Events in the Middle East

[luckydog71]

Gonzo, I agree there is a long way to go in the Middle East and many opportunities to derail the whole thing.

At the risk of boring our Canadian friends lets remember how long it took for the US to elect its first president.

1776 - Declaration of Independence
1787 - Adoption of the Constitution
1789 - Washington took office as the first president.

We should not expect an over night success. It will take time and there will be bumps in the road.

 

[dirtydan]

Hey LK;

I can't buy that. The US, especially when there is a Republican president, has such a long history of running other countries with puppet regimes. And I think Iraq is just the latest one in that group. Also we are at the mercy of a highly compliant media that sooner avoids questioning US foreign policy. There is something that reeks in all this stuff going in the Middle East and that has yet to come out. Seeing Republicans cheer so gleefully and so smuggly leads me to think something ain't right with what's going on.

Especially when it comes to Iraqi oil. Bremmer got a premature boot from his office and replaced with an Iraqi national because the government of an occupying country cannot sell off the resources of the country being occupied. Now with a "democratically" elected government, such only legitimizes the 40 year leases to Iraqi oil.

 

[dirtydan]

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.)

Yah peacenicks. Gees how dare people be for peace and not war.

Keep in mind that the Taliban made it very clear they were willing to turnover Osama bin Laden to the US. Bush instead choose to invade and conquer. Now nearly four years later the BIG REASON for Bush's crusade is still on the loose.

I 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.

Indeed, most of Afghanistan remains well out of the control of the country's government and the occupying powers.

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.

By who's mandate is it the job of the occupying powers to impose democracy on Afghanistan?

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?

The bottom line is this was all done because of two lies. Bush and company told us repeatedly that they were ever so sure that Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaida and Iraq still had WMD's in voilation of UN resolutions.

There was NO Al Qaida connection.

There were NO weapons of mass destruction.

What was/is the conquering of Iraq really about?

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.

What makes another war of aggression the right thing to do?

On one hand the US is ever so worried that poor little Canada had thrown away its sovereignty by not kowtowing to the US missile defence program. On the other hand the US is very happy to destroy the sovereignty of a country when it suits US policy objectives.

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.

Just how powerful is Iran? A lot of pre-1980's western military equipment of which spare parts are getting harder and harder to acquire. Newer but less capable Chinese military hardware is somewhat plentiful, but not much of a match for the stuff used by the US.

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

Yes it is. However I am finding more and more that people seem to think that if the West starts a war and conquers a country that's ok. Such is troubling.

 

[luckydog71]

Yes it is. However I am finding more and more that people seem to think that if the West starts a war and conquers a country that's ok. Such is troubling.

DD - I know we have very different views on what is happening so I will not attempt to rebut your entire post.

But, I do not agree that the US started the war. Since 1990 the US has been very passive. Even when we were attacked at the first WTC, the Cole, plus others. However that did not stop our enemies from coming at us again on Sept 11.

The mistake our enemies made was they thought W would be as passive as Clinton. They decided they could hit us with a sucker punch and get away with it. They were wrong.

The US is under attack. The attackers come mainly from the Middle Eastern countries. The US struck Iraq first. Saddam is no longer a contributor to the terrorist network. W has given Iran and Syria very clear warnings. Syria, get out of Lebanon. Iran, you will not have nukes. His resolve is firm. You may disagree with his decision, but he has made it. My guess is they have 4 to 6 months to comply, unless the US is attacked again, then they will have 4 to 6 days.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Lucky Dog -- I actually agree with many of your views (as expressed in another thread). But please ponder this view of the war in Iraq: Osama bin Laden and his thugs have kicked the US's ass. With very little material expense, and devoted followers, they succeeded in drawing your country into a) spending itself into a huge deficit of nobody knows how much; and b) attacking "the Arab world" and furthering fear and mistrust of your country, and breeding a new generation of terrorists with good reasons to hate. Bin Laden's goal was not to have a quick victory and get away with it -- his goal was to have exactly what has transpired happen --- to get closer to his goal of an all-out war between the Islamic world and the West. He would have been very disappointed if Bush had lost the last election.

Of course, if the Bush administration's analysis is correct (and we all know that the "weapons of mass destruction" and hints of involvement in 9/11 were mere pretexts for the war), and they will end up with a happy and pacified Middle East, then Bin Laden's analysis was wrong and he will prove to be the loser. I hope so.

 

[dirtydan]

DD - I know we have very different views on what is happening so I will not attempt to rebut your entire post.

But, I do not agree that the US started the war. Since 1990 the US has been very passive. Even when we were attacked at the first WTC, the Cole, plus others. However that did not stop our enemies from coming at us again on Sept 11.

