Which way do you swing?

[Zakharra]

 I'm sorry about the above post. I could not take the bashing of the US. Everyone seems to be constantly bashing my nation, which I love. It gets disheartening when people can't see what good the US has done and is trying to do, and sometimes I blow up for a time.  :(

[kylie]

I'm sure you'll find plenty of people thankful for (rather belated) assistance against the Germans.  And many of the same people will think the US is now going down the wrong road.  Performing miracles yesterday does not give you a blank check for today.  If it did, that would be more like theocratic oligarchy.  Whatever the US did to Europe's satisfaction in WWII hardly excuses its treatment of the "underdeveloped" (and post-intervention, economically hobbled) world.  The Native Americans, Koreans and Filipinos (activist movements from both of those are still protesting general political meddling and specific massacres), Latin Americans from "big stick" Teddy onward, the Middle East lately, and more.

I think the government is _trying_ something in the Middle East that is mostly not what they say it is -- they're more concerned about oil and showing off bombers than human rights or WMD.  That makes a bad foundation for nation building, and people in the region can often see through it.  They've found regional governments from North Africa east ranting about democracy as a cover for rampant corruption and exploitation.  Armed movements historically began with such concerns.  The US  investment of capacity and  lives (2500+ of ours, but many times that number of "theirs")  is not worth the gamble to me.  Big business is a much more probable winner than average people.  Halliburton gets to drill and build and feed until the troops depart, if not later. 

To play the hypothetical history game a moment...  I doubt the Germans could have held the Eastern Front even if the US never landed in Normandy.  If I recall correctly, leaders at Yalta (1942 I believe?) were pretty clear that there was going to be a power vaccuum in Europe, and the Russians were already making a good start toward forcing a German retreat.  Russia lost a couple million lives and did most of the dirty work.  Give them some credit.  We didn't watch half of the US burn in that war, and come back kicking.  We got in on the ground when many cities west of Moscow (Russian and others, including German) were cratered wastelands.

Even had the Germans somehow ruled over then-devastated Europe, they had a tiny navy and the US had massive industrial capacity.  I bet the Nazis would have made an even easier Cold War opponent than the Russians.  The Russians' missiles could barely fly for the first few years, their showpiece air defense system was never up to speed, they had chronic economic problems, and the CIA was hounded by American conservatives to report that they were stronger than they were.  Quite similar to Bush and Rumsfeld talking Iraq all out of proportion.  The Germans could not have easily built and coordinated so much industrial strength as the Russians.  And they would have been struggling with guerrilla movements that the historical Soviets couldn't dream of before Afghanistan.   

The US...  It's more a love-hate thing, but it's "my" country too for the present.  And I'm fine with you having your opinion.  Although if you'll accept some acerbic humor: you might pay attention to travel advisories (really, not the most popular opinions globally).  That said, I think this war is particularly disastrous.  We're bumbling around like the Brits in the Age of Imperialism proper, claiming we can send a few soldiers with talk of our capital's glory and thereby "civilize" most everything from Afghanistan to India/Tibet.  Yet we have little real knowledge of the people and our military fires gay translators.  We're packing bigger guns than the past Brits (not to ignore those along for the present), but that only alienates people more when they see those guns used to profit spinmasters back in the West.

[Zakharra]

 The US record of human rights in the last century is as good or better than any other nation.  One of the reasons people think (badly or not) of the US is because we are #1 in the world today. The person/nation on top is always a target for envy, hate and such. We make mistakes, but over all, do more good than not.

All nations do things because they benefit them , with other reasons mixed in. Iraq would be an ignorable problem if not for the fact of the oil beneath the sands of the Middle East. That fact cannot be ignored. Oil is what fuels the world's economy So anything in that region has to be taken seriously.

The reasons, as I see them, for going into Iraq are manyfold. To remove Saddam and prevent him from becoming a bigger danger than he was. To free his people of him and give them a chance to change the path from tyrany and religious fanaticism to something more tolerant. To change the economic/social dynamic of the region. Which we can do if we succeed. The signs are there that there is a good chance of that happening.

