You must have, you misspelled Rwanda.
:wally
Yeah, your right.
But if you have never been there you’d never know the real spelling now would you?
look here: http://www.e-ztown.com/continents.htm
How is Rhwanda spelled there?
Do I need to provide more examples?
http://www.taymade.com/taymade/cnc/c~africa.htm
http://www.taymade.com/taymade/cnc/c~africa1.htm
http://www.galcom.org/country.html
http://www.millennial.org/mail/talk/fmf-politics/hyper/0048.html
http://www.iwar.org.uk/cyberterror/resources/house/00-05-23cikotas.htm
Does that make you happy?
Or do you want more?
Is that enough?
Want more?
If I hallucinated being there I have no idea how I know the correct spelling. And I could draw you a map. But that isn’t necessary, is it?
yawns
It is called sarcasm. Look it up in a dictionary, it will be most enlightening for you.
Iraq Iraq Iraq
Israel Israel Israel
Bush is out for revenge against S. Hussein.
Yeah, sarcasm! 
You made a post to say that I spelled something incorrectly just to be sarcastic. :rolleyes:
And you knew you were wrong too, right?
You just wanted to point out to all of us that you were an idiot I guess since there is no other reason for saying what you said.
Fine, we would have had to obtained authorization. Given sanctions are already
France? Do you have some support for this rather lurid assertion (not that France is unenthusiastic about the sanctions, but then nowadays only the USA, GB and Kuwait seem terribly enthused)?
“Major secret commerce?” Where do you get this stuff from?
??? Intervention?
It doesn’t show very well.
Fraid the booming wealth is confined to the major oil exporters. Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan – none of these are major oil exporters. No booming wealth. They also represent the majority of the Arab world. Same goes for North Africa excluding Libya. Now, distribution of wealth is a serious issue across nations and internally.
Hmm, again ancient tribal laws question is something applicable mostly to Yemen, the boonies in many places. Much worse as I can see, is clinging to outdated Ottoman laws. But tribal is not the word for that. As for dress, well what the fuck does that have to do with anything. Given the climate, I’d love to wear a Gellabiya rather than a damned suit.
Them, them. Who is this them? I have problems with vague assertions, especially when I have the suspicion of vague knowledge backed up by muddled thinking.
Better, cheaper US oil regulation. What on earth does this mean? Use of other nations as jumping off sites?
I hate to inject actual policy into this discussion, but perhaps you all haven’t noticed that Bush campaigned on a much more isolationist platform than did Gore?
Condi Rice, the National Security Advisor, has a record of being against most military interventions. She’s not quite an isolationist, but she has some pretty stringent criteria for when the U.S. should get involved anywhere in the world.
Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, has the unique distinction of having a doctrine named after him while still in office. The “Powell Doctrine” states that the U.S. shall not enter any conflict in the world unless, A) there is a clear and distinct national interest, B) There are clear, objective goals at which point we can say the conflict has been resolved, and C) there has to be an exit strategy in place to get the troops out without leaving the area in chaos. This doctrine has its roots in Powell’s negative experiences in Vietnam.
Note that most of Clinton’s military interventions failed that test, and in several cases didn’t meet a single one of these goals.
So if you want to make a claim about how foreign policy will change under Bush, you can bet that he’ll be far more reluctant to enter into conflicts than Clinton was or Gore would be, but once entered, the conflicts will be fought agressively with the full might of the military. Much like Desert Storm was, which is no coincidence since Bush’s foreign policy team were the architects of that war.
Traditionally, Republicans have tended to favor a stronger military than Democrats, but have been more reluctant to enter conflict than Democrats, since they tend to have more isolationist tendencies.
Sam Stone: Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, has the unique distinction of having a doctrine named after him while still in office.
Just a nitpick, but that’s not actually unique. There have been many references (mostly critical) to the mid-1990’s “Clinton Doctrine”, usually described as a reformulation of Leslie Gelb’s 1994 comments that ‘America’s “main strategic challenge” in the world was no longer dealing with Russia or China or Germany or trade or loose nukes. It was managing the “teacup wars” of the world, “wars of national debilitation, a steady run of uncivil civil wars sundering fragile but functioning nation-states.”’ See online articles about the Clinton Doctrine here, here, and here. A web search will turn up others.
How many people believe that Dad is the real president? Has this become a subject of serious discussion at all? Is it likely to be?
I can sleep at night believing that.
Ex-politicians often comment on how ineffectual they felt when in office and how their impotency came as a complete surprise to them after their “climb to the top”. Those sorts of stories can get pretty depressing because they suggest that nothing much can ever change - there’s too much standing in the way. I suppose there is another side to that though. I notice that in panel discussions surrounding the election of George Bush a lot of emphasis was placed on the great teams of advisors he had around him - as though the Presidency was, in fact, a team thing. The idea of one person making questionable decisions was made to seem less likely.
To that, G. Nome, I would answer that the “team effort” spin during the campaign and afterward was a direct effort to assuage the concerns of the public, some of whom question the President’s experience, and even his intellectual skills.
The fact of the matter is the President of the United States has a lot of personal authority. I cite these latest air strikes as an example. They had to be authorized personally by the President.
Inherent in such authority is the practice of regular, daily, near-constant personal decisions. Whether or not Shrub’s old man, Colin, Dick, or Condoleeza are whispering in his ear, he makes the final decision.
Right now I can’t help wondering how Shrub will negotiate conflicting advice from his admittedly sterling cast of advisors (note: I likely will not agree with these people’s advice in many cases, but I have respect for their intellect and experience).
I don’t think anyone here can authoritatively state what method this man will use to decide. We just don’t know that much about him yet. If we are to believe the campaign rhetoric, he will consider all points of view, filter them, and reach a decision which best serves the country as a whole and does not trample the minority viewpoint. On the other hand, we’re already feeling the breeze from that right wing flapping, apparently of its own accord.
Perhaps when confronted with a particularly sticky situation, he’ll briefly excuse himself, ring Poppy on the satphone, and do what Dad says. Your guess is as good any other, in my opinion, until we get to see just how good this fellow is when confronted with a crisis.
But where was President Clinton’s personal authority when he sought to reform the healthcare system, integrate homosexuals into the military or shield himself even a little bit from investigation of his sexual life?
In wondering about Clinton’s “personal authority,” you’re missing the tripartite nature of U.S. government.
The president can’t order health care reform. He can only propose recommendations that some member of congress submit a bill that the congress will vote into law. By choosing to propose a reform plan that was too easily identified as “socialist” and “big government,” Clinton was unable to persuade anyone in congress to support legislation to make the law real.
The president could have ordered that the military permit homosexuals to serve. That is within his executive power. However, he handled the tentative proposal that he might do that badly, leading to a threat by congress that they would pass a law explicitly rejecting homosexuals for military service. Since several of the opponents to homosexuals in the military were from Clinton’s own party, it appeared to him that he might actually face enough votes in congress to override his veto of such a legislated ban, so he compromised, instead.
Clinton also had the theoretical authority to prevent investigations into his personal life. However, ever since Nixon abused that power, we have had a few laws that provide for investigations of the president. To deliberately try to sidestep those laws prior to 1996 would have guaranteed losing the election and once the special prosecutor’s office was up and running, it would have been much more difficult to shut it down.
An excellent and enlightening discussion/debate all around, but there are a few nits I want to pick, especially in reference to the nature of our “coalition” during the 90-91 fracas in the mid-east, but also in regards to the recent submarine accident.
I was there. And in spite of what you good folks may have “officially” heard on CNN and what-not, in the military, it was regularly emphasized by our commanders that we were “guests” of the Saudis, and that while we were the “muscle” of the coalition being assembled, we [the USA] were only another voice among many in the coalition’s counsels.
