4/10 Good balanced article on Economist. US still has a window of
opportunity to make things work in Iraq.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2572254
"It was one of the worst weeks so far. But it would still be
wrong to write Iraq off"
\_ I'd like to point out for the umpteenth time that NOBODY-- not
even the Berkeley liberals-- wants the US to "write Iraq off".
We are opposed to the flimsy justification for this war, and the
continued mishandling of it.
\_ how do you figure it should be handled at this point? please
don't say "bring in the UN!". they were already there and Kofi
pulled them out after a single bombing after their local
directors ignored their own security people's advice.
\_ Turn the country over to the UN or some other multinational
co-alition, maybe the Arab League.
\_ Duh, where have you been? I just told you the UN turned
tail at the first sign of trouble. Do you read? Watch the
news? Anything? Or do you just make this shit up as you
go? The Arab League? Ah, yes, genius plan! We're there
right now trying to create a democracy of some sort and you
want to turn it over to the most oppressive dictators in
the modern world. Stick with html and java.
\_ You haven't been walking around campuses recently, or gone to
Berkeley-style bookstores of a certain variety, I take it?
And not seen those 'BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!' posters?
This is in LA, btw, not Berkeley. Berkeley is likely a lot
worse. I could have sworn I saw the same guys with the
'END IRAQ SANCTIONS NOW!' posters just a year ago. -- ilyas
\_ I live in a town where democrats outnumber republicans
13 to 1, with several universities within a couple miles.
all my freinds are democrats or greens or way out leftists
of some other type, and no one i know thinks we should just
pull out, and i have seen no signs to that effect. perhaps
LA is just full of stupid ass tools? why the fuck else
would they have decided to live in LA?
\_ Look, dude, I am happy that your far out leftist friends
are more reasonable, but your "NOBODY" claim is simply
false, I would say to the tune of 5% of the population
(at least). In fact, next time I am at UCLA, I am
going to take a little informal poll, and report back.
-- ilyas
p.s. One of them is Governor Stupid Ass Tool to you.
\_ 5% of the population believes that the govenment
is controlled by space aliens, too.
\_ We're working hard to convince the rest of you before
They take over everything and we all perish into the
food vats or as hosts for their symbiotes!
false. -- ilyas
\_ I've seen them in Berkeley, and wasn't that half of
Kucinichi's (sp?) platform?
\_ poor bastard... how does he expect anyone to vote for
him when they can't even spell his name. if he was
smith or jones or jackson he'd be ok.
\_ Seriously. That's probably a factor. I mean,
Kucinichi's (sp?) platform?
Kelly vs Bush?
\_ Actually, if and when the window of opportunity above closes,
it's time to get out. not getting out would just be prolonging
the pain.
\_ Agreed. It's not foolish or cowardly to realize that it's
possible for us to screw this situation up past the point
where our presence is in any way helpful. That point may
not be now, but we need to consider it as a possibility.
\_ It's always helpful to someone. The point so far has been
that on balance, it was never helpful to America to do this.
Nothing about the current situation is really much different
than many imagined.
\_ Not to take sides in this debate, or anything, but I
really don't think it is possible to evaluate the effects
of sweeping foreign policy changes after so little time
has passed. While it is true that the outcome in Iraq
is important, the fact that America now has a much more
aggressive doctrine of preemption (for example) will also
have effects. In twenty years it will be obvious whether
the Bush Doctrine was a bad idea. Calling it a failure
now falls under the heading of "I hate Bush" criticism.
To the poster below: whatever else may be true, pulling
out this very instant is certainly stupid, considering
how much it will save, and how much it will lose. There
will be no pullout certainly until November for obvious
reasons, and probably not for a few years. I think
the final toll will be a few thousand american lives, and
a whole lotta deficit. -- ilyas
\_ What is our agressive policy supposedly trying to
preempt? Disagreement with the United States? Because
it sure as hell has nothing to do with terrorism.
\_ What our aggressive policy is trying to prevent is
state-sponsored terrorism. Whether Iraq actually
sponsored terrorism is not even relevant. What is
relevant was the reason why we are in Iraq. Now
suddenly, the world realizes America has a really
itchy trigger finger for stuff like that, and will
think twice about it. Syria, for instance, is scared
shitless, they were doing nothing but conceding as of
late. In fact, domestic dissent on the Iraq war is
a natural sideeffect of democracy, but it weakens the
effect of the policy insofar as it makes America less
likely to engage in future wars of this type. In
case of Iraq, there was also a gamble to place a seed
of democracy in the middle east, using the common
observation that democracy is virulent, and
prosperity follows democracy. It was a gamble because
creating democracy from scratch is difficult, all
democratic european states went through a long period
of bloodshed before democracy was established for
good. -- ilyas
\_ "established for good". Really, that should be
"established for the moment". Democracy is
fragile and must be tended, not taken for granted
as the western Europeans and so many Americans do.
