Leaked memo reveals Iraqi truth

Originally posted by Nygdan
I agree, BUT, its far better for us to occupy Iraq and have the struggle go one there, than to have things like the PATRIOT Act in force permanently in the US, or even MORE restrictive acts.

If you haven't noticed, many of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act were voted into permanent law.

There is nothing that the US can do to prevent terror attacks upon itself, short of democratizing, however minimally, the middle east.

Well, we could start by securing our borders. All of them, not just build a wall on the Mexican border to appease xenophobic conservative voters during an election year. We need to have the Canadian, Pacific, and Atlantic borders secure as well as the Mexican border. For all this talk about terrorists smuggling in a nuclear weapon this administration doesn't seem to care about stopping such an event. We need to have every package, every container, every shipment of cargo into the United States at least x-rayed if not thoroughly searched.

Instead what's the plan? Conduct pre-emptive wars to overthrow leaders we don't like so that we can refashion middle-eastern governments to how we see fit.

You saw how well democracy is working in Palestine. Hamas is the new majority government. Democracy requires a certain cultural mindset which takes hundreds of years to develope. You can't just go in and "democratize" a country. My case and point: India and Japan are the two countries which have had the most successful conversion to democracy after WWII, this is because in both of these countries there was a long established feudal system in place. The same holds true for pretty much all of the western democratic nations if you look at the history behind their democratization. The middle east is still in a tribal cultural mindset, their culture is not ready for democracy to emerge.

In addition, Saddam was a moderating influence. Under Saddam Iraq was a secular nation because he brutally supressed the hardline conservative Shia majority. Mark my words, the democratization of Iraq will only lead to a more Islamic Iraq and is that what we really want?

Originally posted by Nygdan

For one, the terror attack in London was in large part provoked by the war in Iraq

And if there had been no iraq war, there'd be no terror?

So far, we've had terror attacks in Madrid, aimed at the Spanish; in London, aimed at the British; and in Bali, aimed at the Australians holidaying there.

All of these nations had leaders foolish enough to join this trumped-up "war on terror". All of these nations suffered terror attacks as a result of that decision, no matter how their governments may try to spin this otherwise. (That, of course, is assuming that the UK government story on the London bombings is not a lie to cover a false flag op, and there is evidence to suggest that may be true.

There is nothing that the US can do to prevent terror attacks upon itself, short of democratizing, however minimally, the middle east.

Nygdan... I have to admit you surprise me. Sometimes I think what you say makes an awful lot of sense, and then sometimes... it sounds as if you could have helped write Rebuilding America's Defenses, the PNAC manifesto.

How many countries should be invaded to accomplish this dubious goal? Do you think you can impose democracy from outside? I would say that to think this is possible is naive in the extreme. It reminds me of the old story about how you get the goose out of the bottle... the solution being that you feed the goose until it's big and strong enough to peck its own way out. Invading a country and trying to impose "democracy" is like smashing the bottle into little pieces which cut the goose to shreds.

This of course is assuming that what is going on is really about democracy. It IS NOT. I started a thread about this, and boo hoo, no-one has responded to it or seen it so I'll

reference it here and quote a little bit from the main article, which is about how Jay Garner, the guy originally charged with putting Iraq back on its feet, was sacked because he wanted to hold elections within 90 days:

"My preference," Garner told me in his understated manner, "was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can and do it in some form of elections."

But elections were not in The Plan.

The Plan was a 101-page document to guide the long-term future of the land we'd just conquered. There was nothing in it about democracy or elections or safety. There was, rather, a detailed schedule for selling off "all [Iraq's] state assets" -- and Iraq, that's just about everything -- "especially," said The Plan, "the oil and supporting industries." Especially the oil.

There was more than oil to sell off. The Plan included the sale of Iraq's banks, and weirdly, changing it's copyright laws and other odd items that made the plan look less like a program for Iraq to get on its feet than a program for corporate looting of the nation's assets. (And indeed, we discovered at BBC, behind many of the odder elements -- copyright and tax code changes -- was the hand of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's associate Grover Norquist.)

Sadly, I don't think the Administration shares your ideals about democracy for the ME, though their rhetoric might suggest otherwise.

