Saddam APOLOGIZES for invading Kuwait?!

[GePap]

Ned: The US gets the grief cause the US is the boss: It was the US that started bombing Afghanistan, not the other states you mentioned. They are there at our invitation and with our help. THe US is the capatin of the Good Ship Afghanistan, and in the ned that means the buck stops in Washington. None of the other states have significant strateic interests in Afghanistan, so it should be no ones surpirse that they have little interest in being there. We (the US) on the other hand keeps stating how much we care about Afghanistan and the people and so forth: so our actions should be were our mouth is on this issue.

Fez:
My problem with the war on Iarq is not military, it is political. The US has a horrible trackrecord at being able to navigate the political waters of places like the Middle East.

[Giancarlo]

My problem with the war on Iarq is not military, it is political. The US has a horrible trackrecord at being able to navigate the political waters of places like the Middle East.

Then ask Israel for help.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Why is it that only the United States gets blamed for not rebuilding Afghanistan. Isn't this a responsibity of at least allies as much as our own?

Germany, that wealthy country in the middle of Europe, has said that it support the war on terror. Where is it in Afganistan? Building roads? I'd like to know.

Where are the French, the Dutch, the Spanish?

And, even if they are not part of Nato, shouldn't the Swedes, Austrians, Swiss and the Finns help out?

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/23/ret.afghan.bonn/

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/12/04122001105023.asp

http://www.europaworld.org/week92/euaidto26702.htm

[Hueij]

Where are the [...], the Dutch, [...]?

Sigh... I'll let this go as another fine example of American ignorance

[D@VE]

Maybe if the U.S. cant live up to the expectations of the rest of the world, then we should withdraw from the community. We can quit giving 11.4 billion dollars in economic assistance, 4.3 billion for peacekeeping operations and to finance, train, and educate foreign armed forces. We can quit fighting for equal rights and freedom in other contries, we can quit sending our professional rescue teams when other contries have dissasters.

Personally, I would like to keep giving aid to other contries, and I think we should increase the amount we give. America is not perfect, but we do a damn good job trying to be good. (Even with a goofy President)

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


They do the same to their own people. In the days following the liberation, a news team stubled across Kuwaiti forces torturing people, with US personal present. There were also retributions against those who were seen to be collaborators.

Kontki, Iraq is an officially atheist country. They didn't think God told them anything.

Wow, I didn't think I need to explain that the whole thing was a joke, but here I am.....

[GePap]

Originally posted by D@VE
Maybe if the U.S. cant live up to the expectations of the rest of the world, then we should withdraw from the community. We can quit giving 11.4 billion dollars in economic assistance, 4.3 billion for peacekeeping operations and to finance, train, and educate foreign armed forces. We can quit fighting for equal rights and freedom in other contries, we can quit sending our professional rescue teams when other contries have dissasters.

Personally, I would like to keep giving aid to other contries, and I think we should increase the amount we give. America is not perfect, but we do a damn good job trying to be good. (Even with a goofy President)

Yes, the US spends 15 billion in international aid, and 360 billion on the military.....

The only states that live up to the expectations of the world community are the scandinavian states that actually do meet the goal of giving .8% of national GDP over to other states as development aid. (the US rate is .1% of GDP, with the bulk going to Israel and Egypt.)

We are not talking ehre about what the world expects of the US: we are talking here about US aims in Afghnaistan. We stated that our aims were to destroy the Taliban government and Al qaeda bases and help the poeple of Afghanistan remake their country so that it would never become a terrorist base again: we have nmot done a very good job with the second part of our job.

[Hueij]

to finance, train, and educate foreign armed forces.

Ah yes, the Academy Of The America's. Great institution (NOT!)

We can quit fighting for equal rights and freedom in other contries

Maybe get your own house in order first before looking at other countries?

[Gatekeeper]

Chegitz, GePap:

Regarding our allies, it's a cop out on their part if they aren't "interested" in helping Afghanistan rebuild because, gee golly whillikers, they don't have any "strategic" interests in it.

