NOW the war is unpopular? Well, its a little too late

[arildno]

I think the US vs Iraq case just falls in the large majority of historical wars: go and steal the other nation's stuff, and find some bogus reasons to justify it to the home front. (this is maybe something which is different from historical conflicts: if King A said he was going to hit King B's land, King A didn't always need to justify it ; his Royal and Divine decision was to be accepted as such... nevertheless, saying that King B is a vile poison spitting monster who didn't worship the right deity often DID help, no matter how great King A's authority was on paper).

Not to mention how horribly the Poles treated the poor Germans living among them prior to Hitler's rectifying move..

 

[Smurf]

Really? All I found was that they severed diplomatic relations, and Brazil had a joint-defence thing with the US. No war was declared.

 

[arildno]

Really? All I found was that they severed diplomatic relations, and Brazil had a joint-defence thing with the US. No war was declared.

I am quite certain that some of the Latin American countries did, indeed, declare war as well as severing diplomatic relations.
I might be wrong, though.

 

[Smurf]

I think you are, I think it would be in my book if they had.

Edit: okay I was only looking at South America. You were right about Latin America, as I know that Cuba did declare war in 1941. However, no countries in South America did.

 

[vanesch]

Not to mention how horribly the Poles treated the poor Germans living among them prior to Hitler's rectifying move..

Ha, see, there is some justice after all, those vile Poles got what they deserved !

 

[vanesch]

I think you are, I think it would be in my book if they had.

It's not in my book either. Now, it is a book on radiation detectors, so that's maybe the reason ...

 

[Smurf]

It's not in my book either. Now, it is a book on radiation detectors, so that's maybe the reason ...

Yeah.. See mine's an encyclopedia of World History from pre-historic to 1965-ish.

 

[outsider]

Alright Hurkyl, I will let you be... this is peace. I will retract my request for your response... where ever you are. I'm taking a few days away from PF.

 

[Lisa!]

It's important because human nature and its relation to power, ideology and violence doesn't change much through the ages.

Could help to stop another war?

 

[Lisa!]

I think the US action against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan was justified, in that, if I remember correctly, the government there publicly lauded the terror attack 9/11, along with that there was incontroverible evidence that Taliban did, in fact, financially support Al-Qaeda along with providing them with bases of operations.
That the US may have botched the operation, does not, IMO, remove the justifiability of initiating an attack.

I don't know why you didn't mention about it at first, but thank you anyway. All right. Us had good excuses to start that war, but I don't know if they were the real reasons. It seems that everyone agree that Al-Qaeda was guilty about 9/11.

No such evidence, or evidence of mass destruction weapons in Iraq was ever present, and that's basically why I opposed the actual invasion, since these were the (false) grounds upon which US&UK went to war.
Furthermore, it does not hold water to say that Iraq did not comply with the inspectors; in the 2-3 weeks just prior to the attack they did, and the leader of the inspectors practically begged US&UK not to do this, along with the rest of UN.

And if they find muclear weapons, it was a justifiable war, am I right? As I remmember Iraq let IAEA experts to go to Iraq and do their investigations, but US attacked Iraq anyway. I think if there would be a serious problem with nuclear weapons , it's about US because they have NUcks and US politicians are crazy enough to use them , so if any country start a war against US, it could be justifiable as well!

 

[arildno]

As it happens, I am almost certain that I would have supported the US if they had gone to war against Iran, rather than Iraq, since for years it has been known that the Iranian government has expended vast amounts of cash on terrorist groups.
This was NOT the case with the SECULAR regime of Saddam Hussein.

Of course, the worst terrorist supporters among the Islamic governments is that of US' ally, Saudi Arabia..

 

[vanesch]

Could help to stop another war?

Maybe not. But it could help to understand the motives of some people and not be gullible to the extend of being guilty! For instance, instead of putting Freedom Fries on the menu, LISTEN to what a guy like Chirac had to say. After all, he was right on this one, that going to war with Iraq would open a can of worms which would achieve exactly the opposite of what was claimed it would do. In fact, after all the French bashing (which seems, strangely enough, to have fallen down recently) I think George ought an appologies to Jacques !
Not that I'm a supporter of Chirac: he's wrong on about everything that has to do with internal politics in France - but on the particular dispute about the Iraqi war, he couldn't have been more right and I think he has had a courageous attitude in the face of all those who ALSO knew he was right, but who played low profile just as not to attract the curses of Washington. I even think Blair and Asnar knew Chirac was right and Bush was wrong, but thought that being on the US side was always the most profitable thing to do, and with the french, the germans, the russians and the chinese not on the team, interesting places were to be won in the club of the rich and powerful.
Being less gullible would maybe have helped prevent these perverse little powergames, if they would have been clear to a larger fraction of the US citizens (most of the other world citizens, strangely enough, had a clear vision on the situation, as was demonstrated by the monster protest demonstrations about anywhere, including in Spain and the UK).

