Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sweet irony

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Sweet irony

    Joe said: "I'm pretty certain that watching Hussein being forcibly deposed was pretty much the sole DECIDING factor. Without that, there was no foreseeable end to the "secret negotiations"." I think the capture of Sadaam may have far reaching implications that we may only ever find out many years from now. Libya is only the beginning. I think it will affect the Palestinians, the French and many others. It has shown that we Americans CAN stick to something and follow it through. If we were to pull out now it would only reinforce the "Viet Nam" syndrome that Americans eventually fail to live up to commitments and they can wear us down by just holding on long enough. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

    Comment


    • #62
      Sweet irony

      In Qadahffiís past, he has lost family due to an intense U.S. military, (specifically F-111ís situated for long range bombing), strategic air raid which originated from the United Kingdom and which navagated around our friends in France, which indeed targeted Libya, and that, I believe, almost nailed Qadahffi down - dead. He knows first hand that with Saddamís current reality, that the stakes are now higher than ever, and that the will of many fed up American people is now fully in support of Bush and our military to stop the BS. BTW, I believe we did find a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, itís name is Saddam Hussein.

      Comment


      • #63
        Sweet irony

        Joe Pluta wrote: > In any event, that's Powell. Bush vowed to defend: Are you actually trying to say the Powell acted without Bush's guidance? > Since Iraq was one of the key players in the international > game of terrorism, they were a good target. Since when? More and more it's looking like some Saudis are responsible for financing much of the terrorism and I'm not aware of a single tie between Iraq and international terrorism. In fact, the attacks currently upon the Coalition forces are proving to be committed by non-Iraqis. > And ultimately, Bill, Bush and the coalition have been proven > correct. Their actions have now led to the voluntary disarmement of > Libya - something that would have never happened by waiting for the > UN to act. A big assumption that can't be proven and IMO is completely false. Syria is a much larger danger than Libya is/was. Bill

        Comment


        • #64
          Sweet irony

          "Since when?" You believe that Iraq was NOT involved in terrorism? You really need to do a little research. Start here: http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html One of Iraq's primary terrorist goals seems to have been to prevent peace in the Middle East, which pretty much everyone considers to be one of the priamry goals of a stable world peace. If, by the way, you're making some sort of distinction between "local terrorism" and "international terrorism", then we have nothing further to discuss. "a big assumption that can't be proven and IMO is completely false" And when exactly did you predict Libya disarming? What has the UN done to disarm Libya? In fact, when did the UN even mention that as a priority? And finally, what does Syria have to do with any of this? Because Syria is bad, we should ignore Libya? Do you think we have to have some list that we go down in order? We're seizing targets of opportunity and each one that we remove makes the world a safer place. Here's the simple, undeniable math: Hussein gone = safer world. Argue all you want. Happy New Year! Joe

          Comment


          • #65
            Sweet irony

            In this discussion, I have read that a reason for invading Iraq was that Iraq gassed it's own citizens, and slaughtered, or otherwise brought them to harm in innumerable ways. Certainly a good reason. However, there is a major problem here. The gassing occurred while Iraq was an ally of the U.S. The chemical warfare was against the Iraqi town of Halabja in March 1988. International estimates are that approximately 5,000 people died. The reason, apparently, was that the Kurdish inhabitants chose to rebel against Saddam and his government. Also important to this story is the fact that Halabja is just 11 kilometers from Iran, with whom Iraq was at war. A war that the U.S. supported. A war that killed roughly one million people, some with chemical weapons. Now, none of this means that the U.S. supported the gassing the Kurds. As I recall, the U.S. protested the matter but then let it drop rather quickly. Also, by 1991 the U.S. was clearly no longer an ally of Iraq, so perhaps this episode played a part in the unravelling of that relationship. No, the problem is one of realpolitik. The U.S. was an enemy of Iran because of the 1979 revolution there. Hussein was an enemy of Iran too, and better yet, secular (Moslem, but secular). So even though he was already a dictator, Iraq became an ally of America. Now on to the issue of the U.N. Sure, the U.N. has problems. It's structure is a bureaucratic relic of the Cold War and a Security Council referral is a fine way to stop many worthwhile initiatives. But don't blame the U.N. for things outside it's mandate, or beyond it's control. The U.N. has neither a military force at it's disposal, nor a police force. It can ask member countries to provide troops for a specific task but has no independent forces. Fundamentally, the U.N. is not in a position to enforce anything, and blaming it for not enforcing U.N. resolutions is unfair. I would go even further and suggest that the U.N. has an appropriate organizational bias against doing so anyway. It was created from the ashes of World War II with the goal of preventing future wars, particularly worldwide conflicts. All nations get a seat, even the unsavoury ones. Say what you will, but the U.N. has helped keep more people talking, and less people shooting. Failing that, when nations collectively decide to take action against one of their own, the U.N. is the best place to make that decision. When an organization that is institutionally against war decides to make one, you can be pretty sure that war really was the only remaining option.

            Comment


            • #66
              Sweet irony

              Last night one of the networks was playing the Wizard of Oz, and that's a favorite in my household, so I went to bed with the strains of "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" in my head. And lo and behold, I get up this morning to the news that Hussein is captured in a hole in the ground on a farm near Tikrit. The irony is just wonderful. Joe

              Comment


              • #67
                Sweet irony

                "A war that the U.S. supported. A war that killed roughly one million people, some with chemical weapons." Whether we actively supported the war against Iran, or simply supported the enemies of Iran is a question for socipolitical studies to debate. There is a difference, according to the UN, and from what I have been able to gather from the UNs dense and sometmies obscure ruling, giving someone guns to fight a war is not the same as fighting the war. This of course makes sense in light of the UN as primarily a financial body, not a governing body; selling guns is a good thing, using them is not. "Now, none of this means that the U.S. supported the gassing the Kurds. As I recall, the U.S. protested the matter but then let it drop rather quickly." Unfortunately, it's not so clean as all that. We actually voted against censuring Iraq for Halabja. This was one of the more egregious failures in American foreign policy in a while. More in a minute. "Also, by 1991 the U.S. was clearly no longer an ally of Iraq, so perhaps this episode played a part in the unravelling of that relationship." Kuwait sealed the deal. "No, the problem is one of realpolitik. The U.S. was an enemy of Iran because of the 1979 revolution there. Hussein was an enemy of Iran too, and better yet, secular (Moslem, but secular). So even though he was already a dictator, Iraq became an ally of America." Ah - herein lies the gentle distinction between "dictator" and "evil dictator". We supported the Shah or Iran, although it's pretty clear he was no great friend to his people. We have historically partnered up with shady regimes in order to shore up an offense against even shadier regimes. This is truly the "realpolitik" of which you speak. Usually, the idea is to try to create some political movement from within, moving gently towards democracy. However, there are times when you have to tell someone that it's over, and we did that with Hussein in the 90's. And after Kuwait, we gave him a dozen years to straighten out his act, and there is no sign that he did so. Finally, it was time to move ahead. Joe

                Comment

                Working...
                X