You are not logged in.
Oh, come on, Tom! Today (election Tuesday) Saddam is calling on all Iraqis to bury the hatchet, and if we're not careful to keep 'em fighting they'll do it and free him just to eliminate the present carnage. So much for your "wrong end of our bombs and guns once more" empty threat. Bush has no subtlety, and by taking out Saddam and his military, left a population unused to freedom the equivalent of throwing a bunch of unruly kids a few granades to play with.
Offline
Oh, come on, Tom! Today (election Tuesday) Saddam is calling on all Iraqis to bury the hatchet, and if we're not careful to keep 'em fighting they'll do it and free him just to eliminate the present carnage. So much for your "wrong end of our bombs and guns once more" empty threat. Bush has no subtlety, and by taking out Saddam and his military, left a population unused to freedom the equivalent of throwing a bunch of unruly kids a few granades to play with.
So if a future Iraq successor state invades our country, do you suggest that we offer them no resistance because we don't know how to occupy their country if we win? Much easier to lose and throw in the towel, convert to Islam and accept a dictator isn't it?
According to your stated age you should remeber World War II. It seems that liberals try very hard not to learn the lessons of World War II and not to apply those lessons. What was the proper course for our foreign policy back in the 1930s? What should we have done to prevent World War II from happening and us sacrificing millions of our soldiers? A little imperialistic pre-emption perhaps? The liberals always say we should have done the opposite from what we had done, so therefore if we listened to their advice we'd always be starting things and the abandoning them, because according to them we should always have done the other thing, and its impossible to satisfy that condition. The liberals always want the US to do other that what its doing no matter what it is, they are perpetual critics.
The elections today are all about losing. The Democrats don't have any solutions, the public is impatient with the lack of progress in Iraq, so they are voting for someone they perceive as losers, people they know will give up the gfight in Iraq and quit. Quiting is always easy, its winning that's hard.
Offline
Okay, I give up. While I'm watching the election results I might as well rise to your bate, if only because it's something to do.
"If a future Iraq successor state invades ..." Define what do you mean by invade?
"Convert to Islam ..." Convert from what?
I was in the war, training for the invasion of Japan when Saint Harry dropped the bombs which saved a million of us on both sides from killing each other.
The lessons of WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc. were learned by the veterans each time but failed to be carried out by successive politicians, hardly any of who served.
Back in the 1930's, our policy was recovery from the Great Depression through military disarmament and Roosevelt's National Recovery Plan. The Hitler invasion of Europe caught us with our pants down, and isolationism delayed things until almost too late to prevent the U.K from being overtaken by attrition.
We didn't sacrifice millions of our soldiers. We had a ball for the most part. The real sufferers were the civilians for the first time, worldwide.
The British Empire was no more after the war, as well as the French, and the German. The U.S. is no empire only through incompetence in governing without corruption by your puppet dictators over the years. The occupation of Japan was successful only because Hirohito was out-emperor-ed by MacArthur, who I worked for by the way. Great dictator, bad if he'd become President.
The dictionary definition of the term "liberal" was the only one I remember, and calling someone liberal meant they were considerate and caring. Conservative meant they tended to be cautious. Funny how words get turned around. Hell, I can read or write the word "gay," or "liberal," or "conservative" any more in their original sense--and it makes me mad, see?
You're wrong about starting a war: that's easy. So's winning a battle. It's simplicity itself, if you've got the weapons and means of delivering 'em across the world and returning afterwards to the safety of your base. But, now that we/you are G.I. grunts again, like in Vietnam, and Nnt only that but you/we don't even know who we're fighting until they blow themselves up! And, speaking for the Canadians, fighting in the ditches and from behind the mud walls of Southern Afganistan, we're back to near WWI warfare. Quiting is not only hard, but impossible, until we get the Taliban insurgents to let the people get on with their lives,and allow NATO the chance to rebuild the infrastructure without be shot at. We belive that is the Right War, by the way. Iraq was a big mistake, but you seem to go the way of the President regardless.
Well, I hope you deploy yours and the British forces before it's too late, and let the Iraqis settle their Islamic sect differences, while you keep an eye on that little Hitler-like President of Iran. Because the Persian Gulf is soon going to be all-theirs unless you don't nip their ballistic missle program in the bud.
Forget the nuclear Big Stick. That way leads to World destruction, and we'll never even get back to the Moon, much less Mars, eh?
We in NATO can probably handle Afganistan, given time and liberal (note the original meaning) treatment of the population.
How you deal with Iraq must change, before there's any hope of a solution. The Bush Administration's approach is bankrupt. From what I read, I believe in the division of that inappropriatly cobbled-up state: into the Kurdish, Shi'it, and Sunni territories would suffice to make it possible to redeploy into fortress-like camps, Roman Legion style, and then get together in Afganiztan to take out the Taliban and rebuild the country without trying to make a republic of it all in one go. They've got over two thousand years of tradition to overcome, and it'll take at least a generation to do that. At least allow the women to get an education again. After what the Taliban did it'll take that long. With the women to contend with the warloards will have to move over, however reluctantly. (The same might be said of our own respective governments.) Over to you, now while I watch the election returns, just coming up from the West. Good luck to us all, and long live the Mars Society!
Offline
Okay, I give up. While I'm watching the election results I might as well rise to your bate, if only because it's something to do.
"If a future Iraq successor state invades ..." Define what do you mean by invade?
"Convert to Islam ..." Convert from what?
I was in the war, training for the invasion of Japan when Saint Harry dropped the bombs which saved a million of us on both sides from killing each other.
The lessons of WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc. were learned by the veterans each time but failed to be carried out by successive politicians, hardly any of who served.
