The Face of Liberation & 'What took you so long?'

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 105
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    And US did the same thing promising awards for countries who will vote for her. It's called Diplomatia.



    Diplomacy aimed at those countries. There was nothing diplomatic about Chirac's actions with respect to the US. As far as the US-France relationship in concerned, Chirac has been happy to burn down the house.
    MarvinJames
  • Reply 22 of 105
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Diplomacy aimed at those countries. There was nothing diplomatic about Chirac's actions with respect to the US. As far as the US-France relationship in concerned, Chirac has been happy to burn down the house.



    There was nothing diplomatic in the US media either, and in some comment of the Bush's admin.

    Things are over now, time to turn a new page.
  • Reply 23 of 105
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I'm very happy and proud that this thing is going exactly the way I kept saying/hoping it would. All the handwringers and Bush-dislikers are - so far - completely wrong about everything.



    It's been precision strikes, repeated chances/pleas for the Iraqi military/government to give up. We're not "carpet bombing", we're not "killing babies by the thousands", we're not knocking out electricity and all.



    We're after that one guy and his immediate underlings and those who support back him...NOT the country of Iraq, not the civilians, not children, not Muslims, etc.



    The amount of restraint and humanitarian, civil behavior we're displaying makes me feel even MORE comfortable with my position on support of this. I've yet, after three days, to get some sort of awful "ohmigod...what have we done?" feeling.



    Granted, I know some of you are hoping and waiting that feeling comes, so at least you can appear right about something...







    If all the things you say about Bush and our military and how this "war" was going to go, that city would be a parking lot and there would not be a single building standing. All those people coming up to our military and hugging them and shaking their hands?



    Simple icing on the cake that I KNEW would be the case.



    I hope and pray this type of thing continues. And I hope every network replays the crap out of it, for no other reason that to simply say "some of you people don't know everything, or as much as you THINK you do...welcome to the real world".







    If I sound like I'm gloating, well perhaps I am a little. Months of anti-Bush/military rantings by many here and out in the world have made all these recent events (and how we're going about it all) sweeter than previously imagined.



    We're the only military in the world who would probably show that much restraint and goodwill. Do you think China, the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Iraq themselves, etc. would conduct a campaign like this? Precision strikes, repeated breaks and opportunities for the enemy to surrender, etc.



    We're doing EXACTLY what we said we were going to do, and - knock on wood - so far we're doing it beautifully. I know that drives a few of you absolutely around the bend, but get over it.



  • Reply 24 of 105
    Quote:

    There was nothing diplomatic in the US media either, and in some comment of the Bush's admin.



    Diplomacy is for diplomats, not the media.



    The difference is that the US had a position and a solution. Perhaps not a good one, that much is open to debate obviously. The French on the other hand, had no real position or solution on the issue; only wishing to negate the US's position. And then they sabotaged the process completely by trying to say that ultimatums were not justified which is of course patently absurd. They tried diplomacy and then to make sure that it turned out the way they wanted they trumped it with politics.



    Unlike the Canadiens who disagreed but actually tried to do something constructive, the French had nothing to offer. Except Politics. Just like the Germans. At least Canada [and Chile] were being realistic and productive in their diplomatic efforts.



    And to be clear, when I say French I mean Chirac and de Villepin and Raffarin and those scumbags rather than the French people of course.



    Quote:

    Things are over now, time to turn a new page.



    Hardly. It is sweet of you to be diplomatic but this thing is going to resurface again in a confrontational manner when the issues of government and reconstruction go back to the UN. Chirac is already showing that he is prepared to be obstinate again.
  • Reply 25 of 105
    What happened to my thread? And how did this thread end up with the topic title of my thread?
  • Reply 26 of 105
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    The magical merging powers of vB. The threads were redundant so I merged them. Better than a lock for redundancy, eh?
  • Reply 27 of 105
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    The magical merging powers of vB. The threads were redundant so I merged them. Better than a lock for redundancy, eh?



    YOU DELETED MY POST. I would have rather you locked it. At least then everyone would at least been able to read what I wrote. I HATE censorship.
  • Reply 28 of 105
    How's THAT for redundancy?
  • Reply 29 of 105
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Scroll up, sexy, it's there.



