Quote:
Originally posted by Uryoces
tw, what's the solution here? IMO it seems as if most of the world wants to ignore or cover up their own problems, and George W. likes to rattle sabres. I'm not opposed to all of the sabre rattling, though. Would you have liked to seen another president, and who would that have been? What would make a good president?
|
Good presidents first let a problem resolve itself. That happens most often. However that may mean manipulating supplies so that both sides massacre one another equally. Then everyone is so happy to have peace keepers AND everyone finally appreciates the value of peace and negotiated settlements.
Bad presidents want to storm in like a world policeman and bash heads. It makes for good patriotic support at home. But such tactics are classic of low intelligent leaders and create long term unresolved problems.
Did we go charging in to East Timor? Of course not. That was the responsibility of local powers. Did we go charing into VietNam? Yes. As a result we were the enemy of everyone except a corrupt S Vietnamese governement. Did we go charging into Lebanon? Yes, and got both our asses and reputation smashed like a paper tiger. Did we go charging into Yugoslavia? No. In fact, I worried that Clinton had finally decided too early. In my opinion, there had not yet been enough massacres especially of Serbians. But Clinton was smarter than I. He was right when to use military power. BTW, to know anything about the Serbian conflictis is to know who Richard Holbrooke is.
Did we go charging into Liberia to resuce Monrovia? Of course not. First, it was the responsibility of a regional military peace force. When they got in trouble, a battalion of British marines provided outside assistance - and put up a response that belongs at the top of your most significant news stories of 2002. Did you know about Liberia and that goal line stand by UK Marines? It resulted in a peace settlement because a powerful force first let the problem fester - until it was ready to be resolved. One battalion of UK marines caused everyone to return to a negotiation table. That delay is how military force is used effectively.
I keep asking the reader if he knew about .... because it demonstrates how many conflicts are always ongoing and how most get resolved only with diplomatic negotiation.
But then Saddam. Is he a threat? No. He is a threat to no one. Eliminate George Jr rhetoric and Saddam is a tin pot dictator with too much oil. Keep Saddam in perspective by eliminating George Jr rhetoric. Saddam is no threat to the US. There is nothing to be gained by threatening America. Saddam's entire history is to avoid US conflict everywhere everytime. However George Jr says otherwise.
Saddam must first be a threat to his neighbors before he is a threat to anyone. Remember how adamate I was in June 1990 about war with Saddam? Because he was a threat to his neighbors and to world stability. In Aug 1990, a smoking gun existed - big time. Today Saddam is not a threat to any neighbor. No smoking gun exists. No neighboring nation is threatened by Saddam. But George Jr has hyped this trivial problem into a world crisis. Then again, George Jr even hyped a silly China spy plane incident into possible war. The man promotes hate and fear.
George Jr has hyped a non event into world crisis. If WMD were a problem, then we should be threatening war with Pakistan, S Africa, or Israel. Iraq is not about solving a world problem. Iraq is about a personal vendetta between the George Jr administration and Saddam. Even Saddam's neighbors - not one - are threatened.
Saddam is about as much as threat as Castro in his billigerant days. Either Saddam will be made politically redundant as Ghadafi, or we will take him out as we had to with Milosevik, Noreiga, Idi Amin, or Baby Doc Duvalier. But military action too early makes the US an enemy of everyone. First we let Jimmy Carter demonstrate to Panama and the world what Noriega really was. You would think we learned from VietNam and Lebanon - where America lost because we first tried to solve problems too early and only using military solutions.
The world is full of Iraq like problems. Do we attach them all? Or do we first let the 'powers that be' first solve it - and then look like god's chosen angel only in the few situations that cannot be resolved? Eliminate George Jr rhetoric and Saddam is a threat no even to his neighbors.