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

[Indrid]

1. how can that movie be forbidden in USA? forbidden by who? what does Kerry have to say about it?

2. are you saying that americans killed Berg and made it look like Arabs did it, just to stop the controversy about hat prison photos?

....anyway, i am waiting pretty soon to see on teleision how Bin Laden is being captured, just a month or so before elections in USA...Bush`s great card.......democracy in america, right?

[Chandernagore]

[quote]If u think France will arouse from it's torpor anytime soon to do something helpful to the international common weal[/quote]

The last time they did so was in 2003 in Africa (DRC) under UN mandate. There was no oil, only the threat of a new genocide. There was nothing to win in the bargain but human lifes. The US was not there. It doesn't look like the story was much reported in US press otherwise you would know about it. The mission was a pretty small scale one compared to the Irak invasion (about 1500) but it appears to have been sufficient to force negociations shortly after deployment. We will probably never know how many lifes were saved. At the point of intervention the running death toll of the war between the competing militias was 3.3 millions death.

[Chandernagore]

[quote][quote]Question of the day :

Do France and China have the right (given by God) to oust an evil dictator heading an horrible inhuman regime... if this dictator is actively supported by the US Right and (optionaly) controls important oil ressources ? Would that be considered fair game and acceptable vacuum filling ?

PS. We assume they would agree to make a joint pre-invasion declaration stating that \"it's for the good of mankind\".[/quote]_______________________________
If u mean, by "evil dictator", Pres Bush: get real, please. If u mean the House of Saud; ditto. If u think France will arouse from it's torpor anytime soon to do something helpful to the international common weal; triple ditto.
As for the Chinese: they have their own dictators to deal with.

There's a thin line between provocative discourse and silliness, imho, the above post crosses it.

fyi, I don't like Bush either; he's a vapid, cocky cowboy, imo. But to put him in the same league with that pig Hussein, if that's your implication, also crosses a line; the one between invective and insulting hype. It seems like the kind of conterproductive overkill that so enfeebles the left.

There's a struggle going on here: it's between the 12th century (or earlier, if u include Zionism) and the 21st. Yeah, Iraq was/is a mistake; in execution and probably in concept: a big mistake, paid for in blood of innocents, as usual. But let's figure out what side we r on and move on-hopefully with ABB (Anybody But Bush) leading the charge here. And maybe with the Euros, there, using a little of the hot air they seem to produce in such abundance to puff some pressure into that vacuum.[/quote]

Well, you missed the point by indulging in a kind of counterproductive overkill. Let's give a concrete example : Salvador.
Maybe it's not unthinkable that Venezuela could one day come on the list too ? Hypothesis. Nicaragua did fit the bill before the governement was toppled.
The question is : how would the Right react to a country invading a dictature supported by it under the same pretenses as Bush used for Irak ? Lets' get even more precise. Tomorrow, Turquey invades Salvador to put an end to I don't know how many years of a bloody US supported dictature (let's assume they secretly build a fleet in the black sea :-)). How would Rumsfeld and Cheney react ? Notice that this has nothing to do with a struggle between the 12th and 21th century. It's more like a civil war between the 21th century and the 21th century.

[Chandernagore]

[quote]2. are you saying that americans killed Berg and made it look like Arabs did it, just to stop the controversy about hat prison photos?[/quote]

This looks very unlikely. No less cynical but perhaps less unlikely is the view that Mr Berg's long interview for Farenheit 9/11 could have made him hated enough that he was accidentaly thrown into the terrorist's hands for early departure to greener meadows.

[Chandernagore]

[quote]I was using it as a play on words, is all. I don't think these millions of europeans who were/are so vociferously opposed to the U.S. are really of the same ilk. It just looks that way from here.[/quote]

Ok. Thanks for the precision
Sometimes I just "feel" that something escapes to me in these slangs.

[quote]these millions of europeans who were/are so vociferously opposed to the U.S.[/quote]

I may have to repeat it one thousand times, for Bush propaganda machine is very noisy and many fall for it but here I go once again : European in majority oppose current US policies. I'm sure you get the difference.