Well, they should. After all, they support the war against terrorism, and wasn't Afghanistan one of the main bases for terrorism (namely, al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden)? There ain't nothing stopping them from rebuilding roads, schools and other infrastructure (hell, U.S. soldiers are doing it right now to a degree) ... like Washington would tell them *not* to do that, prevent them from doing it.

Maybe NATO oughta reactivate that clause of theirs about "an attack on one is an attack on all" and use it to send even more relief personnel to Afghanistan while U.S. forces continue to root out the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida. Bush, et al., might be less testy about receiving that sort of help (yes, I read that Bush, et al., were *not* receptive to NATO military aid right after Sept. 11, 2001).

I do, however, think that the U.S. and its allies need a more significant military presence in Afghanistan. It's correct that we can't get much done when we have less than 10,000 personnel (U.S.) on the ground, and we're having a heckuva time getting an Afghan Army trained (so they're of no immediate help ... although that might change down the road). Furthermore, we should have used more American troops when we went after Tora Bora back in December 2001 (but that's an armchair general's perspective, admittedly).

In conclusion, I'm not going to pass judgment on the West's policies in post-Taliban Afghanistan yet. It's far too early for that, but if we're still in this situation five years from now, then it would be time to get testy.

Gatekeeper

[chequita guevara]

Again, Gatekeeper, you're missing the point. It's not that we aren't going forward fast enough:

WE ARE LOOSING GROUND IN AFGANISTAN!

That's the point.

This has nothing to do with the contribution of allies or NATO. NATO already voted to declare the 9/11 attacks an attack against all. In case you forgot, the first strains between the US and its allies weren't that the US was acting like a bully, but that the US wouldn't accept help from its allies, and when it did, relegated them to secondary roles. Don't blame our allies, they wanted to do more. We wouldn't let them.

What is going on is the US didn't want to committ to the necessary activity to stablize Afganistan. The government controls nothing outside Kabul, and is losing parts of Kabul now as well.

{Font size edited by MtG so as not to blow people's eyeballs back through their skulls, ok? )

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, the US spends 15 billion in international aid, and 360 billion on the military.....

With how much of that military money going to defend other countries? How much does it cost to maintain our bases/troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc?

[Lord Merciless]

Unfortunately Che, our situation is Afghanistan is not as dire as you have hoped.

Check this out: Times: Rebuilding Afghanistan

As for your assertion that US doesn't want is allies to do more is non-sense. The fact is that our allies want to do DIFFERENT things.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


With how much of that military money going to defend other countries? How much does it cost to maintain our bases/troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc?

The US wants to keep these bases more than most people in those states want them: take the current anti-American disturbances in S.Korea over the death of two 14 years old girls killed in their car in an incident with an American armored vehicle, and the fact that the conservative, pro-US candidat is loosing ground (or the German election results, or the sentiments of the people of Okinawa)

The US needs those bases to project power. Why do you think the US is the only armed force that can place a significant number of troops in any part of the world relatively quickly? Because we have so many bases. Without those bases, US military power would be greatly diminished. We don't maintain those bases out of charity: we do it to maintian our strategic postion and aims.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Kontki, Iraq is an officially atheist country. They didn't think God told them anything.

isn't isreal "officially" an atheist country?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Unfortunately Che, our situation is Afghanistan is not as dire as you have hoped.

Check this out: Times: Rebuilding Afghanistan

I don't hope for the US to do bad in Afganistan. Inspite of being a raging anti-imperialist, I am also dedicated to the forward progress of humanity. The enemies of the US are dedicated to returning to a way of life that was abolished by capitalism, i.e., more regressive and reactionary. Socialists, communists, and supporters of capitalism, therefore, have a common foe in the Taliban and al-Qaeda

As for your assertion that US doesn't want is allies to do more is non-sense. The fact is that our allies want to do DIFFERENT things.

You missed that my assertion was past tense. Our allies wanted in on the combat missions. They wnated to stand side-by-side with us as we destroyed our enemies. We relegated them to peace-keeping duties.