DRB - good post.
Iraqi Minister Scolds U.N. for Inaction Regarding Hussein
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
Ditto 'dat.
Yeah they do need help. Still.
There is an oil factor.
Mogadishu is the capital.
What's your point?
As far as I see it this does not address my post at all, just obfuscates the argument.
Prior to NATO involvement incidents were sporadic, non-systemic and perpetrated by both the KLA and the Yugoslav authorities. As Kosov was part of the Yugoslav state would the KLA not be considered terrorists by some? And did NATO not involve themselves in another nations sovereign territory (as the US wanted no one to do in their own Civil War where States wished to ced from the Union).
For some Kosovo is no better overall now, just the victims are more Serbian then Albanian.
Which really was the point of my post if you stop being so defensive about the USA.
I was not attacking the US simply pointing out the ambiguities which are still valid. If the US was more consistent then these ambiguities would be far less damaging to their image abroad.
There it is. We are paying the price for years of playing both sides against the middle. Our hardline attitude regarding Saddam would have more punch if we hadn't cozied up to him in the 80's. Our international credibility is at an all time low and deservedly so.
And as much as I dislike GW, I will say he is working in a direction to remove the "ambiguities". Better late than never I guess.
Do you really think so? I'd say there were plenty of ambiguities in the reasons for going into both Afghanistan and Iraq. That's the problem.
He's making it worse IMO.
With Iraq, I would agree that the reasons given were ambiguous at best and possibly outright lies at worst. On Afghanistan, I disagree. We had solid intel that Osama was in country and that the base from which the worst of the terrioism was planned was in Afghanistan. We were right to go into Afghanistan. My problem with what we did there was we have not followed through and are apparently under the misconception that country and it's tie to the Islamic jhad has been severed. We are basically allowing them to re-group and begin anew.
Three months ago, hell, 3 weeks ago, I would have been right with you saying Bush is making it worse. But recent events have made me stop and take stock. Against my better judgement, I am instituting a policy of cautious optimism. A kind of moratorium on Bush bashing. I don't like his tactics, but maybe he has hit upon the one way to get their attention. Kick the butt of the one country in their area no one really likes anyway and then sit back and wait for the rest to come around before we deploy into their country. Because the one thing Bush has proven to them, he is not afraid to use up American lives in his quest to stop the terror.
And besides, how can he make it any worse than he already has? He's pissed off just about every country except those who really are our allies. And now apparently he's scared some countries into believing we are not just going to lob a few missles around and then go about our business. We are very likely to move into their country next and change things dramatically if they don't change their ways.
America is finally really, really angry. And the World is going to feel our influence, good or bad, for a long time to come. Call it being fed up and we are not going to take it anymore. How we do it is kinda up to the rest of the World. They can begin to clean up their own cesspools, or we'll do it for them. I don't want this to happen, but it seems we are headed this way. The World is just too small to allow the kind of international terrorism to flourish that is currently running amok throughout the globe. In other words, someone has to do it, I guess we stepped up. So did the Brits and a few others who know which side of their bread the butter's on.
Of course, Bush and his cowboy ways make me nervous. He seems all too comfortable to shoot first and answer questions later. And that is a good reason for all of us to be concerned. This could get way out of hand in a heartbeat. Dangerous times, Dangerous times.
First of I would have to say that you make a lot of valid points and I am not taking issue with any of those. We do need to make a distinction between effect of US foreign policy and it's perception. Part of this thread deals with the fact that US policy is not perceived as altruistic or benevolent, that the US intervenes in other states only when it suits them and not to help the people of the world (hence the Kosovo & Somalia discussion).
As far as current US foreign policy goes it does appear to be having some effects that could be quite far-reaching and positive for peace and stability. It has to be said though that it has been done for (primarily) US interest rather than any altruistic reason. I'm not making any judgement about the good or bad of the policy, just its perception. I have said previously that US dominance may be the best thing sustained peace regardless of how palatable it is for much of the world.
However don't expect the world to suddenly start believing that the US is acting like a benevolent parent. Also terrorism could actually worsen as more US-friendly governments appear in the Middle East. Stamping out terrorism will be much harder than deposing Saddam Hussein.
As far as current US foreign policy goes it does appear to be having some effects that could be quite far-reaching and positive for peace and stability. It has to be said though that it has been done for (primarily) US interest rather than any altruistic reason. I'm not making any judgement about the good or bad of the policy, just its perception. I have said previously that US dominance may be the best thing sustained peace regardless of how palatable it is for much of the world.
However don't expect the world to suddenly start believing that the US is acting like a benevolent parent. Also terrorism could actually worsen as more US-friendly governments appear in the Middle East. Stamping out terrorism will be much harder than deposing Saddam Hussein.
Certainly, everything we do overseas is self-serving. Either as Political capital at home or in pursuit of economic or political gains in other parts of the World. The perceptions of our antics overseas apparently has no effect on what we do. We do it anyway. I see this as an unfortunate side effect of our tendency to be short term thinkers tied to a very short election cycle.
I have always hated the two-faced manner in which we executed our foreign policies. With a split personality, we were the benevolent older uncle, handing out candy to the kids, while in the backrooms, the evil uncle cooked up schemes to undermine and take away that candy.
Maybe now, US policy will become more straight forward. No more double dealing, just straight up and in their face. Love us or hate us, at least everyone will know what page we are on and not be overly concerned about the hidden agenda.
And this is where the reasons for our invading Iraq bother me. Old habits die hard. Had Bush just said, "I'm invading because I feel it is the right thing to do", I would have had more respect for him. Had he said, " I'm invading because I want your oil", I would have had more respect for him. But because government is under the assumption that it's population cannot handle the truth, everything they do seems necessarily hindered and wrapped up in secrecy. Open government is a contradiction in terms.
I am under no illusion that defeating terroism will be easy. As a matter of fact, defeating it is most likely impossible. There will always be those folks without the physical strength but with huge, huge chips on their shoulders who feel it necessary to use terror to get their point across. Fanatic Islam now, some other "ism" in the future. But we have to stand up to them. They have been holding the World hostage with their shenanigans for too long. By caving and wringing our hands over their plight, we just add fuel to their fire. Anyone who uses terror to get their point across should be dealt with harshly and swiftly if possible.
What I hope for out of all this is a shift in US attitudes towards the concerns and plights of all 3rd world countries. We need to be even handed with our approach and deal with despots and wackos, no matter where they are or where they fall into our "strategic plan". Just because a country has no resources does not mean it cannot be used to support and export terror.
I have always hated the two-faced manner in which we executed our foreign policies. With a split personality, we were the benevolent older uncle, handing out candy to the kids, while in the backrooms, the evil uncle cooked up schemes to undermine and take away that candy.
Maybe now, US policy will become more straight forward. No more double dealing, just straight up and in their face. Love us or hate us, at least everyone will know what page we are on and not be overly concerned about the hidden agenda.
And this is where the reasons for our invading Iraq bother me. Old habits die hard. Had Bush just said, "I'm invading because I feel it is the right thing to do", I would have had more respect for him. Had he said, " I'm invading because I want your oil", I would have had more respect for him. But because government is under the assumption that it's population cannot handle the truth, everything they do seems necessarily hindered and wrapped up in secrecy. Open government is a contradiction in terms.
I am under no illusion that defeating terroism will be easy. As a matter of fact, defeating it is most likely impossible. There will always be those folks without the physical strength but with huge, huge chips on their shoulders who feel it necessary to use terror to get their point across. Fanatic Islam now, some other "ism" in the future. But we have to stand up to them. They have been holding the World hostage with their shenanigans for too long. By caving and wringing our hands over their plight, we just add fuel to their fire. Anyone who uses terror to get their point across should be dealt with harshly and swiftly if possible.
What I hope for out of all this is a shift in US attitudes towards the concerns and plights of all 3rd world countries. We need to be even handed with our approach and deal with despots and wackos, no matter where they are or where they fall into our "strategic plan". Just because a country has no resources does not mean it cannot be used to support and export terror.
I'm all for defeating terrorism, after all I have lived and worked in London whilst the IRA used it as an area to air their greivances by the use of bombs.
Unfortunately I don't believe it can ever be eliminated, there are too many power-hungry people in the world.
An honest foreign policy would be an eye-opener from any western (and probably world) government, not just the US.
Unfortunately I don't believe it can ever be eliminated, there are too many power-hungry people in the world.
An honest foreign policy would be an eye-opener from any western (and probably world) government, not just the US.
Hope springs eternal. Damn, there I go being optimistic again. Gotta get that bad habit under control.
you queers wouldn t know freedom if it kicked you fair and square in the bollocks.... IRAQ IS FREE !!!!!!!!!!!!!$#@#$!%@#$^
freedom is N8 in his bandanna !!!!!
COCK ROCK CANNOT DIE !...
freedom is N8 in his bandanna !!!!!
COCK ROCK CANNOT DIE !...
You know you want one...
