"New American Century" Project Ends With A Whimper

"For, America, we have met the enemy and they have pwnd us."

I couldn't agree more, and we're all letting them do it. Sad times ahead for this country and world. Don't put your faith in Clinton or the dems to be any better.

This country needs a political revolution and I don't see it happening anytime soon or at all. For what it's worth, your votes should be going GREEN PARTY.

What is worse is that they will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes, until there is a democracy, and then they'll say: We pwnd Iraq, so we can do it to others too. It's a great idea. We'll call it instant democracy. Go to McDemocracy and get a 500 pounder. No, wait, stay where you are. We'll come to you.

In the last 25 years an average of 3 new democracies have spawned per year. In three years, even longer, US neocons have not been able to create one through forceful intervention (I have to use that word, because some people are really sensitive and feel they are being slammed to hard these days, so they wouldn't like "aggressive warfare")

...forceful intervention (I have to use that word, because some people are really sensitive and feel they are being slammed to hard these days, so they wouldn't like "aggressive warfare")

Personally, I'd call it arrogant imperialism, but if you are worried about calling a spade a spade I believe the Neoco term of choice is either promoting freedom or spreading liberty.

-J

Claus, I am shocked. You know, I read your stuff every once in a while, and to me it's a paradox to see you making such comments. I am curious what you feel about this.

Nikitab,

You should have read them all, especially the last one about winning the hearts and minds. I know where you are coming from, and what you are going for, and I'm not going to throw you a bone and say that you should go ahead and attack Iran before they become a member of SCO or get their hands on weapons-grade uranium.

Risk analysis, worst case scenarios and fiction writing is very convenient in terms of nuclear weapons, because the damages are so much worse, but even in cases involving life and death you have to respect some principles. I don't know if Americans have seen so many Hollywood-movies they believe it is the dirtiest cop who does the best job, but it's just nonsense to me.

I have skimmed the article and clipped it for later reference. I do admit you present your case very well.

Let me tell you something from the real world: Iran is already surrounded by troops on four sides, and average Iranians have known for a long time that they will be attacked by USA no matter what they do or say. Getting 90 % enriched uranium is their only chance of avoiding it, because USA will cook up a pretext to get what they want.

Right now you &%¤%# are discussing if the documents found in Iraq will change the way people perceive the invasion and the WMD argument, and shut the damned liberals up...

Are you people nuts? Even if you found WMD, you would still have lied and cooked up intelligence to support what may not even have been assumption. It is not a link to terrorism either. Terrorism is when you kill civilians.

So, Ahmadinejad knows you are going for it all, the regional control, the Plan for a New American Century, world dominance, and for the oil before the prices go haywire, the petro-dollar is shot down and effects of the peak oil decline set in. No matter what, except if he has the bomb.

Ahmadinejad is the patsy, and has been from the moment he took seat, with psy ops directed against him, one after another. He may be a Holocaust-denier, and he may be a religious fundamentalist, and he may be belligerent against Israel - but he knows what he is dealing with.

He is playing the oil instrument as a fiddle, and he is playing the global media like Mozart on amphetamine. It is not Ahmadinejad that has to go for the sake of the Iranian people here, it is the US Neocons and Christian fundamentalists who need to learn something about politics.

If they weren't waging religious war against the Ayatollah, the Iran uranium dispute wouldn't have jumped up to bite them in the arse like this, and if they hadn't invaded Iraq, they could have done something about it - heck, they'd have had an ally! But noo-ooh... Saddam was behind 9/11.

Claus, next time I hope that you wouldn't go into such great detail past the point of disagreement, which is:

Let me tell you something from the real world: Iran is already surrounded by troops on four sides, and average Iranians have known for a long time that they will be attacked by USA no matter what they do or say.

I feel that that is most definitely not the case (the part about "attack no matter what"). Think back to Iraq. Suppose that Iraq complied with 1441 and Blix said "there is full compliance", do you think US would still go to war? I seriously doubt it. Same with Iran - I hope war will be averted, but not by US letting Iran continue the way they have down a dangerous path, but, instead by Iran changing their agenda because it's more dangerous not to.

I don't think either Iran or US is naive. US had a very weak policy in the past in the ME, which lead Iran and Iraq believe that US would not follow through on the threat of force. Now that US credibility has been re-established, Iran may take greater risks internally to avoid war. Would you not agree?

I don't think either Iran or US is naive. US had a very weak policy in the past in the ME, which lead Iran and Iraq believe that US would not follow through on the threat of force. Now that US credibility has been re-established, Iran may take greater risks internally to avoid war. Would you not agree?

Absolutely not. It's imperative that people understand that neither Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran are imperative to US national security interests, but vital to US economic interests in the region.

