I quote Hapaboy here for no other reason than his just happens to be the last post. I could have quoted TM or optional, or Candle, or the instigator who pretends to be of middle eastern descent. (FPC?...doesn't matter, we know it's just a goof no matter who it is). So Hapaboy gets the honor. Someone mentioned if we went in and deposed SH, and did not do any "nation building" that this would lead to civil war. Well, what is the real problem with that? Who are we, or who is any nation to go into a foreign land and tell them how to live? While I would like nothing more than to see a western style democracy in Iraq, how likely is this to really happen? Is there a single democracy in the entire Arab world? Is there a single country in the middle east that has a government of the people? Yeah, Israel, which is universally despised by its neighboring countries. So if we can be the world's "policeman" and go in and take over and put in place a regime in Iraq that suits our sensibilities, then why stop there? As Candle has said, even though Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are our "allies", they indeed pose the greatest threat to us. So why not invade them? Why stop (or even start) with Iraq? We went to Vietnam to try and install a government to our liking. They were having a civil war, and we stuck our nose in it. We had no business being there, and our presence ultimately served no purpose other than to cause great divisiveness in our own country, resentment in much of the world, the death of over 50,000 American troops. And all for what? The civil war was won by the North Vietnamese, and now 30 years later, we are on a friendly basis with them. Doing business. Sending tourists. So really, the politics of reality are about business. Look at China. At one time not so long ago, another of our biggest threats. Now they only want "most favored nation status" in our trade policy. The USSR no longer exists, because their economics didn't work. Of course a readily apparent difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that Iraq has oil. So the game will play out differently at least for a while. Our real battle should not be a military one. Our real battle.....the one that must be won to preserve our nation for as long as the world exists (a noble if not necessarily realistic goal) is not about installing puppet regimes. It is about two things. The immediate issue, is, of course, to assure our national security. To be on guard against terrorism. So again, this really will boil down to economics. Get the followers of the Islamic fanatics to stop being so socially and economically desperate as to send their sons (and now daughters) to their deaths as suicide bombing martyrs (and getting money from assholes like Saddam and Arafat). Give them hope and education and stop giving them reasons to be brainwashed by the Bin Ladens of the world, who have them convinced that we are evil and morally corrupt. Anything sells to a barefoot illiterate who is hungry and sees and is taught to resent the great wealth and "decadent" western lifestyle. Meanwhile their rulers take all the oil wealth for themselves. But use us, or the Israelis, or the different sects of Islam, who whoever is convenient, as scapegoats to explain away the sad state of affairs for the palestinians, kurds, whoever. The second issue is, of course, to end our dependence on oil altogether. There is not an unlimited amount of fossil fuel, and there is no reason to not make an all out effort to find alternative sources of energy. Yes, even the automotive industry is throwing us an occasional bone with a few "hybrid" cars and a lot of promises. But this has now become a matter of national security. The Manhattan Project accomplished the near impossible during World War II. When it seemed important to beat the Russians to the moon in 1961, we were able to fulfill Kennedy's goal to "put a man on the moon in this decade". Now we need an energy solution. We have always had the ability to coordinate extraordinary efforts and accomplish extraordinary feats of technical achievement. But so far it has all been for the military. Atomic bomb. Space race (truly at the time a military feat....if perhaps only psychological). Now we need to exploit our ability to achieve by eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. And a cure for cancer would be nice too. So many better ways to spend our money and capitalize on our greatness as a nation of achievers. Why is it always done to build bombs (or other military miracles......SDI comes to mind). How about pooling our money and our brains and doing something for ourselves. And the future of our planet? Here is where Gore, as weak a candidate as he was at least had a policy. The environment is our only irreplaceable resource. Let it go, and there are no second chances. A poll about whether Reagan was or was not a great President had a thread here not more than a week or so ago. But while it is and will be argued over whether he should be credited with "winning the cold war", the fact remains that he had no regard for the environment. James Watt, his secretary of the interior wanted to drill for oil in Yellowstone Park, as well as in virtually all of the protected preserves of Alaska. Sure, this would have alleviated the fear of further 1970's style "oil embargoes", but