moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Jul 15 2004, 07:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Jul 15 2004, 07:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Until the more information surfaces, I will with hold my judgement on the events. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> All the information is out there, this happened quite a while ago.
<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1055779,00.html' target='_blank'>Here would be a good place to start</a> Even <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83503,00.html' target='_blank'>Fox News</a> reported on it.
The Fox News article only point out what has happened, and offers no explaination into possible motive. The grieving widow says its because they did not confirm to our view of the war. Forgive me if I take her article a little less serious, she is angry and lashing out. I doubt that it was an coincident that both sites were bombed by accident. I am, however, never quick to judge; unless there is overwhelming evidence. The US could of had good reason for bombing the buildings(or at least what they thought was good reason, with how our intelligence agencies have been), this will not be known until we are out of Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then you think terrorist attacks on CNN would be fine? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I imagine you are against the war; so with that in mind I ask you this, "Is government sponsered rape alright?" You are comparing apples and oranges.
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Jul 15 2004, 09:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Jul 15 2004, 09:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then you think terrorist attacks on CNN would be fine? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I imagine you are against the war; so with that in mind I ask you this, "Is government sponsered rape alright?" You are comparing apples and oranges. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How the hell is he comparing apples to oranges? And what does it have to do with government sponsored rape?
I'm just trying to understand your argument in it's full impact. Did I understand you correctly that in your view the destruction of targets that are of importance for the enemy is legit, no matter what those are?
If that is correct, then apply the same argument to the other side. Would you salute any Iraqi who kills US reporters, who does attacks on western broadcasting stations? Do you endorse the attacks on the WTC of terrorists because it hit "their enemy" very well?
I'm asking this because in my view there are two sides of the coin. I don't think the life of an American citizen has any more value that the life of an Iraqi citizen. And no ideology can allow the murder of any one of them.
And now, would you mind explaining me the "government sponsored rape"? Do you refer to US soldiers in Abu Ghraib?
<!--QuoteBegin-eggmac+Jul 16 2004, 12:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Jul 16 2004, 12:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm asking this because in my view there are two sides of the coin. I don't think the life of an American citizen has any more value that the life of an Iraqi citizen. And no ideology can allow the murder of any one of them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then your 'ideology' is <span style='color:white'><a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Rule #2.</a> I'm losing my patience here...</span> because if you really valued the life of an Iraqi citizen you would have supported the war 100%.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> which part of that statement are you doubting?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eggmac did you read my post at the top of the page before you decided to try and be all sly and spin things. I said
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Im sorry, I sick as hell right now and Im getting things messed up. We did attack dish stations, and that is ok(Cutting of information sources that can be used by the enemy). We also bomb two stations, one in Kabul and one in Baghdad. Until the more information surfaces, I will with hold my judgement on the events. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did not remember that we actually bomb two radio stations at the time of my first post. Notice I only said it was ok to bomb the radio satilites. Just like it is okay to destroy power plants and any other tools that the oppossing military would use.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How the hell is he comparing apples to oranges? And what does it have to do with government sponsored rape? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Terrorist bombing CNN and us bombing satilite dishes in a war zone are 2 completely different things. The most notable being the fact that the dishes can be taken out with minimal casualties, if any. To take out CNN, you would have a lot of casualties. I don't want to get into the differences between a country at war and terrorists at war.
As for my counter question. Sadam uses rape as a way to punish his citizens. If a man did something he did not agree with, he would have that man's wife and daughters raped in front of him. So assuming he was against the US removing Sadam, I proposed my ridiculous question. It is mearly to help illustrate that things are not as simple as how he put it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US accused al-Jazeera and other Arab channels of anti-American bias in their coverage of the war. But how biased can a picture of dead people be? A picture of a destroyed house doesn't need a reporter to tell its story, and the tears of children and refugees need no interpreter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arab television does has biased coverage, for example, from <a href='http://www.abudhabi.com/' target='_blank'>Abu Dhabi</a>, the <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/' target='_blank'>Fox News</a> of the Arab world. But <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage' target='_blank'>al-Jazeera</a> prides itself on truly objective coverage, their motto being, "The opinion and the counter-opinion." They translate and air clips of George W. Bush worldwide, and then air the opinions of the common people at ground zero. And if you look at their reports, they <i>are</i> amazingly objective, with reporters rarely ever drawing direct conclusions for the audience. They report, and actually do let their viewers decide.
-Ryan!
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country." -Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor
"These [terrorist] attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible, and this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail…The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed." -George W Bush (1946- ) Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces President of the United States of America
I find that Jammer's arguement <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49020&hl=death+to+the+goering+quote' target='_blank'>here</a> was quite convincing as to why the Goering quote shouldnt be afforded gospel status.
Stilll - we are straying pretty far from the Fahrenheit 9/11 focus of this thread. Not surprising really, no one really wants to condone the Moore trademark deception, so naturally the arguement turns to Left wing things with more substance then creative film editing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-es_quatro+Jul 19 2004, 02:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (es_quatro @ Jul 19 2004, 02:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Stilll - we are straying pretty far from the Fahrenheit 9/11 focus of this thread. Not surprising really, no one really wants to condone the Moore trademark deception, so naturally the arguement turns to Left wing things with more substance then creative film editing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In the history of these forums, not a single topic has been sustained for eleven pages. I wouldn't take that as a hint in favor or against anything.
Very solid if you asked me. Sure, Bowling for Columbine is filled with misleading editing and what not, but Fahrenheit 9/11 is pretty straightforward, minus his commentary.
There's another list of criticisms <a href='http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>, and a list of rebuttals addressing them <a href='http://anton-sirius.dailykos.com/' target='_blank'>here.</a>
I haven't gotten around to reading all of them, so I'm not sure which side builds a more solid case.
Edit:
Also: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> because if you really valued the life of an Iraqi citizen you would have supported the war 100%. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And it's hardly a clear cut case-- not only have there been a great number of civilian casualties (which are tough to justify with the classically arrogant and callous, 'Hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking some 10,000 eggs' defense), but think of how many additional civilians have died, and will continue to die, in the ensuing power vacuum/lawlessness.
The situation with the terrorists and insurgents has turned into not so much a 'lesser of two evils' as it is a 'different of two evils'. Call me a pessimist, but I don't see it likely that it will end anytime soon.
And along that note: <a href='http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1156598.htm' target='_blank'>Iraqi minister to investigate Allawi execution claims</a>
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? Only time will tell.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jul 20 2004, 04:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jul 20 2004, 04:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> because if you really valued the life of an Iraqi citizen you would have supported the war 100%. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And it's hardly a clear cut case-- not only have there been a great number of civilian casualties (which are tough to justify with the classically arrogant and callous, 'Hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking some 10,000 eggs' defense), but think of how many additional civilians have died, and will continue to die, in the ensuing power vacuum/lawlessness.
The situation with the terrorists and insurgents has turned into not so much a 'lesser of two evils' as it is a 'different of two evils'. Call me a pessimist, but I don't see it likely that it will end anytime soon.
And along that note: <a href='http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1156598.htm' target='_blank'>Iraqi minister to investigate Allawi execution claims</a>
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? Only time will tell. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And you seem to subscribe to the classically callous "To hell with the Iraqi's, just so long as we ain't the trigger man". Iraqi death, misery and suffering are a given, a constant, an inescapable consequence of any and all actions made in Iraq. If you opposed the Iraq war, then you condemn the Iraqi's to less casualties in the short term, but also consign them to suffering and brutality under a despot YOUR nation helped prop up. If you support it, then a lot of innocent Iraqi's will die, but those that do not die have a chance for freedom.
That power vacuum is not garaunteed. That is what American soldiers in Iraq are now fighting to avoid. I am growing increasingly bitter with certain world nations as they pull out of Iraq in a shockingly callous shafting of the Iraqi people. They joined in on the smashing stage, then pull out to leave the Iraqi's to rot. People who pre-war cried bitterly over the deaths of Iraqi civilians now calling for "Troops out now!" also infuriate me daily.
I believe Forlorn's point stands and is entirely pertinent. If you wish to claim to care about the lives of innocent Iraqi's, then you have to have a plan. That plan has to have the potential to alleviate their suffering in the long term. I've met plenty of people who can go on all day about how wrong the Iraq war was, but NEVER have I met anyone with an alternative plan for helping them.
I dont have a rock solid faith in the Americans to do the right thing, but if the right thing is going to be done - it sure as hell wont be done by the UN, and it wont be done by protest marchers in New York. The Yanks are the only one who were willing to do something.
Claims about Allawi are allegations. Not fact. They are based around statements made by two anonymous sources. In Australia, the Labor opposition government is fiercely anti-American and fiercely anti-war, and their Defence spokesman Beasly had this to say "I think that in our country, allegations of murder based around a report from a pair of anonymous sources would not be treated seriously"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And you seem to subscribe to the classically callous "To hell with the Iraqi's, just so long as we ain't the trigger man". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? My, you're quite good at extrapolation. I believe I prefaced my statement-- which made no solid philosophical declarations-- with 'it's hardly a clear cut case'.
As you say, <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you wish to claim to care about the lives of innocent Iraqi's, then you have to have a plan.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I simply rejected the whole 'support for the current war as the litmus test for truly caring about the Iraqi people' idea.
It's this or nothing, you're with us or you're with the terrorists, blah blah blah . . . Sorry, but I can't subscribe to that reductionist nonsense. Perhaps the reason we didn't see any alternative plans was because this administration wasn't serious about <i>creating</i> any alternative plans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of conveniently bad intelligence was used to convince our lawmakers that we had <i>no time</i> to explore other options.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but also consign them to suffering and brutality under a despot YOUR nation helped prop up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for helping me prove my point. Part of the reason I've been skeptical about replacing Saddam is because we have such a poor track record of this sort of thing. Speaking of, that Chalabi is a great guy, huh?
Let's face it, the human cost is only worth it if we truly elicit democratic change in Iraq, and pre-war CIA analysts thought that the prospect of Democracy taking hold was pretty dim. Simply toppling Saddam may work in the short term, but in the long term, it may make no difference, or make things worse. Odd to conceive, but in that region of the world, anything is possible.
There's also some bizarre notion that Saddam is the measuring standard we should be using for post war Iraq.
Civilian casualties? Not as bad as Saddam. Torture? Not as bad as Saddam. Chaos? Not as bad as-- ok, that one's a tie.
Pardon me, but I hold my nation to a more noble standard than that scum.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Claims about Allawi are allegations. Not fact. They are based around statements made by two anonymous sources.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed, note that I used the punctuation commonly referred to as the 'question mark', to indicate that I was asking a 'question'. Is this guy better? There are allegations, and these may or may not be true, but the point is that it's a bit early to pat ourselves on the back and pretend that the spectre of despotism in Iraq has been lifted neatly and permanently.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited July 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jul 19 2004, 12:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jul 19 2004, 12:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe Forlorn's point stands and is entirely pertinent. If you wish to claim to care about the lives of innocent Iraqi's, then you have to have a plan. That plan has to have the potential to alleviate their suffering in the long term. I've met plenty of people who can go on all day about how wrong the Iraq war was, but NEVER have I met anyone with an alternative plan for helping them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's suprising. Here's mine.
A few disclaimers:<ul><li>I am not by any stretch of the imagination an expert on Iraq.</li><li>Hindsight is 20/20.</li><li>This may derail the thread.</li></ul>What my plan would have been:<ul><li><b>Drop the trade embargo.</b> In one fell swoop you eliminate much of the cause of Iraqi poverty and cut anti-US rhetoric off at the knees. As American goods filter into the country, American culture and media can filter in with it.</li><li><b>Continuously pester the Iraqi military with constant weapons inspections.</b> If sufficient in scope this could be very effective at ensuring that no WMDs can be constructed within the country. It also works well as propaganda to portray Saddam as an international misbehaving child to the Iraqi people, and an embarrassment to the state of Iraq.</li><li><b>In the event of a popular uprising against Saddam, support it and possibly fund and supply it.</b> Not only does this take the burden of military action off of American troops, but it also helps to ensure that the government that results will have popular support from the outset.</li><li><b>After all this is over, send in Jimmy Carter.</b> Cause he's the man.</li></ul>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thank you for helping me prove my point. Part of the reason I've been skeptical about replacing Saddam is because we have such a poor track record of this sort of thing. Speaking of, that Chalabi is a great guy, huh? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually America has the best track record for these sorts of things, in the past 50 years, both Japan and Germany have become the #2 and #3 economic powers, respectively. If that's a bad track record, your expectations are highly unrealistic and perfect for this reality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Civilian casualties? Not as bad as Saddam. Torture? Not as bad as Saddam. Chaos? Not as bad as-- ok, that one's a tie.
Pardon me, but I hold my nation to a more noble standard than that scum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously, our soliders do their best... they are trying to change a country, it's been less than 2 years (by the way, if you actually bother to look up the progress made in Iraq since invasion time, it's huge, a interm government is setup, as well as the Iraqi population forming vigilantee groups to stop the terrorists), and you are saying since things are approx. 100 times better, we have failed?
Come, <b>on!</b> You are going from being too critical to imagining that we have a military all trained with degrees in dimplomacy, physcology, and go knows what else so that the Iraqi's won't suffer one day of hardship.
We are not as bad as Saddam; in fact we are leagues beyond him.
Moultano:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--># Drop the trade embargo. In one fell swoop you eliminate much of the cause of Iraqi poverty and cut anti-US rhetoric off at the knees. As American goods filter into the country, American culture and media can filter in with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And help support a regime that hogs all the wealth for itself and pour it into a military?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Continuously pester the Iraqi military with constant weapons inspections. If sufficient in scope this could be very effective at ensuring that no WMDs can be constructed within the country. It also works well as propaganda to portray Saddam as an international misbehaving child to the Iraqi people, and an embarrassment to the state of Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does nothing; the people of Iraq will never understand if their leader embarrasses them, nor does Saddam care what others think of his regime. Furthermore, there is no logical reason to listen to pacifictic nations of Europe who at best can see you a few measly weapon inspectors every month which then accomplishes nothing, because they can only see what the soldiers show them. And since there is no teeth to anything the UN does (at this point and state of time) then there is no threat of weapon inspections.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the event of a popular uprising against Saddam, support it and possibly fund and supply it. Not only does this take the burden of military action off of American troops, but it also helps to ensure that the government that results will have popular support from the outset.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Already happened once, was surpressed with chemical weapons, bad idea
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After all this is over, send in Jimmy Carter. Cause he's the man.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why didn't he go in there in the 10 year period after the gulf war? I think it's safe to say he had plenty of chances to do something, or anything.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 19 2004, 03:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 19 2004, 03:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually America has the best track record for these sorts of things, in the past 50 years, both Japan and Germany have become the #2 and #3 economic powers, respectively. If that's a bad track record, your expectations are highly unrealistic and perfect for this reality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Germany and Japan were already developed countries when US. moved in.
Wanna try some other stellar achievements? May be somewhere in South America, Africa? May be Southeast Asia?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually America has the best track record for these sorts of things<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed. We're just always bragging about the support we've given Saddam Hussein, the Taliban/Mujahideen, Augusto Pinochet, and Manuel Noriega, among others.