Iraq has a elected government, it's military and security forces are growing by the day and the people are getting tired of being blown up by fellow muslims. The records that were found with  al Zakqeri(sp), the former head of Al-qaeda in Iraq, point to a dismal future for the terrorist network.

[Swedish Steel]

The US record of human rights in the last century is as good or better than any other nation.

No, it really isn't. If you really believe that you are kidding yourself.

[kylie]

Iraq would be an ignorable problem if not for the fact of the oil beneath the sands of the Middle East. That fact cannot be ignored. Oil is what fuels the world's economy

I think you said it all right there.  The US government is talking as if its own economic plan is all that should matter to the whole world.  I'm sorry Zak, but we are not the whole world, and our economy would not be their economy if we would get our soldiers and missiles out of the picture.  That is otherwise known as being an arrogant, thieving bully.  And all the flimsy excuses about supposed nation building are secondary. 

We wouldn't be trying to build a veneer of civil society if we didn't think we could profit from the rigged economy we're trying to put in place underneath it.  "We" meaning big business-turned policy, far more than the average American.  But we're not fooling people.  They've seen authoritarian leaders imitate us all over the region, before we even got there to give it a go ourselves.  They fought their own people for doing it, and they'll fight us all the more.

Personally, I don't drive, I take mass transit, I have lived in countries where millions of people do very well with mass transit.  Among them, Japan revamped its economy to reduce reliance on Middle Eastern oil significantly after the 1970's, and they didn't see a need to invade anyone for that.   I would also understand if we had to pay more for angora sweaters and coffee for that matter (to name just a couple things)...  And I think the Bushes have defined national interest in a faulty way.  A way that is going to haunt us for years and years, and probably inspire many more men (or women, increasingly in the Mideast) to come around blowing up things.

[MadPanda]

I'm sorry about the above post. I could not take the bashing of the US. Everyone seems to be constantly bashing my nation, which I love. It gets disheartening when people can't see what good the US has done and is trying to do, and sometimes I blow up for a time.  :(

Get used to it.  We have a PR issue that isn't getting any better. The good we do does not and cannot excuse away the evils that sometimes occur.  We can strive to do better, but the first step is always in admitting the error and acting to correct it.  Instead, we try to pretend that there has been no mistake, demonize those with the courage to question, and blame it all on people we don't like...or on those who dared to criticize our folly.

The only systems in which blind and unquestioning loyalty to the state are virtues were on the other side in this little thing called the Cold War.  You might remember hearing about that.

[Zakharra]

  Yes. I remember the Cold War with the Soviet Union.  And the infatuation the mainstream(thankfully not anymore) media has with the communist nation and it's leaders. The US(as the media saw it) could and should never have risked provocking the USSR in anyway. Like Star Wars/missle defense. Reagan calling them the 'Evil Empire' scared them. From their point of view, the USSR should have been allowed to do whatever it wanted and the US let it.

The Cold War was a mainly black and white issue. The modern world isn't as black and white.

I think you said it all right there.  The US government is talking as if its own economic plan is all that should matter to the whole world.  I'm sorry Zak, but we are not the whole world, and our economy would not be their economy if we would get our soldiers and missiles out of the picture.  That is otherwise known as being an arrogant, thieving bully.  And all the flimsy excuses about supposed nation building are secondary.

We wouldn't be trying to build a veneer of civil society if we didn't think we could profit from the rigged economy we're trying to put in place underneath it.  "We" meaning big business-turned policy, far more than the average American.  But we're not fooling people.  They've seen authoritarian leaders imitate us all over the region, before we even got there to give it a go ourselves.  They fought their own people for doing it, and they'll fight us all the more.

We are trying. I wish that we could ignore the oil below the sands of the Middle east, but that's an impossibility. Oil, for good or ill, is what drives and fuels the world economy.  I'm hoping that what the US is doing can truely change the dynamic of that region.

