Jump to content

Marshall plan for iraq


Guest bengalrick

Recommended Posts

I agree with you, Dan, we are going to have to focus and everyone wants a decent solution. How we get there will be hotly debated. Part of the problem is that this admin refuses to see alternatives, they cannot even admit the tactical mistakes they made with respect to post-war admin, equipping troops and other logistics, etc. That's a problem when you have a culture of sycophants, everybody is too busy reinforcing the company line, even if the company line has little resemblance to reality.

So, they'll "stay the course," even if that means more unnecessary bloodshed. The proper avenue to explore now is via the UN, but this admin has burned that bridge, too, and has done so deliberately, with both the Bolton nomination and by their hyping of the Oil-for-Food scandal. You can see how this plays back into the conscious thought of regular folks who don't take the trouble (or have the time) to investigate too deeply; this was the intent of the admin. It's like a crazy, reverse Chicken-Little syndrome: "Trust me, trust me, the sky is not falling." I read a lot of reports of on-the-ground activity in Iraq and after sifting through this stuff, I have to conclude that it is worse on the ground there now than it even has been, both for our troops and the Iraqis. There are pockets where things are a little better, but not many.

Should we support representative government there? Of course, the alternative is another dictatorship or flat out civil war. The question is, does our involvement help or hinder such a development? I don't know, time will tell. I do know I'd be more comfortable if this admin showed it was as adept at running concrete policy as it is on running a marketing campaign.

<edit--to add a few comments on McCain>
I think McCain is an honorable person, and he is not prone to punch below the belt, though he will if he deems it in his interest. This is what, imo, lumps him in with other politicians: he talks reform, but he is simply one of the more decent folks who, ultimately, plays by the "rules of the game." I don't care too much for his foreign policy outlook--he is too pro-Israel and not balanced enough with respect to the Palestinians.

To his credit, his recent involvement in building the coalition to prevent the rules change in the Senate regarding cloture, was admirable. People generally do not understand just how important that was. The Senate is the only elected body that is permanently in government and this was the intent of the founders. That's why only 1/3 of the body comes up for election every two years. So, of all our institutions, the checks and balances concept of our government is especially important here. That means protecting the rights of minorities, as a matter of principle, even if filibusters and cloture are sometimes used to contemplate or stymie poor tactical policies.

Overall, McCain is a decent fellow, but he's no Lincoln. Would I prefer that he were president than Bush. Yes. Than Kerry? It's a toss-up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick

i accidently hit back and lost about 5 paragraphs of my reply to your homer -_-

therefore, i am only going to reply to the part i though was most important:

[b][i]Also, just as you are tired of hearing about my opposition to this war, I am beginning to find it tedious to have my patriotism called into question, either directly or by allusion. It's my opinion that I have served this nation to the best of my ability as a normal citizen, not only by diverting my life for 4 years to serve as a citizen-sailor, but also as a result of the thousands of hours I have spent trying to improve my understanding of just why this nation occupies a special place in history, and also by virtue of the fact that I have volunteered my time, labor, and dollars, as a citizen, during almost every election cycle of my adult life.

I have yet to call your patriotism into question, though I disagree with the ideas you propound and think them dangerous. I also concede that you might think that the ideas I propound might be dangerous. That's precisely why it is incumbent on each and every citizen to work towards becoming a wise person and to present the best-reasoned arguments they can for their views. In a rational society, the truth will out, eventually. The fact that our government is designed to facilitate this sort of give and take is a part of its beauty. The fact that a bunch of "no-nothings" are present in our society, and have shouted their way into being noticed (and this applies to both ends of the political spectrum), is no reason why any citizen should abrogate their rights and responsibilities to perfom their duties as a citizen. One of those responsibilites is to be respectful in pursuit of the truth.
[/i][/b]

i don't know where i called or referred to you as being unpatriotic, but i have to clear this up... i absolutely don't believe that... the reason our country is so great is b/c of difference of opinions and being able to talk about them... if there was a dissenting view from people like you, would we care as much about gitmo, abu graeb, etc... no b/c we wouldn't have to... the reason america is so great is b/c of people like you AND me, and not just one.... hope that clears up the patriotic stuff...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
[i][b]No, you were not told that the war in Iraq would be long and tough. Review the spectrum of evidence offered by admin members during the runup to the conventional war and its immediate aftermath. Once again: who, what, when, where, and why?[/b][/i]


you mentioned that bush left the impression that this would be a quick war... i am amazed at this, b/c i never once heard anyone w/ credit, that this would be a quick, easy war... i specifically remember his saying this would be a hard, long war and we needed to stay strong to win...

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/"]cnn.com - transcript of bush's "48 hours" speech[/url]
[quote]Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice.[/quote]

[quote]The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. [b]Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. [/b]The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose.[/quote]

before the war in afghanistan too, we were told that this was a "war on terrorism" and not a war on a particular religion or country...

i don't know where you got the idea that we thought it would be an easy war, but that would explain why you wholeheartedily disagree w/ it now...

