enlighten me a bit, sir. how would i be surprised? surprised at how nice they are and how beautiful it is?
i would live in india if i could... meaning.... i would stay for an extended period of time and visit nearby countries. mainly my focus would be on the spiritual aspect of my life and their eye opening ways blending together as one unit. .
i would rest and meditate under a tree along the tigris river and smoke hash and opium all day. this my life dream and goal.
It doesn't sound to me like you need enlightening.
Seems like you have a pretty sound plan already.
Sure there's poverty in a lot of these Middle Eastern and Asian countries, but there's also a lot more to them than that. I've been to a lot of places in the World but if you asked me what the worst place I've ever been to is I'd name a few cities in England. Places with no culture, no soul - bland, unfriendly shit piles that I'll never want to go back to again as long as I live. Whereas in, say, India, there's real poverty, but there's also colour, hospitality, culture, history, beauty, and adventure and possibility.
As a coincidence, I was checking out Jordan on the internet the other day as I'd like to visit there in a couple of years time, and it looks like there are some amazing sights there. Morocco and Algeria too.
Don't believe these places are only about war and poverty - they're not.
Many people have an idea in their head about China too. But the idea and the reality are often very different.
you and i should team up and travel and write and explore the earth. i admire your intellect. you are abstract and profound. the world needs more Byrnzies. if i ever find myself in or near china i am looking you up.
you and i should team up and travel and write and explore the earth. i admire your intellect. you are abstract and profound. the world needs more Byrnzies. if i ever find myself in or near china i am looking you up.
You know the person behind the invasion of Iraq who inspires more contempt in me than any other? It's not Bush, or Cheney, or even Rumsfeld, but the lying cocksucker Collin Powell.
Did anyone see his speech in front of the U.N on February 5th 2003 in which he tried to persuade the World of the imminent threat from Iraq's non-existent WMD's? I watched it live that day as I was off from work.
Collin Powell's speech was preceded by a speech from France's then-Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, for which he received a standing ovation - the first time anyone has ever received a standing ovation at the U.N. I remember watching this speech and thinking that he may have just single-handedly prevented a catastrophic war. His speech was then followed by Collin Powell's bullshit lies.
Here's an excerpt of Dominique de Villepin's speech:
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=6049 '...In this Globalist Document, we present the key parts of the speech delivered to the UN in February 2003 by France's then-Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin. While the French government was much criticized in the United States at the time, with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear how prophetic he truly was.
One month prior to the onset of the war, he talks about the importance of diplomacy and the need to do everything possible to avoid war in the region. Here, he continues by giving a variety of options to war:
Dominique de Villepin: "The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves. This will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.
Faced with such perspectives, there is an alternative in the inspections which allow us to move forward day-by-day with the effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end, is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?
War is not the only option
No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections.
No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time?
So let us allow the United Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed. But let us together be vigilant and ask Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to report regularly to the Council. France, for its part, proposes another meeting on March 14 at the ministerial level to assess the situation. We will then be able to judge the progress that has been made and what remains to be done.
Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time.
There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:
The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would bring this unity into question — and that would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.
Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.
We all share the same priority — that of fighting terrorism mercilessly. This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of September 11, this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together.
Ten days ago, the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, reported the alleged links between al Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence,
in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links.
On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples — divisions that nurture terrorism?
France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day.
that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to meet all their responsibilities.
In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer:
To what extent do the nature and extent of the threat justify the immediate recourse to force?
How do we ensure that the considerable risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control?
In any case, in the eventuality of war, it is indeed the unity of the international community that would guarantee its effectiveness. Similarly, it is the United Nations that will be tomorrow at the center of the peace to be built whatever happens.
To those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.
In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and
immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.
This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows it owes everything to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere.
And yet, France has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world."
I just caught myself reading this article headline about halfway down on the Guardian's page and then moving on to the next article headline below it, but then stopped myself and backtracked.
Scores killed in Iraq bombings Car and roadside bombs explode across country, killing nearly 50 people and wounding 200
Is this what it's come to in Iraq? Is the legacy that we've left in that country one where 50 people being destroyed by bombs is something we now consider as normal as the sun rising every morning, or as innocuous and matter-of-fact as the days weather report?
The thought that crossed my mind after skimming over the above headline was 'What would the reaction be if 50 people had been blown to pieces in any other country...a European country, for example? It would be headline news and we'd be chattering about it and mourning it for weeks. But because it happened in Iraq we don't pay it any attention.
Some legacy we've left those people!
it's been happening there so often for so long that it hardly ever made the news and it will keep happening..as sad as that is,war and fighting has been a way of life in that part of the world forever, years ago I dated a girl from isreal(spelling ?) who told me that fight and war is common.
so really man it's a very sad deal but very unlikely it will stop any time soon no matter if the US or who ever else is involved just packed up and moved out today.
t's been happening there so often for so long that it hardly ever made the news and it will keep happening..as sad as that is,war and fighting has been a way of life in that part of the world forever, years ago I dated a girl from isreal(spelling ?) who told me that fight and war is common.
so really man it's a very sad deal but very unlikely it will stop any time soon no matter if the US or who ever else is involved just packed up and moved out today.
Godfather.
how sad is a society where war and fighting have become a way of life.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
it's been happening there so often for so long that it hardly ever made the news and it will keep happening..as sad as that is,war and fighting has been a way of life in that part of the world forever, years ago I dated a girl from isreal(spelling ?) who told me that fight and war is common.
so really man it's a very sad deal but very unlikely it will stop any time soon no matter if the US or who ever else is involved just packed up and moved out today.
Sorry, but I'm not buying that. It just sounds like another attempt at washing your hands of it. The British and Americans went in there and ransacked the place, creating a huge arena for ethnic violence and terrorism.
To brush off our contribution to that mess just reeks of arrogance and complacency. Before the U.S invasion of Iraq was there massive ethnic violence occurring? Nope. Were car bombs, and suicide bombings occurring there? Nope? But you claim the place has always been violent and just dismiss it. Somebody else in this thread tried to dismiss the Iraqi's as people who simply have no regard for human life - after we just went in there and murdered approx 1 million people. Notice any hypocrisy there?
As for Israel, the violence there is supported and financed by the U.S. Your tax dollars help pay for that violence and ethnic cleansing. The U.S provides Israel with the white phosphorous bombs it uses to incinerate civilians, it supplies the bulldozers it uses to demolish Palestinian homes, and it supplies Israel with the 2nd largest fleet of F16's in the World. The U.S has also stood alone in the World for the past 45 years by blocking every chance at a peaceful settlement that the whole of the international community supports.
So to dismiss that situation too by saying that violence has always been happening over there suggests a large degree of either ignorance, or cynicism.
Post edited by Byrnzie on
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
it's been happening there so often for so long that it hardly ever made the news and it will keep happening..as sad as that is,war and fighting has been a way of life in that part of the world forever, years ago I dated a girl from isreal(spelling ?) who told me that fight and war is common.
so really man it's a very sad deal but very unlikely it will stop any time soon no matter if the US or who ever else is involved just packed up and moved out today.
Sorry, but I'm not buying that. It just sounds like another attempt at washing your hands of it. The British and Americans went in there and ransacked the place, creating a huge arena for ethnic violence and terrorism.
To brush off our contribution to that mess just reeks of arrogance and complacency. Before the U.S invasion of Iraq was there massive ethnic violence occurring? Nope. Were car bombs, and suicide bombings occurring there? Nope? But you claim the place has always been violent and just dismiss it. Somebody else in this thread tried to dismiss the Iraqi's as people who simply have no regard for human life - after we just went in there and murdered approx 1 million people. Notice any hypocrisy there?
As for Israel, the violence there is supported and financed by the U.S. Your tax dollars help pay for that violence and ethnic cleansing. The U.S provides Israel with the white phosphorous bombs it uses to incinerate civilians, it supplies the bulldozers it uses to demolish Palestinian homes, and it supplies Israel with the 2nd largest fleet of F16's in the World. The U.S has also stood alone in the World for the past 45 years by blocking every chance at a peaceful settlement that the whole of the international community supports.
So to dismiss that situation too by saying that violence as always been happening over there suggests a large degree of either ignorance, or cynicism.
+1 I agree.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
it's been happening there so often for so long that it hardly ever made the news and it will keep happening..as sad as that is,war and fighting has been a way of life in that part of the world forever, years ago I dated a girl from isreal(spelling ?) who told me that fight and war is common.
so really man it's a very sad deal but very unlikely it will stop any time soon no matter if the US or who ever else is involved just packed up and moved out today.
