Should we bomb/strike Iraq
 

I was kinda woundering what you guys think about striking Iraq? I personaly think that we should only strike if we have the support of the UN. Although, I think this whole thing was started by the US goverment. Its kinda like, we havent seen Bin Laden for some time and we need to put a face on this war against "terror". Why not Hussain (spelling?) people have been trained to hate him.

Re: Should we bomb/strike Iraq
 

Well, yes. Except that, well, just because everyone's doing it, that doesn't make it okay. Sound familiar? Go talk to your mother ;)

I am not nearly as educated as I'd like to be with regard to whatever is happening in the Middle East because, honestly, I have enough madness in my own life that needs keeping. With that said, though, I'm terrified of the actions and motivations of our government, I doubt the intelligence, morality, and virtue our the President, and I'm worried that apathy combined with entitlement will lead to injustices.

How's that?

Re: Re: Should we bomb/strike Iraq
 

Yep. Thats basically how I feel, in a nutshell, just put better than I could ever write it. :)

Know you know why we all hated Bush. We made a mistake electing him. He should go. I don't care if it's Gore, or whoever, he's awful and needs to leave NOW.

I'm going to have to diagree with you guys here.

Bush 1 should have eliminated Hussein in the first place, but unfortunately he didn't. Clinton most definitely should not have allowed the weapons inspectors to be kicked out, but he didn't. He should have stood up to him then and put a quick stop to it. However he didn't, we now have a dictator whose had over four years to do whatever he's wanted in the way of weapons program. He's used them before I know that , you know that then what makes you think he won't use them again. The fact is we need to enforce the rules of the war we've already won. We can not allow or afford to let Iraq get any weapons. I think and I think that you do to that the past two administrations have seriously dropped the ball on the entire Iraq issue.

If someone has a better idea of how to do settle this i would love to hear it. However their are only two. Unrestricted weapons inspectors, or we go in and do it ourselves. The first is just a ploy for time and they are most likely jerking us around. That's why we need a resolution in place to setup a couple of rules and conseqeunces, so Iraq cant prolong this thing long enough to the point when they can say, We have the bomb try and attack us now.

It's completely wrong to bomb Iraq. Their nukes, apparently, are "weapons", but the USA's are "defensive". I'm not sure what the USA is thinking to go to war without the UN's support. Plus, it's mere assumption that Iraq will be bombing us with them. By going in, it's mere folly and could THEN result in us getting retaliated upon. This is kinda like the Athenian/Melian debate recorded by Thucydides a looong time ago. Athens wanted Melos without considering anything. That's the gist of it. The Athenians won, but unlike back then, the USA's size doesn't matter. A few nukes'll screw everyone up. I don't see how the president would even consider this (or Tony Blair). His Texan Drill in Alaska! theory really should not even be in the friggin White House. If he even considers running next election, he might as well throw his Republican soft money down his... drain. Btw, check out the lyrics to the song I'm listening to right now (A New Kind of Army - Anti Flag).

If the United States takes unilateral action agains Iraq, we will practically be opening the gate for Russia to invade Georgia (no, not the state north of Florida), and China to invade Taiwan.

I don't support attacking Iraq, at this point in time.

I wish I were the political theorist that my brother, or either of my parents is...

God bless you child


GREEN PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bah he bombed the kurdish people with chemical toxins so much that he actually managed to warp the DNA of the people in that whole area and actually manage to turn the land into a wasteland. There is proof that he has practiced mass genocide with his army. It's not that hard to find it with sattelites and I'm not talking about pictures of buildings but of pictures of communities being burned down. His misstress has said that he likes to watch people be executed for fun. All this information was found on the news and reading magazines. You want to do nothing. Doesn't this sound a wee bit familiar???

The United States, under Reagan, supported Saddam Hussein in a war against Iran. The Defence Intelligence Agency gave Saddam huge amounts of information to kill other people.

I think the Native American Nation has more of a reason to use nuclear weapons against the US Government than the US Government has reason to attack Iraq.

Right on wysiswyg.

As for those who want Gore in there. Gore was a large part of the Clinton administration, who did practically nothing against Osama and Al Queda during the first WTC bombing. Where would we be now if Bush did nothing in Afganistan? Maybe dead, Al Queda had several other plans that were stopped. Where will we be in 10 years if we do nothing against Saddam? Probably the same. We can't wait until something happens to stop somebody, which defeats the whole purpose of why we want to attack. Then something does happen and we say, "Well, why didn't we take them out the first time?" Time to take some initiative for once.

I say if we take him out that's one less danger in the world, and more freedom for his people. Go get'm Bush.

We shouldn't bomb Iraq. We should just dig a big hole to the Earth's core with nuclear weapons and the dig site should just happen to be in the middle of Iraq.

I doubt attacking Iraq would end well.

I have a question about attacking Afganistan too.
Where do we test nukes? IN THE DESERT.
Where are the terrorist hiding? IN THE DESERT.
So wouldn't nuking terrorists just be like testing weapons? It's not like moutain caves are in really populated areas.

The probelm with that is radiation. The only nuke tested in deserts were the first ones to be built. After that they started becoming more and more powerfull, thus more radiation. So testing was moved to remote islands.

Besides, nuking in Afganistan would just kill the people we just helped to save. Then we would be the terrorists.

(On a more personal note, I want nothing to do with nuclear weapons, in any war, ever. There is just no point to them.)

What the world needs to end all this is a war against an invading alien force from another galaxy.

Umm, wow.

You wouldn't be implying that Saddam Hussein has anything in common with Hitler, would you? Please, please say 'No.'

I say that attacking Iraq is a neciessity. If some one is going to harbor terrorists, they deserve to die. Plus... the idea of a campagin to attack sounds good, i.e. attack Iraq. Bomb Saddam and so on.

Not to mention "paying" his own people to blow themselfs up in Isreal.

Go America!
 

Rock on Republicans!
Go Bush! Finish the things your father left unfinished!


No, it's not necissary to use nuclear weapons, and yes I believe that we should consult with the UN before taking drastic measures. However, we have sat around watching for too long. The Clinton Administration was a joke, and I am glad it is over!

I have lost all faith in humanity...

Wait, that would imply that I had some, in the first place...

Someone kill me, please.

how about neither.

we all no why we are attacking iraq right. prez bush wants to attack iraqw so that the economy of the us goes up. this happens b/c the people become interested in whats going on in the outside part of the us that they will go to the stores to prepare for the attack. thats the only reason why we are attacking. other then that we have no real reason to attack. and i refuse to accept saddam not letting UN weapon inspectors in as a reason why to attack


my .02 cents

I wouldn't.

Saddam is *NEVER* going to come to terms with the UN or US. Again, and again, and again, and again he lets us have and "unconditional" inspection. But when inspectors arive he restrits them to only where he wants them to go. It's time to let him know we mean buisness, let us see what's really in your country, or we knock down the door and look for ourselfs.

Weapons are like a drug to this man. He needs them, he craves them. And as his arsenal grows, his ego does too. One day that ego is going to get so big, we will use this arsenal.

After all, why does a third world country with a dictator want with a nuclear arsenal, other than to use it? Deterence? From who?

oh and for the record


i feel as if the clinton administration did more good then the bush administration managed to do in its first 2 months. clinton got things done. the 2 bushs on the other hand mange to screw things up. we were warned about 9/11 and bush just sat back and laughed at those warnings. both bushes have been the worst presidents ever.

Re: Go America!
 

Could you explain to me, please, exactly what it is we've been watching for too long?

You can do this in brief or at great length, honestly, but I'd like to know what is happening in Iraq that is worth the cost of lives lost in conflict. Please, for my sake, and perhaps for the sake of other people reading with interest, also take the time to explain your reasons so that I may better be able to understand them and form a rebuttal, if that should prove to be necessary.

For example, noting that Iraq may be stock-piling an arsenal of weapons, while not producing tangible, definitive, or even suggestive evidence as to the existence of, or intent to use these weapons is useless to me.

However, explaining how a first strike on the part of the United States benefits the world socio-political climate (There ARE other PEOPLE on this planet, whether you'd believe it or not) while, at the same time, minimizing the risk of devastating, unnecessary, and retaliatory counter attack would be peachy keen.

Please, try to keep the entitled 'proud to be an American' propoganda to a minimum, thanks.

Actually, my government teacher did that the other day. He put up a picture of the British Prime Minister before Winston Church Hill, and then one of Kofi Anon (sp?), and kept on flashing them back and forth. He then drew a parallel between Kofi Anon and the Brithish Prime Minister. He said that Adolf Hitler stock-piled weapons which was against the treaty that ended WWI, but told the world that he would not attack with them. They believed him, much like Kofi Anon is believing Saddam Hussein now.

Now, I personally don't agree with pre-emptively attacking Iraq, but what you said reminded me of what my government teacher said, so I thought I'd pass it on.

Stephen

PS. Just to insert a little humour into the thread, if you haven't read this from theonion.com, then I recomend that you do. The headline is: "Bush seeks UN support for 'US Does Whatever it Wants' Plan"

And exactly what did Clinton do the first time around at the WTC? These things take planning, even if we did pick up on it, we learned our lesson. There

And "for the record," everything bad so far that has happened to the Bush administration was set in place during the Clinton administration (ie: Enron, 9/11, economic recession). Clinton screwed up this country big time, it's just now showing the effects.

Are you kidding me?! These are the people who mount research labs on 18-wheelers, then drive off when the inspectors come. Then when the inspectors try to investigate the vehicle, they are told that they can't! If there were no weapons there would be no reason for Bush to even suggest attacking them.

But I am proud to be an american, it keeps the pay checks coming, a home to live in, and me alive.

I'm done with this thread.

GO BUSH!!!! :D



:p

Can't agree more. There was a report done on terrorism during the clinton admin (although not finished till early Bush's Admin). That CLEARLY stated Bin laden was a threat. I have no idea why the media hasnt jumped on it.

What are you saying?

Are you saying we should have imprisoned or killed Bin laden because a government report said he is a threat? Are you saying that all associates of Bin laden should have had the same treatment?

Let me borrow the words of someone smarter than I :)
Stephen

I’m with you 100% Michael.

In the late 1960’s, President LBJ went on television and told the American people that the Vietnamese had attacked American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. He knew it was a lie when he said it, and it didn’t stop him. I’ve got tremendous respect for quite a few great things that LBJ accomplished for this country while he was in office, but this just proves that good, well intentioned people lie. And sometimes these lies cost ~50,000 American lives, like the ones which were lost later in the Vietnam War. Sorry for the history, I’ll try to keep it down from now on.

Why are we talking about attacking Iraq? I guess it’s because of his chemical weapons, and because we think that he might be working on or may already have nuclear weapons. Ok. So does Pakistan, and China, not to mention all of the nukes that the old Soviet Union had stashed in the nooks and crannies of their enormous country. Oh. Because our government told you that Saddam has been plotting to kill Americans with his weapons. Or maybe it was because our government has told you that Iraq and Al Queda have had close contact over the past couple years. Well, I don’t trust my government and I’d like to see this “undeniable proof.” But when people ask for the proof, the government tells them that disclosing the evidence would be a security risk to the country. Well, looking back at the 60’s, I won’t accept hearsay from my government. I can decide for myself whether or not this proof is as undeniable as they claim.

Bush 1, as you referred to him, had no authority to eliminate Saddam. The UN resolution which allowed our coalition to take action against Iraq just authorized us to remove Saddam’s forces from Kuwait. Should Bush have gone against such an explicit order? No, and I commend him for not overstepping his UN mandate. Although, the US doesn’t have a strong record concerning obeying UN resolutions… but that’s a different story (for now).