Iraq was a better place before the US and UK stormed in.

Those facts are indisputable.

Everyone knows it.

Women are now repressed, islamic extremists run many areas, the basic rule of law has broken down. Iraq has now become a haven for terrorists.

Your ambassador was merely stating the reality of the new situation created by the US.

It's a massive 'sex up' and only the US and allies are to blame - it says very little for the intellectual and military planning abilities of so-called developed nations.

ShakyaHeir you have raised some interesting points concerning the foundations needed for democracy. Power was handed over to the Iraqi government far to soon.
If you look at post war Japan Macarthur not the Japanese government was in charge. Now here are the key thing Macarthur understood the Japanese people this allowed him to lay the foundations for democracy in that countrie.

The foundations havnt been laid in Iraq instead we had Paul Bremer who knew little about Iraq and an interim government that came to power far to soon.
When you build a house do you lay the foundation or build the roof first ?

[edit on 22-6-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 22-6-2006 by xpert11]

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
And I suppoes you will and do delight in the following quote from this thread's referenced article, hoping beyond all hope the US pulls out of Iraq, abandons the country to those who will force upon the populace this?

I hope we take everyone thats related to the US, remove them from Iraq, and get out. You cant stop a ticking time bomb. You removed the only thing stopping the Sunni-Shia war from breaking out- Saddam. He may have been one hell of a bad guy, but you just turned Iraq back to before his time where the tribal wars of these two lasted lifetimes. good job.

"As Islamic militancy increases, women find it increasingly dangerous not to wear a veil in Sunni and Shia neighbourhoods. One was warned not to drive a car. Others were told to cover their faces and to stop using mobile phones. Threats against women who do not accept this second class status have escalated in the last two months. It has also become dangerous for men to wear shorts or jeans in public or for children to play outside wearing shorts."

He look at that, why am I not suprised. Guess what, your going to have to deal with the fact that there are ALOT of iraqi extremist who would rather die in a suicide bombing then accept western ways. Leave it be, stop poking the rabid dog and go home. This will only change when those people who are afraid, stop being afraid and stand up on their own.

You and your anti-war crowd explain to me your understanding of the spread of Islamofacism?

IslamoFASCISM, is ANYTHING but fascist so for starters why not learn what it is. The ONLY reason anyone calls it that is the critics of certain islamic groups because their dislike for israel-jewish state. Fascists (Hitler and Mussolini) as you remember we main parts of the holocaust. Thats the ONLY connection to fascist. My understand of Islamofascism is that it hardly even exists.

Now if you would like to talk about the spread of Islamic ways, such as the ones above, well thats different. Islam is a religion, and just like christianity, it has its extremists. The only difference is these governments are run by religion, where our (hopefully) isnt. We aren't going to change that, because face it, we have a hard enough time trying to stop religion interfering with government HERE at home, with the diverse crowd we have.

Shall it be left to topple governments world wide?

ahahahahahahahaha tell me what governments has it "TOPPLED"? haha, other then the recent somalia, a very weak nation in african, Islam isn't conquering anything. When it starts taking nations that have any sort of military power, and dont rely on the UN to get through day to day, then maybe you can worry even just a little bit. they are hardly "toppling" governments though. hahaha

Do you see it as a threat?

about as much as I see christianity as a threat, or judaism. The extremists that commit crimes are criminals, nothing more. Terrorists are nothing more then criminals. They arent any danger to my country. They may endanger some of our lives. They may be a threat to life, but so is any mass murderer or serial killer.

Sadly though, if another Timothy McVeigh came along, we would end up invading Iran.

When the above referenced militancy establishes itself in your homeland will you be happy to live by it's dictates?

first off it wouldn't because the government isn't religiously run, and if it was we would end up quickly overthrowing it and putting new people in. I mean just where do you think your going to get these extremists to rule us from? Maybe they could try to boss around some people through higher weapons, but we have them to, so any threat we could just retaliate with. Its not like they are going to walk into our country and invade. 50 million gun owners in the country at least, you tell me who wants to invade.

And you women of western culture who enjoy freedoms of expression, speech, dress, choice, what say you of the plight of women as described above?

I say fight for your freedom like our forefathers did when britian, the super power of the time, tried to boss us around to THEIR liking.

Are you outspoken women prepared to enjoy "second class status"?

I dont see why they should be prepared to because it won't ever happen until they wipe out most the population in this country. We will nuke the world before that happens.

Are you willing to submit?

submit to what? I submit we let people who want freedom fight for it. If death is the price for freedom, let it be, because the people who founded this country knew that much. So if the iraqi people want freedom, let them fight for it.

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
And I suppoes you will and do delight in the following quote from this thread's referenced article, hoping beyond all hope the US pulls out of Iraq, abandons the country to those who will force upon the populace this?

Frankly, the neo-con's arrogance created this mess. They knew nothing of the middle eastern dynamics and were under the impression "everyone" wanted to be Americans and would quickly embrace the American way. Big mistake. They did not understand that as brutal as Hussein was, it was his strong handed nature that held Iraq together and allowed for the secular Islamic state to exist.

"As Islamic militancy increases, women find it increasingly dangerous not to wear a veil in Sunni and Shia neighbourhoods. One was warned not to drive a car. Others were told to cover their faces and to stop using mobile phones. Threats against women who do not accept this second class status have escalated in the last two months. It has also become dangerous for men to wear shorts or jeans in public or for children to play outside wearing shorts."

You can thank the Bush administration for this. As I pointed out above, they had no plan to deal with the differences of the Islamic faith and the power struggle between the sects. They had no idea what they were doing and they are responsible for the loss of freedoms.

You and your anti-war crowd explain to me your understanding of the spread of Islamofacism?

The only way "Islamofascism" will spread is through their religious leaders. Islamists do not have the assets (military, economic or governmental) to spread their ideology any other way. As long as the moderates are heard, and that is done by not giving the extremists a voice (in other words, NOT invading and occupying their countries, NOT bombing them, and NOT threatening them) you mute their voice to but a small segment of the population. Islamofascism is nothing more than a creation of the neo-cons trying to distract the population from their own leanings to the extreme right, and trying to scare up a new enemy for America.

Shall it be left to topple governments world wide?

Care to explain how this could possibly happen? Sounds like a load of fearmongering without any basis in reality. How do "Islamofascists" topple governments world wide when they do not have the assets to do so?

Do you see it as a threat?

No more of a threat than Pat Robertson is to the government in Venezuela.

When the above referenced militancy establishes itself in your homeland will you be happy to live by it's dictates?

And how is this going to happen? More scare mongering perchance? The Islamist movement is a very small faction within the Islamic community, and holds very little power within that community (without our meddling assistance anyways).

And you women of western culture who enjoy freedoms of expression, speech, dress, choice, what say you of the plight of women as described above?

Again, what caused the loss of freedoms to those women in Iraq? Oh yeah, the American invasion.

Are you outspoken women prepared to enjoy "second class status"?

I dunno, how about asking the Iraqi women who have had their lives ripped away from them because of the instability the invasion caused. Start there and come back when you have some answers. I think you'll find that our involvement in the region has caused the loss of freedoms for women, not the improvement of those freedoms.

Are you willing to submit?

If we are as incredibly stupid and weak like you suggest, maybe we would be better living under their strict rules? Thankfully we are not stupid, nor weak, and the Islamists don't have the assets or power to do anything you suggest. The Islamists want to reinstate the rule of the caliph. That does not align with our world

[edit on 23-6-2006 by The Iconoclast]

The support of an incredibly brutal dictator by left leaning folks is astounding

To even postulate that Iraq was better off under Saddam is showing a certain lack moral fiber in lieu of partisanship.

How many Iraqi's were killed each year under Saddam? How much torture occurred prior to his victims assasination?

Any derogatory info is jumped upon not only by you people but also the media whether it has been vetted or as is usual not. (does'nt matter if the source has an agenda does it?)

Why can people not simply look at a map and realize that Irag sits in the strategic middle of the middle east and see the obvious strategy of the oh so hated Bush administration.

What are you worried about - success?

