That’s the way to go. We can certainly learn from eachother, compromise on some issues, cooperate.
This will be far more profitable than returning to a cold war- like relationship. If the US wants to produce the F-22 and spend all that money on it, go ahead, but spare the world from another arms race by legitimizing it with a alleged “Chinese threat”.

but better 1 of ours win than some other entity whose values & interests r entirely diff from ours. i really don’t think many of us want another oil crisis that destroys our economies. or heavens forbid want islamic values to dominate our lives. c’mon ppl ideas for solution & no more bickering on the technicalities of the invasion

Here we are back on topic:

–First of all: Quit this threat rhetoric in dealing with countries that are taking (if somtimes timid) steps towards our shared “western values”, like China, Turkey, or Lybia. It only strengthens the forces within these countries opposing these steps.
-Offer true incentives for countries like these, like EU membership (in the case of Turkey) favorable trade relations, cooperation in security issues (war on terrorism), etc.
In short: don’t alienate, integrate.
-Stop backing at all costs governments in countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia if they clearly violate these same western values and standards we are trying to promote everywhere else. Instead back the people who really show willingness to induce liberal values and reinitiate the peace process.

Originally posted by pluto77189

contrary to what you seem to “know” the iraqi people DO NOT WANT an islamic state, they want a secular state, not a theocracy. This is th erecurrent result of public opinion polls thoughout Iraq. They look around and see that a theocracy leads them down the same path as a dictatorship. Certainly, you look at demonstrations of Shiite’, protesting, and you think they represent the majority view. When in fact, they are just the vocal minority, out shouting the silent majority.

International terrorism was ONE of many thing Saddam was doing. He financed palestinian terrorists, hindering the “peace” “process” over there.

Yes, the intervention did what it was supposed to do. It stopped Saddam from defying the UN, removed th ethreat he posed to the region, and stopped him from any dealings he might have had with terrorists.

The terrorists are all in Iraq now, you say? And that’s a BAD THING? Tell me, would rather have terrorists in your cities, planning to attack civilians, or in the desert, with US and British troops? I think the terrorists stand a much better chance of being kiled/wiped out when facing US troops.

the terrorists MUST cause Iraq to fail, at all costs. They have outlined it themselves, that Iraq’s sucess asa democratic nation, would prove to muslims that the future doe not lie in radical, 4th centuray, theocratic dictatorships, but in democracy.

They wil try at all costs to stop the US from succeding. They can’t beat US troops, so now, they’re attacking Iraqi police, and civilians. This, was supposed to cause Iraqis to reject the US, as they “brought this to them”, but it is backfiring, and the terrorists are finding it near impossible to recruit new members.

Do you people really think that the “uncertainty’ faced by the Iraqis now is WORSE than what they had under Saddam?

Now, if you’re really so sure a majority of people would favor a secular state, why are elections being constantly postponed? If for security reasons: Do you think security will get any better as long as there is no publically legitimized leadership installed? The occupying powers just barely manage to control a few cities and oilfields It’s this power vacuum that creates an ideal breeding ground for extremists and terrorists.

Those people were taught all their lifes to give those answers the rulers wanted to hear, and keep their private opinion to themselves. Why should they reveal their true feelings in a poll that doesn’t promis to change anything for them except sooner transit of power if they give the right answers?

Are the terrorists all in Iraq? It doesn’t seem so. Madrid has shown otherwise. Iraq just turns into an other recruiting base. Of course it’s convenient for them to strike there first, since it’s the nearest and easiest. Apart from that the occupation helps the terrorists indirectly, too by radicalizing Islamist minorities in North Africa, Europe, South East Asia and probaby the US, too.

Do terrorist activities in Iraq really backfire? It doesn’t really seem so. One hardly hears of an angry mob turning against the assailants. If on the contrary dead US soldiers are getting dragged out of their cars and mutilated publicly, it really seems that the US has to take most of the blame from the Iraqis.

Originally posted by seahawk
Luckily you did take my comment the right way, it did sound so anti american, which i´m surely not.

But there are big mistakes made in the US currently.

Afghanistan was a must. We needed to take the safe place of Al Qaeda.

Iraq on the other hand, should have been done years ago or never. And it should not have been linked to the war on terror. OIF is draining resources that would be much better spent on exterminating islamic terrorists worl wide, instead of creating a new training ground for such organisations. Furthermore it fuels support for those fanatics in the arab world.
And it is time that the US tells Israel that it is not going to pay for their mistakes for longer. The west must make sure Israel will survive, but it must not accept every action Israel takes.
I can´t understand the US. If you look at the technology transfer Israel is having with China for example, you must wonder if the support is such a good idea.