Back in the 1930's, our policy was recovery from the Great Depression through military disarmament and Roosevelt's National Recovery Plan. The Hitler invasion of Europe caught us with our pants down, and isolationism delayed things until almost too late to prevent the U.K from being overtaken by attrition.
We didn't sacrifice millions of our soldiers. We had a ball for the most part. The real sufferers were the civilians for the first time, worldwide.
The British Empire was no more after the war, as well as the French, and the German. The U.S. is no empire only through incompetence in governing without corruption by your puppet dictators over the years. The occupation of Japan was successful only because Hirohito was out-emperor-ed by MacArthur, who I worked for by the way. Great dictator, bad if he'd become President.
The dictionary definition of the term "liberal" was the only one I remember, and calling someone liberal meant they were considerate and caring. Conservative meant they tended to be cautious. Funny how words get turned around. Hell, I can read or write the word "gay," or "liberal," or "conservative" any more in their original sense--and it makes me mad, see?
You're wrong about starting a war: that's easy. So's winning a battle. It's simplicity itself, if you've got the weapons and means of delivering 'em across the world and returning afterwards to the safety of your base. But, now that we/you are G.I. grunts again, like in Vietnam, and Nnt only that but you/we don't even know who we're fighting until they blow themselves up! And, speaking for the Canadians, fighting in the ditches and from behind the mud walls of Southern Afganistan, we're back to near WWI warfare. Quiting is not only hard, but impossible, until we get the Taliban insurgents to let the people get on with their lives,and allow NATO the chance to rebuild the infrastructure without be shot at. We belive that is the Right War, by the way. Iraq was a big mistake, but you seem to go the way of the President regardless.
Well, I hope you deploy yours and the British forces before it's too late, and let the Iraqis settle their Islamic sect differences, while you keep an eye on that little Hitler-like President of Iran. Because the Persian Gulf is soon going to be all-theirs unless you don't nip their ballistic missle program in the bud.
Forget the nuclear Big Stick. That way leads to World destruction, and we'll never even get back to the Moon, much less Mars, eh?
We in NATO can probably handle Afganistan, given time and liberal (note the original meaning) treatment of the population.
How you deal with Iraq must change, before there's any hope of a solution. The Bush Administration's approach is bankrupt. From what I read, I believe in the division of that inappropriatly cobbled-up state: into the Kurdish, Shi'ite, and Sunni territories would suffice to make it possible to redeploy into fortress-like camps, Roman Legion style, and stick it out until they get their respective acts somewhat together and stop killing each other.
Then we should all get together under the umbrella of NATO and the UN in Afganiztan, to take out the Taliban and rebuild the country without trying to make a republic of it all in one go. They've got over two thousand years of tradition to overcome, and it'll take at least a generation to do that. At least allow the women to get an education again. After what the Taliban did it'll take at least that long. With the women to contend with the warlords'll have to move over, however reluctantly. (The same might be said of our own respective governments.)
Over to you, now, while I watch the election returns, just coming up from the West, and then hit the sack out here in Nova Scotia.
Good luck to us all, and long live the Mars Society!
Offline
Why should we expend resources, and risk a soldiers trying to rebuild a nonrepresentative society, where some local "yo yo" has absolute governing power dues to Tradition or Religion or whatever, I don't think that is an appropriate expenditure of US taxpayers dollars. Why should we prop up one local "yo yo" and not another who also "shakes a rattle" and "grows a beard". The only decent thing we should do while rebuilding a country is to return the government to the people, and not to anyone else, that means democracy and that means a republic. A representative government is the only practical form of democracy. Having the local "yo yo" run things and pass the reins of power down to his son is not a worthy expendituee of our efforts.
I think our priority should be toward defeating the enemy rather than rebuilding his society afterwards, especially if he makes it cost our soldier's lives for no damn good reason. If society does not help us to rebuild their country, and they just use it as an opportunity to kill our soldiers who are trying to help them, we can just let them stew in their ruins. The theory being that their government got them into this mess by starting a War with us in the first place, and if we knock down their buildings and ruin their infrastructure in the process, then that is their problem. We can offer to help them rebuild, but if they just shoot our soldiers because they don't understand that when they surrender, they are supposed to lay down their weapons and stop shooting, then we'll just leave them in their wreckage and maybe that wreckage will suffice to demostrate what happens when they start wars with us. Stay out of our way, and they can continue to have electricity, and running water. We were being generous in spending billions of collars trying to rebuild Iraq, we had no obligation to do so. Most of our soldiers' casualities were in the rebuilding of Iraq, not in the defeating of it.
The lesson of the Iraq war is Knock em down, defeat your enemy, but do not rebuild his country. If the defeated country starts becoming a problem again, knock him down again, and till he finally gets it through his thick skull not to start any more wars with us. The idea of rebuilding Iraq was a fairly liberal one to start out with. The only reason liberals object is because Republicans were doing it, and they needed an election year issue. Perhaps we should have just let Germany and Japan lie in ruins, and if their populations caused any more trouble we should have just bombed them again. The Iraq War proves that the Marshal Plan idea was a bad one, don't you agree? For that was the idea behind rebuilding Iraq, it was called a "Republic" after all, so we therefore tried to make it one. That Iraqis are ungrateful for our sacrifice and expense is their character flaw, and because of that and the failure of the Iraq War, I would not welcome them into my country should any of them choose to immigrate and flee that mess they created with their uncivilized violence. My reasoning is that if they are not ready for Democracy over their, they are certainly not ready to come over here and become US citizens! We should have not let Vietnamese people into our country either, they did not make their country work after our 10+ years of sacrifice, they can very well sleep in that nasty bed they made. If in the Future Iraqis suffer and die because of their own barbaric violence, it is their own fault! No more help from us.
