Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

US Military is on the move

Recommended Posts

All I know is a lot of mothers will be burying sons and daughters both American and Iraqi. I saw an interveiw of Iraqi middle school children discussing the impending war. I was struck with how they have resigned that they would probably be dead in a few months regardless of the outcome of the weapon inspection.

I only hope in the end it will have been worth it. I hope that that ******* Saddam is dead and that the drum beaters in this country take a break before the next war. I hope that they won't change their target after they find that they couldn't get Saddam AGAIN. I hope that they work harder at cooking up the next boogeyman so even I can get on board with it. And mostly I hope thay come up with a way to really address the issues americans feel are important(hint: It's the economy stupid!), rather than another smoke and mirrors campaign. If the Administration is really worried about WMD do something in N.Korea and stop bullshitting the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

oh heres a prime one... how about desert storm? he fired scuds on israel after we attacked him...

Those scuds had conventional payloads, hence they were not WMD.

quote:

maybe you were too busy reading some socialist propoganda

If you're going to assume that everything written by a socialist is a lie, then why should I, being socialist, waste my time talking to you?

quote:

and dont think about saying a scud is not a WMD... it is. if you can rig it with nerve gas that can wipe out half a civillization its a WMD

A backpack can be rigged with a nuke. Does that mean that all backpacks are WMD? Should the US military invade all airports, hotels, camp sites, and other suspected hiding places of backpacks?! Should all backpackers be held incommunicado on the suspicion that they may know another backpacker who plans to destroy a city?! It's ridiculous!

quote:

hes ALWAYS had those. its not hard to hide shit like that in a big ass desert.

You need to learn more about how weapons inspectors operate. It's not like they walk in with a clipboard and tick stuff off. In the 1990s, the inspectors accounted for 98 scuds that were buried in the desert. They didn't do it by playing "hide and seek", they did it with good old fashioned police work: the inspectors inquired the scud manufacturers in Russia, got the receipts and serial numbers for the missiles, and confronted the Iraqis with this concrete evidence, giving them no choice but to confess. The Iraqis then brought the inspectors to the desert where the scuds were buried and the serial numbers were compared and matched. Despite an incomplete declaration and repeated attempts to deceive the inspectors, Iraq was fundamentally disarmed in 1996. If the Iraqis are hiding ballistic missiles today, the inspectors will find them.

quote:

and where do you get this twisted ass info from saying that the israeli intelligence services doesnt think saddam is a threat to them??? are you an intelligence officer? do you know for a fact??? you have a freind in israeli intelligence???

Here.

quote:

saddam used scuds on them before and he is stupid enough to do it again

Saddam attacked Israel during the Gulf War not because he felt like it, but for strategic reasons. The attack was a deliberate attempt to provoke a retaliation from the Israelis, which would have splintered the Arab members of the coalition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

A democratic government in Iraq is so contrary to US interests that it simply won't happen.


Sorry, but I will ignore the rest of that post for now.

It is obvious that you have no clue as to what is going on. I have see it for months.

The grand strategy is in place, and it is going to occur. I found this analysis fascinating, and informative, although this is what I believe is EXACTLY what is going on, and why the rest of the Arab countries are scared to death of this attack on Iraq.

Here, let me give you a clue Menchise, and some of you others.

Yes, it's long, but well worth the read.

quote:

US grand strategy and Iraq

| 31 Dec 2002 | Pramit Pal Choudhuri

The primitive way to look at the United States war against terrorism is to say it is largely about bashing Muslims. Or that Washington is using 9/11 as a pretext to take out Saddam Hussein and take over Iraq’s oilfields. The corollary is that after the US gets Osama bin Laden the war on terror will also be over. The world will return to tribal wars in Africa, debating bits of the WTO agreement and comparing the navels of Shakira and Britney Spears.

The assumption is that George W Bush’s administration has no grand strategy. That beyond raining missiles and dragging Al-Qaeda suspects off to Cuba, there is no vision thing.

This is important. Great powers who fail to recognize there are limits to kickass military power eventually run aground. Other powers coalesce against them. Their public tire of paying the price, in taxes and corpses, of being globocop. The sustainable way of being a global hegemon is to set up an international system that enshrines economic and political values which serves the interests of both the great powers and all potential rivals.

From World War II to the Cold War’s end the US was quite good at this sort of thing. Ex-enemies like Germany, Japan and Russia all made becoming capitalist democracies with US characteristics their new nation-building agenda. If the US has been able to lead the world, it is in large part because much of the world has been willing to accept its leadership.

Is there such a liberal vision, a victory of values, imbedded in the war against terrorism? Most people say no. Washington seemed to shirk rebuilding Afghanistan after the Taliban’s excision. And it seriously muddied the waters when it grafted the overthrow of Hussein to the main trunk of the war against terrorism. The pet peeve of Indians is the US’s alliance with Pakistan — a military dictatorship that sponsors terrorism. But countries all over have similar grumbles about US double-standards.

Hidden priority

Some scholars have argued otherwise. John Lewis Gaddis, probably the most famous scholar of US Cold War foreign policy, recently took a close look at the National Security Strategy released by the White House in June and argued Bush did have a grand strategy.

Whereas Bill Clinton’s three earlier strategy documents assumes a world more or less at peace, Bush stressed that peace needs to be defended, preserved and extended. Defending the peace, Bush said, meant "fighting terrorists and tyrants". A new, radical strategy of pre-emptive attack was outlined to handle terrorists and states who helped them.

After 9/11, as Bush noted, "We cannot let our enemies strike first."

Preserving the peace meant "building good relations among the great powers". In other words, noted Gaddis, ensuring an anti-American coalition never comes together by associating US power with certain universal principles. As in the Cold War, other governments will at worst turn a blind eye to even unilateral US action because the alternatives — Al-Qaeda or even an Iraq that uses poison gas and attacks its neighbours – are worse.

