Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
What should we ask of Bush II.2?
When George W Bush was reelected President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his second administration? As important: what should we demand of it? See TGA's Guardian columns on this subject |
 |
Debate - Page 11/12
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "My solution is
quite simply: keep the US military presence in Iraq, be prepared to stay
on a few years or even a few decades (so forget about any exit strategy
as of yet)."
What a coincidence. That's exactly what I have always advocated.
Michel Bastian wrote: "I´d even say send in some European troops
as well, even if it´s just a token force, but unfortunately nobody
important ever listens to me ;-)."
Another astounding coincidence. I'd be happy to send in some European
troops as well. Unfortunately, nobody important in Europe listens to me,
either. You need to take your suggestions to Chirac, Schroeder and the
rest of the European leaders. They're the ones who are refusing to commit
any troops at all to Iraq, even if it's just a token force.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Try to get the security situation stabilized
over time (and cross your fingers it won´t get worse) by preventing
terrorism as far as possible. In the meantime, get the Europeans to build
up the civilian side of things so basic commodities (like food, housing,
medical care etc.) can be provided on a regular basis (people who are
well fed and taken care of will be less prone to plant IEDs on roadsides).
Build schools, staff them with western-educated Iraqi teachers who understand
their way of life AND the western political culture if at all possible.
Work with moderate mullahs and imams on that so you won´t be seen
as imposing your own, western rule on education. Then educate the young
Iraqis so they won´t be prone to listen to fundamentalist mullahs
anymore. For the adult Iraqis, show them through example what a democratic
society can do. Try to integrate all parties into the political process,
even those that are now fuelling the insurrection. Sounds like a fond
dream that´ll never happen? It probably is, but I can´t see
any other possibility to get out of this nightmare."
Another amazing coincidence: we agree again. I believe we're proceeding
on all of these things. Michel Bastian wrote: "What bugs me is that
the Bush administration makes no effort (or no sufficient effort) to understand
these people and thinks it´s enough just to transplant western political
systems into Iraq and the people will welcome it with open arms, hugs
and kisses."
We're not transplanting a Western political system into Iraq. They're
developing their own version of democracy and trying to allocate political
posts to all the major political groups in the country (Kurds, Shi'ites,
and even some Sunnis). The Iraqi people are indeed welcoming democracy,
albeit cautiously and guardedly.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastianwrote: "For the hundreth
time: was there a reason for the Bush administration to invade Iraq before
all the other countries run by a murderous dictator? Yes, there was: self-interest,
greed for power and oil, a desire to show the world "who the boss
is" after France, Germany and Russia had the cheek to oppose him
and a need to save face once it became apparent the reasons given for
going to war were erroneous."
And for the hundredth time: Yes, there was a very compelling reason for
the Bush Administration to liberate Iraq before all the other countries
run by a murderous dictator. Not self-interest, not greed for power or
oil, not any silly so-called desire to show the world 'who the boss is',
and not any need to 'save face'. We had patiently tolerated Saddam Hussein's
12+ years of flouting U.N. Security Council resolutions, stealing from
the U.N. 'Oil For Palaces' program, murdering dissidents, oppressing thousands
of people and generally thumbing his nose at the U.N. and at America.
Enough is enough.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Stop this fairy tale about Bush being "the
great liberator of the Iraqi people" and the "bringer of freedom
and democracy"." No. It's not a 'fairy tale' at all. Bush IS
the Liberator of the Iraqi people. He IS the bringer of freedom of democracy.
The Iraqi people ARE free. The Iraqi people HAVE been liberated from a
tyrant. Deal with it.
Michel Bastian wrote: "If Bush was so keen on bringing the light
of democracy to the world, all right, what is he going to do about all
those other countries where injustice, poverty and totalitarism run rampant?
Nothing? Surprise, surprise."
Bush is already having a huge impact on those other countries where totalitarianism
runs rampant. Bush went on record as challenging Arab leaders in the Middle
East to grant their peoples more freedom and democracy. And they heard
him -- loud and clear. They don't like it, but they heard him. And that's
one reason why Democracy is suddenly breaking out all over the Middle
East. Surprise, surprise indeed. Bush and the neo-cons were right all
along.
Michel Bastian, France
> I'm not disagreeing with that, Michel.
In fact, I agree completely. I'm just saying that considering where the
Iraqi people started from, all things considered, the Iraqis are off to
a pretty good start in my opinion. Sure, they're not a perfect democracy,
yet. Neither was France when it first got started. And an awful lot of
people in France kinda lost their heads over it (literally) before France
got it sorted out. Okay, so the Iraqis are at the initial stages of forming
a government and drafting a Constitution. Cut them some slack, Michel.
the point I am making here is not that life in Iraq is "perfect",
because God knows, it isn't, or that the country is a fully formed and
functioning democracy, because it isn't. It took us 200+ years to get
to where we are with regard to democracy, and God only knows, we've made
mistakes along the way. The point here, Michel, is that all of this difficult,
dangerous, demanding and less than pleasant task of converting a totalitarian
state into a fledgling democracy would have taken a lot longer, cost a
lot more and would have been infinitely bloodier if we and the Iraqi people
had not first made a "start" at it. You have to start somewhere,
Michel. For better or for worse, intentionally or otherwise, the start
has been made, and now we have to see it through.
Incredible, we actually seem to agree. Well, you can´t say political
forums aren´t good for something :-). Perhaps we should all forget
about this "Invasion vs. Liberation"-argument and concentrate
on the next steps. I hear the Marines have finally wised up and distributed
so-called "Culture Smart Cards" to their GIs, where the basics
of iraqi society are explained to them. About time too. I read them, and
I found I probably would have messed up in a major way as well (starting
with the "thumbs up" sign which is rude to an Iraqi, apparently).
See www.spiegel.de
for details. The article´s in german, but there is a set of photos
of said cards in english (just click on the imbedded map).
Michel Bastian, France
Michel Bastian wrote: "But the Guantanamo
inmates aren´t given even the benefit of court martial rules. They
have no access to a lawyer while getting interrogated, they are driven
to depositions under torture (or "stress inducing methods",
if you prefer), they are detained for years on end without charge or trial
and I could go on endlessly with all the breaches of procedure. Look who´s
"morally gyrating" now."
Yes Michel, I agree, let's look. Apparently the French government, which
has been so loud in its condemnation of American actions in Iraq and the
detaining of illegal combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, has decded that
"it" likes the practice of detaining potential terrorists indefinitely,
too. You know what they say, Michel -- imitation is the sincerest form
of flattery.
