George Bush changes the focus on the war against terrorism.

[Erich]

that's the main point Tim, Hillary has 2 years to try and build up her kingdom

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The best thing about this war on terror is we now know who our friends are. As far as I'm concerned, NATO and the UN is dead and we should stop fooling ourselves these are institutions worth saving.

I dont see how you can put NATO in the same boat as the UN. I agree about the UN but NATO has been on the US side from the beginning.

In Afganistan, British, Canadian and German troops are dieing along side there US counterparts and have been there since the beginning of operations in Afganistan.

Sure they did not agree with the US on the invasion of Iraq, but can you blame them for that? I sure as hell cant.

Besides there was more going on in the War in Iraq than you can imagine. The German government did not take a direct role in the invasion of Iraq but they have admited to allowing Geheimdienst members to paint the targets for US bombs in Baghdad during the initial air campaign.

The only country that really can take a fall for being assholes was the French, but they have over the years proven there yellow bellied selves over and over.

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by davparlr

The Demos have not won yet. They have an uncanny ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.

Very true. To paraphrase Dave Barry, "Democrats are the ones who stop to help you when your car is broken down by the side of the road and end up lighting it on fire."

Generally great intentions, generally horrible results.

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by Erich

that's the main point Tim, Hillary has 2 years to try and build up her kingdom

I wouldn't worry too much about her getting to far. She'll get some converts, that's for sure. But she tends to act in the fringes of both parties. Stuff she says in dramitic in one direction or another.

2 years is a long time, very true. But the odds are against her.

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I dont see how you can put NATO in the same boat as the UN. I agree about the UN but NATO has been on the US side from the beginning.

In Afganistan, British, Canadian and German troops are dieing along side there US counterparts and have been there since the beginning of operations in Afganistan.

Sure they did not agree with the US on the invasion of Iraq, but can you blame them for that? I sure as hell cant.

Besides there was more going on in the War in Iraq than you can imagine. The German government did not take a direct role in the invasion of Iraq but they have admited to allowing Geheimdienst members to paint the targets for US bombs in Baghdad during the initial air campaign.

The only country that really can take a fall for being assholes was the French, but they have over the years proven there yellow bellied selves over and over.

Agree. Nato has helped. Been in A-stan (with restrictions) while the UN is doing it's usual "BS" two step and finding new and inventive ways to go to lunch in NYC.

But I wonder if Nato can survive with the Soviets gone. It seems to be doing well but has not had to face a large and aggressive threat. Each part of it serves in A-stan with restrictions forced on the contingent by the home country. What will happen when the threat is not several thousand miles away but on the doorstep and attempts to divide and conquer? There are weaknesses in Nato that an apponent can exploit.

[Glider]

A personal view is that Bush and Blair did one thing very right and the second very wrong.

Going into Iraq was wrong. I do not deny that Saddam is an evil ******* but he had been that way for a long time and never had any intention of threatening the west. He didn't even support the wars with Isreal, his participation being the least that he could do to save face. Clearly he lost the First Gulf War and hung on by his fingertips to power. His only priority was to stay in power and there was no doubt what would happen to him had he strayed from that path again.

Going into afganistan was the right thing to do. They were harbouring the people who attacked the USA on 9/11 and the USA had every right to go after them.
Had the USA only attacked Afganistan then some countries would have bitched and moaned but no real action would have been taken.

The fact remains that the USA with the UK did attack Iraq and even thought I believe it was wrong to do so and that our leaders lied to get us to attack, I believe we cannot pull out now. To do so would put Iran in effective control of Iraq and with that kind of power over all the Middle East. That must be close to our worst case scenario.

I don't care if people call temselves Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Labour or Conservative, at the end of the day they need to face up to the fact that we are where we are and do they really want to give Iran that kind of power by pulling out.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I dont see how you can put NATO in the same boat as the UN. I agree about the UN but NATO has been on the US side from the beginning.

In Afganistan, British, Canadian and German troops are dieing along side there US counterparts and have been there since the beginning of operations in Afganistan.

Sure they did not agree with the US on the invasion of Iraq, but can you blame them for that? I sure as hell cant.

Besides there was more going on in the War in Iraq than you can imagine. The German government did not take a direct role in the invasion of Iraq but they have admited to allowing Geheimdienst members to paint the targets for US bombs in Baghdad during the initial air campaign.

The only country that really can take a fall for being assholes was the French, but they have over the years proven there yellow bellied selves over and over.

I agree. NATO seems to be made up of mostly reasonable countries and the lack of support in Iraq is understandable, although I feel it is foolish (too much of the west lifeblood of oil reside in the middleeast to allow for megamanics to control). The French should never have been allowed into NATO, and why on earth as permanent member of the Security Council?

The UN is impotent and not relevant.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by davparlr

.......nd why on earth as permanent member of the Security Council?

The current securty council reflects the world as it was in 1945.

It needs to be changed to reflect the world of 2006.

There should be a EU seat and eliminate the French and UK seats. I would add India to the council. Maybe even expand the council to 7 seats.

I would also bar any country that does not uphold a minimum of basic human rights, or does not recognize Israel from participation on the security council.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Glider

A personal view is that Bush and Blair did one thing very right and the second very wrong.

Going into Iraq was wrong. I do not deny that Saddam is an evil ******* but he had been that way for a long time and never had any intention of threatening the west. He didn't even support the wars with Isreal, his participation being the least that he could do to save face. Clearly he lost the First Gulf War and hung on by his fingertips to power. His only priority was to stay in power and there was no doubt what would happen to him had he strayed from that path again.

You forget that at the time of the Iraq invasion, Sadam had already been responsible for two wars an over a million and half people dead, including gassing his own people. He had violated the Gulf War treaty a multitude of times including shooting at coalition forces. He had been exposed as continuing nuclear research after the first Gulf war (which his sons-in-laws were executed for revealing). And he had kicked out UN inspectors and rejected many UN resolutions. As we look back now we can see a weakness in his regime just as we can look back and see that the Soviet Union was weaker than was known. But at the time of the cold war and the Iraqi war, both the Soviet Union and Iraq appeared far more malevolent.

The fact remains that the USA with the UK did attack Iraq and even thought I believe it was wrong to do so and that our leaders lied to get us to attack,

Those "leaders" included the intelligence departments of the US, UK, Russia, France, UN, Israel, Germany and others, and political leaders such a Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi (?). These people did not rely on what Bush said but their own assessments, and Bush never said more than what these people knew and said inspite of their later political rants. These are a lot of "liars".

I don't care if people call temselves Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Labour or Conservative, at the end of the day they need to face up to the fact that we are where we are and do they really want to give Iran that kind of power by pulling out.

Very wisely stated.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The current securty council reflects the world as it was in 1945.

It needs to be changed to reflect the world of 2006.

There should be a EU seat and eliminate the French and UK seats. I would add India to the council. Maybe even expand the council to 7 seats.

I would also bar any country that does not uphold a minimum of basic human rights, or does not recognize Israel from participation on the security council.

Good comments. I am not sure Russia warrants a position.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by davparlr

Good comments. I am not sure Russia warrants a position.

The PRC and Russia are both marginal in this aspect. They sure arent perfect, but still far better than some.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by davparlr

You forget that at the time of the Iraq invasion, Sadam had already been responsible for two wars an over a million and half people dead, including gassing his own people. He had violated the Gulf War treaty a multitude of times including shooting at coalition forces. He had been exposed as continuing nuclear research after the first Gulf war (which his sons-in-laws were executed for revealing). And he had kicked out UN inspectors and rejected many UN resolutions. As we look back now we can see a weakness in his regime just as we can look back and see that the Soviet Union was weaker than was known. But at the time of the cold war and the Iraqi war, both the Soviet Union and Iraq appeared far more malevolent.

True I agree but at the end of the day he didn't and wouldn't have taken any action against the West. Had our leaders acted properly after the First Gulf War then we wouldn't be in this mess.

Those "leaders" included the intelligence departments of the US, UK, Russia, France, UN, Israel, Germany and others, and political leaders such a Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi (?). These people did not rely on what Bush said but their own assessments, and Bush never said more than what these people knew and said inspite of their later political rants. These are a lot of "liars".
.

Again I agree, there were a lot of liars or maybe incompatent people. The British assessment was based to a large degree on a university paper written years before by a known opponent of the regieme. Hardly a new, balanced, valid view of the situation.

We all know the main points in those assessments
Iraq was linked to terror organisations - wrong now admitted
That he had missiles to be launched in 45 minutes - wrong he had no missiles -wrong he wouldn't have launched them in 45 minutes.
That he had plans to attack the west - wrong
That he was developing weapons of mass destruction - wrong but this is understandable as he clearly had and used them in the past.

When Blair has been asked about the evidence put forward and if the evidence was 'tailored' to fit the requirement he has never denied or agreed with it. Interesting that the person who produced such a massively inaccurate assessment instead of being disciplined was promoted. I think its true to say that almost everyone including political leaders believe that the report was highly flawed

I cannot speak for the report as produced in the USA but I understand that it based itself a number of times on what the UK report.

[Erich]

well I wrote Bush last night via e-mail and got an answer...........
"Baghdad, we're gonna clean right off the face of the earth and implement "your" Veldodrome. "

dang I'm in hog heaven boyz/girlz

rippin it up

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by timshatz

But I wonder if Nato can survive with the Soviets gone. It seems to be doing well but has not had to face a large and aggressive threat. Each part of it serves in A-stan with restrictions forced on the contingent by the home country. What will happen when the threat is not several thousand miles away but on the doorstep and attempts to divide and conquer? There are weaknesses in Nato that an apponent can exploit.

Agreed, I too wonder the same thing, and think that Russia will be a threat again someday. I do think that in the end the NATO forces while shocked and on the run at first would recover and be able to put a worthy defense and eventually an offense based off of the fact that most of the nations in NATO are the best equipped and best trained soldiers in the world.

[Erich]

sorry Glider but you are incorrect. wmd's and portions of were and are being found in Iraq buried.....things you do not here or should not here in the media. Remember even the media broadcasted for several weeks we are coming over to cook your butts ? we tracked them with drones and the wagons left for Syria, and funny how the noble "king" makes no admission of this as he greatly fears the US and Israel. But in time he will make the bold move, he has too..............but this is another story and one for the future

Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Syria, Lybia, and these are just examples are interlinked with movable connections throughout, reason why we are imbedded since 1980 in these overlystimulated countries. They work together so please do not be deceived, I know this as fact as still have intel contacts that prove this to be very true. The Media would have you believe otherwise