turbo_flipper

well, since you mention soviet history in afghanistan, lets look at it...in 20 years, they managed to set up a puppet state that barely had control of the one major city (kabul). my understanding is that the CIA was basically operating in the open and the mujahadeen had basically established their own govt for most of the rest of the country. in 2 years, our efforts at nation building there have come much farther. now i won't claim to be an authority on afghanistan, and much of what i hear is only through the new york times as i don't care enough to find other sources and i trust the times, but....from what i hear, kabul is actually relatively peaceful for the first time in 20 years, the government has some control over the more remote areas, and there is no "other government" running the rural countryside. i know there are still problems and lawlessness (for lack of a better word) in rural afghanistan (opium farming is one that comes to mind) but i think it would not be unfair to say that the country is better off after 2 years of US-sponsored nation building than 20 years of soviet occupation.

second, you should study world war 2 history more closely before you reference it. the existence of the death camps was not widely known until their liberation in 1944-45 (depending on which camp). secondly, the US became involved in the war almost as soon as most of western europe did....or have you not heard of a appeasement? the whole world let itself be pushed around by hitler and imperial japan for over a decade before ANYONE did anything...its hard to fault the US for not being "that fast to help Europe" when Europe wasn't helping itself.
and re: Iraqi elections...i haven't seen the BBC interviews you refer to, but I have seen interviews in the NY Times of Iraqis saying that they are looking forward to elections. Furthermore, let's just look at objective facts - there are a large number of iraqis willing to risk their lives to run for office. i think that fact alone shows evidence that at least part of iraqi society favors elections.
and lastly, sorry this is getting so long, but i feel like responding to each point, i think i may have expressed myself poorly vis a vis Bosnia...first, i think you are the one who is naive...the US wasn't being supervised by the UN or NATO, we were leading those groups. just as a historical side note, bush actually entered IRaq with a larger, and more legitimately international coalition than Clinton attacked Serbia with in the Kosovo conflict...unfortunately, a half dozen British planes and a fancy acronym representing the US an western europe does not constitute an international force in this day and age. as for my point itself, i am citing it as a historical example which is quite similar to what is going on in the Sudan right now. I am saying that the last time foreign military powers (in the case of Bosnia it was the US-led UN peacekeepers) intervened in a civil war, the outcome was disastrous. partly due to UN mismanagement and poor communication, peacekeepers got caught up in fighting and merely exacerbated the situation. It took years for the conflict to even begin to settle down. Is Sudan also a humanitarian crisis? yes. has the killing been going on there too long? yes. but has it been going on longer than it seems like you realize? yes....the civil war there has been going on for over a decade. i'm not saying it should be allowed to continue, but i htink we should learn from the mistakes of bosnia and try other avenues of approach to end the conflict (like say, mandating that an effective cease fire, which would be facilitated through diplomatic negotiations, is in place before sending peacekeepers in) or we could do what we did in kosovo and bomb the whole country into an even bigger ****hole until the government capitulates, after which US troops will spend the better part of a decade rebuilding the damage, assuming the government that capitulates would even have enough control to stop the killings, which i don't think it does in Sudan.

and if this war is for oil, all i have to ask is where is my cheap gas? or better yet, where is my cheaper gas? i dunno about you, but gas costs more than ever and its not like the oil companies in Iraq are posting profits...halliburton's bleeding money and, ironically enough, the oil companies not involved in Iraq, like oh say, ChevronTexaco who just posted huge profits for 4th quarter last year, don't have any operations in Iraq. I guess I'm just not seeing how this could be a war for oil, but maybe you could explain that to me

turbo_flipper

electoral college was created because founding fathers didn't trust the people to vote directly. and seeing as the electoral college answers to nobody (there's really no way to challenge the electoral college's vote) it can't be part of checks and balances. furthermore, nowadays, it doesn't even prevent one state from deciding an election, it encourages it. it makes certain people's votes almost worthless...if you're a republican voter in new york or a democratic voter in texas, your vote counts much less than if you were voting in, say Ohio or New Hampshire. As a student in New Hampshire from New york, I can attest to the massive push by both sides to get students to use loopholes in NH election law to vote here rather than in their home states, and many students (actually including myself, although I obtained a NH drivers license in a good faith attempt to follow the spirit of the law) did so out of a feeling that their absentee votes at home didn't count. yes we're a republic, but we're a republic because we have congress pass laws, not the people. the electoral college does nothing to advance our system of government and in my opinion, in this day and age where nationwide popular votes can be counted in mere hours, we have no need for the electoral college
but that's just my opinion (and damn, i'm making a lot of longass posts today)

?PROXUS?

First of all...US didn't run to Afghanistan to help free poor people from Taliban regimee. If 9/11 wouldn't happen, you will never hear about Afghanistan probably...and just to remind you that before 9/11 Taliban destroyed two massive ancient Buddhas in Bamiyan in central Afghanistan, towering 175 foot, respectively, and carved into sandstone cliffs. Whole world was outraged by those actions.

Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar issued a decree to destroy what he termed "un-Islamic idols." Afghan Islamic clerics have urged the ruling Taliban's supreme leader not to bow to international pressure and to push ahead with the controversial plan to destroy the historic statues.

And it wasn't secret for US services that this so called "goverment" is aiding terrorists and extremists partially trained by CIA back in 70's.
But even US could help resolve human rights problem at that time, they didn't. It took few thousands of innocents lives in NY to realize the threat.


Second...If you would know WWII history that well you should probably hear about SS-code delivered by Fritz Kolbe in Switzerland and broken by British crypthographers in summer of 1943 which says about transport of 8,000 Jews going from Rome to death camp in Auschwitz.

You should also know about story of Breckinridge Long, the assistant secretary of state, who was a childhood schoolmate of (U.S. President) Franklin Delano Roosevelt at St. Paul's in New Hampshire.

In June 26 1940 Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long outlines ways in which consulates can indefinitely postpone granting visas for war refugees: "We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas."

You should take a time and visit American Holocaust Museum and learn not only what happened but also what didn't happened and why.

While we are on Bosnia conflict I will tell you that I was in Europe at the time and saw reports on TV almost every minute...and you should remember that EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana engaged in peacekeeping mission because Washington has threatened to veto the renewal of the Bosnia mission policy if the 15-nation U.N. Security Council fails to grant U.S. peacekeepers immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

US proposal:
<i>"The United States has threatened to shut down peacekeeping missions one by one unless the Council passes a resolution placing U.S. personnel overseas beyond the court's grasp or adds language to each mission's mandate shielding U.S. peacekeepers.

The U.S. proposal circulated in the Security Council late on Tuesday would give 12 months' immunity for crimes by peacekeepers from any country that had not yet ratified the treaty establishing the war crimes court.

That would give accused peacekeepers ample time to return home to the jurisdiction of their national courts.

After 12 months, the court could pursue a peacekeeper only after a vote in the Security Council, where Washington has veto power along with Britain, France, Russia and China. "</i>



<i>"and if this war is for oil, all i have to ask is where is my cheap gas? or better yet, where is my cheaper gas?"</i>

You really think that US like to help those poor people just for humanitarian reasons

OK lets start with Afganistan role in world gas and oil delivery. I would recommend you to read some materials about UNOCOL deal with Taliban about building pipelines in Afganistan.

You can read <a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/26/afghan.oil/">CNN report</a> from 1990 or even <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html">Dept. of Enery report</a> which clearly says:

<i>"Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan, which was under serious consideration in the mid-1990s. The idea has since been undermined by Afghanistan's instability. Since 1996, most of Afghanistan has been controlled by the Taliban movement, which the United States does not recognize as the government of Afghanistan"</i>

There is analogical situation in Iraq. Most of the companies are investing to gain future profits. A lot of army resources are directed to protect Iraqui oil fiels. Additional revenue is gathered from high oil prices. We could see at least 20-30c/g price decrease if governmend would reach for SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve). But they are not eager to do it