Do You Agree With Action In The Gulf

[corruptor1971]

Having posted in an earlier thread and read the varying replies. I have been told to research the feeling amongst US citizens about the Gulf. Valid point I thought, as a UK citizen I only get to hear that which Mr Bliar wants me to hear, I am genuinely of the belief that most of the US and UK see the necessity of action. As this board is truly representative of the ''NORMAL'' folk, , let me know which is the true opinion of the people. I have split the poll into six replies, to take account of geographics.

 

[Lost Cause]

The word "Action"....

Threw me off, since we are not officially dropping into the oilfields, and parading in Baghdad, yet. I agree with the buildup of forces, you can only negotiate with tyrants from a position of absolute domination of your opponent. If this settles other than war, the US will still be blamed for spending al the cash on nothing. (Bi-polar "allies")

*If nothing else, get Scott back.

 

[corruptor1971]

The word action has been thought over and I now agree that it was a wholly inappropriate word to use......I hereby amend this to REACTION which I think describes the situation better.

 

[Lost Cause]

In that case...

Yes, I agree with the military reaction in the future theatre of operations. In history, there has always been those that preferred to ride in the wagon, than face the effort to pull it even though it has to be done to get anywhere.

*Just an observation, not an opinion.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

define "reaction"

What is the specific strategy that I am supposed to be for or against? 'Military response' is a non-answer...I want details before I would be willing to support any action(or reaction... semantics!)

 

[ullr]

I can live with a swift decisive war...

to oust Saddam, but I'm still against the goal that undersec of Defense argues (and appaerently David Frum echoes in his new book): let's start a revoultion, a democratic rev in the Arabic world through our legitimate beef that the Gulf War Treaty was never fulfilled!

I oppose this because I believe it is doomed to fail. Even Stephen Schwartz, writing in National Review Online, that he was for war because he believes in economic determinism (from his former leftist youth)!

But since Islam is overwhelmingly fatalistic (i.e. wedded to authoitarianism, secular and religious), why on earth do these people imagine that our puny presence of 10 years will do more to change history than over 70 years did for the Soviet Union?

--Orson
PS We ought to leave the Arab Muslims on a reservation: don't bother us, and we'll not bother you! As Ralph Peters (several of his papers are available online at PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly , where he's published over a dozen papers:
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/02autumn/peters.htm
"Rolling Back Radical Islam")

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

From the link:

We must begin to examine the dilemmas and opportunities of each new day with greater interest, so that we may help (to the degree we can) struggling societies discover paths to a more peaceful, cooperative tomorrow.

That kind of thinking, used to guide and influence any further action, is something I can support. The current plan seems to be 'Kill Saddam Hussein, scoop up the oil rights, and split'...that I can't stand behind.

 

[SINthysist]

The average Russian did not want to die for his country, just to get out of Afghanistan alive. Our troops have a mission, a will, and demonstrated that, witness the new Afghan government.

We must teach these willing pawns, and that's all the former desert brigands have become, which is the stonger side to play for.

When North Korea, Russia and China still see that we have the strength and resolve to act or react militarily, however you would put it, then they will have to be content with their lot in the world and not expansion of their borders and growth of their "Sphere of Influence."

We cannot allow them to continue to try and encircle the oil producing regions of the midle east.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

The 'new Afghanistan governemnt' is a sham...they are just as ruthless as the last bunch we stuck in there(the Taliban was supported by the US when they took power), and their influence doesn't extend beyond Kabul.
And if we are so concerned about the oil-producing countries, why do we not support them militarily, like we do Israel? Why should our future outlook seem so much like American imperialism. We have no right to a single drop of that oil, and if someone decides to stop selling to us, what right do we have to complain.

 

[ullr]

The 'new Afghanistan governemnt' is a sham...they are just as ruthless as the last bunch we stuck in there(the Taliban was supported by the US when they took power), and their influence doesn't extend beyond Kabul.
And if we are so concerned about the oil-producing countries, why do we not support them militarily, like we do Israel? Why should our future outlook seem so much like American imperialism. We have no right to a single drop of that oil, and if someone decides to stop selling to us, what right do we have to complain.

Read the recent issue of US New and World Report--the cover story will disabuse you of your hysterics:
1/13/03
"The new American empire?
Americans have an enduring aversion to planting the flag on foreign soil. Is that attitude changing?"
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030113/misc/13empire.htm

--Orson

 

[SINthysist]

Note that all the others are no...

I guess we have a cell!

Lit-Qaeda.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Sorry, I meant economic imperialism more so than political. American oil companies are already milling around like vultures outside a slaughterhouse, looking to divvy up Iraqi oil.

 

[SINthysist]

The 'new Afghanistan governemnt' is a sham...they are just as ruthless as the last bunch we stuck in there(the Taliban was supported by the US when they took power), and their influence doesn't extend beyond Kabul.

"Meet the new boss,
Just the same as the old boss,
They decide and the shotgun sings the song.."

I tip my hat to the new Affy-Ghanistan, just the same as the old Stan...

 

[SINthysist]

As are French, Russian and Chinese concerns...

