New Falklands buildup

Remove all ads!

I don't think calling NOG an ignoramus was necessary.

Rags was correct in that Neo-Cons push for both war and a bigger military, and at least as notably they (at least if Dick Cheney is one) are willing to cherry pick intelligence to get what they want.

That said.

The US troops were initially viewed as liberators in Iraq-they weren't wrong about that. What did seem to happen is that US troops wore out their welcome by being heavy and ham handed while the US (lead by the W administration) did a remarkably poor job of helping Iraq rebuild/get back on its feet. There were decisions made that initially encouraged internal strife in Iraq and did not make what rebuilding was attempted necessarily happened (corruption and thievery doing great damage to Iraqi and US reconstruction efforts).

So I'll argue that the troops were viewed as liberators in many parts of Iraq but it didn't last.

About the thing in the Falklands between the UK and Argentina.... my guess is that if the US involved (we may not be as multiple things are already going on) it will probably be in a manner asking people to calm down and avoid a conflict.

 

Nor was this:

Just saying....

 

Good point. I missed that Chandos.

Anyway calmness all around.

 

He can't know much about neo-conservatives, else he would have gotten the joke. And eager to prove his hilarious mis-perception that my post was about US bashing, he then goes after the irrelevant, essentially saying You mix up Britain and the UK, which are two separate matters

The curious irony of the matter is that in his method of response he lends credibility to Irvin Kristol's famous suggestion

Now there we have a key quote to understand neo-conservative thinking, and I'll only be very brief: Basically the neo-conservative motive for politicising intelligence and distorting its results is that in their eyes the people are dumb and need to be led, if necessary by lies, to do the right thing. The neo-conservatives see themselves as the avant garde that (alone) is capable to see the right path ahead (as demonstrated in Iraq). In neo-conservative eyes democracy is a bad thing because it allows the ignorant mob to determine policy though opinion and votes. Thinking of the tea-partiers that is even an understandable sentiment.

Neo-conservatives are very elitist. Operating in democracies, they put an emphasis on opinion shaping, because the people need to be led to do (and vote for) the in their eyes right thing, thus the distortions. It can be argued that the support by Kristol and other neo-conservatives for the war in Iraq (and before, their Team B effort) is an example of that philosophy in action.

PS: BTA, you replied while I was still writing.

 

How typical. Throw out all your insults, THEN say "let's let it drop". How entirely typical.

 

crucis,
you accuse me of lack of combativeness?

Let me explain that quote to you so you do understand: I do know NOG a little while now, and I know where things like this lead. It's not necessary to force things to go there. It's so much more preferable to stay civil.

 

Calling someone an 'ignoramus' is not civil.

 

Neither is 'Is there any basis to this hate or is this just your mad paranoid ramblings'. I dare say, in comparison 'ignoramus' is by several degrees more civil than that, not that that was a challenge.

 

Argentines *sigh*, some people never bloody learn do they. We should put them down deep this time. Maybe rope the yanks into it, I think they owe us a few favours!

 

Most of the Royal Navy are simply out doing maneuvers anyway, why cant we send them to the falklands so they can maneuver in a different water for a change and of course give the Argies something to think about.

 

This from the guy who recently called me an idiot in another thread...





[It was, I believe, a quote, rather than a direct accusation . . . - dmc]

[Ah ha! Loophole! - Splunge]

 

I want to re-address Ragusa's original point.

I have to say that is a pretty combative statement -- that doesn't necessarily make it untrue, but I wanna look at it for a second.

Just because I country says it's not going to do anything aggressive, is that a guarantee that they won't? History tells us that sometimes, governments lie. It is possible that the Argentinians are lying. I don't think that making contingency preparations that take that possibility into account means that you're a psychopath or anything like that.

Now, the idea that there are some real neo-con whackjobs who would follow Ragusa's script is also not that far out there. No matter what the opposition says, they want to attack first. But I draw the line at the nuclear first strike comment -- I don't think that there's anyone out there that stupid, neo-con or no.

So, what does LKD think should be done? I'm no expert, but IIRC Thatcher send out a bunch of ships while she pursued other, more diplomatic avenues. This showed the Argentinians that they weren't screwing around, and that military action on the part of the Argentinians was not going to be met with weak-wristed hand wringing. That seems to me to be a fair and logical course of action -- prepare for the worst while trying to avoid the worst. None of this is overly crazy, IMHO.

 

During George H.W. Bush's presidency the neo-cons where referred to as "the crazies in the basement". Why? Because of stuff like this.

 

I stand corrected -- looks like there ARE people out there that stupid. The only thing I can say is that luckily cooler heads prevailed. What a freaking nightmare.

 

Let the islanders be British if that is what they wish I just dont understand how the UK think they are entitled to a bunch of sea and oil on the other side of the world. Let the Argies have their oil. The Brits can squabble with the Danes and Norwegians in the North Sea.

 

It's quite simple. We are entitled to the oil by the same reason as any other nation is entitled to the resources in their territory - because it is in our territory.

 

If the island is brittish, the surrounding waters are as well, within the usual constraints of international law.

 

As long as the British are not currently claiming that another country's holdings are not valid in terms of the <200km?> limit, I think they have a pretty good leg to stand on. We all talk about international law being important -- and it is -- but that does not only apply to protecting the rights of the smaller, weaker countries. Too often these days the bigger countries are being told they have to be second class world citizens because they must pay for their sins of hundreds of years ago.