America vs Russia (yet again)?

[Aileron]

The story is now that Russia has offered to help build the missile shield.

 

 

I wonder when people are going to learn to stop underestimating Bush. The entire motivation for all of this is to get Russia to support our policy regarding Iran. Now, they have to build a radar base that will need to have some sort of budget that they would rather spend on something else every year.

 

As I've said in my posts regarding weapons control. Security is a need, and when you monopolize a need you can almost name any price. If the US builds a missile shield in east Europe alone, then in the quite likely event of Iran going hostile, the US would monopolize security and could name the price of withdrawing all political support for Russia. East Europe is too important, so Russia can't let the US create such a monopoly. Thus, they have no choice but to help the US build the missile shield.

 

The true greatness of this plan is that the US could hypothetically replace the tracking system with satellite tracking as well as set up radar of our own. This gives the US a lever to controll the quality of the Russian radar system, giving the US the ability to set the yearly budget of the radar facility.

 

Now, all Bush has to do is set a quality standards to create a budget high enough that Russia would support agressive measures towards Iran, but low enough that they won't write off Eastern Europe.

[AstroProdigy]

"I wonder when people are going to learn to stop underestimating Bush."

When our reputation is no longer devastated by the infantile handling of Iraq.

 

While I have no problem with the Czech Republic and Poland cooperating with us (they're looking to the west after the decades of Soviet oppression) I really don't see the point for our side. Russia isn't planning on sending nuke to the US and even if they were the defense system we have would do almost nothing to stop them. As for stopping Iran from nuking Europe' date=' Europe is one of the last places Iran would launch nukes at. Europe is the place quickest to try appease extremist Islamist countries. What gain would they have?

 

"then in the quite likely event of Iran going hostile"

I seriously doubt it. Iran plays politics the same way the rest of the world does. There is nothing to gain from a nuclear confrontation. End of the world religious extremism is more of a Christian phenomenon actually.

 

This is a very far fetched plan you've hatched for Bush here. This is the same guy who knew nothing about Iraq before he invaded. He really doesn't play things smart the way you think he does. This could have to do with pressuring Russia to take steps against Iran, but controlling the quality of Russian radar system to do this? Come on now let's be practical. While I agree this is a way of saying to Russia that they can no longer play such a strong hand against us, this is more of a common sense approach. There is no brilliance to this. The reason we don't do this to China is that we don't have countries so willing to be pawns in our game and because China's hand in world affairs is growing, not shrinking.

Edited June 11, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[Drake7707]

This is a very far fetched plan you've hatched for Bush here. This is the same guy who knew nothing about Iraq before he invaded. He really doesn't play things smart the way you think he does. This could have to do with pressuring Russia to take steps against Iran, but controlling the quality of Russian radar system to do this? Come on now let's be practical. While I agree this is a way of saying to Russia that they can no longer play such a strong hand against us, this is more of a common sense approach. There is no brilliance to this. The reason we don't do this to China is that we don't have countries so willing to be pawns in our game and because China's hand in world affairs is growing, not shrinking.

 

don't think bush thought that up, he's just a dummy the government shows to the outside world, much as every president. Things like that were probably managed & created by some obscure governemnt department nobody knows about

[Aileron]

I don't know President Bush or anyone in the Bush family, but my small town has a family just like them. They talk down and act really friendly, and I thought they were idiots until they all came back from expensive colleges with medical liscenses. I find it strange how people who claim to doubt everything only just doubt those who are elected into government and blindly trust anyone else. It is said that in politics, a lie that is said a hundred times becomes a truth. In this case, the lie that Bush is some sort of simpleton farmboy was told by Gore in the 2000 campaign because that was his election strategy, and the New York Times because there is some bad blood between the Bush family and that organization. They repeated that !@#$%^&*ertation enough that everyone believed it. Their downfall was that they eventually started to believe it themselves.

 

Bush is a second generation president and a Yale graduate. While he probably could do so and survive, he's *probably* never done a week's worth of manual labor. Between his family and his education, he could easily act like an academic in public, but he doesn't. He uses the farmboy facade. In half the pictures you see him, he's in working clothes at some sort of factory with the workers of that factory behind him. Do you honestly think he can't afford a suit?