Note, I mention these because the current administration is chock full of people who served in the administrations that backed these philanthropists.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Jul 19 2004, 04:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Jul 19 2004, 04:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 19 2004, 03:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 19 2004, 03:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually America has the best track record for these sorts of things, in the past 50 years, both Japan and Germany have become the #2 and #3 economic powers, respectively. If that's a bad track record, your expectations are highly unrealistic and perfect for this reality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Germany and Japan were already developed countries when US. moved in.
Wanna try some other stellar achievements? May be somewhere in South America, Africa? May be Southeast Asia? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, Japan was on the brink of the industrial revolution, lead by an EMPORER... hardly developed, and firebombed into the ground by the USA, and Germany was completely ravanged by war, split in two, and was hated by the world.
Both seemed to be in worse conditions than Iraq was today.
Japan was well beyond industrial revolution before the war started. Just google "industrilal revolution japan" if you have any doubt.
It is very developed. It is how they churned out enough forces to take over the pacific. And I'm not sure why you are bringing up the "EMPORER".
Those were the times before the Cold War anyway, when everything was black or white. They are evil and you're good.
Things changed. Would you like to name me other nations now? I would really like to hear other countries that the US didn't leave with corruption, civil war, drug lords, etc..
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 19 2004, 10:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 19 2004, 10:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually America has the best track record for these sorts of things, in the past 50 years <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just a short history lesson:
In 1949, the CIA backed a military coup that deposed the elected government of Syria.
In the 1950s, the CIA overthrew the freely-elected, democratic government of Guatemala and blocked free elections in Vietnam.
In the 1960s, the United States undermined democracy in Brazil and in the Congo (the first scrapping of a legally recognized democratic system in post-colonial Africa).
In 1963, the United States backed a coup by the Ba'ath party in Iraq-Saddam Hussein's party -and gave them names of communists to kill.
In the 1970s, the CIA helped to snuff out democracy in Chile. As Kissinger told a top-secret meeting, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."
In 1981, vice-president George Bush Sr. told Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, "We love your adherence to democratic principle.
US interventions in Iran, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Chile, Cuba, Korea and so on.
Just to name a few. Nice record. Do you want to count together all the deaths resulting from those?
<!--QuoteBegin-eggmac+Jul 20 2004, 07:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Jul 20 2004, 07:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 19 2004, 10:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 19 2004, 10:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually America has the best track record for these sorts of things, in the past 50 years <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just a short history lesson:
In 1949, the CIA backed a military coup that deposed the elected government of Syria.
In the 1950s, the CIA overthrew the freely-elected, democratic government of Guatemala and blocked free elections in Vietnam.
In the 1960s, the United States undermined democracy in Brazil and in the Congo (the first scrapping of a legally recognized democratic system in post-colonial Africa).
In 1963, the United States backed a coup by the Ba'ath party in Iraq-Saddam Hussein's party -and gave them names of communists to kill.
In the 1970s, the CIA helped to snuff out democracy in Chile. As Kissinger told a top-secret meeting, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."
In 1981, vice-president George Bush Sr. told Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, "We love your adherence to democratic principle.
US interventions in Iran, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Chile, Cuba, Korea and so on.
Just to name a few. Nice record. Do you want to count together all the deaths resulting from those? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That record beats all the others of all other former world powers, did I miss something?
EDIT:
Oh yeah, how was our intervention in Korea a bad thing? Not only was it U.N. approved but the invasion started with communists, how the hell is that America's fault...
And many of your times and places are debatable, although I do give credit that most are wrong, but I never claimed America was perfect
Japan was in ruins after WWII, I'm not sure about Germany, but between the division of the country and the invasions from both the east and the west, I don't think it could have been in very good shape.
Concerning the reconstruction of Germany (I'm not informed enough to speak of Japan):
It is true that Germany was in ruins after WW2. It is true that Western Germany was economically and politically revived. It is not true that this is in any way comparable with what is done and had been done in Iraq. A few points:
<b>Investments:</b>
Surely the most important point in the economic aspect of the situation. Germany was the primary reciever of the funds of the Marshall Plan, an investment project started by the USA as centerpoint of their 'Roll Back Policy' against Soviet influence in Europe. The Marshall Foundation still exists, according to their <a href='http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#expenditures' target='_blank'>homepage</a>, the Federal Republic of Germany recieved 1,390.6 <i>million</i> US$, more than three fourths of it in grants. It's not even necessary to start considering inflation to realize how out of scale this is compared to what the Iraq recieves. By the way, the money of the Marshall Plan went straight to domestic enterprises, not to American contractors.
<b>Political Tradition:</b>
Germany had 'only' lived through twelve years of despotism. Before that, it had developed a lively, vocal democratic tradition dating back into the 19th century. The politicians founding the Federal Republic had direct political experience, something everyone aware of 'intellectual revolutions' such as the German revolt of 1848/49 or the Russian February Revolt knows is critical in establishing a democracy. Note that by contrast, Japans 'democracy' has so far as far as I'm aware not lived through a single win of a political opposition - the Liberal Party has been in office as long as there have been elections.
Iraq does not have a democratic tradition. In its short national history, it was either a British quasi-colony with an impotent national government, under the control of various warlords, or subject of the Ba'ath party. The men and women tasked with creating a democratic Iraq have less experience in decision-finding and law-application than a Midwestern American sheriff.
I should add that despite the relatively good starting position, many Nazis managed to re-assume high-ranking positions in the new system. It took the student revolts of '68 to rectify that situation.
<b>Ethnic Composition:</b>
Both Germany and Japan were quiet at the end of the War. All restorative movements had been broken in the Allies sweeping and total victories, and barely any inner conflicts swelled. The biggest seperatist force of the time of the foundation of the Federal Republic was Bavaria, and let me assure you that at no time, any Bavarians were going to seperate themselves by force.
Iraq is split between Shi'ites and Sunnites, both of which are internally divided into various smaller quasi-tribal structures. The economic gap between urban and rural communites is extreme. Politically, the country is torn into more subgroups from leftist-democratic movements to ultraconservative fundamentalists than the Weimar Republic (which ended in Hitlers rise to power) had been.
Summarizing, equalling the reconstruction efforts of Germany after 1945 and in Iraq now is impossible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Al Jeezera is objective? ... Good one! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was hoping to hear more opinions out there on this. Perhaps I should start a new topic. Is al-Jazeera fair?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I find that Jammer's arguement here was quite convincing as to why the Goering quote shouldnt be afforded gospel status. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was hardly using it as gospel. I merely reported the <a href='http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm' target='_blank'>true</a> quotes of two historic figures. For better or for worse, what they had said. But necro-postnig can be a scary thing, and I have a time investment in this thread. Let us review Jammer's points briefly, for I feel I must, for whatever odd reason, defend those quotes I have shared.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are 2 very significant things in the full quote. First, it is context specific. It is talking specifically about World War II, when personalities forced their respective countries into War.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's look at the full context of the quote. His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess. Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction. "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jammer's contention that this only applies to the context of those countries involved in World War II seems to be based on the fact that Goering speaks of Russia, England, America, and Germany by name, for those are the world superpowers of the time, and that which be most familiar to the German. I contend that Goering himself did not limit it to merely to context of World War II when he stated that his methods work "the same way in any country. ... after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
Jammer then goes on,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second important thing is Goering's dismissal of Democracy. He skirts the psychologist's comment and refers back only to party support and patriotism. He fails to answer the question!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I am unable to find a question anywhere in, "There is one difference: in a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars," I cannot address any question Goering somehow failed to answer.
