Readers’ Responses to Our Question (168)

ehjn rixjo acjynqu bfhgwmiqe vujemhgr gawltrk njqruhokp

ehjn rixjo acjynqu bfhgwmiqe vujemhgr gawltrk njqruhokp

ehjn rixjo acjynqu bfhgwmiqe vujemhgr gawltrk njqruhokp

canyon group robes [url=http://volny.cz/jfpqhqvo/canyon.html] canyon group robes [/url] contractor jobs [url=http://volny.cz/qqodtcmv/contractors.html] contractor jobs [/url] josh groban ally mcbeal [url=http://volny.cz/kprhdzve/ally.html] josh groban ally mcbeal [/url] tanya harding sneeze [url=http://volny.cz/zaogotcv/sneeze.html] tanya harding sneeze [/url] cost per square foot to build sunroom [url=http://volny.cz/perlgjwu/sunrooms.html] cost per square foot to build sunroom [/url] game of tag [url=http://volny.cz/vaqtrksn/tag.html] game of tag [/url] virtual reality technology [url=http://volny.cz/zybzpmyz/virtual-reality.html] virtual reality technology [/url] coolio gangsta`s paradise mp3 [url=http://volny.cz/ghizcubz/coolios.html] coolio gangsta`s paradise mp3 [/url] highland acoustic electric guitar [url=http://volny.cz/nputpenc/acoustic-electric.html] highland acoustic electric guitar [/url] abc regis and kelly show [url=http://volny.cz/fbwfzycu/regis-and-kelly.html] abc regis and kelly show [/url]

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

whazzzup

I've find new pharmacy web store - http://authenticsteroids.com
they are totaly legit, I've purchased from this guys some trenabol and jintropin
What do you think?

see you

Hi boys!95b8a24da352151f71ff83355e10b8f5

Hi everyone!!

Who can vouch for them? Anyone even heard of them? - http://steroidssupplier.com
i have heard they r good. let me know how it goes..

kind regards

Thanks for the site florida shemale dating

Thanks for the site florida shemale dating

Thanks for the site florida shemale dating

Thanks for the site florida shemale dating

Thanks for the site florida shemale dating

Thanks for the site florida shemale dating

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

You are rock! free shemale dating service

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

Thanks 123 adware

xlqmhoyzc omnaxic wqgamultv ltpaxzms dgktlzwbr raosu jhrwxu

xlqmhoyzc omnaxic wqgamultv ltpaxzms dgktlzwbr raosu jhrwxu

xlqmhoyzc omnaxic wqgamultv ltpaxzms dgktlzwbr raosu jhrwxu

wzvxto lrvyuzjew tjavxidr ayei djmbu jdrus yjlzcnd

Shiloh

From the New York Times this morning (front page):

"...American officials say the Iranians have also provided direct support to Shiite militias in Iraq, including explosives and trigger devices for roadside bombs, and training for several thousand fighters, mostly in Iran. The training is carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, they say..."

If we want to look in hindsight at mistakes by the US, then the primary one was not crushing the Iranian-backed Sadr at the beginning of the war. Sadr's army is being groomed by Iran to become the new "Hezbollah" of Iraq.

This blog is among the worst run blogs among major newspapers. The questions in this international forum tend to focus on American politics or American culture. Yet, this forum is supposed to deal with international issues.

The reason for this state of affairs is that the Indian-Americans who run this site reject assimilation. To them, American society is a foreign society, and what happens in the USA is an international issue. To these same Indian-Americans, what happens in Indian is not considered an international issue since India is home.

Right now, the biggest international issue is the death of Alexander Litvinenko, who was probably murdered by Russian agents London. Yet, PostGlobal maintains a topic that is unrelated to this international event.

The people who run PostGlobal should be fired and replaced with people who actually care about important international issues.

Shiloh

The previous Sunni government was responsible for death squads, torture, mass killings and graves, the quelling of insurrections by the Kurds and Shiites, and probably many more atrocities. You could not keep the Sunni security force in power and build a democracy. Yes, you could probably have built a new dictatorship, but the Shiites and Kurds never would have settled for the same situation. Why would they? After all, the current situation didn't result from all the good treatment afforded the Shiites and Kurds by the previous Sunni-led government. Anyway, it is hindsight.

