Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Europe's shame

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Europe's shame

    I'm just watching (with great pleasure) the activities in the center of Baghdad as preparations are made to topple a large statue of Saddam.

    I live in Germany and I've heard many negative comments about US actions over the past weeks. Of course, I'm also aware of the fears and apprehensions of many other Europeans, particularly the French. I think these people should examine their own moral values and try a little harder to determine what's right and what's wrong. Those who protested this war, Saddam's supporters, were actually protesting to allow a bloody dictator to remain in power. Only the US, and a few allies, had the moral courage to take action and free the Iraqi people. Those who protested this liberation should be feeling ashamed now, if they have the intellect and compassion to understand their moral deficiencies.

    I understand that, even now, many Europeans are still skeptical about our motivations. The coming weeks will display the positive intentions and actions of the people of the US. A few days ago Colin Powell was asked about the intentions of the US in regard to conquests and he replied that the only territory the US had ever asked for was enough ground to bury the soldiers who died on foreign soil.

  • #2
    Calling someone against the war a "Saddam supporter" is just dishonest.

    For many, the opposition trancends Iraq specifically. For others, well I would just pose this question:

    If George Bush found out that for whatever reason, if he dropped a MOAB into the middle of the stadium during half-time at the Superbowl, it would wipe out global terrorism forever, should he do it?

    How many Americans would see this as an acceptable sacrifice? Particularly if they or someone they knew was going to be at the game?
    Last edited by MikeJ; 09 Apr 03, 10:01.
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Europe's shame

      Originally posted by expatyanqui
      I live in Germany and I've heard many negative comments about US actions over the past weeks. Of course, I'm also aware of the fears and apprehensions of many other Europeans, particularly the French. I think these people should examine their own moral values and try a little harder to determine what's right and what's wrong. Those who protested this war, Saddam's supporters, were actually protesting to allow a bloody dictator to remain in power. Only the US, and a few allies, had the moral courage to take action and free the Iraqi people. Those who protested this liberation should be feeling ashamed now, if they have the intellect and compassion to understand their moral deficiencies.
      Frankly, that is a lot of BS. Labeling protesters as Saddam's supporters and to contradict their moral values is something that could be expected from bunch of right wing nutters (Are you one of them? Germany sure has fine traditions on that field).

      Personally, I have not had any sympathy towards Saddam's regime, which has kept the fine traditions of stalinism alive, but the way that US started the war, from political point of view, left a lot to be desired, not forgetting the presented hypocritical motives, when obviously oil is the number one factor.

      Originally posted by expatyanqui
      I understand that, even now, many Europeans are still skeptical about our motivations. The coming weeks will display the positive intentions and actions of the people of the US. A few days ago Colin Powell was asked about the intentions of the US in regard to conquests and he replied that the only territory the US had ever asked for was enough ground to bury the soldiers who died on foreign soil.
      There's much that can still go wrong, and scepticism against US intentions is the right and priviledge of free people of the world. I surely do hope that everything goes well in Iraq, and democratic Iraq, governed by its own people will calm down the most 'flammable' region of the world. If that happens I don't hesitate to congratulate US and Britain for job well done.
      Last edited by Sheik Yerbouti; 09 Apr 03, 10:15.
      “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…” -1984 about the Big Lie

      Comment


      • #4
        The United States was cheered into Somalia in 1992. Yet, within 11 months, those same crowds were dragging dead American soldiers through the streets. The crowds and praises don't mean the Iraqis will always support us. They are happy because Saddam is gone, not because the US, UK, Australia, and the other Coalition partners are present.

        The toughest battles lay ahead. Aside from capturing the north, we must re-establish law and order, create a stable, legitimate government, and somehow convince people who have been fighting for decades to work together. It's a tall order that is more than capable of reversing victory.

        Those who opposed the war did so for their own reasons. They felt the US was trying to impose it's will on others. That can still be proven true. Attacking Iraq was not in the best interest for many countries. Thus, there was no reason to commit themselves politically, or militarily to the offensive to topple Saddam.

        Most European governments want a role in post Saddam Iraq. The US will need the support of France, Germany, and Russia if it wants to successfully establish a legitimate and stable govern-ment. Once the war is over, we need to forgive, forget, and move on. We don't need to fight over who was right or wrong. Everybody did what they thought was right. And because so many people are dying and risk are so high, one can't blame either side.

        So Europe should not be ashamed of itself. The ideal we all believe is what created the victories we've had. Liberty and equality is what our soldiers fought and died for. The politicians might have had their own motives, but they don't count right now. The important task lay ahead, and Bush must realize he do it alone. He needs to ask our allies for help not because they didn't help fight in the war, but because we need their help. No one owes us a dang thing. That's how we approach this diplomatic effort.

        I'm just glad that bastard Saddam is loosing power. If Bush is really on a crusade against brutality, our troops need to finish this job, clean our guns and head for Congo. Theirs a few *ssholes who didn't get the word.

        Tragically, that's not why we went into Iraq. This was a power move.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          hey, D-Pooh, thumbs up again, as usual
          Attn to ALL my opponents:

          If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

          Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks, MikeJ, for trying to get me straight, but I don't consider my statement as dishonest, I actually believe that the people who protested this action provided support for Saddam. You might want to consider me confused or misinformed, as you wish. Saddam's regime certainly considered these protest actions as a support and provided ample time in broadcasting footage of these protests in order to influence Iraqi, and world, public opinion. Regardless of what these protester's motivations may have been, the Saddam regime viewed their actions as a source of support and used them in that way.

            Hi Yerbouti; I don't know if I'm a "right wing nutter," I haven't done any psychological self-evaluation in that regard lately. There's some kind of indication in your post that German = right wing. First, I'm not German, I'm a US citizen. Second, the majority of Germans are fairly left wing and pacifist now, regardless of what they may have been in the past.

            Hello also Deltapooh. I get your points, but Somalia is not quite the same as Iraq. The Iraqis have a lot more radios and TVs than the Somalis, and US information (disinformation?) seems to have had a generally positive influence. Also, the Iraqis have lots of oil and, therefore, a much greater potential for economic comfort than the Somalis could hope for for a very long time. The potential for wealth tends to get people to settle down and concentrate on making money instead of trying to kill someone.

            I understand that there are significant problems and that we have to be very careful about facilitating a new government - that is to help them and not do it for them or force it upon them. Still, I think we have a much greater chance of success in Iraq than we ever did in Somalia.

            I'm sorry that I'm not so forgiving of the Europeans I spoke about previously. You haven't lived over here for the last several months, actually it's been 4 years this time. There are all too many (Germans at least) that openly expressed their wishes that we would fail in this endeavor, including the German media.

            I know this action was also motivated by "power" considerations, most international actions like this are. We want to pump more oil and, thereby, lower the worldwide price of oil. This would be a tremendous help for the slow economic recovery in the US; and Europe. The US also wants to diminish the influence of OPEC, which can now indirectly influence the US economy by dabbling with oil production and the price of a barrel of oil. Success in Iraq would also give us political leverage in the Arab world. I think these issues also have a lot to do with French and Russian motivations. The French TotalFinaElf group had contracts for the development of the Majnoon oil fields worth an estimated $60 to $75 billion. Russia's Lukoil group had contracts all over Iraq worth almost as much. It would also have been very much in Russia's interest to keep the sanctions in place. The period of insecurity prior to the war raised the price of oil to very high levels. Russia would have been happy to maintain this international tension for a little longer, they are the number two oil exporter in the world now and a high per barrel price means more money for the Russians. It costs the Russians over $12 per barrel to bring their oil to market, Siberia isn't as benign as the Arabian deserts and the Russian extraction and distribution systems aren't as well developed. If the price of oil falls too much, Russia may be bankrupt again. Everyone is playing the power game for their own reasons.

            To put it in <very> simple terms: The French and Russian position was to keep the dictator in place, hope for sanctions to be lifted, and then go pump some oil. The US position was to remove the dictator, then there won't be any sanctions, and then go pump some oil. Who has the higher moral argument?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Deltapooh

              Those who opposed the war did so for their own reasons. They felt the US was trying to impose it's will on others. That can still be proven true. Attacking Iraq was not in the best interest for many countries. Thus, there was no reason to commit themselves politically, or militarily to the offensive to topple Saddam.
              For Iraq's neighbors, it's not just Arab sympathy for Iraqi people's plight, but rather their own concerns about their economies. Many Arab countries have more than 10 to 20 precent of unemployment rates, and suffering under inept leadership. So if US invades Iraq, then much of these smugglings that many countries profitted from would vanish along with hard cash needed to revive their economies.