Offline
In the end we cannot solve the problems of Iraq and the middle east we can only show the way and in this we have lost all credibility. Saudia Arabia is the USA's "best friend" in the region it is nowhere near being a democracy the rulers where appointed by god you see.
Still it is to Saudi that all the other states are looking to for protection from the rise of Iran and it is likely that even there pariah state Israel might come on board to deal with what is a non Arab state bent on regional domination.
We have to take some of the blame for this as we helped remove the stoppers to Irans ambition it could not really do anything except rant at us until we made such a public balls up in Iraq and it has gained a lot of knowledge in our weaknesses.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
No, the people to blame are the Iraqis for refusing to take to the fight for their own country and to drive out the insurgents. The insurgents received too much support by traitorous Iraqis who put their own tribe ahead of their country. If the Iraqis want to destroy their own country then let them suffer the consequences, and let them find no refuge in the United States, they didn't help our soldiers when they were trying to help them, so why should we help them now. If they are not ready for democracy, they shouldn't participate in our society. the Iraqi people then become a threat to democracy in the region.
Saddam Hussein was not a good stopper for Iran's ambition, as he attacked his own. If we had to establish no-fly zones to keep him from murdering the Kurds and the Shiites, then he was not much use as a bulwark against Iran. We tried using him as such, and then he invaded Kuwait. I do not trust any dictator, and anyone who's not a friend to democracy is not a friend to the USA. So Saudi Arabia cannot be considered to be a friend. Our only allie in the region is Israel, and I say we should not abandon her for the sake of greedy Arabs with oil, as many Liberals seem to like. if it comes to a qusetion of whether Israelis get the land or some Arabs that vote in terrorists and abuse their women do, then I'd choose the side of Israel. The Free World has shrunk as Democrats took over the Congress, because along with that democratic victory, comes the victory of their old Sandinista allies in Nicaragua, the fools voted in Communist Marxist-Leninists!
We have to take some of the blame for this as we helped remove the stoppers to Irans ambition it could not really do anything except rant at us until we made such a public balls up in Iraq and it has gained a lot of knowledge in our weaknesses.
On the contrary, we were given an impossible problem to solve, and therefore we did not solve it. It is not our fault that people make conditions towards its solution impossible. No matter what we did, the conclusion would have been unsatisfactory, the problem lies with the people who presented this problem, ie the Iraqi people, as it was not possible to solve the way we were required to solve it. I say the best way to solve the violence problem would be to remove Iraqi people from the streets, take them out of their homes seperate them all from their weapons and put them into camps under guard, that way there would have been peace in Iraq since the Iraqi people would then have been rendered incapable of waging war on themselves.
Yet we had to allow their their freedom, their cars, their private spaces to stash weapons. Maybe the problems with peace wasn't Saddam Hussein so much as it was the Iraqi people? Is that the conclusion we should draw? The Germans offered us no problem in this regard.
Offline
On the contrary, we were given an impossible problem to solve, and therefore we did not solve it. It is not our fault that people make conditions towards its solution impossible. No matter what we did, the conclusion would have been unsatisfactory, the problem lies with the people who presented this problem, ie the Iraqi people, as it was not possible to solve the way we were required to solve it. (...)
Yet we had to allow their their freedom, their cars, their private spaces to stash weapons. Is that the conclusion we should draw? The Germans offered us no problem in this regard.
At first, USA weren't given the Iraq problem to solve, the Us administration took it, thinking that the Us troops would be welcome as liberators, this without the most of the world consent, among which all the arab countries.
Maybe the problems with peace wasn't Saddam Hussein so much as it was the Iraqi people?
You got it.
In fact, Saddam and the Sunnis didn't govern Iraq alone, they had agreements with some of the Shia factions, and some other religious minorities as the christian Iraqis.
The Iraqi peoples didn't support terrorism at the West, didn't endanger any foreign visitor. Now, they do. The Iraq war fueled terrorism.
Offline
On the contrary, we were given an impossible problem to solve, and therefore we did not solve it. It is not our fault that people make conditions towards its solution impossible. No matter what we did, the conclusion would have been unsatisfactory, the problem lies with the people who presented this problem, ie the Iraqi people, as it was not possible to solve the way we were required to solve it. (...)
Yet we had to allow their their freedom, their cars, their private spaces to stash weapons. Is that the conclusion we should draw? The Germans offered us no problem in this regard.
At first, USA weren't given the Iraq problem to solve, the Us administration took it, thinking that the Us troops would be welcome as liberators, this without the most of the world consent, among which all the arab countries.
Saddam Hussein became our problem when he ordered his troops to invade Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, that drove thr price of oil up and made Iraq a destabilizing influence in the Middle East, since the high price of oil threatened our economy, that made Iraq our problem. George H. W. Bush dealt with this problem in a most unsatisfactory way, by knocking his army out of Kuwait, but leaving a looming menace in the Middle East in the person of Saddam Hussein still in power.
Saddam later tried to assassinate George H. W. Bush, he also sent money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Iraq was not a good bulwark against Iran because he proved just as likely to attack the neighboring Gulf States as Iran would.
After 9/11 it was decided to take the "fox out of the hen house" so to speak, we wanted to get rid of the problem that was Saddam Hussein so we wouldn't have to watch out backs when we fought Al Qaeda, that was what the Invasion of Iraq was all about.
Maybe the problems with peace wasn't Saddam Hussein so much as it was the Iraqi people?
You got it.
In fact, Saddam and the Sunnis didn't govern Iraq alone, they had agreements with some of the Shia factions, and some other religious minorities as the christian Iraqis.