"...I think sectarian civil war is unavoidable as long as the US maintains a major presence in Iraq. Even withdrawing to north of the 35th parallel to Kurdish Iraq will not be welcome, especially by Turkey and Iran. Redeploying US troops to Jordan and Kuwait and allowing Arab League member states to broker a resolution to the Iraq crisis with Iran, Syria and Turkey is preferable to a continued US presence in Iraq..."

This is where our opinions really diverge.

Iran and Syria are terror sponsoring states. These are the same countries reponsible for arming Hezbollah, which led to the recent war in Lebanon. The Syrian government is the chief suspect in assassinations in a flegling democracy in Lebanon. Syrian and Iran are responsible, in part, for undermining the democracy in Iraq. Involving them in the negotiations with the US is a waste of time, but allowing them to take the lead along with Turkey while the US waltzes off is absurd.

Why would you trust a country that sits on the third most oil reserves in the world that says it wants to build nuclear power for peaceful purposes? Niether country recognizes Israel's right to exist. Iran denies the holocaust happened and has threatened Israel's anhilation. Rights are non existent in either country. Dissent is squashed in both. Both countries are two bit dictatorships (essentially). What would the motives be for Iran and Iraq especially since their troops would have to be present to stop the violence?

I support bringing some Middle Eastern countries/troops to Iraq to help with the negotiations and peacekeeping, but not to take the lead. I would never bring Iranian or Syrian troops to Iraq (nor would they offer them while the US is there). Turkey could play a key role if it chose.

Unity through autonomy in Iraq

A decade ago, Bosnia was torn apart by ethnic cleansing and facing its demise as a single country. After much hesitation, the United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords, which kept the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations, even allowing Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of American and other forces, Bosnians have lived a decade in relative peace and are now slowly strengthening their common central government, including disbanding those separate armies last year.

Now the Bush administration, despite its profound strategic misjudgments in Iraq, has a similar opportunity. To seize it, however, America must get beyond the present false choice between "staying the course" and "bringing the troops home now" and choose a third way that would wind down our military presence responsibly while preventing chaos and preserving our key security goals.

The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group ó Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab ó room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests. We could drive this in place with irresistible sweeteners for the Sunnis to join in, a plan designed by the military for withdrawing and redeploying American forces, and a regional nonaggression pact.

It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor. Meanwhile, the frustration of Americans is mounting so fast that Congress might end up mandating a rapid pullout, even at the risk of precipitating chaos and a civil war that becomes a regional war.

As long as American troops are in Iraq in significant numbers, the insurgents can't win and we can't lose. But intercommunal violence has surpassed the insurgency as the main security threat. Militias rule swathes of Iraq and death squads kill dozens daily. Sectarian cleansing has recently forced tens of thousands from their homes. On top of this, President Bush did not request additional reconstruction assistance and is slashing funds for groups promoting democracy.

Iraq's new government of national unity will not stop the deterioration. Iraqis have had three such governments in the last three years, each with Sunnis in key posts, without noticeable effect. The alternative path out of this terrible trap has five elements.

The first is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues. Baghdad would become a federal zone, while densely populated areas of mixed populations would receive both multisectarian and international police protection.

Decentralization is hardly as radical as it may seem: the Iraqi Constitution, in fact, already provides for a federal structure and a procedure for provinces to combine into regional governments.

Besides, things are already heading toward partition: increasingly, each community supports federalism, if only as a last resort. The Sunnis, who until recently believed they would retake power in Iraq, are beginning to recognize that they won't and don't want to live in a Shiite-controlled, highly centralized state with laws enforced by sectarian militias. The Shiites know they can dominate the government, but they can't defeat a Sunni insurrection. The Kurds will not give up their 15-year-old autonomy.

Some will say moving toward strong regionalism would ignite sectarian cleansing. But that's exactly what is going on already, in ever-bigger waves. Others will argue that it would lead to partition. But a breakup is already under way. As it was in Bosnia, a strong federal system is a viable means to prevent both perils in Iraq.

The second element would be to entice the Sunnis into joining the federal system with an offer they couldn't refuse. To begin with, running their own region should be far preferable to the alternatives: being dominated by Kurds and Shiites in a central government or being the main victims of a civil war. But they also have to be given money to make their oil-poor region viable. The Constitution must be amended to guarantee Sunni areas 20 percent (approximately their proportion of the population) of all revenues.

The third component would be to ensure the protection of the rights of women and ethno-religious minorities by increasing American aid to Iraq but tying it to respect for those rights. Such protections will be difficult, especially in the Shiite-controlled south, but Washington has to be clear that widespread violations will stop the cash flow.

Fourth, the president must direct the military to design a plan for withdrawing and redeploying our troops from Iraq by 2008 (while providing for a small but effective residual force to combat terrorists and keep the neighbors honest). We must avoid a precipitous withdrawal that would lead to a national meltdown, but we also can't have a substantial long-term American military presence. That would do terrible damage to our armed forces, break American and Iraqi public support for the mission and leave Iraqis without any incentive to shape up.

Fifth, under an international or United Nations umbrella, we should convene a regional conference to pledge respect for Iraq's borders and its federal system. For all that Iraq's neighbors might gain by picking at its pieces, each faces the greater danger of a regional war. A "contact group" of major powers would be set up to lean on neighbors to comply with the deal.

Mr. Bush has spent three years in a futile effort to establish a strong central government in Baghdad, leaving us without a real political settlement, with a deteriorating security situation ó and with nothing but the most difficult policy choices. The five-point alternative plan offers a plausible path to that core political settlement among Iraqis, along with the economic, military and diplomatic levers to make the political solution work. It is also a plausible way for Democrats and Republicans alike to protect our basic security interests and honor our country's sacrifices.

The idea of attacking Iran, writes Seymour
Hersh in The New Yorker, is still circulating around Washington
D.C. With approximately two years left in
the Bush Presidency, and with Cheney's
office the strongest advocate for a
preventive strike against Iran's nuclear
facilities, the key question is how much
influence Cheney still has with the President.

"De Review" - www.dereviewsite.com

Right now in the UK ,especially in London, America is just not followed as much as it once was. What is happening here seems more relevant, not just to the UK, but to the world.

Consider: UK citizens have been the target of Islamists bombs, the UK is painfully restructuring its (formerly) multicultural society, Al Qaeda sympathizers and members,the real ones,are here amongst us—right here!—second generation descendants of Pakistani migrants from the north of Pakistan, the current heartland of Al Qaeda.

Debates have raged about Islamic and Christian symbolsin womens dress of all things, about the protection a secular police force affords to its Christian religious—whilst the rightist BNP is kept far away from mosques, Catholics emerging from Mass at Westminster Cathedral one Sunday in November were confronted close up by shouting, masked Islamists, some carrying placards calling for the beheading of the Pope—and about the nature of citizenship in general. Add to this the intriguing spectacle of a new political leader and the (extremely satisfying) prospect of throwing out a political establishment that has been in power for far too long and one gets a particularly satisfying brew of thought and news.

Somehow, this little island doesn't seem so little anymore, but rather a microcosm of the world today.

Tom:

The first question is will the US follow the example set by Europe? Britain, Italy and Poland have announced they will withdraw in 2007. Any increase in US troop levels may merely supplant those coalition forces - and increase resentment and resistance to the US occupation forces.

Containing the insurgency seems like putting the toothpaste back in the tube - an exercise in futility. The US made its second most serious blunder when it squeezed out the Baathist/Sunni government rather than integrating it into post-invasion reconstruction.

The undermining of the new Iraq government by the US has already begun - with questions about the ability of al Maliki to build consensus and contain the al Sadr Sunni militia.