Our “mission” was truly yet to be defined (this was in late 90).
When our “mission” was finally defined, we were told that the goal of the coalition was to expel Hussein from Kuwait. Period.
Anything beyond that would be “targets of opportunity”, that may or may not present themselves; if they did, the decision to engage would reside with National Command Authority, in close consultation with, and agreed upon by, other member of the coalition.
That was the official line handed out to us troopies on the sharp end.
As our supply bases were in Saudi Arabia, a rift/split in the coalition caused by the USA’s decision to pursue Hussein alone would have necessitated the mass displacement of our entire logistics network either into Kuwait or Iraq, while hostilities were ongoing! Not an easy feat with even the best of planning.
Being as Iraq has no port facilities in the Gulf (that is, not after retreating from Kuwait), and that the Emir of Kuwait was in accord with the majority of the coalition in declining to eliminate/remove Hussein, and therefore unlikely to allow us logistical/aerial basing in Kuwait, we would have then had to resort to massive aerial lifts of supplies to scratch-built bases in southern Iraq.
Had we staged or supplies for airlifting out of Israel (a situation I’m fairly sure the Israeli’s would have agreed to, after the SCUD attacks), there would have been a real possibility of the various Arab states turning against us entirely, if they hadn’t already.
Turkey was out of the question, as well as Iran, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Diego Garcia might have been a possibility; perhaps Greece, Italy or Germany. But the lines keep getting longer and longer, and therefore more vulnerable to not only interdiction, but to the various “Murphy Factors” as well.
The war could not be pursued without serious logistical support; realpolitik gave both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait more weight in determining strategic objective than the USA may have pursued alone had we logistical bases not dependent on local hospitality.
Concerning the recent sub accident, it’s hardly fair to blame whoever might be sitting in the Chair of Power at 1600 Penn. Ave. The decision to allow civilians along on training cruises for various PR reasons might have originated locally, with approval from the CNO (that’s Chief of Naval Operations) in D.C. I’m willing to wager that this decision was made during the Clinton Adm., possibly even under the previous Bush Adm., but that neither Pres. Clinton or Bush (either one) had ever even heard of it.
I suppose, if you really must beat up on W, that the ultimate responsibility lies with the Commander-in-Chief, and therefore it’s W’s fault. But I maintain that the Presidency is too vast, too complicated, for any one person to be in ultimate control of every single detail at all times. Therefore, authority is delegated, to (supposedly) knowledgable, responsible people.
Perhaps, if the full truth of the details of these civilian “ride-alongs” were known, steps may have been taken, even as low in the chain-of-command as the sub squadron commander, to mitigate the possibility of a distraction interfering with the safe operation of the vessel(s) involved.
To say that this policy might need to be re-evaluated in light of recent events is an understatement.
Sorry for the hijack. As to the OP, to claim that W is bombing Iraq to divert attention from the sub accident is, in my opinion, ludicrous. I think the hand of Powell is at work here. Many in the military (and us vets, too) have felt for some time that Pres. Clinton has been softball-ing Hussien and Iraq, regarding enforcement of sanctions and Iraq’s adherence to the cease-fire agreement. This is ongoing, unfinished business with a power hungry tyrant of the first order, who may very well want to try again what he failed at the first time around.
My vote is for a tougher stance with Iraq, possibly leading to increased air patrol activity and air strikes. I don’t discount the possibility of limited ground action, either.
Hussein is a known and familiar quantity with the American public, and spin-meisters can easily generate the PR necessary to ensure public support for some limited engagements against Hussein.
I find Sua’s posit, re:Indonesia, fairly plausible as well.
Just, as they say, my $.02.
Realpolitik
And hardballing would be achieved how?
(1) The international concensus on Iraq has long been against stregnthening sanctions, to the contrary in fact. For the past two years Continental European opinion has been lukewarm at best towards sanctions and airstrikes of dubious legality against Iraq. Russia and China of course are resolutely against. That leaves the USA and GB alone. Not a good case for taking a hard line.