 

There is an entire region of Texas which the Bush family owns, like on one of those 80s detective shows. If there is some sort of hidden workings which put Bush in power, Bush is probably in charge of that too.

 

 

Bush's only mistake regarding Iraq is not putting enough PR towards it. We've accomplished every objective of the war. We've won the war. The problem is that neither we nor the terrorists *know* that we've already won. Granted, its hard to win the press when your family enemy is the New York Times, but every day Al Jazeera displays propaganda for the insurgency while our own press asks if we can win this war.

 

Keep in mind in order for us to at this point fail in our first objective, Saddan Hussein would have to rise from the dead and with some sort of army of zombies re-take Iraq. The Baathists are gone and the democratic genie is out of the bottle. The insurgents were at first fighting for the country, then provinces, after that cities, and now they are fighting to hold on to neighborhoods. That seems to show that their area of operations is shrinking. However, 100 lies become the truth. By !@#$%^&*erting that the war is going badly enough times, the press has convinced everyone that its going badly.

 

But other than the press game, and given the fact that this is a war and that you always have setbacks in war. Intel is never right, and enemies never give up easily. We couldn't honestly be asking for it to be going any better right now. And, to understand Iraq's tactical significance, one has to extrapolate where the Middle East is headed about 50 years from now.

 

Which goes back to Bush's intelligence. He was smart enough to see what was going to happen. Both Iran and Iraq would have developed some sort of WMD. They would point them either at each other or at Israel. Hussein would die, one of his stupid inexperienced sons would take over, use the weapons within a month, and the fallout of the resulting war would be rather unpleasent. In a more general case, Iraq was acquiring military power faster than they were advancing socially which if continued would inevitably mean problems developing somewhere down the line.

[SeVeR]

... in the quite likely event of Iran going hostile ...

 

You have no evidential basis for saying that. Why do you think Iran will become hostile?

 

It's far more likely that America will strike Iran, legitimizing it with come half-!@#$%^&*ed excuse about WMDs or terrorism. Why? Because they've done it before, and the same process of incrimination within the media (that happened to Iraq) is happening to Iran now. What's your excuse?

[AstroProdigy]

You can hardly make a comparison between the Bush family and people in your neighborhood Aileron.

 

the lie that Bush is some sort of simpleton farmboy

Well of course not Bush is a simpleton elitist with all his opportunities in life handed to him on a silver platter. I don't think Gore ever designated him as a farmboy. I agree Bush does use the farmboy facade' date=' which just goes to show how fake he is. He does it to try to cover up his elitist nature because when you try to insult the Democrats for being elitists, being an elitist yourself makes you look hypocritical.

 

Bush's political victories are owed to the brilliance of spinning by Rove and some others not to competence by the President. He's not dumb persay, he just has trouble accepting reality and uses his religion in politics. Note: Religion is rigid and does not accept anything that it does not like. Using it in politics is a travesty.

 

Bush's only mistake regarding Iraq is not putting enough PR towards it. We've accomplished every objective of the war. We've won the war. The problem is that neither we nor the terrorists *know* that we've already won. Granted' date=' its hard to win the press when your family enemy is the New York Times, but every day Al Jazeera displays propaganda for the insurgency while our own press asks if we can win this war.[/quote']

Come on now at this point you can admit that Bush has made many, MANY mistakes in Iraq. We did win the war, however we have all but lost the peace. The press was mostly on board with Bush at first out of fear of being labeled as weak on terrorism, but after all the blunders only FOX News can stay with the president.

 

The way we used no bid contracts for big supporters of Bush's campaigns who of course were extremely corrupt and stole all the reconstruction money because there was no compe!@#$%^&*ion or oversight is one reason.

 

We also disbanded the entire Iraqi Army, which was Sunni Arab based and put hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs who were already the greatest supporters of Saddam out of work. Let's think about this more closely. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers trained to kill with large families to feed losing their livelihoods all at once end up being the basis of the domestic insurgency, which is responsible for much more violence than Al Quaeda.

 

Let's also include how we went to a society far more conservative than ours and decided that they would right away form a liberal democracy with all the rights we have. That's how we lost all of the conservative elements of Iraqi society.

 

We also created greater enmity between the Sunni and Shia Arabs by creating a government dominated by Shia with a police force dominated by Shia. To this action we have allowed the extreme elements in Iraq to convince the Sunni Arabs that they are fighting for the fate of their people in Iraq.

