I'm pretty sure that Canada didn't have much of a military to speak of in the 1920s and 1930s. We didn't need one. When we entered a time of war, we shifted resources as required to defend ourselves and help to liberate Europe. A peacetime army is generally only required by nations whose borders are under threat or one that harbours imperialistic ambitions. Other nations scale back their militaries to levels just enough to provide basic security for their borders and to carry out the occasional humanitarian mission in response to some sort of disaster. Now, you'll argue that we are in a time of war right now. Since I don't subscribe to the fear mongering that is the 'War on Terror,' I would argue otherwise. There are, as there have always been, evil men walking the earth with bad intentions. I am confident, though, that their bad intentions are intended for those who they feel have wronged them in some way. When you consider who the evil men are, I don't think you'll see them coming to do Canada harm. They may pass through here on their way to the US, though. But then again, that's just my opinion.luckydog71 said:
Events in the Middle East
- Thread starter luckydog71
- Start date
Syria
Speaking of interconnected events, did anyone else notice that while all the talk is about Iran, the Syrians are the ones who are acting like they are next?
The Syrians have been implicated in the assasination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, who opposed their meddling in Lebanon. They have also been fingered by the Israelis for organizing the recent suicide bombing outside a nightclub in Tel Aviv (this after the Palestinians under Abbas agreed to curtail terrorist and militants whose efforts were facilitated by Arafat before his death).
Syrian Army officers have also been captured by the US in Iraq, and there was a report that Syrian intelligence officers are offering cash and other incentives to Iraqi insurgents to make beheading videos (go to Ogrish.com....besides the well-publicized video of Westerners and Asian foreigners being beheaded, there are dozens of videos of Kurds, Shiite Iraqis, and others being beheaded too). Insurgents are being trained in Syria and sent across the border to Iraq, too.
All this points to Syria desperately trying to tie down, in order, the Americans, the Lebanese, and the Israelis. For all the news coverage of these events, very few lines seem to be being drawn between them by the media....the logical analysis, though, would point to the Syrians lashing out to prevent what they see next: regime change in Syria.
The Iranians have launched a PR blitz whereas Syria has effectively launched an undeclared war against the US....guess who has figured out they are next and who knows they are safe.
Also, Dubya's dumbed down persona is deliberate...he is a Yale graduate from a wealthy dynasty, and beneath the front, he is likely quite smart....acting dumb scores points with voters distrustful of guys like Kerry who come off being smarter than they are...if he's going to take on Syria next, perhaps he's using his best Texa hold'em poker skills to not show his cards by telegraphing it.
My bet: Once there is a sufficient pretext (some outrage where the Syrians kill a large number of American citizens and get caught), Syria is toast...Iran is safe.
Any takers?
Speaking of interconnected events, did anyone else notice that while all the talk is about Iran, the Syrians are the ones who are acting like they are next?
The Syrians have been implicated in the assasination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, who opposed their meddling in Lebanon. They have also been fingered by the Israelis for organizing the recent suicide bombing outside a nightclub in Tel Aviv (this after the Palestinians under Abbas agreed to curtail terrorist and militants whose efforts were facilitated by Arafat before his death).
Syrian Army officers have also been captured by the US in Iraq, and there was a report that Syrian intelligence officers are offering cash and other incentives to Iraqi insurgents to make beheading videos (go to Ogrish.com....besides the well-publicized video of Westerners and Asian foreigners being beheaded, there are dozens of videos of Kurds, Shiite Iraqis, and others being beheaded too). Insurgents are being trained in Syria and sent across the border to Iraq, too.
All this points to Syria desperately trying to tie down, in order, the Americans, the Lebanese, and the Israelis. For all the news coverage of these events, very few lines seem to be being drawn between them by the media....the logical analysis, though, would point to the Syrians lashing out to prevent what they see next: regime change in Syria.
The Iranians have launched a PR blitz whereas Syria has effectively launched an undeclared war against the US....guess who has figured out they are next and who knows they are safe.
