You are correct that Burmese prefer Burma over that of Myanmar, because that was the official name that was given to the region by the English & Myanmar was the name created by the current junta.Originally posted by: Farang
No, AFAIK you are absolutely right but there isn't a dispute as in the Myanmar/Burma name that warrants a slash. Plenty of names have been bastardized into English, that is just natural with language, but Cambodia has been generally accepted for as long as it matters and the Kampuchea hiccup only came during the reign of the Khmer Rouge. I don't claim to be an expert but I never have seen it referred to with a slash before so I figure I have to be right somewhereIf the last time you studied it was 30+ years ago I imagine there may have been a dispute then.
In Burma I wish I remembered my history better but I think that Burma was actually a more legitimate name than Myanmar, but the junta wanted to separate itself from colonialism. I imagine when they free themselves it will go back to Burma, all of the Burmese refugees I met in Thailand referred to it as Burma.
To my knowledge Khmer prefer to be call Khmer, over that of Kampuchea or Cambodia. And, I believe most Khmer still prefer Kampuchea over that of Cambodia because their king did agree to the name 'Kampuchea' as the French translation of their name, long prior to the English version of 'Cambodia'. Cambodia is now accepted on the international theater as the official name because they do not want to be associate with the Khmer Rouge during the late period of Kampuchea naming scheme.
However, 99.99% if not 100% of the people in that region still call them self Khmer.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Unfortunately Clinton was one of the few who DIDNT want to invade. THAT is clear. If the senate could have pulled the trigger-they would have.
Originally posted by: NoShangriLa
You are correct that Burmese prefer Burma over that of Myanmar, because that was the official name that was given to the region by the English & Myanmar was the name created by the current junta.Originally posted by: Farang
No, AFAIK you are absolutely right but there isn't a dispute as in the Myanmar/Burma name that warrants a slash. Plenty of names have been bastardized into English, that is just natural with language, but Cambodia has been generally accepted for as long as it matters and the Kampuchea hiccup only came during the reign of the Khmer Rouge. I don't claim to be an expert but I never have seen it referred to with a slash before so I figure I have to be right somewhere
In Burma I wish I remembered my history better but I think that Burma was actually a more legitimate name than Myanmar, but the junta wanted to separate itself from colonialism. I imagine when they free themselves it will go back to Burma, all of the Burmese refugees I met in Thailand referred to it as Burma.
To my knowledge Khmer prefer to be call Khmer, over that of Kampuchea or Cambodia. And, I believe most Khmer still prefer Kampuchea over that of Cambodia because their king did agree to the name 'Kampuchea' as the French translation of their name, long prior to the English version of 'Cambodia'. Cambodia is now accepted on the international theater as the official name because they do not want to be associate with the Khmer Rouge during the late period of Kampuchea naming scheme.
However, 99.99% if not 100% of the people in that region still call them self Khmer.
I'd agree that Khmer is a more accurate way to refer to Cambodians. How that translates into the name of a nation-state is anyone's guess, and it seems that Cambodia is still universally accepted except for the Khmer Rouge among us. I guess what I was trying to say is that yes, Cambodia is a complete bastardization but that the only rival it had during our time was Kampuchea for about 3 years in the late 70s early 80s.
edit: and the part I can't remember about Burma is that I think the way the English derived that name may have been more legitimate than how the junta got Myanmar.. but forget my source and can't check to be sure.
Only on this forum, and possibly Freep are people still trying to make this ridiculous argument. Then again it is spidey07 who made the thread, and I think most everyone here knows he's a bit off the deep end.
I'm really tired right now, but surely someone can dig up the endless pile of quotes from the administration stating explicitly how WMD were far and away the reason for the war in Iraq. Common sense tells you this as well, and anyone that was watching the news even out of the corner of their eye during the run up to war knows that WMD were used as the selling point.
As suggested before, give it up.
I'm really tired right now, but surely someone can dig up the endless pile of quotes from the administration stating explicitly how WMD were far and away the reason for the war in Iraq. Common sense tells you this as well, and anyone that was watching the news even out of the corner of their eye during the run up to war knows that WMD were used as the selling point.
As suggested before, give it up.
What spidey ignores is the obvious logic that WMDs WAS the justification Bush gave for the urgency in dealing with Saddam. No one with any knowledge about Saddam could deny that Saddam was a vicious dictator who gassed civilians and brutally put down the Kurds.
