Let’s just go back to 1492 to start.
Queen Isabella financed old Chris to open trade routes to the Fareast.
He and those following managed to kill thousands of North American inhabitants.
Then came the Spanish into Central America, in search of gold for the crown. Whoa to the Incas, Mayas and Aztecs. Thousands more died.
South America followed by the Spanish and the Portuguese In pursuit of gold and territory, all in search of commerce for the crowned heads.
The French took land in the south of North America at the expense of the Seminole tribes. Then they moved into Canada. More economics, more death to the natives.
The English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese built fleets to control the Atlantic and defend their trade routes and the new sources of commerce.
England colonized our east coast to expand the British Empire and more Indian wars were fought.
Our revolutionary war was fought because England would not give up the commerce and revenues generated by the colonies. The French and Germans enjoined to benefit economically. Even then trade agreements that were expected to follow were of prime importance.
The Spanish American War, and the war with Mexico were for economic expansion of territory.
The Civil War was not started to free slaves, that little piece of fiction didn’t even raise its head until the war was almost a year old. The problem was the South was an agricultural region and the North was industrial the twain couldn’t meet. Europe stood by and watched waiting for the spoils of commerce.
WWI was an expansion project of the Kaiser. The assignation of the Arch Duke was an excuse, not a reason.
WWII was nothing more than a continuation of WWI. Germany just couldn’t keep up under the demands of the Treaty of Versailles. Do you think Hitler sent the Africa Corps to Africa for the climate or perhaps OIL. Poland and the Poleste oil refineries with attached oil fields just may have played a part (do ya think)
Japan needed China to expand. Oil and rubber was the reason for the taking of Sumatra and Java. Japan lacked in natural resources.
South Korea, with natural resources of coal, tungsten, graphite, molybdenum, lead and hydropower potential was a prime target for the North. Anyway, China thought so and joined in with support to the North. Russia thought it was a good bet so they threw in Mig fighters and T-34 tanks not to mention a license for the AK-47s all for a tidy little sum.
Vietnam, Tonkin Gulf with a depth of 60 feet to 300 meters is a fantastic off shore oil drilling opportunity, not to mention the forest products that have yet to be harvested. Yeh I said trees and don’t laugh. The French fought like a son of a gun to keep control. Now tell me the buck plays no part in starting a war, it’s just a matter of who shoots first.
Sorry, Iraq just follows the game plan.
China, well stand by, cause they’re on the move, and it seems we have learned nothing from the history books.

Good summation. Here comes the 'yellow horde'.

"Like a thief in the night."

"Carlos, this is a stupid fucking problem to have. But, it is a problem nonetheless."

:D

Originally posted by box19
"Carlos, this is a stupid fucking problem to have. But, it is a problem nonetheless."

:D

I must be missing here, what's the point? Who is Carlos?

Narrow view and oversimplified, let fill in some color. You have to add in idealism, national interest and politics. Economy alone is threadbare, to say the least.


The tradegy of the natives of the Americas. Sure people came to the Americas looking for wealth. But I can point out that, in North America anyway, it was disease that killed off most of the indians here, not conquest though that didn't help. What happens to the indians of North and South America is what has happened whenever a more advanced culture meets a less advanced culture. I could use the Mongol Hordes and the Romans and what they did as other examples.

The Revolution. Yes, taxation was part of the problem, but the real crux of that situation was that the Colonists were being treated as second class citizens by England and they got tired of it. Remember the line "no taxation without representation," it wasn't taxation that got the Colonists all riled up, it was having no voice in English government that really frosted the Colonists. I could aslo point out that when the Revolution ended, England STILL got all the trade benefits without the burden of Governing the Colonies. It was Colonial interests, a seat at the governing table that the Colonists originally wanted, then it was independence, economics wasn't at the forefront.

War with Mexico. The idea of Manifest destiny was sweeping the U.S. The idea that America should expand from coast to coast appealed to Americans at that time. Idlealism there, not economics.

While Saxton is right that slavery wasn't an issue neither side took up as a cause by either North or South during our Civil War, slavery was the one issue that couldn't be rectified, compromised or gotten around. The fugitive slave act, the Dread Scot decision, the Missouri Compromise, Bleeding Kansas and the 3/5th compromise where all compromises used by the Union to assuage the South into staying into staying into the Union. The U.S. tried mightily but it was slavery, not economics that finally drove the South out of the Union and explains the actions and lack there of of France and Britain. Slavery and the fact the compromises ran out where what finally drove the South out of the Union.

Hitler geared Germany up for World War 2 on the anger Germany felt after the Versailles treaty as well as the idea of a Master Race ruling the world. Nationalism as well as Idealism motivated that war.

Stalin seized all of Eastern Europe to use as a buffer in case the West tried to invade the Soviet Union. National interests where what motivated Stalin. The Soviet Union had no economy.


The Cold War conflicts were over national interests and politics. The spreading of Communism or the stopping of Communism were what motivated the Korean War as well as the Vietnam war and our support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s.

While economics can be said to be part of any war, it sure as hell isn't the whole story. It's far more complex than a bunch of guys sitting in the boardroom trying to figure out who to knock-off in order to make more money.

But I can point out that, in North America anyway, it was disease that killed off most of the indians here, not conquest though that didn't help.
A lot of the colonists traded smallpox infested blankets on purpose.

War with Mexico. The idea of Manifest destiny was sweeping the U.S. The idea that America should expand from coast to coast appealed to Americans at that time. Idlealism there, not economics.
The War with Mexico and the fight over Texas was over Slavery. The South needed more land and Texas was prime territory, the problem was that the Mexicans were strongly against slavery in any form.

Stalin seized all of Eastern Europe to use as a buffer in case the West tried to invade the Soviet Union. National interests where what motivated Stalin. The Soviet Union had no economy.
Stalin didn't give two shits about his country. He wanted power, and he wanted everybody else in the world to know that he had a lot of power. Oh, and by the way, most of the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s Russia had a greater output productionwise than the US.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Narrow view and oversimplified, let fill in some color. You have to add in idealism, national interest and politics. Economy alone is threadbare, to say the least.


The tradegy of the natives of the Americas. Sure people came to the Americas looking for wealth. But I can point out that, in North America anyway, it was disease that killed off most of the indians here, not conquest though that didn't help. What happens to the indians of North and South America is what has happened whenever a more advanced culture meets a less advanced culture. I could use the Mongol Hordes and the Romans and what they did as other examples.

The Revolution. Yes, taxation was part of the problem, but the real crux of that situation was that the Colonists were being treated as second class citizens by England and they got tired of it. Remember the line "no taxation without representation," it wasn't taxation that got the Colonists all riled up, it was having no voice in English government that really frosted the Colonists. I could aslo point out that when the Revolution ended, England STILL got all the trade benefits without the burden of Governing the Colonies. It was Colonial interests, a seat at the governing table that the Colonists originally wanted, then it was independence, economics wasn't at the forefront.

War with Mexico. The idea of Manifest destiny was sweeping the U.S. The idea that America should expand from coast to coast appealed to Americans at that time. Idlealism there, not economics.

While Saxton is right that slavery wasn't an issue neither side took up as a cause by either North or South during our Civil War, slavery was the one issue that couldn't be rectified, compromised or gotten around. The fugitive slave act, the Dread Scot decision, the Missouri Compromise, Bleeding Kansas and the 3/5th compromise where all compromises used by the Union to assuage the South into staying into staying into the Union. The U.S. tried mightily but it was slavery, not economics that finally drove the South out of the Union and explains the actions and lack there of of France and Britain. Slavery and the fact the compromises ran out where what finally drove the South out of the Union.

Hitler geared Germany up for World War 2 on the anger Germany felt after the Versailles treaty as well as the idea of a Master Race ruling the world. Nationalism as well as Idealism motivated that war.

Stalin seized all of Eastern Europe to use as a buffer in case the West tried to invade the Soviet Union. National interests where what motivated Stalin. The Soviet Union had no economy.


The Cold War conflicts were over national interests and politics. The spreading of Communism or the stopping of Communism were what motivated the Korean War as well as the Vietnam war and our support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s.

While economics can be said to be part of any war, it sure as hell isn't the whole story. It's far more complex than a bunch of guys sitting in the boardroom trying to figure out who to knock-off in order to make more money.

Good post! Good response!
But not convinced,
Bottom line.
Lotta folks made a lotta MONEY.
Iraq.
Sameo Sameo

Originally posted by Ralph Saxton
I must be missing here, what's the point? Who is Carlos?