The Iraqi peoples didn't support terrorism at the West, didn't endanger any foreign visitor. Now, they do. The Iraq war fueled terrorism.
They want to support terrorism against the West? Maybe the main problem was that George W. Bush was just too nice a guy, he's not half the villain you liberals in France like to paint him as, the terrorists and insurgents just took advantage of his good nature.
This "nice guy" foreign policy didn't work, the US Media saw to that with their distorted news reports to undermine the war effort. I especially didn't like the part about CNN's "sniper cam" showing Insurgents killing our troops. We were nice to our former enemies after World War II, perhaps the lesson of the Iraq War is that we should stop being so nice.
Do you agree with that?
We have our own security considerations to take into account, we had to get rid of Saddam Hussein because he was menacing us.
Offline
In the end we cannot solve the problems of Iraq and the middle east we can only show the way and in this we have lost all credibility. Saudia Arabia is the USA's "best friend" in the region it is nowhere near being a democracy the rulers where appointed by god you see.
Still it is to Saudi that all the other states are looking to for protection from the rise of Iran and it is likely that even there pariah state Israel might come on board to deal with what is a non Arab state bent on regional domination.
We have to take some of the blame for this as we helped remove the stoppers to Irans ambition it could not really do anything except rant at us until we made such a public balls up in Iraq and it has gained a lot of knowledge in our weaknesses.
We've been showing the Arabs and other people in the world the way for 230 years, little good it has done them I'm afraid.
Offline
In the end we cannot solve the problems of Iraq and the middle east we can only show the way and in this we have lost all credibility. Saudia Arabia is the USA's "best friend" in the region it is nowhere near being a democracy the rulers where appointed by god you see.
Still it is to Saudi that all the other states are looking to for protection from the rise of Iran and it is likely that even there pariah state Israel might come on board to deal with what is a non Arab state bent on regional domination.
We have to take some of the blame for this as we helped remove the stoppers to Irans ambition it could not really do anything except rant at us until we made such a public balls up in Iraq and it has gained a lot of knowledge in our weaknesses.
We've been showing the Arabs and other people in the world the way for 230 years, little good it has done them I'm afraid.
And again you call the Iranians Arabs they are not nor have they ever been.
What they are, are Persians and not necessarily all muslim. Iran is the home of Zoaraster.
And I honestly hope that they do not take our history and the USA's as a showing the way. A good example of this was the the deliberate non-treatment of a bunch of negroes of Syphilis just to see what happens. :cry:
No we have much better to show them than our history we have learned from it but they may well be stuck in this glorious past that they honestly believe.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
In the end we cannot solve the problems of Iraq and the middle east we can only show the way and in this we have lost all credibility. Saudia Arabia is the USA's "best friend" in the region it is nowhere near being a democracy the rulers where appointed by god you see.
Still it is to Saudi that all the other states are looking to for protection from the rise of Iran and it is likely that even there pariah state Israel might come on board to deal with what is a non Arab state bent on regional domination.
We have to take some of the blame for this as we helped remove the stoppers to Irans ambition it could not really do anything except rant at us until we made such a public balls up in Iraq and it has gained a lot of knowledge in our weaknesses.
We've been showing the Arabs and other people in the world the way for 230 years, little good it has done them I'm afraid.
And again you call the Iranians Arabs they are not nor have they ever been.
So long as they continue to support Islamic terrorism against Americans and Jews, why is it important.
What they are, are Persians and not necessarily all muslim. Iran is the home of Zoaraster.
And I honestly hope that they do not take our history and the USA's as a showing the way. A good example of this was the the deliberate non-treatment of a bunch of negroes of Syphilis just to see what happens. :cry:
I really don't know what your talking about here. If they don't want Syphilis, they should stop having casual unprotected sex, it is their responsibility. A monogamous relationship i highly recommended for preventing the spread of Syphilis. I see you are reaching into obsure bits of American history that I know nothing about. I think whats more important is how we've evolved from a colony of the British Empire to a Democratic Republic, a republic which has lasted 230 years, while many European fledgling democracies sputtered and tottered, lurching from King to democracy to dictatorship and back again. The USA is the third most populous country in the world and has the largest economy. I don't know what other example you might have in mind. the World was not a very democratic place before the American Revolution.
No we have much better to show them than our history we have learned from it but they may well be stuck in this glorious past that they honestly believe.
Offline
We've been showing the Arabs and other people in the world the way for 230 years, little good it has done them I'm afraid.
And again you call the Iranians Arabs they are not nor have they ever been.
So long as they continue to support Islamic terrorism against Americans and Jews, why is it important.
What they are, are Persians and not necessarily all muslim. Iran is the home of Zoaraster.
And I honestly hope that they do not take our history and the USA's as a showing the way. A good example of this was the the deliberate non-treatment of a bunch of negroes of Syphilis just to see what happens. :cry:
I really don't know what your talking about here. If they don't want Syphilis, they should stop having casual unprotected sex, it is their responsibility. A monogamous relationship i highly recommended for preventing the spread of Syphilis. I see you are reaching into obsure bits of American history that I know nothing about. I think whats more important is how we've evolved from a colony of the British Empire to a Democratic Republic, a republic which has lasted 230 years, while many European fledgling democracies sputtered and tottered, lurching from King to democracy to dictatorship and back again. The USA is the third most populous country in the world and has the largest economy. I don't know what other example you might have in mind. the World was not a very democratic place before the American Revolution.
No we have much better to show them than our history we have learned from it but they may well be stuck in this glorious past that they honestly believe.
Tom what you describe as Democracy has little bearing in the daily lives of the average Iraqi or any middle eastern inhabitant. The idea of countries being democracies is a very recent event in the world and a lot of so called democratic countries are not anywhere near this. Look at Africa as an example.