Finally, Bush said the US would "extend the peace" by "promoting free and open societies". This is the interesting bit. As Gaddis correctly pointed out, this reflects a general consensus among terrorism experts that the root cause of Osama bin Laden and his ilk is the closed polity of many Islamic countries. If the bulk of the membership and the funding of most jihadi groups worldwide is the Muslim Arab world it’s because this region has been a democratic desert. There is no genuine Arab democracy.

At this point Gaddis wondered. The Bush administration strategy clearly says what it envisions is a clash "inside civilisation, a battle for the future of the Muslim world". This could be construed to mean simply an end to Muslim support for terrorism. But Gaddis asked what if the real game is the democratization of the Arab world. In that case Iraq is the laboratory for an awesome experiment. "We can set in motion a process that could undermine and ultimately remove reactionary regimes elsewhere in the Middle East, thereby eliminating the principal breeding ground for terrorism."

He concluded: "If I’m right about this, then it’s a truly grand strategy." A fuzzy plan "turns out, upon closer examination, to be a plan for transforming the entire Muslim Middle East: for bringing it, once and for all, into the modern world."

Sands of Arabia

There will be plenty of catcalls, but I think Gaddis is more or less right.

There are multiple reasons why Washington is determined to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Oil is one, but in a more indirect way than most think. Since Jimmy Carter, Washington has made ensuring the free flow of Persian Gulf crude a pillar of its national security. Part of this has meant ensuring no country in the region can match US influence. So revolutionary Iran had to be contained. Hussein could not be allowed to keep Kuwait or possess weapons of mass destruction. Oil underlies it all, but the policy implemented has been a textbook balance of power game.

The argument the US wants to control Iraqi oil falls apart when one looks closely at the nature of the world oil market. Petroleum is big, but it is hardly the core of the US economy – Silicon Valley is more important than Gasoline Alley to present and future American wealth. As industry analysts note, the US interest is long-term oil supply and price stability. Who owns the oilfield is moderately important, but not enough to wage a risky, expensive war over.

Then there’s the bit about Bush junior wanting to clean up a mess left by Bush senior. That plays a role, but George W is not the type to gamble his presidential future on righting a wrong that his father doesn’t seem overly concerned about.

The question is which of the various reasons for the US’s squeezing Iraq is the more important.

In the end, the coming attack on Iraq is actually about 9/11.

Not because of the Al-Qaeda link with Baghdad, which is errant nonsense. But because the goal of US grand strategy is to ensure Islamic terror never threatens American life and limb again. And the ultimate way to stopper the terror flow is to open up the Muslim Arab world.

Why isn’t Washington more explicit about this? Simply because most of the Muslim allies it has in the war against terror are authoritarian regimes. If the US says our ultimate goal is to overthrow you – there goes the alliance.

But a careful trawling of statements by lower level US officials gives some evidence that a grand strategy does float underneath the froth of rhetoric.

First, there are numerous statements linking the spread of democracy to any end to terrorism. The State Department’s undersecretary for political affairs, Marc Grossman, in an outline of US foreign policy priorities in November was clear, "Democracy, security and prosperity are the true antidotes to terrorism."

Second, US officials are also clear in the belief that the Muslim Arab world’s repressed polities are responsible for the growth of radical, violent Islam. The Pentagon number two, Paul Wolfowitz, noted three months ago that the way US could show to the average Muslim that terrorism was a "blind alley" was to "the alternative of liberty and justice".

Foggy Bottom’s head of policy planning, Richard Haass, wrote an article earlier this month laying it all out. He admitted that because of reasons of oil, the Cold War and containing Iran, the US did not encourage democracy in the Arab world. The region has now become the world’s "democratic exception". He went on to say, "It is not in the US interest – or that of Muslims – for America to continue this exception…As we have learned the hard way, such societies can be breeding grounds for extremists and terrorists who target America."

And the security policy person perhaps closest to Bush, Condoleezza Rice, publicly said in October, "We reject the condescending view that freedom will not grow in the soil of the Middle East – or that Muslims somehow do not share in the desire to be free."

When Haass visited India, he made it a point to meet a cross-section of Indian Muslim leaders. Why? Because Indian Muslims are the second largest Muslim population in the world and among the poorest. Yet, he said, none of them is a member of Al-Qaeda or its affiliates.

"I asked the leaders why this was so," Haas said, "And they said we live in a secular democracy. When we have problems we have alternatives to terrorism."

Third, US officials have quietly hinted that they are of the view that Iraq can be the wedge that will open the Arab world – and Iran – to the fresh air of representative government.

Washington wants to make an example and Iraq was a logical choice. It was already in the crosshairs for plenty of other reasons. It didn’t have too many international friends. But it also had a well-educated population, a more or less secular culture and a populace that seems weary of its present ruler. It also had enough oil to fund its own nation-building.

UK journalist Timothy Garton Ash, after meeting various higher-ups in Washington, recently wrote the Bush administration is “plainly committed to the long haul of nation-building in postwar Iraq. And that’s for starters. A new democratic and prosperous Iraq is to be a model for its neighbours” in the way West Germany was during the Cold War. I received a similar argument from a senior US National Security Council member this month: Iraq is to be a laboratory for the Arab world.

This is the White House’s dream scenario: Iraq becomes, after about five years of US military rule, a democratic confederation. Its success then has a cascade effect. The balance of power in Iran shifts towards the elected leadership, away from the mullahs. As crucial, Iraq’s political example and oil muscle serves to open up Saudi Arabia. As Ash noted, “No one in the administration yet says this publicly but there is a logic that leads from the democratization of Iraq to that of Saudi Arabia.”

