Leaked memo reveals Iraqi truth

Originally posted by df1

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.
.

That info came mostly from Iraqi reporters. Sorry!

Originally posted by zappafan1
That info came mostly from Iraqi reporters.

It could have come from an eskimo and that still wouldnt make it true. Or are you representing that iraqis always tell the truth like vulcans on an episode of star trek?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
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.

A History Lesson

When America joined the Great War in 1917, it tilted the balance against the Central Powers (Germany and her allies), because of her large population and industrial might. When the war ended, President Wilson was in a strong position to influence the peace treaties -the peace settlement was based in fact upon his "Fourteen Points", e.g. a new international body called the League of Nations was to be set up to keep the peace between nations.
Sadly the Americans turned their backs on Wilson (he lost the 1920 election) and on Europe. Many Americans believed that the sacrifices they had made in the Great War had been a waste of money and men. They were opposed to anything that might drag America into another European war. So the USA did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles (officially accept it), nor did she join the League of Nations or the International Court of Justice. Many Americans simply wanted to enjoy the prosperity that had developed in the previous decade and felt that foreign entanglements would threaten it.
During the 1920's and 1930's, America was in isolation, i.e. she kept I herself to herself and took little part in international relations I (conferences and treaties between the nations) .In addition America, isolated herself in terms of trade. Tariffs (import duties) were put on foreign goods to protect American industry. (Because they could not sell their goods to America, European countries could not afford to buy agricultural goods (farm produce) from the USA. This was one of the causes of the Depression.)

Originally posted by grimreaper797
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.

Actually our first foreign adventure was the Spanish American war and the invasion of the Philipines an occupation that ended 42 years later.

Our role as the sole superpower after WWII is overated due to the neglect of the atomic program between 1946 and 1949, Russia had it not had to recover from WWII could have steamrolled Europe with its far superior number of land armies.
As it was we had to do another crash weapon program to provide sufficient deterent after 1949. Few realize how close a call Europe had at the time.

Anyway our role as a so-called lone superpower was very short lived.

Back on subject though............

The sentiment for disengagement and even isolationism rears its head and stymies our foreign policy to the extent that half-measures and "playing it safe" cause policy to be made that others take to be indecisive and weak. And yes our allies and enemies alike wonder if the US can be trusted to keep its word vis a vis regarding existing policy. We are in a word "fickle" in the long term because no policy seems to survive an election cycle or two.

I believe this has lead us into many interventions and pre-emptive actions that otherwise may not have needed to happen.

This is why I said earliar that we have squandered an oppurtuinity to do much good in the world since the end of the cold war.

Originally posted by Phoenix
A History Lesson

When America joined the Great War in 1917, it tilted the balance against the Central Powers (Germany and her allies), because of her large population and industrial might. When the war ended, President Wilson was in a strong position to influence the peace treaties -the peace settlement was based in fact upon his "Fourteen Points", e.g. a new international body called the League of Nations was to be set up to keep the peace between nations.
Sadly the Americans turned their backs on Wilson (he lost the 1920 election) and on Europe. Many Americans believed that the sacrifices they had made in the Great War had been a waste of money and men. They were opposed to anything that might drag America into another European war. So the USA did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles (officially accept it), nor did she join the League of Nations or the International Court of Justice. Many Americans simply wanted to enjoy the prosperity that had developed in the previous decade and felt that foreign entanglements would threaten it.
During the 1920's and 1930's, America was in isolation, i.e. she kept I herself to herself and took little part in international relations I (conferences and treaties between the nations) .In addition America, isolated herself in terms of trade. Tariffs (import duties) were put on foreign goods to protect American industry. (Because they could not sell their goods to America, European countries could not afford to buy agricultural goods (farm produce) from the USA. This was one of the causes of the Depression.)

The only reason It was so bad is because the treaty screwed germany. America had just been in a war. Now unless they had never got involved in the war in the first place, it was americas job to see peace came. They didn't. They crushed germany in WW1, then just left. That is not isolationism. As far as trade goes america cant be isolationist. We have to trade now because the business people set us up that way.