Errm, no, sorry, but I have to disagree on that. They´re not imitating
Guantanamo. Those guys have a lawyer, they are not intimidated or tortured
and they can´t be held indefinitely. They are (or have been; it´s
not clear from the article) in what is called "garde à vue"
in french, and it means they have to be released after 4 days max (for
terrorists; it´s shorter for other crimes) or remanded in custody
to either a prosecutor (equivalent of an american district attorney) or
a judge. During that time, they have to be read their rights (within the
first three hours of custody and before any interrogation takes place),
given access to one of their close family, to a physician and to a lawyer.
Their rights are the same as in american criminal procedure. Particularly
they have the right to remain silent. There are strict legal procedures
for remanding them into custody, and you can bet their lawyer will have
watched over the procedure like a hawk.
If they´re remanded into custody of a prosecutor, there has to be
a trial within 6 weeks at most. If they´re deferred to a judge (which
is probably what will happen or has already happened here) the judge has
to decide whether it´s legal for them to be detained for the duration
of the "instruction" (french for criminal investigation) or
whether they have to be released.
That´s more or less the way it´s normally done in any western
democracy. It´s not the way it´s being done in Guantanamo.
Michel Bastian, France
I wrote:
> Errm, no, sorry, but I have to disagree on that. They´re not
imitating Guantanamo. Those guys have a lawyer, they are not intimidated
or tortured and they can´t be held indefinitely. <...>
If they´re remanded into custody of a prosecutor, there has to be
a trial within 6 weeks at most. If they´re deferred to a judge (which
is probably what will happen or has already happened here) the judge has
to decide whether it´s legal for them to be detained for the duration
of the "instruction" (french for criminal investigation) or
whether they have to be released.Oops, I seem to have overlooked that
there is already a court ruling, so it seems they have already been put
into custody for the duration of the investigation.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Take Prof. Avi
Shlaim (Iraqi-born Israeli), for example. Quote: 'This is one of the great
contradictions in the neocon outlook on the Middle East: the belief that
democracy would lead to pro-Western and pro-Israeli governments in the
Arab world. In fact, the reverse is true. The Arab ruling elites are much
more pro-American in their attitude to Israel than the Arab street. The
rulers are better informed and more pragmatic. The Arabs and the wider
Muslim world are bitterly hostile to Israel because of the oppression
of the Palestinians; therefore this is a misconception of the neoconservatives,
to think that Arab democracies would be friendlier toward the West and
Israel.' "
Mr. Shlaim is certainly entitled to his opinion. The reason he's entitled
to his opinion is because he's living in Israel, a nation which (unlike
almost every Arab nation in the Middle East) provides its citizens with
constitutional rights to freedom of speech. Unfortunately his opinion
is just that -- an opinion, not something that is grounded in facts. His
statement "The Arab ruling elites are much more pro-American in their
attitude to Israel" makes no sense; the Arab ruling elites may be
more pragmatic, less ideologically fanatical and more pro-American than
the 'Arab street', but (with a very few exceptions) their attitude toward
Israel is nothing short of unrelenting hatred.
In fact, it is the Arab ruling elites who fuel and actively stoke the
hatred for America and Israel that is manifested by the so-called 'Arab
street'. Who do you think controls the press, the newspapers, the television
stations, the radio stations, in most Arab and Muslim countries? The government,
which in most Arab countries is controlled by the Arab ruling elites.
Who sets the tone of those government-controlled media outlets? The governments,
of course. Arab governments discovered long ago that it was far easier
to distract ordinary people in those countries with endless hatred of
Israel, than it was to have to face the wrath of their own people or answer
to their own peoples' bitterly disappointed expectations. It always was
(and still is) much easier and safer for Arab governments to 'bounce'
and redirect their citizens' pent-up frustrations outward, at other countries
and other peoples (like Israel) than it is for Arab governments to contemplate
having to answer to their own citizens.
That's why Arab governments from Egypt and Saudi Arabia to Iran hate and
fear the explosion of free and digital communications -- uncensored TV,
satellite dishes, cable channels, text-messaging on cell phones, the Internet.
They can't screen them, they can't censor them, they can't filter them,
they can't block them, they can't control them, they can't stop them.
And they hate and fear that those independent and uncontrolled communications
sources might stop fueling endless hatred of Israel, and start asking
sensitive questions that Arab governments don't want to answer -- like,
why most Arab countries are still ruled by unelected dictatorships, while
the supposedly 'weak' Jews have a freely-elected government and a free
press.
Incidentally, the Arabs and the wider Muslim world are not bitterly hostile
to Israel because of any alleged so-called "oppression of the Palestinians".
They're hostile to Israel for the same reason they were hostile 50 years
ago. Namely: they hate Jews and want to kill and destroy Jews. That's
why Arab regimes gave sanctuary to fleeing Nazis; they were on the same
side.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
To Michel Bastian: Looks like the Iraqis have
a somewhat different view of sanctions than do many people outside of
Iraq.....
SANCTIONS PREFERRED TO 'OIL FOR FOOD' CORRUPTION: IRAQI AMBASSADOR TO
U.N.
UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations should have let the Iraqi people suffer
under international sanctions rather than allow Saddam Hussein to skim
billions off the Oil for Food Program, Iraq's ambassador to the UN has
told the makers of a documentary airing on CBC.
Had we had no program at all, I submit that we might have gotten to the
point of removing Saddam earlier, or creating conditions inside Iraq for
him to be toppled," Samir Sumaidaie told journalist Terence McKenna
for a documentary that aired Monday night on CBC's The National.
The second half of the documentary, called "Bribes from Baghdad",
will run Tuesday night, also on The National.
"As it happened, as the years went by the people of Iraq got weaker
and weaker and Saddam and his regime got stronger and stronger,"
Sumaidaie said.
An investigation led by the United States Congress has found that Saddam
used much of the money to bribe senior UN officials, politicians, journalists
and diplomats around the world.
Money meant to ensure Iraqis had access to food and medicine in the wake
of Saddam's 1991 invasion of Kuwait instead paid for the building of new
presidential palaces and scores of new Mercedes vehicles for Saddam's
supporters and relatives.
Bribes for Baghdad traces how the Oil for Food program started to go wrong
shortly after Iraqi oil started being sold to fund food and humanitarian
purchases in early 1997.
Among the main points unearthed by investigators:
- Iraqi officials started demanding kickbacks of at least 10 per cent
from every company that received a contract to supply food or medicine
to the country or sell its oil.
- Commodities such as wheat and rice were sold to Iraq at inflated prices
that were approved by Saddam's regime, apparently to fund kickbacks while
still letting the companies make substantial profits.
- Medicines from countries like France and Jordan were marked up by between
50 per cent and 175 per cent, yet were often past their expiry dates.
- Politicians, journalists, diplomats, the Russian government and even
Vatican officials were granted allocations of Iraqi oil as a thank-you
for lobbying against the continuation of international sanctions.
