Bush Administration's latest excuse...

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The UN are a bunch of corrupt whores who can't even peacekeep their way out of a wet paper bag. UN "Peacekeepers" taken hostage by ****ing African rebels, and the UN having to go in on it's knees and ask nicely if we can please have them back safely?

A corrupt bureaucracy paralyzed by a "management by committee" approach? Tell me, how hard has the UN slammed Mugabe, for just one example?

The US doesn't have a perfect record here eigther, we hightailed it out of Somalia. People don't seem to realize that in a war you may have smart people opposing you who make your job harder than you expect.

[Lord Merciless]

DanS and OneFootInGrave are making excellent points about reasons for the war in this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=87871.

For all of you who cry "imperialism", you have to realize that every country (Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) we spent some effort in are doing well today. We flunked the ME until now, but Iraq will be the starting point.

Before you whine too much about the current situation in Iraq, let's wait a year and see what happens.

[Giancarlo]

Realpolitic, I don't intend to be offensive.. but wasn't Somalia a UN runned operation with the US spearheading the force? A lot of countries went in there.. including the Pakistanis.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Fez
Realpolitic, I don't intend to be offensive.. but wasn't Somalia a UN runned operation with the US spearheading the force? A lot of countries went in there.. including the Pakistanis.

I think he wanted to say that we underestimated our enemies in Somalia and chickened out when things got tough.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I have a question for pro-war people here :

- do you sincerely think WMDs were the first motivation of the administration to attack Iraq, or one of the most important reasons ?

- do you think the liberation of the Iraqi people was the major aim of the administration when attacking ?

- If not, did you think so before the beginning of the war ?

Thanks

Three days late, but I didn't see anyone else give you my answer, so...

- No and no. Although the thought of Saddam with a purchased nuke or two is/was very sobering. Removing this threat is a nice side effect.

- Definitely not, but likewise a nice side effect.

- No, I never bought any of the stated reasons as the real reason.

The real reason, I believe, was as a step along the way in the struggle of the US against terrorism. That is what I thought before the shooting started.

Getting out of SA is part of this, however I believe the ability to have bases in Iraq (since it is going to require occupation for the foreseeable future) was the major target accomplished and why the American administration was willing to spend the money and risk the lives.

Something is afoot, and I don't think the Yanks are telling most of their allies the whole story. This is going to take years to play out, and there is no quick fix. That is what I still think.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


I think he wanted to say that we underestimated our enemies in Somalia and chickened out when things got tough.

Well, 1,500+ Somalis dead was it... from those little helicopters they call Little Birds? Under estimate not. The base there had enough fire power and could of finished the job. But it would of been a blood bath for the Somalis.

[Whaleboy]

"Terrorism arises because some people see it as a successful mean to push through their agenda."

Not really, otherwise one would see it in all or most minority opinion groups. The demands of terrorism are separate from the causes, which are generally poor conditions, hopelessness and perceived oppression by the future target of terrorism. It is perhaps one of the nastier sides of the human desire for some degree of self-autonomy.

"we underestimated our enemies in Somalia and chickened out when things got tough"

Not sure thats entirely fair. Even with the best preparation, things can go awry. That is tactically of course, I dont know much about the cause of US troops being in Somalia, perhaps someone could fill me in?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
Not sure thats entirely fair. Even with the best preparation, things can go awry. That is tactically of course, I dont know much about the cause of US troops being in Somalia, perhaps someone could fill me in?

Finally that is something I certainly can agree with.

Somebody once said, I don't remember who, is that the most complicated and ambitious mission is bound to go wrong.

[Whaleboy]

Not bad for a "washing machine".

With regards to the US military, few could doubt it is the most organised and best prepared organisation in the world.... second only to the British army!

My dispute is with their reasons for deployment in various circumstances. Could someone fill me in about somalia?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
Not bad for a "washing machine".

With regards to the US military, few could doubt it is the most organised and best prepared organisation in the world.... second only to the British army!

My dispute is with their reasons for deployment in various circumstances. Could someone fill me in about somalia?

I am sorry for calling you that..

Hahaha.. the British Army is definitely good for urban conditions I will hand that to them because of the conflict with the IRA. But leave the mountains and the rest to the US Military.

If I am not mistaken, you might want to get a second opinion on this, the US send their forces to help the food distribution operation in Somalia under UN auspicies (SP?). The sh*t hit the fan though and the whole operation took a turn to the worst. 18 or 19 US personel were killed, and 1,500+ Somalis were killed.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by elijah
"Terrorism arises because some people see it as a successful mean to push through their agenda."

Not really, otherwise one would see it in all or most minority opinion groups. The demands of terrorism are separate from the causes, which are generally poor conditions, hopelessness and perceived oppression by the future target of terrorism. It is perhaps one of the nastier sides of the human desire for some degree of self-autonomy.

That's only part of the reason. If terrorism doesn't lead anywhere, people won't be so eager to practice it or follow those who practice it. Very few hardcore psychopath will always exist, regardless of how perfect the society gets, such as Tim McVeigh and the Unabomber. A person who killed 118 people in an apartment complex bombing in China for losing his girlfriend is another example.

We can't really get rid the society from psychopaths, but we can prevent other disgruntled people from following those psychopaths.

[Whaleboy]

"If terrorism doesn't lead anywhere, people won't be so eager to practice it or follow those who practice it"

I dont see Israel withdrawing, the US changing its foreign policy, or Ulster becoming part of the ROI.

It is perhaps something of a release for a people who feel oppressed. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, and that is certainly seen in the communities where terrorists come from.

"Very few hardcore psychopath will always exist, regardless of how perfect the society gets, such as Tim McVeigh and the Unabomber."

People who are few enough in number to warrant some heavy psychological help and or prison stretches, without inciting much revolt from the people. On the other hand, wasnt McVeigh a member or sympathiser with the hard line anti-authoritarian far-right white supremacists?

"A person who killed 118 people in an apartment complex bombing in China for losing his girlfriend is another example"

Again, another psycho who needs help. It is true that you cant get rid of psychopaths, thus they should be helped, preemptively, to become useful members of society.

"We can prevent other disgruntled people from following those psychopaths"

You can never really stop people believing in an idea (an idea is not reponsible for those who believe in it), but you can certainly change the sociological conditions that make them view terrorism in an option. People generally wont become terrorists or even think about it if they are too busy with a job, that makes them feel productive, wanted and contributing to society.

[HershOstropoler]

MtG:

"Hope. Not expect until I have an idea what the Dems will do to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this time."

Iow, we're doomed.

"Get is close enough. "

If you insist... what the main battle tank is to you, the US current account deficit is to me...

"The perception about hegemonial power by the outside world. The ass-kissing, etc."

If you think this is about the erotic appeal of ass-kissing.... well...

"The latter is about how the American people would respond to the notion that the US isn't the hegemon we/they think it is."

US hegomony is for a bunch of braindead yankee rightwing extremists and a bunch of braindead euro leftwing extremists (and the occasional Gaullist). The US position in the world is a bit like that of Charles of Anjou in Italy AD 1282. Time to party...

"As far as a war goes, they're still ****. Occupation's another mess, but it doesn't get the news attention of the Fox cheerleading squad, or the American public."

You outspend them 40:1, so that's not the issue. The issue is the price to pay.

Of course, providing Iran with nuclear weapons looks like a reasonable option now...

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by elijah
You can never really stop people believing in an idea (an idea is not reponsible for those who believe in it), but you can certainly change the sociological conditions that make them view terrorism in an option. People generally wont become terrorists or even think about it if they are too busy with a job, that makes them feel productive, wanted and contributing to society.

I think we already had a discussion about this topic once.

My position is that we need to apply force and help at same time. A non-violent approach won't defeat terrorists.

[Giancarlo]

Lord Merciless: Exactly.. and I have the perfect quote for that:

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. —Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

It is in my signature.