Sigh. Or perhaps after all there is none. Everybody gets the government he deserves :?

[Chandernagore]

[quote]Yes, My examples were a bit eliptical. But, I was searching for examples where the Spaniards were players on the international stage. You and Florin give cogent examples of their centrality to european history. Hello........Europe is not the world.[/quote]

Being players on the international stage pretty much equals to being a colonial power for the greatest part of modern history. So I don't know what there would be to boast about. And no, we were not discussing the role of Spain in international affaires but the Spanish national character.

[quote]Does Iraq look like conventional warfare to you? [/quote]

No longer, to the greatest dismay of your defense minister, but it looked so at the start of the war.

[quote]You can't bitch about your powerlessness if u have no ambitions in the first place. And the euros don't: one look at their anemic military budgets should tell u that.[/quote]

Perhaps you would drool in admiration if all European countries adopted Adolf Hitler's phallic "defense" budget ? What is this trend in the US that you have such an obedient respect for the uniform and the display of raw brutal force ?

We have plenty of WMDs and are not going to be invaded any soon. Believe it or not our military spendings precisely fit our current needs.
That may change of course, and may even change dramatically according to circumstances. But we need no management lessons from the neocon illuminatis.

[quote]But, hey, at least u can retire at age 50 (or so) in France, after working about three weeks in your life. [/quote]

Puerile. Worthy of Dr Strangelove.

[quote]Point is, they want to have butter, not guns. [/quote]

Exactly. In that we certainly connect to God much closer than Bush no matter how many times he prays before taking the next silly decision.

[quote]Fine; just don't whine about it.[/quote]

Did I ? I challenge you to quote me on this.

[quote]That was then, this is now. Time for them to help out or get out of the way[/quote]

To help doing what ? You're in the wrong place to fight islamic terrorism. And how are we in the way ? You display exactly the same type of arrogant, ignorant neocon behaviour that caused Junior to build such an impressive coalition of the missing around the world.

"You're either with us or against us"
Junior.

I feel bad for Americans who say they were abandoned by their allies. The point of divergence is the simple fact that few people outside the U.S. think Iraq had anything to do with terrorism. It was as horrible a regime as that of Somoza, but invading it was totally outside of the scope of the ongoing international effort to track down and apprehend AQ like organizations.

That's why there are countries that have put soldiers in harms way in Afghanistan (for example Germany) that didn't want anything to do with Operation Moronic Diversion.

But don't expect this government to acknowledge any mistake. Better to insult the Europeans, the Canadians , the Russians, the Chinese, the Bengalis, the Congolese, the Peruvians, the Brazilians, the Costa Ricans, the Ugandese, the Mexicans, the UN, the Iranians etc...

[Florin]

[quote]1. how can that movie be forbidden in USA? forbidden by who? what does Kerry have to say about it?.........[/quote]

As Mabadesc explained here before, the Federal government cannot impose that under normal circumstances, because it would contradict various documents, like the Ten Amendments, the Freedom of Information Act etc.
However, due to various games played behind the closed doors, the company owning the movie (Disney, in this case) can be made to stop to be issued to the public. And this is not an exception, is just the daily routine in the American mass-media. The owner of the TV channel or of the newspaper establish what can be seen, and what can't be seen. And yes, there is also an official Federal censorship commission, to give you the whole picture. But as far as I know, the federal censorship commission is not concerned about the political content of the movie, at least in theory.
Now... Returning to your question. I hope you agree with me that as long the movie cannot be seen on any home own TV set in the U.S., or in any theater hall, we may regard it as forbidden, even though it is like a self-censorship of the company which owns it.
From this angle, Kerry really cannot do anything, as long this problem can be considered an internal matter of a private own company.

[quote]........2. are you saying that americans killed Berg and made it look like Arabs did it, just to stop the controversy about hat prison photos?.........[/quote]

I am blankly saying that this probability cannot be rejected as equal to zero. The Arab terrorists have most chances to be the authors, but I do not embrace that probability as 100 percent true.