Among those implicated in selling those allocations to oil companies at
a substantial personal profit were former French interior minister Charles
Pasqua and Russia's ultra-nationalist party leader, Vladimir Zhirinovsky
www.cbc.ca
Mark Wentworth Staples, Montana, USA
My first response to the question; What should be asked of George Bush?... please don't speak to the public, your lies and stammering as you avoid honestly answering the simplest of questions is embarassing to all Americans. my second response is, how can anyone ask anything of someone who has been bought out by big business? How does any one ask anything of a president who beleives he is on a mission from God? As a citizen of the U.S., a Quaker at heart and a father who has had his children taken from him by a corrupt system which disregards the "constitutional" rights of it's people, it would be fruitless to ask anything of this administration but to wither and die
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Just a word about
those Holocaust and Nazi Germany remarks of yours, though: if you had
even the faintest inkling of what impact the Holocaust and the war had
on the German psyche and on Europe in general you´d be red in the
face with shame right now. The current mindset in the Central European
population is due in great part to the aftermath of the Holocaust. It´s
the main reason why we´re running riot against the Bush administration´s
prison camps and torture orders. Too many bad memories. However, knowing
you, you couldn´t be bothered. After all, all this stuff is going
on outside the US, isn´t it?"
I have a few words to say about my Holocaust and Nazi Germany remarks,
too, Michel.
Believe it or not, Michel, I really do understand the deeply traumatic
effects on the European mindset caused by World War II. I really do "get"
the fact that the the war in general and the Holocaust in particular had
wrenching effects on the European psyche.
I know that the Second World War permanently scarred most Europeans with
a deeply-held and reflexive distaste for the horror and sorrow of war,
the wastage of lives, the destruction that war brings. And that's a good
thing, given the 55 million or so people who died in WW2 and the 19 million
or so people who died in WW1, wars that both began on the European continent.
In many respects, Europe has learned, grown, progressed and advanced in
ways that would have been unimaginable before the war. Germany's done
the best at coming to terms with its past, and I think they've done an
admirable job of it. France still has its problems with acknowledging
the past, particularly with regard to its Vichy history, but at least
they're making the effort.
Yes, it's great that Europeans did learn not to start horrific conflicts
on spur-of-the-moment pretexts. Yes, it's great that Europeans learned,
or re-learned, that War should be the last possible means of resolving
conflicts, after any and all other methods have been tried and have failed.
I don't have a problem with that, not at all.
HOWEVER -- and herein lies the problem, Michel -- in many ways, Europeans
appear not to have learned a damn thing from the tragedies of the war
and of the Holocaust. And that's extremely troubling to me.
You see, Michel, War itself is not the Enemy. It's tragic and unfortunate,
but War itself is not the Enemy. War is not a "Disease", War
is a Symptom of an underlying problem. War is something that should be
avoided if possible. But it's not necessarily something that should be
avoided "at all costs". There are some very valid reasons for
engaging in armed conflict. And there are things that can be worse than
War itself -- much, much worse, in fact. And one of those much-worse things
is the price of appeasing murderous Dictators and Tyrants. That's a much-worse
thing, whose price is usually paid in innocent human lives.
Had France, England, Belgium, Austria etc. stood up to Hitler before Sept.
1 1939, World War II might not even have ever happened. Had these countries
been willing to use force to invade and overthrow Hitler, 50 million deaths
could have been avoided. Hitler would almost certainly have caved, or
backed down, and Nazi militarism could have been halted in its tracks.
But, you see, Michel, the Western powers were so terrified by the prospect
of war, so haunted by the loss of life in WW1, that they and their leaders
were the ones who caved. They thought that just about anything would be
preferable to war, including appeasing and emboldening a homicidal Nazi
lunatic. So they sold out the Danzig Corridor to Hitler; they sold out
the Czechs to the Nazis. They would have done just about anything to avoid
a conflictm, and Hitler knew it. And by the time they finally showed some
backbone and stood up to Hitler, they had so emboldened him that they
made WW2 almost inevitable, when they could have squashed him like a bug
if they'd just launched an attack across Germany's borders a few years
before.
Fifty years or so later, what have Europeans learned from this? Nothing.
When Slobodan Milosevic started stirring up hatreds, launching wars against
Muslims and Croats, what did Europe do? Nothing. Did they call his bluff?
Did they threaten to invade? Nope. The Europeans collectively wrung their
hands, and talked about how they "must stand up to this impending
evil", and made nice talk at conferences. But nobody did anything.
And because nobody did anything, a thug who could have been squashed like
a bug was allowed to start a conflict that killed 200,000+ people. And
please don't strain credulity by suggesting it was a "U.N. problem",
because it wasn't; it was a wholely European problem. There is no separate
nation known as the "U.N.", Michel. The U.N. doesn't have any
troops of its own. It relies on member states for its manpower. And it
was European troops under U.N. command who stood by and did nothing while
thousands of Muslims were slaughtered at Sbrenica, who did nothing when
the Serbs re-created concentration camps and "ethnic cleansing".
That's why the Dutch government, whose troops stood by and let that massacre
happen, resigned. And once again, it fell to America to step in. That
conflict wasn't ended by "civilized European diplomacy". It
was ended by American bombs. We were sufficiently "bothered"
by it to get involved and do something about it. And all of that "ethnic
cleansing", all of that genocide, was going on outside of the United
States, Michel. So kindly don't presume to claim that I don't care about
what happens outside of our borders, Michel. As they say in the South,
"That dog won't hunt".
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
see also:
IRAQ PARLIAMENT TAPS KURD FOR PRESIDENCY.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7374977/
Michel Bastian, France
to Phil Karasick:
> I know that the Second World War permanently scarred most Europeans
with a deeply-held and reflexive distaste for the horror and sorrow of
war, the wastage of lives, the destruction that war brings. And that's
a good thing, given the 55 million or so people who died in WW2 and the
19 million or so people who died in WW1, wars that both began on the European
continent.
You´re mixing things up here. You´re talking about our dislike
for war. I was talking about our reaction to Bush´s extralegal prisons,
mainly. However, since we´ve switched subjects, I´ll comment
on that, too.
> In many respects, Europe has learned, grown, progressed and advanced
in ways that would have been unimaginable before the war. Germany's done
the best at coming to terms with its past, and I think they've done an
admirable job of it. France still has its problems with acknowledging
the past, particularly with regard to its Vichy history, but at least
they're making the effort.
Well, for once I have to agree with you.
> Yes, it's great that Europeans did learn not to start horrific conflicts
on spur-of-the-moment pretexts.
They weren´t "spur of the moment", but in essence, you´re
right.
> Yes, it's great that Europeans learned, or re-learned, that War should
be the last possible means of resolving conflicts, after any and all other
methods have been tried and have failed. I don't have a problem with that,
not at all.