[i][b]Here's part of the problem. Where did I say that I have no respect for McCain? Aside from the fact that I suspect I know more about the fellow that you do, and therefore would be able to back up an argument if I did claim to have no respect for the Senator, I simply did not say that. I said you hold him in higher esteem than I do. In fact, I'm keen on paying attention to what McCain says moreso than some other politicans, simply because he and I share the same brotherhood of the Navy, and I am not so blind that I fail to recognize that he served with much more distinction than I did.[/b][/i]

you said that i held him in "higher esteem" than you did... sorry if i took that out of context and said you have no respect for him...

mccain isn't my top candidate for president, but since i feel we need a good moderate president, he seems to be leading the pack imo...

what gets under my skin is this homer and this goes back to backers post a while back... you are a very smart guy and noone will dispute that... you have an "elitist" type of attititude when you post things, as if to say, "well, you can believe what you want... but your still stupid"... the reason for this is b/c you are very smart... but just b/c you are more experienced than me, and have more education, you automatically disreguard what i say (along w/ 99% of everyone else)... you have these forgone conclussions about everything, and anything that is different than that, is disreguarded and (respectfully) disagreed w/, w/out actually listening to what they are saying...you say "Aside from the fact that I suspect I know more about the fellow that you do, and therefore would be able to back up an argument if I did claim to have no respect for the Senator, I simply did not say that" and this is as clear of an example as i have seen... though you are probably right in saying this, how do you know? you are saying "even though your wrong about what i think of mccain, you'd be wrong if i chose to reply fully to this post"... you don't consider discenting opinions...

you mentioned a while back that if i don't start to listen to other ideas, i'd have a problem in life as far as management goes... at first, it pissed me off, but to be honest, that is how i work... i don't really care about things until they piss me off... so i have been making a big effort to truely figure the whole situation into the equation, and come up w/ a solution from that... i appreciate you saying that, b/c it has helped... BUT i feel that you are doing the exact same thing, as you tell me not to do... when can you say, "good point... i hadn't thought of that" or something similar... i bet it has been a long time since you have said something like that to anyone...

getting away from this topic, you also mentioned that bush isn't admitting we should see more alternatives... but what are alternatives and what is wrong w/ the current policy? should we leave (i know you already said you didn't believe that) or should we send more troops (even though the generals all say we don't need them) or should we take total control of iraq and forget about training the policeman? i just don't know what alternatives you are talking about...

then you mention the UN, and how we should use them at this point... sorry, but i don't trust the UN at all.. along w/ the oil for food program that was the biggest scandal in world history (and thats a fact), they tend to get nothing done... here is another [url="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050630/AIDS30/TPHealth/"]example[/url] of their uselessness right now... they need some extreme reforms, but since we can't get the guy the president wants in there, it will be hard to get anything done...

[i][b]I don't know, time will tell. I do know I'd be more comfortable if this admin showed it was as adept at running concrete policy as it is on running a marketing campaign.[/b][/i]

up until this speech, he has avoided "marketing" the war b/c we were busy fighting it... since we all realize our worst enemy is ourselves, he felt the need to explain things better... if he didn't have this, dem's would be pissed b/c we weren't rallying the troops... bush can't win...

you also mention that kerry and mccain would be a toss up... if kerry was president, we would have still gone to war imo... at this point, b/c the polls are tipping the wrong way (which they always will in war) he would be talking about pulling out soon and all kinds of bullshit... thank god bush has the balls to not listen to everyone else... the saying ,"your trash, is another persons gold" comes to mind b/c the reason that you hate bush, is exactly why i love him...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homer Rice,

You are very knowledgable on this subject and I respect your opinion, however your bias is exposed. You either voted for Kerry or you watch too much CNN.

[quote]The proper avenue to explore now is via the UN, but this admin has burned that bridge, too, and has done so deliberately, with both the Bolton nomination and by [u]their hyping of the Oil-for-Food scandal[/u].[/quote]

This issue pisses me off, IMO, the real tragedy is war could have been avoided if some countries opted to apply pressure on Saddam to abide by the UN resolutions he agreed to after the first Gulf War (notice I did not say disclosure of WMD, trying to stay on topic, but would be more than happy to go down that road with you) instead lining their pockets from his coffers.

[quote]I read a lot of reports of on-the-ground activity in Iraq and after sifting through this stuff, I have to conclude that it is worse on the ground there now than it even has been, both for our troops and the Iraqis. There are pockets where things are a little better, but not many[/quote].

Did you read this one: THE WAR IS OVER, AND WE WON, Karl Zinsmeister, The American Enterprise, Published June 29, 2005.
(Editor returned to Iraq in May after an embedded tour in 2003/2004)
I could immediately see improvements compared to my earlier tour. The Iraqi Security Forces, for example, are vastly more competent, and in some cases quite inspiring. Baghdad is now choked with traffic. Cell phones have spread like wildfire and satellite TV dishes sprout from even the most humble mud hovels in the countryside. He goes on to talk about is walks down the neighborhoods of Haifa Street and Sadr City; two very different types of neighborhoods and something that he would not of thought of last year. He witnessed the primary duties of our service men as rebuiding sewers, paving roads, repairing buildings, providing supplies to schools and hospitals, getting the trash picked up, managing traffic, and encouraging honest local government. Totally contrary to what the establishment media is reporting(CNN).