Afghanistan could, perhaps, be excused with the need to track down Osama bin Laden. I don't see how US credibility has been "re-established". US did not have a very weak policy in the ME; it was about as operative as in the Western hemisphere with regard to secret ops, and neither the US cooperation with Pakistan and the positioning of the US fleet in the Gulf is a new thing.

"Iran may take greater risks internally to avoid war". What do you mean? I don't know if it is some political jargon? What risk would which Iran take? The official Iran? The population? The population will not love you, because you bomb them, no, and overthrow the president they have voted for. Iran is a police state.

I honestly don't see how I can possibly have overstepped your boundaries by interpreting your comment and your article in the only way possible, but I tend to get a little agitated when people laughingly defend torture, dismiss US abductions in Europe as trivial because nobody cares, and try to convince me to help you drop a few bombs in Iran to prevent them from future crimes, and it will be over real soon.

It's not just an insult, but an insult to my intelligence.

Claus, good questions. I didn't mean that you overstepped boundaries, but only that it's not constructive when you make conclusions rooted in things that we disagree upon.

Weak policy in ME: US has had numerous opportunities to address ME, but has not done so because this would introduce political domestic turmoil. Mogadishu comes to mind. Not supporting the Shah in Iran as well. Letting down anti-Saddam elements after the first Gulf war. History is littered with times when US behaved terribly. US has repeatedly avoided open confrontation until Bush Jr. - do I make sense? Now US made it clear that open confrontation is indeed an option, thereby regaining credibility in the political arena on a large scale.

I feel that Iraq and Iran are indeed imperative for US security for reasons outlined in my article linked to above. (Item 8 - Non-Western governments sponsoring deployment of WMD on Western soil)

By "Iran may take greater risks internally to avoid war", I mean that, in Iran, taking pro-democratic reforms makes it harder for the ruling elite to stay in power. So unless there is a real threat to the ruling elite from US/UN, they will only tighten their grip. Given a threat, they will take the lesser of two evils - they will attempt to retain the grip, while giving in to some pro-democratic pro-capitalist movements, which would in turn, hopefully snowball into decentralization and democratization over the next 20-50 years (as would be argued by Friedman and Sharansky).

I agree with you about it being frustrating when people claim torture is not a big deal. But I am far more frustrated when people say things like "Iran should solve their own problems", which seems completely lacking perspective.

Hi Nikitab,

I think I'm going to break off the discussion, because you are not talking to me, you are trying to use me to manipulate the audience.

Weak policy in ME: US has had numerous opportunities to address ME, but has not done so because this would introduce political domestic turmoil. Mogadishu comes to mind. Not supporting the Shah in Iran as well.

What do you mean you didn't support the Shah? You put the Shah there by plotting, financing and overturning your first democracy by overthrowing the legally elected president Mossadeqh for trying to nationalize the oil, and then supporting the Shah who led what according to human rights organizations was the most oppressive regimes on Earth. Having learned from your experiences, you did the same to Chile. Did we read different history books, or did you just mean to say that you didn't support the Shah when the Iranian revolution took place? Little you could have done, brother. It's a case of the chickens coming home to roost.

Letting down anti-Saddam elements after the first Gulf war.

Well, that one was bad, but it was also premeditated, Bush Sr. luring them into death knowing he would probably not pursue Iraq to the end right there and then. You did have you media coverage when the insurgence was brutally struck down, and your UN sanctions that carved slices off the Iraqi ability to defend itself and off the civilian population too. Is that what you want to apologize for by bombing Iran?

History is littered with times when US behaved terribly. US has repeatedly avoided open confrontation until Bush Jr. - do I make sense?

No, not at all. You sound like Lord Jim who has acted cowardly and desperately looks for a war to make up for his error and prove his heroism. You are not endearing yourself to me, particularly, but now I'm only a journalist who majored in IP, so maybe you'll have more luck with someone else.

Now US made it clear that open confrontation is indeed an option, thereby regaining credibility in the political arena on a large scale.

Like I asked before: Are you people nuts? Or are you just paid to deny facts, and twist any information to your advantage? You are not gaining credibility, friend. A majority of the world, as well as your own population, think the Bush regime has completely lost it.

If they put up with you it's only because they are more afraid of guys like Ahmadinejad, and because of the fact that you are an invincible military force. But that doesn't mean you have regained credibility in any way.

Like I said, I'll hang up now, because I feel I'm talking to someone from another planet, or someone who has been paid by the 4th Psychological Operations Group to visit this forum and get everybody confused.

No offense.

I have to agree with Claus Jacobsen here.

nikitab, you are trying to insult his intelligence with your usual merry-go-round tactics. Too bad, Claus saw through it. Actually he's being too polite.