Whether this scenario will have any resemblance to the reality that will follow when the US military goes for Hussein sometime after January is a different story. But as one US official said, “Worst-case scenarios cannot be an excuse for inaction."

Possibility with Pakistan

It also follows from all this that just like the Cold War, the US will have to make tactical decisions that run counter to the larger strategic goal.

The obvious cases are two unrepentant state sponsors of terrorism: the Saudis and Pakistan. The Saudis can’t be bucked now because they can throw the world economy in chaos. But let Iraq, which some experts believe may have more reserves than Saudi Arabia, come back on stream and let the Russians get back to Soviet-levels of production. At that point, the Saudi oil weapon disappears.

Pakistan is even trickier because it has nuclear weapons in place. Its government can be pressured but not overthrown for fear of Islamic militants seizing both power and warheads. And military action is out of the question. Working out how to bring sustainable modernity to this non-Arab Muslim world which is both non-democratic and a recruiting ground for terror will be a far greater challenge than rebuilding Iraq. No surprise then that Washington seems to be out of its depth when it deals with Islamabad.

New Delhi generally believes it doesn’t have a dog in the fight when it comes to the present Iraq crisis. But it does if the US has a grand strategy. Immunizing the Arab world, especially Saudi Arabia, from terror through the spread of democracy is clearly in India’s interests. But the big hope will be that if the US succeeds in transforming Iraq, it may be then tempted to try the same thing with Pakistan.


Interesting that....

I have believed this for months, Iraq is just the domino that will make the rest fall of their own accord. And they will, it will be interesting to watch.

Bush is much smarter then his enemies believe, and as long as they continue to underestimate him, the better it is for us in the long run.

Now, onto a few other things.

quote:

A backpack can be rigged with a nuke. Does that mean that all backpacks are WMD? Should the US military invade all airports, hotels, camp sites, and other suspected hiding places of backpacks?! Should all backpackers be held incommunicado on the suspicion that they may know another backpacker who plans to destroy a city?! It's ridiculous!


a socalled "backpack nuke" does NOT exist, they are more the size of a footlocker or small refrigerator, and weigh a couple of hundred pounds, not even Arnold could backpack one of those things. They also have a tritium trigger, which needs replacing every 6 months, and ALL of these are much older, and tritium is not something that you go to your local nuclear power plant and just pick up.

A backpack sized nuclear weapon would be a dirty bomb, a conventional explosive weapons with radioactive isotopes surrounding it. Blow it up and spread radioactivity to the surrounding area, maybe a square mile or so. More psychological then physical damage.

quote:

Saddam attacked Israel during the Gulf War not because he felt like it, but for strategic reasons. The attack was a deliberate attempt to provoke a retaliation from the Israelis, which would have splintered the Arab members of the coalition.

and goodness me, that is EXACTLY right.....

And no, Saddam is not a threat to them directly, but Syria is, Baghdad has moved scuds and a few WMD weapons into Syria.

This is how it is going to work, we will attack Iraq, Syria will then try and attack Israel and create 2 fronts for us to fight on. Problem is that Israel does not have the restrictions she did back in 91, when Syria attacks, which she will, she will become an Israeli target, and that is something that you DO NOT want to be.

With our carriers off the coast, the rest of the Arab states will let Israel and Syria duke it out, until Syria launches those WMD's, then Syria becomes a nuclear candle, the rest of the arab countries back off, and we finish Iraq.

This is just one likely scenario, because Syria has some of Iraq's weapons.

Thats enough for tonight, will check in in the morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im staying outa this one for the most part, but from what ive read, Menchise seems to be the most rational one in here

even $ilk made a good point, weres the proof? what happened to the whole principle of innocent until proven guilty. america needs to prove Saddam is guilty. show me the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt he needs to be off'ed

the govt said they had proof Bin Laden attacked the WTC. then after they couldnt kill him i hear them say it wasnt him. will the same thing happen? we attack Iraq and then say oops Saddam wasnt a madman? it was his generals? its all BS

Jaguar is it just me or do you sound like u talk down to anyone and everyone who isnt a shoot them first and ask questions later kindof person?

and are a lot of Saddams tactics so different than the US'? America isnt clean as a whistle isnt self. Saddam openly attacks his ppl, while the US does it in secret and then says oops it was for National Security we had to infect you 50yrs ago. again its more and bigger BS

[ 12-31-2002, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Enigma ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

a socalled "backpack nuke" does NOT exist, they are more the size of a footlocker or small refrigerator, and weigh a couple of hundred pounds, not even Arnold could backpack one of those things. They also have a tritium trigger, which needs replacing every 6 months, and ALL of these are much older, and tritium is not something that you go to your local nuclear power plant and just pick up.

I could not find a specific link on the matter but several websites DO talk about backback and suitcase nukes, of russian origin. those would be 1 kiloton in strenght, much enough to do damage if detonated in a populated area. you can kiss new york good bye, becasue the radiation will scare off every american.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

im staying outa this one for the most part, but from what ive read, Menchise seems to be the most rational one in here


Menchise, Rational? Yes, he's rational, he just has been brainwashed by liberal and socialist teachers who have claimed that such a system works, when in fact history shows that it destroys. That is not exactly rational, but hey, to each his own.

Menchise is also a blame America guy, he believes terrorism is of course OUR fault. This is NOT rational.

In other words Enigma, Whatever dude.

quote:

I could not find a specific link on the matter but several websites DO talk about backback and suitcase nukes, of russian origin. those would be 1 kiloton in strenght, much enough to do damage if detonated in a populated area.

I thought that I was pretty explicit in my explanation.

Be it a "backpack" or a "suitcase" nuke, they use Tritium as the trigger device. Tritium is VERY unstable and last about 6 months before it must be replaced. If it is not, the bomb is just so much nuclear waste. It will not and CANNOT go off.