Our success at urban combat (which, scandously, are mostly untold stories in the US) killing thousands of insurgents made it crystal clear to the terrorist and more importantly the moderate Iraqi's that simply the insurgents can't win against todays U.S. Army and Marines. That's why everyday Iraqi citizens have surged into politics.

[quote]The insurgency can sustain itself without the support of relatively broad sections of the populace. Much of that support is passive, but it is support nonetheless. They want us out, period. The big question is, how do we do that, equitably?[/quote]

Wrong. The bottom line is the insurgency can only continue if supported by the citizens of Iraq; this is the true War being fought along with bringing in the Sunni's to a degree that is acceptable to the Shia's. If the Sunnis come in, the foreign fighters better run for the hills.

[quote]Overall, McCain is a decent fellow, but he's no Lincoln. Would I prefer that he were president than Bush. Yes. Than Kerry? It's a toss-up.[/quote]

[quote]How do we salvage the situation? I don't know, the bozos driving this bus have gotten us into a pretty tight position. I certainly was not enthralled by the Prez's speech last night, it offered only more of the same. The way he choked up at the end of his speech made me think he is unstable.[/quote]

I voted for President Bush; come on just admit you voted for Kerry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I am biased!

On the tactical level, there all all kinds of reports about the way our troops are conducting business. That said, I stand by my earlier comments because they represent my judgement based on reading all sorts of reports. Now, my judgement may be wrong, and that wouldn't be the first or last time, but I do not think so. Otherwise, I would change my judgement!

[quote name='Lawman' date='Jun 30 2005, 01:51 PM']Wrong. The bottom line is the insurgency can only continue if supported by the citizens of Iraq; this is the true War being fought along with bringing in the Sunni's to a degree that is acceptable to the Shia's. If the Sunnis come in, the foreign fighters better run for the hills.[/quote]

You misquoted me. Had you quoted me accurately, you would see that we agree on your main point. I do think that the Sunnis will allow the Al-Qaeda types to do their damage for a while though, as it is in their interest.

[quote]I voted for President Bush; come on just admit you voted for Kerry.
[right][post="108977"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

You say this as though it were a dirty secret in my closet! Of course I voted for Kerry. Sometimes you go into a restaurant and they don't offer a wide choice on the menu. Whaddya do, go hungry?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 30 2005, 09:58 AM']i don't know where i called or referred to you as being unpatriotic, but i have to clear this up... i absolutely don't believe that... the reason our country is so great is b/c of difference of opinions and being able to talk about them... if there was a dissenting view from people like you, would we care as much about gitmo, abu graeb, etc... no b/c we wouldn't have to... the reason america is so great is b/c of people like you AND me, and not just one.... hope that clears up the patriotic stuff...
[right][post="108884"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Fair enough. It was the "true colors" comment that set me off. I apologize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 30 2005, 12:56 PM']i don't know where you got the idea that we thought it would be an easy war, but that would explain why you wholeheartedily disagree w/ it now...[/quote]

As I have said numerous times, I opposed this war before it began. I have also tried to explain why.

We apparently remember differently. "Mission accomplished" and "Bring "em on" come to mind, as well as these:

"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
Dick Cheney

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld

"I don't do quagmires."
Donald Rumsfeld

And that was only part of the drill coming from the admin.

[quote]what gets under my skin is this homer and this goes back to backers post a while back... you are a very smart guy and noone will dispute that... you have an "elitist" type of attititude when you post things, as if to say, "well, you can believe what you want... but your still stupid"... the reason for this is b/c you are very smart... but just b/c you are more experienced than me, and have more education, you automatically disreguard what i say (along w/ 99% of everyone else)... you have these forgone conclussions about everything, and anything that is different than that, is disreguarded and (respectfully) disagreed w/, w/out actually listening to what they are saying...you say "Aside from the fact that I suspect I know more about the fellow that you do, and therefore would be able to back up an argument if I did claim to have no respect for the Senator, I simply did not say that" and this is as clear of an example as i have seen... though you are probably right in saying this, how do you know? you are saying "even though your wrong about what i think of mccain, you'd be wrong if i chose to reply fully to this post"... you don't consider discenting opinions...[/quote]

I understand your perspective. I am definitely an elitist. But that does not mean that I think I am "better" than you or anyone else; that's mostly because I am pretty good at empathy. Some people prefer to interpret it that way, but generally either they are mistaken, or I have done a poor job communicating. Now, it sounds "elitist" even to say it that way, but it really is not. I'm trained in history and epistemology, I've done business and been a leader of significant numbers of people during the heyday of my professional career. I know I rub people raw sometimes. Usually, it is nothing personal. When it is personal, I generally let that be known. Sometimes, I act the gadfly on purpose, and with a purpose.

As far as considering dissenting opinions goes, I spend a great deal of time reviewing ideas from all across the spectrum.