 

[vanesch]

As it happens, I am almost certain that I would have supported the US if they had gone to war against Iran, rather than Iraq, since for years it has been known that the Iranian government has expended vast amounts of cash on terrorist groups.
This was NOT the case with the SECULAR regime of Saddam Hussein.

I think the War on Theocracy might have been a better idea than the war on terrorism. Only, then the US would have had to bomb Washington too !...

And then again, the War on Something is probably, by itself, a bad idea.

 

[arildno]

I think the War on Theocracy might have been a better idea than the war on terrorism. Only, then the US would have had to bomb Washington too !...

And then again, the War on Something is probably, by itself, a bad idea.

I stand corrected; not every single person with deeply religious beliefs is a dangerous bigot..

 

[Smurf]

I don't know why you didn't mention about it at first, but thank you anyway. All right. Us had good excuses to start that war, but I don't know if they were the real reasons. It seems that everyone agree that Al-Qaeda was guilty about 9/11.

The US had no good reason to go to war in Afghanistan. Just on this one everyone just shrugged and didn't call the US on it because they were still sympathizing with them after 9/11.

 

[Smurf]

As it happens, I am almost certain that I would have supported the US if they had gone to war against Iran, rather than Iraq, since for years it has been known that the Iranian government has expended vast amounts of cash on terrorist groups.

Would you support the US going to war with Iran now?

 

[Lisa!]

As it happens, I am almost certain that I would have supported the US if they had gone to war against Iran, rather than Iraq, since for years it has been known that the Iranian government has expended vast amounts of cash on terrorist groups.

Terrorist groups like what? Al-Qaeda?
Anyway you're going to support another war! That's great since you live in Norway and you don't have to worry about anything. Nobody attacks your country nor your country attacks another country. I want to know what would you think if you had to join the army and participate a war. Sure enough your ideas were totally different. Well again I don't know what to say. I remmember when Us announced they were going to attack Iraq. I felt terrible. I even didn't like to listen to the news anymore. I was the kind of person who always was interested in politics and I always followed the latest news but after that I try to know about politics and war news as less as possible since I can not do anything and these terrible news just could ruin my day. To be perfectly honest there are some people in the world that I don't feel well about them like ****s,and
that's because of their stupid politicians. But anyway Iraqi people were human and they weren't guilty about what Saddam did.

This was NOT the case with the SECULAR regime of Saddam Hussein.

Of course, the worst terrorist supporters among the Islamic governments is that of US' ally, Saudi Arabia..

That's funny. I don't think there is any religious government in the world because it's impossible. Politicians needs to have their people's support and well they get this support by different tricks. And religious is one of these tricks!

 

[arildno]

Would you support the US going to war with Iran now?

I was speaking of how I felt then.
My almost certainness has warped into probably oppose it, by observation of what has developed by a catastrophic management of affairs from US' side.

 

[Smurf]

I was speaking of how I felt then.
My almost certainness has dwindled to probably oppose it, by observation of what has developed by a catastrophic management of affairs from US' side.

Yes, that's what I thought you would say. What, exactly, has changed that's made you decide no?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Good point!
It is European historians who classify WW2 as starting in 1939 rather than in 1941..

That may be because the war was already raging in Asia since the early 1930's and this agreement, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri1.htm of 1936 basically meant that it was the Germans that joined Japan in waging war and not the other way around.

This was followed by http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm .

The USA joining years later was merely an after thought. After all, the fact that most of the nations in Africa south of the Sahara and all of South America NOT being involved even by the end of the war didn't change the fact that we still call it a 'World War'.

 

[Lisa!]

I think the War on Theocracy might have been a better idea than the war on terrorism. Only, then the US would have had to bomb Washington too !...

And then again, the War on Something is probably, by itself, a bad idea.