Democracy is not natural to the middle east and modern democracy came with the increase in education and increase in social rights. We found that what really forced the creation of western democracy was the advent of a stronger middle class. In the middle east there just is no such thing. As an example banking the cornerstone of our financial institutions is anathema to the middle east in general it is not legal under Sharia law. The middle east is one area like Africa where there was no increase in education before the concept of Democracy was dropped on them and like Africa it does not fare well. People will vote the way there neighbours and tribe will vote. It is one thing to have this wonder called democracy but it is another matter to not stick with your tribe and people.
All they see is patrols stopping them from travelling where they want if they get to close to convoys private soldiers literally shoot at them, The air is full of combat helicopters. The conditions that existed under Saddam are still present there is no food the water and power works infrequently but there is now the added danger just going to the shops could get you killed by the other tribes waiting to pick up and execute you as part of the general ethnic cleansing that happens.
If you have someone die or get ill you cannot go near the hospital in case you get arrested by the kill squads operating and you disapear.
So that is daily life in Iraq and its constant filming is leading the locals to only one answer this is what democracy gives. So dont expect it to work they are learning a view of democracy that is as false as can be put but in the end there is nothing else showing them different.
If they don't want Syphilis, they should stop having casual unprotected sex, it is their responsibility. A monogamous relationship i highly recommended for preventing the spread of Syphilis. I see you are reaching into obsure bits of American history that I know nothing about
Untreated Syphilis eventually goes into its more dangerous stages and it is this third and second stages that allow it to be passed on by touch and even airborne. After the Nazi's under doctor Mengele the second most unethical medical experiment ever carried out was the Tuskegee Syphilis study. This was state sponsored and was only stopped in 1972 so not ancient history at all and not obscure.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Tom what you describe as Democracy has little bearing in the daily lives of the average Iraqi or any middle eastern inhabitant. The idea of countries being democracies is a very recent event in the world and a lot of so called democratic countries are not anywhere near this. Look at Africa as an example.
Well, for my part, I'm not old enough to remember the American Revolution, though I'm sure some relatives of mine took part in it.
Democracy is not natural to the middle east and modern democracy came with the increase in education and increase in social rights.
And how are they supposed to get those rights if they are not free to choose their own government? Is some dictator supposed to give it to them out of the goodness of his heart? And why would he want to undermine his power structure by educating the peasants? If they are happy slaves to his beck and call, I think he would much rather let them be happy slaves, and if he wants more power, he'll put those slaves in Uniform and get them to invade his neighbor, this is where I have a problem with undemocratic governments, whether their population is ready for democracy or not.
We found that what really forced the creation of western democracy was the advent of a stronger middle class. In the middle east there just is no such thing.
So if your a dictator, you rule by keeping the masses poor, if yo9u should suddenly come upon vast oil wealth, you keep most of it to your self lest the people grow wealthy. the King of Saudi Arabia has distributed the wealth among his country and has raised their standard of living, but do they want democracy, or do they just want democracy to replace their government with another undemocratic form? I think it was a mistake to let the Iraqis choose their own constitution, since they are so uneducated and don't know any better, it would have been better to impose a "US Clone" constitution on them, and if they wanted to make amendments, let them go through the amendment process as outlined in the US Constituion.
As an example banking the cornerstone of our financial institutions is anathema to the middle east in general it is not legal under Sharia law. The middle east is one area like Africa where there was no increase in education before the concept of Democracy was dropped on them and like Africa it does not fare well. People will vote the way there neighbours and tribe will vote. It is one thing to have this wonder called democracy but it is another matter to not stick with your tribe and people.
I still believe in holding people responsible for their votes. If they vote for war as a population and they suffer and lose that war as a society, then I offer them little sympathy. I am thinking about the Palestinians here. The Israeli government till has a responsibility to protect its citizens, and its not going to stop simply because the group that is attacking them has been democratically elected. I don't understand this international outcry when supposedly innocent civilians get hurt in the Israeli retaliation after a Palestinian attack mounted by their democratically elected government. Maybe Palestinians don't understand how their democratic government is supposed to work, but the power to choose one's government still lies with the people whether they want that power or not, if they choose a bad government that wages war on its more powerful neighbor, then some of the people who did the voting are going to pay some of that price for the vote they cast. I like to impose democracy on third world peoples and hold those people responsible for the way they vote, so they have no excuses and no passing the buck to an unelected autocratic government.
All they see is patrols stopping them from travelling where they want if they get to close to convoys private soldiers literally shoot at them, The air is full of combat helicopters. The conditions that existed under Saddam are still present there is no food the water and power works infrequently but there is now the added danger just going to the shops could get you killed by the other tribes waiting to pick up and execute you as part of the general ethnic cleansing that happens.
I thought you implied that they were "happy slaves" who didn't want their freedom, and that they liked their oppression just fine because they didn't know any better.
If you have someone die or get ill you cannot go near the hospital in case you get arrested by the kill squads operating and you disapear.
Who operates these kill squads? Not American soldiers, but their fellow Arabs, and so called Muslims, they murder their own citizens because they do not like American occupation. If the Iraqi people have a problem, they should look right in the mirror and there it is.
So that is daily life in Iraq and its constant filming is leading the locals to only one answer this is what democracy gives. So don't expect it to work they are learning a view of democracy that is as false as can be put but in the end there is nothing else showing them different.
