Got Chinooks?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I was whining about the US and the west's support for this scumbag back before the 1st Gulf War. I nearly puked when the US didn't finish cleaning up their mess and they left the Iraqi people high and dry. That's why I disagreed with Canada for having anything to do with following the US around this time around, including in Afghanistan.

Hmmm......why didn't Canada "finish cleaning up" (or lead the cleanup) if that was the best thing to do?

....The first thing we should do is get on the world stage and denounce the US for doing so. Nothing would have a deeper impact on the fortunes of dictators than if the best friend of the US stood up and said 'stand down'.

Point of order...the USA's "best friend" in such matters is the U.K. .....not Canada.

[jbg]

A sea hawk?

Err, Sea King.

[jbg]

Yes we must protect the artic and afghanistan *******Thank you Mr Harper for all you have done.

Apparently he hasn't taught you spelling or punctuation.

[Smallc]

Apparently he hasn't taught you spelling or punctuation.

[Army Guy]

I originally quoted Einstein who said that "you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." Which is a statement that I agree with.

It is a double edged sword, but in todays world with so many conflicts ongoing, prevention of most, "perhaps not all" wars comes at a price and that is being prepared...A nation that has formiable defenses will force an attacker to find an easier target for thier aggresion.

I think wild bill is bang on in his post......

Well, there's a difference between preparing to defend yourself and developing weapons used only to destroy large areas, or only to kill populations of people.

Sorry, you lost me here. If you are preparing for war which will include not only defensive and offensive operations one must have all the wpns available....

And preparing to defend yourself does not include preemptive attacks. I encourage you to try to refute this, but keep in mind that if this was OK, then it SHOULD be OK to kill an individual who you believe is conspiring to harm or kill you. But the laws that apply to individuals don't always apply to 'nations', do they? Is that right? Whether or not you think it's... useful, do you think it's right?

What about Japan and the attack on Pearl harbour, in thier minds it was only a matter of time before US intervention, in order to protect themselfs they decided to strike first, so in there minds a preemptive attack was defending themselfs....Preemptive attacks have been used thru out history and considered defensive in nature, at least in thier (the users) minds....if the circumstances are right, then yes, preemptive attacks could be consirdered self defense....

Regardless if it is OK or not, would you sit around waiting for someone to harm or kill you..or would you take some sort of action, take pre cautions, control the situation to be more in your favour some how. and if it meant your or your families lifes would you take his life? But nations do not follow the same type of laws as we do...

[Argus]

Really, even though the US has armed and funded them to the teeth. That doesn't strike you as being a little wierd?

What the US should have done, if it were behaving as you seem to be suggesting, is simply go in and take over the oil fields. Instead it's been trying, over the decades, to suck up to whichever government is in power at the time. It deals with the Saudis in order to preserve its oil supply rather than crushing them and taking it by force.

I think our policy should be one of absolute zero tolerance for dictators. All of them, all the time, in any way, shape and form, not just when its convenient...death before dishonour and all that...

Childishly simplistic. As I said, three fourths of the world's nations are ruled by dictators. We can't simply put our fingers in our ears and go "ngha-naa-naaa" every time something happens in the rest of the world. If you're not going to support our sending the military in to overthrow those governments - oh my, talk about interference! - then we have to deal with whomever is power.

We simply cannot support any country that sends military aid to dictators. That is just not on and it makes me deeply and profoundly ashamed that we do. The first thing we should do is get on the world stage and denounce the US for doing so. Nothing would have a deeper impact on the fortunes of dictators than if the best friend of the US stood up and said 'stand down'.

And this would accomplish exactly what, in the odd little world you inhabit? In my world, all it would do is cause all those dictators to shrug and turn and buy their tanks, aircraft and machineguns from the kleptocrats of Russia or the Communists of China, or the madmen of North Korea. And, of course, they would now become irredeemably hostile to the US and the West and ship their resourcees to Russia and China rather than the US and Europe - much to the dismay of our industry. But then, it's not like our economy is very important anyway.

We would have less influence not more, and they would do deals, favours, and grow closer to nations who are, if not our open enemies, certainly hostile to us.

Citing only the last quarter century leaves out to much.

No it doesn't. Most of these people weren't even born 25 years ago, and I don't see how anyone sane can launch terrorist attacks on America for what was done a generation or two back.

The West's overthrow of democracy in its infancy in Iran probably consitutes the most extreme example of stupidity the West has perpetrated in that area.