Comment 3.9

Claus, you are simply wasting your time here. Unless you like to go a lot without going anywhere. You know, like in a merry-go-round.

Rhine, get lost. I tried to engage you in the other thread, but you failed to answer the simplest of questions instead engaging in demagogy.

Claus, I am sorry you feel that I am trying to manipulate you to any purpose. The reason why I engaged you is because, from the recent works that I've read, I was under the impression that we could engage in dialog where I could learn something that might actually prove me wrong. Instead you are resorting to personal attacks. Let me know when you are interested in discussing these issues.

In the meantime, with regard to Shah and Pinochet - yes, US supported dictatorial rule and in both cases such was far better than alternatives given the times. And Shah was not supported in 1979, when Khomeini turned Iran into an Islamic republic by way of a revolution. (Wikipedia)Since you mention Chile, Pinochet was similar to Shah and was supported by US - privatized industries, involved Friendman and the Chicago boys (economists) to revive the economy (whereas Allende was nationalizing everything, which would have ended up with USSR becoming involved - and this a decade after the Cuban missle crisis!). Also, need I remind you that Pinochet ended up phasing his country back into a democracy. If US didn't let the revolution of 1979 take place in Iran, it might have undergone a similar transformation that would have left an economic flourishing democratic country with Western values instead of the mess that's there now.

What facts am I denying? Perhaps you've made up your mind about my agenda, but I am actually genuinely interested in correcting my perception if it is not correct. NVed about my reason for being here before and I still stand by what I said.

nikitab thus spake:

I was under the impression that we could engage in dialog where I could learn something that might actually prove me wrong. Instead you are resorting to personal attacks.

Aha, trying out very much the similar line of attack on Claus now, is it? A little piece of advice - to learn something, you need to have an open mind and not come in with pre-existing biases.

Yup, Rhine, I'm beginning to get a picture of the tactics.

Actually this sort of thing made me go completely nuts in the beginning. I have learned a lot about the world, and about the blogosphere since I arrived on Newsvine. I used to be a member of other rather silly communities, including one in DK where people are constantly talking about dating, television shows and their own navels. I quickly got sick and tired of the nonsense, and then I was directed to Newsvine and quickly grew hooked.

The general IQ level made me stay in spite of the most obvious gang-trollers, but then I discovered another strange phenomenon, extraordinary IQ extended to serving the most obscene agendas such as defense of torture, racism, public deception and so forth. I know I go a little overboard with the constant references to the 4th Psychological Operations group, but, quite honestly, sarcasms like these are the only thing I can think of to counter systematic disinformation on such a critical level.

It's interesting, though, that there seem to be a rise of Sophists who will use their obvious rhetorical skills and analytic intelligence to put forth the most outrageous proposals and defend them relentlessly, with a straight face and in a calm and organized manner.

When you describe it as a merry-go-round, it does help me to laugh the whole thing off. Thanks for that.

To all others: I do think there are important political issues with Iran under the Khameini/Ahmadinejad rule, but I think we should try to discuss them on another basis than spin and misconstrued arguments.

Wait, what? Claus, you are a hypocrite. If you actually care to read the thread referenced by Rhine, which actually starts here, you, of all people, should acknowledge his demagogy and that I had a valid point.

Moreover, I've specifically said that I hope that the situation will resolve itself without a war with Iran and that I am interested in minimizing human suffering giving you ample evidence and support for why I hold my views. Moreover, I've approached you hoping to learn and discuss. You, instead, dismissed and belittled me.

I find your behavior compeltely uncalled for.

Aha, now start the insults. "Hypocrite" being the word of the day today. Yesterday, it was a******. Thanks nikitab, nice way to expand the frontiers of your knowledge.

Nikitab, I did read the thread, and I had actually read the article before Rhine Cyrus directed me to it. I have also commented on it. So far I think I SPY gave the best comment.

If you want to know what I am thinking, I am asking myself: What is the interest in undermining UN, and why is it that UN has to answer for the abuses committed by soldiers borrowed from membership countries, and for corruption committed by companies under the food-for-oil program, including Danish companies?

I didn't get involved in the Rush Limberg discussion, because I don't care much for this guy. I cannot get his show, but I have read some transcripts, and quite frankly, I think he is an idiot. His statements would be illegal according to Danish law.

Perhaps it is just a question of viewing things differently. I don't really know if the history of US illegal operations is kept a secret to you in America, and if you have some sort of self-censorship in the educational institutions, but it quite often appear to me that some of you have incredibly selective view on both history and current affairs.

I don't know how to say this politely, nikitab, but if this discussion was a history test, and I was the external censor, I would have to flunk you. It is quite evident that you have not read my articles, because I tend to quite thorough, and I have actually explained the CIA operations in the Middle East and how it has affected the region.

