THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

America is doing what its doing for 3 reasons

1 because it wants to
2 because it needs to
3 because it can

It wants to further expand its influence around the world and thwart any potential challenges before they arise.

It needs to defend areas where it is vulnerable. (The over dependency on middle eastern oil is the obvious example)

It can do so because America has the biggest military and there is no one around to stop them anymore.

Strip away the propaganda bullsh1t about wmd, democracy, freedom, fighting evil etc etc, and American policy becomes quite obvious. Its not rocket science. The difficult bit is stripping away the propaganda.

0 Replies

I sometimes wonder who some think they are trying to impress.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

McTag, I have read that there are war plans for invading England, Japan, Germany, the Phillipines, Texas. and any place else you can name safely tucked into the Defense Department computers in the very remote possibility that these might be needed in some future circumstance.

I am amazed, however, (and impressed) that you give our President such good marks for insight, initiative, and foresight to invade Afghanistan during the eight months he was in office when 9/11 happened. You see, we know he's not nearly so dumb as the neolibs wish him to be. I'm gratified that you recognize it however far fetched your theory of his intentions might be.

Nothing to do with Mr Bush. The invasion plan predated his election.

0 Replies

Yes, it did by decades. The USA has long felt the best defense was the ability for a comprehensive offense. So NORAD has engaged in computerized war games for a long time now and it is these that first go to the 'war room' in the event a real conflict becomes a possibility or probability.

0 Replies

Steve writes

Quote:

Strip away the propaganda bullsh1t about wmd, democracy, freedom, fighting evil etc etc, and American policy becomes quite obvious. Its not rocket science. The difficult bit is stripping away the propaganda.

There is some truth to this. But I guess I have more faith in the ability of humankind for goodness. I have come to believe that our President for all his warts, stumbles, miscalculations, and mistakes, is a good man who says what he means and means what he says. That I trust him on that point goes a long way to make up for at least a lot of his shortcomings and I believe his strengths outweigh his weaknesses. It is for this reason I can believe his motives re Afghanistan and Iraq are at least in part purely humanitarian.

But even if they were not, good results are good results no matter what the motives were for accomplishing them.

0 Replies

ahmen

but not really

Foxfyre, I think you are harmless, probably well intentioned but totally misguided.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

America is doing what its doing for 3 reasons

1 because it wants to
2 because it needs to
3 because it can

It wants to further expand its influence around the world and thwart any potential challenges before they arise.

It needs to defend areas where it is vulnerable. (The over dependency on middle eastern oil is the obvious example)

It can do so because America has the biggest military and there is no one around to stop them anymore.

Strip away the propaganda bullsh1t about wmd, democracy, freedom, fighting evil etc etc, and American policy becomes quite obvious. Its not rocket science. The difficult bit is stripping away the propaganda.

Partly correct. Your opener is a corruption of an old deep south rif that starts "why does a dog lick his balls?"

As President Bush has frequently explained we want to see a democratic government in Iraq because the Islamic world needs a new model for its development, and Iraq is in a pivotal place both in that world and in history. Moreover our principal reason for wanting this is that it will vastly reduce the risks to the United States and the rest of the Western World due to the paralysis and distemper infecting the Moslem world. The results so far suggest that this may indeed be the ultimate outcome and that the new model may well be contagious. It is far too early to declare success but the indications so far are relatively favorable.

That we have the physical ability to do this is certainly a factor in the decision to do it, but it is not a reason to do so,

Of course we wish to sustain our influence in the world. Name a single nation that doesn't.

The truth is the oil producing states of the world, from Saudi Arabia to Venezuela and now Nigeria and soon Canada, need to produce and sell the oil every bit as much as Japan, China, North America, Europe, and India (listed in the order of consumption of Persian Gulf Oil) need to import it. All that is required to get a secure source of oil is money, and we have that. Moreover look for a renaissance of nuclear power in this country along with large scale production of alternate fuels from our large stocks of shale and coal. We have found technical and industrial solutions before and we can do it again.

One of the hallmarks of intelligence is the ability and the habit of observation and the correction of previously held positions when the accumulating evidence calls for it.

0 Replies

Quote, "It is far too early to declare success but the indications so far are relatively favorable." I respect your conditional statement unlike most posters from the right who claim it's already a success. Having voted is not success of democracy; what happens during the subsequent period is what counts - not the votes, although I admire the risks they took to vote. They have barely made their first steps; let's wait and see what transpires. We can hope them great success, and also hope it becomes addictive in the Arab World.

0 Replies

Quote, "It is far too early to declare success but the indications so far are relatively favorable." I respect your conditional statement unlike most posters from the right who claim it's already a success. Having voted is not success of democracy; what happens during the subsequent period is what counts - not the votes, although I admire the risks they took to vote. They have barely made their first steps; let's wait and see what transpires. We can hope them great success, and also hope it becomes addictive in the Arab World.