A pretty hostile and extreme 'democracy' from what I recall.

It caused the rise of Islamic extremism.

Drivel. The rise in Islamic extremism has gone hand in hand with the billions of dollars in funding the Saudis have lavished on Pakistan and other third world countries for madrasses schools, and their building program for mosques around the world predicated on the new imam's being from Saudi Arabia

As for the last 25 years I'd say leaving Iraqi's high and dry during the 1st Gulf War was the West's most extreme example of venality.

No one wanted what was invisioned as a long, door-to-door guerrila war in Baghdad - which is what we've been seeing since Gulf War 2, and no one wanted Iraq weakened to the point Iran would simply walk in and take over. You might judge, in hindsight, that the decision was poor, but hindsight is always 20-20.

Giving Saudi Arabia a free pass in the wake of 9/11 and bombing the shit out of Afghanistan was the most extreme example of cowardice and what else...

I would have invaded Saudi Arabia myself, but then, I'm sure the Muslim world would have been in an uproar after that, and there'd have been all sorts of terrorist incidents against the US, and you'd have said "well, I can see why given America's interference in Saudi Arabia".

oh yeah, the invasion of Iraq. I almost forgot that.

So the US is evil to support dictators and evil when it throws them out. Is there any possible way, aside from simply laying bare its chest and letting itself be attacked without defending itself - ever - that the US could do anything you approve of?

As for "sergeant pepper" the real blame there is not for the cops on the scene but their superiors. I'd have fired Zarchardelli for not having the balls to stand up to the PMO and tell them their directives were unconstitutional.

And I'd have fired every supervisory level between Zachardelli and the on-sight supervisors for simply shrugging and ordering illegal actions be carried out to please the PMO.

[eyeball]

But nations do not follow the same type of laws as we do...

They should, for the same reasons corporations are legally considered people.

[M.Dancer]

A pretty hostile and extreme 'democracy' from what I recall.

Calling it a democracy is one of the enduring myths of the left. No secret ballot, rigged referendums, trashing the opposition press...violating iranian law....the only thing that makes all these things okay in the eyesd of the left is they were socialists, pro soviet and anti american.

One morning, 5,000 students and unemployed, led by the outlawed Communist Tudeh Party, invaded Majlis Square, shouting "Death to Mossadegh!" They were confronted by 5,000 police and soldiers, reinforced by 5,000 nationalist hoodlums. Stones flew, bayonets flashed and tear-gas shells popped for five hours; when the Tudeh mob finally broke, a police colonel had been killed, eight of the rioters lay dead, and hundreds more were under arrest. While the police looked the other way, Mossadegh's huskies, led by a cheery thug nicknamed "Brainless," methodically sacked two Tudeh newspaper offices, then systematically did the same to seven anti-Communist papers opposed to Mosadegh.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,859452,00.html

This is the way he did it. Having unconstitutionally dissolved the Majlis, Mossadegh ordered a national referendum to judge his act, crying: "The will of the people is above law." The 1906 Iranian constitution (which Mossadegh as a young revolutionary helped put across) requires a secret ballot. Mossadegh scrupulously ordered up all the paraphernalia: voting tents, police guards, army tanks. In fact, he ordered a double set of everything—one for Teheran's vast Sepah Square, another for Baharestan Square. Anyone voting yes could do so "secretly" in Sepah Square, but to vote no, one had to go to Baharestan.

In Baharestan Square, things were different. The occasional voter had to run a gauntlet of signs proclaiming: "Only Traitors Vote for Non-Dissolution." Election officials dozed, read magazines, swapped stories. At day's end, to no one's surprise, the count in Teheran district stood: for the dissolution (and Mossadegh), 166,550; against, 116. Mossadegh hailed the vote, of course, as a great vindication of democracy.

http://aolsvc.timeforkids.kol.aol.com/time...,858167,00.html

[Kitch]

Calling it a democracy is one of the enduring myths of the left. No secret ballot, rigged referendums, trashing the opposition press...violating iranian law....the only thing that makes all these things okay in the eyesd of the left is they were socialists, pro soviet and anti american.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,859452,00.html

http://aolsvc.timeforkids.kol.aol.com/time...,858167,00.html

I was speaking with a guy who was born in Iran and hid in the mountains while Saddam Hussein fired scud missiles into Iran. He visited Iran recently and asked an uncle of his if Iran was developing nuclear weapons or if Iran was a threat to Israel. Take this for what it is, just an anecdote... but I think it's interesting...

