Fighting for what's right. by chrisisall

The right thing ?

You couldn't have invaded Iraq in Gulf war one because None of you local allies with the exception of Kuwait which was occupied would have allow their soil to be used for basing.

Kosovo would have not become a problem if the west hadn't of started arming the KLA provoking the Serbian army to come in.

stay home......

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 6:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The right thing ?

stay home......

Well, I was saying from that particular point in recent history...
If you want to go back farther, we could have traded for land instead of slaughtering the Native Americans, but I was going for more recent possibilities.

I meant, what if at the time of the Gulf War, the U.S. decided NOT to arm tyrants, not to back dictators, not to initiate war for oil; what if she decided to go for what's right, instead of what's secure- would the world economy be better? Would 911 have even happened?

Would we be closer to armageddon or utopia?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The right thing ?

stay home......

Well, I was saying from that particular point in recent history...
If you want to go back farther, we could have traded for land instead of slaughtering the Native Americans, but I was going for more recent possibilities.

I meant, what if at the time of the Gulf War, the U.S. decided NOT to arm tyrants, not to back dictators, not to initiate war for oil; what if she decided to go for what's right, instead of what's secure- would the world economy be better? Would 911 have even happened?

Would we be closer to armageddon or utopia?

Chrisisall

If at the end of the Gulf War, had the US began a phased withdraw from the middle-east, perhaps transferred weapons and equipment to the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians, etc... but brought their troops out.... As well as not provoking armed rebellion in Iraq and then standing back to watch it be crushed, as well as not forcing an embargo which wasn't working but killing thousands anyway....

Your entire foreign policy brought about 911, one could go back to the end of WW2 to track why the middleeast is not a good place for you to be... but it was going to happen eventually, a few small changes might have delayed it.... but nothing short of rethinking what the US assumes is its place in the world will change anything.

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:22 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Your entire foreign policy brought about 911

This is well known, just as the Allies of WWI brought about Hitler's rise to power.

Almost all-bad things are brought about by the foreign policy of people traditionally not blamed.

The question was where would we be if the foreign policy had been different, that is a question you totally ignored in all possible ways. If you don't want to respond to the question asked, or at the very least something that is in the thread, why even post in the thread?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:28 AM

ZISKER

Well, the 9-11 question depends on how much US-support of Israel actually played into the matter since it was one of Bin-Laden's beefs. Did the Oslo Accords go through or not? When we take out these dictators do we try to install our people or do we let them settle their own form of government like in N. Somalia where they actually have stability now? What did we do with all that capital that wasn't spent on "war for oil"? Did it go toward long-term improvement projects in the Middle East? Did we deploy smaller 'peace keeping' forces to other hot spots? Or did we stay home and let them kill each other while we put the money elsewhere for our own social/economic improvements?

My theory: In the early 90s, with Saddam gone and Clinton in the White House, a renewed sentiment of 'What in the hell are we fightin' for?' sweeps Americans. Peace spontaneously breaks out. The money being sent to the Army is cut and put into the Peace Corps and education. Higher education is now affordable for every American citizen. This new breed of college student attends school aware that she/he is on the government's dime and is taught liberalism as only colleges can indoctri- I mean, teach it! They graduate idealistic, grateful, altruistic, mostly liberal and more importantly - free from crushing student debt.

Without the fetters of tens of thousands of dollars in loans, these wide-eyed idealists go out and decide that joining the Peace Corps (which has expanded significantly thanks to that vastly increased budget) is the perfect way to give a little back to the world that has given them so much. The ranks swell and soon it seems as though every member of the Third World knows five or six American college graduates who serve a stint trying to make their country better. The Peace Corps volunteers learn, love, smoke weed, teach english, provide medical services, smoke more weed, develop high-tech communication systems, create small-level business opportunities, build clincs and other public-service buildings, help villagers and do some dope.

While some will choose to remain in the Peace Corps indefinately, most return to the States after two year gigs to pursue a graduate degree on Uncle Sam's dime or to go out into the workforce with the experience they need to succeed. Soon these young go-getters take office and follow a begnin policy with excellent foreign relations, for they are citizens of the world. For some reason, they also quickly legalize pot in a move that shocks and angers the tabacco and alcohol industry which, as well all know, had nothing to do with the criminalizing of pot back in the day. NASA finally gets the funding it needs to begin serious off-world colonization projects, for the politicians have seen the effects of over-population on our fragile Earth.