The quote was in response to your quote, which in itself had nothing to do with the subject matter. I was merely repeating the pattern. Fighting wars for no higher purpose than profit (and being unable to stop the cycle you described - nicely done, btw) is a stupid problem to have, but it is a problem. The quote is from Bad Boys 2. Carlos has just informed his boss that rats are eating his money. The boss says 'Carlos, this is a stupid fucking problem to have...' you know the rest. Not a bad movie. Good, mindless fun. :)

Originally posted by Ralph Saxton

Bottom line.
Lotta folks made a lotta MONEY.
Iraq.
Sameo Sameo

I agree and lets not forget with money comes power

Mad Dog and Ralph,

Well yes, people do profit from war BUT the U.S. became independent, slaves were freed and the ground work was laid for further integration for black people, Hitler was stopped, Stalin was contained, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan became free societies, Western Europe was given back their soveriegnty. If all goes well in Iraq and Afghanistan, Middle East countries could well start on the road to their own renaissance, enlightment and scientific revolutions that will make for a better world than the one they now know. Economics DOES play a part in warfare, but it isn't the entire picture.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Mad Dog and Ralph,

Well yes, people do profit from war BUT the U.S. became independent, slaves were freed and the ground work was laid for further integration for black people, Hitler was stopped, Stalin was contained, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan became free societies, Western Europe was given back their soveriegnty. If all goes well in Iraq and Afghanistan, Middle East countries could well start on the road to their own renaissance, enlightment and scientific revolutions that will make for a better world than the one they now know. Economics DOES play a part in warfare, but it isn't the entire picture.

Yes I agree ,and as has been said "It's an ill wind that blows no good'.

But, here is a quote to ponder.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger".

Hermann Georing
1945 NEUREMBURG TRIALS.

This quote is in no way posted by me in admiration of this monster, but I think it holds a great deal of truth, and who would know better than ol'e Hermann. :(

Greed can be a great stimulus for patriotism.

Hello,

I received this in email. I thought to share it for others benefit :

JUST AS A STITCH IN TIME SAVES NINE, SAME WAY, YOU SHOULD ENLIGHTEN YOURSELVES AND TELL ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT THESE MATTERS IN THESE LINKS :

Here is everything you wanted to know about bony assed country USA, its bony assed americans, and its ugly asshole small stone shit president george w. bush stinking as an ugly white skunk, a country that is cowardly and incompetent on its own, a country that is full of stinking white lies, hidden manipulations, financial scamos, frauds, money making rackets, evil barbarian materialism, evil intellect, barbarian racism, skin color, nationality, and class discrimination, hand-in-gloves inside jobs through its coward stooges, planned provocations, ploys, plots, hidden agendas, dog-eat-dog barbarian mentality, attention diverting issues, a country that cannot withstand any tit for tat given to it, a country that is incapable of living up to the concept of 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you', a country that is a bloody blotch on the statue of liberty that it hosts and boasts about.

VISIT :

http://watchingamerica.freeservers.com

However, if you find that even this web site becomes closed sooner or later, here is a long list of web site links that you may use to educate yourselves on matters that cowards do not want you to get educated about bravely.

Here goes :