How far does it have to go phoenix. Does a nuke have to go off in one of our cities before we say " lets rethink our strategy here". Or will we just go right to the end of the world. Will we "never negociate with terrorists" till it leads us all to destruction. The only time a war solved something is when the enemy was defeated. You cant defeat an enemy that only exists as a belief. It will never end. How many countries will we attack before something breaks and we get another 9/11 thats 100 times worse? How long will it take you before you realize that no amount of conquering and democracy can change the fact terrorism and people like saddam will always be?

You ask us how we could say it was any better under saddam. I ask you how it could be any worse. People are still dying on a daily basis. Maybe you believe democracy is worth human life, but its not YOUR life to give. Its those peoples lives to give as THEY see fit. So if THEY want democracy, shouldnt THEY be giving their lives for it?

What I dont understand is how you can bash the left, when the right is just as inhumane. You will fight for foreigners "democracy" right down to their deaths and our soldiers deaths, but cant stand the idea some of your taxes are going to welfare. Im not left, Im libertarian. I look at whats going on and I see alot of death for something that isn't worth dying for.

You want to defend freedom, defend it when the fight comes home. Things like 9/11 will happen, thats life. You want to show how strong we are? Show them by being unaffected. Mourn the lives but keep things going. Dont sway from your path for an instant. As an average american, your fight should be the fight to live free. Those criminals like osama should be caught, but by the UN. These are crimes against Humanity, and should be treated that way. you cant go invading countries everytime some foreigner murders people.

Death is bound to occur over the course of our lives. Nothing hurts us more then to watch people die. But if we wish to be able to say that without being hypocrites, we have to stop killing ourselves. The only killing worth doing, is that in self defense. Any fighting happening on foreign soil, isnt self defense.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
How far does it have to go phoenix. Does a nuke have to go off in one of our cities before we say " lets rethink our strategy here".

Why does the fact that there is stiff resistance in one of two occupied countries mean that we have to rethink our strategy?

The only time a war solved something is when the enemy was defeated. You cant defeat an enemy that only exists as a belief.

Excluding, of course, where you are able to kill the beleivers as they pop up, disrupt their financial networks, and destroy the nation-states that allow them to conglomerate, train, and organize.

How many countries will we attack before something breaks and we get another 9/11 thats 100 times worse?

Considering that we attacked no one and got 911, why should we continue to try that policy? The pre-911 policy gave us 911, the post-911 policy, it looks to be working well enough so far. It might not work, but, we know that the pre-911 policy doesn't work, so what are the options?

You ask us how we could say it was any better under saddam. I ask you how it could be any worse.

Well, an islamic caliphate extending from Iraq to Pakistan would be one way in which it'd be worse.

I look at whats going on and I see alot of death for something that isn't worth dying for.

The prevention of more 911s isn't worth fighting for? We are better off disengaging from teh world and just lamenting our fate each time something like it happens?

defend it when the fight comes home. Things like 9/11 will happen, thats life.

No its not. Life, from 9-11 on out, is where the US brings wars and attacks to the rest of the world, not where the attacks flow into the US. Life, post-911, is where the rest of the world fights the US in their homes, not ours.

You want to show how strong we are? Show them by being unaffected. Mourn the lives but keep things going.

Thats precisely what we did after this very same organization blew up our embassies, and then attacked one of our warships. Heck, we probably should've started this global war on terror right after the first attack on the world trade center. Or we probably should've invaded syria and occupied lebanon after they bombed the marines barracks there.

why fo we have to rething our stategy? BECAUSE IT WASN'T THOUGHT OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE and is a dismal failure....its exactly what you get when a bunch of people believe their own hype setting policy. Screw ideologues, give me a pragmatist anyday. Also the notion of a return of the Ciaiph may be appealing to some but it actually happening....Oh come on. Egypt and Syria (and the pan islamic Baaths) couldn't form a unified political system in the late 50's and early 60's and nothing much has changed. The reality is nationalism trumped it and is would again.

Originally posted by Nygdan


Considering that we attacked no one and got 911, why should we continue to try that policy? The pre-911 policy gave us 911, the post-911 policy, it looks to be working well enough so far. It might not work, but, we know that the pre-911 policy doesn't work, so what are the options?

