[moki]

Indeed, I think it is likely true that America is the world's greatest hope or greatest danger. Needless to say I don't believe America is a danger to the world at all, indeed, long-term, the US has done more for the world in the past 100 years than any other nation on the planet. Let's hope that trend continues, despite the divisiveness of the current geopolitical climate.

from: http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=2189509

.....

Greatest danger, or greatest hope?
Nov 6th 2003
From The Economist print edition


Yes, America is different. But it always has been. Mostly, the difference is good for the world, not bad



UNTIL a little over two years ago, the fashionable topic for debate in conferences, opinion pages and even bars around the world was whether globalisation was really Americanisation, and whether that was a good or a bad thing. Now, few pundits anguish about whether their countries are having to become more like America. The fashionable source of anxiety in both Europe and Asia is whether America is becoming so different from everywhere else that it is becoming a problem for the world, not a solution. It is not just a reckless Bush administration leading America astray, in other words. On this view, the United States is now inherently assertive and unilateralist, and so can no longer be trusted to lead the world. Instead, it should be feared.

Inevitably, Iraq is the crucible for this debate, though other events and actions—the Kyoto Protocol, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the International Criminal Court, Guantanamo Bay, federal budget deficits, even cotton subsidies—are being called in as thesis reinforcements. Yet Iraq ought also to cast this debate in a colder, more sobering light. Will it be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity and even democracy to Iraq, or if it fails? Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence? If America, under George Bush or a Democratic rival, were to withdraw hastily under the pressure of attacks such as the downing in Iraq on November 2nd of a military helicopter (see article ), would that be an encouraging sign of humility or a devastatingly irresponsible act? Given that foreign voices were so keen to disparage America for withdrawing from Somalia in 1994, for failing for years to intervene in the Balkans, for having “allowed” the Taliban to take power in Afghanistan, and for being reluctant recently to send troops to Liberia, why should so many be hostile now to intervention in Iraq?

Exceptionally exceptional

One answer to this final question is that incoherence is one of the luxuries of impotence. Those who cannot, or will not, take responsibility themselves feel free to snipe at those who do. Another is that it is natural to feel afraid when dramatic, ambitious actions are being undertaken, for the consequences of such actions can themselves be dramatic. But a further answer is that to the outside world America is a strangely puzzling country—strangely, given the openness of its society and the abundance of information about it—and at times the puzzlement turns to worry. This is one of those times.

Such times have, however, occurred ever since the country was founded. As our Washington bureau chief writes in his survey this week, “A nation apart”, the very phrase “American exceptionalism” that is so often heard these days was first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835-40, when that brilliant Frenchman wrote his “Democracy in America”. Many of the things he pointed out then as profound differences between America and other countries continue to be remarked upon today—its vociferous democracy, its decentralisation, its liking for voluntary associations, the intensity of its people's religious belief. Even during the cold war, which critics like now to describe as a time when fear of the Soviet Union acted as a bond between Americans and others, today's sorts of worries were commonplace. Graham Greene's “The Quiet American” (1955) complained that naive American idealists did more damage than good. Countless films, whether made by Americans or by foreigners, raised worries about a sinister military-industrial complex, about reds-under-the-bed obsessiveness, about zealotry.

Two other things, though, need also to be observed. One is that in recent years it is true that some of America's distinctiveness has become more marked. That is so in economics (working hours, productivity, innovation), society (population growth, religious belief, patriotism) and politics (a win-at-all-costs partisanship). Indeed, the combination of demographic vitality and productivity-led economic vigour is likely to make America even stronger in future, not weaker, despite the fact that high federal budget deficits could force some strength-sapping tax rises (see article ). At least in economics, other countries are again going to have to try to follow some of America's example, if their living standards are to be kept high and unemployment low.

