We're not invading Haiti - they don't have anything we want. If they had just one oil well, we'd be saving the population from the ruler or rebels, whichever was offering the highest profit or least worker protections. /jaded
That's very true. Look how long we waited to 'help' in the Serbian/Croatia conflict. People were being massacred in the tens of thousands and we didn't care.
Absolutely! I just make fun - Haiti has been a warzone forever. I think it's fair to say not Iraq and yes Haiti, as we have requests for help from Haiti but didn't from the Iraqi leadership.
You're right though - there are no easy answers. I'm so tired I could almost tolerate a period of isolationism (almost, but then reality dawns).
It's still hard to ignore how the US is influenced by our economic ties, regardless of which party is in office.
Well, And I really think we have little to worrie about haiti terrorist attacking us on US soil. As for Iraq there is decent reason to beleve they helped the Taliban, as well as other terrorist attacks in the past against us.
I dunno - Haiti is more miserable and much closer than Iraq, and the info in Iraq has really not held up to post-war analysis (or so it seems sometimes).
How do we not know about them helping terroists? Even if you dont beleve they helped the taliban theres proof of them helping fund things like the egyptian liner downings and hijackings. Was it not saddam that called for muslems to attack the US back in 91???
How can you possibly beleve that they dont help fund and train terrorists? Do you possibly beleve that Uday A qusay's special police wernt in themselves a terrorist orginization? even within there own country? I mean they GASSED their own people.
How can anyone for a second think it was NOT a good thing getting Saddam out of power???
How do you know I'm not really Elvis? That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the party making the positive assertion. There is NO evidence that he provided any support to al-Qa`ida, and it would have been the antithesis of his political beliefs to have done so.
Was it not saddam that called for muslems to attack the US back in 91???
Er, you mean back when we were invading his country? Well, DUH...
How can you possibly beleve that they dont help fund and train terrorists?
I didn't say that. I said he disn't support the Taliban, and certainly not al-Qa`ida. He has shown support for SECULAR Plestinian-nationalist terrorist who have attacked Israel, but not any of the organizations that have shown aggression towards the US.
Do you possibly beleve that Uday A qusay's special police wernt in themselves a terrorist orginization?
Not by the conventional definition, because they were operating under the ausipces of a government. That doesn't mean they weren't rat-bastards, but not technically terrorists.
How can anyone for a second think it was NOT a good thing getting Saddam out of power???
Because it has de-stablized the region and created fertile ground for recruitment of terrorists, it has INCREASES resentment towards the US, and we have yet to prove that the government that will replace Saddam will be any better. Our track record with "regime change" (Pinochet, Suharto, the Shah, etc.) has been less than stallar. Regardless, the ends don't justify the means. Even if Iraq does und up better off, that does not make it OK to violate international law and consensus, to fabricate justifications for war, or to launch a pre-emptive strike against a country which was no direct threat to us.
Listen, if you are looking for governments who have provided direct support to the Taliban or al-Qa`ida, you need to start with our ALLIES, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Nobody is saying Saddam wasn't bad. We're just saying there are plenty of regimes nearly as bad, or WORSE, that we HAVEN'T started pre-emptive wars against. And some of them are our allies.
50 marines do do not qualify as an invasion force. In theory they're there to protect the embassy. In reality, they're either an exploratory force or just rifle fodder. Marines are all tough, skilled, and intimidating, but 50 of 'em can't do a whole lot about it if angry armed mobs REALLY want into that building.
Now the new Pakistani offensive is interesting. At least (I think) they're not beating down India for the moment.
Oh no - I was quite serious that we aren't invading. My jab was more oriented to "We're not invading because they have no oil, even though they're begging for help" vs Iraq.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Remmber, Haiti was a problem before and that was when Good old Clinton was in office. He did nothing about it either.
Just pointing out facts so we can be fair here. hehe
no subject
You're right though - there are no easy answers. I'm so tired I could almost tolerate a period of isolationism (almost, but then reality dawns).
It's still hard to ignore how the US is influenced by our economic ties, regardless of which party is in office.
no subject
no subject
no subject
...primarily as a result of resentment towards our continued interference in the Middle East...
As for Iraq there is decent reason to beleve they helped the Taliban, as well as other terrorist attacks in the past against us.
Um, no, we don't.
no subject
How can you possibly beleve that they dont help fund and train terrorists? Do you possibly beleve that Uday A qusay's special police wernt in themselves a terrorist orginization? even within there own country? I mean they GASSED their own people.
How can anyone for a second think it was NOT a good thing getting Saddam out of power???
no subject
How do you know I'm not really Elvis? That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the party making the positive assertion. There is NO evidence that he provided any support to al-Qa`ida, and it would have been the antithesis of his political beliefs to have done so.
Was it not saddam that called for muslems to attack the US back in 91???
Er, you mean back when we were invading his country? Well, DUH...
How can you possibly beleve that they dont help fund and train terrorists?
I didn't say that. I said he disn't support the Taliban, and certainly not al-Qa`ida. He has shown support for SECULAR Plestinian-nationalist terrorist who have attacked Israel, but not any of the organizations that have shown aggression towards the US.
Do you possibly beleve that Uday A qusay's special police wernt in themselves a terrorist orginization?
Not by the conventional definition, because they were operating under the ausipces of a government. That doesn't mean they weren't rat-bastards, but not technically terrorists.
How can anyone for a second think it was NOT a good thing getting Saddam out of power???
Because it has de-stablized the region and created fertile ground for recruitment of terrorists, it has INCREASES resentment towards the US, and we have yet to prove that the government that will replace Saddam will be any better. Our track record with "regime change" (Pinochet, Suharto, the Shah, etc.) has been less than stallar. Regardless, the ends don't justify the means. Even if Iraq does und up better off, that does not make it OK to violate international law and consensus, to fabricate justifications for war, or to launch a pre-emptive strike against a country which was no direct threat to us.
Listen, if you are looking for governments who have provided direct support to the Taliban or al-Qa`ida, you need to start with our ALLIES, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Nobody is saying Saddam wasn't bad. We're just saying there are plenty of regimes nearly as bad, or WORSE, that we HAVEN'T started pre-emptive wars against. And some of them are our allies.
Re: FWIW
Now the new Pakistani offensive is interesting. At least (I think) they're not beating down India for the moment.
Re: FWIW