Subject:
|
Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:16:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
518 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> >
> > > > Afghanistan has a some chance of being a success story because we did
> > > > win a decisive and complete victory (well, ok, so there's a few elements
> > > > still bouncing around, but they have little support).
> > >
> > > It certainly was "decisive" for the 5,000 - 8,000 civilians killed to keep
> > > the US body-bag-count low. You may consider it a "victory", but which of the
> > > war aims have been met?
> >
> > The US took control of a route to Central Asian Oil and Gas fields that does
> > not pass through Russia nor Iran? Particularly interesting, when we know
> > Bush has personal interests in this sector.
>
> I shall have to change my question! You may consider it a "victory", but
> which of the *stated* war aims have been met? ;)
I'd have to know what were the stated war aims. IMO, all statements on that
issue were too vague to be comprehensible. :-/
And frankly, this conflict still does not fit my definition of "war". Maybe
"intervention" is more like it. And there is a difference, AFAIAC.
As for the ME, it is the opposite: it does fit my definition of war, only
both parties don't admit it is in fact a civil war. A very awkward one, but
still...
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