Get used to it.  We have a PR issue that isn't getting any better. The good we do does not and cannot excuse away the evils that sometimes occur.  We can strive to do better, but the first step is always in admitting the error and acting to correct it.  Instead, we try to pretend that there has been no mistake, demonize those with the courage to question, and blame it all on people we don't like...or on those who dared to criticize our folly.

I'd like to put forth a theory.. What if the critics are wrong and we are right? I think alot of the world's problem with the US is that it cannot control the US. The US is too powerful and does not think of what the 'world' wants or thinks is best. The world, goes after it's own interests, in many ways that show the fractured powers behind the world. IE. the various nations using what means they can to better themselves, not the world.

Personally, I don't drive, I take mass transit, I have lived in countries where millions of people do very well with mass transit.  Among them, Japan revamped its economy to reduce reliance on Middle Eastern oil significantly after the 1970's, and they didn't see a need to invade anyone for that.   I would also understand if we had to pay more for angora sweaters and coffee for that matter (to name just a couple things)...  And I think the Bushes have defined national interest in a faulty way.  A way that is going to haunt us for years and years, and probably inspire many more men (or women, increasingly in the Mideast) to come around blowing up things.

Unfortunately mass transit is simply not feasable for the entire US. The nation is too big and the population far to spread out for that to work economically. That only works in cities that are a tiny portion of the land mass.

In these times, national security is tied to a well working economy. Damage the economy and everything starts to fall apart.

[MadPanda]

The world ISN'T black and white: you got that exactly right.  Which means that treating doubt and honest questions as borderline treason as too many people are wont to do is A Bad Move.  Alas, that's what the Beloved Leader likes.  And that's what the Beloved Leader does.  And that's why old friends and allies don't like us so much anymore.  Actions speak louder than words...

If we're going to act like a rogue state, and talk like a rogue state, no matter how 'right' we want to be, other nations might just treat us like one.

The Europeans called us a 'hyperpower' when Clinton was in office...when we weren't so likely to go off half-cocked on poor data and supposition.  They have even more reasons to be wary of us now.  What's it worth to rebuild that alliance?  Or are we just going to go unilateral?

[Swedish Steel]

The Cold War was a mainly black and white issue.

Riiight. Wait, no it wasn't. The USSR were never as evil as you painted them out to be, and you never were close to being as good as you thought you were. Reagan called the Soviets the evil empire, while at the same time funding the Contras slaughter of innocents in Nicaragua. I guess they should have expected that, how dared the people of Nicaragua rise up and dispose of the US backed dictator? Somoza was a buddy, damn it!

[MadPanda]

Wasn't black and white at all, except in terms of US versus THEM.  It was easy to pretend, though...and comforting.

We have done a lot of good.  Sometimes we've even done a lot of good on purpose.  But we've also been ham-handed and klutzy, often downright hypocritical, and frequently failed to live up to our own promises to ourselves and others.  There is room for improvement.

Unfortunately, pointing this out all too often means getting labelled 'disloyal' or 'American-hating'.

[Zakharra]

  The USSR was not a good nation  by any means. It fit the definition of evil very well. They took over the lands they conquered in Europe and tried to expand their political views worldwide. Views that seem good, but ended up in hundrteds of millions of people being made into virtual prisoners or slaves of the nation. Total governmental control over everything. All in the name of the communist ethos.

If we're going to act like a rogue state, and talk like a rogue state, no matter how 'right' we want to be, other nations might just treat us like one.

We seem to be one to others because we are doing what is/or seems to be good for us. Not them. We don't answer to them.

The Europeans called us a 'hyperpower' when Clinton was in office...when we weren't so likely to go off half-cocked on poor data and supposition.  They have even more reasons to be wary of us now.  What's it worth to rebuild that alliance?  Or are we just going to go unilateral?

