The American Economy needs a saviour and she is the best bet.

 

Obama - frugal, leans left, runs a masterful campaign, limited experience in Washington compared to the others (this could be either good or bad). Will shape up the economy with some heavy penny pinching. Untested foreign policies. Afro American.

 

Hilary - Slick as her husband. She caved in under pressure (and money) to give up pretensions of universal healthcare before. Will she do so again? A woman. Foreign policy is second tier go with the flow type. Not above using drama to porve a point.

 

McCain - Bush lite. 100 years in Iraq. War vet. What are your plans for the economy though? Will be more respectful of our allies than the current President.

 

Whats funny is that Bush himself has even admitted to being unimpressed by McCain.

But Obama is the man! He's got my vote.

 

I have a question. What if Mr. Obama were too end up dissappointing everyone by continuing the fight against the nihlistic ideology of terrorism by feeling the regretful need of expanding it even futher then what our current President has done so far? Granted, i believe the press and countless op-ed articles, will be much more forgiving and kind too him then our current President. Still, the extremely high possibilities of such actions are there for him to do so.

 

The majority of people on this earth do not want more war, including us here in the US. But, what we want is not neccessarily what some others want for the rest of us. I wish too make a prediction, that if Mr. Obama is elected, the world will probably like him for longer time then was ever granted Mr. Bush? But, to those fighting us and our allies and the rest of the world whether they want to be involved or not... there wil be no change in their wish of destruction and death of innocents just too secure their own ends. 

 

Just think about it and let me know what you all think?

 

Hello Seko.

 

I agree. I feel no animosity toward any politican and have never felt the need too attack or slander them for the benefit of the person i support. That doesn't mean i trust them all implicitly!

 

 However, concerning the oil issue, how does anyone know that is the prime motivator of all the actions taken by the Bush administration; Besides what is said in op-eds within the press and comments by the administration that are printed without their proper context provided for public dissemination? I believe people know all the wrong things they need to know about President Bush? I would even say that for Obama, Clinton, McCain or whoever is in the white house, not just because they happen to be the President and commander and chief, but.... also because of my belief in fair play for all, and what i see as false missinterpretations and or character assassinations by those with political axes too grind! It's not a bug within the US that makes this so... it's just a natural feature of how things work for and against politicans within the US. Is it fair too any occupant in the oval office, or those running for elections? No it's certainly not! Does it work? Yes... and very highly effective,  but also very dishonest too, and not only to the country, but to our allies and countries we have relations with! Am i sick of this type of childish crap? YES.... I am, and have been for decades now! This countries biggest problem is our own 24/7 political biases. I mean their fine to have come the election season, but once it's over, we are after all is said and done... Americans. That's what i believe!

 

 

Anyways, back to the issue of oil,  i do admit, that it is obviously a convenient excuse too accuse the US over, but to attribute to it... as our only and most primary of concerns for the region, is a bit short-sighted. Oil is a big issue for the world, but as of current.... it ihas only a small bit part too play, in considerations of the over all big picture, in what i think is actually taking place around the world!

 

Best regard to you,

 

Panther

Now let's look at an alternate reality. One where everything we were spoon fed with after 9-11 is true. When the mass media were cheerleaders of the current administration. You surely remember those days don't you; where speaking one's mind was taboo and we were led to believe the white house press conferences (before reporters were heavily scrutinized to tow the party line as they are now) were gospel truth. In that day and age we believed that Iraq was the center of all evil (well one out of three ain't bad - axis of evil). We were told that the center of terror somehow transferred from the tunnels of Tora Bora to the Palaces of Baghdad. So we armed our mentalities and looked for another fight. We blamed the UN for dragging their feet while we loudly chanted "Freedom Fries" in our underwear (not really, sounds funny though). The Dixie Chicks were sent to the exile of our minds and every darn eastern looking American had to watch what they said in public. Country music and Nascar fans became patriotic torch bearers of our pride. Our leaders fanned fear into our hearts. But we felt safe because they built a massive Coalition of the Willing. So we headed out to topple a few statues and toss a few dark bags over Fatima while her husband was thrown into Abu Ghraib. We searched for them there Weapons of Masssssivvve dessstruction. Found none. Hanged one of the many Saddam look-a-likes. Probably got the real one too for having too many bad habbits (smoking underground will do that to ya). Our miltary gets ambushed. Start up corporations like the al-Mahdi army and Al-qaeida chronies popped up like weeds. The President kept wanting more money for the war machine. We gave it to him to this very day. This all happened while nothing about oil was mentioned in the major tv channels other than a Cheney connection with Haliburton.

 

 

Fast forward to the present. Now I ask you which reality do you like better? The first or second post? Remember, you were fed to gobble the second one. Told to bend over and say, "Thank You Sir may I have another"!

 

 

,regards and nothing personal.

 

"His big campaign promise"? That's just silly, hugo.  He's simply being realistic about the world we live in, not promising to start more wars. Surely you don't think that people will magically stop fighting after 2008 -- although the world would undoubtedly be a better place if they did. So long as sin is in the world, there will be strife.

 

-Akolouthos

 

The problem here is, should i judge Mr. Obama solely by his middle name of "Hussein", as well as his past for studying in Maylasia, as being against everyone's common interests and all that we stand for? Of course i could do that very thing, by holding it against him. But that is not me. People are trying to do just that very thing, but i prefer letting his character speak for itself, rather than letting slanderous lies guide my reasoning!

 

Am I certain that this is the sole reason for his foreign policy in Iraq? Of course not since I'm not privy to that kind of documentation. So I judge President Bush on his constant use of such misnomers as "Iraq being a threat". "Iraq having weapons of Mass Destruction". Terrorists partnering up with Iraq and so on.

 

Well Seko, what did we have to go on before President Bush's administration, or Bill Clinton's administration and even back to George the first? All three plus... ours and most other intelligence agencies around the world, viewed the man as a threat throughout the 90's and even up to the day of the very invasion itself (I'm not saying everybody believed it, just a majority did)! In an alternate universe, i do believe that "if"... 9-11 had never had happened, we wouldn't be in Iraq now (Nor even Afghanistan), President Bush would have still had a 50/50 chance of re-election three and half years later in 2004 (Based on how well he had done in the previous four years), we would still be fighting terrorists covertly, we would still be disliked and hated by billions around the world and so on, and so forth.... which means it has very little to do with any particular candidate! Bush is just the scapegoat for the world's frustration toward's us! What i am also saying, is too just look at the past thirteen years of the confrontation and the high cost of containment that had gone on involving the US and it's allies vs. Saddam's Iraq? Plus, the billions spent containing the guy after countless UN resolutions over the past thirteen years would have been wasted... and for what?

 

Of course, i'm also aware of many people blaming the US solely for arming Iraq with any capabilities for violence and destruction on a wide scale! That's also not taking into account that more equipment were made easily available too Saddam's government by the oil for food scandal within the UN and from certain countries and going against the UN resolutions, along with Saddam getting alot of help from one particular country in the field of questionable nuclear technology! Heck... let's not even discuss the armed camp the middle east is today!

 

When at the end of the day we have soldiers doing unprecedented repetitive terms of duty with an enemy that has grown larger all while we secured as many oil facilities from day one of our victory. Is this line of thought an excuse or common sense? Who knows? But we sure can guess.

 

That is very unfortunate for our soldiers and why i think we as a country we need to rally around them and help them as much as possible. Securing the oil facilities being an excuse or common sense? Actually, it was one of many.... extremely sloppy planning once Saddam was disposed of!

 

We don't even need third party information that may have political agendas that twist the truth. The other possibilities for the invasion are revenge for daddy plus doing Israel and Saudi Arabia's dirty work. Maybe they are part of the equation too.

 

Sometimes the truth is a whole lot more boring then the millions of conspiracies floating around out there!

 

Then I hear things like securing oil contracts with the puppet Iraqi regime for the next 20 years; or instigating a fight with Iran. So I ask myself who profits? What do we get in the long run? Why such bad planning? What is a Neo-con? Why jump from Afghanistan to Iraq without securing the former? If we are really concerned with terrorists then what was wrong with Saddam keeping them at bay? The big picture is that our economy is based on our huge needs. We fail if we do not back our currency. We jump at the chance that assumingly gives us more financial security (taking oil fields) while millions of jobs are lost in this country to downsizing (we are not very competitive). We outsource (cheap foreign labor) then say NAFTA is good for you; all while Exxon reaped in record profits.

 

I see all your questions and i wish i could answer you with what i think. But, i would come off sounding like a know-it-all (As if... i already don't sound like one already?  ), instead of it sounding like it is just my opinion.

 

Panther

 

 

Here are my perspectives and opinions alongside yours. We obviously see and remember some things rather differently from those times.

 

 

Originally posted by Seko ...continuation. Now let's look at an alternate reality. One where everything we were spoon fed with after 9-11 is true. When the mass media were cheerleaders of the current administration. You surely remember those days don't you; where speaking one's mind was taboo and we were led to believe the white house press conferences (before reporters were heavily scrutinized to tow the party line as they are now) were gospel truth.

 

Yes i do remember... of course, i feel you already know how i feel about that! I always felt free in my area, too make up my own mind. I am sorry if you were subjected too any such type of treatment, where ever it is you live!

 

In that day and age we believed that Iraq was the center of all evil (well one out of three ain't bad - axis of evil). We were told that the center of terror somehow transferred from the tunnels of Tora Bora to the Palaces of Baghdad.

 

Saddam was an enemy long before terrorists ever declared war on us. Besides, i never claimed Mr. Bush was a flawless speaker or had the power of clarity too press in on the truths from those days. Hell i'd rather read his speeches then to hear them on t.v. They just make me cringe something awful!

 

So we armed our mentalities and looked for another fight. We blamed the UN for dragging their feet while we loudly chanted "Freedom Fries" in our underwear (not really, sounds funny though).

 

Now that always made me blush with embarrassment when that was mentioned.

 

The Dixie Chicks were sent to the exile of our minds and every darn eastern looking American had to watch what they said in public.

 

Heh.. my main problem with them was that they didn't have the courage too say it straight in the faces of their fellow Texans! After and other then that... i could care less how much they hate the President or how often i hear about it! Besides, i'm not really that petty. I still have some of their cd's. They're very good musicans and none of their belly-aching is going to take away from that fact!

 

Country music and Nascar fans became patriotic torch bearers of our pride.

 

Ok, forgive me if you will, but i think you are generalizing again. I mean the dixie chicks weren't the only ones within the country establishment who hates our current President. Nascar fans, i can't honestly say, but i also think it is a false generalization to assume they all are mindless boobs, programed to do whatever they are told by the government mind control machine, located on pennsylvania ave.

 

Our leaders fanned fear into our hearts. But we felt safe because they built a massive Coalition of the Willing. So we headed out to topple a few statues and toss a few dark bags over Fatima while her husband was thrown into Abu Ghraib.

 

The coalition of the willing if i remember.... was laughed at at that time for being rather relatively small.  Abu Gharib, was absolutely disgraceful and pissed off many, or atleast most Americans, regardless of their political beliefs! 

 

We searched for them there Weapons of Masssssivvve dessstruction. Found none.

 

I was wrong about that one.

 

 

Hanged one of the many Saddam look-a-likes. Probably got the real one too for having too many bad habbits (smoking underground will do that to ya).

 

Hanging a  saddam look alike ?? That's the first i ever of such a thing.

 

 

Fast forward to the present. Now I ask you which reality do you like better? The first or second post? Remember, you were fed to gobble the second one. Told to bend over and say, "Thank You Sir may I have another"!     ,regards and nothing personal.

 

Hey hugo. Yes, you are being serious -- seriously mistaken, that is.

 

There is a difference between a "war-happy president" and one who is willing to use military force to defend America when necessary. You have mistaken candor for bluster, and realism for recklessness. The last thing we need in this campaign is more misguided propaganda; we've had enough of that over the course of the past two decades to last a lifetime.

 

-Akolouthos

 

 

 

-Akolouthos

 

Panther you don't sound condescedning to me. Even if you tried I am already set in most of my ways where it wouldn't bother me much. Plus your'e my favorite person from the right!

 

You should use your own interpretations from the information you gather anyway. News, internet, soldiers, even Rush Limbaugh. Just don't assume that we have more biased sources than your own unless you have documents that haven't reached the publics' hands in which case you could inform us as to how we are misguided.

 

 

 

Hey hugo,

 

He's not threatening; he's not "looking forward to more wars" (at least not in the sense of wanting to go to war); he's not saying he is eager for war. He is simply being a realist; I should think that would be easy for any intelligent person who has followed this race to see. There will be efforts by both parties to "define" the opposing candidate, and any responsible voter is called upon to attempt to determine where the candidates stand in spite of these efforts. One time, long ago, you spoke of the importance of not falling victim to narrow-minded propaganda; I, unfortunately, find myself having to give this advice to you now. I would remind you that this sort of nonsense exists on the left as well as on the right. If this sort of deliberate misinterpretation is what we can expect for the next several months until November, I think I'll go find a cave somewhere.

 

Oh, and I don't recall ever mentioning anything about Bush.

 

-Akolouthos

 

No, I was referring to the sin present in all of us. And I never said anything about the current government -- other than when I noted in a previous post that I had not been trying to "support wars by this government." Honestly, I would appreciate it if you read my post thoroughly next time; you will find that I hardly fit into a neat little political template.

 

I also don't particularly like Obama but I think he is more realistic about the Iraq situation, as he was when he opposed the war, than the other candidates. On the economy he is equally oblivious as the rest of the gang including the ultra-right pro-big-business Ron Paul who wants to put US back on the gold standard. Problem is if anyone does that and truly kills the dollar hegemony - to answer your question about the 1.3 trillion dollar budget as Janus did, then he would still do damage to the US no matter what. Im not an economy expert but going back to gold would mean a complete rearrangement of the world economy which would create chaos after the dollar being THE currency for so many years. Its simply too late in the game to do that now, all our current problems can be pinpointed at Nixon for destroying the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971.

 

I'm not that impressed by Obama. With regard to your comments on the economy, and specifically the gold standard, we are almost of one accord. I would trace the problem back much, much farther than Nixon, but he was certainly the last nail in the coffin. My question about the budget was intended to be rhetorical, but I am glad to see that others understand the problem as well.

 

-Akolouthos

I think here it is a matter of differing interpretations of the same comment, rather than a misunderstanding. I certainly don't think McCain is more hawkish than Bush. I do agree with you as to where our foreign policy needs to be focused -- aid and humanitarian efforts. I suspect that we would probably not always see eye to eye on precisely what kind of situation merits military force, although I also suspect that we would use largely similar methodologies in determining our positions.

 

I never said I support McCain (although I think I may, come general election time); I was simply stating that I felt that you had misinterpreted the particular comment mentioned. As for the "100 years" in Iraq, it would certainly be easier to promote McCain had he not said it, but isn't it that sort of to-the-point honesty that we have come to value in him? After all, when read in the context of our continuing military presence in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. -- which is the context in which he intended the comments to be interpreted -- his remarks are not so shocking. What we have is rather a complex problem that couples the filtering process through which information passes and the gullibility/sheep-mentality of the average American voter. As for the "sordid story": are you referring to the female lobbyist thing? If so, that fits in the same category.

 

I do understand why you brought Bush into the picture now. I was just clarifying that I had not intended for my remarks to be read as a defense of any particular policies of the current administration. As for your entry outlining your position, do you have a link to it? I can't get to it right this second, but I would be most interested in reading it.

 

God bless.

 

-Akolouthos

 

Your passionate opinion is well stated! After contemplating your post, the best that can be said after i have done quite a few hours of research about your post, and specifically about President Bush, is that most of our opinions, especially mine, need much more dispassionate research applied too them in order to draw closer to what was said or implied and kept in the intended proper context, regarding the not too distant historical past! I hope that doesn't sound like an avoidance of the terriffic issues you have raised? But, regretfully my daily time on the computer comes and goes with the wind, and is never set for a specific time. So that when i have the time, hopefully tomorrow, i will try to get back to your post.

 

@ Seko

 

Aren't most of us grown ups pretty much set in our ways? Also, thank you for the most generous compliment. Though i am sure there are other people on the right who are much more deserving then i am. (That does sound cheesy, doesn't it? Oh what the hell... the compliment belongs to me.... it's mine, all mine and nobody else's! Bwahahahahahahahahaha ...... ***Ahem***) Seriously... I've always enjoyed talking to you since i have arrived here and that still hasn't changed one single bit!

 

Regarding sources, well yeah... i do get most of my information from most of what you had specified, except for Mr. Limbaugh. Even though if i did get information from him, i wouldn't consider it a bad thing. Though some on the liberal side might think of that as what the typical conservative would and should be doing anyways!

 

Also, was i giving the impression of presumptuousness, that all liberals had biased informational sources? Or is it just what you have encounterd from others in the past, and is what you have come too expect? If the answer is yes to the first question, then i should admit that i never doubt and also "try" to be quite aware of... how i can be biased or read biased sources. I also never doubt or deny that i can and do come across that way. My main problem is that i am not aware of it when it does happen! Hmmmm... it does sound like a cop-out, doesn't it? And yet...  too really know me, is to hate me; Atleast for a small part of a very short time (Atleast i like too think the time is short!), while i am in blissful ignorance of how i am coming across!

 

Originally posted by hugoestr Let me start by saying that you are right about U.S. foreign policy in general. The U.S. in the 20th century, regardless of who is in office, has often used pretty ruthless and dirty tactics to get its way. Most Americans don't know this, but most people in the Third Word do through direct experience . I am the most familiar with Latin America, and a quick mention about Cuba, Chile, and Argentina is enough evidence for this forum and I feel that I can move on.

 

Interpretations of...  and accussations against us for using ruthless and dirty tactics, were and are just par for the course, especially when we are talking about any time period in history, even when we are not included!  However, the way we have our government setup, which tries to balance human nature against our ideals, which had at one time in our history, separated us from all the other countries in our modern world (Sadly, it does make us very vulnerable when any country or groups, percieve that as weakness.) And yes... i'm intentionally leaving out  the ancient world, from which much of our system was inspired by and derived from, seeing that over a thousand years separated us from them!           

 

I'm not saying we have always been successful or innocent from blame; But if we look around the world now, there are much more independent republic democracies then there were at the beginning of the twentieth century. Now i am not arrogant enough too believe that it was only by our efforts that this has come too pass. Other countries and their imperial past, as dreadful as they were at times, had played a much more significant role in the current setup of most modern governing bodies in their former colonies. I believe, we are just another piece of the puzzle when it comes to the human search for stability!

 

But there was another important dimension to U.S. foreign policy since WWII. There was a humanitarian, friendly component as well, starting with the U.S. rebuilding of Germany and Japan. The Peace Corps became another component, and relief aid was another. Yet another one was an active exchange program of students, journalists, and academics to visit and learn about the U.S. And the U.S. has been an inspiration for many around the world. The U.S. Civil Rights Movement was the proof that one could solve deep problems in a nation without having to have a revolution. The behavior of the U.S. at Nuremberg and its overall policies towards political dissent made gave hope to people across the world.

 

Not much too add, except i noticed two things: As successful as our policies were in Germany or Japan, they were not without their much ignored critics or bloody violence for several years following the war. The other thing you mentioned was Nuremburg, which i am assuming you meant the Nazi trials following WW 2? If so, then even that was surprisingly seen by quite a few as a travesty of justice. But not as much as a travesty as the lack of any major tribunal towards the more militant Japanese military officers and their political leadership... who slaughtered thousands, upon thousands of our allied POW's! I guess with every effort put forth, in the constant search for justice in this inhumane world, there will always be victims seeking retribution, even in a much more humane world  then our's!

 

 

Depending on who is office, the U.S. policies will lean more towards stick or carrot in different areas of the world, but overall they both coexisted. And it doesn't seem to be connected to party: Kennedy and Johnson escalated the Vietnam War and Nixon went to China. Reagan was inspirational about political freedom, and Clinton used the military in several conflicts. The system worked pretty well. The stick would show the might of the U.S. and scare the leaders of regions while the humanitarian element won the people of those same areas. It was only when the carrots failed to gain the hearts of minds of people that the stick had to come out. And overall, the carrot has enough, with some discrete stick reminders.

 

Not that i am trying too nit-pick, but did the system really work that well? Where does the "Carrot" option end and the "Stick" begin? How can we honestly know that humanitarian aid didn't actually add alot too our problem's by helping those who end up opposing our effort's, or even... entangle us even much more so then we really wished or desired; By requiring the US to bring out it's "stick" much sooner then anticipated or even much less... desired? What i mean is... once the stick option is chosen, we either carry through with the committment, or if not and we renege on our promises, then we should yet again prepare for any future consequences!

 

 

Now let's move on to Bush. Bush and Cheney are war hawks and they surrounded themselves with other neo con war hawks. This whole group, the White House and the neo cons were very aware of the power of the stick and dismissed the carrot almost entirely. They believe that the U.S. could actually become a traditional colonial power.

 

I can much easily believe they chose the "Stick" over the "Carrot", that appears easily understandable as to why! But, will it always be seen as a bad thing, especially when tons more information is yet too be written, exposing the truth or lies of what we believe of our times, at some future date? However, the main problem i have with your reasoning about them turning the US into some colonial power, is that with growth comes much pain. What i mean is that our current politicans, and yes... including those on the right, are aware of the consequences of what would follow if that were indeed the case? The destruction of the US and along with another American civil war! Also, we do not still have the equivalent offices setup, that traditional colonial empires required and needed too control their empires! Now i simply  can't believe the conspiracies againt the Bush administration, anymore then i could believe the countless conspiracies against the Clinton administration! Plus , alot more is even required of the US too become one, in which... even our society lack's quite a bit too even become one. Perhaps we could still become one in several hundred years time, but not in the here and now!

 

"Neo con" is a misnomer. These people are actually neo colonialists. Not only that, but they are sadistic neo colonialists who believed that if one manages to put enough fear into people, they will submit. This is their main error. This world view mislead them into making terrible mistakes once 9=11 happened.

 

I can't speak for my other coutnrymen and not that i need too make myself sound tough or brave as compared with other's, but the events of the times never made me feel afraid. So i feel it's rather hard to generalize what the motivation is for others!

 

There is enough evidence that the intellectual group of neo cons wanted to move against Iraq before 911 happened. The reasoning was more or less sound. The oil supplies in the world are diminishing, China and India are growing, and Iraq has what is believed the largest oil wells in the world. It would be in the U.S. best interest to control the flow of oil. The one roadblock was Saddam.

 

Yes, that is one theory i have heard. The other was letting Saddam be in absolute control of the world's major supply of oil.

 

911 happens. The U.S. suddenly finds itself terrified about fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. The decision from the White House is that they are going to use only force to eradicate terrorism. At some point it was decided that by terrorizing the Middle East population they would get terrorism under control.

 

Yes, there is much information out there, spoken by them and many other's, of predominantly using force too eradicate terrorism. However, given the confusion of the times, it seems to me.... they are going about it the wrong way! If they really wanted too terrorize the middle east, then they need to stop spending billions, if not trillions of dollars on the local populace of the middle east and as well... suspend their efforts in nation-building, and just bomb and destroy every single human in the region and without any mercy! Very much like what the the radicals within the Muslim religon is doing too them. I mean... why spend all our money, time and effort on them if we are just going too destroy everything the next day. It just doesn't make any sense!

 

At the same time, it seems that some saw this as the golden opportunity to sell an invasion on Iraq to the American people. The plan was simple: tell them that Saddam was involved in 911, invade, once there find evidence to support the claim, set up a puppet regime, set up a military base, and quickly invade Syria or Iran. The war was going to be paid by the Iraqis through oil sales, which the U.S. would have total control over.

 

The problem as i see it, is that a few but not most, within the Bush administration had only alluded to Iraq's ties to the events of 9-11, i haven't seen offical reports where he himself actually said that, and as far as i know... it still is not the offical stance? Now, their biggest mistake is leaving that open too interpretation for billions of people too figure out for themseleves, and they deserve the headache this is continuously causing them! However, he did say quite plainly that Saddam had been supporting terrorists for quite sometime  and was a grave threat, not only today, but for the future as well! Now, his links to terrorism seems very dubious at best, as we currently understand it. However, the grave threat which he represented in the eyes of us Americans at that particular time, had remained very real. That is up until the day he was pulled out of that hole. Then it seems like he became some poor bum off of a street who needed more pity and less scorn. Does that sound about right?

 

About American bases, though it makes sense, i am still rather dissappointed about the inter-governmental discussion's of a long term American military base in Iraq. But, i've always felt that my disappointment would be neutralized if the Iraqi's still wanted us there, that is... after a general election with them expressing their desire on whether they wish us there or not! If they want us too go, end of discussion!

 

About the US having control over Iraqi oil, seems like a rather dubious claim, much like trying too tie Saddam to 9-11! How much merit is warranted to such an accussation, i would say is near zero at this time!

 

It seems like a good plan, but there were many problems. The first one is that Saddam didn't have connection to radical terrorism. The radical terrorist happened to hate his secular dictatorship as well. Second, the world community wasn't going to believe the claims since they have their own intelligence agencies, and they weren't going to support the plan. Third, region experts within the military and intelligence communities warned again and again that going into Iraq was going to destabilize the country and predicted what has happened so far.

 

The only problem i have with that paragraph, which is kind of hard too argue against to begin with, is that you make sound like as if there was a consensus from the expert's on Iraq's WMD capabilities. As i try too recall, they were a minority who turned out to be right, in as far as he didn't have WMD at that time. However, that didn't mean he had given up on any WMD program, just postponed it until he could bribe his way out of the UN resolutions!

 

Now where comes the brute force world view again. The U.S., the neo cons believed, could do this by its own might since we were powerful enough. The U.S. was going to overcome the explosive situation in Iraq by using enough force to show the people who is boss through state terror in the form of kidnapping, torture, and illegal imprisonment in places like Gitmo.

 

"Shock and Awe", turned out to be: "Shocked and Flawed"! The initial invasion was pretty much a shock for Saddam; But our post war planning was extremely and most highly flawed and pretty much shocked us at the level of brutality we found ourseleves in the middle of! There was no state of Iraq, just the state of Saddam. It still seems a bitter pill too swallow to see fellow humans sink into such destructive desires! It sadly happened too them and it very well can happen to any of us, on any given day!

 

At the same time, the humanitarian side of foreign policy was totally ignored, even though many diplomats and military officers were requesting it as a sound way of reducing terrorism. The White House just didn't believe in it, so it was ignored. Programs that the state department set up to bring Muslim scholars to America, the same program used during the cold war, were rejected and ridiculed. Even an Arab speaking Air America was weakly supported.

 

On the flipside of that coin, the humanitarian aid and containment policies, along with Saddam's callous negligence of his people, had killed by my conservative estimation, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's by the time war was declared in 2003, thirteen years after our first major involvement with Saddam! Yes, i know... some put it up there around a million+ Sometimes diplomacy and containment can come at a very steep price, with the same casualty figures of war!

 

And the White House declared war on the one institution in the region that could have been its greatest ally: Al Jazeera. It is well respected in the region, and it is one of the most democratizing institutions there. But a decision was made to silence it instead of seducing it.

 

That's the first i heard of it! Then again,  there always seemed to be a two way hate-hate relationship between the Bush administration and any press organization, regardless of nationality!

* There were no weapons of mass destruction, destroying U.S. credibility. No argument there!

* The U.S. failed to quickly pacify the country, overconfident in its technology.  The main argument as i always understood it, was that there were too few troops!

* The U.S. punishing policies towards the Sunni turned them into a resistance group. Again, as i always understood it, there already was a large Sunni group fighting against the US, trying too, uuummm... regain power!

* Abu Ghraib, rather than terrorize Iraqis, further galvanized them against the Americans.  As i honestly recall,  it did piss off almost, but not quite, every single person from the middle east, shoot... everbody in the world, including most of us in this country. But as far as it galvanizing the Iraqi's against us, i don't think that happened. A severe loss of faith, no doubt that happened. But i do think we have made up for lost ground after four years of hard effort!

* The U.S., knowingly or unknownling, began to support ethnic militias, and these used American training and weapons to conduct raids against other ethnic groups and against the American and Iraqi forces. Hhhmmm... We're pretty quick too put all the blame squarely on ourseleves and ignorant of the fact that Iraq is surrounded by other hostile countries in the region.

 

During the Cold War there were plenty of similar mistakes. The main difference was that the carrot policies were a counter-weight that divided public opinion in regions so that a generalize anti-American feeling wouldn't developed. There was no counter-weight in the Bush administration. They believed enough terror and force would be enough. They were wrong. Dead wrong.

 

As far as i understand it currently, who says the entire region is anti-american. I believe i've read somewhere that their preferred candidate is Mr. Obama as well. And if he wins the ellections later this year, i do hope he brings back some balance too calm everyone else's fears! I mean, who says conservatives are mean spirited?

 

Today they are saying that the surge helped to pacify the country. Not so fast. The surge was peace at all costs to gain a political point in the U.S. The surge, as I understand it, has been training and arming different militia groups. Ethnic cleansings are going on in several parts of Iraq. If anything else, the surge may be a step for the fragmentation of Iraq into different nation states. And Patraeus himself keeps repeating that this military operation is only giving breathing room for political action. It doesn't seem that the opportunity is being used. So the surge may be just the calm before a greater storm.

 

That is a difficult subject, like most things considering everything current about the middle east. That's also not too say, it is still in the process of being carried out. Personally, i like to give things more time to play out before a give a much more definitive judgement of success or failure! Then again, that is just me!

 

Bush failed in Iraq and in the war on terrorism. At this point it is a pretty objective thing to say. He was supposed to win Muslims to reduce recruitment to radical groups. The actions in Iraq have fueled recruitment.

 

I see that as an opinion. I'll leave it to history to be objective!

 

Bush had good intentions, but it seems that the people who he surrounded himself blinded him. He ignored diplomacy, an today the anti-Americanism that exists is the result of it.

 

I can't really argue with most of that seeing that it does appear that way, except too say, and by appearances only.... that being a Republican and a supposive conservative, never did help him that much either!

If Hillary or Obama win the presidency, dirty activities will go on. I am fully aware of that. The hope is that they will bring back the carrot part of the equation and in this way create strides towards reducing terrorist recruitment.

 

Actually, i believe terrorist recruitment has always been pretty high, especially prior to 9-11, during the Clinton administration, Bush the first, Regan, Carter. And perhaps even during Ford and Nixon's time? What i do hope is what i already stated earlier, but put more in context; Whoever is elected our next President, i do hope he or She(?) has that rare quality of clarity for such a politican from either side of the political aisle, especially in their speeches and subsequently... following through on their vision, too calm most peoples nerves!

 

Hopefully i didn't go on too long or ruined the flow and sense of purpose of this post. But, you raised many an issue, that i felt you deserved an honest and fair response. Especially, seeing that i did ask for it after all!

 

Take care of yourself,

Panther

 

Sadly, this happens during times of extreme violence, that nothing ever comes as quickly as we would like or... are accustomed too, and without any type of harsh pain. I wish it was otherwise, but it has never been a part of the human experience to know true peace amongst ourseleves. How do you keep other people from wantonly killing other people, most especially the innocent ones, whether accidentally or on purpose, in a war-time scenario? No matter how close, no society has yet figured that one out!

 

Regards,

Panther

 

 

To be honest, i don't think we need our military to be anywhere in the world, except here; And yet... they are spread around the globe! Bases left overs from a different era, but still sensible and relevant to some degree in our current, according to the decades of policies since the end of WW 2. If we had a problem forcing anything upon anyone, then it still hasn't sunken into our minds, that most anything we do, whether softly or harshly will have an positive or negative effect on most nations. Not because we are more important, but because of the size of most anything we touch; Whether militarily, financially, culturally and ect.... In a sense, this world has been as nearly Americanized, whether we like it or not!

 

Again, the issue of being involved or not with Iraq... was settled when we rightly or wrongly intervened in 91' against Saddam. That's why i consider, but not entirely discount, all the discussions surrounding our current involvement, as irrelelvant to our current world! The repercussions since then meant, atleast to me, is that... no matter what choices we would have made, war or diplomacy, the effects of being involved with Iraq, and too a bigger extent the middle east.... will be with us for decades too come. In my view, the consequences were likely too turn out negative anyways!

 

Being for our current efforts, certainly does not make me the type of person who enjoys the violence of war. Further... I like to think i understand the brutality of war, as not always neccessary to securing peace. Being against it, does not make me think any less of you, and in fact... i would be more concerned if either one of our differences were suppressed, with only one view being supported over all others! Your probably asking yourself why i had brought this up? It's because of your last post had given me the impression of doubting my honest sincerity, while also causing me too ask you this question: Do you really think i am quite so bloodthirstily ignorant, of thinking of war as the best first option?