Good, because I was under the impression you had.
> HOWEVER -- and herein lies the problem, Michel -- in many ways, Europeans
appear not to have learned a damn thing from the tragedies of the war
and of the Holocaust. And that's extremely troubling to me.
You see, Michel, War itself is not the Enemy. It's tragic and unfortunate,
but War itself is not the Enemy. War is not a "Disease", War
is a Symptom of an underlying problem. War is something that should be
avoided if possible. But it's not necessarily something that should be
avoided "at all costs". There are some very valid reasons for
engaging in armed conflict. And there are things that can be worse than
War itself -- much, much worse, in fact. And one of those much-worse things
is the price of appeasing murderous Dictators and Tyrants. That's a much-worse
thing, whose price is usually paid in innocent human lives.
I understand your historical argument (though I don´t agree with
it, but that´s another topic). However, you´re mixing apples
and oranges again on this one. The Holocaust has nothing to do with our
position on war, since it wasn´t caused by the war. It was caused
by the nazi´s twisted racial "ideologies" as well as centuries´
worth of institutional anti-semitism in Europe and in the world at large.
Therefore, it has a bearing on our position towards human rights, torture
etc. If you want to talk about our reluctance to go to war, there are
other causes for that. The second world war itself is one of the major
causes.
> Fifty years or so later, what have Europeans learned from this? Nothing.
When Slobodan Milosevic started stirring up hatreds, launching wars against
Muslims and Croats, what did Europe do? Nothing. Did they call his bluff?
Did they threaten to invade? Nope. The Europeans collectively wrung their
hands, and talked about how they "must stand up to this impending
evil", and made nice talk at conferences. But nobody did anything.
And because nobody did anything, a thug who could have been squashed like
a bug was allowed to start a conflict that killed 200,000+ people.
There is no question that the european states failed to act as they should
have early on in the Balkan conflict. It didn´t have anything to
do with any kind of "inbred" pacifism at all costs, though.
We did send troops to Somalia, to Koweit, to Afghanistan, and in the end,
we even sent troops to the Balkans after all. The problem in the Balkans
was the fact that Europe did not have a unified political body and command
structure that would allow them to a. speak with one voice in foreign
affairs and b. coordinate their military efforts. They didn´t take
matters in their own hands, but lost themselves in internal quarrels,
stood by and waited for the UN and NATO to act. When the UN finally did
act, they had to call in the US because no single european nation had
the troops necessary for peacekeeping operations in Yugoslavia and the
militaries of the european member states were not coordinated enough to
send a credible combined task force.
> And please don't strain credulity by suggesting it was a "U.N.
problem", because it wasn't; it was a wholely European problem.
You´re right, it shouldn´t have become a UN problem. If the
european member states had acted earlier and in concert, much of the conflict
could probably have been avoided.
> And it was European troops under U.N. command who stood by and did
nothing while thousands of Muslims were slaughtered at Sbrenica, who did
nothing when the Serbs re-created concentration camps and "ethnic
cleansing". That's why the Dutch government, whose troops stood by
and let that massacre happen, resigned. And once again, it fell to America
to step in. That conflict wasn't ended by "civilized European diplomacy".
It was ended by American bombs.
The massacre at Srebrenica was ended neither by diplomacy (european or
otherwise) nor by "american bombs". It wasn´t ended at
all. It stopped after there were no more muslims to kill in the city.
But I agree that US military involvment was a major factor in peacekeeping
operations in Bosnia, and for that Europe should be thankful.
BUT: the problem with your argument is that you´re using one failure
by the EU to justify the Iraq invasion. Failing in the Balkans doesn´t
mean not supporting the Iraq war was wrong, same as failing in Vietnam
can´t be used to denigrate US involvment in Bosnia. These conflicts
have nothing to do with one another. You just cannot compare them. And
the same goes for your WWII/"appeasement" argument. You´re
deliberately mixing things up in order to justify an unjustifiable war.
And you´re doing what you (and the Bush administration) always do:
shut your eyes to US failures and blame them on "the europeans",
particularly the French and Germans. The right way would be to admit the
US were wrong to invade Iraq, same as the EU was wrong not to act earlier
and more forcefully in the Balkans.
C. Martin, American
I'd first like to note that, yes, as one person
observed, many of American foreign policy issues actually touch on religion.Our
religion influences our lifestyle, our education, and,yes, our politics.Issues
such as abortion and gay rights are intrinsically connected with religion,
like it or not, and because religion is such an integral part of our lives
it affects American government directly. As one political scientist once
said, the separation of church and state in America isn't a wall, it's
a picket fence. Why is religion so important to us? I personally believe
that it has something to do with three thousand people dying suddenly
in the space of a few minutes. Events like that tend to jolt you with
images of your own mortality.
Now,what can Europeans "demand" from George W. Bush? First of
all, and at the risk of sounding arrogant, we have the strongest military
in the world. Nobody is really in a position to "demand" anything
from us militarily. Second of all, most Americans are currently disgusted
with Europe anyway given their lack of progress with Iran and refusal
to acknowledge that so-called "hard power" actually works. Until
the governments of Europe can prove to American citizens that they're
actually willing to take a firm stand on something and not "ignore"
the murderer of over sixty thousand Kurds skim billions off the former
Oil-for-Food program, Americans will remain disgusted. Since Bush is a
representative of the American people, he can't exactly accede to any
European demands.
I'd also like to point out that since Bush was elected with a 53% majority
that most Americans obviously agree to his approach in politics. Anyone
who doesn't like it is welcome to give up their passport and go live elsewhere...France,
I'm sure, would welcome so-called American "refugees"
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
>To Michel Bastian: Looks like the Iraqis have a somewhat different
view of sanctions than do many people outside of Iraq.....
Errm, no, one Iraqi does. Not surprisingly, the one Iraqi that does is
an ambassador of the current Iraqi proto-government.
> An investigation led by the United States Congress has found that
Saddam used much of the money to bribe senior UN officials, politicians,
journalists and diplomats around the world.
Ah, right, the congressional investigation. The one commissioned by (guess
who) no less than five republican-led committees in congress. The one
that found the Voelcker report insufficiently anti-UN, but failed to turn
up anything new, though you can´t blame them for not trying hard
enough.
> Money meant to ensure Iraqis had access to food and medicine in the
wake of Saddam's 1991 invasion of Kuwait instead paid for the building
of new presidential palaces and scores of new Mercedes vehicles for Saddam's
supporters and relatives.
Bribes for Baghdad traces how the Oil for Food program started to go wrong
shortly after Iraqi oil started being sold to fund food and humanitarian
purchases in early 1997.
