Text 12354, 302 rader
Skriven 2008-03-11 14:38:11 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
  Kommentar till text 12301 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Re: Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill
==========================================
> 1) The USA did a pretty good job in WW2 in coming to the rescue for the
> fight
> against the Nazis. However, that war started in 1939, something which
> many of your countrymen ignore, and not on December 7th 1941.
> Basically the US got involved when the fighting had been going on for
> 2.5
> years and not before its own interests were at stake. So it was not
> just "Let's go save those poor Euros".
 
From my understanding, the US had a fairly isolationist take on global conflict
in general.  Notably in WWI, where we tried to play peacekeeper with the
fighting parties, until passenger ships with American citizens were sunk by
Germans, which got us a bit riled.  Not to mention, what we considered unfair
and illegal acts with submarines also got our attention.  So just like in WWII,
it took us a few years before we got involved in WWI.
 
It was just a different time, for the most part.  Considering the resources and
time required to carry out a war back then, it doesn't entirely surprise me
that we weren't gunning for a fight.  And after just doing WWI about 20 years
prior, maybe we tried to avoid another one of those come WWII, until Japan
decided to involve us.
 
I won't pretend to understand everything about what happened or what people
were thinking back then, but I don't really think poorly of the US for taking
its time to get involved.  I think it's actually a trait we could use more of
these days in some respects.
 
 
> 2) Were the US invited into the Middle East? Nope. If you enter somewhere
> uninvited with brute force, then there's a certain word to describe
> that.
 
In the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, no we weren't invited of course.  But
other times arab countries, or groups within, have asked for or expected our
help. Or more to the point, sometimes bad things take place over there, and we
don't involve ourselves, but then they complain that we didn't come to do
anything about it.  Yet if we had come to help, somebody would have had
something to say about that, too.
 
I don't agree with our bullying position sometimes, but as I said before, when
it comes to America and the middle east, it's just a lose/lose situation.  You
can never make everyone happy.  And if you help one group, another group will
hate you.
 
It may sound a bit harsh to say, but many of the people in that part of the
world just have a long way to go to catch up with the rest of the "civilized"
world, before all their constant violence can come to an end.
 
 
> 3) I was just reading about the price of Iraq. The people there figured
> that Iraq with its oil-reserves would be turned into another Gulf state
> with instant prosperity. Instead, after 5 years of war, followed by civil
> war, the Iraqi civilian body count stands at appr. 1 million. Which means
> that since the "liberation" 1/25th or 4% of the population perished in
> violent conditions.
 
And while I hate that things turned out the way they did, I also have to ask
why aren't the Iraqi people themselves doing more to take back their country? 
We've given them the chance to have a new democratic government without the
fear of Saddam looming over them.  All they have to do is take it and hold onto
it, even fight for it, if they want it as badly as they claimed before. 
 
I know that they're probably used to being afraid of stepping up, but I've seen
in some cases that there are civilians forming watch groups and such, trying to
make their country a better place. Without more people like that, the place is
doomed for failure. And it will be their own fault at this point, because
there's nothing the coalition soldiers can do for them now except keep in
killing random insurgents, only for a dozen more to come in from all sides. 
It's up to the Iraqis to decide enough is enough.  Listening to clerics isn't
getting them anywhere.  They're fighting for all the wrong reasons.
 
 
> Just having the wrong name in the wrong part of town is a
> death sentence. The news talks about suicide bombings, but there is no
> talk about the corpses found in the streets every morning.
 
Sectarian violence is, unfortunately, a way of life for many arab countries. It
may have happened more than we know during Saddam's rule, but they'd have kept
it quiet.
 
 
> 1 million Iraqis dead meaning every single family has been touched by
> this and you want them to feel happy about it? It's not that these people
> were killed by Americans, but without an illegal invasion the majority of
> this 1 million would still be alive.
 
I do honestly believe that some Iraqis are thankful for what we did.  And I
believe some are glad we're there to protect them.  But at the same time, as
you said, everyone is being affected by the violence, and they naturally only
have one thing to blame for it.
 
This is why staying "until the job is done" isn't going to work.  The more
people that die, the more people that turn against us, and the more people we
end up fighting with.  It would surely lead to some deadly consequences, but my
opinion is to pull out and let their own military take over. They've had time
to prepare.  Let the sects fight if they must, or divide the country in half,
whatever it takes to stop the violence.  But they're the ones that have to do
it at this point.
 