But WHY was it SO urgent that the US go AFTER Saddam right after we took down the Taliban in Afghanistan? It's true that people were suspicious of Saddam's intentions to reconstitute WMDs and were unable to find concrete evidence. There was also plenty of evidence that the sanctions against Iraq weren't working.
There is no question however, that we were engaging in a pre-emptive, or preventive war when it came to Iraq. Iraq did not launch an attack on us like the Japanese did with Pearl Harbor during World War II. So why did the US argue that Saddam posed "an imminent" threat?
I'm not going to deny that Saddam was evil. The Iraq war certainly removed a dictator from power, and put an end to Saddam's sons' reign of terror. But the Iraqi people haven't enjoyed significantly better stability and security than they did under Saddam. It turns out that all 3 factions are now in religious conflict: Kurds, Shiites AND Sunnis. There's still problems getting consistent electricity, plumbing/sewage, etc.
The fact is though, the American people aren't fond of peacekeeping or supporting large-scale, long-term nation building for purely humanitarian purposes....Somalia and Haiti, as well as Yugoslavia. I don't recall hearing Bush justify our invasion of Saddam until AFTER we were unable to find WMDs.
What does Iraq have to do with Israeli suicide bombers? and your logic is flawed; ISRAEL has done a good job hardening its targets and also disrupting suicide attacks as well as eliminating key leaders. I have yet to hear of Al Qaeda sending operatives to Israel and sucide bombing them. I seem to recall similarly flawed arguments defending our invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan by saying that it's better that we engage terrorists elsewhere...(never mind that Britain and Spain have been hit even if the US hasn't).
In any event, it's rather flimsy to make the case that it's better for the US to invade Iraq to provide a cushion for Israel.....
But WHY was it SO urgent that the US go AFTER Saddam right after we took down the Taliban in Afghanistan? It's true that people were suspicious of Saddam's intentions to reconstitute WMDs and were unable to find concrete evidence. There was also plenty of evidence that the sanctions against Iraq weren't working.
There is no question however, that we were engaging in a pre-emptive, or preventive war when it came to Iraq. Iraq did not launch an attack on us like the Japanese did with Pearl Harbor during World War II. So why did the US argue that Saddam posed "an imminent" threat?
I'm not going to deny that Saddam was evil. The Iraq war certainly removed a dictator from power, and put an end to Saddam's sons' reign of terror. But the Iraqi people haven't enjoyed significantly better stability and security than they did under Saddam. It turns out that all 3 factions are now in religious conflict: Kurds, Shiites AND Sunnis. There's still problems getting consistent electricity, plumbing/sewage, etc.
The fact is though, the American people aren't fond of peacekeeping or supporting large-scale, long-term nation building for purely humanitarian purposes....Somalia and Haiti, as well as Yugoslavia. I don't recall hearing Bush justify our invasion of Saddam until AFTER we were unable to find WMDs.
What does Iraq have to do with Israeli suicide bombers?
and your logic is flawed; ISRAEL has done a good job hardening its targets and also disrupting suicide attacks as well as eliminating key leaders. I have yet to hear of Al Qaeda sending operatives to Israel and sucide bombing them. I seem to recall similarly flawed arguments defending our invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan by saying that it's better that we engage terrorists elsewhere...(never mind that Britain and Spain have been hit even if the US hasn't).In any event, it's rather flimsy to make the case that it's better for the US to invade Iraq to provide a cushion for Israel.....
A. Idealistic reasoning can be used, however, that does not necessarily determine WHY it was done, that is just the proposed reasoning
B. Many of us understand alternative viewpoints about why it should have been done, however, we didn't agree that it was the right way to achieve the intended effects. nor did we feel that it would be positive for the united states.
C. I think its a little dishonest to pretend like the dumb people are the ones who focus on WMD. That WAS the focus of it up until the war. There may have been other reasons for doing it besides WMD, but that is not how the adminstration(s) chose to portray it to the american people. They crafted a bullshit argument (only PARTIALLY based on facts) to scare the shit out of people and convince them it was necessary.
D. RIGHT when the war began, they changed it to being all about liberation of the iraqis as a propoganda stunt.
How the hell are people supposed to interpret it? They sold the war to America based on WMD, not on helping the Iraqis, that was just used as a way to try to make it look nicer once it began.
Actually, no , everyone did not think that. Apparently you don't remember when prominent weapons inspectors gave very clear refutations to the bullshit intelligence. Ultimately, they were proven right. I remember quite a few very intelligent rebuttals to much of the "intelligence" that was being passed around. The people who authored that material were smeared and unfairly discredited through public thrashings by the media and the government.