(2) Arab opinion, including in the Gulf States runs high against sanctions, to the point which the Gulf States have walked a fine line in recent years just permitting current levels of operations. Never mind other states. It is a non-trivial problem that even the Gulf states have been sending “solidarity” delegations in the past year to Baghdad. Nor can one, outside perhaps Kuwait, find a single editorial/official voice in support of either the sanctions or further action against Iraq.
Barring some stupendously stupid move on the part of Mr. Hussien, I don’t see the current sanctions regime holding out at all. Insofar as air patrol and strikes are not explicetly legal, GB and USA can not continue conducting them forever and expect that the sanctions regime against Iraq will hold. Ground action, barring Iraqi moves on the Kuwaiti border is nothing but an American military erotic dream.
Frankly continuing present policy or attempting a return to a harder line would be stunningly stupid and a waste of US diplomatic resources.
Presently the reality is
(a) the reopening of the Intifada has shattered Arab support for sanctions on Iraq. Whatever you think of the logic, that’s the facts on the ground. Expect the sanctions to grow even leakier, at best.
(b) European opinion has long come to regard the US position rather like it does our position on Cuba. Whether justified or not, there is --without Hussien doing something stupid, which can never be excluded-- no support for hardening the line against Saddam
© World opinion generally sees this as bullying at this point.
There is a time to go against the grain if the results are likely to be advantageous. From where I am sitting, a rational cost-benefit analysis says its time to take a new tack.
However the USA is not the sole factor in the equation.
Collunsbury: I never claimed that the folks that I know in the military (admittedly not up among the “mover and shaker” levels) or the various VFW’s I have the opportunity of attending in my travels are a “concensus of international opinion”. However, the military tends, on the whole, to be more conservative than not. And thus a conservative administration may very well feel the same way, regardless of international opinion. Whether they act upon those feelings, contrary to international opinion, is another matter entirely.
“Airstikes of dubious legality”? Care to explain how they are legally dubious? We only have a cease-fire agreement, contingent upon Iraqi cooperation concerning U.N. Inspection of probable/suspected site of the storage or manufacture of weapons of mass distruction and the “No Fly Zone”. When they violate the cease-fire terms, they open themselves to military action. Is it legally dubious for Apache Gunships to engage North Korean infantry who are firing upon American and South Korean patrols south of the DMZ? It used to happen on a monthly basis prior intil about '96-'97, when North Korea stopped being aggressively hostile on the DMZ
Considering that it was America and Great Britain who shouldered the lion’s share of blood and money putting that asshole in check the first time around, I think that it gives us a certain perogative in determining how to keep him in check. The next time he gets up to mischief, let France, Russia and China go deal with him. When they can’t or won’t, and Hussein finally gets his hands on a vast chunk of the oil supply, then maybe the U.S. of A. will finally get off of its ass and get off this oil-based energy system. This could be a good thing, in the long run.
I wasn’t advocating strengthening the sanctions; I wasn’t even advocating a return to a more rigorous enforcement of sanctions. I was expressing my opinion that that may be a probable option of the current administration. Granted, maybe not the smartest, especially concerning the current situation in the Middle East. But the current situation in the Middle East is exactly the kind of opportunity that Hussein is likely to take shameless advantage of to his [war] material benefit.
It is politically advantageous (in the court of international opinion and sympathy) for Hussein to keep the Iraqi people on the ragged edge of subsistence; to hold up ragged, malnourished children for the world press to see and show the world how the “evil Americans” are hurting the Iraqi people. That the rest of the world buys this crapola, hook, line and sinker, amazes me. I honestly would not be suprised to find out that Hussein throws the dead bodies of political enemies around blast sites to claim civilian casualties. Not to say he does, but that I wouldn’t be suprised if he did…
The occasional smart bomb/cruise missile is an effective way of reminding Hussein that we’re still here, and we’re still watching.