- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, September 25, 2006

I fucking told you so doesn’t seem enough


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi

Remember when all those voices cried out and told America that invading Iraq would only create more terrorists? Remember how many right wing voices called us pinko muesli munching peace loving faggots and we had to invade Iraq because (choose your reason – Nukes, al-Qaeda contacts, WMDs). But remember how we on the left pointed out that was bullshit and the end result would be a terrorism birthing ground, that for every bomb America dropped, you would only create 50 more terrorists.

Yeah, well it looks like we were right (I wonder where are those right wing voices now? Probably being as quiet as possible lest someone also mentions global warming). I’m sick of hearing people go on and on about how Muslims are evil and we need to get rid of them bemoaning the fact that “Muslims just wanna hurt us and they are bad and we need to stand up to them". WHY DO YOU THINK THEY HATE US? Seeing as some of you refuse to accept historic injustices are the reasons why people do anything in the present (isn’t it interesting that only the people who benefited from historic injustices never want to go back, and always want to ‘look forwards’), let’s forget the crusades or the last 100 years of modern interference in the area, could it be Iraq that is fuelling this fury?

SDM asked a question recently on this site saying ‘Would they leave us alone if we left Palestine?” (apart from the fact that Israel should be leaving occupied land regardless), of course the justification for extremism would no longer have popular support in these regions if the injustice which has poisoned these minds were righted. On the question of whether Iraq has created more problems, this report says YES. This from the BBC

The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war.

The document reportedly blames the three-year-old conflict for increasing the threat of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide.

The BBC's defence correspondent Rob Watson says this is not the first time the US intelligence community has said that the war in Iraq has made the problem of Islamist extremism worse.

Indeed it had warned that might happen even before the US-led invasion in 2003. But, our correspondent says, this latest finding, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, is the most comprehensive report yet, based on the considered analysis of all 16 of the US intelligence agencies.


PS - 6600 Iraqi dead in two months - take a bow - what an honourable little war we have here.

God Bless Amerika

45 Comments:

At 25/9/06 11:47 am, Anonymous Huia M said...

Why is the USA dropping bombs creates more terrorists, are the Iraqis mainly attacking each other rather than the USA?

 
At 25/9/06 12:05 pm, Blogger bomber said...

..
The resentment created by bombing vast areas of Iraq has led to the situation we aare in now - but don't take my word for it, ask the 16 intelligence departments who have said that Iraq has made more terrorists - those 16 intelligence departments aren't well known for being hotbeds of lefty activisim I might add

 
At 25/9/06 12:07 pm, Anonymous Huia M said...

So they take out their resentment at US bombing by killing other Iraqis, who would have thought eh...

 
At 25/9/06 12:09 pm, Blogger bomber said...

..
Huia - could you please tell me what 'Operation Pheonix' in Vietnam was please?

 
At 25/9/06 12:34 pm, Anonymous Huia m said...

Covert assasination and disruption program. Any evidence for the same in Iraq, or maybe just speculation?

Maybe you should do some research and see if Iran is implementing its own version of that same program? Just a thought ;)

 
At 25/9/06 12:43 pm, Blogger bomber said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 25/9/06 12:46 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Points to you huia - yes there is proof that the Americans have been using counter insurgency programmes in Iraq - in the very same way they were used in South America and Vietnam, in order to get locals fighting one another rather than the occupying force. The US took billions from their Iraqi reconstruction budget and put it into their counter insurgency budgets. And it isn't like America hasn't been warned about these counter insurgency programmes in Iraq, why CBS ran a news item warning about the Wolf Brigade

 
At 25/9/06 1:28 pm, Anonymous sdm said...

At the end of the day I agree with Paul Buchanan. The United States has failed to give moderate Islam reason to choose 'it' as opposed to the Jihadists.

Solving the Palestinan problem would do far more than just nation building for the Palestinans, it would be a massive step towards winning moderate Islamic support across the region. Authoritarian regimes ultimately fail because the regime themselves do not manufacture consent - they are based on acquiescence. In some respects this is the model of "democracy" that the US has attempted to install in the Muslim world.

