Reality Intrudes

[Slim]

"Do you have some sort of weird desire to see the west fail"

I'm not sure where you draw this from, but that is not my desire.   I do however disagree with the goals of the present hegemonic and jingoistic US foreign policy platform.   I don't think I'm the only one either...  

For a moment lets pretend that you're right and this is all about oil...How did you get to work this morning? Because the way i see it we use oil everyday of our lives.

Now as for what you're trying to get at I do not have a clue...So I guess you need to explain it to me using small sylibal words so I can understand it.

I would also like to know why you limit your posting to the political forum?

Slim

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not sure where you draw this from, but that is not my desire.   I do however disagree with the goals of the present hegemonic and jingoistic US foreign policy platform.   I don't think I'm the only one either...

As I said earlier, both Cheerleading and Naysaying are irrelevant.  I've seen lots of rhetoric and suspicion coming out of your posts, but never anything in the way of a concrete alternate for approaching the problem, whether with regards to general strategy (War on Terror) or specific Policies (US in Iraq). 

Its easy to sit back, condemn, and play armchair quarterback, but what would you have us do?  Many of us have repeatedly expressed their rational for supporting "hegemonistic jingoism" - we've either served directly in the effort or have close friends and comrades directly engaged - but I've yet to see a counterclaim from you that would be regarded as effective in dealing with the problem and not derided as "imperialist".

I'm all ears....

 

[PPCLI Guy]

As I said earlier, both Cheerleading and Naysaying are irrelevant.   I've seen lots of rhetoric and suspicion coming out of your posts, but never anything in the way of a concrete alternate for approaching the problem, whether with regards to general strategy (War on Terror) or specific Policies (US in Iraq).  

Its easy to sit back, condemn, and play armchair quarterback, but what would you have us do?   Many of us have repeatedly expressed their rational for supporting "hegemonistic jingoism" - we've either served directly in the effort or have close friends and comrades directly engaged - but I've yet to see a counterclaim from you that would be regarded as effective in dealing with the problem and not derided as "imperialist".

I'm all ears....

The ball, as they  say, is in your court....

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I do however disagree with the goals of the present hegemonic and jingoistic US foreign policy platform.

I've never really thought of freedom, democracy and self-determination as particularly hegemonic ...

 

[CivU]

I think you mean "syllable" but thats just fine....in coherent statements greatly contribute to the discussion...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I think you mean "syllable" but thats just fine....in coherent statements greatly contribute to the discussion...

CivU - you are going to have to do a lot better than a simple ad hominem attack....

Answer the question.

 

[The_Stu]

The guy that wrote the original article should have watched Jon Stewart a few more times, because the point was raised a few shows later by another guest that democracy in the middle east would be detrimental to the Republicans, and a positive to the Democrats, in that Bush wasnt elected to go spread democracy. While it may not be a negative for the Republicans, its a bigger positive for the democrats, asuming they can spin it right.

As for CivU, well, I agree to a certain extent, like Jon Stewart said in the original article (although you would never know it, reading what was bolded) I dont agree with the tactics, but the results are there. As for a counter arguement, an alternative approach? Well show me where in the rules it says one is required. No, not there? Just because I / we think its the wrong approach, doesnt mean theres a right one, the lesser of all evils is still evil.

 

[McG]

What is the "lesser of all evils"?  The one that you believe that the west should pursue?

 

[Slim]

I think you mean "syllable" but thats just fine....in coherent statements greatly contribute to the discussion...

If you don't want to answer then just say so...Unfortunately (for you) no one is buying the "smug and superior" attitude you seemed to have developed in the forum, and to tell you the truth you're just pissing allot of people off.(including some high-ranking officers who know your name and could be very beneficial to your future career if you took the time to listen instead of preach)

Why don't you clean up your act and attempt to get along with everyone else, instead of working so hard to push all of our buttons...?!

Slim

 

[CivU]

As far as the correct approach to foreign policy...how about no approach at all.  It is much easier to not invade a country unilaterally than to participate in the quagmire that has become of Iraq.  This was the approach that most nations took on the issue.  And Iraq, as an experiment, as I stated earlier, has yet to show tangible improvements.  The election worked best as a means of ostensibly finalizing the campaign and relegating the issues on the ground to A17 of the daily paper. 

You may condemn attacks on the US approach to foreign policy, but it is just as easy to hop on the GW Bush bandwagon as it is to throw tomatoes as it passes by...

 

[paracowboy]

And Iraq, as an experiment, as I stated earlier, has yet to show tangible improvements.

oh, I beg to differ! Let's see, improved infrastructure than under the Ba'ath Party, free elections, free press, yadda yadda yadda, etc, etc. On the international scene, we have various Autocracies realizing (from the example set in Iraq) that they'd best smarten up, and various terrorist groups reeling from pressure applied by those they've oppressed for so long.

No improvement, whatsoever. Have you ever left this continent? Have you seen the conditions under which most of the world lives? Things are definitely showing tangible improvement.

Not making a decision is, by default making one. Except that you are accepting whatever decision is being forced on you by those who have the strength of character to do so, whether that character is inclined towards Good or Evil. 