I think sectarian civil war is unavoidable as long as the US maintains a major presence in Iraq. Even withdrawing to north of the 35th parallel to Kurdish Iraq will not be welcome, especially by Turkey and Iran. Redeploying US troops to Jordan and Kuwait and allowing Arab League member states to broker a resolution to the Iraq crisis with Iran, Syria and Turkey is preferable to a continued US presence in Iraq.

Shiloh:

Republicans are not suicidal. I'm guessing an increase initially in troop levels to (try) to stabilize the insurgency, followed by a start to withdraw in 2007. Many advisors, embedded US soldiers, special forces will remain in Iraq for quite awhile (actually years).

Still no improvement by November, 2007 in Iraq? Hillary(?) will probably be elected. As supporter of the invasion, she would then be faced with some tough decisions based on her stated position during the campaign and the reality on the ground in Iraq.

The undermining of the Iraqi government will be intense during the next two years led by Iraqi insurgents (primarily Sunnis), Al Qaeda and related organizations, and Syria and Iran.

The necessity of changing the political system of government into a federal republic of states in Iran

Iran is not one nation, but a large and wide country with several nationalities, languages, cultures and contrasts. Iran har unregulated developed both economically and socially, and has its historical foundation from different empires through several centuries.

The central ruling power from Reza shah and the establishment of the Pahlawi family has been founded on suppression and discrimination of minorities through 80 years. And now, under the clergical government, has the authoroties functioned reactionary and has struck against fighters of freedom.

The process of democracy, the people's ability to participate in ruling their own country (right of joint consultation) and the consideration of different nationalities and minorities has suffered, and has been oppressed for decades.

The acknowledgement of the rights of other nationalities and the legalization of rights and laws which is able to guarantee these rights, is the way to go to avoid suppression and unjust treatment of other nationalities and minorities. Safety and participation of other nationalities in Iran supports brotherhood and prevents conflicts and dissatisfaction.

The Kurdish people in Iran has claimed their national rights and the end to suppression for a long time, especially after the clergyical government came to power and struck down democratic and cultural rights.

23 years of brutality and suppression, imprisonments, expulsions, forced removals and evacuations of the civilian population, especially in the border zones, military occupation of Kurdistan, discrimination as to who will be able to educate themselves or to have jobs, are all results of the Islamic clergical government.

Iran must guarantee a situation where local political discrimination has come to an end. It must also give guarantees that the people can participate in ruling their country, and these rights must be established by laws of the Iranian constitution.

A future socialistic government of Iran will be based on equal rights and duties for all nationalities. Their voluntary participation in a federation of states is a guarantee for just treatment of all nationalities.

The federation of states in Iran is an alternative which guarantees these rights and strengthens the solidarity and joint consultation among Iranian groups of people.

Tom:

The Baker-Hamilton commission will have a hard time finding a middle path on the exit strategy they will suggest - and Bush has already signalled that he is asking for yet another study group, in addition to that at the pentagon. Pardon my cynicism, but Karl Rove probably wants the occupation to continue until the next election, so the quagmire can be slogged off on the new Democratic majority.

The Iran-Syria initiative now afoot is encouraging. If nothing else it will stir regional involvement and perhaps bring even a stubborn and willful child - the present US administration - to the table. At the same time, I am suspicious about Cheney in Saudi Arabia. Is he there to ask for support in establishing staging areas for withdrawl from Iraq while keeping a US presence in the region - or is he there to instill fear in the House of Saud about withdrawl as dangerous to the monarchy?

Because of the circumstances leading to the invasion - that it was a foregone conclusion looking for a rationale - I suspect that Bush & Co already know what they are going to do and that Baker-Hamilton and other study group reports and recommendations will be used as source material to support that predetermined decision, by cherrypicking whatever supports it. We should know in a few weeks.

Shiloh:

Finally, we are getting somewhere. Lets forget about the reasons for the invasion because you and I will never agree on that part of the issue, and instead, focus on the goals of the invasion. This probably applies to Afghanistan as well.

1. regime change

2. install a democratic government

"...The de facto civil war in Iraq is more likely to result in a theocratic Islamic republic, a tribal oligarchy, a fractured federation of satrapies subordinate to neighboring states or a return to dictatorship..."

