dyslexia,
Please do tell us your impressions of Saudi Arabia. I have never been there and have only encountered Saudis rarely and briefly. Besides the media, much of my perceptions come from friends who worked in Arabia as contractors or who fought in the Gulf War flying F-117s. All of them without exception have a negative opinion of the Saudis. It would be interesting to hear any good things about the Saudis you have to offer or, failing that, things that made the strongest impression on you.
Tantor
timberlandko,
I agree that the occupation of Iraq will be longer, bloodier, and more difficult than the war. If the examples of other US occupations serve (Germany, Japan, Cuba, Philippines, Guam), we are likely to be there a century. It seems likely that an American occupation force in Iraq will be a magnet for terrorists. They will try to bleed us with some success in a never-ending trickle of small attacks and ambushes. Most of all, the occupation will be difficult due to the unfamiliarity of America with Iraqi culture and the fractiousness of Iraq.
Iraq is composed of factions who despise each other. Getting them to work and play together in a democracy is going to be difficult, to require harsh measures, and to take a long term effort. It is the most difficult problem involved in invading Iraq.
I don't believe that it is an insurmountable problem. From some anecdotal accounts, it appears that Iraqis and some Arab intellectuals see an American conquest of Iraq as an opportunity to reform the Middle East, to ascend to a Western level of affluence. There just may be a core of Iraqis willing to bet on democracy.
Tantor
Hazlitt wrote:Jeanbean, you get very little disagreement from me. I talk to a lot of people and am surprised at how many go along with Bush. I suppose it is the terrorism scare more than anything.
.
no, it is called retaliation for 9/11. Are we supposed to sit back and allow it to happen again without showing our dismay?
BW:
Afghanistan WAS,
Iraq wasn't.
Had Bush stuck to dealing with the Taliban there wouldn't BE any "Anti-War" (or perhaps a better term is "Anti-Imperialist") movement.
NeoGuin wrote:BW:
Afghanistan WAS,
Iraq wasn't.
Had Bush stuck to dealing with the Taliban there wouldn't BE any "Anti-War" (or perhaps a better term is "Anti-Imperialist") movement.
wrong, same region of the world and they hate us equally. What does it matter if we strike Iraq or surrounding countries? It makes NO diff. because they have hatred for America in common. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
JoanneDorel wrote:However, the other day I heard that the Pres was going to call up 250,000 reservists to active duty. Now this will cause some protest. These folks joined the reserve at the end of their active duty thinking that as "week end warriors" that is what we call them in the US they could use the extra couple of hundred buck a month to play war games one weekend a month. However, there will be hell to pay if and when they are called up since their fulltime military pay will not in most situations cover their actual living costs and leave there families in the learch. Then we will see how popular this coming war will be and how moved this country will be to support this president.
There has been no protest at being called up by reservists nor will there be any in the future. They support the war and their part in it. The idea that the reservists will join anti-war protests is a absurd hallucination of the Left.
NotTantor wrote:
There has been no protest at being called up by reservists nor will there be any in the future. They support the war and their part in it. The idea that the reservists will join anti-war protests is a absurd hallucination of the Left.
Well, so they printed some "Fata Morganian" photos, showed some fake videos and interviews here in the media.
Walter Hinteler wrote:NotTantor wrote:
There has been no protest at being called up by reservists nor will there be any in the future. They support the war and their part in it. The idea that the reservists will join anti-war protests is a absurd hallucination of the Left.
Well, so they printed some "Fata Morganian" photos, showed some fake videos and interviews here in the media.
I don't understand your post, Walter. What is Fata Morganian? What fake videos? Of what?
To contend that Afghanistan and Iraq are "the same region of the world" is roughly equivalent to saying that Iowa and New Mexico are in the same region of the United States--which is to say, hopelessly uniformed. One truly significant distinction, is that vast lakes of crude oil do not lie beneath the surface of Afghanistan.
It's a simplistic world Setanta, it's a simple party . . . . . .
Tantor wrote:dyslexia,
Please do tell us your impressions of Saudi Arabia. I have never been there and have only encountered Saudis rarely and briefly.
I heard a story on another board from a lady who grew up there. Her dad was in the military and stationed there. She and her brother (?) used to load up the car with food and drink and head out into the desert where the US base was. They would have a barbecue and play volleyball and it was a big family outing. On the way back, they would stop at the checkpoint and the Saudi Army soldiers would invite them in to have tea. Apparently they wanted to get in on the fun and games but didn't quite know how. I don't recall what else she said about it but I didn't get the impression she hated it there. Of course that's been a few years back so things may have changed too.
BillW wrote:It's a simplistic world Setanta, it's a simple party . . . . . .
Kinda sad, though, ain't it Bill?
I mean, i know atlases ain't cheap, but maps are easily found on-line.
Kabul to Baghdad.
Los Angeles to Houston.
Same distance. 1500 miles.
LA and Houston are in the same region of the world.
Yeah, tell 'em that in Houston . . .
The point, about which you are either being willfully obtuse, or are clueless, is that lumping the Afghans and Iraqis together as though they were somehow the same, or that the situations in those nations are the same, is naive at best, and a dangerously flawed assumption at worst (for example, if the Shrub were indulging in that kind of fuzzy thinking).
Afghanistan, at least as far back as the fourth century BCE when Alexander III rolled through, has been a region (really, all by itself) of loosely associated tribes, some of which, but by no means all, had in common the Urdu language. Iraq, on the other hand, has only existed since 1922. It was formed by Arthur Balfour and Winston Churchill, and it was done for the oil. Iraq has always been about the oil. The Turks in the Osmanli empire weren't stupid enough to try to make those people live together, but everyone since (read, mostly just the Brits, and now the U.S.) has been stupid enough to try.
Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have religion in common, although even that would not be a completely accurate statement, given that there are as many sects of Islam as there are of christianity. Apart from that, they do not have the same ethnic origins, they do not have the same linguistic origins, they do not have the same cultural origins, they do not have the same topography, they do not have the same climate--and, most importantly, Afghanistan actually has a history. So far, in 80 years, the closest thing which Iraq can boast of is a continuing casualty list . . .
Setanta,
Come on. They are all Arabs. Who cares about who is actually guilty of the crime or even what country they come from.
They kill our people, we kill theirs. What's the problem?
You almost had me for a minute with that "they are all arabs crap," EBrown . . . how very sly you are . . .
Change Afgan for Texan and Iraqi for Californian - voila, same difference, well, okay - change Texan for Kansan...........
Setana & BillW:
This is one case where, we need to consider what we're probably dealing with.
BAA-BAA-Busheep!
"Lately I have noticed a growing despondency among many of those who call themselves the anti-war movement. With the United States now entering its fourth year of illegal war in and illegitimate occupation of Iraq, and the pro-war movement moving inexorably towards yet another disastrous conflict with Iran, there is an increasing awareness that the cause of the anti-war movement, no matter how noble and worthy, is in fact a losing cause as currently executed. Despite all of the well-meaning and patriotic work of the millions of activists and citizens who comprise the anti-war movement, America still remains very much a nation not only engaged in waging and planning wars of aggression, but has also become a nation which increasingly identifies itself through its military and the wars it fights. This is a sad manifestation of the fact that the American people seem to be addicted to war and violence, rather than the ideals of human rights, individual liberty, and freedom and justice for all that should define our nation.
In short, the anti-war movement has come face to face with the reality that in the ongoing war of ideologies that is being waged in America today, their cause is not just losing, but is in fact on the verge of complete collapse. Many in the anti-war movement would take exception to such a characterization of the situation, given the fact that there seems to be a growing change in the mood among Americans against the ongoing war in Iraq. But one only has to scratch at the surface of this public discontent to realize how shallow and superficial it is. Americans aren't against the war in Iraq because it is wrong; they are against it because we are losing."
-Scott Ritter
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/ritter/#34332
The miltary-industrial complex is indeed powerful. Look at all the innovation the Pentagon funds so many companies are hooked into defense spending. Also, the expiring bombs have to be disposed of and how better than in a war.