Lets examine some of the bs.
1. The yellow cake fiasco. Turned out to be bogus.
--from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
"The classified documents detailing an Iraqi approach to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger were considered dubious by some analysts in U.S. intelligence, according to news accounts. By early 2002, investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the U.N. Security Council, judging them counterfeit."
---and check this out! http://www.boston.com/news/nat...de_eyed_for_state_job/
"The man who insisted that President Bush make the claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium for nuclear weapons in Africa is poised to assume a top State Department job that would make him the lead US arms negotiator with Iran and North Korea, according to administration officials."
2. The mobile weapons labs
from http://www.cleveland.com/news/...92793080320.xml&coll=2
that link appears to no longer work, but the article was saved on another site http://www.whitecivilrights.co...ons-lab-story_428.html
"Another article reports ?The White House faced new questions Wednesday about President Bush?s contention three years ago that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. The Washington Post reported that a Pentagon-sponsored team of experts determined in May 2003 that two small trailers were not used to make biological weapons. Yet two days after the team sent its findings to Washington in a classified report, Bush declared just the opposite. ?We have found the weapons of mass destruction,? Bush said in an interview with a Polish TV station. ?We found biological laboratories.? "
Now lets look at the general sense of how they were misleading
from http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=12953 (directly quoting the senate intelligence report)
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even nonexistent," the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, said on releasing the 172-page report. "As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."
"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence," he added. "But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
---that last quote is EXACTLY what rationalist are trying to explain to people like you who just can't get it through your gourd, they bullshitted their way into the support of this war.
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=12953 (quoting Mclellan's book)
"Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East," according to McClellan's memoir, 'What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception'."
I suggest you read the rest of that link (which mostly continues to quote the senate report) if you need a refresher on the fact that not EVERYONE thought that the intelligence was true. There was a significant amount of dissent in the intelligence community which was completely ignored. On top of it, anyone who claims that they didn't fudge the facts to get what they wanted is a goddamn liar or else delusional.
No, you are not thinking critically.
Why would you draft a resolution that doesn't make look war justifiable? The answer is simple, it won't pass and it won't look good. Read Hitler's declaration of hostilities against Poland in 1939, they look downright reasonable for the time period.
Now look at the Iraq Resolution. It looks downright reasonable that war with Saddam was inevitable. However, think critically about each point instead of having others do the thinking for you. Then you'll see why the war was unjustified.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
That was no verbal gaff; all of us knew in the run-up that the primary thing hinged upon WMD. They were not found and thus the primary objective was impossible to meet. The rest was icing on the cake of WMD. We all expected them to be there and if US intelligence had a) been better and b) Bush administration had not been stiff as a rock to invade, we would have learned the truth that WMD was not there, in which case the invasion would absolutely never have occurred.
Although profjohn's link is relevant, ultimately the world was duped into attacking Saddam by his bluff; he was trying to remain in compliance but avoid compliance enough to sow a seed of doubt in his neighbors so that they would be sure he had WMD. From my understanding, this is why he came off as having WMD but never did, and the US read the situation wrong (or simply didn't care).
Your quotes do not support your statement. They merely say the admin did not pressure the intelligence community; not that the admin did not pick what it wanted, which I feel it did. There was in fact a lot of dissension before iraq about its wmd situation.
Powell's speech of course went beyond ignorance to outright deceit, just frankly making things up from chemical labs to yellow cake, the whole thing was a complete debacle.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
"we know they have WMD's"
"we know where they are"
The bottom line is this - without the WMD threat - yellowcake from Niger trumped up even though the CIA advised them not to use the intel ring any bells? - no other countries would have been paid off - I mean would have signed up to fight with us, and quite frankly without the WMD threat being emphasized the authorization to use force would have never been passed.
The big let down to me is that I would have been fine with us going in for the other reasons given - just like I'd be fine with us cleaning the mess in a few other places - but they way we obviously mislead the world about WMD's was something we should all be ashamed of.
"we know where they are"
The bottom line is this - without the WMD threat - yellowcake from Niger trumped up even though the CIA advised them not to use the intel ring any bells? - no other countries would have been paid off - I mean would have signed up to fight with us, and quite frankly without the WMD threat being emphasized the authorization to use force would have never been passed.
The big let down to me is that I would have been fine with us going in for the other reasons given - just like I'd be fine with us cleaning the mess in a few other places - but they way we obviously mislead the world about WMD's was something we should all be ashamed of.
From his posts, he sounds like an emo to me so I wouldn't be surprised if his feeling were hurt. But I couldn't care less. BTW, I wouldn't be calling others morons considering the amount of garbage you've posted here.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Of course.
We had the aluminum tube argument. Bogus.
We had the yellowcake argument. Bogus.
We had Al Qaeda in Iraq. Bogus.
We had mobile weapons labs. Bogus.
We "knew where the WMDs were". Bogus.
We had WMDs. Bogus.
Of course, evidence needn't apply.
Simply put, things were put into two piles. One for war and one against. Only the pro war arguments were ever put forward. Dump them together, and no one will know the difference.
We went to war because those WMDs HAD to be there. Once we went in and found them, no one would ever question our motives. The problem is that there weren't any. So these days, we have lame justifications after the fact.
Saddam was Bush's bogeyman, and being afraid to look under his bed at night for fear of finding him he decided that Iraqis must die.
After the fact? He was clueless. No one knew a Sunni from a Shia. Why bother? The war was the mission, and "mission accomplished".
Unfortunately that left others scrambling to fix the cluster that Bush made.
No, the American people were sold on the idea that Saddam was a real and significant threat to the US in spite of the real questions raised by people in intelligence.
Remember when that Army War College report came out, and the Pentagon rep said that if it wasn't supportive of the President's "vision" it wasn't on anyone's short list? Very telling indeed. If it didn't promote the agenda, then it was discarded. I submit that the philosophy was "If you aren't for us, your're against us" in operation. Dissenting opinions need not apply. Indeed, one did so at their peril.
Forgotten were the very public resignations of CIA senior analysts regarding the lack of access if their intel didn't line up with policy. That's unheard of. People have left before, but privately. For people who had 20 years plus under their belt to speak up is incredible to those who have ever had any association with intelligence functions.
The CIA and other agencies were purged. After that, you played ball or got lost. Guess what came to light afterwards? Only "good thoughts". No one wanted to be wished into the corn field.
That is why you had a jr CIA analyst getting more credibility over the aluminum tubes than our nuclear weapons agencies. That's why Tenent watched over Powell during the mobile weapons lab fiasco. That's why Powell found out the the war started on television instead of being in the loop. He didn't share the vision. Since he wasn't for it, he was against them, just like everyone else.
Much has been said about the reason for invading Iraq being oil or corporate interests. No, it wasn't. It was about a twisted mans intense need to get one man, and no one was going to confuse him with facts. He had his mind made up.
We were sold a bill of goods, and Americans like the Germans last century were fearful and opportunists used that against them. Heaven help anyone who voiced a contrary opinion who held a public office. They would have been punished by the people for supporting a terrorist baby eating Saddam who was making nuclear weapons to give to Al Qaeda. Nothing was done to discouraged that idea, in fact that was just the thoughts put by the WH. Bush simply used Nazi tactics and let fear do the rest.
I don't think that Bush is evil per se. He doesn't wake up and say to himself that he needs to do three egregious acts before breakfast. I think he believes with his whole being that ignorance is strength, that war is peace in this matter, and he himself practiced that philosophy. He's doing good.
Normally that would just make him an insane individual, but unfortunately he had the One Ring of the Office of the President, and he used it.
Perhaps we need one more social program. Send the war mongers over to Iraq to personally reconstruct the lives of those they harmed. That would be justice.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Truth ^. Painful but true. The (R)'s have fumbled their 'foreign policy' reputation, it remains to be seen what the (D)'s will do with this opportunity. Obama is putting together a pretty bipartisan group (FAR more bipartisan than ANY Republican would ever imagine), so maybe things will improve.
If we'd found serious stockpiles of WMD's, advanced nuclear technology, and direct evidence of cooperation with Al Qaida then I probably would say "it was worth it". Instead it was the most costly message ever sent to the arab/muslim world - "The US will come kick your ass (on the ground) if we have to".
All those other reasons don't really mean much to me, I could care less about the Iraqi people.
Clearly in hindsight it was a bad choice.
All those other reasons don't really mean much to me, I could care less about the Iraqi people.
Clearly in hindsight it was a bad choice.
Yeap, I would bet that most of the enemies of the US are very, very happy that we invaded Iraq. (Saddam being a notable exception... haha) I mean can you think of a single foreign policy action that the US has taken in a generation that has weakened us more?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter