Loc: New Hampshire
"You could ask the same thing about there being an American protocol for asking for help--how long before it becomes obvious that it's necessary to do so?"<br><br>Let's not forget that American protocol did ask for help in the form of a UN resolution that France said it would veto no matter what. Asked for help outside the UN and got a small coallition. Asked for help on the ground after Saddam was toppled. Asking for help is not a weak point for the US.<br><br>Everyone speaks of Bush's arrogance and I submit that Chirac was just as arrogant. Germany was in the midst of elections and played to popular opinion rather than seek what was right at the UN. Russia was and still is concerned about the money that Saddam owes them. No one is less or more guilty than the other. They all played hard ball and lost.<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> They all played hard ball and lost.<br> <p><hr></blockquote><p> You sort of went around the block but didn't respond to yoyo's post.<br><br>1) The reason Bush went to war was WMD's. <br>2) There is no number 2. There were no WMD's thus Chirac and Shroeder were correct in not going along with an invasion of a sovereign nation. <br><br>There is only one who played hardball and lost. Bush. Convincing the world otherwise is impossible. Convincing the American public seems to be somewhat easier as a majority thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11.<br><br>
Loc: New Hampshire
"You sort of went around the block but didn't respond to yoyo's post"<br><br>My apologies to yoyo, if I didn't respond to his post.<br><br>I wasn't disputing that there were disagreements to the original war or invasion of Iraq. And I'm not disputing that no WMD were found.<br><br>So, why are the original protesting countries not willing to help Iraq right now? What makes Kerry think that if he becomes President that he can get France and Germany more involved than they are now.<br><br>Let me see if I can come up with a few possible scenario's<br><br>1) Kerry is making back room deals with France and Germany. They are resisting helping now because they like the deals and want to see Bush fail in Iraq so Kerry can get elected. A little conspiratorial, I agree.<br><br>2) Kerry will be President on Jan 2005. By then elections in Iraq will be occuring or soon to be occuring. The security situation will be better and the country will be safer. Thus France and Germany would be more willing to get involved. But wait, the same would apply if Bush were re-elected. <br><br>3) Kerry beleives that the only reason Germany and France won't get involved is because they are still pissed at Bush for going to war. Interesting scenario because while a resolution to go to war was trying to be worked out, France threaten to veto anything. So was France being arrogant and pushing their view at the security counsel or was the US by effectively veto'ing the veto and going ahead anyways with Britian, Australia, Poland, Spain .... In the meantime, it's becoming harder and harder for Germany and France who original protested the war to justify not helping Iraq now that sovrenty is being handed back to them - minus the brutal dictator.<br><br>So, why are the original protesting countries not willing to help Iraq right now?<br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> So, why are the original protesting countries not willing to help Iraq right now?<br> <p><hr></blockquote><p> Because they do not want anything to do with the spiraling down mess that is Iraq that Bush created. <br><br>Your scenarios are plausible if you just remove the conspiratorial nature. Kerry can make front room deals with Germany and France. He doesn't have to make deals at all. He gets elected and naturally France and Germany will be more amenable to contribute after Bush is history. much easier for them to convince their countries that this is a tidal shift and now they can get on board. They can't touch Iraq with a barge pole now because it would go against everything they have espoused until now and it would also go against the vast majority of French and German's wishes. They are democracies after all.<br><br>Kerry is elected and this is the only way to then get NATO and the UN on board. Bush isn't going anywhere with them now. The economy picks up and a great gnashing of neoconservative teeth as Kerry gets all the credit. <br><br><br><br><br>
As far as I know, ther are no backroom deals. Not that it's impossible. After all, we have the model of Ronald Reagan bartering withthe Iranians to release the US hostages only after he came into office.<br><br>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
#171416 - 06/13/0402:58 PMRe: i am going to meet kerry