Its one thing to start minding your own business in a time of peace. Its another thing to help a group of people beat some one up, then when the time comes for you to help things heal over you walk out and let the same group beat them futher. there is a difference. mostly bad timing to become isolationist. If we weren't in the war it would have been different.

one other thing. Foreign nations couldn't buy the agricultural products because those countries infrastructure was destroyed and they spent the money on rebuilding. None of those european countries had any money at the time, and when we left, that caused our own economy damage. The tariffs just did more damage to what was already a bad situation. We didn't cause WW1, but we sure messed up by leaving before we were suppose to.

Actually our first foreign adventure was the Spanish American war and the invasion of the Philipines an occupation that ended 42 years later.

this in no way compares to our post WW2 dominance in the world.

Our role as the sole superpower after WWII is overated due to the neglect of the atomic program between 1946 and 1949, Russia had it not had to recover from WWII could have steamrolled Europe with its far superior number of land armies.
As it was we had to do another crash weapon program to provide sufficient deterent after 1949. Few realize how close a call Europe had at the time.

first its definately not over rated. We were a sole superpower. Russia, though military wise was right neck and neck, they were screwed from the start because they had alot of their money going straight to that. Do you remember how many millions of russians died on the western front of russia. Do you remember the infrastructure of western russia after WW2? they were steam rolled on. They were definately hurt from that. We, apart from pearl harbor, went undamaged when it comes to that. Europe was also a mess.

Anyway our role as a so-called lone superpower was very short lived.

sole superpower in military yes short lived. Overall though, we were the superpower. We still were a imperial superpower after WW2, which all has caused the current problems of today. Evidently it has to do with business interests usually which isn't surprising since we got hijacked by business back during WW2.

Back on subject though............

The sentiment for disengagement and even isolationism rears its head and stymies our foreign policy to the extent that half-measures and "playing it safe" cause policy to be made that others take to be indecisive and weak. And yes our allies and enemies alike wonder if the US can be trusted to keep its word vis a vis regarding existing policy. We are in a word "fickle" in the long term because no policy seems to survive an election cycle or two.

We haven't ever done isolationism other then the 1920's and 30's where we left a war torn area we just helped get destroyed further fall apart. Becoming isolationist when most of europe was in serious injury from a war we became a big force in is hardly smart.

Who has called america weak for standing back? No one for two reasons, one is because they know we aren't weak, and two, because we have never stepped back long enough for anybody to even ask themselves the question. I dont see people calling china or india weak, but I dont see them invading nations. Mainly because if they did it, there would be some major outcry of how wrong it was. its just as wrong when america does it, regardless of what your tv is telling you.

I believe this has lead us into many interventions and pre-emptive actions that otherwise may not have needed to happen.

pretty much. Bunch of pre emptive actions that didn't need to happen.

This is why I said earliar that we have squandered an oppurtuinity to do much good in the world since the end of the cold war.

actually we did that after WW1 when we chose the worst time ever to become isolationists economically and peace wise. Why couldn't we have been isolationist when the war was going on?

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by zappafan1
That info came mostly from Iraqi reporters.

It could have come from an eskimo and that still wouldnt make it true. Or are you representing that iraqis always tell the truth like vulcans on an episode of star trek?

I've SEEN first hand much of the improvements mentioned. If an eskimo told me he had ice where he lives, I'd have a tendancy to believe him.

As I've mentioned earlier, sometimes EVERYTHING is never enough for some people.

Blair aides DID know Britain was not in imminent danger of attack from Saddam, memo reveals.

Intelligence experts explicitly warned Tony Blair's aides that Britain was not in 'imminent danger of attack' from Saddam Hussein, a confidential memo revealed today.

The row over claims that the Government 'spun' its way into war with Iraq is likely to be reignited after the release of the document by the Cabinet Office.

The memo, released after a long-running Freedom of Information battle, shows Mr Blair's officials knew seven years ago that the threat from Saddam was not immediate.

Despite the warning, the Government's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction included a claim that Baghdad was ready to launch an attack within '45 minutes'.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

A full inquiry is now well overdue and I sincerely look forward to the day when this self deluded deceiver gets his come-uppins.