The neocons have not done trying it in Afghanistan, Iraq... the list is growing... next on line ... maybe Cuba...


Should Democracy first be exported with violence and war, and then imposed at the peace negotiating table?

i just love how everybody just ahte america but use americanized political terms. haha.

Well of course I don't agree with the export of terrorism with violence and war. Or maybe I shd say, the export of Islam instead of 'terrorism'?

I think we should mind our own business and focus on internal problems. If a country wants help to become a democracy they can ask. If said country wishes to play host to terrorist organizations then they have chosen the consequence that come with that. But we can not bring democracy to a country whose culture won't support it. For democracy to work all parties involved must be willing to compromise and be semi reasonable. The problem with the Middle eastern brand of Islam is that its an all or nothing mentality. Just as we see the violence in Iraq between the different sects.
But I agree that you can't force democracy. Its something the large majority must want.

jim i totally agree. democracy shouldn't be forced. but i think that many a regimes have such measures that people can't really voice out their views and opinions or allow free thinking that the people don't even have that option.

I agree completely. But the question I pose is what makes it our obligation to fix it? Simply put Our soldiers are here to protect the USA..... To serve our best interests. To defend our country...
Somalia??????
Lebenon in the 1980's??????
Any of the UN peace keeping missions?????
Bosnia??????
Was it really worth losing a single soldier in those places? Was it appreciated? I wonder.
I guess what I am saying is when we have so much need at home how is it we can afford to export our lifes blood overseas? I am a conservetive. No not a neocon. I do believe in personal accountability. How can we mend someone elses fences when our own is in disrepair? I would hate the idea of you getting hurt or worse for a cause not our own. For people who niether want our help or appreciate it. Somalia????
Bosnis????

spreading democracy openly is not in our best interest lol. Its quite the opposite and vice versa. I much rather have the US support underground covert missions to reduce risks and resources.

to tinman
^true. many of my soldiers got riled up when i said, let the israelis and arabs fight their own war. i really did not like us being there at all. i dislike iraq, but i believe that wrong or not, reason or not, we're there and the iraqis need us more than ever. although i'd like to see our pullout and a stronger iraqi govt. soon.

as for appreciation...ever since when were Americans appreciated? Even American upstarts just swing at us. we do it for good or bad, with consequences good or bad, whether it's our fault or not, the whole world have US, Americans, West, etc. all in one word "imperialist". that we are assholes, rude, mean...even when our soldiers die for someone else's well being and our tax dollars to feed others.

Although I apologize for saying "the whole world" because there are definitely alot of people who appreciate and think some of our policies aren't for "evil" intentions, I'm just really tired of being called a baby killer.
maybe one day those Afghans that i've met will one day break that stereotype look of us.

Flip, maybe u can ponder this instead of ranting and raving over the image of Americans abroad :

The war in Iraq, has it been worth the loss of American lives?

The democracy in Iraq, has it been worth the loss of Iraqi lives?

The oil fields in Iraq, is it worth both sides to lose their lives over these?

These are absolutist questions that cannot be answered in a relative world.

What make you think this was about oil? During the sanction years, the US was the highest singular buyer of Iraqi oil under the Oil For Food Program. Of course it was at a discount but no different than if any other oil producer would grant US. Further, the money was deposited into an escrow bank account, overseen by representatives from UN, World Bank, and the IMF. It was not managed by US in any way. If we could buy it, why should we go to war to control it in a region that is hostile to US?

I am neither an arab nor a muslim. I don't need an absolutist answer. Your government has sent soldiers abroad to die for this campaign to bring democracy to the people of Iraq. You can just tell me if they managed to convince you that this has been the right thing to do in your narrow military or broader humanistic paradigm, can you do that?




If the sanctions were working so well and the US govt was happy to pay into an escrow account for Iraqi oil overseen by the observers, why did the Bush administration chose not carry on with the Iraqi embargo?

The world was split by the US-British decision to go to war based on the unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq over an erroneous charge of WMDs.