    *hugs*
  • Reply 30 of 105
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tulkas

    Well, the guy's sign was pretty obviously pointed at countries that made serious, concerted efforts at hindering US efforts to disarm Iraq. Canada is not one of them. We simply decided not to join the military coalition. I disagree with the the PM on this (as I do on about everything-he is an ass), soldiers sign was obviously not meant for countires that refused to sign up for the military compaign. However, if Chretien continues to allow his idiot MP's to spout off their anti-American comments, without his own comments confirming our relationship to the US, bilateral relations could be seriously damaged. More so than he has allowed then to become already.



    Tulkas, the Liberal govt has serious problems right now and they just added fuel to the fire by not joing coalition forces. I think we will see more trade disputes in the next couple of months because of Chretien's move. Plus, look at the Softwood Lumber issue and the new duty placed on Canadian wheat farmers. It is crazy. Hopefully Paul Martin will succeed Chretien in the future.
  • Reply 31 of 105
    The most important part of a disturbing Salon.com article on the state of the left:



    From See No Evil by Edward W. Lempinen, senior news editor at Salon.com.

    Quote:

    For those leftists who have supported the war, and for those who have loudly opposed it, now is the time for a shift in strategy. Bush and his inner circle have repeatedly gone on the record describing the war on Iraq as a war of liberation. Even if we do not believe them, we must work relentlessly to hold them accountable. We must insist that the U.S. and its allies implement, as quickly as possible, a constructive post-war plan. They must protect the Kurds from Saddam and from Turkey. Aided by the U.N., they must provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, no matter the cost. If they truly want to detoxify the Middle East, Bush and his inner circle must commit to seeking a practical solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. They must be reminded constantly, and forcefully, that it is urgent to repair trust, and to stop the corrosion that comes with chronic hypocrisy. By insisting on these values, by returning to the street in a tide of millions, the left might hijack the meaning of this tragedy and salvage from it something constructive. In doing so, we would stand for something that would resonate well into the political center; in doing so, we might create energy that could be channeled into the 2004 presidential campaign.



  • Reply 32 of 105
    The softwood lumber thing is just bullshit politics. Bush should be shot.
  • Reply 33 of 105
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    About those pictures - I'm not going to believe anything I see out of the media for the next month or so at least. Those same Iraqis were probably jumping up and down for Saddam Hussein 24 hours earlier.



    The media and the military are so much in bed right now that it really disgusts me. Is anyone else disturbed by the coverage? CNN, MSNBC, et al., have become the Ministries of Information for the Pentagon. It's very shocking (to me).
  • Reply 34 of 105
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Is the Guardian a tool of the American military machine now?



    'round and 'round we go
  • Reply 35 of 105
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    Diplomacy is for diplomats, not the media.



    The difference is that the US had a position and a solution. Perhaps not a good one, that much is open to debate obviously. The French on the other hand, had no real position or solution on the issue; only wishing to negate the US's position. And then they sabotaged the process completely by trying to say that ultimatums were not justified which is of course patently absurd. They tried diplomacy and then to make sure that it turned out the way they wanted they trumped it with politics.



    Unlike the Canadiens who disagreed but actually tried to do something constructive, the French had nothing to offer. Except Politics. Just like the Germans. At least Canada [and Chile] were being realistic and productive in their diplomatic efforts.



    And to be clear, when I say French I mean Chirac and de Villepin and Raffarin and those scumbags rather than the French people of course.







    Hardly. It is sweet of you to be diplomatic but this thing is going to resurface again in a confrontational manner when the issues of government and reconstruction go back to the UN. Chirac is already showing that he is prepared to be obstinate again.




    I doubt that US and UK will administrate Iraq alone after WW2. Only UN can manage this. I am not sure that the US admin want to do it also.
  • Reply 36 of 105
    BRussell,



    I haven't watched one moment of cable tv news, which is really aimed a more cursory view of the news. I suggest reading the news rather than being force-fed dumbed down drivel from some sensational television news journalist. Cable news channels are no better than reality tv shows in a sense. They both play heavily to what sells.



    www.nytimes.com is a great start for independence from flashy, look-at-me graphics and sound effects. They had to be the greatest newspaper in the world to do it, but I won't hold that against them. Similarly, NPR is a great departure from cable news networks and other "news" radio programs. Even though it seems like it's the National Pentagon Radio lately, it's still better than anything cable tv has offered.



