0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 11:53 am
Blatham, How can the UN become a truly effective power when member states can't or won't participate? The US can not be the sole supplier of UN forces. Look at the trouble the UN has had coming up with an acceptable force to keep the truce agreement between Lebanon and Israel. They STILL haven't been able to do much about Darfur. Throwing money into the UN trash can will not help much as long as so many countries refuse to risk their blood or treasure furthering the UN's mission.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 11:54 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Bullcrap. Having a different opinion about the judgement of those who lead us into this war isn't treason, and it isn't encouraging the enemy; it is natural that people don't agree, and natural to express one's opinion, and moreover, a respected and protected part of our society to do so.

To seek to punish people for protected and respected dissent is to deny what it means to be an American; not the first time that you've done so, Ican. I really don't think our personal liberties and freedoms mean a thing to you, not when they are inconveinent.

Cycloptichorn

Calling the truth "Bullcrap" doesn't change the truth into falsity.

This paragraph of yours is but one of many examples of your libelous posts about other people's motives:
Quote:
To seek to punish people for protected and respected dissent is to deny what it means to be an American; not the first time that you've done so, Ican. I really don't think our personal liberties and freedoms mean a thing to you, not when they are inconveinent.


Slanderous and libelous speech is not protected speech.

GSPG is not merely a difference of opinion; it is not merely a reflection of an honest disagreement. It is a slanderous and libelous gospel that weakons America's ability to defend itself and others. On the one-hand, the adherents to GSPG slanderously and libelously villify the patriotism and other motives of conservative Americans and President Bush, because they detest their opinions. While on the otherhand they defend their slanderous and libelous villification of conservative Americans and President Bush as mere differences of opinion. Well, in my opinion the GSPG is a gospel of treason. In my opinion, by writing that, I am honoring not dishonoring our personal liberties and freedoms. In my opinion, I am defending them against slander and libel.

GSPG = George Soros Pseudology Gospel

Yes, you have a right to free speech, but not a right to speech that slanders and libels without paying the penalty for doing that. Neither you or George Soros have, without suffering a penalty, a right to speech that by its very slanderous and libelous nature undermines the security of free speech.

When you don't agree with someone's opinion, attack the validity of their opinion and not your perception of their motive for their opinion.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 12:30 pm
Calling someone's speech 'slanderous and libel' doesn't make it so.

I'm not concerned with your opinion about either Soros' opinions, nor my own. The fact is that laws exist protecting our ability to voice our opinion, regardless of how much you disagree with said opinion. Seeking to undermine those laws because you disagree with someone's opinion is inherently anti-American.

You are starting to sound like a freeper, with visions of some shadow movement ran by the liberals designed to bring down America. Perhaps you should invest in one of those stylish tin foil hats that I've seen around from time to time.

You haven't successfully attacked the validity of anyone's opinion, only offered an attack against their saying it at all. You have not provided an iota of evidence that my, or anyone's, opinion strengthens the cause of our enemies at all, and until you do, your attack has no substance whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 12:54 pm
IT'S MY OPINION
ican711nm wrote:

...
George Soros and the faithful adherents to his particular gospel of pseudology (i.e., falsity or lying), have encouraged IT to keep on killing non-combatants, and have thereby made the Afghanistan and Iraq efforts to secure democracies there, far more difficult and deadly than they would have been had he early on been removed from control of the Democratic party.

I'll give that damn pseudology gospel an acronym:

GSPG = George Soros Pseudology Gospel.

IT = Islamo Totalitarians (e.g., Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists).

GSPG gives "aid and comfort" to IT, the enemy of humanity in general and of Americans in particular.
...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 01:43 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Blatham, How can the UN become a truly effective power when member states can't or won't participate? The US can not be the sole supplier of UN forces. Look at the trouble the UN has had coming up with an acceptable force to keep the truce agreement between Lebanon and Israel. They STILL haven't been able to do much about Darfur. Throwing money into the UN trash can will not help much as long as so many countries refuse to risk their blood or treasure furthering the UN's mission.


McG

You speak of the problems of consensus and cooperation as they exist at present. How different the situation might be had the US not proceded as they have over the last five years isn't easy to say, but it would certainly be far less bleak. It is the case that the US has destroyed much of the goodwill of the international community under this administration's policies. It is the case that it has managed to solidify and expand opposition and hatred in the Muslim world via its stance on the Israeli/Palestine issue, its actions re Iraq and to a much lesser degree Afghanistan, and through its loudly proclaimed threats re Syria and Iran. It is also the case that the US itself, particularly under this administration, has worked to demote and devalue the concept of internationalism and the UN itself (John Bolton, we'll recall, was one of the signers of the PNAC).

The first intellectual step is to imagine what our present situation might be minus all the critical mistakes above which have set so much of the world in opposition or made much of the rest of it so unwilling to follow behind or cooperate as they watch the US heading over the cliff.

That is not crying over spilled milk, it is to help us understand how we might begin to procede now through understanding how we messed up so badly. Policies of hegemony, pre-emption and the blindingly arrogant attitudes which underlie them and this too happy militaristic adventurism are utterly guaranteed to bring about the situation we are in. These philosophies or strategies have to be understood as serious failures and others put in their place.

Repair all of this now is far, far more difficult than it would have been minus this administration's policies and acts. The chances that this administration, with its key personnel still in place, will do other than continue to make matters worse seems close to zero.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 05:02 pm
I don't believe discussing what might be different if the past had not occured does any good. What has happened has happened. The UN is not the making or unmaking of the US, but of all it's member states. Right now, China and Russia are siding with the many despotic regimes that are creating the most chaos in the world today.

Of course many will say, especially many here, that it is the US creating the chaos. *shrug* People say lots of crazy **** these days.

Democracy and freedom has never come without a cost associated with it.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 06:26 pm
McGentrix wrote:
How can the UN become a truly effective power when member states can't or won't participate? The US can not be the sole supplier of UN forces.


Quick fact check:

Number of troops deployed in United Nations peacekeeping missions as of July 2006:

Police: 7,302
Military Observers: 2,591
Troops: 63,115


Number of US personnel participating in United Nations peacekeeping missions as of July 2006:

Police: 311
Military Observers: 16
Troops: 13


The majority of the US troops (6) are deployed in Liberia, as part of UNMIL (the United Nations Mission in Liberia), which followed the resignation of President Charles Taylor. UNMIL currently consists of 14,569 UN troops, 1,011 police officers and 204 military observers.


(source: UN website)

McGentrix wrote:
Throwing money into the UN trash can will not help much as long as so many countries refuse to risk their blood or treasure furthering the UN's mission.


A good and valid point, McGentrix.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 07:40 pm
"old europe" sure knows how to sting !
responses should be interesting - can't wait Laughing Crying or Very sad .
guess i'll have to wait for sunday to arrive .
hbg
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 07:44 pm
Quote:
Right now, China and Russia are siding with the many despotic regimes that are creating the most chaos in the world today.

And we never have?

We supported Al Qaeda in Afghanistan when it was fighting Russia. We helped create a monster. What monster are we creating today in Iraq?

Then there's Ronald Reagan's support of Saddam Hussein when he was at war with Iran. The Reagan administration aided him in his use of chemical weapons.

We consider Saudi Arabia a good friend and ally and they don't allow women to drive. There was more freedom under Saddam Hussein then there is in Saudi Arabia today.

We have declared Iran to be our enemy but they elected their president.

And don't forget our support of Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 08:50 pm
Quote:
I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader
By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad

The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.

Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.

"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."

It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.

The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.

However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.

Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.

Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."

He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."

A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week - the highest of the war - and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.

Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. "I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother," he said. "They said go to the police, they couldn't do anything.

"But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists' family. They said, 'Don't worry, we'll get revenge for your brother'. Two days later, Sadr's people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists."

According to al-Sadr's aides, he owes his success to keeping in touch with the people. "He meets his representatives every week or every day. Sistani only meets his representatives every month," said his spokesman, Sheik Hussein al-Aboudi.

"Muqtada al-Sadr asks them what the situation is on the street, are there any fights against the Shia, he is asking all the time. So the people become close to al-Sadr because he is closer to them than Sistani. Sistani is the ayatollah, he is very expert in Islam, but not as a politician."

Even the Iraqi army seems to have accepted that things have changed. First Lieut Jaffar al-Mayahi, an Iraqi National Guard officer, said many soldiers accepted that al-Sadr's Mehdi army was protecting Shias. "When they go to checkpoints and their vehicles are searched, they say they are Mehdi army and they are allowed through. But if we stop Sistani's people we sometimes arrest them and take away their weapons."