Can you also explain your reasons for this decision based on a military paradigm?

Do you believe the end justifies the means? Right now, not many people are looking at a good ending to many of foreign issues American is involved with.

I support the war in Iraq NOT because I believe Iraq was worthy of our intervention and the lives of our soldiers which you claimed was to bring democracy to the region. It make for good propaganda and media soundbites but it was only the partial truth, not the whole truth. I support the war by itself because I believe that it was inevitable that there would be a conflict between Islam and the secular West. Iraq, despite having a secular government and leadership, it was evident upon examination that the deep nature of Iraq is Islam. Saddam may have had bad histories with other muslim countries but the common bond of hatred for the West among Iraqi Islamists is no different than that of Saudi or Iran. In that perspective, I believe our attempt to bring some measure of Westernn influence, if only to delay the greater conflict between the West and Islam, is worth the lives of our soldiers. In Kuwait, a woman in full burqa but visibly bleeding between her legs came to us for help, once she found out there were no women doctors available, she started to walk away. The shame in her tearful eyes I will never forget. One of us managed to rouse a female Army nurse from her sleep and she convinced the woman to remain. I do not know anything about her after this event but it is my firm conviction that violated woman received the best care we had to offer. The kind of leadership that ENCOURAGED its military to engage in wanton violations of women and children is in all of the Middle East. This mentality wants to dominate the world. Some kind of war, small or large, is inevitable and was declared on Sept 11, 2001.

====
Nowhere did I said the sanctions were working 'so well'. It was your comment about oil that prompted that response. There were other factors that led to the current situation in Iraq and they cannot be taken as isolated and unrelated events.

====
For starters, you need to read the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The answer is in PETROEURO

See also

• The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy (DOC) or (PDF 240 KB)
• Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (Paperback)

no it's not just about the image. if you reread what i said, American lives, American tax money are being laundered for the sake of other people, good or bad, with good or bad consequences...but always equals to one thing: Americans are bad people no matter the intent no matter the execution, no matter the consequences, even if we were asked to do it. people esp. those outside of the places we've helped (or "terrorized" whatever you believe) are the ones talking and judging as IF, they'd been there, they know WTF they're talking about, and as IF they know what the people really thinks. What's worse if you ask me if I died in Afghanistan two years ago? me dying there doing what i thought was right or me living and Afghanistan going back to $hit (i've seen men, women and kids of Afghnistan, they are good people and they deserve better) i'd rather the first option. even worse i believe is when a good soldier dies and people $hit on his reputation as if he had not given his life for another's freedom.

also you should ponder this: think of the women whom Uday ruined. She came from a young lawyer to a political prisoner who's been raped, raped by candles, beat and her family murder. Can you please write her a letter and tell her kicking the Hussein's was bad.

Thanks for your soldier level point of view, nomad.

It's pointless to cite the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty when the Bush-Blair administration have broken all the rules and gone into this war in Iraq on none of the premises they claimed on the outset. 'Some kind of war, small or large, is inevitable and was declared on Sept 11, 2001, you say'. Your government has todate not come up with any links between Al Queda and the Saddam regime, they know this and that is why the basis has now shifted on a nebulous moral high-ground of bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. I did not manufacturer such soundbite and half-truth, your president did.

Who's feeding who half-truths?

As an asian who's lived closely with muslim communities all my life, your reasoning for supporting the invasion of Iraq itself just doesn't cut it, for you are no different from the Iraqi insurgent who believes his cause just as fervently.

I realise as a soldier actively involved in duty in the first Gulf War and now possibly in the current war in Iraq, your rationalization for the invasion of Iraq needs to have a moral basis. It is easier for a soldier in a war zone facing death any instant to convince him/herself of the righteousness and heroism in undertaking an endeavour that produces the stench of death and bloodshed.