If there are bombs of this sort missing, they are not a danger unless they are taken apart and used as a dirty bomb, because they will NOT work.

quote:

Jaguar is it just me or do you sound like u talk down to anyone and everyone who isnt a shoot them first and ask questions later kindof person?


It is just you....

quote:

and are a lot of Saddams tactics so different than the US'? America isnt clean as a whistle isnt self. Saddam openly attacks his ppl, while the US does it in secret and then says oops it was for National Security we had to infect you 50yrs ago. again its more and bigger BS


We don't gas whole villages of our own citizens, we also don't allow our elected officials to run roughshod over peoples rights, such as yanking them off the street, putting them in some dungeon and torturing them to death.

If you want to get involved in this debate, please prepare yourself first.

[ 12-31-2002, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

*sigh*... dont be a fool, of course the backpacks are not WMD, but *gasp* the NUKE is... hello??? are you awake and paying attention now???

as for the inspectors recovering 98 scuds, thats great... but what about the rest??? all it takes is one rigged with nerve agent or a small yield nuke warhead to ruin someones day... perhaps if he nuked australia youd feel differently... well you wouldnt feel anything at all... youd be dead... only a hypothetical scenario however unlikely.

[ 12-31-2002, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jag I'm interested on what your views are regarding the destabilization of the Middle east and how you think this affects it. I have never been against getting rid a a little shit like Saddam I'm just more concerned as to how that act will be percieved and just how much of this is a political decision.

Iraq will almost certainly attack Israel again and with the present leadership there I doubt they will be able to show the same restraint as in the Gulf War. Once they retaliate what will be the response of all the other Islamic states?

Even the moderate ones are under a lot of popular pressure to act against what they see as "genocide" on the muslim world. Syria , Iran and even our "allies" in Yemen , Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are experiencing public protest. Based on this can the US practice containment and wage war and watch the North Koreans as well. Let me know what you think. And oh yeah you do talk down to us..but I 've come to accept that's just Jag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal guess is that all the deployments you've been hearing about for the last few days aren't going east to Iraq but west to North Korea. I think with the new situation developing there we won't hit Iraq until we're sure we can deal with NKor at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is gonna be quick, targeted, and complete within a week, then Iraq will be rebuilt, with a democratic government

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A democratic government in Iraq is so contrary to US interests that it simply won't happen.


Hello, Iraq already HAS A democratic government. What makes you think the new one will work any better than the old one?

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

im staying outa this one for the most part, but from what ive read, Menchise seems to be the most rational one in here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Menchise, Rational? Yes, he's rational, he just has been brainwashed by liberal and socialist teachers who have claimed that such a system works, when in fact history shows that it destroys. That is not exactly rational, but hey, to each his own.

Menchise is also a blame America guy, he believes terrorism is of course OUR fault. This is NOT rational.

In other words Enigma, Whatever dude.


You talk more like a brain washed person IMHO. You are blind to other peoples thoughts and you seem to be blind to the facts that Menchise has put before you. You also seem to be unable to put forth any real FACTS that support your case. All you say is that Saddam is bad bad bad, we gotta kill him, gotta take him down! BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!! WOOOOO BAD!

As for socialism and liberalism destroying countries in histroy might I remind you that Rome was republic at one time as were many great nations. The FORM of government is not what is at fault, it is the corruption in that government which brings about the fall. Iraq has an extremely corrupted Democracy and hence isn't even really a democracy. I am certain that socialism can and will work as soon as the world is ready for it to. However there is always someone there to take advantage of any system. Socialism just seems to be rather easy to take advantage of.

In fact, I have no idea if Saddam has ever done anything bad in his life. It is totally possible that everything I've seen on T.V. about him is a massive lie and that the gulf war was something totally diffrent. Even though I am very liberal and I think socialism is a good idea I don't blindly listen to liberal T.V. and assume it they are telling me the truth in any way shape or form.

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee:

Oh, and don't think that Bush WON'T retaliate, I'm certain he's dumb enough to do it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse me!? so what your saying is that if we get attacked by nukes from a country that fired them that we should just sit on our asses!?

No! I highly disagree with that! from what you sead its almost like being in the school yard and getting beat up by someone bigger than you, you can't fight back cause .. oooooh you'll be suspended..... Spare Me! if we do get attacked I damn sure hope so that we retaliate!


I think we should sit on our asses for the good of man kind in general. The United States has enough Nukes to destroy the world several times over. Pile that ontop of all the other countries that are bound to nuke us back as soon as they see our missles flying in random directions (as far as they can tell) they are going to launch their own. I'm sure that some humans would survive but everything that we have done in the bast 2000 years will be wiped off the face of the earth in a matter of days. I don't want that to happen just because Bush has a big ego and an itchy trigger finger. I would rather die and let my enemies live than have everyone on the face of the earth suffer my fate with me.

quote:

Also, remind him to keep his troops prepared for war, just in case Bush decides that Iran is a threat to national security and patriotic Americans believe him without question, although he may decide that China is a threat instead, in which case the new dictator can attack Iran anyway and receive a pat on the back from Rumsfeld for taking the initiative, and saving time for the United States Imperial Army to attack elsewhere.


I'm a very patriotic American and I don't believe a single word that comes out of Emperor Bushs puppet hole. I just wish I could see where that hand up his ass leads back to. Maybe I have more respect for whoever is REALLY in charge in this country.

[ 01-01-2003, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Serondal ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Jaguar is it just me or do you sound like u talk down to anyone and everyone who isnt a shoot them first and ask questions later kindof person?

I get that impression too ... Jaguar always have an aggressive tone (part of why I got mad the other day, no I won't debate whether I was right or wrong), while Menchise is calm and rational.