[quote]you mentioned a while back that if i don't start to listen to other ideas, i'd have a problem in life as far as management goes... at first, it pissed me off, but to be honest, that is how i work... i don't really care about things until they piss me off... so i have been making a big effort to truely figure the whole situation into the equation, and come up w/ a solution from that... i appreciate you saying that, b/c it has helped... BUT i feel that you are doing the exact same thing, as you tell me not to do... when can you say, "good point... i hadn't thought of that" or something similar... i bet it has been a long time since you have said something like that to anyone...[/quote]

Well, I haven't said it to you lately. That's because we are on opposite sides of a crucial set of issues. I do think I have respectfully referred to your honesty and urgency in trying to figure things out. If I haven't done that recently, let me do it now:

I think you are a good young man who is working pretty hard to develop a reasonable quality of judgement, so you can figure out just how you fit into the world. You appear to take the stuff seriously, and you aren't afraid to challenge yourself. I respect and admire that.

[quote]getting away from this topic, you also mentioned that bush isn't admitting we should see more alternatives... but what are alternatives and what is wrong w/ the current policy? should we leave (i know you already said you didn't believe that) or should we send more troops (even though the generals all say we don't need them) or should we take total control of iraq and forget about training the policeman? i just don't know what alternatives you are talking about...[/quote]

Rick, I wish I knew. Part of me says, let's send a clear signal to the region by impeaching both Bush and Cheney. That of course, would be rash. One does not impeach lightly.

Somehow we have to remove the thorn that is feeding the insurgency (not the terrorists, that's a different situation), and that means, practically, getting our troops out of there as expeditiously as possible. At the same time, we have to support, materially, the idea that Iraqis can govern themselves. That's the task that will take a generation or two for Iraqi culture to assimilate. How do we help them prevent self-destruction in the meantime? No matter what, it will be messy.

[quote]then you mention the UN, and how we should use them at this point... sorry, but i don't trust the UN at all.. along w/ the oil for food program that was the biggest scandal in world history (and thats a fact), they tend to get nothing done... here is another [url="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050630/AIDS30/TPHealth/"]example[/url] of their uselessness right now... they need some extreme reforms, but since we can't get the guy the president wants in there, it will be hard to get anything done...[/quote]

A couple of points here:

I'll be frank, I bet that you didn't pay much attention to the UN until the Republican propaganda machine cranked up their attacks. My suggestion would be to make sure that you are not being misled to serve the purposes of others.

The UN is an imperfect organization. Yet, it is the primary locus where nations interact. And, contrary to what you might hear, the organization serves a useful purpose.

[quote]up until this speech, he has avoided "marketing" the war b/c we were busy fighting it... since we all realize our worst enemy is ourselves, he felt the need to explain things better... if he didn't have this, dem's would be pissed b/c we weren't rallying the troops... bush can't win...[/quote]

Interestingly, today's [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902792.html"]Washington Post[/url] has an article about marketing the war. Bush's reasons to "explain things better" is analyzed there.

Bush can't win because he is not a very good president. And, I'd suggest that Dems are pissed for two classes of reasons. First, those of us who have opposed the war from the beginning are frustrated and feel somewhat impotent to stop the damage being done; second, those dems who were more supportive of the Iraq war may be thinking they were led down the primrose path, and so, they may rue their previously given consent.

[quote]you also mention that kerry and mccain would be a toss up... if kerry was president, we would have still gone to war imo... at this point, b/c the polls are tipping the wrong way (which they always will in war) he would be talking about pulling out soon and all kinds of bullshit... thank god bush has the balls to not listen to everyone else... the saying ,"your trash, is another persons gold" comes to mind b/c the reason that you hate bush, is exactly why i love him...
[right][post="108945"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

You are right about Kerry, he's known for having his finger in the wind. That's part of why I think he is a mid-bencher.

Happy mining!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[img]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050630/oconnor.gif[/img]





[img]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050630/wuerker.gif[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
its easy to say "he said 'mission accomplished' " and have a good arguement... but you have to put it in context and he said it to a particular crew that was involved in catching saddam... that was a huge "mission accomplished" but that doesn' t mean that the job was done...

i can't get passed this UN thing... of course i didn't care about the UN before the scandal came out, but this didnt' have to do w/ the "republican propaganda machine" starting... this was the biggest scandal in world history... the facts that come out of this are unbelievable... we were letting saddam give bribes, and make a lot of money, while he was killing his own people and not giving them the food that they deserved...

i can't understand why you want to impeach the president for doing going to war, when he and many others truely believe in what were doing, but say nothing about the UN... come on homer, this scandal is a big reason for why we are where we are... put it in perspective... would france, russia, and/or germany be involved w/ us if they weren't being bought off (w/ their veto vote) by saddam? honestly, i have no clue, but i know that we had zero chance b/c they were getting paid off... the facts are too strong to say this is only a republican propaganda machine...