 

It doesn't take an idiot long to realize that we blundered just about every aspect of our involvement in Iraq, but it does take an idiot to blunder just about every aspect of our involvement in Iraq.

 

when your family enemy is the New York Times

Don't blame the New York times for the blunders of the Bush administration.

 

Keep in mind in order for us to at this point fail in our first objective' date=' Saddan Hussein would have to rise from the dead and with some sort of army of zombies re-take Iraq. The Baathists are gone and the democratic genie is out of the bottle. The insurgents were at first fighting for the country' date=' then provinces, after that cities, and now they are fighting to hold on to neighborhoods. That seems to show that their area of operations is shrinking. However, 100 lies become the truth. By !@#$%^&*erting that the war is going badly enough times, the press has convinced everyone that its going badly.[/quote'']

Democracy in Iraq, with the exception of the Kurds is !@#$%^&*ociated with American imperialism. This turns people to religious extremism, which I would say is even worse than Baathism. The insurgents are simply changing where they operate. When our troops take over a city, they simply move onto another one. They are never short of new recruits considering all the hatred we have given them in us with our hypocritical, corrupt actions. Their area of operations is shrinking? Come on you're smarter than that you know the violence is only getting worse in Iraq. The death toll gets worse and worse every month and it seems each month on the news I hear "the most Americans killed in a month in Iraq on record". Now if throwing away our freedom of speech rights will solve this then I am for a pullout today before we turn our own country into a dictatorship. There are hundreds of thousands dead and millions of refugees due to our "success" and the numbers of both will only continue to rise.

 

We couldn't honestly be asking for it to be going any better right now.

Are you serious now? We couldn't be asking for it to be going any better? I can't even respond to this.

 

Which goes back to Bush's intelligence. He was smart enough to see what was going to happen. Both Iran and Iraq would have developed some sort of WMD. They would point them either at each other or at Israel. Hussein would die' date=' one of his stupid inexperienced sons would take over' date=' use the weapons within a month, and the fallout of the resulting war would be rather unpleasent. In a more general case, Iraq was acquiring military power faster than they were advancing socially which if continued would inevitably mean problems developing somewhere down the line.[/quote'']

Bush couldn't see past his office door. He let Neo Cons like Rumsfeld and Cheney run things and with their flawed approach of "this is how we want things to be and if they aren't that way too bad we're not changing our policy" and as a result thousands of American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead and things are only getting worse. Iraq had no ability to develop WMD and as a result of us being trapped in Iraq, Iran has been encouraged that if they tried to create nuclear weapons there is little we can do to stop them. Iraq and Iran were never planning on pointing nuclear weapons on each other and whether Iran points nuclear weapons at Israel, we are the ones who have given them the opportunity to do so. Iraq was not acquiring military power. With the no fly zones we put in place along with the embargo, Iraq was extremely stagnant and holding onto power was the only thing Saddam could do. "Somewhere down the line" wouldn't be for several decades and that's !@#$%^&*uming the Saddam family could hold onto power, which is likely impossible for much longer.

 

Sever:

It's quite likely Iran would not use nuclear weapons. Iran going hostile depends on the future of political events in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, etc. Countries with nuclear weapons have "gone hostile" without nuclear weapons more times than not. In fact nuclear weapons were only used once by the USA for 2 limited attacks. However, seeing as Iran is still an extremist theocracy with rebellious minorities and hostile neighbors I would not trust them with nuclear weapons anyway. Also, in the event of the theocracy being toppled, they may resort to nuclear blackmail to keep power.

Edited June 12, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[Guest Knightflame]

Yes, God!@#$%^&* us americans for rebuilding the economies of Japan and Europe, providing low or no interest loans (or just giving them the money with no payback), sinking billions upon billions of dollars in investment and transforming them from second or third-rate powers in to major players in the global economy, providing defense from communist takeover during the cold war, and helping former soviet states in the transformation to capitalist economies. we are SUCH !@#$%^&*bags for that.

 

edit: and attraction, that 'stability' you !@#$%^&*ociate with the cold war only came from the lucky fact that each side was smart enough (or not insane/stupid enough, take your pick) to start anything major because they knew it meant total annihilation. I'd take a less stable economy over being a stone's throw from a nuke in my backyard any day of the week.

