A Russian patriot (my friend) speaks...

[BURKE89]

... in response to America isn't Russia...., posted by Frank O on Mar 30, 2003

they controlled the major cities, too ('79-'80).

No one likes this prick (S.H.),nor his regime. Yet, do you wish to control -  the equivilent of eight states - to make an entire region think like us, Frank?

I don't like propaganda from any side.

We're, at least, a free AMERICAN people, huh ... not Roman, yet?

Perhaps, you've missed my point.

Our boys are there, so we fight to win. However, history tells me... we will not leave.

Vaughn

[Zink]

... in response to America isn't Russia...., posted by Frank O on Mar 30, 2003

I still don't know what is the real objective in the Iraq war or even Afghanistan. Yes, the US has the best military in the world. Contrary to popular belief you won the Vietnam war, militarily. But then you gave up and lost it politically. Afghanistan isn't over yet. And what will happen in Iraq? Do the American people have the will to fight a long bloody colonial style occupation of these countries? Or will you just go in, kill a few thousand, and then leave without having changed the underlying situation. Taking out Saddam or Osama would be a good thing. Unfortunately we don't  know if Osama was killed in Afghanistan. If Saddam is killed will his successor be any better? Until we are able to do something to improve the people's lives and attitudes over there it's all pointless. Social change rarely comes about through occupation. Without social change in those countries there will always be more children willing to sacrifice themselves to kill their percieved enemies.

I honestly wish with all my heart that you do win and quickly. I don't feel like going there to fight and and possibly die but I may have to if the war drags on for years. But I have serious doubts that all the blood and pain will change anything. The first world countries have a lousy track record at inspiring productive changes in third world countries.

[vagn]

... in response to Failures, posted by Zink on Mar 30, 2003

America wants nothing in Afghanistan except to
Buy time for the Afghan government to grow strong
enough (and honest enough) to fight the taliban
and assorted nuts on their own.  That and to
pick up a few scumbags that are hding in the hills.
Time is the main question in Afghanistan.  You may
have noticed that there is not much progress.
The man that could have done it fast was Massoud,
but he was assassinated in 2001.  So now they have
to muddle along with what they've got left.

The plan in Iraq is to kill the bastards that run
the show now.  Then install a caretaker government
and transition that to some form of democracy where
all the players, big and little, have a stake and
a voice.  The Iraqies will pick what that is, with
the US vetoing anything we can't live with.  To that
extent this is an exercise of raw power.

The majority of Iraqies will see that this is a
pretty good deal, compared to how things were,
and make it happen.  As to the "insult" of having
been invaded, they will get over it.  Germany,
France, Japan, Mexico, and a bunch of other
lovely places did.  Iraq will, too.  what it comes
down to is, they get to choose between being
a First World middle east power, or a Third World
middle east sh!t hole.  They are not stupid.

Vietnam has nothing to do with this.
Religion has nothing to do with this.
Russia in Afghanistan has nothing to do with this.
Oil has nothing to do with this.

This is about changing the biggest power in the
middle east from a terror-based facist dictatorship
to a transparent democracy, with the expectation
that it will profoundly influence the whole region
for the better.  It is a bet the farm gamble on the
character, aspirations, tolerance and capacity
for forgiveness of the Iraqi people.

[hockeybrain]

... in response to america wants..., posted by vagn on Mar 31, 2003

I have some time - appreciate your analysis.  I think you are giving Iraq too much credit.  I see Iran as being the biggest, strongest, most influential power in the Middle East.  However, out of Arab states I agree with you.  I am more skeptical than you on what we will get out of it - other than we will strike fear into the hearts and minds of the Islamic leaders who are contemplating terrorist bases / harboring terrorists in their countries.  Additionally, we will at least take the Iraq potential for damaging us off the list for a while - hopefully, a long while.

[vagn]

... in response to Bright, posted by hockeybrain on Apr 4, 2003

=== I have some time - appreciate your analysis. I think you are giving
=== Iraq too much credit. I see Iran as being the biggest, strongest, most
=== influential power in the Middle East.

The reforms aren't happening in Iran, it will be
preoccupied with internal conflict for a long time.  Funding
Hamas can hardly be called a regional leadership role.