That said, I must be honest. If my sister or mother were that Kuwaitee lady that your unit treated for sexual violation during that encounter you had in the first Gulf War, I would be quietly and eternally grateful to american soldiers. However, if I were Iraqi now, I am not so sure I would have wanted you lot to be there in Iraq in the first place.



flip, this is hypocritical. Why Uday and not Kim or Mobuto as well? Will you want to send your freedom fighters and medical team to every land on this planet where such a thing is happening each day?

^no but what's done is done. we're there and we should finish it. end the occupation on the right foot. to leave the iraqis on such state is worse than to leave them to saddam. i dislike this war, but since it's here let's make it something more than a four year violence.

You make a valid point. Whats started needs to be finished. This war is a classic lesson in don't start what you can't or won't finish. Second lesson look before you leap. In truth the western culture has very little understanding of the Middle east. As a result our policies tend to not work out as planned.

I am just a young woman trying to make sense of the growing chaos in the world around me. There is no relevant personal experience I can use as a frame of reference.

What do I do? Will philosophy have an answer? Will psychology have a solution? Metaphysics? Religion? Morals? Do I turn to self-management coaches or some mind-management gurus? Do I find the answers in military tomes or dusty treatise on the ancient art of war? Will going to India and joining the sadhus solve this riddle? Perhaps a friend would know? Maybe Deepak Chopra has some answers?

I just want to say that as american servicemen, you guys are not the only ones bogged under the weight of this problem, and you shouldn't just use your own personal experienc as the sole frame of reference. Young jihadist men and women such as yourselves on the opposite side are also looking for the same answers.

It's prudent to be doubtful and recognise the paradoxes in human nature instead of being too dead sure that there is only one reality to bear.





So how will you vote in the next election? Do u see a third term with the Republicans? Or is there someone in the Democratic party who will finish off what GWB has started? Lieberman???

" Islam's " violences and rapes or " Far West's " violences and rapes, you've only got the choice.

This reminiscence of one in other former "dominos". Tens of thousands of women were raped and their families murdered in Vietnam.

State Rape: Representations of Rape in Viet Nam

Karen Stuhldreher, Political Science Department, University of Washington, Seattle:

>>The act of raping women is largely understood to be an inevitable consequence of war. As General George S. Patton predicted during World War II, "there would unquestionably be some raping." Rape and the mutilation of women's bodies are evidently part of the usual military fare in war. During the Vietnam war, rape was in fact an all too common occurrence, often described by GIs as SOP--standard operating procedure. "<<
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/...reher_Rape.html

"The raping of Vietnamese women by American men is not described by the victims, who more often than not were murdered."

>>The woman that they take, as she lies sleeping next to her sister, is picked out because she is "the pretty one." She is not termed a "VC whore" until after one of the men, Private Sven Eriksson questions the patrol's kidnapping and ruthless treatment of her. Although she is treated brutally--tied, gagged, dragged, punched, and thrown--by the GIs from the time she is taken until she is murdered, she is also portrayed as a sexual object: "We're going to have a little fun with her." After raping her, the Sergeant is asked by one of the other men, "When was the last time you had a real woman, Sarge?" Meserve responds, "She was real, I think she was real."<<
...

>>"According to Sergeant Michael McClusker:
They were supposed to go after what they called a Viet Cong whore. They went into the village and instead of capturing her, they raped her--every man raped her. As a matter of fact one man said to me later that it was the first time he had ever made love to a woman with his boots on... But at any rate, they raped the girl, and then, the last man to make love to her shot her in the head."<<
...

>>"...Nature is nature. There are women available. ... You don't want a prostitute. You've got an M-16. What do you need to pay for a lady for? You go down to the village and you take what you want."

This explanation for the rampancy of rape during the Vietnam war is indicative of the reluctance on the part of the media as well as the military to report and prosecute these war crimes. <<

And now, IRAQ... The genocide in Vietnam (+Cambodia and Laos) was already " Just a US Mistake ":
does that sound familiar to you? Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy

We should just expect always more " American tragedies ".

Ginger, I think your comments and reflection were very wise. Really.

