Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 04:27pm PT
|
WoodyS: "The administration and both parties are responsible for--equally-- this mess. Going all the way back to Carter, our leaders have failed to recognize what was coming. And, as the problem grew, both parties played politics with it or tried to ignore it. There's been enough blindness, incompetence and outright stupidity on both sides to earn historical condemnation."
This is clearly not the case. Carter and Clinton did agressively attempt to address the seminal "thorn in the sandal" of the Middle East - the Israeli / Palestinian problem. Bush has, on the otherhand talked a good game on one hand while allowing the influence of US christian fundamentalists to repeatedly undermine true progress on the other.
We are in this mess strictly because this administration tried to execute on a neocon fantasy that you could avoid the political quagmire that is Israel by leapfrogging to putting the entire Middle East in play. Again, if you are unwilling to tackle something as simple as the Israeli problem then it is naive in the extreme to think you can successfully navigate the numerous ambiquous problems and paradoxes that are unavoidably unleashed from inflaming the greater Middle East in one stroke.
I will grant you that for the last hundred years our dealings in the Middle East have been extremely amatuerish. This is because we cut the diplomatic teeth we keep trying to apply to the region in Central/South America. We have [cluelessly] insisted again and again on operating in the Middle East the way we believe was "effective" in Latin America. The folly of this approach was never more succinctly illustrated than by the Iran-Contra affair. And to a leser extent by our handling the Shah/Iran and Saddam/Iraq like a Noriega/Panama in years past. Unfortunately, Arab and other Middle East cultures operate nothing like Latin cultures witnessed by the fact that there are no Latin suicide bombers. The Europeans and particularly British career diplomats are always shaking there heads in amazement at our repeated missteps in the region and our inability to understand that it is our overall mindset that is flawed rather than simply repeated "incidents" gone awry.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 04:55pm PT
|
Hooter,
Yes, incopetence - pure and simple. You can bet that Bush and Cheney's corporate sponsors (Bechtel, Fluor, Halliburton, Berger, Parsons, et al) anticipated being at the trough far longer than they are going to be. These guys bungled it so badly that no one is going to be able to steal nearly as much as they planned on.
|
|
Wholly Mammoth
Social climber
The question is: where do I want to be?
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 05:06pm PT
|
WoodyS wrote: Face it, we're in the soup because our leadership's been screwing up for over thirty years.
WELL SAID Woody
Here's a few facts to back that up:
1979
--The Iran-Iraq War
Saddam aims to take out the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran over the Shatt al-Arab canal
1988
--Saddam sends Iraqi troops to attack the Kurdish with poisonous gas and nerve agents, killing around 5,000 civilians (note: no answer from the U.S., or the World.)
1980s
--Saddam threatens to unite with (then) USSR, so the US sends him billions to fight Iran so he would would not do so, especially after he tried to obtain a nuclear facilities.
1990 The Gulf War
--Margaret Thatcher sways G. H.W. Bush to protect her oil investments in Kuwait; UN issues a deadline Saddam ignores (sound familar) and the U.S. invades after Congress approves (sounds doubly familar).
Post Gulf War
--Saddam flexes his dictatorship muscles, and brings back the Sharia laws: death sentences for homosexuals, and postitutes.
--UN sanctions keep Iraq's economy down; about 500,000 to 1 million deaths occur because Saddam lets his people starve, and go without medical supplies, while he sells his people's aide for oil -- the now famous "Oil 4 food program" fails to help this.
--1990s
Bill Clinton posts economic sanctions, stating that "regime change was necessary in order for Iraq to rejoin the family of nations." Clinton issues Operation Desert Fox, aiming to take out Saddam's "WEAPONS" facilities. As a result, Hussein threatens to align with al Qaeda
So Bob D, whatcha make of this?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 05:27pm PT
|
Well I'm not Bob D, but Woolly you forgot to mention this little bit of ugly history in your timeline, taken during a period when Hussein was using WMDs. The photo is kinda fuzzy, but that is Rummy shaking hands with Saddam.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 05:31pm PT
|
Fattrad, there were so many other strings attached to that deal that it was unworkable once you looked under the hood at the details. But you're right, without far greater U.S. pressure Israel will never put anything remotely like an acceptable offer on the table - one that would result in a self-sustaining Palestinian state.
|
|
Wholly Mammoth
Social climber
The question is: where do I want to be?
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 05:36pm PT
|
of course, that was during the Reagan era, which was the period in time when the US was funding Iraq to the tone of billions... gotta know your history, I did include that. Thanks for the image though...
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 05:40pm PT
|
Fattrad: "Thought I would jump back into this one. One of my good friends from AIPAC (a democrat) shared an office with Monica at the White House. Clinton (Bill) chased many interns and caught a few, Monica was a very willing participant according to my friend."
Well Fattrad, I have to say, when you are not name dropping, you sure love to come up with 'facts', first-hand 'fact's, hearsay, innuendo and such.
Wholly Mammoth, about your timeline, there are several holes and gaps in it, and I tell you what, I have to go make it to the supermarket, which closes in less than 35 minutes, then I am going home to cook, eat, watch TV play on the computer etc etc blah blah blah.
But tomorrow I'll return to this thread and tell you what your gaps and holes are, okay.
Bye for now y'all.
(PS, not that any of you care, but Cork City beat Derry City tonight in the last match of the League of Ireland season. The league isn't great by any standards - the major division in the San Francisco league is just as good, I know I have played in that league and also briefly for Galway United - but it was a match between the only two teams that could win the championship. Derry needed a draw to be crowned champs, Cork needed a win, which they got - 2-0 in Cork. Also Roy Keane has sensationally left Manchester United, by 'mutual consent', but was probably sacked for his outspoken views. So now let's hope the Corkman - ex-captain of Ireland and Manchester United - signs for Glasgow Celtic.)
|
|
Wholly Mammoth
Social climber
The question is: where do I want to be?
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 05:51pm PT
|
Patrick S,
Please do -- I gave a quick overview anyhow... there's enough freaking information to write an opus on the subject, but I avoided doing so since I read that someone with ADHD in the forum can only focus for about 30 seconds. I didn't want to alienate anyone (wink).
W.M.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 06:20pm PT
|
fattrad,
That fence is both an affront to human rights and an unacceptable border definition for an offer. That is exactly the problem and it will not be resolved until the U.S. develops some spine and realizes the ongoing global costs of supporting Israel's refusal to settle the conflict equitablly are staggering. Given those costs are about rise rather sharply one can only hope the public's patience will ebb in this regard - but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 06:58pm PT
|
Jody,
Almost all of the statements by Democrats posted in this thread were made in the context of pursuing stepped up UN weapons inspections or in explanation or support of punitive military attacks pursuant to the terms of the agreement that ended the first Gulf war - not in support of starting a pre-emptive war. The only time Saddam has been a credible threat in the region has been when we either directly or naively provided him with the means, the opportunity, and a knowing wink and nod - after our enthusiastic support during the Iran-Iraq war and looking the other way while gssing the Kurds with WND's we supplied he can hardly be faulted for misinterpreting diplomatic signals prior to the first Gulf war.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 07:00pm PT
|
Jody,
Take a trip down memory lane.
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/
I bet if Congress had been privy to every PDB on Iraq none of this would have happened in the first place.
And once again, if you support the war, are under 36 years of age and can pass a physical...
SIGN UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 07:09pm PT
|
Fattrad, if that is truly the case then I would be all for evacuating it and reducing the entire city of Jerusalem to rubble and then equitably dividing the bare land between the two.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
boulder, co
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 07:10pm PT
|
Wooly wrote: So Bob D, whatcha make of this?
What's your point?
It was not time to invade Iraq, Saddam was not the ememy. You have be a idiot to follow the logic behind it.
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
Templeton, CA
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 07:20pm PT
|
Doug, using your logic, the following would apply:
No one who could be and isn't serving should speak out on Iraq
No one except women of child-bearing age should speak out on abortion
No one who isn't poor should speak out on welfare
No one who isn't in school should speak out on education
No one who isn't a criminal or a victim of crime should speak out on criminal justice
Most people have never been in the military. To say that if you haven't served you can't have an opinion is stupid.
Bill Clinton didn't serve, in fact, he "loathed" the military. yet he sent troops into harms way. Did you have a problem with it then?
P.S. You aren't Engelkirk are you?
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 07:33pm PT
|
Jody,
You fail to see my point.
Re-read the riginal post. It only referrs to people who support the war, are under 36 years of age and can pass a physical.
Do you fit the description?
If you feel that other people need to die for a cause you support yet will not put your life on the line is majorly hipocritical.
Rationalize it all you want any way you want.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 07:36pm PT
|
Damn it fattrad - I think we've agreed on something...
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 08:10pm PT
|
Jody,
"No, but even if I did, what would that matter? So only people under 36 and who can pass a physical should be voicing their opinion in opposition to the war also. If they don't fit that criteria, what do they have to worry about."
Dude, you still do not see the point. If you support the active destruction of human life, you need to put your life on the line as well. Don't micromanage this discussion, check the big picture.
"Do you support safe roadways? Do you want drunk drivers to run wild on our highways? Do you want assistance if you are in an accident? Get a uniform and badge and join up, putting your life on the line, otherwise, shut up."
Yes I support safe roadways.
No, I do not want drunk drivers on the road. Got hit head on by one!
Yes I want assistance in an emergency.
I support all of the above.
But the support for all of the above does not involve the active destruction of human life. It does quite the opposite.
You are trying to compare apples to a ear-canal. No comparison what so ever.
"Are you Engelkirk?"
Who? No.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 08:47pm PT
|
Jody,
There is nothing tired or useless in pointing out the "chickenhawk" status of most of this administration's top personnel. It is essential to understanding how we got into this mess and how they could pose and fall for a fantasy on the scale of the neocon's "solution" to dealing with the Middle East. Had they actually had military experience they would have seen the fantasy for what is was. These men have justified sending US service men and women into harms way in a pre-emptive war under false pretenses when they were themselves were completely unwilling to do the same when they had the opportunity. And worse, they supported the Vietnam war they actively avoided serving in again and again - almost to a man. As a veteran I view these men as dangerous hypocrites at best and as traitors for the lies that brought us to this juncture. More enthusiastic, deliberate, and ardent liars could hardly be found in our history. Burglary and blowjobs are pale misdermeanors by comparison.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 09:08pm PT
|
Jody, many of those quotes were either a) from 1998 or so when the option of war was not being considered or b) based on 2002 intelligence that we now know was largely both wrong and deliberately distorted by the Bush admin.
Yeah, some dems voted for the war. I voted for Kerry but I did find his war stance, or lack thereof, troubling and shifty. He deserved to get nailed from the right on this. But this war is by and large, still Bush's baby, the one issue that will pretty much define his presidency. I hope it works but I am deeply skeptical.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2005 - 09:09pm PT
|
Yes this is true, the “real” reasons for war and why people die in them is and always will be a great mystery to us. We can only “see” and understand so much with our limited senses.
But it is true, real leaders in war or battle lead the men and women in front all others follow behind. They go into battle first.
Why do they now sit behind at desks?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!