Democracy as solution, and as problem

The second observation, though, is that some elements of American distinctiveness divide America just as much as they divide it from others. Religious, puritanical, conservative Americans (mainly Republicans) are ranged against more secular, hedonistic, tolerant ones (mainly Democrats). Until the 2002 mid-term elections, carried out under the shadow of September 11th, successive polls had showed America to be a “50-50 nation”. Both parties can find trends that could favour them in future: demography could favour Democrats, while economic drive and patriotism may favour Republicans. In America's cacophonous and hyper-active democracy, this means that actions and adventures tend to be self-regulating, at least over a period of years. Yet that offers both reassurance and worry: it may moderate excesses, and curb the influence of lobbies such as the religious right; but it could also encourage cutting and running from messes overseas.

If that were to occur, it would be a disaster for America and a tragedy for the world. The basic dilemma that was faced in Afghanistan and Iraq was that doing nothing and intervening both looked bad and risky options, but that doing nothing looked worse. In the Middle East as in Central Asia, intervention has been painful and progress has been stumbling. But despite the continued instability in both countries, life is better in both than before the intervention occurred; and much, much better than if al-Qaeda's terror camps had been left in place or if Saddam Hussein had been left in power. As the next leader argues, more needs to be done in Afghanistan, and at least some of it is likely to be. In Iraq, however, if the casualty toll among American forces keeps rising it could well prompt influential voices in Washington, including among Republicans, to press Mr Bush to declare victory and retreat.

Fortunately, he is unlikely to. The flip side of some of the things critics dislike about him—a black-and-white view of the world, a tin ear for dissenting views—makes him also show a stubborn determination. Put more favourably, he is a man with a sense of duty. Put more cynically, perhaps, he is a man who will be keenly aware that early withdrawal will look like failure, and such failure would be politically suicidal.

By intervening in Iraq, against the majority of world opinion but with the courage of its own convictions and the support of a few allies, America showed that it was indeed a different nation from others: one prepared to shoulder responsibilities and to do what it thinks is right. Such behaviour is alarming precisely because it is bold and, by today's standards, different. It is never likely to bring forth a cascade of praise or gifts. It was done, however, in a way likely to reinforce the concern, as administration officials poured abuse on their foreign critics and, through their violations of human rights, damaged America's own moral authority. Now, though, the argument has to be won by creating facts on the ground. If the facts are of failure, America will be likely to shrink back into its shell. But success is there to be had. It will take a long, costly and painful effort. Only once it is done, however, will hope be restored and danger dispelled.

[eklipse]

Under the current administration? Greatest Danger. Next question.

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Under the current administration? Greatest Danger. Next question.

Sure, and that's the view of many people who live outside the US, and are scared of the US's power and recent penchant for unilateralism. It's also the view of many people inside of the US who disagree with the President, or people who are politically partisan.

Regardless, we're all judged by history. It's very possible that bringing democracy to Iraq may end up being a world-changing event that sets in motion democracy in the middle east, after centuries of oppressive rule.

Or it may end up an utter mess, proving the critics right. However, at least some action was taken, instead of sitting on the sidelines writing more resolutions as Saddam continues to flaunt them, and the UN's credibility goes further into the toilet.

As the article states:

One answer to this final question is that incoherence is one of the luxuries of impotence. Those who cannot, or will not, take responsibility themselves feel free to snipe at those who do.

[dagaz]

I haven't yet read the article posted in your article (its almost midnight over here as I type this). But it fits in with what I was thinknig tonight while watching Clear and Present Danger on the tele. Namely - when was the last time America wasn't at war? Right now its the "War on Terror", before that it was the "War on Drugs", before that the "Cold War", then we've also got Vietnam, Korea, WWII, etc. What is it with America that its constantly at war?

[nas t. ho]

Originally posted by moki:
Regardless, we're all judged by history. It's very possible that bringing democracy to Iraq may end up being a world-changing event that sets in motion democracy in the middle east, after centuries of oppressive rule.

it is way more likely that once the us moves out, iraq is going to become the next big trainingcamp for all sorts of muslim nutcases (including fc osama), thanks to the bush administration's ingeniuos foreign policy.

[moki]

Originally posted by dagaz:
I haven't yet read the article posted in your article (its almost midnight over here as I type this).

Ah, well, do read it when you get the chance. It isn't very long, and it makes a lot of sense.