The US was and still is the lone Superpower. That makes people nervous.  And the Europeans liked Clinton because he was a liberal like them (using US terms of the word liberal). He likes and prefers a more European style of things. His wife has advocated that and showed us what she means when she tried to inflict Hillary Care on us. Not even the Democrates wanted to have anything to do with it. Nationallizing 1/7 of the US economy..  another note is what the Kyoto Accords failed by a huge margin in Congress. Both Democrates and Republicans voted against it.

You say we went off half cocked?  At the time, the Frence, British, Russian, Jodanian and other intelligence services said that Saddam HAD WMDs. Saddam was running a huge bluff and it worked for many years, until we called it. His own generals thought that he had WMDs until he had to tell them a few months before the war that it was all a lie. AT THE TIME, it was thought he had them. In intelligence work, you don't wait until you have 100% proof before you act. You have to act on scanty information sometimes.

If you want to get right down to it, the CIA then was run by a Clinton appointee. You could say that he screwed over his new boss.... purposefully.

[MadPanda]

So rather than admit error, it's all the other guy's fault.  How typical.

[Swedish Steel]

And I'm cynical enough to think they all had a pretty good idea there were no WMD, those were just a smoke screen. Why else would Bush deny Hans Blix those extra weeks he wanted? Because if the weapon inspectors had reported they found no WMDs and there most likely weren't any, there would be a hell of a lot harder to start the war.

[Zakharra]

 I don;t see it as an error, when I look at what was known at the time. Then, not now, but then. Hindsight is always 20/20. Did you then at that time believe that Saddam had WMD? I did. Many in the intelligence agencies did. I think that the CIA head did believe that. Unless you think he willingly lied to the President about it.

[Swedish Steel]

I think Bush and his people drew the conclusions they wanted. The reports from the people on the ground, the weapons inspectors, said that there weren't any WMDs.
The head of the CIA lying? Wouldn't suprise me one bit, but he most likely got strong hints from the White House what they wanted wanted to hear, and he set out to find the material that proved that point of view and conveniently ignored the rest.

[RogueJedi]

Jeez, outright slander of people you have never met.  I, for one, don't know what the CIA director had found to cause him to say that Iraq had WMD.  However, I do know that even Clinton and Kerry were saying that they thought Iraq had WMDs.  That is fact.  So, just because one has a problem with the current leader of the US you are attacking it.

You know, no leader from any country or time has been so outstanding.  Liberals here think of FDR as the Second Coming.  What did he do?  He actually baited a war, broke neutrality acts, and persecuted people far worse than we have ever since.  Now, he did this with support from most Americans, including both parties at the time.

But think about this.  FDR ordered Japanese-Americans, CITIZENS, into what amounted to concentration camps.  To be honest, I find that more reprehensible than what has happened recently, but that is me.  We have people captured in war zones (where MOST of the Guantanomo prisoners were captured) who were actively fighting against us.  Then, we do have some that we hold on shakier ground, which I disagree with.  But fighters being held?  They are not even allowed the Geneva Convention protections, mainly because the Geneva convention does NOT protect terrorists.  Yet, everyone is appalled that we are not giving them more rights in prison.

World War 2 was a necessary war.  So is this one.  Bad things happen in wars.  But, I still believe we committed more human rights violations in WW2 regarding Japanese-American citizens than we have at any other time in the last hundred years.  So, think about that before calling Bush or Cheney slanderous names for your own reasons, whatever they are.

[Zakharra]

 Thanks Rogue Jedi, those are good points. FDR did far worse than Bush has, so did Lincoln. Who suspended habius corpus, arrested and jailed reporters, politicians and peeople suspected of aiding the south. He siezed control of a state's government by Federal fiat(Maryland), and imposed a brutal war of attritian against the south.

Bush has done far less than that. Nixon was an ok President, he got the Vietnam war in a bad light. Maybe by that time it was unwinnable  and leaving was the only real option. I don't know. I do know that he did mess up later in the Watergate hotel thing. A damned stupid move. A scandle that the media loves and still does to this day. A scandle that they are trying to recreate with Bush.

