skippy the wonder dog Wrote:prz Wrote:Well, Vietnam I agree was a disaster but the US never did have control of the country.
Are the Americans actually in control of Iraq? Their control is looking pretty tenuous.
The outcome in Vietnam was more or less inevitable -- not only the US defeat, but the move away from Communism. Communism doesn't really work very well, as it turns out ... people like democracy.
Look at fascist, proto-fascist, and Marxist regimes across central and south America. They more or less lasted only as long as superpower interference propped them up. So I'd say I'm optimistic for Iraq in the very long term.
I'll make ya a bet, and we'll settle up in the nursing home. 
You are on, but I am not going to one of those homes where they abuse the seniors.
Vietnam was a disaster in part because Kennedy made the decision to support a corrupt and repressive minority Catholic president in a majority Buddhist country and we were seen as taking over the colonialist role of our WW 2 ally France. I think its safe to say that we've learned alot of good lessons from Vietnam with regards to Iraq in several ways. One, we tried going to the international community and dealing with it in that forum and two, we are trying to strike a balance between what the majority of Shia Iraqi's want while working with them to deal with the Kurds and Sunni political demands.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:j-monster Wrote:Furthermore, this Canadian notices that the Iraq "charade" has led to the seeds of democracy being planted in the Middle East....
Is this the good old reverse domino theory? There is actually no evidence for this. It's a post hoc ergo propter hoc/slippery slope argument that views events in Egypt and Lebanon as a consequence of events in Iraq, without offering any explanation for their linkage.
It's also put into question by a couple of facts that its proponents choose to ignore:
1. Iran has held free and fair elections for many years -- after Israel, it's the most democratic country in the region. The power of the resulting governments is constitutionally restricted, but those governments were moving Iran toward greater democratic reform for several years before the "axis of evil" speech led to an anti-reformist backlash. Doesn't anyone here follow Iranian politics, for Allah's sake? This leads us to three questions:
-- if free and fair elections already existed in Iran, how is the US responsible for "planting the seeds of democracy?" Weren't they already planted?
-- does the slowing of reform in Iran as a reaction to US pressure get counted by people who say things are lookin' up across the region? Or are we only looking on the credit side of the balance sheet?
-- how are free elections in theocratic Iran different from free elections in occupied, and possibly soon-to-be-theocratic Iraq? Do the people really have a full say in either country? And why would elections in Iraq lead to that alleged regional wave of democratic reform, while elections in Iran have led nowhere?
2. The Bush administration actually resisted free and fair elections in Iraq, in favor of a less representative model intended to limit Shia power. The free and fair elections that Iraq recently saw were the product not of American intentions, but of American concessions to Shia clerics who demanded free and fair elections. Shall we give credit where credit is due, and declare the Ayatollah al-Sistani a hero of democracy?
Love,
yer resident paranoid anti-American conspiracy theorist
The best example that disproves your "no linkage" theory between elections in Iraq and events in Lebanon and elsewhere are comments made by Walid Jumblatt, a prominent Lebanese politician that used to be virulently anti-U.S., but has since compared the Iraqi elections to the fall of the Berlin Wall... check it out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art...Feb22.html
And Iran's "free and fair elections" are a joke... candidates for their parliament are severely restricted, all real power is concentrated in the hands of the mullahs who restrict all manner of freedoms... check this post for a recent example of how the mullahs are frighteningly curtailing freedom of speech...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4283231.stm
Finally, I find your comment that Bush resisted free and fair elections in Iraq incredible. Funny how you often claim that nothing anyone says on this board can be directly proved, yet you drop a "bomb" like that and offer no proof to support it.
Sorry, I'm not buying what your "anti-American conspiracy theorist" butt is selling.
Er, okay, j-monster, you've misplaced the burden of proof, erected a straw man, used an appeal to authority (whose argument is based on a category mistake), made a claim not supported by your source, and finally disputed facts that are a matter of public record.
Mind explaining why this is worth my time? What university disgraced itself by granting you a degree?
I'll grant one thing: it's not the idea of "free and fair" elections that the US resisted, but the form and timing, which of course affects what could be considered free and fair. So I was overstating the case. But if you were to actually check, you'd find a consistent pattern in which al-Sistani was pushing for greater democracy, sooner, and the US was resisting.
Dilly_sAm Wrote:Both FOX (fair and balanced like hell) and CNN (communist? glad to see you've gotten over McCarthyism!) are both so far to the right and in the pockets of the GOP it makes me sick. The ratio of conservatives to liberals appearing on both networks is about 4 to 1.
I refuse to refute the arguments of someone who thinks that CNN is "so far to the right and in the pockets of the GOP", because such a debate would be colossal waste of time.
CNN is as liberal as it gets for mainstram media in this county!!!
FOX, on the other hand, leans to the right (as you correctly stated). If you cannot see that FOX and CNN are slanted in opposite directions in terms of political bias, then you obviously have
zero grasp on what is 'central' in terms of the political climate in the United States. Period.
The Darkest Canuck Wrote:yeah take all the credit for WW2, typical American arrogance :roll:.
I'd appreciate it if you qualified that with "government" as in "typical American government arrogance" because we're not all arrogant.
The Horrible Esthete Wrote:Dilly_sAm Wrote:Both FOX (fair and balanced like hell) and CNN (communist? glad to see you've gotten over McCarthyism!) are both so far to the right and in the pockets of the GOP it makes me sick. The ratio of conservatives to liberals appearing on both networks is about 4 to 1.
I refuse to refute the arguments of someone who thinks that CNN is "so far to the right and in the pockets of the GOP", because such a debate would be colossal waste of time. CNN is as liberal as it gets for mainstram media in this county!!!
FOX, on the other hand, leans to the right (as you correctly stated). If you cannot see that FOX and CNN are slanted in opposite directions in terms of political bias, then you obviously have zero grasp on what is 'central' in terms of the political climate in the United States. Period.
If CNN is as far left as it gets, that does not bode well. If indeed CNN is left of centre in the US political climate, where does that leave the Al Frankens, Jon Stewarts and Michael Moores? Could it be that the right side of American politics is the only acknowledged by the mainstream media?
If one is to believe that CNN and the democratic party are as left as it gets in the US, then what happens to the whole movement on the other side of the Democrats?
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Er, okay, j-monster, you've misplaced the burden of proof, erected a straw man, used an appeal to authority (whose argument is based on a category mistake), made a claim not supported by your source, and finally disputed facts that are a matter of public record.
Mind explaining why this is worth my time? What university disgraced itself by granting you a degree?
I'll grant one thing: it's not the idea of "free and fair" elections that the US resisted, but the form and timing, which of course affects what could be considered free and fair. So I was overstating the case. But if you were to actually check, you'd find a consistent pattern in which al-Sistani was pushing for greater democracy, sooner, and the US was resisting.
Wow, it must be nice to just casually brush aside reasonable arguments offered by other people, and to blindly and wilfully ignore proof that backs up those reasonable arguments.
So how is Walid Jumblatt a straw man? Isn't his turnaround from US-hater to his recognition that elections in Iraq that wouldn't be possible without US intervention remarkable, or does it not count for anything in your world? And you also seem to be awfully dismissive of people in Lebanon and other countries who are protesting for freedom and democracy. I think people are capable of watching TV and surfing the internet and seeing what's happening in Iraq and wanting the same for them. But apparently you must think these people are totally backward and ignorant, because there is no "linkage" between these events. Whatever...
And your wilful ignorance to the situation in Iran is truly astonishing. Any country which has true power concentrated in the hands of a few unelected officials who see fit to crush democratic protests and imprison those trying to practice free speech isn't a true democracy in my book.
But hey, you are completely entitled to these opinions, that's one of the beautiful things about Canada and the US (I wouldn't try having different opinions than the mullahs in Iran though... not if you value your life). The fact you disagree with my worldview doesn't bother me.
What does bother me is the way you resort to personal attacks and insults to those who disagree with you. Your line about what university "disgracing" itself by granting me a degree is a great example of this. It clearly shows that you think I'm stupid, mentally retarded, or a combination thereof, just because I don't automatically accept what you say as gospel. But this behaviour shows more about you than it does about me... it proves you are nothing more than a smug, arrogant jerk with no capacity to properly debate issues, and no shame in resorting to personal attacks and insults to those who disagree with you. Pathetic.
Well you know what? I refuse to let you antagonize me. You know how you like to throw Latin phrases around, thinking it will impress everyone? Well I have one for you... persona non grata. I am permanently adding you to my ignore list, so don't worry about "wasting your time" by responding to this, I won't be listening. Have a nice life.
mrlayance Wrote:Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted in the Saudi daily al-Medina Wednesday as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army.
"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.
...........................
Abou Rabeh was interviewed in Lebanon.
Okay, an ex-Sgt. Lebenese descent, being interviewed in in Arabic in Lebanon tells a Saudi newspaper this story.
Okay.
You wanna buy a cheap bridge in Brooklyn?
Gov'tMule Wrote:mrlayance Wrote:Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted in the Saudi daily al-Medina Wednesday as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army.
"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.
...........................
Abou Rabeh was interviewed in Lebanon.
Okay, an ex-Sgt. Lebenese descent, being interviewed in in Arabic in Lebanon tells a Saudi newspaper this story.
Okay.
You wanna buy a cheap bridge in Brooklyn?
Yes. Clearly he is lying, as are all Arabs, Sand-niggers, Towel-heads, Rag-mops, w/e. (plz note the sarcasm)
We'd better make extra sure he's not a terrorist and throw him for a spell in Leavenworth.
We're not gonna mention that he is an ex-Marine, which isn't exactly what you become if you hate the US. Or the fact tht he made Sgt. Obviously only gooks and terrorists can make Sgt.
What we will mention is how the american popular media would have you believe that everyone of Arabic descent is shifty and untrustworthy, terroristic, even. You must be lying if you speak Arabic. Nevermind that one of the UN's greatest secretary generals, Boutros Boutros Ghali was Egyptian, and Arabic was his native tongue. But what am I saying, the UN are a bunch of sissies.
Maybe he's breaking this story in the Middle East because he knows he wouldn't get any credit in the US because of, say, major prejudice on the part of the american mass media. Hmmm.....still wanna sell that bridge?
Dilly_sAm Wrote:Gov'tMule Wrote:mrlayance Wrote:Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted in the Saudi daily al-Medina Wednesday as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army.
"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.
...........................
Abou Rabeh was interviewed in Lebanon.
Okay, an ex-Sgt. Lebenese descent, being interviewed in in Arabic in Lebanon tells a Saudi newspaper this story.
Okay.
You wanna buy a cheap bridge in Brooklyn?
Yes. Clearly he is lying, as are all Arabs, Sand-niggers, Towel-heads, Rag-mops, w/e. (plz note the sarcasm)
We'd better make extra sure he's not a terrorist and throw him for a spell in Leavenworth.
We're not gonna mention that he is an ex-Marine, which isn't exactly what you become if you hate the US. Or the fact tht he made Sgt. Obviously only gooks and terrorists can make Sgt.
What we will mention is how the american popular media would have you believe that everyone of Arabic descent is shifty and untrustworthy, terroristic, even. You must be lying if you speak Arabic. Nevermind that one of the UN's greatest secretary generals, Boutros Boutros Ghali was Egyptian, and Arabic was his native tongue. But what am I saying, the UN are a bunch of sissies.
Maybe he's breaking this story in the Middle East because he knows he wouldn't get any credit in the US because of, say, major prejudice on the part of the american mass media. Hmmm.....still wanna sell that bridge?
I would suggest you watch out how high you hold Mr. Ghali, he is coming under alot of heat in the UN Oil-for-Food investigation.
Actually, his story will get little play not (only) because of press bias but because its only verifiable fact does not check out. No US Marine is listed as being killed on 12 Dec -- and despite what you would think, that sort of thing is hard to hide. That casts serious doubt on his story.
It is possible that the story is true, and it is similar to another story which surfaced earlier, but there is no real proof. This is one guy with a story; that's no more newsworthy than a guy who claims he was kidnapped by space aliens.
The original story was newsworthy, and actually had supporting evidence, e.g. the timing of the Kurdish announcement that they had captured Saddam. This story has nothing but this guy's word, and the facts just don't check out.
I love how these politically charged threads invariably end up in a giant pissing-contest between Violet, Skippy, Esthete and J....I guess you guys are the only ones that seem to get off on one-upping each other time and time again....Dame throws his 2 cents in...someone gang rapes him...then he leaves the thread, ultimately leaving the 4 of you to slug it out.
I must say you are all very knowledgeable in your own right and manage to sling your theories together coherently...it's always an interesting read....even though I have to hit the dictionary quite often!!!
goulet!!!
prz Wrote:Dilly_sAm Wrote:Gov'tMule Wrote:mrlayance Wrote:Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted in the Saudi daily al-Medina Wednesday as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army.
"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.
...........................
Abou Rabeh was interviewed in Lebanon.
Okay, an ex-Sgt. Lebenese descent, being interviewed in in Arabic in Lebanon tells a Saudi newspaper this story.
Okay.
You wanna buy a cheap bridge in Brooklyn?
Yes. Clearly he is lying, as are all Arabs, Sand-niggers, Towel-heads, Rag-mops, w/e. (plz note the sarcasm)
We'd better make extra sure he's not a terrorist and throw him for a spell in Leavenworth.
We're not gonna mention that he is an ex-Marine, which isn't exactly what you become if you hate the US. Or the fact tht he made Sgt. Obviously only gooks and terrorists can make Sgt.
What we will mention is how the american popular media would have you believe that everyone of Arabic descent is shifty and untrustworthy, terroristic, even. You must be lying if you speak Arabic. Nevermind that one of the UN's greatest secretary generals, Boutros Boutros Ghali was Egyptian, and Arabic was his native tongue. But what am I saying, the UN are a bunch of sissies.
Maybe he's breaking this story in the Middle East because he knows he wouldn't get any credit in the US because of, say, major prejudice on the part of the american mass media. Hmmm.....still wanna sell that bridge?
I would suggest you watch out how high you hold Mr. Ghali, he is coming under alot of heat in the UN Oil-for-Food investigation.
Perhaps Mr. Ghali was not the best example. However, my point still remains; we can't discredit his story merely because he is Arabic.
And while Skippy's evidence that no-one is listed as dead on the day it was supposed to occur, I have to believe that if they would go through the trouble of faking his capture, they would try and cover their traces, right?
I got into this post because someone said they didn't care if their government lied to them, as long as they got Saddam. The rest is details....
When you don't list casualties, relatives and friends notice. If they wanted to cover their tracks, they would list the guy as dead but say it happened on a routine patrol.
The only real possibility would be that he was special forces (which would make sense, given their mission); their casualties don't get reported.
What it boils down to, though, is that the story is unverifiable, which is a sound reason for it not to get coverage.