World Idiots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Bush only got permission to invade Afghanistan, yet he decided to invade also Iraq and with a much greater force.

---

He got permission from the UN to invade Afghanistan. He got permission from the United States Senate and Congress to invade Iraq. Without 9/11, he wouldn't have gotten permission from anybody to invade anything.

Don't y'all kid yourselves about a new administration. With the country's mood the way it was at the time, the vast majority of Democrats fell into line and approved of the invasion of Iraq also. I would imagine that most Americans thought there would be dancing in the street and an orderly transition similar to France and other countries in Europe during WWII when the Allies liberated them from the Third Reich. Imagine our surprise to see those people looting their own museums and going for each other's throats. When things started going badly, thats when the Democrats bailed out on the whole idea. All of a sudden they never even heard of Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

He got permission from the United States Senate and Congress to invade Iraq. Without 9/11, he wouldn't have gotten permission from anybody to invade anything.

---

If they were really sincere, they should have done more background research and listened to the experts who warned against an invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Janneppi, the huge difference is the North Koreans are no threat to anyone in the immediate future. In spite of their massive buildup on the 38th Parallel, they have never bothered to invade the south because Kim and his father both knew that the US would help the South and likely so would the rest of the western world. The other factor you ignore is the control and influence the Chinese have. The Chinese use North Korea to annoy the Americans but when Kim gets a little too pushy, a little phone call from Beijing reminds Mr. Kim who really can control his nation. If North Korea was to ever fall, it wont be the Americans, I suspect the Chinese will engineer the change.

The Americans would have invaded a long time ago if they thought it would help things, but as long as the Chinese back Kim, no one is invading. Which is why North Korea getting nuclear weapons is annoying everyone, including the Chinese. America is quite happy to just put up big front, knowing that in reality, it is Beijing that controls Kim....

---

As i said earlier, perhaps NK doesn't trust China anymore,
imagine your Mr. Kim.
-South Korea has a history with nuclear developement, why shoulf NK believe they have now been honest when SK lied before?
-Japan is talking about becoming a major player, Koreans remember their 1000 year history with Japan, and it's not all kittens and strawberry cakes.
-China is rearming itself with possible Taivan day trip in mind. A possible war would drag Koreas into the fight.
-China has transformerd massively in the last 20 years, who's to say in 10, 20 years time China does a deal with US not to interfere with their "democratising" project.
-US has shown willingness to be stupid about it's foregn policy.

I dont't think no one is targetting NK anytime soon, but i'm not a paranoid leader of country with very few "outs".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

If they were really sincere, they should have done more background research and listened to the experts who warned against an invasion.

---

Oh they were really sincere. You don't have to be smart to be a politician, you just need to get your name on the ballot and be elected. I don't know about Finland, but here, for every 10 experts that say one thing, you can get 10 experts that will say the opposite. Just look at the global warming debate.

Here again, with the popular mindset at the time, to have voted against the invasion would probably have cost you your job at the next election and you would have to go back to suing McDonalds because someone's kid is too fat or chasing ambulances for a living.

Voting for the invasion gives you the out of pointing at the President and whining that it was his idea and he convinced you it was the right thing to do.

President Bush should not have pursued an invasion of Iraq, based on what he actually had. This one is squarely in his lap.

I can assure you that nobody thought Iraq would fall apart like a children's daycare center with no supervision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

He got permission from the UN to invade Afghanistan. He got permission from the United States Senate and Congress to invade Iraq. Without 9/11, he wouldn't have gotten permission from anybody to invade anything.

Don't y'all kid yourselves about a new administration. With the country's mood the way it was at the time, the vast majority of Democrats fell into line and approved of the invasion of Iraq also. I would imagine that most Americans thought there would be dancing in the street and an orderly transition similar to France and other countries in Europe during WWII when the Allies liberated them from the Third Reich. Imagine our surprise to see those people looting their own museums and going for each other's throats. When things started going badly, thats when the Democrats bailed out on the whole idea. All of a sudden they never even heard of Iraq.

---

It is amazing to point out Hilary Clinton voted for the invasion, as did many of the people who claim they never saw it, like John Kerry " I voted for the invasion before I voted against it". The democrats are idiots for if they had a principled and consistent campaign for a proper debate without playing partisan games, none of this likely would have happened. Instead, they didn't want to look weak on the war on terror, so they went in on it. Lets face it, for those who think Bush is an idiot, just remember he got elected twice against two supposed "geniuses". Both Gore and Kerry looked like slimeballs promising everything to everybody, and if the 2008 is any indication, Ms. Clinton is straddling a fence of doing that as well.

I don't think the plan for what to do afterwards was ever really verbalized and it was my reason for not supporting the invasion; but when the invasion happened, I had to hope America had a plan for the peace keeping. To an extent, they did, but I don't think anyone really could know how fast the wheels could come off things in Iraq. The sad part is, Iraq deserves better, and it deserved a lot better when Saddam was running the country.

Of course, it is water under the bridge now, and I don't think people really can understand what really is happening now. The US is now trying to stop the sectarian violence and THAT is why opposition in the US is growing. The public was for supporting the effort to rid the world of a piece of trash like Hussein, but the nation building stuff isn't in the American DNA. They built their nation on their own and they don't want to have to put out time, money and lives to do it for a nation that is more content to shoot at each other. Nevertheless, they now have a moral responsiblity to try, and I guess that is where they are now. Trying to decide when they have had enough.....

Well, we didn't build our nation all on our own. If the French hadn't stepped to help out during the later part of the American Revolution, we'd all be speaking......English!! LOL!

Fiero, the really goofy part is, as much as the French helped the US back then, look what a pain the tail the French are to just about everyone now. They find ways to tick off everyone, especially Americans, even when there isn't something like the Iraq mess going on....

God love the French, because besides themselves, it appears the rest of the world sometimes only tolerates em.

Israel's use of cluster bombs from U.S. examined. I doubt anything will be done about it as usual though:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/...eut/index.html

Israel's use of cluster bombs from U.S. examined

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The Bush administration will notify Congress Monday that Israel may have violated agreements with Washington when it fired U.S.-supplied cluster munitions into Lebanon in its war with Hezbollah last summer, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

Citing State Department officials who spoke Saturday, the Times said the preliminary findings had spawned a sharp debate -- which one official characterized as "head-butting" -- within the administration over whether Washington should penalize its ally for using cluster munitions in towns and villages where Hezbollah guerrillas placed rocket launchers.

The Times reported some midlevel Pentagon and State Department officials contended Israel violated U.S. prohibitions on using cluster munitions against populated areas.

Israel will counter with the fact that they didn't use them against towns and villages. They used them against rocket launchers. The fact that Hezbollah set the launchers up in populated areas isn't Israel's problem. But for groups like Hezbollah, the propaganda value of having Israel wipe out a bunch of civillians more than outweighs the loss of their military hardware. The media and others fall for it all the time. Why has nobody taken Hezbollah to task for setting up their rocket launchers in residential areas with full knowledge of and counting on the civillian casualties that would occur when the strikes to eliminate the launch sites came.

I'm not up on large military munitions, but my off-hand guess is that cluster type munitions stood a better chance of eliminating the launcher, it's support equipment, and reloads while minimizing damage to surrounding structures. 1000 pound bombs make a mess of everything.

I have no doubt some genius will allow that Israel should have done nothing at all and just let Hezbollah zip rockets in on them until they got bored and went bowling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

I'm not up on large military munitions, but my off-hand guess is that cluster type munitions stood a better chance of eliminating the launcher, it's support equipment, and reloads while minimizing damage to surrounding structures. 1000 pound bombs make a mess of everything.

---

I'd imagine an individual bomb in a cluster bomb is rather small and wouldn't do much damage on hardware. I'd imagine it's primarily an anti-personnel weapon like the old shrapnel artillery ammunitions and is intended against large formations of military troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

I have no doubt some genius will allow that Israel should have done nothing at all and just let Hezbollah zip rockets in on them until they got bored and went bowling.

---

Actually Hezbollah didn't launch any rockets until Israel attacked them. They just snatched two Israeli soldiers. Nothning would have stopped Israel from sending a patrol to Lebanon to try and get the snatched soldiers back. IMO Israel over reacted and it's response was out of proportions.