i truely believe that this scandal has caused so much bad, that i'm not going to let it go... the trouble that they caused is immense... we actually did go to the UN, trying to get them to help us... but they were unwilling to, and alot of americans couldn't figure out why... then, soon after the facts start coming out and it starts to make sense... germany, france, russia, and spain are all closer to iraq, therefore they are more suseptable to getting an attack... but they didn't want to help... why are you so pissed at bush and cheney, but have no problem w/ the UN? their incompetence is the truely scary thing...

the UN's job is to stop threats before they happen and not make countries like ours, have to go to war unless we have to... if they would have stepped up on any of the previous 16 resolutions, we wouldnt' be at war w/ iraq right now... if they would have grown a pair, and wasn't making hollow threats, we wouldn't be at war, besides w/ the taliban and afghanistan... i truely believe that and that is why the UN pisses me off... i love bush b/c he said "to hell w/ the UN... something isn't right and we feel threatened... go to hell UN, we'll do it ourself" and he did... that takes balls, and whether or not he was right or not is still not seen, but reguardless, he did what he thought was right...

btw, i appreciate the nice words... i was worried i came off as an asshole...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, today's [u]Washington Post [/u]has an article about marketing the war. Bush's reasons to "explain things better" is analyzed there.

I always have to tilt my head to the right when reading that rag. :D

[quote]You misquoted me. Had you quoted me accurately, you would see that we agree on your main point.[/quote]

I didn't, but we are both in agreement on the same thing.

[quote]You say this as though it were a dirty secret in my closet! Of course I voted for Kerry. Sometimes you go into a restaurant and they don't offer a wide choice on the menu. Whaddya do, go hungry?[/quote]

Make a decision and stick to it, unlike Kerry who actually voted against the war before he voted for it. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]

Seriously, I am an Independent who voted Republican this time; my family is primarily Democratic. I do not know where my Grandfathers Democratic Party has gone. IMO, the Party has morphed into a secular socialistic society infested with special interest groups. They are too confusing and do not have their shit together, but fortunately they are heavily supported by a liberal media(CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, etc...) that hates Bush. I like to think for myself and not toe a party line or believe everything I read or hear, from either side. You came off to me as toeing the party line and as one of those Anyone But Bush people. I was trying to establish from what perspective you derive your opinons, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]The reason why the US doesn't want to look into Oil for Food to hard is because we have also armed, taken bribes, etc from many world dictators who we knew were killing their own people, hell sometimes we put them in power ourselves. [/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 1 2005, 02:35 PM'][i][b]The reason why the US doesn't want to look into Oil for Food to hard is because we have also armed, taken bribes, etc from many world dictators who we knew were killing their own people, hell sometimes we put them in power ourselves.  [/b][/i]
[right][post="109467"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/27.gif[/img]

here we go again...

1. where is your proof (like the thousands of documents for the oil for food scandal)... and don't tell me that we did something 20 years ago, and that is why america sucks... <edit> i re-read your post and you are saying saddam from 20 years ago... so i guess you have proof, but my God (sorry, take out the word God), why do you blame us for everything? why can't you put things in context instead of simplifying everything to adjust to your agenda?

2. are you happy w/ the UN and what they have done in their past? are you proud of them, for sitting in new york, while countries like rwanda, dulfur,cambodia, etc were/are being mutilated... you can't blame the US for not stepping in to dulfur... considering that is supposed to be the UN's job...

3. how come, everytime someone brings up the problems of another country/orgainization, you find a way to blame it on us?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[quote]1. where is your proof[/quote]

[color="blue"]There are dozens of instances like this one [/color]

[u]US blocked NATO call for probe of Uzbek 'massacre'?
Calls for investigation highlight 'awkward' US ties with authoritarian government.
By Matthew Clark | csmonitor.com
[/u]

A report that US defense officials helped block a NATO demand for an international probe into last month's killing of protesters in Uzbekistan is proving an air base there to be one of the more diplomatically costly "lily pads" in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's new lean, mean restructuring of the US global military presence.
Located in southeastern Uzbekistan near the border with Afghanistan, the Khanabad base is seen as key to the US war on terror, as a Q&A on the website of the Council of Foriegn Relations, a prominent Washington-based think-tank, explains.

Officially, the role of the troops in Uzbekistan is limited to humanitarian relief and search-and-rescue missions inside Afghanistan, but a joint US Special Forces command center at Khanabad reportedly played a key role in directing the activities of US Special Forces personnel during the early phase of the fall 2001 US attacks on the Taliban [in Afghanistan]. Information about current day-to-day activities of US forces remains shrouded in secrecy.

But continued access to the base means the US must tread carefully in its criticism of Uzbekistan's leader Islam Karimov, who has routinely been accused of brutally stifling dissent, including allegedly covering up the government's shooting of hundreds of protesters last month.

The Uzbek government has admitted that 173 people were killed on May 13 in Andijan but independent witnesses and human rights organizations put the number of victims at between 500 and 1,000. Human Rights Watch, for instance, has called the incident a "massacre." Karimov has portrayed the killings as a necessary response to a revolt by Islamic extremists.