Jammer then goes on to contend that rabble-rousing does not work in America's form of democracy, and points to Roosevelt on the eve on World War II, the Vietnam conflict, and our current Administration as evidence that we cannot be led into war simply by being told that we "are being attacked, and denounc[ing] the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." He goes on to make several points, but I fail to see how he wedges his argument into truly solid ground. Instead, all I can see is how incredibly insightful Goering's quote really is. In any society, no matter the government, of <i>course</i> the political figureheads must tell the public they are in greater danger, and you must serve your country and follow your leader. Then go and expose the country to danger, and call anyone who disagrees with you unpatriotic. To do any less would be political suicide. America's "democracy" is not truly led by the people, in the most literal sense of <a href='http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=democracy' target='_blank'>democracy</a>, "the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group." Instead, we would be better described as a <a href='http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.0?stage=1&word=republic' target='_blank'>republic</a>, "a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them." I never got my, "War in Iraq?" democratic say, aside from any letters that actually made it through to Congress. Which, judging from the crap form letters I received in reply, I doubt it. No, Goering was right. The difference that I see in our republic government and others is that those who encourage us into unpopular wars will not last longer than 4 years.
Did Bush tell us America was in danger? Did he proceed to expose us to greater danger? Did he appeal to our patriotism in moving us to war? If Goering is a fool, then he is in company.
I could go on, but would probably be unwise, as this is off-topic enough already. I just like my quotes. And for better or worse, these things were said, and said well. I just ask that you don't fault me that. And to give credit where credit is due, mad props to <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49020&view=findpost&p=682168' target='_blank'>Eviscerator</a>.
Oh, and upon looking through Snopes' quotations page I came across two <a href='http://www.snopes.com/quotes/sinclair.htm' target='_blank'>wonderful</a> <a href='http://www.snopes.com/quotes/glenn.htm' target='_blank'>gems</a>. Enjoy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stilll - we are straying pretty far from the Fahrenheit 9/11 focus of this thread. Not surprising really, no one really wants to condone the Moore trademark deception...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm lazy and I have time invested into this thread already. At any rate, I like the direction it's been taken.
And I believe I not only condoned, but even praised Moore's "trademark deception." Look at how often the Moore was <a href='http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html' target='_blank'>misleading</a>, and look at how often Moore was <a href='http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/' target='_blank'>honest</a>. And there is far more to talk about than merely the film, as well. For example, what the film is all about. Which, I believe, would be the number one reason that Moore made the film in the first place.
That, or money. Depends on how cynical you want to be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you opposed the Iraq war, then you condemn the Iraqi's to less casualties in the short term, but also consign them to suffering and brutality under a despot YOUR nation helped prop up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. But those who helped do so when Iran was the villian are working on the situation <a href='http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/' target='_blank'>now</a>. That worries me. BathroomMonkey brought up Ahmed Chalabi, a wonderful example by itself. But then he goes above and beyond with "Saddam Hussein, the Taliban/Mujahideen, Augusto Pinochet, and Manuel Noriega, among others." And he's right. Those who gave these people power and pull with American funds are deciding now who will serve Iraq. And that truly frightens me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually America has the best track record for these sorts of things, in the past 50 years, both Japan and Germany have become the #2 and #3 economic powers, respectively. If that's a bad track record, your expectations are highly unrealistic and perfect for this reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excellent point, but that was a different time, when America had the full support of the civilized world. As pointed out above, recent track record does not speak as well for those currently making decisions. And, as was also pointed out, Japan and Germany both came from states of technology rivaling our own. In their time, they stood on equal footing with us in military technology of the time, and they had the corresponding expertise in those areas of industrial and technological know-how. However wounded the government may have been, they had the necessary infrastructure in place to become an economic world power again. Iraq is decades behind our technology, so the comparison of Japan and Germany after World War II and Afghanistan and Iraq in our current day is unfair at best, deliberately misleading at worst.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And help support a regime that hogs all the wealth for itself and pour it into a military?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A trade embargo only keeps a country from being contaminated with new political ideas, with new ideas about human rights, with new ideas about economics and opening up its society. The trade embargo, designed to harm the governemnt, only serves to harm the citizens. The embargo also allows America to project itself as a Goliath, vs. David, on the world's political stage. Especially those citizens who are affected directly by the denial of much needed aid.
Forlorn, do you truly think that we are wrong to be selling a country's citizens medicine and food if we disagree with the direction its leaders are taking the country?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Continuously pester the Iraqi military with constant weapons inspections.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are you so quick to dismiss what has not been tried?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the event of a popular uprising against Saddam, support it and possibly fund and supply it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Already happened once, was surpressed with chemical weapons<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When was this?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Japan was in ruins after WWII, I'm not sure about Germany, but between the division of the country and the invasions from both the east and the west, I don't think it could have been in very good shape.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The question is not whether or not Japan was is good shape, but whether or not the country was in a <a href='http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072689' target='_blank'>better shape than Iraq</a> for a revolution to happen from the top down. The article is engaging, and I highly recommend, at the least, skimming it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the 2000 campaign, Bush denigrated nation-building. "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building," he said in a debate with Al Gore. "I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator." Gore then reminded Bush that after World War I, "we kind of turned our backs and left [the European nations] to their own devices and they brewed up a lot of trouble that quickly became World War II," whereas after the latter conflict, we engaged in nation-building, with better results. Fortunately, Bush is now heeding Gore's wisdom. But before he goes to war, he should also remember his own admonitions about how difficult nation-building can be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Both [Post-World War II Japan and Germany] seemed to be in worse conditions than Iraq was today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After what has been said in this thread, do you still believe this, Forlorn?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After all this is over, send in Jimmy Carter. Cause he's the man.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A quotation, like a pun, should come unsought, and then be welcomed only for some propriety of felicity justifying the intrusion. -- Robert Chapman
I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. -- Thomas Jefferson
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> because we have seen what a great job he has done getting North Korea to stop researching nukes.
(My thoughts on Jammers arguments 'against' the Göring quote can be found on <a href='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=49020&hl=death%20to%20the%20goering%20quote&st=30' target='_blank'>page 3</a> of the topic. I'm still waiting for replies.)
Forlorn, two further points:
Regarding the trade embargo: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And help support a regime that hogs all the wealth for itself and pour it into a military?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The administration you are supporting claimed that Iraqs regieme was capable of smuggling WMD into the country. Now, with this in mind, and the fact that you supported such claims quite vocally, can you say with a straight face that you believe the trade embargo impaired the regieme considerably? According to pre-war statements by the Coalition, Iraqs government <i>had</i> a military force potent enough to threaten its neighbours. They declared the embargo they had been upholding futile <i>themselves</i>.
Concerning the uprising of the Kurds: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Already happened once, was surpressed with chemical weapons<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ... Delivered by Donald Rumsfeld. I think it's reasonable to claim that Hussein would've had a by far more difficult time quelling a riot in a situation in which the United States had not recently delivered large quantities of both conventional and unconventional weaponry to him. Moreso if said riot recieved an at least slightly comparable level of support from the US.
I'm going to make a longer post in response to the claim that one may only criticise Bushs policy if one can present a 'bulletproof' alternative plan later.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 20 2004, 04:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 20 2004, 04:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That record beats all the others of all other former world powers, did I miss something?
EDIT:
Oh yeah, how was our intervention in Korea a bad thing? Not only was it U.N. approved but the invasion started with communists, how the hell is that America's fault...
And many of your times and places are debatable, although I do give credit that most are wrong, but I never claimed America was perfect <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just tried to show that there were US interventions in other countries' affairs in the past 50 years. None of them was a "success" in any way. Either the resulting wars brought many casualties and changed nothing or dictatorships were established. Thus my point was that your reference to a successfull rebuilding of Japan and Germany, (if it can be compared to today's Iraq at all), is overshadowed with numerous other adventures of the USA. This is the reason why so many people in Europe, Arabia and elsewhere do not trust in US policy and regard it as a threat. It's not only that the USA "isn't perfect", it's merely regarded as a rouge state by the majority of the world's population.
<!--QuoteBegin-eggmac+Jul 21 2004, 04:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Jul 21 2004, 04:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 20 2004, 04:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 20 2004, 04:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That record beats all the others of all other former world powers, did I miss something?
EDIT:
Oh yeah, how was our intervention in Korea a bad thing? Not only was it U.N. approved but the invasion started with communists, how the hell is that America's fault...
And many of your times and places are debatable, although I do give credit that most are wrong, but I never claimed America was perfect <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just tried to show that there were US interventions in other countries' affairs in the past 50 years. None of them was a "success" in any way. Either the resulting wars brought many casualties and changed nothing or dictatorships were established. Thus my point was that your reference to a successfull rebuilding of Japan and Germany, (if it can be compared to today's Iraq at all), is overshadowed with numerous other adventures of the USA. This is the reason why so many people in Europe, Arabia and elsewhere do not trust in US policy and regard it as a threat. It's not only that the USA "isn't perfect", it's merely regarded as a rouge state by the majority of the world's population. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What surprises me here is that I consider America's foriegn policy to be less flawed than any other foriegn policy of a major world power, to date.
I'd say that America has done far more good for the world than harm.
So why do people hate America, dispite how hard it tries to satisfy others? Surely, not because it's screwed up on many occasions? How does that make America different from anyone else? We've screwed up less and succeeded more than any other country in history, as far as pushing our agenda goes.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited July 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 23 2004, 08:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So why do people hate America, dispite how hard it tries to satisfy others? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yeah, the US is just bending over backwards to help people ALL the friggin time. I remember that time we just kinda took over Hawaii, and when we occupied the phillipeans, and when we gave Middle Eastern soldiers arms to fight against the soviets for us oh and when we killed the Indians. So selfless.
Comments
All the information is out there, this happened quite a while ago.
<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1055779,00.html' target='_blank'>Here would be a good place to start</a>
Even <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83503,00.html' target='_blank'>Fox News</a> reported on it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then you think terrorist attacks on CNN would be fine? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I imagine you are against the war; so with that in mind I ask you this, "Is government sponsered rape alright?" You are comparing apples and oranges.
I imagine you are against the war; so with that in mind I ask you this, "Is government sponsered rape alright?" You are comparing apples and oranges.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How the hell is he comparing apples to oranges?
And what does it have to do with government sponsored rape?
If that is correct, then apply the same argument to the other side. Would you salute any Iraqi who kills US reporters, who does attacks on western broadcasting stations? Do you endorse the attacks on the WTC of terrorists because it hit "their enemy" very well?
I'm asking this because in my view there are two sides of the coin. I don't think the life of an American citizen has any more value that the life of an Iraqi citizen. And no ideology can allow the murder of any one of them.
And now, would you mind explaining me the "government sponsored rape"? Do you refer to US soldiers in Abu Ghraib?
Then your 'ideology' is <span style='color:white'><a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Rule #2.</a> I'm losing my patience here...</span> because if you really valued the life of an Iraqi citizen you would have supported the war 100%.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> which part of that statement are you doubting?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Al Jeezera is objective?
<span style='color:white'><a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Rule #1</a>...</span>
That's like saying the New York Times or the Boston Globe (read: Boston Glob) is objective.
Good one!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Im sorry, I sick as hell right now and Im getting things messed up. We did attack dish stations, and that is ok(Cutting of information sources that can be used by the enemy). We also bomb two stations, one in Kabul and one in Baghdad. Until the more information surfaces, I will with hold my judgement on the events.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did not remember that we actually bomb two radio stations at the time of my first post. Notice I only said it was ok to bomb the radio satilites. Just like it is okay to destroy power plants and any other tools that the oppossing military would use.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How the hell is he comparing apples to oranges?
And what does it have to do with government sponsored rape? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Terrorist bombing CNN and us bombing satilite dishes in a war zone are 2 completely different things. The most notable being the fact that the dishes can be taken out with minimal casualties, if any. To take out CNN, you would have a lot of casualties. I don't want to get into the differences between a country at war and terrorists at war.
As for my counter question. Sadam uses rape as a way to punish his citizens. If a man did something he did not agree with, he would have that man's wife and daughters raped in front of him. So assuming he was against the US removing Sadam, I proposed my ridiculous question. It is mearly to help illustrate that things are not as simple as how he put it.
Hahahaha! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1055779,00.html' target='_blank'>Quoting</a>:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US accused al-Jazeera and other Arab channels of anti-American bias in their coverage of the war. But how biased can a picture of dead people be? A picture of a destroyed house doesn't need a reporter to tell its story, and the tears of children and refugees need no interpreter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arab television does has biased coverage, for example, from <a href='http://www.abudhabi.com/' target='_blank'>Abu Dhabi</a>, the <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/' target='_blank'>Fox News</a> of the Arab world. But <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage' target='_blank'>al-Jazeera</a> prides itself on truly objective coverage, their motto being, "The opinion and the counter-opinion." They translate and air clips of George W. Bush worldwide, and then air the opinions of the common people at ground zero. And if you look at their reports, they <i>are</i> amazingly objective, with reporters rarely ever drawing direct conclusions for the audience. They report, and actually do let their viewers decide.
-Ryan!
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor
"These [terrorist] attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible, and this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail…The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
-George W Bush (1946- )
Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces
President of the United States of America
Stilll - we are straying pretty far from the Fahrenheit 9/11 focus of this thread. Not surprising really, no one really wants to condone the Moore trademark deception, so naturally the arguement turns to Left wing things with more substance then creative film editing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In the history of these forums, not a single topic has been sustained for eleven pages. I wouldn't take that as a hint in favor or against anything.
Very solid if you asked me. Sure, Bowling for Columbine is filled with misleading editing and what not, but Fahrenheit 9/11 is pretty straightforward, minus his commentary.
I haven't gotten around to reading all of them, so I'm not sure which side builds a more solid case.
Edit:
Also:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
because if you really valued the life of an Iraqi citizen you would have supported the war 100%.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html' target='_blank'>Whoops.</a>
And it's hardly a clear cut case-- not only have there been a great number of civilian casualties (which are tough to justify with the classically arrogant and callous, 'Hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking some 10,000 eggs' defense), but think of how many additional civilians have died, and will continue to die, in the ensuing power vacuum/lawlessness.
The situation with the terrorists and insurgents has turned into not so much a 'lesser of two evils' as it is a 'different of two evils'. Call me a pessimist, but I don't see it likely that it will end anytime soon.
And along that note:
<a href='http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1156598.htm' target='_blank'>Iraqi minister to investigate Allawi execution claims</a>
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? Only time will tell.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
because if you really valued the life of an Iraqi citizen you would have supported the war 100%.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html' target='_blank'>Whoops.</a>
And it's hardly a clear cut case-- not only have there been a great number of civilian casualties (which are tough to justify with the classically arrogant and callous, 'Hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking some 10,000 eggs' defense), but think of how many additional civilians have died, and will continue to die, in the ensuing power vacuum/lawlessness.
The situation with the terrorists and insurgents has turned into not so much a 'lesser of two evils' as it is a 'different of two evils'. Call me a pessimist, but I don't see it likely that it will end anytime soon.
And along that note:
<a href='http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1156598.htm' target='_blank'>Iraqi minister to investigate Allawi execution claims</a>
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? Only time will tell. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you seem to subscribe to the classically callous "To hell with the Iraqi's, just so long as we ain't the trigger man". Iraqi death, misery and suffering are a given, a constant, an inescapable consequence of any and all actions made in Iraq. If you opposed the Iraq war, then you condemn the Iraqi's to less casualties in the short term, but also consign them to suffering and brutality under a despot YOUR nation helped prop up. If you support it, then a lot of innocent Iraqi's will die, but those that do not die have a chance for freedom.
That power vacuum is not garaunteed. That is what American soldiers in Iraq are now fighting to avoid. I am growing increasingly bitter with certain world nations as they pull out of Iraq in a shockingly callous shafting of the Iraqi people. They joined in on the smashing stage, then pull out to leave the Iraqi's to rot. People who pre-war cried bitterly over the deaths of Iraqi civilians now calling for "Troops out now!" also infuriate me daily.
I believe Forlorn's point stands and is entirely pertinent. If you wish to claim to care about the lives of innocent Iraqi's, then you have to have a plan. That plan has to have the potential to alleviate their suffering in the long term. I've met plenty of people who can go on all day about how wrong the Iraq war was, but NEVER have I met anyone with an alternative plan for helping them.
I dont have a rock solid faith in the Americans to do the right thing, but if the right thing is going to be done - it sure as hell wont be done by the UN, and it wont be done by protest marchers in New York. The Yanks are the only one who were willing to do something.
Claims about Allawi are allegations. Not fact. They are based around statements made by two anonymous sources. In Australia, the Labor opposition government is fiercely anti-American and fiercely anti-war, and their Defence spokesman Beasly had this to say "I think that in our country, allegations of murder based around a report from a pair of anonymous sources would not be treated seriously"
Really? My, you're quite good at extrapolation. I believe I prefaced my statement-- which made no solid philosophical declarations-- with 'it's hardly a clear cut case'.
As you say,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you wish to claim to care about the lives of innocent Iraqi's, then you have to have a plan.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I simply rejected the whole 'support for the current war as the litmus test for truly caring about the Iraqi people' idea.
It's this or nothing, you're with us or you're with the terrorists, blah blah blah . . . Sorry, but I can't subscribe to that reductionist nonsense. Perhaps the reason we didn't see any alternative plans was because this administration wasn't serious about <i>creating</i> any alternative plans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of conveniently bad intelligence was used to convince our lawmakers that we had <i>no time</i> to explore other options.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but also consign them to suffering and brutality under a despot YOUR nation helped prop up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for helping me prove my point. Part of the reason I've been skeptical about replacing Saddam is because we have such a poor track record of this sort of thing. Speaking of, that Chalabi is a great guy, huh?
Let's face it, the human cost is only worth it if we truly elicit democratic change in Iraq, and pre-war CIA analysts thought that the prospect of Democracy taking hold was pretty dim. Simply toppling Saddam may work in the short term, but in the long term, it may make no difference, or make things worse. Odd to conceive, but in that region of the world, anything is possible.
There's also some bizarre notion that Saddam is the measuring standard we should be using for post war Iraq.
Civilian casualties? Not as bad as Saddam. Torture? Not as bad as Saddam. Chaos? Not as bad as-- ok, that one's a tie.
Pardon me, but I hold my nation to a more noble standard than that scum.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Claims about Allawi are allegations. Not fact. They are based around statements made by two anonymous sources.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed, note that I used the punctuation commonly referred to as the 'question mark', to indicate that I was asking a 'question'. Is this guy better? There are allegations, and these may or may not be true, but the point is that it's a bit early to pat ourselves on the back and pretend that the spectre of despotism in Iraq has been lifted neatly and permanently.
As I said, only time will tell.
That's suprising. Here's mine.
A few disclaimers:<ul><li>I am not by any stretch of the imagination an expert on Iraq.</li><li>Hindsight is 20/20.</li><li>This may derail the thread.</li></ul>What my plan would have been:<ul><li><b>Drop the trade embargo.</b>
In one fell swoop you eliminate much of the cause of Iraqi poverty and cut anti-US rhetoric off at the knees. As American goods filter into the country, American culture and media can filter in with it.</li><li><b>Continuously pester the Iraqi military with constant weapons inspections.</b>
If sufficient in scope this could be very effective at ensuring that no WMDs can be constructed within the country. It also works well as propaganda to portray Saddam as an international misbehaving child to the Iraqi people, and an embarrassment to the state of Iraq.</li><li><b>In the event of a popular uprising against Saddam, support it and possibly fund and supply it.</b>
Not only does this take the burden of military action off of American troops, but it also helps to ensure that the government that results will have popular support from the outset.</li><li><b>After all this is over, send in Jimmy Carter.</b>
Cause he's the man.</li></ul>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually America has the best track record for these sorts of things, in the past 50 years, both Japan and Germany have become the #2 and #3 economic powers, respectively. If that's a bad track record, your expectations are highly unrealistic and perfect for this reality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Civilian casualties? Not as bad as Saddam. Torture? Not as bad as Saddam. Chaos? Not as bad as-- ok, that one's a tie.
Pardon me, but I hold my nation to a more noble standard than that scum.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously, our soliders do their best... they are trying to change a country, it's been less than 2 years (by the way, if you actually bother to look up the progress made in Iraq since invasion time, it's huge, a interm government is setup, as well as the Iraqi population forming vigilantee groups to stop the terrorists), and you are saying since things are approx. 100 times better, we have failed?
Come, <b>on!</b> You are going from being too critical to imagining that we have a military all trained with degrees in dimplomacy, physcology, and go knows what else so that the Iraqi's won't suffer one day of hardship.
We are not as bad as Saddam; in fact we are leagues beyond him.
Moultano:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--># Drop the trade embargo.
In one fell swoop you eliminate much of the cause of Iraqi poverty and cut anti-US rhetoric off at the knees. As American goods filter into the country, American culture and media can filter in with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And help support a regime that hogs all the wealth for itself and pour it into a military?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Continuously pester the Iraqi military with constant weapons inspections.
If sufficient in scope this could be very effective at ensuring that no WMDs can be constructed within the country. It also works well as propaganda to portray Saddam as an international misbehaving child to the Iraqi people, and an embarrassment to the state of Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does nothing; the people of Iraq will never understand if their leader embarrasses them, nor does Saddam care what others think of his regime. Furthermore, there is no logical reason to listen to pacifictic nations of Europe who at best can see you a few measly weapon inspectors every month which then accomplishes nothing, because they can only see what the soldiers show them. And since there is no teeth to anything the UN does (at this point and state of time) then there is no threat of weapon inspections.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the event of a popular uprising against Saddam, support it and possibly fund and supply it.
Not only does this take the burden of military action off of American troops, but it also helps to ensure that the government that results will have popular support from the outset.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Already happened once, was surpressed with chemical weapons, bad idea
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After all this is over, send in Jimmy Carter.
Cause he's the man.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why didn't he go in there in the 10 year period after the gulf war? I think it's safe to say he had plenty of chances to do something, or anything.
Germany and Japan were already developed countries when US. moved in.
Wanna try some other stellar achievements? May be somewhere in South America, Africa? May be Southeast Asia?
Indeed. We're just always bragging about the support we've given Saddam Hussein, the Taliban/Mujahideen, Augusto Pinochet, and Manuel Noriega, among others.
Note, I mention these because the current administration is chock full of people who served in the administrations that backed these philanthropists.
Germany and Japan were already developed countries when US. moved in.
Wanna try some other stellar achievements? May be somewhere in South America, Africa? May be Southeast Asia? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, Japan was on the brink of the industrial revolution, lead by an EMPORER... hardly developed, and firebombed into the ground by the USA, and Germany was completely ravanged by war, split in two, and was hated by the world.
Both seemed to be in worse conditions than Iraq was today.
It is very developed. It is how they churned out enough forces to take over the pacific. And I'm not sure why you are bringing up the "EMPORER".
Those were the times before the Cold War anyway, when everything was black or white. They are evil and you're good.
Things changed. Would you like to name me other nations now? I would really like to hear other countries that the US didn't leave with corruption, civil war, drug lords, etc..
Just a short history lesson:
In 1949, the CIA backed a military coup that deposed the elected
government of Syria.
In the 1950s, the CIA overthrew the freely-elected, democratic
government of Guatemala and blocked free elections in Vietnam.
In the 1960s, the United States undermined democracy in Brazil and in
the Congo (the first scrapping of a legally recognized democratic system
in post-colonial Africa).
In 1963, the United States backed a coup by the Ba'ath party in
Iraq-Saddam Hussein's party -and gave them names of communists to kill.
In the 1970s, the CIA helped to snuff out democracy in Chile. As
Kissinger told a top-secret meeting, "I don't see why we need to stand
by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its
own people."
In 1981, vice-president George Bush Sr. told Philippine dictator
Ferdinand Marcos, "We love your adherence to democratic principle.
US interventions in Iran, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Chile, Cuba, Korea and so on.
Just to name a few.
Nice record. Do you want to count together all the deaths resulting from those?
Just a short history lesson:
In 1949, the CIA backed a military coup that deposed the elected
government of Syria.
In the 1950s, the CIA overthrew the freely-elected, democratic
government of Guatemala and blocked free elections in Vietnam.
In the 1960s, the United States undermined democracy in Brazil and in
the Congo (the first scrapping of a legally recognized democratic system
in post-colonial Africa).
In 1963, the United States backed a coup by the Ba'ath party in
Iraq-Saddam Hussein's party -and gave them names of communists to kill.
In the 1970s, the CIA helped to snuff out democracy in Chile. As
Kissinger told a top-secret meeting, "I don't see why we need to stand
by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its
own people."
In 1981, vice-president George Bush Sr. told Philippine dictator
Ferdinand Marcos, "We love your adherence to democratic principle.
US interventions in Iran, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Chile, Cuba, Korea and so on.
Just to name a few.
Nice record. Do you want to count together all the deaths resulting from those? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That record beats all the others of all other former world powers, did I miss something?
EDIT:
Oh yeah, how was our intervention in Korea a bad thing? Not only was it U.N. approved but the invasion started with communists, how the hell is that America's fault...
And many of your times and places are debatable, although I do give credit that most are wrong, but I never claimed America was perfect
It is true that Germany was in ruins after WW2. It is true that Western Germany was economically and politically revived. It is not true that this is in any way comparable with what is done and had been done in Iraq. A few points:
<b>Investments:</b>
Surely the most important point in the economic aspect of the situation. Germany was the primary reciever of the funds of the Marshall Plan, an investment project started by the USA as centerpoint of their 'Roll Back Policy' against Soviet influence in Europe.
The Marshall Foundation still exists, according to their <a href='http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#expenditures' target='_blank'>homepage</a>, the Federal Republic of Germany recieved 1,390.6 <i>million</i> US$, more than three fourths of it in grants. It's not even necessary to start considering inflation to realize how out of scale this is compared to what the Iraq recieves.
By the way, the money of the Marshall Plan went straight to domestic enterprises, not to American contractors.
<b>Political Tradition:</b>
Germany had 'only' lived through twelve years of despotism. Before that, it had developed a lively, vocal democratic tradition dating back into the 19th century. The politicians founding the Federal Republic had direct political experience, something everyone aware of 'intellectual revolutions' such as the German revolt of 1848/49 or the Russian February Revolt knows is critical in establishing a democracy.
Note that by contrast, Japans 'democracy' has so far as far as I'm aware not lived through a single win of a political opposition - the Liberal Party has been in office as long as there have been elections.
Iraq does not have a democratic tradition. In its short national history, it was either a British quasi-colony with an impotent national government, under the control of various warlords, or subject of the Ba'ath party. The men and women tasked with creating a democratic Iraq have less experience in decision-finding and law-application than a Midwestern American sheriff.
I should add that despite the relatively good starting position, many Nazis managed to re-assume high-ranking positions in the new system. It took the student revolts of '68 to rectify that situation.
<b>Ethnic Composition:</b>
Both Germany and Japan were quiet at the end of the War. All restorative movements had been broken in the Allies sweeping and total victories, and barely any inner conflicts swelled. The biggest seperatist force of the time of the foundation of the Federal Republic was Bavaria, and let me assure you that at no time, any Bavarians were going to seperate themselves by force.
Iraq is split between Shi'ites and Sunnites, both of which are internally divided into various smaller quasi-tribal structures. The economic gap between urban and rural communites is extreme. Politically, the country is torn into more subgroups from leftist-democratic movements to ultraconservative fundamentalists than the Weimar Republic (which ended in Hitlers rise to power) had been.
Summarizing, equalling the reconstruction efforts of Germany after 1945 and in Iraq now is impossible.
I was hoping to hear more opinions out there on this. Perhaps I should start a new topic. Is al-Jazeera fair?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I find that Jammer's arguement here was quite convincing as to why the Goering quote shouldnt be afforded gospel status. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was hardly using it as gospel. I merely reported the <a href='http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm' target='_blank'>true</a> quotes of two historic figures. For better or for worse, what they had said. But necro-postnig can be a scary thing, and I have a time investment in this thread. Let us review Jammer's points briefly, for I feel I must, for whatever odd reason, defend those quotes I have shared.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are 2 very significant things in the full quote. First, it is context specific. It is talking specifically about World War II, when personalities forced their respective countries into War.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's look at the full context of the quote. His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess. Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jammer's contention that this only applies to the context of those countries involved in World War II seems to be based on the fact that Goering speaks of Russia, England, America, and Germany by name, for those are the world superpowers of the time, and that which be most familiar to the German. I contend that Goering himself did not limit it to merely to context of World War II when he stated that his methods work "the same way in any country. ... after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
Jammer then goes on,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second important thing is Goering's dismissal of Democracy. He skirts the psychologist's comment and refers back only to party support and patriotism. He fails to answer the question!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I am unable to find a question anywhere in, "There is one difference: in a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars," I cannot address any question Goering somehow failed to answer.
Jammer then goes on to contend that rabble-rousing does not work in America's form of democracy, and points to Roosevelt on the eve on World War II, the Vietnam conflict, and our current Administration as evidence that we cannot be led into war simply by being told that we "are being attacked, and denounc[ing] the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." He goes on to make several points, but I fail to see how he wedges his argument into truly solid ground. Instead, all I can see is how incredibly insightful Goering's quote really is. In any society, no matter the government, of <i>course</i> the political figureheads must tell the public they are in greater danger, and you must serve your country and follow your leader. Then go and expose the country to danger, and call anyone who disagrees with you unpatriotic. To do any less would be political suicide. America's "democracy" is not truly led by the people, in the most literal sense of <a href='http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=democracy' target='_blank'>democracy</a>, "the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group." Instead, we would be better described as a <a href='http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.0?stage=1&word=republic' target='_blank'>republic</a>, "a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them." I never got my, "War in Iraq?" democratic say, aside from any letters that actually made it through to Congress. Which, judging from the crap form letters I received in reply, I doubt it. No, Goering was right. The difference that I see in our republic government and others is that those who encourage us into unpopular wars will not last longer than 4 years.
Did Bush tell us America was in danger? Did he proceed to expose us to greater danger? Did he appeal to our patriotism in moving us to war? If Goering is a fool, then he is in company.
I could go on, but would probably be unwise, as this is off-topic enough already. I just like my quotes. And for better or worse, these things were said, and said well. I just ask that you don't fault me that. And to give credit where credit is due, mad props to <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49020&view=findpost&p=682168' target='_blank'>Eviscerator</a>.
