So Iraq is now our fault?
.... I stated nothing about Iraq in the part you replied to. Iraq does not equal the world. It's but a country. I'm talking about international waterways, free trades, and protecting those partners who trade with you.
But as for Iraq....
Iraq was as much, if not more, your responsibility as it was ours. Or are you not aware that Hussein's great threesome supporters involved France, China, and the Soviet Union...not America? And wasn't Europe involved with ensuring that Hussein went back to his throne in 1991? And wasn't Europe instrumental in keeping the UN's oil-for-food scandal alive and well despite the humanitarian crisis left for American troops to deal with year after year?
Iraq will never be stable, you broke the country yes, I know that much, and now people live in missery there.. It is said that people were far more happy under Saddam. What does that tell you?
That Rumsfeld's war execution was pathetic? You see, for a person who claims to care about the suffering of the world, your pointless protest should not be that the tyrant had to fall, but that he fell without proper execution.
Instead, you imply that Iraqis need a bayonet in their face in order for it to meet your definiton of "stable." .....this would be Cold War prescription by the way. Some people were far more happy under Saddam. These would be the same people who enjoyed the Sunni side of Iraq. ...this would be the minority by the way. The fact is that Iraqis are breathing easy these days and they only have to find their way. The violence is at 2003 levels anymore and Iraqis are emerging from their petty tribal squabbling better for it.
But let's look at another situation. Somalia. We were all there (some of us personaly) and we were helping out until Somalis decided that they didn't want our help. We left. And what happened? They drove themselves straight to hell. And today, you scoff at our attempts for Iraqis (and the region), but actually think that Africans will welcome in the militaries? Or do you think the food shipments will make it to where they need to go without a hitch and the warlords will simply retire to clean living? The Mugabes will just head to Tahiti to bask in the sun?
If you truly mean what you have recently been stating about actually helping people, then you need to acknowlegde that this means that some people need killing. And the result of this will be that tribes (or clans) will discover a freedom they never had before. The result of this will either be immediate peace or immediate and temporary slaughter.
So now the media of the world reporting from Iraq is "dwindling sensationalist headlines"?
Um..yes. Or haven't you noticed the almost complete absence of news media as compared to before? There is no story with success. Failure, drama, and violence sells the papers and keeps the people tuned in.
Iraq isnt a success and the middle east looks far worse now than at any time before.....
Yet, the reality tells a different story. I can show you proof of positive change and first time happenings throughout the Middle East since 2004 if you wish. The Middle East appears worse only because before 9/11 nobody cared about what the Middle East was. The Middle East has always been this zoo of a mess. What's different now is that it no longer has "our" dictator instigating troubles and the status quo of oppression and radicalsim is being threatened by the new found voice of the modernists. ....Or you can keep concreted in your protests and deny clarity beyond the headlines just so that you can validate them.
But I suspect that until Iraq looks like down town Seattle or Paris you will refrain from calling it a success. Practicality is never the protestor's strong suit.
....why do you think nations such as Iran is so eager to get nuclear weapons?
1) Because they have been working on it for two decades.
2) Because nuclear weapons equals power.
2) Because the Majlis fears what sits on either side of their border and used it to foster the need for a strong anti-Western leader like Ahmenadejed.
Its because you are meddling down there, and they are afraid.. Why do you think Pakistan is worse than ever? Because everyone there is so pissed of with US actions in the middle east.. You are creating a deadly crisis and spreading hatred from the middle east across the world.. Madrid, London, India and so fourth is all because of your actions in the middle east, and attacks will only be more frequent in the future because of what you have done..
Dictators for the Middle East and salvation for Africans? Because Africans are less tribal? The Middle East is a powder keg that will either go off on its own or with an attempted guidance. Either way, it is going to blow and it is long over due.
