misskitty said:What was Syria doing in Lebanon anyway? What business do they have there?
miskitty said:I think one of the issues is we want everyone to be just like us with everything. Yet at the same time we celebrate diversity and individualism, it seems hypocritical.
SOS2008 said:The old philosophy of "sphere of influence" I suppose? In reference to the original thread, perhaps the future might be added to analysis of the past. Iran has been ripe for revolution by "people power" for a long time. These sudden changes in events are incredible, and I'm wondering how the U.S. may proceed (this time with a real and meaningful foreign policy), especially with regard to such countries as Iran...and I guess not to mention Syria...?
As Rice stated in her nomination hearings: "The ends justify the means." Do you feel falsification of intelligence is acceptable as long as Iraq becomes a democracy? And what if Iraq becomes an Islamic Republic?loseyourname said:Bush focused on WMDs and connections to Al Qaeda that likely never existed.
There was nothing good about 9-11, but I doubt Bush would have been re-elected if this tragic event did not occur, and more importantly that we were in the middle of a war during the election--a war that he started with 9-11 as the impetus.loseyourname said:Dumb luck?
This is an on-going debate in other threads. I think his poor college grades and lack of speaking skills reflect the truth, as well as his simplistic, black-and-white view of everything.loseyourname said:Or is the least articulate president since Harding not as stupid as he looks and acts?
True. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be president when something like 9-11 happens. However, I think any president would have stepped up to the plate under such circumstances--what president wouldn't?misskitty said:However, he has not had the easiest presidency either.
SOS2008 said:As Rice stated in her nomination hearings: "The ends justify the means." Do you feel falsification of intelligence is acceptable as long as Iraq becomes a democracy? And what if Iraq becomes an Islamic Republic?
SOS2008 said:If Bush is to be credited for the benefits of his policies, he must also take responsibility for their costs. Over the past three years, his administration has racked up enormous costs, many of which could easily have been lowered or avoided altogether. The pointless snubbing of allies, the brusque manner in which it went to war in Iraq, the undermanned occupation and the stubborn insistence (until last summer) on pursuing policies that were fueling both an insurgency and anti-Americanism in Iraq—all have taken their toll in thousands of American and Iraqi lives and almost $300 billion.
Zlex said:WWII was fought imperfectly, at great cost.
Suppose the Pacific Theatre could have ended a year sooner; how many Japanese and American lives would have been saved?
Well, why was there no northern campaign to bomb Japan from Russian island chains, bases out of reach of the Japanese military from which we could have reached Japan a year sooner with our bombers? Why was there a much longer southern pacific campaign?
What if we had concentrated on the single point of failure German oil industry in Romania sooner, and more effectively?
misskitty said:Both Kat and Bob are right. But, this is politics, what can you expect. It's dirty, you have to be willing to get a little muddy. Bob brings up a good point. The Clinton administration was much worse than the Bush administration. Perhaps part of why people think they can blame all of the world's problems on him is because he did what he said he was going to do: Go into Iraq and overthrown Saddam Hussein. He finished what his father said he was going to do. I think the world is still shocked that he actually suceeded.
In reading a recent article by Fred Kaplan, the Boston Globe's New York bureau chief, its former military correspondent, and the author of The Wizards of Armageddon, I began reading earlier articles in which Kaplan “has debunked other historical analogies," beginning in 2002, to 2003, up to present 2005:Zlex said:WWII was fought imperfectly, at great cost. ...But, thankfully to an entire generation, it was waged, even if we all wish it never had to have been.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2090114/“One significant obstacle in the rebuilding of Germany was that a huge debate was still raging in U.S. political circles over whether Germany should be rebuilt at all…The Marshall Plan was not announced until March 1947. Congress didn't pass the Economic Cooperation Act, which put the plan into motion, until April 1948. The Marshall Plan poured $13.3 billion into all of Western Europe from 1948-51. West Germany received only $1.4 billion (the equivalent today of $8.5 billion, adjusted for inflation). By this measure, postwar Iraq has already received more aid than postwar Germany ever did, making even more dubious any comparison between the two countries*. ” Yet the danger and disorder in Iraq are, in many ways, more severe.
