is to go into the countries that need LESS military intervention. That's why we're in Iraq before North Korea. Because Iraq needs less military intervention than North Korea.
By that train of thought, needy countries in Africa should be ahead of Iraq because of the nearly complete lack of Military necessary to complete any aid campaign. That's my point. Africa should come first because it doesn't require a huge Military campaign just as Iraq comes before North Korea since it would be an exponentially more difficult and larger war than Iraq.
If you just mean a country that needs more intervention than Iraq, there are plenty. Mali is one I have first hand experience with.
Considering your penchant for re-interpretation...
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: I don't re-interpret anyone's quotes.
A lot of people just don't seem to realize that what they write can be seen from two or more different perspectives and all instances are equally vaild even if some of the perspectives are contrary to what the writer was originally intending to say.
The whole premise of your philosophy is to go into the countries that need LESS military intervention. That's why we're in Iraq before North Korea. Because Iraq needs less military intervention than North Korea.
Well there are far more factors that go into "who needs it most" but that is certainly a consideration. It's a very fluid thing.
Quote:
By that train of thought, needy countries in Africa should be ahead of Iraq because of the nearly complete lack of Military necessary to complete any aid campaign. That's my point. Africa should come first because it doesn't require a huge Military campaign just as Iraq comes before North Korea since it would be an exponentially more difficult and larger war than Iraq.
Aid hasn't stopped to all these other countries. We can do many things at once. We give aid to many poor countries while fighting war on Iraq. It's an amazing thing, it's called multi-tasking.
Now, I realize we all came from OS7/8/9 not so long ago so it's a new concept we're not entirely comfortable with yet.
Quote:
If you just mean a country that needs more intervention than Iraq, there are plenty. Mali is one I have first hand experience with.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: I don't re-interpret anyone's quotes.
A lot of people just don't seem to realize that what they write can be seen from two or more different perspectives and all instances are equally vaild even if some of the perspectives are contrary to what the writer was originally intending to say.
So if I may take one perspective of what you're saying, not to say that I'm reinterpreting what you wrote, you're aware of the author's intentions with what they're writing and then looking at it from a different perspective anyway, not to say you're reinterpreting what they said of course.
Aid hasn't stopped to all these other countries. We can do many things at once. We give aid to many poor countries while fighting war on Iraq. It's an amazing thing, it's called multi-tasking.
FORCE QUIT
Aid hasn't stopped, but if for the sake of argument we consider the cost of the war 'aid' (since in essence that's what we're saying it is), I'd say we're giving a disproportionate amout to Iraq all things considered.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Mali? Interesting, why is that?
Mali is poor as sand, has an AIDS crisis like the rest of Africa, it's stuck in the middle of a big drug trade originating in Nigera, [EDIT] the average life expectancy is like 45 minutes [/EDIT], and has had a Civil War going on for a long time. It's been really quiet for maybe 10 years, but to my knowledge it's never been abandoned. It still flared up on occaision back in the mid-nineties.
So if I may take one perspective of what you're saying, not to say that I'm reinterpreting what you wrote, you're aware of the author's intentions with what they're writing and then looking at it from a different perspective anyway, not to say you're reinterpreting what they said of course.
Comments
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?
I don't know why only the US seems to give a crap about Afghanistan right now. You answer me, you're the one in Canada.
I suppose it's the same reason the UN lets everything fall to shit, you tell me.
Originally posted by groverat
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.
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.
So tell me, what are the costs associated with the Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz approach? Have you thought about them? Or have you completely ignored them? Can you describe what could go wrong and what must be done to avoid those problems? And does it looks like we are attempting to avoid those problems? 500 words or less, 1-inch margins.
Originally posted by groverat
I don't know why only the US seems to give a crap about Afghanistan right now. You answer me, you're the one in Canada.
I suppose it's the same reason the UN lets everything fall to shit, you tell me.
Why? Because we said we would take care of them.
We stated uniquivocably that we would aid dramatically in reconstructing Afghanistan and helping it become a new nation.
What have we done?
Why don't many people around the world trust the US? because we have repeatedly made such promises and not carried through: Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Columbia (all goes to arms against drugs) South and Central American countries, Chile etc etc.
I know that it feels like anti-Americanism and therefore something that should be brushed aside with a "liberal" claptrap disclaimer . . . but I think that it is worth considering no matter how icky it feels
We should stick to the plans like we did with the Monroe Doctrine
So tell me, what are the costs associated with the Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz approach? Have you thought about them? Or have you completely ignored them? Can you describe what could go wrong and what must be done to avoid those problems? And does it looks like we are attempting to avoid those problems? 500 words or less, 1-inch margins.
I will happily do so if you will explain to me what this Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz approach is that you're referring to and what the hell it has to do with the topic.
Specific to Iraq I'll happily tell you.
Sanctions kill 274 people a day. The US war to oust Saddam will succeed in due time and the sanctions will be lifted. Iraq will then be able to move forward (with a nicer government (democracy, autocracy, I don't think it matters so long as it is positive)) using their oil resources to rebuild their nation. In the interim the UN and the war coalition will give them shitloads of aid.
Risks:
civilian casualties in war
possibly pissing off terrorists
possible destabilization of Iraq
-or-
We allow half-assed inspections to continue with sanctions ongoing for an indefinite period of time. Hussein retains control and the civilians die by the tens of thousands (malnutrition, disease, police squads).
Risks:
civilian casualties from sanctions
possible pissing off terrorists
--
pfflam:
Why? Because we said we would take care of them.
We stated uniquivocably that we would aid dramatically in reconstructing Afghanistan and helping it become a new nation.
What have we done?
We have given then hundreds of millions of dollars and will continue to do so. We are helping them a great deal.
Are you trying to say we aren't?
THREAD ABOUT AID
AND they're going to misquote me and redirect the conversation somewhere else.
Classic.
Thanks guys.
I guess you kind of DID answer my question with your silence.
Originally posted by groverat
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.
What makes you think I can't remember the moronic things you write? I like to have you repeat them so other people can see how myopic you are.
So, you'll support a war in Iraq when you know that there are other areas of the world that need help sooner. If you repeat yourself for everyone else to see, they'll also see that your motives are indefensible. I think that bears repeating on your part.
Originally posted by bunge
...that there are other areas of the world that need help sooner...
...in your opinion, but you would never claim to be playing armchair world leader, right? What makes you the authority of what situations across the globe demand greater priority, anyway?
Originally posted by drewprops
So nobody is going to answer my question.
AND they're going to misquote me and redirect the conversation somewhere else.
Classic.
Thanks guys.
I guess you kind of DID answer my question with your silence.
Hmmm. A tantrum, and in color! On the previous page, I tried to suggest some possibilities to what I think was your question. Maybe you could address those. And New, to whom I think your question was most directly addressed, is attending to real life for the time being.
Originally posted by Randycat99
...in your opinion...
Actually, I believe that's based at least partially on groverat's decisions. He's a proponent of attacking the dictatorships that are weak enough to destroy while using other methods to attack those regimes that are too powerful to attack directly (like North Korea).
Iraq is more powerful than any sub-saharan African nation. The humanitarian crisis in Iraq is no bigger than the African crisis (this is conjecture, feel free to refute it.) But put the two together and...something doesn't add up.
Oh, it's groverat's opinion that doesn't. Funny.
Here's a better link about aid to afghanistan.
click
Yeah, no one is doing anything about that country. Everyone has forgotten.
Facts get in the way of contrarian sniping.
bunge:
for you
Give me an example of an African nation that's in more need of military intervention than Iraq. Because even you are not too stupid to realize that international aid has not been put on hold for this action.
Originally posted by bunge
Actually, I believe that's based at least partially on groverat's decisions.
