Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
brgnorway

The Iraq Thread

Recommended Posts

Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 23 2003,20:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A lot of this criticism about America and Americans are based upon assumptions and biased media reports.  <span id='postcolor'>

And on the speeches and actions of your man numero uno: George W. Bush. The pride of America.  crazy.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't go around assuming all Europeans are backwards, ignorant brainwashed TV absorbing miscreants now do I? <span id='postcolor'>

No, you are assuming that all Europeans are incompetent backstabbing ungrateful cowards that don't dare to stand up to the True Evilâ„¢ in the world.

Edit: To clarify, not you personally but the plethora of Euro-bashers out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 23 2003,20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 23 2003,20:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Europe was getting its ass kicked.<span id='postcolor'>

Europe wasn't getting its ass kicked. Germany is Europe, Russia is Europe. We had an internal conflict and you got involved to promote your interest in it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Its just that I'm willing to acknowledge that Europe would have been doomed to German conquest if not for the United States and Russia, and doomed to Russian occupation if not for the United States and N.A.T.O. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes indeed (well the Russian part is not certain). And where do you think they would go next? Who do you think they would occupy after the rest of the European countries? Where would little USA stand, all alone, outnumbered, technologically behind with limited resources? I'll tell you, you'd be the next on the list.

And so what. The Swedish occ.. I mean "liberation" of Germany during the 30 year war changed the European landscape. Are we dragging it up today?

America would not exist without Europe - but so what? How are those things relevant today?<span id='postcolor'>

Come on Denoir, Germany occupied France, Holland, Poland, Hungary, all of Europe except England and Russia. They planned on invading England, and they did invade Russia. The only mistake they made was opening up the eastern front before they sewed up the western one. England pulled off a miracle with the Battle of Britain, but they lacked the manpower for an invasion of Europe, and, without the Russians, probably lacked the manpower to prevent Operation Sea Lion.

Sure, we had interests in Europe, but our involvement was mostly to protect our allies. We were still in the Depression at the onset of WWII and had an isolationist policy. We could have maintained that stance. Pearl Harbor started a war with Japan, not Germany. Up until the war, the U.S. still had somewhat cordial relations with Hitler.

As far as Germany coming across the Atlantic, it would not have happened until deep into the 3rd Reich. The Germans lacked the ability for an amphibious assault of the U.S., could not match America's industrial output, and had a weaker Air Force and Navy. They might have been able to pull off a U.S. invasion by the mid 1960's, but that is debatable.

World War II keeps reappearing here I think in large part because of European accusations that America is an evil neo-colonial empire bent upon world domination, and it pisses us Yanks off that these same people "conveniently forget" the second world war when making these claims. No war is completely altruistic, but WWII is about as goddamned close as you can get to being the one truly just war in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 23 2003,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 23 2003,20:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A lot of this criticism about America and Americans are based upon assumptions and biased media reports.  <span id='postcolor'>

And on the speeches and actions of your man numero uno: George W. Bush. The pride of America.  crazy.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't go around assuming all Europeans are backwards, ignorant brainwashed TV absorbing miscreants now do I? <span id='postcolor'>

No, you are assuming that all Europeans are incompetent backstabbing ungrateful cowards that don't dare to stand up to the True Evilâ„¢ in the world.

Edit: To clarify, not you personally but the plethora of Euro-bashers out there.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I would say my assumptions lean towards pinko, comsymp bomb-throwing liberals with suspect aspirations, but that just my ignorant American perspective. tounge.gif

Actually I'm glad the Germans, French and the rest of Europe provide a voice of opposition to the Bush Administration and its foreign policy. I shudder to think of what we might do without an effective check on him. Having a competing or opposite perspective gives you pause, and enables you to make better, more informed decisions. I disagree with the French stance on Iraq (which I feel is more about personal gain and security for France), and, most of the underhanded tactics they employed to support it, but I harbor no ill will towards Europeans. I still eat french fries and buy french products. I hate to see all this infighting within NATO and the U.N. as I think it dramatically weakened both organizations to the point of almost rendering the U.N. irrelevant, or worse, a laughingstock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough with the World War references. Too much of a bad thing. Why always with the WW2? Jeez!

I know it seems to offer copious potential for geo-political and war based comparisons and a source of moral certitudes but enough already.

An end to mudslinging! Everyone is nothing. Europe is a dump, America a trash heap. Onwards to Mars brave citizens!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 23 2003,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">World War II keeps reappearing here I think in large part because of European accusations that America is an evil neo-colonial empire bent upon world domination, and it pisses us Yanks off that these same people "conveniently forget" the second world war when making these claims.<span id='postcolor'>

No, don't worry, nobody forgets it since you keep shoving it down our throats. Yes, America played the key role of getting rid of the Nazis, but that was over 50 years ago for crying out loud.

And the current America is not the same America as back then. Compare George W. to Kennedy and tell me that it's the same country. Hell, just compare W. to Clinton.

The curent position of your elected (in the liberal meaning of the word) politicians is "fuck the world". While being an unjust generalization it does to a certain degree reflect the opinion of the American people. The France bashing is a prime example.

The French people opposed the war, and Chirac as the democratically elected president reflected that view. That's democracy for you. Suddenly USA has forgotten all the help it recieved from France after 11/9 and in Afghanistan. They talk of betrayal. Sorry to burst your bubble but friendship goes two ways. USA betrayed France by going to war agianst its explicit wishes. And now the all the lovely little neo-con's are whining about France being a buch of spineless backstabbers. Very pretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 23 2003,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, we had interests in Europe, but our involvement was mostly to protect our allies.  <span id='postcolor'>

Protect your allies crazy.gif

That's why you made the UK PAY for destroyers from WW1?? Lend lease anyone?