But it fits in with what I was thinknig tonight while watching Clear and Present Danger on the tele. Namely - when was the last time America wasn't at war? Right now its the "War on Terror", before that it was the "War on Drugs", before that the "Cold War", then we've also got Vietnam, Korea, WWII, etc. What is it with America that its constantly at war?

To my mind, that's akin to asking a policeman "When aren't you fighting crime?" Frankly, the world should be extremely glad that the USA was protecting Europe, and fighting USSR-sponsored communism at every venue.

It resulted in a lot of messy wars, and created no small bit of chaos, but it was better than the alternative of that type of government actually taking hold. Just have a look at the democide rates in countries like China and the USSR, and you'll see what I mean:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

Korea is a good example. South Korea could have ended up like North Korea, but instead, it is the world's 18th largest economy, and quite modern and prosperous, all made possible by the Korean people themselves, and American intervention in that war.

As for things like the "war on drugs" and the "war on crime" -- that's just the parlance that politicians use to make it look like they are doing something useful when they really aren't.

[moki]

Originally posted by nas t. ho:
it is way more likly that once the us moves out, iraq is going to become the next big trainingcamp for all sorts of muslim nutcases (including fc osama), thanks to the bush administration's ingeniuos foreign policy.

What evidence do you have for believing this? Given Iraq's great natural resources in terms of oil wealth, and given the international focus on Iraq, I see no evidence that suggests Iraq would slip into becoming a terrorist training camp.

Afghanistan is much more likely to lapse back into a failed state than Iraq is, IMHO.

However, if we do indeed stay the course and not allow these things to happen, it can also result in the countries being examples for the rest of the middle east to follow.

[DBursey]

Those who cannot, or will not, take responsibility themselves feel free to snipe at those who do.

So failing to support a unilateral invasion constitutes an abrogation of responsibility?

In my opinion the shoddy post-war planning now evident in Iraq illustrates this adventure as the ultimate in irresponsibility.

Further, the United States has for years undermined and shortchanged the UN. The current administration's demonstrated contempt for multilateral institutions has helped to further weaken it.

[nas t. ho]

Originally posted by moki:
What evidence do you have for believing this? Given Iraq's great natural resources in terms of oil wealth, and given the international focus on Iraq, I see no evidence that suggests Iraq would slip into becoming a terrorist training camp.

well, given the fact that the saddam regime was one of the major opponents of muslim fundamentalism and al'queda, there won't be a hell of a lot in their way, once the butt brigade moves out.

the shia's in the south are just as fond of the west as your average jihad terrorist, the military completely dismembered, and the police force a thrown together bunch of mercinaries.

oh, and i agree with you on afghanistan...get ready for the release of 2006 feature real live tv show "return of the taliban"...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by DBursey:
So failing to support a unilateral invasion constitutes an abrogation of responsibility?

In my opinion the shoddy post-war planning now evident in Iraq illustrates this adventure as the ultimate in irresponsibility.

Further, the United States has for years undermined and shortchanged the UN. The current administration's demonstrated contempt for multilateral institutions has helped to further weaken it.

[theolein]

America: Greatest danger or greatest hope? No idea. Probably somewhere in between since even Kennedy era politicians think it's changed since then.

America: Most overblown opinion of self or worst case of lack of self esteem? No idea. Judging by Mr Welch's posts I think it really badly would like at least some people in the world to think nice things about it or else those posts wouldn't be there, now would they?

[zigzag]

The contrast between the article posted by moki and the one linked by theolein (specifically sorensen's comments) points up my own ambivalence towards the current administration.

On the one hand, I think that liberal democratic ideals are worth fighting for and I can therefore appreciate the need for the kind of bold, aggressive action described in the first article and undertaken by Bush. This is why I was able, at least in the abstract, to consider the merits of his decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. History will decide if he was right or wrong, but I believe he has an honest, good faith belief that he's doing the right thing in the long term, which is the term that ultimately matters. These are the kinds of difficult and even risky decisions that leaders sometimes have to make, and even if they ultimately prove to be mistaken, I don't condemn him for making them. And if he proves to be right and is able to bring about meaningful, positive changes in the Middle East, he'll be remembered as a great leader, as Churchill and even Truman now are. It may be decades before we can even judge.

On the other hand, I have a problem with the execution. As the first article points out, and as Sorenson suggests, there are potential downsides to the kind of single-mindedness that Bush has displayed. He has taken bold steps, which can be a positive, but there's a serious question as to whether the proper groundwork was laid, and whether there was an honest and prudent assessment of the risks. There have also been some monumental diplomatic blunders. Great leaders make bold decisions, but one would also hope that in the process, they would have the skills to enlist others in their cause, rather than alienating them. This is where Bush may have failed, and one can only hope that it doesn't prove to be fatal.

[thunderous_funker]

Yet another article that dumbs down the topic to serve a blatant partisan interest.

Its clear the author is too intellectually lazy or dishonest to recognize his own false assumptions:

1) the choices were war or nothing
2) the sincerity of the Domino Theory's architects

[Nicko]

Originally posted by moki:


Greatest danger, or greatest hope?
Nov 6th 2003
From The Economist print edition

Greatest danger.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Greatest danger.

yes,
using violence to tame...
not listening to what other nations have to say (it would of helped the aftermaths of war)
Because of the oil I also doubt Iraq will become a terrorist training camp, I fear it will become an extermination camp., with population slowly decreasing over the next two decades.

[xi_hyperon]

Well, from a practical standpoint, I think one of the more unfortunate things resulting from the unilateralist/revisionist practices of the current administration is the overall diminishing of U.S. prestige in the eyes of the world. It's always much more difficult to build it back up than it is to tear it down.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
As for things like the "war on drugs" and the "war on crime" -- that's just the parlance that politicians use to make it look like they are doing something useful when they really aren't.

Add the "War on Terror" to that list, and amend the description to clarify that the reason gov't activities aren't useful is because they're not actually pursuing different agendas than stated publicly.

-s*

[theolein]

I made my post on questioning the situation in Iraq in another thread, because I truly don't know what is happening there. It seems that opinion is divided here on these boards between those who believe that the situation is under control and will straighten itself out as the resistance is only supported by a minority, and those who believe that it will end up being a kind of Vietnam with the US eventually pulling out leaving a weak government in place that will be overthrown and result in a radical Islamic state where terrorists can get training and support without any problems.

What does this have to do with the title of this thread? I think that the outcome in Iraq will be a defining answer to that question. If it fails, then many will see the US as having caused more problems than it cured. If it succeeds, then many will see the US policy as being justified.

I hope that it succeeds for the simple reason that it is too late to pull back and that terrorists will see failure as a positive sign. (i.e. "If we can beat them there, we can beat them anywhere")

And Andrew's post about the world being grateful to the US for defending it from the Soviet Union is disingenuous at best. The Soviet Union no longer exists, even if Putin is doing his best to restart it. How long must the world be grateful for that and what are the tributes to be paid? Must the world (specifically Western Europe) be subservient to US foreign policy? Must the world accept anything that the US deems as right? Must economic tributes be paid (as in medieval kingdoms) to the misfortune of the rest?

Where and when does this gratitude stop? Why is America no longer grateful to France for having saved it during the war of independence? Is it because that debt was paid in WWII? Why is the US not grateful for the help of France in Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War I and in Afghanistan? Or is that too small a tribute? Why does the US undermine attempts by the EU to start it's own defence force when criticisms are consistently levelled at the Europeans for not being more aggressive in the Balkans? Is it because it would no longer control things as it does in Nato?

Why is WWII constantly brought up? Without the US the world would have probably been either dominated by the USSR or by Nazi Germany and Japan. There is no doubt about that. And without the aid supplied by the USA Germany would have taken much much longer to recuperate than it did. There is no doubt about that either. And the USSR would have been much stronger had it not been for the USA, and would probably not have collapsed, due to the ruinous arms race.

So when did opinions of the US start to change anyway? I think it was in the 60's with Vietnam and the corrupt mess that was the Nixon administration. I think that then, as now in Iraq, many people in the world simply didn't accept the reasoning behind the war. The argument about WMD was obviously false, and while toppling Saddam was a good thing, the obvious question must be raised as to why other dictators in other parts of the world, such as in Liberia were also not toppled with the same gusto where it would have been easier and more accepted.