=== However, out of Arab states I agree with you. I am more skeptical
=== than you on what we will get out of it - other than we will
=== strike fear into the hearts and minds of the Islamic leaders who
=== are contemplating terrorist bases / harboring terrorists in their
=== countries.

I believe that was the point of the "shock and awe" campaign.
It was directed at the rest of the beloved leaders in the area.
Nothing prevents them from becoming the guest of honor at the next
palace barbeque except moderate, civilized behaviour.

=== Additionally, we will at least take the Iraq potential for damaging
=== us off the list for a while - hopefully, a long while.

Yes, but that is not the strategic goal.  The strategic goal is  
to settle the palistine question and bring peace to the entire region.
Getting rid of Saddam is a step in defunding the radicals and toning
down the rhetoric.  We want Iraq to prosper and be happy because we
are a great and generous nation.  Strategically, too, we care about
the fate of Iraq because we want to make sure the intervention has      
lasting effects.

Who can resist proposing a solution to the middle east problem?
If post Saddam Iraq can come up with a plausible plan for peace in    
the region the US will back it.  The US allying with an arab country
might just make it happen, where the current situation (US seen as
in a zionist pact with israel) is hopeless.  Iraq policy backed by
the US makes Iraq potentially the 800 pound gorilla in the middle east.

I believe it is all possible, but it hangs by a thread.  The thread is
this: That the rhetoric of the "great satan" lose all credibility in Iraq.

[Zink]

... in response to america wants..., posted by vagn on Mar 31, 2003

Nicely written. But I'm not sure I can believe that the US government is doing this for totally altruistic reasons. Oil money and power have to be included in the equation somewhere. No country ever started a war without thinking they could recoup their financial losses. I hope you're right. But I wouldn't gamble anything on the power of people to forgive or develop tolerance. It's easier to hate than to think.

[DanM]

... in response to Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Mar 31, 2003

Oil has been handed over to the UN via the oil for food program.

Money, last I heard we were going to lose well over one hundred billion for our efforts.

Power, maybe a little. It depends. If we set up a representative government and help rebuild their economy, who is to say they will even want to be our friend. A lot of the people we have helped in the past have been pretty unfriendly as of late.

I am pretty sure we never recouped any losses in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or Panama. In the first Gulf war, countries like Japan gave us cash in lieu of direct participation. In the end, we still spent billions that were never recouped. Making money off of wars is not our style. Just check history if you don't believe me.

[WmGo]

... in response to Re: Re: america wants..., posted by DanM on Apr 1, 2003

Good post. Nothing like history to bring people back to reality.

[Zink]

... in response to Re: Re: america wants..., posted by DanM on Apr 1, 2003

I'm a very avid history buff. My main interest is the personal histories of soldiers in WW2 and Vietnam but I do read many others. I have a decent grasp of the overall political situations that led to those wars as well as others. The US government may not have made money in the wars but many private people did. And those people control the government more than the little guys do. Right now your military industry is happy as a pig in you know what. They're making millions. Many American companies did qute well helping to restructure Japan and Germany after WW2. WW2 was different also as we weren't the agressors. I'm very cynical when it comes to claims that governments are doing something for absolutely no gain to themselves. Politics and big business doesn't work that way. Somewhere down the line somebody is getting rich off the bodies of your soldiers. Read your history, that's how it's always been. There are official, noble reasons for fighting and the unofficial, often disgusting real reasons. But that's enough politcs from me. Let's just say I have a healthy mistrust of propaganda no matter which government is spouting it. I do hope things work out for the best but it doesn't always happen.

[WmGo]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

Zink,

It should be obvious to everyone that the reason this war is being waged is because Pres. Bush was truly and sincerely convinced that it was necessary in order to preempt Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons and then blackmailing Israel, the Middle East and the world.

It is a legitimate debate as to whether the U.S. *should* have initiated this war. History will be the judge. It is plain dumb to suggest the war was launched to benefit American corporations. There is simply no excuse for such a ridiculous insinuation.

You need to research the subject of "PNAC". The debate is over the wisdom of PNAC which GW, unlike his father, bought into. It is not about oil (already turned over tho the U.N.) or the MIC.

