PDA

View Full Version : What's the Plan?



Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 11:20
We have seen lots and lots of posts criticizing United States policy in Iraq and the Middle East, but we have not seen anyone propose an alternative plan. So, let's quit the ranting and the complaining and have a useful discussion. Those of you who have been so critical of US policy, please tell us about your suggested policy initiatives.

Ned Kelly
09-03-2005, 12:09
ned's plan:

withdraw from iraq.

cut all political support to saudi arabia until there are nationwide elections in which women can vote. if the royal family is toppled, even better.

demand the immediate withdrawal of israel from the occupied territories or aid is severed.

keep doing exactly what you're doing in lebanon. it's great.

same as above with iran. it's the right policy.

stand simply by democratic principles in the middle east and then deal with fairly elected governments.

people will love you then.

trebor
09-03-2005, 12:26
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
ned's plan:

withdraw from iraq.

cut all political support to saudi arabia until there are nationwide elections in which women can vote. if the royal family is toppled, even better.

demand the immediate withdrawal of israel from the occupied territories or aid is severed.

keep doing exactly what you're doing in lebanon. it's great.

same as above with iran. it's the right policy.

stand simply by democratic principles in the middle east and then deal with fairly elected governments.

people will love you then.

Ned,
nice idea but you know its realy not feasible.
We need the Saudi oil too much to upset them. Also if the vote was granted freely to all in Saudi the newly elected government would probably be even more repulsive than the existing one,
consisting of Muslim fanatics. The present house of Saud who rule the country are at least are pro western.
have to agree with you on the rest.

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 12:43
Neil's Plan:

1) Stop propping-up Ariel Sharon's crooked regime, and you might gain some credibility. Your credibility is going to be riddled with holes until you do. You made a good start with the Palestinians, but you have to follow-through now.

2) Rotate your troops in Iraq for chrissake, before they kill any more of your allies there.

3) You need to do some political goodwill work in Serbia. I know you won't apologise for what you did, that's asking too much. But build a hospital, or do something, huh?

4) Close the Guantanamo Facility. Now. It's made you into an international laughing-stock. No-one will treat Bush's drivel about democracy seriously whilst he is running concentration camps where people are imprisoned without charge or trial for three years. That's what SADDAM used to do, and you've shown yourselves to be no improvement at all. You've had 3+ years to charge the detainees. Either charge them and detain them in regular facilities in the Lower 48, or let them go. It's Hypocrisy Central right now, and you couldn't look stupider if you tried.

5) Dismiss Donald Rumsfeld. The man is a maniac, he's unstable, he's a fool. He's making you look like morons overseas. Fine, if you want to keep his policies, that's up to you (although they're not helping either). But the man himself is hated throughout the known world, and every time he opens his mouth, he shoots the USA in the foot. Firing Rumsfeld would show the world the USA was serious about reconciliation. Retaining him shows the opposite.

6) Recall John Bolton from the UN and appoint a different Ambassador. This man is worse than Rumsfeld, and sending him to the UN indicates arrogance, derision, and contempt.

7) Cheney must be retired. Whilst US Policy in the Middle East appears to be created to suit the Halliburton Corporation, your credibility is going to be rock-bottom. It doesn't matter whether it is or not - it matters that it strongly looks that way, and a conflict of interest this glaring makes the USA look like crooks.

8) Press on with inspections and firm peaceful negotiations in Iran. It will win you respect and support.

9) Drop the attacks on France. This is now very old, and it makes you look asinine. You found no WMD. Just admit it, and stop trying to blame them? Do you think you fool anyone with this crap?

10) I don't know what you do about Iraq. The world told you not to go there, but you still did. You can't pull out, because there would be a bloodbath. But no-one will help you whilst your reputation and image stink. If you can implement 1-9 above, you might be able to convince the rest of the world that there would be some merit in establishing an international force, optimally under UN Blue Beret control (as in Bosnia etc, where it has worked) to enable an exit-strategy for you.

Ned Kelly
09-03-2005, 12:56
Originally posted by Sparafucile


3) You need to do some political goodwill work in Serbia. I know you won't apologise for what you did, that's asking too much. But build a hospital, or do something, huh?


i thought inidicting kosovo's bandit prime minister to the hague was a terrific show of goodwill!

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 13:35
Originally posted by Sparafucile
Neil's Plan:

1) Stop propping-up Ariel Sharon's crooked regime, and you might gain some credibility. Your credibility is going to be riddled with holes until you do. You made a good start with the Palestinians, but you have to follow-through now.

There are a a couple of issues here. First, how could the US not support the only democratic state in the Middle East? Second, I don't think anyone has any reason to believe that Mr. Sharon was improperly elected, so this does seem to be a legit democracy.

The other issue is whether support for Israel is really the lynchpin to Middle East policy anyway. Is the road to Baghdad through Jerusalem, or is the road to Jerusalem through Baghdad?

2) Rotate your troops in Iraq for chrissake, before they kill any more of your allies there.