So they are gullible fools, easily manipulated by dictators into thinking just what the dictators want them to think. So why should we suffer these fools lightly? We've explained to them what democracy was, and their own people have tried to undermine it, if their is one thing that comes out of this, its that Iraqi people aren't very patriotic, they sabotage and murder their own citizens. I think the Israelis have stumbled on the only way to make democracy work, if you are right, basically its, shove them aside and bring your own people. Why do the Arabs hate the Israelis? I think its because the Israelis have shown democracy to work in the middle east, just so long as it doesn't include too manhy Arabs, and the Arabs are caught on the outside looking in, they have seen how democracy has worked for the Israelis, and how the Israelis have created a standard of living for their citizens matched only by the Saudis, except the Israelis didn't rely on pletiful supplies of oil to do it. If the Iraqis think they are inferior creatures to the Jews and don't think democracy will work for them because they are so "stupid", then who's fault is that? Have they no pride that they will simply give up on democracy and concede that the Israeli Jews are smarter than they are?
If they don't want Syphilis, they should stop having casual unprotected sex, it is their responsibility. A monogamous relationship i highly recommended for preventing the spread of Syphilis. I see you are reaching into obsure bits of American history that I know nothing about
Untreated Syphilis eventually goes into its more dangerous stages and it is this third and second stages that allow it to be passed on by touch and even airborne. After the Nazi's under doctor Mengele the second most unethical medical experiment ever carried out was the Tuskegee Syphilis study. This was state sponsored and was only stopped in 1972 so not ancient history at all and not obscure.
Who's fault was it that they contracted syphilis? Did the army order them to have unprotected Sex with infected prostitutes. I think if a soldier is ordered to have sex with a strange woman, he may legally refuse. I don't think the Army can court marshal any of its soldiers for refusing orders to have sex, it is not a legal order. I think some soldiers were too quick to drop their pants at the sight of a pretty woman, or maybe even a not so pretty woman. I do not have sex just because pretty women are available and willing, I guess that's just a reflection of my values. I'm aware there is such a thing as syphilis, I was taught this in grade school, and I do not believe it to be worth contracting this disease just for a few moments pleasure. I believe in monogamous relationships within a marriage, and I was taught this in church, and that adultery was a sin. Apparently the parents of these soldiers failed to instill these values in them. That said, the officers and soldiers who performed this experiment on them should all be executed for their part in it, thats what I would do to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.
Offline
Who's fault was it that they contracted syphilis? Did the army order them to have unprotected Sex with infected prostitutes. I think if a soldier is ordered to have sex with a strange woman, he may legally refuse. I don't think the Army can court marshal any of its soldiers for refusing orders to have sex, it is not a legal order. I think some soldiers were too quick to drop their pants at the sight of a pretty woman, or maybe even a not so pretty woman. I do not have sex just because pretty women are available and willing, I guess that's just a reflection of my values. I'm aware there is such a thing as syphilis, I was taught this in grade school, and I do not believe it to be worth contracting this disease just for a few moments pleasure. I believe in monogamous relationships within a marriage, and I was taught this in church, and that adultery was a sin. Apparently the parents of these soldiers failed to instill these values in them. That said, the officers and soldiers who performed this experiment on them should all be executed for their part in it, thats what I would do to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.
They where not soldiers they where actually small farmers, share croppers. The contraction was by various means, contract by sexual partners, Congenital contraction and by contact with people who where in second and third stage symptoms in short you could get it by touching someone or breathing too close.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Tom one of the reasons that so many foreigners are working in the red sea and Saudi oil fields is the problem that the average citizen of the middle east is not far of being a peasant.
What we should do with the likes of Iraq and through demonstration is to improve the education and with this education to create people who understand what voting means.
That way Democracy will spread and the mad Mullahs of Iran will find themselves at less of an advantage.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Education of women through micro-banks and villiage cell phones, already spreading throughout the South Eastern lands. Not so shabby: good enough to produce a Nobel Prize Winner this year!
Offline
Who's fault was it that they contracted syphilis? Did the army order them to have unprotected Sex with infected prostitutes. I think if a soldier is ordered to have sex with a strange woman, he may legally refuse. I don't think the Army can court marshal any of its soldiers for refusing orders to have sex, it is not a legal order. I think some soldiers were too quick to drop their pants at the sight of a pretty woman, or maybe even a not so pretty woman. I do not have sex just because pretty women are available and willing, I guess that's just a reflection of my values. I'm aware there is such a thing as syphilis, I was taught this in grade school, and I do not believe it to be worth contracting this disease just for a few moments pleasure. I believe in monogamous relationships within a marriage, and I was taught this in church, and that adultery was a sin. Apparently the parents of these soldiers failed to instill these values in them. That said, the officers and soldiers who performed this experiment on them should all be executed for their part in it, thats what I would do to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.
They where not soldiers they where actually small farmers, share croppers. The contraction was by various means, contract by sexual partners, Congenital contraction and by contact with people who where in second and third stage symptoms in short you could get it by touching someone or breathing too close.
It is a veneral disease contracted by sexual contact, it is not an airborne virus, it is tread by the sharing and comingling of body fluids. What are you saying that the soldiers simply occupied the farmland and forced the sharecroppers to have sex with them and did not treat them for their veneral disease? Or did they bring with them a contignet of diseased prostitutes and forced them to have sex with them?
Offline
Tom one of the reasons that so many foreigners are working in the red sea and Saudi oil fields is the problem that the average citizen of the middle east is not far of being a peasant.
What we should do with the likes of Iraq and through demonstration is to improve the education and with this education to create people who understand what voting means.
That way Democracy will spread and the mad Mullahs of Iran will find themselves at less of an advantage.
So are you saying that we should rule and occupy Iraq for the next 12 years and run their schools for them to see that the next generation will getr a proper high school education for citizenship by American standards?