    The only exception would be for actually viewing things like yesterday's bombing or the falling of the twin towers. But then I would read about it online. (I watched the bombing online)
  • Reply 37 of 105
    Quote:

    I doubt that US and UK will administrate Iraq alone after WW2.



    I would look at it in terms of four issues: Peacekeeping, Humanitarian, Government, and Infrastructure.



    Food and water and medical and stuff will be gladly handed off by the "allies" to the UN as even the US sees a place for the UN in terms of it being a humanitarian coordination agency. The only obstacle here would be if the US just wants to pass that off in part seperately from peacekeeping, governance and reconstruction and if the French and perhaps the Russians objected to as much because by seperating the issues they lose traction on the other parts where there is likely to be more disagreement. If the Anglo Coalition is smart they will move on that this week or next in the UN and try to capitalize on the urgency and political gravitas of humanitarian issues among Europublic to force the French and Russians to go along immediately. This is a good way to circumvent Chirac as well. He wants to remain adversarial and avoid doing this piecemeal but going against an empowerment of the UN on humanitarian assistance wouldn't be easy domestically.



    As far as the military aspect, it is no secret that the Pentagon loathes peacekeeping. On the other hand, if we are seriously talking about a peacekeeping force of say 100,000+ as Shineseki was talking about before he was bitchslapped then even those countries who prefer to participate and excel at peacekeeping would be stretched in terms of both manpower and financial cost. I wouldn't be surprised to see a variation on Afghanistan. International peacekeepers for Baghdad and perhaps deployments along Kuwaiti border, maybe Iranian border, Southern edge of "Kurdish territories", maybe as a buffer with the Shi'a and maybe elsewhere, say 25,000-50,000 or so. US troops elsewhere working with both Kurd groups, in the South with the Shi'a. The troops parts could be worked out, the leadership part will be tricky. The US will want to lose some of the burden but will be reluctant to cede command which will be demanded by several groups. I'm sure the Brits would be willing to let the UN take command. Not sure how that would play out. I suppose the UN could deputize NATO again, assuming that NATO still exists in a month, so that the allies would remain with much control but it would be multilaterally through NATO and UN which would appease the anti-hyperpower faction. That deals the Russians out but if we pick up the slack for their Iraq debt elsewhere they can be bought off. Not that they can afford to be peacekeeping when their military is falling apart anyway.



    Governance in the long term can be worked out at least in terms of agreeing on a format. I suspect that this is one place where eventually they will come to agreement. We can go European style parliament to throw the French a bone. We might be better off with an independent Kurdistan and perhaps even a third Southern partition. But that won't happen. Will the parties be able to get along? Who knows but I doubt that that will stop the Westerners from doing what they're gonna do for their own political reasons just as has always been the case.



    As far as short term governance, that will be perhaps the toughest issue. Losing control would prevent controlling the direction of the infrastructure aspect which is where the money is at. Not sure how this one will be resolved.



    Infrastructure, well, we've already started awarding contracts. There is money to be made here and there are political donors who can profit. And I'm sure the allies or at least the US would like nothing better than to cut the Germans and French out of this aspect. On the other hand, more corporate welfare subsidization by the taxpayer in the name of Iraqi reconstruction could be politically dangerous for the Bush administration with rising deficits and a mediocre economy. They'll need to move fast on the economy once the war ends and they'll need to pay off the seniors once we get to 2004 and elections approach. They might be forced to cut the UN and friends in on the bonus cheese but I'm sure they will do so only reluctantly.



    I certainly suspect Blair will be head over heels to go back to the UN and get some support on any issue. I doubt Bush feels similarly but there is a modest political domestic benefit to doing so and there is almost certainly a budgetary benefit. Although he is flushing the budget down the toilet anyway so really what does that matter?



    Quote:

    Only UN can manage this.



    Perhaps in a political sense. Obviously not true in a pragmatic sense. To say it would be very costly for the US, Britain, Japan and others to pay for it on their own is an understatement. But it is not at all impossible.



    Quote:

    I am not sure that the US admin want to do it also.



