Has the USA changed it's ways?

antowan

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
13,172
Reaction score
299
Location
Unknown
I just watched Charlie Wilson's War (new Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts movie) and got a very interesting perspective on the mistakes the US made after they helped the Afghans win against the Russians in the 80's. They left the Afghans without reconstruction help...

I get the sense that the USA has somehow learned from this with their effort in Iraq. They seem to be spending a lot of money on upliftment and construction.

Could it be that we are too harsh on the USA?
 
Could it be that we are too harsh on the USA?

Could it? It borders on bigotry. Most are totally ignorant relying solely on MSM propaganda and celeb soundbites to form their opinions.


I wanna watch Charlie Wilson's War but I caution you not to take the movie solely as fact. ;)
 
I just watched Charlie Wilson's War (new Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts movie) and got a very interesting perspective on the mistakes the US made after they helped the Afghans win against the Russians in the 80's. They left the Afghans without reconstruction help...

I get the sense that the USA has somehow learned from this with their effort in Iraq. They seem to be spending a lot of money on upliftment and construction.

Could it be that we are too harsh on the USA?

I also watched the movie, and yes it was made well but it still does not justify their ideology. It's made to quite people like us into thinking exactly what you stated in the first post.

The thing Tom says about the Afghans not knowing about the help the US gave them... I say utter bullsh1t... Americans always only help themselves. And do you honestly think the afghans didn't consider where their weapons came from?

I watched 'The Hunting Party' with Richard Gere and it was waaaaaay more revealing about American tactics.
 
Could it? It borders on bigotry. Most are totally ignorant relying solely on MSM propaganda and celeb soundbites to form their opinions.


I wanna watch Charlie Wilson's War but I caution you not to take the movie solely as fact. ;)

Well, we know the USA covertly supported the Afghans against Russia. The movie makes no sweetened bones about it. It is a edgy movie believe you me!

We also know they left them with little support later (perhaps because they could not accept open credit for supporting the Afghans?), which we can assume it would have been wise to do in light of the Afghani role in the post 9/11 saga....
 
The US believed the Iraqis (and Afganis) would be like the Germans and Japanese after WW2. They thought that they would accept their hegemony in exchange for security and economic prosperity. Both surrendered uncoditionally especially Germany, there was talk of in the USA of
turning Germany into farming land only but ultimately the need to strenthen Western Europe against the Reds prevented that. I guess the Soviet threat was an added impetus for
both Axis powers to surrender and resist occupation although the Yanks would have had no qualms being heavy handed with resistance.

Now Iraq could have been Kuwait by now but it isn't because the Iraqis put their pride ahead of economic prosperity and security. They could have had both. They could have had a few years of being super obedient, time enough to become as rich as the Saudis and Kuwaitis before dictating economically to the Americans -- well, within limits as much dictating as the Americans will tolerate, notice the huge fleets of
F16's the Saudis sport, both to support the regime but also as pay for the oil.

In Afganistan there is no oil and like maybe that changes things. That country would need to be more creative in generating wealth but in essence it would also be a question
of obeying the Americans and hoping to stabilise enough to attract investment, create educational possibilities for their population, infrastructure etc.
 
Last edited:
The question I'm asking is: Who is getting all the contracts in Iraq to rebuild it? From what I hear, it's mostly American firms. Also the food for oil program is a bit suspect.

Yes, it is nice of them to help rebuild the country they shot up, but who is really winning? I feel, there is a lack of transparency with who get what out of all of this rebuilding. Do they use it, just to transplant the "American way of living" onto the Iraqis?

Maybe I'm just not a trusting kind of person, but the US never do anything that doesn't help America. They will certainly get more out of the exercise than Iraq, IMO.
 
Could it? It borders on bigotry. Most are totally ignorant relying solely on MSM propaganda and celeb soundbites to form their opinions.


I wanna watch Charlie Wilson's War but I caution you not to take the movie solely as fact. ;)

Agreed. Most people do build their political beliefs on Loose Change type clips and sound effects... but this does not make them wrong... just a bit naive.
 
Maybe I'm just not a trusting kind of person, but the US never do anything that doesn't help America. They will certainly get more out of the exercise than Iraq, IMO.

Which country would do it any different?
 
The question I'm asking is: Who is getting all the contracts in Iraq to rebuild it? From what I hear, it's mostly American firms. Also the food for oil program is a bit suspect.

Is there a problem with that?

Yes, it is nice of them to help rebuild the country they shot up, but who is really winning? I feel, there is a lack of transparency with who get what out of all of this rebuilding. Do they use it, just to transplant the "American way of living" onto the Iraqis?

Actually it was 'shot up' before they even went in there. By "transplant the American way of living" do you mean liberty?


Maybe I'm just not a trusting kind of person, but the US never do anything that doesn't help America. They will certainly get more out of the exercise than Iraq, IMO.

So have a democratic Iraq helps America just like democratising Japan, S.Korea and western Europe helped them. Is there a problem here?

When you say more how do fiqure that? Can you get more than liberty after living under Saddam and sanctions that killed off around a million Iraqi citizens.
 
The question I'm asking is: Who is getting all the contracts in Iraq to rebuild it? From what I hear, it's mostly American firms. Also the food for oil program is a bit suspect.

Yes, it is nice of them to help rebuild the country they shot up, but who is really winning? I feel, there is a lack of transparency with who get what out of all of this rebuilding. Do they use it, just to transplant the "American way of living" onto the Iraqis?

I think the Iraqis are starting to learn, its slow but they are. They have all these Saudis and Egyptians (Al quada) coming over to blow themselves up in their marketplaces. While the genuine Iraqis are probably just using IEDs to attack US soldiers the big mess is coming from those who have turned Iraq into a battleground against the West. Had the Iraqis just swallowed their pride like the Germans and Japanese, they could have had paradise by now. As for contracts to reconstruct, those are small fry. The Americans
misjudged the Iraqis and Afghanis, in that they are not like the Germans and Japanese of 1945. It's just a pity the most expensive intelligence agency on earth had to make such a blunder but then again all these 'Iraqi dissidents' with own private agendas provided enough propaganda BS to convince the Yanks that Iraqis would welcome them with open arms.
 
Is there a problem with that?



Actually it was 'shot up' before they even went in there. By "transplant the American way of living" do you mean liberty?




So have a democratic Iraq helps America just like democratising Japan, S.Korea and western Europe helped them. Is there a problem here?

When you say more how do fiqure that? Can you get more than liberty after living under Saddam and sanctions that killed off around a million Iraqi citizens.

bullsh1t. Iraq was a first world country before the recent war. America blew it to ****. Now that they have we cannot allow them to leave without paying though.

btw Alan let me school you on the problem with private companies rebuilding or having anything to do with Iraq ( Black water, CACI etc.)...
Companies have a single goal... profit... and companies which now exist because of war will not seize to exist after the war and at the amounts of money they are siphoning out of the US gov and the influence they are building by having all the major senetors etc. on their payrole you are literally creating a monster... one which tastes blood and builds a craving for blood... these are the companies which in times of peace create war situations for profit... its a bad precedent. War should not be profitable. Governments should take sole responsibility for war and not subcontreact... because subcontracted companies might get a taste of the blood and discover how sweet war is.
 
Is there a problem with that?



Actually it was 'shot up' before they even went in there. By "transplant the American way of living" do you mean liberty?




So have a democratic Iraq helps America just like democratising Japan, S.Korea and western Europe helped them. Is there a problem here?

When you say more how do fiqure that? Can you get more than liberty after living under Saddam and sanctions that killed off around a million Iraqi citizens.

The problem is that the Middle East is not the same as Germany, South Korea and Japan. I guess the people have a different mentality. Maybe its the religion or maybe its patriotism, I don't know but its different. As for liberty, except for Israel you won't find a single democratic country in the middle east. The circumstances are also different I guess.
 
Well, we know the USA covertly supported the Afghans against Russia. The movie makes no sweetened bones about it. It is a edgy movie believe you me!

We also know they left them with little support later (perhaps because they could not accept open credit for supporting the Afghans?), which we can assume it would have been wise to do in light of the Afghani role in the post 9/11 saga....

Yes but one must also consider many those they were supporting were religious extremists who would have seen the Americans as no different to the Soviets if the U.S tried to support a democratic western government there.

They no doubt would have had to offer plenty of support to the Afghans including very possibly men on the ground. Politically after seeing how the might of the Soviet military was defeated and U.S soldiers dying that would have been very difficult to do.

Also they were distracted by the collapse of the Soviet Union which when you consider they had been in a cold war for a generation along with the invasion of Kuwait left other matters in the dark.

That's no excuse though. They should have done more. Just don't think they could have pulled it off with the usual lefties throwing their toys out the cot at this ‘belligerent imperialism’
 
Is there a problem with that?
Depends on which part you consider to be a problem.


Actually it was 'shot up' before they even went in there. By "transplant the American way of living" do you mean liberty?
No, I mean McDonalds, etc. Transplanting the American way on another culture. Or trying to anyways.



So have a democratic Iraq helps America just like democratising Japan, S.Korea and western Europe helped them. Is there a problem here?
Will a democracy work for Iraq? Different cultures need different types of government. A democracy might not work for Iraq. Not even the US have a real democracy.

When you say more how do fiqure that? Can you get more than liberty after living under Saddam and sanctions that killed off around a million Iraqi citizens.
The sanctions was imposed by the US mostly, so can't really blame Saddam for that one. Saddam was bad, sure. And eventually people would have gotten rid of him if he pushed them far enough, or he would have died of old age. If the US was really such a pillar of liberty, spreading the love and all, they would have removed Mogabe ages ago.
 
That's no excuse though. They should have done more. Just don't think they could have pulled it off with the usual lefties throwing their toys out the cot at this ‘belligerent imperialism’

The Soviets collapsed. There was no more danger from them so there was no more need to support the locals. Still you could argue that had the Afghanis accepted the Soviet domination prior to that they would have had a stable Eastern European like country - Vietnam didn't fall apart into barbarism did it? The country would have been more developed and more industrialised and definately more educated. It would not have been democratic but Afganistan never was. Is it now? The Soviets at least supported a local government in Kabul which once the war was over would
probably have allowed religious freedom - the way much of Eastern Europe
enjoyed religious freedom.

Once the Soviet threat collapsed there was no need to support the opposition. The same happened in Western Europe, as long as the Soviets
posed a threat and US troops stood as the ONLY force against the Reds
Western Europe was quite friendly towards the Americans. Now that Europe can flex its muscles because it has no enemies to kick their butts (European) they're happy to undermine the Americans.
Also for some reason a continent which 50 years ago was gassing people for racial reasons is now so very non-racist :). That's another topic I guess. :)
 
bullsh1t. Iraq was a first world country before the recent war. America blew it to ****. Now that they have we cannot allow them to leave without paying though.

Much of Iraq’s economic infrastructure was damaged from lack of resources due to the sanctions. Iraq's ability for aggression was also destroyed. The purpose was to coerce the Iraqi government to cooperate with the United Nations, to initiate an improvement in Iraq's previously aggressive foreign policy, and reduce human rights abuses.

Critics of the sanctions say that over a million Iraqis, disproportionately children, died as a result of them, [6] although other researchers concluded that the total was lower. [4] [7] [8] UNICEF announced that 500,000 child deaths have occurred as a result of the sanctions.[9] The sanctions resulted in high rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases from lack of clean water. Chlorine, was desperately needed to disinfect water supplies, but it was banned from the country due to the potential that it may be used as part of a chemical weapon. On May 10, 1996, Madeleine Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time) appeared on 60 Minutes and was confronted with statistics of half a million children under five having died as a result of the sanctions. She replied "we think the price is worth it", though in her 2003 autobiography she wrote of her response (answering a loaded question): [10]

I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. … I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean. That is no one’s fault but my own.[11]

Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"[12] However Sophie Boukhari an UNESCO Courier journalist reports that "Some legal experts are sceptical about or even against using such terminology." and quotes Mario Bettati (who invented the notion of "the right of humanitarian intervention") "People who talk like that don’t know anything about law. The embargo has certainly affected the Iraqi people badly, but that’s not at all a crime against humanity or genocide." and reports that William Bourdon the secretary-general of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues said "one of the key elements of a crime against humanity and of genocide is intent. The embargo wasn’t imposed because the United States and Britain wanted children to die. If you think so, you have to prove it."[13]

Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest. Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them. According to von Sponeck, the sanctions restricted Iraqis to living on $100 each of imports per year.[citation needed]


[edit] Infant and child death rates

Iraq's infant and child survival rates fell after sanctions were imposed.A May 25, 2000 BBC article[14] reported that before Iraq sanctions were imposed by the UN in 1990, infant mortality had "fallen to 47 per 1,000 live births between 1984 and 1989. This compares to approximately 7 per 1,000 in the UK." The BBC article was reporting from a study of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, titled "Sanctions and childhood mortality in Iraq", that was published in the May 2000 Lancet medical journal.[15][16]

The 2000 BBC article reported that in south and central Iraq, infant mortality rate between 1994 and 1999 had inclined to 108 per 1,000. Child mortality rate, which refers to children between the age of one and five years, also drastically inclined from 56 to 131 per 1,000.[14]

The 2000 BBC article also reported, "However, it found that infant and child mortality in the autonomous, mainly Kurd region in the North of the country, has actually fallen, perhaps reflecting the more favourable distribution of aid in that area."[14]

In the spring of 2000 a U.S. Congressional letter demanding the lifting of the sanctions garnered 71 signatures, while House Democratic Whip David Bonior called the economic sanctions against Iraq "infanticide masquerading as policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

You have an odd idea of what constitutes a 'first world country' :o

We must be one as well then :cool:

The problem is that the Middle East is not the same as Germany, South Korea and Japan. I guess the people have a different mentality. Maybe its the religion or maybe its patriotism, I don't know but its different. As for liberty, except for Israel you won't find a single democratic country in the middle east. The circumstances are also different I guess.

Well Germany and Japan suffered total defeat. Both countries got slaughtered losing over 10 million people between them.. Germany had been bombed to the stone age and Japan was cut from any supplies, industries heavily bombed and 2 cities erased in seconds. The populace had been bleed dry.

The Japanese were just as extreme as jihades. The Japanese and Germans were certainly no less steadfast then ordinary Afghans or Iraqis. I'm sure if you subjected the Iraqis to the same total war you'd have the same result.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

You have an odd idea of what constitutes a 'first world country' :o

We must be one as well then :cool:

So entirely based on Sanctions and an Infant death-toll you can deduce that Iraq was synonymous with Ethiopia?:rolleyes:

By that logic we can say the US is a 3rd world country just based on their rebuilding of New Orleans :D

Do another Google search for more information to make a stronger counter argument... hopefully you don't use the very accurate and unbiased wikipedophilia this time ;)
 
Well if the US had not interfered in Afghanistan, Osama and alqaeda would be Russia's problem.

Imposing yourself where you're not welcome will inevitably make things worse.
 
Depends on which part you consider to be a problem.

I don't have a problem if an American company gets a contract to help rebuild Iraq. Do you?



No, I mean McDonalds, etc. Transplanting the American way on another culture. Or trying to anyways.

You got any proof of that?


Will a democracy work for Iraq? Different cultures need different types of government. A democracy might not work for Iraq. Not even the US have a real democracy.

So you saying a dictatorship is acceptable for different cultures? Would that be acceptable here if it was deemed to "work" for Africans?

Democracies don't come quick or cheap.


The sanctions was imposed by the US mostly, so can't really blame Saddam for that one. Saddam was bad, sure. And eventually people would have gotten rid of him if he pushed them far enough, or he would have died of old age. If the US was really such a pillar of liberty, spreading the love and all, they would have removed Mogabe ages ago.

Yes you can also blame Saddam. It was his actions that led to the sanctions and it was his actions that kept them there.

Saddam had been in power for decades millions dead and he still was in power. Look at Zim now with Mugabe still in power. People can't just rise up and chuck a guy out like that when they feel like it.

So you want the U.S to invade Zim as well? I guess then they'd have to invade Burma too and a dozen other countries. Where exactly do you think they'd get the man power and resources to do that?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X