Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong. - Page 6

I cannot disagree with tonton more.


Again, whose side are you on? You have no basis for your statement about planting evidence. It is outrageous. And...you don't believe Iraq has any WOMD? WTF? He is already arming his troops with them in th South. I have not even heard the most ardent anti-war protestor say he does not have any WOMD. That's just an unbelievable statement. We know he used to have them because he has admitted it himself. We know he had them in 1998. Are you even serious?


So now ALL of our leaders are lying? Really? Tony blair is lying? It isn't just one TV netowrk and the President here, tonton. Wow, it is going to be almost sad in a few days when we find what we find.


So we should just accept that they happen? We should only play defense? We should respond after thousands more die? That's unacceptable.It will do a hell of a lot of good when we get nuked...I'm sure sending in a few crusie missles after New York is gone is going to make the relatives of 2,000,000 dead Americans feel better. I refuse to accept that terrorism is forgone conlcusion. I cannot believe you are actually saying that there is a rational for *not* punsihing the future perpertrator of a terroristic act...even when we KNOW it will happen.



LACK OF DIPLOMACY? My God. WE HAVE HAD DIPLOMACY FOR TWELVE YEARS!!! We passed 17 resolutions. We tried sanctions. Even diplomacy must end. Diplomacy doesn't work with irrational madmen, tonton.
As for your Israel comments, I'm no fan of Sharon. That being said, they really have an impossible situation on their hands. I don't think for a second that it is all Israel's fault.


That's just dumb.


Slapping a kid around? Well, that's obviously not good. But a good spanking when he deserves it? That's different. As for terrorists, "patience and understanding" will NOT work. They must be hunted and killed. Period.


I can and DO deny that the threat is greater. I absolutely deny it. The rest of your comment is just utter bullshit. The war has not been "internationally condemned", "unilateral", "unprovoked" or any other favorite Leftisim of yours. We have some 40-60 nations supporting us. We have about 11 sending troops. You obviously have no idea why some nations say what they do. France and Russia have major, major business dealings with Iraq. They also don't want to see us open up the oil taps in Iraq. Russia wishes to become a major player in the international oil market. China resents any US exapansion of power because it is ITSELF eager to gain world influence. And provovation you say? How about firing on our aircraft? How about defying 17 resolutions? How about openly praising 9/11 when almost every other nation on this earth, including Libya, Cuba and Syria expressed sympathy? How about mudering his own people? Should we, as the world's power (and that's a fact whether we or anyone else likes it) just sit back and watch him slaughter people? Should we allow him to violate the cease fire of the original Gulf War.....a war in which he undeniably started? I can't accept that.

And finally, you mention nations that are prosperous yet aren't the target of terror. Well, that's nice for the Swiss! Who do you think provides the Swiss's security militarily? Who do you think would stand up to North Korea if they invaded the South? Who stopped Iraq the first time? Who punshed Libya for bombing a discotech? Answer: The United States of America. We have too. We are the only nation with the resources to do it.

I'd like to step into the middle of this discussion and personally thank Poland for offering to send those 200 troops.

I don't think we should risk our national and regional security on a "probably" statement.

Not true...al-Quaeda was disinterested in the Palestinians prior to 9/11, and they're major attacks in the 90s all occured during a period of relative Israeli-Palestinian peace. And the pro-Palestinian terrorists have occasionally targeted Americans, but have never tried striking in the US - just like the IRA, they knew it would backfire against their cause.


They are scared. But less so than they were a year or 18 months ago, when things really sucked. They have Sharon to thank for that, and they know it. I don't think Israelis are dumb. If they really thought they'd be better off without Sharon, they'd have ditched him.


A major terrorist campaign featuring suicide bombers targeting schoolchildren and shoppers that has killed thousands of people begun purposefully because a man who's not even in any government visits a site holy to his religion. [shakes head sadly]

To remove Saddam Hussein as a threat. To liberate the Iraqi people. To get rid of the economic sanctions.

For great justice! Move zig!

Um....so, go ahead and insert an actual name of a country here....please find a muslim country that is surrounded by nations that wish to eliminate every single person in said country. You statement above is meaningless. If you can't see the uniqueness of the Israeli situation, you are ignorant beyond belief.


Really? Thanks for the insider tip. I always thought it had to do with all those dirty jews that live there. Isn't that why you hate them too? I mean muslim were slaughtering jews long before there was a modern state of Israel. Again, you statement shows your incredible ignorance. You seem very full of hatred. You really do make the world a better place. nazi

I got your point Mr. Smartyguy.

The popular idea is that the war will increase terrorism. To me that is a tenuous idea based on largely irrational fears. ^THEY^ are waiting to get us, all they are waiting for is a trigger! Or even better, ^THEY^ will create more terrorists!
I would answer with 1: THEY don't need a trigger and 2: THEY aren't waiting to erupt into WWIII. Fear-mongers try to make you believe that, but the brown masses aren't animals. They are smart, they know the score.

To me if the war on Iraq brings something onto the US terrorism-wise then that means that someone who was planning on acting against us was just made to act quicker before a more full plan caused more casualties.

It's not like we're going to piss off a few poor guys from Yemen with AKs and that will have any real effect on us. To make a big impact on the US as a terrorist you have to have some kind of funding. Lest we forget that OsamaBinPoophead was/is a richboy who used his personal wealth to attack us. Hussein ElCamel from 347th West Kabul St. in Afghanistan can hate us all he wants but without a big organization there's very little he can do to hurt the US.

I guess if I believed every fear-mongering message out there I'd live in my closet with a tin-foil hat on, sucking my thumb and voting for every klaxon politician trying to tell me I'm going to die very soon.

You can't hide from terrorists. Not everything is the US's fault.

So, absorbing attacks is better than preventing attacks? Wow.


Well, since Osama stated motives include anyone who is not a believer, I guess you had better get busy converting the rest of the US to radical Islam.


They will attack so longs as there are non-muslims. The US policy towards Israel prevents the complete destruction of Israel. But that would be ok with you, right? The world might be better without all the filthy Jews around, right? You want to gain compliance through respect? All you advocate is appeasement. A weak nation has no respect.



The Temple Mount visit was meant to embarrass Barak over the govenments seeming lack of concern with the destruction of historical and religious artifacts at Temple Mount. It was authorised by the Palestinian Waqf, the authority for the Temple Mount. Arafat used this visit to spark the uprising. But, alway blame the Dirty Jew, right T?

We should attack the British. It is all their fault anyway. Isreal-Palestine. Northern Ireland. India-Pakistan. Iraq. Is there any place in the world that they didn't **** up?

Iceland

Well, geography is one factor. A PRETTY ****ING IMPORTANT ONE! So, you have never heard the Arab threats to push Israel into the sea? How about the ones to kill every jew in Palestine? Missed that too? What exactly do you think the wars against Israel were for? If you honestly believe they were simply trying to establish a Palestinian state, you are blind. Selective is putting it mildly.

Well, hate Jews, hate Israel...splitting hairs.


That you hate Israel and would sacrifice them to countries that hate them to be massacred...yes.

This is not at all what I think. The "they" that I'm scared of are not waiting, or intending to get anyone. The "they" that are waiting will attack, war or not.

If they aren't trying to get anyone why are you scared of them?

Can't you see that by threatening them you're treating them like animals? "They know the score"? That sounds like the exact kind of arrogance that causes terrorism. Are you saying that we should try harder to intimidate them into submission? While this is a valid route, the advantages of such a strategy are far outweighed by the consequences.

We are not threatening everyone in the Middle East. We are threatening Saddam Hussein. And we should absolutely try to intimidate Hussein.

I think you're misrepresenting the policy.

When I say "they know the score" I mean that those in power of the middle eastern nations understand what we're doing, by and large. Of course the populations don't necessarily see what's going on, even a large part of our population doesn't even know.

There's a delicate balance between doing what you feel is right and making sure you please others.

There are countless hateful people that without provocation would die a natural, peaceful death.

Saddam Hussein isn't one of them. That's why we're going after him.

You do? Tell that to Tim McVeigh.
And the poor guys from Yemen that we piss off? They're the ones who will give their $100 life savings to the next Bin Laden and volunteer for the suicide missions.

Tim McVeigh was home-grown, that's not the same type of thing.
They can go blow themselves up on Israeli busses sure but how do they hurt us in the US? The 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. There has been no shortage of anti-US indoctrination there for the last 20 years. I'm talking about terrorists that can hurt the US.

Bin Laden used hatred to attack the US. He didn't need his own money to do it. With enough hatred will come the means.

He absoultely needed money to do everything he has done. How can you say he didn't need money? That's ludicrous!

The US is certainly not making friends here.

Not right now, no. But world opinion is turning in the US's favor from the anti-war fever-pitch of a week ago. 30 nations are openly supporting, 15 more don't want to be named but are supportive.

It's not so dire, methinks.

Let's hope for the best!

This war is all about Bush Eh?

What about Blair?

I think it seems even more see the need for war to disarm Iraq.


[/qb]

Imagine that.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2862749.stm

Fellowship

Absorbing attacks: possibly hundreds of thousands, if you wait till the gain that potential.

It's also one's responsibilty to prevent attacks. As you say, they will always have motives...whether you think you gave it to them or not.

Better than you it would seem.
Read the PLO charter some day. It has only a single mandate: The destruction of the state of Israel. Once you realize that fact, then you will realize the fight for a Palestinian state is simply a ploy to futher that goal: Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian
identity serves only tactical purposes. The
founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool
in the continuing battle against Israel ...
-- Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head
of the PLO and member of its Executive
Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977


Always blame the jew.


Well, when you make statements that you hate Israel, and that the US is wrong in it's policy towards Israel, a policy that prevents the destruction of Israel, it's not a difficult conclusion to make. You can say you don't hate Jews, but it seems a pretty thin veil, given your other statements.

Thankfully, at least you have stopped prefacing the word 'Jew' with 'Dirty'.

I, and I'm sure many other members of the forum, would appreciate that you refrain from it.

If you hate Israel, as you said, and would support policies that would lead to the destruction of Israel, and the elimination of the Jews there, then no, I can't see how you aren't anti-jew.

If you had stated you hated America and supported the destruction of America and the massacre of all Americans, then I would say you were anti-American.

I shudder to think if you had been around during Hitler's reign in Germany. You'd be calling on world govenments to appease Hitler and allow the holocuast to continue...after all, why give Germany a reason to hate you by attacking them as you say.

Because we are provoking them to change their course of action from an idle one to an active one.

I do not think this is true. To take the most recent example of terrorism against the United States, there was no trigger like this war for 9/11. It came out of nowhere.

Were there notable terrorist attacks in 1991 in retaliation for Desert Storm? How about in 1998 for Desert Fox? I am not 100% certain but I am confident that the answer to both of those is no.

This is not so clear and the cause is not so obvious. As I said before, those who will harm the US because of this war already had that in their plans.

But unfortunately everyone in the Middle East feels threatened by us and our willingness to attack a country that they themselves don't think we should be attacking. They fear that next time it might be their own country. And they question our motives. If we cannot convince them of the truth, then we should adjust our actions according to perceptions of the truth.

You are taking a lot of liberties with truth here, tonton. You cannot speak for what "everyone in the Middle East" feels. That is crazy. You also greatly underestimate support for the war in Middle Eastern countries.
The picture you paint is different from the one painted by international leaders who have pledged support.

There is a balance, and you and I differ as to where the fulcrum lies. My stance is that the Bush view will come at a far greater cost in the grand scheme of things.

I am more than willing to sacrifice short term diplomatic happiness with allies (the EU mainly) to achieve even a small measure of peace in that very troubled region. The cost of containment has been very expensive in the human sense all of this time, and war will also be expensive in the human sense.

The divisions between the US and the European anti-war nations will heal easily and quickly. We shouldn't let a preferable means get in the way of a necessary end.

But by going after Saddam in this way, we are provoking others. We must go after Saddam in another way, either fully sanctioned by international concensus, or in a more subtle way. But that takes patience. And Bush has an election to win.

Who are we provoking?
The threat to regional instability within Iraq is just as potent with or without a UN mandate. Flying a blue flag over our tanks instead of a red, white & blue one isn't going to make an appreciable difference in the transition to a Saddam-less Iraq. It is not as if a UN mandate makes those who would be terrorists happy.

Bush isn't up for election for another year. Would it not be in his best political interest to wait more and give the French (et al.) the time they wanted? I think so. Not everything is political.

There are devout, fundamentalist, nationalist muslims in the US right now. And even the poor guys in Yemen might figure out a way to get here some day. There are Americans and consulates and embassies and hotels everywhere that can be attacke outside the US. Israel itself is prone to attack, and not just buses and bazaars. They will get through.

I am not interested in "outside the US" specific to this discussion. I do not think the risk for increased terror on the mainland is significantly different than the risk of terrorism we face if we had waited a few more months.

Terrorists were not waiting for the UN to say "go ahead" to give support. Even with UN approval they hate the US and will attack. It makes no difference to them. The only way we could keep them from attacking us is to pull out of everywhere and start throwing money at them and even then we would remain the Great Satan. 9/11 should teach us that a trigger for terrorism is a false concept.

He doesn't have any money now. Is he a threat? Hell yes. Even your beloved Bush claims so adamantly. (Actually, I'm sure Osama's dead, but he's still a symbolic threat nonetheless). If Bin Laden hadn't had money then, he would have found the means. Especially now that we've provoked people into supporting him.

He is a threat because he has sources of funding. A broke man in the mountains of Afghanistan who isn't connected to a well-financed terror network makes no waves in the US.
What made al Qaeda special is that it had means, not hate. Hate groups have been in the middle east for a long long time.

People supported bin Laden long before George W. Bush took office.

Indeed. But haven't you ever agreed to something your parents insisted you do, but held a grudge of resentment for it?

Yes, but I was young and immature. Hopefully we can evolve past that.

Let's hope for quick peace and lots of forgiveness. I don't want an Islamic holocaust to be the end result of this. But that's the way we're heading.

"Islamic holocaust"? What do you mean by that?

tonton,

You can keep arguing all you want. Your ideas are absurd. The winner is:

"We cannot prevent terror so we should accept it....[9/11 was a bearable cost]..."

Oh my God.

It's only "absurd" because absorption weakens if not eliminates your case for war- which, of course, has to be "absurd."

So, why was the alert system bumped up to red then?

tonton,

Just a warning. There are a lot of people who will blindly argue that you're a jew-hating nazi because it's easier than actually addressing your points. They set you up as a racists, and attack this fabricated position. It's simply because

1) Your true position is far stronger than their position is on the issues being discussed in the thread

or

2) They don't have the mental capacity to actually discuss what's being discussed in the thread.

Don't take it personally, it's the last resort of someone backed into the proverbial corner.

What? Do you see one of my posts, and think "Hmmm....well, SDW posted this, so I must argue the opposite"? Do you even think about it THAT long, or is it simply a knee-jerk reaction?

Are you and tonton actually arguing that we should simply ACCEPT and ABSORB terror??? That is patently absurd. There is no other word. It is the most defeatist, "non-American" passive "I guess we're just fvcked" thinking. Good God.

And Shawn, really. You may think I'm hell-bent on going to war and I will say or do anything to get my way...but that isn't true at all. I do support this action as do 65-75% of the American people according to recent polling. I think there is no other way. Though at this point, anyone arguing against war simply isn't based in reality. Perhaps 3 months ago there was a debate. Not anymore.

But Iraq has nothing to do with terror on American soil, or on U.S. installations elsewhere.

That's not exactly true. Yes Saddam is a different beast to al queda. While the Arab factions are all waiting to slit each other's throats, thay can (just like us westerners) agree to disagree while they fight the greater evil (the white devils, us, westerners). Al queda actually runs very deep, and they probably have managed to broker resource sharing with erstwhile (and even current) enemies in the form of training, cash, and weapons. Do you think it's beyond them to temporarily put differences aside? Wait don't answer that, they've been killing each other for years and can only really seem to agree that they hate the jews and the west. Oh yeah, there we are, back on track, there are things they can agree on, particularly through an underground system that doesn't require them to openly acknowledge their mutual despise of each other.

PS, I posted the following in another thread but it deserves to be posted in all of these threads that somehow end up trying to paint the picture America=Bad:

Now that war is a forgone conclusion the french are trying to deal themselves back in. As I've been saying all along, there's nobody at the UN (well the European members anyway) who doesn't want to lob a few bombs at Iraq, that includes France and Germany. This was never about war and peace to any of the major players, it remains primarily a diplo-politcal excercise to all involved. France wanted to protect their trade arrangements with Iraq, Germany wanted a friend in France, for their own reasons. Now French-Iraqi arrangements are all but dead and France will have to reposition itself to make new post-Saddam dealings. All of a sudden, they're not so opposed to war, though they can't save face if they do a complete 180, hence the "chemical weapons" stipulations, which just about everyone expects Iraq to break.

The ussual gaggle of idiots will trot out the "war mongering America wants oil" line, you know the one, Bush and Blair, those white devils! But really, if you want to do that, you MUST include Chirac, and actually, you have to move hime to the head of the class, but that's another story, because the real angle has always to do with a chest puffing diplomatic contest, and it is never as simple as oil, though if you must be a simpleton, then be consistent in your naivete, not selective, which seems to be the trend whenever we get around to condemning Americans.

Bush isn't really wrong, he's just embarrasingly late. He has managed to waste every political advantage in organizing this effort. It's a reall good thing the military is as well honed as it is, or he'd have lost this one.

What's the saying? ...Diplomacy by other means...

My statement is, that there are two enemies here. Those that are terrorists (like Al Qaeda), and those that would be terrorists. There are far more of the latter.

You make so many factual statements and no sources or actual support for them. Why do you present your thoughts as if they are fact?

We had a mandate and had played according to the rules. This time we do not and we are not.

So, to you, terrorist organizations like al Qaeda don't mind what the US does if they have a UN mandate? And past that, there was no UN mandate for Desert Fox, that was 100% unilateral on Clinton's part. He didn't ask the UN, he didn't even ask the UK to tag along.

We have over 30 nations with us this time, as opposed to just us in 1998.

I disagree completely. Some of those who will harm the US because of this war had it in their plans. Many did not.

More fear-spreading without factual backing. You sound like a politician.

You know very well that international leaders have pledged support because of politics. Okay, instead of everyone I should have said "many". But you missed my point. "They fear that next time it might be their own country." And why shouldn't they?

What nations in the coalition of the willing fear they are "next"?

But we differ in opinion as to whether peace can ever be achieved through this method. There has not been peace in the Middle East for more than a few decades in all of the history known to man, especially the 20th century. You think the US can go in with bombs and impose peace on these people? You arefar more optimistic than I.

I think the US can overthrow Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi people a chance at self-determination. A chance is better than no chance.

It's not just the relationship with the West that I'm concerned with. We must find a way to heal the divisions between the West and The Middle East. And no one can claim that this is the preferable means to that goal.

We had 8 years of mostly inaction in the Middle East and that certainly didn't help anything. We have a chance in Iraq to fix a lot of things, provided we do it right and then move towards a real peace between Israel & Palestine.

If this isn't the preferable means, what is? (And I mean a realistic one, that an America politician would actually undertake.)

We are provoking many angry Muslims who are straddling the fence on where to stand against the US. And yes, they have a much more compelling reason to go against us if we're not playing by the very same rules we ourselves have set.

Another factual statement with no backing. For someone with no backing your opinions certainly seem set in stone.
Those who would be terrorists do not care about UN mandates.

I don't know what you would choose to do in his stead. But regarding the election, I certainly would want to get in before the opposition gains momentum. And regarding the war, Bush knows very well that if he doesn't go in now, it could all fizzle out in his face and he's left with nothing.

But surely the anti-war movement would be happy if he allowed the UN to continue stretching the matter out. Isn't that what they wanted?


How can you think about war without considering "outside the US"? So you admit to living within your borders? This is not looked well upon in this world.

You should not selectively quote me when addressing a point. I very clearly said "specific to this discussion". If you are going to take such dishonest routes of discussion I don't see a reason to talk to you about things.

Once again you're looking at all terrorists in the same light. And you're ignoring the power one gains when they take the "moral high road". Take some time to understand Jesus or Buddha and ask yourself what would they do.

What terrorist organization that you know of is fine with any action so long as it has a UN mandate?

I do not see any historical reference for the things you are saying about terrorists. Osama was most angry about the US armed forces in Saudi Arabia, and that is 100% legal. You talk about terrorists as if they are renegade law enforcers.

There are far more "immature" people in tis world than you might want to admit.

Anyone who participates in the politics of spite is immature. Anyone who plays a political game with important world issues is immature.

I mean Sharon spreading VX over Palestine after a terrorist blows up his family. I mean a crazed GI buying a nuke from the Chechen Mafia and blowing up Baghdad as payment for whatever Iraq might do during the war.

I think it is illogical for you to say that "is the way we're heading." It doesn't make sense.
You are way too full of fear.

There's absolutely no evidence of any collusion between the two parties. I'm not going to say it doesn't exist, but you can't war based on a hunch.

Al Queda is 100 times more dangerous than Iraq. Iraq is just a target that's 1,000 times easier to attack and 10,000 times easier to defeat.

Those factors weigh in more than oil (not to say oil isn't a nice reward), but are nearly 100% irrelevant. You don't war based on who you can defeat. You war based on clear motive regardless of who you must fight or the potential outcome.

This action isn't the right one, only too late. It's the last resort of someone evidently too incompetent to better handle a problem.