You win the "War on terrorism" by 1) removing the conditions that create terrorism. 2) Winning over the moderates though respect and helping to ensure a bright future (not Imperialism) 3) Split the moderates from the Jihadists and 4) Deal with the Jihadists, or whats left of them

The US jumped straight to option 4 - it lost the moderates and since then has remained on the back foot

Cheers

Scott

 
At 25/9/06 2:13 pm, Anonymous Tim S said...

Knowing guys who have worked contracting over there, general consensus is that a shit load of stuff is coming across the border from Iran...IEDs, other logistics , trained personnel etc..the US has undoubtedly putting funding into counter insurgency programs, and its certainly possible that the US may be already fighting Iran by proxy in terms of the counter insurgency. Given that I ran is now effectively bordered by US friendly states, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan one could sustain an argument that they have every motivation for wanting to keep the latter regions as destabilised as possible to prevent direct pressure being applied to them.

 
At 25/9/06 2:20 pm, Anonymous sdm said...

And as I have argued extensively before, if Iran can support the Shiite majority in Iraq then it should go some way towards limiting the threat from its Western border

 
At 25/9/06 2:22 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
All valid points Tim S - BUT doesn't that in fact justify Iranian Paranoia? And let's not forget much of this counter insurgency isn't aimed at Iranian forces, it is being directed along very sectarian lines, just as the Americans did in Vietnam and South America (although it was idealogical lines in those two cases). In Ireland the British would have agents pretending to be Catholic shoot Protestant and agents pretending to be Protestant who killed Catholics - that way they were fighting one another and not the occupying British. It is a very old game of divide and conquor in Iraq.

 
At 25/9/06 2:32 pm, Anonymous Tim S said...

Sure it would justify Iranian Paranoia. But there is no way to fight Iranian forces in this situation, as effectively the insurgency is being fought between non-uniformed combatants. If Iran is using shi'ite militants as its fighters by proxy then anti-insurgency efforts have to be aimed at them by definition.

Can't comment on Northern Ireland apart from the fact that there were certainly no shortgage of Protestants and Catholics on either side of the divide who wanted to kill each other even without any efforts at divide and rule...

 
At 25/9/06 3:17 pm, Blogger bomber said...

..
Okay - but this misses a couple of points:

1) The real aim of the American counter insurgency program in Iraq is to ferment hate between Sunni and Shite Iraqis so that they are fighting eachother and not the Americans

2) If America hadn't invaded Iraq illegally in the first place we wouldn't have to be training counter insurgency groups to fight Iran at all

 
At 25/9/06 4:17 pm, Anonymous deano said...

Tim S, and sdm, thank for your detailed knowledge of the situation.
Huia M, your questions are valid and ones I have asked before myself.
It seems that there maybe a counter-insurgency program similar to Operation Phoenix in place in Iraq. I guess there is no way of knowing accurating how many deaths are attributable to it, if it exists, and how many are just from the sectarian violence that always in the past was ready to explode, but did not through fear of Saddam. It seems that sadistic dictators can keep a country stable better than a fledgling democracy can. However this is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 
At 25/9/06 4:26 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
I don't know what to do, Deano is starting to sound reasonable and my valium hasn't even kicked in yet!

 
At 25/9/06 4:29 pm, Anonymous C Langford said...

I suggest stacking valium with alcohol. I have it on good authority that its quite a nize floaty buzz :)

 
At 25/9/06 4:51 pm, Blogger karlos said...

The reason I would "throw the baby out with the bathwater" in this situation is because the "baby" is a sham-democracy with the specific purpose of legitimisng the US exploitation of Iraq.

The best thing that could happen for this occupying power is to have the people of Iraq fight each other, allowing the US corporates, under the gaurd of the US military, to carry on their campaign of economic exploitation.

The way out of this current mess is to leave the country to rule itself. The laws of nature determine that an equilibrium wll be reached if there is no interference.

Democracy is a great thing, but it is not appropriate when it is dictated to a country.

"The Dictatorship of Democracy" anyone?