              It's the same for some European countries like France, Russia, and Germany. They are profitting enoronously from oil-for-food programs that Iraq contracts out to. A US invasion would end these profits as well.

              You just don't get it, these people don't get it, committing these crimes (violating the UN sanctions) don't pay.


              Most European governments want a role in post Saddam Iraq. The US will need the support of France, Germany, and Russia if it wants to successfully establish a legitimate and stable govern-ment. Once the war is over, we need to forgive, forget, and move on. We don't need to fight over who was right or wrong. Everybody did what they thought was right. And because so many people are dying and risk are so high, one can't blame either side.
              The only reason France, Russia, Germany, China, and many other countries want a role in postwar Iraq is because they are trying to salvage what's left of their smuggling profits and contracts. They fear if US takes the control of Iraq, then their businesses will suffer badly, and see their own economies take some heavy hits.

              They should have thought of it before trying to violate UN sanctions by doing business with a murderous tyrant. Now, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and to a lesser extent, Iran are depending on Iraqi oil simply because their smugglings have become too valuable and essential to their economies. Many European countries are paranoid that their huge sources of profits are about to be vanquished forever. This problem will only worsen.

              Now, they have stomach even to demand some kind of UN role in postwar Iraq, and I am furious at this. They are merely using UN to escape their own crimes and trying to salvage something tangleable out of Iraq.


              So Europe should not be ashamed of itself. The ideal we all believe is what created the victories we've had. Liberty and equality is what our soldiers fought and died for. The politicians might have had their own motives, but they don't count right now. The important task lay ahead, and Bush must realize he do it alone. He needs to ask our allies for help not because they didn't help fight in the war, but because we need their help. No one owes us a dang thing. That's how we approach this diplomatic effort.
              Yes, Europe and Arab world should be ashamed of themselves, they stood and did nothing to help the US to get rid of a murderous tyrant and inspect the old regime for WMDs. All they want is a piece of Iraqi oil and keep their own profits. They don't care about Iraqi people. They should be put to shame.

              If they want to help the US or take a role in Iraq, then they must shut up and swallow their pride, don't ask for compensation or bribes, take it like a man, and more importantly apologize to America for being so hypocritical in face. Until they do that, they are just nothing but a bunch of crybabies. Pathetic, if you ask me.

              Yes, I know, this'll never happen. UN will take a significant role in postwar Iraq, that's for sure, we will allow these European nations to contribute if nothing else to smooth over bad relations. We will forget and move on, but for now, I'm just too angry with these silly political grandstandings on foreign part.

              Dan
              Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

              "Aim small, miss small."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by expatyanqui
                Hi Yerbouti; I don't know if I'm a "right wing nutter," I haven't done any psychological self-evaluation in that regard lately. There's some kind of indication in your post that German = right wing. First, I'm not German, I'm a US citizen. Second, the majority of Germans are fairly left wing and pacifist now, regardless of what they may have been in the past.
                OK, sorry about that. And that's true that there are not many 'right wing nutters' in Germany nowadays.

                Originally posted by expatyanqui
                I know this action was also motivated by "power" considerations, most international actions like this are. We want to pump more oil and, thereby, lower the worldwide price of oil. This would be a tremendous help for the slow economic recovery in the US; and Europe. The US also wants to diminish the influence of OPEC, which can now indirectly influence the US economy by dabbling with oil production and the price of a barrel of oil. Success in Iraq would also give us political leverage in the Arab world. I think these issues also have a lot to do with French and Russian motivations. The French TotalFinaElf group had contracts for the development of the Majnoon oil fields worth an estimated $60 to $75 billion. Russia's Lukoil group had contracts all over Iraq worth almost as much. It would also have been very much in Russia's interest to keep the sanctions in place. The period of insecurity prior to the war raised the price of oil to very high levels. Russia would have been happy to maintain this international tension for a little longer, they are the number two oil exporter in the world now and a high per barrel price means more money for the Russians. It costs the Russians over $12 per barrel to bring their oil to market, Siberia isn't as benign as the Arabian deserts and the Russian extraction and distribution systems aren't as well developed. If the price of oil falls too much, Russia may be bankrupt again. Everyone is playing the power game for their own reasons.