[quote].......Bush`s great card.......democracy in america, right? [/quote]

My personal point of view about that (and I am not the only one): When the United States were founded, 1776 - 1789, they were by far the most democratic country on the planet. A good example to look at, and a sign for the old Europe that "the divine right from God" cannot be accepted any more for the noblemen and the kings to rule over everybody. Even though the European historians tend to neglect this, I think the signing of the American Constitution in April 1789 had a tremendous influence over the French nation, and maybe it was the real cause for the attack against Bastille fortress on July 14, and the start of the French revolution.
However, in the 215 years which followed, despite of some very serious setbacks (like the Nazi, Fascist and Communist regimes), the European countries not only "catch the train", but they overrun it. In this moment the European democracies are more advanced compared with the American system, and in some particular aspects the American system made some steps backward even compared with its own standards set 2 centuries ago.

[Chandernagore]

Americans' uniquely idealistic self-image, while charming, is at odds with the reality of global hegemon. The abyss between the ideal and the reality is a huge handicap for American diplomacy. It would be fascinating to see what kind of foreign policy the US would have if its citizens moved past their founding myths and became thoroughly informed and interested in America's role in the world in a "realpolitik" sense.

Unfortunately wer'e not yet there.

Right now the US people gets nothing out of Iraq but a quagmire, after having sold both it's international standing, and it's own security in the "war on terror" for it. I don't like that term "war on terror" either. Is there anything like a global enemy that we can call "terror" and paint in one color in this world ?

[Indrid]

is t really the WAR ON TERROR? I thought it was the War on terrorism....

because the first can be sooooooooooooooooooooo vague....someone who has a drunken neighbor can be Terrorized by him, but does that imply there is a war there?
:laugh:

[Chandernagore]

Good point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2783717.stm

Tell your drunken neighbor that he runs the risk of getting blown up by a air-ground missile launched from an Apache copter during the night

[Florin]

[quote]is t really the WAR ON TERROR? I thought it was the War on terrorism....

because the first can be sooooooooooooooooooooo vague....[/quote]

You have to accept that it is a very convenient approach, because this way we will have a never ending war.
An old writer mentioned in a "Vanity Fair" issue in 1997 that the American political class is always looking for an enemy, to galvanize the nation resources and stamina against it. The guy asked himself in 1997 what we are going to do now, as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist. He asked himself who will be our chosen to be enemy: Russia? China? Because he considered Iraq as a joke which will not be taken seriously by the average American. Well, it seems it was taken seriously, 6 years later.
This "war on terror" idea is so convenient just because it is possible to run for at least a whole generation.

In this time:
1. Any nationalistic movement trying to liberate their native country from foreign occupation or from their puppet government will be regarded as terrorist.
2. Anybody regarded as terrorist will enjoy the policy we now: limitless detention with no trial, and interrogation the way we know.
3. The continuous "alert" will permit the continuous restriction of liberties. The present administration even obtained the right to enter in your house in your absence to install in your computer a chip or software to record any letter you type, even those you delete or send into trash. They just need a warrant from the Secret Judicial Court, were they do not need to mention the name in the warrant. So they get a blank check...

Right now all America is stroke by havoc by another alert issued by Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Ridge (the attorney general and the chief of Homeland Security). Of course, we have another color alert... Orange? Pink? Stink?
They just failed to tell to any American (and our mass-media did the same) something that any BBC listener learned while staying in the armchair and eating peanuts: The reason of these most recent terror alerts are some claims made by an Arabic organization who claimed responsibility for various terror acts, but it was proved that they were never the authors, as they said. Example: they claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings, but the inquiry established different authors. They claimed responsibility for the electric power failure in Autumn 2003 in north-eastern US, but it was proven the reason was technical. So, to summarize, our leaders just failed to say that we will be tormented like crazy in the next 3 months for a reason nobody outside U.S. is taken seriously.
4. The "war on terror" will mean endless money pumped to Pentagon, in things which have nothing to do with the war on terror: heavy canons, huge missiles etc. Who cares about what some American experts said: In the war on terror we do not need heavy weaponry, but individuals very well trained in all kind of combat.