I don't think that unilateralism is bad in itself, but that multilateralism offers the obvious bonus that others are willing to work towards the same goal.

Greatest hope?: Probably not but definitely a beacon in this world.
Greatest danger?: No, there are other countries and movements that are far more dangerous.

[vmpaul]

The thing to remember is that US policies could change rapidly. Or fairly rapidly if you think in terms of 4 years. As long as we abide by the Rule of Law and there continues to be a peaceful transition of power every election cycle then the chances of a continuing obstinate administration, like the current one, lessens.

Of those who said the US is the greatest danger, how many thought the same, or to greater degree while Clinton was president? I would guess it would be fewer. I would worry more about countries where it appears that a revolution has to happen before a transition of power, and therefore policy change, can occur. How long has Putin been in office? Or Yeltsin before that? How long has the current leadership in China been in place? Or the current power structure in some Middle Eastern countries?

The fact is that the current administration has taken many unilateral positions, not just Iraq, that have alienated our allies and the world (Kyoto, arms-control policy, Guantanamo, steel tariffs, etc.). That doesn't mean it will continue indefinitely into the future. It could end next year or in 2008 at the latest. To say that the US is the world's greatest danger is a bit short-sighted in my opinion. We COULD be if current policies are continued but I don't see that happening unless there is another major terrorist attack in this country. If that happens then all bets are off.

[zigzag]

Some might see it as a simple quid pro quo, i.e. "We helped you out 50 years ago, therefore you owe us and should help us out now." This is obviously unrealistic. As you point out, one could go back two centuries or more to see who owes what to whom. Also, the U.S. is not under threat of being overrun, as France and England were.

But I think it could be valid to bring up WWII for other reasons. One might be to demonstrate that, despite its occasional bad behavior, the U.S. is capable of acting as a positive force, WWII being the prime example. Another might be to demonstrate that the enormous military power of the U.S. has an important and valid place in a dangerous world. Another might be to reinforce the idea that nations that value liberal democratic values need to stick together, that we should get the mutual benefit of any doubts. Another might be to remind us of the dangers of appeasement.

I'm not necessarily saying that any of these things required Europeans to join in the Iraq invasion - I've had doubts about Iraq myself - I'm just explaining why I think people are so quick to bring up WWII. I think they're valid reasons, but only to a point - the real world is obviously much more complex and nuanced.

I think that, as you suggest, Vietnam cast a long pall on things, both domestically and abroad. It was perhaps the first time when the right thing and the wrong thing could not be so easily defined. It was instructive to watch some of the recent JFK specials and be reminded that he, a Democrat, was staunchly anti-Communist and saw Vietnam as a necessary show of force after Kruschev had asserted himself in Cuba and Vienna. After all, at that time the Soviets still thought they could conquer the world, and we still feared that they would try. In the long run, as moki suggests, fighting Communism was a good and noble idea. The problem was in the execution - Vietnam turned out to be a lousy place to pick a fight, and we've never completely recovered from the experience.

Terrorism is the new Communism. Fighting it, and overthrowing brutal dictators like SH, is a noble idea, and one that I can endorse in the abstract. The problem, again, is in the execution. I share your concern that Bush has good intentions but has executed poorly - I would have preferred a more nuanced approach. Of course, things could still go either way.

As to why we pick on some brutal dictators and not others, there's clearly an element of self-interest and pragmatism involved. I'm a realist and don't apologize for it - France and Germany are no less self-interested, perhaps more so. Even the world's largest military has to pick its battles, and they're most likely going to be ones that result in some mutual benefit. If the Bush strategy is successful, just about everyone, including the U.S., will benefit. Whether it succeeds remains to be seen.

[theolein]

Originally posted by zigzag:
...

As to why we pick on some brutal dictators and not others, there's clearly an element of self-interest and pragmatism involved. I'm a realist and don't apologize for it - France and Germany are no less self-interested, perhaps more so. Even the world's largest military has to pick its battles, and they're most likely going to be ones that result in some mutual benefit. If the Bush strategy is successful, just about everyone, including the U.S., will benefit. Whether it succeeds remains to be seen.

Thanks for a good and measured post. I just wanted to ask a question here about motivations pertaining to your and my comments about choosing a brutal dictator to overthrow.

I agree that a part of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein was out of self interest and that all countries act in self interest, obviously. But when one starts to talk about the benefits is where I think there are other benefits than financial ones.

Restoring peace and order in Liberia and toppling dictators like Charles Taylor might seem to be a total waste of time in terms of what one gets out of it, until one thinks about the political and "moral" (expressly vague here) impact of cleaning up the places that others don't care about. Liberia would have been a walk in the park with none of the repercussions that Iraq has in terms of condemnation, legality and terrorism.

Think of Haiti. Has Haiti been in the news constantly since the US restored order there? I think that if more attention were paid to the smaller problems that the bigger ones would sort themselves out in a much more straightforward fashion.

It is a real problem in this world for smaller countries. Most of them see themselves as being unimportant when push comes to shove, and so many times in history has some small country been devastated simply because bigger, richer nations couldn't care or wouldn't risk irritating other big nations.

There are so many examples: Tibet, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Armenia, Bosnia for years until it was too late, The Congo, Liberia. And what about Taiwan? If the Chinese ever feel provoked enough to invade, will the US really defend them? Would the US risk war with China for Taiwan?

And precisely here is where I think that big nations make mistakes. Cleaning up the little nations would make for a lot of good will in the world. There was a time in the early 90's in Somalia when the world thought there was a new world order. In Somalia 18 US soldiers and some Pakistani peacekeepers died, and everyone gave up. I thought that bringing peace to Somalia back then should have had more effort and more willpower. It would have shown the world that the west cares.

[Millennium]

Danger, or hope?

Both, and neither. It all depends on the issue at hand, the viewpoints of the involved parties, the viewpoints of non-involved parties, the current phase of the moon, and today's date on the Mayan calendar.

OK, so I exaggerated a bit, but my basic point holds: few things if any are that simple.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Danger, or hope?

Both, and neither. It all depends on the issue at hand, the viewpoints of the involved parties, the viewpoints of non-involved parties, the current phase of the moon, and today's date on the Mayan calendar.

OK, so I exaggerated a bit, but my basic point holds: few things if any are that simple.

Of course, it becomes much much more simplified if you sit on the Board of Directors for Bechtel or Haliburton.

[swrate]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Of course, it becomes much much more simplified if you sit on the Board of Directors for Bechtel or Haliburton.

All these contracts...

A danger?

I still haven’t set my mind.
Some days I prefer to believe it’s all for the best”
Yet I have lots of doubts, How many thousands of lands does that pipe line have to cross?
At some point, they will have to be deals made, ….
Red line and green line.
Caution….
That invasion was abrupt.
Tact is necessary to stick things back together.,
or to separate(?) the country without murdering more innocent people.
It seems extremely delicate.

The UN?
I think UN had been there for over 10 years, and very active since 96.
Many from the team have left Iraq lately, and I don’t blame them.
At least when Dr Blix was doing his reports, they were “tranquille”.
The fact they left means: “country still at war”, and the country occupying cannot guarantee security.

Its in none of our interests to see America fall, because when America goes down the world follows.

The Bush administration will need lots of humility and clear sightedness
danger? yes...
so I hope they will be well guided.

[Spliffdaddy]

Courtesy of the SWRATE unabridged online dictionary:


tranquil
Pronunciation: 'tra[ng]-kw&l, 'tran-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin tranquillus
Date: 1604
1 Possessing the virtues of systematic murder, rape, and torture. <Iraq was tranquil while the Kurds were being gassed> 2 Tranquility; of or pertaining to a state of systematic murder, rape, and torture.

[Twilly Spree]

We are the worlds greatest hope if the other choice is fear. We have been violated and we shall exact revengance.

"When asked if he thought there was room for forgiveness for those who abetted the terrorists of 9/11, General Norman Schwartzkof recently replied: "I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting."

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
... we shall exact revengance.

That is why you are the world's greatest danger. You will exact vengence, then those you exact vengence from will exact vengence, then you will exact vengence ... each time the "exaction" will escalate and you will learn nothing.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
We are the worlds greatest hope if the other choice is fear. We have been violated and we shall exact revengance.