                To put it in <very> simple terms: The French and Russian position was to keep the dictator in place, hope for sanctions to be lifted, and then go pump some oil. The US position was to remove the dictator, then there won't be any sanctions, and then go pump some oil. Who has the higher moral argument?
                Here are the true motives indeed.
                “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…” -1984 about the Big Lie

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think Deltapooh nicely summed up what I think. Hold your applause for now, dear expatriated Yankee (expatyanqui). It's much too soon to draw any conclusions out of the current events, or to brag about what a wonderful world this is. In one or two years we'll have a better idea how really things are unfolding in Iraq.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    OK, Yerbouti, but I don't mean to imply that those are the only motives. The US genuinely wants to free the Iraqi people, Americans are genuinely interested in exporting and sharing democracy and prosperity.

                    The US is also genuinely concerned about weapons proliferation.

                    Of course, the US is also (genuinely?) concerned about making money. Some American companies are going to make a great deal of money developing the oil fields and extracting oil and other companies will make money just building the infrastructure in the place. I don't want to forget the Brits, BP and other British companies will be in there too. I suspect that the French and Russians will have lost most of their contractual agreements - those were signed by Saddam's representatives. Still, you have to remember that the US government and the American taxpayer has to pay a great deal for this endeavor.

                    The greatest benefit for US, European (in general, world) economies will be to get the price of a barrel of oil back to reasonable levels. $24, $20 or (dare I hope?) $18 per barrel. This would greatly assist economic recoveries in a variety of nations.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Howdy Tzar:

                      OK, but let's hope for the best. I know my people and I know they mean well for the Iraqis. I suspect that if there's failure in this thing, it won't be because we didn't try our best for them.

                      I know the Iraqis; at least a little bit. I worked with them as a civilian in Berlin for almost a year and also spent a few months in Baghdad.

                      Too late about me applauding too early, I've been doing that for almost 3 weeks now.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by expatyanqui
                        OK, Yerbouti, but I don't mean to imply that those are the only motives. The US genuinely wants to free the Iraqi people, Americans are genuinely interested in exporting and sharing democracy and prosperity.
                        I very much doubt that. How much are US taxpayers willing to pay for exporting democracy and prosperity all over the world?

                        Personally, I'd like to see North Korean government to be toppled next...
                        “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…” -1984 about the Big Lie

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by expatyanqui
                          [B]Thanks, MikeJ, for trying to get me straight, but I don't consider my statement as dishonest, I actually believe that the people who protested this action provided support for Saddam. You might want to consider me confused or misinformed, as you wish. Saddam's regime certainly considered these protest actions as a support and provided ample time in broadcasting footage of these protests in order to influence Iraqi, and world, public opinion. Regardless of what these protester's motivations may have been, the Saddam regime viewed their actions as a source of support and used them in that way.
                          I understand what you were saying, because it's not the first time I've heard it. And that's why i know it's dishonest.

                          You drive a car right? Then, by proxy, whether intentional or not, you are supporting a bloody dictator (well actually a LOT of bloody dictators) cling to power.

                          This is why it's dishonest.
                          "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                          – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by expatyanqui

                            Hello also Deltapooh. I get your points, but Somalia is not quite the same as Iraq. The Iraqis have a lot more radios and TVs than the Somalis, and US information (disinformation?) seems to have had a generally positive influence. Also, the Iraqis have lots of oil and, therefore, a much greater potential for economic comfort than the Somalis could hope for for a very long time. The potential for wealth tends to get people to settle down and concentrate on making money instead of trying to kill someone.

                            I understand that there are significant problems and that we have to be very careful about facilitating a new government - that is to help them and not do it for them or force it upon them. Still, I think we have a much greater chance of success in Iraq than we ever did in Somalia.
                            True, this is not Somalia. However, we do face many of the same challenges, and can make similar mistakes. In Somalia we tried to build a government from the outside, while dismissing the role of the militia leaders. We wanted men like Aideed to work with people he either had, or was about to defeat. In Iraq, we are bringing in Iraqi citizens who resided in exile for many years. While they are from Iraq, and might have experienced some of the mistreatment of Saddam, that doesn't mean people will still support them.

                            I admist we have a good chance of succeeding. Yet, I believe there are many places we can go wrong at. PDK and PUK hate each other at least as much as they hate Saddam. PDK even went as far as to allied itself with Saddam to defeat PUK forces. Now these factions will need to lay aside their differences and political ambitions to form a stable government.

                            The US can not exercise the degree of control some in the Bush Administration want. We will need to let the Iraqi people choose their course, even if it contradicts many of the ideals we believe in. I simply don't want the new Iraqi government to cause the kind of headaches Saddam did. Beyond that, I have to accept whatever happens.

                            Originally posted by expatyanqui

                            I know this action was also motivated by "power" considerations, most international actions like this are. We want to pump more oil and, thereby, lower the worldwide price of oil. This would be a tremendous help for the slow economic recovery in the US; and Europe. The US also wants to diminish the influence of OPEC, which can now indirectly influence the US economy by dabbling with oil production and the price of a barrel of oil. Success in Iraq would also give us political leverage in the Arab world. I think these issues also have a lot to do with French and Russian motivations. The French TotalFinaElf group had contracts for the development of the Majnoon oil fields worth an estimated $60 to $75 billion. Russia's Lukoil group had contracts all over Iraq worth almost as much. It would also have been very much in Russia's interest to keep the sanctions in place. The period of insecurity prior to the war raised the price of oil to very high levels. Russia would have been happy to maintain this international tension for a little longer, they are the number two oil exporter in the world now and a high per barrel price means more money for the Russians. It costs the Russians over $12 per barrel to bring their oil to market, Siberia isn't as benign as the Arabian deserts and the Russian extraction and distribution systems aren't as well developed. If the price of oil falls too much, Russia may be bankrupt again. Everyone is playing the power game for their own reasons.
                            For the US, cheaper oil was not the objective. If we wanted that, we could just lift the sanctions and save around $50 billion dollars over the next ten years. Instead, the US wants to secure the resources just in case the situation in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, deteriorates. Oil is a natural resource, imperative to our survival. We can pay for it without a problem. However, we can't do without it. If radicals take over SA, we could be left high and dry, or be forced to concede national interest that would leave us vulnerable.

                            Originally posted by Cheetah772

                            For Iraq's neighbors, it's not just Arab sympathy for Iraqi people's plight, but rather their own concerns about their economies. Many Arab countries have more than 10 to 20 precent of unemployment rates, and suffering under inept leadership. So if US invades Iraq, then much of these smugglings that many countries profitted from would vanish along with hard cash needed to revive their economies.

                            It's the same for some European countries like France, Russia, and Germany. They are profitting enoronously from oil-for-food programs that Iraq contracts out to. A US invasion would end these profits as well.

                            You just don't get it, these people don't get it, committing these crimes (violating the UN sanctions) don't pay.
                            You talk like the US goes into all this with it's hand's clean. We allowed Iran to ship arms to Muslims during the war in Bosnia, which was a direct violation of UN sanctions. And that's just one example. The Unite States is not the perfect country who deals justly with our allies. The invasion of Iraq threatens the economy of Russia and France, did Bush care? No.

                            This is not a moral crusade. That's not how the American diplomacy is. Violating UN sanctions to look out for #1 is something we love to do. Criticizing other countries for following our example is unwarranted.

                            Originally posted by Cheetah772

                            The only reason France, Russia, Germany, China, and many other countries want a role in postwar Iraq is because they are trying to salvage what's left of their smuggling profits and contracts. They fear if US takes the control of Iraq, then their businesses will suffer badly, and see their own economies take some heavy hits.

                            They should have thought of it before trying to violate UN sanctions by doing business with a murderous tyrant. Now, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and to a lesser extent, Iran are depending on Iraqi oil simply because their smugglings have become too valuable and essential to their economies. Many European countries are paranoid that their huge sources of profits are about to be vanquished forever. This problem will only worsen.

                            Now, they have stomach even to demand some kind of UN role in postwar Iraq, and I am furious at this. They are merely using UN to escape their own crimes and trying to salvage something tangleable out of Iraq.
                            The only way those sanctions get lifted is if France, Germany, and Russia agree. The same goes for international recognition of the new Iraqi government. If want this operation to succeed, we'll need their support. So they are looking to get something out on the other end. If the Iraqi people want to buy from them, we are in no position to stop them.

                            True these countries want to be on the winning side. However, I don't blame them for not taking the enormous political risk we did. Bush had alot of support. He could afford a bloody, costly war. It was the US who said we would go it alone if necessary. That provided many political leaders an out. I know for a fact, if I were Chirac, I would not send French troops, and risk loosing the next election. I'd say, "If the US wants to play Billy Bad*ss, let them. I go in when the humanitarian work begins."

                            Cheetah, I can understand why one would be angry with many European countries. However, anger and rivalry is not in the best interest of our country and interest. We did what we had to. Because of that, we should not care who did or didn't join the Coalition. It wasn't about them. I didn't send my friends and family to fight in Iraq for anyone, but my country, and what I saw as our vital interest. I'm happy the Iraqi people are free, but our real goal had little to do with freeing them. We wanted to get rid of a ruthless dictator in order to secure and expand our power. It's just as selfish and dirty as the very reason you despise many European governments for.

                            I realize diplomacy is a dirty business. And we play it as dirty as anyone else. I'm not angry with so many because I know they were just covering their butts. So am I. The US is cruel country with alot of power. We conceal our deeds with freedom and justice. Yet, ultimately, the truth reigns clear. I'm not going to sweep around Europe's door, while mine is so stacked with dirt. So I say we move on.

                            Originally posted by Cheetah772

                            Yes, Europe and Arab world should be ashamed of themselves, they stood and did nothing to help the US to get rid of a murderous tyrant and inspect the old regime for WMDs. All they want is a piece of Iraqi oil and keep their own profits. They don't care about Iraqi people. They should be put to shame.

                            If they want to help the US or take a role in Iraq, then they must shut up and swallow their pride, don't ask for compensation or bribes, take it like a man, and more importantly apologize to America for being so hypocritical in face. Until they do that, they are just nothing but a bunch of crybabies. Pathetic, if you ask me.

                            Yes, I know, this'll never happen. UN will take a significant role in postwar Iraq, that's for sure, we will allow these European nations to contribute if nothing else to smooth over bad relations. We will forget and move on, but for now, I'm just too angry with these silly political grandstandings on foreign part.
                            Boy, you're pissed!

                            The US is king of the Grandstanding. We also hold the crown for Bull *hit talking. And no one can belittle a country like we can.
                            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


                              I very much doubt that. How much are US taxpayers willing to pay for exporting democracy and prosperity all over the world?

                              Personally, I'd like to see North Korean government to be toppled next...
                              You're asking for a lot, the world is a pretty big place. We're all neglecting Africa, aren't we? Maybe we should be doing a little more to stop the incessant butchery down there. Deltapooh mentioned the Congo, but aren't we going to experience the same criticisms if we step into that place and try to stop the killing? What about the UN?

                              North Korea is another matter entirely. Kim Jong Il seems to be a mixture of bellicose tyrant and wishful reformer. N. Korea is very bellicose right now because Kim knows we are busy with Iraq, let's see what he has to say when the campaign there is finished. Korea is a situation that should be approached with diplomacy. There are also practical considerations involved. N. Korea has an army of 1.1 million, larger now than Russia's army. The terrain is also not as favorable as the terrain in Iraq. I was assigned to Korea for one year during my time in the US Army. Camp Casey, 2 ID, anybody know the place? Korea is characterized by mountain ranges, most of the action would take place in the north/south valleys. Much easier to defend, even for a low-tech army like the one the North Koreans have. We may have given an impression of boldness (I hope) in Iraq, but we are not suicidal.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X