Among the main points unearthed by investigators:
- Iraqi officials started demanding kickbacks of at least 10 per cent
from every company that received a contract to supply food or medicine
to the country or sell its oil.Well then, that would include Halliburton,
led by none other than Dick Cheney at the time, and Ingersoll-Rand, another
well-known american company.
> - Commodities such as wheat and rice were sold to Iraq at inflated
prices that were approved by Saddam's regime, apparently to fund kickbacks
while still letting the companies make substantial profits.
Again, that would include the above-named companies.
>- Medicines from countries like France and Jordan were marked up by
between 50 per cent and 175 per cent, yet were often past their expiry
dates.
>- Politicians, journalists, diplomats, the Russian government and
even Vatican officials were granted allocations of Iraqi oil as a thank-you
for lobbying against the continuation of international sanctions.
Among those implicated in selling those allocations to oil companies at
a substantial personal profit were former French interior minister Charles
Pasqua and Russia's ultra-nationalist party leader, Vladimir Zhirinovsky
... and two american companies (not Halliburton, this time).
Moral of the story: don´t bore us with that oil-for-food affair
all the time, Phil. It´s old news, it has no bearing whatsoever
on Bush´s Iraq war and it´ll probably explode right into the
american administration´s face if we keep digging any longer.
Michel Bastian, France
To C. Martin:
> I'd first like to note that, yes, as one person observed, many of
American foreign policy issues actually touch on religion.Our religion
influences our lifestyle, our education, and,yes, our politics.Issues
such as abortion and gay rights are intrinsically connected with religion,
like it or not, and because religion is such an integral part of our lives
it affects American government directly.
You sure you´re speaking for ALL americans, really? Not just for
the Bush administration and the bible belt?
> As one political scientist once said, the separation of church and
state in America isn't a wall, it's a picket fence.
That´s true for any country. The problem with the US at the moment
is the fact that Bush is invoking god in every other decision he takes
as president. He´s institutionalizing religion over the state. Effectively,
he´s torn down even the picket fence. Not a good thing.
> Why is religion so important to us? I personally believe that it
has something to do with three thousand people dying suddenly in the space
of a few minutes.
Nope, religion in the US (as in any other country I know) was an issue
way before 9/11.
> Now,what can Europeans "demand" from George W. Bush? First
of all, and at the risk of sounding arrogant, we have the strongest military
in the world.
And that amounts to not a lot. Iraq has aptly demonstrated that no military
apparatus, not even the american one, is able to "pacify" more
than one or two other countries.
> Nobody is really in a position to "demand" anything from
us militarily.
Why should we. The world has ample other means.
> Second of all, most Americans are currently disgusted with Europe
anyway given their lack of progress with Iran and refusal to acknowledge
that so-called "hard power" actually works.
*Sigh*... you haven´t been reading a lot of the above posts, now,
have you? Ok, I´ll repeat it again just for you: the european member
states are not intrinsically averse to the use of force. See Afghanistan,
see Somalia, see Ivory Coast etc. etc. etc. We just would like to have
a very good reason before we start invading other countries and killing
their citizens. Is that too much to ask? By the way, who´s "most
americans"? I actually doubt that most americans are "disgusted"
with Europe. A few very vocal americans are.
> Until the governments of Europe can prove to American citizens that
they're actually willing to take a firm stand on something and not "ignore"
the murderer of over sixty thousand Kurds skim billions off the former
Oil-for-Food program, Americans will remain disgusted.Right, and the europeans
will remain disgusted as long as the US administration blocks the ICC
in Darfour, thereby preventing anybody being brought to justice for the
war crimes commited there, just for the sake of sabotaging the UN. The
europeans will remain disgusted when an american president justifies starting
an illegal war with rather obvious lies and when thousands of people die
because of that. The europeans will remain disgusted as long as the US
administration breaks the most basic human rights, international laws
as well as its own laws when it tortures inmates in Guantanamo Bay, Diego
Garcia, Abu Ghuraib, Baghram and god knows how many other "extralegal"
prisons. Don´t lecture us on ethics. Get your own ethics sorted
out first. > Since Bush is a representative of the American people,
he can't exactly accede to any European demands.
I'd also like to point out that since Bush was elected with a 53% majority
that most Americans obviously agree to his approach in politics.
Yup, true, the europeans won´t forget that.
> Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to give up their passport and
go live elsewhere...France, I'm sure, would welcome so-called American
"refugees".
Sure, as we would welcome any other American who wants to come over, as
long as he doesn´t wave a bible and a gun in our faces.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Well done, Michel. I know how difficult that admission must have been for you. Don't worry, though. I won't spread it around. Your reputation is safe.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "And you´re
doing what you (and the Bush administration) always do: shut your eyes
to US failures and blame them on "the europeans", particularly
the French and Germans."
|
How am I "shutting my eyes to US failures", Michel? I'd be the
first to agree that we should have sent more troops to Iraq than were
originally thought to be needed, and that we should have had a much-better
organized plan for managing and reconstructing Iraq once Saddam Hussein
was removed from power. But those are tactical problems, not strategic
failures.
|
And how am I "blaming them on 'the Europeans', particularly the French
and Germans"? I am simply pointing out, quite accurately, that had
the decision been left to European (principally French) public opinion,
Saddam Hussein would still be in charge in Iraq and would still be happily
ensconced in one of his 57 or so Presidential Palaces, sipping wine, looting
the UN "Oil-For-Palaces" programme and being serviced by his
mistresses, while Uday Hussein's people-shredder machinery of torture
continued merrily mowing down dissidents 24/7/365. I for one am glad that
is no longer the case.
Robert, Princeton, NJ
Just a quick word regarding religion and science
since it's become a big issue here in the US. Teachers are becoming afraid
to teach evolution, some textbooks contain lessons in "Creation Science",
problems addressed and solved by the Scottish Enlightenment are being
debated again.
This all very bad. Religion and science are not compatiable, and in fact,
fundementally different. Religion is about dispelling doubt. Science is
about encouraging and nuturing doubt. I fear that Americas's current course
will set back science, (especially medical science) , by 100 years.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Well done, Michel. I know how difficult that admission must have
been for you. Don't worry, though. I won't spread it around. Your reputation
is safe.
Which post are you talking about? i´m getting a little confused
here.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> And how am I "blaming them on 'the Europeans', particularly
the French and Germans"? I am simply pointing out, quite accurately,
that had the decision been left to European (principally French) public
opinion,
There you go, you´re doing it again. Public opinion against the
Iraq war was not, repeat NOT, exclusively or even principally french.
A broad front of european public opinion was against it, and that includes
public opinion in those european states that were part of the "coalition
of the willing" (i.e. notably Spain, Britain, Poland, Hungary, the
Netherlands and lately even Italy). And on top of that, there were such
"insignificant" non-european states as Russia who were staunchly
against it, too.