A noble strategery.

[theolein]

Originally posted by swrate:
All these contracts...

A danger?

I still haven’t set my mind.
Some days I prefer to believe it’s all for the best”
Yet I have lots of doubts, How many thousands of lands does that pipe line have to cross?
At some point, they will have to be deals made, ….
Red line and green line.
Caution….
That invasion was abrupt.
Tact is necessary to stick things back together.,
or to separate(?) the country without murdering more innocent people.
It seems extremely delicate.

The UN?
I think UN had been there for over 10 years, and very active since 96.
Many from the team have left Iraq lately, and I don’t blame them.
At least when Dr Blix was doing his reports, they were “tranquille”.
The fact they left means: “country still at war”, and the country occupying cannot guarantee security.

Its in none of our interests to see America fall, because when America goes down the world follows.

The Bush administration will need lots of humility and clear sightedness
danger? yes...
so I hope they will be well guided.

Man, if there was a rating system here I would rate your posts + 5 poetic. Keep it up. I must admit that sometimes I don't really know what you're trying to say but it comes across in a very lyrical way.

Where are you from anyway?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by theolein:
Man, if there was a rating system here I would rate your posts + 5 poetic. Keep it up. I must admit that sometimes I don't really know what you're trying to say but it comes across in a very lyrical way.

Agreed.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by swrate:
All these contracts...

A danger?

I still haven’t set my mind.
Some days I prefer to believe it’s all for the best”
Yet I have lots of doubts, How many thousands of lands does that pipe line have to cross?
At some point, they will have to be deals made, ….
Red line and green line.
Caution….
That invasion was abrupt.
Tact is necessary to stick things back together.,
or to separate(?) the country without murdering more innocent people.
It seems extremely delicate.

The UN?
I think UN had been there for over 10 years, and very active since 96.
Many from the team have left Iraq lately, and I don’t blame them.
At least when Dr Blix was doing his reports, they were “tranquille”.
The fact they left means: “country still at war”, and the country occupying cannot guarantee security.

Its in none of our interests to see America fall, because when America goes down the world follows.

The Bush administration will need lots of humility and clear sightedness
danger? yes...
so I hope they will be well guided.

If I'm translating these quatrains correctly you are predicting the ultimate battle between good and evil and the rise of the anti-christ? Yes?

[voodoo]

Weird Stuff™

[swrate]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
If I'm translating these quatrains correctly you are predicting the ultimate battle between good and evil and the rise of the anti-christ? Yes?

I dont see in the future,
how many already fought "ultimate battles" ?

[swrate]

Originally posted by theolein:
Man, if there was a rating system here I would rate your posts + 5 poetic. Keep it up. I must admit that sometimes I don't really know what you're trying to say but it comes across in a very lyrical way.

Where are you from anyway?

lol where am I from?
from earth ....
"Between a rock and a hard place"
I am a mixed breed, (Scottish Irish? G-B/Swiss “SO” blend from the Hannibal’s expedition , with family in USA) born in Greenwich., as school started, moved to Paris, then teenage years and studies near and in Geneva , years or months of living different places, I presently live near the “Geneva lake”.

Glad you find my posts poetic. Thank you. Its not purposely, I don’t find politics poetic, but then why not? Swiss politics, maybe, i doubt though - lol. I dont know about your rating system, seems I should improve!

[theolein]

Originally posted by swrate:
lol where am I from?
from earth ....
"Between a rock and a hard place"
I am a mixed breed, (Scottish Irish? G-B/Swiss “SO” blend from the Hannibal’s expedition , with family in USA) born in Greenwich., as school started, moved to Paris, then teenage years and studies near and in Geneva , years or months of living different places, I presently live near the “Geneva lake”.

Glad you find my posts poetic. Thank you. Its not purposely, I don’t find politics poetic, but then why not? Swiss politics, maybe, i doubt though - lol. I dont know about your rating system, seems I should improve!

Dans ce cas, Bienvenue a la follie Macnnoise.
Pour voir ma systeme de "rating" prend un petit tour a slashdot.