Oh, and upon looking through Snopes' quotations page I came across two <a href='http://www.snopes.com/quotes/sinclair.htm' target='_blank'>wonderful</a> <a href='http://www.snopes.com/quotes/glenn.htm' target='_blank'>gems</a>. Enjoy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stilll - we are straying pretty far from the Fahrenheit 9/11 focus of this thread. Not surprising really, no one really wants to condone the Moore trademark deception...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm lazy and I have time invested into this thread already. At any rate, I like the direction it's been taken.
And I believe I not only condoned, but even praised Moore's "trademark deception." Look at how often the Moore was <a href='http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html' target='_blank'>misleading</a>, and look at how often Moore was <a href='http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/' target='_blank'>honest</a>. And there is far more to talk about than merely the film, as well. For example, what the film is all about. Which, I believe, would be the number one reason that Moore made the film in the first place.
That, or money. Depends on how cynical you want to be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you opposed the Iraq war, then you condemn the Iraqi's to less casualties in the short term, but also consign them to suffering and brutality under a despot YOUR nation helped prop up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. But those who helped do so when Iran was the villian are working on the situation <a href='http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/' target='_blank'>now</a>. That worries me. BathroomMonkey brought up Ahmed Chalabi, a wonderful example by itself. But then he goes above and beyond with "Saddam Hussein, the Taliban/Mujahideen, Augusto Pinochet, and Manuel Noriega, among others." And he's right. Those who gave these people power and pull with American funds are deciding now who will serve Iraq. And that truly frightens me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually America has the best track record for these sorts of things, in the past 50 years, both Japan and Germany have become the #2 and #3 economic powers, respectively. If that's a bad track record, your expectations are highly unrealistic and perfect for this reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excellent point, but that was a different time, when America had the full support of the civilized world. As pointed out above, recent track record does not speak as well for those currently making decisions. And, as was also pointed out, Japan and Germany both came from states of technology rivaling our own. In their time, they stood on equal footing with us in military technology of the time, and they had the corresponding expertise in those areas of industrial and technological know-how. However wounded the government may have been, they had the necessary infrastructure in place to become an economic world power again. Iraq is decades behind our technology, so the comparison of Japan and Germany after World War II and Afghanistan and Iraq in our current day is unfair at best, deliberately misleading at worst.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Drop the trade embargo.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And help support a regime that hogs all the wealth for itself and pour it into a military?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A trade embargo only keeps a country from being contaminated with new political ideas, with new ideas about human rights, with new ideas about economics and opening up its society. The trade embargo, designed to harm the governemnt, only serves to harm the citizens. The embargo also allows America to project itself as a Goliath, vs. David, on the world's political stage. Especially those citizens who are affected directly by the denial of much needed aid.
Forlorn, do you truly think that we are wrong to be selling a country's citizens medicine and food if we disagree with the direction its leaders are taking the country?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Continuously pester the Iraqi military with constant weapons inspections.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Does nothing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are you so quick to dismiss what has not been tried?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the event of a popular uprising against Saddam, support it and possibly fund and supply it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Already happened once, was surpressed with chemical weapons<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When was this?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Japan was in ruins after WWII, I'm not sure about Germany, but between the division of the country and the invasions from both the east and the west, I don't think it could have been in very good shape.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The question is not whether or not Japan was is good shape, but whether or not the country was in a <a href='http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072689' target='_blank'>better shape than Iraq</a> for a revolution to happen from the top down. The article is engaging, and I highly recommend, at the least, skimming it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the 2000 campaign, Bush denigrated nation-building. "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building," he said in a debate with Al Gore. "I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator." Gore then reminded Bush that after World War I, "we kind of turned our backs and left [the European nations] to their own devices and they brewed up a lot of trouble that quickly became World War II," whereas after the latter conflict, we engaged in nation-building, with better results. Fortunately, Bush is now heeding Gore's wisdom. But before he goes to war, he should also remember his own admonitions about how difficult nation-building can be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Both [Post-World War II Japan and Germany] seemed to be in worse conditions than Iraq was today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After what has been said in this thread, do you still believe this, Forlorn?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After all this is over, send in Jimmy Carter.
Cause he's the man.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Best. Idea. <a href='http://www.cartercenter.org/' target='_blank'>Evar</a>.
-Ryan!
A quotation, like a pun, should come unsought, and then be welcomed only for some propriety of felicity justifying the intrusion.
-- Robert Chapman
I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
-- Thomas Jefferson
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After all this is over, send in Jimmy Carter.
Cause he's the man.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Best. Idea. <a href='http://www.cartercenter.org/' target='_blank'>Evar</a>.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
because we have seen what a great job he has done getting North Korea to stop researching nukes.
Forlorn, two further points:
Regarding the trade embargo:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And help support a regime that hogs all the wealth for itself and pour it into a military?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The administration you are supporting claimed that Iraqs regieme was capable of smuggling WMD into the country. Now, with this in mind, and the fact that you supported such claims quite vocally, can you say with a straight face that you believe the trade embargo impaired the regieme considerably?
According to pre-war statements by the Coalition, Iraqs government <i>had</i> a military force potent enough to threaten its neighbours. They declared the embargo they had been upholding futile <i>themselves</i>.
Concerning the uprising of the Kurds:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Already happened once, was surpressed with chemical weapons<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... Delivered by Donald Rumsfeld. I think it's reasonable to claim that Hussein would've had a by far more difficult time quelling a riot in a situation in which the United States had not recently delivered large quantities of both conventional and unconventional weaponry to him. Moreso if said riot recieved an at least slightly comparable level of support from the US.
I'm going to make a longer post in response to the claim that one may only criticise Bushs policy if one can present a 'bulletproof' alternative plan later.
EDIT:
Oh yeah, how was our intervention in Korea a bad thing? Not only was it U.N. approved but the invasion started with communists, how the hell is that America's fault...
And many of your times and places are debatable, although I do give credit that most are wrong, but I never claimed America was perfect <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just tried to show that there were US interventions in other countries' affairs in the past 50 years. None of them was a "success" in any way. Either the resulting wars brought many casualties and changed nothing or dictatorships were established. Thus my point was that your reference to a successfull rebuilding of Japan and Germany, (if it can be compared to today's Iraq at all), is overshadowed with numerous other adventures of the USA. This is the reason why so many people in Europe, Arabia and elsewhere do not trust in US policy and regard it as a threat. It's not only that the USA "isn't perfect", it's merely regarded as a rouge state by the majority of the world's population.
EDIT:
Oh yeah, how was our intervention in Korea a bad thing? Not only was it U.N. approved but the invasion started with communists, how the hell is that America's fault...
And many of your times and places are debatable, although I do give credit that most are wrong, but I never claimed America was perfect <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just tried to show that there were US interventions in other countries' affairs in the past 50 years. None of them was a "success" in any way. Either the resulting wars brought many casualties and changed nothing or dictatorships were established. Thus my point was that your reference to a successfull rebuilding of Japan and Germany, (if it can be compared to today's Iraq at all), is overshadowed with numerous other adventures of the USA. This is the reason why so many people in Europe, Arabia and elsewhere do not trust in US policy and regard it as a threat. It's not only that the USA "isn't perfect", it's merely regarded as a rouge state by the majority of the world's population. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What surprises me here is that I consider America's foriegn policy to be less flawed than any other foriegn policy of a major world power, to date.
I'd say that America has done far more good for the world than harm.
So why do people hate America, dispite how hard it tries to satisfy others? Surely, not because it's screwed up on many occasions? How does that make America different from anyone else? We've screwed up less and succeeded more than any other country in history, as far as pushing our agenda goes.
How is this a bad track record?
Oh yeah, the US is just bending over backwards to help people ALL the friggin time. I remember that time we just kinda took over Hawaii, and when we occupied the phillipeans, and when we gave Middle Eastern soldiers arms to fight against the soviets for us oh and when we killed the Indians. So selfless.