On a less serious note I would just like to remind you that you are not just a young woman trying to make sense out of the growing chaos in the world, but a young woman with a round booty trying to make sense out of the growing chaos in the world. A subtle but real difference as far as I'm concerned.

It is not pointless. Unfortunately, when it comes to the three letters -- WMD -- people are under the misconceptions that it must be about functional devices. For those in governments and science, especially nuclear science, WMD is what is explained in the NPT. This man...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047167965...ce&n=283155

...Did not hide a functional nuclear warhead in the backyard of his home in Iraq. Under orders from Saddam, he buried centrifuges, which are components of uranium refining equipments to make nuclear warheads. That is several degrees away from an actual functional nuclear warhead. Without understanding of how nuclear technology is viewed by the NPT, you will have an incomplete and flawed understanding of the context of the reasons for war. Even the UN inspectors were not looking for nuclear warheads, that does not mean they would ignore such a find, but any intelligent analysis of the inspection controversy would beg the question of what were they looking for if not nuclear warheads? The answer is, of course, what was buried in a garden.

====
My government has never said that there were any operational links between al-Qaeda and Saddam. Philosophical links, yes, as Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism whenever he felt it was to his advantage. But no statement to the effect that Saddam was assisting al-Qaeda in anyway was released to the public. If you know any, I would be interested and would change my mind.

====
I have to believe in my cause as fervently as the muslims do theirs. It is quite a curious insult, if I may call it such. I am not a communist, so in order to defend my democratic values, I have no choice but be a fervent believer in democracy. I do not believe in Islam and from what I have seen and heard of Islamism, I have no choice but to believe fervently in my secularism. That does not mean I support a war against every Islamic country out there. It just simply mean that my fervent belief in my values is no less powerful or legitimate than the Islamists about theirs.

====
I am not involved in the current situation in Iraq. And I find your insights into the need for soldiers to have a firm moral standing to be able to effectively perform his duties refreshing.

Hi extra, I am glad you found both wisdom and a round booty in my comments. All is not lost then..



YIKES! So you are satisfied that yr government went to war with Iraq based on nuclear warheads found buried in someone's backyard? This was the "imminent danger" which this overwhelming pre-emptive strike called for?

What fu-kers.... (Sorry, that's my instinctive reaction, I can't help blurting it out. )

I suggest you read my comments again...carefully. And where did the US ever said Iraq was an 'imminent threat'?

Bizarre 2 questions?

Just a simple search with Google. Or this one.

***
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

***
Assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and could be prepared to provide chemical or biological agents to al Qaeda for attacks on the United States were a main justification for Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
No such weapons have been found, and recent opinion polls have suggested growing public skepticism about the Bush administration's reasons for launching a war in which 870 U.S. soldiers have died and nearly 5,400 have been wounded.

The commission called White House claims about links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda into question on June 11, with a staff report that found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between the Iraqi leader and al Qaeda leading up to the attacks.

But Bush and his top aides stood firm, with Cheney forcefully maintaining that evidence depicting an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks may yet emerge.

"The notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda just simply is not true," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC in which the vice president also suggested he might have more information than the panel.

The New York Times later reported Kean and Hamilton hoped to see any additional information Cheney had on the subject.

As part of the White House response to the Sept. 11 commission's report, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said she believed the panel was actually denying Saddam had control over al Qaeda. Kean and Hamilton flatly rejected her interpretation.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/5151

AND ALL THE LIST OF LIES AS ALWAYS.

You'll have to do better than that. Pick one and let's discuss.

WRONG. I don't have to do better than that.

You should, if you expect me to take you seriously.

I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not suffering from a pre-emptive amnesia or juz taking the piss out of fellow forummers here... If your President and his Defence Secretary never said Iraq was an 'imminent threat' to the US, what did he actually say?





As I said to flip today, a soldier has got to do what a soldier's got to do, and a jihadist has got to do what a jihadist's got to do. A yogini like me can only contemplate how anybody's rationalization of the taking away of lifes is morally wrong. Everyone works their minds in their own confined spaces.

You know Nomad, maybe I will compile these conversations we are having together and keep them for my kids in future so they can read what their parents' generations were haunted by before they get called up to war as well...

How about...Before Iraq become an imminent threat...And it is tiring that you had to be so unnecessarily insulting.

Bush and his butthole buddies did not say imminent threat exactly but they did emphasized the connection to Al Qaeda and WMDs which were both confirmed to be incorrect. Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11. Bush administration effectively used 9-11 to sell to this war.

My apologies.

This was the new meaning Mr Bush tried to give, after the deed was done, in his National Security Strategy 2002. It is insane spin..

Where and when did Bush said Iraq had anything to do with 9-11? We can discuss WMD as a separate issue.

When did the war in Iraq start?

I meant the the deed of unilateralism and brushing aside the United Nations. America and its allies now interprets the rules for themselves whenver it suits them. It's One rule for the West, one rule for the Rest, is that a fair statement?

Ultimately, every country have always reserved the right to act in its own interests, unilaterally if any one of them feels the need to do so. But pragmatically, yes, the UN does and should have some relevance, but not at the expense of national interests. For Iraq, the UN has proven to be ineffective at enforcing its own resolutions. Just the Oil For Food scandal alone implicated high profile UN members such as France and Russia. Is there a need for me to post links to it? So far, people have repeated the same stale charges that the US said Iraq was involved with al-Qaeda on 9-11. But I have repeatedly ask for sources and none have been forthcoming. You say that the US claimed Iraq was an imminent threat. I asked for sources, you cannot support your argument and now the only charge is that we act unilaterally? What does it indicate? It indicate that you have not bothered to do any research and verifications at all. You are perfectly contented to let others do your thinking for you. And when challenged, you become insulting about it. Only the immature could deceive themselves that insults towards challenges to their beliefs constitutes rational and logical argument.

Ok ok calm down, calm down.. here's some sources for you to chew on. I believe Bush first outlined what he thought was the meaning of 'imminent threat' in the National Security Strategy Document produced by the White House in Sep 2002, just 5 months before they went to war in Iraq.

The question still stands. Where did Bush say Iraq was an imminent threat to US that was used to justify a second war with Iraq? Rumsfeld does not speak for US, Bush does. Rumsfeld's opinions was not the only one Bush considered, other Cabinet members had their inputs as well. The reinterpretation of what constitute 'imminent threat' has been in scholarly debates long before Bush was elected. Only recently has such discussion moved outside of academia and onto the the military and political arenas. I remembered reading it about those discussions to reinterpret 'imminent threat' back in the 1980s !!! I can discuss this if you wish. But for now, show us all where and when did Bush said Iraq was an 'imminent threat' to US that we used to justify a second war with Iraq.

Do not bring in Scott McClellan, the one-time White House spokesman, with this quote: 'This is about an imminent threat.' That was a blatant distortion about the original question, which was about Turkey and what would happen if Turkey was threatened? Would the US take action? And since Turkey is so closed to Iraq, so of course 'This is about an imminent threat.' That distortion and lie has been circulating for a long time. Here is the evidence for that blatant lie and distortion...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030210-7.html

It is simply inane to keep insisting that no one in the Bush Admin ever used the words “imminent threat.”

In Sep 2002 and several high profile interviews, Bush and his team made repeated presentations that could only be understood one way; Saddam posed a threat to the United States, and that threat was immediate. In his high-profile speech in Cincinnati, for example, Bush said that Saddam could strike us “on any given day.” School kids know what words like that mean.

Yes, the Admin described an immediate threat. They didn't use the exact words 'imminent threat'. Why must you deny it? Are you spinning out-of-control?

And it is inane to keep saying without sources that the US did. After all, the precise words 'imminent threat' was the charge.

====
Sources please. I have already given one example of many where people mined speeches to find what they want and posted them for the world and charged we said so-and-so. Do not simply quote words. It is only fair and right that you should present the entire speech so the people can make their own decisions.

====
Looks to me like this is the first time you are taken to task to support your criticisms of US, isn't it? Ever heard the old saying -- You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts? But opinions should be based upon facts. Your charge is that we used the words 'imminent threat' to justify a second war with Iraq. Imminent threat is not potential threat or possible threat or probable threat. Imminent mean we see massed formations of troops at the borders or inbound, it means we detect unknown and possibly hostile ships, our airspace is probed or even violated, those are examples. Where did Bush used those words?

Hey, you know what...I think I better leave this topic alone. I am obviously not welcome to present my views here without being treated like I am under some cross-examination in a war crimes tribunal...

It must feel so good for you to type your script, doesn't it, nomad?

Every man/woman takes the limits of his/her own field of vision for the limits of the world. Both America and their enemies are still hobbled by what they’re fed. SPIN. I have no desire to go fisking into every spin your administration produced.

Bubbye!



Edit : Oh sod it! I have been mistaken as a bloke on this board too many times. Now I am really showing my b!tchiness..

Truth is, I can't go through speeches after speeches like you, nomad. You must work for some think tank or what? (how old are you to be reading policy statements since the 80's?)

I have been taken to task many times for criticisms of the USA or Islam, have you?

All said, this thread was meant to ttalk about whether the US is encouraging war as a means of bringing democracy to peoples. You know, I am grateful to the US for this, without their foray into Vietnam, the SEAsian peninsular wouuld have been communist by now. Your failure in Vietnam allowed our trading nations to flourish in their own peculiar form of democratic governance. Bye for now, I really got to go for class!

It is unfortunate that you feel the requirement to support your criticisms with facts, logic and reason is somehow an undue burden in a debate.

====
Very true. The corollary is that while we cannot help but tries to understand our individual relationship with this world filtered thru our own biases, ignorance, field and depth of vision, and some might even say that it is our moral obligations to do so, the instance we make an intellectual foray into this world about subjects that interests us, it becomes a moral burden for each of us to query, consider and perhaps even assimilate other biases and viewpoints. Somewhere along in this intellectual journey, each of us will take a stand and draw a line in the sands of our minds where we will not cross and where we will not allow others to cross. That is called conviction.

====
Certainly you can try to fisk anything that caught your fancy, but even if Fisk took liberties with facts and moralities and indeed his own, that does not absolve you from your responsibilities as a participant to support your arguments with facts, logic and reason.

====
It is not about speeches but about the causes that produced the necessity of creating those speeches. Cause and effect. Investigation is all about thinking backwards. Regression. And I do not work for any thinktank. I am a private citizen who merely uses the same deductive and analytical thought processes in science and engineering for the human conditions and the resultant politics. That does not mean I am a technocrat. I do not believe that science can adequately explain things like love or art, non quantifiable but vital elements. I am saying that there are applicable principles in science and engineering that can ASSIST us in the investigations of our political world. As for how old am I? I am a product of the Cold War and a refugee from Viet Nam. I am not one of the 'boat people' but have friends and acquaintances who are, one of those 'boat people' acquaintances is my engineering dept. manager. Basically, I work for him. We do not associate off-duty to avoid appearances of impropriety as we are the only two Viets in the dept. I toured East Berlin when it existed. I have been to Checkpoint Charlie. I have seen the Wall and the graves of East Berliners shot while trying to escape political oppression from those 'workers paradise'. I have been to the DMZ in the Korean peninsula, as evil an expanse of real estate as the Berlin Wall as an evil object. I have seen the poverty of my fellow Viets and the envy in their eyes when it was safe enough to visit Viet Nam. I have seen the atrocities committed by Saddam' army. I know what burning oil tastes like. So far, what I have seen produced my field of vision of this world.

====
Yes I have.

====
No.

can we just watch porn and leave politics to politicians?

if you let me borrow backdoor bachelorette 9

sure, u can do that to return to that warm fuzzy feeling u have missed all these years lolz... juz kid





A side of me wants to go and hide in shame (the pacifier sucking babe) now.

But the other side of me really digs what you are saying. I spent the 1999 New Year celebrations in Berlin, and saw Checkpoint Charlie before it got mowed down for a highway or shopping mall I dunno which. Because I didn't go through the Cold War as you have, its significance was lost on me as a student entirely. And when I drove to Dresden with my german pal, the East German towns were still gloomy but american style shopping malls were mushrooming and I could see that was the main place for the community to now gather and dissapate their energies and whatever moneys they got for dreams in the big screen cinemas.

We crossed the border of East Germany into Czech Republic and we were in Terrezin. In deference to my german pal, I still remain subdued and quiet to this day about the feelings I got seeing those smoke stack chimneys and graves.

That's about my closest experience to the Cold War. I did try to steal a piece of the Berlin Wall, but it was already broken in many places and I couldn't get to it without being nabbed.

Yes, convictions. Is it time now to draw the line and choose which side to stand on? I remember living and growing up with muslim neighbours in a slum, and we got along so famously. I was juz writing in the malaysian chat how the only thing we quarrelled about was why if alcohol was prohibited, some of the young and hip muslims were imbibing it? Then I went to school in the UK and met other muslims from Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Jordan... the youthful quibbles about double standards in consuming alcohol seemed petty and fade t the background. There was larger than life issues and double standards being argued with convictions just as you define it.

I'd admit honestly that I am not a good analytical thinker, I like yoga for goodness sakes.. but allow me to present the views of my Singaporean ambassador (Kishore Mahbubani) to the UN to explain the dilemma for all to see:

My larger message is that America has done more than any other society to change the world, and by the way, often change the world positively. But paradoxically, having changed the world, America is one of the countries least prepared to handle the world it has changed. To quote a few obvious examples: America has educated the world. You have hundreds of thousands of graduates from North American universities making decisions, making policies, and assessing American attitudes and American policies towards them. They can see the double standard. They can see that America carries out actions that harm or damage them, and the complete indifference of American society when their societies are damaged.

I give the obvious example of how, when America decides to have cotton subsidies for 25,000 cotton farmers in the South, this lowers the world's global cotton prices and impoverishes 10 million West African cotton farmers. Now most Americans would say, "Well, we're just making a domestic decision. We had no intention whatsoever to harm the 10 million West African cotton farmers." But now, in an open and transparent global information universe you can see in real time what happens.

I quote in the book the series of New York Times editorials that were written, documenting how American subsidies are impoverishing people elsewhere. The rest of the world sees this process happening but they find a complete indifference of American society to the effects of their actions. People are saying, "Hang on a second. This is not what I learned in America. I learned in America that the American society was open, warm, and generous, and cares for the rest of the world." And indeed, as you know, recently in the Asian tsunami crisis, America once again showed the incredible generosity of spirit that exists in American society, and that's the image you had throughout the world, that's the image that Americans have of themselves vis-à-vis the rest of the world. But that image is being cracked because of the perception that when America carries out actions that damage the rest of the world, it's indifferent to the consequences of its actions.

You're saying that American power has globalized the world and created connections, both economically and in terms of information, culturally, and so on, on the one hand; but on the other hand, America has not adjusted to global politics. To quote Tip O'Neill, "All politics is local." That seems to be the heart of the dilemma that you're getting at. So that with regard to policies in the Middle East [for example], domestic constituencies may be overly determining the direction of American policy, which doesn't take account of the broader global interests. The same problem would be true on agriculture, and so on. Is that fair?

Yes. It's a pity that Americans are not aware of now how heavily American power sits on the rest of the world.

I use another [example]: Geo, a car, that is parked on your toes -- you know? American power is like a car parked on your toes, and people in the car -- in America -- are not aware that this car is parked on other peoples' toes. But those whose toes a car is parked on are acutely aware of how American power sits on them. So, I hope that one of the results of my book will be a more open discussion within the American society about the impact of American power on the rest of the world, because the impact is real and not theoretical.