While troop rotation and accidential shootings are interesting points, they are a tactical issues, not really a policy issue for a plan in the Middle East.

3) You need to do some political goodwill work in Serbia. I know you won't apologise for what you did, that's asking too much. But build a hospital, or do something, huh?

Again, while interesting, this is not a discussion about Serbia.

4) Close the Guantanamo Facility. Now. It's made you into an international laughing-stock. No-one will treat Bush's drivel about democracy seriously whilst he is running concentration camps where people are imprisoned without charge or trial for three years. That's what SADDAM used to do, and you've shown yourselves to be no improvement at all. You've had 3+ years to charge the detainees. Either charge them and detain them in regular facilities in the Lower 48, or let them go. It's Hypocrisy Central right now, and you couldn't look stupider if you tried.

Again, while interesting, this is not a cental policy issue. Captured combatants are going to be held somewhere, so closing one facility will require the opening of another.

5) Dismiss Donald Rumsfeld. The man is a maniac, he's unstable, he's a fool. He's making you look like morons overseas. Fine, if you want to keep his policies, that's up to you (although they're not helping either). But the man himself is hated throughout the known world, and every time he opens his mouth, he shoots the USA in the foot. Firing Rumsfeld would show the world the USA was serious about reconciliation. Retaining him shows the opposite.

It is understood that Secretary Rumsfeld is not popular with everyone, but you have described a personnel issue, not a policy issue. As far as reconciliation goes - perhaps that is a policy discussion.

6) Recall John Bolton from the UN and appoint a different Ambassador. This man is worse than Rumsfeld, and sending him to the UN indicates arrogance, derision, and contempt.

Again, this is a personnel issue.

7) Cheney must be retired. Whilst US Policy in the Middle East appears to be created to suit the Halliburton Corporation, your credibility is going to be rock-bottom. It doesn't matter whether it is or not - it matters that it strongly looks that way, and a conflict of interest this glaring makes the USA look like crooks.

Again, a personnel issue.

8) Press on with inspections and firm peaceful negotiations in Iran. It will win you respect and support.

This seems to be going on already.

9) Drop the attacks on France. This is now very old, and it makes you look asinine. You found no WMD. Just admit it, and stop trying to blame them? Do you think you fool anyone with this crap?

While Franco-American issues are interesting, this is not really part of a plan for Middle East peace and security.

10) I don't know what you do about Iraq. The world told you not to go there, but you still did. You can't pull out, because there would be a bloodbath. But no-one will help you whilst your reputation and image stink. If you can implement 1-9 above, you might be able to convince the rest of the world that there would be some merit in establishing an international force, optimally under UN Blue Beret control (as in Bosnia etc, where it has worked) to enable an exit-strategy for you.

Finally something on point! The problem is that a UN blue beret force would be the best possible gift to the terrorists running the insurgency. The blue berets would be torn apart very quickly, most contributors would cut and run and we'd have real anarchy. We'd have Somalia II.

Ned Kelly
09-03-2005, 13:43
Originally posted by Crazyeelboy
We'd have Somalia II.

don't we have something rather similar already?

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 14:11
Eelboy, I can't agree with your assessment of these issues.

America's No #1 problem at present is that the number of allies you have - on whom you could count to assist, so don't quote "Latvia" at me - has dwindled to almost none. Italy is now at your throat, you shot another Bulgarian last week...

... you are in over your heads, but no-one is going to rush to aid you whilst you keep Ronald Dumbsfeld in charge of these matters. That's not a "personnel issue" - this is the man who DICTATES (I use the word advisedly) policy!!!

Let me remind you of a movie-scene starring a great American actor - who also added the piece of script in question - Orson Welles, one of my personal heroes. Harry Lime and Holly Martins are at the top of a Ferris Wheel, overlooking central Vienna:

"Take a look at the people down there - all those little dots moving around. How many of those dots could you afford to lose? Free of Income Tax, old man - free of Income Tax".

This is, currently, America's military policy in Iraq. Provided the number of "dots" is kept to an "acceptable" minimum, America is happy to let a number of servicemen be killed there every month. It is even desirable that they die, because it keeps the public's mind focussed on the "need" to have had the war, and the "need" to maintain a military presence to fight the "enemy".

If you really can't understand that Guantanamo is inhibiting your credibility internationally, and that whilst it remains rock-bottom no-one is going to come to your aid to save your asses in Iraq, then you must have your head buried deeper up there than I imagined....

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 14:39
Sparafucile:

From your message, it seems that you are trying to say that the right policy would be to get more countries involved in Iraq, but that Rumsfeld is getting in the way of that.

The first problem with your approach is that even if Rumsfeld left, there would not be any additional commitment of troops by other countries. Senator Kerry tried to get "foreign leaders" behind his campaign and at least France and Germany made it very clear that even with a new administration (replacing the whole lot, not just Rumsfeld), they would not contribute any troops to Iraq. So, it seems that Rumsfeld is not the key issue after all.