Germany nonetheless recovered as fully as it did, in large part, because the country had substantial experience with capitalism and, though more briefly, democracy. It was a Western nation long before Hitler; it required only a restoration, not a transformation, to become a Western nation after Hitler. The same cannot be said of Iraq before Saddam.”
"Walid Jumblatt, a longtime leader of Lebanon's intifada, caused something of a stir last week when he said of the election in Iraq and the subsequent uprisings in his own country, "Something is happening, the Berlin Wall is falling, we can see it."
The tumbling of the Berlin Wall was the product of a peculiar convergence of events. The Soviet empire was collapsing. The Soviet president was a singular man, Mikhail Gorbachev, who actively pushed for reform and Westernization (which he hoped would avert collapse but in fact accelerated it). Meanwhile, indigenous democratic movements were fomenting within the empire (Lech Walesa's Solidarity in Poland, Václav Havel's Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, the perpetual secessionists in the Baltics). Detente, black markets, and jam-free broadcasts had whetted an appetite for Western ways. The nations suffering a generation of Soviet rule—especially the Baltics, East Germany, Poland, and Czechoslovakia—had longer traditions of democracy, capitalism, and European cosmopolitanism. Finally, their anti-Soviet sentiments were blooming in a bipolar world; repulsion toward Moscow translated very easily into attraction toward America. When the wall came down in '89 and the Soviet Union itself imploded two years later, the adoption (or resumption) of Western-style democracy was natural; emissaries from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the CIA, McDonald's, and all the rest were, at least initially, most welcome.
So, three questions arise from the stirrings of 2005. First, are they real movements or brief flashes? …Second, if these movements are successful, what will they do next? Will an Islamic Republic of Iraq seek alliance with Iran? What effect will that have on Iraq's Sunnis and Kurds, to say nothing of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel? If Syrian troops do pull out of Lebanon, what role will Hezbollah play in an independent Lebanese government? What effect might that have on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks? If Egyptians really do choose their own leaders, what's the chance that they'll elect the Muslim Brotherhood to power?
Third, what does President Bush plan to do about these developments in the meantime? It's a tricky situation. …it's a matter of indigenous culture, sheer luck, shrewd diplomacy, or brute force. Which way it goes will depend on some mix of all four. No outcome is inevitable. History is molded, not fated. Euphoria, for the moment, is beside the point.”
Per the quoted article: "West Germany received only $1.4 billion (the equivalent today of $8.5 billion, adjusted for inflation)." Good question about comparison of damage. That will remain to be seen -- who knows how long the insurgency will continue, etc.misskitty said:That's an intriguing fact. I had no idea that Iraq has already received more postwar funding that Germany did. It doesn't really shock me though because of how inflation has affected the value of money in today's world. I'm curious to know who had/s more post war damage: Iraq or Germany?
The Clinton administration was much worse than the Bush administration.
Heh. I won't say it..really I won't...Eeeee it hurts...Clinton wasn't for warring with nations to promote his policies, he was a behind the scenes sort of guy,
"Give credit where credit is due" means acknowledging and recognizing the contributions and achievements of individuals, groups, or countries in the Middle East. It involves acknowledging their efforts, ideas, and actions, and giving them proper recognition and appreciation.
Giving credit where credit is due is important in the Middle East because it promotes fairness, respect, and cooperation among individuals and countries. It also helps to build trust and positive relationships, which are crucial for maintaining peace and stability in the region.
We can give credit where credit is due in the Middle East by acknowledging and highlighting the achievements and contributions of individuals and countries through various means, such as public recognition, awards, and media coverage. It is also important to give credit in a sincere and respectful manner.
Examples of giving credit where credit is due in the Middle East include acknowledging and honoring the efforts and sacrifices of soldiers in conflicts, recognizing the contributions of scientists and researchers in advancing technology and medicine, and giving credit to countries for their efforts in promoting peace and stability in the region.
The potential benefits of giving credit where credit is due in the Middle East include promoting positive relationships and cooperation among individuals and countries, building trust and mutual respect, and fostering an environment of fairness and equality. It can also inspire and motivate individuals and countries to continue making positive contributions to the region.