http://inspectamerica.freeservers.com
http://www.grailnet.org
http://www.truthout.org
http://www.globalissues.org
http://www.foodfirst.org
http://www.humanrights.org
http://creditratingofamerica.blogspot.com
http://www.yesmagazine.org
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/FoodDumping/Intro.asp
http://commondreams.org/
http://www.counterpunch.org/sale02222005.html
http://www.humiliateamerica.com/hegmony.htm
http://gamre.blogspot.com
http://www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/103/07_whisp.htm
http://www.ied.info/books/why
http://www.bushwatch.net/lost.htm
http://www.prospect.org
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com
http://www.dollarsandsense.org
http://www.votescam.com/abriefhistory.php
http://www.democracynow.org/
http://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/html/sitemap.shtml
http://braggartamericans.blogspot.com
http://members.aol.com/RAmann2996/American_History.html
http://www.postcolonialweb.org
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,122704_SubstanceAbuse,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl
http://www.empowermentproject.org/
http://www.tscm.com/phonemods.html
http://www.spybusters.com/cell_phone_privacy.html
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/12/21/0424202.shtml?tid=100&tid=137&tid=158&tid=99
http://www.amnestyusa.org/racial_profiling/index.do
http://fingperprintsupamerica.blogspot.com/
http://www.thenation.com
http://americanbehavior.blogspot.com
http://www.cokewatch.org/
http://www.corpwatch.org
http://www.gatswatch.org/
http://www.fair.org/
http://www.worldtribunal.org
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/AmericanStateTerrorism.html#WTC
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/afghanistan/AfghanFactSheet.html
http://warprofiteers.com
http://www.fpif.org
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/asia/AsiaCrisisSachsViewFT1297.html
http://www.lcnp.org/pubs/RuleofLawPDF.pdf
http://www.transnational.org
http://racistamericans.blogspot.com
http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/icyblue/comments/almost_half_of_americans_want_to_limit_civil_liber ties_for_muslim_americans/
http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/psysc/staff/rmyoung/papers/rac1.html
http://answer.pephost.org
http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/amerikkkans.html
http://www.mkgandhi.org/sitemap.htm
http://www.geocities.com/globalghetto/
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/latest-digest.html
http://www.gregorypalast.com
http://www.phmovement.org/pubs/issuepapers/hong.html
http://www.unionvoice.org/iwfr/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=293595
http://mtss.dnsalias.org/americanstateterrorism/solutions/AmericanRevolution2.html
http://www.commoncouragepress.com
http://www.southendpress.org
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jul02/62894.asp
http://www.noticias.info/Archivo/2004/200408/20040809/20040809_30458.shtm
http://www.earthrainbownetwork.com/Archives2003/GreenHolocaust11.htm
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~ambi/
http://www.alternet.org/story/10949
http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Economics/pollution_problems_in_the_thir.html?tqskip1=1
http://www.sierraclub.org/factoryfarms/factsheets/air.asp
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6786
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/state_factsheets.html
http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/iowa.html
http://www.freewebs.com/drug-rehabs/drugiowarehabilitation.html
http://www.medlina.com/aa-alcoholism%20usa.htm
http://www.islam-usa.com/e30.html
http://www.voxfux.com/
http://angrydesi.typepad.com/minority_report/2004/10/fuck_you_white_.html
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7419-.html
http://www.churchofreality.org/opinion/christian.htm
http://www.antipasministries.com/html/file0000202.htm
http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm
http://www.tradeobservatory.org/
http://www.theroc.org/roc-news/social.htm
http://uedo100.uni-graz.at/magazine/racism.html
http://www.garageworks.741.com/ames_iowa.htm
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/racism.html
http://www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/index.php?p=146
http://www.womenshealthservices.org/teen%20pregnancy.htm
http://www.siecus.org/school/preg/preg0006.html
http://www.bus.lsu.edu/accounting/faculty/lcrumbley/weasels.html
http://www.numbersusa.com/text?ID=736
http://www.humiliateamerica.com/hegmony.htm
http://bloodbankers.typepad.com/submerging_markets/2003/11/first_world_com.html
http://bloodbankers.typepad.com/submerging_markets/2003/11/first_world_cri.html
http://bloodbankers.typepad.com/submerging_markets/2003/11/first_world_cri_1.html
http://bloodbankers.typepad.com/submerging_markets/2003/12/transnational_c.html
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/FoodDumping/Intro.asp
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~thiele/enviro-seminar/env_raci.html
http://www.geocities.com/globalghetto
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/latest-digest.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jul02/62894.asp
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~ambi/
http://www.earthrainbownetwork.com/Archives2003/GreenHolocaust11.htm
http://www.noticias.info/Archivo/2004/200408/20040809/20040809_30458.shtm
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=99577
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/5653805.htm
http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Economics/pollution_problems_in_the_thir.html?tqskip1=1
http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/fall95/dehner.html
http://www.newint.org/issue198/exporting.htm
http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/103/07_whisp.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_071700_prostitution.htm
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-21126.html
http://www.sfgate.com/vent/impeach/messages/1268.shtml
http://www.cprmd.org/Myths/Myth_Fact_011.htm
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/love/package.jsp?name=fte/wivescheat/wivescheat&floc=wn-ns
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcrime.htm
http://innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html
http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=214275
http://www.mwboone.com/scams.htm
http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4017151.search?query=what+americans+do+in+bed
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing9.html
http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/NAMNONNATIVE.HTM
http://www.refuseandresist.org/ndp/101198amnestyusa.html
http://www.rightsforall.amnesty.org/info/action/
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/september11/
http://www.rense.com/health2/diseased.htm


THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TO ATTAIN ENLIGHTENMENT THROUGH THESE LINKS AND ALSO TO ENLIGHTEN ALL YOU KNOW THROUGH THESE LINKS.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

America today is like a lost child which has been found by a crazy freak who is prostituting it[america] and in 2008 the police will come and hopefully bring the child to safety.

Originally posted by MotherKali
America today is like a lost child which has been found by a crazy freak who is prostituting it[america] and in 2008 the police will come and hopefully bring the child to safety.

I do not understand your post. Please explain.

Today america is like a child that has been lost. It was found by a crazy freak(Bush). Hopefull in 2008, The police we rescue the child.(a better president)

Well, the police coming usually doesn't solve a dang thing..unless Ted Bundy lives in the neighborhood, and it took YEARS to catch HIM.

j/k

Well, the police coming usually doesn't solve a dang thing..unless Ted Bundy lives in the neighborhood, and it took YEARS to catch HIM.
true

Mike got banned? Didn't take him long, did it. I would've had to have words with him if that wasn't true.

Anyway, though I dislike many of George Bush's domestic policy, the No Child Left Behind act and the Free Medicine for all the senior citizens, his foreign policy is spot on. I've posted before and I'll say it again, this "war on terror" isn't about Iraq or Bush or any of that, it's a conflict of the cultures of Islam and the West, and the stakes are astronomical. We cannot afford to lose this one.

...:(

i am sad for you.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Mike got banned? Didn't take him long, did it. I would've had to have words with him if that wasn't true.

Yeah...he was a spammer, and I had to waste my morning visit deleting his garbage.


Anyway, though I dislike many of George Bush's domestic policy, the No Child Left Behind act and the Free Medicine for all the senior citizens, his foreign policy is spot on. I've posted before and I'll say it again, this "war on terror" isn't about Iraq or Bush or any of that, it's a conflict of the cultures of Islam and the West, and the stakes are astronomical. We cannot afford to lose this one.

Darth, I respect your intelligence and I enjoy your posts, but Bush has to be the most inept president we've had in a long time when it comes to foreign policy. You seem to be suggesting that the "War on Terror" is the only foreign policy we need. If Bush is some kind of foreign policy genius, why has this country lost so much respect in the last 5+ years on his watch?

Well put Vile...everything you said. I second that notion!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
his foreign policy is spot on.

While I lean towards agreeing with his stated foreign policy goals, his execution of that policy has been simply awful. Which amazes me, since his father was generally considered to be an excellent diplomat.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Say it again, this "war on terror" isn't about Iraq or Bush or any of that, it's a conflict of the cultures of Islam and the West, and the stakes are astronomical. We cannot afford to lose this one.
How can you even say that? As if all of "Islam" is bad and all of the "West" is good. How simplistic. This is a war fighting terrorism and Islam does not make up all the terrorists.

This is a war trying to make the "west" safer. That is going after the terrorists, evil leaders with weapons/links to terrorism. Saddam didn't have weapons, many other leaders across the world were far worse then Saddam and the 9/11 Panel said Saddam has slim links to terrorism. We should have never attacked him, and now our world and country is less secure because we did.

Once again, I second that notion!!!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Anyway, though I dislike many of George Bush's domestic policy, the No Child Left Behind act and the Free Medicine for all the senior citizens, his foreign policy is spot on. I've posted before and I'll say it again, this "war on terror" isn't about Iraq or Bush or any of that, it's a conflict of the cultures of Islam and the West, and the stakes are astronomical. We cannot afford to lose this one. I would say it's more of a war of political ideologies that's been cloaked in culture and religion. That's also how George Bush often describes it, and is one thing that I agree with him on.

Originally posted by Vilepagan

Darth, I respect your intelligence and I enjoy your posts, but Bush has to be the most inept president we've had in a long time when it comes to foreign policy.
Presumably Clinton's disaster in Somalia, inaction over Rwanda, cowardly and failed attack on Serbia, repulsive use of sanctions against Iraq, bombing of tyre factories in Sudan and flimsy attempts at killing bin Laden culminating in triggering Sept 11th by convincing the Islamists that the US was a bunch of mincing nancies are the sort of foreign policy 'successes' to which George W Bush should aspire.
Albright telling the world that if hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children are killed because of their policy 'we think the price is worth it' - that kind of 'foreign policy' is only appreciated by the sick-minded.