A more interesting discussion would focus on what a wide coalition of troops would do to make a difference. Specifically, what would these additional troops do that is different than is being done now? Would German troops really man checkpoints differently than US troops do now? The US is on the right track with the focus on training up Iraqis. The effort may not be perfect so far, but it is the right idea.

As for your dot theory, I take serious umbrage with your callous approach to the lives of the people that have volunteered to be there. That's right, the US military is an all-volunteer force and those "dots" are people that have chosen to commit themselves. Don't forget that, comrade.

I'm not sure how to respond to your comment that the death of these dots is somehow "desireable" for public realtions puposes. No American in their right mind desires additional death of anyone, especially US service personnel, and especially not for public relations purposes. Your position is reprehensible and simply disgusting.

I'm not even going to comment on your inplication that my head is anywhere other than where it should be. If you want to have a real discussion, let's do it, but so far, you are acting like a jerk.

Ned Kelly
09-03-2005, 14:49
Originally posted by Crazyeelboy
Would German troops really man checkpoints differently than US troops do now?

are you kidding? if you had the japanese and germans patrolling iraq you'd have the place pacified in weeks!

i don't want to raise too many national stereotypes but...those guys don't mind a little war.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 14:52
Ned:

Do you have any idea just how hard it is not to chime in on this? But, must restrain, must restrain...

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 15:32
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
don't we have something rather similar already?

I don't think so. While the situation in Iraq is very difficult, it won't go the way of Somalia. The policy focus in Iraq is much more clear - to establish a new government and there is a solid commitment from the coalition to see this through. Moreover, there is solid popular Iraqi support for the emerging government, whereas Somalia was totally fragmented.

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 15:36
>> If you want to have a real discussion, let's do it, but so far, you are acting like a jerk. <<

I knew you were incapable of a serious discussion - thanks for proving me right.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 15:41
A bit defensive, don't you think? Nothing I have written has indicated that I cannot carry on a serious discussion. I simply object to your reprehesible position on US combat deaths and your implication that my head is up my butt. Stop being childish.

Ned Kelly
09-03-2005, 15:47
Originally posted by Crazyeelboy
I don't think so. While the situation in Iraq is very difficult, it won't go the way of Somalia. The policy focus in Iraq is much more clear - to establish a new government and there is a solid commitment from the coalition to see this through. Moreover, there is solid popular Iraqi support for the emerging government, whereas Somalia was totally fragmented.

man, i hope this government works too. but one swallow doesn't make a summer (as in good election turn out).

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 15:54
>> I simply object to your reprehesible position on US combat deaths <<

You can call me any childish names you like, you can call me reprehensible if you can spell it, but it doesn't alter the fact that it's current US policy to accept the ongoing death rate and there are no plans to change that.

If you deny this is so, then show me where the plans are to rotate troops, to augment troops (there are plenty of troops back in the States still).

Sorry Eelboy, but this is 'Nam II... the war you wish you had never ever started. You have failed to achieve a single one of the war objectives given prior to the war. And now you're just wishing it would somehow go away?

Your thinking on Rumsfeld is completely wrong. The man is offensive, moronic, asinine and unpleasant. No foreign country will commit troops to a man who's been personally offensive to them, now, will they? Especially when it's made clear that your POLICY (ie "leave them to die") isn't going to change. Who the HELL wants to go and take the flack for your war in Iraq, AND then be called every name under the sun by a senile asshole left-over from the Reagan Administration?

Your thinking is also misguided on other issues. Other nations are looking at US Foreign Policy AS A WHOLE, and not merely what you do in the Middle East. Rumsfeld's war-mongering in Korea was so offensive the S Koreans demanded that he was shipped back to the USA.

Bolton, as I have said, is even more dangerous than Rumsfeld. Making him UN Ambassador is like giving the middle digit to the civilised world.

I notice you haven't challenged my assertions that you are in over your heads in an unwinnable war in Iraq? So if you're not going to change your policy and don't believe it needs changing...

... then the dots are going to keep dying.

Sorry to hear you're in denial about it.

trebor
09-03-2005, 16:06
Originally posted by Sparafucile
Neil's Plan:

1) Stop propping-up Ariel Sharon's crooked regime, and you might gain some credibility. Your credibility is going to be riddled with holes until you do. You made a good start with the Palestinians, but you have to follow-through now.

2) Rotate your troops in Iraq for chrissake, before they kill any more of your allies there.

3) You need to do some political goodwill work in Serbia. I know you won't apologise for what you did, that's asking too much. But build a hospital, or do something, huh?

4) Close the Guantanamo Facility. Now. It's made you into an international laughing-stock. No-one will treat Bush's drivel about democracy seriously whilst he is running concentration camps where people are imprisoned without charge or trial for three years. That's what SADDAM used to do, and you've shown yourselves to be no improvement at all. You've had 3+ years to charge the detainees. Either charge them and detain them in regular facilities in the Lower 48, or let them go. It's Hypocrisy Central right now, and you couldn't look stupider if you tried.

