Gaddafi's son said the Iraq war had nothing to do with the timing of Libya's talks. "We started the cooperation before even the invasion of Iraq," Saif al-Islam Gaddafi told CNN.
But he added: "It's a critical deal for Libya, because first of all we will get access to defensive weapons and no sanctions on Libyan arms imports any more. We will get access to the know-how and technology in sectors which were banned."
Sammi jo is not off base here. I can't believe it...two agreements in a single day.
We do need to remove ourselves from oil. But, we can't do it yet. We'll be addicted to oil for at least 50 years after getting serious about alternatives. Given this, I personally would rather see us do mroe domestic, off-shore drilling and purchase more oil from Russia and Mexico, not to mention Latin America. **** the middle east. As someone told me, let's tell them to "go pound sand". They need us as much as we need them.
As far as the ME and it's governments, hopefully many are realizing that the current systems are failing. The problem is that separating that which has never been seperate before is a major problem to say the least.
I don't really agree with your statement about the War on Terror. It's having real positive results. We have dessimated Al-Qeada's leadership and as I've said, the "are we next factor" is having real results. These governments respect one thing: POWER. We have shown them we will use it to not only remove the terrorists but governments who support it. This being said, there is more to be done. We need to find OBL, even it would be symbolic. We need to stop illegal immigration as well.
I always keep asking this and no one can ever tell me. Exactly what are we doing to do once we are "off oil". Exactly how are we going to use that to our and the world's advantage. Spare no detail.
I always keep asking this and no one can ever tell me. Exactly what are we doing to do once we are "off oil". Exactly how are we going to use that to our and the world's advantage. Spare no detail.
Good point. I suppose it's not the cleanest and least polluting substance, and it certainly is finite. But, that last part has been greatly exaggerated. My understanding is that if we stopped looking for new oil tomorrow, we'd have enough for 100-200 years.
But, at this point i'd be in favor of getting off of foreign oil. It makes us depend on a highly unstable part of the world...at least for Middle East imports.
The war on terror as practised by BushCorp is a bit like trying to fix a leak on the downstream side of the dam, instead of the upstream side. Firstly, they are cherrypicking terrorists...some are OK, but others are to be stomped. Secondly, they are not addressing any of the root causes of terrorism. They have a fixation with punitive measures while ignoring preventative measures: their approach is like squashing a balloon, only to have it bubble up elsewhere....similar to the modus operandum of the unwinnable "war on drugs". Thirdly they are using the WOT as a fear mechanism to alienate, disable, even criminalize legitimate political opposition and organizations whose agendae are far removed from terrorism, but which are politically and ideologically at odds with those of BushCorp. They are even politicizing the FBI to shackle and impede legitimate political opposition.
The longterm effects of a pre-emptive war are likely to inflame, rather than pacify. Put yourself in the position of the hundreds of thousands of relatives of those 10,000 to 50,000 Iraqis who died as a result of the US bombing, not to mention the sense of outrage and humiliation from having your nation occupied into the forseeable future by foreigners who have little or no respect for your customs and traditions. You can bet that out of those bereaved masses, there are a fair number of furious, mad as hell, and angry people who will stop at nothing to get their own back and will more than likely choose violent means...and they have all the time in the world to accomplish that end. ...and since they dont have a professional army with which to do that, improvised terrorism is their recourse. Imagine the same scale of death and destruction happening here in the USA....(think 9-11 multiplied many times over)...I recall the anger and grief here only too vividly: I felt it myself, as we all did. Here, we have a skilled military force which bombed the living hell out of Afghanstan (despite there being no Afghans responsible for 9-11) which meant that US citizens didnt have to join mercenary or terrorist groups to exact revenge. (Altho' I recall numerous reports of incidents post 9-11 of mid-eastern people being beaten up by yahoos, some even murdered because of their faith, or dress.
The BushCorp version of the "war on terror" is more an exercise in reactionary penis waving than a genuinely constructive effort from the ground up to rid the world of terrorism. The world is potentially a far more dangerous place now than it was pre 9-11, and the risk of further attacks, both in the short -term and more especially in the longterm and has been inflated because of their current approach.
I always keep asking this and no one can ever tell me. Exactly what are we doing to do once we are "off oil". Exactly how are we going to use that to our and the world's advantage. Spare no detail.
I think that less dependence on oil from the ME would equal less spending on military hardware and personnel to secure that oil. Less spending on the military thingys is a good thing. As hopefully that money and energy can be put into better use elsewhere. I think that subsidizing higher education is one area I would be in favor of. And not that leftist commie artzy bs, but Science. Another, would be subsidizing mass urban transport system, and a redesign of the whole North American urban landscape around people and not the automobile.
actually, US consumers get a lot of great products as a by product of military spending.
it's one of the only areas where you have huge budgets to work on technology, ignoring whether or not it would make you money.
people always bitch about military spending, but the research, techonology, production etc. that go into producing those products don't disappear. that knowledge slowly makes its way out to the US consumer.
The war on terror as practised by BushCorp is a bit like trying to fix a leak on the downstream side of the dam, instead of the upstream side. Firstly, they are cherrypicking terrorists...some are OK, but others are to be stomped. Secondly, they are not addressing any of the root causes of terrorism. They have a fixation with punitive measures while ignoring preventative measures: their approach is like squashing a balloon, only to have it bubble up elsewhere....similar to the modus operandum of the unwinnable "war on drugs". Thirdly they are using the WOT as a fear mechanism to alienate, disable, even criminalize legitimate political opposition and organizations whose agendae are far removed from terrorism, but which are politically and ideologically at odds with those of BushCorp. They are even politicizing the FBI to shackle and impede legitimate political opposition.
The longterm effects of a pre-emptive war are likely to inflame, rather than pacify. Put yourself in the position of the hundreds of thousands of relatives of those 10,000 to 50,000 Iraqis who died as a result of the US bombing, not to mention the sense of outrage and humiliation from having your nation occupied into the forseeable future by foreigners who have little or no respect for your customs and traditions. You can bet that out of those bereaved masses, there are a fair number of furious, mad as hell, and angry people who will stop at nothing to get their own back and will more than likely choose violent means...and they have all the time in the world to accomplish that end. ...and since they dont have a professional army with which to do that, improvised terrorism is their recourse. Imagine the same scale of death and destruction happening here in the USA....(think 9-11 multiplied many times over)...I recall the anger and grief here only too vividly: I felt it myself, as we all did. Here, we have a skilled military force which bombed the living hell out of Afghanstan (despite there being no Afghans responsible for 9-11) which meant that US citizens didnt have to join mercenary or terrorist groups to exact revenge. (Altho' I recall numerous reports of incidents post 9-11 of mid-eastern people being beaten up by yahoos, some even murdered because of their faith, or dress.
The BushCorp version of the "war on terror" is more an exercise in reactionary penis waving than a genuinely constructive effort from the ground up to rid the world of terrorism. The world is potentially a far more dangerous place now than it was pre 9-11, and the risk of further attacks, both in the short -term and more especially in the longterm and has been inflated because of their current approach.
You really should stop with the scare mongering. Saddam murdered hundred of thousands of Iraqis, but I didn't see any suicide bombers crash 747's into his palaces. Going after terrorists is not going to create more terrorists. That's a bogus argument. What creates terrorists is Islamic fanaticism and these tin-can regimes that lend support to these Islamicists.
actually, US consumers get a lot of great products as a by product of military spending.
it's one of the only areas where you have huge budgets to work on technology, ignoring whether or not it would make you money.
people always bitch about military spending, but the research, techonology, production etc. that go into producing those products don't disappear. that knowledge slowly makes its way out to the US consumer.
I agree with you. Many important technological advances have occurred directly or indirectly as a result of war. I'm not an economist, but I would think we could get higher efficiencies..
Well sammi we're back to disagreeing. I understand what you're saying but I stand in firm opposition to it, as well as question it.
For example, what exactly should we do about terrorism, if not what "BushCorp" has done? Should we have done what Mr. Clinton did? (I doubt you're on that side though). I'm not sure I see where you are going, though it seems you are implying that the US has somehow caused terrorism and is at fault. If not, I still must ask what are the alternatives? We must hunt these people and destroy them. It's the only way I see. And quite frankly, I think we're doing that. I would like to see a tougher approach with the Saudis, but it seems they have come along as well after being attacked themselves.