The Army still exists and is a small, efficent force that is well-maintained. Their prime objective is to protect Peace Corps volunteers when things go south. With this protective umbrella o'er its head, over the years the Peace Corps manages bring about prosperity and stability in the world, one communal project at a time until there is no longer a third-world, but countries where, while they are not wealthy, the people are not living in abject poverty. They are grateful to the US and all the students who came to help. Everyone has access to health care. Everyone has access to education. Everyone has access to McDonald's.

Oh, that's right, I forgot to mention McDonalds - you see, once those grateful people had a little bit of capital to purchase products instead of just manufacturing them, Nike, Starbucks and McDonald's moved right in. And since no two countries with McDonald's in them have ever gone to war . . .did I mention that they all speak English now? Taught to them by the good ol' PC volunteers. Yep, it's a pre-requisite to work at that Wal-Mart we put up by their village.

And THAT is how you do Globalization - I mean, bring about world peace had things gone differently in the 90s.

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Your entire foreign policy brought about 911

This is well known, just as the Allies of WWI brought about Hitler's rise to power.

Almost all-bad things are brought about by the foreign policy of people traditionally not blamed.

The question was where would we be if the foreign policy had been different, that is a question you totally ignored in all possible ways. If you don't want to respond to the question asked, or at the very least something that is in the thread, why even post in the thread?

I read three question here

1. would the world economy be better?
2. Would 911 have even happened?
3.Would we be closer to armageddon or utopia?

For 2 I answered even if a few minor changes, etc, etc it would have eventually happened anyway

I figured 1 and 3 were obvious with 2 answered

Hey Chrisisall... Should I elaborate more or did my answer answer the premise of your general question ?

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Where would we be right now do you think?

In the midst of a lot of little wars with the anti-Bush types on the Left and Right calling Bush evil. We would be right where we are today. American politics of the last 10 years before Bush was dominated by a desire to avoid issues and look for easy solutions. As such any problems that required real attention (Iraq and Afghanistan, among them) were largely ignored or pushed to the back, because neither Clinton nor Bush the 1st wanted to deal with them. And the truth is that Bush the 2nd had every intention of continuing the realpolitick policies of his father, then 9/ll happened, and it occurred to Bush and many others that you simply can’t ignore these problems forever.

The political atmosphere following the end of the Cold War was that all was finally well with the world and people wanted to relish that feeling, but it was never true.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Hey Chrisisall... Should I elaborate more or did my answer answer the premise of your general question ?

I think you addressed my question, just not directly, but you answered it.
We've screwed things up too long for a sudden change in policy 15 years ago to make a big difference today, it would be pretty much as it is- that right?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Hey Chrisisall... Should I elaborate more or did my answer answer the premise of your general question ?
I think you addressed my question, just not directly, but you answered it.
We've screwed things up too long for a sudden change in policy 15 years ago to make a big difference today, it would be pretty much as it is- that right?

Chrisisall

Exactly, that is why no peacekeeping effort ramrodded by the US has ever been successfull...

The US always puts its short term self interest first and picks sides... And that has drasticly effected the rest of the worlds outlook towards American foreign policy.

I also think that is one of the reason most Americans don't understand China, they understand short term self interest is judged over a few decades, not a matter of months...

Patience Grasshopper, and the world will be yours

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 9:53 AM

Gino's right. Todays world has been shaped by the actions of the U.S. over the course of the last 60 years( in the case of Latin America, the last 170 years). if things had gone differently 15 years ago, it wouldn't really matter much. It would only delay what is happening now.

P.S. if you want to hear more about what the U.S. has been doing around the world for more than a century, I recommend the book The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
then 9/ll happened, and it occurred to Bush and many others that you simply can’t ignore these problems forever.

Wait...it took the events of 911 for the President and others to have it occurr to them that terrorists could be dangerous? With one attempt on the WTC already behind us?

