| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Bloody fine article: thanks.
Could any senior government officials read it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Could any senior government officials read it?
|
I'll mention it to Rummy next time he calls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This article is weak. The suggestion is that America:
| Quote: |
| apologize to the Iraqi people for an invasion and occupation that (whatever our intentions) has gone terribly wrong; ask the United Nations to take over the management of the country's security, |
But there is no discussion about how realistic such a demand would be. The United Nations would not be willing to take such a role, nor without the participation of other member nations, would it have any troops to provide. What nation would provide troops? Both Chirac and Schroeder remain unwilling to send troops to Iraq because it would mean political suicide. If Americans are having difficulty supporting the war now, imagine the public support in Europe for putting up troops as Americans withdraw.
As for problems with the United Nations bureaucracy itself, I make no claims about corruption so much as weakness. The author's point about the mismanagement of the CPA is well taken, but that doesn't change the fact that recently the UN has been doing poorly in terms of peace-keeping. Remember the August 2003 attack on the UN HQ? Kofi withdrew the UN from Iraq, citing a bad security situation (although the US did recommend heightened security for the compound). This is the kind of organization that is supposed to stand in the face of Zarqawi?
In addition, I think the author assumes wrongly that the United Nations would be welcome. Certainly, the jihadists, Ba'athists, and whatever other organizations are having people with down syndrome detonate themselves would not welcome the UN, but see it as an obstacle to bringing down the current Iraqi government. And would the Iraqi government welcome the UN? Highly unlikely. Remember the Iraqi reaction when the UN tried to meddle with the Constitution? I highly doubt they'll welcome the thousand or so troops the UN could muster while the US is withdrawing.
And finally, I don't think the US needs to enter AA, even though an apology might be warranted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But there is no discussion about how realistic such a demand would be. |
I thought that was the weakest part of the article, too.
What I liked about it was that finally people are starting to try to figure out practical ways to achieve a good goal. Just walking out in a unilateral withdrawal is not a plan made for success.
I did like the AA reference. I can just see it: "Hello, I'm George Bush and I'm an aggressor." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deconstructor
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If you're gonna penetrate, you'd better know that there is a point of no return as you lose control. If you're gonna withdraw, you gotta do it before you c*m, otherwise it's too late. You might as well keep it in a while to make sure it doesn't spill all over your bed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't read the article.. but just the comments from this thread.
If the author of the article thinks that Bush is going to 'apologize for going into Iraq' or call it an 'invasion' and 'occupation'.. then he obviously doesn't watch TV or aware of what Bush actually thinks.
In regards to the UN replacing American soldiers so that predominately Europeans die instead.. that assumption is real messed up and won't happen either. Continental Europeans won't go for it - they'd rather have a total withdrawal.
Honestly, I don't get why ANYONE is in Iraq.. Saddam is LONG GONE and so are any WMD (which weren't there anyways). Democracy or the vote for Presidency already occurred.. what more needs to happen there?
Stamping out insurgents until the end of time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
I didn't read the article.. but just the comments from this thread.
If the author of the article thinks that Bush is going to 'apologize for going into Iraq' or call it an 'invasion' and 'occupation'.. then he obviously doesn't watch TV or aware of what Bush actually thinks.
In regards to the UN replacing American soldiers so that predominately Europeans die instead.. that assumption is real messed up and won't happen either. Continental Europeans won't go for it - they'd rather have a total withdrawal.
Honestly, I don't get why ANYONE is in Iraq.. Saddam is LONG GONE and so are any WMD (which weren't there anyways). Democracy or the vote for Presidency already occurred.. what more needs to happen there?
Stamping out insurgents until the end of time? |
No, the point is creating permanent bases in Iraq and having a strong foothold in the region. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| desultude wrote: |
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
I didn't read the article.. but just the comments from this thread.
If the author of the article thinks that Bush is going to 'apologize for going into Iraq' or call it an 'invasion' and 'occupation'.. then he obviously doesn't watch TV or aware of what Bush actually thinks.
In regards to the UN replacing American soldiers so that predominately Europeans die instead.. that assumption is real messed up and won't happen either. Continental Europeans won't go for it - they'd rather have a total withdrawal.
Honestly, I don't get why ANYONE is in Iraq.. Saddam is LONG GONE and so are any WMD (which weren't there anyways). Democracy or the vote for Presidency already occurred.. what more needs to happen there?
Stamping out insurgents until the end of time? |
No, the point is creating permanent bases in Iraq and having a strong foothold in the region. |
Well said Des.
Just curious how did you come to that conclusion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How could someone not come to that conclusion? This doesn't negate their other strategic reasons, such as controlling and profiteering from the most important resource on earth- oil, advancing the agenda of the conservative christians (otherwise known as pandering) and trying to maintain the existing world system. These all require the bases and physical presence in the region.
Funny thing, you never hear Chaney et al discuss these issues.
By the way, in the bigger picture, "old Europe" is onboard with this agenda almost entirely (save the concern for the fundy christians and their rapture fantasies.)
But we are all still fed the happy horse crap about "democracy" and "wmd" and ridding the world of Saddam. Saddam would still be in power and killing his enemies if he had maintained his alliance with Washington. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That'll be interesting to have bases there forever.. stamping out insurgents forever.
Can you imagine if every Korean who didn't want American soldiers in Korea were constantly trying to kill them day and night - and believed in it to the level of losing their lives for that cause - and on a massive scale.
Can't even imagine being a US soldier stationed in Iraq for Cheney/Bush's purposes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wrench
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
What America apologize? Is that possible?
I say: You brake it you buy it. Sorry America got them selves in and now they should finish what they started. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blah
Joined: 08 May 2003
Location: Ulsan, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| desultude wrote: |
| (save the concern for the fundy christians and their rapture fantasies.) |
You usually come across as open-minded and unbigoted. I guess it��s only a matter of time when posting on this forum until one feels the need to insult others�� beliefs.
You disappoint me today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| desultude wrote: |
How could someone not come to that conclusion? This doesn't negate their other strategic reasons, such as controlling and profiteering from the most important resource on earth- oil, advancing the agenda of the conservative christians (otherwise known as pandering) and trying to maintain the existing world system. These all require the bases and physical presence in the region.
Funny thing, you never hear Chaney et al discuss these issues.
By the way, in the bigger picture, "old Europe" is onboard with this agenda almost entirely (save the concern for the fundy christians and their rapture fantasies.)
But we are all still fed the happy horse crap about "democracy" and "wmd" and ridding the world of Saddam. Saddam would still be in power and killing his enemies if he had maintained his alliance with Washington. |
I would say the US went into Iraq to force mideast regimes to stop funding Al Qaida , teaching hate , inciting violence and planning terror.The US is not going to state this because it would make it harder for regimes to do that. They don't want to be seen giving in , and they don't want to give the impression that they are giving in cause they are afraid of the US. The oil , human rights , and democracy are just bonuses.
You said that Saddam was an American ally. Well that is not really true.
The US had very unfriendly relations with Iraq and Saddam until Saddam invaded Iran and it only really began to change when Iran began to win its war with Iraq. In truth Iraq was never an American ally. Morever France , Germany and Russia were far bigger supporters , and much closer to Saddam's regime and far more friendly to his regime than American ever was.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blah wrote: |
| desultude wrote: |
| (save the concern for the fundy christians and their rapture fantasies.) |
You usually come across as open-minded and unbigoted. I guess it��s only a matter of time when posting on this forum until one feels the need to insult others�� beliefs.
You disappoint me today. |
Yeah, that was pretty harsh. Mea Culpa. I apologize if it offended you.
It doesn't reflect anything about the board, more my own frustration with fundamentalism in general and the intolerance, bigotry and war it can spawn- that means "fundamentalist" anything, by the way, whether it be Christian, Jew or Muslim.
Please note that I didn't mean all Christians. I think that most Christians harbor no fantasy of going into the Middle East and igniting a process that will culminate in the end days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