Also, Dubya's dumbed down persona is deliberate...he is a Yale graduate from a wealthy dynasty, and beneath the front, he is likely quite smart....acting dumb scores points with voters distrustful of guys like Kerry who come off being smarter than they are...if he's going to take on Syria next, perhaps he's using his best Texa hold'em poker skills to not show his cards by telegraphing it.
My bet: Once there is a sufficient pretext (some outrage where the Syrians kill a large number of American citizens and get caught), Syria is toast...Iran is safe.
Any takers?
Assuming what you said is true, you may well be correct. Syria is definately a less controversial target than Iran is.
While NORAD was of great value during the Cold War (and incidently, Canada had a much large defense force back then as well), it is of questionable value today. No terrorist is going to launch an attack against the US with an ICBM. Lets get real here. Any terrorist attack is be it a conventional bomb, biohazard, dirty radioactive or nuclear is going to be delivered by conventional transportation (ie. commercial airplane, ship, car, truck, etc.)hifisex said:
Missile defense
Canada not joining was not a cowardly decision as some say, but it was a cop out
I think the real issue is that its detractors think it will never work, and that no 3rd world enemy will ever have missiles that will hit us.
When pretty much every country that now has short range (1000km approx) missiles has ICBM's in 20 years as predicted, and the Americans show the system works, we will look pretty dumb
In the late 60's the inventor of laser guided smart bombs approached the US air force with his idea and he was rebuffed (later they listened)...the air force at the time was happy with a 2% hit rate and said what he proposed could never be done...now witness Gulf War I and forward...that guy now looks pretty smart and the air force guys who balked at him in the 60's are long forgotten...same will be true with missile defense
As to who would want to hit us...any country that dislikes the West...if North Korea takes on South Korea or Japan, Canada would probably have a very hard time staying neutral given our trade and diplomatic ties and the large ethnic Korean population here...all we would have to do is send 2 ships and 500 guys like usual and the North Koreans might waste Vancouver just for a laugh...they are supposedly only 5 years away from developing a missile that could hit California...and they have nukes, chemical weapons, and biological weapons
Martin is affraid of domestic political backlash, and won't sign on for fear of losing votes...now the US (and everyone else) sees him as the soft man he really is...Martin was on record saying he supported Canada participating based on the project's merits before he had a vested interest in kow-towing to the leftie voters
I also suspect he is affraid of being derided if he stands up and says, "Canada is at risk. The world outside our borders is dangerous and violent. We need this."...some people love to mock such strong and honest leaders...Churchill was derided in the 30's as being a nutter because he said Hitler could not be trusted, for example...but he was right
Martin is a wishy-washy political hack, and no Churchill. he should have the guts to stand up and sign on despite the domestic backlash...I respect him less now
Canada not joining was not a cowardly decision as some say, but it was a cop out
I think the real issue is that its detractors think it will never work, and that no 3rd world enemy will ever have missiles that will hit us.
When pretty much every country that now has short range (1000km approx) missiles has ICBM's in 20 years as predicted, and the Americans show the system works, we will look pretty dumb
In the late 60's the inventor of laser guided smart bombs approached the US air force with his idea and he was rebuffed (later they listened)...the air force at the time was happy with a 2% hit rate and said what he proposed could never be done...now witness Gulf War I and forward...that guy now looks pretty smart and the air force guys who balked at him in the 60's are long forgotten...same will be true with missile defense
As to who would want to hit us...any country that dislikes the West...if North Korea takes on South Korea or Japan, Canada would probably have a very hard time staying neutral given our trade and diplomatic ties and the large ethnic Korean population here...all we would have to do is send 2 ships and 500 guys like usual and the North Koreans might waste Vancouver just for a laugh...they are supposedly only 5 years away from developing a missile that could hit California...and they have nukes, chemical weapons, and biological weapons
Martin is affraid of domestic political backlash, and won't sign on for fear of losing votes...now the US (and everyone else) sees him as the soft man he really is...Martin was on record saying he supported Canada participating based on the project's merits before he had a vested interest in kow-towing to the leftie voters
I also suspect he is affraid of being derided if he stands up and says, "Canada is at risk. The world outside our borders is dangerous and violent. We need this."...some people love to mock such strong and honest leaders...Churchill was derided in the 30's as being a nutter because he said Hitler could not be trusted, for example...but he was right
Martin is a wishy-washy political hack, and no Churchill. he should have the guts to stand up and sign on despite the domestic backlash...I respect him less now
luckydog71 said:
If one were to credit George W. Bush for these events that would be as bad as creditting Ronald Reagan for the end of the Cold War. Something superficial at best.
