Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Post-War Iraq: Should we help?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 11
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 template Next
  • #121
    Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
    How many times do I have to explain that I'm angry with France because they actively opposed US interests, not because they "failed to back us"? I'm so tired of saying the same thing over and over...
    And the US never actively acts against French or European interests? Please.

    The funny part about this is that the so-called realist approach in foreign policy is totally unrealistic. The Bushies have told us that they give a flying **** about its old allies and will build ad hoc alliances. Now some old allies have told the Bushies to sod off and built an ad hoc alliance against this. If it hadn't happened on Iraq, it would have happened on something else, action and reaction.

    But the Bushies thought they deserve a special role and support nonetheless, just like they have deserved the Presidency, their big tax cuts, their police state etc.

    Dan:

    The UK AG, sure. He's just an officer - like Kofi Annan. Who happens to speak for the UN though... why not trust Kofi on the matter? Cause you don't like what he has to say?
    “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

    Comment

    • #122
      Originally posted by GePap
      Ned:


      As for the second part: Yeah, the French have had this grudge since Dien Bien Phu.... come on Ned. The French do not see the coming war as benefiting their interests (in whichever way you decide to see that), so they did not back it, just as in 1956 the US saw the Anglo-French Israeli invasion of Egypt as being against its interests.
      What interests? The US and the USSR combined together in the UN to demand that Britain and France withdraw. The Israeli's were given a guarantee about the Straights, and they withdrew.

      I remember Eisenhower being very angry about the French and British on TV. He said that they had not consulted him prior to intervening.

      I think this was more about cold-war polictics and Eisenhower's detente with the USSR than about American interests in the ME.
      http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

      Comment

      • #123
        Originally posted by HershOstropoler


        And the US never actively acts against French or European interests? Please.

        The funny part about this is that the so-called realist approach in foreign policy is totally unrealistic. The Bushies have told us that they give a flying **** about its old allies and will build ad hoc alliances. Now some old allies have told the Bushies to sod off and built an ad hoc alliance against this. If it hadn't happened on Iraq, it would have happened on something else, action and reaction.

        But the Bushies thought they deserve a special role and support nonetheless, just like they have deserved the Presidency, their big tax cuts, their police state etc.
        Don't be so patronizing about Bush. There are literally millions, more like 200 million Americans, who feel the same way about France. The French are very unpopular in the US right now, regardless of their reasons for actively trying to sabotage the US at the SC.
        http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

        Comment

        • #124
          Actually, the US felt that by acting, well, like imperialist powers the UK and France undermined the US position that it was figthing for democracy in the ME against the godless commies. Notice how Nasser was driven further into the Spvoiet camp becvause of this. So yes, it was part of Cold War politics, in which the US saw the British and French action undermining the US position. Add to this the fact that the SU was able to invade Hungary that year with little comment initially because the world and UN were stuck on the Suez issue.

          If the overriding concern for the US globaly was the fight against the SU, then any action that strenghtened the SU's hand was against US interest. After all, the main rationalization for the current war Bush gave yesterday was "invade Iraq as part of the greater war on terrorism", now wasn't it?

          How many times do I have to explain that I'm angry with France because they actively opposed US interests, not because they "failed to back us"? I'm so tired of saying the same thing over and over...


          And how could France have not 'actively oposed US interests' without it willing to back us diplomatically in the UN? That is the art of your point I fail to see. Do you think they had anyting to do with our innitial failure to get the Turks on board? Do you have any evidence they did anything to try to convince Gulf states not to base us? Did they veto 1441. which si one of the resolutions we claim gives us the legitimacy for this war?( actually, according to Ari, the real legitimacy comes from ealier ones)? How on earth did they 'actively oppose Us niterest", except in the diplomatic way I spoke about, which does then become an issue of them backing us in the UN?
          If you don't like reality, change it! me
          "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
          "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
          "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

          Comment

          • #125
            The funny part about this is that the so-called realist approach in foreign policy is totally unrealistic.

            FYI: The Bushies are a mix of realists and neocons (or neoreaganites). I think you have a beef with the neocons (Wolfowitz), not the realists (Powell).

            The UK AG, sure. He's just an officer - like Kofi Annan. Who happens to speak for the UN though... why not trust Kofi on the matter? Cause you don't like what he has to say?

            I would trust both on the matter, but on this one they seem to disagree. By and large, Kofi's arguments were about legitimacy, not legality, however.
            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

            Comment

            • #126
              In the next round of this, we will see actual "active opposition". If the Bushies decide to take their jihad to Iran, it will get really ugly among western nations.
              “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

              Comment

              • #127
                Originally posted by DanS
                FYI: The Bushies are a mix of realists and neocons (or neoreaganites). I think you have a beef with the neocons (Wolfowitz), not the realists (Powell).
                That's the same as with "liberal". So Wolfowitz and co are new-speak realists, while Powell would be more on the classic realist side. What I'm missing is the real realism - the classic liberal view.
                “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                Comment

                • #128
                  So Wolfowitz and co are new-speak realists

                  Eh? No, a realist would think the neocons are a bit crazy, because a plank of the neocon movement is democratization.
                  I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                  Comment

                  • #129
                    HershOstropoler


                    There is nothing "realist" about the neo-con point of view. Most of the most ardent realists I know of are deeply opposed to this war.
                    If you don't like reality, change it! me
                    "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                    "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                    "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                    Comment

                    • #130
                      "Eh? No, a realist would think the neocons are a bit crazy"

                      "There is nothing "realist" about the neo-con point of view."

                      No need to argue this. I had the impression though the neo-cons were often thrown in with the realist camp, and the rightwing think tanks where this came from saw temselves in that vein.

                      As for Wolfowitz's Democracy campaign, yeah, that doesn't fit at all. I've just never taken it seriously.
                      “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                      Comment

                      • #131
                        I've just never taken it seriously.

                        I have to admit that it's appealing to me.

                        If Iraq were to have a more representative government. If Iran could rewrite its constitution to remove the mullahs from power. If North Korea were to collapse, opening the way for peaceful unification under South Korean control. This would be a neocon trifecta that would make me very happy.
                        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                        Comment

                        • #132
                          Right goal, wrong means.
                          “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                          Comment

                          • #133
                            Different situations, different means.
                            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                            Comment

                            • #134
                              Different means perhabs, reasonable means though - where?
                              “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                              Comment

                              • #135
                                Removing Hussein from power through force is reasonable, except perhaps in a tactical way (he might blow his wells, he might use chem weapons, he might terrorize the US, etc.).
                                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 template Next
                                Working...
                                X