But we are going off-topic here, going back to Iraq:

http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=2183

http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=2224

tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wrote a paper on, "the Bush Doctrine" for my American Foreign policy class that addresses TBA's motivations on its current foreign policy. This is going to be a long post, but here it is:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> September 11, 2001 represents a watershed moment in United States foreign policy. Prior to the attacks by Al-Qaeda terrorists on American soil, the United States engaged in the active promotion of democracy in places such as Germany, Japan, Haiti, Bosnia, Indonesia, Somalia, and South and Central America, often with mixed results. At the same time, it followed a realist foreign policy strategy, tolerating and at times actively supporting undemocratic regimes as well. This apparently contradictory foreign policy occurred whenever such support served to further national interests, or to increase security. During the period from 1945 until September 11, 2001, U.S. efforts at democratization were most often multi-lateral in nature, with the U.S. acting through the United Nations or multi-national coalitions to promote democracy in key locations throughout the world. Never constant or consistent, U.S. efforts at democratization waxed and waned and changed in character throughout this period.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, and with the end of colonialism, American foreign policy returned to the Wilsonian goal of democratization in order to rebuild Europe and Japan, as well as to retain and to expand U.S. influence in international relations. America became the world’s strongest advocate for democracy and conversely human rights, spending decades and billions of dollars to transform the regimes of Germany and Japan into successful, modern democracies, perhaps history’s most successful example of nation building. With the advent of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy shifted once again. In order to stem the rising tide of communism, the U.S. engaged in a mixed and at times contradictory strategy of actively promoting democracy in places like South Korea, and Southeast Asia, while at the same time supporting dictatorships and undemocratic regimes with poor human rights records in Taiwan, South Vietnam, South America, Central America and Africa so long as those regimes were anti-communist. Following the foreign-policy disaster of the Vietnam War, and with the advent of détente, the United States shifted away from the policy of democratization during the Nixon-Kissinger years, assuming instead, a realist strategy of simply maintaining the status quo in some parts of the world, and expanding American influence through means previously considered unacceptable in others. This period was marked by the pessimistic (and perhaps racist) idea that democracy could not take hold and flourish in certain cultures and regions of the world, and could only in others, with a prolonged and expensive commitment to modernization. As a result, foreign-policy makers adopted the post-Vietnam strategy that the U.S. would better serve its interests by following a realpolitik expansion of American power and influence in the world. By 1982 and into President Ronald Reagan’s second term in office, the United States had once again returned to a foreign policy of democratization wherever it served strategic interests, and tolerance or outright support of undemocratic regimes in support of other economic and strategic interests. In an article appearing in The Wilson Quarterly, entitled Democracy Inc., author Eric Bjornlund explains that it was during this time period that United States began “to focus and institutionalize its efforts†at advancing the democratic cause throughout the world, that commitment consuming around 10 percent of America’s foreign-policy budget (1). Beginning in 1989 and continuing on up until 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the justification for supporting undemocratic regimes in the name of combating communism disappeared. As author Tony Evans explains in If Democracy, Then Human Rights? , “The collapse of the Soviet bloc removed this rationale for maintaining order at the expense of human rights and justice†(629). In order to maintain these unsavory but strategically necessary relationships, Jean Kilpatrick, ambassador to the United Nations during the Reagan Administration employed a new rationale of distinguishing between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. In an article appearing in USA Today, entitled Democracy and Its Dilemmas, author Llewellyn D. Howell explains, “Totalitarians were those who controlled all aspects of life in their countries, while authoritarians were those whose politics were rigid hierarchies, but various other aspects of life, such as the economy, were left to some form of less-controlling philosophy†(19). Using this distinction, the U.S. was able to continue its contradictory policy of democratization and support for undemocratic regimes, “. . . provided a country shows progress in creating the institutions of democracy†(Evans, 629). The inconsistent application of morality to foreign-policy strategy in the Reagan years led to a backlash against this type of foreign policy that was exacerbated by the Iran-Contra scandal, and U.S. actions in El Salvador and Nicaragua. As authors Leslie H. Gelb and Justine A. Rosenthal explain it in an article entitled The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy, which appeared in the June 2003 edition of Foreign Affairs, “They left behind something approaching a consensus among Democrats and Republicans that morality and values should play a bigger role in U.S. actions abroad. With the passing of the Cold War and America's emergence as the sole superpower, moreover, the tradeoffs between security and ethics became less stark, and a moral foreign policy seemed more affordable†(4). This morality gained momentum during the Clinton Administration leading to multi-lateral efforts at democratization in East Timor, Haiti, Somalia and Kosovo. However, the ill taste leftover from the Vietnam War for nation-building efforts resulted in only limited commitments to these projects and only if minimal risk to U.S. participants was assured. This reluctance to commit deeply to democratization efforts resulted in failure in places like Haiti and Somalia which in order to be successful required a long-term and costly military and economic commitment. In the long run, such half-hearted efforts combined with the contradictory policies of supporting undemocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia (out of strategic and economic necessity) only served to make the United States appear weak and indecisive.

On September 11, 2001, those chickens came home to roost. America’s contradictory foreign policy of promoting democratization in certain regions and ignoring or supporting undemocratic regimes in others for the sake of economic and national security interests resulted in disastrous consequences. By ignoring Afghanistan and refusing to establish democratization efforts in that region, the Al-Qaeda organization was allowed to take refuge and to flourish under the repressive and corrupt regime of the Taliban. Conversely, outright U.S. support of the totalitarian Saudi regime aided in fostering an environment where radical Islam and extremism were allowed to take root, grow and receive essential financial support. Post 9-11, it became apparent that democratization and national security were inextricably linked. In an article appearing in Foreign Affairs, authors Paula J. Dobriansky and Thomas Carothers demonstrate this link, “Pan-national terrorist groups (such as al Qaeda) and rogue regimes (such as that of the Taliban or of Saddam Hussein) pose grave threats to democratic systems, as do the xenophobic, intolerant ideologies that they espouse. Accordingly, fighting against these forces is both in our national security interest and a key ingredient of democracy promotion†(143). With the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, democratization became official policy. President Bush outlined the reasons for this when he said, “Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest,†and “open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder†(Kaplan, 21). The safety of democratic nations throughout the world, it would seem, depends upon the effect promotion of democracy throughout the world. The invasion of Iraq in large part to institute regime change and democracy, set in motion the future of a U.S. foreign policy of democratization for security purposes wherever threats exist and at any cost. Additionally, no longer are such actions to be multi-lateral in nature. The Iraq War has shown an American willingness to act unilaterally in support of its interests.

This is not to say that U.S. efforts at democratization are purely selfish in nature. American efforts to promote human and individual rights, establish the rule of law, combat corruption, prevent genocide and develop democratic institutions abroad are as altruistic in nature as they are strategically motivated. In an article in New Republic, author Lawrence Kaplan explains, “In fact, while Bush contends that exporting democracy is sound strategy, he also offers a classical liberal justification: No people should be governed without their consent. Or, as he puts it, ‘No people on earth yearn to be oppressed, aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police’†(23). Paula J. Dobriansky, the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs highlights this marriage of liberalism and realpolitik in Democracy Promotion, an article appearing in the June 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs, “Democracy promotion, it seems, should not only trump all other foreign policy imperatives; it should always be the one and only policy driver. . . . More generally, the fact that we are advancing policies that simultaneously promote democracy over the long haul and mitigate the security threats that we face in the near term underscores the extent to which human rights causes have become integrated into our foreign policy. In a very real sense, this is American statecraft at its best†(Dobriansky, 144).

This marriage of realpolitik and neo-liberalism is not without its pitfalls, and critics however. For example, in order to effectively combat Al-Qaeda in the War on Terror, the United States has had to establish and maintain cordial relationships and to provide economic and military support to such decidedly undemocratic regimes as Pakistan and Yemen. In the interests of maintaining security, there still exists some contradictory elements to U.S. foreign policy. Thomas Carothers explains the dilemma in the February 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs, “Central Asia, meanwhile, presents a mosaic of dilemmas relating to the tradeoff between democracy and security in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. need for military bases and other forms of security cooperation in the region has moved Washington much closer to the autocratic leaders of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan†(Carothers, 85). Carothers goes on to explain that bureaucracy only serves to enhance this contradiction, as the State Department and the Pentagon often pursue entirely different agendas:

Running throughout all of the new U.S. security relationships in South and Central Asia is an institutional divide that weakens the administration's ability to balance security and democracy. The State Department has shown some real commitment to raising human rights and democracy issues with these countries. The Pentagon, on the other hand, often focuses more on the immediate goal of securing military access or cooperation and less on the politics of the relevant host government (Carothers, 91).

At the very core of this criticism lies the question of whether or not democratization is what is best for the world in the first place. The central premise of this policy lies in the untested theoretical assumption that democracies are less likely to fight one another, more likely to engage in economic and political cooperation, and to honor individual and human rights as well as to curb the spread of terrorism.

Author Adam Burgess, one such critic, questions the checkered history of democratization efforts. In the wake of the failures in such programs in places like Haiti and Somalia he posits the question: Why democracy? Burgess points out a serious lack of debate, research or supporting evidence to suggest that democracy is the best system for expansion and regime change in the third world, or for that matter, outside the western hemisphere. In his essay Universal Democracy, Diminished Expectations, which appears in the autumn 2001 edition of Democratization, Burgess contends, “Despite doubt about the positive impact of democratizing initiatives upon target societies, the democratizing impulse remains intact as a fundamentally political project†(Burgess, 55). Burgess goes on to explain that; “There is now a prevailing orthodoxy for universal democracy. It appears to have become almost ‘politically incorrect’ to suggest that democratization is a process that cannot proceed anywhere . . .†(56). Burgess posits that democracy might have emerged as the system most favored for political expansion by default. That is, that the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc nations and the emergence of the United States as the world’s only superpower allowed the western democratic agenda to triumph simply by the absence of any competition. Burgess suggests, “The lack of substantial debate in modern studies of democratization suggests that the subject was swept to prominence by a fortunate turn of events, not its own intellectual merits†(60). This supposition is supported further by the fact that democratization efforts gained official policy status during Reagan’s second term in office and with the fall of communism beginning in 1989.

In If Democracy, Then Human Rights? which appeared in a 2001 issue of Third World Quarterly, author Tony Evans questions some of the basic assumptions about democracy. Of primary focus is the connection between democracy and human rights. Evans claims, “It is clear . . . that we must treat the claim that human rights and democracy share a symbiotic relationship with great caution. For many students of democracy this will come as no surprise. While all theories of democracy include a concern for rights, historically such rights were never extended to all people sharing a common territory†(Evans, 628). Thus, by extension, if democracy has not been committed to equal rights, neither can it have been committed to universal human rights. Instead, Evans argues that the expansion of democracy in the post-cold war era has less to do with the promotion of human rights and social justice, and more to do with “ . . . the need to create an appropriate global order that provides a stable environment for future economic planning and investment†(630). Evans points out numerous examples where democracy has been instituted in nations that, “ . . . pay little attention to developing an open, rights-based culture†(631). Evans terms these forms of democracy, “low intensity democracy.†He explains that low intensity democracies often act to suppress trade unions, wages and freedom of speech and press.

Evans also points out that in the emerging phenomenon of globalization, the institutions and processes of democracy itself might be rendered obsolete. In short, democracy may become an anachronism in the new world order. Evans explains that this is due to four assumptions about the nature of democracy. These are: 1) That the territorial state is the appropriate community for democratization, 2) The principle of accountability is placed at the center of all forms of liberal democracy, 3) Democratic states exercise a high degree of autonomy, including the capabilities to pursue policies that further the interests of the people, and 4) Democratic states act in the interests of the whole of the people, not in the interests of particular national or global groups. Evans then points out that these four assumptions face serious challenges in the emerging global system. First, the territorial state no longer maintains complete control of its borders under globalization. Rather, modern telecommunications technology makes possible the formation of transnational relationships that transcend borders, allowing the flow of ideas, cultural exchanges and economic transactions that “challenge the territorial limits of democracy†(Evans, 625). Second, increasingly, transnational decision-making takes precedence over that of the national decision-making. Thus global economic, social and political interconnectedness, “. . . threaten[] the capacity of the state in its role as the guardian of the ‘common good’ and the national interest†(Evans, 626). Third, the growing authority of transnational organizations often lead to organizations such as the WTO to override the interests of the nation state by striking down laws and policies that interfere with global free trade. Thus, the capacity of the nation state to remain completely autonomous and make decisions solely for the benefit of its own people is being sharply reduced. Lastly, many transnational organizations such as powerful corporations now have more economic power and by extension, political influence than several developed nations. As Evans explains, “In the scramble to attract inward investment, the demands of [transnational corporations] often take precedence over the needs of the community as a whole, for example, in the areas of trade union, environmental taxation and human rights regulation†(Evans, 626). As Evans demonstrates, the phenomenon of globalization presents serious challenges to democracy and human rights as well. “Instead of creating a post-cold war order that offers the prospect of protecting human rights through democracy and the rule of law, . . . globali[z]ation has created the conditions for disorder, authoritarian rule beyond the territorial state, the reformation of the state entity and the potential for continued violations of human rights†(Evans, 627). Since all of these challenges to democracy exist external to the democratic nation state, there exists no framework within the state from which these problems can be effectively addressed. Thus, the democratization of the world’s nation states is not enough to secure the blessings of liberty for the world’s population. Democratization must then extend beyond the national level to protect human rights in the future.

Supporters of democratization counter many of Evan’s arguments. For example, the introduction of ‘low intensity democracy’ is often seen as a stepping-stone towards full democracy and social reform. Other authors contend that under globalization, “ . . . liberal democracy and a good human rights record are increasingly necessary for a state to achieve and maintain global legitimacy. The future for liberal democracy and human rights therefore seems bright, because globalization means that no state can escape detailed public scrutiny†(632). In fact, many people maintain that the ‘right to democracy’ is already an accepted canon of international law and use this to support the notion that the state system will maintain its central role in international relations. Whatever the future may hold in store for us, it is clear that an American foreign policy of democratization and regime change will present serious challenges and obstacles to be overcome, and require an unprecedented commitment towards foreign powers and people.

Assuming that democratization is the best course of action, it is a course of action that is costly from a military, economic and possible political standpoint. As Evans explains, “Fostering the assumption that ‘by definition promoting democracy entails promoting human rights’, provides a rationale for foreign policy interventions intended to secure a form of government sympathetic to the aims of the global neo-liberal consensus†(633). In an article entitled Nation Building appearing in the October 2002 issue of Foreign Policy, author Marina Ottaway sums up this potential pitfall:

Today, war is not an acceptable means of state building. Instead, nation building must be a consensual, democratic process. But such a process is not effective against adversaries who are not democratic, who have weapons, and who are determined to use them. The world should not be fooled into thinking that it is possible to build states without coercion. If the international community is unwilling to allow states to be rebuilt by wars, it must provide the military muscle in the form of a sufficiently strong peacekeeping force. Like it or not, military might is a necessary component of state building.

Even more challenging and costly is the implementation of such a strategy once intervention is deemed necessary. Regime change requires substantial military and economic commitment over a period of years. In a democratic system, will the United States be able to sustain its regime change projects consistently, throughout the course of its own changes in administration? Can a balance be struck between the often-contradictory policies of democratization and insuring political and economic security? As author Thomas Carothers illustrates, “Ensuring a consistent U.S. front on democracy and human rights, therefore, is a prerequisite for a coherent approach†(91). Therein lies the challenge. As Paula Dobriansky points out, “No responsible U.S. decision-maker can allow our foreign policy to be driven by a single imperative, no matter how important. Thus, our policy toward a given country or region is shaped by a variety of considerations, including security concerns, economic issues, and human rights imperatives†(Dobriansky and Carothers, 142). Because of these considerations, contradictions will have to be maintained, and those contradictions will limit the United State’s ability to present a consistent face towards those it hopes to convince to accept democracy. Carothers explains, “People around the world are quite capable of seeing that the United States has close, even intimate relations with many undemocratic regimes for the sake of American security and economic interests, and that, like many other countries, the United States struggles very imperfectly to balance its ideals with the realist imperatives it faces†(Dobriansky and Carothers, 146).