Yes i agree we should have let those countries rot now they are going to blow the !@#$%^&* out of us. Who knows what the !@#$%^&* Russia is doing the CIA has so many secrets and i bet Bill Gates is "loaning" russia money like he did in Gaza with the greenhouses

[SeVeR]

someone ban this idiot.

[SeVeR]

Greased: The loans did come at a high price. The price was Britain must make sterling convertible to dollars on demand. This permanently destroyed Britain as an economic power and handed power to the US. Many of Britains military bases around the world also had to be given to the US. Not to mention that the loans are being paid back in full. Additionally, the US had to help Europe to fend off the influence of the Soviets, it was in their interests. But lastly, if the US had fought the war from the start then there wouldn't have been a need for the loans. The US effectively rented out their armed forces to fight a war they should have been fighting voluntarily anyway... what a bunch of money-hungry cowards.

 

Astro: I would not trust Iran with nuclear weapons either. However i don't see Iran ever going hostile in the Middle East, no matter what happens in Iraq or Saudi Arabia; there is too much to lose. They gain far more from sending covert forces and spies into Iraq, and making secret deals and alliances with the Shia dominated Iraqi government. Their influence in Syria may extend to Lebanon. I don't think its worth it to make an official war on anyone.

Edited June 15, 2007 by SeVeR

[rootbear75]

someone ban this idiot.

please do

[AstroProdigy]

You never know if a conservative gets elected one day and decides to invade Iran. I would oppose it, but if it happened I wouldn't want New York City destroyed for it. Besides that a more likely problem is what if Iran and Israel go to war? World War 3 anyone? What if Iran did decide to step up enrichment at a point where we're vulnerable and create nukes? North Korea did it. It's not like the regime in Iran isn't extreme I mean it IS an oppressive theocracy. Edited June 21, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[SeVeR]

If America gets attacked again it will be because they haven't pulled out of the Middle East yet. All this fighting since 9/11 is clearly in the name of vengeance or "retaliation", but when it comes to explaining why they attack us, we hush up and dismiss them as crazy lunatics. Why exactly did the 9/11 attackers do what they did? It never really gets debated does it? I think it's clear: America has military bases dotted all over the Middle East, it's largely responsible for the creation of Israel, it's given Israel the weapons and money to wipe out thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese civilians, it's fought two wars in Iraq, one war in afghanistan, has wiped out many thousand Iraqi civilians..... can we call their motive vengeance now, rather than craziness?

 

If Iran and Israel go to war then no-one would support Iran.

 

Iran is an islamic country, and in that sense they live in a strict religious society. I wouldn't call it an oppressive theocracy any more than i would any other islamic country. There are many islamic tribes and a great many jews who happily live in Iran. Their president is elected, and although approval must come from the religious leader, it's hard to deny the people when revolution is such a recent part of Iranian history.

[AstroProdigy]

I don't think we should try to explain why Al Qaeda does what it does. It really is run by fanatics looking to turn the world into a caliphate. They hate America because Saudi Arabia rejected Osama bin Laden's offer to send his guys over to fight Saddam Hussein and instead allowed the "infidel" America to come on "holy" soil instead.

 

America has military bases dotted all over the Middle East' date=' it's largely responsible for the creation of Israel, it's given Israel the weapons and money to wipe out thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese civilians, it's fought two wars in Iraq, one war in afghanistan, has wiped out many thousand Iraqi civilians..... can we call their motive vengeance now, rather than craziness?[/quote']

 

American bases in the Middle East before September 11 were approved of by the respective countries; we aren't responsible for creating Israel, we just helped support them; thousands of Israeli civilians have also been "wiped out"; the first war in Iraq was actually in Kuwait and Al Qaeda is mad at us because they wanted to be the ones to fight the war not because they sympathize with the secular regime of Saddam Hussein, the second war happened AFTER the attacks on September 11, the war in Afghanistan also happened AFTER September 11 and Al Qaeda was actually expecting us to respond with a war in Afghanistan, wiping out thousands of Iraqi civilians also happened AFTER September 11. Their motive for September 11 wasn't craziness. It was a power hungry move to glorify a monster and spread oppression throughout the world.