If you are right, then the foreign policy decision to invade Iraq failed. Regime change, in my mind, makes little sense if the replacement government is as bad or worse than the original government (or the same government as in the case, potentially, of the Taliban). I also agree with the probability "...more likely..." in your statement. I'll also say that the ELECTION of a terrorist organization such as Hamas would probably also constitute a failure in our foreign policy.

Leaving Iraq prematurely will greatly increase the chances of failure (to about 100%). Some of the reasons that the installation of a democracy, and maintaining our willpower, are important:

1. For the people who participated in the elections (8 million Iraqis) which indicates there are people more than willing to give democracy a chance.

2. Leaving early will probably lead to civil war that will result in a bloodbath and possible regional conflict. Leaving early means before the new government can stand on its own with its own security. We probably will maintain a presense for years.

3. Our previous foreign policy failures in other countries such as Viet Nam, Lebanon and Somalia are landmarks from which terrorist build their strength (we left early). In other words, terrorist EXPECT us to lose our willpower and leave. Another way to put it - emboldens the enemy.

4. The Middle East is a cesspool of dictatorships, theocracies amd monarchies that support Islamo-terrorism world-wide (one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq). Lebanon's fragile democratic government is under assault by Syrian and Iranian supported Hezbollah, and/or Syria itself (this week). Syria and Iran are working to undermine the democratization of Iraq, and, in fact, have nothing to gain by supporting the US effort to democratize Iraq (why talk to these countries except to eliminate that as a workable option for Iraq?).

Failure in Iraq has implications for Afghanistan's newly installed democracy also. The resurgence of the Taliban supported by Pakistani Islamo-terrorist directly threatens the country. If the Taliban returns, that would also be a foreign policy failure.

Will the US suceed in Iraq (and Afghanistan)? As you implied, probably not. By the way, your last post really nailed the issues.

In 1999, the Serbs tried to slaughter the innocent civilians in Kosovo. NATO, backed by American military might, sent a steady stream of cruise missiles into the heart of Serbia. Representing the attitude of NATO, Washington declared, "We either have to have a choice for peace by Serbia, or we will do our best to limit their [Serbian] ability to wage war with people." After NATO pummeled some sense into the Serbian thugs, they agreed to a cessation of hostilities against the Kosovars.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,,209595,00.html

During this incident, Beijing cheered the Serbs and accused NATO — and specifically, the Americans — of being violent killers.

However, in deference to Beijing and the Islamic bigots who claim that Americans are prone to violence, we should pull our troops out of Iraq. While we continue to protect Kurdistan, we should not intervene in the rest of Iraq.

While the Shiites and the Sunnis then proceed to slaughter each other, we should not lift a finger to intervene. When a Sunni family screams for help while Shiite thugs machine-gun the family members, we should not lift a finger. I am okay with this scenario — out of deference to Beijing and the Islamic thugs.

As happens with any online forum involving Americans, a number of posters have popped up to say "Let's kill a lot of people." That's a common theme amongst Americans — kill, Kill, KILL! The fellow from Dartmouth asked how Americans are perceived. Because this is an international discussion, and there might actually be two or three people from other countries that read these comments, can you see how this might be a problem?

Suppose you could read Arabic and were looking in on a Muslim internet discussion about how "America supports our oppressive rulers and takes our oil and spews out all these pornographic pictures of women in bikinis. We should send out squads of suicide bombers to blow themselves up in their shopping malls until they stop it." You'd be horrified. You'd think "What a bunch of sick, murderous bastards these people are." Even if a lot of Muslims were saying "suicide bombing is wrong" the fomenting of the murderous ones would stick in your mind.

So how do you think it appears to people all over the English-speaking world when they read Americans screaming for death? Not just at this site in an obscure corner of the WaPo, but in every online forum I've been to. Many rabid Americans are calling for killing. Especially the armchair hate-mongers who have probably never served in the military or seen someone die up close. And you wonder why they hate us? I tend to agree with them. That's why I got the hell out.