 
> 4) Near 4,000 young American men and women killed. Was that a fair price?
 
That's what happens when we go to war unprepared, under-manned, under-supplied,
while still busy in another country.  You won't get any argument from me that
we should have stayed out of Iraq.  My only positive reaction regarding it has
been that I'm glad we removed Saddam, since nobody can say he was a swell guy.
 
 
> 5) The US economy down the drain. Was that a fair price? All the homeless
> in the US could have been given a house, Malaria could have been
> wiped-out worldwide, hospitals could have been built, all budget
> requirements for AIDS-research could have been met and I could go on
> screens and screens like that.
 
I'm sure Bush would have found some way to ruin the economy regardless.  The
guy has no idea what he's doing in terms of spending and the economy.
 
 
> Only Halliburton profitted ... are you still proud?
 
You're preaching to the choir.  I've said all along that the personal
Republican connections to the reconstruction and security companies is the
biggest reason we're still there.
 
 
> But if you're so braindead you refuse to read all that or you're so
> impressed by the patriotic erection you get when seeing an American flag,
> then please wonder why:
 
So far, the flag has yet to produce an erection for me, but I'll let you know
of any warning signs should they occur.
 
 
> 1) The US do not interfere in Myanmar, the country in the world with the
> worst human-rights record. If toppling dictators and installing
> democracy
> is really the #1 issue, then Myanmar should have been stop #1.
> 2) The US did not intervene in Portugal which for years has been a
> dictator-
> ship under Salazar with blatant human right violations?
> 3) The US did not intervene in Spain to topple the Franco-dictatorship
> 4) The US did not intervene in Greece to topple the colonels' junta?
 
The US, while currently managed by a number of clowns, still has many properly
functioning aspects which have to consider the consequences of our actions.  In
the case of the things you mentioned, the US had no direct reason to interfere.
 And believe me, had we done so, we'd have taken shit off of somebody for doing
so.  We always do.  That's not to say I necessarily agree with us not doing
anything, but I also understand us not doing so. Plus, in some of the cases, we
were already overstretched with our current wars.
 
Iraq, regardless of why we're really there, was sold to the world, and more
importantly, the American public, with fairly convincing evidence directly
affecting us. Having just come out of 9/11, and them showing us connections to
Al-Qaeda and weapons and all that, naturally the American people are going to
want something done about Iraq, just like with Afgahnistan. I bought almost
every bit of it myself, because we already knew Saddam was capable of those
things. I'm sure many elements of our own government believed it. Hell for all
I know, Bush truly believed it, as much as it pains me to defend him.  I can't
fault us on the majority of people wanting to depose Saddam after hearing all
of that. I only fault the people who gave us all that faulty information which
started all of this.
 
 
> But the really most intriguing question, if human rights and dictators
> are really the issue, is why the US are not invading Saudi Arabia?
 
America's history with supporting dictators one day and fighting them the next
is well known.  I don't pretend to understand or like it. 
 
 
> Actually, the US are _not_ financially capable anymore and are borrowing
> themselves to death in order to sustain the effort. As a result the
> country suffers ... "You, The People, ...." ...  suffer. Your economy is
> strained to the limit by this war and I don't understand why people don't
> massively revolt and call for a revolution.
 
We were still financially capable nonetheless, simply because America was in
fact able to borrow that money.  I doubt we'd have been able to do so had we
been some other country with less promise of paying it back.  People who own
our debt have a big stake in global economy.  So us affording the war wasn't
really a problem.  The economic reprocussions for Americans however is another
story.
 
As for revolting, I've already explained in a message elsewhere some of the
things Americans and certain officials have been doing to fight back against
Bush and his administration.  But as I said then, I don't see him ever being
removed until he's served out his terms.
 
 
> A) You _ARE_ getting your butt kicked in Iraq. As a repeat, a
> conventional foreign army cannot win against a guerilla movement fighting
> on its own soil. At one point you may think you have conquered them, but
> you haven't. The North American indians are still not beaten and
> eventually one way or the other they will prevail, nomatter how many
> Leonard Peltiers are thrown into jail innocent;
 
I personally wouldn't have expected the constant fighting that we're involved
with now when this all started.  I don't think the majority of Americans did,
either, or we probably wouldn't have been gung-ho for it, despite the
"evidence". The military strategists should have predicted it though, and they
let it happen anyway.  So there's where the blame should go, in my opinion. Not
onto the American public. 
 
 
> JB> So it's kind of disappointing that America has to be in the position
> of
> JB> helping people, but also taking the blame for everything at the same
> JB> time.
 
> America could be in a lot better shape and play a lot more prominent role
> with a different leadership.
 
No argument here.
 
 
> Us Europeans have been predicting drama ever since Bush Junior announced
> his intentions to run in 1999. We were laughed away.
 
No argument here either.
 
 
> We have warned not to get involved in the Middle East. The Brits have
> been a longtime occupier of that area and eventually withdrew. The
> Russians fought a full-scale war in Afghanistan, perhaps you are unaware
> how full-scale it was, with hundreds of thousands of troops and could not
> win. You (=the USA) laughed us away, a few Tomahawks would take care of
> all the trouble...
 
I think you have to live in America to fully grasp how the government can sell
something off onto the American people.  The majority of them simply don't care
about politics.  They don't research things on the internet.  They just don't
know the history and complete truth behind a lot of this kind of stuff.  And
honestly, they shouldn't have to.  They should have a government who is
straight with them, one they can expect the truth out of.  The current
government unfortunately isn't.  But people trust them, because they feel the
government of the United States should be trustable.  As do I.  We shouldn't
have to second-guess our leaders.  The sad truth is, we should be. But the
average American has other things in their daily lives to worry about than
endless streams of political hogwash.
 
 
> Let me tell you now ... the war in Afghanistan ... yes, a "war" in
> "Afghanistan" ... is not over and will be lost by the Americans and its
> allies (that includes my own country). In 10 years from now the Taliban
> will be back in power, as it is they control the country anyway save some
> larger cities.
 
The Taliban are already worming their way back into power there from what I
hear.  That's why we should have all our resources focused there, where our
actual problem really was.
 
 
> The same will happen in Iraq. You (=the USA) will pull-out for whatever
> excuse is appropriate and after that a sectarian civil war will erupt. In
> the end Iraq will become a fundamentalist country under a cleric rule.
 
I have hopes that at least the seeds of democracy we planted will lead to less
violence once we're gone, once the people see what their country is starting to
turn into.  I think the people there are obviously willing to fight for what
they believe in.  They just currently aren't fighting for the right thing.
 
 
> Well done ... all these countries will have been handed over to clerics,
> to sectarian violence and you (=the USA) will safely withdraw behind a
> 2,000 mile ocean saying you liberated them all. Fox will record it and
> everybody overthere will believe it.
 
People that still believe what Fox News has to say are the sort of people I was
referring to who have no reason to believe they're being lied to.  I mean,
government propoganda television is the sort of thing we hear about Iraq
having, not America.
 
 
> That, my friend, is how I percieve it.
 
And while I agree with you on many points, I hope you can understand that the
majority of Americans simply don't perceive it at all.  As I said, I don't
expect them to.  There's so much political garbage to sift through to really
know what's going on that most people have no interest, or have better things
to do.  I wish the American people were more educated on the world, hell myself
included, but I can't entirely fault them for not being so.  It's very easy to
live your life blissfully unaware of the outside world in this country.  Many
people do.
 
 
Anyhow, you possibly misconstrued my original message.  My entire point was
that America is a very wealthy superpower with a strong military.  We're in a
rather unique position as a nation.  When things happen in the world, not only
do we have the capability to react, and arguably a responsibility, but many
times we're expected by others to do so. When we do or don't, there's always
consequences, regardless of our actions.  Regardless of who is in charge.
Regardless of the outcome.  You can never please everybody.  Our position makes
us liked and hated, sometimes simply for existing.  I don't say this out of
some sort of egotistical American view, I do so out of my rational impression
of our capabilities and the known reactions of others around the world.
 
And now I save possibly the largest message I've ever sent on Fidonet before it
accidently gets lost somehow!

--- D'Bridge 2.99
 * Origin: FyBBS (1:229/500)