Now, if you are arguing for fixing "the cause" of terror, I don't believe that's generally possible. Regarding Islamic terrorists, the "cause" really has a lot to do with an extreme sect of their religion, one that essentially says all non-believers are worthy of death. How do we fix that? How do we prevent that from being taught or having been invented in the first place? I'm not sure we could have. Granted, we are the most powerful nation in the world and that generates resent. Granted, we support Israel, but are you arguing we shouldn't? Islamic terror may be caused by a lack of voice, and abhorent conditions, but it is also caused by these people living in countries which are backwards. They have not yet adopted democratic and therefore stable governments with basic standards of human rights. Many governments encourage teacing of this extreme sect through madrassas, and therefore sponsor terror. What I'm saying here is that I think force is needed and appropriate. Terrorists will and do respect only raw power. They must be hunted and exterminated, and we must deal with the governments who sponsor terror as well.
In any case, it certainly seems you are saying that we have somehow caused this through "imperialism". I disagree. We have become powerful mainly due to our system of government...and we are resented and hated for our influence. A natural thing, I suppose.
I think that less dependence on oil from the ME would equal less spending on military hardware and personnel to secure that oil. Less spending on the military thingys is a good thing. As hopefully that money and energy can be put into better use elsewhere. I think that subsidizing higher education is one area I would be in favor of. And not that leftist commie artzy bs, but Science. Another, would be subsidizing mass urban transport system, and a redesign of the whole North American urban landscape around people and not the automobile.
Well sammi we're back to disagreeing. I understand what you're saying but I stand in firm opposition to it, as well as question it.
For example, what exactly should we do about terrorism, if not what "BushCorp" has done? Should we have done what Mr. Clinton did? (I doubt you're on that side though). I'm not sure I see where you are going, though it seems you are implying that the US has somehow caused terrorism and is at fault. If not, I still must ask what are the alternatives? We must hunt these people and destroy them. It's the only way I see. And quite frankly, I think we're doing that. I would like to see a tougher approach with the Saudis, but it seems they have come along as well after being attacked themselves.
Quote:
Now, if you are arguing for fixing "the cause" of terror, I don't believe that's generally possible. Regarding Islamic terrorists, the "cause" really has a lot to do with an extreme sect of their religion, one that essentially says all non-believers are worthy of death. How do we fix that? How do we prevent that from being taught or having been invented in the first place? I'm not sure we could have. Granted, we are the most powerful nation in the world and that generates resent. Granted, we support Israel, but are you arguing we shouldn't? Islamic terror may be caused by a lack of voice, and abhorent conditions, but it is also caused by these people living in countries which are backwards. They have not yet adopted democratic and therefore stable governments with basic standards of human rights. Many governments encourage teacing of this extreme sect through madrassas, and therefore sponsor terror. What I'm saying here is that I think force is needed and appropriate. Terrorists will and do respect only raw power. They must be hunted and exterminated, and we must deal with the governments who sponsor terror as well.
Don't get me wrong here. I firmly supported the strike on Afghanistan at the time: however I was led into believing that Afghanistan was the prime culprit. Since then we found that (although al qaida cells operated out of Afghanistan and bin Laden was rumored to be based there, although nobody has seen him there in years), this was far from reality, and many countries (some 60 quoted by Bush himself) have al qaida sleeper cells and training camps, with support systems and financial aid. Saudi Arabia's connection to al qaida is as every bit as intimate as Afghanistan's was, especially when it comes down to financial aid. However, our response to Saudi Arabia's culpability was pretty much zero relatively speaking: perhaps this is because Saudi is invested in the US economy to the tune of over $One Trillion..and they are a huge trading partner, unlike Afghanistan. So here we have a case of vested interests and favoritism actively preventing the US (and allies) from executing the "war on terrorism" as regards [i[the[/i] probable key player. As far as who attacked the Saudis recently, the jury is out...there are numerous theories flying about, some plausible and some absurd.
Now as regards the war in Iraq: Bush has related this as the centerpiece of the "war on terror". Sure, Saddam's regime has provided funds for suicide attackers in Israel, but this should have remained an internal matter between Israel and Iraq. Israel has more than adequate military means and intelligence resources to deal with Hamas and others (on the US taxpayer). Regarding Iraq and terrorism, neither Iraq nor Iraqi organizations have ever attacked the United States, or US facilities, and as far as the intelligence services know, there is no known or purported connection between Iraq and al qaida. Bush has misled the US people via a pathetically uncritical media into believing that Iraq and terrorism against America are intimately connected. Yes I am glad....aren't we all....that Saddam is about to face justice for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. But it all starts to look a little hollow when you look at how the US (amongst others) provided support for this brutal regime when they perpetrated their worst atrocities, and we looked the other way.
Quote:
In any case, it certainly seems you are saying that we have somehow caused this through "imperialism". I disagree. We have become powerful mainly due to our system of government...and we are resented and hated for our influence. A natural thing, I suppose.
But...but....imperialism is the impled aim of the "neocon" group most responsible for shaping US foreign policy, the Project for a New American Century. To simplify: they believe that American military power should be (a) stengthened far beyond what we have now, and (b) actively projected throughout the globe. If that isn't imperialism, then I don't know what *is*. We all know what happens with an empire: firstly it is a short term boon to the ruling nation, then it becomes a burden and a liability, then it fails. This has happened throughout history without exception. I do not want to see America follow this path to folly and ultimate failure because of a gaggle of folk with more power than foresight.
When it come down to it, we all want what's best for the US (and the world at large). Where we disagree is the how and wherefore. And...what is very scary and sinister even, is that right now, opposing viewpoints are being marginalized, vilified and even criminalized. This is a charade of democracy, not a good example to show to the world, and makes us look damned hypocritical. When we are preaching about the fostering of representative democracy, we shouldn't be simultaneously destroying our own act. It is counter productive.
Too late, read it. Not sure it matters. Oh no, we caught them and forced their hands...terrible.
Sammi jo,
I see what you're saying. I still supported the Iraq war because I believe the reasons for going to war far outnumbered the reasons not to. We've been through it and will have to disagree. I can't agree about things like the terror connection and never threatening the US.
As for imperialism, prjecting American military power around the globe is not necessarily imperialism. It depends on how it is interepreted. I agree that we are involved in places we shouldn't be, and places that it's now time to leave. In other words, we are too stretched in the long term. But this cases terror? I'm not sure it does. Terror comes from many other sources, such as the ones we have listed. A lot of "terrorist thinking" (specifically Islamic) comes form truly warped world-views and fanatical beliefs, don't you agree? How does one negotiate and deal with that? One doesn't. Sometimes we must have war to have peace; we must defeat, not negotiate.
Comments
Libya Seeks Reward for Scrapping Banned Weapons
Originally posted by bunge
This just in:
Libya Seeks Reward for Scrapping Banned Weapons
Always a cloud in the silver lining for the Bush Admin, eh bunge?
Originally posted by bunge
This just in:
Libya Seeks Reward for Scrapping Banned Weapons
Gaddafi's son said the Iraq war had nothing to do with the timing of Libya's talks. "We started the cooperation before even the invasion of Iraq," Saif al-Islam Gaddafi told CNN.
But he added: "It's a critical deal for Libya, because first of all we will get access to defensive weapons and no sanctions on Libyan arms imports any more. We will get access to the know-how and technology in sectors which were banned."
We do need to remove ourselves from oil. But, we can't do it yet. We'll be addicted to oil for at least 50 years after getting serious about alternatives. Given this, I personally would rather see us do mroe domestic, off-shore drilling and purchase more oil from Russia and Mexico, not to mention Latin America. **** the middle east. As someone told me, let's tell them to "go pound sand". They need us as much as we need them.
As far as the ME and it's governments, hopefully many are realizing that the current systems are failing. The problem is that separating that which has never been seperate before is a major problem to say the least.
I don't really agree with your statement about the War on Terror. It's having real positive results. We have dessimated Al-Qeada's leadership and as I've said, the "are we next factor" is having real results. These governments respect one thing: POWER. We have shown them we will use it to not only remove the terrorists but governments who support it. This being said, there is more to be done. We need to find OBL, even it would be symbolic. We need to stop illegal immigration as well.
I guess we'll have to disagree on the WOT.
Originally posted by Scott
I always keep asking this and no one can ever tell me. Exactly what are we doing to do once we are "off oil". Exactly how are we going to use that to our and the world's advantage. Spare no detail.
Good point. I suppose it's not the cleanest and least polluting substance, and it certainly is finite. But, that last part has been greatly exaggerated. My understanding is that if we stopped looking for new oil tomorrow, we'd have enough for 100-200 years.
But, at this point i'd be in favor of getting off of foreign oil. It makes us depend on a highly unstable part of the world...at least for Middle East imports.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Always a cloud in the silver lining for the Bush Admin, eh bunge?
HAPPY CHRISTMAS!