Sorry, but I'm not buying that. It just sounds like another attempt at washing your hands of it. The British and Americans went in there and ransacked the place, creating a huge arena for ethnic violence and terrorism.
To brush off our contribution to that mess just reeks of arrogance and complacency. Before the U.S invasion of Iraq was there massive ethnic violence occurring? Nope. Were car bombs, and suicide bombings occurring there? Nope? But you claim the place has always been violent and just dismiss it. Somebody else in this thread tried to dismiss the Iraqi's as people who simply have no regard for human life - after we just went in there and murdered approx 1 million people. Notice any hypocrisy there?
As for Israel, the violence there is supported and financed by the U.S. Your tax dollars help pay for that violence and ethnic cleansing. The U.S provides Israel with the white phosphorous bombs it uses to incinerate civilians, it supplies the bulldozers it uses to demolish Palestinian homes, and it supplies Israel with the 2nd largest fleet of F16's in the World. The U.S has also stood alone in the World for the past 45 years by blocking every chance at a peaceful settlement that the whole of the international community supports.
So to dismiss that situation too by saying that violence as always been happening over there suggests a large degree of either ignorance, or cynicism.
well if you want to carry the burdin go ahead but I was just saying no matter who is involved it will never stop...not now or any time soon anyway, so what does that say ? a country or part of the world that has infected itself with war sense before oil and modern technology were even a thought...shit before America was a thought !.
it's been happening there so often for so long that it hardly ever made the news and it will keep happening..as sad as that is,war and fighting has been a way of life in that part of the world forever, years ago I dated a girl from isreal(spelling ?) who told me that fight and war is common.
so really man it's a very sad deal but very unlikely it will stop any time soon no matter if the US or who ever else is involved just packed up and moved out today.
Godfather.
yes I have had the same life experience which leads to the same conclusion.
I dated a fella from Iran in my early 20's ...
his mindset so different and so much hate in his heart.
It was how he was raised from small on, in conflict, I could not blame him.
He lived what he saw as injustice. No changing it for him no compromise.
War commonplace.
It's like a blood feud that last generations with no solution.... just hate
and it is encompassing just like hate is for most everyone once they let it in.
I agree if we were not involved it would still continue but I can wish we weren't just the same.
But I get why we are and why we are allies with who we are.
I guess we can't just stay out of it because of so.
it's been happening there so often for so long that it hardly ever made the news and it will keep happening..as sad as that is,war and fighting has been a way of life in that part of the world forever, years ago I dated a girl from isreal(spelling ?) who told me that fight and war is common.
so really man it's a very sad deal but very unlikely it will stop any time soon no matter if the US or who ever else is involved just packed up and moved out today.
Godfather.
yes I have had the same life experience which leads to the same conclusion.
I dated a fella from Iran in my early 20's ...
his mindset so different and so much hate in his heart.
It was how he was raised from small on, in conflict, I could not blame him.
He lived what he saw as injustice. No changing it for him no compromise.
War commonplace.
It's like a blood feud that last generations with no solution.... just hate
and it is encompassing just like hate is for most everyone once they let it in.
I agree if we were not involved it would still continue but I can wish we weren't just the same.
But I get why we are and why we are allies with who we are.
I guess we can't just stay out of it because of so.
godfather/pandora ... you two do realize that the US/British overthrew the democratically elected leader of iran at a time when that leader was very enamoured with the US and your version of democracy ... he wanted to make iran more free and less secular ... but you guys got rid of him because he wasn't going to let you guys have that oil ...
iraq was the jewel of the fucking world at one point ... beautiful architecture and culture ... but yet as soon as the US/Brits got in there ... war and conflict ...
I can only speak for myself, but I've decided a long time ago that I've given up on the Middle East. If there's ever a hint that things will change there, that reason can win over religion, I'll be among the first to encourage it. Until then, there are solvable problems worth solving. Reasonable people of the middle east should be welcomed in the sane parts of the world. Let the remaining ignoramuses battle over their holy desert. There's nothing we can ever do to stop them.
