I can listen to Neil Young songs and not be politically swayed by him....at the end of the day he is of course just a musician.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Printable View
I can listen to Neil Young songs and not be politically swayed by him....at the end of the day he is of course just a musician.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
He is a smart guy with an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongI can listen to Neil Young songs and not be politically swayed by him....at the end of the day he is of course just a musician.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Nice way to deflect that your country has become the most corrupt, dangerous and twisted state in the world.
Seriously, you are Israel in the wing mirrors. It's just a case of building a wall for the poor now.
Mexico – United States barrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by milesHe is a smart guy with an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongI can listen to Neil Young songs and not be politically swayed by him....at the end of the day he is of course just a musician.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Nice way to deflect that your country has become the most corrupt, dangerous and twisted state in the world.
Seriously, you are Israel in the wing mirrors. It's just a case of building a wall for the poor now.
;D
I hate Paul Wolfowitz and the Iraq war with a burning passion. I'm just saying, that was indirectly a driving force behind the war. He hated the idea of 'containment' because it was the same one applied to Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
But it wasn't containment as Iraq wasn't actually invading anyone and had long been warded off of Kuwait. When it comes to containment Israel is a far more appropriate example to take the lead on and everyone turns a blind eye. Wolfowitz is full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatI hate Paul Wolfowitz and the Iraq war with a burning passion. I'm just saying, that was indirectly a driving force behind the war. He hated the idea of 'containment' because it was the same one applied to Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
The U.S. policy for Iraq under Clinton was 'containment.'Quote:
Originally Posted by milesBut it wasn't containment as Iraq wasn't actually invading anyone and had long been warded off of Kuwait. When it comes to containment Israel is a far more appropriate example to take the lead on and everyone turns a blind eye. Wolfowitz is full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatI hate Paul Wolfowitz and the Iraq war with a burning passion. I'm just saying, that was indirectly a driving force behind the war. He hated the idea of 'containment' because it was the same one applied to Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Containment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You do realize Bush is no longer President, right? Leave the man alone already. The war wasn't really his fault anyway. He was in a no win situationQuote:
Originally Posted by miles
Amat, there is no mention of Iraq in that link and Iraq had nothing to do with so called 'communism' anyway. So, either you are playing games or you are just confused. I stand by my previous arguments. Iraq had nothing to do with so called containment as it simply wasn't expanding anywhere and it was certainly not threatening the so called 'free' West with any alternative ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatThe U.S. policy for Iraq under Clinton was 'containment.'Quote:
Originally Posted by milesBut it wasn't containment as Iraq wasn't actually invading anyone and had long been warded off of Kuwait. When it comes to containment Israel is a far more appropriate example to take the lead on and everyone turns a blind eye. Wolfowitz is full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatI hate Paul Wolfowitz and the Iraq war with a burning passion. I'm just saying, that was indirectly a driving force behind the war. He hated the idea of 'containment' because it was the same one applied to Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Containment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wolfowitz is obviously insane if that is what he really believes was happening. Iraq was just another middle east country with serious human rights issues, no different to many other countries in the region. Iraq was preyed upon by America largely because it was convenient to play up Saddam as the great big devil. It helped to deflect attention away from what the current governments in power were doing themselves and also was good for business once the invasion actually went ahead.
He only went and instigated it and mustered up public approval with outright lies and as a consequence over a hundred thousand civilians lost their lives, thousands of soldiers were killed and perhaps upwards of a million people were injured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseYou do realize Bush is no longer President, right? Leave the man alone already. The war wasn't really his fault anyway. He was in a no win situationQuote:
Originally Posted by miles
Sure, he is no longer President. But that man has a lot of blood on his hands. And for what exactly? Oil? Influence in the region?
We live and die by the choices we make in life and must be held accountable for the wrongs we do to others. Just because Bush is an ex-president and from a wealthy family does not mean that his crimes should remain unpunished. He made his choices.
I didn't read the wikipedia article before posting so my bad, it doesn't mention Iraq but I honestly figured you knew what it was. So, Iraq wasn't expanding anywhere because of containment! We had Sadaam and Iraq contained, crippled them but then made the mistake of invading. They were crumbling but guys like Paul Wolfowitz and opponents of containment (it's not a hard thing to read up about) denied that it ever worked for Iraq and that was a selling point to the war. Guys like Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney (who formerly was in support of containment) started beating the drums of war, things got rolling quickly and before midterm elections. Scared to lose the fear mongered vote, politicians didn't have the backbone to not support before the war and voted for it. This is where the Senate, Congress and the media failed us. Then of course the war happened. Containment should have stayed US strategy or 'slogan' as one article calls it.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesAmat, there is no mention of Iraq in that link and Iraq had nothing to do with so called 'communism' anyway. So, either you are playing games or you are just confused. I stand by my previous arguments. Iraq had nothing to do with so called containment as it simply wasn't expanding anywhere and it was certainly not threatening the so called 'free' West with any alternative ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatThe U.S. policy for Iraq under Clinton was 'containment.'Quote:
Originally Posted by milesBut it wasn't containment as Iraq wasn't actually invading anyone and had long been warded off of Kuwait. When it comes to containment Israel is a far more appropriate example to take the lead on and everyone turns a blind eye. Wolfowitz is full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatI hate Paul Wolfowitz and the Iraq war with a burning passion. I'm just saying, that was indirectly a driving force behind the war. He hated the idea of 'containment' because it was the same one applied to Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Containment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wolfowitz is obviously insane if that is what he really believes was happening. Iraq was just another middle east country with serious human rights issues, no different to many other countries in the region. Iraq was preyed upon by America largely because it was convenient to play up Saddam as the great big devil. It helped to deflect attention away from what the current governments in power were doing themselves and also was good for business once the invasion actually went ahead.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128543&page=1
Such attacks would become the administration's favorite military option to enforce the newly emerging policy known as "containment." American and British planes would contain the Iraqi air force, patrolling no-fly zones in the north and south. U.N. inspectors would contain Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked | Foreign Affairs
Contrary to what critics have said, we now know that containment helped destroy Saddam Hussein's war machine and his capacity to produce weapons.
AEI - Papers
"Containment required the continuous engagement of a potent U.S. military force in southern Turkey, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The United States devoted roughly 28,000 troops, 30 naval vessels, 200 military aircraft and other equipment to Iraqi containment efforts prior to the pre-war buildup."
Differentiated Containment | Foreign Affairs
In its first term, the Clinton administration attempted to deal with the twin dangers of Iran and Iraq through a strategy of "dual containment" that kept both countries boxed in with economic sanctions and military monitoring. Dual containment, however, is more a slogan than a strategy, and far too blunt an instrument to serve American interests in the Middle East. The United States must employ a more nuanced approach, keeping the straitjacket on Saddam while seeking improved relations with Iran.
On the US Policy of Dual Containment of Iran and Iraq
Despite its widespread use, the meaning of the expression is not crystal clear; different individuals have had different interpretations of "containment" of Iran and Iraq. For some, it has meant keeping the two countries militarily, economically, and politically in check. This was the case with Iraq between 1990—when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and United Nations sanctions were imposed on Iraq—and 2003—when the US invaded Iraq for the second time and occupied the country. In the case of Iraq, it was hoped initially that economic pressures through extensive United Nations sanctions, as well as some limited military actions, would create discontent and lead to "regime change."
Barack Obama's Iraq Speech - Wikisource
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
Amazon.com: Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (9781594201035): Thomas E. Ricks: Books
This book talks a lot about containment and the idea that it worked. If you haven't read this Miles, you really should. It details the entire run up to the war and is in my opinion the definitive book on the War and it's available for $3! Ali Allawi's book gets the attention but Allawi was a fraud himself.