You're right! 2 wrongs don't make a right, do they?

 

[vanesch]

Would you support the US going to war with Iran now?

I would, just to have another great show on CNN It would be the end of the US military supremacy in the world if they had a second debacle in Iran. Now, I think George is stupid, but not THAT stupid (and I'm sure that within the US administration, there's some failure protection here, which will have George shot or something if ever he turns out to be that silly), so it simply won't happen, and the Iranians know that.
I think the biggest supporter of a US invasion in Iran in the middle east must be Ossama... if ever they do that, he must be laughing his beard off !

 

[Smurf]

That may be because the war was already raging in Asia since the early 1930's and this agreement, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri1.htm of 1936 basically meant that it was the Germans that joined Japan in waging war and not the other way around.

Actually the Anti-Comintern pact was disregarded by the Japanese after Hitler signed the Nazi-Soviet non aggression pact. The Japanese saw that as a betrayal and were really pissed. Quite possibly the only reason Japan didn't join the war against the USSR. If they had, Germany may have won.

 

[Smurf]

I would, just to have another great show on CNN It would be the end of the US military supremacy in the world if they had a second debacle in Iran.

Well I wouldn't go that far. It's going to take a lot more than that to remove the US from superpower status.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Terrorist groups like what? Al-Qaeda?
Anyway you're going to support another war! That's great since you live in Norway and you don't have to worry about anything. Nobody attacks your country nor your country attacks another country. I want to know what would you think if you had to join the army and participate a war. Sure enough your ideas were totally different. Well again I don't know what to say. I remmember when Us announced they were going to attack Iraq. I felt terrible. I even didn't like to listen to the news anymore. I was the kind of person who always was interested in politics and I always followed the latest news but after that I try to know about politics and war news as less as possible since I can not do anything and these terrible news just could ruin my day. To be perfectly honest there are some people in the world that I don't feel well about them like ****s,and
that's because of their stupid politicians. But anyway Iraqi people were human and they weren't guilty about what Saddam did.

That's funny. I don't think there is any religious government in the world because it's impossible. Politicians needs to have their people's support and well they get this support by different tricks. And religious is one of these tricks!

May I ask, after your 'Norway have it easy' rant, where exactly you are from, Lisa!?

 

[vanesch]

Well I wouldn't go that far. It's going to take a lot more than that to remove the US from superpower status.

No, and the best proof is already that they've lost all reasonable possibilities to attack Iran. They still can, in principle, but in practice, they can't.
If the US wouldn't have done its thing in Iraq, and Bush would have been menacing with military power against Iran, the Mullah's would be p**ing in their pants, because it would be serious. Now they just laugh in George's face. But ok, the US still has some little bit of muscle left, but in order to preserve it, they can't use it anymore. If they use it, they loose it, and then they're completely done with. Economically they will be at the Chinese's mercy, military they will not be able to do anything significant in the 5-10 coming years, and they've lost a lot of friends... and then the Oil Peak will hit the west.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't know why you didn't mention about it at first, but thank you anyway. All right. Us had good excuses to start that war, but I don't know if they were the real reasons. It seems that everyone agree that Al-Qaeda was guilty about 9/11.

If support of Al Qieda is pre-requesite to attack then you are obliged to invade Saudi. Prince Bandar Bin Sultan stated on "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS" that they supported Al-Qieda AND the Palestinian Martyrs until AFTER 9/11.

MR. RUSSERT: Prince, the former general consul to the Department of Treasury, David Aufhauser...

PRINCE BANDAR: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...a professional, a lawyer, testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Question: "With regard to the trail of money ... and whether it leads in some cases to Saudi Arabia?" Aufhauser: "In many cases it is the epicenter." Question: "And does that trail of money also show money going to al Qaeda?" Aufhauser: "Yes." "Is the money from Saudi Arabia a significant source of funding for terrorism generally?" Aufhauser: "Yes. Principally al Qaeda but many other recipients as well."

This was the scene in April 2002, when your king, a state-sponsored telethon--and look at these pictures--raised over $92 million and the money was "for Palestinian martyrs"...

PRINCE BANDAR: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...suicide bombers who blew up Israeli children, school buses, restaurants. Here's the Treasury Department of the United States saying that Saudi money is funding al-Qaeda. You're having telethons raising money for Palestine suicide bombers, and you sit here and say, "How could people say these terrible things about us?"