5) Dismiss Donald Rumsfeld. The man is a maniac, he's unstable, he's a fool. He's making you look like morons overseas. Fine, if you want to keep his policies, that's up to you (although they're not helping either). But the man himself is hated throughout the known world, and every time he opens his mouth, he shoots the USA in the foot. Firing Rumsfeld would show the world the USA was serious about reconciliation. Retaining him shows the opposite.

6) Recall John Bolton from the UN and appoint a different Ambassador. This man is worse than Rumsfeld, and sending him to the UN indicates arrogance, derision, and contempt.

7) Cheney must be retired. Whilst US Policy in the Middle East appears to be created to suit the Halliburton Corporation, your credibility is going to be rock-bottom. It doesn't matter whether it is or not - it matters that it strongly looks that way, and a conflict of interest this glaring makes the USA look like crooks.

8) Press on with inspections and firm peaceful negotiations in Iran. It will win you respect and support.

9) Drop the attacks on France. This is now very old, and it makes you look asinine. You found no WMD. Just admit it, and stop trying to blame them? Do you think you fool anyone with this crap?

10) I don't know what you do about Iraq. The world told you not to go there, but you still did. You can't pull out, because there would be a bloodbath. But no-one will help you whilst your reputation and image stink. If you can implement 1-9 above, you might be able to convince the rest of the world that there would be some merit in establishing an international force, optimally under UN Blue Beret control (as in Bosnia etc, where it has worked) to enable an exit-strategy for you.

If Bush manages to engineer a peace in Iraq and more importantly peace in the middle east. The later being the most pressing issue facing the world for the last 60 years.................................history could judge him to be one of the better Presidents!
Now, how ironic would that be? LOL:D

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 16:22
Sorry to hear you're in denial about it. [/B][/QUOTE]

The only thing I'm in denial about is that this is simply a waste of time.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 16:35
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
man, i hope this government works too. but one swallow doesn't make a summer (as in good election turn out).

Could not agree more. The election turn out was encouraging, but that is just one good day in a sea of trouble. No question about it, this will not be smooth sailing, but just think about the possibilities if it works - Haliburton will have its own country and its own seat at the UN!:D

trebor
09-03-2005, 16:42
Originally posted by Sparafucile
[B................ the war you wish you had never ever started. You have failed to achieve a single one of the war objectives given prior to the war. And now you're just wishing it would somehow go away?................... [/B]

EERR........................................didn't they just hold elections? :D

rosieredwood
09-03-2005, 17:05
Nuke 'em, nuke 'em

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 17:09
>> The only thing I'm in denial about is that this is simply a waste of time. <<

Certainly is, arguing with you.

Where are your WMD?????

Where are your links to sponsoring terrorism?

Where are your links to bin-Laden?

ALL A PACK OF LIES, FROM START TO END.

rosieredwood
09-03-2005, 17:15
Nuke 'em:shame:

Ghost
09-03-2005, 17:51
Originally posted by Sparafucile
You have failed to achieve a single one of the war objectives given prior to the war.

We got Saddam!

trebor
09-03-2005, 17:53
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> The only thing I'm in denial about is that this is simply a waste of time. <<

Certainly is, arguing with you.

Where are your WMD?????

Where are your links to sponsoring terrorism?

Where are your links to bin-Laden?

ALL A PACK OF LIES, FROM START TO END.

Who realy cares? Only you.
You, who seems unable to grasp the reality of the bigger picture.

Random
09-03-2005, 17:58
There was a plan ????

Gotta go with the old - if in doubt Nuke 'em !

Fa-Q!
09-03-2005, 18:04
Damned skippy! Kill 'em all. Let god sort 'em out.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 18:05
I regret starting this thread at all. I was hoping to encourage a normal discussion on policies for moving forward, but we ultimately got bogged down yet again in the same old stupid rants. As I said, this is a waste of time.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 18:09
By the way, the reference to the stupid rants was not directed at Trebor, Fa-Q, Rosieredwood or Random - your posts came in just as I was writing.

Random
09-03-2005, 18:15
No offence taken .... just like Rosie's comment - made me chuckle !

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 18:27
Rosie's comments were the most appropriate! They focused on policy and a way forward. No rant, no rave, but a plan. Fire, Fire!

Ghost
09-03-2005, 19:03
I can't believe you actually thought you'd get a normal, sane, clear discussion from Sparafucile. That's the biggest shocker out of this thread.

Bluebird, Ned, etc. All are good and worthy debate opponents. Spara is just comedy relief.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 19:15
Ghost - you are right. Actually, in my last post on the Bush as worst president thread, I noted that Sparafucile is probably just a wind up just to see who falls for it.

trebor
09-03-2005, 19:17
Originally posted by Random
There was a plan ????

Gotta go with the old - if in doubt Nuke 'em !