As author Lawrence Kaplan demonstrates, the methods of democratization in and of themselves present a serious challenge:

It is politically correct to equate state reconstruction with democracy building. Indeed, the international community has a one-size-fits-all model for democratic reconstruction, so that plans devised for Afghanistan bear a disturbing resemblance to those designed for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). This model usually envisages a negotiated settlement to the conflict and the holding of a national conference of major domestic groups (the loya jirga in Afghanistan and the Inter-Congolese Dialogue in the DRC) to reach an agreement on the structure of the political system, followed by elections. In addition to these core activities, the model calls for subsidiary but crucial undertakings, beginning with the demobilization of former combatants and the development of a new national army, then extending to reforming the judiciary, restructuring the civil service, and establishing a central bank-- thus creating all the institutions deemed necessary to run a modern state. This model is enormously expensive, requiring major commitments of money and personnel on the part of the international community.

Furthermore, as author Eric Bjornlund reminds us, “ . . . elections are not an end in and of themselves; they are rather, one step in the ongoing process of building democracy†(20). Already, the Bush administration is showing a worrisome lack of commitment that is required to successfully democratize Afghanistan. As author Thomas Carothers points out, “ . . . administration opposition to the use of either U.S. or U.N. peacekeeping troops outside of Kabul, and significant shortfalls in the delivery of promised aid, make it impossible for the Karzai government to guarantee security, gain meaningful control beyond the capital, or achieve legitimacy by delivering peace to its citizens. Ethnic rivalries, the opium trade, and newly empowered local strongmen make a return to state failure and civil war a very real possibility†(92).

The consequences of failure in the foreign policy strategy the Bush Administration has embarked upon post September 11 are enormous. Equally enormous are the benefits of success. Iraq will remain the litmus test of this strategy of democratization. If Iraq can be successfully transformed into a modern democracy, the Middle East region will be forever changed. Lawrence Kaplan highlights the possible consequences, “ . . . ‘the first Arab democracy’ as [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz calls it, could . . . transform the region - - further encouraging already liberalizing regimes like Morocco and Qatar, pressuring the theocrats in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and demonstrating to the Arab masses that there exists a third way between Islamism and repression. In Iraq, which possesses an urbanized middle class and once boasted some of the highest literacy rates in the region, a U.S. military occupation may well make this vision a reality†(Kaplan, 23). As President Clinton once said:

The habits of democracy are the habits of peace. Democracy is rooted in compromise, not conquest. It rewards tolerance, not hatred. Democracies rarely wage war on one another. They make more reliable partners in trade, in diplomacy, and in the stewardship of our global environment. And democracies, with the rule of law and respect for political, religious, and cultural minorities, are more responsive to their own people and to the protection of human rights (Peceny, 159).

Whether it succeeds or fails, by invading Iraq, America has embarked upon a foreign policy that will shape the world and international relations for generations to come. A deep and lasting commitment to the Iraqi people will be required and may come at the cost of American lives now and into the future, will certainly cost billions of dollars, and possibly America’s political image. Already, Europeans are accusing the United States of neo-imperialism, in an attempt to establish a pax Americana from which it can grow its economic and political power by seizing and exploiting Iraqi oil. Only success in establishing democracy in Iraq followed by an American withdrawal and the lasting gratitude of the Iraqi people may serve to convince opponents of this strategy otherwise. From this policy, America can emerge as the world’s greatest power and champion of human rights, or as a failed hegemon that desperately tried to retain its grasp of the world stage through any means necessary. As author George Vradenburg sums it up in an article appearing in Tikkun, “The existing world order will change. That is a certainty. Better that we seek to create a peaceful structure with multiple sources of economic and political power than resist until hostile forces are strong enough to restructure that world order through terror and violence†(Vradenburg, 6).

<span id='postcolor'>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 23 2003,20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually I'm glad the Germans, French and the rest of Europe provide a voice of opposition to the Bush Administration and its foreign policy.  I shudder to think of what we might do without an effective check on him.  Having a competing or opposite perspective gives you pause, and enables you to make better, more informed decisions.  I disagree with the French stance on Iraq (which I feel is more about personal gain and security for France), and, most of the underhanded tactics they employed to support it, but I harbor no ill will towards Europeans.  I still eat french fries and buy french products.  I hate to see all this infighting within NATO and the U.N. as I think it dramatically weakened both organizations to the point of almost rendering the U.N. irrelevant, or worse, a laughingstock.<span id='postcolor'>

Can I ask your opinion on Powell's comments about "making France pay" for disagreeing with the US? Last time I looked, a sovereign nation was well within its right to have a free will of her own! As a security council, France also has the right to veto any resolution it disagrees with?

Incidentally, the nations that used that right most were the SU and the US (funny if you put it like that wow.gif ), so why isn't France allowed to do her own thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 23 2003,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Germany occupied France, Holland, Poland, Hungary, all of Europe except England and Russia. <span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, but you forgot about Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Ireland. tounge.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but our involvement was mostly to protect our allies........We could have maintained that stance.........Pearl Harbor started a war with Japan, not Germany. Up until the war, the U.S. still had somewhat cordial relations with Hitler.<span id='postcolor'>

You seem to forget that Germany declared war on US .

What you are saying is typically an american myth: "we declared war on Germany and saved Europe" . Yes you had a rather isolationist stance towards the conflict - which by the way created problems for those who wanted to engage in the conflict. This lead to the masterpiece of Roosevelt - the lend & lease agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 23 2003,21:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You seem to forget that Germany declared war on US .