 

If that is indeed the case, then i am sorry you didn't know my views on this matter back in the 90's, when i thought containmnet of Saddam was the best option. And nothing short of finally being exposed to the multitude of hateful rhetoric as exspoused by many, but not all, Islamic mullahs could have convinced me otherwise, that extremely  radical religous Islamic terrorism had been an underlying problem for the region over the past several decades atleast! The only way we can really end it, to a certain degree as i believe currently... is if we were to return back to any century prior to the 20th. When a nation/states were more isolated from one another and contact was very few and far between of the different types of people from around the world!

 

Regards,

Panther

Originally posted by JanusRook You say it like in the next hundred years the US is going to stick with the same policy, the fact of the matter is is that whoever becomes president next is going to have a completely different approach to Iraq. It's mentioned that if we just pull out of Iraq then we open ourselves up to a terrorist assault as they get emboldened, or we have the appearance of being open to a terrorist assault so all the money going to Iraq will go into homeland security. Not to American jobs and infrastructure, not to aid the economy, not to medicare, not to anything useful, it's all ready been marked for "national security" and as such congress will want to keep it there.

 

McCain's 100 years in Iraqi might have a chance if the Iraqis have the economic weight and international prestige that Germany and Japan carry. Other then that it is premature to make such a bold statement.

 

Good plan.

 

That kind of thinking got us into the mess we are in now. Yet on paper it does look cool.

 

Considering this article is from Spengler I see it as a compliment to Obama, especially that he is so low as to attempt to make a big deal out of Michelle's concern over his idosycracies in the kitchen.

I afraid what we are seeing here is "Colonialism" and "Orientalism" under the discourse of "modernization" and "democratization", my friends. The discourse of power and domination happens, but it is hypocritic that while supporting those discourse you protrayed yourself as vehement supporter of liberty and equality.   

 

Because i'm not american, i will not vote this poll.

Sorry, i missed this Hugoestr.

 

Originally posted by hugoestr Now let me move on whether the carrot helped or not. Yes, it did, and I would add with a lot less negative consequences that the stick has had. Let me give you a concrete example. When I was in Mexico, the U.S. gave food packages to churches to distribute. The good will generated by this was amazing. Just a few pounds of cheese and butter was enough to have people who would be enthusiastically supportive of the U.S., even if they never actually got the food themselves.

 

I think it is good and noble too help those in need. But, let me be honest, there is alot of people grumbling about the "fat lot of good it ever did for us!" Further.... "If this type of hatred is what a full stomach, some shelter and a little education is getting us, then why bother?" Also, for every ten people we try too help, there wil be one or two who will use any type of foreign generosity against the donors with vile propaganda to further their own ends. You don't have too be an American too recieve such hatred, it can be anyone or country who can and will recieve the same type of treatment.  

 

The stick, especially the dirty tactics part, has gotten the U.S. in a lot of trouble. That is because when Americans train and give weapons to enemies of our enemies. When we eventually drop them, (and we always do, since we don't need them anymore at some point in the future) they feel slighted by the U.S. and use those same skills against us. In the intelligence world this is call blow back, I believe. In what is probably the most ironic twist in modern history, the U.S. trained and supported what would become Al Qeada because at the time it was an expedient way to stick it to the USSR, our big and dangerous enemy at the time. There are plenty more cases, but I believe this one suffices for the discussion.

I don't deny that the "stick" has never caused any lasting animosity or trouble from the past. But, i do find it hard too believe that just because a Royal Saudi figure says to the NYT, that the CIA created Bin Laden, it somehow absolves all blame from what ever cave they were spawned from? Wait... there is a little more. Sources i have read says the CIA did help some of the Afghani rebels, but certainly not Al Qaeda. Shoot... seeing that Bin Laden is a very popular guy around the world, even he denies any help from the CIA, as if implying that any dealing's with anyone from this country is the equivalent of rolling around with the pig's in the pigsty!

 

Now let me address the issue of brutality. Extreme brutality works better within a country rather than between countries. Let's remember that Hitler didn't destroy the will of the English people with the air raids: it rather galvanized it. And the allies also failed to destroy the will of the Germans when they began air raiding German cities. I would expect the same result from the Muslim communities in the region: carpet bombing in the region would lead to strong international terrorist movement, because that is the best way to fight the U.S.

 

True to a point! However, again... in a historical perspective, their were already large numbers of terrorists long befroe the first US bomb started dropping against Saddam! This is something i think, which is much deeper then we like too believe. I mean... as important as this country is, we are after all, just a little over 230 years old! There was already a history of extreme violence before we ever came along!

 

As for oil being the motive, let me put in this way: oil was one of the main motives to go in. Greenspan said it himself, and other people connected with the administration are admitting it. Also, the fact that one of the milestones of �success� of the Iraqi government, as set by the U.S., was to pass a law that would make it easy for Iraq to transfer control of its oil to American corporations. To me, this is the give away evidence. At one point Bush even threatened Iraq to pull out troops if they didn't pass the law. The Iraqi parliament didn't pass the law and called Bush's bluff. We are still there.

 

I can't really comment too much on that one without a link from you, if you please?

 

Now, I feel that there were other factors as well, such as trying to create a security base in the area, some idealism from neocons and the administration, and other things that we are not aware about.

 

The security base doesn't sound too far fetched. Bush's problem is i suppose, could be boiled down to one thing, 9-11 happened on his watch and not Clinton's!