I think its obvious now that there was a plan and perhaps George Bush is not a stupid as people make out. He has put a lot of his critics on the back foot.
As soon as election results were announced in Iraq, Bush told Syria to get out of Lebanon and to any intelligent individual that has got to mean he has linked the two.
Toppling Sadam being part of a greater plan of achieving peace over all in the middle east. As apposed to some of the ranting i've heard like " the only reason they went into Iraq was 'cos Cheney's on the board of Halliburton"....................................................PPLLEEEAAAASSSEE. LOL :D

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 19:28
Trebor:

I agree - the plan always had been to establish more stable governments in the Middle East, with eyes on Iraq (obvioiusly), Syria and most importantly Saudi Arabia. More than a few informed people believe that Bin Laden's real goal is to take over Saudi Arabia, not to wage a sensless "crusade" against western culture. It is no secret that Saudi Arabia needs reform right away or it might end up like Iran, and US policy seems to be geared toward pressuring SA (along with the entire region) toward democratic reform to build stable governments.

Let's see, elections in Iraq, Saudi Arabia (limited, but still a step forward) and Palestine, withdrawl from Lebanon and a cease fire holding between Palestine and Israel. Not so crazy after all, but as this starts to work, we'll see a whole lot of backtracking from critics. That said, there is tough sledding ahead and it can all fall apart if we lose our nerve.

The whole Haliburton and Blood for Oil things are canards, but people do fall for it. My favorite is the whole insecure daddy thing - W trying to impress Poppy by finishing the job.

trebor
09-03-2005, 19:41
Originally posted by Crazyeelboy
Trebor:

I agree - the plan always had been to establish more stable governments in the Middle East, with eyes on Iraq (obvioiusly), Syria and most importantly Saudi Arabia. More than a few informed people believe that Bin Laden's real goal is to take over Saudi Arabia, not to wage a sensless "crusade" against western culture. It is no secret that Saudi Arabia needs reform right away or it might end up like Iran, and US policy seems to be geared toward pressuring SA (along with the entire region) toward democratic reform to build stable governments.

Let's see, elections in Iraq, Saudi Arabia (limited, but still a step forward) and Palestine, withdrawl from Lebanon and a cease fire holding between Palestine and Israel. Not so crazy after all, but as this starts to work, we'll see a whole lot of backtracking from critics. That said, there is tough sledding ahead and it can all fall apart if we lose our nerve.
The whole Haliburton and Blood for Oil things are canards, but people do fall for it. My favorite is the whole insecure daddy thing - W trying to impress Poppy by finishing the job.

Crazyeelboy,
world events are outside my domain of influence. When Tony Blair says " were going to war" to some extent, but not all, because even i believe he's not a complete madman! :) i have to believe billions of pounds in tax payers money, a system which is not perfect but the best anyone has come up with is not going to throw up a paraiah in Britain, as in Iraq for example (or the US for that matter) WE CAN ONLY TRUST! and looking at the situation now, our trust doesn't look as misplaced as it seemed a couple of years back.

Goose0009
09-03-2005, 20:35
I wish You guys are right. I just don't see it. I just saw 41 Iraqis guardsmen were killed from lead poisining yesterday. It's been two years when is it going to calm down. When? There are no signs of this at present or near future. The Iraqis fighting for this government is a joke. They couldn't stop a cookie fight at the girl scout meeting. Iraq will only stay together as long as the U.S. is paying and fighting for it. There is no law and order, insurgents walk right up to people and kill them on the streets. Pull people right out of there cars and excute them. I don't know how anyone could see things going in a different direction.

Ghost
09-03-2005, 20:42
Originally posted by Crazyeelboy
Ghost - you are right. Actually, in my last post on the Bush as worst president thread, I noted that Sparafucile is probably just a wind up just to see who falls for it.

No, unfortunately he is real. Other members have verified his legit - if not somewhat pathetic - existance.

I know, hard to believe.

Ghost
09-03-2005, 20:45
To get back on topic, however, as far as suggesting courses of action...

I read an article in Time (if I remember correctly) that talked about taking out dictatorships with the infiltration of westerinzation - ie, things like Coke, McDonald's, Nike shoes, etc. After a population begins to go this direction, it invariably begins to become more democratic and individual in nature. I know it sounds crazy, but that's what this article was arguing, pointing to China as an example (an example of a morphing regime).

-Ghost

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 21:04
This makes a lot of sense. The most dangerous thing in any of these places is that people don't have something to live for. As hokey as it sounds, give a young guy a decent job with a decent future, and he will almost always prefer his job at Pizza Hut to driving a car bomb.

trebor
09-03-2005, 21:06
Originally posted by Ghost
To get back on topic, however, as far as suggesting courses of action...

I read an article in Time (if I remember correctly) that talked about taking out dictatorships with the infiltration of westerinzation - ie, things like Coke, McDonald's, Nike shoes, etc. After a population begins to go this direction, it invariably begins to become more democratic and individual in nature. I know it sounds crazy, but that's what this article was arguing, pointing to China as an example (an example of a morphing regime).

-Ghost

Crazy thing about food?
i work in Vladivostok and we are surrounded by Chinese restaurants in the city, they are very popular here. (Hey no, sh*t! you might say :D )
What's bizzare is there are actualy very few Chinese in the city considering its proximity to "Kitay"
The Russians here hate the Chinese BUT they are the patrons of the "said" restaurants.
My point? Food is a classic example of a product without boundries or borders.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 21:08
Originally posted by Goose0009
I wish You guys are right. I just don't see it. I just saw 41 Iraqis guardsmen were killed from lead poisining yesterday. It's been two years when is it going to calm down. When? There are no signs of this at present or near future. The Iraqis fighting for this government is a joke. They couldn't stop a cookie fight at the girl scout meeting. Iraq will only stay together as long as the U.S. is paying and fighting for it. There is no law and order, insurgents walk right up to people and kill them on the streets. Pull people right out of there cars and excute them. I don't know how anyone could see things going in a different direction.

I agree - I hope we are right, too! The situation is far from stable and it could go real bad, but my question is whether there are constructive ways to make this work better. We get lots of negative commentary, but very little in constructive discussion. Any ideas?

Ned Kelly
09-03-2005, 22:26
Originally posted by Ghost
I know it sounds crazy, but that's what this article was arguing, pointing to China as an example (an example of a morphing regime).

-Ghost

yeah man, democracy is on the march there!

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 22:32
>> We get lots of negative commentary, but very little in constructive discussion. Any ideas? <<

No, you get lots of constructive discussion, which you ignore, and trash the posters with insults.

Ghost
09-03-2005, 23:04
No, we basically just trash you. You just haven't figured that out yet.

koba65
09-03-2005, 23:18
Originally posted by Goose0009
I wish You guys are right. I just don't see it. I just saw 41 Iraqis guardsmen were killed from lead poisining yesterday. It's been two years when is it going to calm down. When? There are no signs of this at present or near future. The Iraqis fighting for this government is a joke. They couldn't stop a cookie fight at the girl scout meeting. Iraq will only stay together as long as the U.S. is paying and fighting for it. There is no law and order, insurgents walk right up to people and kill them on the streets. Pull people right out of there cars and excute them. I don't know how anyone could see things going in a different direction.

Goose0009, I'm sure you're heart is in the right place, BUT, you're thinking exactly what the insurgents want people in America and the rest of the world to think. They've studied the tactics of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong well. They know they cannot win militarily so they try to inflict "newsworthy" casualties in order to create an appearance of chaos and a loosing cause (for the US and the Coalition). All that you see on tv or read in the newspapers or on the net is usually the "bad" news - why? Bad news sells, good news doesn't (probably some ideological reasons for the bad news being shown all the time as well). What you are not reading is that the Iraqi Forces, while hardly ready to handle the job of keeping Iraq secure, are growing stronger and better with each day. Iraqi special forces are doing a fantastic job. Iraqi citizens, tired of being victimized by the terrorists, are becoming bolder at either turning the insurgents in or attacking them themselves. Sistani's Shiite coalition, at the present, appears to want a democratic pluralistic government in place. The road is long, it's far from over, and the insurgents want you to think they have the upper hand. That way, they hope, the American public will turn against the war and demand that the troops come home.

You weren't even alive when the Vietnam War was happening, but this exactly what the Viet Cong and NVN did - the former N. Vietnamese Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces stated in his autobiography that they were militarily defeated after Tet, but by keeping the carnage on American televisions (And with the unfortunate help of Walter Conkcrite) they were able to turn Americans against the war and that led to our politicians to seek a way out.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 23:26
The way we lose this is by giving up the fight, pure and simple.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 23:28
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> We get lots of negative commentary, but very little in constructive discussion. Any ideas? <<

No, you get lots of constructive discussion, which you ignore, and trash the posters with insults.

Sparafucile: I have not trashed you at all. Now, if you have something constructive bring it out, if not, log off and let everyone else have a real discussion.

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 23:47
Send me an email sometime, and let me know how the view is with that bucket wedged on your head, Eelboy?

You want a "discussion" on this topic the same way you want to have your credit cards stolen - which is not at all. You want to be told what a fine job your country has done and how much we all respect you? ROFL, it'll be snow in July before anyone is going to tell you that!!

I spelt out 10 clear points of policy. Now you're talking to Trebor about whether Sweet & Sour Sauce can save the world???

You bloody deserve each other!!!

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 23:48
>> The way we lose this is by giving up the fight, pure and simple. <<

You've ALREADY lost it - can't you work that out?? You're looking for ways to cut and run.

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 23:49
>> No, we basically just trash you. You just haven't figured that out yet. <<

Sorry to have interrupted you masturbating, Ghost - you can get back to it now.

yankee@moscow
09-03-2005, 23:51
I have a plan, which is 100% foolproof, but which I would never post on this board. Apparently we don't need that much sand turned into glass? Just joking!

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 23:52
Originally posted by koba65
...(T)his exactly what the Viet Cong and NVN did - the former N. Vietnamese Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces stated in his autobiography that they were militarily defeated after Tet, but by keeping the carnage on American televisions (And with the unfortunate help of Walter Conkcrite) they were able to turn Americans against the war and that led to our politicians to seek a way out.