I beg to differ on this. You cannot look at the history of the middle east and claim that we're innocent in this. Does anyone truly believe the "they hate us for our freedoms" partyline?

We have built up over a century of resentment, manuevering, manipulating, and interfering. I'll give you this, I think it's exagerated in the minds of the East, due to a conflict of ideologies between Eastern and Western values. But please don't paint a picture where the US is strolling along minding it's own business, that's simply not true.

So we have a choice. We accept that we feel that it is in our nation's best interest to guide and control the affairs of other nations, and OWN it, and admit that there are consequences of our actions.

Or we quit mucking about in the world. Anything less is hypocritical.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Considering that we attacked no one and got 911, why should we continue to try that policy? The pre-911 policy gave us 911, the post-911 policy, it looks to be working well enough so far. It might not work, but, we know that the pre-911 policy doesn't work, so what are the options?

I suppose it is in the eye of the beholder. From my perspective saudi was a us occupied country prior to 911 and continues to be an occupied country which is supported by the us military industrial complex. And it is precisely this us military support which caused the events of 911. The increase in the use of us military force following 911 is nothing more than a massive escalation of same failed policy that existed prior to 911.

Repeating these same actions and expecting a different result is idiotic.
.

Originally posted by toolman
It is terrible how inept our government has become.

IN 4 years FDR managed to beat back Japan and help allies win in Europe.

In 4 years GWBush went on vacation more than any other president, and cannot seem to find a 6 foot 2 diabetic islamic terrorist.

A record to be proud of

REPLY: Japan is a COUNTRY; Quite different than fighting a religion-turned-politic, and an enemy who the world has been fighting, one way or another, for 1400 years. Duh!

Working vacations. And I doubt OBL is in Texas. You need to do more research on the previous admin.

Originally posted by Strangerous
Iraq was a better place before the US and UK stormed in.

Those facts are indisputable.

Everyone knows it.

Women are now repressed, islamic extremists run many areas, the basic rule of law has broken down. Iraq has now become a haven for terrorists.

Your ambassador was merely stating the reality of the new situation created by the US.

It's a massive 'sex up' and only the US and allies are to blame - it says very little for the intellectual and military planning abilities of so-called developed nations.

REPLY: A "better place"? So you wish the rape rooms, childrens prisons, stinging rooms were "better? Women can now vote, they can hold office, more hospitals are open and better equiped. Wages for most jobs have doubled. Oh... Iraq was a haven for terrorists back to the mid-90's. RESEARCH!

After scanning this thread, I've read many good arguments for not having invaded Iraq in the first place. And, yes, I would have to agree that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was probably the wrong thing to do. However, now that the U.S. did invade and occupy Iraq, I have to ask what should the U.S. do? It is too simplistic to say that the U.S. should simply pull out. To predict a sectarian "blood bath" would hardly take a psychic.

So what does the U.S. do now? Does the U.S. stay and try to stabilize the country even though this will surely lead to a continuation of violence for the forseeable future or do they "cut and run"? Leaving Iraq will surely mean that the violence will continue and it would probably mean that the various "insurgent groups" will have a base of operations from which to attack the West.

Spurred on by a perceived victory over the U.S., the insurgent groups would probably continue their war of terror directly against the U.S. and her Western allies.

It would seem that the U.S. is certainly damned if it does and damned if it doesn't when it comes to Iraq.

Iraq was a better place before the US and UK stormed in.

Those facts are indisputable.

REPLY: Indisputable? HA HA HA HA

www.portaliraq.com...

free elections, a large and growing military, a former dictator on trial, a popularly ratified constitution,

the Iraqi stock exchange, where state-owned enterprises that have been privatized are now traded vigorously on the frenetic market floor

economy is growing. Palkot cites Brookings Institution findings that the standard of living in Iraq has doubled since 2003, and the Iraqi economy is projected to grow by 16.8 percent next year. The post-Saddam dinar has held its value better than the U.S. dollar.

the south of Iraq, where Arab tribes who saw their villages massacred and habitats destroyed by Saddam Hussein are starting to rebuild their lives with the help of the U.S. and British forces. He also visits the Kurdish region in the north, where there is almost no violence, the people love America, and the future has never looked brighter. Symbolic of the future of this region is the Kurdish man who, as a successful developer, is overseeing the construction of a 23-building apartment complex which, when completed, will overlook the hills where he and his fellow rebels sought refuge during their wars with Saddam.

School projects are high on the list of priorities also. Children who currently sit with their toes in the mud will find themselves in classrooms made of brick and mortar soon if they haven't already. Of the 800 planned schools, 600 are completed.

School just opened on the 4th of October. 1,000 -- more than 1,600 schools have been reconstructed, refurbished. That means that the electrical wiring has been replaced, new fans have been put in, new electrical lights, windows have been repaired, the latrines -- the bathrooms -- have been repaired, the plumbing's been put back on. And there are more than 1,600 of these schools across the country.

The port of Um Qasr is now one of the most modern ports in the entire Middle East. It's completely dredged, which has not taken place since 1983.

.... rehabilitated 20 delivery hospitals serving 300,000 residents in Basra. We have about 100,000 pregnant and nursing mothers and malnourished children who are receiving high protein biscuits which will raise their nutrition level, because they had a very serious problem with iron deficiencies, anemia.

For the first time since the 1950s, Iraq is exporting foodstuffs to its neighbors. And Taheri notes that even the oil industry, a constant target of the terrorists (to the tune of more than 3,000 attacks and attempts at sabotage), is progressing. Iraq has resumed its membership in OPEC, returned to the world markets as a major exporter, and is projected to meet its full OPEC quota of 2.8 million barrels a day by the end of the year.

Do you want MORE of this "bad" information?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why does the fact that there is stiff resistance in one of two occupied countries mean that we have to rethink our strategy?

Strategy as in pre emptive war doesnt change ANYTHING. You haven't lessened the threat of terrorists at ALL. There is no amount of pre emptive war that can change the fact there will ALWAYS be terrorism. Its the never ending war.

Excluding, of course, where you are able to kill the beleivers as they pop up, disrupt their financial networks, and destroy the nation-states that allow them to conglomerate, train, and organize.

an you will still get terrorists like timothy Mcveigh who simply fall astray and blow up a building. Terrorism will never end, no matter how much you try. Dont take that like I am condoning it, but it will never end. you make it sound easy, but terrorists can be a small group of people. They dont need alot of funds, just a text book of how to build bombs and a mindset to kill. Going to nations that sponsor terrorism, invading, then trying to kill them all, isn't going to stop terrorism. If anything you may knock down on terrorist group, only to watch another one form a couple years later because of how pissed off they are about something else you have done.

Considering that we attacked no one and got 911, why should we continue to try that policy? The pre-911 policy gave us 911, the post-911 policy, it looks to be working well enough so far. It might not work, but, we know that the pre-911 policy doesn't work, so what are the options?

where have you been since WW2? We haven't attacked anyone? Ok lets start from the begining. We have attacked Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, cuba, and others with small more precises attacks, some which we may not even know about. Not attacking anyone pre 9/11 is laughable to oblivious. Post 9/11 policy has led us into the largest deficit the country has ever seen. Post 9/11 policy has led to severe corruption upon which I haven't even heard of. Post 9/11 policy has led to a aggressive imperialistic attitude toward any country we dont like, putting us in very bad light with the rest of the world. and though I dont think we should be concerned about the world with everystep we take, I sure as hell dont want the world taking an alliance against the US.

The reason the pre 9/11 policy did work is because you attack the hell out of nations pre emptively. Now instead of attacking them, your invading them. Seems to be the main difference between the policies.

Well, an islamic caliphate extending from Iraq to Pakistan would be one way in which it'd be worse.

oooo I see now. This isn't about terrorism. Its about islam. If thats the case I have nothing to say.

The prevention of more 911s isn't worth fighting for? We are better off disengaging from teh world and just lamenting our fate each time something like it happens?

we have two very different views of prevention. We could much better stop another 9/11 if we killed every islamic and foreigner on the planet. However I just don't think that policy would float well. Preventing a 9/11 is worth fighting for. A fight that should take place here at home rather some foreign country. We have no reason to be in that country and its not our right to defend ourselves on their land.