what about the results of this kind of thinking a hundred years from now. Or two hundred? Or a thousand? Or even just five years from now? So we have two mentalities. Live for today, and let our children's children worry about their lives in their time. Or be responsible, and do what must be done now. In Tokyo, people walk the streets with masks to filter out air pollution. In a hundred years, if we don't change things, we (our descendants) will be walking around in Hazmat suits and breathing canned air. Twenty years ago, anyone would have been laughed at if they said in 2003, drinking water would cost far more than gasoline. Not to mention that gasoline would cost $2 a gallon. Or even $1 a gallon seemed incomprehensible not so long ago. And here we are. I went to the movies the other night. OK, I was overcharged for a bottle of water, because of where I was. But the fact remains that a half pint of water cost me $3.75. So we go nuts that gas costs over two dollars a gallon. But I paid $30 dollars a gallon for drinking water!!!! "Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows." Sorry for going off theme, but we have a world to REALLY worry about. A future that looks pretty dismal unless we come to our senses. So kick ass in Iraq. But let's realize that no matter how we try to impose our will on the regime change ..."nation building".... it is all just short sighted stuff. We have a planet to worry about. We have our own children and their children to worry about and be responsible to. Let's not mess it up over the immediate gratification of cheaper oil, and a "feel good" victory over a basically pathetic little country run by a thug and his family and his "elite Republican Guard". We know from watching the Sopranos how thugs and bullies are really just losers who don't know it yet. Peace, my brethren, and again, sorry for the rant. Rs7
Rather than get in to arguments about which would be the best system, let me pose the following questions. When was the issue of nation building debated in the senate? When was the issue of nation building debated in the house? When was the issue of nation building suggested to the American people as the solution to terrorism? My point is that Bush has extended the normal bounds of the executive branch of government into areas that it doesn't traditionally belong. Did congress vote to authorize nation building? Were funds allocated and approved for nation building? The answer to all of these questions is no. The American way is to have debate on issues and policy. The unilateral action that the rest of the world is complaining about in the case of the USA essentially going it alone in a war effort, is very similar to kind of frustration of many that a plan of nation building is going to be implemented unilaterally. This is going to be a very heated topic. Right now, we need to all agree that the war must be won and quickly and painlessly as possible. After that, all political hell is going to break lose, not only in this country, but in the world when the topic of how to transition Iraq to a new regime should take place. It will be messy, and ugly. There will be a lot of angry folks who were not consulted. This is a mistake in my opinion. A political mistake of major proportions. This is not to say that nation building is wrong, that is another topic and I will let RS7 rant on that one. The point I am making is that we should have had a vote on the funds, and methods of to achieve a stable post war in Iraq BEFORE THE WAR! This administration has shown no real consistency of foreign policy, as Bush has been winging it during his entire presidency. Indeed, 911 caught us all by surprise, but there was time for national debate on post war Iraq, and now that it is coming after the fact, it will be very nasty.
Speaking of rants.... Having a "vote on the funds and methods to achieve a stable post-war in Iraq before the war" would accomplish what? NO ONE knows what the cost of rebuilding Iraq will be! So if there was a vote, and Congress authorized $2 billion, so what? Once that money runs out (and it will very quickly) would we then just abandon Iraq? "Um, sorry. We have to go now. You guys work things out among yourselves. Yusuf, don't kill Ali. Mahmoud, leave Abdel alone. Share the water hole and let the camels take turns. We'll get back to you later on how to get the pipelines running again." Our president has decided to rid the world of a festering, life-threatening cancer AND act as physical therapist to get Iraq back on her feet. If your wife had to have an operation to save her life would you go over the costs, whistle at the expense, and then tell her "Sorry hon, this operation is a tad too expensive. Thanks for the memories. I'll catch up to you later. Bye."? Furthermore, we will not be going it alone in the rebuilding. The Euro-trash are going to be jumping over themselves trying to assist the new Iraq in order to get a piece of the oil business. That's the "nice" thing about this situation - Iraq does have oil, so it isn't like we're going into the poorest country with no source of income whatsoever. Yes it will be difficult and costly. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. No it isn't. But it may be the most effective in situations like this. Please outline your strategy for an effective war on terrorism.
RS7, always a pleasure! Good post. Very passionate. You have a faith in your fellow man that is refreshing. The problem is what's the point in toppling SH and then letting the most blood-thirsty psycho take over? It would be the same old Iraq with a different nutcase at the helm. Would that solve the threat? No. Doesn't mean it isn't worth a try. And if Iraq doesn't become a carbon-copy of the US (what nation is?), at least we will have removed a major, major threat. This has been debated ad nauseum in other threads, but simply put, the Pakistani and Saudi governments are not calling for our deaths, have not invaded their neighbors, and not shown a megalomaniac desire to control the region and its resources. That there are elements among their populace who hate us is without question, as shown by most of the 9/11 terrorists being Saudi, but the governments do not pose the threat SH's does. Different era. Different threat. MUCH different threat. A threat that no longer exists. Apples and oranges. And WMD. And a desire for nukes. And the desire to use them. Noble thoughts, to be sure. The problem is that the changes you are prescribing require economic shifts, as you pointed out. So how do we do that? How do you help the populace when it is in the best interest of the government ruling that populace to maintain the status quo of poverty and hate-mongering? You've just illustrated precisely what the US hopes to achieve in Iraq by removing SH and instilling democracy. The obvious goal is to make Iraq a democratic and economically self-sufficient nation. But keep in mind that economics alone are not going to solve the terrorism problem. Not all terrorists are poor. Many in fact are quite well off, i.e. bin Laden. The politicization and militarization of religion is another well-spring of terrorism that will be much harder to fight against. A future for our children and their children begins with securing the world in which they live in. Failing to do so imperils us all. Just my .02 brother RS.
Yup, absolutely true. Not all terrorists are poor. Poverty is just one of the driving forces of terrorism. Another of these forces is obviously fanaticism brought about by several factors. And these are the ones that get the Mohammed Atta's and the Bin Ladens involved. Religious extremism. Solution? Tough one. Too tough for me to answer. I wish i knew how to address an issue that is so far beyond my understanding. But I can't. So rather than try, I will leave it to those with a better grasp of this issue. But I will say that religious fanatics come in all flavors. Not just Islamic. So there is something to be said for the fact that if it isn't one group, it is another. Depends on what time frame in history we are referring to. The Inquisition and the Crusades (to cite only two obvious examples among countless others) were no less destructive than what we are seeing today. Politics. Another basis for terrorism among the Rolex crowd. Very fashionable to be a radical if you feel betrayed or imposed upon, like Bin Laden. He resents the US for our presence in what he considers his land. As he did the Russians when they had their fiasco in Afghanistan. The poor and desperate are easily swayed to extreme hatred. Good to have someone to blame for their problems. And the wealthy and privileged and educated too can find a place of comfort in organizations like Al Qaeda. They get to express their dissatisfaction about whatever pisses them off. And they have a ready audience. This has happened even here in the US. For every Timothy McVeigh piece of trash, there is a well educated Uni Bomber. Or a well educated and well heeled radical like Abby Hoffman, Marc Rudd or Jerry Rubin. Guys that were just pissed off, bored, and enjoyed the spotlight and had the means and the ability to express their grievances. So while what you, Hapaboy, say is true, the fact remains, after all the examples of the rich and intelligent and well educated "terrorists" (of varying degrees.....was Abby Hoffman really a "terrorist"? I say no, yet I am sure Mondo Trader would call him worse), the fact remains that without the truly disenfranchised and downtrodden, there would be no need for leaders and no purpose to be served by today's terrorists. Fidel Castro, and Che also come to mind. Ho Chi Minh. One man's terrorist is another mans revolutionary. So rich terrorists are idealists with an audience, and the attention is what they seek. Or just deranged fanatics who while they have much to live for, are just mentally ill. Like Atta. Of course, I could be wrong about every word I said. As always, I just make it up as I go along, and express my own conclusions. But my refusal to become a cut and paste artist has served me well in my selfish way. I get entertainment value and get to exercise my brain by just winging it. And God (Optional) knows, if you don't exercise, you atrophy. One last thing. I agree with Optional's post about nation building completely. Another fine example of why I have such a hard time with Dubya, and his "cowboy" mentality. It isn't that what he does is necessarily wrong. It is his "shoot from the hip" approach I have a problem with. We have a very refined system of laws. Checks and balances. Sometimes it seems that Dubya never paid attention in school. Maybe he was absent those days when we learned about the different branches of government, and thier functions in Junior High. Peace my brothers, rs7
go fuck a camel in the ass. you are either some 12 yr old kid starved for attention, a lonely loser, or a muslim extremist. either way- you are human garbage. iraq's regime of terror is about to be over quickly and decisively. how ya like them apples, bitch??
Good points. And your point about the govenments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan not posing immediate threats to us is well taken too. So in Iraq, the govenment is a threat to us, and the people are not. In these other places the some of the people are (or want to be) a threat to us, and the "governments" don't. Some "governments"! Especially Saudi Arabia. Kiingdoms are not governments by our definition. They are a system where all the wealth goes to a family, and the subjects of the kingdom get whatever scraps fall off the table. Not a good situation. And not one likely to last. Remember our "friend" the Shah? His exile, his return, and his exile again? Not a great system. As far as installing a democracy in Iraq.....sure, sounds good. Make them Little America. Only one problem. You can install a puppet government, but without throwing a zillion dollars into rebuilding the place, re-educating the people, and spending an eterinity in the occupation of this place, how do you change a culture? Sounds awfully like imperialism at it's finest to me. That is not what we are supposed to be about. It isn't a culture we understand. It isn't a part of the world we understand. So yes, the chances are good that another thug will take control after SH is gone and we are gone. That's their culture. Hopefully it will change. Mass communications has done more to "westernize" the world than we could ever hope to accomplish with an occupying army. Let things run their course. It will take time, but not that many people really prefer living in the eight century. Peace, rs7
thanks for the posts. You make several good observations about religion and what a post-war Iraq will become. I don't claim to have the answers. Just an opinion, and an insignificant one to be sure at that. I can agree with you and Optional that Dubya doesn't do things by the book and in the accepted way. But in his defense, our country has never been faced with the threat that currently exists, and he feels it's a race against time. I agree with him 100% on that. Debating and arguing take time, especially in politics. Look at the UN, prime example. W tried to work within the accepted framework, and it didn't work. I don't consider that his failure, but the UN's. That we are going in almost alone may be a cause of resentment to much of the world, but too bad. The rest of the world doesn't have a bullseye on it the size of Mars, we do. We can debate over the causes and point fingers all we want, but in my (humble) opinion the situation is what it is, we have been targeted, and all the talk in the world isn't going to change that. All the best, Hapa
I do not know where you are or what you are doing for a living. if you have a family to support, one that suports you or if you are on your own. in any way one day you will take your very last breath and lay your head to final rest. tell me, what shall be the most important thing that pops up in your mind at that very moment? what shall be the most important idea, feeling, action you have to think about when you realise your fading away? war? hate? anger? peace
"human garbage"? this is the mind set the US are delivering to the world? this is the final result of freedom of speech? this is the way to react to someone who is in defensive position facing an invincible enemy? no matter where one stands in this conflict, there is nobody entitled to name or treat somebody else as garbage. nobody, Mr.IfeelStrongIamAmerican. peace