Crazysheep

This is looking really nasty....Bals, you know about Afghanistan, what do you expect will happen there if clerics do declare holy war? Also, an Islamic protest/rebellion in Uzbekistan was stamped out brutally. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7837128/ I wonder if anything will come of this-it seems unlikely. The Uzbek show of force would probably scare the opposition into silence.

I think the idea of liberating countries by destroying the oppressive government is pretty flawed. Simply destroying the government won't rid the population of disaffection and pent up aggression if you don't work to deal with poverty and social problems as well-before anyone brings up World War 2, bear in mind Japan was not actually invaded and West Germany had lots of money poured into it to help it recover, the allies having learned from their mistakes at Versailles where the poverty after World War 1 led to German rejection of democracy which they saw as "weak government." The fact is if a nation is disaffected, they crave the certainties of "strong government." I mean, look at Russia now-it still has horrendous problems after Communism collapsed, and after 10 years of these problems still not being flattened out the government has become increasingly authoritarian with virtually no resistance, and there's a lot of pro-Soviet feeling right now there. The point is, I fear that merely "liberating" dictatorships isn't going to solve anything if the country invaded has huge economic problems, as Iraq and Afghanistan did; pent up frustration (and in these specific cases anti-western sentiments) and disaffection means that the population doesn't need to be pushed hard to take to arms so the countries are guaranteed to be violent places unless a certain amount of living comfort can be provided.

Following on from Balshoiws post: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4539477.stm Surprised no-ones posted this, as it is very worrying-could this escalate at all? There's already small amounts of anti-US violence in Afghanistan, but I wonder if this could lead on to it growing to a similar situation existing in Iraq-before it was only really ex-Taliban members and international militants(there was reports of Chechens fighting in Afghanistan) and now it looks like young Afghans are sick of the occupation. That would be awful, so many people getting blown up. Â Looking at it....wednesdays protest sparked off many more today (not sure how many) which suggests it's escalating. The fact it turned violent to the point of attacks on authorities and protesters being shot by police could be an omen of how it's going to turn out...

Y'know, I've noticed a pattern of pro-Bush Americans here hiding behind the fact they've been in the military because it's our culture to respect that. But basing your concerns on the views of one side who are in a situation where clear ethical thinking is at it's most difficult is not a reliable way to form your political views. Is it? What would you say to an arab who, after being attacked for saying it doesn't matter who the terrorists kill as long as they get the job done, replied by saying-

The media was almost euphoric about progress in Iraq after the elections were relatively successful, and indeed neglected some of the bad news. When important bad news happens, it gets coverage, and when important good news happen, it gets coverage. Minor things about some schools improving aren't worthy of coverage, because they aren't really significant.

I think he meant at the time of Walker posting Americans would be in bed or something.

Iraq's new president has said the insurgency could be ended immediately if the authorities made use of Kurdish, Shia Muslim and other militias. While at first this might seem a good idea, it could be worrying. Militias being backed by the government will almost certainly create a state of civil war with much more violence. Also, it could lead to increased availability of weapons...meaning even if the current insurgency is annihilated, you could find different groups of extremists armed. And seeing as the insurgents are mostly Sunni, you could find racial polarisation and a situation where even more Sunnis become militant in response to racist atrocities that will inevitably come from using Shi'ite and Kurd militias to commit the insurgency. It will just escalate the situation and it will be the innocent Iraqis who suffer.

Heya, I haven't posted in a while, but was wondering what exactly Al Sadr wants? Does he want an Iran style government or just the US troops out or what?

You aren't thinking straight...it was timed after the embassy bombings. If it was just to divert attention from the Lewinsky thing (which it failed at btw) then Clinton WOULD have had to plan the embassy bombings..... So? There are plenty of people who believe Bush orchestrated 911. Does this make it true? (and what does Sudan have to do with Kosovo? Have you conceded defeat on that one point?) I cross referenced the stuff and it was no evidence. It was all conservative newspapers repeating everything you've said.....how does this make it true? All it says was that Clinton was desperate to cover up his affair and that was the reason. It doesn't give me any more info than you have.

