Should we bomb/strike Iraq

[FotoPlasma]

Originally posted by Jim Giacchi

Your right, our air power would crush anything that moves, unfortunately even our military has not designed a better weapon than the GI.

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.

Originally posted by Jim Giacchi

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

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).

Originally posted by wysiswyg

You can take two or three guys that know how to fight and take 5-8 buff guys out very quickly.

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."

Originally posted by wysiswyg

Errr.. 50 muslim dudes on an airplane???? Doesn't that scream out terrorist attack?

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

Originally posted by wysiswyg

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.

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...

[Katie Reynolds]

Originally posted by FotoPlasma
Insert Foto's post here

Originally posted by Ian W.
Insert Ian's post here

Originally posted by Michael Krass
Insert M's post(s) here

Originally posted by Bill Gold
Insert Bill's post here

^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

[Michael Murphy]

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.

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.
-Bill Gold

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.

[Joel Glidden]

... I am ashamed to be an American.

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

-Joel

[FotoPlasma]

Originally posted by Joel Glidden

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

I love freedom, thank you very much...

[Mike Rush]

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?

[Paul Copioli]

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

[Bill Gold]

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.

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 Copioli

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).

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

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.

Errr.. 50 muslim dudes on an airplane???? Doesn't that scream out terrorist attack? Guys can we stop making up stupid scenerios.
-wysiswyg

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.

What is your definition of the truth anyway?? Im confused if I watch five differnt news stations then it means I have learned nothing?? Most of those news stations I watch always have a pro invasion and non pro invasion. There will always be bias in anything we say and do. Nothing strange in that I just site facts nothing more. ABC just recently showed a newsworthy story about a woman close to Saddaam. The US govornment managed to back up her stories.
-wysiswyg

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:

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.
-wysiswyg

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...

[Bill Gold]

continued...

Why has Hussein been allowed to remain free?
-Michael Murphy

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.

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.
-Michael Murphy

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.

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.
-Michael Murphy

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.

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.
-Michael Murphy

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?

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.
-Michael Murphy

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.

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

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.

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.
-Mike Rush

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...

[Bill Gold]

continued again...

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.
-Mike Rush

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.

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.
-Mike Rush

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.

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.
-Mike Rush

There will always be another.

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.
-Mike Rush

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.

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)".
-Paul Copioli

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,

…I'm saying appeasement sucks…
- wysiswyg

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 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 Copioli

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

[Madison]

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?

[Madison]

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.

[FotoPlasma]

Originally posted by Mike Rush
These freedoms we enjoy are not free. They must be defended from those who, given a chance, would take them away.

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.

[MBiddy]

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.

[Ian W.]

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.