 

If Iran and Israel go to war the Islamic world would side with Iran whereas Europe, Russia, and China would try to stay "neutral" to protect their interests and the United States and a few allies (the UK and Australia for example) would side with Israel. They would also drag the countries between them directly into the conflict. If both countries had nuclear capabilities I shudder to think what the losing side would do. I don't think Israel should have nuclear weapons either, but they already do and getting a country with nuclear weapons to disarm is almost impossible so letting Iran get the capability in the first place is a big mistake.

 

Iran is an Islamic country' date=' and in that sense they live in a strict religious society. I wouldn't call it an oppressive theocracy any more than i would any other Islamic country. There are many Islamic tribes and a great many Jews who happily live in Iran. Their president is elected, and although approval must come from the religious leader, it's hard to deny the people when revolution is such a recent part of Iranian history.[/quote']

There aren't very many Islamic countries that are actually run by clerics and most self proclaimed Islamic countries have at least some measure of religious freedom. There are actually quite few Jews happily living in Iran. I actually know a few Persian Jews and they are proud of the Persian heritage. The Persian culture is an ancient culture and has contributed a great deal to the world. Persia has well earned its place as a respected culture in the world. That being said the Jews in Iran that haven't left don't support the theocracy; they're just willing to live with it. I'm not looking to invade Iran. We work with countries just as oppressive all the time and invading Iran would destabilize the region far more than Iraq has.

 

By the way while I hate Bush and what he stands for, Ahmadinejad is just as bad. He's an extremist inciting hatred and extremism just like Bush. Democracy isn't perfect.

Edited June 21, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[Greased_Lightning]

Greased: The loans did come at a high price. The price was Britain must make sterling convertible to dollars on demand. This permanently destroyed Britain as an economic power and handed power to the US. Many of Britains military bases around the world also had to be given to the US. Not to mention that the loans are being paid back in full. Additionally, the US had to help Europe to fend off the influence of the Soviets, it was in their interests. But lastly, if the US had fought the war from the start then there wouldn't have been a need for the loans. The US effectively rented out their armed forces to fight a war they should have been fighting voluntarily anyway... what a bunch of money-hungry cowards.

 

Lend Lease did not convert sterling to dollars, as FDRs selling point was to 'do away with the dollar sign'. About $50 billion (1945) in supplies and armament were provided to Allied nations under the act, and about $8 billion (1945) were reimbursed in rental of overseas bases and raw materials. While in the first negotiations, the US asked for control of the West Indies in exchange for naval vessels, this didn't pan out. Later, and to a greater extent during the war, US goods like armaments, foodstuffs, and other supples were sold to allies at 75% or less of actual value. And of course, since the US was the final command in the allies, foreign friendly troops were supplied with nearly the same consideration as US troops (I say nearly because why wouldn't we take care of our guys first?)

 

As far as the money-hungry coward bit, the US broke the Neutrality Act big time well before Dec. 1941. Isolationism was the majority up until mid-1940. American soldiers and materiel were being killed and destroyed long before any declaration of war or unfriendly act occurred on American soil. So please, don't dishonor people like some of my family who gave more than money.

[NBVegita]

Ironically sever, you support US have an isolationist poiicy, yet then call us cowards for exerting it in WWII. If you actually look at it we had no place in that war until the war was brought to our doorstep. Morally we could have stepped in any time, but as you see even in the world today morals and politics mean nothing.

 

We had no more right to enter into WWII before the bombing of pearl harbor than we did to invade Iraq. Politically speaking that is.

[AstroProdigy]

Come on it's world war 2. That's easily the most justified war we've ever fought. The Nazis were the closest thing you will ever find to evil. We had no place in that war even if all of Europe, Africa, and Asia was turned into an enemy? Iraq wasn't invading our allies when we attacked. In fact we attacked them when they were invading one; Kuwait. Politically speaking we were in a depression at that point and further cutting off our trade with a Nazi Europe would have made things worse for us. That's plenty political reason on top of the loads of moral reasons. Edited June 23, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[BDwinsAlt]

Each country should have their defense in it's own country only. It isn't everyone else's responsibility to keep the U.S.A. safe. We need our own defense in our own country. Someone needs to reform the government. This is just re!@#$%^&*ed now.