Offline
Who's fault was it that they contracted syphilis? Did the army order them to have unprotected Sex with infected prostitutes. I think if a soldier is ordered to have sex with a strange woman, he may legally refuse. I don't think the Army can court marshal any of its soldiers for refusing orders to have sex, it is not a legal order. I think some soldiers were too quick to drop their pants at the sight of a pretty woman, or maybe even a not so pretty woman. I do not have sex just because pretty women are available and willing, I guess that's just a reflection of my values. I'm aware there is such a thing as syphilis, I was taught this in grade school, and I do not believe it to be worth contracting this disease just for a few moments pleasure. I believe in monogamous relationships within a marriage, and I was taught this in church, and that adultery was a sin. Apparently the parents of these soldiers failed to instill these values in them. That said, the officers and soldiers who performed this experiment on them should all be executed for their part in it, thats what I would do to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.
They where not soldiers they where actually small farmers, share croppers. The contraction was by various means, contract by sexual partners, Congenital contraction and by contact with people who where in second and third stage symptoms in short you could get it by touching someone or breathing too close.
It is a veneral disease contracted by sexual contact, it is not an airborne virus, it is tread by the sharing and comingling of body fluids. What are you saying that the soldiers simply occupied the farmland and forced the sharecroppers to have sex with them and did not treat them for their veneral disease? Or did they bring with them a contignet of diseased prostitutes and forced them to have sex with them?
What soldiers ?
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Tom one of the reasons that so many foreigners are working in the red sea and Saudi oil fields is the problem that the average citizen of the middle east is not far of being a peasant.
What we should do with the likes of Iraq and through demonstration is to improve the education and with this education to create people who understand what voting means.
That way Democracy will spread and the mad Mullahs of Iran will find themselves at less of an advantage.
So are you saying that we should rule and occupy Iraq for the next 12 years and run their schools for them to see that the next generation will getr a proper high school education for citizenship by American standards?
Back to the serious buisness.
The simmering racial and religous tensions that we uncorked in removing Saddam will take a long time to heal. Frankly all we are doing at the moment is making things worse. Anyone who is trying to do good there gets labeled with being a stooge for the Yankees or the Brits.
We simply have to ensure though that when we leave which may be sooner than many think that the local security services are actually able to contain the situation. Im not sure if they can at the moment and so we have to see if the country of Iraq can be propped up by local acceptable countries until it can stand on its own.
If that means getting Iran and Syria on board we have to. As it is if we dont both countries could well carve Iraq up when we leave and that is something we do not want.
As it is we can support the education and health services but not as we currently do simply as they are seen by the insurgents as targets and to the people of Iraq as dangerous places. Putting money into these systems when we are out of the country and design it so the goverment cant use graft to remove this cash will go a long way to creating the Democratic Middle Eastern state we want. Oh and drag some of the middle east out of the medieval ages.
What is needed is peace and stability. If we have this and without the Baathist party controlling everything then it will allow Iraq to rebuild itself and in the process some will get rich and commerce can increase. With this comes more stability and a chance for the security services to start doing there jobs and for a state of Iraq to exist.
At the moment though we have a sectored off Iraq and one which the insurgents are using to train and develop new techniques against us. There are not enough Allied troops on the ground to stop the increase in violence and the local security services are too green or just suspect. The goverment of Iraq is not really that at all it is more a talking shop full of ambition and the local states like Syria and Iran are financing the insurgents all the while dealing with refugees and looking to do a bit of regime change themselves when we leave.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
What soldiers ?
I don't know, you accuse the US Army of moving in on a community of sharecroppers and forcing them to have sex with prostitutes so they they all contract syphilis, and then building a big barber wire fence around their community and guarding it so they cannot see a doctor and get their syphilis treat and they are kept confined until they all die of the disease. Now why did the US Army do this? The commading officer just twists his waxed mustache and snarls. I guess because they are just evil and they are out their trying to help liberals like you make their point.
Offline
What soldiers ?
I don't know, you accuse the US Army of moving in on a community of sharecroppers and forcing them to have sex with prostitutes so they they all contract syphilis, and then building a big barber wire fence around their community and guarding it so they cannot see a doctor and get their syphilis treat and they are kept confined until they all die of the disease. Now why did the US Army do this? The commading officer just twists his waxed mustache and snarls. I guess because they are just evil and they are out their trying to help liberals like you make their point.
Tom read my posts at no time have I mentioned soldiers it is called the Tuskegee experiment due to the county that these people where from. It is only you who claims they where soldiers. The "experiment" started in 1932s and was only stopped in 1972
The people involved apart from being black where poor and sharecroppers as in small farmers. It was a study to see how the disease would spread and how many it would kill.
There was only one time the army got involved and that was when the second world war started many of these sharecroppers tried to volunteer to defend there country but in the routine medical tests there disease was discovered and they where told to go get it cured. A simple cure existed then.
The army was overruled by the Public Health Service as it wanted the test to continue.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Tom one of the reasons that so many foreigners are working in the red sea and Saudi oil fields is the problem that the average citizen of the middle east is not far of being a peasant.
What we should do with the likes of Iraq and through demonstration is to improve the education and with this education to create people who understand what voting means.
That way Democracy will spread and the mad Mullahs of Iran will find themselves at less of an advantage.
So are you saying that we should rule and occupy Iraq for the next 12 years and run their schools for them to see that the next generation will getr a proper high school education for citizenship by American standards?
Back to the serious buisness.
The simmering racial and religous tensions that we uncorked in removing Saddam will take a long time to heal. Frankly all we are doing at the moment is making things worse. Anyone who is trying to do good there gets labeled with being a stooge for the Yankees or the Brits.