PRINCE BANDAR: Yes, I say that very easily because nothing stands still. If you are saying before 9/11 we didn't have our thing together, yes, but nor did you. Look what 9/11 is showing. However, since...

MR. RUSSERT: This was April of 2003.

PRINCE BANDAR: I understand. Since then, since 9/11, when after we recovered from the shock, we looked at all our procedures, and we have come through and we're proud of it.

So if you now take the support of a country as evidence they need to be invaded and have war waged against them ... When do you go into Saudi?

And if they find muclear weapons, it was a justifiable war, am I right? As I remmember Iraq let IAEA experts to go to Iraq and do their investigations, but US attacked Iraq anyway. I think if there would be a serious problem with nuclear weapons , it's about US because they have NUcks and US politicians are crazy enough to use them , so if any country start a war against US, it could be justifiable as well!

You seem to think that the Nuclear Proliferation Pact is manditory and violation of it is basis for invasion.

It isn't. The pact is voluntary and sanctions only may be imposed.

 

[Lisa!]

The US had no good reason to go to war in Afghanistan. Just on this one everyone just shrugged and didn't call the US on it because they were still sympathizing with them after 9/11.

I saw your first post before you edited it. eveyone was sympathizing with US and poor Bush needed a guilty for 9/11. After he attacked Afghanistan most of people forgot to think what the hell CIA was doing when 9/11 happened. Remmember about Bill Clinton? whenever he had some problem like the scandal of his affair with Levinsky ,he attacked Iraq or Sudan or Afghanistan. So I think US politicians should be really grateful because of the existence of AL-Qaeda! Who knows perhaps they...

 

[arildno]

Yes, that's what I thought you would say. What, exactly, has changed that's made you decide no?

If I should point to a single thing, it is the shock I've felt that the US government evidently doesn't understand the most elementary facts about the political systems in the Middle-East (as exposed in the Iraq invasion).

It is an elementary fact that clans have still extremely strong positions in middle Eastern societies, and that the central government of a Middle Eastern country has just about nothing to do with the centralistic governments of the West (including US).

That is, in for example Iraq (and Saudi-Arabia) it is (or was) recognized that the big men locally would essentially appoint most officials, and "interpret" central edicts and give them a local flavour.
The small men locally will first and foremost try to ally themselves with a big man, rather than involve themselves with the "government".
Now, Saddam Hussein certainly did his best to gain overall control in the Iraqi society, but that would often be by playing rivalling big men against each other, rather than sending his own trusted folk into a region he was less familiar with, or didn't matter too much.

The big men on their hand would be involved in endless power games where they alternated between trying to curry favour from a bigger man (the biggest being..S.H.) or try to keep some private space where they themselves were dominant.
That is, S.H.'s dictatorship was never a centralistic dictatorship as that in, say, DDR.


Now, the Americans ought to have known from day 1 that if they were to create a STABLE society afterwards, the most efficient way to do so would have been to curry favour among the segment of big men throughout the country (many of whom are neither Baathists or Muslim fanatics) and get a sufficient number of them as backers.
What did they do instead?
They set up a centralistic, Western type of government in Baghdad and assumed that the local chiefs and sheiks wouldn't be mortally insulted at being deprived their hereditary rights of local government!
That is, to most Iraqi, the centralistic puppet government is felt as something totally alien, they've been used to a life lived out mostly on the local level (with a vague fear of big Daddy S.H. sitting in Baghdad possibly watching them).

In effect, therefore, US showed that they really can't conceive of any other type of a society than a US with a bad president.
And for that reason alone, the US regime cannot be regarded as a competent player in international politics any longer.

 

[Smurf]

No, and the best proof is already that they've lost all reasonable possibilities to attack Iran. They still can, in principle, but in practice, they can't.
If the US wouldn't have done its thing in Iraq, and Bush would have been menacing with military power against Iran, the Mullah's would be p**ing in their pants, because it would be serious. Now they just laugh in George's face. But ok, the US still has some little bit of muscle left, but in order to preserve it, they can't use it anymore. If they use it, they loose it, and then they're completely done with. Economically they will be at the Chinese's mercy, military they will not be able to do anything significant in the 5-10 coming years, and they've lost a lot of friends... and then the Oil Peak will hit the west.

China's mercy?... Yeah, if only those terrorists hadn't sunk all those aircraft carriers.