Now that mass-murder Saddam Hussein has been captured, what will you be playing on your system to celebrate? Quite a few tunes come to mind, but I think I'll start with Tesla's "Modern Day Cowboy."
I guess I didn't get to read Viridian's post before it was deleted, but I did not mean to assert that those who disagree with me are insane, at least in the literal, psychotic sense. If anybody saved it, please forward me a copy. Perhaps "reasonable" would have been a better term. However, it is equally inaccurate to label someone as "reactionary" just because they don't agree with you.
My point wasn't partially correct. I was referencing the connection between Saddam's capture and what Lybia has done. I didn't feel compelled to write the history of the world to make that point. But you, ever knowledgable, never reactionary, have it figured out as a Christmas present to Bush and Blair. You lost all credibility with that one.
Such a hostile invitation for the reactionaries to "meet" you at CES was totally uncalled for and seems to be a less than civilized solicitation.
You are just partialy correct. Libya was already making the attempts to please West to lift the embargo, with accepting the responsibility for the downing of the Pan-Am over Scotland, and distanced themselves from the terrorism. Now, that was just over nine months before Iraq adventure. Timing for the additional concesions was just perfect Christmas gift for the Blair and Bush. Thsalmon, if you want to "indetify" me even further, we could meet eye to eye at the Las Vegas CES, and you -and everyone else - can express your REACTIONARY views directly. I am easy to contact!
It's unfortunate that you deleted your post. Then again, Audiogon will likely delete this entire thread soon rather than leave it for its historic value. "Some are just uncomfortable with viewpoints that conflict with their own"? That describes well the post you made disappear. Now this thread is mysterious.
So, Here's a question for you. If the war in Iraq was wrong, why has Lybia offered to dismantle its WMD program that it previously said didn't exist? Do you think it would have done so without the capture of Saddam?
Some of us served our country during Vietnam and remember well the way veterans were treated by the protesters. It's funny how the anti-Vietnam crowd rewrites their behavior 30 years after the fact. Nobody in that movement will admit to spitting on the returning soldiers and calling them baby killers. The tune played today is that they supported our troops then (and now) but opposed the war. Not. The truth is that the portesters were antagonistic toward returning troops.
Right or wrong, the political pressure to leave Vietnam made for a too hasty retreat. Several hundred thousand South Vietnamese were slaughtered by the North when we left. This isn't talked about in the never ending Vietnam debate.
For the record I didn't say anything about kids and playgrounds and to paraphrase my comments in that way shows a mean spirit of intolerance which was very apparent in the post you deleted. You made some pretty disparaging remarks about the posters here not representing the majority opinion in the US and that makes you wrong.
While I wouldn't accuse you of being less than sane I will say that you are wrong headed. Of course, that's my opinion on things and, as always, others may differ.
So, what are you Viridian, the hall monitor? Does freedom of speech bother you only when faced with opposing points of view? If you do not agree with the majority of the posters here then step up to the pump and say something meaningful rather than a snide comment about this being a troll. Prior to the current conflict in Iraq these forums were a daily barrage of anti-US sentiments and we had to tolerate them, especially the never ending, "where is Saddam?" after the war began. Now we have him and you're not happy with that. Give us all a break, please. If you don't like this crowd you didn't need to even click on this link.
Thanks everyone for your posts. Seems like the majority of Audiogoners are sane, even though there is a contingent that consistently hates the U.S. It's wonderful that we have free speech so that they can freely expose themselves to others.
You are correct in what you say. And I agree, the goal of the UN is a noble one and one cannot give up that goal. Dialogue between nations usually helps to diffuse bad situations before they begin and on that level the UN works well. Hopefully, tools like the internet will open the doors to various freedoms where none existed before. Let us hope anyway.
Mghcanuck, you gotta love those 50 cal. rifles similar to the Barrett 82A1 a lot of the sniper platoons seem to be using these days. I saw an ad for the bolt action version that claimed accuracy out to 2000 meters. That's pretty close to Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock's confirmed kill in Vietnam.
The canadians dont try to hard with thier military.
Who can blame them?
They are right next door to the US. Canada knows if anyone screws with them they screw with the USA. Any country that borders the USA basically has nothing to worry about, cause the USA would kick the crap outta anyone who messes with them.
I might take an occasional popshot at the canadians, but all in all, Canada is a good country, and a good friend of the USA.
Canada would probably to use those sea kings to take down aircraft if they put em in big catapults. hehehe
Treyhoss, your points are well taken. I guess my questions were more rhetorical than not and I certainly don't want to appear as though I think my opinion is more valid than another's. I'm just concerned about where it all ends, who gets invaded next, etc.
Yes, the USA and its armed forces are essentially the cops on the global stage. Also, there was no hesitation on the part of many nations to participate in the Afghan mission, where there was a fairly clear rationale for taking action. America was attacked, the culprit(s) identifiable and their whereabouts more or less known. America responded with the backing and military contributions of many of its traditional allies and others.
I just think that in the case of Iraq, the rationale was not as clear. Perhaps it is a pipe dream/naive to think that the members of the UN could or should act more decisively on these matters. However, I still hope for greater cooperation among nations and people.
This is what's so great about a forum like this (even though we are so far off of audio-related topics in this thread), the ability to share thoughts with others without fear of opression or retribution. Vigorous debate and disagreement are hallmarks of freedom and democracy.
Gunbei, the Sea Kings are a fleet of 40-year old helicopters still in service with the Canadian Navy and an embarassment. They have more of tendency to fall onto the decks of destroyers and frigates (upside down in one incident), rather than landing gracefully. Looks like our new Prime Minister has the military as a priority in general and replacing these choppers specifically in the short term. Some snipers from our Special Forces were even being considered for the US' Bronze Star (not sure if that's the right one) for their service in Afghanistan. In a couple of instances, they were able to 'neutralise' Taliban or al-Qaeda operatives from something like a mile or more away.
Mghcanuck, Old Jesse Helms was very frustrated with the endless bickering and inaction that is the United Nations. He also was shocked with the amount graft and budget overruns at the UN. He therefore threatened to withhold funding (which, btw we pay WAY more than anyone else to support).
If you think there's government gridlock here at home with the Reps and Dems, think what posturing and back room deals go on at the UN to get ANYTHING done. The UN Security Council acting in unison? Let's remember who is on the Security Council; The US, France, G.B, Russia and China. Now there's 5 countries that have gotten along just swell for the last 50 years! That's like asking 5 audiophiles to settle on who makes the best amplifier! Finding unity when it comes to military action against a country where most of the same security council members have historic and/or economic ties is VERY difficult. Let's face it, the same countries that were against the war this time around abstained from the resolution that started Gulf War 1! Abstained! After one soveriegn nation invaded another one - and an invasion with NO pre-attack diplomacy! One could also speculate BTW that if the country being attacked (Kuwait) also didn't have huge oil reserves it may not have even generated a murmer at the UN, allowing the literal raping of country and population to go on save a "harshly worded statement" on the floor of the UN. Getting a clear mandate in this latest venture was a near impossible feat. Usually that's because UN language is always shrouded in further arbitral language such as "serious consequences if you don't comply". Then we all argue about what the consequence should be. In the meantime the country in question sends an envoy to engage in some sort of diplomacy designed to stall, deceive or go nowhere - in this case perhaps giving Iraq more time to hide or dismantle their WMD. I know it gave them enough time to stash millions of dollars in US currency and gold which it seemed like we were stumbling across almost daily after the fall of Baghdad, like the $500M in gold trying to be smuggled into Syria. All this cash from a regime so strapped for cash due to US sanctions that he couldn't buy enough food or medicine for his people (sob sob).
Multi-lateral agreements, the argument of sovereignty of nations or who ultimately enforces the international law, these are all too often the arguments of the despots themselves in order to buy time, stay in power and beef up their defenses. Think Treaty of Stalingrad here. The idea of equality of nations, a world court and a UN "superforce" to enforce international law is a nice idea in theory, then again so is the United Federation of Planets and Starfleet. It just isn't so. If the nations of the world can't pull together to and stop repressive, evil regimes then the UN does become an irrelevant instituion IMO.
As for the analogy of "calling the cops and putting them on trial, etc.", who do you think "the cops" are on the world stage? As far as the judge and jury in all of this - let that be a jury of their peers. In this case the Iraqi people. Maybe he'll get better than Mussolini did but I doubt it.
I believe the most difficult problems are built upon extremely simple foundations. People (like many animals)tend to gravitate to their own ilk, often to the exclusion (and sometimes harm) of others.
The rise of families and social and governmental systems has at it's core been an effort over many thousands of years to "protect our own". In some instances these structures have also sought to reign in our most harmful tendencies and cultivate a "civil" structure that accepts diversity.
Who's been totally successful? No One, of course.
But it seems to me that some societies get it more right than others, if your yardstick is political, personal, and intellectual freedom. My personal belief is that our far from perfect society gets it more right than many others.
Hate Bush? Love Bush? Just or Unjust War? No matter how I measure it- I gotta admit Saddam was a piece, and I'm happy to see him go.
Yeah, the world's a powderkeg. All I know is that in the end, we're all responsible for our own behaviour (although I know that's not real popular anymore). How civilized is your piece of the world?
I think the CIA should pipe "It's an itzy bitsy teeny tiny yellow polka-dot bikini" into SH's cell 24/7. On every tweny-fourth hour, they should play "They're commin to take me away, ha ha".
That will make him talk., Or should I say....'sing?"
Bravo, Treyhoss and Mghcanuck! It never ceases to amaze me how complicated, yet at the same time how simple affairs like these are.
I agree as a whole and without the advantage of knowing the alternate outcome [if we had done nothing] that it was a very good thing Saddam has been removed. Just think what might have been if Gore was President when 9/11 went down and how events would have played out afterward.
We may be viewed by some nations as being quick-on-the-trigger cowboys, but the way Germany and France acted has left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't blame the Bush Administration for freezing out those countries from the post-war rebuilding contracts that tried to prevent a UN mandate for invading Iraq. It sure seemed that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder let his personal dislike of Bush dictate Germany's stance on this issue. I thought French President Jacques Chirac liked GW? I heard that prior to giving a speech blasting the US position that Chirac's people would contact the Bush people and let them know what was going to be said in advance. With strong French public opinion against the invasion, it probably would have been political suicide for Chirac to back Bush.
So what are these Sea Kings and should I worry about them falling on me in California? Oh, and Mghcanuck, I heard the US military was VERY impressed with the Canadian sniper units stationed in Afghanistan.
It may be that a lot of the UN's indecisiveness during the '90s had to do with the intransigence of Security Council members and dues owed to the UN by one of its strongest and wealthiest members. It may appear that some leaders sit idly by, but what you don't see are the diplomatic efforts to bring about change in countries that have less than democratic leadership/government.