This guy's uncle said that Iran is basically a "communist" state in the way that the Soviet was "communist". (I use the quotation marks because I disagree that this is actually what communism is... but for the purpose of this story, who cares what I think). Everything is owned by the state and the necessities of life are rationed. The people in the government benefit greatly from this system... as most of you would already assume in this type of system. Well, these people are living pretty luxurious lives. Why would they want to do anything that would disturb this? They wouldn't! They don't want to actually take steps toward fixing the Israeli problem, nor do they want to attract attention from the U.S.

What do you think?

[eyeball]

What the US should have done, if it were behaving as you seem to be suggesting, is simply go in and take over the oil fields. Instead it's been trying, over the decades, to suck up to whichever government is in power at the time. It deals with the Saudis in order to preserve its oil supply rather than crushing them and taking it by force.

That's right and the deal is the US helps the House of Saud maintain its dictatorial and often bloodthirsty hold on power. This pisses off the people which plays into the hands of the extremists who then play into the hands of terrorists who fly planes into buildings. What goes around comes around.

Childishly simplistic. As I said, three fourths of the world's nations are ruled by dictators. We can't simply put our fingers in our ears and go "ngha-naa-naaa" every time something happens in the rest of the world. If you're not going to support our sending the military in to overthrow those governments - oh my, talk about interference! - then we have to deal with whomever is power.

The problem is this, you are not dealing with the populations underneath these dictators.

And this would accomplish exactly what, in the odd little world you inhabit? In my world, all it would do is cause all those dictators to shrug and turn and buy their tanks, aircraft and machineguns from the kleptocrats of Russia or the Communists of China, or the madmen of North Korea. And, of course, they would now become irredeemably hostile to the US and the West and ship their resourcees to Russia and China rather than the US and Europe - much to the dismay of our industry. But then, it's not like our economy is very important anyway.

We would have less influence not more, and they would do deals, favours, and grow closer to nations who are, if not our open enemies, certainly hostile to us.

Why has your faith in capitalism suddenly evaporated? If communism had been left to its own devices it would have collapsed much faster. If our industry hadn't wasted so much time and resources mucking about with the above we'd probably be so far ahead of them they would have begged to join us. Build a shining beacon and they will come right? If we'd actually put our faith in the courage of our convictions we'd probably be drawing up plans to terraforming the moon, but here we are still stuck on this quagmire.

...Most of these people weren't even born 25 years ago, and I don't see how anyone sane can launch terrorist attacks on America for what was done a generation or two back.

You're kidding right? You're talking about a region where grudges can last generations and where revenge is a sacred duty. I can easily see how people with an insane worldview could be driven to do such things. What's even more insane though is provoking it.

A pretty hostile and extreme 'democracy' from what I recall.

So was ours just a few years earlier. Woman and minorities certainly would have been justified in calling Canada and other western democracies a dictatorship.

Drivel. The rise in Islamic extremism has gone hand in hand with the billions of dollars in funding the Saudis have lavished on Pakistan and other third world countries for madrasses schools, and their building program for mosques around the world predicated on the new imam's being from Saudi Arabia

The installation of the Shah of Iran caused a reverberation throughout the Muslim world, one which is still being felt. You truely do not understand the long-term consequences of US interference do you? On the other hand perhaps you do which explains why you're willing to only consider brief spans of time and edit out much of history or worse completely revise it.

No one wanted what was invisioned as a long, door-to-door guerrila war in Baghdad - which is what we've been seeing since Gulf War 2, and no one wanted Iraq weakened to the point Iran would simply walk in and take over. You might judge, in hindsight, that the decision was poor, but hindsight is always 20-20.

Leaving Iraqi's to fend for themselves after giving every impression the US would be there to liberate them was a henious act of inhumanity. This fickle whimsical approach to who the west helps and ignores is probably the biggest thing undermining our stature in the Muslim world.

I would have invaded Saudi Arabia myself, but then, I'm sure the Muslim world would have been in an uproar after that, and there'd have been all sorts of terrorist incidents against the US, and you'd have said "well, I can see why given America's interference in Saudi Arabia".

I would have stopped buying Saudi oil, seized their assets and threatened to seize the assets and boycot any other country that chose to deal with them. These moves would have dove-tailed perfectly with all the rhetoric about either being with us or with the terrorists.

So the US is evil to support dictators and evil when it throws them out.