No more Mr Nice Guy then? Ok, maybe we should assume that Arabs always bite the hand that feeds them! Why should we be concerned about them then. If they are prejudiced against us, then let them kill each other until they are no more! Why should black people care about poor suffering Klu Klux Klansmen whose children are starving, I don't see why the black man should lend the poor suffering white bigot a hand if he'll only hate him for it. Now you explain to me that if the Iraqis hate us for having the wrong religion, why should we do a damn thing to help them out? Perhaps we should only be concerned for the menace that they are, and cease the help that we are offering, that is where your logic leads you doesn't it?
We simply have to ensure though that when we leave which may be sooner than many think that the local security services are actually able to contain the situation. Im not sure if they can at the moment and so we have to see if the country of Iraq can be propped up by local acceptable countries until it can stand on its own.
That is if we actually gave a damn about the Iraqis, if they hate us for helping them and they can't learn to appreciate that help, I sure don't want to help them anyway. The US does alot of good things around the World, in Indonesia for example after the tidal wave, if they can't learn to appriate our efforts and sacrifice for them, then we should stop helping them.
If that means getting Iran and Syria on board we have to. As it is if we dont both countries could well carve Iraq up when we leave and that is something we do not want.
Two terrorist countries? Aren't you forgetting that they are the enemy?! i'd rather see the Iraqis continue to suffer from their own violence then give any advantage to these enemies of ours. I remember what the Iranians and the Syrians did to our soldiers in Lebanon, and as far as I'm concerned, so long as those governments are in power, we should not talk to them nor give anything to our enemies, we will not surrender, and if they cause us any trouble we should make a mess of their countries too just like we did with Iraq, except not sacrifice our soldiers to fix things afterwards, let them suffer, starve, die of exposure in their ruined buildings, and if they ever raise a hand against us again, we should bomb them again and again until they learn to behave themselves, all while keeping our soldiers as safe as possible and not having them walk amongst them and be vulnerable.
As it is we can support the education and health services but not as we currently do simply as they are seen by the insurgents as targets and to the people of Iraq as dangerous places. Putting money into these systems when we are out of the country and design it so the goverment cant use graft to remove this cash will go a long way to creating the Democratic Middle Eastern state we want. Oh and drag some of the middle east out of the medieval ages.
You know if we leave the Arabs in charge, they will only take our money and teach their children to hate Americans and Israelis, I don't want to have to pay for that.
What is needed is peace and stability. If we have this and without the Baathist party controlling everything then it will allow Iraq to rebuild itself and in the process some will get rich and commerce can increase. With this comes more stability and a chance for the security services to start doing there jobs and for a state of Iraq to exist.
There is no point in having a state of Iraq if it is run by our enemies in Iran and Syria, so its resources can be used to attack us. All this nice guy stuff didn't work, that is the lesson of the Iraq War, which is what your saying, your conclusions that we should rebuild Iraq anyway even though the Iranians and the Syrians will see to it that they will be our enemy makes no sense. The point of the whole exercise and why we are bothering is to enhance our security, if we reward our enemies while trying to help the Iraqis, we are losing site of our original goal of enhancing our security. If the Iranians want to do something with Iraq, they can do it on their own dime. If we are to spend our own money, it had better be to improve the world situation for us, not for some selfless exercise that our enemies will use to turn against us. We need to come to the point with our new enemies that we were at with our old, if they want to survive in this world, their had better be real two-way peace, and none of these terrorist attacks.
At the moment though we have a sectored off Iraq and one which the insurgents are using to train and develop new techniques against us. There are not enough Allied troops on the ground to stop the increase in violence and the local security services are too green or just suspect. The goverment of Iraq is not really that at all it is more a talking shop full of ambition and the local states like Syria and Iran are financing the insurgents all the while dealing with refugees and looking to do a bit of regime change themselves when we leave.
I figure we can do worse than let Iraq die, they are the ultimate losers if they lose their country, not George Bush. Our ultimate goal was accomplished when we removed Saddam Hussein, if any parts of Iraq cause us more trouble, then we shall stomp on them too, and no more "Mr Nice Guy" helping them back on their feet, they have shown themselves not to appreciate the gesture.
Offline
That is if we actually gave a damn about the Iraqis, if they hate us for helping them and they can't learn to appreciate that help, I sure don't want to help them anyway. The US does alot of good things around the World, in Indonesia for example after the tidal wave, if they can't learn to appriate our efforts and sacrifice for them, then we should stop helping them.
A year ago, anti-Americanism had shown some signs of abating, in part because of the positive feelings generated by U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Indonesia and elsewhere.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252
The point of the whole exercise and why we are bothering is to enhance our security, if we reward our enemies while trying to help the Iraqis, we are losing site of our original goal of enhancing our security.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
If the US assault on Iraq was wonderfully prepared and carryed out, the Iraq occupation gestion has been catastrophically unpreapared by stupid ideological daydreamers which didn't new anything about Iraq and the Iraqis.
That started with the destruction of all kind of an administrative insfrastructure in Iraq, hunting Baasiths, letting no police nor army forces to stop all administrative buildings, schools, universities, hospitals and museums looting and plundering.
Turning the baathist Sunnis into ennemies instead of offering them cashed collaboration was the main tragical mistake.
Many would have followed the winning camp instead of a hounded leader obliged to hide like a rat. In a party like Baath, like in all parties in the world, there are numbers 2, 3, 4 and so on which want to be the new number one. It would have been much more productive to keep the former baathist administration, then oblige it to share power with the Shias and the Kurds.
Now, the Iraqi police and army are Shias and Kurds militias infiltrated, they also commit terrorist attacks at the Sunnis as well as Sunnis and foreign terrorists commit terrorist attacks, and that's three years of a fueled by "good intentions" rising civil war in Iraq.
It's no use roaring, you'd better think about the way to make less ennemies and more allies
Offline