Quote:
Originally Posted by
paraclete
Do you really think there are winners in Iraq,
Yes. The Iraqi people, who now have higher employment, better jobs, more income, better lifestyles, and have gotten rid of a tyranical government that oppressed them.
Quote:
that the US will leave Iraq any less corrupt than it was when they invaded.
No. I think ALL Middle Eastern governments are corrupt. And I include Israel in that as well, despite my support for Israel. But our goal wasn't to stop corruption. Our goal was to topple a tyrannical regime. We accomplished that goal AND through the troop surge, we brought a relative cease-fire to the country. There are incidents of violence there still, but there is relative peace insofar as the regular Iraqi on the street can go about his normal life now. THAT is a victory.
Quote:
What victory has the US achieved, stirring up old hatreds and setting the stage for civil war.
A civil war that is NOT happening... BECAUSE OF US. That's a victory as well, even if you don't recognize it. The Iraqi Sunni are not killing the Iraqi Shia, and vice versa, because OF THE WORK OF THE US MILITARY. That's cause for celebration, not a reason to hang our head in defeat.
Quote:
So now 150,000 US troops sit around and wait, I cannot think of anything more demoralising.
Having met literally HUNDREDS of troops now home from Iraq, I can tell you that the LAST thing our troops are is demoralized. They're actually pretty stoked about what they've accomplished there.
Quote:
The US would be better served by putting them all on the next plane to Afghanistan or even better still the US.
I agree that we could use some more troops in Afghanistan. But they shouldn't be pulled from Iraq. We have enough troops available to pull them from elsewhere.
I'm not sure what good pulling them back to the US border would be
Quote:
But they cannot go home to add the unemployment queues so they may as well take their unemployment benefit in Iraq.
Not sure what to make of this comment. But it doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Elliot, the world doesn't call on the US, the US makes itself available, there is a big difference.
Ahhh... WRONG!! The UN is CONSTANTLY calling on the USA to take action (diplomatic or military) all over the world. Kuwait was just one example. Kosovo was another. They have been calling on US intervention in Darfur for years now.
Quote:
The UN is a construct fully supported by the US as a means of exercising its political clout in the world. It gives them the excuse of being sanctioned while keeping others in check.
By that argument, the USA is the controlling body of the UN. What the USA says is what the UN does.
It didn't work that way with regard to Iraq, though. The USA said we should invade Iraq, the UN said no. Which means that the UN is not just a construct of the USA. It also means your argument is full of cr@p.
Quote:
It was devised as a check on Soviet Russia in WWII because the US foresaw that after the war Russia would be expansionist.
BRILLIANT... take the party that you are trying to "check" and give it one-vote-veto power of the UN Security Council. If the purpose of the USA creating the UN was to put a check on the Soviets, why would we give the Soviets so much power within the UN? How did creating the UN create a check on Soviet power?
The point of the UN was NOT to be a check on the Soviets, but rather to create a network of nations that would act as go-betweens when the USA and the Soviet Union weren't talking to each other. The UN was designed as a NETWORKING AND MUTUAL DEFENCE ORGANIZATION in the same mold as the failed League of Nations. Nothing more.
Quote:
As to turning to the US, we didn't need you in East Timor, in fact it was convenient for you that we were here. We didn't need you in the Solomon's intervention.
Yep. There are times that other countries have been happy to not call on the USA for intervention. And the USA has been happy to stay out of those situations. But the fact that there were times that you didn't call on us doesn't eliminate the majority of times when you did.
Quote:
The fact is the rest of the world is willing and able to take action if you will stand back and stop antagonising states like Iran and Nth. Korea with your sabre rattling.
Interesting. Last year, the UK, France and Germany were all telling us that we need to be more involved in the multi-lateral communications with N Korea, China and Iran. Bush had specifically stayed OUT of the negotiations so as not to antagonize these foreign powers, and allowed other countries to lead negotiations for nuclear disarmament and divestation of the nuclear programs of N Korea and Iran, and China's usual sabre-rattling. These other countries were complaining about how they needed the USA to become more engaged.
Seems to me that you are forgetting very recent history.
Quote:
Maybe Georgia needed a smack in the mouth, things aren't as clear cut as they might seem down there.
Possibly true. But Georgia's only sin was a failure to stop Chechen terrorists from using the Pankisi Gorge as a safe haven. Since the Chechen terrorists outnumber and outgun the Georgian military, it isn't because Georgia hasn't tried. In fact, they have on a number of occasions and have had their heads handed to them. And since the Russians have had no better success at getting rid of Chechen terrorists in Chechnya, they really have no cause to blame Georgia for it's failure to do what they have also been unable to do. So an invasion of Georgia was unvcalled for. The Russians should have been lending AID to Georgia instead of invading.
But the truth is that for all that Putin claimed that his reason for the invasion was to stop the Chechens in the Pankisi Gorge, he hasn't taken any action against them. Which leads me to believe that that was just an excuse. The REAL reason for the invasion had NOTHING to do with the movement of rebel terrorists in Georgia. It was Putin sending a warning to the USA... if you support the former Soviet countries against Russia, especially by giving them a missile defense system, we will take action against them.
So in essence, it wasn't an attack against Georgia per se. The invasion was an attack against the USA'a allies. Which means that RUSSIA was the one calling on the USA to take action.
And last week, Obama did. He agreed to disarm some of his nukes. He punked out.
But my point is that the USA didn't just crash the party vis-à-vis Georgia, it was invited.
Quote:
In Afghanistan, we are all helping in what is really a US war, Al Qaeda didn't attack us but we all see that this sort of thing cannot be allowed. This is perhaps the one action in recent times that can be justified.
And we thank you for your participation and for standing with us.
Quote:
I think it is good you stood back when Israel punished Gaza, if you hadn't it would have escalated, that is more that politics in the US was in transition rather than good judgment
And yet the UN constantly calls for the USA to take diplomatic action to slap down Israel, either with sanctions or by eliminating aid. They call on the USA to FORCE Israel into concessions that are bad for its security. Sometimes the USA listens, sometimes not. But the point is that with regard to Israel, the UN constantly calls on the USA to be it's "enforcer". Which just adds to my point that the world constantly calls on the USA to be its policeman.
YOU may not want that. I certainly don't want it. But nevertheless, that is what happens.
Elliot