Western diplomats fear that the vacuum will be filled by the more radical Shia clerics, hastening the break-up of the country and an increase in sectarian violence.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative for Iraq, said the decline in Ayatollah al-Sistani's influence was bad news for Iraq.

"It would be a pity if his strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq and to forswear violence were removed from influencing the scene," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/09/03/wirq03b.jpg
An Iraqi Shi'ite supporter of cleric Moqtada Al Sadr
celebrates near a burning US Army truck


It's bad enough we couldn't whip the Sunnis insurgents; what are we going to do if the Shiites turn on us?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 11:36 pm
old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
How can the UN become a truly effective power when member states can't or won't participate? The US can not be the sole supplier of UN forces.


Quick fact check:

Number of troops deployed in United Nations peacekeeping missions as of July 2006:

Police: 7,302
Military Observers: 2,591
Troops: 63,115


Number of US personnel participating in United Nations peacekeeping missions as of July 2006:

Police: 311
Military Observers: 16
Troops: 13


The majority of the US troops (6) are deployed in Liberia, as part of UNMIL (the United Nations Mission in Liberia), which followed the resignation of President Charles Taylor. UNMIL currently consists of 14,569 UN troops, 1,011 police officers and 204 military observers.


(source: UN website)

McGentrix wrote:
Throwing money into the UN trash can will not help much as long as so many countries refuse to risk their blood or treasure furthering the UN's mission.


A good and valid point, McGentrix.


I suppose that means something to you?

What percentage of the total UN Peacekeeping budget do you suppose the US contributes?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 04:30 am
McGentrix wrote:
I don't believe discussing what might be different if the past had not occured does any good. What has happened has happened.

It's hard to imagine how any workable or sane strategy or policy might arise like magic from amnesia. Ought all history books and studies to be tossed into recycling? Perhaps folks ought to just continually repeat all the things which have created problems? Maybe just do them louder or in greater magnitude?

The UN is not the making or unmaking of the US, but of all it's member states. Right now, China and Russia are siding with the many despotic regimes that are creating the most chaos in the world today.

Of course they are. A policy of hegemony (which seeks a unipolar world, dominated by an arrogant and self-interested America) will immediately place others in opposition to America because it pre-supposes that opposition and is self-fulling. And where oil is involved, those nations' self-interest IS threatened by this administration's policies. Why would they act differently?

As to chaos created..."Fiasco" is a book you really must read, McG, if you want to know what the military community, the intelligence community, and the State/diplomatic community REALLY think about the Bush administration's policies and personnel and why they think it and if you want to gain greater understanding on the level of chaos now extant in the middle east and how that came about.


Of course many will say, especially many here, that it is the US creating the chaos. *shrug* People say lots of crazy **** these days.

Even framing your idea in that manner excludes understanding. Criticizing Nixon's policies or Clinton's policies or LBJ's policies or FDR's policies means you are criticizing "the US" and thus it is all automatically "crazy ****"?

Democracy and freedom has never come without a cost associated with it.
That's not terribly helpful.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 09:00 am
blatham wrote :
"...As to chaos created..."Fiasco" is a book you really must read..."

yes , it's certainly well worth reading , ... but there are plenty of people who see the 'truth' differently .
remember the u.s. generals and diplomats who warned about becoming entangled in the middle-east ? .. they've been retired , shoved off to the sidelines .
that does not mean that the united states and other nations needed to close their eyes and ears to what's going on in the middle-east , but it surely would have been prudent to first understand the mindset of muslims and other people of the middle-east .
hbg
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 09:10 am
hamburger

Suskind's book too is very good. Have you read it? I finished Deans' new one a bit ago and though I find the thesis compelling (he draws on the work of a Canadian scholar, as it happens) he's nearly so enjoyable to read as these other two Pulitizer recipients.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 09:30 am
hi , blatham :
no , haven't read suskind's book yet .
(i'm just adding this quickly , should really go in another thread .
finished : 'the world is flat' by friedman , a little slow at first , but gets better in 2nd half .
started : 'young trudeau' by max and monique nemni ;
the book is quite a shocker imo ; listened to the interview they gave on CBC radio and it sounded interesting - is it ever !) .
hbg
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 09:34 am
Hadn't even heard of it. I'll put it on my list.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 09:49 am
I believe old europe's citation of statistics concerning current participation in UN police and peacekeeping activities deliberately creates a very deceptive impression, one of which I am quite sure he is well aware.

