There go the Europeans again

[geni]

Again with the selective memory thing. France was an enemy of the colonies before it was ever a friend (they had this little thing we call the French and Indian war). They didn't get involved until two years after the declaration of independence, when it appeared that the rebel colonies might stand a chance. And while the Marquis de Lafayette may have been driven by noble purpose (he was not ordered to go, but decided on his own), but the king of France had no love for such independent thinking as independence and absence of monarchy (go figure). The king's motivation was revenge against England (their eternal enemy) for the French defeats in the seven years war.

Since when did you expect countries have such pure motives?

 

[Ziggurat]

you rather destoryed your own argument there. America has loads of force porjection capabiltiy but for some reason that didn't stop it from getting hit.

I didn't destroy my argument, I'm just able to construct thought processes that involve more than one connection. No, force projection didn't stop us from getting hit. But you miss a MUCH bigger point: it DID stop us from getting hit again. The Taliban will never again be able to host terrorist training camps to organize our enemies against us. Why? Because of force projection. Had we not been able to go into Afghanistan, is there really any doubt but that Al Quaeda would have struck again on US soil by now?

 

[geni]

I didn't destroy my argument, I'm just able to construct thought processes that involve more than one connection. No, force projection didn't stop us from getting hit. But you miss a MUCH bigger point: it DID stop us from getting hit again.

Prove it

The Taliban will never again be able to host terrorist training camps to organize our enemies against us. Why? Because of force projection. Had we not been able to go into Afghanistan, is there really any doubt but that Al Quaeda would have struck again on US soil by now? [/B]

Of course there is.

 

[Elind]

We left Iraq as a nice stabe nation that should have drifted towards democracy.

You live in lala land buddy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Prove it

Prove that Hitler wouldn't have been satisfied with Poland.

Your skeptical disbelief in the threats we face is nice and convenient for you, since it means you don't have to do any of the heavy lifting of actually thinking things through. But for those of us who live in the real world, who have to deal with likelyhoods in the absence of certainty, who have to weigh risks, this kind of thinking doesn't cut it. And you never answered the question: what could Europe have possibly done in response had the 9/11 attackers struck Paris, or Berlin? Could they have toppled the Taliban? No, they could not. All they could have done is asked the US to do it for them. And we would have. Because we're better than them, and I don't just mean militarily.

 

[bjornart]

Prove that Hitler wouldn't have been satisfied with Poland.

Your skeptical disbelief in the threats we face is nice and convenient for you, since it means you don't have to do any of the heavy lifting of actually thinking things through. But for those of us who live in the real world, who have to deal with likelyhoods in the absence of certainty, who have to weigh risks, this kind of thinking doesn't cut it. And you never answered the question: what could Europe have possibly done in response had the 9/11 attackers struck Paris, or Berlin? Could they have toppled the Taliban? No, they could not. All they could have done is asked the US to do it for them. And we would have. Because we're better than them, and I don't just mean militarily.

And still this thread is about how we're not giving a hand. If you can and want to do everything on your own, then stop whining.

 

[Elind]

And still this thread is about how we're not giving a hand. If you can and want to do everything on your own, then stop whining.

This thread is about how you (I presume you are one) pretend to pay lip service to the principles at hand with minimal effort, then cut and run as soon as the going gets a little difficult.

This thread is about your kind who like to lecture others on civilized behaviour, yet advocate acceptance of uncivilized governments or groups.

This thread is about your kind who object to all the things you are incapable of doing yourselves, and unwilling typically follows from incapable.

We are not whining my scandinavian friend, we are criticizing, and you seem to have trouble dealing with that.

 

[geni]

You live in lala land buddy.

Iraq gained it's indipendace from britian (Ok technicaly britans mandate from the leuge of nations ran out) in 1932. The regeam only fell apart due to regonal instabilty.

 

[geni]

Prove that Hitler wouldn't have been satisfied with Poland.

Easy he went on to declare war on other people who didn't declare war on him.