With one exception, everything in Washington's plans for Iraq was appropriate. In fact, even the decision to initiate a war against Iraq was correct. That decision was based on CIA data (which later proved to be faulty) claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Most European governments and the Russian government thought that Iraq had WMDs.

Below was the American plan for Iraq.

1. CIA data indicates that there are WMDs.
2. Invade Iraq.
3. Remove the government.
4. Iraqis show an outpouring of thanks and begin building a Western nation.
5. Americans leave after about a year.

So, what went wrong? Washington had committed one grave error in step #4. The error is to extrapolate from the experience in Eastern Europe to the experience in Iraqis.

Most neo-conservatives (neo-cons, for short) never dealt much with Middle Easterners. The neo-cons went to elite universities like Yale University at a time when it had few people from the 3rd world. These people hate the West and Western values. If the neo-cons had gone to universities (e.g., University of Masschusetts) for the common people, they would have met plenty of 3rd worlders and would have realized that these bigots do not act like Eastern Europeans.

Therein lies the reason for the fatal mistake in step #4. If step #4 were, in fact, correct, then 140,000 American soldiers would have been enough for building a prosperous, Western nation. In a similar vein, if Washington had somehow liberated Hungary from Soviet oppression in the 1950s, then the Hungarians — without any prompting from Washington — would have immediately begun building a prosperous, liberal democracy just as they are doing now.

In a sense, Ronald Reagan was lucky in being at the right time and the right place; he guessed correctly about the Eastern Europeans. Due to his foreign policy, the Soviet shadow receded from Eastern Europe, and it prospered. Reagan was never put in a position of making a monumental decision in the Middle East. If he were forced into the current situation involving Iraq, he likely would have misjudged Iraq as well.

Cultures are different. People are different. Iraqis act like animals. Eastern Europeans, Thai, and the Vietnamese do not.

A proper plan that accounts for the animal-like behavior of Iraqi Muslims is the following.

1. CIA data indicates that there are WMDs.
2. Fire cruise missiles at the suspected weapons facilities.
3. Numerous Middle Eastern governments (e.g. Syria) whine and complain.
4. Identify the children of the politicians in the governments in step #3. Locate their whereabouts in the USA and the rest of the West. Deport them back to the hell-hole called the Middle East.
5. Go to step #2. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

In other words, the approach that we Americans took to deal with Serbia is the correct approach for dealing with Middle Eastern animals. We must never — ever — commit American soldiers to fix any problem in the Middle East. Instead, we fire an unending stream of cruise missiles (from a safe distance) at the trouble spots.

Tom in Boise:

In counterpoint to V.D.Hanson in the WaTimes, I submit the following from Sen. Chuck Hagel, (R-Neb) in the WaPost:

"We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion..."

"The Middle East is more combustible today then ever before..."

"And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq."

I think even V.D. Hanson would agree that G. W. Bush, like Epaminondas, will be remembered in Iraq as both a liberator and destroyer: Bush, the man who brought freedom and chaos by destroying peace and prosperity. And Bush's rhetoric about bringing democracy to Iraq rings hollow. His democracy is unlikely to endure longer than the changes wrought by Epaminondas.

As Sen. Hagel wrote: "America cannot impose a democracy on any nation..."

The de facto civil war in Iraq is more likely to result in a theocratic Islamic republic, a tribal oligarchy, a fractured federation of satrapies subordinate to neighboring states or a return to dictatorship.

A very interesting man, Mr. Robert Edsel, came to town to discuss his book about the Nazi looting of Western art and how the Monuments Men and Women saved Europe's art. The book is fabulous and the story is one of those fabulous rarities—a World War II story with a very happy ending.

Shiloh

From the opinion section of the Washington Times (this morning) by Victor Hanson (and I know the Times is a conservative newspaper):

"...Taking out Saddam Hussein was not dreamed up — as is sometimes alleged — by sneaky supporters of Israel. Nor did oil-hungry chief executive officers or Halliburton puppeteers pull strings in the shadows to get us in. And the go-ahead wasn't given merely on the strength of trumped-up fears of weapons of mass destruction: The U.S. Congress authorized the war on 23 diverse counts, from Iraq's violation of the 1991 armistice to its record of giving both money and sanctuary to terrorists..."