UN military interventions go a long way back - the resistance to the unprovoked invasion of South Korea by the North was perhaps the largest, and in that one the largest shares of the troops and casualties were borne by South Korea and the United States. I doubt very much that the cumulative statistics of casualties and costs borne exclusively in UN peacekeeping activities would show that the United States is behind (say) Germany in paying its share of the blood price.

Over the past twenty years UN use of the military forces of members to staff its "peacekeeping" efforts (usually so watered down by the irresolution of the Security Council and the UN Secretariat itself) has degenerated to a revenue-producing effort for the third-rate armies of third world countries. None of the major European countries has done its share of staffing these endeavors either - and for the same reason as applies to us. The United States has very frequently provided the transportation and logistic support to sustain these operations, and, overall, has paid more than its fair share of the financial cost.

old europe appears to imply that the United States has been unwilling to expose its military forces to hazard in support of peace and freedom in the world. Putting this idea into words, stating the proposition clearly and directly, instead of merely implying it in a cute set of out-of-context statistics, makes the absurdity of the proposition, and the deceptive intent of its author, rather obvious.

old europe should apologize.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 10:28 am
From the GSPG on how to deal with IT.
GSPG = George Soros Pseudology Gospel
IT = Islamo Totalitarians (e.g., Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists)

Quote:
Brought to you by the American Committees on Foreign Relations ACFR NewsGroup No. 764, Monday, September 4, 2006

[I'm not aware of where this originally appeared. I was sent it by a virulently pro-Palestinian organization. KMJ]

Consequences of the War on Terror
by George Soros

The failure of Israel to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war-on-terror concept. One of those weaknesses is that even if the targets are terrorists, the victims are often innocent civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause.

In response to Hezbollah's attacks, Israel was justified in attacking Hezbollah to protect itself against the threat of missiles on its border. However, Israel should have taken greater care to minimize collateral damage. The civilian casualties and material damage inflicted on Lebanon inflamed Muslims and world opinion against Israel and converted Hezbollah from aggressors to heroes of resistance for many. Weakening Lebanon has also made it more difficult to rein in Hezbollah.

Another weakness of the war-on-terror concept is that it relies on military action and rules out political approaches. Israel previously withdrew from Lebanon and then from Gaza unilaterally, rather than negotiating political settlements with the Lebanese government and the Palestinian authority. The strengthening of Hezbollah and Hamas was a direct consequence of that approach. The war-on-terror concept stands in the way of recognizing this fact because it separates "us" from "them" and denies that our actions help shape their behavior.

A third weakness is that the war-on-terror concept lumps together different political movements that use terrorist tactics. It fails to distinguish between Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda or the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi militia in Iraq. Yet all these terrorist manifestations, being different, require different responses. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah can be treated merely as targets in the war on terror because they have deep roots in their societies; yet there are profound differences between them.

Looking back, it is easy to see where Israeli policy went wrong. When Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Israel should have gone out of its way to strengthen him and his reformist team. When Israel withdrew from Gaza, the former head of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, negotiated a six-point plan on behalf of the Quartet for the Middle East (Russia, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations). It included opening crossings between Gaza and the West Bank, an airport and seaport in Gaza, opening the border with Egypt, and transferring the greenhouses abandoned by Israeli settlers into Arab hands.

None of the six points was implemented. This contributed to Hamas's electoral victory. The Bush administration, having pushed Israel to allow the Palestinians to hold elections, then backed Israel's refusal to deal with a Hamas government. The effect was to impose further hardship on the Palestinians.

Nevertheless, Abbas was able to forge an agreement with the political arm of Hamas for the formation of a unity government. It was to foil this agreement that the military branch of Hamas, run from Damascus, engaged in the provocation that brought a heavy-handed response from Israel - which in turn incited Hezbollah to further provocation, opening a second front. That is how extremists play off against each other to destroy any chance of political progress.

Israel has been a participant in this game, and President Bush bought into this flawed policy, uncritically supporting Israel. Events have shown that this policy leads to the escalation of violence. The process has advanced to the point where Israel's unquestioned military superiority is no longer sufficient to overcome the negative consequences of its policy.

Israel is now more endangered in it existence that it was at the time of the Oslo Agreement on peace. Similarly, The United States has become less safe since President Bush declared war on terror.