America has been the land of the brave and the free, but at the moment it seems to me like the land of narrow minded conservatives.
And even domestic US problems are hard to understand for me. (abortion discussion)

Thanks for summing things up neatly in this *slightly* off topic discussion. *Slightly* simply because the administration falls into the same sort of agressive rhetoric with other countries for shortsighted popularity reasons.
To point at China a threat is plain stupid. To consider Iran as a next target for intervention is just as bad. Most people there are indeed sick of the Mullahs, but should the US intervene, they will stand firmly behind them.
A US-lead occupation there would just create a third terrorist breeding place in the region after Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Why not try positive incentives for countries like Iran and let them sort out their political problems themselves? It worked in Lybia, didn’t it? Or does anybody really think it was threats that worked there? As long as the US was threatening Lybia, they were pretty stubborn, weren’t they?

No use trying to communicate that there are shades of gray.
Most people want to hear that the world is either black or white:

Saddam is bad, Bin Ladin is bad, they have this in common, so they must be big buddies. If we beat Saddam, Bin Ladin will lose ally 😀 😉

It’s hard to believe that people still believe in this offensive domino theory Bush tries to pursue in Iraq.

Why should it work any better than the defensive domino theory pursued in Vietnam? Do you really think a majority in Iraqis views western ideals as sth. positive? Ask your soldiers how they are being treated down there. They can’t even patrol on foot or go out anymore. This is worse than it used to be in Vietnam. There the GIs could at least enjoy nightlife occasionally.:D
It seems much more likely that things go the other way around and that the Iraqi Shiites will follow Iran and turn it into a Islamic theocracy.
How convenient (but wrong) to always link Saddam with international terrorism. Did the intervention stop it? No- on the contrary: Al Quaeda didn’t have access to Iraq as long as Saddam was in power, since he didn’t tolerate any power beside himself. Now in liberated Iraq they find an ideal breeding ground.

Originally posted by pluto77189
The US is looking into the future to start developing weapons, FOR, the future. Who are we going to face? North Korea, maybe, China, maybe, Iran, Syria, maybe? A breakaway Russian province that’s got a hold of some “missing” nukes, and is threatening the world? Maybe. we just don’t know. If we DO NOT think of ALL possible situations, China included, we’re going to be surprised.

If Roche would have worded his assessment like that, people could probably agree more. However, if you care to look how he phrased things, you might disagree, too: China was the only potential enemy he came up with.

Thanks Charlie Echo and Pirate, that was very helpfull!
Here’s the text in readable English:

“Brazil fighter jet bidder sure of fair competition

By Axel Bugge

BRASILIA, Brazil, March 30 (Reuters) – One of the participants in a tender to sell Brazil new fighter jets said on Tuesday he is confident the government’s decision will be based on a range of factors such as cost and technical elements and not just political considerations.

Sami Hassuani, the commercial director of Brazil’s rocket and missile maker Avibras Aerospacial SA, said he is sure the government will choose a bidder “that benefits national industry.”

Avibras has teamed up with Russia’s Sukhoi to sell Brazil the Su-35 “Super Flanker” in the contract that is expected to be worth more than $700 million, making it the biggest arms contract in Latin America in recent times.

Hassuani said he expected the government to make a decision by the end of April, adding that he did not anticipate further delays now. The process has lasted several years.

“I think it will not be the political aspect that will be decisive, but rather the whole of the offers,” he told Reuters.

In the running for the contract are companies like Lockheed Martin Corp. (nyse: LMT – news – people), with its F-16 fighter, and BAE Systems Plc and Sweden’s Saab , with the Gripen jet.

But many local analysts have seen France’s Dassault as the favorite because it has teamed up with local airplane manufacturer Embraer (nyse: ERJ – news – people) to present a special version of the Mirage strike plane.

Embraer is lobbying the government, playing up its status as a Brazilian company and as the fourth largest civilian aircraft maker in the world.

Hassuani could not comment on press reports in recent days that the Su-35 had won in the technical evaluations made by Brazil’s Air Force.

He said the competition will only be over when the country’s national defense council, which includes the president, several ministers and leaders of Congress, makes its final decision.

“I am sure the (Air Force) report has a preferred candidate,” said Hassuani. “But the result is only ready after the council decides. Now there is no more we can do.”

The council has the final say and makes its decision based on the technical evaluations of the planes, in addition to “off-sets” — the parts of the contract which will bring technological benefits to Brazil — and cost.

But there has been speculation in local newspapers that governments of the bidding countries have offered political “sweeteners,” such as promises by Sweden’s government to help Brazil export more farm goods to the European Union.

Sweden’s International Economic Affairs and Financial Markets Minister Gunnar Lund visited Brazil this month.

Brazil’s Defense Minister Jose Viegas recently denied that Russia had offered technology for the country’s struggling space program in return for the deal.

Hassuani said he could not comment on the other bids as he has not seen them but said “our proposal is very competitive.”

Embraer has irritated the other bidders by saying there should have been no tender at all because the contract should have been guaranteed to the national flagship firm.

“In the eyes of the government this has now changed, now there is no longer any doubt that there are two Brazilian firms competing,” said Hassuani.

The other bidders have accused Embraer of inflating the scale of production of the special Mirage jets that would be assembled locally.

Copyright 2004, Reuters News Service”