The US is stupid to support dictators. Whatever goodwill its generated by throwing the odd one out has been just about completely squandered.

Is there any possible way, aside from simply laying bare its chest and letting itself be attacked without defending itself - ever - that the US could do anything you approve of?

The US could stand by its principles and follow Nancy Reagan's advice just say no adage when it comes to dictators. Doing otherwise is guranteeing it will be attacked and which for all intents and purposes is no different than letting down its best and only real defence, its honour.

As for "sergeant pepper" the real blame there is not for the cops on the scene but their superiors. I'd have fired Zarchardelli for not having the balls to stand up to the PMO and tell them their directives were unconstitutional.

And I'd have fired every supervisory level between Zachardelli and the on-sight supervisors for simply shrugging and ordering illegal actions be carried out to please the PMO.

Now you're talking!

[eyeball]

Calling it a democracy is one of the enduring myths of the left. No secret ballot, rigged referendums, trashing the opposition press...violating iranian law....the only thing that makes all these things okay in the eyesd of the left is they were socialists, pro soviet and anti american.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,859452,00.html

http://aolsvc.timeforkids.kol.aol.com/time...,858167,00.html

These two articles are all that form the justification for the right's past policies and ongoing attempt to revise history. Its like using Fox news articles to dictate today's polices and tomorrow's history lessons.

[M.Dancer]

These two articles are all that form the justification for the right's past policies and ongoing attempt to revise history. Its like using Fox news articles to dictate today's polices and tomorrow's history lessons.

This is probably the weakest, most impotent and illogical rebuttal I have ever seen here.

To suggest that contemporary news coverage is an attempt to revise history that had not at that time happened.... . I would say give your head a shake but the ensuing rattling might worsen the cognitive situation.

[M.Dancer]

Leaving Iraqi's to fend for themselves after giving every impression the US would be there to liberate them was a henious act of inhumanity.

Amazingly it seems what you decry in the past is what you would welcome for the future.

Sucking and blowing at the same time.

[Argus]

That's right and the deal is the US helps the House of Saud maintain its dictatorial and often bloodthirsty hold on power. This pisses off the people which plays into the hands of the extremists who then play into the hands of terrorists who fly planes into buildings. What goes around comes around.

You are again ignoring the fact that the only people pissed off are the ones who want a much more severe, much more repressive government to replace the house of Saud.

The problem is this, you are not dealing with the populations underneath these dictators.

And if we did you'd claim we were interfering.

You're kidding right? You're talking about a region where grudges can last generations and where revenge is a sacred duty. I can easily see how people with an insane worldview could be driven to do such things. What's even more insane though is provoking it.

People with an insane world view cannot be accomodated, and only a fool would try.

Leaving Iraqi's to fend for themselves after giving every impression the US would be there to liberate them was a henious act of inhumanity.

Do you have any information to suggest the bulk of Iraqis WANTED the US to "liberate" them? Would the ones who didn't want it be able to accuse the US of "interference" and fly planes into American buildings?

This fickle whimsical approach to who the west helps and ignores is probably the biggest thing undermining our stature in the Muslim world.

Nonsense. Our support for Israel would be the major thing undermining our "stature".

I would have stopped buying Saudi oil, seized their assets and threatened to seize the assets and boycot any other country that chose to deal with them. These moves would have dove-tailed perfectly with all the rhetoric about either being with us or with the terrorists.

Childish and impossible. So what if you stop buying Saud oil. Whose oil are you going to buy then? Iran's? Kuwait's? Russia's? Most of the oil on the world market comes from dictatorships. Are you going to boycott them all, and then boycott Europe and Japan for buying oil from them?

The US could stand by its principles and follow Nancy Reagan's advice just say no adage when it comes to dictators

Except that Nancy Reagan's advise was stupid and simplistic then, and still is. And you'd probably term it so, as well.

[M.Dancer]

Do you have any information to suggest the bulk of Iraqis WANTED the US to "liberate" them? Would the ones who didn't want it be able to accuse the US of "interference" and fly planes into American buildings?

For a second there Eyeball was channelling Dick Cheney....

Forget that the US at the time had no mandate to "liberate" Iraq....that their mandate was for Kuwait only.....and then let Eyeball play revisionist...

[eyeball]

People with an insane world view cannot be accomodated, and only a fool would try.

You know what? You've convinced me.

[eyeball]

I think I'll take Madeleine Albright's word regarding what the US did to Iran over Morris' or Time Magazine's any day of the week.

It's not surprising, then, that there is much common ground between

our two peoples. Both are idealistic, proud, family-oriented,

spiritually aware and fiercely opposed to foreign domination.

But that common ground has sometimes been shaken by other factors. In

1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the

overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The

Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for

strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's

political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians

continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal

affairs.

Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the

West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much

to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also

brutally repressed political dissent.

As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair

share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in

U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S.

policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have

been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light our subsequent

experiences with Saddam Hussein.

Madeleine Albright

Buy all the Chinooks you want, but they won't do a thing to fix our shortsightedness, especially in light our subsequent

experiences in the 8 years since she acknowledged the above.

When moderate Muslims and intelligent thinking people in the world think about what the phrase root causes really means the deliberate murder of democracy in its infancy in the Middle East is at or near the top of the list. Doing so set the stage for the abusive regime of the Shah which in turn fueled the growth of the Islamic extremism that followed in Iran and spread from there to Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere...including Manhatten. It was an act of infamy that shredded everything the US says it stands for.

Its really is pretty straight forward when you think about it. Occam's razor and all that.

[M.Dancer]

When moderate Muslims and intelligent thinking people in the world think about what the phrase root causes really means the deliberate murder of democracy in its infancy in the Middle East is at or near the top of the list.

There is only one and has been only one democracy in the middle east ever. And Muslims have been trying to deliberate murder it since it was born. Albright's remarks to an Iranian Ameican Council notwithstanding...

[bush_cheney2004]

...When moderate Muslims and intelligent thinking people in the world think about what the phrase root causes really means the deliberate murder of democracy in its infancy in the Middle East is at or near the top of the list.

Nope....some will say that democracy in antithetical to Sharia Law. There is no list.

Doing so set the stage for the abusive regime of the Shah which in turn fueled the growth of the Islamic extremism that followed in Iran and spread from there to Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere...including Manhatten.

A very simple explanation compared to what really happened, and why it happened. "Root cause" is not always singular (see Ishikawa)

It was an act of infamy that shredded everything the US says it stands for.

Patently false....it was totally consistent with past US policy for the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Europe. See CIA. Your understanding of what the US stands for is flawed.

Its really is pretty straight forward when you think about it. Occam's razor and all that.

Correct...not complicated at all....so do you wanna buy some more Chinooks or not?

[Kitchener]

There is only one and has been only one democracy in the middle east ever.

Turkey is a democracy. The Palestinian National Authority is a democracy. Israel is a democracy. Lebanon is a confessional parliamentary democracy. That's four right there.

[M.Dancer]

Turkey is a democracy. The Palestinian National Authority is a democracy. Israel is a democracy. Lebanon is a confessional parliamentary democracy. That's four right there.

You are right, Turkey is a Democracy. Have you looked on a map to see what continent turkey is in?

The PLA is a non functioning democracy and lebanon is Syria's only democracy...

[Kitchener]

You are right, Turkey is a Democracy. Have you looked on a map to see what continent turkey is in?

It's rather famously in two continents. Primarily Asia, though. Have you ever read anything about Turkey?

Middle East

Middle East

Middle East

The PLA is a non functioning democracy and lebanon is Syria's only democracy...

Well, it's certainly true that if you decide to exclude all Middle East democracies but one, there will only be one left. In English, however, it remains that "There is only one and has been only one democracy in the middle east ever" is simply false.

[M.Dancer]

It's rather famously in two continents. Primarily Asia, though. Have you ever read anything about Turkey?

Middle East

I have a hard time taking something seriously that places western (sahara)africa and central asia in the middle east.

[Argus]

Turkey is a democracy. The Palestinian National Authority is a democracy. Israel is a democracy. Lebanon is a confessional parliamentary democracy. That's four right there.

I'm not sure a lot of people consider Turkey to be in the 'middle east'. It's not an Arab country, and it's not been involved in any of the internal anti-Isreal strife the mideast is famous for. The Lebanese and Palestinian democracies were just born - virtually stillborn, and could certainly be said to be on life support, with virtually none of the freedoms associated with democracies (especially the PLA).

[Kitchener]

I have a hard time taking something seriously that places western (sahara)africa and central asia in the middle east.

That's a marginally interesting fact about you. I doubt it will send geopolitical experts scrambling to revise their working definitions.

Meanwhile, there are multiple democracies in the Middle East.