I'm wondering, if the draft is instated, is it possible to join a certain branch like the Navy or Air Force before they get a chance to draft you as a grunt? I'd willingly be a sailor or carrier crewman before getting pulled into front line warfare with guerilla fighters. Anyone know anything about this?
I was about to say, any talking on the subject is damn near pointless as it's not going to change the course of the future. The only thing this thread is doing is alerting forum members to each others opinions on these matters, giving an insight into their characters to a degree and basically letting us all get to know each other a bit more.
So, I thank all of you who have let your opinions been known whether I agree with them or not.
I am very worried about the example the USA might set if they start justifying a pre-emptive war. There are many, many nations waiting for a good excuse to wage war on their neighbour, and once the USA officially declares it "good" to slaughter someone because they heard a rumour he might become dangerous in the future, there will be no moral argument left to stop them.
Pakistan and India might declare they want to stop "potential danger" and launch "pre-emptive" nukes, and Israel will be very happy to get rid of all potentially dangerous Palestinians in the name of the "pre-emptive war against terror".
One little add to my last post, Im not saying I want the war to happen, moreso Im saying I wish it wouldnt. My last post was more of a "If war does happen between USA and Iraq" thing, since the way its going now, it looks to be so. Like you all said, war is not a good thing. But the US government has seemed to lean away from the people a bit, they dont seem to realize that what we want is more important than what they think. My last post was stating that if there was a war, those of you moving to Canada are just running from the fact that you are American. Gotta have more balls than that dont you? *shrug* My last post on this topic, as my opinions seem to be quite controversial. <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
I've neglected this post for quite sometime. More because I'm in the military, and my views might be a little more biased than any of your civilian thoughts.
My thoughts? If we go to war with Iraq, I'm all for it. It's something that we should've done a long time ago, and something that should be taken care of as soon as humanly possible. As for other countries support? Who cares? Sure, it might start a few things, but as far as I know, Britain has expressed their support, and I believe that's all we've really needed to justify any kind of military action.
Sure, this war might be unpopular, but it's not like we haven't done that before (Vietnam). We'll fight, we'll win, and we'll press on. Saddaam needs to be removed, and that country is always going to be a threat. Sure, they might not attack us directly, but the money they supply to less than friendly countries is surely going to come our way... and not in an economically sound way. (Can't pawn Ak-47's and bombs we are attacked with... or at least we don't).
As for those of you who have expressed your desire to move to Canada if we go to war with Iraq. That's something I can't understand, but I'm sure you have your reasons. If this country is seriously that bad, if you just can't agree with anything our government does... perhaps you should think about staying there. If nothing else, you'll help the Canadian economy, and we'll be -1 person that wants to express their negative views on the way the government works, and "unfairly treats its people".
I'm done, thanks for reading if you've made it this far.
On an off-topic note, I'm really impressed that this has remained a mature conversation, I half-expected to nuke/lock this post everytime I've opened it. Thank you for that.
On the subject of people who threaten to run off to Canada, I say: Demonstrate that you actually have principles and go there now.
Every day, the American Government engages in economic and political practices that are extremely unpopular in other areas in the world, and certainly share some of the blame in the tragedies and conflicts that occur (though, I’m going to get all Chomsky on you and dump ALL the blame on the US and its government). By remaining in the country, you’re indirectly supporting this (<i>directly</i> supporting this, if you pay taxes), and probably profiting from it.
Don’t threaten to leave when the damage is done, because the damage <b>IS</b> done, on a daily basis. Simply leaving the nation when the feces hit the fan doesn’t absolve you of guilt. It just lets you hide from it.
How can you "win" this kind of war? Do you believe the USA "won" in Afghanistan?
Sure, Saddam might be gone afterwards (at least temporarily, like bin Laden), but then you get a new dictator to fill his place. You cannot destroy the wide-spread hatred towards the USA with bombs; in fact bombs will *fuel* it.
And why is Iraq suddenly an "evil" country that must be taught a lesson? Are the USA going to invade China next? Why are they still allied with Saudi-Arabia, a cruel islamistic dictatorship and home of many 9/11 terrorists?
I see no logic and no long sight in the foreign policy of the USA.
<!--QuoteBegin--CollateralDamage+Sep. 10 2002,12:39--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (CollateralDamage @ Sep. 10 2002,12:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->How can you "win" this kind of war? Do you believe the USA "won" in Afghanistan?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you seen any terrorist attacks on us in the last year? Heard from Osama? Had any US hostages taken?
No, because their afghani areas were effectively wiped out, and now they have to at least hide for the next few years for fear of reprisals. They also are having a hard time finding countries to let them set up shop, as there is a precedent to those country's leaders that they will removed from power and the terrorists chased and hunted.
How else would you have dealt with it? Do nothing and let terrorists know that if they blow up our buildings nothing bad will happen to them?
<!--QuoteBegin--H'BNayr+Sep. 07 2002,01<!--emo&:0--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'><!--endemo-->1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (H'BNayr @ Sep. 07 2002,01<!--emo&:0--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'><!--endemo-->1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I really, really, really do not want to see United States strike first. We have enough of a net over the country to ensure that any attacks will be met with retribution. But we cannot attack someone who has not thrown the first punch.
Otherwise, we become what we claim to fight.
-Ryan!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn
I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. -- Moshe Dayan
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -- Albert Einstein
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. -- Albert Einstein
War is not nice. -- Barbara Bush
and since I'm being a glutton with quotes anyways, I give you,
If you don't find it in the index, look very carefully through the entire catalogue. -- Sears, Roebuck, and Co. Consumer's Guide, 1897<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know im a little late but i saw you were in the quoty mood so heres mine: <b>There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others. </b> --Niccolo Machiavelli
I guess I'll get pretty direct in this post. Please don't take it personally.
Yes, there have been no big terroristic efforts in the last 363 days. This does, however, mean barely anything:
First, 9/11 would have drained the resources of every organization. Such attack can't be done in series in any scenario. It's just too usual for terrorists to leave big gaps between their attacks, to maximize the public effect it has.
Second, searching for the 'success' of a war (if there is such a thing) after months, or even years, is just taking a lot of development short. I'd, p.e., call WW2 a full success (for your side <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> ), but I couldn't have said this fifteen years ago, when the Cold War and Germanies seperation were still there - the whole situation, that hadn't moved much since the War, could just as well have led to a nuclear war between the UdSSR and the US that had escalated over Germany. Getting more practical: Afghanistan is not won at all. Karzai, the only person that could possibly unite the country, just barely survived a <i>terrorist attack</i> some days ago, for example. At the same time, the US Army is paying various warlords to fight on their side against the Taliban, which is by the way exactely how Osama got trained, while the official government is barely able to renew the streets of Kabul because most countries pay factions of what they promised to.
Yes, currently, you've got peace. But if you mark Afghanistan as 'won', you may have to go back there in twenty years - and not as tourists.
I do <i>not</i> say that you should stop defending yourself, but if you do something, do it right. And starting two wars within one year shows that you don't. Afghanistan needs a Marshall Plan, and the help of your soldiers for a much longer time. I don't dare to guess what would've happened to my country if we hadn't got both.
[edit]In response to Llama: You <i>know</i> that The Prince was written as 'How not to do it', do you?[/edit]
A well thought out response, Nem, and a lot of it's correct and valid. I, of course, must disagree on a few points:
The whole point of being a terrorist is how easy and cheap it is to cause havoc. So while this operation might have drained the coffers of terrorist groups and prevented them from doing another major operation, strapping some TNT to a zealot and sending him into Times Square would cost about $200. It simply has not happened due to organizational fear, not money.
I don't really thing anyting is won in Afghanistan (nor did I say that in my last post). I meant that the large organization of the terrorists and their cells have been wiped out, which is true. As for politicians being bombed, that could be from anywhere or anyone. The nature of fanatics (terrorists, warlords, abortion clinic haters, etc.) is to blow things up rather than try to work through law and democracy.
There are efforts to enact a Marshall plan in Afghanistan. Things like electricty, telephones, and other things have already been started on by engineers there. It takes time, just like it took time in Germany and Japan.
Off topic (and not against you Nem), I get pretty worked up every time Europeans scold us for fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why do you think we are there in the first place? Utter chaos caused by European colonialism for the past 300 years in those areas, all the way up to the middle of this century (Balfour agreement? Europeans fighting over Afghanistan to control Indian trade routes? Any of this ring a bell?). We act in our own interests with our army very rarely. Europe has made a habit out of it for 2500 years, and have only acted civilized in the last <b>20</b> (when you finally allows Africans to own their own countries in the mid-eighties for the first time) - and now you're on some sort of high horse as a peoples. It's total hypocricy.
But good points, and I agree that we should not start slapping high fives just yet, Nem.
I'd just like to point out that, while I haven't read any of the rest of this thread, the last two posts have been among the most intelligent I've ever seen. I'm glad for that, cause when I clicked this link I was expecting something MUCH different. heh.
this hole thing reminds me of a little topic about the us plane that got taken by china and the hole should the US "go in" stuff well im not gonna reply directly to any of the posts (last time it got really out of hand) im just gonna state my thoughts on it afganistan need a stable government and the US has to help its our falt that the taliban was in power. Iraq needs to be crushed because it harbers terrorists and any one saying it dosent can stuff it. Sudam is a bad man and if were not gonna replace a corrupt governmaent and put a stable, good government in nation just becasue they havent bombed civilans yet then your letting a bad problem get worse.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->replace a corrupt governmaent and put a stable, good government<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the problem is that our definition of a 'stable, good government' is relative to their stance on selling us oil and letting us station troops, rather than their position on human rights, for example. We're only recently rethinking our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and they've <b>never</b> really been a bastion of democracy.
a good governemant isnt based on waether its a democrancy or not if its leaders are good people and they dont crush the rights of the citazens then that nation could be communist for all i care. if the saudies treat the peopls of there nation good the there ok in my book.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->if the saudies treat the peopls of there nation good the there ok in my book<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->The whole point of being a terrorist is how easy and cheap it is to cause havoc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to disagree. The whole point of being a terrorist is forcing the attacked society into a form it can not mantain and thus is destroyed rather by the reaction on the terroristic acts than those acts themselves. The RAF (Red Army Fraction), for example, tried to force Germany into becoming a police state because there was no other possible way of preventing further attacks. This, so the terrorists reasoned, would rally the Germans into a revolution that would give them the opportunity of installing their idea of a state. Islamic terrorists are using similiar strategies, with slight modifications on the theoretic end of things.
Looking at it from this way, 9/11 has sadly to be called a success: It changed your society radically, and in a way that most Americans wouldn't have supported if the attack wouldn't have taken place.
Now, where's my point? My point is that, to maximize the shock, the horror about what has been done, you can either attack steadily, thus making terrorist attacks a daily risk - the Hamas is using this strategy, but you can't use it against an enemy that's as 'remote' as the US - the necessary logistics just couldn't be established. Therefore, it is important to make the enemy believe he is safe, so you can suprise and, well, shock him. That's why Al Quaida always left big gaps between their attacks, and that's why it's no wonder nothing has happened up till now - people are still aware of 9/11, a new attack just wouldn't have the same effect.
Also, never forget that up till now there hasn't been a verified prove that Osama really gave the order to strike - it's just as possible that Atta did this as a 'suprise' for his boss. In that case, you would've had to attack Hamburg to clear the terrorist cell.
Off Topic:
I agree with you that Europe hasn't got very much to be proud of, foreign policy wise. 'We' were the superpower for about 500 years, and didn't use this power in a very good way. European society has however evolved drastically during the last 50 years: Internal struggle, the motor to the horrible acts during the colonialism, has stopped, we've managed to pull ourselves together, accept the bad things that happened between us and the rest of the world, as well as the good things (all two of them), and are now trying to at least lessen the wounds we caused. It's therefore not so much the old slavers in their new white wests complaining about you, it's more the sinner who's realized what he did wrong and now doesn't want others to do the same mistake.
Cutting the European patriotism short at this point, I have to say that your engagements in Africa weren't exactely directely caused by Europe - they were mostly results of the Cold War, in which both the US and the UdSSR tried to get as many allies as possible, even if that meant giving weapons into the hands of corrupt megaolmaniacs. Our both countries didn't exactely do the right things to this continent, I'm afraid.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Sep. 10 2002,15:50--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Sep. 10 2002,15:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->So while this operation might have drained the coffers of terrorist groups and prevented them from doing another major operation, strapping some TNT to a zealot and sending him into Times Square would cost about $200. It simply has not happened due to organizational fear, not money.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You could use the argument, "There have been no terrorist attacks on US soil for a year now," but looking before September 11 last year, there were no terrorist attacks on US soil for several years.
It's in the nature of terrorist attacks to spread them out few and far-between. That way, anytime their target audience stops paying attention, their heads are jerked right back around again.
True, many countries are very reluctant to harbor such terrorists now, but we are still a ways away from declaring an undisputed victory.
-Ryan!
The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky -- Solomon Short
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have to disagree. The whole point of being a terrorist is forcing the attacked society into a form it can not mantain and thus is destroyed rather by the reaction on the terroristic acts than those acts themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't explain myself well - what I meant was, terrorist fundamentally use low-cost alternatives to outright warfare. They cannot obtain tanks and planes to force their beliefs on people, so they use inexpensive but 'terrifying' methods. I meant more the means, not the ends. Making a terrorist attack is very inexpensive. Making a conventional attack for the same aims is very expensive. The cost of the entire Sept 11 attack was probably only a few million dollars ( ahuge expense by terrorist standards nonetheless), which is about the price of the smart bomb that likely killed Osama.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, never forget that up till now there hasn't been a verified prove that Osama really gave the order to strike - it's just as possible that Atta did this as a 'suprise' for his boss. In that case, you would've had to attack Hamburg to clear the terrorist cell.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is hair splitting. Who cares if he wrote it in a memo or not - he was the leader of that group and an organization's leader is always responsible for the actions of the followers. He makes them followers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->'We' were the superpower for about 500 years, and didn't use this power in a very good way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
500 years? What do you call the Pax Romana? More like 2500 years of warfare, conquest, and control. We are complete newborne babes at this, as we've been mostly isolationist up until the start of yet another series of European wars, in living memory.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Cutting the European patriotism short at this point, I have to say that your engagements in Africa weren't exactely directely caused by Europe - they were mostly results of the Cold War, in which both the US and the UdSSR tried to get as many allies as possible, even if that meant giving weapons into the hands of corrupt megaolmaniacs. Our both countries didn't exactely do the right things to this continent, I'm afraid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was in no way referring to our involvement in Africa in the 1990's. I am referring to the fact that Europe was still handing colonies back to the local people in the 1980's. Zaire? French Guinea? Kenya? Mozambique? The list goes on and on of African nations that were only allowed self-government by Europe in the last 20 years. This has nothing to do with us at all - pure Europe. Never mind the majority of European countries that continued to trade with South Africa while we embargoed them during apartheid.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Never mind the majority of European countries that continued to trade with South Africa while we embargoed them during apartheid<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neglecting the good points that Msr. Evil made there (sorry, Ned!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->, I'll play Devil's advocate here and comment that in these enlightened days, most of Europe has been highly critical of Israel's handling of the Palestinian situation, whereas we have offered Israel unconditional support in their offensive- often standing alone beside them, against the will of the international community.
I realize that bringing up that situation is opening up a <i>massive</i> can of worms, but there's a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions going on in that region, and we seem satisfied to turn a blind eye to it, or worse, to use the current war on terror as an excuse to brand <b>all</b> Palestinians as terrorists and suicide bombers, thus relieving our citizens of any sort of sympathy they might have for those suffering.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Sep. 10 2002,16:45--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Sep. 10 2002,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't explain myself well - what I meant was, terrorist fundamentally use low-cost alternatives to outright warfare. They cannot obtain tanks and planes to force their beliefs on people, so they use inexpensive but 'terrifying' methods. I meant more the means, not the ends. Making a terrorist attack is very inexpensive. Making a conventional attack for the same aims is very expensive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is, of course, true. I think you'll have to agree however that the lack of new attacks is no certain prove of success.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is hair splitting. Who cares if he wrote it in a memo or not - he was the leader of that group and an organization's leader is always responsible for the actions of the followers. He makes them followers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right; it is hair splitting. I included this to demonstrate how easily the whole attack on Afghanistan could've went into the wrong direction. Sorry for not making this clear.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->500 years? What do you call the Pax Romana? More like 2500 years of warfare, conquest, and control. We are complete newborne babes at this, as we've been mostly isolationist up until the start of yet another series of European wars, in living memory.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would file the Roman Empire under 'internal struggle', although they addmitelly did not only reign over European countries. Superpowers are defined as having strong influences on the complete world, I therefore chose the beginning of the European colonialism around 1500 as beginning of this period. Anyway, this is, again, hair splitting. I agree with you, the US have spent a lot less time on the international stage than Europe has.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was in no way referring to our involvement in Africa in the 1990's. I am referring to the fact that Europe was still handing colonies back to the local people in the 1980's. Zaire? French Guinea? Kenya? Mozambique? The list goes on and on of African nations that were only allowed self-government by Europe in the last 20 years. This has nothing to do with us at all - pure Europe. Never mind the majority of European countries that continued to trade with South Africa while we embargoed them during apartheid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have to admit that I'm reaching the borders of my historical knowledge here, but I wasn't referring to the US's actions during the 90's, either. The Cold War was, after all, over at that point. There were, however, a lot of wars mainly in Northern and Western Africa in which Africans trained by the CIA and equipped with M-16s fought against Africans speaking fluently Russian and using AKs.
As said before, European society evolved <i>during</i> the last 50 years - it hadn't finished the process at the end of WW2, it hasn't finished it now, for that matter. Yes, there were horrible things done during this time, too, South Africa is a good example, Muroroa is another. At least, Europe was both cancer and cure in many of those cases (the end of the Apartheit, for example, was reached partly because of European pressure on South Africa).
Anyway, we're slipping further and further into Off Topic here. When all is said and done, you have to see that I, as well as most other Europeans in this community, wasn't born when the last African state reached its independence. We really <i>can't</i> argue from a high horse in that respect.
A fair point Mike/BM makes, if somewhat simplified. The Palestinians are not angels any more than the Israelis are devils. It's an incredibly complex situation that is muddied by my enemy, organized religion, as well long standing grudges and economics. I'm not sure if it's a perfect analogy with South Africa though. For one, the Israelis are ruthless about suppressing their enemies simply because they were nearly wiped out 50 years ago by people who hated jews, and aren't about to let that happen again. I can see myself acting similarly in their shoes when it comes to that.
For all of Israel's existence, we have been their sole consistent backer from day one in 1947. They are the only stable country in the middle east, which made them an island of (mostly) sesnsible behavior, compared to an endless riffraff of scumbag countries. Not to mention that if there was no israel, we'd be dealing with the Pan-Egyptian-Syrian Conglomerate or some other nonsense after they had invaded and subdued their neighbors in teh 60's as they tried to do with Israel.
ok listen war is just bad,everyone dies and u all think theres so many soldiers that die it dosent matter and like they dont belond to a family,when my grandpa got shot in the war in my country i heard the news like 1 year ago and i learned that every soldier belongs to someone even if its a bum soldier,there has been lots of wars in history and what do they have to show for it now?land?country leaders dont really care about there soldiers as long as they get what they want and even if 1 soldier would stay alive at the end...now for the attack on iraq,this could b a problem,both sides US & allies and Iraq & and allies have weapons that can really do some damage,maybe U.S has a huge # of soldiers but Iraq is know for his long ranged scud missiles and it has been identified iraq has in possesion anthrax,mustard gas(gas used in ww2 by the germans)and plenty other chemicals that CAN be placed on scud missiles then launched,now im not saying america should attack but if sadam hussein is indeed making weapons of mass destruction it is probably better to stop now,and we all know this world is going down in peices but i think we should still try something so we could keep going...
Concerning Osama bin Laden, I've never seen him as a kind of evil mastermind or leader in a military sense of the word. He's an idol, a spiritual leader (and of course financial contributor). Even if he were dead, which he probably isn't, it would hardly put al-Qaeda out of action, as it consists mostly of independent cells in many countries.
Not much has changed for the rest of Afghanistan either. Karsai is the new mayor of Kabul, but he has little to no power in the rest of the country. It's still a medieval society, based on tribal rivalry and warlord feuds (which the USA are being drawn into). There is no democratic tradition like in Germany either. I honestly have no idea what the war was supposed to accomplish, except getting rid of the Taliban, which had to fill the role of the "bad guys".
And (in an effort to get back on-topic a bit) it's going to be similar in Iraq too. What's going to happen once Saddam is gone? In my opinion it will prove impossible to superimpose democracy on countries like Afghanistan or Iraq, there's is no foundation for it. You will end up with installing American vice-kings, and the people there will hate America even more. And it is this hatred that created men like bin Laden in the first place.
You're right-- it isn't analagous, because the Palestinians lack a charismatic, capable leader. Arafat is the best thing that's ever happened to Israel, precisely because he is such an ineffective buffoon. Noting their efficiency and brutality, why is it that they always pin him down but never wipe him out? Because to many people, he symbolizes the Palestinian cause, and he's a gangster who is quite easy to dislike.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->the Israelis are ruthless about suppressing their enemies simply because they were nearly wiped out 50 years ago by people who hated jews, and aren't about to let that happen again<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It makes you think that they would be somewhat more careful about doing it themselves . . .
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are the only stable country in the middle east<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, this is a chicken and the egg situation-- do we support them because they're stable, or are they stable because we support them?*
*Yes, I know-- this is an <b>extremely</b> simplified way of looking at it . . . but seeing as how this is a mod message board, we're dealing in pretty high level abstractions . . .
<!--QuoteBegin--CollateralDamage+Sep. 10 2002,17:18--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (CollateralDamage @ Sep. 10 2002,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no democratic tradition like in Germany either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll go to bed after this, but let me add that Germany had about 20 years of democracy in total before the Third Realm was instituted, Afghanistan had about the same under King Shah.
This does however not change anything about the vaildy (?) of CDs point - Afghanistan is today less a country than a big unilateral fight, which makes any kind of government fake to a certain amount.
I don't think I could handle this thread anymore if Israel and Palistine are brought into the discussion too. One thing at a time, please : )
However, on a related note, someone made a good point earlier (Or I read it somewhere.) - if the US attacks Iraq, then other countries will see this as an excuse to do their own dity work. Israel and Palestine, Pakistan and India, god knows what other countries might also conjour up reasons to knock their neighbours off the political map.
This really is extremely dangerous territory. The US's invasion of Afghanistan was justified in the eyes of the public to an extent, because of the 9/11 attacks and proof (at least enough to satisfy most people) that the taliban were behind them.
But it seems this time around that there is not enough evidence to warrent an attack on Iraq, and the public is not convinced that it's justified. Thus, if the US and UK launch an attack on Iraq, then it will go against the global views on the situation (Which is why it's so important to get UN support before doing anything) and light the taper to a very dangerous barrel.
And it's also a given that Iraq would lob missles into Israel, as it did during the Gulf War-- except that this time, everything I have read has indicated that Israel does not plan on demonstrating the restraint they did then.
If that occurs, to repurpose a quote by David Spade, I'm going to invest all my money in the words 'Oh $hit'.
(Sorry for evading the filter . . it was for dramatic effect! )
Not having a democratic tradition is not a valid argument. Every democracy ever started without a democratic tradition. And to Nem's points, his country has one of the most inexperienced democracies in western europe, but also one of the most stable and strongest. They simply have to be helped along, the same way the US and other countries helped the Japanese and German's after WW2, and help the eastern europeans as we speak. It takes time.
To Mike's points - all valid.
I know most of the europeans on this board feel a huge amount of guilt for their people's conduct over the past few thousand years. Unfortunately this often seems to translate into disdainfulness and condescension when you speak to your cousins in America. Technically, since all these problems we have with the middle east were caused by your countries, we should be sitting back here yelling at you to do something about them. However, we'd prefer if you at least let us do what we think is right (after intense internal democratic debate, unlike Europes long history of unilateral and 'king's decree') and mind your own affairs if you don't want to help, rather than try to shield yourselves from terrorists by appearing sympathetic to them and the nations that house them. I am NOT referring to all europeans, just a portion of them that I have spoken to.
I'm having a hard time tracking all this topic now, so I will just say that I'm glad Nem and Mike and Merx and others managed to post responsibly and with some actual brain usage in this post, and that it did not descend into a flamefest.
Comments
So, I thank all of you who have let your opinions been known whether I agree with them or not.
Pakistan and India might declare they want to stop "potential danger" and launch "pre-emptive" nukes, and Israel will be very happy to get rid of all potentially dangerous Palestinians in the name of the "pre-emptive war against terror".
My thoughts? If we go to war with Iraq, I'm all for it. It's something that we should've done a long time ago, and something that should be taken care of as soon as humanly possible. As for other countries support? Who cares? Sure, it might start a few things, but as far as I know, Britain has expressed their support, and I believe that's all we've really needed to justify any kind of military action.
Sure, this war might be unpopular, but it's not like we haven't done that before (Vietnam). We'll fight, we'll win, and we'll press on. Saddaam needs to be removed, and that country is always going to be a threat. Sure, they might not attack us directly, but the money they supply to less than friendly countries is surely going to come our way... and not in an economically sound way. (Can't pawn Ak-47's and bombs we are attacked with... or at least we don't).
As for those of you who have expressed your desire to move to Canada if we go to war with Iraq. That's something I can't understand, but I'm sure you have your reasons. If this country is seriously that bad, if you just can't agree with anything our government does... perhaps you should think about staying there. If nothing else, you'll help the Canadian economy, and we'll be -1 person that wants to express their negative views on the way the government works, and "unfairly treats its people".
I'm done, thanks for reading if you've made it this far.
On an off-topic note, I'm really impressed that this has remained a mature conversation, I half-expected to nuke/lock this post everytime I've opened it. Thank you for that.
Every day, the American Government engages in economic and political practices that are extremely unpopular in other areas in the world, and certainly share some of the blame in the tragedies and conflicts that occur (though, I’m going to get all Chomsky on you and dump ALL the blame on the US and its government). By remaining in the country, you’re indirectly supporting this (<i>directly</i> supporting this, if you pay taxes), and probably profiting from it.
Don’t threaten to leave when the damage is done, because the damage <b>IS</b> done, on a daily basis. Simply leaving the nation when the feces hit the fan doesn’t absolve you of guilt. It just lets you hide from it.
<!--EDIT|BathroomMonkey|Sep. 10 2002,11:28-->
How can you "win" this kind of war? Do you believe the USA "won" in Afghanistan?
Sure, Saddam might be gone afterwards (at least temporarily, like bin Laden), but then you get a new dictator to fill his place. You cannot destroy the wide-spread hatred towards the USA with bombs; in fact bombs will *fuel* it.
And why is Iraq suddenly an "evil" country that must be taught a lesson? Are the USA going to invade China next? Why are they still allied with Saudi-Arabia, a cruel islamistic dictatorship and home of many 9/11 terrorists?
I see no logic and no long sight in the foreign policy of the USA.
Have you seen any terrorist attacks on us in the last year? Heard from Osama? Had any US hostages taken?
No, because their afghani areas were effectively wiped out, and now they have to at least hide for the next few years for fear of reprisals. They also are having a hard time finding countries to let them set up shop, as there is a precedent to those country's leaders that they will removed from power and the terrorists chased and hunted.
How else would you have dealt with it? Do nothing and let terrorists know that if they blow up our buildings nothing bad will happen to them?
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Sep. 10 2002,13:46-->
Otherwise, we become what we claim to fight.
-Ryan!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.
-- Ernest Benn
I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.
-- Moshe Dayan
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
-- Albert Einstein
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
-- Albert Einstein
War is not nice.
-- Barbara Bush
and since I'm being a glutton with quotes anyways, I give you,
If you don't find it in the index, look very carefully through the entire catalogue.
-- Sears, Roebuck, and Co. Consumer's Guide, 1897<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know im a little late but i saw you were in the quoty mood so heres mine:
<b>There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.
</b>
--Niccolo Machiavelli
I guess I'll get pretty direct in this post. Please don't take it personally.
Yes, there have been no big terroristic efforts in the last 363 days. This does, however, mean barely anything:
First, 9/11 would have drained the resources of every organization. Such attack can't be done in series in any scenario. It's just too usual for terrorists to leave big gaps between their attacks, to maximize the public effect it has.
Second, searching for the 'success' of a war (if there is such a thing) after months, or even years, is just taking a lot of development short.
I'd, p.e., call WW2 a full success (for your side <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> ), but I couldn't have said this fifteen years ago, when the Cold War and Germanies seperation were still there - the whole situation, that hadn't moved much since the War, could just as well have led to a nuclear war between the UdSSR and the US that had escalated over Germany.
Getting more practical: Afghanistan is not won at all. Karzai, the only person that could possibly unite the country, just barely survived a <i>terrorist attack</i> some days ago, for example. At the same time, the US Army is paying various warlords to fight on their side against the Taliban, which is by the way exactely how Osama got trained, while the official government is barely able to renew the streets of Kabul because most countries pay factions of what they promised to.
Yes, currently, you've got peace. But if you mark Afghanistan as 'won', you may have to go back there in twenty years - and not as tourists.
I do <i>not</i> say that you should stop defending yourself, but if you do something, do it right. And starting two wars within one year shows that you don't.
Afghanistan needs a Marshall Plan, and the help of your soldiers for a much longer time. I don't dare to guess what would've happened to my country if we hadn't got both.
[edit]In response to Llama: You <i>know</i> that The Prince was written as 'How not to do it', do you?[/edit]
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Sep. 10 2002,15:29-->
The whole point of being a terrorist is how easy and cheap it is to cause havoc. So while this operation might have drained the coffers of terrorist groups and prevented them from doing another major operation, strapping some TNT to a zealot and sending him into Times Square would cost about $200. It simply has not happened due to organizational fear, not money.
I don't really thing anyting is won in Afghanistan (nor did I say that in my last post). I meant that the large organization of the terrorists and their cells have been wiped out, which is true. As for politicians being bombed, that could be from anywhere or anyone. The nature of fanatics (terrorists, warlords, abortion clinic haters, etc.) is to blow things up rather than try to work through law and democracy.
There are efforts to enact a Marshall plan in Afghanistan. Things like electricty, telephones, and other things have already been started on by engineers there. It takes time, just like it took time in Germany and Japan.
Off topic (and not against you Nem), I get pretty worked up every time Europeans scold us for fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why do you think we are there in the first place? Utter chaos caused by European colonialism for the past 300 years in those areas, all the way up to the middle of this century (Balfour agreement? Europeans fighting over Afghanistan to control Indian trade routes? Any of this ring a bell?). We act in our own interests with our army very rarely. Europe has made a habit out of it for 2500 years, and have only acted civilized in the last <b>20</b> (when you finally allows Africans to own their own countries in the mid-eighties for the first time) - and now you're on some sort of high horse as a peoples. It's total hypocricy.
But good points, and I agree that we should not start slapping high fives just yet, Nem.
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Sep. 10 2002,16:03-->
<!--EDIT|DOOManiac|Sep. 10 2002,16:00-->
But the problem is that our definition of a 'stable, good government' is relative to their stance on selling us oil and letting us station troops, rather than their position on human rights, for example. We're only recently rethinking our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and they've <b>never</b> really been a bastion of democracy.
They don't. That was my point.
<a href="http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/mideast/saudi.html" target="_blank">Worth reading</a>
Not that you can believe everything you read, but I've seen a number of sources, and this seems to be a pretty fair summary.
<!--EDIT|BathroomMonkey|Sep. 10 2002,16:19-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->The whole point of being a terrorist is how easy and cheap it is to cause havoc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to disagree. The whole point of being a terrorist is forcing the attacked society into a form it can not mantain and thus is destroyed rather by the reaction on the terroristic acts than those acts themselves.
The RAF (Red Army Fraction), for example, tried to force Germany into becoming a police state because there was no other possible way of preventing further attacks. This, so the terrorists reasoned, would rally the Germans into a revolution that would give them the opportunity of installing their idea of a state.
Islamic terrorists are using similiar strategies, with slight modifications on the theoretic end of things.
Looking at it from this way, 9/11 has sadly to be called a success: It changed your society radically, and in a way that most Americans wouldn't have supported if the attack wouldn't have taken place.
Now, where's my point? My point is that, to maximize the shock, the horror about what has been done, you can either attack steadily, thus making terrorist attacks a daily risk - the Hamas is using this strategy, but you can't use it against an enemy that's as 'remote' as the US - the necessary logistics just couldn't be established.
