Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

[Indrid]

a little off topic, but maybe not so much...
i seen yesterday Mel Gibson`s interview regarding his movie ":the passion". the woman reporter asked him where would be he safest place to be and the one he would hoose to not be found by anyone.

he said: well, i am thinking of pitching my tent next to the weapons of mass distruction, because nobody seems to be able to find those!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

what do you say about that, Mister BUSH? WHERE ARE THE WMD`S?
my greetings to the american public. they seem to do the best job in the world in making an asshole out of bush.

:loool: :loool: :loool: :loool: :loool: :loool: :loool: :loool:

[cnflyboy2000]

QUOTE

QUOTE I think president Bush is trapped in the problem he created himself. Even if the democrats manage to kick Bush out of office I don't see how anything positive can be salvaged from this politically botched situation.

______________________________________________

I think I agree, but I wonder.

Positive things can come out of the worst messes, if history is any guide. From the Peloponessian War to Vietnam, in the long term, history regrouped and marched on out of chaos and death.

IMO change is wrought by comic books as well as by guns. Thus, it's argued, the demise of the Soviet union came as much from the spread of "Coca Cola culture" as from exchange of ICBM's (thankfully).

Do the Russians still hate us? (i.e., the U.S.,if they ever did) Do the Vietnamese? Probably some do. But I don't see them trying to become Chinese!

So, I just wonder if the high water mark of Muslim fundamentalism has been reached. If it has, it's unlikely Iraq will be given over to Khomeneism in the long run. (Of course, in the long run, we are all dead, as someone famous said!)

It's also unlikely, IMHO, the Baathists will throw up another Sadaam.

And American neocons will be not be jumping on another big battlewagon for awhile (or more accurately, they will not have much company when they try).

Israel is not building any new settlements in the occupied territories anytime soon. (seemingly unrelated, but nothing is IMO, in that area of the world)

Any of these eventualities would constitute "positive change" in my book.

Whether any of it is worth the deaths incurred so far, both sides, is the open question, IMO.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

So, I just wonder if the high water mark of Muslim fundamentalism has been reached.

If so, not in Irak. The Irak venture is but a big bounty for Muslim fundamentalism :
- Scratch one secular regime, replace it with... an Islamic republic (what else).
- Reduce operations against Al Quaida and terrorism. Let the situation in Afghanistan rot.
- Destroy international support

It's hard to be optimistic.

[Florin]

QUOTE

.......our resident American democrat in the forum, Florin...

I like how this sounds...

Mabadesc,

What makes me sad is that all that involvement in Iraq and around the Persian Gulf do not support too well the American interests, but support very well the interests of Israel. This is my personal view.

In 1773 the colonists started to confront Great Britain and look for independence just for some taxes, and for the lack of representation in the British Parliament. Today we accept by far more costly involvement in service of Israel, and we do not seek any independence from our new colonial master.
The most recent example? Today, the conference news, with Mr. George Bush and Mr. Ariel Sharon.

[mabadesc]

Florin wrote:

QUOTE

What makes me sad is that all that involvement in Iraq and around the Persian Gulf do not support too well the American interests, but support very well the interests of Israel. This is my personal view.

Florin, I understand your opinion and I respect it, but I do not agree with it.

America's blind support of Israel bothers me also. I think the palestinians are getting horrible treatment from Israel, through forced settlements, evictions, etc...So far, we're in agreement.
What I found, though, is that America's support of Israel has and will continue regardless of whether the democrats or republicans are in power. In fact, the only modern US president who stood up to Israel and threatened to cut the yearly financial support was Bush the First. Shortly afterwards, he lost the election.

So for me the US's attitude towards Israel is a non-factor because I know it will always be the same, regardless of who is in the White House.

Now, regarding conflicts such as Afghanistan, Irak, and the Persian Gulf, our personal viewpoints differ. These conflicts have nothing to do (or very little) with Israel, and I honestly believe we are defending our safety and our future and are justified in doing so.

Finally, even though I dislike Israel's attitude towards the palestinians, I will never understand or excuse suicide bombings by palestinians or terrorist attacks by radical muslims against the Western World.

Besides, I believe that the goal of this new "breed" of extremist muslim terrorists is to reject any form of Western culture and to kill and instill fear into Christians. In my opinion, this is unfortunately turning into a religious war where Christian civilians have become the target.
I do not believe I (we) should apologize for being part of the Western culture and for being Christians, and we certainly shouldn't live in fear because of it. Therefore, I support strong, firm, military action against any group or country that has either harmed us or wishes and plans to harm us in the future. I suppose this is why I prefer Republicans when it comes to the war against terrorism.

However, as I said before, I do not doubt your sincerity and respect your opinion. We both have the same goal (putting an end to terrorism), but we each believe in different ways of achieving this goal.

[Florin]

QUOTE

........I do not believe I (we) should apologize for being part of the Western culture and for being Christians, and we certainly shouldn't live in fear because of it......