Many countries and organizations, including the US, have called for an independent investigation. But The Washington Post reports that US defense officials – together with their Russian counterparts – "helped block a new demand for an international probe" last week.

British and other European officials had pushed to include language calling for an independent investigation in a communique issued by defense ministers of NATO countries and Russia after a daylong meeting in Brussels on Thursday. But the joint communique merely stated that "issues of security and stability in Central Asia, including Uzbekistan," had been discussed.
The Post report suggests that the risk of provoking Uzbekistan to cut off US access to the base was behind the US resistance to pressure the Karimov government, but also hints at a rift between the State and Defense departments on the issue.

The communique's wording was worked out after what several knowledgeable sources called a vigorous debate in Brussels between US defense officials, who emphasized the importance of the base, and others, including State Department representatives at NATO headquarters, who favored language calling for a transparent, independent and international probe into the killings of Uzbekistan civilians by police and soldiers.
But the State Department is not the only part of the US government that is questioning the status quo on US policy toward Uzbekistan. A bipartisan group of US senators last Wednesday "asked the Bush administration to consider whether the US could take action via the United Nations if Uzbekistan does not allow an independent investigation," reports The Financial Times.
Four Republican senators - John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Sununu and Mike DeWine - and two Democrats - Patrick Leahy and Joseph Biden - sent a letter to the administration saying the US should reconsider its relationship with Uzbekistan.

"Particularly after freedom's advances in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, we believe that the United States must be careful about being too closely associated with a government that has killed hundreds of demonstrators and refused international calls for a transparent investigation," the senators wrote.
Meanwhile, EU foreign ministers "indicated that they could consider imposing sanctions on Uzbekistan if it continues to refuse an international inquiry," reports AFX News.

Foreign minister of Luxembourg and current EU president Jean Asselborn said that most of the 25 member states want to go further and suspend the cooperation and partnership agreements between the EU and Uzbekistan, reports AFX.

The Los Angeles Times reports that "Karimov's regime has emerged as one of the toughest tests of the Bush administration's campaign to promote democracy, especially in the Muslim world."

"Making matters more awkward are continuing Pentagon negotiations with Uzbekistan for long-term access to the bases," writes the Times.

A June 4 report from the Post also described the negotiations for long-term access as "awkward."

The talks have gone on behind the scenes for several months but have become more awkward for the administration since last month's unrest .... Human rights advocates argue that a new pact would undermine the administration's goal of spreading democracy in the Islamic world.
An editorial in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram thanks the US senators for pushing the Bush administration to reevaluate the US policy toward Uzbekistan and compares it to US support for dictators during the cold war.
Such relationships with unsavory governments -- in which the ideals enshrined in our founding documents sometimes became subservient to strategic or economic interests -- is reminiscent of US foreign policy during the Cold War, when America propped up ugly dictatorships in Africa and other parts of the world because their leaders professed to be anti-communist.






[quote]2. are you happy w/ the UN and what they have done in their past?[/quote]

[i][b]Of course not, as I have said before..... I don't hold allegiences to bodys of government I hold them to principles and people. Do they fuck up, of course, but this is a double edges sword.... if the UN exists because of US funding (as Bush supporters claim) and they fuck up, whose fault is it ????[/b][/i]



[quote]3. how come, everytime someone brings up the problems of another country/orgainization, you find a way to blame it on us?[/quote]

[i][b]Because despite peoples naturl desire to think that their government is benevolent.... the US can be traced back to the root of many of the worlds problems. Also as a US citizen I feel it is my duty to dispel propaganda put out by my bullshit government. [/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 1 2005, 01:57 PM'][i][b]Because despite peoples naturl desire to think that their government is benevolent.... the US can be traced back to the root of many of the worlds problems.  [B]Also as a US citizen I feel it is my duty to dispel propaganda put out by my bullshit government.[/b]  [/b][/i]
[right][post="109494"][/post][/right][/quote]




LMFAO !!!!!!! :lol:







[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]










:lol:







[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]




[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//18.gif[/img] Thanks for the laugh :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
[i][b]Of course not, as I have said before..... I don't hold allegiences to bodys of government I hold them to principles and people. Do they fuck up, of course, but this is a double edges sword.... if the UN exists because of US funding (as Bush supporters claim) and they fuck up, whose fault is it ????[/b][/i]

the UN is its own organization... that would be the UN's fault...

i mean, we went to the UN, and they weren't going to do a damn thing to help us... we come to find out about the scandal... whats so hard to figure this out... they were stealing our money and giving it to saddam and his allies... how can you blame this on the US?


i misread your post, when i asked my first question... i edited before you posted, just to clear up what i really meant.. i thought you meant that the US was taking bribes from saddam in this scandal...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 1 2005, 09:42 AM']its easy to say "he said 'mission accomplished' " and have a good arguement... but you have to put it in context and he said it to a particular crew that was involved in catching saddam... that was a huge "mission accomplished" but that doesn' t mean that the job was done...[/quote]

As for the pre-war runup and the conventional war, [b]it is[/b] the context to which I refer. If you go back and review what many of the key players were saying, I think you'll discover that the overall assessment of these folks was that this would be easy.