Claus, which history part are you flunking me for?

I never denied that there were CIA operations. I said US had a weak ME policy in general choosing a more publicly hands-off approach.

UN - wow, Claus... just wow. So UN sets up programs but fails to set up control mechanisms to prevent abuse and that's ok? I actually don't think UN is evil - they've done lots of goods, but how can you say that they bear no reponsibility for the scams and abuse that took place?

Middle East studies, nikitab, particularly relating to US history. I have no doubt you know the truth, but you seem to use facts in a very distorted manner. What bothers me, however, is that you have picked facts that play right into the forehand of an opponent, in this case myself.

You could a chosen a number of facts that would sustain your case, and I am almost compelled to try to make a case for sanctioning Iran just for the sake of the game, but I have to refrain because it would make my conscience ache.

About UN, I don't know what I can say. You admit that it is not an evil institution, so we agree on the basics.

Honestly, I think you are trying to alleviate blame from the USA by blaming another organization with far less power, but nearly the same number of letters and an acronym that sounds much the same. This is the reason for my initial hesitation.

The food-for-oil program, well, it was what UN (the forum, not the institution) could agree on in order to help the average Iraqis not to die from starvation, so it's basically a good idea. Another of the good things they have done.

The first line of guilt lies with companies and contractors. UN ought to have investigated the scams conducted by corporations and contractors who bribed Iraqi officials, as well as their own people. In the case of sexual abuse the first line of guilt lies with the soldiers and the army commanders.

You see, UN is not a nation, and it's not even an organization in simple terms. It's an multilateral institution comprised by nations, so eventually some of the guilt reflects poorly on the nations that participate in the enforcement of resolutions, as well as the UN leadership.

That said, Kofi Annan is probably the best leader UN has ever had. I couldn't know this for sure, but I feel that if we gave the UN a greater mandate, and the permanent members of the UN Security Council would act with more responsibility, it could takes us in the direction of an international rule of law.

What bothers me, however, is that you have picked facts that play right into the forehand of an opponent, in this case myself.

Can you be more specific?

the permanent members of the UN Security Council would act with more responsibility

That's the crux of the problem. UN is plagued by interests pertaining to individual countries (only natural) who are not interested in the purpose of the UN.

As far as sex-scandals, if this were a singular occurence, I would agree. But if it's systematic, is UN not to blame for not taking the precautions? As for oil-for-food - UN had ample of resources to set up a system to prevent abuse of the system and this abuse should have been anticipated.

In three years, even longer, US neocons have not been able to create one through forceful intervention.

I sometimes wonder if some folks secretly (perhaps openly in some cases) hope the US fails to get some sort of democracy going in Iraq, as it could validate the use of "forceful intervention" to do so.

In other words, what is preferred?

- a flawed but functioning embryonic democracy, but one that is imposed and could be considered a US "success"?

- an authoritarian, oppressive, possibly theocratic regime, but one that is in some sense "authentic" or "homegrown" and would represent a failure for the US?

- some other (plausible) outcome?

Well murat,

I've been thinking about this myself, and I would have to say something like:

- if USA could be persuaded to do as Fukuyama suggest and deconstruct neoconservatism and promise not to do it again, people may let USA get away with Iraq, considering that nobody is in a position to challenge USA anyway

- if USA could explain how the rights of the hundreds of thousands of civilians it cost with the neo-con method, USA may be able to make a case for preemptive warfare and forceful democratization as moral and humanitarian

- this goes for the West, and people who have an interest or sympathies aligned to US but are otherwise critical about excessive use of force, but others may not accept even a well meant apology... there is a hint to a third possible outcome

But if you had to choose?

murat,

Multiply anything with zero, and the sum is still zero. Let me explain:

- if I choose to endorse neoconservative policies, I partake in the blame for the deaths and suffering of potentially millions of people, caused by preemptive warfare and forceful democratization.

- if I choose to condemn the process of democratic nation building, I support some sort of dictatorship and partake in the blame for the deaths and suffering of credibly hundreds of thousands of people

- in either case my guilt approximates the infinite

- I'd have to stick to my pragmatic approach and say that the lives of the civilians who have lost their lives for the removal of one dictator are, sadly, lost

- I'm forced by circumstances to favor democracy in Iraq, and the remaining of coalition forces, simply because it is the only viable course of action

- I have a moral obligation to do what I can to prevent USA from viewing or presenting Iraq as a "success", because of how neoconservatives are likely to frame and use it, no matter the final outcome for Iraqis

I hope this answers your question :)

I hope this answers your question

Yes it does, Claus. And that's about where I come down as well.