 

-becomes the next dictator [a productive one]-

[Aileron]

Actually this is the US protecting Europe, which is a service we are providing for our own selfish reasons. All parties involved are doing what's best for them, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't !@#$%^&*ociate with each other. Its like buying bread at the store. You get bread. The store gets money. Both parties benefit though both parties are acting selfishly and independent of each other.

[NBVegita]

Thats just hypocrytical Astro. If the US had come into the scene and stopped the european appeasment of germany, they would have been looked down on with disgust. We came into the war the only time it was politically correct to. I mean sure we most likely could have come in before we were attacked, but we deliberately made it painstaking clear that we would keep a firm isolationist policy. Now you have sever wholly supporting that we should now have an isolationist policy, yet condemning us when we had one. Our people wanted nothing to do with the war. We were in a depression and felt that it was not our war to fight. Eventually we began supplying the allies with weapons and enacting embargos on some of the axis, until of course japan attacked and the government won the public opinion to join the war.

 

Prior to the bombing of pearl harbor, the american people as a whole were against us going to war. And you can't win a war without the support of your people. Case in point: Iraq. And we even had the public majority to enter the war.

[AstroProdigy]

We could have entered the war 3 years before when Europe was gripped in the war. It wouldn't have been during the appeasement of Germany then. I agree that the political situation for us to do so was very lax so we invaded when we had an overwhelming mandate to do so. That being said millions of people died because we waited. Sever wants an isolationist policy now because we are the villains of the story today. After what we pulled in Iraq no one trusts us anymore. I disagree that a strongly isolationist policy would fail, but I could see how it would be better now than it had been during world war 2. The American people were against the war before pearl harbor, but that just shifts the blame of the deaths of millions of people due to our delay on the people. Democracy isn't perfect after all; (election of Hamas and other extremists worldwide COUGH Bush COUGH). Iraq could have been won with a competent president despite the false pretenses for war. We had the opposite and that's why it was such an utter failure.

[Greased_Lightning]

The fact that millions of people died because the US didnt enter WWII earlier is A: not our fault (our meaning america then), and B: not our problem. Even when the US entered the war, Great Britain made no secret that they didn't want americans there. There was even a common saying: 'The problem with Americans is they are overpaid, oversexed, and over here.' Maybe if the countries that bordered Germany & Italy had actually enforced the Versailles Treaty stipulations on German rearmament, they wouldn't have found themselves in such a mess. THAT would have saved more lives than any earlier American involvement. Instead, France and GB decided to make tons of money by providing Germany with materials and technology (British aircraft engine patents for the same German planes that would eventually bomb them for example).

 

The simple fact is that at the time, Europe didn't want American involvement and neither did Americans. If you're going to bring out the 'moral responsibility' argument, maybe you should level that finger at the neighboring countries that turned a blind eye to the Nazi social practices in the several years leading up to hostilities. Or better yet, at the sickos who actually carried out the acts. I'm not saying our hands are clean, but they are a !@#$%^&* of a lot cleaner than most involved.

 

I'm all for the US adopting more of an isolationist policy. Let's cut off all the humanitarian aid we send out all over the world and focus on fixing things here. You think that will be better or worse for people? Next time a tsunami hits, too bad. AIDS in Africa? Oh well. Genocide in Eastern Europe? Have fun UN!

[AstroProdigy]

Of course it's not our problem. There is plenty of blame to go around and most of it goes to Europe. It still doesn't change the fact that from a MORAL standpoint only we should have entered the war earlier. We can't take an isolationist policy. While we give poor African countries aid we also dump our leftover agricultural products there at extremely cheap prices and destroy their economies. To take a half !@#$%^&*ed isolationist policy of only destroying economies instead of some help then we will be further hated. To take a full isolationist policy would greatly weaken our own economy and lead us to be stagnant. The problem is today we are part of the problem. We have done more to destabilize the Middle East than any other country so after 8 years of !@#$%^&*forbrains we need a brilliant strategist to run the country and try to salvage the damage; not run away.

[Aileron]

Astro, its impossible to destabilize the Middle East. It would be like causing a drought in the Sahara Desert. The Middle East would have to have been stable at one point in history before anyone can be considered at fault for destablizing it.