The time has come to realize that the present policies are counterproductive. There will be no end to the vicious circle of escalating violence without a political settlement of the Palestine question. In fact, the prospects for engaging in negotiations are better now than they were a few months ago. The Israelis must realize that a military deterrent is not sufficient on its own. And Arabs, having redeemed themselves on the battlefield, may be more willing to entertain a compromise.

There are strong voices arguing that Israel must never negotiate from a position of weakness. They are wrong. Israel's position is liable to become weaker the longer it persists on its present course. Similarly Hezbollah, having tasted the sense but not the reality of victory (and egged on by Syria and Iran) may prove recalcitrant. But that is where the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas comes into play. The Palestinian people yearn for peace and relief from suffering. The political - as distinct from the military - wing of Hamas must be responsive to their desires. It is not too late for Israel to encourage and deal with an Abbas-led Palestinian unity government as the first step toward a better-balanced approach. Given how strong the U.S.-Israeli relationship is, it would help Israel achieve its own legitimate aims if the U.S. government were not blinded by the war-on-terror concept.

George Soros, a financier and philanthropist, is author of the new book "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror."


Summary of the implications of GSPG:

1. Avoid defending ourselves against IT when IT is located in the midst of non-IT.

2. Do not attack IT unless it can be done with the surgical precision necessary to minimize the loss of lives of non-IT.

3. Negotiate unilateral withdrawals from our lands to ensure these lands are appreciated and properly utilized.

4. Negotiate with and support IT that declare their intention to exterminate us.

5. Negotiate with the IT from positions of weakness.

6. Negotiate our extermination in small incremental steps so as not to inflame IT anger against us.

7. Not all IT kill us for the same reasons.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 11:30 am
Quote:


Poor dumb Bush. He got us into a situation that we have no control over and can't seem to exit from. The poor dumb post turtle can't seem to do anything except sit in his office and play his broken record......
stay the course.....
stay the course.....
stay the course.....
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2006 11:35 am
blatham wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I don't believe discussing what might be different if the past had not occured does any good. What has happened has happened.

It's hard to imagine how any workable or sane strategy or policy might arise like magic from amnesia. Ought all history books and studies to be tossed into recycling? Perhaps folks ought to just continually repeat all the things which have created problems? Maybe just do them louder or in greater magnitude?


I am not talking about history, I am talking about current events. There has been far too much whining about how Bush shouldn't have invaded Iraq. I am sure the lessons learned thus far will be valuable in the future, but whining about what shouldn't have been done is pointless when we need to worry more about what we are doing now. Your hyperbole is unneccessary and unwanted.

Quote:
The UN is not the making or unmaking of the US, but of all it's member states. Right now, China and Russia are siding with the many despotic regimes that are creating the most chaos in the world today.

Of course they are. A policy of hegemony (which seeks a unipolar world, dominated by an arrogant and self-interested America) will immediately place others in opposition to America because it pre-supposes that opposition and is self-fulling. And where oil is involved, those nations' self-interest IS threatened by this administration's policies. Why would they act differently?


You seem to think that national interest is soley an American idea. I can tell by your skewed interpretation of hegemony.

Quote:
[color]As to chaos created..."Fiasco" is a book you really must read, McG, if you want to know what the military community, the intelligence community, and the State/diplomatic community REALLY think about the Bush administration's policies and personnel and why they think it and if you want to gain greater understanding on the level of chaos now extant in the middle east and how that came about. [/color]


Hmmm... read a book by a liberal about an unpopular war. I think I will pass on that opportunity. I get enough liberal propaganda in my diet as it is.

Quote:
Of course many will say, especially many here, that it is the US creating the chaos. *shrug* People say lots of crazy **** these days.

Even framing your idea in that manner excludes understanding. Criticizing Nixon's policies or Clinton's policies or LBJ's policies or FDR's policies means you are criticizing "the US" and thus it is all automatically "crazy ****"?


Building a strawman Blatham? Perhaps you could get a harvester to help you. I am talking about the liberal media and many members on A2K, yourself included, that repeatedly bleat on about how the US is failing in Iraq. You like to focus on every negative, meanwhile the big picture escapes you. You can't seem to see the forest because you are spending time focusing on each tree and leaf.

Quote:
Democracy and freedom has never come without a cost associated with it.
That's not terribly helpful.


Maybe you just didn't understand it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 07/21/2025 at 09:11:08