Therefore, it is important to make the enemy believe he is safe, so you can suprise and, well, shock him. That's why Al Quaida always left big gaps between their attacks, and that's why it's no wonder nothing has happened up till now - people are still aware of 9/11, a new attack just wouldn't have the same effect.
Also, never forget that up till now there hasn't been a verified prove that Osama really gave the order to strike - it's just as possible that Atta did this as a 'suprise' for his boss. In that case, you would've had to attack Hamburg to clear the terrorist cell.
Off Topic:
I agree with you that Europe hasn't got very much to be proud of, foreign policy wise. 'We' were the superpower for about 500 years, and didn't use this power in a very good way.
European society has however evolved drastically during the last 50 years: Internal struggle, the motor to the horrible acts during the colonialism, has stopped, we've managed to pull ourselves together, accept the bad things that happened between us and the rest of the world, as well as the good things (all two of them), and are now trying to at least lessen the wounds we caused.
It's therefore not so much the old slavers in their new white wests complaining about you, it's more the sinner who's realized what he did wrong and now doesn't want others to do the same mistake.
Cutting the European patriotism short at this point, I have to say that your engagements in Africa weren't exactely directely caused by Europe - they were mostly results of the Cold War, in which both the US and the UdSSR tried to get as many allies as possible, even if that meant giving weapons into the hands of corrupt megaolmaniacs. Our both countries didn't exactely do the right things to this continent, I'm afraid.
You could use the argument, "There have been no terrorist attacks on US soil for a year now," but looking before September 11 last year, there were no terrorist attacks on US soil for several years.
It's in the nature of terrorist attacks to spread them out few and far-between. That way, anytime their target audience stops paying attention, their heads are jerked right back around again.
True, many countries are very reluctant to harbor such terrorists now, but we are still a ways away from declaring an undisputed victory.
-Ryan!
The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky
-- Solomon Short
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't explain myself well - what I meant was, terrorist fundamentally use low-cost alternatives to outright warfare. They cannot obtain tanks and planes to force their beliefs on people, so they use inexpensive but 'terrifying' methods. I meant more the means, not the ends. Making a terrorist attack is very inexpensive. Making a conventional attack for the same aims is very expensive. The cost of the entire Sept 11 attack was probably only a few million dollars ( ahuge expense by terrorist standards nonetheless), which is about the price of the smart bomb that likely killed Osama.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, never forget that up till now there hasn't been a verified prove that Osama really gave the order to strike - it's just as possible that Atta did this as a 'suprise' for his boss. In that case, you would've had to attack Hamburg to clear the terrorist cell.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is hair splitting. Who cares if he wrote it in a memo or not - he was the leader of that group and an organization's leader is always responsible for the actions of the followers. He makes them followers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->'We' were the superpower for about 500 years, and didn't use this power in a very good way.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
500 years? What do you call the Pax Romana? More like 2500 years of warfare, conquest, and control. We are complete newborne babes at this, as we've been mostly isolationist up until the start of yet another series of European wars, in living memory.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Cutting the European patriotism short at this point, I have to say that your engagements in Africa weren't exactely directely caused by Europe - they were mostly results of the Cold War, in which both the US and the UdSSR tried to get as many allies as possible, even if that meant giving weapons into the hands of corrupt megaolmaniacs. Our both countries didn't exactely do the right things to this continent, I'm afraid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was in no way referring to our involvement in Africa in the 1990's. I am referring to the fact that Europe was still handing colonies back to the local people in the 1980's. Zaire? French Guinea? Kenya? Mozambique? The list goes on and on of African nations that were only allowed self-government by Europe in the last 20 years. This has nothing to do with us at all - pure Europe. Never mind the majority of European countries that continued to trade with South Africa while we embargoed them during apartheid.
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Sep. 10 2002,16:46-->
Neglecting the good points that Msr. Evil made there (sorry, Ned!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->, I'll play Devil's advocate here and comment that in these enlightened days, most of Europe has been highly critical of Israel's handling of the Palestinian situation, whereas we have offered Israel unconditional support in their offensive- often standing alone beside them, against the will of the international community.
I realize that bringing up that situation is opening up a <i>massive</i> can of worms, but there's a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions going on in that region, and we seem satisfied to turn a blind eye to it, or worse, to use the current war on terror as an excuse to brand <b>all</b> Palestinians as terrorists and suicide bombers, thus relieving our citizens of any sort of sympathy they might have for those suffering.
<!--EDIT|BathroomMonkey|Sep. 10 2002,17:02-->
This is, of course, true. I think you'll have to agree however that the lack of new attacks is no certain prove of success.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is hair splitting. Who cares if he wrote it in a memo or not - he was the leader of that group and an organization's leader is always responsible for the actions of the followers. He makes them followers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right; it is hair splitting. I included this to demonstrate how easily the whole attack on Afghanistan could've went into the wrong direction. Sorry for not making this clear.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->500 years? What do you call the Pax Romana? More like 2500 years of warfare, conquest, and control. We are complete newborne babes at this, as we've been mostly isolationist up until the start of yet another series of European wars, in living memory.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would file the Roman Empire under 'internal struggle', although they addmitelly did not only reign over European countries. Superpowers are defined as having strong influences on the complete world, I therefore chose the beginning of the European colonialism around 1500 as beginning of this period.