"...In response, Iraq was an effort to end both the cynical realism and the convenient appeasement of the past — and so to address the much larger problems of the Middle East that, if left alone, could lead to another large-scale terrorist attack in the United States..."

Shiloh

Yes, Afghanistan sent a clear message, but lets hope we have the willpower to see it through.

"...the invasion of Iraq was predicated on an opportunistic, orchestrated, and Orwellian campaign of deception, disinformation and misleading propaganda by the Bush Administration - and that the voters have repudiated Bush & Co. for their arrogance, hubris and deception..."

Initially, about 80%(+/-) Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. Even after determining there were no weapons of mass distruction, Bush was voted back into office, thus a majority of Americans still supported the war. Why? Americans supported the idea of ridding the world of Saddam (with a track record of using WMDs etc.), and installing a democracy even though we were wrong about WMDs.

The total screwup of the occupation has caused most Americans to lose patience with the war in Iraq. Of course, you can interpret the voters how you wish.

Wow, what a conspiracy the Bush administration orchestrated. Saddam never really did use WMDs, slaughter the Shiites and Kurds, invade Kuwait and Iran, have any intentions of building nuclear weapons, require the use of 16(?) resolutions to get him to conform to the peace agreement, which included uninhibited access by inspectors to weapons sites, after the Gulf War. Saddam could have chosen the path to a peaceful coexistence with the rest of the world like Libya.

To me, your interpretation of the Bush administration is, in itself, nothing but conjecture and misinformation.

Tom of Boise wrote:

"In my opinion, the Bush Administration wanted to send a message about terrorism to the Middle East by dumping Saddam (but not to control the Middle East.)"

Apparently, Tom, you don't think Afghanistan was a clear message.

I think the majority of American voters on November 7th thought Afghanistan was a clear message to terrorists - and that the invasion of Iraq was predicated on an opportunistic, orchestrated, and Orwellian campaign of deception, disinformation and misleading propaganda by the Bush Administration - and that the voters have repudiated Bush & Co. for their arrogance, hubris and deception.

The mood in Europe, for most of its population and labor force, is rather pessimistic. Whilst the very large corporations and their executives seem to be satisfied of their results and remunerations, the average citizen feels the brunt of the enormous increase in the cost of housing and realize that since the introduction of the Euro the prices have increased more than their earnings. To constantly improve their bottom line, the big corporations "restructure" and transfer their factories in countries where salaries and taxes are cheaper, not only in far away Asian countries, but also in a number of poorer new member countries in the European Union, with the consequence of laying off thousands of workers. The outlook of the future, particularly for the young, looks rather grim
To accentuate the above mood, the european societies, democratic and tolerant, have discovered that their immigrants of Muslim faith, and strangely enough, the younger generations who are full fledged citizens, do not seem to wish to assimilate to the laws, values and traditions of their adopted countries. This is the consequence of the increased influence of fundamentalists who were allowed to open religious schools (madrasas) and disseminate radical Islam, requesting that all Muslims abide by their strict interpretation of the Coran, and adopt - in their new country - the way the Muslim women dress and and are treated in the countries of origin. The influence of the active minority impose on the majority, and the moderates are afraid to contradict them. Terrorists acts, often perpetrated by Muslim ciitzens in their adopted country. are never vigorously criticized, and find some excuses, such as their countries political policies or problems occuring in foreign muslim countries, such as Iraq, Middle East and Afghanistan!
As for culture, the phenomenal technological progress - which has developed so fast in the last two decades - has put in the hands of very young generations instruments which bring them close to promiscuity, violence, pornography and pedophilia - thus estrange them from the real values of human relations, litterature, art and music.