I'm not confused Miles don't be such a prick, I'm basically agreeing with you without you knowing it because you're to eager to cut down other people's opinions. Containment towards Iraq was a very real thing and I believe it was working just like I believe we're working in containing Iran, as evidenced by the raucous wave of the last elections. That regime's foothold is not strong because we have effectively contained them. That's all I'm saying, I'm agreeing with you! Like Obama said, this is a "dumb war" because we had Iraq contained! He believed in the fact that containment was working and now there are few dissenting opinions on that. Wolfowitz and Cheney still rail against containment. Wolfowitz because he believed the Clinton policy was similar to the pre-WWII policy towards Germany. THAT'S ALL I WAS SAYING, just found it ironic. Do you still think 'containment' is a product of my imagination?
Right, I am beginning to see what you are saying now. That last post was much clearer.
So basically this policy of containment is America's means of bullying and controlling independant states. It's nothing new, but I have never really used the word containment to describe it. But I now see that it is a valid definition of the approach. Actually, rather than being effective in Iraq, I regard the sanctions as totally counterproductive. It killed many Iraqi's who had done nothing wrong, reduced standards of living and in fact it is argued that this actually helped to strengthen Saddam's grip on power. "It's all evil America's fault" etc. If America wanted regime change then they should have done so when the window was available at the time of the first Gulf war, but the US simply snubbed the Iraqi's that wanted change. Making up lies years later and then invading was obviously no way to go about things either.
Likewise I regard the controls on Iran to be hypocritical too. Iran doesn't invade sovereign countries, but arguably wants to develop nuclear weapons. This isn't entirely clear. But my argument is that if nations are to be 'contained' then why is there no containment policy on the very country that has most threatened world peace in recent years? Oh, but they are our allies. I am heading off into a different argument with that though.
There is a lot of bullshit inherent in world affairs and it's something that none of the power brokers even pretend to hide. The war mongering nations will tolerate twisted countries if they will do things for us. If not then they are the enemy and must be 'contained'.
I might use that word more in threads of my own. It's not bad.
Yeah I guess the wikipedia article was misleading.
I see where you're going, but when it comes to keeping certain countries from power, I say to contain the psychos. Sadaam, Ahmadinejad, Jong-Il, etc all fucken psychos and I don't trust them to be running country's and I don't mind America doing something about it. Not invading, because that costs us lives but yes that is what I believe. Israel does some shitty things, I can't say I'm completely comfortable with the US supporting them as much as they should but whatever, they do and I don't know enough about that.
Israel for me is the big elephant in the room when it comes to US foreign policy. I don't have any particular fondness for the psycho leaders either, but policy should be consistent and there shouldn't be obvious contradictions because that means that the policy is obviously hypocritical. But that's the thing where do you draw the line? Iran potentially wants nuclear weapons, but you can't very well say that they can't have a deterent when Israel is armed up to the eyes with them. To be consistent you have to force Israel to eradicate their stockpiles and say to Iran "see we are doing it the right way". And in turn America should destroy a massive pile of its own weapons and say to the world "we are being straight". But it's never a case of being straight or consistent.
If you are going to contain one psycho then you also have to contain them all. And that brings you to the the very definition of what a "psycho" is. I would very much include George Bush and Tony Blair as among the psycho's. That's where it becomes murky because if you tally up the total dead around the world I am sure Britain and America are responsible for more of it than any other nation. These psycho's are in a whole league of their own. So in that sense other psycho's can very well point their fingers and say "nobody should be picking on us because they are the bigger psycho's!". And in their own way I would have to completely agree with them.
You need to lead by example and Bush never did that. He waded in and became one of the biggest psycho's himself and that's why I think it would be great to make an example of him and start afresh making sure that it never happens again. Unfortunately, it looks as though Obama will be getting another thread on the same topic a few years later.
miles....since when is Neil Young smart? He's a Canadian too....one of the worst kinds ;)