Living in the US and experiencing firsthand the disillusionment with where the neo-cons have brought us (even, as you point out, among some putative believers) and the moral capital that has been squandered, it's hard for me to imagine that Iraq will ever be thought of as an unqualified "success".

Futhermore, my hope is that the revelations concerning the supposed rock solid evidence of WMD and the like will fuel a healthy skepticism the next time we start talking about a preemptive war.

I worry though that the effort to ensure the US comes away with blackened eyes (mission accomplished, methinks) diverts attention from the suffering of the Iraqis, or worse, gives insurgents the idea that the world is united with them against the US.

Claus, so then I am curious - you are Bush Jr. prior to the war. Iraq is not complying with the UN. You are slowly losing political leverage with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. and, as I mentioned in my other article, there is that risk of WMD used to undermine the Western economies once WMD become cheap and accessible, which will be within our lifetime.

The situation is getting grossly out of hand. France does the "unreasonable" veto. How would you have handled the situation?

3.26

Too hypothetical. It's almost as if it's framed so as to elicit some pre-desired response.

...once WMD become cheap and accessible, which will be within our lifetime.

Too strong a statement without any proper reasoning. Why do you think WMD will become cheap and accessible? What is your definition of WMD?

The situation is getting grossly out of hand.

What do you mean by this? People are coming and killing Americans every day? Americans are killing people everyday? You get up from bed and have to put on an armor to go to work? What is the scenario that you have in mind when you say that?

France does the "unreasonable" veto.

What do you mean by "unreasonable?" How do you define "unreasonable"?

To answer your question within the narrow framework you have defined is to play into your hands - which is what Claus was referring to earlier. The scope you have defined is very very narrow. What happens when you expand it to fit the larger framework of whatever we have seen Bush Jr. do? Or the U.S. do vis-a-vis world affairs?

I can ask you this question - You, nikitab, are Bush Jr prior to the war. You have been told by world leaders that the no-fly zones enforced by the US and UK in Iraq are illegal. You have been told that the UN needs more time. You have been told by the CIA that there is no WMD and that Iraq is a very long time away from possessing WMDs. This is post-9/11. You have been told that the hijackers are from Saudi Arabia. You have some information that Al-Qaeda might have bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that bin-Laden might in in that area. You have at your disposal a huge army (say you 132,000 soldiers) that you could use to hunt down the perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of sending them to some other unnamed country.

How would you have handled the situation?

Rhine, I still think you intellectually challenged, but I'll humor you.

...once WMD become cheap and accessible, which will be within our lifetime.

Too strong a statement without any proper reasoning. Why do you think WMD will become cheap and accessible? What is your definition of WMD?

Because I know a little bit of physics and know people who know a great deal more than I who say the same thing (ask any respectable physicist). WMD = something that can kill a lot of people.

The situation is getting grossly out of hand.
What do you mean by this? People are coming and killing Americans every day? Americans are killing people everyday? You get up from bed and have to put on an armor to go to work? What is the scenario that you have in mind when you say that?

Terrorism has seen significant increases. Saudi Arabia is moving towards placating fundamentalists. Iraq and Iran are becoming aggressively anti-western and fail to comply with demands of UN for transparency.

France does the "unreasonable" veto.

What do you mean by "unreasonable?" How do you define "unreasonable"?

France ruled out military action prior to the war regardless of circumstances. That would be unreasonable.

To answer your question within the narrow framework you have defined is to play into your hands - which is what Claus was referring to earlier. The scope you have defined is very very narrow. What happens when you expand it to fit the larger framework of whatever we have seen Bush Jr. do? Or the U.S. do vis-a-vis world affairs?

I don't understand you.

I can ask you this question - You, nikitab, are Bush Jr prior to the war. You have been told by world leaders that the no-fly zones enforced by the US and UK in Iraq are illegal. You have been told that the UN needs

Which world leaders are we talking about who would say that? I don't think anybody argued that the no-fly zones were illegal. At least I don't know of anybody of any consequence. I am not sure about this - am I wrong?

more time. You have been told by the CIA that there is no WMD and that Iraq is a very long time away from possessing WMDs. This is post-

Who said there is no WMD? Moreover, Hans Blix specifically said there is no full compliance, so they need more time... after all the time that's been spent on this after the first Gulf war. If I didn't enforce resolution 1441, which was supposed to be the very last resolution, why would resolution 1442 have a different effect?

9/11. You have been told that the hijackers are from Saudi Arabia. You have some information that Al-Qaeda might have bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that bin-Laden might in in that area. You have at your disposal a huge army (say you 132,000 soldiers) that you could use to hunt down the perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of sending them to some other unnamed country.

I go after Afghanistan. I can't go into Saudi Arabia or even pressure them too much because they want to work with me, but can only do so to a limited extent due to internal problems with fundamentalists. I realize that in order to prevent this sort of thing in the future, I need to do pretty much exactly what Bush did - establish presence in the Middle East and demonstrate that UN and the West is not to be taken lightly and that it is the intent that intent must be demonstrated. IF the situation was not as grave as it was, I would give it more time (even though I would think it immoral on a human level knowing all the abuses that are going on). But the situation was grave - UN was losing credibility, Saddam refused to cooperate, Iran was waiting on US before making the next move. So I would probably do the same thing Bush did. What would you do?

You really are testy, nikitab, aren't you?

First off, I refuse to play the part of Bush Jr., and secondly. The scenario you describe is based on flawed premises:

there is that risk of WMD used to undermine the Western economies once WMD become cheap and accessible, which will be within our lifetime.

Look at 9/11 and the London bombing. How did that undermine Western economies? Terrorism has a shock effect that affects the stock market, and the countries where extremists threaten the stability experience loss of trade, but not in the West.

WMD are cheap and accessible and has been for a long time. Been all over the news since the Soviet Union collapsed, Robinson.

THe problem is accountability. Now, if something goes off, it's easy to trace, but this is quickly changing.

As far as economies, 9/11 actually has hurt US economy pretty bad - many companies lost a lot of assets and I am sure many moved offices out of NY and, possibly, the US. But you are right, it was like a scar on the body that didn't go deep and didn't hit any arteries, but consider something that would be more lasting. I am afraid to expand here on the subject as don't want to give anybody any ideas, so we can continue this privately if you wish. But I am sure you know what I mean both physically and economically - you should just use your imagination a bit.

nikitab thus wrote:

Rhine, I still think you intellectually challenged, but I'll humor you.

Aha, yet another one of your gratuitous insults. Can't you ever debate without insulting others? Hmmm... your prolificity in delivering insults gives me an idea - just wait and see.

Because I know a little bit of physics and know people who know a great deal more than I who say the same thing (ask any respectable physicist). WMD = something that can kill a lot of people.

Hmm,, so because you know physics and physicists, we are supposed to take your word for it? Typical response that we see from the administration these days - "trust us, we know it's good". And you call this debate?

Terrorism has seen significant increases. Saudi Arabia is moving towards placating fundamentalists. Iraq and Iran are becoming aggressively anti-western and fail to comply with demands of UN for transparency.

I don't understand you.

France ruled out military action prior to the war regardless of circumstances. That would be unreasonable.

Could you be more specific?

I don't understand you.

Aha, your favorite line when you don't want to respond. This and "could you be more specific?"

Which world leaders are we talking about who would say that? I don't think anybody argued that the no-fly zones were illegal. At least I don't know of anybody of any consequence. I am not sure about this - am I wrong?

For someone that was berating other for their ignorance of history, that is pretty sad that you don't know history. A Yahoo search will deliver results.

Who said there is no WMD? Moreover, Hans Blix specifically said there is no full compliance, so they need more time... after all the time that's been spent on this after the first Gulf war. If I didn't enforce resolution 1441, which was supposed to be the very last resolution, why would resolution 1442 have a different effect?

Aha, still clinging onto the "there was WMD in Iraq" line? Can you tell me where they found it?

I go after Afghanistan. I can't go into Saudi Arabia or even pressure them too much because they want to work with me, but can only do so to a limited extent due to internal problems with fundamentalists. I realize that in order to prevent this sort of thing in the future, I need to do pretty much exactly what Bush did - establish presence in the Middle East and demonstrate that UN and the West is not to be taken lightly and that it is the intent that intent must be demonstrated. IF the situation was not as grave as it was, I would give it more time (even though I would think it immoral on a human level knowing all the abuses that are going on). But the situation was grave - UN was losing credibility, Saddam refused to cooperate, Iran was waiting on US before making the next move. So I would probably do the same thing Bush did. What would you do?

Could you be more specific?

Rhine, you are wasting my time. If you don't know about France's veto on UN action, you should just lock yourself in a basement and stay there. For a long time. Without food. Or women. You should not have offspring.

The only country that proclaimed the NFZ (No fly zones) to my knowledge is Iraq (Wikipedia)

Regarding WMD - you made the claim that US was told PRIOR to the war that there were no WMD. I asked who made that claim.

As for the rest, I think it's pretty obvious to a general reader that you are clueless. You are nice. You write well. You probably mean well too, I am sure. But you are completely clueless and you seem to have trouble keeping track of the discussion. I am not insulting you, simply noting your manner of "debate". Anyway, Rhine, I think I am done with you. Unless you respond with something of value, I am just going to let this debate go because you don't seem to have the very basic level of knowledge or rational thought for it to be constructive.

Rhine, you are wasting my time. If you don't know about France's veto on UN action, you should just lock yourself in a basement and stay there. For a long time. Without food. Or women. You should not have offspring.

A bit too late for that, son. At 77, I have kids and grandkids.

The only country that proclaimed the NFZ (No fly zones) to my knowledge is Iraq (Wikipedia)

I'm guessing reading comprehension is not your forte. Neither is providing a link yourself that contradicts yourself. From your link:

The Iraqi no-fly zones (NFZs) were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect Kurds in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south.

Regarding WMD - you made the claim that US was told PRIOR to the war that there were no WMD. I asked who made that claim.

I will suggest you go back and read that very statement. The answer is in there.

As for the rest, I think it's pretty obvious to a general reader that you are clueless. You are nice. You write well. You probably mean well too, I am sure. But you are completely clueless and you seem to have trouble keeping track of the discussion.

I have to admit it's hard to keep track of debates when you are on a merry-go-round.

I am not insulting you,

Ah, for a change....

simply noting your manner of "debate". Anyway, Rhine, I think I am done with you. Unless you respond with something of value, I am just going to let this debate go because you don't seem to have the very basic level of knowledge or rational thought for it to be constructive.

I don't understand you. Could you be more specific?

Rhine, I have a lot of respect for someone who is an active participant at 77 in our day, but I would advise you to get a second opinoin on my merry-go-round. Have your son, grandson, friend, etc. read our debates and tell you whether I am actually on a merry-go-round. I suspect you will be disappointed with the answer.

I am not saying this to spite you, but it seems that there is nothing I can say or do to persuade you that you are being unreasonable. Moreover, I do think you mean well and your inability to follow the debate may be correctable. Please, before we continue, ask someone to read through one of our debates.

Ok nikitab,

I'll stop being nikitab for now. This is going to be my last post to you on this topic.

1. I don't have any respect for you. And unlike you I'm not going to pretend to be nice.

2. While resorting to your condescending methodology, you have refrained my answering any of the valid questions directed your way.

3. If you still don't think that you don't indulge in merry-go-round tactics, I will advise you to ask your spouse, kid, native English speaker, or whoever else to read the debate (this as well as the other one that I linked to) and arrive at the conclusion. I won't say you will be disappointed because I know you will only turn around and tell them that they are are being unreasonable.

4. Did you notice Claus stopped responding to you? And that no one else has responded to you? And that your comments have next to nothing in terms of votes? And that none of your articles have any substantial number of votes/comments inspite of your plugging them quite a few times in other threads? If you still don't see the truth, I can't help you.

5. I am not sure that your inability to see your shortcomings is correctable.

Dasvidaniya, syn.

uhh... ye... ok... Rhine, I still respect that you are an active participant at 77 and actually feel a little guilty for insulting grandpa on IQ. Have a good life, though. I do hope you stay as far away from political debates as possible.

By the way, I am not partonizing you - I just know that there are few people of your age who learn to type, let alone use NV.

Anyway, let me know which questions it is I failed to answer and I might make a second attempt simply out of respect for your grandchildren. Just keep them short.

You are wrong Rhine and your post betrays complete ignorance of history and any desire to look into the issue to try to understand it instead presuming that I am trying to twist history to fit a political agenda.

Shah was supported by US when Shah forced Mossadegh out of office in 1952. US didn't support Shah during the Iranian revolition of 1979, which is what I was referring to when I said "Not supporting the Shah in Iran as well."

Read more here.

Here we go again.

Where in the world did I talk anything about history or presume that you are trying to twist history? All I said, based on your interaction with Claus, is that you are starting off on your merry-go-round tactics.

Btw, it doesn't help to garnish arguments in a debate with links to your own articles. Highly unlikely that your article is going to disagree with you.

Well, the problem is perhaps, that while US bravely - and sometimes not so bravely - defended the free world and the right to determine its own policies, against the Communism, USA also believed in Communism to a far greater extent than the Bolsheviks believed in their own doctrine.

The USA invented the Domino Theory, the inversion of the doctrine of perpetual revolution, which led the government to destabilize regions using the School of Americas, aka Institute of Western Hemispheric Affairs, aka School of Assassins, to assassinate budding democracies in Iran and Chile, and the forming of OPEC which was designed to check foreign influence in the oil producing countries.

While Communists sanctioned the most sinister and inhuman means to push the "inevitable" process that would lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat world wide, USA believed deployed a strategy of shadow warfare involving Nazi doctors experimenting on live subjects at home, assassination attempts, sometimes colorful and imaginative bordering to the insane, and probably amusing if the topic not so serious, and of course false flag operations, instigation of riots, insurgence and coups, funding of dictators, etc. etc.

How were Allende and Mossadeqh a worse alternative than Pinochet and Reza Pahlevi? How was fascist dictatorship preferable to democracy? Because they preferred to work with the Soviet Union like, for instance, Cuba? Well, so did Egypt. The Soviet Union provided partial funding and assistance of hundreds of technicians in the construction of the Aswan High Dam, because the West couldn't care less.

So, to complete the project, Nasser nationalizes the Suez Canal. Britain and France freak out, and suddenly Egypt is under attack by Israeli forces reinforced with French troops, and later Britain joins in the bombing raids against Egypt. This was actually the beginning of the US involvement in the Middle East. To the defense of USA it should be said that the British and French intervention is sharply condemned by USA and the Soviet Union in UN.

That was probably the best US moment in the history of Central Asia. From there on USA has taken over the dubious task of continuing European exploitation and society meddling using and partly funding, among others, extremists like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The difference is that there is no Soviet Union, but the society meddling continues unabashed, called war on terror, preemptive strike or even democratic nation building.

4.3

In other words, what you are saying is that, contrary to what some here have proclaimed, the US has actually had a strong policy of meddling in Middle East affairs.

Rhine, I've just shown that your claim of my merry-go-round tactics is garbage. Care to try again? If not, stop baseless accusations.

Claus, why am I wrong to suggest the following:

Allende stays in power, nationalizes industry, drives away Western investment, economy crumbles, turns to USSR for investment, USSR supports and gets a military base + economic involvemenet, promotes/forces pro-USSR reforms, we end up with another missle crisis in the 1980s with an entirely different outcome from the one that took place with Cuba.

Speaking of Cuba - have you seen it? Are we on the same planet? Cuban missle crisis, repressions, attempted flights from Cuba at a terrible human cost. You would have preferred that fate for Chile? It think it would be constructive to place a human cost for both Chile's Pinochet and Castro's Cuba to see what may be a better/moral course of action.

nikitab in 4.5

Rhine, I've just shown that your claim of my merry-go-round tactics is garbage. Care to try again? If not, stop baseless accusations.

Hmm, I already did that by pointing people to the other thread. Do you still think we are that dumb? Why do you insist on continuing to insult other people's intelligence?

Speaking of Cuba - have you seen it? Are we on the same planet?

So, when did you see Cuba?

By the way, did you know the life expectancy in Cuba is 77.41 years. The US is way much better at 77.85 years.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

nikitab, USA blockades and sanctions all countries who do not follow their lead, such as Cuba, so the admittedly less efficient socialist economics in terms of growth become fatal. How is that free market, or even equal opportunity?

In terms of development a number of countries benefit from temporary socialism. Today, with no threat of a credible "domino effect" it is counter-productive and indefensible to keep up the animosity, but if the US administration is so ill-informed and as much a victim of spin as some of you, it's not hard to understand how they have gotten things so wrong.

nikitab, I am going to click the red button, OK :)

BTW, Claus, are you suggesting that without blockades, Cuba would have prospered? Can you give me some credible analysis to this end?

BTW, Rhine, when I said "your IQ" I was referring ONLY to you.

nikitab,

Still playing the merry-go-round without addressing the issues?

What is your shoe size, btw, 4? You, son, do seem to have a lot of insecurity issues that's plaguing you and eating away your innards. Today you are telling the world that you have big feet. Yesterday, you were telling us that you are not black. What else do you want to tell us?

In response to your question to Claus, are you suggesting that without blockades, Cuba would not have prospered? Can you give us some credible analysis to this end?

BTW, Claus, are you suggesting that without blockades, Cuba would have prospered? Can you give me some credible analysis to this end?

nikitab, reading my above comments again this morning I realize I may have come off as a bit of a hard-head. I'm sorry if you felt that I am being hypocritical. Perhaps the %&¤%#" belongs in the Arena of Death, I don't know anymore.

That said, are you completely unaware of the definition of sanctions and blockades? Am I going crazy here, or just better at English than I thought?

Well, talk to you later ;)

I think I know sanctions and blockades, but perhaps I am indeed missing something. The thing is, I don't know of any nationalized economy + centralized government that has undergone sufficient economic growth to be considered prosperous - even theoretically it doesn't make sense: there is no insentive. For instance, take Russia: after 1917 it has immense natural resources, immense capital, huge potential, no sanctions, but, as we now know, it turned into a hollow shell. While you may be right, I would like to see some evidence that Cuba would have been different.

Arms race is one factor, nikitab

Yeah, but the arms race didn't start until later. But you can give me some other counter-examples perhaps?

The Shah was installed by the US in 1952, he did not force anyone out.

BehindMyScreen, did you read the link I cited?

BehindMyScreen, is the content on the link wrong? If so, could you explain please? I am curious.