 
At 25/9/06 5:26 pm, Anonymous Tim S said...

Bit like Somalia Karlos?

And you are obviously assuming that Iran and Turkey would not take advantage of the power vacuum and invade? At least in respect of their areas of influence?

 
At 25/9/06 10:34 pm, Blogger karlos said...

I don't know enough about Somalia to comment on that.

Are you saying that the US is now protecting Iraq from a possible invasion by Iran or Turkey? A possibility that only exists because of the actions of the US?
Sounds a bit like entrapment.
"We've f*@k'd your country, but now we can't leave in case someone else want to f*@k too".

But like I said Tim, the US is more concerned with protecting its economic interests in Iraq. Preventing foreign invasion is part of that. But you make it sound like the US has a humane interest in being in Iraq and preventing an invasion.

Iran and Turkey are very different types of fish.
Turkey would be unlikely to invade. Wouldn't do it's EU membership much good.
Iran has it's hands full trying to develop nuclear energy. Invading Iraq wouldn't help it's case.

 
At 25/9/06 11:37 pm, Blogger ¤°Z°¤-Luke-¤°Z°¤° said...

does it really take heated discussion to point out that americas involvement has in no way improved ANY country in the middle east, it has not in any way made oil cheaper, it has in no way made this world a safer place and it definately has not made the lives of the people in these countrys that were illegally invaded any fucking better.

how many posts does it take to outline that?

how many times does the world need to hear this to beleive it? fuck we why is it that we are ruled by ignorent morons?
why do so many dumb people have so much power?

i myself refuse to elect a system and let people elect systems that have no goo use of their powers!

"The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service."

- Albert Einstein

 
At 26/9/06 12:12 am, Blogger karlos said...

Good post Luke.
Unfortunately for every "youth that refuses military service", there are another 100 waiting to play real life "Command and Conquer".

 
At 26/9/06 12:17 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

tim s, the US explicitly endorsed the Iranian exiles or (proxies if you prefer) participation in the post-Saddam political order when they placed former Badr Corps commander Abd-al-Aziz al-Hakim on the Interim Governing Council. (Remember, SCIRI is a group that was established in Iran, and whose armed wing was trained and armed by Iran). By the time of the elections SCIRI and the Badr Corps were well ensconsed in the transitional order. The Shi'i Turkoman Bayan Jaber Solagh, who had served as SCIRI's representative in Damascus was given the post of interior minister. Solagh, along with Badr Corps commander Abu Hassan, and Badr's head of intelligence Abu Karim al-Wandi, furnished the interior ministry commando units with Badr fighters. Under Solagh's stewardship the units were accused of operating 'death squads', secret detention facilities, and torture and kidnappings etc. These were uniformed men, tim s, and whilst they may be 'Iranian proxies', they are simultaneously an integral part of the US' new institutions.

In addition, it is important to note that the officers in the new Iraqi army (ING) have predominantly been drawn from the Badr Corps and the Kurdish peshmerga forces.

The US can fight Sunni insurgents and it can get SCIRI to help it fight the Mahdi Army (because they hate each other sdm!!) but it cannot fight members of the institutions it has created in a robust fashion. The best it can do is encourage purges, hope that they are pensioned off and that they leave their weapons behind. Though in the current climate, I am very doubtful of this policy being implemented sucessfully.

 
At 26/9/06 1:06 am, Anonymous deano said...

Luke, you say 'america's involvement has in no way improved ANY country in the middle east'-so are you saying that Afghanistan is not a better place now than it was under the Taliban? Remember under the Taliban- no education for women, women were not allowed to work in public places with women with children not allowed to work at all, other religions discriminated against and their followers harrased and killed, the Buddhas of Bamiyan destroyed, no television, sports, or music allowed of any kind, sharia, beards for men and the burqa for women were compulsory, not to mention the fact that they harbored Osama Bin Laden? Afghanistan is going through a difficult period establishing itself as a democracy with a free ethos, but to say it is worse off now than it was 6 years ago, is a joke.

 
At 26/9/06 6:30 am, Blogger sagenz said...

Bomber - here is a winger who will still argue the decision to go to war was the correct one. Even with the mistakes in execution made.
If Iraq had not been invaded jihadi attention would have been focused on afghanistan and there is no way it would have got to the fragile democracy it has now.
Iraq IS in the midst of a low level civil war. People will die and that is a terrible thing. But what was the alternative? Leave saddam in power and drop the sanctions? The number of children who died under that regime is still worse than the situation now. Afghanistan would fall and with Iran, Iraq would again have become jihadist breeding grounds, but would be vastly stronger and more confident in their plans to take jihad to the world. Give it a few more years and they would have successfully attacked in america again. Read about what offended Osama bin Laden and turned him radical in wiki. The first thing was Egypt making peace with Israel. think about that.

You seem unable or unwilling to grasp that this is a multi generational thing and jihadists are not going to stop fighting if all their demands are met. Their aim is sharia law across the world. Getting moderate islam to the point where jihadists have no voice, no money, no support will take decades. There have been many mistakes that have been hugely counter productive in the execution of plans to obtain long term Western security by ensuring that every person in the world had a democratic voice. Democracies dont invade democracies. (apart from Israel recently) That is an admirable aspiration.

Israel had withdrawn from Gaza and seemed to have a long term plan to withdraw from the West Bank. It was moving towards a two state solution. That would have answered much of the valid criticisms by moderate islam but that was not in the jihadists interests so they ensured progress in that area was stopped.

The jihadists will be defeated on the battlefield. Until lebanon that battlefield has successfully been confined to Iraq. Dictators will be held to account. It will take a long time and be bloody. But eventually those historic injustices can be remedied peacefully in properly constituted courts of law.

The difficulty for moderate muslims is that they are not going to feel strongly against the imposition of sharia law in a western country until they have a home grown democratic tradition. Turkey is doing a fine job of managing that balance and is only able to do so because of the respect people have for the ideas of Kemal Ataturk and his aspirations for a secular Turkish state.

Over time, and despite the violence iraqi's, afghans and other middle eastern citizens may realise that democracy with an islamic twist is the best way for them

Simply answer this question. How is it wrong to want to bring democracy to the world?

Without wishing to insult those anti war personally they are Lenin's "useful idiots"

and btw - I enjoyed the Buchanan interview even if he is wrong.

 
At 26/9/06 9:31 am, Anonymous Dmitri said...

Incidentally, with all this talk of occupation, spare a thought for the population of Northern Cyprus...that never seems to get any press anywhere....ethnic cleansing or Amenia worth a mention also, though that is probably considered too far back for anyone to care about.

 
At 26/9/06 9:33 am, Anonymous Reuben said...

Also those actions undertaken by muslims, so better not to mention them, easier to blame everything on the joos ay.

 
At 26/9/06 11:21 am, Blogger karlos said...

Sagenz,
"Simply answer this question. How is it wrong to want to bring democracy to the world?"

Simple answer: if a tyrant state imposes democracy on the world, the democracy is likely to be a sham and merely another form of tyranny.

Any fans of anarcho-syndicalism here?

 
At 26/9/06 12:07 pm, Blogger bomber said...

..
Deano - come on dude what is this?

Remember under the Taliban- no education for women, women were not allowed to work in public places with women

So this is a WAR for Feminism? Yes The Marines are actually the defenders of Feminism, I never thought the M16 was much of a weapon for the struggle for universal sufferage, but apparently it is. The war in Afghanistan and the arguements of 'fighting for womens rights' is a bullshit front used to sell the war to American Soccor Mums. We will lose Afghanistan just the way we will lose Iraq - maybe if America hadn't fucked the place so badly in the 1980s we wouldn't be in this position - but the lesson of not playing God in other peoples countries is never learnt, and we get voices telling us we need to go do it again - sorry Deano, Dude I just don't buy it. America fucked this region up, they have to clean it up and I'm damned if I want to see any more of our resources wasted on this mess - Deano, WE ARE LOSING - coaltion forces are attacked every hour, the war is so hot there right now and the only way to 'win' is send more troops in - when will you say enough is enough - you want conscription for this Deano?

 
At 26/9/06 12:22 pm, Anonymous Semisi H said...

Silly me, there was I thinking that it was the USSR that fucked Afghanistan in the 1980s...

 
At 26/9/06 12:23 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talk with some of the SAS Bomber, they don't share your negativity...

 
At 26/9/06 12:38 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Oh and Sagenz

"How is it wrong to want to bring Democracy to the world"

I've heard the semantics of your arguement before my friend - from Robert S McNamara defending the US presence in Vietnam - I'm sorry Sagenz, but I think it's all bullshit - the very war you are trying to defend as bringing Democracy to the region is the very war that 16 of the intelligence departmenst have all concluded is ACTUALLY FEEDING the very people you are supposed to be quelling. America has jumped on a Tiger and they have no fucking idea of how to jump off wothout being Mauled - they either lose a little or they lose a lot - that is the stark reality. All this 'saving face', 'American prestige' bullshit is the same stuff theu used to defend Vietnam - and because they refused to learn the lessons of Vietnam, they walked into Iraq.

The alternative was not to have funded Saddam in the first fucking place so that he became a regional threat - but America was so hell bent on punishing Iran for Irans great sin of kicking out Americas puppet dictator the Shar, that backing Saddam was a preference. I'm sorry but that's just fucked - how about NOT propping up dictators for cheap oil - there's a shocking idea - how about Americans ACTUALLY pay for the full cost of their oil rather than drive around in their monstrously unfeasable SUVs creating 25% of the worlds pollution for 4% of the worlds population - oh and how about NOT funding Osama to fight in Afghanistan to begin with, money that was funelled through the Pakistani ISI to fight the Soviets - and lets not forget the reason why the Americans started that war in 1979, because they wanted the Soviets to have their own Vietnam - what a rightous fucking nation.

If this is the Democracy you want to export to the rest of the planet at the end of an M16 - leave me out of it. All your 'democracy' is doing is giving the jihadists the supporters they need to take their crazy ideas full circle - this radicalization stems from legitiamte injustices committed by the West in their countries- how about this as a unique idea - how about we fuck off out of their region and see if they leave us alone. The Iraq war is lost and it is the new Vietnam with the same bullshit excuses - let's ask the thousands upon thousands who are dead if they are enjoying their Freedom and Democracy shall we? The Right Wing were wrong then, and they are fucking wrong now, and it is the civilians who are paying for your enforced 'democracy'.

America has two choices in Iraq- leave or bring in Conscription

 
At 26/9/06 12:41 pm, Blogger bomber said...

..
No Semisi - the Americans started the afghan war in 1979

Hmmm -talk to the SAS about war - that would be like talking to the Exclusive Brethren aboutr God, I'll give it a miss

 
At 26/9/06 12:51 pm, Blogger bomber said...

..
Oh in case I get a whole bunch of you jumping up and down about the America started the war in Afghanistan bit, here is the interview with the man who signed it off - read it, learn it, understand my disgust at American foreign policy - look how proud this fuck was to have started the madness in Afghanistan

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.

The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" Portions of the books can be read at: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm

 
At 26/9/06 1:51 pm, Blogger ¤°Z°¤-Luke-¤°Z°¤° said...

to deano way above, dude is that what we have acheived? if this is true then why are there still troops in Afghanistan? why is that we dont leave them to be? theres still a fucking taliban threat and not to mention the many civilians who for some CRAZY fucking reason dont like the idea of military from around the world taking over! nothing good has been acheived if there is still troops been sent into this country

 
At 26/9/06 2:34 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A bit like the way the Russians and Chinese assisted the North Vietnamese and North Koreans wouldn't you say Bomber?

 
At 26/9/06 2:57 pm, Anonymous Sam Eagle Chest said...

Don't you just love the 'peace' crowd

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10403011

 
At 26/9/06 3:25 pm, Anonymous deano said...

What have we achieved Luke? We have freed the Afghan people from the tyranny of the Taliban, and we drove Al Qaeda out of their comfortable bases Afghanistan and turned them into fugitives looking over their shoulders every day. Yes we are still fighting the Taliban, the war is not over, but almost no Western troops are dying there. Afghanistan is still very poor, but under the Taliban it had the world's WORST economy and lowest per capita income, so look what you are starting from.

If the US had commited more forces to Afghanistan after the Taliban were driven out of power instead of invading Iraq, Afghanistan would be better off now.

 
At 26/9/06 3:29 pm, Blogger bomber said...

..
No Anon - maybe the same as Korea but I wouldn't say the same as Vietnam - and what would that proove - that America is as good as the worst - great example, what a victory, when is the 'aren't we just the fucking greatest' parade being held?

Deano - we could have avoided the war if we hadn't armed the crazy fucks to the teeth to begin with. And what's this about no western troops dying in Afghanistan?

 
At 26/9/06 3:40 pm, Anonymous C Langford said...

'crazy fucks' don't be such a racist. Islam is a religion of peace doncha know :)

 
At 26/9/06 4:04 pm, Anonymous deano said...

We needed to arm the crazy f*cks to fight the red menace Bomber! The Cold War, remember? Afghanistan was just one theatre in that war- a war we won, by the way.

More western troops have been killed in friendly fire incidents or vehicle accidents than have been killed by the Taliban (in Afghanistan). Casualties have been very low.

 
At 26/9/06 8:41 pm, Blogger karlos said...

c langford,
don't be such a racist fuck. Bomber's comment was about the taliban, not Islam. Or are they the same to you?

deano,
the cold war could be describe, with some accuracy, as another american fantasy, an excuse to wage war and control the american people. Remember the politics of fear. Now there is a new enemy.

Yes yes, there was a Russkie threat, but it was greatly exaggerated, as is the threat from 'International Terrorism'.

 
At 26/9/06 9:09 pm, Blogger sagenz said...

karlos - no russkie threat. what planet are you on. the people of central europe are happy to be liberated. they voted to join the eu.

bomber - you were just frothing in response. interesting piece on brezinzki. Go back to WWII and the US invaded Europe to get rid of hitler then spent enormous amounts of money via the marshall plan to rebuild. They believed stalins lies and were not prepared to fight another hot war to get russia out of eastern europe. Everything follows from that.

Afghanistan as a strategy was successful in hastening the end of the USSR. Afghanistan suffered in the same way that coventry suffered when churchill chose not to reveal the possession of enigma. they had broken the german codes. Same logic applies - for the greater long term good.

fundamentalist islam has replaced the ussr. America's isolationist policy did not work in WWII. I fail to see why it would work now. So America is reponsible for Saddam invading Iran and Kuwait??? America is responsible for anarchy in Somalia? America is reponsible for Kashmir?

As warm and fuzzy as it might sound for the Americans to sit in splendid isolation and not get involved that has been proven to be a completely flawed geostrategy. Japan, Western and Central Europe, and to a lesser extent Russia and Turkey are all examples of American intervention having had a long term positive impact.

Given that for the last 58 years fundamentalists have been calling for the destruction of Israel it is difficult to see how America could engineer an acceptable solution there.

 
At 26/9/06 9:57 pm, Anonymous GWB said...

Karlos, no ruskie threat?! Sooo, what do you call Nikita Krustchev's decision to invade Hungary in 1956, the subsequent brutal suppression, the summary execution of people like Imre Nagy and other leaders of the uprising. How about Prague Spring? Ring any bells?

 
At 27/9/06 1:01 pm, Blogger karlos said...

sagenz & gwb,

To quote from my post above (emphasis added):
"Yes yes, there was a Russkie threat, but it was greatly exaggerated".

 
At 5/10/06 11:57 am, Blogger bomber said...

...
I'm afraid Karlos people who want to build up the monster of fear don't like you pointing out that it doesn't nearly have as many fangs and claws. Communisim was a threat but it quickly stopped being one once the American economy picked up speed, after that point it just served military industrial financial interests, like having your butter served on your guns.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home