 

[Highland Lad]

As far as the correct approach to foreign policy...how about no approach at all.

Okay... I'll bite. Is isolationism supposed to be a valid approach to foreign policy now?

 

[Slim]

As far as the correct approach to foreign policy...how about no approach at all.   It is much easier to not invade a country unilaterally than to participate in the quagmire that has become of Iraq.   This was the approach that most nations took on the issue.   And Iraq, as an experiment, as I stated earlier, has yet to show tangible improvements.   The election worked best as a means of ostensibly finalizing the campaign and relegating the issues on the ground to A17 of the daily paper.  

You may condemn attacks on the US approach to foreign policy, but it is just as easy to hop on the GW Bush bandwagon as it is to throw tomatoes as it passes by...

Still no answer...Just likes to preach...

 

[CivU]

Yadda yadda yadda?  I have most often read the conditions in Iraq as having changed, not improved.

As far as isolationism.  That was not what I was suggesting.  Many nations did not involve themselves in Iraq but did not isolate themselves from the War on Terrorism by not participating in Afghanistan, including Canada.  Perhaps more selective involvement...

 

[Slim]

author=CivU link=topic=27643/post-182909#msg182909 date=1110746258]
Yadda yadda yadda?  I have most often read the conditions in Iraq as having changed, not improved

Oh...So the Big Bad U.S.A. should stop dropping bombs on the poor AQ freedom fighters so that they can return IRAQ to a near-medieval state where no one has any rights, women are treated like possesions sand education (reading books actually) is considered a bad thing?

As far as isolationism.  That was not what I was suggesting.  Many nations did not involve themselves in Iraq but did not isolate themselves from the War on Terrorism by not participating in Afghanistan, including Canada.  Perhaps more selective involvement...

Hell...Why don't we just go apologize for the whole thing, give them a ton of cash and leave them alone...That what you want?!

Give your head a shake...

 

[paracowboy]

I have most often read the conditions in Iraq as having changed, not improved.

of course you have.  :

 

Perhaps more selective involvement...

selective involvement is all that we're capable of. We are entirely dependent on others' good will to even get to someplace we can be involved in, and once there, are still dependent on others to be able to make a contribution. I have no issue with picking and choosing where we'll play, but I am incensed at having those choices dictated to us by the selfishness and greed of our leaders. We didn't decide to stay out of Iraq on any sort of moral grounds, we stayed out because our so-called leaders were making a fortune by doing so. And, should we have wanted to go, we would have had to rely on someone else to get us there, again due entirely to the self-interest of our leaders.

But anyway, I can see that nothing anyone says is going to get you to remove your blinders, so I'm OUT. You have a super day, now.

 

[muskrat89]

I think you mean "syllable" but thats just fine....in coherent statements greatly contribute to the discussion...

You meant "incoherent" right?  (Ironically)    Glass houses, CivU

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Muskrat, my night shift is going to go a lot faster with that great laugh I just got.....

 

[a_majoor]

CivU is proving the point of the thread; his posts are from some alternative universe since the "reality on the ground" is so clearly at variance to what he is saying.

But don't take it from me; Iraq the Model, InstaPundit, Powerline, the Belmont Club and dozens of soldiers from the US and Coalition forces are reporting far more than the latest "bomb of the day" on their Blogs.

In fact, you can put the story together from the MSM by keeping a large map of Iraq and a supply of push pins handy, and marking where these stories are taking place; only four Iraqi provinces (the Tikrit Triangle) have significant Jihadi activity, somewhat like talking about a terrible Canadian Insurgency discovering that the only bombs going off are in in PEI and New Brunswick (terrible for them, unsettling for the rest of us). A map of the Middle East would have push pins showing where elections are being held for the VERY FIRST TIME, and a global map would show people power toppling corrupt governments in the Ukraine and attempting to do the same in Lebanon. I suppose you can split hairs and say this is "only" a change, and not an "improvement", so I would question

a: How you would define "improvement"?, and,

b: What catalyzed these changes?

 

[couchcommander]

A map of the Middle East would have push pins showing where elections are being held for the VERY FIRST TIME, and a global map would show people power toppling corrupt governments in the Ukraine and attempting to do the same in Lebanon....


....b: What catalyzed these changes?

You guys are right that the situation is improving on the ground in Iraq. That much is undeniable.

However...

What connection can you draw between Ukraine, Lebanon, and Iraq? Just to be clear here, the Ukrainian party that won the election ran on a platform that was against involvement in Iraq and the Ukraine is currently withdrawing it's troops from Iraq (it was the old corrupt party that supported involvement in Iraq...)

Further, the independance movement has been active in Lebanon since '76, and the current tension and withdrawl of Syrian troops was sparked by rumours that it was Syria who assasinated Rafik Hariri.

It might be the case that the American attack on Iraq proved their resolve and has provided further impoteus for Syria to comply with American demands, though I hardly think you can pin all of this on a great spreading tide of "freedom" at the hands of American liberators. As you posted in one of your other threats a_majoor, "people power" is the driving force, not American tanks. It just goes to show you don't need to invade a country to have positive change happen....

I'm sorry if that is not what you were trying to imply, that is just what I took from the question.