Sorry dude you are WAY, WAY wrong on that. The US was hardly passive towards Iraq and Al Qaida during the 1990's. During the 90's to enforce the disarming of Iraq's WMD's the US and UK launched numerous air strikes with piloted aircraft and cruise missiles. Also the US attacked a suspected terrorist facility in Sudan (or was it Somilia) that turned out to be a one of the few pharmaciutical (sp?) factories in that part of the world.

But I guess the GOP was just to damn busy with their witchhunt against Clinton's problematic zipper.

The mistake our enemies made was they thought W would be as passive as Clinton. They decided they could hit us with a sucker punch and get away with it. They were wrong.

So tell me just what was Dubyah doing in terms of fighting terrorism prior to Sept 11/03? During the transition from Clinton to Bush the former's advisors repeatedly told the latter of the terrorist threat.

The US is under attack.

That is what we are being repeatedly told.

I read of a story about Harry S. Truman in which he received some advice from a Senator, a Republican if I remember correctly. This Senator told the President the easiest way to re-election is to shamelessly scare the hell out of the voters.

The attackers come mainly from the Middle Eastern countries.

All from countries that are allied with the US. None were from countries that the US considers its enemies.

The US struck Iraq first.

The Iraqi military after an 8 year war with Iran and then the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent shit-kicking it got, was in no shape even after 10 years to be anysort of an aggressor in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein was essentially a toothless tiger with a military pre-occupied with containing internal revolt.

The US struck Iraq first based on LIES. The US said Iraq still had WMD's and there where none. The US said Saddam Hussein played a role in 9/11, he did not. Just what is the conquering and occupation of Iraq really for?

Saddam is no longer a contributor to the terrorist network.

Which one would that be? It's clear Saddam Hussein was sending money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Let's keep in if finanicing terrorism is wrong then there are many Republicans that are criminals. Just what were the Contras, the Central American Brownies?

In fact it is known that the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida was one of voilence. The terrorist network tried between three and five times to kill the Iraqi dictator.

In fact #2 one country that DID finance Al Qaida was the United States of America.

W has given Iran and Syria very clear warnings. Syria, get out of Lebanon. Iran, you will not have nukes. His resolve is firm. You may disagree with his decision, but he has made it. My guess is they have 4 to 6 months to comply, unless the US is attacked again, then they will have 4 to 6 days.

Syria has been in Lebanon since the 1970's. I'm not saying their presence is right, I'm just pointing out that fact. Another country that occupied the small Middle East country was Israel for many, many years. Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon is often referred its Vietnam.

I don't like nuclear profileration. However just where does the world's biggest nuke power get the gonads to tell other countries who can and who cannot have nukes? Is the US giving the same type of warnings to Israel or to Algeria or to South Africa?

 

[luckydog71]

Thanks Hank, what once was a very heated difference of opinion between many Perbites has changed to a more civil difference of opinion.

I am not sure that OBL thought if he brought down the WTC he would provoke the response he got, if you think of the number of attacks prior to 9/11 and the feeble response we had. 9/11 was being planned long before Bush, 9/11 was planned during Clinton’s second term and if you would have asked any political analyist, Gore was the shoe in for President. Could anyone imagine a more passive US than one under a Gore presidency?

So that is why I do not think this was an attack against W, this was an attack against the USA.

Given the ever increasing attacks from the Middle East what was the best response from the US. Powell wanted us to respond through the UN. I do not trust the UN to protect me.

On 9/12 if you would have asked the opinion of 75% of Americans we were looking for revenge. I lost 5 colleges on that day. I would have been willing to carpet bomb every fucking square inch of the entire Middle East. Hell I would have support dropping a nuke on Afganastan if I though we had a chance to kill OBL.

So from my perspective the voice of reason (Bush) had a more measured response. Did I believe Iraq had WMD and would give them to the terrorist. Damm straight. And so did most of the western world and the UN.

3 ½ years has softened the bitterness I felt for losing 5 of my colleges. Now I am willing to hear a strategy that will keep the US (and therefore me) safe.

All of the reasons we attacked Iraq turned out to be false. I don’t think Bush lied, I think he was wrong. So we are where we are. Now what?

At this point Bush still has the best strategy I have heard. I am willing to listen to others and how they would handle the threat, but all I hear is “Bush is wrong”.

I am willing to support and even vote for a better idea, but no one is putting a better idea forward.

 

[Gonzofiend]

Hey Dirty Dan,

If you are correct about the Taliban wanting to turn over Bin Laden and Al Queda and Georgie boy wouldn't let them, then I will withdraw my support for the war. I hadn't heard that, but it would not surprise me if Dubya did something that freakin' underhanded.

