What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

clark · 2004-02-18 14:16:26

Sorry Byron, why do I do what?

I believe we did the right thing for the wrong reasons, in Iraq. Removing a person who uses their power to hurt those without power is just. It's the right thing to do. Yet, removing such a person, setting things to right, is an action achieved through any number of acts, some good, some bad.

Your questions only serve to highlight the point I am making. Why now? Why, at this point, in this way? Was this the only way? What was done in the interest of the people of the United States, and what was done in the interest of certain people?

Yet each question has an opposite side, a question left unasked because our questions assume certain answers. Could we have waited longer, or did that increase our risk and security? What did we know, but what did we plausibly consider possible? What compelling information did our leaders receive that we are not given access to? Was this the only solution? Was this the best solution given the situation at hand, and the information at hand?

I will continue to look at this situation in my own manner, but I would like to point out that we assume how certain people act, and what makes them tick. We assume that the all-powerful have no care for the common-folk. We assume that the greedy drive politcs. We assume that the chaos around us is driven by puppet masters of one derivation or another.

Just as we assume that Bush calls the Oil companies when he is planning to invade Iraq. Sure, our assumptions can be right, but our assumptions can be wrong too. That's common sense.

I apoligize if you feel I twist your answers, but I'm not really intending too. I like asking questions becuase that's how I learn. That's how I approach something critically, so I can get a better understanding of the different perspectives and sides to an issue or an idea.

Tell me when the questions should stop Byron. When should we stop asking?

clark · 2004-02-18 14:20:58

Okay Cindy. You're a better person than I am.

I must imagine all the times you have edited or deleted a previous post.

I don't know why I think of you when I hear the title of Al Franken's book mentioned. Care to offer any explanation? It's a complete mystery to me.

Mundaka · 2004-02-18 15:24:12

Bill White · 2004-02-18 15:37:01

If this speculation goes anywhere, or gets substantiated, Mabel, fasten your seatbelt. Its going to be a rough ride.

Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Stratfor poses some extremely interesting questions: "First, Chalabi was extremely close to the Iranians prior to the war. Second, he provided much of Washington's prewar intelligence on Iraq. Third, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Fourth, the Iranians, along with the Iraqi Shia, are the main beneficiaries of the U.S. invasion. In that case, who Chalabi was and whose interests he actually was serving become the central questions."
"U.S. intelligence about Iraq was terrible: It was wrong about WMD; it underestimated the extent to which the Shia in the south had been organized by Iranian intelligence prior to the war; it was wrong about how the war would end -- predicting unrest, but not predicting a systematic guerrilla war. An enormous amount of this intelligence -- and certainly critical parts of it -- came to the United States by way of the INC or by channels the INC or its members were involved in cultivating. All of it was wrong.
"It was not only wrong; it created an irresistible process. The WMD issue has delegitimized the war in the eyes of a substantial number of Americans. The failure to understand the dynamic of the Shiite community led to miscalculations about the nature of postwar Iraqi politics. The miscalculation about the guerrilla war created a U.S. dependence upon the Shia that is still unfolding. It is al-Sistani, in consultation with U.N. negotiators, who is setting the terms of the transfer of power. The U.S. position in Iraq is securely on Shiite terms, and that means it's on Iranian terms.
This is not an argument against the invasion from a strategic point of view, nor an argument that it was a failure. In the real world, things are rarely so clear-cut. But it does raise a vital question: Who exactly is Ahmad Chalabi? He has been caricatured as an American stooge and used as a tool by the Defense Department. As we consider the intelligence failures in Iraq, Chalabi's role in those failures and his relationship with senior Iranian officials of all factions, a question needs to be raised:
Who was whose stooge?"

How reliable is [http://www.agonist.org]http://www.agonist.org ? What about Stratfor?

Gennaro · 2004-02-20 06:05:28

I'm deeply impressed by this debate and the brilliance displayed in analyzing the situation.

Cobra, Mundaka, Bill and others, I'm kind of curious about your take on the neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives, broadly speaking, are now known apparently to be devout Zionists as well as the designers of US foreign policy.
Something that would probably never even have surfaced if it wasn't for the internet.