Anyway, this is, again, hair splitting. I agree with you, the US have spent a lot less time on the international stage than Europe has.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was in no way referring to our involvement in Africa in the 1990's. I am referring to the fact that Europe was still handing colonies back to the local people in the 1980's. Zaire? French Guinea? Kenya? Mozambique? The list goes on and on of African nations that were only allowed self-government by Europe in the last 20 years. This has nothing to do with us at all - pure Europe. Never mind the majority of European countries that continued to trade with South Africa while we embargoed them during apartheid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have to admit that I'm reaching the borders of my historical knowledge here, but I wasn't referring to the US's actions during the 90's, either. The Cold War was, after all, over at that point.
There were, however, a lot of wars mainly in Northern and Western Africa in which Africans trained by the CIA and equipped with M-16s fought against Africans speaking fluently Russian and using AKs.
As said before, European society evolved <i>during</i> the last 50 years - it hadn't finished the process at the end of WW2, it hasn't finished it now, for that matter.
Yes, there were horrible things done during this time, too, South Africa is a good example, Muroroa is another. At least, Europe was both cancer and cure in many of those cases (the end of the Apartheit, for example, was reached partly because of European pressure on South Africa).
Anyway, we're slipping further and further into Off Topic here. When all is said and done, you have to see that I, as well as most other Europeans in this community, wasn't born when the last African state reached its independence. We really <i>can't</i> argue from a high horse in that respect.
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Sep. 10 2002,17:17-->
For all of Israel's existence, we have been their sole consistent backer from day one in 1947. They are the only stable country in the middle east, which made them an island of (mostly) sesnsible behavior, compared to an endless riffraff of scumbag countries. Not to mention that if there was no israel, we'd be dealing with the Pan-Egyptian-Syrian Conglomerate or some other nonsense after they had invaded and subdued their neighbors in teh 60's as they tried to do with Israel.
wow big text...
Not much has changed for the rest of Afghanistan either. Karsai is the new mayor of Kabul, but he has little to no power in the rest of the country. It's still a medieval society, based on tribal rivalry and warlord feuds (which the USA are being drawn into). There is no democratic tradition like in Germany either. I honestly have no idea what the war was supposed to accomplish, except getting rid of the Taliban, which had to fill the role of the "bad guys".
And (in an effort to get back on-topic a bit) it's going to be similar in Iraq too. What's going to happen once Saddam is gone? In my opinion it will prove impossible to superimpose democracy on countries like Afghanistan or Iraq, there's is no foundation for it. You will end up with installing American vice-kings, and the people there will hate America even more. And it is this hatred that created men like bin Laden in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->the Israelis are ruthless about suppressing their enemies simply because they were nearly wiped out 50 years ago by people who hated jews, and aren't about to let that happen again<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It makes you think that they would be somewhat more careful about doing it themselves . . .
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are the only stable country in the middle east<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, this is a chicken and the egg situation-- do we support them because they're stable, or are they stable because we support them?*
*Yes, I know-- this is an <b>extremely</b> simplified way of looking at it . . . but seeing as how this is a mod message board, we're dealing in pretty high level abstractions . . .
<!--EDIT|BathroomMonkey|Sep. 10 2002,17:32-->
I'll go to bed after this, but let me add that Germany had about 20 years of democracy in total before the Third Realm was instituted, Afghanistan had about the same under King Shah.
This does however not change anything about the vaildy (?) of CDs point - Afghanistan is today less a country than a big unilateral fight, which makes any kind of government fake to a certain amount.
However, on a related note, someone made a good point earlier (Or I read it somewhere.) - if the US attacks Iraq, then other countries will see this as an excuse to do their own dity work. Israel and Palestine, Pakistan and India, god knows what other countries might also conjour up reasons to knock their neighbours off the political map.
This really is extremely dangerous territory. The US's invasion of Afghanistan was justified in the eyes of the public to an extent, because of the 9/11 attacks and proof (at least enough to satisfy most people) that the taliban were behind them.
But it seems this time around that there is not enough evidence to warrent an attack on Iraq, and the public is not convinced that it's justified. Thus, if the US and UK launch an attack on Iraq, then it will go against the global views on the situation (Which is why it's so important to get UN support before doing anything) and light the taper to a very dangerous barrel.
If that occurs, to repurpose a quote by David Spade, I'm going to invest all my money in the words 'Oh $hit'.
(Sorry for evading the filter . . it was for dramatic effect! )
<!--EDIT|BathroomMonkey|Sep. 10 2002,18:01-->
Not having a democratic tradition is not a valid argument. Every democracy ever started without a democratic tradition. And to Nem's points, his country has one of the most inexperienced democracies in western europe, but also one of the most stable and strongest. They simply have to be helped along, the same way the US and other countries helped the Japanese and German's after WW2, and help the eastern europeans as we speak. It takes time.
To Mike's points - all valid.
I know most of the europeans on this board feel a huge amount of guilt for their people's conduct over the past few thousand years. Unfortunately this often seems to translate into disdainfulness and condescension when you speak to your cousins in America. Technically, since all these problems we have with the middle east were caused by your countries, we should be sitting back here yelling at you to do something about them. However, we'd prefer if you at least let us do what we think is right (after intense internal democratic debate, unlike Europes long history of unilateral and 'king's decree') and mind your own affairs if you don't want to help, rather than try to shield yourselves from terrorists by appearing sympathetic to them and the nations that house them. I am NOT referring to all europeans, just a portion of them that I have spoken to.
I'm having a hard time tracking all this topic now, so I will just say that I'm glad Nem and Mike and Merx and others managed to post responsibly and with some actual brain usage in this post, and that it did not descend into a flamefest.
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Sep. 10 2002,18:11-->