Well, Indrid, for you it may be funny, but for me it isn't. The fact that I am uncertain about the future of my adoptive country is not funny at all.
Regards.

[Florin]

By the way, Indrid... Try to read "The forever war", by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the Colombian who got the Nobel prize in literarture. It is interesting and I read it in Romanian.

[Victor]

Florin, the US never gave Ceausescu the nuclear technology France gave to Saddam. But what the US did is beside the point, as it is already painted as the "bad guy". Let's not forget however that all this is just a plain and simple political game of interests and principles have nothing to do with it. France did not oppose the US because of principles, not know and not other times. It did it because its interests were to keep Saddam in power, but unlucky for them, they were powerless to stop the US from imposing their will.
My opinion is that a closer cooperation between the EU and the US in the last decade would have had better results and the US would not have been in the position it is today. Europe has distanced itself from the US and relations are going to get colder in the future I think (unfortuynately). In this case it is high time to reach a common European voice.

[cnflyboy2000]

[quote="Chandernagore
Well, you missed the point by indulging in a kind of counterproductive overkill. Let's give a concrete example : Salvador.
Maybe it's not unthinkable that Venezuela could one day come on the list too ? Hypothesis. Nicaragua did fit the bill before the governement was toppled.
The question is : how would the Right react to a country invading a dictature supported by it under the same pretenses as Bush used for Irak ? Lets' get even more precise. Tomorrow, Turquey invades Salvador to put an end to I don't know how many years of a bloody US supported dictature (let's assume they secretly build a fleet in the black sea :-)). How would Rumsfeld and Cheney react ? Notice that this has nothing to do with a struggle between the 12th and 21th century. It's more like a civil war between the 21th century and the 21th century.[/quote]
______________________________________________________
I thought u meant Bush (evil dictator), and France + China would take him out.

But, like I said: get real, s'il vous plait. I'm trying to get my mind around your hypotheticals, which seem to be multiplying faster than the Chinese used to.

Let me try for what I think your point may be. No, the neocons are not noted for their dedication to moral logic; of course they're not gonna approve of anyone who contravenes their myopic worldview. They would flip out. U must know U r shooting fish in a barrel here.

My concern re "vacuum filling" is that the European powers seem unwilling/unable to act effectively with anything approaching their true combined weight. Either as a force to help stabilize the Mid East, OR as a brake on U.S. hegemony. Yes, they are not shy about offering advice or criticism, but beyond that, ineffective.

The combined population and GDP of the ever expanding EU could allow it much more leverage than any of it's members is ever likely to have again individually.

[cnflyboy2000]

[quote="Chandernagore"]

To help doing what ? You're in the wrong place to fight islamic terrorism. And how are we in the way ? You display exactly the same type of arrogant, ignorant neocon behaviour that caused Junior to build such an impressive coalition of the missing around the world.
_________________________________________________

O.K. Can u tell me where the RIGHT place is? Paris? Rome? Berlin? Madrid?

I wasn't in favor of this war either, but we r there now. What do we do? Pull out and let them fight it out while the world economy goes into an oil tailspin?

I'm a long way from a neocon, thank u very much; I'm impatient; what can the Euros do to help stabilize the situation, other than snipe at us?

It's obvious that the main problem is lack of security; the Cheney strategy will go down in history as (more) wishful thinking. There were never enough troops there to stabilize the situation, only enough to blow the Iraqi army away.

It should be possible to stabilize Iraq long enough for them to get a government going that they could all have a stake in. In the long run, I think the clerics would lose out. (Case in point; they seem to be losing their iron grip on Iran.) Then they could move out of the 12th century.

I think this will happen eventually. But if the Euros are more interested in replacing the U.S. as the world's premier (nonhegemonic) isolationists, it will take a lot longer.