From my "weenie EU-nik" perspective I might admit that my opinions about this group in most regards are quite negative.
I don't think it's right that the adherents of a small far-off country, in practice, shall decide the politics of the world's single hyper power.
Also I think that "universal democracy" is a philosophical absurdity and when forcibly imposed becomes a contradiction in terms, but my conviction in this regard of course has a strong 'Euro-flavour'. (Human rights for instance, is a kind of contract that the signatories pledge to observe and thus by definition at least bi-lateral; it cannot be imposed by reference to a natural or universalist agent, which one of the parties might not accept as part of objective reality.)

clark · 2004-02-20 11:34:37

Optimism? Nah, just a belief in people's desire to achieve their own self-interest.

The Shiite's don't trust the Sunni's, the Sunni's don't trust the Shiite's, the Kurds don't trust either, and Turkey dosen't trust the Kurds, and Iran dosen't trust the US or secular interest.

Just like the Republican's don't trust the Democrats, the liberals don't trust the conservatives, and no one listens to the Green's anyway.

They're all names, labels. So, what happens with a bunch of people who don't trust one another? They tend to set up larger groups across common interests. A secular national authority ensures that each religious group can do their own thing. Smaller theocratic states allows the groups to realize their own little pet dream, while reducing their overall threat to each other, and us. Eventually though, the national government will gain strength, over time, as it generally does everywhere else.

I don't think that american policy is determined by Isreal either. It just happens to be that we share a lot of the same values, both good and bad. There are charges that Blair was a lackey to US policy, but I find that hard to swallow. Leaders, nations, they all inevitably make their decisions based on what is good for themselves, if it happens to work out for some other people, great, if we can modify plans to help friends, we try. But we still end up doing what we want.

It's hard for Isreal to call the shots in Washington for the simple reason that they receive too much aid from us. They may manipulate, or try to influence our decisions, but they certainly are not leading us down the garden path.

Bill White · 2004-02-20 12:08:48

I'm deeply impressed by this debate and the brilliance displayed in analyzing the situation.
Cobra, Mundaka, Bill and others, I'm kind of curious about your take on the neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives, broadly speaking, are now known apparently to be devout Zionists as well as the designers of US foreign policy.
Something that would probably never even have surfaced if it wasn't for the internet.
From my "weenie EU-nik" perspective I might admit that my opinions about this group in most regards are quite negative.
I don't think it's right that the adherents of a small far-off country, in practice, shall decide the politics of the world's single hyper power.
Also I think that "universal democracy" is a philosophical absurdity and when forcibly imposed becomes a contradiction in terms, but my conviction in this regard of course has a strong 'Euro-flavour'. (Human rights for instance, is a kind of contract that the signatories pledge to observe and thus by definition at least bi-lateral; it cannot be imposed by reference to a natural or universalist agent, which one of the parties might not accept as part of objective reality.)

Americans are naive about the nature of power. Neo-cons are exceptionally naive about the nature of power and blithely presume America will always be powerful. Its called hubris. Europeans are too exhausted by a century of brutal wars (1914 & Hitler) to be sufficiently idealistic and often fail to accept that naive is sometimes a good thing.

Tony Blair grasps that the U.K. is a tiny mouse seeking to survive between two elephants - - the US and the EU - - and IMHO he does a damn fine job of keeping contact with both sides. He has been the Bush lackey for one reason, to assure that GWB answers the phone when he calls.

(Anyone who can be "best pals" with both Bill Clinton and George Bush is one sharp politician!)

Israel? Too complex to comment on now. Maybe more later. In essence however I believe myself to be staunchly pro-Israel and therefore it pains me when the right-wing elements take foolish positions.

Palomar · 2004-03-04 13:40:32

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 3]Sympathy for bin Laden?

*Since this is my favorite political thread, I'll post this little item here.

By the way, Josef Stalin was a family man too.

And Hitler was kind to dogs.

Comments anyone?

My comments: It is interesting that this same broadcasting company isn't running a documentary on George W. Bush as a well-meaning family man. Are some of our Western friends now viewing Dubya as ::worse:: than bin Laden??

I sure hope the rift between the U.S. and Canada isn't continuing to widen. :-\

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2004-03-05 05:13:09

LO

In essence, we did. No nation was forced to go into Iraq or Afghanistan with us. We said we're doing it, asked who's in, and dozens of countries followed us to wipe out two brutal regimes and liberate the people of their two nations. Leading by example.

Can you count the nations out of USA whose population supported Irak war II ?
C'mon, name them !
What example ? turning a dictatorship country ready to deep compromises into a terrorist's battlefield ?
Long term withdrawing from a country which will turn into some kind of iranian mollarchy ?
Did any Iraki average citizen even thougt to do any arm to an american citizen before the attack ?

Palomar · 2004-03-05 06:47:05

BTW, I -didn't- put "Sympathy for bin Laden?" in the link as a play on the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil."
Sorry, meant that as a joke -- thought we were having a friendly conversation.

*It was/is a friendly conversation with you, Mundaka.

I was just concerned (based on Alt2War's first response) that people thought I'd deliberately entitled the link as I did (about bin Laden), when I didn't.

I didn't mean to sound abrasive or anything.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-03-11 15:00:34

Meanwhile, Al Quaida strikes again?

Latest news has it, the bombings in Spain could be Al Quaida's doings, not ETA...

(Spanish supported USA in its war on terror in words and actions)

Terroristic attacs are brutal and effective. For the price of some cheap explosives, you can bring a country on it's knees. Or a continent... Hell, i know *i* won't feel totally safe tomorrow, entering Antwerp's train station (neighbourhood is Europe's diamond centre, lot's of Jewish people there...)
If they'd repeat this campaign tomorrow in a different country, i'd bet there'd be a serious concern among the commuters. And government.

All those poor people blown to bits for no reason. What a waste.[http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1064248.htm]ABC

Bill White · 2004-03-12 09:00:26

As for Spain:

The attack occurred exactly 2 1/2 years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States ? and there 911 days in between the terror attacks in Madrid and those in New York and Washington. It also was Europe's worst terror attack since the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, killed 270 people.

from a Yahoo article. Coincidence? Perhaps.

Palomar · 2004-03-12 14:32:25

As for Spain:
The attack occurred exactly 2 1/2 years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States ? and there 911 days in between the terror attacks in Madrid and those in New York and Washington. It also was Europe's worst terror attack since the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, killed 270 people.
from a Yahoo article. Coincidence? Perhaps.

*Yes, very tragic. My condolences to the good people of Spain.

I'm wondering, as a result of the bombing, if the general sentiment in Europe will turn further against the U.S. (i.e. the belief that perhaps we brought more terrorist activity onto the West because of Iraq) or if they'll start to realize Al-Qaeda (which seems to be the culprit here, based on news articles I've read) is more of a very real threat than they'd previously admitted or realized.

I guess time will tell.

To answer Bill: I sincerely doubt this was a coincidence (regarding dates).

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-03-15 16:14:07

The French ban on Muslim head scarves as one example,

Yes Bill, but I hope that it is clear for everybody that ALL signs of religiuos appartenance are now forbidden in french public school. Though it is true that the muslim scarves are the main targeted.
It's good for kids, they are too easily manipulated by groups of interest.

DonPanic · 2004-03-16 01:56:16

LO

In my opinion, the French are not opposed to the War on Terror

We, froggies, are at war against terrorism since a murderous and bloody terrorist attack in Rue de Rennes, Paris, 1986.
We think that opposing Irak war II was the very best an ally and close friend could do to avoid America's rush in a mudtrap.
All diplomatic manoeuvres were aimed against war, not against USA.
Hope that one day, majority of US citizens will recognize that fact.

RobS · 2004-03-18 13:59:19

Here's a specific example of Muslims working against terrorism. CAIR condemned the bombing immediately.

-- RobS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

U.S. MUSLIMS MEET SPANISH AMBASSADOR TO OFFER CONDOLENCES

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/18/04) - A delegation of American Muslim leaders met
today with the Spanish ambassador in Washington, D.C., to offer condolences
for the more than 200 people killed in last week's terror attacks on the
Madrid train system.

The delegation, organized by the Washington-based Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), expressed the American Islamic
community's condemnation of the bombings and told Ambassador Javier Ruperez
that Muslims grieve for all those who died.

Ambassador Ruperez said Spain is going through a "very difficult time," and
compared the attacks to those carried out in the United States on September
11, 2001. He said the people killed in the train bombings were of 11
different nationalities.