Now if you want to continue to single out the french because you need
a scapegoat, have a field day, but you won´t be able to hide the
fact that it wasn´t Chirac who forced Powell to present false information
to the american public, the UN and ultimately to the world in order to
justify the war. It wasn´t the french government that got it into
their heads to completely ignore the UN inspectors, and indeed the whole
UN security council and just go ahead with the war anyway. It wasn´t
France that built prisons and held trials contrary to the most basic principles
of even their own law. It´s not France´s fault that now you´re
stuck with an impossible situation in Iraq that you´ll have difficulty
getting out of, and that the image of the US has sunk to an all-time record
low in the world at large. So to put it in the words of your very esteemed
ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who btw is probably more competent
than the whole of the current Bush administration put together): "Stop
blaming France for everything."
Raetia Padrutt Guillaumet, Switzerland
That he and his warrior entourage stop lying and get facts straight, take the world seriously and stop smiling his arrogant, condesending sneer. Only then he might talk about basic values! Nobody in Europe believes anything he proclaims!!!!
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "There you go,
you´re doing it again. Public opinion against the Iraq war was not,
repeat NOT, exclusively or even principally french."
|
Okay, fine. I'll rephrase my comment:
|
"I am simply pointing out, quite correctly, that:
|
- HAD THE DECISION BEEN LEFT TO A BROAD FRONT OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC OPINION
(and that includes public opinion in those European states that were part
of the "coalition of the willing" (i.e. notably Spain, Britain,
Poland, Hungary, the Netherlands and lately even Italy) and such non-European
states as Russia):
|
Saddam Hussein WOULD STILL BE IN CHARGE OF IRAQ and WOULD STILL BE HAPPILY
ENSCONCED IN ONE OF HIS 57 OR SO PRESIDENTIAL PALACES, SIPPING WINE, LOOTING
THE U.N. "OIL-FOR-PALACES" PROGRAMME AND BEING SERVICED BY HIS
MISTRESSES, WHILE UDAY HUSSEIN'S PEOPLE-SHREDDER MACHINERY OF TORTURE
CONTINUED MERRILY MOWING DOWN DISSIDENTS 24/7/365."
|
Therefore, since:
(a) A BROAD FRONT OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC OPINION opposed this war, and
|
(b) since, had A BROAD FRONT OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC OPINION's views been allowed
to become policy, Saddam Hussein WOULD STILL BE IN CHARGE OF IRAQ and
WOULD STILL BE HAPPILY ENSCONCED IN ONE OF HIS 57 OR SO PRESIDENTIAL PALACES,
SIPPING WINE, LOOTING THE U.N. "OIL-FOR-PALACES" PROGRAMME AND
BEING SERVICED BY HIS MISTRESSES, WHILE UDAY HUSSEIN'S PEOPLE-SHREDDER
MACHINERY OF TORTURE CONTINUED MERRILY MOWING DOWN DISSIDENTS 24/7/365,
|
It is therefore my conclusion that A BROAD FRONT OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC OPINION
was totally, utterly wrong in its beliefs.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "So to put it in
the words of your very esteemed ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
(who btw is probably more competent than the whole of the current Bush
administration put together): 'Stop blaming France for everything.'
|
You have GOT to be joking. Madeleinw Albright was without question one
of the dumbest, dimmest bulbs ever to have the misfortune to hold public
office. She was a disgrace. She should have been thrown out on her ear
years ago. Her cavalier attitude toward the lives of young American servicemen
led to the disastrous, misguided and wrong decision to involve US troops
in Somalia, a tragic and wrong policy that led to the deaths of 18 U.S.
servicemen. On that basis alone, she should have been charged with negligent
homicide in the deaths of those servicemen.
|
Her imbecility was nowhere more clear than in her dealings with the far
more experienced and knowledgable Gen. Colin Powell. In an online biography
of Colin Powell, there are these details of this testy exchange between
the clueless Albright and powell:
|
"In a furious argument over Bosnia, Madeleine Albright - Clinton's
not-so-bright secretary of state - complained to Powell: "What's
the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about
if we can't use it?" Powell recounts that he thought he "would
have an aneurism" at this rhetorical question, at the very notion
that the US army consists of toy soldiers to be moved around a global
war board at the behest of the likes of Albright."
|
http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/200212160019.htm
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Okay, fine. I'll rephrase my comment:
<...>
It is therefore my conclusion that A BROAD FRONT <...>
Wrong conclusion in my opinion. We´ll never see eye to eye on whether
Iraq was right or wrong, so let´s just forget about it.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Michel Bastian wrote: "So to put it in the words of your very
esteemed ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who btw is probably
more competent than the whole of the current Bush administration put together):
'Stop blaming France for everything.'
|
> You have GOT to be joking. <...> Powell recounts that he thought
he "would have an aneurism" at this rhetorical question, at
the very notion that the US army consists of toy soldiers to be moved
around a global war board at the behest of the likes of Albright."I
agree on Colin Powell being competent (except for his blunder with the
false evidence at the UN, but that wasn´t only his fault). He was
the one bright spot in an otherwise rather dim Bush administration. Then
of course, he got kicked out by Cheney.
And of course, I disagree about Albright. She did what the whole of the
Bush administration seems to be unable to do: she talked to people before
getting out the big guns, and in their own language as well most of the
time (she´s fluent in czech, russian, french and polish). When she
did get out the big guns (like in Kosovo) it was really necessary. As
for Somalia: do you really want to add up scores? Somalia: 19 US military
personnel dead; Iraq: 1610 US military personnel dead and counting. In
short: Madeleine Albright was what the current Bush administration is
in dire need of: a top notch diplomat.
boblivinglonely, usa
Kyoto is a knife in our back just as England needs us to support her own identity. Kyoto is Japan and the rest of the world. The British are colonizers and no one can deny it. The US, rebels that won't conform to presures that shape it. How can this be. Barbaric England. Why did you send this evil to us. To the US. Eye cry. but not for you...
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "As for Somalia:
do you really want to add up scores? Somalia: 19 US military personnel
dead; Iraq: 1610 US military personnel dead and counting."
|
That's not the point. That's irrelevent. The personnel who died in Iraq,
died for a noble cause -- the liberation of a Nation, and the overthrow
of a dictator who enslaved his nation for years, if not decades, and who
was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands
of people. That's a noble and worthy cause. That's a cause worth dying
for.
|
By contrast, the troops who died in Somalia, died for nothing at all.
Theirs was a valiant but tragic and ultimately pointless sacrifice on
behalf of people who didn't want our help and who should have been rightfully
left to starve in their Islamic militia-choked nation. The fact that no
neighboring African nation was willing to risk its own troops' lives on
behalf of the Somalis should have told Clinton something.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> That's not the point. That's irrelevent. The personnel who died in
Iraq, died for a noble cause -- the liberation of a Nation, and the overthrow
of a dictator who enslaved his nation for years, if not decades, and who
was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands
of people. That's a noble and worthy cause. That's a cause worth dying
for.
|
> By contrast, the troops who died in Somalia, died for nothing at
all. Theirs was a valiant but tragic and ultimately pointless sacrifice
on behalf of people who didn't want our help and who should have been
rightfully left to starve in their Islamic militia-choked nation. The
fact that no neighboring African nation was willing to risk its own troops'
lives on behalf of the Somalis should have told Clinton something.
Right, so the Iraqis are "good muslims" because they "wanted"
to be invaded, and the Somalis are "bad muslims" who should
be left out in the desert to die horribly because they rejected the US
(which actually isn´t quite true, either, but hey, who needs facts,
right?), is that it?
Antti Vainio, Finland
Phil Karasick - monologues are dominating this site (and my fellow European Michel could also be a bit snappier). How worthy or noble your cause is, it makes me yawn after the third page. Have a point, please
Antti Vainio, Finland
C Martin said:Until the governments of Europe
can prove to American citizens that they're actually willing to take a
firm stand on something and not "ignore" the murderer of over
sixty thousand Kurds skim billions off the former Oil-for-Food program,
Americans will remain disgusted.
We Europeans didn't murder these kurdis, it was Saddam and during that
time he was America's best friend. Don't forget, Saddam was created by
USA and Britain, he was your best pal
Michel Bastian, France
To Antti Vaino:
> Phil Karasick - monologues are dominating this site (and my fellow
European Michel could also be a bit snappier). How worthy or noble your
cause is, it makes me yawn after the third page. Have a point, please.
Problem is it´s difficult to do that since Phil keeps changing subjects
all the time and there just isn´t a short answer to most questions
he raises.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "We Europeans
didn't murder these kurdis, it was Saddam and during that time he was
America's best friend. Don't forget, Saddam was created by USA and Britain,
he was your best pal".
|
Don't forget, your claim that Saddam was somehow 'created' by the USA
and Britain is a total Crock Of Moose Manure. It's an Utter Lie. We didn't
"create" Saddam at all. He created himself when he seized power
in a coup. We dealt with him as we would deal with any leader of a country
-- he was in control at the time, and we merely recognized that he was
in control at the time, because he was indeed in control. And he wasn't
our "best pal", either. That's another Lie. We never "liked"
him. We tolerated his existence because it suited our needs and our national
Interests at the time, but there was never any love lost between him and
us, or between his government and ours. He was always a Thug, and we knew
he was a Thug. At one time in the early 1980s, his national interests
in defeating Iran briefly dovetailed with our national interests in keeping
Iran from conquering the whole Persian Gulf, but it was merely a temporary
alliance based on temporary shared interests. Don't mistake that for being
"best pals", because we weren't. Nations and governments don't
have "friends", they have National Interests. And Saddam played
the U.S. off against the Soviets, just like a lot of Third World thugs
did at the time. He used us, just as much as or more than we used him.
That's how the power game is played, and there was nothing "immoral"
about it.
P, USA
ask not what america can do for you. ask what
you can do for yourselves. until you figure this out, you're not going
anywhere.
how many more marshall plans can america give? please - stand up for yourselves,
put your heads down, work hard, and stop worrying about what others should
be doing for you.
Robert Burnett, USA
Europe should ask Bush for forgiveness. Then they shoud kneel down and face Washington and pray he'll accept. Europe deserves nothing but scorn and contempt which should be thrown in their face when they dare ask anything of our dear Cowboy.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Right, so the
Iraqis are 'good Muslims' because they 'wanted' to be invaded, and the
Somalis are 'bad Muslims' who should be left out in the desert to die
horribly because they rejected the US (which actually isn´t quite
true, either, but hey, who needs facts, right?), is that it?"
|
Michel, if you're so desperate for something to say that you have to resort
to trying to put words in my mouth and create 'straw-man' arguments just
so you can try to then deflect those fictional arguments, then maybe you
need to go somewhere else and find a different hobby.
|
Now, if we can discuss Facts for a moment instead of your absurd rants,
let's clarify what actually happened in Somalia.
|
To begin with, there was a (yet another) mass food shortage in Somalia
stemming from a genocidal civil war, resulting in an acute crisis of hunger
there. Moved by the usual lurid evening TV news coverage of starving Somalians,
the U.S. public initially, naively and (extremely) ignorantly supported
the idea of "humanitarian intervention" in Somalia. When a former
U.S. Ambassador (who was far more knowlegable about the nihilistic, chaotic
clan-based society in Somalia than anyone in the Clinton Administration)
urged the U.S. government "not to grasp the Somali 'tar baby' ",
he was wrongly labeled a 'racist' and roundly denounced. When U.N. aid
workers attempted to deliver famine relief aid to NGOs in famine-scarred
remote provinces, they were immediately and constantly either held up
and looted by bandits, or attacked by local warlords who demanded huge
fees to allow the U.N. to use roads and airstrips in 'their' areas. When
U.S. troops tried to protect the aid convoys, they were ambushed. Instead
of being grateful for U.S. attempts to safeguard emergency aid convoys
to starving people, the Somali people supported the 'technicals' and militias
who murdered U.S. soldiers.
|
The only reason that U.S. troops should ever be sent into harm's way is
to protect, defend and support U.S. national interests. There was utterly
no reason to send U.S. troops into Somalia. It had nothing whatsoever
to do with U.S. national interests. It had no connection to U.S. national
security. Yes, there were people in Somalia who were starving. So what?
There have been people starving in Somalia for decades. Since when did
it ever become "our" "responsibility" to shed American
blood to vainly try to help and feed people who clearly didn't want our
help?
|
If the Somalis preferred to support their murderous militias and warlords
who looted relief supplies intended to feed starving people, then they
should have been left to the tender mercies of those militias. Let the
militias and warlords feed them.
|
Overthrowing and removing a ruthless Iraqi dictator who was responsible
for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, who defied U.N. resolutions,
and who posed a threat to U.S. interests and U.S. allies, was clearly
in the U.S. national interest.
|
As I said before: By contrast, the troops who died in Somalia, died for
nothing at all. Theirs was a valiant but tragic and ultimately pointless
sacrifice on behalf of people who didn't want our help and who should
have been rightfully left to starve in their Islamic militia-choked nation.
The fact that no neighboring African nation was willing to risk its own
troops' lives on behalf of the Somalis should have told Clinton something.
Michel Bastian, France
> Now, if we can discuss Facts for a moment instead
of your absurd rants, let's clarify what actually happened in Somalia.