Originally posted by Spartak
Presumably Clinton's disaster in Somalia, inaction over Rwanda, cowardly and failed attack on Serbia, repulsive use of sanctions against Iraq, bombing of tyre factories in Sudan and flimsy attempts at killing bin Laden culminating in triggering Sept 11th by convincing the Islamists that the US was a bunch of mincing nancies are the sort of foreign policy 'successes' to which George W Bush should aspire.
Gee, that's a lovely straw man you have there...

Perhaps that's Bush's problem - he hasn't killed enough women and kids or sucked up to enough terrorists.
Pure laziness George!

Originally posted by Spartak
Presumably Clinton's disaster in Somalia, inaction over Rwanda, cowardly and failed attack on Serbia, repulsive use of sanctions against Iraq, bombing of tyre factories in Sudan and flimsy attempts at killing bin Laden culminating in triggering Sept 11th by convincing the Islamists that the US was a bunch of mincing nancies are the sort of foreign policy 'successes' to which George W Bush should aspire.

Presumably we were talking about George Bush's foreign policy record.


Albright telling the world that if hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children are killed because of their policy 'we think the price is worth it' - that kind of 'foreign policy' is only appreciated by the sick-minded.

What's your point?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
-----------------------------------
Originally posted by Spartak
Presumably Clinton's disaster in Somalia, inaction over Rwanda, cowardly and failed attack on Serbia, repulsive use of sanctions against Iraq, bombing of tyre factories in Sudan and flimsy attempts at killing bin Laden culminating in triggering Sept 11th by convincing the Islamists that the US was a bunch of mincing nancies are the sort of foreign policy 'successes' to which George W Bush should aspire.
-----------------------------------
Presumably we were talking about George Bush's foreign policy record. ...Specifically, you said: "Bush has to be the most inept president we've had in a long time when it comes to foreign policy." - hence the reminder of his predecessor. Bush has made a bad job of repairing the damage done by Clinton, but it is laughable to suggest he could be worse - he has been far too busy struggling unsuccessfully against the s*** he inherited to ponce around trying to make more of his own.


Originally posted by Vilepagan
------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spartak
Albright telling the world that if hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children are killed because of their policy 'we think the price is worth it' - that kind of 'foreign policy' is only appreciated by the sick-minded.
-------------------------------------
What's your point? (sigh) Simply that you have a very short memory.

Originally posted by Spartak
...Specifically, you said: "Bush has to be the most inept president we've had in a long time when it comes to foreign policy." - hence the reminder of his predecessor.

I see. Sorry, I thought it was just a pointless dodge.


Bush has made a bad job of repairing the damage done by Clinton, but it is laughable to suggest he could be worse - he has been far too busy struggling unsuccessfully against the s*** he inherited to ponce around trying to make more of his own.

I wasn't aware that Clinton was the architect of the invasion of Iraq. If Bush inherited the Iraq problem from anyone, he inherited it from his father. I'm not fond of Clinton's foreign policy either, but I consider George Bush's policies to be far worse. Bush has had ample time to correct any problems, imaginary or otherwise, left him by Clinton.


(sigh) Simply that you have a very short memory.

::sighs:: Newbies :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Vilepagan

I wasn't aware that Clinton was the architect of the invasion of Iraq. According to Madeleine Albright and simple arithmetic, the invasion of Iraq (30,000 dead) is up to 470,000 deaths less than her and Clinton's sanctions policy - so while it is certainly a balls-up, it is better than an Albright/Clinton 'success'
Originally posted by Vilepagan

If Bush inherited the Iraq problem from anyone, he inherited it from his father. Daddy's, John Major's and Colin Powell's cowardice started it all, certainly.
Originally posted by Vilepagan

I'm not fond of Clinton's foreign policy either, but I consider George Bush's policies to be far worse. Bush has had ample time to correct any problems, imaginary or otherwise, left him by Clinton.
There is nothing imaginary about the s*** he left, and correct them with what? The useless, bloated intelligence service inherited from Clinton?