I feel the same way. I know the limits of what I can contribute to in a positive way and refuse to expend energy on issues that are out of my control and just increase angst. The Middle East is definitely in that category.
well if you want to carry the burdin go ahead but I was just saying no matter who is involved it will never stop...not now or any time soon anyway, so what does that say ? a country or part of the world that has infected itself with war sense before oil and modern technology were even a thought...shit before America was a thought !.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were knowledgeable on the history of the region. Please tell me more.
I can only speak for myself, but I've decided a long time ago that I've given up on the Middle East. If there's ever a hint that things will change there, that reason can win over religion, I'll be among the first to encourage it. Until then, there are solvable problems worth solving. Reasonable people of the middle east should be welcomed in the sane parts of the world. Let the remaining ignoramuses battle over their holy desert. There's nothing we can ever do to stop them.
I feel the same way. I know the limits of what I can contribute to in a positive way and refuse to expend energy on issues that are out of my control and just increase angst. The Middle East is definitely in that category.
One thing I just want to clarify is that I didn't want to over generalize about "the middle east", which is a pretty diverse territory... and I think most of us understand that, but I wanted to add this in case it was (understandably) misunderstood:
I know there are large areas of civilization in the middle east. I have a cousin who has lived in Cairo (during the late 90's) and is currently living in Istanbul with her Canadian-born husband and raises two kids there... and she loves it, although it is temporary (about 3 years). Her experience is that people are generally friendlier there than they are in America. That said, she has lived in two of the most sophisticated cities of the region. But the presence of violent zealotry is undeniable rampant in many areas... particularly in Iraq. I think I should have focused my comment on Iraq... where Sunni and Shia mercilessly and senselessly clash... as they also do in Syria. That is just something I can't wrap my head around. It's one version of bullshit against another.
Iraq is headed for another dark age. Next week’s Arab League meeting in Baghdad is nothing but cover for a state collapsing at full force. The surface manifestations are real: 46 people killed and many more wounded this week in apparently co-ordinated attacks in Baghdad, Karbala, Kirkuk and other Iraqi cities on the ninth anniversary of the U.S. invasion. The prevailing mood on the street is one of fatigue, desperation and fear. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government cannot control the chaos; indeed, it may be contributing to it as the façade of democratization and pluralism crumbles, accelerated by the departure of the last U.S. troops last December.
There can be no clearer indictment of the neo-conservatives who dominated the U.S. political process during George W. Bush’s presidency. Their statement of faith, the Project for the New American Century, issued in 1997 and warmly embraced by Mr. Bush as a new and largely inexperienced president, called for the forceful imposition of American values on Third World countries suffering from autocracies. The Iraq intervention shows the flaws in this reasoning. The thousands of deaths and injuries suffered in this imperial enterprise is testament to willful ignorance. Millions of Iraqis have fled the country and the oldest Christian communities on Earth have been obliterated.
The behaviour patterns and governance codes of different societies and communities cannot be changed through the exercise of foreign military force – in this case, by what many came to see as outside predators. Such societal practices are embedded differently in different cultures no matter how much we might wish it were not so. The neo-conservatives chose to ignore this reality. Instead, they have created a system that may ultimately have the same potential for brutality as Saddam Hussein’s.
Despite Iraq’s fractured polity, this seems hard to believe. There has been little focus on Iraq lately, given the international preoccupation with Iran, the Palestinians, the Syrian revolt and the Arab uprisings. But ironically, at a time when there is room for hope that Egypt, Tunisia and others may evolve their political culture, Iraq seems headed back to the bad old days. Despite a representative parliament and on-paper attempts at power sharing, Mr. Maliki consolidates authoritarianism anew.
From 2005 to 2007, I was chair of the donor committee of the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq – a frustrating endeavour, not withstanding my respect for many of the Iraqis and international public servants I worked with. Despite best efforts, our accomplishments were modest. Given the chaos, they could not have been otherwise. Although they remained publicly positive, many internationals believed they were working in a glass bubble, waiting for the collapse. Some joked about who would be the last ones on the last helicopter out of Baghdad, as with the lifts from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon during America’s final days in Vietnam.
In a literal sense, they were proven wrong. The Americans had sufficient control and influence to prevent a rout in Iraq, but as that control dissipated and their efforts at democratization became increasingly problematic, they changed horses. Since their departure, they have devoted their best efforts to helping Mr. Maliki consolidate Iraq as a viable state player because of its geostrategic importance, despite his increasingly well-documented abuses. Barack Obama’s administration is proceeding, reluctantly, with the sale to Iraq of more than $10-billion in military equipment, much of which is serviceable for control and intimidation.
Mr. Maliki has increasingly used the power of the state to consolidate his own autocracy, accused by human-rights groups of intimidation, corruption, deceit, torture and cronyism. Witness the arrest warrant issued for his Sunni vice-president, Tariq al-Hashimi. Witness his son and deputy chief of staff Ahmed, reputed to be the most powerful person in his entourage. Anyone deemed a threat is at risk for their lives in Mr. Maliki’s Iraq.
Without questioning Mr. Obama’s commitment to human rights and pluralism, there is little his administration can realistically do. Either Mr. Maliki will be successful in consolidating his one-man rule or Iraq will self-destruct, breaking into a series of quasi-independent entities based on religion, ethnicity and tribe. Attempting to put it right through heavy engagement with Baghdad seems like a moral imperative. But the chance of success is virtually nil.
Lessons should be learned from this carnage. Despite the moral umbrage one may feel, don’t involve yourself in the affairs of others unless knowledge, reflection and debate suggest an even chance of success. Gut feelings and theoretical constructs can be strongly felt, but most often lead to catastrophe. The law of unintended consequences should be kept in mind regarding Afghanistan, any intervention in Syria and the thought of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Michael Bell, a former Canadian ambassador to Egypt, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories, is the Paul Martin Sr. Scholar in International Diplomacy at the University of Windsor.
Lessons should be learned from this carnage. Despite the moral umbrage one may feel, don’t involve yourself in the affairs of others unless knowledge, reflection and debate suggest an even chance of success. Gut feelings and theoretical constructs can be strongly felt, but most often lead to catastrophe. The law of unintended consequences should be kept in mind regarding Afghanistan, any intervention in Syria and the thought of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Michael Bell, a former Canadian ambassador to Egypt, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories, is the Paul Martin Sr. Scholar in International Diplomacy at the University of Windsor.
i have never believed success or regime change was ever a goal ... this was all about profiteering and establishing a presence for further conflict ...
Comments
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Sounds good to me. :thumbup:
Did anyone see his speech in front of the U.N on February 5th 2003 in which he tried to persuade the World of the imminent threat from Iraq's non-existent WMD's? I watched it live that day as I was off from work.
Full text of Colin Powell's speech: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa
Evidence that Collin Powell is a lying bastard: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2008/02/un- ... told-world
Collin Powell's speech was preceded by a speech from France's then-Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, for which he received a standing ovation - the first time anyone has ever received a standing ovation at the U.N. I remember watching this speech and thinking that he may have just single-handedly prevented a catastrophic war. His speech was then followed by Collin Powell's bullshit lies.
The full speech by Dominique de Villepin on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ_1hWqSz6I
Here's an excerpt of Dominique de Villepin's speech:
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=6049
'...In this Globalist Document, we present the key parts of the speech delivered to the UN in February 2003 by France's then-Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin. While the French government was much criticized in the United States at the time, with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear how prophetic he truly was.
One month prior to the onset of the war, he talks about the importance of diplomacy and the need to do everything possible to avoid war in the region. Here, he continues by giving a variety of options to war:
Dominique de Villepin: "The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves. This will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.
Faced with such perspectives, there is an alternative in the inspections which allow us to move forward day-by-day with the effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end, is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?
War is not the only option
No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections.
No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time?
So let us allow the United Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed. But let us together be vigilant and ask Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to report regularly to the Council. France, for its part, proposes another meeting on March 14 at the ministerial level to assess the situation. We will then be able to judge the progress that has been made and what remains to be done.
Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time.
There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:
The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would bring this unity into question — and that would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.
Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.
We all share the same priority — that of fighting terrorism mercilessly. This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of September 11, this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together.
Ten days ago, the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, reported the alleged links between al Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence,
in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links.
On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples — divisions that nurture terrorism?
France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day.
that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to meet all their responsibilities.
In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer:
To what extent do the nature and extent of the threat justify the immediate recourse to force?
How do we ensure that the considerable risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control?
In any case, in the eventuality of war, it is indeed the unity of the international community that would guarantee its effectiveness. Similarly, it is the United Nations that will be tomorrow at the center of the peace to be built whatever happens.
To those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.
In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and
immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.
This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows it owes everything to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere.
And yet, France has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world."
it's been happening there so often for so long that it hardly ever made the news and it will keep happening..as sad as that is,war and fighting has been a way of life in that part of the world forever, years ago I dated a girl from isreal(spelling ?) who told me that fight and war is common.
so really man it's a very sad deal but very unlikely it will stop any time soon no matter if the US or who ever else is involved just packed up and moved out today.
Godfather.
how sad is a society where war and fighting have become a way of life.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Sorry, but I'm not buying that. It just sounds like another attempt at washing your hands of it. The British and Americans went in there and ransacked the place, creating a huge arena for ethnic violence and terrorism.
To brush off our contribution to that mess just reeks of arrogance and complacency. Before the U.S invasion of Iraq was there massive ethnic violence occurring? Nope. Were car bombs, and suicide bombings occurring there? Nope? But you claim the place has always been violent and just dismiss it. Somebody else in this thread tried to dismiss the Iraqi's as people who simply have no regard for human life - after we just went in there and murdered approx 1 million people. Notice any hypocrisy there?
As for Israel, the violence there is supported and financed by the U.S. Your tax dollars help pay for that violence and ethnic cleansing. The U.S provides Israel with the white phosphorous bombs it uses to incinerate civilians, it supplies the bulldozers it uses to demolish Palestinian homes, and it supplies Israel with the 2nd largest fleet of F16's in the World. The U.S has also stood alone in the World for the past 45 years by blocking every chance at a peaceful settlement that the whole of the international community supports.
So to dismiss that situation too by saying that violence has always been happening over there suggests a large degree of either ignorance, or cynicism.
+1 I agree.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
well if you want to carry the burdin go ahead but I was just saying no matter who is involved it will never stop...not now or any time soon anyway, so what does that say ? a country or part of the world that has infected itself with war sense before oil and modern technology were even a thought...shit before America was a thought !.
Godfather.
yes I have had the same life experience which leads to the same conclusion.
I dated a fella from Iran in my early 20's ...
his mindset so different and so much hate in his heart.
It was how he was raised from small on, in conflict, I could not blame him.
He lived what he saw as injustice. No changing it for him no compromise.
War commonplace.
It's like a blood feud that last generations with no solution.... just hate
and it is encompassing just like hate is for most everyone once they let it in.
I agree if we were not involved it would still continue but I can wish we weren't just the same.
But I get why we are and why we are allies with who we are.
I guess we can't just stay out of it because of so.
Godfather.
iraq was the jewel of the fucking world at one point ... beautiful architecture and culture ... but yet as soon as the US/Brits got in there ... war and conflict ...
you two don't see the pattern do ya?
I feel the same way. I know the limits of what I can contribute to in a positive way and refuse to expend energy on issues that are out of my control and just increase angst. The Middle East is definitely in that category.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were knowledgeable on the history of the region. Please tell me more.
I hope it doesn't now end up getting locked like all the others.
Anyway...
how do you know its very good if youre going to read it?? i hope it is but it might also be shit.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Stay away I might..hate in my heart I have
One thing I just want to clarify is that I didn't want to over generalize about "the middle east", which is a pretty diverse territory... and I think most of us understand that, but I wanted to add this in case it was (understandably) misunderstood:
I know there are large areas of civilization in the middle east. I have a cousin who has lived in Cairo (during the late 90's) and is currently living in Istanbul with her Canadian-born husband and raises two kids there... and she loves it, although it is temporary (about 3 years). Her experience is that people are generally friendlier there than they are in America. That said, she has lived in two of the most sophisticated cities of the region. But the presence of violent zealotry is undeniable rampant in many areas... particularly in Iraq. I think I should have focused my comment on Iraq... where Sunni and Shia mercilessly and senselessly clash... as they also do in Syria. That is just something I can't wrap my head around. It's one version of bullshit against another.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/an-iraq-ruled-by-one-or-none/article2376875/
An Iraq ruled by one – or none
Iraq is headed for another dark age. Next week’s Arab League meeting in Baghdad is nothing but cover for a state collapsing at full force. The surface manifestations are real: 46 people killed and many more wounded this week in apparently co-ordinated attacks in Baghdad, Karbala, Kirkuk and other Iraqi cities on the ninth anniversary of the U.S. invasion. The prevailing mood on the street is one of fatigue, desperation and fear. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government cannot control the chaos; indeed, it may be contributing to it as the façade of democratization and pluralism crumbles, accelerated by the departure of the last U.S. troops last December.