Great point Foto. With all of this talk of invading Iraq, no one has yet to mention what will happen after our hypothetical removal of the leader of a sovereign country. Russia and China oppose a revision on the old UN resolutions requiring inspectors to tell Saddam when they are going to inspect his “royal palaces.” This heads up is what allows the Iraqis to hide some of their weapons from inspectors. But why does Russia take this stance on this issue? Because they want the US to take action against Iraq without a UN mandate. If the US attacks Iraq without the consent of the UN, then Russia can make a valid claim to support action against Georgia. Russia desperately wants to kill off the Chechen rebels. They just need to find a “legal” way of doing it. Same goes for China wanting to take action against Taiwan. If we take unilateral action against Iraq, we’ll be doing our part to make sure our world goes to hell (faster than it already is).

On a side note… After Operation: Desert Storm was finished, Gen. Schwartskoff (yeah. I can’t spell his name.) said that the satellite information wasn’t as useful as most people had thought. He said that he wished there were manned spy planes in the air during that campaign. Since the SR-71 had been retired…

There’s no proof that Saddam is harboring terrorists. Old men and women don’t go to war. Old men send young men young women to war. Be careful what you wish for.

What are you talking about? I feel like I shouldn’t have to respond to this. Give me some proof. /me shakes his head in pain

First of all, they were never unconditional inspections. The inspectors have always had to notify Saddam when they were going to look through his palaces. Please stop with this nonsense.

The US has always been serious about inspectors. But why do you think that the US has the right to use its military (without the blessing of the UN) to force another country to show us what weapons they may or may not have? Do you think we would be willing to show other countries where, and in what quantities we store our weapons? You’ve got to be kidding.

Really? How did you happen to come across this information? Have you sat down and had dinner with the man.. talked about his feeling regarding weapons? Don’t put words in other peoples’ mouths. You may come off as intelligent to most people, but you sound like an idiot to the rest of us. Grow up kid.

Yes, a deterrence. Look at this from Iraq’s point of view. You’re stuck in the middle of the desert, people don’t like you, and not too far away there’s a place called Israel which is armed to the teeth with weapons, some of them being nuclear weapons. That seems like a bad situation, does it not? A deterrence sounds like a decent alibi to me.

OK. I’ll get back to my commentary now.

So why now, are we talking about attacking Iraq? The Republicans are in the minority in the Senate by one representative, and they are in control of the House of Representatives by a slim margin. For the past 2 years this country has gone down the crapper quite rapidly. The economy is in disrepair, our rights as American citizens have been taken away from us under the guise of “Homeland Security” (gee… homeland sounds kinda like something the Nazis or Soviets would say…), and Osama Bin Ladin is still unaccounted for among other things. This sounds like unstable ground for the Republicans to try to gain seats in either house. So what do we do? Start getting the American people to look over at another country; one that isn’t ours. We’ve got to get them to focus on our hatred for other people instead of the horrible job that the Bush administration has been doing.

With all of this talk about action against Iraq, no one has talked about what will happen after we’ve hypothetically removed Saddam from power. Are we expected to believe that everyone in Iraq will love democracy, and we’ll just sit down and drink some tea with these people? Give me a break. These people, like the people of Afghanistan, have only lived in turmoil. Democracy is not instinctual for these people. What’s more likely is that the US will back another dictator who is more friendly with us, and would sell us oil at a very low price. Our government is more concerned with Iraq’s oil than with Iraq’s weapons and dictator. Anything that would make our country less dependent upon OPEC is a plus for our government, as long as it doesn’t lower the consumption of oil by Americans. Like Dick Cheney said a while ago, conservation is not the answer… Yeah, to him and his buddies. Tell that to the millions of Californians who had to conserve electricity a couple summers ago during our “Electricity Shortage”, which was really just Enron, et al manipulating the markets, and raping us of our hard earned money. It’s the same reason why Dick Cheney and Bush 2 want to make Alaska and the Pacific Coastline look like Swiss cheese without any regard for the environment.

Ok. I’m done for now.

Honestly, I don't feel CD is the place where this should be discussed but then again that's my opinion

I kinda feel that way too. Sure, were mature, but still, were adolecents (some of us) and are still in Middle/High/College.

But the other side says yes. Why? We need to discuss this. It isn't safe nor healty for us to build all this steam in us without letting it out. And infront of the White House isn't the ideal "location" for it.

So, here's my question to you guys, If George Dublue-ya invades and throws Saddam, what will this set as a precident. As you know, precidents set the world, only the coragious start them, the ignorant keep following them.

Should we attack Iraq? Honestly I don't know.

We believe that Iraq is stockpiling chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons. We don't know, so we're sending inspectors. But how effective can these inspectors be? Asking permission before we inspect is like the police phoning ahead before they search a suspected crackhouse. Whether there was anything there or not, you're not going to find anything.

Bill, did you ever wonder why Israel is "armed to the teeth?" Iraq isn't the only country in the area surrounded by enemies with a history of being attacked. Ever hear of the Six Days War?

And about Russia and China... Do they want to attack Chechnya and Taiwan? Yes. Would they love to seize on U.S. actions as an excuse? Yes. Here I agree with Bill and Foto.

The main issue I have with Saddam Hussein is trust. At no point has he ever given the Untied States reason to trust him. On the other hand, I can think of a few reasons (Kuwait, the massacre of Iraq's Kurdish minority, the creation of chemical and biological weapons) that the dictator in Baghdad warrants at least close observation, if not outright removal.

I'm not saying I trust our own government much, either. But the problems in our government are our own doing. We routinely elect people into office that, quite frankly, we wouldn't trust to watch our children.

And on a side note... If the U.S. does invade Iraq and replace Hussein, no precedent would be set. This wouldn't be the first time an unfriendly government has been replaced with one more friendly to another country's interests. Note Afghanistan and Central America in recent times, and historically, Athens, Rome, and many other Ancient empires set up governments in neighboring countries to better suit their interests.

If I weren't so depressed, I would have replied with something along these lines, but I'm just going to try to stay out of this thread, from now on...

As someone who would like to think he knows Bill quite well, I would say that Bill knows exactly why Isreal is "armed to the teeth." They have a very @!#@!#@!#@!# good reason to be heavilly armed, too, in my humble opinion...

<stream type="consciousness">

I think that the United States Government has done a lot of stupid stuff.

I don't agree with a lot of the actions they take, or the views they hold.

I want the world to be a better place.

I want to be able to make a difference.

I want to be able to make someone in this world happy.

I want to be able to make everyone in this world happy.

I don't want to be ashamed of the actions of my country.

I don't want to be ashamed of the views of my fellow Americans.

"The only enemy of democracy is a silent citizenship."

I will be eligible to vote in the next presidential election.

I am going to contribute to my government.

I will do what I think will make America, and the world, a better place, if not for myself, then for everyone else.

I am not the only person on the face of the Earth.

I care for them all...

</stream>

Considering there are totally random threads about just about everything, I don't really see the problem about discussing this topic as long as people are respectful to each other. I think these debates are awesome and there are many valid viewpoints from both sides. I think that some very knowledgable people (ie: Bill Gold, I'm impressed and must say that I agree on most of your points!) are teaching those less informed people a thing or two.
At my last Bruin Democrat meeting (yeah yeah, I'm giving away my political association) we had the same kind of debate and again, there was healthy debate from both sides of the coin which I thought was very informative and entertaining.

As a poli sci scholar I think its important for all of us to keep up to date with world news and actually think about what's being reported to us by the media instead of simply accepting everything. So as long as people are being mature, I say this is great and keep it going...but hey, that's just my opinion.

I started working on this post a while before FotoPlasma posted, but I'd like to thank him for his support.

Well, that’s the US’ and the UN’s fault for not thinking ahead when they were negotiating / writing up the resolutions following the Gulf War. T.S. is all I have to say.

No. I never wondered why Israel was as I put it, "...armed to the teeth..." I know the history of the state of Israel. Yes, I know about the Six Day War, but how does that help prove your point? Is it to try to prove that "Iraq isn't the only country in the area surrounded by enemies with a history of being attacked." If that's the case, then you're making a mistake in your logic. Iraq isn't surrounded by enemy nations, and it hasn't been attacked in years (I forget which country attacked the other first in the Iran/Iraq War). In fact, recently most of the Arab nations in that area of the world have pledged their support for Iraq in opposition to the US threat of military action. What I meant by my statement was that the Arab nations in that region do not have nuclear weapons, and the fact that Israel does weighs heavily on the other countries. If Iraq (or any other Arab nation in that area) were to have nuclear weapons, it might even the playing field in that area, so to speak.

Well, in the 1980's, Saddam was the mean s.o.b. he is today, but Ronald Reagan thought he was worthy of our aid. We trusted him then, just like we trusted Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets, so, you're wrong. There was (and possibly will be) a point in time where he is deemed trustworthy by our government.

Actually, I disagree with you once again. If you're talking about the Ancient Empires, that's exactly what they were... Ancient Empires. I think we can all agree that lifestyles, the aggregate intelligence of the human race, and governmental policy has changed a bit since Ancient times, so I’ll leave that out of this conversation. If the US took unilateral action against Iraq it would set a precedent. Michael Murphy, my interpretation of your post tells me that you accepted this (either knowingly or not) by recognizing and agreeing that the Russians and Chinese would have a good case for taking action against Georgia, Chechen Rebels, and Taiwan if the US were to attack Iraq without a UN mandate. The precedent that I’m referring to can be characterized by a phrase as loosely interpreted as the following: A country can take military action against another sovereign nation if it poses a risk to the safety of the original country. Don’t you all see how much trouble this statement can cause? Every country on Earth poses a risk to the safety of any other country! I don’t like this, and none of you should approve of it either. Athens fell, The Roman Empire fell a couple times, The Egyptian Empire fell, The Ottoman Empire fell, The Austro-Hungarian Empire fell, The Incas were wiped out, the Mayans were killed, the Aztecs were defeated, and The British Empire lost a tremendous amount of territory. Maybe the US will still be the strongest country in the world when I die (hopefully many years from now), but that isn’t a foregone conclusion. So why are we willing to risk the future sovereignty of this country by setting such a dangerous precedent? Maybe we’re just too damned full of ourselves. Our country can lose wars too, don’t think we can ride roughshod over everyone in the world. Ok. Done for now.

PS - As I'm wrapping up this post, I just saw that Doanie8 had just posted. I'd like to thank her for kind words as well. I look forward to my next post in this thread (if it remains open).

<edit>
My parents had interesting sets of comments I thought I'd add to this post...

<Bill's Dad>
The guy (Saddam) is 65 years old. He'll be dead in 20 years. What's the rush? Just sit tight and wait. The problem will go away by itself. And that's assuming that he doesn't get killed (by rebels) first.
</Bill's Dad>
<Bill's Mom>
Desert Storm weakened Saddam so much that if the UN would continue their weapons inspections as is, he would be in a similar situation as Moamar Kadafi (sp?) after the US bombed him in the 1980's. He's (Kadafi) still in charge, but hasn't been able to do anything significant since then.
</Bill's Mom>
</edit>

/sigh

I'll refrain from posting opinion here. Instead, I'll present what may prove to be enlightening reading.

-Joel

This is exactly the place where this kind of thing should not happen. This forum, I would assume, is practically dedicated to each of our individual opinions, and if you're going to outright state this kind of thing, you'd just better not post.