...assuming you were successful in capturing the real essences of what he has posted earlier. Considering your penchant for re-interpretation, I don't think it is wise of you to say what Groverat has said. Why don't you leave it up to him to describe what he is saying in response to your points?
Quote:
...But put the two together and...something doesn't add up.
Oh, it's groverat's opinion that doesn't. Funny.
Yeah, the limited, broken pieces that you picked-up and paraphrased to suit your own motives. Something tells me you no longer speak of what Groverat was speaking.
Originally posted by groverat
Give me an example of an African nation that's in more need of military intervention than Iraq.
The whole premise of your philosophy is to go into the countries that need LESS military intervention. That's why we're in Iraq before North Korea. Because Iraq needs less military intervention than North Korea.
By that train of thought, needy countries in Africa should be ahead of Iraq because of the nearly complete lack of Military necessary to complete any aid campaign. That's my point. Africa should come first because it doesn't require a huge Military campaign just as Iraq comes before North Korea since it would be an exponentially more difficult and larger war than Iraq.
If you just mean a country that needs more intervention than Iraq, there are plenty. Mali is one I have first hand experience with.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Considering your penchant for re-interpretation...
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: I don't re-interpret anyone's quotes.
A lot of people just don't seem to realize that what they write can be seen from two or more different perspectives and all instances are equally vaild even if some of the perspectives are contrary to what the writer was originally intending to say.
I never had sexual relations with that woman!
If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!
Originally posted by bunge
The whole premise of your philosophy is to go into the countries that need LESS military intervention. That's why we're in Iraq before North Korea. Because Iraq needs less military intervention than North Korea.
Well there are far more factors that go into "who needs it most" but that is certainly a consideration. It's a very fluid thing.
By that train of thought, needy countries in Africa should be ahead of Iraq because of the nearly complete lack of Military necessary to complete any aid campaign. That's my point. Africa should come first because it doesn't require a huge Military campaign just as Iraq comes before North Korea since it would be an exponentially more difficult and larger war than Iraq.
Aid hasn't stopped to all these other countries. We can do many things at once. We give aid to many poor countries while fighting war on Iraq. It's an amazing thing, it's called multi-tasking.
Now, I realize we all came from OS7/8/9 not so long ago so it's a new concept we're not entirely comfortable with yet.
If you just mean a country that needs more intervention than Iraq, there are plenty. Mali is one I have first hand experience with.
Mali? Interesting, why is that?
Originally posted by bunge
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: I don't re-interpret anyone's quotes.
A lot of people just don't seem to realize that what they write can be seen from two or more different perspectives and all instances are equally vaild even if some of the perspectives are contrary to what the writer was originally intending to say.
So if I may take one perspective of what you're saying, not to say that I'm reinterpreting what you wrote, you're aware of the author's intentions with what they're writing and then looking at it from a different perspective anyway, not to say you're reinterpreting what they said of course.
How post-modern!
Originally posted by groverat
Aid hasn't stopped to all these other countries. We can do many things at once. We give aid to many poor countries while fighting war on Iraq. It's an amazing thing, it's called multi-tasking.
FORCE QUIT
Aid hasn't stopped, but if for the sake of argument we consider the cost of the war 'aid' (since in essence that's what we're saying it is), I'd say we're giving a disproportionate amout to Iraq all things considered.
Originally posted by groverat
Mali? Interesting, why is that?
Mali is poor as sand, has an AIDS crisis like the rest of Africa, it's stuck in the middle of a big drug trade originating in Nigera, [EDIT] the average life expectancy is like 45 minutes [/EDIT], and has had a Civil War going on for a long time. It's been really quiet for maybe 10 years, but to my knowledge it's never been abandoned. It still flared up on occaision back in the mid-nineties.
It does border on Burkina Faso, which is a bonus.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
So if I may take one perspective of what you're saying, not to say that I'm reinterpreting what you wrote, you're aware of the author's intentions with what they're writing and then looking at it from a different perspective anyway, not to say you're reinterpreting what they said of course.
How post-modern!
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING AT ALL!!!