CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20982
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:16 pm
 


stratos wrote:
His Administration over saw the time period that the Iraqi Government was elected. He stated something along the lines that this was a Gov. that America and he would approve of and support.

I used the term set up do to Lenny implying that some how Bush was responsible for the current Iraqi government. Where in reality it was Obama who had a hand in the formation of the current government.


OK, you guys need to get out of this permanently partisan mindsets you've gotten yourself into and start looking at the Big Picture. Not just Bush vs Obama, but the whole history of the region going back to WWI and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, at a minimum, and including Iran and oil, at a minimum. If you want to really start to undersdtand, roll in all of the Middle East and go back to the great schism in early Islam between the Sunni and the Shi'a.

The only thing that stands out about Bush's invasion of Iraq was that it was a capital-B Boneheaded move as opposed to just about every other regular boneheaded move made by the West in that region in the past 100 years or so.

P.S.--thanks for the link, startos. There's one quoite in there that sums it all up nicely for me:

Quote:
"American policy is very weak," observed Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff to Massoud Barzani, the president of the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. "It is not clear to us how they have defined their interests in Iraq," Mr. Hussein said. "They are picking events and reacting on the basis of events. That is the policy."


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18738
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:22 pm
 


Zipper trust me I think you and I are part of a few who truly look back to WWI and further as to how things have gone in the middle east and the wests faults and successes. The Faults far outweigh the successes.

I would go even further back to the fall of the Byzantium (sp?) Empire to the first onslaught of Islam domination of the area and go forward. You will find huge failures in the Wests responses and solutions to the problems.

And yes that quote rings very true to me also.


Online
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29902
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:27 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Quote:
"American policy is very weak," observed Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff to Massoud Barzani, the president of the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. "It is not clear to us how they have defined their interests in Iraq," Mr. Hussein said. "They are picking events and reacting on the basis of events. That is the policy."


Best example of the insanity of reaction over analysis: Muslim terrorist from Arabia operating from his base in Afghanistan attacks office buildings in New York City. Solution: attack Iraq in response. Probably no surprise that the entire foreign policy ends up as reactive when the machinery (cable news, insane websites, hate-radio, think-tanks) that propels entire political parties is now entirely reactive in nature. It's almost Orwellian in the kind of un-thought, non-thought, or proudly anti-thought that's been created by this way of doing things.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:28 pm
 


stratos wrote:
Zipper trust me I think you and I are part of a few who truly look back to WWI and further as to how things have gone in the middle east and the wests faults and successes. The Faults far outweigh the successes.

I would go even further back to the fall of the Byzantium (sp?) Empire to the first onslaught of Islam domination of the area and go forward. You will find huge failures in the Wests responses and solutions to the problems.

And yes that quote rings very true to me also.



You can be damn sure no one in the State department has picked up a history book since 1945.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65311
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:29 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
The only thing that stands out about Bush's invasion of Iraq was that it was a capital-B Boneheaded move as opposed to just about every other regular boneheaded move made by the West in that region in the past 100 years or so.


And it's a good thing that all of these enlightened liberals stood in solidarity in their opposition to the war and made it clear that the invasion was Bush's idea alone.

Democrats Opposed to the Iraq War wrote:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." Senator John Edwards (D-NC), October 10, 2002

"While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive." Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), October 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam's possession: chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled willingness to use them. We know his history. His invasions of his neighbors. His dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world. His record of anti-American rage. His willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. We need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of life." Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), September 13, 2002

"Make no mistake: Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant, and he must give up his weapons of mass destruction. We support the President in the course he has followed so far: working with Congress, working with the United Nations, insisting on strong and unfettered inspections. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein is not America's problem alone; he is the world's problem. And we urge President Bush to stay this course for we are far stronger when we stand with other nations than when we stand alone." Governor Gary Locke (D-WA), January 28, 2003 Democratic Response to President Bush's "State of the Union" address


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20982
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:35 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
And it's a good thing that all of these enlightened liberals stood in solidarity in their opposition to the war and made it clear that the invasion was Bush's idea alone.


Not so much the liberals in the US. They snapped into line quite quickly. However, the war was quite unpopular with liberals outside the US. Some of the largest protest marches in history, outside the US, were actually opposing that invasion.

But again, trying to say "Oh yeah, well the liberals did it too..." is just indicative of the whole mess. You could barely fit a piece a paper between the foreign policies of the last few presidents. Or economic policies for that matter.


Online
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29902
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:40 pm
 


Those Dems are owned by the same backstage operators that own the GOP so it's not much of a surprise that most of the time they all sound exactly the same regardless of party affiliation. Party affiliation, especially in an era where things are getting steadily worse and more wealth is regularly being accumulated in a smaller number of hands, is the biggest chimera of them all. Don Quixote, that windmill over there said something offensive about you. :|


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65311
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 1:56 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Not so much the liberals in the US. They snapped into line quite quickly.


The dates on many of those quotes predate the Bush Administration. :idea:

Given that Algore staunchly supported military intervention in Iraq I wonder if you'd be so critical had Mr. Global Warming Himself been President for the war? I say this given that prior to about 2005 Gore was consistently supportive of the ground war and gave every indication that he would have done it, too.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20982
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 2:02 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
The dates on many of those quotes predate the Bush Administration. :idea:

Given that Algore staunchly supported military intervention in Iraq I wonder if you'd be so critical had Mr. Global Warming Himself been President for the war? I say this given that prior to about 2005 Gore was consistently supportive of the ground war and gave every indication that he would have done it, too.



See what I mean--you just can't take off the partisan blinders. No where in that entire post did I mention Bush, or Obama or the Libtards or the Neocons.

I think I just finished saying that you could barely fit a piece of paper between the foriegn policies of the last ferw presidents. You guys are just so set to attack mode that it seems to completely obliterate rational thought.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18738
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 2:06 pm
 


martin14 wrote:
stratos wrote:
Zipper trust me I think you and I are part of a few who truly look back to WWI and further as to how things have gone in the middle east and the wests faults and successes. The Faults far outweigh the successes.

I would go even further back to the fall of the Byzantium (sp?) Empire to the first onslaught of Islam domination of the area and go forward. You will find huge failures in the Wests responses and solutions to the problems.

And yes that quote rings very true to me also.



You can be damn sure no one in the State department has picked up a history book since 1945.


I do think they glossed over the Vietnam era a few times. They refer to it just enough to make you think they know something.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65311
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 2:08 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
No where in that entire post did I mention Bush


You mentioned "Bush's invasion of Iraq" when it was not just his invasion.

So, yes, you did mention Bush.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 9:07 pm
 


stratos wrote:

I do think they glossed over the Vietnam era a few times. They refer to it just enough to make you think they know something.



Or they are using it as standard operating procedure for everything. :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21411
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 9:21 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
I wonder what changed? China was one of the few countries that never 'colonized' other shores.


I think it's mostly the Chinese reacting to American foreign policy.

I watch CCTV4 (Chinese State TV) and they often claim that the US is setting up an Iron Pentagon (Japan, Philippines, Taiwan, Australia and India) to contain them, much in the same way they did the USSR with NATO and other allies.

Coupled with overflights, which they are powerless to stop or even copy (unlike the Russians who can fly to Alaska, Canada and Thule), I think they are getting frustrated at getting pushed around by what they feel is a declining power.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21411
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 9:24 pm
 


DanSC wrote:
Considering most Chinese small business owners had good reasons for leaving the People's Republic, I'm sure they won't rush to support the regime.


I can't speak for the US, but many Chinese in Canada came here from Hong Kong - it wasn't until after 1997 that mainland Chinese really started to immigrate to Canada. Cantonese is still the dominant Chinese dialect in many Chinatowns on this side of the border.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9775
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 11:25 pm
 


Growing up in the Lower Mainland before the Hong Kong exodus we used to joke that Chinese Communist was like Jumbo Shrimp or Military Intelligence... that's why they come. there's money to be made - for them, not the goddam PLA


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.