IMVHO Menchise has more credibility than Jaguar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: US grand strategy and Iraq

Pramit Pal Choudhuri wrote an article that put forward the idea that the US government has a grand strategy of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East in order to defeat terrorism. I put forward a contrary view, because Choudhuri's article is deeply flawed.

Choudhuri describes a sustainable process toward global hegemony as the establishment of "an international system that enshrines economic and political values which serves the interests of both the great powers and all potential rivals". This hypothesis has an intrinsic contradiction. It assumes that global hegemony is preferable when it assembles a system that all freedom-loving people are supposed to like, but if the proposed system really does serve the interests of "both the great powers and all potential rivals", it would not require a hegemon to impose it like some global mafia, which is what the grand strategy amounts to.

Democracy comes from the people rising up and making their own decisions, not from a military superpower imposing its will. The latter is intrinsically opposed to the essence of democracy, because democracy encourages the people to make independent decisions that are not necessarily in the interests of the superpower.

When it is in the interests of a superpower to appear to be pro-democratic, it will promote the establishment of a pseudo-democracy (what Choudhuri calls "capitalist democracies"), where the people have decision-making power over issues that do not affect the interests of the superpower, such as the election of so-called representatives who were pre-selected by the economic elite. The transitional pseudo-democracy of Afghanistan has even less credibility as a democracy than the unflattering model that I present above, not least because the violent electoral rigging and the appointment of brutal warlords as representatives of a "liberated" people do not amount to any meaningful representation let alone accountability. In short, Afghanistan has a transitional government that has been moving away from democracy since its establishment, while simultaneously being promoted by the US government as a budding democracy in the Middle East. The prospects for the "grand strategy" seem awfully bleak to me.

Choudhuri also provides a laughable attempt to explain away the history of US intervention in the Middle East, which has been anything but pro-democratic, and included the strengthening of Saddam Hussein even during his worst crimes against humanity. Choudhuri paraphrases Richard Haass when he writes that "because of reasons of oil, the Cold War and containing Iran, the US did not encourage democracy in the Arab world. The region has now become the world?s "democratic exception". He went on to say, "It is not in the US interest ? or that of Muslims ? for America to continue this exception"" In case Choudhuri didn't notice, oil is still a factor, the containment of Iran is an even bigger priority today, and the Cold War provides as little justification for limiting democracy as fighting terrorism does. Therefore, if those were the real reasons for limiting democracy in the past, then future actions will not be any different because the circumstances are no different from what they were before.

This leads on to one of the most remarkable contradictions to the "grand strategy" fantasy: TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System), promoted by the Bush Administration in mid-2002 and once compared to the Stasi (East German Secret Police). It would be extremely unusual for the Bush Administration to push for democracy in the Middle East at the same time that it pushes for fascism in its own country.

In conclusion, the strategy of the US government is not the spreading of democracy in the Middle East, but the spreading of US domination in the Middle East. As long as the US government is directly involved in political change within the region, the best that one can hope for are a few pseudo-democracies that make decisions so conveniently in line with US interests that one could mistake the voters for pod people. However, the more likely possibility is a bunch of military juntas.

[ 01-01-2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

great another student dictating military policy to us

now i understand Heinleins society in SST and why it would work

you can sit on your ass... i would expect nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not feel the need to enter this debate, the topic is not such a one as concerns me, but I would like to comment that political scientists only consider five countries to be true democracies. This is, needless to say, a rather small number. I do not remember all of which countries are listed, but this is beside the point anyway. Democracy requires a population that believes in the precepts of democracy and thus strives to effect it, or at least to maintain it once it has been effected by an outside force. In a population that is accustomed to subservience and strict control democracy will have a hard time taking root. It's not impossible, but it is very unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Posted by Race Bannon IV

Jag I'm interested on what your views are regarding the destabilization of the Middle east and how you think this affects it. I have never been against getting rid a a little shit like Saddam I'm just more concerned as to how that act will be percieved and just how much of this is a political decision.

Iraq will almost certainly attack Israel again and with the present leadership there I doubt they will be able to show the same restraint as in the Gulf War. Once they retaliate what will be the response of all the other Islamic states?

Even the moderate ones are under a lot of popular pressure to act against what they see as "genocide" on the muslim world. Syria , Iran and even our "allies" in Yemen , Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are experiencing public protest. Based on this can the US practice containment and wage war and watch the North Koreans as well. Let me know what you think. And oh yeah you do talk down to us..but I 've come to accept that's just Jag.


The reason the region is destabalized is because you have a bunch of 2 bit dictators and so-called royalty that controls 99% of the wealth and hold power with ruthless efficiency. In order to control their populations they must have an enemy that can take the blame for all of their problems.

Israel and the US are the ones that take that blame for them. We are rich and powerful nations that have more riches then they can understand.

Why are we rich? Because we are capitalist societies and have a democratic form of government. NONE of the countries in the middle east have either of those things. All they have is oil. If they did not have us as boogey men, their people would revolt and overthrow them. Easy stuff.

THis is also why they are afraid that we are going to overthrow Saddam and install a REAL democracy. It will show the people of their countries what a democracy without theology can do, and their governments will topple.

THis is Bush's strategy, and it is going to happen, THey are piddly countries, and once Iraqi oil is flowing freely, we get the russian oil fields up to snuff, the rest of OPEC is just so much garbage. THey will have to conform to the new ways or fall on their faces.

If they attack while we are attacking Iraq, armageddon will occur in the middle east, instead of living to create a new order in their own countries, they will die, rather spectacularly in a nuclear fireball. Israel will NOT hold back, she is tired, tired of being beaten by terrorists, tired of being told to chill out by the US, tired of being told they are wrong to defend themselves by the UN. If Israel is attacked, it will attack back in a most ferocious fashion, and many many millions will die in the middle east because of it.

quote:

Posted by Serondal

Hello, Iraq already HAS A democratic government. What makes you think the new one will work any better than the old one?