As far as the Bush Gamble goes, only time will
tell. Historians will look back and children will
either be taught that he was the most brilliant
foreign policy President in generations or the
worst. It is too soon to tell now.
\_ "Now suddenly, the world [...] will think twice
about it." Or they won't. It's equally possible
that countries will realize that the only to
protect themselves from aggression is to develop
their own WMD. I don't understand why above you
say that we need 20 years to evaluate the
success of the Bush Doctrine, and then you go
and claim that the Bush Doctrine has been
successful.
\_ I don't claim that it is successful. I was
merely giving possible reasons for the Bush
the Bush Doctrine was a bad idea. Calling it a failure
now falls under the heading of "I hate Bush" criticism.
Whatever else may be true, pulling out this very instant
is certainly stupid. - ilyas
To the poster below: whatever else may be true, pulling
\_ The right people at the top of what to accomplish what who wants?
a natural sideeffect of democracy, but it weakens the
effect of the policy insofar as it makes America less
likely to engage in future wars of this type. -- ilyas
Doctrine. Whether they are good reasons or
not remains to be seen. -- ilyas
\_ Developing WMD as a defense against the US at
this point in history would be pure suicide.
Only the most insane of leaders would think
like this. Witness North Korea for an example
of insanity. Without a dramatic shift in
power due to leapfrogging non-US technology or
the complete economic collapse of the US, the
currently non-WMD would only do as you suggest
if they were completely irrational. It's a
losing policy for any nation as the world
stands now. As far as the BD goes, no one here
has claimed success. Where do you get this
stuff from? Do you not read? Do you knee
jerk into anything that doesn't bash Bush must
be pro-Bush? We're having a nice little chat
here, please don't fuck it up with blind
partisanship.
\_ It's not stupid to support a pullout at this point. The
Washington Post has at least one very long article on the Falluja
This is in LA, btw, not Berkeley. I shudder when I think about
Berkeley... -- ilyas
Kucinichi's (sp?) platform?
it's time to get out. not getting out would just be prolonging
the pain.
out this very instant is certainly stupid, considering
how much it will save, and how much it will lose. -- ilyas
\_ It's not stupid to support a pullout at this point. The
Washington Post has at least one very long article on the Falluja
problem. I just get the impression that we're shitting ourselves
into a deeper and deeper hole; we don't have the right people
at the top to accomplish what they want.
war with each other for Europe's benefit. The lines are entirely
artificial and detrimental to the cause of peace and anyone's
security. If anyone had the balls to just admit the Europeans
fucked most of the rest of the world and just redraw the lines a
whole lot of ugliness would simply evaporate over night.
\_ Good idea, all we have to do is also invade Iran, Syria, and
Turkey so we can erase all current lines and redivide!
(Although, I agree with out in a perfect world sense.)
problem. I just get the impression that we're shitting ourselves
into a deeper and deeper hole; we don't have the right people
at the top to accomplish what they want.
\_ The right people at the top of what to accomplish what who wants?
\_ Does anyone remember how many troops we *still* have in the Kosovo
region? They were supposed to be out after *one year* from the
time they first entered the area. All these people all over the
place hate each other so much. Most of these situations were
created by European colonialism. The Europeans *intentionally*
divided tribes and put halves of traditional enemy tribes together
for the express purpose of making sure these places were always at
war with each other for Europe's benefit. The lines are entirely
artificial and detrimental to the cause of peace and anyone's
security. If anyone had the balls to just admit the Europeans
fucked most of the rest of the world and just redraw the lines a
whole lot of ugliness would simply evaporate over night.
\_ Good idea, all we have to do is also invade Iran, Syria, and
Turkey so we can erase all current lines and redivide!
(Although, I agree with out in a perfect world sense.)
\_ No invasion would be necesssary in most cases. A lot of the
current wars going on are because the original tribes are
trying to reform across borders. The Tutsi/Hutu thing was a
good example of that. One tribe managed to take control of
the government and used it to attempt to genocide the other
from within their borders. After 500,000 to 800,000 dead, it
sure looks like a better plan to bring everyone to the table
to redraw borders peacefully rather than by the gun or the
machete. |
http://csua.com/feed/