    I'm sure they are only interested in the lucrative reconstruction aspect and in the political capital. Also to the extent that their domino theory can look at least viable they will want things not be too bad in Iraq even if this policy is not successful long term. I doubt they could give a flying fück about anything else. And certainly they don't give a damn about multilateral legitimacy.
  • Reply 38 of 105
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I do agree with Colander that France's and Germany's weakness in the previous war debate was their lack of an alternative. Canada, Brtain and Chile all had reasonable alternatives, which should have been more closely considered. Both the US and the French/German poles destroyed what intelligent compromises were avilable. Still, I also was fatalistic about where these compromises would end up - with forceful disarmament and toppling Hussein's regime - but it would have at least put some people's minds at rest that all alternatives were squandered. Anyway, here we are. And as difficult as the war is for everyone, the rebuilding will be that much harder.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    I doubt that US and UK will administrate Iraq alone after WW2. Only UN can manage this. I am not sure that the US admin want to do it also.



    I certainly hope for everyone's sake that the US and UK won't have to rebuild Iraq on their own. How can anyone win? The US and UK will be accused of empirical control, it will be tremendously expensive and more importantly, that, not the choice of war itself, would truly make the UN and especially its humanitarian aspects appear inane.



    Chirac is already prepping his recalcitrant attitude towards the rebuilding process by saying he won't support any rebuilding that would be necessary as a result of this war. Well, great for him. He will act to push the UN out of the rebuilding process just to spite the coalition nations. That attitude ignores the plight of the Iraqi people, marginalizes the ability of the UN to serve its ultimate purpose, and empowers the US & Co. to rebuild on their terms -- Chirac thinks this will cost those countries too much and will make them more of the "enemy" to Arabs & Muslims. France can't possibly come out as a more influential or powerful nation after that, the decision to block UN and EU aid would forfeit any attempts by him to make France any kind of "hero" to anyone. If Chirac really wanted to make France a "player" he would force the UN down the throats of the coalition ASAP -- the humanitarian aid would make France a hero by leading the UN and EU in while letting the US, UK, etc. do the dirty work and collect animosity. France would get off easy and have more clout in that scenario. I just can't see what the political advantage would be for France to follow through on these threats. It damages the UN, the EU, and any claims to a humanitarian agenda, all in the attempt to damage the UK and US. But he wil ltake down the Un, EU and France itself i nthe process. Hey, Chirac, is thumbing your nose at the US at this point really worth it?
  • Reply 39 of 105
    rodukroduk Posts: 706member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Diplomacy aimed at those countries. There was nothing diplomatic about Chirac's actions with respect to the US. As far as the US-France relationship in concerned, Chirac has been happy to burn down the house.



    In one sense I think Chirac has inadvertently done the US a favour. In other threads people have mentioned it's more acceptable for the US to go to war without attempting to get a second UN resolution, than it is for them to go to war having attempted and failed to get the resolution. Chirac could have kept quiet and simply vetoed the second resolution when it was put forward, without the help of any other countries at all.
  • Reply 40 of 105
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Don't lump me in with the rest of nuts that believe this is all about oil. Of course, that isn't even the point and you damn well know it.



    And yes, "better than that." That man is fighting for our country and he deserves our utmost respect for it. However, with that there comes a greater responsibility. He not only represents us in battle, but he also represents us as a whole. Just as soldiers raping and pillaging a countryside would negatively impact the view of the nation sponsoring them, so too does this soldier demonstrating his ignorance by holding up that stupid sign. Yes, he is supposed to be "better than that."




    Yes, that was a cheap jab, but how could I resist!



    This is a soldier in battle, and you should treat his opinion on it with a bit more clout than just plain dismissal or calling it "ignorant" since it doesn't fit into your own views. Maybe that is how he strongly feels, and he isn't just being an a$$ about it, at all? In that case, you should just say you disagree and leave it at that. I don't even know how you begin to compare "showing an opinion" to "rape and pillaging the countryside". The former is acceptable (IMO) within reason, while the latter is bad, bad, bad no matter how you slice it. Outside of that, he is doing his job professionally and ethically (I should hope), and that is truly what "represents" our country. You think he was showing that sign to Iraqis? Would it even have any meaning to them? No, he is showing it to the US at home (possibly the world community). That's "his" message. Respect it. You don't have to agree with it.



    It wouldn't surprise me if people didn't accuse that photo of being a planted "fake" because it is "too" controversial. I don't entirely discount that as a possibility, either, but I am content to believe that is how "a" soldier in Iraq really feels for now.
Sign In or Register to comment.