1) Who should govern Iraq? The U.S. govt should agree with all those who urge letting the U.N. run Iraq after the war.... and then tell them, "We will relinquish military control the moment the U.N. Security Council passes a resolution to that effect." Of course, we will then proceed to veto every one of them. Let's treat the likes of France and Russia to their own medicine! The U.N. is history! 2) How do we pay for the war? The U.S. govt should pay for the war by pumping the Iraqi oil fields dry and shipping it all to the U.S. and her allies! In the process, we can also break the back of the damn OPEC cartel. All that oil-driven Arab wealth is what bankrolled Bin Laden to begin with and what is giving the Arab League the audacity to challenge us! They want to support Bin Laden and Saddam? Fine, we'll just send the entire region back below the poverty line! 3) How do we keep the peace? The U.S. govt should carve up Iraq into three countries. Kurdistan to the north. Sunni Iraq in the Middle. and Shiite Iraq in the South. Play them off against each other. Sell weapons to all of them. Urge Kurdish independence in Turkey (so we can force those damn treacherous Turks to buy weapons too)... Basically turn them into the Middle Eastern version of sub-saharan africa! In doing so, we will show the rest of the world, if you mess with America, we will not only destroy your regime, we're going to stick it to all your friends and all those who stand with you too. Then we'll see how loud the damn North Koreans dare to bark. The New World Order has been long dead. And if the U.S. is going to succeed as a uni-polar superpower, she has to learn that if you cannot be loved, then you had better be feared! We must be ready to unleash a reign of terror upon those most likely to challenge us (EU-France, Russia, China, etc. etc.). Lil, gone off the deep end...
Colin Powell for President!!! When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush. He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not get to come home." It became very quiet in the room. ------------------ The phrase that came to my mind... "The Archbishop shut up and sat down"... sorry if this has been posted by the way.
I would vote for that man in a hearbeat. I wonder if Collin would every seriously consider running for office. As for the quote...priceless. DD
I think we should turn post-war Iraq into a giant playground or theme park. We should spend at least 5 to 9 billion trying to give every Iraqi a George Foreman grill as well. Additionally, I feel we should spend more money, at least 25 billion, to buy every Iraqi a midget, but if there are not enough to go around then those little monkeys you see at carnivals. Finally, I think we must ensure the safety of the Iraqi people, so I feel it is necessary to give every Iraqi, man, woman, and child Desert Eagle handguns with 1000 bullets. These will allow every Iraqi to settle disputes on their own and it would give everyone something to play with when they can't go out due to sandstorms. This would also protect them from any highly probable Jewish conspiracies. I also feel they should be given mace and tazers as a backup in case the guns do not solve their problems. That is what I feel we should do with post-war Iraq.
Let's make it the Havana of the Middle East...nothing but casinos and brothels, and tons of US travel agencies offering discount package deals to go there. "Who needs Amsterdam when you can visit sunny Baghdad!"
Sure he is. The panama Canal is just one prime example. We fought for it and didn't keep just so we could bury the dead.
The U.S. engineered the war for Panamanian independence and then gained control of Panamal Canal project, and held on to the Canal itself. U.S. Troops landed there to ensure the Columbians didn't regain control. Teddy Roosevelt even bragged about taking the Canal. "I TOOK THE CANAL ZONE AND LET CONGRESS DEBATE. AND WHILE THE DEBATE GOES ON...SO DOES WORK ON THE CANAL." The U.S. did send in troops and kept something other than the ground to bury the dead.
True, but that begs the question as to how many wars the US has actually fought mainly for "freedom abroad". I can't really think of one to be honest. (Keep in mind I am talking about freedom abroad not freedom and security for the US itself.) Powell certainly doesn't claim that every war the US has fought in was for "freedom". He does claim that when the US does fight for "freedom abroad", the US did not take any land for itself. However, since the US has engaged in many wars which were not clearly for freedom and the US has in fact taken lands (see Mexican-US war (CA, TX, AZ, etc), Spanish-American War (took Phillipines, Cuba, Puerto Rico), Panama Canal War (didn't outright take over Panama but did install a compliant US-backed regime and make them sign a 99-year lease and administered the canal as US sovereign territory during the terms of the lease), his quote is somewhat hollow when taken in full historic context.
R, It is not hollow at all, it is right smack in the middle of context with the war with Iraq. WW1 and WW2 were fights for freedom on foreign land, as was the Korean conflict. I think those are the only wars I can think of that satisfy his quote. DD
Perfect! Come visit Harrah's Baghdad and take your chance at the million dollar slot! Come see Wayne Newton in the grand ballroom every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night!
In the modern era (the last 100 years), his quote is absolutely valid. The last imperialist conflict America fought were precisely the series beginning with Hawaii, the Spanish-American War and the Panamanian Revolution, coincidently all ending around 1904. Since then, America has never formally annexed any territory acquired through conflicts with foreigh powers, but rather consistently given them back to the native inhabitants... though clearly she could easily have done otherwise. In fact, most of America's efforts have been aimed at protecting states AGAINST imperialism or aggressive communism. (And this includes Latin America, where she has adopted the corollary to the Monroe Doctrine proactively preventing European imperialistic intervention) Being the world's sole superpower both now and in the immediate aftermath of WW2, no nation has ever feared being absorbed by the USA in the last century. Contrast that with the readiness of the European powers, Japan, China, India, Israel, and any other nation with the means to do otherwise (annex with the aim to build empires). To argue against Colin Powell's point would be merely relying on historical trivialities to obscure a most glaring truth.