On protesting wars, I always support protesters. I protested the first Iraq war. I've opposed just about every war the Republicans have led my country into (and one Clinton led us into-Kosovo) except for Afghanistan, which I will not support if you are correct. But you must understand, in America right now it is very hard to protest, you can, but the best you can hope for is to be ignored, the worst is to be mocked, beaten and arrested. I used peacenicks as an almost subliminal defense mechanism against charges of "traitor" and the like which are easily bandied about these days in the United Prisons of America. Remeber, we had a US congressman just the other day openly advocating the use of protesters as human shields, to wide applause and little censure, so I cover my bets. Don't tell the F.B.I., but I'm a peacenick.

As for the rest of it, we are in complete agreement. The US can't (and shouldn't) impose democracy on anyone. I hate this Iraq fucking war, like I said in the previous post, we've wasted 300 billion and 1500 lives (let alone 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi lives) and all of our credibility for oil interests. George Bush doesn't support Democracy, except when it is convenient for him and his buddies. He supports the dictator in Uzbekistan who literally boils his opponents to death in water, and Musharraf in Pakistan who's a dictator and many others. Bush is a cynical turd, and I will never defend his crooked ass.

Maybe I need to make my posts clearer, because you and I are probably in complete agreement, I've just been trying not to bash Bush and his ilk too badly on the board for the sake of civility and to try to avoid the flame wars inherent to political discussions. Perhaps I have to dig deeper and hit a little harder and call more spades spades instead of pussyfooting around while still not getting personal with the people on the board.

And yes, America has had imperial ambitions before. The entire Southwest was won by war and we slaughtered millions in the Phillipines, let alone Central and South America where we changed governments like bedsheets as our whim accorded. America has done, and sometimes still does, evil things for cynical reasons. It hurts to admit that, but that's the bottom line.

Gonzo

 

[Herb_The_Perb]

The US is under attack. The attackers come mainly from the Middle Eastern countries. The US struck Iraq first.

Was under attack.
The attackers came overwhelmingly from one country -- Saudi Arabia.
Shouldn't we have bombed them first?

 

[dirtydan]

So from my perspective the voice of reason (Bush) had a more measured response. Did I believe Iraq had WMD and would give them to the terrorist. Damm straight. And so did most of the western world and the UN.

George Walker Bush the voice of reason? if so then the US and the rest of the world is in deep shit.

Iraq did indeed have WMD's and used them during the 8 year war with Iran and also against the Kurds. At one time the Iran-Iraq War was highlighted by the exchanges of ballistic missiles targetted at each other's cities. Offhand I do believe that was the first time such missiles were met with the retalliation of other missiles.

Not long after Saddam Hussein seized power, Iraq began to procure chemical and gas weapons technology. Not only from the Eastern Bloc but also from the West. Sometime around 1983-1984 Iraq began using these WMD's against Iranian troops in what was largely the 1980's version of a WW1 battlefield.

Following Iraq's defeat at the hands of the US led, UN approved coalition its arsenal of WMD's was found and destroyed. As Hans Blix, one of the Chief Weapons Inspectors, repeatedly said Iraq didn't have anymore WMD's. His comments were met with the vile and vicious rhetoric that came from the White House. In short a disgusting character assassination, all to support the big lie Bush was playing upon.

With that said, look at the same crap the US heaped onto France. Not all that different than what Blix was subjected to. In fact really not all that different than what Canada has been wrongly undergone. The US, with its current president, responds very often to situations with a toddler like attitude.

3 ½ years has softened the bitterness I felt for losing 5 of my colleges. Now I am willing to hear a strategy that will keep the US (and therefore me) safe.

All of the reasons we attacked Iraq turned out to be false. I don’t think Bush lied, I think he was wrong. So we are where we are. Now what?

Common sense says that if Bush did not have ANY knowledge of Iraq not having WMD's then yes indeed he would have been wrong. Yet he had plenty of knowledge of the contrary, but still pursued the big lie.

In the end a war of aggression, the conquering and occupation of a country all based upon the lies of Iraq still having WMD's and Saddam Hussein was connected with Al Qaida.

Let me ask you this, how can anyone support a regime that does something like that. Especially when over 1,000 of its own troops have been killed, thousands and thousands more wounded, and the adamant refusal to acknowledge any sort of numbers regardling Iraqi civilian casualties caused by US forces and its allies. And to boot a President too COWARDLY to attend a funeral of any of the service personnel that were killed. Oh yah, let's not forget the wounded and dead being brought back to the US in the middle of the night.

 

[dirtydan]

Was under attack.
The attackers came overwhelmingly from one country -- Saudi Arabia.
Shouldn't we have bombed them first?

Especially when Saudi Arabia does have WMD's and does have connections to Al Qaida.

I guess when your ambassador is considered to be one of the Bush clan, there is a hell of a lot you can get away with. For instance, the removal of all bin Ladens in the US at the time of the 9/11 attacks before any of the LE authorities could question them.

 

[luckydog71]

Let's party people

Mario those are great.....

I real like this one.....if he was double bagged I would take a run at him (errrr I am mean her)