Actually, SC...if it wasn't for G.W....AL GORE would be President!!

For I'm pretty certain that Gore would've handily defeated John McCain....without the necessity of even a single recount.

Apple

Sorry, misunderstanding. I always have learned and used the terms 'West' or 'Western countries' as referring to Western Europe and USA/Canada. Maybe it's indeed better to refer to the G8, or the industrialized countries, or the rich countries.

Nevertheless, I still think the rich countries should help the poor, and ALL the poor, not only those where stability comes in handy. I know I've played this violin too many times for JJ, but these boards consist out of nothing but violins so...

Okay, fair deal. But then, why isn't anyone doing anything for that country? There was a war between 1998 and 2003, with 4,000,000 deaths. No one did something. After 2003, another half millions deaths only caused by violence.

You're right. If it wasn't for him Dick Cheney would be president. [/b][/quote]

As far as Bush goes, he is certainly no Hitler. He is dumb and he has the wrong goals and a bad intern policy and a bad global policy and he even does the wrong things to reach his goals which were already bad.
But that's caused by ignorance, stupidity, a clouded mind and bad advisors, not by an all-out almost biologically determined evilness like Hitler.

Apathy? I mean, you have to admit, nations like the ones we've called "allies" (Germany, France, Russia, etc.) have done a pretty good job at keeping their hands out of the dirt for some time now, allowing the U.S. to do the dirty work and then lambast them when something goes wrong.

I dunno. I'd think a bad intern policy is getting caught, and that wasn't Bush, but Clinton.

Best,
DJ

But come clean, Enzo...tell us what you really think of the President of the United States of America, Chief Executive, Leader of the FREE WORLD!!

Oh, that's right...he's no Hitler.



Apple

At least he isn't Hitler... :p

I know. Germany, France and the UK are fuckers, too busy worrying about a bunch or racists in their own countries. Italy? :rolleyes:

Others said he was. And because of my anti-Bush thinking, I had to say I am not like other lefties who think he's right there with Hitler. You don't want to suspect me of opinions I don't have, do you Apple.
:p

What will the future bring us?

Aha! And this should be your epiphany.

You denounce the West (G8?) for not acting in the Congo...and yet you've just acknowledged salient internal/domestic problems that each has to bear which, as you've alluded to, are significant dilemmas for each individual nation.

You also forget the Russians and Chechnya. :p

However, forgive me for wondering why the French Islamic problems are keeping the UN from actually doing something. :rolleyes:

Yes. They are too busy with things that shouldn't even be problems, while the real problems are out there, somewhere else.

And I just learned a new word: epiphany. Thanks!
What exactly does it mean?

Like what?

Considering the U.S. (and the other coalition nations) are fighting global terrorism and warring in two countries, I should think those other countries mentioned as well as the UN would be able to spare their armies or begin some earnest action to stop those African issues. But again, it isn't worth it for them to get their hands dirty. With people like Kofi Annon making money off the oil-for-food scandal, why would they care about Congolese genocide?

---

Epiphany

Best,
DJ

I think certainly the cartoonish people on these boards are the extremist partisans, from Person A, who while in the middle of hating terrorists for doing awful things to our troops, then launched on an attack on Democrats, while Person B just compared Bush to Hitler.

Really, can't we just have crazies of both sides just locked away on some island?

Like what? [/b][/quote]Wrong finance of social security and a lacking view about immigration. And every political party in Europe is spending half of his time worrying about all the votes the extreme-right parties of every country get.

Exactly.
I think Kofi's the same as Bush. Good intentions, but wrong actions.
Anyways, global terrorism is also African terrorism , not only Jihadi terrorism. Not talking to you JJ, but people in general tend to forget that.

Well I partially agree with you SB on the point about a personal vendetta. Only I don't believe that his personal vendetta was the deciding factor in his decision to go into Iraq. Yes, it may have played a small part in that his thinking was that he now had the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. After all Saddam had taken a contract out on his father's life. And any human being would want revenge on someone who ordered the death of their father. Wouldn't you?

But I absolutely do NOT believe that it was the major deciding factor in our going into Iraq.

As for your statment about his father not listening to Norman Schwarzkopf, well you along with several others have made that assertion in the past. However I must remind you that when the gulf war took place, it was done WITH the approval of the United Nations and under the laws and the supervision of the United Nations. And had George Sr. wanted to assassinate Saddam at the time, he could not do so because he would have needed UN approval. And at that time of the Gulf War, the UN rules stated that Saddam was a UN recognized President of a country. Therefore under UN rules a nation cannot assassinate a president of a country that is recognized with the UN. Had Bush Senior ordered the killing of Saddam, he would have broken all UN rules and would have subject himself to being brought up on trial in a world court and charged with war crimes.

So it was out of father George's hands at the time.

Perhaps that is why President Bush Junior told the UN to see where they had to go when he petitioned them to take action against Saddam and they refused. He probably did not want to have his hands tied the way that his father did had the opportunity arose where he could have Saddam killed.