Your skeptical disbelief in the threats we face is nice and convenient for you, since it means you don't have to do any of the heavy lifting of actually thinking things through. But for those of us who live in the real world, who have to deal with likelyhoods in the absence of certainty, who have to weigh risks, this kind of thinking doesn't cut it. And you never answered the question: what could Europe have possibly done in response had the 9/11 attackers struck Paris, or Berlin? Could they have toppled the Taliban?

Dead easy. The taliban were always unstable just send a few million to the warlords who ready run the place to get them to change sides and end of problem.

No, they could not. All they could have done is asked the US to do it for them. And we would have. Because we're better than them, and I don't just mean militarily.

Congratualations you have finaly caught up with where Britan was a couple of centries ago. Hang onto that arogence it will make it some much eayer to justify casual racism against non us citersens (it worked for Britan anyway).

 

[Elind]

Iraq gained it's indipendace from britian (Ok technicaly britans mandate from the leuge of nations ran out) in 1932. The regeam only fell apart due to regonal instabilty.

This is relevant to this? Your explanation are still in lala land.

quote:Originally posted by geni

We left Iraq as a nice stabe nation that should have drifted towards democracy.

 

[geni]

This is relevant to this? Your explanation are still in lala land.

Big hint the place was stable this is what is know as a historical fact you may not like this fact but if you havew a problem with reality this is your problem.

 

[Elind]

Big hint the place was stable this is what is know as a historical fact you may not like this fact but if you havew a problem with reality this is your problem.

I find it interesting, if not frustrating, that we seem to keep talking about different realities. You think a country that kills it's own by the tens (hundreds) of thousands, invades it's neighbors repeatedly and threatens them constantly represents "stability".

You think that this state would have eventually moved to democracy on its own account. If that isn't lala land I don't know what is.

 

[Ziggurat]

Easy he went on to declare war on other people who didn't declare war on him.

I agree, though this is hardly proof. Similarly, Al Quaeda was already at war with us, had been for some time on 9/11, and had promised they would destroy us. So why again would you think that they wouldn't strike again?

Dead easy. The taliban were always unstable just send a few million to the warlords who ready run the place to get them to change sides and end of problem.

Hah! That's pretty damned laughable. What would stop Saudi Arabia and Pakistan from secretly sending a few million to support the Taliban? No, it is not that easy. Particularly if you care about actually reforming the country to actually ensure it doesn't host terrorist training camps again, rather than just trade one group of Al Quaeda hosts for another. Paying off a country to be your friend doesn't end the problem - it never has.

Congratualations you have finaly caught up with where Britan was a couple of centries ago. Hang onto that arogence it will make it some much eayer to justify casual racism against non us citersens (it worked for Britan anyway).

Funny thing: the racism I see isn't from Americans, its from Europeans who think that Arabs either can't or don't deserve to live with the freedoms they themselves cherish. Sorry, but I'm not about to feel guilty about YOUR country's failings. Oh, and citizenship isn't race - but I guess that's also a mongrel U.S. concept that Europeans have a history of showing disdain for.

 

[geni]

I find it interesting, if not frustrating, that we seem to keep talking about different realities. You think a country that kills it's own by the tens (hundreds) of thousands, invades it's neighbors repeatedly and threatens them constantly represents "stability".

By that time the country had been through rather a lot of regeame changes

You think that this state would have eventually moved to democracy on its own account. If that isn't lala land I don't know what is. [/B]

Why not we did or are Arabs some lesser race who can't manage to set up a democracy on their own?

 

[geni]

I agree, though this is hardly proof. Similarly, Al Quaeda was already at war with us, had been for some time on 9/11, and had promised they would destroy us. So why again would you think that they wouldn't strike again?

Because in the past they haven't hit you very often

Hah! That's pretty damned laughable. What would stop Saudi Arabia and Pakistan from secretly sending a few million to support the Taliban? No, it is not that easy. Particularly if you care about actually reforming the country to actually ensure it doesn't host terrorist training camps again, rather than just trade one group of Al Quaeda hosts for another. Paying off a country to be your friend doesn't end the problem - it never has.

The fact that both those countries would rather not piss off a major market. Incerdenty tradeing one group of against another is exactly what you did.