At least ours are civilian companies unlike Wampoa Hutchinson owner of the Panama Canal, huge new shipyards in Cuba, and the guys who tried to purchase Terry McAuliffe's buddy's company Global Crossing and all of it's American Military contracts and services.

And we're the BAD Guys!





LOL

 

[SINthysist]

Vonnegut knows a lot about Slaughterhouses.

Let's send him and Babs to make Peace enternal in the region...

Alec too!

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I'm of the opinion that America needs to rethink its long-term strategies on the global level. How many of today's troubles can be traced back partly to short-sighted US policies? We supported the Taliban, we trained al-Qaida terrorists, we supported Saddam Hussein, and gave him the weapons that he 'used against his own people'....how long do we keep making the same mistakes?

 

[ullr]

A matter of definition

Sorry, I meant economic imperialism more so than political. American oil companies are already milling around like vultures outside a slaughterhouse, looking to divvy up Iraqi oil.

FROm the US NEws and World Report story above:
"Zelikow explains that a special vocabulary of empire began to develop around the time of the Boer War at the turn of the last century. It was adapted by the defeated nations of World War I to describe the victors....'Over the last generation,' Zelikow says, 'people have come to describe any nation with influence over another as an empire. It doesn't tell you anything, but it brings a lot of baggage with it.'"

-----

The latter describes a hegemon--the US today, for instance. But Zelikow misleads in only saying (or only in being quoted as saying) that such a definition is empty. It's more of a contemporary confusion (calling the US "imperialistic") rooted in loose usage. The US has no colonies--the essence of imperialism, but does weild influence--something altogether very different, especially in a Post-Cold War world where bi-polar alliances no longer exist.

--Orson

 

[SINthysist]

I'm all for a return to isolationism. And if I thought for one second that the rest of the world would just fight it out and leave us alone, I'd be all for it.

But it's not going to happen. Eventually, like Venice, you will be just too tempting a target for even the best of intentioned not to sack...

 

[SINthysist]

So, win, lose, or draw, you have to stay engaged and yes, mistakes will be made because administrations change. We don't have the luxury of setting real long-term plans in motion like the totalitarian counties.

They get to watch leaders come and go and get to play games with them, try to divide them, take advantage of them, and advance their own agenda. And looking at their way of life from the outside makes me want to fight to the bloody death to not have it imposed on me or anyone else for that matter.

We can't fight us and them at the same time because they will win.

 

[SINthysist]

And it just hits me that America has a lot in common with the ancient empires like Egypt.

They had to plan wars around the crop cycles.

We have to plan around election cycles.

 

[Lost Cause]

This would be a non-issue....

If the eco-facists didn't have the political sheep here scared to drill our domestic reserves. Those morons are the true weavers of this rug we're standing on. Besides, the US gets alot of oil from non-OPEC sources, if we went domestic, we could let those nutballs kill themselves. Let the mighty EU take care of it's own back yard.

 

[Guest]

 

[SINthysist]

Good morning BusyBody and 4laterer.

When and how you guys gonna start voting.

As long as you're here...

 

[weed]

Having posted in an earlier thread and read the varying replies. I have been told to research the feeling amongst US citizens about the Gulf. Valid point I thought, as a UK citizen I only get to hear that which Mr Bliar wants me to hear, I am genuinely of the belief that most of the US and UK see the necessity of action. As this board is truly representative of the ''NORMAL'' folk, , let me know which is the true opinion of the people. I have split the poll into six replies, to take account of geographics.

I just gotta be different.

Yes and no.

It's obvious that Iraq needed/needs some motivation to cooperate with the UN and that there is a psychological war being fought although it is difficult to tell how much of Bush's rhetoric and the diplomatic pressures of the US on the UN and its allies is focused on pressuring cooperation and how much is Bush's genuine desire to "get" the old family friend turned enemy.

The build up of troops, the war games practiced and propaganda dropped are all part also but seem like too much to me. Again, it's hard to tell where the US motivation lies.

I would have an easier time believing that this extent of "reaction" was necessary if we had the support (in action) of the rest of our "allies." After all, if the threat is so dire they would have alot more to fear typically being closer in proximity and more prone to terrorism that we are.

With all this money going into the military and not much more than the blame game being played in homefront issues such as security, the economy and education there seems to be some imbalance in our priorities that adds to my concern that we are overboard in our reaction.

If it settles without war, I will applaud that we do not spend further spending on violence and destruction and short-sighted attempts to reform another country, a task I do not think we have the right to insist upon and question the ability as well, particularly by ourselves.

Throughout history there has always been those who prefer to settle conflicts with war but fortunately there are others who do not and hopefully this balance will help avoid any violence that can be avoided.

Fact is, we are a part of global community and we can't hide from it. I just wish we would get along a bit more instead of bully our interests onto others. I think in the long run we would benefit more from that approach. I'm a firm believer you can get alot more with sugar than salt.

 

[SINthysist]

"Iraq needed/needs some motivation to cooperate with the UN "

Can we say, U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-T-E-M-E-N-T?