No its not. Life, from 9-11 on out, is where the US brings wars and attacks to the rest of the world, not where the attacks flow into the US. Life, post-911, is where the rest of the world fights the US in their homes, not ours.

nice. so when another 9/11 DOES happen because you bringing the wars to innocent people in other countries doesn't work, what will be your response. I have news for you. As much as you hate it, another 9/11 WILL happen. The more you attack outside the country the more people you piss off. You can fight all you want, gambling with innocent lives in foreign countries, but when they attack again what will happen then? But your right the US brings wars and attacks, not just to the rest of the world, but on itself. Because in truth, thats the same policy that brought 9/11 on ourselves.

We had to stop the world from having another hitler, so we attacked many nations. 9/11 came...were you surprised?

Thats precisely what we did after this very same organization blew up our embassies, and then attacked one of our warships. Heck, we probably should've started this global war on terror right after the first attack on the world trade center. Or we probably should've invaded syria and occupied lebanon after they bombed the marines barracks there.

hell we should have started the war on terror with the unabomber. Maybe back with hitler, he can be considered a terrorist. whats this attack make any difference from the countless other terrorist attacks from before? Though what can I expect, it seems to me when we say terrorist the first thing that comes to mind is a mideastern islamic man, so Im not suprised anyway.

Originally posted by zappafan1
Do you want MORE of this "bad" information?

Since you asked, I don`t want any more parroting of "bad" information, however I am sure my response won`t stop you. The us government provides an ample daily supply of propaganda on iraq for my needs.
.

Originally posted by Jadette

So we have a choice. We accept that we feel that it is in our nation's best interest to guide and control the affairs of other nations, and OWN it, and admit that there are consequences of our actions.

Or we quit mucking about in the world. Anything less is hypocritical.

Jadette, I agree with the above statement. Being aware of politics and foriegn affairs since the late sixties and studying my modern history I have concluded that half-measures and patronizing do not work in the long run.

I witnessed cut and run use of the military(Beruit - Somalia, in a way Gulf I), carrot and stick approach to military and economic aid, all manner of direct - indirect diplomatic initiatives by every administation, none having a coherant consistant message or aim. Continued duplicitous negotiations with opposing elements or countries to the point of making the effort a joke, the various parties knowing all they have to wait for is another change in U.S. policy.

Its no wonder we're not trusted. No we're only useful until someone else's agenda has been met.

Some say "let the UN handle it" I say back to them "what has the UN actually handled in the past with any success" and "what makes you think the UN is capable of solving problem in the future, given their history"

I would agree the UN has been effective in the distant past with famine relief and humanitarian missions. The UN's record on ending or preventing war and genocide is dismal at best disasterous at its worst. Once involved with troops they can hardly protect themselves much the people they are tasked to help, in many cases those who were to be aided need protection from the very UN forces present.

Everyone knows the history on the Iraq resolutions well enough not to go over them in detail - of course one could point out that the same path of prevarication is and will continue with Iran and North Korea.

I cannot picture in my minds eye that the UN will be of much help in the foreseeable future.

Isolation and or appeasement has been shown to be a failed policy so many times in the past its not worth debating. Suffice to say anyone presenting THAT as a policy does so out of ignorance to history.

In essence the power this country possesed at the end of the cold-war to do a huge amount of good for the world has been severely diminished by incrementalism, half-ass solutions and an unwillingness to face reality.

As you so aptly said but put another way,

Your either in all the way or don't play the game to begin with.

Phoenix, would you care to give an example of a region where we were Isolated from and DIDNT muck with their area? And Im talking about day one. Chances are there arent many areas that we had a policy of isolationism. Thats something I have never seen in the history books. We always have our hands in something somewhere.

I can say that since WW2 when we came in as the major superpower of the world, that we have had a violent foreign policy. Before WW1 we weren't even considered a real power. once WW2 came europe and russia were destroyed literally. That let the US at the time. We crushed japan with the atomic bombs. Russia and europe destroyed eachother, so we finally were the true superpower because we went practically unharmed.

And thats when our violent foreign policy started.