Don Cardi

The cause for wars is irrelevant to the populace. Its the results that matter.

If America had, somehow, won Vietnam, would people give a spit about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and other shit done at the time to get more direct American military involvement in the region?

Again, look at the Spanish-American War. If anything, the hysteria at the time with the U.S.S. Maine being blown up by a Spanish mine is now silly, since most believe an explosion, probably the engine itself, blew up. Of course, that is irrelevant, since the Americans went to war in April 1898, and a few months later, we got some nice islands.

Now at Iraq, are we winning? If we are, how close in direct measurements? Better yet, who else do we have to blow up?

Well it all depends on what you consider winning and how it is measured. But let me give you some facts :

According to UNICEF more than 2,500 schools have been renovated with the goal of 4,000 being completed by the end of the year. School attendance in Iraq has increased by almost 80% and more than 3 1/2 million children had been immunized since the removal of Saddam.

The Iraqi Ministry has reported that all 240 hospitals in Iraq as well as 2400 primary health care clinics have been restored to full operation since the removal of Saddam.

I believe that a constitution was signed over the past year and for the first time ever national elections took place giving the people of Iraq the freedom and right to pick their own leaders.

Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.

The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.

Sewer and water lines are installed in almost every major city.

Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.

Girls are allowed to attend school.


So again, it all depends on what you consider a measurement for winning the war. I'm sure that those Iraqi people who've have been given the benefit of all the things mentioned above, things that you and I take for granted everyday, will tell you that in their eyes the coalition forces are winning the war.


Don Cardi

I don't really think that its the same. Even if you disagree with the Iraq War, arguably most would concede that Bush's motives were good in trying to defeat terrorism, remove a genocidal dictator with WMD's, etc.

Kofi Annon stole money that was supposed to be going to the Iraqi people, and was involved in the corrupt business dealings with Saddam.

---

And as far as global terrorism goes, Somalia just appointed an Al Qaeda man to lead the government.

DC, I understand what you said about Saddam wanting to assassinate his father, but I don't believe that he should've taken it personally. I mean, his father was the president of the USA. That's a risk that comes with the job. That's what the Secret Service is for, isn't it? While he may have wanted to take his personal revenge, do you put a nation and an army of young men and women at risk to satisfy a personal vengeance??

"He'd have a very big Schwarzkopf,"
Double-J

The President’s $100 million East Africa Counterterrorism Initiative (EACTI) was implemented to combat terrorism, provide military training for border and coastal security as well as police training in Africa.

The Interagency Terrorist Finance Working Group which happens to be under the United States Department Of Defense has worked with African officilas for the past 3 years to fight terrorism in Africa.

So I don't know why you imply that The United States, some of it's people and The President have forgotton that global terrorism is also African terrorism.


Don Cardi

Absolutely not!

But as I originally said

Don Cardi

Perception. I have this impression every time Bush talks about his "War on Terror" he means Al Zawahari and his Jihadi fucks. But thanks for telling me about East Africa, didn't know that yet.

Perception. I have this impression every time Bush talks about his "War on Terror" he means Al Zawahari and his Jihadi fucks. But thanks for telling me about East Africa, didn't know that yet. [/QB][/QUOTE]


I think you mean presumption.

And you're very welcomed.


Don Cardi

I deliberately posted this on Saturday to see the level of debate, and overall it is excellent. All sides making good points worth debating. Of course we have this one exception here who cannot make a reasonable argument, si it takes a personal shot at me. While I respectfully disagree with many people and others respectfully disagree with me, this poster shows no respect, just its usual nasty, vituperative and bascially nasty nature. Perhaps some therapy is on order.

DC, as always, great points. I'd also like to point out how closely we were working with Arab nations at the time, especially Saudi Arabia, who certainly wouldn't have approved of us trying to depose Saddam. The first Gulf War had one purpose, to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was an outstanding success.

All these people monday-morning quarterbacking saying that we should have done this, or killed him aren't being realistic. They're trying to take a complex situation and turn it into a really simple one.

Thanks DC for the info, but what about enemy military forces?

That is what I'm interested in.

I don't understand your question and am not sure which of my posts you are replying to. Could you be more specific?

What information are you looking for about what enemy forces and in which situation?


Don Cardi

Okay, how many more people do we have to blow up that are part of the insurgency?

10,000? 5? 500?

Trust me, the Pentagon has assesments in regards to how many are in it, so you know DC?

I know?

You use the term "people" in your post and what you do is make it sound and imply that we are just arbitrarily blowing up innocent people. And the term "insurgency" makes it sound like these terrorists are minutemen fighting for freedom.

So I'll rephrase your question for you :

How many terrorists do we have to blow up that are a part of the extremist jihadist movement who's goal is to destroy all non believers?

As many bombs as it takes to eventually wipe these scumbags out or send them back to their caves.

Your question is one that really cannot be answered because it goes right back to my earlier assertions that the terrorists are not a part of a government, a military or a nation. So therefore it is almost impossible to estimate how many members are a part of their organization.


Don Cardi

So what do you think they are 'fighting' for, then?