So we go from 'ignoring' to blasting. Seems a little radical, that switch in policy I mean.
I say be prepared son, always be prepared. Better'n doing nothing, and often makes over-reaction unnecessary.

You are indeed very kind to Bush and Co.
In my book they are dumasses, at best.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 11:22 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Where would you be right now?

Probably at war with North Korea or in the midst of an invasion of Iran 'cos they would have WMD's

would'nt they?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Todays world has been shaped by the actions of the U.S. over the course of the last 60 years( in the case of Latin America, the last 170 years). if things had gone differently 15 years ago, it wouldn't really matter much. It would only delay what is happening now.

So is Bush doing the logical thing; make a grab now, 'cause we can't ever expect to make this a better world in any adult's lifetime?
We can't be immediate heroes, so we just do what we want, and hope the world sees how 'right' we are later?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Where would you be right now?

Probably at war with North Korea or in the midst of an invasion of Iran 'cos they would have WMD's

would'nt they?

I had it in my mind that maybe the world would respect us more, and maybe no wars would be raging like the one in Iraq, but it seems I am in dreamland....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 30, 2006 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Todays world has been shaped by the actions of the U.S. over the course of the last 60 years( in the case of Latin America, the last 170 years). if things had gone differently 15 years ago, it wouldn't really matter much. It would only delay what is happening now.

So is Bush doing the logical thing; make a grab now, 'cause we can't ever expect to make this a better world in any adult's lifetime?
We can't be immediate heroes, so we just do what we want, and hope the world sees how 'right' we are later?

Chrisisall

Do some reading about the Spanish American War and
what you just said starts to look really likely

And now where is the US.....
, I summed it up in a pretty good word in another thread

Zugzwang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 1, 2006 2:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Todays world has been shaped by the actions of the U.S. over the course of the last 60 years( in the case of Latin America, the last 170 years). if things had gone differently 15 years ago, it wouldn't really matter much. It would only delay what is happening now.

So is Bush doing the logical thing; make a grab now, 'cause we can't ever expect to make this a better world in any adult's lifetime?
We can't be immediate heroes, so we just do what we want, and hope the world sees how 'right' we are later?

Chrisisall

No, Bush is not doing the logical thing from that standpoint. We could make the world a better place, but it would take a hell of a lot to reverse the distrust and outright hatred directed at the U.S. Our politicians just don't have the patience for that sort of thing, so they just keep doing what got us into this mess in the first place.

And I doubt the world will see how "right" we are when, thirty years down the road, the world is still on the brink of collapse (economically, socially, and politically) because of us.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 1, 2006 5:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:

And I doubt the world will see how "right" we are when, thirty years down the road, the world is still on the brink of collapse (economically, socially, and politically) because of us.

Unfortunatly, I agree completely.
I wish I could live in the fantasy world of some here who believe in everything the government does, and have faith in our leaders' intentions....

*goes out to Wal-Mart to buy crappy but nice-looking stuff made by REAL wage slaves to make himself feel afluent*

*comes back- it didn't work; still feels like a subject of the King*

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 1, 2006 6:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Gino's right. Todays world has been shaped by the actions of the U.S. over the course of the last 60 years.

Sort of gives a pass to Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, and Communist China, doesn't it? The U.S. doesn't operate in a vaccuum, and doesn't control everything that goes on in the world.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 1, 2006 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Gino's right. Todays world has been shaped by the actions of the U.S. over the course of the last 60 years.

Sort of gives a pass to Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, and Communist China, doesn't it? The U.S. doesn't operate in a vaccuum, and doesn't control everything that goes on in the world.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

That it doesn't, but it sure controls (or at least manipulates) a hell of a lot.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 1, 2006 4:47 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
...We could make the world a better place, but it would take a hell of a lot to reverse the distrust and outright hatred directed at the U.S. Our politicians just don't have the patience for that sort of thing, so they just keep doing what got us into this mess in the first place.

This is a really interesting point, but I'd propose that it's not our leaders who are lacking in patience but, in fact, it's us. Or at least the vast majority of the voters. Or maybe it's systematic, but it's clear our system simply doesn't support farsighted leaders with the fortitude to do the right thing for the long term, which often requires short-term sacrifice. We want simple, easily digested platitudes.

Am I being too cynical? Can people rise above TV politics?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 1, 2006 9:15 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

No, I agree with you, Sergeant.

When Bush announced big tax credits and refunds that would squander our surplus, any logical thinker had to know it was a rotten idea. Paying down the deficit would have had the biggest long term benefit for the nation.

But everyone happily pocketed their hundred dollar plus bribe because having a little money now is much nicer than saving a lot of money later.

We are an instant gratification society.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Sort of gives a pass to Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan,

My history's not too good; weren't they more than 60 years ago?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You are indeed very kind to Bush and Co.
In my book they are dumasses, at best.

My guess is (and indeed its my point) that if any of the wars you mentioned (including removing Saddam) that you label as “right” had been fought, you would be saying the same thing about the presidents that fought those wars. I agree that it would have been better to remove Saddam in 1991, but Bush the first didn’t because he knew the reconstruction would be difficult and he knew that you (and others) wouldn’t support him. The same thing is true of Clinton. We might have stopped the genocide in Ruwanda if we had sent in troops, but if we had, don't you think people would have decried Clinton for a “pre-emptive” war on a “sovereign” country that was “no-threat” to the US. Doing what’s right is hard. Sitting around and pushing these problems onto the next presidency, that’s easy. The problem is that we like to talk a big story about fighting for what is right, but many of us don’t want to do any real fighting. That puts our leaders in a precarious position: do they undertake wars that they believe are right even though they know they won't have the support of the people or do they just ignore the problem until it bites us in the ass? Bush the second chose to do something, and I think he was right for doing it, even if I don't always agree with the particularly strategy, my hats off to a president who finally did what his predecessors didn't have the balls to do.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My history's not too good; weren't they more than 60 years ago?

None the less, they had a dramatic impact on the last 60 years. But really it’s disingenuous to imply that the US alone shaped the last 60 years, because even without WWII, which was the defining historical aspect of the last century, the Soviet Union did survive, and the Cold War is really responsible for shaping much of the last 60 years, particularly the events that many people, critical of the US, like to attribute solely to the US.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 5:24 AM

KAYLEESTHEGREATEST

i think oil companys are trying to screw us over

Someday the verse will spit in your soup but at least they gave you soup.
one day
one plan
one mission
one army of browncoats
june 23rd serenity day

-Our mission as browncoats is to make us known.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:40 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The best thing the US could have done would have been developing and deploying renewable alternative energy. With oil demand reduced the US wouldn't have motivation to meddle in oil producing regions.

The US could then have, in the words of the Beetles 'let it be', and Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran, among others, would have been moot.

Those horrible Soviets could have continued training Afghani women doctors, engineers, scientists and professors. The US wouldn't have felt compelled to arm the Taliban.

Foreign aid to Israel would be down, and the target painted on the US from that direction would fade. (And perhaps Israel, realizing it didn't have the 800 pound gorilla big brother would have sought more realistic policies with its neighobrs.)

The US wouldn't have continued presence in Saudi Arabia - bin Laden's big issue.

The US economy would be better.

And so on.

The cost - investment money.
The result - priceless

Oh let it be ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I agree that it would have been better to remove Saddam in 1991, but Bush the first didn’t because he knew the reconstruction would be difficult and he knew that you (and others) wouldn’t support him. The same thing is true of Clinton. We might have stopped the genocide in Ruwanda if we had sent in troops, but if we had, don't you think people would have decried Clinton for a “pre-emptive” war on a “sovereign” country that was “no-threat” to the US.

Finn, I respect you and your point of view immensely, so I'm trying to put this delicately...let's see, um...

W H A T ????????

Bush the first didn't take out Saddam because he didn't have our support?
Stopping genocide gets a president yelled at?

If a situation is explained truthfully, and the support doesn't come, let the president tell us we get no supper and an early bedtime. What are we gonna do- impeach him?

I understand liking Bush for doing something, but I just wish truth and brains came with those balls.
Is this all we get for presidents from now on? Short-sighted bravado dudes, or timid little buck-passers?

*Chrisisall falls over, his rant all shot off, his snarky-ness now gone. He goes back to his briefing as to how he's stealing the MIG-31 from Russia*

Gantsisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

The cost - investment money.
The result - priceless

I said it before.
HK and Rue for prez and vp.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
We might have stopped the genocide in Ruwanda if we had sent in troops, but if we had, don't you think people would have decried Clinton for a “pre-emptive” war on a “sovereign” country that was “no-threat” to the US.

No, we didn't stop the Rwanda genocide because it wasn't immediately profitable. If Rwanda was sitting on a gigantic oil field, we would have been there in a heartbeat, and we would have stayed to "enforce the peace" while the oil companies made big bucks.

Quote:
Doing what’s right is hard. Sitting around and pushing these problems onto the next presidency, that’s easy. The problem is that we like to talk a big story about fighting for what is right, but many of us don’t want to do any real fighting. That puts our leaders in a precarious position: do they undertake wars that they believe are right even though they know they won't have the support of the people or do they just ignore the problem until it bites us in the ass?

No, the choice they have to make is "can they get away with 'securing' more wealth and power". C'mon, these are politicians we are talking about. If you have enough money, you can change a staunch conservative into a progressive liberal. They don't give a damn about right and wrong (except in how it affects their re-election campaign).

Quote:
... and the Cold War is really responsible for shaping much of the last 60 years, particularly the events that many people, critical of the US, like to attribute solely to the US.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I was saying that the US was the sole influence, because that wasn't my intention. I was trying to say that the current terrorist situation is all blowback from what the U.S. did during and after the Cold War.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Bush the first didn't take out Saddam because he didn't have our support? Stopping genocide gets a president yelled at?

Bush the first believed he would not, and he was probably right. What do you think would have happened if Bush the first had removed Saddam in 1991? All smiles and sunshine?

Some things would have been easier, but not easy. For the most part it would have looked like it looks now, maybe worse. Bush understood this.

The interesting thing about stopping genocide is that once you stop it, it’s no longer there to influence opinion, and if you stop it by force, then your opponents are going to say you are the killer.

And Clinton understood what I’m telling you too. He understood it well. We bombed Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, but we didn’t put boots on the ground. We did put boots on the ground in Somalia but fled at the first sign of bloodshed. Clinton loved to pretend to fight, but he wasn’t about to actually fight, anywhere but Haiti. He was probably serious about Haiti.

And Bush the second understands what I’m telling you too. He understood it before all this happened, as well, in fact he campaigned on it in 2000.

No president wants to get into a protracted war, becasue they know the American people don't want it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 1:41 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Bush the first believed he would not, and he was probably right. What do you think would have happened if Bush the first had removed Saddam in 1991? All smiles and sunshine? Some things would have been easier, but not easy. For the most part it would have looked like it looks now, maybe worse. Bush understood this.

The first gulf war was widely supported and there was no question of it being illegal. Contrast that with now, where if you accept it or not the vast majority of nations, especially the local powers, consider the action wholly illegal.

The first Gulf was supported by the UN, the local arab nations and the international community at large. Gulf war 2 is, to all practical puposes, supported by Britian and America. Those arab powers that supported 'our' side during the Gulf War are now supporting the insurgents. We don't have the backing of the UN nor the International community at large.

How, to coin a phrase, in the sphincter of hell do you think that the post war situations would have been similar?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
How, to coin a phrase, in the sphincter of hell do you think that the post war situations would have been similar?

I guess there would have been no insurgency, no Sunni Triangle, no threat of a Sunni-Shiite Civil War, no soldiers coming home in body bags, the French would have completely supported it, the UN would have backed it.

In fact, the UN wouldn’t have supported it and French would have gone ballistic, hell we just barely pushed the first Gulf War past the French veto. There still would have been an insurgency. People would still be fretting about how Bush got us stuck in Iraq for years, isolated us from our allies (i.e the French), and killed innocent Iraqis. A protracted war is a protracted war, and they create enormous ammunition for political opponents and the media. As I said, there’s no doubt that it would have been easier, but not easy. Fear of a protracted is one of, if not the, principle reasons why Bush the first did not attempt to remove Saddam Hussein.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 5:07 AM