You also need to be careful with you rewriting history. WWI and WWII were not fought to benefit American companies. You insinuate so much. That is plain DUMB!!! Viet Nam was fought becasue certain intellectual who correctly held devout anti Communist views incorrectly thought we should get involved in someone else's civil war. America fought in Korea because of the commitment we made to draw the line in the dirt vs. Communist totalitarianism.

You must have read the "House of Krup" at some point and then done what some people do thereafter - see all military conflicts as some big corporate and banking conspiracy.

Sorry to have such a debate but I had to jump in on this one.

Regards from the South,

WmGO

[DanM]

... in response to PNAC, posted by WmGo on Apr 1, 2003

Where do you live in the south?

[Zink]

... in response to PNAC, posted by WmGo on Apr 1, 2003

You misread me my friend. I never claimed that the US started WW1 or 2. I never claimed that they got involved for economic reasons. The US didn't want to help the rest of us until it was blatantly obvious that they couldn't sit on the sidelines for those two. Germany started WW1 and 2 because they thought they could gain an economic advantage. I merely stated that some individuals and companies did quite well in the US because of the war. The Korean war was trying to stop an agressive country from taking over another. Vietnam was badly handled at all levels. I know many vietnam vets and I suppose that has coloured my thinking there.

Honestly answer me this why are wars fought? My opinion is these reasons. 1 personal greed of powerful people 2 economics 3 religion The people who want the wars try to come up with socially acceptable ideas to back their agression. Liebensram(spelling?) for example. Religion is usually secondary to the others. It's more of a tool than a real reason. It's easier to kill someone who behaves differently.

As for Bush's sincerity... I don't know the guy personally but his behavior scares me badly. Whether or not his motives are pure I can't say. There are other countries around the world that could be a threat to the US. Why Iraq now? The mess in Afghanistan and the war on terror aren't settled yet. Bush's policies could overextend the US forces and is very likely to be creating more enemies. I'll be called upon to fight if he gets WW3 going. If I have to die I'd like it to be a cause I believe in and that cause isn't Imperial America.

Enough said. I never should have wrote anything in a politcal discussion anyhow. Regards.

[DanM]

... in response to Re: PNAC, posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

A big motivation for war is fear. I think this is the factor that best describes our reasons for going after Iraq. We fear the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons upon our civillian population. Since we cannot possbly stop all of these fanatics indefinitely, our best bet is to stop the means of production within rouge states that could distrribute these weapons to our enemies.

As for me, I think our desire to protect our own citizens from another sucker punch like 9-11 is a much bigger motivating factor than oil or creating an American "colony" in the middle east. Thats just my take on it.

I agree 100% that we entered WW I and WW II too late. A french buddy of mine said there are a lot of old timers in the French countryside who still are angry at the USA for waiting too long to enter both wars.

[Zink]

... in response to Fear is another factor, posted by DanM on Apr 2, 2003

I totally understand people not wanting another 9-11 to happen. But I don't see large scale ground combat as being effective against terrorism. I protect my own and I expect other people to do the same. I supported the attacks in Afghanistan. You can let things like that go unpunished. But what happened? Osama is most likely still at large and the US spent millions blowing up a bunch of rocks. I thought that the invasion would be a smoke screen for the smaller more effect units to do the real job. But I haven't read anything to make me believe that they accomplished much. I think the effort could have been used more effectively elsewhere. But Rumsfeld ignored my advice the last time we chatted(lol). I'm just an armchair general. We all know how much use they are.

[DanM]

... in response to Re: Fear is another factor, posted by Zink on Apr 2, 2003

The point of Afghanistan was not retribution. At least not as I understand it. That was a nice added benefit, but the real reason we were there was to limit their capacity to inflict future 9-11s. We killed or captured a lot of personel, evicted them from their principal safe haven, disrupted much of the financial side their organization and generally put these guys on the defensive.

The point of Iraq is to take out a likely source of WMD that could be used against us. At least that is Bush's position as I understand it and it is the position I support. All the stuff about democracy in Iraq and other issues are all secondary to removing a likely threat.