I couldn't of said it better, and that is exactly what I meant by saying, "We have been sitting around watching for too long."
Beginning with Bush Sr., we did not take action. The U.S. has just sat around and 'observed'. We have been taken advantage of. Then the Clinton Administration just caused more problems, and we are now seeing the effects of them. It's time for America to stand up for itself, and take action!

Just to playing devil's advocate (hey, just practicing to be a lawyer) here, not singling anyone out. But you say that the clinton administration caused all the problems right? Well you're sorta contradicting yourself by saying that Bush Sr. just sat around and Clinton cause "more problems." In stating "more problems" you're infering that problems were started before his administration.

ahhh...look at what boredom does to me! Must read poli sci book, must read poli book.

I'm saying appeasement sucks. Why would anyone even want to have him in power makes no sense to me.
Sigh... There is something called the news. There job is to coroborate the information from the government and make sure its true. There has been credible news stories that are trickling in that show that he needs to been booted.
Lol wouldn't that be ironic for Russia to break a UN resoulotion.:)
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...414oct07.story The source. Of course many countries are on that list. A UN resolution sometimes means nothing.Of course we all don't have any idea what the president is trying to do. For all we know all this talk about war will scare the Iraqi govornment into assasinating Hussein. Maybe there will be a revolt.

i honestly don't see the point to attack iraq. if anything, that will just screw up the situation in the middle east more than it already is. plus, we already have troops in afghanistan. next we'll have troops in iraq. then what, iran? maybe some other country that just so happens to have a majority of muslims and a dictator ruling? if the US was to take any action against iraq, it should be getting rid of the trade embargo, and making nice. then guess what, the iraqis get happy, cause they have food and other things needed for daily life. by doing tht it shows the US might care about more than just freaking oil.

hell, if you really wanted to topple the current regime in iraq, get a bunch of boys who are around 18, bring them to the US, and teach them about democracy. they go home and tell their families about this mythical democracy, and soon enough, you have a revolution. ok, yeah, it assumes that a lot happens, but it's better than going in and blowing up iraq. NO ONE wins in war. take the two world wars for example. the allies "won" both wars, but what did they win? europe was destroyed both times, france took a huge beating, and millions, if not billions, of dollars have been put into the european economy to fix it. take a look at the "bad guys". they all lost, and died. take a look at the innocent people (this is more for WWII), mostly the jews, and the other 5 million people killed (gypsies, gays, etc). they certainly didn't win anything.

i guess what i'm trying to get at here is that i hate war. i hate the idea of going and killing people, just because they are "bad" cause someone higher than you said they were. i see no point in going and fighting someone else's war. i believe that Judiasm has a nice little law on this. i'm not exactly sure, but i do remember from one sermon or another that the Rabbi said that Judiasm states that you shall not attack another nation for any reason, but if they attack you, you can retaliate in self defense. iraq has not threatened us. they have not attacked us. we have no reason, nor right, to go in and blow up everything, again.

another story i remember from somewhere, which also ties into the fact that there is no reason this shouldn't be on chief delphi (i think).

there was these two countries at war. but instead of sending soldiers, they sent the children. the children got to the battlefield, and they walked out to the middle. they saw that the children on the other side were the same as themselves. so, instead of killing them, they all took out their food, and sat down and had lunch, and played, and so on. the adults saw this, and realized that they had nothing different between them, and all because of the children, the war was stopped.

now, i'm not sure where the heck that came from, but i like it. it shows in plain detail why we shouldn't attack iraq, and why there shouldn't be war in the first place.

one more thing i find somewhat interesting. Locke, who's political philosophies make up much of the Constitution, said that it is the right of the people to rebell and destroy the government if the government does not take care of the people's rights. one could see the "homeland security" as just that, thereby making a revolution "legal" according to Locke. now, you can't come and spurt forth Hobbs, cause the Constitution isn't based on Hobbs. so it's another interesting point to think about.

i think i'm done rambling now, if you have any questions interpretting my gibberish, feel free to ask.

Bill, what you said makes sence. But lucky me, thanks to a messed up back...I can never be drafted.

somthing interesting i just found...

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA0IKLE07D.html

the purpose of the speech is to make people like me, bill, jim, and dan (just a few names i remember) and everyone else WANT to attack iraq for whatever reason this idiot we call president can think of (actually, it's not even his words, it's some person who gets paid to write his speechs). so, if we can't see the speech live, i guess we can't be pushed to attack iraq. and isn't the job of the president to protect and SERVE the people of the US of A? he sure as hell isn't serving me by attack iraq, wasting tax dollars, and pissing off the world even more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

another news item i just found. i believe it was bill's dad that said give it 20 years, and he'll be dead. i'd say much sooner, if that article is true.

Saddam has a gun pointed at our collective heads, people. He's been loading it with some nasty rounds since the seventies. He has openly stated and displayed his willingness to pull the trigger. Did you read the dossier that I linked?

You may not feel 'served' by GW's actions. But you had better be thankful that he's protecting you. You give me the impression you'd be unwilling to do that for yourself.

How's that for opinion, Foto? Congrats. You got it out of me.

-Joel
(one who has both served and protected)

Not that this has anything to do with the train of thought in this thread, or even the original meaning of the thread, but why do you say this? Clinton’s policies led to government surpluses as well as a decrease in the national debt. What’s so funny about that? Let me point you towards this post. If you want to talk about the pros and cons of administrations let’s do that, but let’s not sidetrack our conversation about Iraq, and to a lesser degree terrorism in general.

We learned our lesson? In your dreams. This country is still as vulnerable to a terrorist attack now, as it was back on September 11, 2001. The only difference between now and then is that I have to take my shoes and my hat off when I get on a plane flight. If terrorists had 5-8 fairly buff guys on a plane today, they could easily overpower the crew and passengers unarmed. Terrorists could easily destroy state capital buildings without much trouble. Even if we “learned our lesson” it doesn’t matter, because there are always new ways of killing people and reeking havoc.

Pointing a gun at our collective heads? I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. Saddam’s weapons do not have the ability to reach US soil, and no, I don’t see an old man holding a gun at my head. Those nasty rounds you’re referring to I would assume are his biological weapons, no? Yeah, that’s some unpleasant stuff he’s got in or near his hands. No one’s denying that. There are quite a few other countries on Earth who have equal if not more dangerous (quantity and quality) weapons at their disposal. So why are we ganging up on Saddam when we could be talking about North Korea, Pakistan, etc.?

In that dossier that you so kindly linked, read page 3 paragraphs 4 and 5. It’s basically saying what I had previously posted. To paraphrase “We’ve got this undeniable evidence, but we can’t tell you where we’re getting it from. Oh… we can’t tell you what some of it is either.” Well, if this is supposed to be evidence against Saddam, and it is necessary to prove that we must cripple his programs, then why is it kept secret from those who need to be persuaded? It’s not like it is information that Saddam doesn’t already know about. It is information that needs to be put on display around the world so that there is no doubt that Saddam needs to be removed or that his weapons programs need to be eliminated. This whole cloak and dagger game that the US and Britain are playing is a bunch of bull.

Guess what? You’ve got no say in whether or not he’ll remain in power. Plus, it’s not even about the people of Iraq wanting him in power. He’s like Castro or any other dictator, he took power, and he’s trying to stay in power as long as possible. Besides, not everyone thinks like you.

Ok. Get something straight here. Yes, there is something called the news, but it isn’t what you think. The news media isn’t this glorified source of truth that you claim. The news media is just like any other business. They want money. Television stations like CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. are all trying to give you something to watch, so that they can sell commercial time to other businesses. Also, (in my not so humble opinion) CNN is what the stupid people watch in an attempt to make themselves look learned. The “corroboration” that you’re talking about is done by attending press conferences held by the masters of the lie, Press Secretaries. Yes, it’s corroboration… if by corroboration you mean bending over so that the government can get you to believe what they want you to believe. My suggestion to you all is to take what you hear from our local media outlets with a grain of salt. Look around the world news to find your truth. Check the BBC (sometimes, since they like to bend over to the US Government from time to time), check TF1 (France), check out what the Germans, Russians, Chinese, Italians, Spaniards, etc. are saying. Don’t be so short sighted.

He’s protecting me? I find that hard to believe. Where was he when California needed price ceilings imposed against Enron? Oh, I know. He was hanging out with Ken Ley. If Bush was protecting us, then he’d be forcing Ley and others to give their millions of dollars to the poor employees who were bamboozled by the actions of the executives. President Bush is doing as good a job as Reagan/Bush #1/Clinton did in protecting us from Iraq. WE HAVEN’T BEEN ATTACKED. By the way, just because Ian says that he dislikes war, that doesn’t mean he isn’t willing to defend himself (or that he wouldn’t support our country defending itself if attacked). Sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth, Ian. This is where I get that impression though:

Ok. Enough for now.

That would work really well, right up to the point where he rounds them up and executes them all.

To the other ones who disagree with the attack on Iraq because it would set a bad precedent. I have this to say.
Panama - We attacked and split in half a sovereign nation because we wanted a canal.
Niguragua - We attacked because we wanted to oust Noriega. So the precedent has been set. We not only can go in, but have. In this case Saddam and Iraq poses the greatest threat ever, much greater than the threat posed by either of the two examples above.

"Pointing a gun at our collective heads? I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. Saddam’s weapons do not have the ability to reach US soil"
---------Bill Gold
That's right they can't reach us. Who they can reach is his neighbors and Israel. What happens if he chooses to attack Kuwait again, or Saudi Arabia. His massive army could defeat those countries easily. This time however when we go to counterattack he sets off several nuclear weapons and destroys and kills thousands of American Soldiers. That's the threat. Not that he will attack us, but that he will use it as a shield against us.

"Where was he when California needed price ceilings imposed against Enron?" -------Bill Gold
This was caused by the eviromentalist who haven't allowed a new power plant or refinery to be built in twenty years. That's who you can blame for the energy crisis. Your lucky it isn't worse.

Ok. I'm back.

Yes we are but think about this, how come the Washington D.C. isn't a crater right now? Because since the attacks we have upped the active military and intelligence personal in our own country. That's why. How many terrorist plots have been foiled so far? One big one is the "Dirty Bomb" plot that was recently foiled. And how many more have they stopped that we don't know, and never will know about. There is way more going on behind the scenes than you or I will ever know.

-Lesson learned: Just because everything looks fine, doesn't mean that someone isn't planning an attack.

Now even a witress in Georgia (or Alabama, not exactly sure on the state) can trigger a massive response to the slightest lead. Even though it turned out to be nothing, what if it was a plan for an attack.

The difference between the Bush administration and the Clinton one, Clinton waited until everything happened before he acted, Bush is trying to prevent things from happening now.

As for the 5-8 buff guys taking over a plane, unarmed, 130 passengers (fighting for their lives mind you) versus 8, thoses odds tend to favor the passengers don't you think?

Why Sometimes Evidence Can't Be Revealed
 

Bill G. (and others),

I have read all the posts here and respect everyone's opinion about the situation in the Middle East. I will not debate the "should we attack / not attack", because it is too long a debate to do via this forum. If anyone wants to debate it in person with me; I will be at Great Lakes, Arizona, Midwest, and Nationals. I will make one comment. I served as an officer in the USAF after attending the US Air Force Academy and have witnessed many covert operations. You may not trust GW, but if we have information then it was most likely obtained covertly and revealing the information could put very brave US service persons in grave danger. Many individuals not too much older than you are putting their life on the lines right now for you and for me. Please do not minimize the importance of their job just because you do not like who our President is.

-Paul

Argh.
 

Where shall I begin?

First, I want to say that I <3 Bill. My general observations regarding this thread have been that, almost entirely, those who oppose action against Iraq, or oppose the United States’ aggressive foreign policy regarding this matter have written considerably more thorough, detailed posts than those who do not. I’d really like to see that people who agree with the nation’s actions and intent provided explanations at length, especially rather than spewing forth any further cursory appraisals of the situation. To put it bluntly, explain yourselves better. You’re doing an awful job so far.

Now, onto the bigger fish.

Tjrage_25 writes, “And ‘for the record,’ everything bad so far that has happened to the Bush administration was set in place during the Clinton administration (i.e.: Enron, 9/11, economic recession). Clinton screwed up this country big time, it's just now showing the effects.”

Aside from the general consensus that any statement that begins ‘everything bad’ is categorically false, and the pitfalls that lie within your choice of words, your example show a myopic view of history. To suggest that the world, or even the United States, was peachy keen until the moment Bill Clinton took office is ludicrous, and that’s not based on historical fact, world political events, or economic factors; it’s based on common sense. September 11, 2001’s events may have been in planning during the years of the Clinton administration, for example, but that means little. Similarly, they were also in planning during Dubya’s administration, yet you seem unwilling to place any blame on him and his administration for their horrible oversight. The ‘economic recession,’ is, whether you like it or not, a symptom of a capitalist economy. It’s cyclical by nature, and happens sooner or later. It’s unrealistic to expect continued rising and expanding prosperity in our economic system. It’s impossible, even. If you want to blame Clinton, go right ahead, but I think that it’s a case of bad timing coupled with the unfortunate events of last year.

Weedie replied, “I couldn't of said it better, and that is exactly what I meant by saying, "We have been sitting around watching for too long,” and I’m no longer certain how this relates to American foreign policy with regard to Iraq. If you want to debate how corporate leaders take advantage of the system, or, if you’d like to hypothesize about the four hundred million different things that might’ve happened differently to prevent crazed lunatics from flying planes into building, go right ahead. Don’t do it here.

Weedie continues, “Beginning with Bush Sr., we did not take action,” seemingly negating her previous assertion that the ills of the world are the sole responsibility of Bill Clinton. “The U.S. has just sat around and 'observed',” she continues. “We have been taken advantage of. Then the Clinton Administration just caused more problems, and we are now seeing the effects of them. It's time for America to stand up for itself, and take action!”

Take action against whom, precisely? It seems to me that your dissatisfaction lies with Bill Clinton, and not with the Iraqi people. I also do not see when or how the United States had been taken advantage of, either. It’s our fault for not arranging treatises in the time after the Gulf War that established an accepted and internationally recognized protocol for curbing aggressive actions or rearmament on the part of Iraq. Who’s responsible for that? Your beloved Bush Sr., I’m afraid. Kristina hit this right on the head.

Wysiwyg later wrote, “I'm saying appeasement sucks. Why would anyone even want to have him in power makes no sense to me.” Well, appeasement generally does suck. Appeasement strategies have, on the whole, been largely unsuccessful. However, more often than not, such strategies are adopted by nation’s who are in no real position to wage war. They buy time for mobilization and a ramp up of a production, and little else.

As this relates to Iraq, I don’t see inaction as appeasement at all. Rather, the United States is suffering the consequences of its own inaction in the time after the Gulf War, as I stated previously. If there was serious concern regarding Iraq’s military potential, steps should’ve been taken previously to ensure that it could be kept in check. Now, however, I think that it’s politically important that the United States be humble and maintain accordance with the wishes of the global bodies represented in the United Nations. As others have already mentioned, to strike out on our own sets a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, many people have not given enough thought.

He continues, “There is something called the news. There job is to coroborate the information from the government and make sure its true. There has been credible news stories that are trickling in that show that he needs to been booted.” What news organizations do you patronize, exactly? Media conglomerates such as Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., report very little actual ‘news.’ Their programming is driven by advertising dollars, just like any other television network, and their success depends entirely on maintaining viewership. It’s all nothing more than a clever deception that, sadly, has many people fooled. They provide you with an overwhelmingly pro-American visage of world politics, feed you one or two dissenters on occasion to legitimize themselves, and bow down to the almighty power of popular opinion. There are, of course, some news organizations that still maintain a reputation for fair, unbiased reporting, such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, but, by and large, television and internet news organizations do very, very little to find the truth. The truth is often unpopular and popularity sells soft drinks.

As an experiment, find something that you’re unusually knowledgeable about, and research related news articles. I’m certain that you’ll find more than a handful of inaccuracies. For example, in my case, I know a great deal about amusement parks and roller coasters, and both have been in the news quite a bit this summer. The data presented in these stories is often 100% false, fabricated, or not at all related to the story. There is very, very little that is truth in these instances. Sometimes, it’s as simple as naming rides that don’t exist at the parks that are the focus of investigation. Other times, it’s blatant misuse of statistics to further a solely political agenda. It’s a fun home game. Give it a try.

Finally, Joel Glidden writes, “Saddam has a gun pointed at our collective heads, people.”

Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniacal dictator. I don’t think that anyone, anywhere is arguing that he should remain in power. Rather, I think that some have the humility to question their place in determining the fate of others. Some, obviously, don’t, and possess a frightening propensity to force their will upon others.

Given Hussein’s hunger for power, I have very little that makes me believe he has a gun pointed at my head. See, people like that get off on the power. They live for it. They want immortality, and they want absolute control over everything.

Should Hussein decide one day that the most recent episode of the PowerPuff Girls really pissed him off, and now would be a good time to destroy America, as you seem to paint the picture, there’s a very obvious reason why he wouldn’t do it. If he does, the entire world will, as some of you have so eloquently put it, make Iraq into little more than a crater. Hussein, and the rest of the world, for that matter, knows that to attack America is a suicide pact. Why would someone who loves power so much relinquish it, and his life, so easily?

Now, imagine a more probable scenario in which the United States takes action against Iraq because, the arrogant, ignorant President of the United States views their distaste of Big Macs and Elvis Presley as a direct threat on his male privilege. What you have, in reality, is nothing more than an international pissing contest, to put it bluntly; and it’s a contest I’d rather not be involved in.

One day, when the United States bombs Iraq, especially without the support of the United Nations, Hussein will retaliate. Right now, the world agrees that there is no legitimacy in the existence of Iraq’s military arsenal. However, the moment someone takes action against Iraq, it sends the message to Hussein that he is viewed as a viable and deadly threat, and it legitimizes his military by giving him a fair opportunity to use it. Without our attack, Iraq will continue to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. With our attack, Iraq will use them, and it will get away with it because the actions of the United States will create a rift within the United Nations. On one hand, they will recognize the importance of stopping Iraq from further attacking the United States and other nations. On the other hand, to step in and take action against Iraq in response to whatever situation develops after an American attack would sanction our actions in violation of global desire, and further stroke George W. Bush’s ego.

Honestly, I don’t understand why anyone would trust the fate of a nation to someone who can’t speak English, but that’s just me.

Continued. . .

Argh Strikes Back
 

. . . Part 2.


Joel Glidden goes on, “You may not feel 'served' by GW's actions. But you had better be thankful that he's protecting you. You give me the impression you'd be unwilling to do that for yourself.”

First, do not dare tell me how to exercise my rights as an American. George W. Bush is not protecting me by any means. In fact, I’m utterly terrified that he’s going to get me killed. If it’s not Iraq, I’m sure I could line up dozens of other nations, religious groups, and individuals who’d jump at the chance to kill me – George W. Bush included. Our government, in all of its infallible glory, does nothing to protect me. I have to protect myself from domestic attackers – in the form of bigots, fanatics, and court justices – so forgive me if I am a bit skeptical about my government’s ability to protect me from foreign invaders.

Like I stated previously, my knowledge of Middle Eastern politics is limited, and so my reactions to this thread reflect upon my growing distaste for the ignorant masses of Americans who, in my opinion, are getting too comfortable with their lives. They don’t know what it’s like to be persecuted, hated, or discriminated against. They don’t understand what it means to have your views ignored, your life devalued, and your culture destroyed. Eventually, this lack of respect for the past, for other human beings, and for different belief system (social, political, or religious) will destroy this country. It’s just a matter of time.

This thread, sadly, has given me little hope that things are going to change. Again, people have given me very little evidence that shows they’re doing anything more than following the party line, and the evidence that people continue to feel entitled to their way of life is staggering. The United States has many virtues, and I don’t mean to paint a wholly negative picture of this country, but I work with what I am given. I would very much appreciate that anyone who takes the time to reply to this also take the time thoroughly explain your feelings and provide documents and examples that give credit to your point of view. All those who’re only going to reply with the “Blow the bastards up ‘cause it’s my God given right to drive an 18 cylinder gas-guzzling, soccer team hauling SUV” fodder need not bother, thanks. You’re wasting my time.

but how can you say it was foiled when it never happened? remember those three muslim men in florida who were "foiled", even though they were just driving to a medical school to get more training? i hardly call that a terrorist plot that has been foiled. just because everyone says someone was going to make a dirty bomb and blow it up doesn't mean they actually were going to.

also, to bill -

no, you're not putting words in my mouth. yes, i dislike war, you could even say i loathe it. but, if america was attacked, i would do what i could to help. i doubt i could make it through boot camp, mostly because i think too much. but then again, i'm not the personality type that could go and shoot a gun and kill someone. i don't mind blood, i love camping out (hell, i'm a boy scout), but i seriously doubt my ability to go and shoot someone who is the same as me, only different in ideology. oh well, i'm rambling again.

Re: Argh.
 

Awww...Michael and Bill are defintely my boys in this thread, even if they beat me to all the points I want to make. Could it be the liberalizing affect of college? who knows...their arguments just make sense to me.

Re: Re: Argh.
 

On the record, I would like to second that motion.

By the way, Michael, Ian, Bill (sometimes), and myself can be found in Tigerbolt.

We'll be here all week. *rimshot*

shush jim, dont' give away our secret hideout! :D

If Saddam were to attack Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other country for that matter it would only be a matter of days before American/British/etc. airpower leveled the power structure of Iraq, along with quite a few Iraqi civilians. No doubt about it. The only lives we’d be risking would be the lives of the pilots flying through the air. If Iraq were to fire missiles into Israel (biological/nuclear/or otherwise), I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel unilaterally unleashed its arsenal against Iraq in response. Israel has a history of striking back at foreign aggression with two or more times the initial force of its foe.

Your ignorance is painful to witness. You are correct, we don’t like to ruin our environment here in California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. We love our beautiful land out here. But not building power plants, nuclear reactors, or drilling for oil didn’t lead California into its fake “electricity shortage.” It was the work of former Republican Governor, Pete Wilson as well as companies like Enron and the lack of aid from President Bush. Former Governor Pete Wilson helped push a deregulation bill through CA legislature in the early 1990’s. This bill paved the way for private companies like Enron to charge whatever they deemed “market value” was, without any governmental oversight. Enron and others began to constrict their supplies and choke off our electricity causing rolling blackouts while raising the prices of electricity by up to 800% (yes, eight hundred percent) in some places, and caused quite a bit of damage to the high tech industry, as well as other industries in CA. There was no shortage of electricity, Enron was just bending the hose like a kid would do while his/her parents would be trying to water the lawn. President Bush had the ability to call off his buddies at Enron, and force them to back off of the price gouging. Instead, he (Bush) decided to let capitalism run its course. The masses were swindled, as is what often happens in capitalist societies, but I’ll refrain from going any farther with this train of thought. If you want to continue this conversation, start another thread. But I’m offended that a person ~3,000 miles away is trying to tell me that he knows more about CA than I do. How dare you, sir.

Not all flights are full. I’ve been on quite a few Southwest flights which have only had a handful of people. Some with maybe only 30 people maximum, and quite a few being elderly. I think that it’s still very easy to take over a plane if someone wanted to do it. Even if there were 130 passengers on a flight… what’s stopping Al Queda from putting 50 terrorists on a flight? It’s not like they lack the funds or the people to do it.

Thanks Michael. You make some wonderful points in your posts. /me applauds

Thanks, once again, for the kind words Kristina.

On another note… huge sigh of relief finding out that I didn’t misinterpret Ian’s comments. A tout a l’heure.

-Bill

Your right, our air power would crush anything that moves, unfortunately even our military has not designed a better weapon than the GI. Anyway you look at it if Iraq invades or trys anything with their military it will not end until American ground troops take it house by house. Even in Afghanistan we needed the Northern Alliance on the ground to take back the country and those special forces men to guide those bombs. Then those ground troops are vulnerable to all those weapons that you seem not to care if he has.

So, production stays the same, but demand increases several fold and that doesn't cause a shortage?

Sorry Im getting a weeeee bit off topic. Im sorry but these statement makes me laugh out loud. You can take two or three guys that know how to fight and take 5-8 buff guys out very quickly.Errr.. 50 muslim dudes on an airplane???? Doesn't that scream out terrorist attack? Guys can we stop making up stupid scenerios.Just a little fact there is money the kurds and the iraqi's are getting in equal amounts. The kurds have the higher state of living than the Iraqis yet each part gets the same amount of money. It isn't the money its whats being done with it. Dam it I wish I could source all of this stuff but all I remeber it is from tv news stations.Using your logic I can no longer source anything and make a valid arguement.

Here I go nitpicking at people's words again (mmm, love being devil's advocate). Let's just be more careful about what we say though, 50 muslim people on a play no way screams out terrorist attack. You're judging a whole entire muslim religion on extremists.

Yes, I know that it was only 4 or 5...but numbers aren't really what I'm talking about.

I'm just a little sensitive about this subject because I do have an Arab friend (he's catholic, not muslim, but anyway) who whenever he flies, doesn't go to the bathroom in fear that people will think that he'll do something while he's up.

i wasn't implying that the kurds manage their money better. all i'm saying is that the US, and all the other countries, should help iraq, not punish it. the cold war is over. america isn't trying to stop the spread of "communism" (the fact that the USSR was nothing close to communism is a whole other debate). if anything, i'd say america should be out there, helping everyone around the world. what ever happened to "all men are created equal"? are the iraqis less equal then us? there is no reason to punish a nation, even more so, a nation ruled by a dictator, for the actions of a few. for that reason alone, i say we should help the iraqis. of course, your average american has been brainwashed by now into thinking that anyone who says "praise allah" or wears a turban is a terrorist, so i doubt anything will happen to help the iraqi people. :/

Gahh! I hate the fact that we are the policemen of the world. I also think that we should further analyze why these people don't like us. I wish I wish there was a peaceful solution. I really think that the US should never have gotten so deeply involved in other countries business in the first place. But then, (im contradicting myself) where the heck would kuwait be? Up a certain creek, no doubt. No matter which path we take, it is no doubt going to get heated from here on out. A holy war is not entirely out of the question (its been proposed to the muslim leaders), and that might rip the world apart. It drives me insane to think that people like Bin Laden and Hussein can still have power in today's world. But, I'm being slightly ethnocentric when I say this b/c I have no idea what the heck their culture is like over there(except from movies, we all know how accurate those are). Perhaps isolation is the best move. I know that there are some people in this world who I will never get along with, and they will never get along with me. We don't really hate each other, but we know that being around each other just hurts each other. Maybe this is the case with some countries and the US?

I don't really have a point, this is just my thoughts(pretty literally) on this. As usual, I try to take a larger view of things.

It's really disconcerting to hear that you find nothing better than one person, with a gun, killing another person. I don't understand how that's "good thing" in general, much less something it being "better" than anything else. Sorry, I'm not religious, but I still believe that killing is wrong.

I do not understand this statement. Greed without regulation has nothing to do with supply and demand (If I'm wrong, tell me. I'm no economics major).

I have an idea, why don't we just put two or three Navy SEALs on every flight in, through, and out of the country? Ahem, please excuse me if I quote this part wrong, but... "Guys can we stop making up stupid scenerios."

I cannot believe you just said that. That is one of the most insensitive, racially prejudiced, and ignorant statements I have ever read in my entire life. You, so far as I can tell, are the worst epitome of the pompus, racist, anti-non-American thought that I have taken the time out of my busy schedule to be disgusted by. The fact that I am even replying to this comment is amazing me, as I type these very word. Where do you get off saying that a flight on which there happen to be a large proportion of people who appear to be from the Middle East (much less assuming that they are Muslim, or the other way around) constitutes a "terrorist attack"? You, my friend, are why I am ashamed to be an American.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1266586

Money's a fun thing. Did you know that in 1999-2000, Saddam Hussein offered $95 million to America to benefit "America's underprivileged children"? Kinda funny, eh? I like that kind of sense of humor (mind you, I still despise killing)...

I wish I were half as well-spoken as either Bill or Michael...

^What they said^

I am not nearly as well-spoken as any of them ... the only thing I can offer is agreement.

You guys rock :)

- Katie

U.N. arms inspectors searching in Iraq discovered that Hussein was only a year away from posessing nuclear weapon technology. Since then, Hussein has continued with covert efforts to build a bomb, lacking only the enriched uranium needed as fuel.

Also, Hussein has remaining stockpiles of anthrax, sarin and mustard gas.

Also, as we're all worried about the United States violating a U.N. resolution, Hussein is building Scud missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometers, which violates limits mandated by the U.N. after the Persian Gulf War.

He has both the weapons and the willingness to use them. In 1988, he used various nerve gases, including sarin and mustard gas on Kurdish inhabitants living in northern Iraq. Last I recalled, the attempted wholesale destruction of a people was called genocide. Slobodan Milosevic was convicted in 1999 for the same types of crimes. Why has Hussein been allowed to remain free?

And as to helping the Iraqi people? How much of the aid that would be sent would actually reach the majority of the population? Would any of it reach the Kurds, or the Sunni or Shi'ite Muslims that live in the country? Or would most of it be kept by Hussein and the Baath party? I agree that the Iraqi people need help, but I don't see how anything can be done if Saddam Hussein remains in power.

In 1993, Saddam attempted to assinate then-President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Iraq is also suspected of harboring two Palestinian terrorist groups, as well as placing a bounty on the families of suicide bombers, which he more than doubled this year.

Umm, Bill? That's the easiest way I can think of to end a war. Beat the opponent into submission as quickly and completely as possible. You can help them rebuild afterward, when your people are safe. No military wants to get its troops killed.

Foto, Bill, Doanie8, et al., wysiswyg was making a semi-valid point. His methods may not have been very PC, but c'mon. There's a valid reason that Arabs are under added scrutiny on airplanes. One year ago last month, four planes were hijacked by Arab terrorists and crashed into the Pentagon and World Trade Center. So while I feel bad for the innocent people who had and have nothing to do with terrorists, I would feel even worse were something like that to happen again. Earlier, Ian W. asked how an attempt to smuggle a "dirty bomb" into the U.S. was foiled if nothing happened. Of course nothing happened! The plot was foiled! The suspect was caught, and the bomb never made it to the country.

And Foto, you took Jim's post about the GI's completely out of context. He was replying to Bill's comment about an air strike being all that would be necessary. Unfortunately, an air force can only go so far. Like he said, any attack would only end with the use of ground forces.

You're free to leave. Isn't freedom great?

-Joel

I love freedom, thank you very much...

Summing it up in philosophical terms...
 

What type of world do you want to live in? Do you like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Do you enjoy freedom? Do you enjoy your inalienable rights? Americans have enjoyed these things for many years... and there are those around us who would like nothing more take them from us... to destroy us and our way of life.

Yes, at times in our past, we have done things which were wrong. Does this negate the validity of a future course of action? I think not.

These freedoms we enjoy are not free. They must be defended from those who, given a chance, would take them away. They must be paid for. Yes, even in blood. For this is the only way to convince those who would destroy us of the strength of our conviction. In a life and death struggle between peoples, victory goes to those who believe in it the most, and the longest.

Do you really believe that if we turn a blind eye to a threat it will go away? Do you really believe you can negotiate with someone willing to die while killing you? What would you negotiate with? What is it you can say to convince your mortal enemy to change his mind? And make no mistake, the people of whom you all have been discussing are your mortal enemies. Some of them are even willing to fly fuel laden planes into buildings full of civilians.

Some ask if Afghanistan will be the last? Or Iraq? Or will there be another? These are the same questions asked during past global conflicts. And the answer has allways been the same... Only God knows the future. Man can only take the information presented and make the best decision possible.

There comes a time in everyones life, in every societies lifetime, when they must ask themselves what is it they believe in. For us as a people, this is one of those times. Will we rise to the occasion and be victorious? Or will we go silently into the night? It is entirely up to you. But remember, with every thought, comment, or question that brings our conviction into question, the enemy gathers strength.

The enemy is real. The enemy is here. If the time is not now, then when will it be?

Well Said Mike
 

Very well put, Mike. I couldn't agree with you more. Those of you who disagree with action against Iraq (Saddam), you have presented many valid points. But I would like to pose one scenario:

If the US did not have its isolationist attitude during the late 30s and until December 7th, WW2 would have most likely been a much smaller conflict with much fewer casualties. If we would have stepped in when the Nazi's first attacked (Poland, I think ... its been too long and I don't have my old history book handy), Hitler's army would have had less power and could have been defeated sooner. The U.S. has great power in the World's eyes, and with that power comes a responsibility to protect peoples weaker than us. What if the U.S. had an Isolationist ideology now? The World would criticize us as they did during the "European War (aka WW2)".

I do not like war. I wish it wasn't necessary. Negotiation only works when both side are willing. Saddam is NOT willing. He only negotiates to stall for time. We must act ... sooner or later.

-Paul

Forward:
I’d like to thank Paul Copioli and Mike Rush for bringing calm, and very pointfilled arguments to the opposition’s side. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the two of you, although I’ve only had the pleasure of meeting Mike in person once. I hope ,with all of my heart, that you two do not take what I’m about to say personally... I’m just trying to keep a healthy exchange of points going here.
Yes, I understand where you’re coming from with regards to the covert operations and espionage. My grandfather is a retired Brigadier General in the USAF, my uncle served in the USAF for 6+ years, and my father worked as a civilian for the USAF (or Army, I forget which) examining the telemetry of Russian rockets. In short, yes I can understand trying to keep the anonymity of our men/women spying for us in other countries. But where does this get us? It allows people like me to question the validity of, or even existence of evidence which supports most of your theory that we should oust Saddam, or bomb his weapons plants. Just as a personal note, there are quite a few things that I admire about Pres. Bush. I don’t loathe him unconditionally as some people do, but he has had a history of actions which leads me to believe that he doesn’t care about me, my life, my health, my future, or my standard of living. But if it was any other man or woman standing behind a podium telling me that there’s undeniable, irrefutable proof that action needs to take place, telling me that I (if ordered) needed to risk my life to preserve the way of life of our people, I would still ask to see the evidence anyway. I don’t trust as easily as some of you do (not aimed at anyone in particular, just a statement).
You’ve got to be kidding. I’ll explain it with the hopes that you will skim through your school Economics book and try to figure out what I mean, instead of misinterpreting my quotes. During our manipulated crisis, Enron and others claimed that consumption increased several fold, and that supply remained the same over that same period of time. Yes, you’re right this would cause a shortage. But what you don’t realize, understand, know about is that supply was actually cut off during that year by Enron (among others), while demand stayed roughly the same over a period of a year. This too causes a shortage and skyrocketing prices, all manipulated by the companies. Now you may be asking yourselves “Why would anyone want to reduce the quantity of a product they sell? Wouldn’t that earn them less money in the long run?” The answer is simply “No.” CA, in desperate need for more electricity, was forced to buy electricity from other states for this new “market value” of electricity. Then CA, thinking it was a demand side problem as Enron claimed, decided it should enter into long term energy contracts with Enron at a price somewhere in between the equilibrium price pre-market manipulation, and post market manipulation. In the end, CA gets more than enough energy, and Enron makes a buttload of cash it shouldn’t have. Don’t you dare try to pass yourself off as a scholar on a topic of which you don’t know a thing. You didn’t live through this. You’re ~3,000 miles away for crying out loud. Drop this part of the conversation before you look like even more of an idiot.
I’m with Foto. “That is one of the most insensitive, racially prejudiced, and ignorant statements I have ever read in my entire life. You, so far as I can tell, are the worst epitome of the pompus, racist, anti-non-American thought that I have taken the time out of my busy schedule to be disgusted by. The fact that I am even replying to this comment is amazing me, as I type these very word. Where do you get off saying that a flight on which there happen to be a large proportion of people who appear to be from the Middle East (much less assuming that they are Muslim, or the other way around) constitutes a "terrorist attack"?” I’d also like to add that Al Queda doesn’t enlist only “muslim dudes” as you put it. There have been members of all nationalities, and races attending those training camps. Al Queda even boasts this. You disgust me.
The news stations which you’re referring to are most likely FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, or any of their affiliates. In this case, yes. If you watch five of these news stations and listen to their stories you haven’t learned anything. It’s all the same American, and American government point of view, force fed, nonsense. Michael said it better than me, “Their programming is driven by advertising dollars, just like any other television network, and their success depends entirely on maintaining viewership.” This being said, I don’t trust our government to corroborate an ABC “news story” about some woman who knew Saddam. If I’m not mistaken, it was you, wysiswyg, who said the following in a post on page 3 of this thread:There seems to be a contradiction in your posts. If you believe it’s the job of the news to corroborate the government, to keep them in check.. why would you trust the government to corroborate a news story? It appears to me that this logic of yours proves that the news media and the government could be knowingly in the wrong, yet get you to believe them anyway. Frightening epiphany, eh?

to be continued...

continued...
Why has Kadafi been allowed to rule? Why haven’t we ever successfully assassinated Castro or otherwise removed him from power? It’s not your place to decide who can or can’t lead a country that isn’t yours. It’s that type of thinking which makes people from other countries dislike us, because our leaders seem to believe they should be able to pick their counterparts.
Well, in 1993 Bill Clinton was sworn in so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. The US has attempted to assassinate heads of state too, so why is it bad when someone else tries to do it? Can you say double standard? Also, the term “placing a bounty on one’s head” to me means paying someone to kill that person. If Saddam were to place a “…bounty on the families of suicide bombers…” I’d take that as a good thing, since I don’t like suicide bombers, and doubling that price would be even better. Although, I’m sure you didn’t intend on having your words interpreted that way.
Erm. Michael? You totally took that quote out of context, and drew a tangent which has no relevance to this threads original topic or train of thought, but I’ll follow suit in response. It’s pretty disgusting to think that you wouldn’t be appalled if a country were to win a war by obliterating its opponent with chemical/nuclear weapons. Do you not care for human lives? Do you not care about all of the suffering people screaming in agony as their skin is melted off of their bones? There has never been a war where the predominantly used weapons were not conventional weapons. You know why? Because no one wants to win a war, but live in a place that’s radioactive for decades.
How can you condone the anti-Arab sentiments posted by wysiswyg? The statement “So while I feel bad for the innocent people who had and have nothing to do with terrorists, I would feel even worse were something like that to happen again.” does not begin to repair the damage of your (and wysiswyg‘s) shortsighted racial profiling. I don’t care what kind of people flew those planes into the WTC complex and the Pentagon. It could have just as easily been white Americans like Timmy McVeigh. There’s absolutely no reason to be more suspicious of ANY minority being a terrorist. That type of thinking is what keeps the KKK around. You don’t want to be put in that kind of category, do you?
Well, our air force did a damned good job against the Iraqi military in the Gulf War. American helicopters sent the Iraqi tanks reeling, and the Warthogs destroyed quite a bit. Lockheed/Martin also developed a missile during the Gulf War which penetrates 100 feet of sand, and an additional 20 feet of concrete to knock out underground bases. Who knows what they’ve developed since then? I think you underestimate our air power, and you over estimate the need for American ground troops. Besides, there are other rebel factions inside Iraq like there were in Afghanistan. They’d jump at the opportunity to overthrow Saddam.
How dare you. Slinging mud for no good reason. You have just lost yourself any respect I previously had for you. Instead of trying to come up with a decent argument to add to this conversation, you hide behind insulting one liners; as if to prove to the rest of us that you really have no thoughts of your own other than the ones you birthed in Kindergarten. Please come up with something sustentative, or stay out of this conversation entirely. You’re just hurting your cause.
Yes, I love my life. I love our liberties that we once had (and may never see again if the Patriot Act isn’t repealed or heavily revised), and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, there are people in this world who are either jealous of our liberties, or are just hell bent on taking them from us. In the world as we know it (2002), it’s a bad policy for any country to directly attack us in an attempt to take what’s left of our liberties. As of this moment, we are still the strongest country on the face of the Earth. We have the most modern military, some of the best trained soldiers in the world, and some of the most strategically sound commanders in the world. Any country that would attack us would be made short work of. What threatens us isn’t a visible country, or a group of people that we know where they live. What threatens us is terrorism, not a country with borders, but people without affiliations. People with money who act alone, or in relatively small groups.

to be continued again...

continued again...
Our country has done some horrible things, and told some horrible lies. I think we owe it to ourselves to keep the government in check, and make sure that they aren’t trying to trick us again. The Gulf of Tonkin speech that I cited in an earlier post speaks directly to this issue. I will not allow myself to be tricked into believing a government fabricate lie. That’s just how I am. I’m very weary of anyone who comes to me and says “trust me…”, especially if my life is possibly on the line. I’m 19 years old, and am healthy enough to be drafted. I should be able to review the facts, how they were gathered and possibly by whom, and then make a decision that could quite possibly put my life in jeopardy for this country’s survival. 50,000+ Americans lost their lives because of a lie our government knowingly told us, I won’t lose mine over another lie.
I don’t see enforcing the inspections per the agreement after the Gulf War, or by enforcing inspections per a revision of those agreements, as turning a blind eye. Yes, you’re right, we’ll never know if/where he’s hiding other weapons. Iraq isn’t trying to kill us, like I said before, it would practically be signing their own death warrants if they did try to kill Americans. I guess we just don’t see this issue the same way, which isn’t a bad thing.
There will always be another.
Rise to what occasion? To attack Iraq before they hypothetically attack us? That just gives other countries, and terrorist groups more reason to hate us. Must we keep giving them fodder to feed to their children? By tossing our international muscle around we just piss people off. Letting inspections continue is hardly going silently into the night.
Paul, with all due respect, I believe it’s improper to judge WW2 in that manner with the hindsight we have now. It was the opinion of the entire American people in the late 1930’s / early 1940’s that (pre-Lend/Lease Act) WW2 was for people too far removed from our country. No one wanted to jump into another war, seeing as WW1 decimated and traumatized Americans (soldiers and civilians alike).
Speaking of WW2 issues,
Where did that come from? The US isn’t appeasing Iraq. It’s not like they’ve gone back into Kuwait and we’ve been sitting on our thumbs. Appeasing, in a historical sense, is a term used to describe the pacification of a person/country/party which has taken, or is about to take, either wealth/land/slaves/people/etc. Saddam hasn’t encroached upon his neighbors like Hitler did to the Czechoslovak border in the late 1930’s. Saddam also hasn’t forcefully taken over another country like Italy conquered Ethiopia without any repercussions from the League of Nations.
I agree. Action needs to take place, but I refuse to accept or support a military strike without evidence that it is necessary. At this juncture (while the UN hasn’t authorized military action against Iraq), I would support inspections per the old agreements, or a revision that Iraq consents to.

Until next time,
-Bill

Volume 2.
 

Mike Rush writes, ”Yes, at times in our past, we have done things which were wrong. Does this negate the validity of a future course of action? I think not.”

I think that sounds great on paper. It’s also practically useless in the context of this debate. It epitomizes everything that is wrong with our culture and foreign policy in just a few brief words. It assumes a disturbing level of superiority over the entire globe, and somehow, people can’t understand why there are people the world over who want to destroy our society.

You argue that the United States’ future actions shouldn’t be governed by its history; that we should be given the opportunity to learn from our mistakes and that our future actions have an implied validity, given our own virtuous pipe dream that it is a benevolent beast unleashed upon the world. What your argument fails to acknowledge, however, is that our past actions have not been plagued by misguided benevolence, but by genuine avarice and the entitled attitude of superiority that you’ve encapsulated. Further, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that differentiates arguments supporting unilateral action against Iraq from our past indiscretions.

The entire case for swift, immediate against Iraq is built upon evidence of its nuclear rearmament, existing stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, and a past history of aggressive intent and action. How, precisely, does that differ greatly from the history of the United States? While we may not be able to make a point-for-point comparison, I think that to argue that we’re entitled to take military action because of this buildup, and furthermore, that we’re somehow an agent of justice and humanity is hypocritical and selfish. Many Americans view Iraq as a direct threat against their way of life, and Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations resent American involvement in their affairs, the influence of American and western culture on their people, and the bullying attitude that is frequently demonstrated by our government and populace. Just because we’re the more powerful nation, we have no right whatsoever to lead the mob.

If you’ll recall something I’m so fond of pointing out – this country was founded with great care put toward preventing the tyranny of the majority. In that vein, we have established a government that has checks and balances in place that maintain the sanctity of the republic. These same checks and balances do not exist in the international political arena, and the United States conveniently and unabashedly takes advantage of this, insulting the work of its founders and presenting a clear picture to the world that shows what little respect we have for our own history.

Mike Rush continues, “These freedoms we enjoy are not free. They must be defended from those who, given a chance, would take them away. They must be paid for. Yes, even in blood.”

That is, I’m afraid, the rallying call of a nation who doesn’t understand its own history. But, in the context of what you’ve written, I hope you understand that I am defending my freedom against those who seek to take it away each time that I vocalize my dissent, each time that I treat an Arab-American just like everybody else, and each time I cry out at the loss of those ‘inalienable’ rights people wax on about. Terrorists do not need to fly their planes into buildings every week, or send anthrax-laced letters, or point a dozen nuclear missiles at every major city in the United States. They’re smarter that most Americans, and our government, because they see – through our international political and military action – that the majority is getting anxious to be tyrannical. It is, after all the majority, and most people in America belong. Those of us that do not, though, can see it coming, and we’re terrified. As I mentioned to someone in conversation last night, when the mob comes your way, you either turn around and lead the way, or you get trampled. Britain is about to turn tail and start waving an American flag. I am not.

My freedoms are already being stripped away, little by little, in the name of Homeland security. ‘Homeland’ is, as already mentioned, one of the scariest choices of langauge I can imagine, as it is frighteningly evocative of the German state preceding World War II. But, I digress. The terrorists have done their job, I fear, and they shall just watch as the former glory of the United States as a platform for change and diversity and innovation withers away by our own hand. I am not scared of an Arab man on an airplane. I am scared of the politicians in Washington – the upper class – that is willing to do whatever takes to protect their interests and leave me for dead on the side of the streets paved with gold.

Again, he writes, “For this is the only way to convince those who would destroy us of the strength of our conviction.”

Violence against another is not a symptom of conviction, but rather fear. Those who believe in the truth of their knowledge and their way of life hold no need for violence because it serves no purpose. To strike out against an opponent is a reaction of fear and legitimizes the fallibility of your position and the threat of the opposition. To prematurely or unilaterally strike against Iraq clearly demonstrates our fear of Saddam Hussein, in that the Government, which is, after all, comprised largely of rich, white folks (previously referred to as the majority), may lose the faith of its people.

How? Well, in the moments following September 11, 2001, our President made some bold statements regarding international terrorism, and he captured the bleeding hearts of a nation. He rode a wave of public opinion polls that allowed him to pass and propose legislation that violates the rights of all Americans. Now, the wave has crashed, the Government has little tangible evidence, short of ‘classified documents’ and ‘reliable sources’ that the ‘War on Terror’ was the least bit successful. They did manage, however, to meddle in the affairs of another nation yet again, committing money and manpower to the region for years to come.

Do we see history repeating itself yet?

Now, Bush’s latest trumpet of patriotism has become Iraq. He recognizes, probably through the help of his aides, that if he loses grip on the fervent streak of misguided patriotism that’s captured America, his Presidency will be a failure, and his future opportunities for egotistical greatness will be cut short. In kind, so goes the story with everyone else in Washington. It is, after all, little more than a political game of manipulation that shows no regard for the lives of mere mortals.

“Do you really believe that if we turn a blind eye to a threat it will go away?”

I think we need seriously reevaluate the definition of a threat, and wholeheartedly reexamine what it is that’s being threatened with the same intensity and fervor that we wave the red, white and blue.

“Do you really believe you can negotiate with someone willing to die while killing you? What would you negotiate with? What is it you can say to convince your mortal enemy to change his mind?”

We could just rest assured in our conviction that we are, somehow, better than everyone else. We could play the game, and we could outsmart the opponent. Or, we could give in to fear and further weaken the foundation of our country while eliminating one short-term threat, and probably creating dozens more.

“There comes a time in everyones life, in every societies lifetime, when they must ask themselves what is it they believe in. For us as a people, this is one of those times. Will we rise to the occasion and be victorious? Or will we go silently into the night? It is entirely up to you.”

I don’t think there’s anyone among us who doesn’t have at least some small instinct for self-preservation (though, according to my parents, mine must be very small, since I always start trouble), though I don’t think that’s really what’s in question. Rather, our fundamental definitions of victory are, really, what seem to be largely divergent. With the connotation that you ascribe to the events of the past year, and the events of the foreseeable future, I’d much rather go silently into the night, and perhaps emerge into a dawn that holds promise for the future of humanity, rather than the American way of life. I am many things and I possess many qualities. Among them, I am American. Above them, I am human.

“But remember, with every thought, comment, or question that brings our conviction into question, the enemy gathers strength.”

This makes me want to vomit, and is only further indicative of the frightening shift toward near-fanaticism that has characterized this country. The freedom you are so concerned with maintaining is precisely what allows me to question everything in this world, and yet you seem so steadfast in abandoning those freedoms, and the principles they represent, in your battle to save them.

Perplexing, no?

Paul Copioli replied, “If the US did not have its isolationist attitude during the late 30s and until December 7th, WW2 would have most likely been a much smaller conflict with much fewer casualties. If we would have stepped in when the Nazi's first attacked (Poland, I think ... its been too long and I don't have my old history book handy), Hitler's army would have had less power and could have been defeated sooner. The U.S. has great power in the World's eyes, and with that power comes a responsibility to protect peoples weaker than us. What if the U.S. had an Isolationist ideology now? The World would criticize us as they did during the "European War (aka WW2)".

The United States was in the throes of the Great Depression during the 1930’s, as well as not possessing nearly the military might that we’d like to imagine today. There was, realistically, very, very little that the United States could have done or sent into combat that would’ve turned the tide of World War II. In fact, had we acted prematurely, that conflict may have ended in a drastically different way.

Our isolationist policy was only reflective of our inability to properly support a military campaign at the start of the War. Further, public opinion after World War I wouldn’t allow the United States to enter World War II, resulting in our ‘isolationist’ policy. Again, this is more reflective of a government trying to maintain control of its people than it is of the Government’s own desire to remain militarily neutral during the conflict.
The moment that it became politically responsible, the United States enacted Lend-Lease agreements with Britain that sent American machinery into battle – before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor was, like September 11, 2001, a political springboard that let the Government work toward further establishing itself as a world superpower. Our ‘responsibility to protect’ is nothing more than a noble-sounding justification for our selfish irresponsibility and disregard for the autonomy and sovereignty of other nations.

Even if the United States did virtuously battle on the side of the downtrodden, there would still be people who harbor resentment. It’s all a matter of pride, and the United States trying to be the Robin Hood of the globe injures the pride of some nations. It’s all about that work ethic, and the strength people receive in knowing that they can take care of themselves. If the United States steps in during every conflict, skirmish, or arms race, it will breed resentment, always.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, World War II became inevitable on June 18, 1935 when Great Britain legitimized the German naval buildup by signing the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, thus demonstrating its unwillingness to defend the Treaty of Versailles, and indicating its fear of Germany and its new ruler. That Prime Minister wasn’t such a good one, and he left a whole mess of stuff for Winston Churchill to cleanup. I fear for GWB’s successor.

Re: Summing it up in philosophical terms...
 

First, please allow me to personally thank you for your response. It is one of the most well put and least absurd replies I have seen.

Addressing the single quoted part of the post, a few specific things come to mind...

The Patriot Act (specifc the the US Government, and intelligence / law enforcement agencies):
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveilla...riot_bill.html
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveilla..._analysis.html
http://www.ala.org/washoff/patriot.html
http://www.aclu.org/congress/l110101a.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (specific to the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America):
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/
http://www.educause.edu/issues/dmca.html
http://slashdot.org/features/00/03/04/1133254.shtml
http://www.ala.org/washoff/dmca.html

It seems to me that the above quoted statement can be interpreted in more than just a single way. The MPAA and the RIAA seem to have the objective of restricting every American's freedom in the name of greed. Who says we should call in the military and take them off of their corperate thrones by force? I'm not sure I'd disagree, if the opportunity arose...

I still love freedom, but I believe there are a few more pressing issues, when it comes to the safety and wellfare of American citizens than a dude (and even his army) in the desert half a world away. I am not a proponent of isolationism (though I understand how one could interpret my previous posts in that way), but I still see a few much more dire situations on the home front...

Greed, oppression, ignorance, bigotry. These are a few of my most despised things.

Fotoplasma I don't believe that you are truely ashamed of being America. You say you love freedom, yet you bash your own country that provides those freedoms.

technically speaking, america doesn't provide jim, nor anyone, with freedoms. the government just protects certain freedoms. you should read up on Locke, it's a very interesting subject.

So is he saying he doesn't want to live in the US anymore? Since he's SO ashamed of it an all.

I'm not putting words in other peoples mouths, in fact I am summarizing what was said of Fox News a from a former weapons inspector.

As for growing up, I may only be 17, but at least I don't have to resort to personal assault to get my point across in a debate.:rolleyes:

For whoever asked for the proof of Saddam paying his people for being suicide bombers, I'm sorry, I was wrong, he is paying Palistinians to blow themselves up. Follow the link below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

PS: I'm done with this, not because of the arguing and debating, but because of the persoal attacks that some members are making on those with differing opinions. And, all of you who are against this, when there is a dirty bomb sitting in the middle of times square, then say we shouln't have at least made a forceful effort to stop this. And for all of you who hate Bush that bad, your free to leave. I'm sure you have a great life waiting for you in Canada or Mexico.

And once again GO BUSH!!!!

i did not say this. i will not put words in jim's mouth (unlike bill :p). i'm just pointing out that everyone is saying America gives us all these freedoms, but according to Locke, whose philosophies make up a majority of the constitution, we already have these freedoms. the government just takes away some rights, like the right to avenge, and protects you in return. so instead of an angry neighbor killing you for borrowing a lawn mower, the police come after you. if the government stayed the way it was back when it was created, it would be much better, but it has evolved to represent the wealthy more than the majority.

I bash the vices of my country, the shortsightedness/ignorance of its leaders. The principles of the system are great. If those principles could be upheld properly (though this would only be my opinion, I'm sure not everyone would agree with my definition of "proper"), I'd have nothing to bash, as you put it.

As for what I am ashamed of, the main reason that I feel shame for being an American is the fact that it seems that a huge proportion of the population of the United States of America is ignorant of current events and problems. I am ashamed to be associated with the ignorant and the racist. I am an American, and I value the opinion of the world. If they think we're a domineering force which seeks to oppress foreign nations for our own economic benefit, then it makes me sad to be an American, for those are not my feelings, and they are not indicative of my way of thought. I don't particularly appreciate being prejudged.

The world does not know me as a person, but they know that I am an American, and that alone seems enough for resentment, on at least some of their parts.

Just for the record, I still love freedom.

I think you overestimate the power of our Air Force. Unless, I'm mistaken they still do not possess a bomb capable of knocking on a door and checking whether or not there are armed Iraqi army soldiers in a building. Sure we could level the building, but what would happen to the other people inside who are their because the other guys holding a gun to their head. And the difference between the Northern Alliance and the Iraqi's rebellion is their not as well armed and they do not have territory that was under their control at the outset like the Northern Alliance had.

As to the energy thing if you read
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cti127.htm
http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/20...standards.html
(towards the end in both)
you will see that California is building nine power plants with 13 more in the works. A company can't raise the prices artificially unless the demand is so high that you need to buy from them. The lack of powerplants in California caused the problems that allowed Enron to take advantage of ithe Californian.

Oh! Oh! I want some action....

The former weapons inspector said that through the almighty news portal of Fox News? IT MUST BE TRUE! Give me a break, Bill had every right to say what he said to you. Do you believe everything people say? That's just that one guys opinion. I seriously doubt he 'craves' weapons like drugs. Sure Iraq may have a large arsenal, but so does the US, and so does every other powerful country in the world. The weapons are what give power, even if they're not used. Don't even talk about his big ego, take a look at your ego, you... you... AMERICAN! Don't be mean to Saddam, he didn't hurt you. You don't attack everyone who doesn't like you and could possibly hurt you. Lot's of people don't like the US, do we murder them all? You know why they don't like us? The US in general has the Biggest. Ego. EVER. We don't own the world. Grow up. Not in age, in intelligence. Most people in the US feel the same way you do, so don't feel too bad.

Since when do spokespeople get all the credit?

And whats this you say about "One day that ego is going to get so big, we will use this arsenal." we? WE??!? I see how it is now. You're on their side aren't you?

P.S. - RAAAARRRRRR!!!!!!!!

There was a day when nations had a sort of code of conduct. A set of mostly unwritten rules they lived by. Sometimes they even formalized them in treaties. Under that code a deliberate attack on any country's military installations or warships was considered an "act of war".

There was no need to declare a war, as of the moment the attack began, a state of war already existed. The only question was whether or not the attacked country had the means and the will to pursue the matter.

I submit that deliberately crashing an airliner into a country's military headquarters is an "act of war" under the above definition. The ethical question is not whether or not we should go to war. We ARE at war, the questions are who are we at war with? and how far are we willing to pursue the attacker?. We are at war with whoever planned, executed and FUNDED the attack on the Pentagon until such time as another arraingement is made, ie some sort of formal peace treaty or other settlement.

IF (and I admit I haven't seen any conclusive evidence but then I'm not likely to either) there is sufficient evidence to tie Saddam and Ben Laden together, then it is the Presidents responsibility to hold them accountable by whatever means necessary. That's what he is there for, what his position's basic responsibility is: to hold wrongdoers accountable. It does not matter whether they are internal or external to the country. That's why he is Commander In Chief, so he has the authority to respond to criminal behavior by nations as well as individuals.

I am thankful that Mr Bush seems to be taking the time to be sure he's attacking the right enemy and that when he does the blow will land swiftly and surely. If he is not right, if Ben Laden acted on his own, or if he unnecessarily hurts the wrong people, then I hope that the voters of this country will hold Mr Bush accountable for his actions.

But let's not forget the basic truth that as a nation we are already at war, and we have been since at least Sept 11, 2001, if not the attack on the Cole or the barracks in Saudi Arabia, and we will be until the enemy is identified and neutralized, one way or another. We didn't start it, but we'd darn well better finish it, and convincingly, so we don't have to go through this again for a long time.

BTW I don't think wholesale bombing is the answer either. Too many ordinary people who had no say in anything get in the way, but I wouldn't mind sending Saddam a couple of 500lb presents down his chimney, that is if he's the guy we're looking for.

Most of what I had to say about my stance about this issue or rebutting some people's opinions has already been addressed some lengthy but poignant responses already.

What has been bothering me is how people who are supposidly "bashing" America are basically branded as traitors or unpatriotic people who are unappreciative of the great American system government. I'm sorry, but the sedition acts that banned saying anything inflammatory against the government were thrown out a long time ago. Part of what makes our government so progressive and great (well at least in my opinion) is the fact that people are allowed to question what the country is doing and protest to their politicians when they think they see wrongdoing.

Its unfortunate that most of the American society are simply passive about what's going on around them. In our country we actually have the chance to speak out against what we don't like, unlike many of the dictatorships or undemocratic societies around the world. Yet instead, many Americans just absorb what they hear in the news [many of which are biased...like the very conservatively biased fox news] or from their parents, etc. Given, there may be some citizens who are extremists and take out their issues with the country through violent actions but simply speaking against the President or popular view in an educated manner should deem a person an active participant of politics, not evil.

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!! :eek:
I ment to say "he would use this arsenal", "he", not "we", that little typo made changed the meaning of that whole statement. I didn't see it until you pointed it out, sorry.


BTW I am sick of people make the US to be the bad guys in this situation, and Saddam the viticitm. Tell me again, who gasses their own people? And what's with bashing the US all of a sudden, don't you like the way you live? Have somemore respect for the country in which you live, and the freedoms you enjoy.

I'm not trying to convince you that Saddam Hussein is a great person, much less a respectable one. He's not either.

Speaking of gassing their own people...

http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/index.html
Interesting, eh? Slightly parallel, perhaps? Slobadon Melosevic was already mentioned... Megalomaniacal leaders aren't very alien to the use of force to quash rebellious factions... And I do not condone it.

Hrm... as for your comment about "bashing the US," take few minutes out of your life and read Doanie8's post. Until you do that, and exhibit some understanding, I will not consider you worthy of any more direct replies...

When George H. W. Bush was in office he had 3 big blunders:

1. Not taking Saddam out of power completely (The army did an excellent job of neutralizing the Iraqi's)

2. The Economy

3. Dan Quaile as his VP :p


W.'s Big Blunder so far

1. The Economy

but on the other hand he is trying to get Saddam out of power...and he kept this country together after the incidents of 9/11/01...

G.W. is doing a pretty darn good job..the economy can be fixed...lives cant.

How would you feel if New York, Chicago, DC or LA were attacked with Chemical Weapons beause nothing was done???

Also, if Saddam calls the shots he can easily hide weapons....we have to be forceful, but not too forceful that the Inspectors get tossed out for good and war is all we have left.

Face it everyone, he [Saddam] needs to be stopped now before something else bad happens.

Bah Im not racist. I really didn't mean that what I meant was that you can't start making up stuff just to make a point. I really should try and make a point while I am half awake then I'd be ok. Im sorry:(Sigh. Yet you prejudge other people.

ARGH...yeah...do what Jim said and please just read my post that is directly above yours. I explained what was "with bashing the US all of a sudden." This is exactly the kind of post that I was responding to...it would be nice to know that the people I am addressing actually read what I wrote.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!! D.J.

And FotoPlasma, yes Stalin was probably the most evil man to ever walk the Earth, worse than Hitler and Saddam put together in my opinion. But I don't understand, are you comparing the US or Iraq to Stalin, or both. I could see the parallels either way, but US stopping Iraq, to Stalin stopping oppositition? Isn't that streching it a bit?

Also, I read the post and agree with it 100%, but what makes you think I am "worthy" of a reply? Is this a prize or something?:rolleyes:

Actually thats what makes our country great. It's all the people who point out the faults in our country that improves it. People must ask questions and not be afraid to disagree.

Has anyone else noticed that FotoPlasma, Bill, and Michael are guilty of that which they accuse other Americans of being. Your posts are the most condescending, arrogant drivel imaginable.

To top it off, the ethics they propose do not necessarily apply to them, as far as they are concerned. Jon's post saying that Bill had every right to tell tjrage to grow up was done because of a direct request from Bill! Yes guys, you got busted. The original thinkers are posting at the request of their friends. Not only was it requested, but it was then decided which of the group should post it to nake it seem more genuine.

Doanie, look back to the beginning of this thread, and tell me who has been doing the bashing. It seems that this group is all for the free exchange of ideas, as long as those ideas agree with their own.

One question. There has been much made of the American media and its biases. Where do you get your news? Since anything from an American source is tainted in your eyes, I assume you simply disregard it in its entirety and have some other source of independent, reliable news.

There's more in this thread that I'd like to reply to, but since I was just deemed arrogant and condescending, I'd like to address this first.

Thank you. You have done more to further prove my points than anyone else, and you deserve to be commended. How's that for condescending?

This is an exchange of ideas, and I have done nothing whatsoever to curb the free flow of those ideas. I have, however, provided my commentary, thoughts, and opinions with respect to those ideas in a fashion that is both intelligent and unapologetic. I will not now, nor ever, apologize for my beliefs. When you can prove that I have taken steps towarding inhibiting another individual from posting - or, better - from replying with intelligent, logic driven criticism of my writing, style, or opinion, then you can fairly and justly say that I am being condescending or arrogant.

Until you can do that, or until you can provide a legitimate addition to this discussion, please take your utterly useless, transparent passive-aggressive tactics elsewhere. Your attempt at villifying myself, Bill, and Jim further reeks with the same brand of hyprocrisy that drives your criticism of us.

When you can intelligently compete with the words and ideas of another, you win a debate. When you cannot, personal attacks and emotional pleas are the order of the day. Your post, Mr. Conway, and the myriad others like it, that offer no real contribution to our debate, serve only to appeal the ignorant masses, and represents the real drivel here.

Good day.

And...........we'll take a break for a few. This thread is turning into too much of a personal-attack type thread than anything constructive.

I'll re-open it later. Send me a message on AOL to remind me.


EDIT: OK, open.
Please be civil, and also read this thread, if you haven't already.

Hawk Humor.....
 

Just a little humor to lighten up this thread (maybe).....

The following is a Pascal Function which describes a method for convincing a passivist there is a time for violence...

Function ConvincePassivistOfTheNeedForViolence():Boolean
begin
Find Passivist;
While not convinced do
begin
Throw_Passivist_On_Ground;
Help_Up;
Brush_Off_Clothes;
Apologize;
enddo;
return true;
end;


Have Fun!:)

Mike: You show your age through your code. (Age = oldfart)

Someother things to consider about attacking Iraq.

Only about 10% of the United States oil comes from the Middle East. Most comes from South America and from within our own borders. That can be overcome by increased production at current facillities.

Who is dependent on the Middle East for oil?
Japan, but Europe gets a significant amount of oil from that region as well. We want them as allies, they have other things to consider then what the US has to consider.

Many other governments in the region are not firmly in power. The biggest is Saudi Arabria, but also Bahrain and others.

Why we choose to go certian places but not others.
Why Somalia but not Rwanda.



Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~
Not a sermon, just some thoughts.

Oil? Age?... Age old topic distractions!
 

When did I mention anything about oil? I have only posted to this thread in philosophical terms. Oil is brought up only when the discussion turns to 'blame the terrible US' for the worlds' troubles.

Do you think the terrorists who killed ~3k civilians in NY did it for oil? Did they want to protect thier oil so we can't get it? No! They could care less about oil. Oil to them is $. A way to finance thier evildoing.

Thier ultimate goal is the destruction of the US. Why? US support for Israel? Why? Arabs hate Jews. Why? Read your Bible. (I know this is asking a lot of some of you but you shouldn't blame God for mans troubles, blame man)

As for showing my age (you will probably be saying I've heard this before), I was right where you are several years ago (philosophically speaking). I wanted to blame the 'bad policies of the US' for everything. We're the bad guys. What are we thinking. Blah, Blah Blah.

The simple fact is if it were not for the US, even with all its faults, the world would have been far worse off. Throughout history, the only country to come to the aid of distressed peoples was the US. You should be proud of this, not detest it. I know... what about the slaves? Well answer this. What country in the world went to war with the US to abolish slavery? You know the answer.

I'm tired of this thread. You all know where I am coming from, and I know that some of you agree and some are still lost. Please think about your positions and thier outcomes. Consider other positions and thier outcomes. Pick the outcome which is best. THis will lead to the best position not the one which you think is cool or think is the way a rebellious person should think. Once you do this I will say welcome!:)

Ok. I'm going to back up a bit and try to be a bit more constructive (edit) than I have been in earlier posts (/edit). This is the situation as I see it.

• Iraq, in the hands of Saddam Hussein, poses a serious threat to American interests and American allies in the middle east. These include, but are not limited to Israel and U.S. military forces stationed in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar.
• Saddam has a very well known reputation for his cruelty and willingness to deploy weapons of mass destruction against any reachable target that opposes him - military and civilian alike.
• There exists a great deal of intelligence that suggests that Saddam has continued development in his illicit weapons programs in direct violation of the U.N.
• Saddam has a track record of supporting terrorists. With support from Iraq, a terrorist network could deliver a significant attack against an American city with chemical or biological weapons.
• If Saddam is allowed to proceed in the development of his weapons programs, there exists a significant probability that terrorist networks with his support may obtain nuclear weapons for use against American targets.

That having been said, I'll admit that I know none of this first hand. I have not been to Iraq. I have not interviewed Saddam or any Iraqis that were taken prisoner during Desert Storm. All I have to go on are statements and documents released by U.S. and British intelligence agencies. I could choose not to believe these sources. But what reason could they have to lie to me? If they are being untruthful about Iraq, then who should I believe? Saddam?

Certainly, attacking Iraq will have consequences. But it is my belief that allowing Saddam's power to grow unchecked will have far graver consequences. If the day were to come that Saddam handed a suitcase nuke to Al-Qaeda, do you think he would urge them to try and come to a diplomatic solution before leveling DC?

I'll hang up and listen for a while now.

-Joel

well, regardless of what we all think, The House of Representitives just gave Bush power to take out Saddam

The house did yes but not the Senate so he may not get the power he wants