I am wondering who said the contrary. Not in this forum, for sure.

QUOTE

Therefore, I support strong, firm, military action against any group or country that has either harmed us or wishes and plans to harm us in the future.  .....

Your idea is the right one. The only problem is who and how decide what is harmful for America, and moreover, if the decision factors are right in their action. The action against Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan was the right thing to be done. No doubt.
But when one year later we see that actually the intelligence for justifying the war with Iraq was false, supposing it was gathered with good will, I do not see how a chaotic Iraq is more useful and less harmful to America than the secular regime of the evil Saddam Hussein.
And when I see how many contracts for Iraq were given to Halliburton, were Mr. Dick Chenney was CEO before, I feel justified to vote for the Democrats, in spite of the fact that before the present administration, I liked the Republicans.

PS: It was really interesting to read what you mentioned about Mr. Bush - Senior.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

What I found, though, is that America's support of Israel has and will continue regardless of whether the democrats or republicans are in power. In fact, the only modern US president who stood up to Israel and threatened to cut the yearly financial support was Bush the First. Shortly afterwards, he lost the election.

I wonder. The US used political pressure to force Israel withdrawal from the Sinai during the ill fated 56 Suez operation. Reagan also put a red light to the Lebanon advance in june 1982 and cancelled arms shipments to show he meant business. It also happens that the Jewish lobby in the US is opposed to the Israeli government actions. Like in 1978 when Menahem Begin was criticized for putting too harsh conditions on peace with Egypt (the end result at Camp David being one of the most brilliant success of American diplomacy during the century).

I think there is place for some political maneuvering here too.

[cnflyboy2000]

QUOTE

It also happens that the Jewish lobby in the US is opposed to the Israeli government actions. Like in 1978 when Menahem Begin was criticized for putting too harsh conditions on peace with Egypt (the end result at Camp David being one of the most brilliant success of American diplomacy during the century).   I think there is place for some political maneuvering here too.

______________________________________________________

Good point(s), imo. The political opinion of American jewry is by no means monolithic. It's certainly pro-Israel, but there is a wide spectrum of opinion, especially shading "left", among the technical/professional srata.

American Jews do mostly vote liberal Democratic, which makes Bush's move this week with Sharon a little mystifying until u realize he ( may be playing to his Christian conservative "base".

Those folks apparently believe in a biblical imperative that Israel be constituted maximally in line with, I think, ancient Judea. (Whatever that would be.)

Or maybe he is pursuing "realpolitik" in earnest. Where is Henry Kissinger when we need him?

Another possibilty; some "pundits" are saying here that Bush "wrote off" Arafat as the biggest baddie a long time ago, the latest display of the former's penchant for personalizing international politics.

Maybe all three of these "motives" are in play. :question:

[Florin]

Whatever were the reasons of Mr. Bush few days ago, his decision represented a big leap backward from the peace process in the Middle East. I hope you agree that we may win the battle in the struggle with the Muslim world in the present, but in the long run war (i.e. a half of century or more) this will weaken us (i.e. US), and by comparison will strenghten the European Union, China, Soviet Union, Japan, Canada, South America, India.

[Florin]

Check this link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...iraq_front_line

...And if they would succeed, the whole propaganda machine would start to roll and say: "These savages are not able to understand to respect a truce."

[Indrid]

with each day that passes i lose respect for the american army.... :x

what next, pig blood raining from US bombers?

SHAME>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

SHANE WITHOUT END FOR THE US MILOITARY TACTICIANS THAT should have realised by now this is not a winnable war...and what if all else fails, what nest? are the american troops going to exterminate each and every inhabitant of najaf, falujja, and many more that will rise? how much blood is to be spilled untill they realise that these people are not terrorists, and most of them have much bigger moral standards that the average member of the american congress


shame again :nope:

[Chandernagore]

Why it can't work anyway :

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1723

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

with each day that passes i lose respect for the american army...

Come on, be honest once in a while. When did you ever have respect for them, Indrid ?

I do.

Soldiers usually do their job and obey orders. You would better keep your good feelings for the political head and keep complete confusion out of yours. As far as US policies in Irak are concerned, wether the "US military tacticians" think it's a winnable war or not has as much importance as a fly on a camel's butt.

As for higher level relations between Bush and the US army an interesting view :

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/20...h/index_np.html

[Indrid]

[quote]Come on, be honest once in a while. When did you ever have respect for them, Indrid ?

I do. [/quote]

aha. could you say why you do and i do not? and you better make it smart, because if you say some western crap ......

[Chandernagore]

[quote][quote]Come on, be honest once in a while. When did you ever have respect for them, Indrid ?

I do. [/quote]

aha. could you say why you do and i do not? and you better make it smart, because if you say some western crap ......[/quote]

Crap is crap in the west like in the east :mrgreen:

You only make disparaging comments on the US army so, naturally, I didn't understand how your "respect" could possibly diminish :roll: