I’ll take ‘yes, of course it does’ for 200 alex. If we are trying to win ** Iraqi **hearts and minds then what does what people who are not Iraqi do matter?
I said: “If we do transfer power to the U.N. and Iraq improves all the credit will go to the U.N. and the U.S.A. will remain the villian.”
Which is clearly not the same as I would rather Iraq stay a hellhole then let anyone else get credit.
Reading comprehension young grasshopper.
We blew our best chance for repairing the damage done in Iraq: firing the fucking incompetent to led us into the place and sending the world the message that no, America as a whole does not ratify what he did in office.
We didn’t.
Now it’s just a matter of how bad and how quickly bad things can get from here.
They’re part of the package. Actually, the thread title is a little misleading - the report is about the Muslim world in general; Iraq is just the heart of it in terms of relations with the US right now. If we can’t make ourselves be believed inside Iraq then we can’t do it outside either, and vice versa.
Notice the question mark I also used. A person with the “reading comprehension” skills you claim might have recognized that I was inquiring into your statement’s meaning. The subject of who gets blamed and credited is obviously important to you. Perhaps you might expound on it instead of complaining about being misunderstood.
I apologize I was specifically talking about Iraqis. I don’t think we can have meaningful discussion about the ‘Muslim world’. It ranges from Indonesia who we are helping fight terrorists to Syria and Iran who are helping terrorists.
I might have read more into your question than was there, if I did I apologize. I see four outcomes, 1) We stay and it gets better. USA comes out looking pretty good. 2) We stay and it goes to hell in a hand basket. USA is boned. 3) We let the UN take over and it gets better. When it gets better the UN will get the credit for stabilizing Iraq as a democracy. We remain the villian becuase none of the imperialistic, illegal war etc etc accusations will go away and it will be claimed that we were forced to let the UN take over. 4) We let the UN take over and Iraq goes to hell in a handbasket. USA will get the blame for invading it and then abadoning it.
My preference in order would be 1, 3, 2, 4. Options 1 and 3 are favorable for Iraqi’s but only option 1 is also favorable for the USA. I just don’t see how the UN would be better at maintaining control that the USA. There isn’t better trained or better equiped not to mention the number of troops required. I don’t think the insurgents would stop if the UN took over. Their goal is no centralized power so that they can reshape Iraq the way they want it by force.
I apologize for the sarcasm in my previous posts its been a fairly shitty day at work and I probably took your question the wrong way becuase of my mood.
Option 1 is impossible.
And still come out with a crappy viewpoint.
You keep implying/pointing out Americans are stupid fat lazy retarded people with a criminal president, but strangely enough, this country has occupied two Muslim states and has pretty much two thirds of their regimes on its payroll. Who’s the more stupid?
Rubbish, last time I checked France didn’t equate to the enitre EU.
The US will always be hated regardless, its not the people everyone hates, its the power those people have around the world some elements of us envy. Happened to England, happened to Islamic Caliphates. Get over it.
Cool, the true intentions come out. One thing am glad about, if the US goes, the rest of the World goes with it.
How many times a day do you love to shout the same old slogans US=BAD EVERYONE ELSE REGARDLESS=GOOD
Is it ever possible to think that maybe the US acts selflessly to ensure in the long run its security was ensured. Did Rome do this? The British did half assed attempts, the Russians? Collapsed around them. The Americans might not have done great, but they have done alot better that you could envisage, and you know it.
You know how I know, because why is China embracing American capitalism? Or why did Japan?
I’d ask you for a cite but I don’t want you to throw a hissy fit.
Subsidizing apartheid? This alleged apartheid comes from the fact that every time they try to make peace some idiot wearing a Semtex coat blows up a bus. That door swings both ways, friend. If the Arabs would acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and quit declaring wars and jihads on them there might actually be some peace.
Pre-1967 borders, you say? Why should they give back what is theirs? They won the war, they get the spoils. They could be magnanimous and return the land like they did in the deal with Egypt, but that’s their choice. If they choose not to, that should be a lesson in what happens when you attack Israel over and over again.
Human rights abuses? Who’s bombing buses? Who’s hijacking planes? Can you blame them for reprisals? I can’t. They have a legitimate interest in their national security, and I for one support them, although they sometimes go too far. But again, that’s their choice. They are surrounded on all sides by people who hate them and have been from day one. That tends to have an effect on the way they do things.
I think it’s safe to say that the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes that you and I have laid out, but your assertions are completely unreasonable and would almost certainly affect the survival of Israel as a country.
Hard to say, to be quite honest. Wasn’t like the Iraqi people had a say in what Saddam did, so you can’t blame our occupation on their smarts or lack thereof; and I doubt the Taliban took a referendum on whether or not to allow us into Afghanistan to hunt down al-Qaeda. So there’s evidence of stupidity on the part of one totalitarian strongman, and one bunch of religious zealots. But it says nothing about the citizens of either country.
OTOH, we wound up with our military being tied down and chewed up in Iraq by a more or less democratic process. So there is evidence of stupidity on the part of the American people. Even more so now.
Cool, true intentions come out. :rolleyes:
There used to be such a time. It’s clearly in the past. The selfless action of bombing insurgents from the air (killing plenty of innocent civilians in “collateral damage”) is a form of selflessness I hope will never be exhibited anywhere near me.
If you’re talking about Iraq, the answer is that I can envisage our having left well enough alone. Which would have been far better than what we actually did. Not just as far as Iraq itself is concerned, but also with respect to convincing Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear aspirations. Our demonstrated willingness to invade troublesome countries is their case that they need nukes. You take three countries with little connection among them, call them the “Axis of Evil”, invade and occupy one of the countries, and - surprise! - the other two want nukes. (And our ‘ally’, Pakistan, set up them The Bomb. But it’s OK, Musharraf gave A.Q. Khan a good talking-to, and told us he was sorry.)
And neither of these are correct, either. All it would have taken to get rid of Saddam was some of the effort they put into blowing up Tel Aviv buses. And all the Taliban had to do was give up Bin Laden. It’s not like we didn’t give them a chance, in either case.
Iraqis blew up busses in Tel Aviv? Really?
By the way: anyone having an idea or even has come to the idea that not every Itraqi was such an opponent of Hussein? (does anyone has an idea how many Iraqis would even want him back right now?)
No, the US did not. Bush refused repeatedly to talk with the Taliban. Even after they had sent a clear message that bin Laden was no longer under their protection (hidden hint for anyone with the slighest idea about that culture: this meant to say “come and get him if you like”).
The US blocked the attempts to have their scape goat delivered to them on a golden plate. If he was was delivered, then what pretext was left to invade Afghanistan (read: to have their puppet installed and their pipeline-plans dusted off and the Russians for good out of the picture etc…etc…)
That it all doesn’t go like the US pictured it would after their invasion in Afghanistan you have to thank Glorious Bush for. (anyone heard of bin Laden lately?)
The USA really thought that once they were there, the rest of the world would gladly take over and do the imperialistic job for them. They also thought that distributing some money to warlords would make them “allies”. Hence off they went to the next state they covetted for their geostrategical and economical goals.
That it does not go as they dreamed, you have also the Glorious Bush to thank for. He could have oppointed someone with insight in the country instead of the Criminal Bremer. Yet I’m afraid that anyone who had ever a shred of insight in the regionwas brushed out of the administration once the Glorious Bush acted upon his visions of Godlyu inspirations.
The only one who really was in a good mood and had a lot of fun for a great amount of time before and after the invasion of Iraq was the notorious criminal Chalabi. (anyone heard of Chalabi lately?)
Salaam. A
WTF, friend?
Taliban: my point was that while the Taliban could have chosen to give up bin Laden, that wasn’t an option open to the Afghani people, since the Taliban government wasn’t exactly open to discussion on the subject.
Iraqis: rose up against Saddam in 1991, at our urging. (We did nothing to help. Saddam killed a lot of rebels. Once burned, twice shy.) And when were Iraqis blowing up buses in Tel Aviv?
At some point they actually did. Bush however was by the time already feeling far too good in his role of Fearless War Leader. Who would have told him to take that map map with little tin soldiers and little bombers from his desk because war is not like in chiildren games when it goes for real?
If you asked an Afghan: “Who is bin Laden” at that time, he didn’t even know what or who you were talking about.
The Taliban was never the legitimate government of Afghanistan to begin with.
I’m afraid you make things far too complicated for the Average Brilliant Minds who reason Palestinian/Iraqi/Afghani/Whatever Muslim= all of them= Muslims = all of them are Terrorists.
Salaam. A
What pipe line are you talking about?
Why would the US care about a land locked country in the middle of asia?
What evidence do you have that the Russians were going to go through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to invade Afghanistan?
I’m going through my HOMICIDE DVDs this weekend and I just watched ‘Bop Gun’. I think that a lot of the aimless muggers/killers in that episode mirror some of the Iraqis–they don’t feel in control of anything. They had bad, irresponsible parents who pretended to care but were out for themselves. So what difference does it make what they do? They can have their illusion of being in control by defying authority, any authority.
They also have the Arab ‘big man’ syndrome–just as they allowed Saddam to create a personality cult, they have childlike beliefs in the Americans to make everything right. Mistakes in speech could be fatal under the old regime, so the new one dare not make any either. And the conspiracy thinking that living under a totalitarian regime engenders gives a sinister explanation to everything that goes wrong. If there’s no electricity, it’s much easier to think that ‘well, the Americans could put somebody on the moon so they must deliberately not be finishing the job’, rather than challenge the neighbor who you know is running out and cutting the lines every night, turning him in to the occupiers.
I feel sorry for the Iraqis, I really do. Anybody there under the age of forty or so has had a miserable life of deprivation and fear. I believe that a great percentage of them have mental illnesses as a result of living under that regime, which will go untreated. The only solution I can see is to do our best to have them decide for themselves, on January 30, what sort of government they want. Any groups who do not want to participate should be made to understand that this is their one chance.
I hope they don’t blow it.
I don’t speak for Airman but I think he meant that Iraqis were the ones blowing up busses in Tel Aviv. Rather I think he was arguing that Arabs should have put much more energy in trying to remove Saddam who has commited more atrocities against muslims than Israel has.
I certainly don’t remember the Taliban ever offering to hand over Bin Laden to the USA. Irregardless didn’t we try to go and get him anyways?
Again I would like a cite for the Taliban delivering Bin Laden to the USA on a golden platter.
Cite for Iraqis blowing up Tel Aviv buses.
Thanks in advance.
OK, OK, OK. After I hit submit and re-read what I had written I thought to myself “Oh boy, I’m gonna get pilloried for that”, and it has come to pass. As I should have been. I withdraw that assertion, first because it wasn’t really what I meant to imply, and second because I can’t prove it. Fair enough?
WRT to Iraq, would a fair rebuttal to what you were trying to say be:
They did try to get rid of Saddam - there were a number of open revolts against the Baathist regimes by various groups, which uniformly came to miserable ends for those involved, and their families, and villages, etc., and horror stories of the lengths to which Saddam went to ensure loyalty and ferret out all those who might conceivably be thinking about crossing him
First, I think there is no longer any question about the administration’s level of understanding other cultures (if ever there was). The US at the time was in even less of a mood for subtlety and nuance then before or since.
Second, saying “come and get him if you like” is not the same as being willing to hand him and his cronies over on a silver platter (or gold if you prefer). Your first statement implies a willingness to turn a blind eye to the apprehension, the second to apprehend and transfer into custody. Was the Taliban willing to do the latter? My memory seems to say not (granted my view was through the lens of the US media). Even if they were willing to do the US’s dirty work and turn an erstwhile ally and prominent figure over to the US, did they have the capability to defeat Al Qaeda, round up the prominent figures and herd them to the Kabul airport for pickup in a C-17?
While I do not argue that the US took the only or the best course available wrt to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Afghanistan, I think you are minimizing the difference between what the US reasonably wanted/needed in late 2001 and what the Taliban was/would be willing to provide and when.
I’ll try to be optimistic…
Just about every country would prefer to work **WITH the US ** as opposed to AGAINST it. For better or worse the US has been a “benign” giant most of the time… even if prone to sneaking around and messing with peoples democracies or worse plain open invasion of minor countries until Bush.
So with a decent president and European support Arabs are willing to work along. So all you got to do is not re-elect Bush… oh… well… next time then. Good Luck.