You're ignoring my point. He acted in a timely manner, when the embassy bombings happened. Are you saying he carried out the embassy bombings? Say yes or no. And the Milosevic part is absolutely insane! For a start, there is NOTHING to suggest he wouldn't act in a timely manner. In fact the reverse is true, wouldn't the aggressive bombings in timely response to the embassy bombings have the reverse effect on Milosevic? And don't be so Americo-centric, the response against Milosevic was started by Europe. Even without the USA they would have gone along with it.

Linking to something that repeats the same rubbish with no substantial facts does not nothing to alter the fact that the attacks are on Sudan were in response to the embassy bombings...

Yes, because NYC has more crime than the other states; but it is nowhere near as unstable as Iraq is. A lot more policing in Iraq is needed than in NYC, and effectively there is not.

I know a girl who, just before the Iraq war went to the USA for a holiday. She had one of those weird pens with feathers and stuff that teenage girls seem to be obsessive about, and when asked what it was, she said sarcastically "It's a weapon of mass destruction." 5 hours later she emerged from customs

Fair enough, you know more about it than me. But the protestors are in the minority, and.... *takes a glance at TIME magazines person of the year*

Sorry if that offended you or anything...:( But Denoir has already explained it well enough a few pages back. Take a look. ADDED: And the fact that nearly every American on these boards has defended it proves my point well enough....sincere apologies if my post sounded like I was making big generalisations.

Key word being "would" not "did". Damn you beat me!

Note the "would have had." Denoir has already mentioned how Americans idolise their soldiers.....it's obvious that whoever ABC News was quoting would either want to defend the soldiers or would simply refuse to believe that they could do something wrong. If the man had said "they had intelligence about the identity of the men...." then your point would be valid, but I can't see why else he would say "they would have had intelligence" unless he didn't know for sure.

That was my point.

Here's the PNAC article Denoir mentioned: This seems to reveal a lot about the mentality of the neocons.......they must have been brought up on a strict diet of Hollywood movies, they seem to have the idea that America is seen as some sort of godlike benevolent being by the rest of the world...the last paragraph in particular demonstrates this. "The situation today is easier in many respects: Iraq is far weaker; American strength is much more evident to everyone, including ourselves; and the Congress would be far more supportive of decisive action." "The United States, under George Bush’s leadership, put that coalition together by demonstrating that we had the strength and the seriousness of purpose to carry through to an effective conclusion. " They're assuming that the rest of the world will not question the USAs motives, so long as they will be successful. Very arrogant attitude, and quite patronising of EVERYONE really. And this: Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different U.S. policy. I'm looking at Acecombat here, who probably reflects a lot of attitudes of Saudi Arabians....presumably the "friends" of the USA in the region. It is the threat of the USA, not Saddam, that seems to worry most of them judging from the amount of terrorists in Saudi Arabia AND Kuwait. And Iran and Syria, while not friends, are obviously going to be very nervous about Israel and the USA from all the threats slung at them. It seems their plans have in actuality fallen over.....I suspect they did not foresee any insurgency in Iraq either. Guess this shows why you should not elect zealously patriotic politicians in America especially.....this lot seem to be blind.

I'm too young to join the army so obviously I have never seen combat. And just because I'm a kiddo doesn't mean you can disregard my arguments either. But I don't need to have been in the army to know that pointless civilian deaths should be avoided. You yourself go on to say that the IDF is morally superior because it does not target civilians; but since they are at war (in practise if not technically) by your logic that would mean the Palestinians can kill whoever they want? Just because it is bad is NOT an excuse to lose control. Soldiers panicking on the battlefield is understandable; but being given orders to target civilian buildings is nothing to do with fright in combat.

Could you post a copy here please?

Just because it is sometimes like that is not a good enough excuse to do that. If you were in a fight with someone, (not illegal) and accidentally killed them (illegal) it is not acceptable to say, "Well fights are bad. Shit happens." The "War's hell" argument is just baseless rhetoric, try telling that to a family of someone who's just been shot for no reason.

You have to treat people in a war zone like hostiles, for the sake of your own protection. Whats wrong with using more force than is needed? This makes it harder for the enemy to sucessfully attack you, and will cuase them high casulties if they do try. Plus it might make attackers think twice about doing something. Maybe there is a different thought process in Europe,I do not know, but in America we look out for our soldiers, and they come first. *points to Denoirs post*

lol that would be an interesting turn around. Â Hmm, just read this. BBC article on how Saddams trial could be embarrassing for western leaders Should be interesting when it comes round at any rate.