Hehe, nice one, coming from you.
> To begin with, there was a (yet another) mass food shortage in Somalia
stemming from a genocidal civil war, resulting in an acute crisis of hunger
there. Moved by the usual lurid evening TV news coverage of starving Somalians,
Ah, so covering starving Somalians is "lurid" whereas covering
US Marines in Iraq is "heroic". Actually, now I´m starting
to understand why the Bush administration is so uncooperative about Darfour:
starving people killed and raped by mercenaries aren´t "heroic"
enough. No, wait! Could it be because Darfour doesn´t have anything
the US want (like natural resources, for example)?
> the U.S. public initially, naively and (extremely) ignorantly supported
the idea of "humanitarian intervention" in Somalia. When a former
U.S. Ambassador (who was far more knowlegable about the nihilistic, chaotic
clan-based society in Somalia than anyone in the Clinton Administration)
urged the U.S. government "not to grasp the Somali 'tar baby' ",
he was wrongly labeled a 'racist' and roundly denounced. When U.N. aid
workers attempted to deliver famine relief aid to NGOs in famine-scarred
remote provinces, they were immediately and constantly either held up
and looted by bandits, or attacked by local warlords who demanded huge
fees to allow the U.N. to use roads and airstrips in 'their' areas. When
U.S. troops tried to protect the aid convoys, they were ambushed. Instead
of being grateful for U.S. attempts to safeguard emergency aid convoys
to starving people, the Somali people supported the 'technicals' and militias
who murdered U.S. soldiers.
And how is that different from Iraqis murdering US soldiers?
> The only reason that U.S. troops should ever be sent into harm's
way is to protect, defend and support U.S. national interests. There was
utterly no reason to send U.S. troops into Somalia.
So much for "humanitarian" reasons (you know, that bit about
Bush starting the war in Iraq only to liberate Iraq from oppression etc.
etc.).
> It had nothing whatsoever to do with U.S. national interests. It
had no connection to U.S. national security. Yes, there were people in
Somalia who were starving. So what? There have been people starving in
Somalia for decades. Since when did it ever become "our" "responsibility"
to shed American blood to vainly try to help and feed people who clearly
didn't want our help?
You´re making my point about Bush´s foreign policy much better
than I ever could. Bush, the great humanitarian indeed.
> If the Somalis preferred to support their murderous militias and
warlords who looted relief supplies intended to feed starving people,
then they should have been left to the tender mercies of those militias.
Let the militias and warlords feed them.
I´m pretty sure the common Somali didn´t have a lot of choice
in the matter, since it´s pretty difficult to not support a warlord
if he´ll kill you or let you starve otherwise. And I ask again:
how is the situation there different from Iraq where Iraqis have killed
many more american soldiers than in Somalia?
> Overthrowing and removing a ruthless Iraqi dictator who was responsible
for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, who defied U.N. resolutions,
and who posed a threat to U.S. interests and U.S. allies, was clearly
in the U.S. national interest.
How exactly was Saddam Hussein "directly" threatening US interests?
> As I said before: By contrast, the troops who died in Somalia, died
for nothing at all. Theirs was a valiant but tragic and ultimately pointless
sacrifice on behalf of people who didn't want our help and who should
have been rightfully left to starve in their Islamic militia-choked nation.
The fact that no neighboring African nation was willing to risk its own
troops' lives on behalf of the Somalis should have told Clinton something.
You´re pretty quick to judge people, especially when they don´t
conform to what you perceive as "US national interest". In essence,
people that don´t dance to Bush´s tune and don´t worship
the US can literally die for all you care. There are words for that kind
of attitude: selfishness, righteousness, egocentrism and shortsightedness.
The trouble with you and the Bush administration is that, while you love
to preach the Bible at all hours of the day, you have absolutely no idea
of basic christian values, otherwise you wouldn´t be posting such
provocative nonsense.
Michel Bastian, France
To Robert Burnett:
>Europe should ask Bush for forgiveness. Then they shoud kneel down
and face Washington and pray he'll accept. Europe deserves nothing but
scorn and contempt which should be thrown in their face when they dare
ask anything of our dear Cowboy.
Not in your fondest dreams. And anyway: ask anything from Bush? What does
he have that we might want? Illegal prisons? Thanks, we´ve had those
for much too long. Unnecessary and murderous wars? Thanks again, been
there, done that. If anybody has to get on his knees to beg for forgiveness,
it´s Bush, to the american people, the europeans and indeed the
complete international community.
Charles Warren, USA
To Phil:
It is not correct to say that the American soldiers in Somalia died for
nothing at all. They died for the same thing we were in Kosovo for. So
President Peter Pan could get a Nobel Peace Prize.
mike linsley, world/uk
ah, the joyous spread of democracy and freedom we've been
lucky enough to witness recently - afganistan, certainly the Taliban were
an oppresive regime that committed atrocities on a grand scale, as was
Saddams regime, but what has the fight on terror really accomplished?
To replace the Taliban with the poppy growing heroin producing war lords
- how does that really fit in with any preconcived ideas of liberty for
all? the rapid increase in the insurgencey in both countries and the horror
inflicted within tends to state that people simply dont like being invaded
by a foreign
force still blinked by a cold war mentality that plays no part in the
world we live in today. As shown in Vietnam - rmember that? the longer
a conflict wears on,c
the better the insugents become - darwinism inj action you either evolve
or you die. from a loosely formed net of fighters you now have battled
hardened soldiers who know the terrain they fight on. The might of the
Christian right, with its disdain for the Geneva convention on torture
and treatment of "enemy combatants" is astounding. i believe
the american view is that torture can be defined as "pain equalling
organ failure", on top of it happily propping up corrupt regimes
such as Ubekistan simply because of a handy geographical location, the
vanishing of people to countries and states that will happily torture
people all creates the current anger and hostility to the american people.
yes, saddam was corrupt, but now the evil has gone as it were, has it
not been replacved with a greater one - infant mortality is 4 times greater
under american occupation that it was under saddam - suffer not little
children anyone ?, let he who is without sin cast the first stone? what
we can, and should demand is the right to live and let live, nmot be told
we live in a state of constant fear - fear is the opposite of love and
surely one thing the bible does preach is love - not much love comes from
the barrel of a gun, or from the bomb doors of a plane
hypocrisy plain and simple, we all meet our maker, we all explain the
choices we make, i for one am glad i dont have to explain the slaughter
of countless thousands in the name of freedom and democracy. dont ask
what europe should demand of bush ask what god WILL demand of bush, cos
that day comes for us all - oh yeah i work for evangelical christians
and watch the hypocrisy and double standards on a daily basis
peace y'all
Mike Bettney, UK
We should ask him please to provide a free interpreter when ever he is about to speak.