"An apparent goal of the terrorists is to divide the world along religious
and national lines," said CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, who
took part in today's meeting. "The most appropriate response to these
vicious attacks is to strengthen and expand relations between people of all
faiths and cultural origins."

Meeting participants included the head of the Coordinating Council of
Muslim Organizations (CCMO), representing more than 50 Islamic centers,
mosques and Islamic organizations in the greater Washington metro area.

"We join with all other American Muslims in both condemning the bombings
and offering condolences to Ambassador Ruperez and the families of the
victims," said Muzammil Siddiqi, member of the executive council of the
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

The Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation also sent a letter of
condolence to Ambassador Ruperez.

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, is headquartered in
Washington, D.C., and has 26 regional offices and chapters nationwide and
in Canada.

- END -

CONTACT: Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail:
cair@cair-net.org; Rabiah Ahmed, 202-488-8787 or 202-439-1441, E-Mail:
rahmed@cair-net.org

NOTE: CAIR offers an e-mail list designed to be a journalist's window to
the American Muslim community. Subscribers to the list, called
ISLAM-INFONET, receive news releases and other materials dealing with
American Muslim positions on issues of importance to our society.

To SUBSCRIBE to ISLAM-INFONET, go to: [http://cair.biglist.com/islam-infonet/]http://cair.biglist.com/islam-infonet/

To reach the list moderator, send a message to: cair@cair-net.org

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-04-21 06:34:19

an old topic

Today there is No Collective USSR Security Treaty Organization the Russians in Soviet Union with Membership in East Germany, Romania, Albania, Poland, Bulgaria, Czechs and Slovakia region, Hungary and one time the Mongolian People's Republic asked to join the Warsaw Pact under Article 9 of the treaty, other Soviet Union influences from other states the USSR of old is dead. China breaks away in Nixon's time during the Sino-Soviet split, Mongolia official writing in Mongolian Cyrillic in post USSR has a new constitution, in 1992 now classed Unitary country with semi-presidential republic status. However Russia has been expanding again, we have seen a slow rise of military and tech in Belarus, North Korea, Iran, the Russians stuck in their invasion imperial mindset and a meat grinder war.

In the USA its not Russians or the Taliban that's going to kill the American, its drugs killing the USA, an unseen death number, for a while anywhere between in any small town 1-10 might have died from Drugs the Drug overdose death rates per 10,000 population have increased ten fold, hundreds dying in each small town, in the cities thousands upon thousands dead, in Europe very high deaths in some areas, Scotland, Germany, Turkey, Sweden very high death rates from drugs .

The numbers are now at the highest ever possible in recorded history, 2021 a turning point in US history with over 100,000 deaths and it keeps going up

the world maybe it changes politically, in late 2021 the Fall of Kabul, they show US made weapons on display and Taliban insurgent group and allied militants that led to the fall of the Kabul and a new islamist State a Sharia Law jihadi based Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, a 'War on Drugs' almost as successful as the 'War on Terror' an Open Border to the South movement of meth drugs, gangs shipping people in human trafficking, smuggling of weapons, world wide links and a Narco State fentanyl, heroin.

and now Russia with a confused interpretation of history

'Russia says deeper U.S. hybrid war using Ukraine will end in Vietnam-style humiliation'
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru … 024-04-21/

in mental problems 'Projection' is a defense mechanism that Freud proposed to explain how people deal with repressed feelings by attributing them to someone else in a weird twisted delusion fantasy.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-04-21 10:42:55)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-02-18 14:16:26

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#52 2004-02-18 14:20:58

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#53 2004-02-18 15:24:12

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#54 2004-02-18 15:37:01

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#55 2004-02-20 06:05:28

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#56 2004-02-20 11:34:37

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#57 2004-02-20 12:08:48

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#58 2004-03-04 13:40:32

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#59 2004-03-05 05:13:09

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#60 2004-03-05 06:47:05

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#61 2004-03-11 15:00:34

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#62 2004-03-12 09:00:26

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#63 2004-03-12 14:32:25

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#64 2004-03-15 16:14:07

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#65 2004-03-16 01:56:16

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#66 2004-03-18 13:59:19

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#67 2024-04-21 06:34:19

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

Board footer