I think the thing to remember about all of this is that no matter which way you slice it, all the US is doing is setting up a puppet government that will look after US interests in the region before anything else. The Iraqi Governing Council or whatever it is called is merely a tool to maintain our control over things based on our model of how things should be run in Iraq. When you have a foreign power that has the last word is that really granting full sovereignty to Iraq? No, it is not. Until you have that in place where Iraq truly has full control and veto power over what the US miliarty command tells them, it is all just so much smoke and mirrors. <br><br>Now how do you expect Iraq to mend when you are letting old die-hard Baathists back into the government? You really think these folks have changed in the last year? Just give them time and they will have another despot in place just like Saddam. <br><br>The main benefit I see to having the UN in there is to keep a watchful eye on things to make sure there are no gross violations being made. Iraqi military and security forces? Well, we know how brave they are, right? You certainly cannot depend on them to uphold the laws, first sign of trouble and they disappear into the woodwork. Face it, they are just not dependable and reliable. What was the attrition rate I read about concerning the new inductees/recruits into the new securty forces, just something ridiculous. <br><br>Other countires sending troops? Yeah, you might see some from a few insignificant countries, but the major players on the world stage are not about to send troops. This is Bush's war, he said we would go it alone.......and we are. <br><br>All in all, just a very badly planned series of events. Why didn't we go and finish it in 1991? Bush Sr knew better than to get involved in this hornet's nest unlike his son and those that have been formulating foreign policy during his administration. You know, sometimes you just have to maintain the status quo, no matter how bad it may seem, because the alternatives are muc, much worse. In the meantime, you have a much more troubling scenario developing with Iran. They admit they have a nuclear program, they are unwilling to stop it and we are spread so thin now, we couldn't even begin to think about dealing with that militarily. The resources aren't there for that. Personnel wise and financially, it is beyond our abilities to address Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran. <br><br>The one really odd thing that I keep thinking about is why on earth anyone in their right mind would think we could not contain Hussein? I mean the guy had a few Scuds left that maybe could or could not reach Israel. There was no way in hell that anything that he had could ever have reached the US. Just not there. Yet, we were able to contain the USSR for some 40 years with their thousands upons thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at us. The whole thing is just totally incomprehensible that any attack was IMMINENT. How they ever sold people on that one is beyond me because it was just so far fetched, yet it swayed people and had us shaking in our boots. <br><br>In the end, whether you believe it or not, this still all has to do with nothing else but OIL. That is the plain hard truth. The US wants to exert control over the region to gain a foothold there with Iraq as a starting point. Once that is in place, getting to the other oil in Central Asia would be easier. That is also a great factor in why we went into Afghanistan because we needed that country conquered to make it possible to build the pipeline from Central Asian oilfields through Afghanistan to the terminus on the other end. As you know though, Afghanistan remains a wild and wooly place, hell even Karzai can't dare to venture much outside of Kabul for fear of getting his head blown off. <br><br>Like I have said many time before, the US is ill prepared to deal with this, they just do not understand how things work in that part of the world and they never will. You can pour your billions and billions into this, but in the end, the fierceness and independence of these people will result in our defeat. The British couldn't conquer them either. Just go back in time and find out about the history of the region, time and time again, invaders, conquerers were defeated and routed. Yes, we have all the high tech stuff, but sometimes that isn't enough when you are dealing with two-faced scum like this that will cut your throat as soon as you turn you back. They may live in medieval times, but they are pretty effective in the methods of defending their territory. <br><br>Well, that's how I see it at least. There's a lot more going on here than we realize. <br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Well, that's how I see it at least. There's a lot more going on here than we realize. <br> <p><hr></blockquote><p> All in all, a pretty thorough synopsis of the last few years. Can't quibble about a single point you made. <br><br>Now, the thing is, you are not an international diplomat, right? So why is it so obvious to you that this "plant the US flag and democracy will spring forth to infect all of the middle east" ever get instilled as a doctrine that we should follow? It was and is now even more apparent that this idea is just plain stupid.<br><br>Stupid in '91 because I believe Bush senior was correct in not stepping over the line, and stupid now as we try to force feed democracy to a people who just are not listening. Why should they? We certainly have given them ample reasons to not listen to us. in 1775 would you like to have a big red target painted on your back that said "Tory"? <br><br>No, we want a controlled revolution but we aren't going to get it. We are going to be bummed out when Iraq becomes IranII. Since Iran planned it all through Chalibii into Bush this would not be a very surprising outcome.<br><br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.