Funny thing: the racism I see isn't from Americans, its from Europeans who think that Arabs either can't or don't deserve to live with the freedoms they themselves cherish. Sorry, but I'm not about to feel guilty about YOUR country's failings. Oh, and citizenship isn't race - but I guess that's also a mongrel U.S. concept that Europeans have a history of showing disdain for.

Beliving your country is the better than any other county leads to raceism. It is how we britian managed to sell the idea of empire to the working classes (who for obvious reasons were not exactly going to be too please about some upper class twit telling them to go go an fight battles with people on ther other side of the planet.

Incerdently when it comes to countries supporting democray in arabs states I think think there can be no better example than that arab country that has had a long relationship with the US. Saudi arabia. A becon of democracy and libety in the reigon and not at all run by an alince of a monarcy and a bunch of relgius extreamists.

 

[Elind]

Originally posted by geni

By that time the country had been through rather a lot of regeame changes

Duhh! And that makes for stability, or are we moving into apology mode now?



Why not we did or are Arabs some lesser race who can't manage to set up a democracy on their own?



For one, none have yet, for another they are not a "race", for another no dictatorship ever has done so willingly, but you seem to think outside help is unethical.

Next you will be saying that Nazi Germany should have been left alone to mellow back into a democracy, by the time of our great granchildren presumably.

This is funny.

 

[Ziggurat]

The fact that both those countries would rather not piss off a major market. Incerdenty tradeing one group of against another is exactly what you did.

Oil in fungible. They could give a damn about who they sell it to, someone's still going to buy it, and Europe's still got to buy oil from someone. You think shuffling around who buys from who is going to make any fundamental changes? Hardly. Europe doesn't even have the testicular fortitude to threaten (let alone enact) Iran with sanctions for their violations of the NPT. And China is getting mighty thirsty. You think China wouldn't buy from Europe's enemies? They're buying from a genocidal regime even as we write.

And no, incidentally, that's not exactly what we did. That was only a part of what we did. We also sent in troop to organize and lead them, and we also gave them a HUGE amount of air support. That air support was crucial to our victory, and without it the war would have taken years, if victory cam at all, and the perpetual violence would hardly prevent the establishment of more terrorist camps. Short of nuclear attack, Europe is militarily incapable of military victory, or even significant action, in a place like Afghanistan without the US. You may protest that it's only a third-rate power, but that's going to be where violence emerges from in the coming century, not from first-rate powers. And Europe is impotent to take even them on.

Beliving your country is the better than any other county leads to raceism.

Sure, in countries where your nationality is equivalent to your race. Again, it escapes me why you think I should feel bad about YOUR country's failings.

Incerdently when it comes to countries supporting democray in arabs states I think think there can be no better example than that arab country that has had a long relationship with the US. Saudi arabia. A becon of democracy and libety in the reigon and not at all run by an alince of a monarcy and a bunch of relgius extreamists.

Indeed, they have turned out to be a major threat to us. And we're changing our attitute towards them accordingly, and putting pressure on them to reform. You think it's somehow a coincidence that Saudi Arabia is getting ready for their first municipal elections ever? You can run your mouth off all you want about the mistakes we've made, but where are Europe's successes in promoting democratic reform in the middle east? Oh, that's right, you don't have any - unless you want to count Israel (which most of Europe seems rather determined to disavow). Hell, are there even any European efforts?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why not we did or are Arabs some lesser race who can't manage to set up a democracy on their own?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world works. This isn't about them not being able to manage. It's about their society having roadblocks that prevent the emergence of democracy, roadblocks that western countries never had to contend with.

In Iraq, there's this little thing sometimes refered to as the curse of oil. When a country is rich in natural resources, it can survive on those resources without having to actually develop an economy. If the government controls those resources, then it can survive on income from those resources, and it does not need to form a tax basis among its people. Unlike even traditional monarchies in Europe, this means that the government is not accountable to its own population in any real sense: it can oppress them, it can kill large numbers of them, it can simply let them stagnate and wallow in economic misery, and there will still be plenty of money for buying weapons to protect the regime against it's own people. It doesn't even need the industrial infrastructure or workforce to produce those weapons. Democratic reforms in the face of despots with control of significant oil is almost impossible without external help (I can't think of a single example, can you?). And that's got nothing to do with race, but basic geopolotical realities.

In Afghanistan, the problem was external interference. The US is not guiltless in this, but neither are we the major culprits. That blame lies mostly with the Soviets, followed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who flooded the country with weapons (again, no native industrial capacity to speak of) that ensured that the local populations had little say over their own fate.

In both those cases, the problem that prevented democratic reforms were unsurmountable from the inside, and were roadblocks that the west never had to contend with. Similarly I would argue that China is likely to undergo slow democratic reforms because they HAVE had to create their own economic capacity, and so are in a way accountable to their own citizenry, though still insufficiently at the moment.

 

[geni]

Oil in fungible. They could give a damn about who they sell it to, someone's still going to buy it, and Europe's still got to buy oil from someone. You think shuffling around who buys from who is going to make any fundamental changes? Hardly. Europe doesn't even have the testicular fortitude to threaten (let alone enact) Iran with sanctions for their violations of the NPT. And China is getting mighty thirsty. You think China wouldn't buy from Europe's enemies? They're buying from a genocidal regime even as we write.

So? Saudi Arabia really does not like bin larden very much remeber objective is to get rid of the ruling family there (the catch is what he wants to replace it with).

And no, incidentally, that's not exactly what we did. That was only a part of what we did. We also sent in troop to organize and lead them, and we also gave them a HUGE amount of air support. That air support was crucial to our victory, and without it the war would have taken years, if victory cam at all, and the perpetual violence would hardly prevent the establishment of more terrorist camps.

And this differes from the current situation how?

Short of nuclear attack, Europe is militarily incapable of military victory, or even significant action, in a place like Afghanistan without the US. You may protest that it's only a third-rate power, but that's going to be where violence emerges from in the coming century, not from first-rate powers. And Europe is impotent to take even them on.

Evidence? It wouldn't be easy (it doesn't help that afganistan is slightly landlocked) but given time there are a number of european countries that would be quite caperble of carrying out a sucessful invasion (assuming those stinger missiles are time expired if not we are definetly looking at a US style play the locals off against each other operation.)

Sure, in countries where your nationality is equivalent to your race. Again, it escapes me why you think I should feel bad about YOUR country's failings.

Failings? No my country is the best.

Indeed, they have turned out to be a major threat to us. And we're changing our attitute towards them accordingly, and putting pressure on them to reform. You think it's somehow a coincidence that Saudi Arabia is getting ready for their first municipal elections ever?

I'll await your next thread complaining about token actions from saudi arabia

You can run your mouth off all you want about the mistakes we've made, but where are Europe's successes in promoting democratic reform in the middle east? Oh, that's right, you don't have any - unless you want to count Israel (which most of Europe seems rather determined to disavow). Hell, are there even any European efforts? [/B]

You may not recall this but back in about 1956 the US told europe to leave the region alone (well Britan and France to be exact but germany was still divided back then).

 

[geni]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world works. This isn't about them not being able to manage. It's about their society having roadblocks that prevent the emergence of democracy, roadblocks that western countries never had to contend with.

In Iraq, there's this little thing sometimes refered to as the curse of oil. When a country is rich in natural resources, it can survive on those resources without having to actually develop an economy. If the government controls those resources, then it can survive on income from those resources, and it does not need to form a tax basis among its people. Unlike even traditional monarchies in Europe, this means that the government is not accountable to its own population in any real sense: it can oppress them, it can kill large numbers of them, it can simply let them stagnate and wallow in economic misery, and there will still be plenty of money for buying weapons to protect the regime against it's own people. It doesn't even need the industrial infrastructure or workforce to produce those weapons. Democratic reforms in the face of despots with control of significant oil is almost impossible without external help (I can't think of a single example, can you?). And that's got nothing to do with race, but basic geopolotical realities.

The counter example is Iran. Ironic really the one country in the middle east that is moving towards demorcay and it has to be one of the most dangerious

In Afghanistan, the problem was external interference. The US is not guiltless in this, but neither are we the major culprits. That blame lies mostly with the Soviets, followed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who flooded the country with weapons (again, no native industrial capacity to speak of) that ensured that the local populations had little say over their own fate.

Not really that place has been at war for pretty much for ever.