0 Replies

Quote, "It is far too early to declare success but the indications so far are relatively favorable." I respect your conditional statement unlike most posters from the right who claim it's already a success. Having voted is not success of democracy; what happens during the subsequent period is what counts - not the votes, although I admire the risks they took to vote. They have barely made their first steps; let's wait and see what transpires. We can hope them great success, and also hope it becomes addictive in the Arab World.

0 Replies

I agree with that Cicerone. The road ahead will be difficult for them even under the best of circumstances. Also encouraging to me are recent events in Lebanon, Egypt, and earlier Lybia. I am also mindful that in such enterprises, it is often never so dark as just before the dawn.

The media and the various expert pundits are generally very adept at claiming that they accurately forecasted new events and trends - but after they occur.

0 Replies

I also remember a few years ago when the citizens of Iran used to demonstrate for a moderate government. I'm not sure what became of that.

0 Replies

The Theocrats who continue to control the Iranian government are sitting on the backs of a very young and increasingly restive population that wants no more of their oppression. The evolution of Iraq will likely have a profound effect on what happens in Iran - that was clearly one of the important factors in the decision to intervene in Iraq. (The WMD bit was merely the ONLY argument our "friends" on the Security Council would entertain, and the Administration chose to take the matter to them to appease political sentiment in Britain. In retrospect we should have just skipped it and forced the British government to chose between us and France.) The Shiites of Iraq are (so far) actively supporting the development of democracy in Iraq. The example cannot be lost on the Shiites of Iran. Time will tell, and, as you say, there are many miles yet to go, but so far so good.

0 Replies

I went to DC for the anti-war march two years ago last month.

I am still wondering if we ought to stay in the country we invaded or leave them to sort it out.

Does anyone think we will invade Iran?

0 Replies

Kara, I was not a supporter of our invastion of Iraq, but now that we are there, it would be morally and strategically wrong to leave. Some "experts" are saying that the insurgency will stop if the occupation is gone, but that's only a guess on their part; they can't possibly know that. The only problem I have seen with our involvement in Iraq is the miscalculation and incompetence on how the security of Iraq was improperly handled. We "secured" the oil fields but not much else. The insurgents are now using those weapons against us and the Iraqi people, because we failed to secure them properly. If we are really concerned about the security of the world from terrorists, we must not let them win this battle.

0 Replies

c.i, my question now is should we stay? I know that this is perhaps a non-issue (we have too much invested in blood and treasure, as well as strategic interest to decamp at this point) and that we cannot/will not leave Iraq en masse.

Some commentators note that we are the irritating factor and that the country would settle if we left. Perhaps so. There is much anger from the populace. Thanks for what you did, now let us run our country.

We could do that, of course, but our mission would be endangered. We attacked Iraq for a reason, and that reason is not fulfilled.

Our mission, however, is or may be different from what the Iraqi people see as their desire to live quietly, day to day, with jobs and schools.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

I went to DC for the anti-war march two years ago last month. I am still wondering if we ought to stay in the country we invaded or leave them to sort it out.

Does anyone think we will invade Iran?

Yes! Sort of! The US will attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear weapon development facilities. Iran will of course be enraged and appeal to the UN to censure the US by levying economic sanctions against the US. Russia and the rest of the countries who have and are contributing to that nuclear development will support those sanctions. The US will veto those sanctions.

SOME HERE will support the US's action and SOME HERE will denounce it.

Switzerland will remain neutral! :wink:

0 Replies

and in this is where I differ, I truely believe the invasion of Iraq was totally unjustified, that we should leave immediately and that we owe the people of Iraq significant reparations. I recognise that I am pretty much alone in this position and am reluctant to debate the ethical grounds to those who see it otherwise. I can see no potential to right a wrong by continuing with a wrong. Yes the damage is done and indeed more damage will be done if we leave or if we don't leave and for that we are responsible however, continuing that carnage can only be used as justification for the initial invasion.

0 Replies

Quote:

Sort of! The US will attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear weapon development facilities.

Our country has nuclear weapons and is planning a new generation of same.

Why would other countries, seen by us as evil or adversaries, not want defensive nukes to defend themselves against us?

0 Replies

It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Once the fissioning of uranium with the associated generation of neutrons was discovered during the 30s, the possibility of a bomb was recognized among physicists in several countries. The first organized research was done in Britain and Germany. Soon after we got involved and the rest is a well-known story.

Today there are several nuclear powers - the U.S., Russia, (probably)Ukraine, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel - and possibly North Korea. South Africa once had an advanced development program that was very close to a bomb. Germany, Japan and a few other countries could very quickly put a bomb program together if they so wished. Argentina and Brazil have also made investments in these programs. Today most nations are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty and those that violate it are in principle subject to international sanctions. North Korea and Iran are testing the will of the international community and so far are getting away with it.

The world is indeed a dangerous place, and we have likely not seen the end of war.

I believe we must (and will) stay the course in Iraq.

Unlike Dyslexia, I believe the war was a good thing, done for the right reasons and carried out reasonably well. History will reveal the the answer in a few decades. Until then we can only argue about it.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know