What bothers me about many of these folks is that they either are so inept in their judgements, or that they are unwilling to honestly reassess their mistakes.

Sometimes I think the "mushroom cloud" that was often mentioned was a gift from Don Juan Casteneda to these people.

[quote]i can't get passed this UN thing... of course i didn't care about the UN before the scandal came out, but this didnt' have to do w/ the "republican propaganda machine" starting... this was the biggest scandal in world history... the facts that come out of this are unbelievable... we were letting saddam give bribes, and make a lot of money, while he was killing his own people and not giving them the food that they deserved...[/quote]

If this UN scandal has piqued your interest, then use it as an opportunity. You can do some personal research into scandals in history, decide for yourself what factors and conditions make scandalous behavior a temptation, etc... It would be a good way to get a glimpse of the darker side of human behavior.

In a way, you remind me of a friend of mine who, after reviewing some of the more in-depth accounts of the 2000 presidential election, was astonished because he concluded that the election was stolen. His astonishment was not so much about partisanship, as it was that such a thing could happen at all. I kidded him about having his political cherry broken, then mentioned that he could look into other election frauds to improve his understanding.

"Eye-openers" can be useful for one's development because it gives a chance to develop a deeper perspective.

[quote]i can't understand why you want to impeach the president for doing going to war, when he and many others truely believe in what were doing, but say nothing about the UN... come on homer, this scandal is a big reason for why we are where we are... put it in perspective... would france, russia, and/or germany be involved w/ us if they weren't being bought off (w/ their veto vote) by saddam? honestly, i have no clue, but i know that we had zero chance b/c they were getting paid off... the facts are too strong to say this is only a republican propaganda machine...[/quote]

As I said, I think impeachment would be rash, and I tend to be conservative on such things.

I've often alluded to geopolitics. Is it not possible that France, Russia, Germany and other countries have geopolitical considerations, too? If so, would this "scandal" be subordinate, in most respects, to those considerations? Furthermore, perhaps their positions were also partly determined by a genuine belief that the war was wrongly initiated.

My point, it isn't that easy to account for all the "whys" and "wherefores", and it certainly cannot be pinned down to one singular factor. It isn't "oil" or "geopolitics" or "honest intent" alone. It's a combination. Each of us is obliged to judge the protagonists in this cruddy episode in history on those terms.

[quote]why are you so pissed at bush and cheney, but have no problem w/ the UN? their incompetence is the truely scary thing...[/quote]

Well, for one thing, my political cherry got busted long, long ago! More seriously, it is not anger that dominates my concern, though it is one result of my review of the evidence, it is knowledge about what these fellows are doing, in the context of the framework and the institutions of our government, and relations with other governments. To put it succinctly, these characters are dangerous: Bush because he [b]does not[/b] know what the implications of his actions are, Cheney because he [b]does[/b] know the implications of his actions.

I know that sounds glib, but that's the shortcut answer to a lot of research and thinking, not only about current circumstances, but also about the nature of this republic in its historic place among all nations.

Insofar as the UN goes, once again, I remind you to look more closely at what I actually said: that it is an imperfect institution that serves as the focal point for discussions among nations. The UN serves a purpose in international relations.

[quote]the UN's job is to stop threats before they happen and not make countries like ours, have to go to war unless we have to... if they would have stepped up on any of the previous 16 resolutions, we wouldnt' be at war w/ iraq right now... if they would have grown a pair, and wasn't making hollow threats, we wouldn't be at war, besides w/ the taliban and afghanistan... i truely believe that and that is why the UN pisses me off... i love bush b/c he said "to hell w/ the UN... something isn't right and we feel threatened... go to hell UN, we'll do it ourself" and he did... that takes balls, and whether or not he was right or not is still not seen, but reguardless, he did what he thought was right...[/quote]

Please do not suggest that the reason we went to war is because the UN did not do its job. That would be putting the cart before the horse. The reality is that we (the US and the Brits) tried to use the UN as a cover to legitimize our intent. One suggestion: dig deeply into why there were factional differences within our admin, roughly broken down between the neocons and the Powell faction, in the runup to the war. What was the nature of the disagreements? How did those disagreements affect our behavior in and around the UN during that time? An effort along those lines will help place the UN into context.

[quote]btw, i appreciate the nice words... i was worried i came off as an asshole...
[right][post="109285"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

You are a good fellow, I just don't think we would vote for each other!

<Edited to fix quote tags, and to fix the spelling of Chaney to Cheney. Musta been thinking on Lon, perhaps an apt brainfart! >
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lawman' date='Jul 1 2005, 10:12 AM']I always have to tilt my head to the right when reading that rag. :D [/quote]

Hee, hee! The Washington Post, to me, is not so much "left" or "right", as it is "inner-beltway establishment." But, I am tempted to take off my bifocals so I have to hold the paper at a distance to read it! On the other hand, they cannot be ignored and in this case, they raise interesting questions.