How does one decide who should be invaded and toppled and who should not? What of the sovereignty of nations or the international/multilateral agreements in place all over the world? If, for example, Great Britain decided to invade France because it felt the President or the regime in power needed to be deposed, the rest of the NATO membership would be obliged to come to the defence of France.
Sure, Saddam is evil incarnate, one of the worst seen since WWII, but lacking proof positive of WMDs, should he have been deposed in a more or less unilateral fashion? Looking at it from another angle, even if the existence of WMDs were proven, who's to say Iraq should not have the capacity to develop nuclear capability, whether for military or civilian purposes? Well, perhaps the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (not sure if Iraq was ever a signatory), which may not have existed if the UN did not.
Sure the UN has a sketchy history, but it is the member nations, and particularly those on the Security Council, that make the decisions. Right or wrong, the US and its coalition members failed to convince other Security Council members of the case for invading Iraq. Should the UN and the Security Council simply acquiesce to an influential and powerful member simply because the latter says so?
If you don't like the way your neighbour treats his child, what do you do? Do you go over and beat him senseless? Or do you call the cops and appropriate authorities to investigate? They investigate and maybe lay charges. Those charges are presented before the court and the judge or jury decides whether to punish. Kind of like the UN, except that if the members of the UN can't agree (e.g. on the results of the investigation/weapons inspectors in Iraq) or if they don't provide the UN with the means to act (e.g. a clear mandate and sufficient means/forces in Rwanda), well there's not much it can do.
Ah, but Gunbei, the money to conduct the war comes from your tax dollars. Haliburton may not even pay any tax??? The money to rebuild Iraq will also come from your tax dollars and make Haliburton and its owners even richer than they are now.
GWB and his buddies may simply be trying to ensure that the conditions for winning re-election are in place for 2004. Money wins elections, among a small number of other things. Corporate contributions make up a huge proportion of funds available to run campaigns, no? How do you ensure you get the greatest corporate contributions? Its all pretty abysmal...
In the end, all of this may be about a small group of people wanting the power to rule the strongest nation on Earth for another four years. Daddy Bush only had one term - a humiliation to be erased by the prodigal son? Although its arguable about how far he could have gone in 1991, Daddy did not really finish the job in Iraq at that time. Is the son being driven to redress a wrong, one that was obviously not of his Daddy's doing? I really don't like to sound so skeptical.
Hey Slappy, you better be shakin' in your boots, 'cause the Canadian Navy has these Sea King choppers that could really cause havoc if they were unleashed on the US... That is, by falling out of the sky onto unsuspecting Americans. :-) The Canadian military is a shadow of its former self, and may be another reason why this country didn't commit to the coalition of the willing in Iraq. However, there are some 2,000 Canadian troops on the ground in Afghanistan stationed near Kabul.
I guess I'll throw my 2 cents in on this - what the hell, it's still a free country, right? The people who say this Iraq war was based on oil are probably right. Those who claim the CIA trained Osama and helped out Saddam are right too. I think the US also helped Fidel Castro get to power along with certain people in South America who commited atrocities. Weird foriegn policy things happen when you live in a country (the US) where leadership changes are frequent and public opinion flip flops on different issues. All that said, let's remember that Saddam was a guy who killed hundreds of thousands of people, mostly his own during his 30+ years in power. A guy like that sitting on 25% of the world's oil had the means to buy just about any military weaponry he wanted, given enough time. For those who think that the US sanctions were responsible for the death of thousands of Iraqi children, give me a break. What money Saddam did get from oil sales he did not spend on medicine or aid to his citizens (like he was supposed to) but rather continued to spend on his military, lavish lifestyle and even more outlandish spending on the construction of Mosques - to hell with building hospitals, buying medicine or investing in infrastructure. The guy was mad and didn't give a second thought to the suffering of his people - even when confronted with the FACT that he would be attacked by the US! Further to the east of him is another mad man by the name of Kim Jung Ill, North Korea's "beloved leader" who's people are dying by the bushel daily for lack of food, while he still maintains a "million man army", has schoolkids revere him as a God and basically wants to blackmail the US by expecting us to pay him for NOT building nuclear arms. Some say we should take the deal, even though Clinton made the same deal and he obviously broke that! There are tyrants all across the globe who deny food, medicine and basic freedoms to their people. Ususally they rule in corners of the world that, unfortunately for the residents of those countries, don't have any stategic or "threat value" to the US.
The UN is not and never has been consistent or decisive, save the 1991 Gulf War. The UN has always turned a blind or reluctant eye to atrocities in the world. Think Idi Amian (sp?) in Africa, Poppa Doc in Haiti, the Khemer Rouge in Cambodia, Rowanda, Kosovo, China under Mao, etc.,etc. Where was the UN while these dictators and "evil" governments were executing their populations? Nowhere. Where was the US? Nowhere. Why? Because people who hold opinions like the ones expressed here about the US "shouldn't go it alone without the UN" or "this is all about oil" or the "US is an empire and bully of the world", etc., etc. It is because of these sentiments that the US is reluctant to take action. The UN? Count how many times they've taken action to stop the killing and repression worldwide!
It is unfortunate that we live in a world where these kinds of crimes against humanity are commonplace. Lets be realistic, world peace is a pipe dream. It seems to me however that even the most jaded and "peace loving" among us can still recognize a brutal dictator - history has shown us who and what they are along with their M.O.'s on the world stage. The danger in doing NOTHING when these people are in control of either a vast natural resource (like oil) or technological capacity (nuclear arms) is too great a threat to look the other way. I think it is a reality that wars will be fought in the future to stop just such a dictator or government before the outcome becomes catastrophic on a global scale! What if the "great powers" had invaded Germany and stopped Hitler after the capture of the Sudatenland, Checklosovakia or the "integration" of Austria instead of waiting years after finally attacking Poland? The answer? Several million less deaths! Did I agree with the invasion of Iraq? Not entirely and I wish more countries would have been on board. But at the end of the day, the sanctions in place were deteriorating and were in fact the bargaining chip Saddam was using, cooperation with the search for WMD in exchange for the lifting of those sanctions. If he didn't have any (and he probably didn't) he could show the world, have the sanctions lifted and then have his scientists dig up the records, blueprints and plans and reconstitute those programs. By then it would have been way too late! And if Saddam got old and died before all the pieces fell into place, then we could have looked to his children (models of society that they were) to finish his vision. It really bothers me when people can't learn lessons from history. It could very well be that the US prevented the future death of millions on both sides by the actions taken earlier this year. Those that would rather say that this was fabricated to take the heat off of Dick Cheney, who after getting into office had to liquidate (or put into a blind trust) all his interest in Halliburton needs to re-examine the facts.
It always amazes me when the US gets such a bad rap around the world, but especially in Europe, for its decision to throw out the Iraqi dictator. How come you never hear the same world outcry about the policies of N. Korea or Iraq (pre-GW2)? People seem to be more set to burn an effigy of Bush than they are of Kim Ill or Saddam Hussein!
I do not agree with all of the things this country does nor have I been 100% behind George Bush. That said, I am proud we have a leader who is willing to call these regimes out and put them "on notice". The guy has the balls to lead not look at polls. I am less proud to see the other "world leaders" sit idley by. If people accuse Bush and the US about being in it for the money, they should pay closer attention to other governments and leaders who choose to keep the status quo, make deals (and money) with these world despots and not make any waves. Those are truly the characters who are in it for the money. Probably why Germany and France were so against an Iraq invasion in the first place. Did anyone see the list of all the German and French companies that did business with Saddam? We can throw the Russians in that same lot as well! The US may not always be right but our motives (thank God) aren't even in the same league as those of the Iraq's and North Korea's out there! It's about time we all acknowledge that there is good and evil in the world and stand up for what is right, not for what is popular!
As for my song; "Daylight has Broken" by the muslim activest fromerly known as Cat Stevens! May there be a little less suffering in the world this year (I know there will be in Iraq)! Tony
I was afraid that I may have gotten too overzealous with my initial comments in this thread. It's great to hear such wise words from you guys.
One thing that still erks me to this day is the policy of silence the Japanese government uses when confronted with dark areas in their history such as WWII crimes. My Dad receives a daily Japanese language newspaper, and in the english section I occasionally see articles about the "comfort women", women from China and Korea who were abducted and made to serve Japanese soldiers as sex slaves. The Germans have repeatedly apologized and made massive reparations to Jewish families and Israel for Hitler's crimes. I was raised in a "Japanese Way" to be honorable and face up to my mistakes, so when I see modern Japan sixty years since WWII unable to issue any kind of apology for so many of the wrongs committed then it makes my blood boil and I feel ashamed.
You folks are so right about separating the everyday people from the few in power who make the decision to go to war. Case in point.
My father was shot down twice during the war, so I'm quite fortunate to exist and be able to post in the Audiogon forums! A few years after my father moved to the US he was contacted by a man saying he had some how located my father through the War Department and he in fact was one of the guys that shot my Dad down. My Dad flew reconnaissence missions for the Japanese Navy in areas such as the Aleutian Islands in the north Pacific and Rabaul in the south. On one of these missions he was shot down and survived two days floating in the middle of ocean with his wounded navigator until a Japanese sub located them. My Dad often jokes that if he didn't have photos and information the Navy wanted they might have left him bobbing up and down like cork.
The fellow who contacted my Dad was a lawyer from New York who happened to be in Los Angeles and was wondering if my Dad would like to meet for dinner. I don't know if I was born at the time but my Mom went along and they had a very nice time. My father said this man from New York was apologetic, but my father really had no ill feelings. As with some of the other WWII my dad met they all agreed that they were only doing their job for their country and there was no personal animosity at all.
I realize the way one feels about their war experience largely depends on how traumatic it was, so I find it interesting that Vietnam veterans seem to harbor much more resentment. It could have to do with the way the two wars were viewed and treated by the public at the time.
I can remember being a young kid at my parent's dinner parties and having some WWII vets there. Most were my dad's friends from his architectual firm and had served the US military in the south pacific and Europe. However, my favorite "uncle" was a guy named Ted who served under General Rommell in the tank brigade in north Africa. This was one funny and fun guy to be around! Can you imagine a German soldier, a couple US army guys and a Japanese pilot having a family get together? Pretty neat stuff.
Lugnut, I often forget your theory of how money runs the world and I'm jolted back into focus when I see preferential treatment given to firms like Haliburton. The way the bidding was conducted and post war rebuilding planned, it makes you think the whole purpose for chasing Saddam into a hole was just so we could rebuild the damn country. It doesn't seem to make sense since it cost so much to conduct the war in the first place.
This is the oldest definition, and now especially that Saddam is no longer to be feared, everyone in Iraq will be posturing for the best leverage. Those who have an interest in the Americans staying will continue to pretend they are in command. The ones who are most adept at getting their way will and, quite frankly, for all of our good intentions, money and military, we will be irrelevant.
We do still get the oil, but then we never didn't have it. George W. Bush got Saddam. Everyone wins.
You certainly have a very, very good understanding of history. I've enjoyed your posts to this thread a lot. You've put considerable effort into your posts and have enlightened many readers that obviously are emotional on these subjects rather than intellectual.
My father barely survived the Bataan death march. He didn't speak of his experiences until shortly before his death of cancer in 1995 and only then because I begged him. I had been told by one of his fellow Marines of his attempt to save his closest, wounded friend by physically assisting him. The Japanese soldiers that forced this march were furious that Dad and his wounded friend could keep up the pace and made a cruel game out of slowly making them fail. Dad received several minor bayonet wounds that ultimately slowed them down. At a point when his friend slipped from his grasp he turned, locked eyes and watched as a bayonet was shoved through his friends throat. Even after this experience Dad never spoke harshly of the Japanese as a people.
It has been estimated that 500,000 US soldiers lives were saved by the two bombs dropped on Japan. In Harry Truman's own words that is why he decided to use nuclear weapons. Saving face lost its significance once the bombs were dropped. So, now we know that saving face is determined by its cost of doing so. Since there is no such threat today Japanese society doesn't feel compelled to lose face by admitting and apologizing for the slave comfort girls from Korea and China. Pride is keeping hatred throughout the Orient on a low burn.
I've had the pleasure of working intimately with several Japanese engineers on an egg breaker joint project in the mid 80's. (Before you make fun of an egg breaker, understand that it separates the yolk and egg whites to the tune of 36,000 eggs per hour with one operator. We're not talking about throwing eggs here.) I enjoyed their company immensely and we became good friends, or as good of friends as we could during the three months we were together. One of the engineers was a survivor of Nagasaki. On an evening when I arranged a huge Japanese meal, figuring they were growing tired of American food, this fellow spoke of WWII. All of his subordinates were solemn while he spoke as was I. He wanted me to know that he felt the Americans did what they had to do and he had no hard feelings at all. This was a totally unsolicited commentary.
Slappy is right. If only the likes of that elderly engineer and my father could have a meaningful voice in world affairs we would live in a better place. Unfortunately it's a rare occurance when a real human being rises to leadership.
Most conflict on the world stage arises by design. Even knowing history from every textbook angle one must be Sherlock Holmes to see the real criminals. The money brokers control the unfolding of events and the outcome. Their roles are left out of the textbooks because too few even know who they are. War is a huge smokescreen that keeps them hidden from view. Once war is over they scoop up property and industry when governments are destroyed and religious institutions are weakened.
Slappy is right that problems are created by a small percentage of the worlds population but it is far less than a million. More like a handful.
Ya know, this is what really bugs me about everything.
You can go to any country in the world and live there and make plenty of friends. Any country. They might be your friends but they will still hate your country.
It boils down to this, there are upwards of 6 billion people on the planet, and the wars that kill millions are because of the actions of probably far less than 1 million.
Every country has its dark period, every country becomes a monster at one point. No country is immune.Even the high and mighty USA, took a dark step when they nuked japan.
I was in the military, and i knew there was a possibility that i would have to kill for my country, and sometimes i wondered about that, about how different i am from my enemys. Im just some joe, joined the service to to get hot meals and a warm bed. How much different is my enemy? My enemy probably joined for the same reason. We are pawns who pay the ultimate sacrifice because world leaders cannot get along. Instead of me killing him, and him killing me, what would happen if we had talked without somone we know of but never met stating we are enemys? We would probably get along. Probably become friends.
It is very easy to assume that a county is the sum of its leaders. Unfortunatly, that is not usually the case.
Too bad the young have to die when the old start the wars.
I think the children of politicians should join the military. Maybe they wouldnt be so hesitant to start wars.
Im still glad we got that sonofabitch saddam. He had to go.
One countries terrorist is another countries hero.Its in the way you want to look at it.Americans DO NOT understand the middle eastern cultures,nor do they wish to understand it,its irrational to think the Iraq people welcome a foreign force inside their nation,they are just glad Saddam is gone,heck Mickey Mouse would be a welcome change compared to Saddam's regime.If Bush makes another comment about the "axis of evil" Im going to choke my on Wheaties.There will be two consequences now that the "leader"(Saddam) of the attacks against the american soldiers is captured...Power struggle between the actual insurgents inwhich who can kill more americans...or other "axis's of evils countries" will use the USA prosecution trails against Saddam as a focal point to entice more radicals to feed their causes.Maybe Bush will wear his airforce jumpsuit and announced the war is over...again........
I spent a couple years in japan, nobody ever really talked about it. I think it was a pretty brutal thing to do. I really enjoyed Japan, loved the culture and the lifestyle. It is a great place. I took a trip to Hiroshima while i was there. It has healed nicely, but there is definatly a scar beneath
lets just hope that everyone learned from it, especially the U.S.A.
It would be hard for many Americans to believe anyone could have such a viewpoint, especially the way we're taught history in school, but there is another side to WWII.
As an American of Japanese decent I'm deeply ashamed at what happened in Nanking for three terrible months, and events like the Bataan death march. We also can't forget the inhumane biological experiments performed by the Japanese on unwilling Chinese prisoners. What gets my goat is that the German and Japanese scientists that committed these heinous crimes were allowed to avoid war crimes trials and immigrate to the US in secret in order to work for us!
On the flip side, my aunt was one of the young victims at Hiroshima. My Dad remembers returning from the war and seeing all the skin on his kid sister's arms hanging from her finger tips. For many years my Dad was afraid of what might happen if my aunt had children. Luckily they turned out fine.
Interesting thing about the TWO bombs. It seems Truman as well as most of the high ranking military commanders knew the Japanese were beaten, and that they were actually trying a face-saving surrender through the Russians. Although Truman seems to have been reluctant, it was Secretary of State James Byrnes who gave the Manhattan Project top priority and convinced him to go through with it. The decision to drop the bomb was made to end the war, but more probably to send a message to the Russians that we don't mess around. Can you imagine that, the obliteration of almost two hundred thousand people just to make a statement to Stalin?
Wouldn't it be nice if one day Iraq and the whole Middle East could become close US allies the way Germany and Japan have? If that ever happened, who would our enemies be then?
Who is right and who is wrong is all determined by the winner. They write it as they want to.
If Hitler won WWII, the history books will all claim what a wonderful man he was and what a dirgbag the americans were.
Its all perspective, and the onyl perspective that ends up counting 200 years down the road is the winner of the fight.
The U.S. Nuked japan not just once, but twice. Countless women, children, civilians dead. That was not needed. Read history books, it says that the USA did it to save lives. Well, they might have saved the lives of soldiers, but the price was to kill two citys packed full of civilians, women, children. That attack was worse in my opinion of 911.
If the US had lost the war, that nuclear attack would have permanantly burned the USA with a reputation comparable to how we view the Nazis.
Lets disarm our nukes by dropping em all on the middle east! Blast that sand to glass! Then take out a buncha windex and wipe it clean. No streaks, no sheeks
hehehehehe
Just kiddin.
I think it is amazing how well the U.S. connected Bin Laden and Saddam Huseein without really connecting them. A little hint here, a little hint there. Next thing you know 50% of americans believe that Saddam and Bin Laden are comrades.
I see the point of view for both sides. I think saddam had to be dealt with though. You got alot of space out there where WMD can be hidden. They have already found trace elements of chemical weapons, and doing evidence of larger ops, but nothing really concrete. It might show up yet.
I also have to agree with the idea that the rebuilding contracts SHOULD go to the countrys who supported the invasion. I dont think france or germany should be able to sit there and benefit from this when the whole time they were making escuses for putting this off.
Saddam had what, 10 years to get his act together? and all he gave was crap, lies, and grief. He was responsible for what? 60,000+ dead iraqies? he Chemmed his own damn civilians. I dont care what anyone says, they are better off now than when he was in control. I think there could have been better planning to rebuild iraq though.
On the other hand, the way i see it, im sick of us spending billions of dollars each year to support other countrys and governments. Concessions are nothing other than bribes and blackmail and seldom fix a problem rather than prolong it.
If it were up to me, the USA would pull ALL of its troops from any country that does not welcome them. We would cut ALL funding to other countrys, its time for them to start wiping thier own asses. With the money we are spending on foriegn aid, we could feed and shelter OUR homeless, take care of OUR problems.
Let the rest of the world go to hell.
If we wanted the oil in the middle east, the easiest way to do it would be to say "Screw em", pull alll our people out, let them duke it out.
20 years later when everyone on that side of the world had blown eachother to bits and leveled every socioty out there, we could just walk in and take it, nobody would complain. know why? Cause they would have all killed themselves.
Screw em, if they dont want our troops, they dont get our funding. If they dont trade with us we dont trade with them.
We are out there trying to help other people live the life that we enjoy. They dont want it, fine. They dont get it.
let them blow themselves to hell.
Wanna be friends with the USA? Come to us, and be our friend, trade with us, talk with us.
You dont want to be USA's friend? Then fine. You dont get squat. Im sick of my money being taxed and given to some country ive never hgeard of that hates us. Pull the funding, lets see how fast alot of attitudes change.
Im no politician, obviously, but i think the USA has enough problems of its own. I'm more concerned about the USA Disabled War Vetrans who will be spending xmas in a cardboard box in some alley.
Maybe it is just time for the USA to butt out of all of it. Like china minus the communism.
Onhwy61, I didn't think about that but it definitely sounds like a real possiblity. I'm sure people like Bin Laden would like nothing better to do than to make us look weak in the eyes of the world. Specifically, the Arab World and our Arab allies. I heard a young Arab man say he was glad 9/11 happened because the US finally got a punch in the nose. He was from an Arab country friendly to the US, I forgot which one, but although he admires our culture and people, he is sick of our policy in the Middle East. I've seen this echoed in interviews with young Arab college students from countries that are US allies. This is a very tricky and confusing dynamic.
Bin Laden being exiled from Saudi Arabia might have something to do with him wanting to stir the pot in his ex-homeland. Frankly, I'm more fearful of guys like Mullah Mohammed Omar the ex-head of the Taliban and Ayman Al-Zawahiri who's most likely the real guiding force behind Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
I've seen interviews with people of varying Arab nations who are more afraid of their own government than they are of the US or radicals within the Muslim world. As benign as Saudi Arabia often appears because they're to an extent our ally, I wonder how much this applies to the ruling Saudis and their people. It's hard to imagine this would be the case in Kuwait or Bahrain.
History has shown that politics and who you choose as an ally plays an important part in the survival of your country or kingdom. It's an interesting paradox for the Saudis to have the US as an ally which affords them a great deal of security from their hostile neighbors. But on the flip side having infidel military bases on Muslim soil also causes great consternation. Being a ruler is no fun at all, because you can never make everyone happy. All you can do is to try to survive.
As for the hijackers I may be mistaken, but I thought guys like Mohammed Atta and the others were mostly Egyptian. The curious thing about guys like Atta and some of the other Palestinian suicide bombers is that they weren't radical until they went abroad to study in Europe. There they were recruited by radical clerics and brainwashed into making themselves human missiles.
I've asked my Dad about this kind of thing since he was a pilot in the Japanese Imperial Navy during WWII and how is it that people can be mass mobilized for a cause like this. He and some buddies volunteered for the Naval academy when they were still in high school. At 16 and 17 they were ready to die for Japan. I've heard all these stories how Japanese mothers sent off their boys telling them they should die for the Emperor. It's funny because my Grandmother told my Dad not to do anything stupid and to come back alive. Did I have the one sane WWII Japanese Granny? Hahah. Curiously, my Dad really doesn't have an answer for his youthful zealousness, saying maybe it was just that. But he also doesn't think Japan was wrong either. Have any of my fellow Audiogoners ever wondered what was on the minds of young Germans and Japanese during this period?
There are so many things that contributed to 9/11. And the sad thing is that it might have been avoided if we had just acted more responsibly in the Middle East.
Gunbei, the attacks on the U.S. on 9/11 were the result of the internal politics of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden wants to topple the Saudi government and one of his strategies is to show that the U.S., Saudi's greatest ally, is weak and ineffectual. 19 of the 21 hijackers purposely were chosen to be Saudi citizens. This was done to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Saudi and to demonstrate to the Islamic world at large the Saudi's government's lack of legitimacy and popular support. To the extent that one of bin Laden's major goals was the expulsion of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabian, then his strategy has worked. The U.S. is not completely out of Saudi, but it is now the stated goal of the Saudi government to have U.S. forces there reduced to a bare minimum.
Ahh, Yale? My mistake, I knew it was of them thar skoolz. Papa Bush AND Grandpappy Bush were all in the same society. I thought they were all Free Masons until I saw that 60 Minutes piece on Skull And Bones. Thanks Slipknot!
Mghcanuck, If I were GW I would have followed the path you described. Easy for me to say though because we don't know what they knew at the time, but also kind of spooky when you realize they didn't really know that much and seemed to have made up some stuff to bolster their case against Iraq.
My fear is that Bin Laden had been planning his escape for many years and he was ready for the possible repercussions of a US led invasion. It seems Hussein was also well prepared, but he finally got caught. However, when the White House realized we weren't making the kind of progress we'd hoped for in Afghanistan in regards to catching Bin Laden, maybe due to faulty intelligence, I don't know...that's when we decided to shift the world's and our nation's focus from one Middle East nation to another more "winnable" situation. It just seems that way.
Now let's enjoy the holidays and hopefully by catching that scraggly old fellar there might be a boost in holiday retail sales.
One question. Who the heck are you guys gonna vote for in 2004? I haven't a clue yet. We've had an actor as president and California governor, and an ex pro wrestler as Minnesota governor. Maybe a cast member from Survivor or Queer Eye For The Straight Guy might run.
Great posts Gunbei, humour (cluster fuck, ROLOL!) and some very thought provoking info.
Watching the news up here in the "great white north" yesterday evening, our national, publicly-funded broadcaster showed file-photo footage of a broadly smiling Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the early '80s. The now-Defence Secretary was selling chemicals or something at the time of his meeting with SM.
One of the people interviewed by the CBC last night is a professor at Georgetown University who suggested that, although Saddam may have indeed been directing some of the insurgency up until some unspecifed time, there may be a number of groups that are likely acting independently of one another. He referred to two main groups: 1. Baathists loyal to Saddam and 2. Iraqi nationalists opposed to Saddam AND the US-led invasion. There was another analyst speaking of the three large ethnic divisions and their respective territories in Iraq: the Sunnis (Baghdad and Northeast), the Shiites (pretty much everything South of Baghdad) and the Kurds (North and Northwest). What a mess!
I wonder though, instead of invading Iraq and going after Saddam, if there had been as much effort and money put into the expedition to Afghanistan and getting bin Laden, would the latter now still be at large??? Should the US and its allies have finished the job there and, in the meantime, gather more concrete evidence of WMDs in Iraq before invading? One would think that the Allies were in control of a large part of Afghanistan at the time and with the patience/tenacity shown in Iraq could conceivably have captured ObL.
Don't get me wrong, I think the capture of Hussein is a good thing, but the rationale for the invasion was never what one could call rock solid. As for being a supporter of terrorism, one could argue that Saddam encouraged it with huge payments made to the families of Palestinian suicide-bombers, but that doesn't prove a link with Osama.
Slipknot and Bmwhaus, your skepticism is understandable. There are too many coincidences, including profits for those close to the White House, for there not to be serious questions. Whether are any real answers are given, or just the same stonewalling platitudes, is another matter. I won't hold my breath though.
Just my 2 cents (Cdn), 1.4 (US). :-)
Oh yeah, music to celebrate... I think I'd rather spend time remembering those who have lost their lives during the events of the past couple of years and teach my children about what it means to me to be a good person. Tolerance, love your fellow (wo)man, etc.
I remember at the beginning of the year all the flack that the White House was taking when it was announced that Haliburton might have an inside track with post war rebuilding. Supposedly they were eliminated from the bidding, then were allowed back in, so surprise surprise when it came out that they've been over charging the whole time.
It bothers me that throughout the world and especially in Europe we're viewed as out of control cowboys because we act unilaterally, and break international trade agreements when they don't suit us. While I can understand that GW wants to protect US interests at home and abroad, his actions are isolating us from even our closest allies. Just a couple weeks ago Bush had to give in to a European and Japanese trade war threat because of the new [illegal] steel embargos he imposed.
Its interesting to speculate what could've been if we avoided this war, concentrated more on rebuilding Afghanistan, and saved some of that 85 billion for Medicare. But since we didn't, and we are where we are we can't jump ship now and skidaddle out of Mosul and Tikrit. We have a moral obligation to finish what we started, and that is the rebuilding of Iraq.
Will the terroism stop with the capture of Saddam? Dream on. But if we respect the people of Iraq, allow them to help in the rebuilding process as partners and show that we're their friends and not powerful bullies, maybe we've got a chance.
I firmly believe that the reason 9/11 happened was because of our past Middle East policies how we seem to favor Israel in almost all conflicts when it comes to the Palestinian issue. The Israelis are good people. The Palestinians are good people. But since the beginning of the 20th century when Zionism started ona a roll and the British mishandled the whole Palestine issue, the Palestinians have been humiliated, dishonored and treated as second class citizens of the Earth.
Terrorism isn't an Arab invention. It's always been used by a weaker force to combat an overwhelmingly stronger force. Remember when future prime minister of Israel Menachem Begin and his terrorist group Irgun leveled a section of the King David Hotel in the late 1940's killing 91 people? The Palestinians learned from that and many other acts of Jewish terrorism against the British.
There are many people in Israel that want to peacefully coexist with Palestinians and that a sovereign Palestinian state should be established. And believe it or not there are even some in the Arab world that are willing to live peacefully with the Jews. I was very hopeful when Amram Mitzna former general in the Israeli military and mayor of Haifa where Jews and Palestinians coexist very well was running for office against Ariel Sharon in this year's elections. I was disheartened when he lost.
Jews, Arabs and the rest of the world can coexist peacefully. In today's world it ain't easy, and it's hard to believe that a little over a hundred years ago there was no "Middle East Crisis". It all starts with respect.
P.S. Here's something for you Bmwhaus and any of you conspiracy advocates. Do you think these secret, back room deals have anything to do with GW Bush's old Skull and Bones ties from his Harvard days? And since Skull and Bones members are supposed to help each other for life, it'll be interesting if Bush goes up against John Kerry in the next election since he's also a lifetime S&B member.
Gunbei, you said it all, much better than I could. Just because there are some nuts in the White House doesn't mean that the US is not a great country, and, on balance, a force for good in the world. If only McCain had one the Republican primaries.
Celebrate what?...that one former USA puppet dictactor will be replace by another one.This "war" is not over,in fact I doubt he was ever in command since the first shot was takened since the start of the war,there is a element that the USA cannot identified that is finacing the "insurgents" and planning the bombings of US troops.Look at Saddam,he looks that he been in that hole for 8 months,you think he had the ablity to give orders?.This is not the end but a beginning of more terrorist attacks against US interest.The only people that are laughing are the back room accountants for the military contracts that the Bush goverment is handing out like candy at your local 7-11..Congress is expected to approve another 85 billion dollars if this war drags on until 2006-7(If bush is still president),the USA could had medicare system up for every citizen int the USA for 1/10 of the cost of this "rebuilding" of the locations the USA destroyed,but we know that KBR (Kellogg Brown & Root)Halliburton(Dicks former company)is making HUGE profits from this rebuilding projects.Where is the media?..why arent they questioning the White House back room deals,you know why because they are labelled anti-american.World news media even came out and mentioned that this war was the most censored conflict ever inline with what the media could publish,and what they can see.Im not anti-american,I just dont think that USA could bypass the UN and conduct wars at their whim..
Yeah, I kinda have mixed feelings on this. I'm damn glad we got him and the possibly bright future for the Iraqi people it could yield if we play this out correctly.
We have to take into consideration the feelings and culture of the Iraqis though, and allow them a bigger role in constructing their "new" country. We're walking a tightrope because there are so many ethnic and religious groups to appease. Maybe we can take a cue from the Kurdish people in Northern Iraq and see how they've built a government and semi-thriving albeit western-type society.
But as we've already seen, in a land with ethnic and religious diversity and long-standing hostilities it's gonna be supremely difficult. If you placate the Shiites, you piss off the Sunnis, and don't forget about the Kurds and how the Turks just north of the border feel about them. And that's one of the reasons I was opposed to the war. I think we bit off way more than we can and care to chew. We have a history of going in and getting what we want, then leaving. I pray I'm wrong.
As for my Saddam musical request? How about some old Parlament/Funkadelic, "Shit, Goddamn, Get Off Your Ass and Jam!!!!"
Now where are we gonna find that 6' 4" wirey-bearded ex-Yemeni/Saudi, rich boy, Afghan Mujahadeen MoFo??!!!!!!
Gunbei, Great historical perspective. Thanks for taking the effort! You are right on the money. 4yanx and Slipknot1, great contributions from you guys too. And Slipknot1, remember that when anyone criticizes your conspiracy thoughts.....just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. ;)
4yanx, Yeah, maybe. Now that Saddam is in an "undisclosed location", my guess is that he is sitting with an 80 some year old JFK on the set where they faked the moon landings, sharing a laugh with Jimmy Hoffa ;)
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