Interesting connection between Iraq and Tet. Tet was a big win for the US and ARVN, but a clear example of winning the battle and losing the war. The difference in this case, however, is that while the insurgents have some support from outside, they don't have the huge blank check support the NVA had from the Soviets. If we keep our will to stick with this, we can outlast the insurgents.

I expect that we'll see the insurgents doing whatever they can to cause as much trouble as possible leading into the drafting of the constitutation and the further development of the new government and system. The first elections dealt them a significant blow, but we can't let this be the Iraqi Tet.

Another interesting thing about Tet appears to have been the internal dynamic. My understanding is that the NVA used Tet as a way of killing off much of the Viet Cong and to take more control over the war and the post war political situation.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 23:55
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
I have a plan, which is 100% foolproof, but which I would never post on this board. Apparently we don't need that much sand turned into glass? Just joking!

The glass factory was explored a few posts up - always an option...

koba65
09-03-2005, 23:59
Originally posted by Sparafucile
ROFL, it'll be snow in July before anyone is going to tell you that!!


You've been in Moscow long enough to know that it has snowed in July before.... ;)

yankee@moscow
10-03-2005, 00:01
It snowed on June 10th last year, only for about 5 minutes, but it snowed!

Crazyeelboy
10-03-2005, 00:08
Originally posted by Sparafucile
I spelt out 10 clear points of policy. Now you're talking to Trebor about whether Sweet & Sour Sauce can save the world???

Sparafucile: It seems that you missed the point of the discussion about the sweet & sour sauce. The point was that the development of middle class values is considered to be a good way to build stable socities.

Sparafucile
10-03-2005, 12:55
>> Sparafucile: It seems that you missed the point of the discussion about the sweet & sour sauce. The point was that the development of middle class values is considered to be a good way to build stable socities. <<

Drivel - that illustrates your asinine approach to this topic perfectly.

Crazyeelboy
10-03-2005, 15:03
Nice argument - you added an intellectual point of view and you avoided any personal attacks. Nicely done. You are obviously a student of the Socratic method.

peyote
10-03-2005, 15:25
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
ned's plan:

withdraw from iraq.

cut all political support to saudi arabia until there are nationwide elections in which women can vote. if the royal family is toppled, even better.

demand the immediate withdrawal of israel from the occupied territories or aid is severed.

keep doing exactly what you're doing in lebanon. it's great.

same as above with iran. it's the right policy.

stand simply by democratic principles in the middle east and then deal with fairly elected governments.

people will love you then. i couldn't agree more ;)

if we all could debate this and stop personal trashing, etc....

peyote
10-03-2005, 15:35
Originally posted by trebor
Ned,
nice idea but you know its realy not feasible.
We need the Saudi oil too much to upset them. Also if the vote was granted freely to all in Saudi the newly elected government would probably be even more repulsive than the existing one,
consisting of Muslim fanatics. The present house of Saud who rule the country are at least are pro western.
have to agree with you on the rest. if you want a democracy only if they elect a pro-western government it only means you don't want a democracy at all.

Crazyeelboy
10-03-2005, 15:46
Peyote:

Good point. I think it was assumed by most policy wonks that any democratic process would favor western-looking "democratic" candidates, but that is not necessarily true. I, for one, would be happy to see a genuinely democratice system emerge and that means that we should accept anyone that is legitimately elected.

I believe that the benefit of a democratic process will be in the long-term stability of the governments in the region, not necessarily in the establishment of pro-western regimes. We have tried to coddle various non-democratic regimes in the region because they are kind of pro-western, but isn't going to work into the future (or in the past - see Iran). I agree, real democracy may not lead to election of friendly candates, but I believe it is the best way to build stability in the region.

trebor
10-03-2005, 17:39
Originally posted by peyote
if you want a democracy only if they elect a pro-western government it only means you don't want a democracy at all.

peyote,
the regime in Saudi stinks, we all know that. I worked there for a number of years (hey, i'm a cashpat! :)) so i know a little about it and what the system is like.
Sacrificing peace, and ALL our hopes and dreams for the future on a silly thing like morals is just not practical when considering the world today and considering the demographics of oil and the location of the worlds major deposits.
The facts of life!:(

trebor
10-03-2005, 17:49
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
yeah man, democracy is on the march there!

Considering the HUGE problems China has to face. For example the number of workers who have a job for life which is then also tied in with free housing and free schooling for the kids.
A system which MUST be overhauled in the long run if they are to succesfully make the swith from a command economy to a demand one.
The path they are choosing seems the most sensible.
Who wants to see China go the way of Russia?

Ned Kelly
10-03-2005, 18:06
well, both china and russia are having consumer booms - i don;t see how its doing much for democratic progress in either. i'm just saying that material argument is tripe.

india has been a poor democracy for a long time (though happily its growing and every piece of luck to them).

Goose0009
10-03-2005, 19:12
I wonder what is going to happen when Israel attacks Irans nuclear facilities.

trebor
10-03-2005, 19:17
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
well, both china and russia are having consumer booms - i don;t see how its doing much for democratic progress in either. i'm just saying that material argument is tripe.

india has been a poor democracy for a long time (though happily its growing and every piece of luck to them).

China, like Russia is experiencing a boom but in both cases it can hardly be described as a consumer one.
The vast majority of people in BOTH countries are still living in severe conditions.
In Moscow and a few places like Vladivostok, things are on the "up" but for the rest of the population life is dire.
Moscow is not a reflection of Russia as a whole.
Neither is Shanghai, Shenzen and the other coastal cities a reflection of China. It's probably true that consumer booms are under way in these areas but in China's case its fulled by cheap labour imported from the provences and cheap raw materials. In Russia its oil driven and both are export booms, not consumer.
In both cases the wealth has yet to reach the interiors where the majority of people live and create what then could be described as a consumer boom.
India is (was, when i was there anyway) made up of a ruling co-alition of 13 parties!
And thats a kind of democracy you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy either!:)

trebor
10-03-2005, 19:24
Originally posted by Goose0009
I wonder what is going to happen when Israel attacks Irans nuclear facilities.

Goose0009,
what's with the doomsday senario? :)

Ned Kelly
10-03-2005, 19:52
Originally posted by trebor
China, like Russia is experiencing a boom but in both cases it can hardly be described as a consumer one.
The vast majority of people in BOTH countries are still living in severe conditions.
In Moscow and a few places like Vladivostok, things are on the "up" but for the rest of the population life is dire.
Moscow is not a reflection of Russia as a whole.
Neither is Shanghai, Shenzen and the other coastal cities a reflection of China. It's probably true that consumer booms are under way in these areas but in China's case its fulled by cheap labour imported from the provences and cheap raw materials. In Russia its oil driven and both are export booms, not consumer.
In both cases the wealth has yet to reach the interiors where the majority of people live and create what then could be described as a consumer boom.
India is (was, when i was there anyway) made up of a ruling co-alition of 13 parties!
And thats a kind of democracy you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy either!:)

thanks for the economics lesson. i'll keep playing the consumer growth story, you keep on playing with yourself! ;)

give me 13 parties over putin, fradkov and united russia any day.

trebor
10-03-2005, 20:05
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
thanks for the economics lesson. i'll keep playing the consumer growth story, you keep on playing with yourself! ;)

give me 13 parties over putin, fradkov and united russia any day.

Don't mention it mate! Contribute some meaning full to the discussion and i wouldn't have to................................would i!LOL:D

Goose0009
10-03-2005, 22:55
Originally posted by trebor
Goose0009,
what's with the doomsday senario? :)

Israel has already said they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. I think George Bush is crazy but not crazy enough to attack Iran. I think Israel will do it for defense. I think Iran will blame the U.S. for supporting Israel. I dunno it is very possible. Iran has twice the population of Iraq. It is in size comparable to France. Iranians are more to the extreme of Islam the Iraq is. I read stories about Iranians sending disabled kids through mine fields when they were invaded by Iraq. I just saw the new F16 that Israel has purchased from the US. It has extra fuel tanks on it. It can reach Iran and be back in Israel without refueling. I know I am an alarmist but does anyone else see it the same way?

Bluebird
10-03-2005, 23:29
Originally posted by Goose0009
I wonder what is going to happen when Israel attacks Irans nuclear facilities. There'll be a big booooommmm and lots and lots of fall out - of all sorts....

Bluebird
10-03-2005, 23:34
Originally posted by Goose0009
Israel has already said they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. I think George Bush is crazy but not crazy enough to attack Iran. I think Israel will do it for defense. I think Iran will blame the U.S. for supporting Israel. I dunno it is very possible. Iran has twice the population of Iraq. It is in size comparable to France. Iranians are more to the extreme of Islam the Iraq is. I read stories about Iranians sending disabled kids through mine fields when they were invaded by Iraq. I just saw the new F16 that Israel has purchased from the US. It has extra fuel tanks on it. It can reach Iran and be back in Israel without refueling. I know I am an alarmist but does anyone else see it the same way? Errr, what does this have to do with the current topic...??? As good a question as it is though. :confused:

Ghost
11-03-2005, 07:38
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> No, we basically just trash you. You just haven't figured that out yet. <<

Sorry to have interrupted you masturbating, Ghost - you can get back to it now.

Wow, that was a good one! Well done! What's next? Mom jokes?

Ghost
11-03-2005, 07:40
Originally posted by Bluebird
Errr, what does this have to do with the current topic...??? As good a question as it is though. :confused:

I realize it's off topic, but it's actually the first post of Goose's I agree with. I think that's exactly what will happen. Israel will simply not tolerate Iran going nuclear - and they'll continue to try to get support from everyone else to stop Iran from doing so, and if that fails - they'll act. They've done it before (Iraq).

Ned Kelly
11-03-2005, 13:25
yes, i agree.

israeli policy drives me up the fricking wall; but i'll cheer them on if they do that (so will russia no doubt, as it will get to re-equip iran all over again!)