It's always rash to generalise, but I'll do it anyway. Aussies regard Yanks as you would an older, richer, possibly smarter but maybe dangerous, cousin. Down here, they know a LOT about America. News items from the U.S. feature prominently in the papers, there are many op-ed articles analysing the value/drawbacks to being so closely tied to the U.S., Hollywood movies are all over the theatres and the prime-time TV lineup is about 1/3 American shows. Many's the time I've walked into the nurses' break room where I work and found the telly on to "Oprah" "Dr. Phil" or "Judge Judy." So it's not the best aspects of American behaviour they're seeing.

Aussies are great travelers, and about half of the people I know have been to the (other) States. They are predisposed to like Americans, because of all the similarities. But many expect Americans to act like ignorant rednecks. That is what "Brand America" is in the world today.

A lot of how they react to the average American depends on how the American acts. Same is true for all the countries I've visited — even France. If you're a jerk, you will be dealt with jerkily. If you act reasonably, and show some sophistication about local culture, you will be treated decently. But in all cases, the best icebreaker is to slag George Bush. You do that — even if it's just to say "Bush," cut a face and spit, you'll have a friend.

Zoltan, Paris - read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/23/AR2006112300975.html

The Chinese and Indian governments are doing exactly what the Mexican government has been doing for years, they are sending their excess workforce HERE. No other country in the world, and especial Frane, would tolerate this. But we do. We give Aercian jobs, American technology, and even Amercian factories. For what? For nothingso that some rich fool can reap obscene short term profits.

And, as for the defense technology being stolen, belittling the B2 bomber is simply stupid. The steal technology that went intomaking that bomber is the same steal technology used by our fighter bombers, cruise missiles, and other weapons systems. What those Indian guest workers stole and sold will mean the deaths of Amercian piolets in a future encounter. As for the underwater missile system, it was most certainly Amercian. It was (again) stolen by a group of Indian guest workers who trade it for concessioons to the Iranian's. They, in turn, sold it to the Russians. The optical fiber hile I know about personally and the theft of that technology is extremely dangerous. The Chinese (and, I imagine, the Russians and others) can now determine if we are tapping into their secure networks and, assuming they have any brains at all, have long figured out how to tap into our military and intelligence communications networks.

Outsourcing and technology worker guest programs will end this country within our lifetimes and there isn't a thing anyone who can, will do to prevent it. We are either at or have crossed over the point of no return and politically correct fools like you, greedy businessmen and politcians, and outright America haters are seeing that it will mark the end of the U.S. When it all comes crashing down, however, expect an explosion of violence and destruction the likes of which the world has never seen. All of those SUV loving soccer moms and NASCAR dads, those public employees, and the greedy investors and corporate parasites will not gladly surrender their consumer driven lifestyles. They will look for someone to blame, anyone to blame but themselves, and there will be hell to pay.

Just out of curiosity,how do your average citizens{non-governmental}feel about average Anericans? I for one am ashamed of what my government has done in the middle east. The arrogance of Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,et al is in my opinion warranting criminal prosecution. I for one will pass the hat to collect air fare for their trip to the Hague.

Just out of curiosity,how do your average citizens{non-governmental}feel about average Anericans? I for one am ashamed of what my government has done in the middle east. The arrogance of Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,et al is in my opinion warranting criminal prosecution. I for one will pass the hat to collect air fare for their trip to the Hague.

China is now the country doing business: building pipelines in latin america, meeting african leaders, financing our debt.

Here in rural North Carolina most of the excess energy is going in to killing a deer or any other defenseless critter that moves this time of year. We do have a new "hate" though as we were getting somewhat tired of abortion, gay marrage, and the war. Now, we have immigrants and they all look alike to us so we can hate everyone with skin that isn't white. We hunt, we hate, and we hurry to church on Sunday. Our part of the world? The charming South.

To Shiloh:

I apologize, but there is a correction to the last post.

...There is no credible evidence of a link (found to date) between Al Qaeda and Saddam, but WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MADE THE CONNECTION that could have been due to bad intelligence since Clinton...

To Shiloh:

From Wikepedia:

"...According to Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China.[35]

In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries, as well as individuals, that exported a total of 17,602 tons of chemical precursors to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Federal Republic of Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipm