Desert Hawk said this in post #80 : Can you just imagine Jiminy fighting the war on terror of today!
All depends on how you view the strengths and weaknesses of Carter's foreign policy at the time. Some claim his intervention in Afghanistan ushered in the begining of the end of the Soviet Union. I don't buy it but some do, and certainly Reagan embrassed Carter's policy of supporting the Mujahadeen and attracking Mulisms from all over the world to join the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
US gung-ho foreign policy is nothing new, but Iraq has been an enormous disaster that has done nothing to combat the threat from terrorism and has only popularised hard-line Islamic politics and anti-western sentiment in the region. I can't imagine anyone doing a worse job than Bush has done over the last 5 years, and that includes Carter. But who knows?
Excerp from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, 1998
quote:
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.
nikiTa said this in post #81 :
[B]And I would have to also say, "Can you imagine Reagan, Bush 1, or Clinton fighting the war on terror today?
Do you guys think terrorism started with 9/11? And is it toughness rather than smartness that you guys like or what? If you think being gung-ho and tough is what makes a good President then Clinton's sanctions in Iraq killed half a million innocent Iraqis, many of them children. Reagan was invading and attacking countries, aiding and training plenty of right wing murderering, raping, torturing organisations in South America all through the 80's. Bush I obviously sent the US military into Iraq in the early 90's - anyone remember the highway of death and bulldozers being used to bury Iraqi soldiers alive? So yes I can imagine any US president being able to find some way to go to war, economically and militarily and kill lots of people.
quote:
In fact, they all had their opportunities but for some reason, left it up to Bush II.
I think that is a lame duck. And I don't in any way blame Bush II for this.
He inherited a mess.
Bush chose to attack Iraq. He chose to invade and occupy Iraq. Bush created the mess that we see every day in Iraq. And he doesn't have the first clue how to get out of this mess without humiliating America.
To get another perspective other than the usual media view of Iraq read, the Baghdad Burning Blog, written by a young woman who lives in Baghdad. This posted Thursday, February 02, 2006
Iraqi election results were officially announced nearly two weeks ago, but it was apparent from the day of elections which political parties would come out on top. I’m not even going to bother listing the different types of election fraud witnessed all over Iraq- it’s a tedious subject and one we’ve been discussing for well over a month.
The fact that a Shia, Iran-influenced religious list came out on top is hardly surprising. I’m surprised, however, at Iraqis who seem to be astonished at the outcome. Didn’t we, over the last three years, see this coming? Iranian influenced clerics had a strong hold right from 2003. Their militias were almost instantly incorporated into the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defense as soon a move was made to create new Iraqi security forces. Sistani has been promoting them from day one.
After nearly three years of a failing occupation, I personally believe that many Iraqis voted for religious groups because it was counted as a vote against America and the occupation itself. No matter what American policy makers say to their own public- and no matter how many pictures Rumsfeld and Condi take with our fawning politicians- most Iraqis do not trust Americans. America as a whole is viewed as a devilish country that is, at best, full of self-serving mischief towards lesser countries and, at worst, an implementer of sanctions, and a warmongering invader.
Even Iraqis who believe America is here to help (and they seem to have grown fewer in number these days), believe that it helps not out of love for Iraqis, but out of self-interest and greed.
gaboman said this in post #82 : Uh... are... you... uh... seriously asking... because... umm... he's, like, dead, and uh... before that he... uh... had Alzheimers... You know what, this's making me seriously uncomfortable.
I understand the point of your post though.
No, Gabo. I am not seriously asking. Just seeing if anyone reads my posts, and if they do... are they alert and awake!
Good job, glad you both read and got the point of my post.
Do you guys think terrorism started with 9/11? And is it toughness rather than smartness that you guys like or what? If you think being gung-ho and tough is what makes a good President then Clinton's sanctions in Iraq killed half a million innocent Iraqis, many of them children. Reagan was invading and attacking countries, aiding and training plenty of right wing murderering, raping, torturing organisations in South America all through the 80's. Bush I obviously sent the US military into Iraq in the early 90's - anyone remember the highway of death and bulldozers being used to bury Iraqi soldiers alive? So yes I can imagine any US president being able to find some way to go to war, economically and militarily and kill lots of people.
H@ts, Thanks for fleshing out my point. If you hadn't noticed I was pointing out the very facts you mentioned. In fact my previous post on the preceding page mentioned one of these terrorist acts.
quote:
The terrorist attack killed 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members who were stationed there to help keep the peace in a nation torn by war.
H@ts, are you basing your arguments on us vs them, US vs Europe, US vs Iraq, Christians vs Muslims, West vs East, North vs South, up vs down, right wing vs left wing, rich vs poor, liberal vs conservative, etc?
Are these divisions between people so impassable that we always have to focus on such things, and cannot even see when we actually agree on something?
Come on, H@ts, everything in the world isn't always competition, master over slave, people wanting to snuff the other out! Gee, I am beginning to think you are from Detroit, man!
Besides, H@ts, before the Cold War, the US had animosity toward the Communism of the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, etc....
Before WWII, the world held animosity toward Germany....
My point is...there are always events leading up to a declared war...even though one hasn't been declared yet.
Bush chose to attack Iraq. He chose to invade and occupy Iraq. Bush created the mess that we see every day in Iraq. And he doesn't have the first clue how to get out of this mess without humiliating America.
Bush I did what his daddy should have completed in 1991. Bush I, like I said, and I will say again, inherited the mess from the previous 4 presidents.
nikiTa said this in post #81 :
And I would have to also say, "Can you imagine Reagan, Bush 1, or Clinton fighting the war on terror today?
In fact, they all had their opportunities but for some reason, left it up to Bush II.
I think that is a lame duck. And I don't in any way blame Bush II for this.
He inherited a mess.
Besides, Jimmy is still in the game...meeting with Haitians....getting into the Israeli/Palestine mess....
Please, don't get me goin' any more on Jiminy. And although your opinion of Reagan and Bush Sr. differ from mine, at least we may agree to some degree that Bush Jr. has has the cohones to take a no-appeasement stance against the radical Islamic cancer threatening our children this very day.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Let us win glory for ourselves, or yield it to others.
Desert Hawk said this in post #88 : Bush Jr. has has the cohones to take a no-appeasement stance against the radical Islamic cancer threatening our children this very day.
You are so ludicrously wide of the mark. Could you please enlighten me on exactly what radical Islamic cancer was in Iraq threatening your children before Bush attacked the country?
nikiTa: H@ts, Thanks for fleshing out my point. If you hadn't noticed I was pointing out the very facts you mentioned. In fact my previous post on the preceding page mentioned one of these terrorist acts.
Apoligies, I didn't see your other post.
quote:
My point is...there are always events leading up to a declared war...even though one hasn't been declared yet.
I don't know what you're saying. There is usually propoganda and public manipulation before a government can get support for a war. Bush and his admin had a clear agenda to invade Iraq well before September 11th, and manipulated and used public fears after 9/11 and Al Qaeda to get the support they needed to carry out the action. Look up the stuff in PNAC, written by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Lewis Libby etc, which clearly states what their intentions were long before Bin Laden became a household name. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbour. With that attack they could pretty much carry out whatever they wanted and get the public to back them.
They bamboozled the American public because there was never any threat from Iraq, there were no WMD, there were no links to terror.
But look at Iraq today. Iraq now has close links with Iran and much of the South is in the hands of Islamic militias, clerics and hard-line pro-Iranian Islamic fundamentalists. Going by the recent Bush polls, a majority of Americans are now begining to realise what a disater this misaventure was.
quote:
Bush I did what his daddy should have completed in 1991. Bush I, like I said, and I will say again, inherited the mess from the previous 4 presidents.
I'd agree, past administrations and US foriegn policy has played its part in leading to an unhealthy hostility between the US and countries in the Gulf. But if terrorism is the new threat that governments are going to use to manipulate pubic opinion then the least the public and medai should do is strongly question policy to make sure politicians are being straight. Bush jnr was president when America was attacked on 9/11. There were no links between 9/11, Al Qaeda and Iraq. Bush lied and the America people and media let him.
02-28-2006 09:46 AM
Huh!?
