Well, the Iraqis have been allowed to vote in no fewer (count them) than three elections. AND their elected government is working with us and has asked us to say so thank you for pointing out that we should listen to the elected government of Iraq. That is what we are doing. Glad to finally have your support. I would be willing to fully extend those rights to the Iranians as well. The Palestinians have voted. AND they are now suffering the consequences of THEIR elected choice. Let THEM deal with it.
No. I suppose it would have been no difference to someone like you. Ask the 3 million dead Cambodians, however, or the 1.5 to 2 million Boat People and the 80 million Vietnamese who suffered under Communism from 1954 to 1990s liberalization and they might think that something had been worth fighting for.
Where you get this idea that I want to throw money at the Third World is most confusing to me. I believe that Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (and Syria and Lebanon and Iran) are worth fighting for because they are STRATEGIC. If a few bombing sorties ala Clinton will keep the savages in Somalia off our ships and fighting among themselves so much the better. I am also perfectly happy to wait to see what the Europeans, the UN and the Organization of African Unity will do about Darfur and Sudan. Got to leave something to prove these liberals promises as being so much empty headed claptrap. In the meantime, we are doing all the heavy lifting everywhere else in the world. Resources are not unlimited. We have to choose, BUT I do believe that Afghanistan and especially Iraq are worth that sacrifice. It is our money. It is our troops. So why worry your pretty little head about it. Be sure and let us know how the Germans are doing with their efforts to bring democracy and peace and stability to the Ukraine which is in YOUR strategic interests. Not so good? Hmmm. Why not?
So you are of the opinion that Saddam and the Taliban would have left after negotiations. A non-military solution was an option?
Those seeds were hard off in East Asia up until the last 10 or so years. This is a long term effort. I think that the humility thing is the wrong attribute to criticize. I think that the absolute may-fly attention span of the average MTV generation Westerner is the problem as you have so adequately shown.
Yes, and I would like to solve world hunger and bring peace to the world if I am chosen Miss America. That and a free gift for every autistic child.
gosh. Turkey in the EU? Really? Who would have thought of that? Seems that the US has and that this has been official policy for decades, perhaps, even since the 1960s customs union. So er were you referring to our European brethren?
Are you really this naive? This is not about the people of the Middle East choosing to have or not have anything. This is about ruthless gangs controlling them and using violence to intimidate and control.
You can lead a horse to water. Prove that we bombed Baghdad to punish guys hiding in Afghanistan. Er, we invaded Iraq AFTER we had taken care of those guys in Afghanistan and if any of you would listen to Bush, he has said, we are going to drain the swamps not go after al Qaeda or those responsible for 911 in Iraq.
cynicism is such a cheap and tawdry form of would-be sophistication.
Not for lack of trying. Your imagination has really be at work overtime.
Here’s an idea. How about the idea that this will take 60 years as it did in East Asia and even parts of Europe. How about not giving up after three years? How about having the stamina, patience and understanding to realize that this is going to be a long-term effort. I challenge to find anyone on this forum who can show that I did not say all along that this would be a 60-year effort. I know that and knew that and if I did, well then, Bush must have effectively communicated this mission to me. Why can’t the rest of you read?
Pity. I rather enjoyed not reading your posts…
[quote]This is not about the people of the Middle East choosing to have or not have anything. This is about ruthless gangs controlling them and using violence to intimidate and control.
[/quote]
I so agree with this. I hope the Iraqi amnesty can help clear some of this up.
[quote]
Here’s an idea. How about the idea that this will take 60 years as it did in East Asia and even parts of Europe. How about not giving up after three years? How about having the stamina, patience and understanding to realize that this is going to be a long-term effort. I challenge to find anyone on this forum who can show that I did not say all along that this would be a 60-year effort. I know that and knew that and if I did, well then, Bush must have effectively communicated this mission to me. [/quote]
That would not be possible Fred, as I have been saying the same thing right next to you. That IS you, isn’t it?
:s
I hear you Fred (and you JD), but what about the rest of your countrymen? Is it possible for Bush to attain consensus within the American parliamentary thingee on a resolve to continue this, ideally before the next Prez elections?
HG
Read what? Bush’s mind.
No one has ever doubted you suffer from delusions of grandeur. After this “Bush must have effectively communicated this mission to me” statement I’m beginning to think that’s not the only thing you suffer from.
You know, you can clear this whole misunderstanding up nearly instantaneously with some simple evidence.
Uhm…er…I uh feel the same way Spook.
Maybe the words he used were too big or too small for the rest of you to understand. 
Uhm…er…I uh feel the same way Spook.
Maybe the words he used were too big or too small for the rest of you to understand. [/quote]
jd, no offense but I’ve noticed “you guys” are as big on “thinking,” “believing” and “but he intended to” as I am on the facts.
If Bush had said he intended to occupy Iraq for the next sixty years don’t you think somebody somewhere would have remembered that? After all, that’s a pretty significant statement.
Uhm…er…I uh feel the same way Spook.
Maybe the words he used were too big or too small for the rest of you to understand. [/quote]
jd, no offense but I’ve noticed “you guys” are as big on “thinking,” “believing” and “but he intended to” as I am on the facts.
If Bush had said he intended to occupy Iraq for the next sixty years don’t you think somebody somewhere would have remembered that? After all, that’s a pretty significant statement.[/quote]
Hmm, I think Fred and I have been saying the same length of time; I’d have to check back at Bush’s speeches when the bruhaha began to tell you how I got here.
Don’t hold your breath though. 
Read what? Bush’s mind.
No one has ever doubted you suffer from delusions of grandeur. After this “Bush must have effectively communicated this mission to me” statement I’m beginning to think that’s not the only thing you suffer from.
You know, you can clear this whole misunderstanding up nearly instantaneously with some simple evidence.[/quote]spook -
from April 14, 2004 -
[quote]Bush statement on Iraq
April 14, 2004
US President George W Bush’s address to nation at White House press conference.
"Troop strength, now and in the future, is determined by the situation on the ground. If additional forces are needed, I will send them. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them. The people of our country are united behind our men and women in uniform, and this government will do all that is necessary to assure the success of their historic mission.
One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation – and neither does America. We’re not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest, as well. America’s objective in Iraq is limited, and it is firm: We seek an independent, free and secure Iraq."
“The United States, and all the nations of our coalition, will establish normal diplomatic relations with the Iraqi government. An American embassy will open, and an American ambassador will be posted.”
“As we’ve made clear all along, our commitment to the success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th. On July 1st, and beyond, our reconstruction assistance will continue, and our military commitment will continue.”
“None of these acts is the work of a religion; all are the work of a fanatical, political ideology. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women. They seek the death of Jews and Christians, and every Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror. They seek to intimidate America into panic and retreat, and to set free nations against each other.”
smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam … 00198.html[/quote]
Just one of many administration statements confirming the intent of the USA and Coalition Forces to stay the course.
:bravo: :bravo:
[quote=“jdsmith”]Games, Tigerman is right. If you want to paraphrase someone, fine, and if you want to directly someone, please utilize the quote function.
jdsmith
IP comod
[/quote]
Which I believe I did? What is from tigerman is inside the white boxes. And what is written by myself is outside of it. And I think I can place " " around any term or name or expression as I deem fit there. Incorrect?
[quote=“games”][quote=“jdsmith”]Games, Tigerman is right. If you want to paraphrase someone, fine, and if you want to directly someone, please utilize the quote function.
jdsmith
IP comod
[/quote]
Which I believe I did? What is from tigerman is inside the white boxes. And what is written by myself is outside of it. And I think I can place " " around any term or name or expression as I deem fit there. Incorrect?[/quote]
Well, the problem occurs when you quote something you have paraphrased, which implies that that is actually what the person you paraphrased actually said, which it is not. It is misleading. It’s not a big deal and can be resolved by a) not using the quotes in this kind of situation, or b) saying, “Do you mean to say that ‘All blue people are doodyheads?’”
I think that will prevent misunderstanding.
Thanks
jds
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]spook -
from April 14, 2004 -
[quote]Bush statement on Iraq
April 14, 2004
US President George W Bush’s address to nation at White House press conference.
"Troop strength, now and in the future, is determined by the situation on the ground. If additional forces are needed, I will send them. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them. The people of our country are united behind our men and women in uniform, and this government will do all that is necessary to assure the success of their historic mission.
One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. [color=blue]As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation[/color] – and neither does America. We’re not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest, as well. America’s objective in Iraq is limited, and it is firm: We seek an independent, free and secure Iraq."
“The United States, and all the nations of our coalition, will establish normal diplomatic relations with the Iraqi government. An American embassy will open, and an American ambassador will be posted.”
“As we’ve made clear all along, our commitment to the success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th. On July 1st, and beyond, our reconstruction assistance will continue, and our military commitment will continue.”
“None of these acts is the work of a religion; all are the work of a fanatical, political ideology. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women. They seek the death of Jews and Christians, and every Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror. They seek to intimidate America into panic and retreat, and to set free nations against each other.”
smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam … 00198.html[/quote]
Just one of many administration statements confirming the intent of the USA and Coalition Forces to stay the course.[/quote]
Apparently “you guys” don’t take the blue part seriously. And how you mockingly expect people to get “sixty years occupation” from “our commitment to the success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th. On July 1st, and beyond, our . . . .” is just another one of those mysteries.
I know, of course, that “you guys” intend to permanently occupy Iraq but only because I know how you think and what your goals are. Most other people don’t have that advantage yet – but they’re getting there if the polls are any indication.
Did ze Germans or the Japanese?
I’m sure they’ll learn to deal with it. What the people want and the government needs to do are velly diffelent.
My subscription to Foreign Affairs isn’t set up on this computer, so at the moment I can only offer the cover blurb. But here’s a story of thoses someone looking at alternatives. Hopefully they’re better than those I cooked up Sunday morning.
[quote=“Foreign Affairs: Return to Realism”]Reading over President George W. Bush’s March 2006 National Security Strategy, one would be hard-pressed to find much evidence that the president has backed away from what has become known as the Bush doctrine. “America is at war,” says the document; we will “fight our enemies abroad instead of waiting for them to arrive in our country” and “support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture,” with the ultimate goal of “ending tyranny in our world.”
[…]
But if the rhetoric of the Bush revolution lives on, the revolution itself is over. The question is not whether the president and most of his team still hold to the basic tenets of the Bush doctrine – they do – but whether they can sustain it. They cannot. Although the administration does not like to admit it, U.S. foreign policy is already on a very different trajectory than it was in Bush’s first term. The budgetary, political, and diplomatic realities that the first Bush team tried to ignore have begun to set in.
The reversal of the Bush revolution is a good thing. By overreaching in Iraq, alienating important allies, and allowing the war on terrorism to overshadow all other national priorities, Bush has gotten the United States bogged down in an unsuccessful war, overstretched the military, and broken the domestic bank. Washington now lacks the reservoir of international legitimacy, resources, and domestic support necessary to pursue other key national interests.
It is not too late to put U.S. foreign policy back on a more sustainable course, and Bush has already begun to do so. But these new, mostly positive trends are no less reversible than the old ones were. Another terrorist attack on the United States, a major challenge from Iran, or a fresh burst of misplaced optimism about Iraq could entice the administration to return to its revolutionary course – with potentially disastrous consequences.
THE ACCIDENTAL REVOLUTION
It is no small irony that Bush’s foreign policy ended up on the idealistic end of the U.S. foreign policy spectrum. Contrary to the notion, common on the left and overseas, that the Bush team was hawkish and interventionist from the start, the administration was in fact deeply divided in its first months. If anything, it leaned toward the realist view that the United States should avoid meddling in the domestic affairs of other nations. In his campaign, Bush famously …[/quote] …said that he didn’t think the US should be involved in nation building. Oops. Would have been a good idea to recruit a few fellas who could have done something along those lines in Iraq. Not that it’s working all that well in Afghanistan, where there’s a far more extensive international presence.
Still, what do we have? Bush & Co. still believing in their approach, but pursing other means because acting on their beliefs has clearly failed to acheive their ends. Seems like the perfect conditions in which to begin thinking creatively about alternatives… and not just on the part of those opposed to these policies.
Anyone else want to offer creative alternatives?
Well, Bush said no to nation building before 911.
Murder is not an acceptable form of political protest IMHO, even from far off cultures.
I believe we are in the middle, or at the beginning really of the creative alternative…which is …uh…nation building.
It’s a dickfer.
[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“games”][quote=“jdsmith”]Games, Tigerman is right. If you want to paraphrase someone, fine, and if you want to directly someone, please utilize the quote function.
jdsmith
IP comod
[/quote]
Which I believe I did? What is from tigerman is inside the white boxes. And what is written by myself is outside of it. And I think I can place " " around any term or name or expression as I deem fit there. Incorrect?[/quote]
Well, the problem occurs when you quote something you have paraphrased, which implies that that is actually what the person you paraphrased actually said, which it is not. It is misleading. It’s not a big deal and can be resolved by a) not using the quotes in this kind of situation, or b) saying, “Do you mean to say that ‘All blue people are doodyheads?’”
I think that will prevent misunderstanding.
Thanks
jds[/quote]
Remember, you’re not allowed to use quotation marks of any kind unless you do so with the full understanding that you’re quoting Tigerman. It is preferred that you use the white boxes to quote Tigerman, at which point it will be assumed that anything in a white box will be a direct quote of something Tigerman has written.
Of course this rule apply unless you’re Tigerman, at which point you would have been free to insert new words into the white boxes when you’re quoting someone else. My recommendation, Games, is that you change your name to “Tigerman Games” and see if that works.
Uh-oh, I’ve just used quotation marks myself without permission. 
Did ze Germans or the Japanese?
I’m sure they’ll learn to deal with it. What the people want and the government needs to do are velly diffelent.[/quote]
The Germans and Japanese lost that right when they attacked the U.S. and declared war on it. Iraq did neither.
Either way the record clearly shows that neoconservatives have been as duplicitous as any aggressor in history about “liberation” as a Trojan horse for occupation and domination.
spook - your selective quoting is ridiculous. Quote the entire damn sentence.
And the “60 years” bit is from Fred Smith. Stop trying to make it look like GW Bush said that. He didn’t and you damn well know it.
The President, GW Bush, told everyone from the git go that this was not a short term obligation.
Why do you now pretend to not know this?
I think you are just troling for attention. Post some hard data. Quit making specious allegations and then try to force others to defend against your BS.
Its a dog kicked too often.