ROFLMAO!! Democracy my ass, get a grip dude, in a democracy you have MORE then one person running for office, you do not have armed vote counters threatening to shoot you if you don't vote the way they want you to.

You need to learn what a democracy really is. And in a democracy, someone does NOT win with 98% of the vote, 60% is considered a landslide.

In essence, Iraq is not a democracy.

NEXT!!

quote:

You talk more like a brain washed person IMHO. You are blind to other peoples thoughts and you seem to be blind to the facts that Menchise has put before you. You also seem to be unable to put forth any real FACTS that support your case.

It is called knowledge and REAL life experience, Menchise is a college student, as you probably are.

I am also a student of history.

quote:

I am certain that socialism can and will work as soon as the world is ready for it to.


I cut some of this out, because you answered your own questions, see my above statements.

Socialism is NOT EVER going to work, it cannot, it goes against Human nature, I have tried to explain this to Menchise, but he is a utopian. Humans are inherently selfish, and personally driven, socialism thinks of humans as Ants, whereas we are Human beings, so sorry charlie. Socialism will never work and can NEVER work.

quote:

I think we should sit on our asses for the good of man kind in general. The United States has enough Nukes to destroy the world several times over. Pile that ontop of all the other countries that are bound to nuke us back as soon as they see our missles flying in random directions (as far as they can tell) they are going to launch their own. I'm sure that some humans would survive but everything that we have done in the bast 2000 years will be wiped off the face of the earth in a matter of days. I don't want that to happen just because Bush has a big ego and an itchy trigger finger. I would rather die and let my enemies live than have everyone on the face of the earth suffer my fate with me.


Have fun little ant, because if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon we will retaliats. those that would use a nuclear weapon first, MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO LIVE. That would be rewarding them for their behavior, and for that, they must die.

quote:

I'm a very patriotic American and I don't believe a single word that comes out of Emperor Bushs puppet hole. I just wish I could see where that hand up his ass leads back to. Maybe I have more respect for whoever is REALLY in charge in this country.


The statement above shows me that you are NOT patriotic, and you actually have your head in that region where you think someone has their hand in Bush's. Bush is a LOT smarter then people take him for, and it is with great pleasure that I watch him outmaneuver them, time and time again.

quote:

By Epsilon 5

IMVHO Menchise has more credibility than Jaguar.


If that statement had come from someone else, I might ACTUALLY have been offended, but since it comes from you, I have to laugh at it.

quote:

By Menchise

Pramit Pal Choudhuri wrote an article that put forward the idea that the US government has a grand strategy of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East in order to defeat terrorism. I put forward a contrary view, because Choudhuri's article is deeply flawed.

Choudhuri describes a sustainable process toward global hegemony as the establishment of "an international system that enshrines economic and political values which serves the interests of both the great powers and all potential rivals". This hypothesis has an intrinsic contradiction. It assumes that global hegemony is preferable when it assembles a system that all freedom-loving people are supposed to like, but if the proposed system really does serve the interests of "both the great powers and all potential rivals", it would not require a hegemon to impose it like some global mafia, which is what the grand strategy amounts to.

Democracy comes from the people rising up and making their own decisions, not from a military superpower imposing its will. The latter is intrinsically opposed to the essence of democracy, because democracy encourages the people to make independent decisions that are not necessarily in the interests of the superpower.

When it is in the interests of a superpower to appear to be pro-democratic, it will promote the establishment of a pseudo-democracy (what Choudhuri calls "capitalist democracies"), where the people have decision-making power over issues that do not affect the interests of the superpower, such as the election of so-called ..... blah de blah de blah blah blah.


ROFLMAO!! Whatever Menchise....... Clueless, totally clueless. Come back to the real world please... THat's right, you are still in college, you'll get there though, I have faith.

quote:

great another student dictating military policy to us

now i understand Heinleins society in SST and why it would work

you can sit on your ass... i would expect nothing less.


Indeed!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imagine how i feel i get to go fight while pussies like him stay at home watch it on cnn. let me assure you of one thing mr. pussy, i will never allow socialism in my country. i know americans are not the weak people that your ideology assumes they are. If you think for one minitue that americans will ever be the mindless drones you want them to be, you should kill yourself right now because despite all the educational opertunity you were provided, you have failed to learn anything other then failure.

to me you are the weak person, when you have the balls to enlist and see what the real world is you get back to me until then, you shouldn't waste your time trying to change a countries system when its that system that allows you to even strive for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Serondal

Hello, Iraq already HAS A democratic government. What makes you think the new one will work any better than the old one?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROFLMAO!! Democracy my ass, get a grip dude, in a democracy you have MORE then one person running for office, you do not have armed vote counters threatening to shoot you if you don't vote the way they want you to.

You need to learn what a democracy really is. And in a democracy, someone does NOT win with 98% of the vote, 60% is considered a landslide.

In essence, Iraq is not a democracy.

NEXT!!


In fact Iraq is a democracy and as a matter of fact it is a direct democracy. The United States on the other hand is not a democracy, I think it is time for you to get a grip little kitten. Just because their democracy is corrupted that doesn't make it any less of a democracy. And if you expect our army to walk in, kill everyone with diffrent views than them, and somehow set up a magical democracy that doesn't even exist in our country, then YOU are living in a dream world. Corruption will always exist in that country until the people take freedom for themselves. We can't give it them , no one can. Look at India and other nations that "Claim" to have Democracy, like Russia!

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You talk more like a brain washed person IMHO. You are blind to other peoples thoughts and you seem to be blind to the facts that Menchise has put before you. You also seem to be unable to put forth any real FACTS that support your case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is called knowledge and REAL life experience, Menchise is a college student, as you probably are.

I am also a student of history.


What you think is knowledge is meerly the effects of your brainwashing. I seriously doubt you have any REAL life experience that would pertain to this situation in any way, shape, or form. You are as clueless as you claim me to be.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am certain that socialism can and will work as soon as the world is ready for it to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cut some of this out, because you answered your own questions, see my above statements.

Socialism is NOT EVER going to work, it cannot, it goes against Human nature, I have tried to explain this to Menchise, but he is a utopian. Humans are inherently selfish, and personally driven, socialism thinks of humans as Ants, whereas we are Human beings, so sorry charlie. Socialism will never work and can NEVER work.


If you're going to quote me It would be nice if you got the entire statment. This is the second time you've left part out of statment out to make me look bad. I of course expect no less from a person like you.

As for socialism not ever going to be able to work I serious doubt, once again, that you can see into the future and say such things with any sort of certainty. I am sure that some day it will work, when all the selfish people like you have killed each other.

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we should sit on our asses for the good of man kind in general. The United States has enough Nukes to destroy the world several times over. Pile that ontop of all the other countries that are bound to nuke us back as soon as they see our missles flying in random directions (as far as they can tell) they are going to launch their own. I'm sure that some humans would survive but everything that we have done in the bast 2000 years will be wiped off the face of the earth in a matter of days. I don't want that to happen just because Bush has a big ego and an itchy trigger finger. I would rather die and let my enemies live than have everyone on the face of the earth suffer my fate with me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have fun little ant, because if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon we will retaliats. those that would use a nuclear weapon first, MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO LIVE. That would be rewarding them for their behavior, and for that, they must die.


The only little "ant" I see here is you. You show all the signs of being brain washed by American media. You mouth opens and you start to speak but the words that come out of your mouth are not your own.

I am not so nieve to think that Emperor Bush wouldn't push the button and send this world and all its people to their doom.

However there is no point in killing the people that just killed you if it means totally ending human life on the face of the planet forever. At least if there are still humans alive there is a chance that some day those evil people that killed us will be served their justice in a way that doesn't destroy everything we know.

You are a selfish child that wants to make everyone elses choices for them and make everyone else believe what you believe. You would rather kill them than let them believe in something else. Why is this you ask? Maybe it is because your own thoughts are not even your own, and hence you don't think we deserve to have our own thoughts either.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a very patriotic American and I don't believe a single word that comes out of Emperor Bushs puppet hole. I just wish I could see where that hand up his ass leads back to. Maybe I have more respect for whoever is REALLY in charge in this country.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The statement above shows me that you are NOT patriotic, and you actually have your head in that region where you think someone has their hand in Bush's. Bush is a LOT smarter then people take him for, and it is with great pleasure that I watch him outmaneuver them, time and time again.


I am very patriotic, it doesn't matter if you think I am or not. This is America and I can believe whatever I want, in this way am I patriotic. I don't live my life for your approval nor do I give a shit what you think about me. This is America we live in (Some of us) and here I can think anything I want and say anything I want. This is how I am patriotic, and I would fight and die by your side to protect that freedom in a heart beat. I will not, however, fly half way across the world to kill people in another country just because we want their oil. That is not patriotic, that is pure evil.

BTW, Puppets don't have an @$$ so to speak. It is obvious that the craftsmanship with Emperor Bush is lacking because they didn't give him a brain either.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Epsilon 5

IMVHO Menchise has more credibility than Jaguar.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that statement had come from someone else, I might ACTUALLY have been offended, but since it comes from you, I have to laugh at it.


I havn't heard bullshit pour out of his mouth that sounds like what I just heard on the T.V. five seconds ago, so I would have to place him above you on my list of people that have a free mind. Epsilon 5 doesn't say much, but what he does say comes from his heart, not his T.V.

quote:

ROFLMAO!! Whatever Menchise....... Clueless, totally clueless. Come back to the real world please... THat's right, you are still in college, you'll get there though, I have faith.


I can't believe you're downing someone because he is in college. What next little Nazi, are we going to find you burning books and marking Jews for round up? Maybe you would rather round up Musslims since they are the popular item on the menu this year.

Where is it that you want Menchise to "Get". The little brainwashed zone that you're in at this moment? I don't think he will ever get there, where you are all mighty Jaguar.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

great another student dictating military policy to us

now i understand Heinleins society in SST and why it would work

you can sit on your ass... i would expect nothing less.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed!!


The Military does not rule this nation, the people do. At least that is what the brain wash we hear in school and on T.V. would like us to believe. The fact is the military is going to do whatever the **** it wants regardless of what I say or what you say.

quote:

imagine how i feel i get to go fight while pussies like him stay at home watch it on cnn. let me assure you of one thing mr. pussy, i will never allow socialism in my country. i know americans are not the weak people that your ideology assumes they are. If you think for one minitue that americans will ever be the mindless drones you want them to be, you should kill yourself right now because despite all the educational opertunity you were provided, you have failed to learn anything other then failure.

to me you are the weak person, when you have the balls to enlist and see what the real world is you get back to me until then, you shouldn't waste your time trying to change a countries system when its that system that allows you to even strive for it.


LMAO, how can YOU call anyone a mindless drone? You were trained to follow orders without thinking and kill the enemy even though you have no personal reason to. You are a killer, a slaughterer, a murderer, and don't have the right to talk about Freedom.

Guess what, Socialism is already IN This country, there are socialist parties that run for President every single time. There is nothing to can do to stop it either. It may not become the form of government any time soon but the idea is here and it will always be here.

Who is the pussy, the one that fights because someone else told him it was right, or the one who will not fight because he knows in his heart it is wrong? Who is brave enough to stand up for what HE believes in, and who is the coward that does what he is told because he is AFRAID not to?!

BTW buddy, your quote is invalid, the U.S. Army has lost before.

You people disgust me, it makes me sad that I share a nation with you. With people like you being so verbal it is no wonder everyone hates Americans. You're a bunch of Warmongers,it is you that will bring about the end of the world. Not some stupid religion's Satan.

[ 01-02-2003, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Serondal ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to be civil, I really try. But why be civil to someone like this who is the Anti-Civil?

quote:

THat whole statement above is the most ridiculous socialistic rant I have heard in a while.

Sorry Menchise, you are clueless as to what is ACTUALLY going on.

That's OK, live in your lala land of fantasy. The adults are in charge now, and now China is not on the list, but North Korea is, and then Iran will fall on it's own.

And the US will not HOLD Iraq, we are for Regime change, this imperialistic crap you spout, is just that.

CRAP!!!


quote:

I am going to tell Menchise about something that he obviously has no clue about.


quote:

Sorry Menchise, but you are living in a dreamworld.

quote:

Sorry, but I will ignore the rest of that post for now.

quote:

Menchise, Rational? Yes, he's rational, he just has been brainwashed by liberal and socialist teachers who have claimed that such a system works, when in fact history shows that it destroys. That is not exactly rational, but hey, to each his own.


quote:

Here, let me give you a clue Menchise,

These are just a few of Jaguar's statments that are totally uncivil. Most of them are targeted towards you Menchise. I myself can be a very uncivil person. If he chooses not to be civil then I will happily lower myself to his level, and enjoy doing it.

[ 01-02-2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Serondal ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

I could not find a specific link on the matter but several websites DO talk about backback and suitcase nukes, of russian origin. those would be 1 kiloton in strenght, much enough to do damage if detonated in a populated area. you can kiss new york good bye, becasue the radiation will scare off every american.

The point I was making was that scuds can only be labelled as a means of delivering WMD if it has such a payload. Backpacks may not be the best example to point this out, but you get the gist.

quote:

as for the inspectors recovering 98 scuds, thats great... but what about the rest???

Why do you assume that there were more? The evidence indicated 98, and 98 were accounted for. It's possible that they have some now, which is why there are inspectors in Iraq now.

quote:

Iraq will almost certainly attack Israel again and with the present leadership there I doubt they will be able to show the same restraint as in the Gulf War.

That's assuming that Iraq has the missiles to attack Israel again. Besides, the Israeli government would not need to show so much restraint because it's highly unlikely that any missiles (if they exist) would reach their targets given the improvements in Israeli defenses since the Gulf War.

quote:

In fact Iraq is a democracy and as a matter of fact it is a direct democracy. The United States on the other hand is not a democracy, I think it is time for you to get a grip little kitten. Just because their democracy is corrupted that doesn't make it any less of a democracy.

A corrupt democracy is when a group or groups among the general population, whether they're a majority or a minority, have disproportionate decision-making power. Iraq is not a democracy or a corrupt democracy. When the people vote for one candidate because he's the only candidate, and all political opposition is violently put down, it's a dictatorship, because even though the formalities of the electoral process have been implemented, the decision has already been made by the dictator, hence the process has no meaning. In a corrupt democracy, elections are rigged. In Iraq, elections are purely ceremonial, hence they don't need to be rigged.

quote:

I'm a very patriotic American and I don't believe a single word that comes out of Emperor Bushs puppet hole.

I should have put quotes around the word "patriotic" in my statement. Sorry about that.

quote:

These are just a few of Jaguar's statments that are totally uncivil. Most of them are targeted towards you Menchise. I myself can be a very uncivil person. If he chooses not to be civil then I will happily lower myself to his level, and enjoy doing it.

I don't blame you for enjoying it, but responding to uncivil behaviour with more uncivil behaviour will only encourage more of the same. In a forum like this, "more of the same" will lead to a closed thread. Besides, it's not worth the waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, this is disgusting people, relax. Menchise is totally correct (at least on this issue), hissing and spitting at each other like a pair of angry cats isn't getting us anywhere. Romale, I don't know what to say, I'm offended to even agree with you in part, your flagrant use of frankly repulsive insults is, well, frankly repulsive. Serondal, the same goes for you (if not quite to the same degree), I know Jaguar can be a little on the abrasive side at times (ok make that really abrasive at times) but that's no excuse to get even more repugnant, I feel like I've run across a thread on a different forum, no one here behaves like you are. And Jaguar, tone it down a little, you're supposed to be a moderator after all, so I don't think it would be to much to ask you to moderate yourself a bit.

Oh bother, I don't care, but if you're going to insult each other like this you might as well you Creative And Highly Amusing Insults so as the rest of use can enjoy reading it, this current blend of verbal (textual?) upchuck is corroding my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have had about as much as I can handle.

This kind of craziness has gone too far.

Menchise and I have a few disagreements, but believe it or not, I enjoy his views, they are way different then mine, but hey. Yes, we sometimes ride the edge with insults etc, but we get over it. We are adults, we have handled it so far, and we will handle it again. I did ride the edge a bit in some of these posts, but I will not apologize for them.

And when some goofball starts popping off about the POTUS like this, I get a little pissed off. Because you are clueless as to what is going on.

Where I get my knowledge and how I get it are none of your business I am afraid, but they are not from the Media. I do not even turn on a television, get a newspaper, etc. I hate the media, and therefore do not listen to their socialist and american bashing BS. It is obvious that some in this forum do however. I get my info, straight from the horses mouth so to speak, and that is ALL I will say about that.

The other 2 in this thread, though have gone WAY above and beyond.

This has gotten WAY too personal, therefore...

This topic is now closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×