You speak of meddling. I dream of a world where America's only lacking resource (oil) is unnecessary. Then we could simply shut the door and "not meddle" in your affairs. Do we meddle with France? I believe we deal with that government as well. Or how about China? Did we "meddle" with Hussein's ambitions in Kuwait or did we "meddle" by keeping him empowered under Western wishes...or did we "meddle" by eventually doiong what should have in the first place and take him out? Did we "meddle" with Hitler's ambitions? And didn't we "meddle" with Somalia by trying to feed them, yet here you are preaching about "meddling" everywhere else in Africa. It's funny how people pick and choose their occassions when "meddling" is and isn't acceptable. In other words, it is acceptable to meddle when Europe needs us, but not whenever others are suffering.
But meddling in the Middle East? The love affair for dictators is a French affair. And the ultimate blame as to why these tribes are smashed together within unnatural borders is a European affair. Everyone is so pissed, because they had found new life after the Cold War ended and are torn between European created nationalism where none existed before, historical tribal roots where they resent their governments, and rage over not being able to go back to the way things were over a century ago.
And Pakistan? Pakistan had been a mess long before 9/11. The recent terrorist attacks in India is over a matter of land dispute. Which happens to be the ultimate reason the entire Middle East is up in arms. Even Saudi Arabia should be divided into about 6 seperate nations according to tribe. Iraq in three. Turkey in two. etc.
America came late to the game and merely took over the posts when Europe withdrew into its shell. And I might add that we did it with less global disharmony and with less brutality. Its because despite our rarely supported coups, our message was different. We weren't coming to conquer and we weren't walking the world into a world war as our predecessors had. And after the Cold War ended, we found ourselves holding the bloody body bag. Europe washed its hands of what it largely created the moment it instigated a second world war.
Meddling? America did have that Shah thing though didn't it? Hell, even this came from the British bending the truth and using America. Be an honest protestor. Every war should have at least one.
Military conquest is not foreign aid..
And I'm dissapointing you? You're not dissapointing me at all. You seem to have forgotten all about Somalia. Foriegn aid went as far as the warlord ambushes. Military action had to get involved. And since all of Africa suffers from the "strong man," you think foriegn aid isn't going to need a degree of muscle to get it where it needs to go? Your thoughts about how things
should be doesn't match with what practicality demands. Even Iraqis suffering northerners and southerners (non Saddam Sunnis) needed American troops on the ground to ensure delivery of UN shipments in the '90s.
Like I stated....writing a check or tossing change in the offering plate as if tithing isn't going to fix the African problem.
Thats because we had to rebuild and you didnt.. Dont you see that?
Were it this simple. Europe had the luxury of taking its time at our expense. With American treasure, an American military sitting in Germany, and the British quick enough to recover to aid us here and there, the rest of Europe needed fifty years just to show that Bosnia was still too much? And that later, Afghanistan just wasn't their problem?
Continental Europe took its time at our expense. It was a luxury we mistakenly allowed while entertaining European criticisms for everything we did.
The US came out of the ww2 better than before while Europe lay in ruin, now we have cought up and are waving to a stagnant US as we rush on by..
Hardly. Europeans have always deceived themselves. The French have been trying for decades to be America's equal by undermining foriegn policy issues repeatedly. And when has a German liberated anybody? Unemployement is always dismall. Immigration is getting worse. Your economy is worse off and will only recover long after we have. I don't know about "catching up," but you are certainly not rushing by.
If history is to be learned from, it will be America that emerges better than ever and Europe that walks itself into disaster looking for a hero.
In think its intellectualism which is really stagnant in the US, .... but US views on things are screwed up pretty bad.
Ah yes. The "elite" who fancy themselves superior enough to common folk that they would prescribe what is and is not for society. Intellectualism has its purpose. But without a dose of reality it becomes dangerous in application. I believe Europe has suffered quite a bit because intellectuals fostered ideas of how society ought to look like or be.
And many of us think the same thing about you. Intellectual habit is a matter that plaques both our civilizations. But we are breaking through ours. We change fast where it matters. We always have. And where it doesn't, we change as best and as fast as we can for a civilization that didn't simply cleanse the population when faced with the possibility of a new face. We don't mind changing. Europe always has. This newer false identity that Europe pretends to cling to reminds me of what Europe was doing before both of their World Wars. In the end, disaster will come.