Everything with the current President is a scandle, even if it's fake. How many 'scandles' have there been with Bush? I don't know for sure, but it's a hell of alot. The media hates this President very much and is willing to do anything, including lie, to get him out of office.  The Democrate party officials and politicians too.

O ne point Rogue Jedi  brings up is that Bush was saying the same thing that Clinton was in '98. Clinton was willing to start moving troops to Kuwait for military action against Iraq. He was (apparently) wiling to resume military action against Saddam. Yet this fact is either forgotten or ignored because I have heard and had this quoted to me, 'Everyone knew that he(Clinton) would not have gone to war'. Maybe so, maybe not.

Remember Clinton bombed Kosovo from 15,000 feet. Which killed hundred if not thousands of civilians. He sent troops over, saying that they would be there only a year. That was about 10 years ago and they are still there.

The prisoners in Gitmo are not covered under the Geneva Conventions. They were caught on the battle field, which is indicative about their thinking and actions.   

[kylie]

I still believe we committed more human rights violations in WW2 regarding Japanese-American citizens than we have at any other time in the last hundred years.  So, think about that before calling Bush or Cheney slanderous names for your own reasons, whatever they are.

It sounds to me like you consider leaders' violations against their own citizens worse than whatever they might do to citizens of other countries.  Perhaps you're more concerned about 'betrayal' than any concept of universalized human rights? 

Yes, the US deprived Japanese-Americans of property and imprisoned many under difficult conditions for a few years.  Not good.  However, as far as I know we did not sponsor a guerrilla movement to terrorize them as we have to manipulate various Latin American states.  We did not kill hundreds of thousands of them by firebombing and nuclear attack as we did with Japan.  Nor did we bomb them more conventionally and place economic sanctions for a decade or more as we have in Iraq. 

[kylie]

I, for one, don't know what the CIA director had found to cause him to say that Iraq had WMD.  However, I do know that even Clinton and Kerry were saying that they thought Iraq had WMDs.  That is fact.  So, just because one has a problem with the current leader of the US you are attacking it.

If you can manipulate the intelligence reports, you can fool people.  People who would not sign up if they had not been lied to.  If you haven't been following the news, that is a large reason for the particular outrage associated with Bush. 

Some intelligence officials such as Richard Clarke (who did resign) have openly complained that Bush personally demanded 9-11 be pinned on Iraq.  Rumsfeld set up his own little office in the Pentagon to make Iraq look nastier than it proved to be, and nastier than Middle East experts in the CIA ever imagined.  Again, a replay of the Cold War when a special office with conservative ties was set up to "disclose" the Soviet threat which CIA area specialists did not believe existed.  As I recall, Bush reportedly sent even Tenet back to work with orders to bring different results.  Now, we can say Tenet was culpable if he joined in.  Fine.  But that doesn't deal with the misdirected Crusade from the top.

There have been multiple reports on these things.  But as MadPanda keeps noting, the first reaction of the administration is to either slander the source, or scream how unpatriotic.  There are also activist film projects such as Bush's Brain tracking the pattern of disclaiming and mudslinging via Karl Rove, Texan politics, etc.

[Moondazed]

You say we went off half cocked?  At the time, the Frence, British, Russian, Jodanian and other intelligence services said that Saddam HAD WMDs. Saddam was running a huge bluff and it worked for many years, until we called it. His own generals thought that he had WMDs until he had to tell them a few months before the war that it was all a lie. AT THE TIME, it was thought he had them. In intelligence work, you don't wait until you have 100% proof before you act. You have to act on scanty information sometimes.

Seems to me that ANY proof would be good.  Hearsay would never have counted if it had been about something that didn't involve their livelihood... oil.

[Zakharra]

Seems to me that ANY proof would be good.  Hearsay would never have counted if it had been about something that didn't involve their livelihood... oil.

That's not always possible to get that. Interlligence is alot of guessing and partial proof. If you wait until you have irrefutable proof, then it is likely too late. To what you replied to, they HAD proof. The French, British, Russian, Jordanian and other agencies had enough to convince them that Saddam did have the WMDs.

I think that that that time, it was believed by most people in the know that Saddam did have them.  The main reason that France, Germany, Russia objected to the US attacking is because that we would ruin their schemes with Saddam. The Oil for Food program was used by Saddam to bribe many European officials to let him bypass the embargo on his nation.

Some intelligence officials such as Richard Clarke (who did resign) have openly complained that Bush personally demanded 9-11 be pinned on Iraq.  Rumsfeld set up his own little office in the Pentagon to make Iraq look nastier than it proved to be, and nastier than Middle East experts in the CIA ever imagined.

A man that has a personal axe to grind with the President.

Again, what was said differently by the President that was not said in '98 by Clinton? Why was Clinton believed and Bush not?

[Swedish Steel]

I think that that that time, it was believed by most people in the know that Saddam did have them.  The main reason that France, Germany, Russia objected to the US attacking is because that we would ruin their schemes with Saddam. The Oil for Food program was used by Saddam to bribe many European officials to let him bypass the embargo on his nation.

That's the sort of arrogance I've come to expect from the Bush supporters. They don't agree with you? Then they are either evil/corrupt/comunist/stupid, or all of the above. Were you one of those people that started calling it freedom fries instead of french fries? That one really sent the Europeans to the floor laughing, let me tell you.

[Sugarman (hal)]

Thanks Rogue Jedi, those are good points. FDR did far worse than Bush has, so did Lincoln. Who suspended habius corpus, arrested and jailed reporters, politicians and peeople suspected of aiding the south. He siezed control of a state's government by Federal fiat(Maryland), and imposed a brutal war of attritian against the south.

Bush has done far less than that. Nixon was an ok President, he got the Vietnam war in a bad light. Maybe by that time it was unwinnable  and leaving was the only real option. I don't know. I do know that he did mess up later in the Watergate hotel thing. A damned stupid move. A scandle that the media loves and still does to this day. A scandle that they are trying to recreate with Bush.

Everything with the current President is a scandle, even if it's fake. How many 'scandles' have there been with Bush? I don't know for sure, but it's a hell of alot. The media hates this President very much and is willing to do anything, including lie, to get him out of office.  The Democrate party officials and politicians too.

O ne point Rogue Jedi  brings up is that Bush was saying the same thing that Clinton was in '98. Clinton was willing to start moving troops to Kuwait for military action against Iraq. He was (apparently) wiling to resume military action against Saddam. Yet this fact is either forgotten or ignored because I have heard and had this quoted to me, 'Everyone knew that he(Clinton) would not have gone to war'. Maybe so, maybe not.

Remember Clinton bombed Kosovo from 15,000 feet. Which killed hundred if not thousands of civilians. He sent troops over, saying that they would be there only a year. That was about 10 years ago and they are still there.

The prisoners in Gitmo are not covered under the Geneva Conventions. They were caught on the battle field, which is indicative about their thinking and actions.   

Don't say all this too loudly. My dear departed grandmother will raise from her grave and hunt the "H" out of you ;D And as the owner of a skid-row hotel who could out cuss and out drink any five bums, you don't want to have her hear you bad mouth her FDR.

[Zakharra]

 The corruption of the Oil for Food program is true and the list of officials that have evidence that they were bribed. Including Kophie Anon's(sp) son. Three of the seven members of the US Sec Council were bought. That's proven. There was no way that France, Germany, and Russia were going to authorize war. not that any authorization was needed.

As much as the WMD angle has been played, it was one of several reasons. Any of which were sufficient to resume military action. Remember, the war had not ended. It was still going on.

About the fries thing, I never did that. I thought it rather stupid to change the name of them.

Bush has done alot that I dislike, so I'm not a total Bush supporter. I do support some things he does, but not all by a large margin.

[Elvi]

*Fights with hands to keep them away from keyboard, then turns to word program to write out 10,000 times "Must not read Political clap trap, must not subject self to reading propagander that people choose to believe, must not make comments upon others political points of view" .....*