I'm glad you mentioned Tip O'Neill and his point that all politics is local. That's true, but the big change is that global is now local, that what you thought was happening far away is now going to affect you immediately. Given the scale of American power, most of the time, America impacts on the rest of the world. The rest of the world doesn't impact on America.

But you can see the beginnings already of how in a small world decisions made overseas can impact American society directly. This was, in a sense, the big lesson of 9/11. It showed that when you abandon a society like Afghanistan in 1990, you feel the consequences of it in 2001. Another immediate example they can think of is, of course, in health pandemics nowadays -- they no longer stay in one location. If you look at the SARS crisis, SARS virus, it began in a small village in China, from China it went to Hong Kong, and from Hong Kong it went almost immediately to Singapore and Toronto, to opposite sides of the world. That demonstrates how much the world has shrunk.

America escaped SARS by a whisker, but it's going to come, it's going to happen. What happens in the rest of the world is going to impact on American society. And because it is going to impact on American society, it is in America's enlightened, long-term self interest to go out and create a more stable world order, as it did in 1945, by the way, because a stable world order will not just protect global interests, it will also protect long-term American national interests.

Another place where your looking into the future may come true is with regard to the fall of the dollar, because by not being accountable globally, we're pointing the way to our vulnerability in the future.

Yes. the remarkable thing here is that this single global financial system that we have, which, as you know, enables money to flow instantly across the world, was essentially an American creation. As a result of this financial system that you have, the value of the dollar can no longer be determined by domestic decisions. It will be determined by global forces.

So far, fortunately, thanks to a large savings that Asian countries have -- as you know, they've been buying the U.S. Treasury bills at very low interest rates, and that has enabled America to continue with the huge deficits it's having. But at some point in time, if you don't balance your books, it catches up with you. No country can defy the laws of economic gravity. America, too, at some point, will have to find some way of cutting down its budget deficits. If it doesn't, then, sadly, America will feel the pain, and because America feels the pain, the rest of the world will feel America's pain too.

One final question -- let's combine your great store of wisdom coming from your diplomatic career with your new role as Dean of the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore, to ask you what advice would you give students as they prepare for the future?

The advice is actually very simple. The Asian Century is not a myth. The Asian Century is here and now. One of the most amazing statistics that I found recently is that if you look at the top ten countries sending students to America, they're primarily all Asian countries. If you look at the top ten countries that American students go to study abroad, they're all in Europe.

It seems very strange in the twenty-first century, when clearly, by the year 2025, in purchasing power parity terms, China will probably have the world's largest economy, America will have the second largest economy, India will have the third, Japan will have the fourth, and then you'll have South Korea, and so on and so forth. At a time when the Asian economies are growing and will have a larger share of the global economic pie, and the European share will remain the same, hopefully, why would you want to send your brightest minds -- we should certainly send some to Europe but don't you think there should be an equal number, or maybe a bigger number, that go and study in Asia too?

I have told my children, for example, that they have to study English and they should also know Mandarin, because that will be an important language of the twenty-first century, and also Hindi will be very important because of the rise of India. But statistically -- and I think I have the statistic in my book -- there are one million American students studying French and 40,000 studying Chinese. French is an important language, I don't deny it, but there should be at least some parity between Mandarin and French in the twenty-first century.


How are you gonna reconcile your convictions with the convictions of other peoples around the world, nomad? Is war the only way to deal with this clash?

There he goes again, reiterating today that what America is doing is engaging in a war of violent democratization in the world.. who's next?



Source : GWB Weekly Radio broadcast 19 August 2006 [/url]

How can any believe his crock of $hit that you can rightfully invade a nation juz so to impose a young democracy? And by the by, cause a civil war and collapse of an entire society as collateral damage?

The most ludicruous piece of $hit alive said this today:





hahahahhahahaa..... i wish Nomad is here to gimme more of his crap abt the irrelevancy of the UN now .....