There can be no clearer indictment of the neo-conservatives who dominated the U.S. political process during George W. Bush’s presidency. Their statement of faith, the Project for the New American Century, issued in 1997 and warmly embraced by Mr. Bush as a new and largely inexperienced president, called for the forceful imposition of American values on Third World countries suffering from autocracies. The Iraq intervention shows the flaws in this reasoning. The thousands of deaths and injuries suffered in this imperial enterprise is testament to willful ignorance. Millions of Iraqis have fled the country and the oldest Christian communities on Earth have been obliterated.
The behaviour patterns and governance codes of different societies and communities cannot be changed through the exercise of foreign military force – in this case, by what many came to see as outside predators. Such societal practices are embedded differently in different cultures no matter how much we might wish it were not so. The neo-conservatives chose to ignore this reality. Instead, they have created a system that may ultimately have the same potential for brutality as Saddam Hussein’s.
Despite Iraq’s fractured polity, this seems hard to believe. There has been little focus on Iraq lately, given the international preoccupation with Iran, the Palestinians, the Syrian revolt and the Arab uprisings. But ironically, at a time when there is room for hope that Egypt, Tunisia and others may evolve their political culture, Iraq seems headed back to the bad old days. Despite a representative parliament and on-paper attempts at power sharing, Mr. Maliki consolidates authoritarianism anew.
From 2005 to 2007, I was chair of the donor committee of the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq – a frustrating endeavour, not withstanding my respect for many of the Iraqis and international public servants I worked with. Despite best efforts, our accomplishments were modest. Given the chaos, they could not have been otherwise. Although they remained publicly positive, many internationals believed they were working in a glass bubble, waiting for the collapse. Some joked about who would be the last ones on the last helicopter out of Baghdad, as with the lifts from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon during America’s final days in Vietnam.
In a literal sense, they were proven wrong. The Americans had sufficient control and influence to prevent a rout in Iraq, but as that control dissipated and their efforts at democratization became increasingly problematic, they changed horses. Since their departure, they have devoted their best efforts to helping Mr. Maliki consolidate Iraq as a viable state player because of its geostrategic importance, despite his increasingly well-documented abuses. Barack Obama’s administration is proceeding, reluctantly, with the sale to Iraq of more than $10-billion in military equipment, much of which is serviceable for control and intimidation.
Mr. Maliki has increasingly used the power of the state to consolidate his own autocracy, accused by human-rights groups of intimidation, corruption, deceit, torture and cronyism. Witness the arrest warrant issued for his Sunni vice-president, Tariq al-Hashimi. Witness his son and deputy chief of staff Ahmed, reputed to be the most powerful person in his entourage. Anyone deemed a threat is at risk for their lives in Mr. Maliki’s Iraq.
Without questioning Mr. Obama’s commitment to human rights and pluralism, there is little his administration can realistically do. Either Mr. Maliki will be successful in consolidating his one-man rule or Iraq will self-destruct, breaking into a series of quasi-independent entities based on religion, ethnicity and tribe. Attempting to put it right through heavy engagement with Baghdad seems like a moral imperative. But the chance of success is virtually nil.
Lessons should be learned from this carnage. Despite the moral umbrage one may feel, don’t involve yourself in the affairs of others unless knowledge, reflection and debate suggest an even chance of success. Gut feelings and theoretical constructs can be strongly felt, but most often lead to catastrophe. The law of unintended consequences should be kept in mind regarding Afghanistan, any intervention in Syria and the thought of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Michael Bell, a former Canadian ambassador to Egypt, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories, is the Paul Martin Sr. Scholar in International Diplomacy at the University of Windsor.
tickled my interest
most are here to learn and share in a positive way
this why I love AMT
i have never believed success or regime change was ever a goal ... this was all about profiteering and establishing a presence for further conflict ...