Our western centric views lead to always assume that democracy is the best way to have a government. Added to that we have a great deal of trouble fathoming a government of anyother type and to replace it with something democratic is unquestionably the right thing to do.
Such an idea is all too much like the attitudes towards colonialism, say in the 1800's. That it was alright to send in an invading army to conquer a certain people and impose a system of government on them. Afterall these people were just heathens and so an imperial power was obviously doing the right thing. What's the difference between that and what's going on the world today? IMHO, not a whole hell of a lot.
Let's remember that the Taliban were willing to turn over Osama bin Laden to the US, but Afghanistan was still invaded. Perhaps remarkably the country has been conquered and when the last time that happened only history knows. The British tried and failed and more recently the Soviets tried and failed.
However a country immersed in civil war since 1979 was probably ripe for the picking. Added to that despite what we in the West think of the Taliban, the country was very likely more stable under their rule than it had been since the 1970's.
Throw ontop of that is just who did most of the ground fighting? The Northern Alliance which was the remanants of the Mujahadeen (sp?) that took over the country after defeating the Soviets. And just how did these rebels finane themselves? Illegal drugs.
As for Iraq, do remember this country and its imfamous dictator were very much in favour with the Republican crowd in the 1980's. Care to enlighten the Lounge as when the worst of this dictator's crimes were committed?
One thing that always fascinates me is how quick the Republican crowd chants things like Saddam Hussein gassed his own people. Easy to say but in the end something dreadfully shallow. Throw in the time line for starters. This henious crime was committed when Saddam was being actively supported by the Reagan/Bush administrations. Furthermore the US government convienently turned a blind eye to the atrocity. In fact US economic assistance to Iraq was increased following the gas attacks.
And history shows us that while the relations between the US and Iraq may have cooled a little following the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the two countries were still on pretty terms. In a pissin' match between two Middle East friends of the US, Iraq and Kuwait, guess who was all too happy to keep its nose of things? Yup, the US. So much so that even in the first days following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US was still happy to stay out of the Middle East conflict.
Following the terrorist attacks of Sept 11/01 (and let's not forget the "terrorist attacks" of Sept 11/73) the White House WAS portraying the idea that Saddam Hussein had role in the attacks. Indeed the White House said it had rock solid evidence that Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction. We know now that these are HUGE LIES. But these HUGE LIES were used as the pretext for war, an aggressive war.
Ok Iraq had an election. So what? The country remains unstable with terrorist attacks happening on a daily basis.
Some people have argued that Iraq is not a real country and so the various peoples that make up Iraqis should be permitted to go their own way. One being of course the Kurds. If that is the case, then it must just right to reconnect a lost province to Iraq, namely Kuwait.
Israel pulling out of Palestine, but only to an extent. Quite frankly this is a conflict that has gone on for so long that it no longer matters who struck the first blow. What is needed is less retaliation and more reconciliation. Israel still remains occupying fair chunks of Palestinian territory. Ariel Sharon's government has made something of an about face,but keep in mind just what party now supports his government? Sharon's Likud Party lost the support of the more extremist parties and is now in coalition with the left-leaning Labour Party.
Saudia Arabia had municipal elections. Again so what? Only men voted. The country is ruled by a despotic family with absolute power. The country is destabilizing because of growing opposition to the Saud family and the opposition ain't democratic.
And there is pressure on Iran regarding its nuclear program. I say so what? I don't like the profilieration of nukes, but if one country can arm itself to the teeth with all sorts of WMD's including a HUGE arsenal of nukes, then why can't another country feel it should have something to defend itself? More so when this country has used WMD's in the past, namely atomic weapons in August, 1945, chemical weapons in the Vietnam War, and daisy cutter bombs in Afghanistan.
As for North Korea, only the Repubican crowd would take Kim Il Sing or what ever the guy's name is, at his word. I'm saying NK does or does not have nukes. I'm saying there is zip to show clearly either way.
Libya? Some one sure misses the loads of assistance he once got from the former USSR. Ol'Momar probably feels a little uncomfortable as is looking to get back no the world stage. The guy is a prestige kick.
Well that's enough for now. Later.
Since 1867 Canada has not been invaded. Unless one wants to count any of the U-Boat's that lurked in Gulf of St. Lawerence during WW2. Offhand I believe a U-Boat was sunk in the St. Lawerence River. Prior to Confederation then yes indeed what became Canada was invaded, TWICE by the Americans. Both invasions were repelled.luckydog71 said:
While we're on the subject of invasions, just how many countries has the United States invaded since 1776?
Great question. There is not one state or protectorate of the USA that was taken by force. Every time the US military has been used the country was turned over to the people who lived in the area. That is the plan for Iraq.dirtydan said:
All of Europe was invaded by the US twice; it is now in the full control of the citizens.
Many parts of Central America have been invaded by the US. We occupy none of those countries today.
Korea. We still have troops in the DMZ, but we want to leave. It is the South Koreans who want us to stay.
Even Vietnam, the single biggest mistake we made is now back in the hands of the people who live there. I think we were defeated in that war and left the country in full retreat because we had no choice. But I never thought the result we were looking for was to take over the country and claim it as our own.
If you go down the list of other empires that had an over powering military, they used that force to invade and occupy the territory. The Roman Empire, The British Empire, the French Empire, the German Empire, they all invaded, captured and intended to colonize the territories. We have not.
That's pretty naive to say the least. The US has a long history of invading the territory of other countries. Nicaragua, Cuba, Panama, Grenada, Mexico, Canada (when as British colonial territory), and Haiti to name a few. And the list goes on when the US has used other means such as guerillas/terrorists or the militaries of other countries.luckydog71 said:
As for turning the country over to its people that is mean more naive. Take Central America for example where pro-US regimes were installed much to the detriment of the bulk of the population. As long as US economic interests were being well served quite frankly the US government didn't care much for what was going on domestically in a given country.
Now that's not always the case, if one wants to include countries such as Japan and the former West Germany.
Then why did the US not do this in Central America for so many decades?luckydog71 said:
luckydog71 said:
And that makes it alright? What purpose did the US have invading say Nicaragua or Haiti?
luckydog71 said:Korea. We still have troops in the DMZ, but we want to leave. It is the South Koreans who want us to stay. [/QOUTE]
There is only a cease fire agreement and no formal treaty in regards to the Korean War. Technically that war is still on, the belligerents aren't waging an all out war. South Korea is concerned with the size of the North Korean military, which is the only thing the latter has on its side. Also let's keep in mind the US was very happy to support the military dictatorships that have often ruled South Korea.
How magnaminous of the US to have returned Vietnam to the Vietnameseluckydog71 said:
What was the US doing in that country in the first place?
luckydog71 said:
Cuba, the Phillipines, Hawaii, Texas, California.
And while we're at it, compare the territory of the original 13 colonies that made up the United States to its territory today. Yes a big chunk was bought from the French, however the First Nations had no say in that change of ownership.
It is a myth that the US wasn't a colonial power. It was indeed was a late comer to flaunting its imperial power outside of what is now the continental US. The bottom line remains the US had its share of colonies. How many Filipinos were killed by US forces during the occupation of that country?
later
Agreed the current missile defence plan being advocated by the US isn't the same as "Ray-gun's" Star Wars (aka: Strategic Defence Initiative or SDI). It is much reduced system with the intention of trying to thwart as limited nuclear attack by missile by using anti-missile missiles. However that does not mean the current system cannot be expanded into a more comprehensive system more akin to Star Wars.hifisex said:
Martin has gone from supporting it to being against it. Why? He has seen it as politically expedient to do so. Should the next federal election result in a Liberal majority, I do not hesitate to think for one moment that Martin will flip-flop again by signing on to Dubyah's Star Wars Jr.hifisex said:
I see no reason why Canada should be part of it. For FIFTY YEARS the US has been trying to develope a feasible anti-missile defence system and for FIFTY YEARS the US has failed time after time.
1) Nike-Hercules: Back in the 1950's this was 1st attempt to produce an anti-missile system. The surface to air missile (SAM) was modified to intercept a ballistic missile. In testing the system worked once and was shelved.
2) ABM system: I forgot its name, but back in the early 1970's the US did have an operational anti-missile system. Essentially long range SAM's were designed to carry a nuclear warhead which was to detonate in the approximate area of the incoming "Rooskee" ICBM's. So expensive was this system that it was made operational and taken out of service, get this, the SAME DAY!
3) Reagan's SDI: Dazzling the US public with dreams of being protected by laser beams and space based anti-missile missiles. Too expensive, too unpopular.
4) Dubyah's Star Wars Jr: Misses far, far more more than it hits when it comes to ramming ballistic missiles used for testing. Even this very scaled down version of Star Wars is rankling some Republicans as being to expensive.
Lastly, it pisses me off that people quickly buy into the idiotic notion that somehow Canada forfiets its hard won sovereignty simply because it has said no to the US Star Wars Jr. program. Hell Canada DID demonstrate its sovereignty by saying no.
With that said, I am damn fucking happy that prick Celluci (sp?) is done as the US ambassador to Canada. That pompus fuckwad acted more like a colonial Intendent than as an ambassador.
With that said #2, I am damn fucking mad that the Chretien-Martin governments NEVER chastized Celluci for his comments. My gawd Lester Pearson was snort pissin' mad when French president Charles De Gaulle cried out "livre Quebec libre". How Liberals loose their balls over time!
All I can say DD is we have something’s in our history that we are not proud of. Dare say most other countries do as well (including Canada).
But that is arguing history.
My point is the current events taking place in the Middle East today are positive and the changes resulting from these events could help reduce the spread of terrorism.
I take it from your posts that you would have preferred the Middle East to stay as it was 2 years ago.
But that is arguing history.
My point is the current events taking place in the Middle East today are positive and the changes resulting from these events could help reduce the spread of terrorism.
I take it from your posts that you would have preferred the Middle East to stay as it was 2 years ago.
YAWN....must have slept through that whole Iraq election thing.
So who were the candidates anyway? Which ones actually won and what are the details behind their platform? How did the guys who spoke out against the U.S. invasion and occupation fare? What? There weren't any? Alrighty...well...hmmm, sounds pretty democratic to me.
So who were the candidates anyway? Which ones actually won and what are the details behind their platform? How did the guys who spoke out against the U.S. invasion and occupation fare? What? There weren't any? Alrighty...well...hmmm, sounds pretty democratic to me.
LK - there are a number of people who have your opinion on the events of the Middle East. Many of them were the same people who thought the Berlin wall would not come down or that Est and West Germany would be re-united.
I do believe this time is different; at least we need to try. It may be wishful thinking on my part, because I am in a nice safe environment. To me it is very significant that 8 million Iraqis would go to vote, some walking for miles, knowing that some of them would be killed.
The terrorists are attacking and killing innocent citizens of Iraq. Doesn't that bother you? Don't you think we should do something? How about Lebanon? Do they deserve any support if they want to free themselves from Syria?
The world is changing very rapidly. Once the dominos start to fall, you will see a change as rapid as we did during the Reagan years.
I do believe this time is different; at least we need to try. It may be wishful thinking on my part, because I am in a nice safe environment. To me it is very significant that 8 million Iraqis would go to vote, some walking for miles, knowing that some of them would be killed.
The terrorists are attacking and killing innocent citizens of Iraq. Doesn't that bother you? Don't you think we should do something? How about Lebanon? Do they deserve any support if they want to free themselves from Syria?
The world is changing very rapidly. Once the dominos start to fall, you will see a change as rapid as we did during the Reagan years.
Clarification
The paradox of US politics is that while the Prez can in effect go to war without a vote in Congress authorizing a declaration of war (last time this happened was December 1941), he cannot end run Congress on domestic matters...this is a nuance a lot of non-Americans do not get...also why political lobbying in Washington, D.C. of Congressmen is an industry in and of itself.
The US political system has more checks and balances than parliamentary democracies based on the Britsh model like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The President and his inner circle may wish to, say, lift the duties on softwood lumber, but Congress or the Supreme Court can block this. In fact Congressmen from lumber producing states like Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Georgia HAVE blocked efforts to lift the duties. Likewise the President opted to lift the BSE-related ban on Canadian beef, but the courts blocked this.westwoody said:
The paradox of US politics is that while the Prez can in effect go to war without a vote in Congress authorizing a declaration of war (last time this happened was December 1941), he cannot end run Congress on domestic matters...this is a nuance a lot of non-Americans do not get...also why political lobbying in Washington, D.C. of Congressmen is an industry in and of itself.
luckydog71 said:
It is far too early to tell if the changes in the Middle East are positive or not. To claim either way is to rely on shallow analysis and that is repugnant.
Also it is just as shallow to throw the inane concept to those who oppose the US actions in Iraq that they would prefer Saddam Hussein to have remained in power. Do remember he is the SAME evil bastard the US was eager to cozy up to.
It is not a question of who we in one country want to see rule in another country. It is a question of meddling in the affairs of a sovereign country regardless of whatever type of govenrment they have. The US conquering of Iraq was based on LIES. The reasons why they are there in Iraq changes more often than Rush Limbaugh changes drug suppliers.
First a technicality. West and East German were NEVER re-united. They united into one country.luckydog71 said:
To slap the label as you do above is once again reliant on shallow analysis. Simply because some people have put some decent thought behind their views on US Middle East policy does not in any which way you may conceive mean they never saw an end to the Cold War.
Democracy is far, far more about voting.luckydog71 said:
Care to explain why that is happening? Would it have something to do with a blantant war of aggression by the US, one based entirely on LYING not only to the American public but to the world community. Please do enlighten us as to why a supposed man of God felt it necessary to spin some of the most sinister lies in recent US history?luckydog71 said:
NO weapons of mass destruction.
NO connection between Saddam Hussien and Osama bin Laden.
The central reasons for the war and yet for all of the bluster that came from the White House of being rock solid sure, both reasons for war are lies. How many times must there be a war based on lies? Germany claimed that on Sept 1/39 that Polish troops attacked a German radio station.
luckydog71 said:
For the better? Can Reagan be honestly creditted or was he just a Johnny-on-the-spot?
This same question will be asked about Bush if the Middle East has a major shift and the population has a great say in governance of the countries.dirtydan said:
Was Bush instrumental in the change or did he just happen to be there when these events occurred?
I think it cuts both ways. If he is to be credited with the positive in the region, he also needs to be responsible for the negatives that are going on in the region. and visa versa.
What my far right friends spin is all credit to Bush, no blame.
What my far left friends spin is all blame to Bush, no credit.
Although I have heard there are recent articles in the NEW YORK TIMES of all places actual saying Bush just may be right in his foreign policy regarding Iraq.
I don't think it's fair to give Bush no credit for some of the hopeful signs coming out of the Middle East, but I think we have to be a little realistic about the real situations in those countries:
Afghanistan: (BTW, I totally supported this war, as did almost everybody. Yes, there was a small minority of folks who didn't but they are extreme peacenicks and not truly representative of Liberal thought. Virtually every elected Democrat supported the war, and for good reason, the forces in Afghanistan struck us first and I feel no shame about that war at all.)
But, let's get real here people. Yes, there was an election, and it elected Karzai essentially to the post of Mayor of Kabul, for neither his government nor the U.S. Military has any control outside of the 3 or 4 big towns, the rest is controlled by the very "pleasant" combination of restructured Taliban forces, warlords, and opium gangs. In other words, let's just see what happens in the future before we have a big democracy parade. BTW, the Soviet Union was defeated by the Afghans ONLY because of America's help and direction, especially the Stinger missles which were vital in the victory. Plus, the Russians (stupidly, I may add, considering that their main aim was to seat a government that was friendly to them) tried to control the entire country, not just the cities. The Americans are smartly just trying to control the cities and are not taking needless casualties in the mountains because our goal is to control the cities. But, if we really want to bring true democracy, we will have a lot more dying to do.
