Yes it is because thats not the question. The question is "How do we maintain stability in the world?" and the analysis is/was that a West lead war against Iraq can create enough hostility against the west in certaint areas of the world and that would lead to no good. If Saddam should be taken from power it needed to be done either 1) Peacefully 2) By the iraqis themselves or 3) After every other means had been tried. Then a regime change in Iraq would have been accepted by the rest of the middle east. You may agree or not on the answer to that question but that was the question asked.
To say it was a question about europe wanting Saddam to stay in power is just as simplistic as saying that it was a question about the US wanting to create a middle east with nothing but hatred against all things from the west.
I respectfully disagree. I cannot think of a single instance where any middle eastern country ever said they woud support a regime change in Iraq. If you would care to point to something that says different that is fine but I have not run across a single bit of support for what you claim.
As for maintaining stability in the world, you are correct that Europe has a long history of pacifism with regard to tolerating tyrants as long as it isn't in their own yard. They will even tolerate it in their neighbors yard. (Bosnia)
However no matter how many times this tactic has been tried the problem doesn't go away until confronted with force.
The attempts at doing it peacefully lead to the slaughter of civilians by a police state as well as starvation of them in the oil for food program which Saddam still had to run. This made number 2 next to impossible. Finally with number 3, perhaps Europe has the patience to wait until the weapons are launched at them for proof. The U.S. does not.
I have written about Iraq above my last post. I think if you read that you will see what I mean with "wrong question"
Okay, gotcha, but I'm not buying "How do we maintain stability in the world?" is the right question either. The last thing the Near East needs more of is stability.
I respectfully disagree. I cannot think of a single instance where any middle eastern country ever said they woud support a regime change in Iraq. If you would care to point to something that says different that is fine but I have not run across a single bit of support for what you claim.
As for maintaining stability in the world, you are correct that Europe has a long history of pacifism with regard to tolerating tyrants as long as it isn't in their own yard. They will even tolerate it in their neighbors yard. (Bosnia)
However no matter how many times this tactic has been tried the problem doesn't go away until confronted with force.
The attempts at doing it peacefully lead to the slaughter of civilians by a police state as well as starvation of them in the oil for food program which Saddam still had to run. This made number 2 next to impossible. Finally with number 3, perhaps Europe has the patience to wait until the weapons are launched at them for proof. The U.S. does not.
Nick
Now thats another discussion altogether
You may disagree with the effectiveness of the strategy but nontheless it was how it was seen from "old" europe. So that invalidates the "they wanted to keep Saddam in power" claim.
The effectiveness of the strategy belongs to another thread where I won´t participate
Okay, gotcha, but I'm not buying "How do we maintain stability in the world?" is the right question either. The last thing the Near East needs more of is stability.
Imagine Saddam turning the reins over to one of his sons the way Assad did in Syria. Or how many decades has Arafat been calling the shots for the Palestinians? Are they truly better off because he had a monoploy on power? Stablity has been something like a curse to the Arab world.
Imagine Saddam turning the reins over to one of his sons the way Assad did in Syria. Or how many decades has Arafat been calling the shots for the Palestinians? Are they truly better off because he had a monoploy on power? Stablity has been something like a curse to the Arab world.
I see, but Anders was not referring to the stability of the middle east dictatures, but to the stability between various nations of middle east.
This American obsession with war and armies is really beginning to freak me out. Are you really arguing that access to the growing markets in eastern europe is in someway not worthwhile because of the inability of the EU to protect itself from... who? Who is planning on invading the EU? Who is planning on invading Mexico? Or... who are we planning on invading?
Modern armies are being downsized and redesigned because they need to combat drug-traffickers and terrorists (remember them?) Decentralized enemies with a great deal of cunning and many natural advantages.
As much as you would like to believe Iraq was a threat that the US bravely responded to, it wasn't. The whole adventure was a death spasm of an institution whose time has passed, just like the RIAA, modern realities have overtaken the US army and it looks like it's going to take a few more 9/11's for them to realize that.
No what I am saying, is that it will be interesting to watch how the Euro fares when you have high growth small government countries joining the EU trying to be dictated to by slow growth hemorraging money social democracies.
Nobody is planning on invading anyone as far as I know, however as you mentioned in your own post, the nature of the enemy has changed. Europe has neither an large obsolete army nor a sleek modern army. The ability to defend oneself when attacked does affect things like international investment and currency. If when America was attacked the world believed we would not be able to respond, would people still invest their money and energy here? Since the naysayers declare that it isn't a matter of if we will (and Europe as well) be attacked but when, what will the European response be? Will it create the confidence necessary for people to still trust the Euro as a currency and invest their own time and money there? We will see.
Seeing as "modern realities" stood up to the U.S. military machines for about 3 weeks, I would hardly say that these groups have shown any sort of ability inflict additional damage.
I think this article, rather than the one at the beginning of this thread, more accurately dipicts the reasons why the U.S. might dominate over the E.U.
I see, but Anders was not referring to the stability of the middle east dictatures, but to the stability between various nations of middle east.
And stability between the west and middle east. I think it could be summed down to "We want the dictators to disappear as long as it the fundamental stability on the international scene is secured".
I think this article, rather than the one at the beginning of this thread, more accurately dipicts the reasons why the U.S. might dominate over the E.U.
I'm guessing you are referring to the implications of the National Security Strategy? Its difficult to call...if the Bush admin (many of whom are part of the Project for the New American Century) have their way, this would be the case...but they have to stay in control of the country to do that. The continuing state of the economy will have a lot of impact on whether or not they can do this.
I actually have to fund and conduct sociological studies now to support (or counteract) what I read, see and hear? Interesting.
When you start making broad generalizations about people, then yes.
Where are all of these people you folks you've fabricate supposed to be? I've never even heard of anyone like that, which is not surprising considering how specific the caricature is.
Seeing as "modern realities" stood up to the U.S. military machines for about 3 weeks, I would hardly say that these groups have shown any sort of ability inflict additional damage.
I thought at first the refusal to accept the nature of terrorism was just an affectation but it has slowly dawned on me that American hawks really do think that Europeans were "afraid to kick ass" and deal with "the terrorists" when it came to Iraq.
The continuing confusion between 'a country with an army' and 'terrorists' is the problem. As I said it will take more handfuls of unarmed people killing large numbers of civilians for the US to click that you can't invade terroristan and change the regime.
That is the modern reality and I wager your U.S. military machines will be as effective as they were the last time.
This silly belief that we don't need large military forces anymore is something I hope spreads across the rest of the world, and not the US.
It has.
The US military is freakishly large by any measure. Unfortunately for you and all the other taxpayers who fund it (in a distinctly non-free market kind of way) getting Congress to crack down on this pork-barrel bonanza would be like the turkeys voting for Christmas.
I'm guessing you are referring to the implications of the National Security Strategy? Its difficult to call...if the Bush admin (many of whom are part of the Project for the New American Century) have their way, this would be the case...but they have to stay in control of the country to do that. The continuing state of the economy will have a lot of impact on whether or not they can do this.
Yeah, but my fear is that Clinton seemed to have these tendencies as well, and thus possibly the Democratic party.
Comments
Originally posted by Anders the White
What example?
First trumptman:
I don't think it simplistic to say they wanted to keep Saddam in power. Nick
Then pfflam:
That most certainly is simplistic . . . as well as just plain wrong.
Then I replied:
What did they do to remove him from power?
Whereupon you jumped in with your Beep. Wrong question... etc.
If you didn't know what I was talking about, why did you say it was the wrong question?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
First trumptman:
I don't think it simplistic to say they wanted to keep Saddam in power. Nick
Then pfflam:
That most certainly is simplistic . . . as well as just plain wrong.
Then I replied:
What did they do to remove him from power?
Whereupon you jumped in with your Beep. Wrong question... etc.
If you didn't know what I was talking about, why did you say it was the wrong question?
I have written about Iraq above my last post. I think if you read that you will see what I mean with "wrong question"
Originally posted by Anders the White
Yes it is because thats not the question. The question is "How do we maintain stability in the world?" and the analysis is/was that a West lead war against Iraq can create enough hostility against the west in certaint areas of the world and that would lead to no good. If Saddam should be taken from power it needed to be done either 1) Peacefully 2) By the iraqis themselves or 3) After every other means had been tried. Then a regime change in Iraq would have been accepted by the rest of the middle east. You may agree or not on the answer to that question but that was the question asked.
To say it was a question about europe wanting Saddam to stay in power is just as simplistic as saying that it was a question about the US wanting to create a middle east with nothing but hatred against all things from the west.
I respectfully disagree. I cannot think of a single instance where any middle eastern country ever said they woud support a regime change in Iraq. If you would care to point to something that says different that is fine but I have not run across a single bit of support for what you claim.
As for maintaining stability in the world, you are correct that Europe has a long history of pacifism with regard to tolerating tyrants as long as it isn't in their own yard. They will even tolerate it in their neighbors yard. (Bosnia)
However no matter how many times this tactic has been tried the problem doesn't go away until confronted with force.
The attempts at doing it peacefully lead to the slaughter of civilians by a police state as well as starvation of them in the oil for food program which Saddam still had to run. This made number 2 next to impossible. Finally with number 3, perhaps Europe has the patience to wait until the weapons are launched at them for proof. The U.S. does not.
Nick
Originally posted by Anders the White
I have written about Iraq above my last post. I think if you read that you will see what I mean with "wrong question"
Okay, gotcha, but I'm not buying "How do we maintain stability in the world?" is the right question either. The last thing the Near East needs more of is stability.
Originally posted by bunge
Careful or trumptman will show up and accuse you of adding nothing ot this discussion but silly one liners.
Bunge,
Play nice or I'll take my ball and go home.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I respectfully disagree. I cannot think of a single instance where any middle eastern country ever said they woud support a regime change in Iraq. If you would care to point to something that says different that is fine but I have not run across a single bit of support for what you claim.
As for maintaining stability in the world, you are correct that Europe has a long history of pacifism with regard to tolerating tyrants as long as it isn't in their own yard. They will even tolerate it in their neighbors yard. (Bosnia)
However no matter how many times this tactic has been tried the problem doesn't go away until confronted with force.
The attempts at doing it peacefully lead to the slaughter of civilians by a police state as well as starvation of them in the oil for food program which Saddam still had to run. This made number 2 next to impossible. Finally with number 3, perhaps Europe has the patience to wait until the weapons are launched at them for proof. The U.S. does not.
Nick
Now thats another discussion altogether
You may disagree with the effectiveness of the strategy but nontheless it was how it was seen from "old" europe. So that invalidates the "they wanted to keep Saddam in power" claim.
The effectiveness of the strategy belongs to another thread where I won´t participate
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Okay, gotcha, but I'm not buying "How do we maintain stability in the world?" is the right question either. The last thing the Near East needs more of is stability.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Imagine Saddam turning the reins over to one of his sons the way Assad did in Syria. Or how many decades has Arafat been calling the shots for the Palestinians? Are they truly better off because he had a monoploy on power? Stablity has been something like a curse to the Arab world.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Imagine Saddam turning the reins over to one of his sons the way Assad did in Syria. Or how many decades has Arafat been calling the shots for the Palestinians? Are they truly better off because he had a monoploy on power? Stablity has been something like a curse to the Arab world.
I see, but Anders was not referring to the stability of the middle east dictatures, but to the stability between various nations of middle east.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I see, but Anders was not referring to the stability of the middle east dictatures, but to the stability between various nations of middle east.
Which was his argument for not moving to remove Saddam from power. Same fetid result. No upside. Sorry, I'm not buying.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
This American obsession with war and armies is really beginning to freak me out. Are you really arguing that access to the growing markets in eastern europe is in someway not worthwhile because of the inability of the EU to protect itself from... who? Who is planning on invading the EU? Who is planning on invading Mexico? Or... who are we planning on invading?
Modern armies are being downsized and redesigned because they need to combat drug-traffickers and terrorists (remember them?) Decentralized enemies with a great deal of cunning and many natural advantages.
As much as you would like to believe Iraq was a threat that the US bravely responded to, it wasn't. The whole adventure was a death spasm of an institution whose time has passed, just like the RIAA, modern realities have overtaken the US army and it looks like it's going to take a few more 9/11's for them to realize that.
No what I am saying, is that it will be interesting to watch how the Euro fares when you have high growth small government countries joining the EU trying to be dictated to by slow growth hemorraging money social democracies.
Nobody is planning on invading anyone as far as I know, however as you mentioned in your own post, the nature of the enemy has changed. Europe has neither an large obsolete army nor a sleek modern army. The ability to defend oneself when attacked does affect things like international investment and currency. If when America was attacked the world believed we would not be able to respond, would people still invest their money and energy here? Since the naysayers declare that it isn't a matter of if we will (and Europe as well) be attacked but when, what will the European response be? Will it create the confidence necessary for people to still trust the Euro as a currency and invest their own time and money there? We will see.
Seeing as "modern realities" stood up to the U.S. military machines for about 3 weeks, I would hardly say that these groups have shown any sort of ability inflict additional damage.
Nick
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I see, but Anders was not referring to the stability of the middle east dictatures, but to the stability between various nations of middle east.
And stability between the west and middle east. I think it could be summed down to "We want the dictators to disappear as long as it the fundamental stability on the international scene is secured".
Originally posted by bunge
I think this article, rather than the one at the beginning of this thread, more accurately dipicts the reasons why the U.S. might dominate over the E.U.
I'm guessing you are referring to the implications of the National Security Strategy? Its difficult to call...if the Bush admin (many of whom are part of the Project for the New American Century) have their way, this would be the case...but they have to stay in control of the country to do that. The continuing state of the economy will have a lot of impact on whether or not they can do this.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Which was his argument for not moving to remove Saddam from power. Same fetid result. No upside. Sorry, I'm not buying.
Originally posted by pscates
I actually have to fund and conduct sociological studies now to support (or counteract) what I read, see and hear? Interesting.
When you start making broad generalizations about people, then yes.
Where are all of these people you folks you've fabricate supposed to be? I've never even heard of anyone like that, which is not surprising considering how specific the caricature is.
Originally posted by trumptman
Seeing as "modern realities" stood up to the U.S. military machines for about 3 weeks, I would hardly say that these groups have shown any sort of ability inflict additional damage.
I thought at first the refusal to accept the nature of terrorism was just an affectation but it has slowly dawned on me that American hawks really do think that Europeans were "afraid to kick ass" and deal with "the terrorists" when it came to Iraq.
The continuing confusion between 'a country with an army' and 'terrorists' is the problem. As I said it will take more handfuls of unarmed people killing large numbers of civilians for the US to click that you can't invade terroristan and change the regime.
That is the modern reality and I wager your U.S. military machines will be as effective as they were the last time.
Originally posted by groverat
This silly belief that we don't need large military forces anymore is something I hope spreads across the rest of the world, and not the US.
It has.
The US military is freakishly large by any measure. Unfortunately for you and all the other taxpayers who fund it (in a distinctly non-free market kind of way) getting Congress to crack down on this pork-barrel bonanza would be like the turkeys voting for Christmas.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
I'm guessing you are referring to the implications of the National Security Strategy? Its difficult to call...if the Bush admin (many of whom are part of the Project for the New American Century) have their way, this would be the case...but they have to stay in control of the country to do that. The continuing state of the economy will have a lot of impact on whether or not they can do this.
Yeah, but my fear is that Clinton seemed to have these tendencies as well, and thus possibly the Democratic party.
Originally posted by Anders the White
<picture of crap>
Whatever, dude. Next time I'll remember to just agree with you no matter what you say.
[edit: One page with that picture is enough. - Groverat, the evil moderator]