The War, The President, and Everything Else

Taking this from the shoutbox to the thread...

Basically, the conversation is going on regarding the war in Iraq, and what Bush is NOT doing about it.

Keep it toned down guys, we all know that talking politics gets people heated, but let's think before we type kiddos!

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Well...

It seems the Iraqis are now getting told they've gotta sort out 'their own' mess. That strikes me as something of a policy shift...

US commanders spell out timeline for Iraqi transition
That sounds like we're gonna see one of two 'policy-progressions' here:

• The 'Cut and sneak away slowly' one.
  
  Or, more likely...
  
  
• The 'Stay the course, by jogging at the back' approach - (IE US forces scale-down but stay on hand - altho mainly staying inside their potentially-permenant bases to avoid the guerilla warfare).

Either way, it's hard to deny that we're preparing to step back and 'let' the Iraqis deal with the brunt of the mess that we've made.

(Anyone care to deny that we made it? Or that it's still a big mess?)

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

A pretty wide thread title there, Spud.

Hmm... Seems like I should read the shouts in the box more regularly.

Well, what more is there to say about Bush... Everyone who was in favour of the war in Iraq claimed that it was a necessary step in the war against terror. It would give us a safer and more secure world. I have always been of the opinion that the American tactics and the politics that Bush stands for would lead to the opposite, something I have discussed a lot on this site. And I believe I've been right, so far.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Well, somewhere down the line, we could probably merge all the politics threads together as much as they all are sounding the same..

Here's what I think on the situation in Iraq. I think at first, our intentions were a little outrageous, but it worked for the first couple of years. Now that it's obvious Iraq doesn't want help anymore, we should pull out. I mean, when the news reports say that the problems are actually getting worse, that can only mean one thing, the U.S. isn't wanted anymore.

I've got friends over there, I think that everyone knows I'm in the military, I was over there for 6 months before, and while I wasn't on land during that time, it was a nerve-racking time.

If Bush chooses to keep them over there longer (which he's already leaning towards), who else doesn't see that this will just make matters worse? When their missions went from taking down insurgents to avoiding suicide bombers, looking for missing soldiers, etc., I think it's safe to say that it's more of a cat and mouse game now. It's always been a cat and mouse game, but now, we're the mouse.

I'm all for war if it's required to get the job done, but I'm not for keeping people away from their families and basically causing a genocide on American troops by keeping them in a location where they have no real purpose other than to keep the peace. I said this in the Shoutbox yesterday and I'll say it again, WE'RE NOT RENT-A-COPS!!!

Perfectly understandable. I certainly would not want to go and fight in a country for reasons unclear to me. But isn't that a risk you should be aware of when you join the US military? America, it seems to me, is in a way built on warfare. The nation is on a regular basis involved in military conflicts of various scales but the wars are never fought on American ground. In a way, and I certainly don't mean to be offensive and I understand your positon fully, but in a way it sounds a bit like it was okay to go to Iraq "to kick some ass" for a month or so, but when American soldiers are beginning to die by the thousands, then it's not that much fun anymore. Not saying that you personally are saying exactly that, but the general public opinion in America, the way it comes out in media over here, seems to be leaning towards that. But I mean, it's either war, or it's not. Almost 3.000 American soldiers have died in the war, which is terrible. Something between 300.000 and 900.000 (depending on who you're asking) Iraqis have died during the same time. USA were of the opinion that there was a job to be done in Iraq and that they were the ones to get it done, even if others thought differently. Again, wanting to get out is totally understandable, but now, unlike before, America actually has some responsibility in this situation. And I don't think it would be fair to anybody to simply leave now. That the troops feel unwanted and don't see the meaning in them being there is as understandable as the Iraqis not wanting them there. It's an evil circle, I'm sure. War, even though I've never experienced it, sure must suck.

At this point, it is a no-win situation. I do not mean about the war, but for Bush. Regardless of the outcome he will be blasted for us staying there or he will smeared for pulling out. I for one hope make it a gradual pull out and not have some deadline for complete removal. Complete withdrawl may never be possible. I would like to make one thing clear though: Most Iraqi's welcome us there and the aid given is amazing, it is overlooked in the shadow of war, but many lives have been helped. Does the pros outweigh the cons? In the long run I think it will, but I can certainly admit that I do not know.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

I had a nice long reply, and I lost my connection to the net. I'll be back later to try and touch on everything I was trying to.

I haven't forgotten about this, just have been real busy.

Since this post is kind of political and kind of about everything else I thought I would post a little something about Fidel in here.

I just watched the news and Fidel Castro apparently has made an appearence to silence the rumours of his alledged death. Judging by the footage the rumours weren't completely wrong. I saw Oliver Stone's "Looking for Fidel" (2004) not long ago and in that one, as in Commandante (2003), the almost 80-year old dictator looked fit and healthy. In this news segment he looked really old and sick. He reminded me of those people I've seen that suffer from Ahlzeimer's disease.

So, I figure that Castro will die within a considerably near future. What do you think will happen with Cuba and its relations to USA and the rest of the world after Castro's gone? His brother Raul is expected to take over after Fidel's death but is nothing compared to Fidel in terms of charisma.

One of two things will probably happen:
1- nothing really different..staus quo..etc..................
2- Big change.....we here in the U.S. need to watch out..and we need to watch China..yep we do.

?

Really? I agree with the possibility of number one, but can you explain why you think you will have to watch out when Castro's dead? What are you afraid of? And China. Is it their economic power or their military power you're afraid of? Because the relations between USA and China are pretty good, aren't they? China's economy is exploding and in some aspects the most capitalist system on Earth. Americans should adore China - not fear it.

About Cuba. I think Castro for older generations is still an icon, a living legend, the rebel who freed them from the corrupt regime that was before 1959. But when Castro dies and the glorious revolution with him, I think it will be very hard for the government to stop the civil rights movement and the demands for democracy and freedom of speech in Cuba. I don't think he has the same support among the young Cubans. At the same time I think the Cubans will be in favour of some kind of social democratic system, since Castro actually have managed to make some of his socialist visions work in practice. When Castro dies I also think the relations with USA will become warmer and Cuba will be able to develop. I'm an optimist.

Sure it all looks good on the surface, and if things get ugly in Korea, more so than they are now, China will be a big player in deciding what happens. It is more of a cause and effect that I am worried about. Two years from now we will have a weak president in office, unless something changes and the upcoming mid-term elections are going to be a big boost in undermining our war on terror. And I am mot talking about Iraq. Oh well just my thoughts.

I think the current president has a lot to do with the fear you seem to be feeling towards the rest of the world. He, if anyone, has undermined the possibilities for a more peaceful world and instead helped to increase aggressiveness, suspiciousness and fear in people all around the world. I am experiencing a stronger extremism, a stronger anti-americanism, a stronger anti-islamism and a stronger xenophobia in general, now more than ever. George W. Bush stands for the hard line and the keep-on-exploiting-the-3rd-World-and-****-the-environment line. For those who like it when the world feels like a ticking bomb, he's the man. If political skills equals weakness then, yes, you guys are running the risk of having a weak president in a two years. Two very long years.

China, as I said, has got the world's fastest growing economy attracting investors from all over the world, not least from USA. They are hosting the Olympics in two years. They have the eyes of the world of them. There is no way in hell they would scare off all those rich westerners by rattling their nukes. And without China I believe, thanks to Bush's anti-diplomacy and other things, we will get nowhere with the North Koreans.

I just do not understand exatly when the definition of diplomacy became: If they ignore resolutions or international law that they themselves agreed too then we will do nothing but talk about it untill.....until when? I think you give too much credit to Bush, the state the world is in now took a long time to achieve, long before Bush and long before Clinton. I also think 911 helped a bit, of course some say thats Bush's fault too .

But, but...

We were NEVER stay the course, according to the illustrious Mr. Bush.

Now, now. You'll make poor Tony Snow headbutt his microphones again.

I think the strategy was to tactically score an own-goal. Or something.

I think the definition of America as the Great Satan is clearer and shared by more people than in a long time. I think that anti-american dictatorships are sitting safer in their seats thanks to Bush and his politics because they can canalize people's dissatisfaction on America instead of their own leadership. Diplomacy can mean talking to your enemy and finding out how he thinks and figure out what he will do next. It also means that when it's possible you can reach understandings that will be the foundation of progress later on. By not talking at all to North Korea it means they feel the isolation and decides to proceed with their nuke programs out of fear of the powerful enemy that is USA.

I'm not blaming Bush for everything that is wrong in this world, even if his politics is a continuation of the kind of politics that is the source of a lot that is wrong with this world. I am certainly not blaming him for 9-11. But I do believe his actions after 9-11 have been clumsy to say the least.

I've been away for a few days and I was surprised to find exactly zero (0) posts about the American Congress election when I came back. Here in Sweden, where we follow American politics pretty closely, it's been all over the news for weeks and especially now when it's clear that the Democrats won the majority in both houses. And then Rumsfeld had to go.

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts about this. What do you think will be the outcome from this? Will anything be different? What effect do you think this will have on the presidential election in two years?

Heh, well, it did look like a likely outcome. Plus you can't go recount crazy with all these 'no paper trail' e-voting set-ups now. (Hence the quietness after the last election too, i suspects ).

The Dems don't look like they're gonna go 'impeach crazy' (just yet) which is probably a good thing. They'll probably play nastier closer to election time tho.

On an international front, we might see more overt support for multilateral global warming initiatives with a Dem-leaning House etc. Possibly other 'bridge rebuilding' stuff too. So i'm told.

Big topic, prepare for a big reply...

I'm going to lay my cards on the table upfront and say that I am no fan of Bush. Not that anyone would be surprised by that, but just the same, in the nature of full disclosure...

The notion of Iraq being a mistake is one for historians to debate at this point in time, its done, where do we go from here?

Unfortunately there is no "exit strategy" that would guarantee stability in the region or in Iraq itself. There is too much noise in the region to hear anything else but chaos. The situation in Iran as well as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict weigh heavily on the minds and hearts of every Arab. Not to mention the old ethnic conflicts that a strong and brutal dictator kept in check (which was part of the reason we supported him in the first place) with an iron hand. removing Saddam was a good thing, the way he was removed was less so.

Resolving the situation in Israel is the key factor in beginning the peaceful transition to a less war-torn middle east. I have always felt this, as insignificant as the land mass is the symbolic implications are directly inversely proportionate. The simple fact that we have not taken a vital role in this process since Clinton (one of the things, that if history is kind, he will be fondly remembered for) is the most (at least on the aforementioned symbolic level) significant reason we have failed to capture the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. I'm not talking about a resolution to an age old conflict, I'm talking about progression towards peaceful coexistence.

On China, the great dichotomy in China at the moment, I believe, is the fact that the Tiananmen Square mentality has faded with the economic boom...at least on the surface. Repression is still at an all time high, Human Rights Watch has a HUGE list of political prisoners and their reasons for imprisonment. They want democracy, which unfortunately would completely destabilize the Chinese economy.

The irony that the most robust capitalist system in the world right now is being run by one of the most socially repressive governments in the industrialized world is unfortunately lost on most Americans. The further irony that China has been the recipient of so much help in the building of their economy, by industry and through the ridiculous Clinton "most favored nation" status. Yet with all this they have a crucial role in the development of the region in which they lie. And they really want nothing to do with any other nation except trade, culturally Hong Kong is China's saving grace.

China is a particularly thorny animal. As I stated in the other thread, I believe that China is on an incredibly dangerous path. Economically they are at the top of their game, but the minor surface cultural changes, and the incredible amount of environmental degradation occurring within the major cities, is a time bomb waiting to go off. Best case scenario, they realize that the rate of growth in the country is far too high, far too fast to support itself and then the vital social and economic reforms are realized. Worst case, there is a massive agrarian revolt, ethnic tensions in the outlying regions explode and the ruling class has no choice but to clamp down even harder, and we have something similar to the current situation in Russia. Capitalism breeds corruption as Socialism breeds a malaise like contentment, as well as resentment in the intelligentsia. China has tasted capitalism and the result of a collapse would be the fast development of a black market economy massive organized crime and the same worries about nuclear materials gone missing. I hope for some form of the former.

As far as Cuba is concerned. I really can't see why any sort of barrier, cultural or economic still exists. We have friendly relations with China for F***s sake! The main difference is that there isn't a huge lobby concentrated in a very powerful congressional district that HATES this man and all that he stands for. The are the friends and family of landowners (who did plenty of exploiting of their own under Batista) who resent Castro for nationalizing all private property. If the Iraqi sanctions hurt the Iraqi people as some of the more conservative elements of our government insisted as part of their campaign to war, the abject poverty in some parts of Cuba is surely a human rights abuse of its own. I don't like Castro, I don't believe that the state should have complete control over every aspect of daily life, it is anathema to freedom. But as far as most world dictators go, he is certainly the lesser especially considering some that we have supported.

__________________
"You have to believe in God before you can say there are things that man was not meant to know. I don't think there's anything man wasn't meant to know. There are just some stupid things that people shouldn't do." -David Cronenberg