 

As for intelligence, there was a consensus among foreign agencies that Saddam didn't have weapons. They were not a minority. That is why the major European nations refused to go into Iraq with the U.S. The minority in the U.S. intelligence were actually ignored for having positions that would damage the White House claims. After all, the White House seemed to have blown the cover of a CIA agent to punish one of the dissenters. Was it a diabolic plan of evil doers who refuse to hear it? No, I doubt it. It was groupthink showing its ugly head again.

 

My memory may be bad at times, but for some reason, i seem too recall that they didn't want to go in because of a lack of evidence and not because they all had evidence. I'll give you this, that there were some European agencies that had better intel then the rest of the industrialized nations! Also about the CIA agent, the irony of this is that the accussation has come back full circle upon her husband as the one who outed her! Then again... i lost interest in that story once the politics of he said, she said became very clear! So anyone with new infromation will need to enlighten me.

 

Shock and Awe was actually successful. It carried out the main objective pretty well: take down Saddam. The Flaw and Flaw was the no serious plan after occupation, also courtesy of groupthink.

 

Actually i was kind of halfway kidding around. Seeing that the main ground war was over, and all the flap about Bush Landing on a carrier with a banner that read "Mission Accomplished",  that pathetic attempt of mine with a little word play, i thought would have probably resonated quite well with many on this board! Of course, i agree with you about the plans after were highly flawed.

 

This is just descriptive of what we are doing. Many of the new Iraqi Army were militia men who joined to get weapons and training from the U.S. A big component of our current surge strategy is to bribe militia to our sides by giving them weapons and training.

 

No doubt about militia members joining, i'm not that big of a fool, well hopefully not that big! However, some will see us as bribing them, while there are other reason's for other Iraqi's joining, which is primarily because: 1.) Even with the gains in the Iraqi economy has made over the years, there still isn't enough jobs to go around. 2.) Their tribal leaders said it was ok and 3.) Al Qadea was doing a smashing job of causing an explosion (excuse the pun) of hatred against them, thus... they became the enemy who hopefully has helped the Iraqi's too solidify their state by drawing them closer too one another in a time of trial for their society! That shouldn't sound idealistic, if i wished for them much more so then what i have here in the states, or could ever hope for!

Let me close by saying how Bush seemed to have burnt out many Republicans and conservatives by stressing on the gains of the few at the expense of most. It stressed the most destructive elements of conservatism while ignoring the best ones. It has thrown many conservatives into a depressive state. He has lost the soul of what conservatives are really about. And no, it is not about brutality, sadism, or tax cuts to destroy our government.

 

Well... he has disappointed me in alot of ways. However, about conservatives being burned out, for me... it was and has never been about Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Regan, Carter and ect... it's about how we go from one President to the next, with all of these outlandishly wild conspiracy theories of: this liberal is going to do this or this conservative is going to do that! True, they made their mistakes and had their faults, but the sad thing is, (with the exception of Mr. Carter's desert one fiasco, who look pretty lame trying too accomplish it what follows...) Only John Kennedy was able too make a big mistake look noble, bay of pigs! And i am not a JFK fan by any stretch of the imagination. But, i've always appreciated some amount of character, no matter how little one may have... when they really put themseleves way outhere, when they really don't have too!

 

Sadly, in today's political enviroment, there is no absolute room for mistakes as long as one is running for political office. Any trivial mistake or event is blown way out of proportion then it really is! Don't believe me? Just look what is trying to be done too Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain? It hasn't been about who is qualified too lead over the past several decades, but who is able too remain standing after the proverbial mudslide of political bias is done working them over! Except now, since roughly Mr. Clinton's time, it's not a thing that happens every four years, but has turned into a 24/7 business venture of one false advertisement after another! It still doesn't surprise me how much Clinton or Bush is/was hated in either wing within our political establishment. Personally, i was just fine when it was a four year thing! Now i'm so over-stimulated with this crap, that even when i have the tv on for less than a minute, something political comes on making me wish i could grab my mossberg 12 guage pump and just fill the tv full of holes!

 

I strongly believe that the best is still there, but the strident hatred of talk-radio and the conservative elite has obscured it, the same way these values were once obscured among liberals by the strident hatred of left radicals.

 

What do you mean "once were by the strident hatred of left radicals"? Their both still going at it, making me wish we could deport them too some deserted island too settle their hatred amongst each other!

 

Yet neither the misguided policies of the Bush-Cheney White House or the hatred from radicals of both wings can truly bring down the true character of the American people. Most of the ongoing charity work in Iraq is being carried out by soldiers, on their free time, with their own money. A few months ago I heard about how injured Iraqis were brought to Georgia for treatment, and how the people in the community have shown them the best of Southern hospitality. The father of the injured child said that he hated the Americans for what happened to his child, but his hate has melted away when he saw the true face of the American hearts.

I'm done discussing anything about this current administration in this post! I think you know pretty well where i stand on this?  However, i am starting to believe again that the American people can be brought down with misinformation and so on! For example: when a President, Prime Minister or a national leader speaks, followed by a video made by even a very low-level terrorist, what type of message do you think that sends from the media. One thing is for certain, that particular terrorist stature had vastly improved by the time that video is done airing for a national audience! It's no darn wonder every human is so incredibly confused about what is going on in the world!

 

Sorry for the long post.

 

Take care,

Panther

 

 

Dubious attitude. I hope being the conqueror serves you well, it's sure better than being those faceless conquered civilians on an Iraqi street.

 

 

JanusRook's bluntness was quality i had at one point, and a rather admirable and most appreciative one at that! Then, from my own personal experience, i got married and then...

 

If this is polltical correctness Huogestr, that is clouding the viewpoint, then might anyone with a differing pov about sensibilities, put their belief's aside for a moment and appreciate the point he is trying too make?

 

Best regards to both,

 

Panther