Hmmmm. Yet another whose very first post is aimed at me, teacher, target of first posters. Creepy. But maybe it means I'm doing my job.
First of all,one man did not end the cold war.Thats illogical bs,that takes away from the thousands of dissenters in East Europe and Russia that died in the Gulags and at the hands of Soviet intelligence.Obviously they deserve no praise(and yet a half wit with nothing going for him besides great teeth does!)
Brzezinski backed the Afghani's against the USSR.
Spending the USSR into bankruptcy a policy before Reagan came to power.
USSR was doomed when it fell behind the US technogically in the 70's.
Okay, yet another whose argument lays much in semantics. For you I will be focused and exacting with my wording. Good points. How about this then. Reagan put the nail in the coffin. Go check some of Gorbi's statements around the time of the Recnyavick summit.
Al-Qaeda blows up Jewish children?
Again with the semantics. Try this. If Al-Qaeda had not done 9/11 then terrorists in general would not have the eyes of the US focused so clearly on them. The status quo would still be in effect.
Of course he might be Irish,Spanish,Indonesian,Isreali,Palestianan,Austrailia etc.Not that Iraq has anything to do with 9/11 of course.
Iraq has a lot to do with 9/11 in so far as there is now a shining bastion of free democracy in the middle east which may give the oppressed in that region before unimagined hope. Big, long term stuff.
So you want/think the US is the policeman of the world?You think if 'his' country was invaded the US would go after the perpetrators? :roll:
A new era is upon us. Short answer. Yes. Especially if, like I said, they asked.
Is this supposed to be some kind of joke?Sudan!
Joke? Yes Sudan. A refuge for terrorists. Not in a military fashion I think. Just a little US pressure there might change some things. After all, they allready had a cemocratic government in place, just suspended by martial law. Yes, Sudan next.
The US hasn't been playing that game anyway,since the US,France,China,Russia and the UK play there own game.
The UN is what it is because of what the big 5,including the US,made it.
Like I said, new era. I never agreed with the old status quo. There's a new cowboy in charge and he's doing things a little different. :applaud W. :clap:
Umm would this be the country that is ruled by a royal family and women regurly harrassed.
Which now finally has a female in givernment. Baby steps for sure, yet, a step none the less.
Both governments are attempting to govern ungovernable lands
Well, sinse you deem them totaly ungovernable, I change my stance, RUN AWAY. Little Monty Python for you. For more Monty Python view one of my recent Top Tens in the basement. Monty's phrases can work so well in multiple situations. And now for something compleatly different.
.
The authority in the Sunni lands in Iraq is the barrel of a US rifle not the local member of government or the state local police.
And I take it you mean it can never be delt with? Oh my. RUN AWAY.
The authority in Afghanistan are the local unforgiving tribal leaders and the NATO and US planes.Whatever you may say the Iraqi governments power dwindles severly out east and north.Karzai has no power outside of Kabul,instead he is subjected to the whim of local tribal leaders,whose loyalty will change at a second with the right kind of bribe.
Again, baby steps. Do you think that if we can't change it overnight then we shouldn't try?
How can the Shia rulers get the nationalist Sunni to co-operate and join the democracy when the government is held together by violence and curfews and foreign guns?
When our guns leave it will be the guns of the ELECTED government.
When this new democracy is creating rabid inflation,a poor quality of life,high unemployment and a complete breakdown of authority?How are the Shia in Baghdad and the south supposed to be enthusiastic about a weak government,poor electricity,poor drinking water and no end to daily destruction?
Here class we see the problems of getting your news from one sourse that spills your version of the truth only.
What made the US think that a native democracy in Iraq was going to be supported when it needs foreigners that were behind the bombings of Baghdad and the cruel and horrible sanctions to keep it in power?
Again, didn't they have an election or something?
The US was despised in Iraq because of ther sanctions,sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi kids and strenghtened Saddams grip on the country.
US not UN sanctions. Yea, RUN AWAY.
Most importantly what made the US think a country united only by a firm hand,
That firm hand being a dispicable despot.
a country divided heavily by both tribal and religious,a country with a horrible infastructure,a country with one of the most bloody histories ever could be created into a pioneering democracy?
A country tying to adopt a constitution that adresses all these concerns.
The Iraqi and Arabic people don't see a great and blossoming democracy like those in the west but a weak and disastrous government that is failing to provide its people with the necessities of life.
Blanket statement not supported by anything other than your hatred of theUS.
How can democracy spread under such circumstances like the neo-cons said it would?
By giving those who live there the power to change it.
Without stability,extremist Islam and violence is growing.
Growing, I think not. Just set free by the very freedom they have been given. Many of these growing numbers you speak of are foriegn fighters scared s**tless by the very thought of freedom near them, jepordizing their hold on power.
Afghanistan is the same.Resurgent nationalists are growing and fighting.Poppy growth is getting higher.The government lacks power outside of Kabul,unless you count NATO/US guns and traitorous war criminals.Even in Kabul Karzai needs to be flanked by dozens of bodyguards before he adresses a crowd.Its the same story as in Iraq.Poverty,unemployment,weak government,extremism,violence,foreigners holding the authority etc.
Just apply what I wrote about Iraq to this dilema.
If this was the plan for Afghanistan and Iraq,democracy before stability,then it has failed woefully and instead promoted extreme islam and a hate for the US and mistrust for democracy.Iraq was the wrong place to start and stabilty is needed before democracy.Thats obvious now.Not only has democracy proven itself oppressive and weak in Iraq and Afghanistan,it has failed to spread anywhere in the ME.So the neo-cons experiment has failed terribly
Now your putting the cart before the horse. You r statement is a catch-22.
You realy like those all encompassing blanket statements don't you?
In the Tribal areas like Herat as well i suppose. :roll:
Gotta read about that one I guess. teacher can and will study. A difference between us I surmise.
Which hasn't changed anything.Democracy is useless without a constitution to uphold the law of society and liberal institutions that progress society.
That's just plain weak. They are trying to adopt a constution as we speak.
Except Kaddafi was calling for talks with the US moths before the invasion.Not that he had a proper WMD system anyway.Not that he has actually stopped horribly repressing his people either.
Baby steps.
Except Syria is still killing journalists and politicians.Hezbollah,heavily funded by Syria,is still in the Lebanon and is very popular shown by its recent successes in the elections.Syria has managed to get the world off its back and keep a firm stronghold in Lebanon.
Yet they withdrew. Again baby steps.
Saying there was WMD's in Iraq when there wasn't.Duh
No, absolutely, never was. Guess the UN and EVERYBODY was wrong there. At least I managed to slip a little Monty Python into this dry debate. Yea teacher.