 

Our problem is simple. When we go into a war, we have certain objectives. We usually meet those objectives in the first couple weeks. So, we add more and more objectives until we create one that fundimentally will take a long time to take. Then we lose patience. Iraq's the example of that. Our primary objective was the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Baathists behind him. That mission was accomplished very early. So, we then added some wierd objective about inducing some sort of cultural improvement, enough to make proper democracy possible. This type of improvement takes decades no matter how powerfull the occupying force is.

 

Then, we ask for results after 5 years when the complete process will probably take something close to 30.

 

 

 

Imperialism isn't the worst form of oppression. Its better to live in a colony than a sovereign nation that practices genocide. Its better to live in a colony and to be able to choose your religion rather than live in a sovereign nation which will assign you one. Its better to live in a colony where on election day you get a choice between two officials who are catering to foreigners than to be in a sovereign nation where you don't get choice at all. Under those cir!@#$%^&*stances, its best NOT to be isolationist.

 

Its amazing that so many people have !@#$%^&*igned Apathy as a virtue.

[NBVegita]

Also astro if you read my post you will note that I said it was the only "politically correct" time for us to do so. In fact I mentioned it in both posts I made about the topic.

[AstroProdigy]

Astro' date=' its impossible to destabilize the Middle East. It would be like causing a drought in the Sahara Desert. The Middle East would have to have been stable at one point in history before anyone can be considered at fault for destablizing it.

 

Our problem is simple. When we go into a war, we have certain objectives. We usually meet those objectives in the first couple weeks. So, we add more and more objectives until we create one that fundimentally will take a long time to take. Then we lose patience. Iraq's the example of that. Our primary objective was the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Baathists behind him. That mission was accomplished very early. So, we then added some wierd objective about inducing some sort of cultural improvement, enough to make proper democracy possible. This type of improvement takes decades no matter how powerfull the occupying force is.

 

Then, we ask for results after 5 years when the complete process will probably take something close to 30.

 

 

 

Imperialism isn't the worst form of oppression. Its better to live in a colony than a sovereign nation that practices genocide. Its better to live in a colony and to be able to choose your religion rather than live in a sovereign nation which will assign you one. Its better to live in a colony where on election day you get a choice between two officials who are catering to foreigners than to be in a sovereign nation where you don't get choice at all. Under those cir!@#$%^&*stances, its best NOT to be isolationist.

 

Its amazing that so many people have !@#$%^&*igned Apathy as a virtue.[/quote']

Actually it was pretty stable at that point. It has been stable many times before when it was controlled by the Persian Empire and then by the Islamic Dynasties. Up until September 11th almost all countries of the Middle East had leaders who managed to keep control. Even Saddam as much of a terror as he was managed to keep a delicate balance in Iraq. The problem is that Iraq is the one country that ultimately has the ability to pit all three major groups of the Middle East into the conflict; The Sunni extremists, the Shiite extremists, and the secularists.

 

The problem in our handling of Iraq is that we shattered the balance and utterly failed to offer an alternative. When we toppled Saddam instead of allowing for a gradual change in the right direction we tried to force some far fetched open minded democratic capitalistic state with full rights for women. We did this in a state with an % majority that was oppressed up until that point by the 20% minority and expected them to just live together happily now all of a sudden. We also expected very conservative people to grant full rights to women in a western style system. The problem is we forced all this on them and it was seen as a western colonial attempt to !@#$%^&*imilate their people. The Sunni and Shiite Arabs didn't all of a sudden trust each other and we allowed Al Qaeda to capitalize on this to the fullest extent.

 

Colonialism is only better for the people who would be otherwise suffering genocide; hence the Kurds still supporting us. The Sunnis were easily much better off under Saddam than they are with us there. They were more than willing to fight because we offered them nothing and Al Qaeda was able to capitalize on this and incite inter sectarian violence and hatred because BUSH let them. The strong fighter against terrorism that Bush pretends to be actually turns out to be the man who helped the people who attacked us and gave them much more power and prestige than they would have ever had without us. A competent leader would have invaded Afghanistan, not let Rumsfeld withhold the troops on a personal vendeta against Tenet and allow Osama bin Laden to escape and then refocus our efforts towards bringing more support to Al Qaeda rather than rooting them out. Bush is easily one of the weakest presidents in history when it comes to fighting terrorism. He's actually helped terrorists in their cause more than they could have even dreamed of.

 

NBVegita: Then I guess we're in agreement.

Edited June 28, 2007 by AstroProdigy