Iraq: Has been debated plenty here, but I can keep this one short by saying we are going to spend a minimum of 300,000,000,000 dollars and 1500 hundred honorable lives to basically have a pro-Iranian government elected that will, I can almost promise you, either fail or become a Shiite theocracy. Allawi, our interim leader, could garner only 11% of the vote, which is a sound rejection of U.S. forces and it's mission there. And let's be honest, L. Paul Bremer right before he left Iraq signed many executive orders severely limiting the future governments power and who could be elected and so forth, so if some dipshit from a foreign country tells you who can and can't be president of your own country (and will kill you if you don't listen) what kind of fucking democracy do you really have?
Syria: A bad country who has WMD as they proudly state as a deterrence to Israel, and that deterrence works because they are more than willing to use them. But I ask, how do we attack? There's hardly any troops left in the fort and the enlistment/re-enlistment rates are a bad joke, the US can't get anyone to volunteer for the forces anymore? Do you really think we can just bomb from the air? Do you think Israel can help? If the U.S. and Israel combine in a land grab in Syria then ANY hopes we have for peace in that region (well, at least a real, non-imperial peace) are freaking NIL, NADA, and ZERO.
Iran: Troublesome, a big and powerful nation which would be an even tougher nut to crack. The youth wants change, but not from B-52's carpet-bombing them. Our best hope is to work with the Europeans and offer lots of carrots and fewer sticks.
This is an interesting discussion, I could go on and on because there are so many facets to the discussion, but I'll give my fingers a rest now.
Gonzo
Afghanistan: (BTW, I totally supported this war, as did almost everybody. Yes, there was a small minority of folks who didn't but they are extreme peacenicks and not truly representative of Liberal thought. Virtually every elected Democrat supported the war, and for good reason, the forces in Afghanistan struck us first and I feel no shame about that war at all.)
But, let's get real here people. Yes, there was an election, and it elected Karzai essentially to the post of Mayor of Kabul, for neither his government nor the U.S. Military has any control outside of the 3 or 4 big towns, the rest is controlled by the very "pleasant" combination of restructured Taliban forces, warlords, and opium gangs. In other words, let's just see what happens in the future before we have a big democracy parade. BTW, the Soviet Union was defeated by the Afghans ONLY because of America's help and direction, especially the Stinger missles which were vital in the victory. Plus, the Russians (stupidly, I may add, considering that their main aim was to seat a government that was friendly to them) tried to control the entire country, not just the cities. The Americans are smartly just trying to control the cities and are not taking needless casualties in the mountains because our goal is to control the cities. But, if we really want to bring true democracy, we will have a lot more dying to do.
Iraq: Has been debated plenty here, but I can keep this one short by saying we are going to spend a minimum of 300,000,000,000 dollars and 1500 hundred honorable lives to basically have a pro-Iranian government elected that will, I can almost promise you, either fail or become a Shiite theocracy. Allawi, our interim leader, could garner only 11% of the vote, which is a sound rejection of U.S. forces and it's mission there. And let's be honest, L. Paul Bremer right before he left Iraq signed many executive orders severely limiting the future governments power and who could be elected and so forth, so if some dipshit from a foreign country tells you who can and can't be president of your own country (and will kill you if you don't listen) what kind of fucking democracy do you really have?
Syria: A bad country who has WMD as they proudly state as a deterrence to Israel, and that deterrence works because they are more than willing to use them. But I ask, how do we attack? There's hardly any troops left in the fort and the enlistment/re-enlistment rates are a bad joke, the US can't get anyone to volunteer for the forces anymore? Do you really think we can just bomb from the air? Do you think Israel can help? If the U.S. and Israel combine in a land grab in Syria then ANY hopes we have for peace in that region (well, at least a real, non-imperial peace) are freaking NIL, NADA, and ZERO.
Iran: Troublesome, a big and powerful nation which would be an even tougher nut to crack. The youth wants change, but not from B-52's carpet-bombing them. Our best hope is to work with the Europeans and offer lots of carrots and fewer sticks.
This is an interesting discussion, I could go on and on because there are so many facets to the discussion, but I'll give my fingers a rest now.
Gonzo