[quote]I didn't, but we are both in agreement on the same thing.[/quote]

I hate to be picky, but I said "No insurgency...", not "The insurgency..." Anyhow, moot point.

[quote]Make a decision and stick to it, unlike Kerry who actually voted against the war before he voted for it. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]
<...>
Seriously, I am an Independent who voted Republican this time; my family is primarily Democratic. I do not know where my Grandfathers Democratic Party has gone. IMO, the Party has morphed into a secular socialistic society infested with special interest groups. They are too confusing and do not have their shit together, but fortunately they are heavily supported by a liberal media(CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, etc...) that hates Bush.  I like to think for myself and not toe a party line or believe everything I read or hear, from either side. You came off to me as toeing the party line and as one of those Anyone But Bush people.  I was trying to establish from what perspective you derive your opinons, that's all.
[right][post="109298"][/post][/right][/quote]

I voted for Kerry for a number of reasons, his stance on the war being slightly down the list. First, I think Bush is surrounded by too many scumbags, the grouping of advisors around Kerry were more appealing to me, especially with respect to economic policy. I tend to think that if he had been elected, the folks within his party who oppose the war would have had to work on him, too.

I'm an old-line, centrist, FDR-ish Democrat. We have been marginalized within the party, though currently we are making a bit of a comeback as it becomes more apparent that the economy is going to pot, and rapidly so. I used to say that "I'm the kind of Democrat who thinks you don't have to kill babies to be in the Democratic Party." When I lived in New England I leaned towards some factions in the Republican Party more than I did the radical Democrats up there.

The other part of my perspective, and perhaps the most important part when it comes to shaping ideas, comes from a lifetime of reading history and philosophy--at a level of intensity somewhere between academic myopia and banal entertainment. I take notes, in other words, and I write a lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 1 2005, 09:42 AM']i can't understand why you want to impeach the president for doing going to war, when he and many others truely believe in what were doing, but say nothing about the UN... [right][post="109285"][/post][/right][/quote]
Off the subject:

Same way I couldn't understand why Clinton was being impeached, if anyone else would lie to their wife, grand jury, whoever :P .

After all this time I hope we can see the ridiculousness of that whole mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick

[quote name='jza10304' date='Jul 1 2005, 08:47 PM']Off the subject:

Same way I couldn't understand why Clinton was being impeached, if anyone else would lie to their wife, grand jury, whoever  :P .

After all this time I hope we can see the ridiculousness of that whole mess.
[right][post="109673"][/post][/right][/quote]

i wasn't paying attention to politics and didn't really care about the impeachment thing when it was going on... honestly, the impeachment only wasted about 2 years in politics though, and shouldn't have happened... clinton lied to a grand jury, but it wasn't worth it in hindsight...

homer, i wrote a novel about the UN in the "rove is in trouble" thread, and that explains my problems w/ the UN... i guess you are talking about the extreme political differences between (for instance) france and the US, but that is b/c france is more socialist imo... look at their economy and then tell me our economy is going to shit... you can't b/c we have been at 5% U.E. for a while, and they are double that... our economy is the strongest of any big economy and we are getting stronger... sure there are some concerns, but when isn't there... we need to continue w/ lower taxes, less restrictions on business, and our economy will continue to be strong, w/ ups and downs like anyone... we did earn 3.8% gdp in the first quarter, and that is considered decent for us, compared to england who gets around 1-3% for a year usually and had a whopping 0.4% in that same period of time... the whole "euro-zone" got a 1.4% and EU25 got a 1.7% gdp in the first quarter[url="http://http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2005/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2005_MONTH_05/2-12052005-EN-AP.PDF"]click here - adobe reader[/url]

i wouldn't call that a shitty economy :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HomerRice,

[quote]I'm an old-line, centrist, FDR-ish Democrat[/quote]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1913-1920), highly advocated Navy interest.

1920 Democratic Party Vice-President nomination on the same ticket of [u]Ohio[/u] Governor James Cox, [u]a convervative newspaper publisher[/u] :blink: .

Cared about the farmers.

Great man, great President.

I know, but I intentionally left out his implementation of Social Security. I figure that will come up in another thread and didn't want to stray to far off topic. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've learned a lot just reading this thread. And I'm not about to shed any new light on this topic. Basically because I think Homer and Rick covered more than I can get my head around this early in the morning (I've been at work since 5)
I will say this though: I am sick of this "you are with us or against us" rhetoric. That's bullshit. My patriotism does not hinge on my agreeing with the current administration. I can fully support my country and my troops while at the same time disagree with their reasons for having to fight.

Also, I wish the Bush speech writers would give the man an expanded vocabulary. Although I guess beating the same words over our heads has done it's job. I have never heard so many average citizens talk about our "resolve", "staying the course", etc. I for one am getting bored with the same ol crap come speech days. Luckily, I can't always get the speeches on my Canadian satellite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 2 2005, 02:20 PM']i wouldn't call that a shitty economy :huh:
[right][post="109937"][/post][/right][/quote]

I stand by my comment, but don't really want to get into this now. Watch for 2nd quarter results, then let's revisit the the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...