What you are saying is typically an american myth: "we declared war on Germany and saved Europe" . Yes you had a rather isolationist stance towards the conflict - which by the way created problems for those who wanted to engage in the conflict. This lead to the masterpiece of Roosevelt - the lend & lease agreement.<span id='postcolor'>

True, but the immediate threat to America was Japan. Japan controlled the Pacific. The Germans were a threat to Great Britain, which is why the U.S. fought a two theatre war instead of tackling the problems one at a time. I don't doubt that war would have eventually come with Germany, but only after all of Europe fell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

wow.gif1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 23 2003,21wow.gif1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just wrote a paper on, "the Bush Doctrine" for my American Foreign policy class that addresses TBA's motivations on its current foreign policy.  This is going to be a long post, but here it is:<span id='postcolor'>

Interesting paper. I think you are very wrong however in one aspect:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By ignoring Afghanistan and refusing to establish democratization efforts in that region, the Al-Qaeda organization was allowed to take refuge and to flourish under the repressive and corrupt regime of the Taliban.  Conversely, outright U.S. support of the totalitarian Saudi regime aided in fostering an environment where radical Islam and extremism were allowed to take root, grow and receive essential financial support.  Post 9-11, it became apparent that democratization and national security were inextricably linked. <span id='postcolor'>

Afghanistan has been abandoned more or less by the US. The UN forces have a very limited agenda and limited resources to pull it off. Afghanistan is in total anarchy and slowly coming under the control of the Taliban again. And to oust the Taliban USA armed and supported the Northern Alliance who are no better than the Taliban and have no wishes for democracy.

You are assuming that the permanent democratization is a trend, but the only example we have is Iraq - which we don't know anything about yet. So having one vague example hardly markes a trend in foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 23 2003,19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think if you check back in this thread, you'll find a post of mine that quite clearly acknowledges the role of Lafeyette and the French Fleet in America's revolution, so you can take that comment, roll it up into a ball, light it on fire and stuff it you know where.

<span id='postcolor'>

Just because i quoted you does not mean my answer is aimed exclusively at you, you are excluded from my comments about France. They were there for the other people who seem somewhat oblivious to the truth of the

situation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as elitism, I'm referring to the smug superiority that some people don't go to a lot of trouble to conceal when they think they are the only ones who are cultured, educated or intellectual. <span id='postcolor'>

These characteristics are just associated to the people in control, you ask the average British prole (to put a Marxist aspect on things) about how he/she feels prejudiced against America they will ask what prejudiced means.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've had no trouble acknowledging an effective argument here when I see one, and have only attacked those who post sensationalist or uncorroborated information. I just can't sit back and not call what I find ridiculous and absurd what it is.

<span id='postcolor'>

Could you then acknowledge my argument that America, with it's almost 'pure capitalism' apart from a few backhanders here and there, could be considered the most elitist country of all. It's hard to think of GWB as being elitist juxtaposed to the common stereotypes of the British heirarchy and French aristocracy, but you see it seeping through, however simplistic, when he says things along the lines of "We are god's chosen people".

Jinef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">True, but the immediate threat to America was Japan. Japan controlled the Pacific. The Germans were a threat to Great Britain, which is why the U.S. fought a two theatre war instead of tackling the problems one at a time. I don't doubt that war would have eventually come with Germany, but only after all of Europe fell. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, I wouldn't feel confortable of being at war with a country that has the most advanced rocket technology and is just pretty close to manufacturing an atomic bomb. That was the case with ww2 Germany and I think the Allied secret services knew about this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 23 2003,21:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 23 2003,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Germany occupied France, Holland, Poland, Hungary, all of Europe except England and Russia. <span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, but you forgot about Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Ireland.  tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

and Norway was? tounge.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-ronin @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can I ask your opinion on Powell's comments about "making France pay" for disagreeing with the US? Last time I looked, a sovereign nation was well within its right to have a free will of her own! As a security council, France also has the right to veto any resolution it disagrees with?

<span id='postcolor'>

unfortunately the argument can go in both ways, US can do whatever it wants to do too. confused.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Afghanistan has been abandoned more or less by the US. The UN forces have a very limited agenda and limited resources to pull it off. Afghanistan is in total anarchy and slowly coming under the control of the Taliban again. And to oust the Taliban USA armed and supported the Northern Alliance who are no better than the Taliban and have no wishes for democracy.

<span id='postcolor'>

so? i thought the world wanted the US to get the heck out of Afghanistan, so now they did(according to you) and what is wrong with that?

furthermore, if i remember correctly, France did not support War on Taliban to begin with. after the war they kept silence rather than taking one of two sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 23 2003,22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so? i thought the world wanted the US to get the heck out of Afghanistan, so now they did(according to you) and what is wrong with that?<span id='postcolor'>

Read my post again. I was refering to his paper where he said that there is a policy of permanent democratization. I said "no, look at Afghanistan". There is also something that you obviously don't get. Not wanting somebody to bomb a country does not equal to wanting somebody to abandon a country after having bombed it. This is especially true for Afghanistan where they have little chance of getting peace without external help.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Ralph and denoir walk down the street

Ralph: I'm going to beat the crap out of that old lady over there.

Denoir: No, don't. Leave her alone.

Ralph: *beats the crap out of the old lady*

Ralph: Ok let's go.

Denoir: Don't leave her like that. At least call 112 (US: 911)

Ralph: What are you talking about, just a second ago you told me to leave her alone!

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">furthermore, if i remember correctly, France did not support War on Taliban to begin with. after the war they kept silence rather than taking one of two sides.<span id='postcolor'>

No, actually France was the first country to offer military help. They were indeed very active in Afghanistan and fully supported the war out of sympathy to the US. Chirac was btw. the first head of state to visit "ground zero" in NYC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No, actually France was the first country to offer military help. They were indeed very active in Afghanistan and fully supported the war out of sympathy to the US. Chirac was btw. the first head of state to visit "ground zero" in NYC."

Dont disturb them Denoir. They are trying to rewrite history as we speak smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 23 2003,22:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Read my post again. I was refering to his paper where he said that there is a policy of permanent democratization. I said "no, look at Afghanistan". There is also something that you obviously don't get. Not wanting somebody to bomb a country does not equal to wanting somebody to abandon a country after having bombed it. This is especially true for Afghanistan where they have little chance of getting peace without external help.<span id='postcolor'>

one of the things that (as i mentioned) gets US in situations are "damned if you do damned if you don't".

for example, let's say US still places enough emphasis on Afghanistan, and pour money to revitalize it. Then, undoubtly there will be some growth of pro-US stance there. Then what's gonna happen is that some critics will argue that US is building a satellite nation and come up with neocolonialism arguments that US's action is not to build Afghanistan back.

so as soon as US recognizes that, and pulls the scale of operation back, then another criticism is that US is leaving the country in ruins, no better than it was before.

but the critics do not present a better method either.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ralph and denoir walk down the street, when Ralph is attacked by a thief with a............big log of German sausage.(sorry, couldn't think of better weapon)

Ralph: I'm going to beat the crap out of that thief (for attacking and stealing my wallet).

Denoir: No, don't. Leave the thief alone.

*Ralph beats the crap out of the thief with a glue gun.*

Ralph: Ok let's call emergency medical services(911 or 112).

Denoir: It was wrong for you to attack the thief and for that you should stay until the EMS gets here.

Ralph: ok - (starts giving basic medical support)

Denoir: don't feed the thief that emotional "i'm sorry that i beat you" idea of yours! You are only doing it to make yourself feel better.

Ralph: What? I'm just helping him from glue overdose! Fine, I'll stop helping him.

Denoir: what are you doing? You should help him!

Ralph: What are you talking about, just a second ago you told me to leave the thief alone!<span id='postcolor'>

tounge.gif

oops, denoir was correct for once

Chirac in talks with Bush after 9-11

so war on Afghanistan is justified since France, the almighty moral superior of the world, gave military support to US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 23 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 23 2003,21<!--emo&wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just wrote a paper on, "the Bush Doctrine" for my American Foreign policy class that addresses TBA's motivations on its current foreign policy.  This is going to be a long post, but here it is:<span id='postcolor'>

Interesting paper. I think you are very wrong however in one aspect:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By ignoring Afghanistan and refusing to establish democratization efforts in that region, the Al-Qaeda organization was allowed to take refuge and to flourish under the repressive and corrupt regime of the Taliban.  Conversely, outright U.S. support of the totalitarian Saudi regime aided in fostering an environment where radical Islam and extremism were allowed to take root, grow and receive essential financial support.  Post 9-11, it became apparent that democratization and national security were inextricably linked. <span id='postcolor'>

Afghanistan has been abandoned more or less by the US. The UN forces have a very limited agenda and limited resources to pull it off. Afghanistan is in total anarchy and slowly coming under the control of the Taliban again. And to oust the Taliban USA armed and supported the Northern Alliance who are no better than the Taliban and have no wishes for democracy.

You are assuming that the permanent democratization is a trend, but the only example we have is Iraq - which we don't know anything about yet. So having one vague example hardly markes a trend in foreign policy.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, actually I mentioned that towards the end of the paper. Afghanistan is coming apart, and the U.S. committment is fading. Let's hope it gets renewed, or that the same pattern is not repeatd in Iraq. It could result in disaster for the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 23 2003,23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">one of the things that (as i mentioned) gets US in situations are "damned if you do damned if you don't".<span id='postcolor'>

No but it isn't. Just don't do it in the first place!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but the critics do not present a better method either.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes they do: Don't destroy other countries.

Everybody agrees that after you bomb the shit out of them that you have a responsibility to take care of them and rebuild the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 23 2003,21:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just because i quoted you does not mean my answer is aimed exclusively at you, you are excluded from my comments about France. They were there for the other people who seem somewhat oblivious to the truth of the

situation.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've had no trouble acknowledging an effective Could you then acknowledge my argument that America, with it's almost 'pure capitalism' apart from a few backhanders here and there, could be considered the most elitist country of all. It's hard to think of GWB as being elitist juxtaposed to the common stereotypes of the British heirarchy and French aristocracy, but you see it seeping through, however simplistic, when he says things along the lines of "We are god's chosen people".

Jinef<span id='postcolor'>

Okay, thats cool.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've had no trouble acknowledging an effective Could you then acknowledge my argument that America, with it's almost 'pure capitalism' apart from a few backhanders here and there, could be considered the most elitist country of all. It's hard to think of GWB as being elitist juxtaposed to the common stereotypes of the British heirarchy and French aristocracy, but you see it seeping through, however simplistic, when he says things along the lines of "We are god's chosen people".

<span id='postcolor'>

No doubt, statistically about 1% of the U.S. population controls over 90% of the wealth.  The gap between rich and poor grows bigger every year as well.  America now has a super elite, and a shrinking middle class.  As America transitions to a service economy and ship production overseas, the death knell for the middle class is being sounded.  In 20 years, there will be the rich, whose income is now thousands of times greater than the poor, and will eventually become tens of thousands of times greater, and the poor, who have no prospects, no hope, and no power to change anything.  As money plays an ever increasing role in U.S. politics thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Vallejo, the average American will become disenfranchised from the political process.  The factions representing special interests, who have the big campaign money to contribute will become the ones represented by the legislature.  When it dawns on the average american that he is no longer free, and no longer has a meaningful vote, the shit will hit the fan.

Kinda makes you glad we've retained the 2nd amendment doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 23 2003,23:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everybody agrees that after you bomb the shit out of them that you have a responsibility to take care of them and rebuild the country.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, and as soon as US starts doing it, some neocolonialism argument is presented from the critics, implying that US should get the hell out of there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 23 2003,23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">one of the things that (as i mentioned) gets US in situations are "damned if you do damned if you don't".<span id='postcolor'>

No but it isn't. Just don't do it in the first place!

so let UBL get away with 911? No doubt that UBL was behind 911, and US wanted Taliban to hand him in, and Taliban refused. So in the name of international rights, let UBL attack US, and US just sit and wait for his next move?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but the critics do not present a better method either.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes they do: Don't destroy other countries.<span id='postcolor'>

and have US get attacked again and again and again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 23 2003,23:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No talk of George Galloway?<span id='postcolor'>

He is obviously considered to be a bad guy now, judging from the picture of him that BBC posted:

_39124135_galloway203.jpg

But seriously - he had contacts with Saddam in the '80s. So did everyone else when we all cheerfully built up his military capabilities. Everybody was in bed with Saddam, including the most rabid anti-Hussein people today (like Rumsfeld).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 23 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, and as soon as US starts doing it, some neocolonialism argument is presented from the critics, implying that US should get the hell out of there.<span id='postcolor'>

There is a very big difference between rebuilding a country and exploiting a country. In Afghanistan where USA has no real interests, no resources to harvest, no strategic bases to deploy they pulled out and left the shit to the UN. Same thing with Kosovo.

Iraq on the other hand is getting the full treatment. Oh yes, Bush will generously rebuild it with their oil money.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">911, and US wanted Taliban to hand him in, and Taliban refused. So in the name of international rights, let UBL attack US, and US just sit and wait for his next move?

<span id='postcolor'>

The Taliban did nothing to the US. And what was the result, did you get Osama? No. Did you rebuild the country? No. Did you liberate the Afghani people? Only near the airport in Kabul. Otherwise no.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and have US get attacked again and again and again?<span id='postcolor'>

You mean like Iraq attacked you with WMD?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No doubt, statistically about 1% of the U.S. population controls over 90% of the wealth. The gap between rich and poor grows bigger every year as well. America now has a super elite, and a shrinking middle class. As America transitions to a service economy and ship production overseas, the death knell for the middle class is being sounded. In 20 years, there will be the rich, whose income is now thousands of times greater than the poor, and will eventually become tens of thousands of times greater, and the poor, who have no prospects, no hope, and no power to change anything. As money plays an ever increasing role in U.S. politics thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Vallejo, the average American will become disenfranchised from the political process. The factions representing special interests, who have the big campaign money to contribute will become the ones represented by the legislature. When it dawns on the average american that he is no longer free, and no longer has a meaningful vote, the shit will hit the fan.

Kinda makes you glad we've retained the 2nd amendment doesn't it?

<span id='postcolor'>

LOL Schoeler, you are even more cynical than I am wow.gifwink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 23 2003,23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 23 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, and as soon as US starts doing it, some neocolonialism argument is presented from the critics, implying that US should get the hell out of there.<span id='postcolor'>

There is a very big difference between rebuilding a country and exploiting a country. In Afghanistan where USA has no real interests, no resources to harvest, no strategic bases to deploy they pulled out and left the shit to the UN. Same thing with Kosovo.

Iraq on the other hand is getting the full treatment. Oh yes, Bush will generously rebuild it with their oil money.<span id='postcolor'>

there you go! all those US critics's argument is refuted by yours! When the war on Afghanistan began, US's critics were claiming that US wanted to take advantage of Afghanistan and it's resources(the pipe lines for natural gas). now that there are no resources to exploit, there aregument is baseless.

and yes, for once Afghanistan was left to UN just like they want Iraq to be handled. and what's wrong with that? simple. UN wants to show off how good it is at saving a nation after a war by selectively taking over the ones that they can rebuild and (according to your argument) complainging about the ones they can't do.(oh boy, i'm pretty sure some right wing moron's gonna copy this and use it crazy.gif)

and according to you, Kosovo is better, which would imply that UN has done an excellent job in reviving. why not leave UN to deal with Afghanistan since (according to critics's argument) US can't do a good job in pos-twar restructuring?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Taliban did nothing to the US. And what was the result, did you get Osama? No. Did you rebuild the country? No. Did you liberate the Afghani people? Only near the airport in Kabul. Otherwise no.<span id='postcolor'>

they could have turned UBL in instead of budging and calling US to "forget about 9-11". And if US DIDN'T go in, we wouldn't have UBL, but as US went it, there were better chance of gettinghim and dealing a serious blow to AQ's operation, which had sole objective of attacking US.

and speaking of liberation, isn't US's "liberation" bad thing according to US's critics? so it's better that they live the life of not being liberated by US?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mean like Iraq attacked you with WMD?<span id='postcolor'>

I was speaking on hypothetical situation of AQ still operating. I should have mentioned that my particular response was with respect to Afghanistan, not Iraq. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×