[
I guess we'll have to disagree on the WOT. [/B]
The war on terror as practised by BushCorp is a bit like trying to fix a leak on the downstream side of the dam, instead of the upstream side. Firstly, they are cherrypicking terrorists...some are OK, but others are to be stomped. Secondly, they are not addressing any of the root causes of terrorism. They have a fixation with punitive measures while ignoring preventative measures: their approach is like squashing a balloon, only to have it bubble up elsewhere....similar to the modus operandum of the unwinnable "war on drugs". Thirdly they are using the WOT as a fear mechanism to alienate, disable, even criminalize legitimate political opposition and organizations whose agendae are far removed from terrorism, but which are politically and ideologically at odds with those of BushCorp. They are even politicizing the FBI to shackle and impede legitimate political opposition.
The longterm effects of a pre-emptive war are likely to inflame, rather than pacify. Put yourself in the position of the hundreds of thousands of relatives of those 10,000 to 50,000 Iraqis who died as a result of the US bombing, not to mention the sense of outrage and humiliation from having your nation occupied into the forseeable future by foreigners who have little or no respect for your customs and traditions. You can bet that out of those bereaved masses, there are a fair number of furious, mad as hell, and angry people who will stop at nothing to get their own back and will more than likely choose violent means...and they have all the time in the world to accomplish that end. ...and since they dont have a professional army with which to do that, improvised terrorism is their recourse. Imagine the same scale of death and destruction happening here in the USA....(think 9-11 multiplied many times over)...I recall the anger and grief here only too vividly: I felt it myself, as we all did. Here, we have a skilled military force which bombed the living hell out of Afghanstan (despite there being no Afghans responsible for 9-11) which meant that US citizens didnt have to join mercenary or terrorist groups to exact revenge. (Altho' I recall numerous reports of incidents post 9-11 of mid-eastern people being beaten up by yahoos, some even murdered because of their faith, or dress.
The BushCorp version of the "war on terror" is more an exercise in reactionary penis waving than a genuinely constructive effort from the ground up to rid the world of terrorism. The world is potentially a far more dangerous place now than it was pre 9-11, and the risk of further attacks, both in the short -term and more especially in the longterm and has been inflated because of their current approach.
Originally posted by Scott
I always keep asking this and no one can ever tell me. Exactly what are we doing to do once we are "off oil". Exactly how are we going to use that to our and the world's advantage. Spare no detail.
I think that less dependence on oil from the ME would equal less spending on military hardware and personnel to secure that oil. Less spending on the military thingys is a good thing. As hopefully that money and energy can be put into better use elsewhere. I think that subsidizing higher education is one area I would be in favor of. And not that leftist commie artzy bs, but Science. Another, would be subsidizing mass urban transport system, and a redesign of the whole North American urban landscape around people and not the automobile.
it's one of the only areas where you have huge budgets to work on technology, ignoring whether or not it would make you money.
people always bitch about military spending, but the research, techonology, production etc. that go into producing those products don't disappear. that knowledge slowly makes its way out to the US consumer.
Originally posted by sammi jo
The war on terror as practised by BushCorp is a bit like trying to fix a leak on the downstream side of the dam, instead of the upstream side. Firstly, they are cherrypicking terrorists...some are OK, but others are to be stomped. Secondly, they are not addressing any of the root causes of terrorism. They have a fixation with punitive measures while ignoring preventative measures: their approach is like squashing a balloon, only to have it bubble up elsewhere....similar to the modus operandum of the unwinnable "war on drugs". Thirdly they are using the WOT as a fear mechanism to alienate, disable, even criminalize legitimate political opposition and organizations whose agendae are far removed from terrorism, but which are politically and ideologically at odds with those of BushCorp. They are even politicizing the FBI to shackle and impede legitimate political opposition.
The longterm effects of a pre-emptive war are likely to inflame, rather than pacify. Put yourself in the position of the hundreds of thousands of relatives of those 10,000 to 50,000 Iraqis who died as a result of the US bombing, not to mention the sense of outrage and humiliation from having your nation occupied into the forseeable future by foreigners who have little or no respect for your customs and traditions. You can bet that out of those bereaved masses, there are a fair number of furious, mad as hell, and angry people who will stop at nothing to get their own back and will more than likely choose violent means...and they have all the time in the world to accomplish that end. ...and since they dont have a professional army with which to do that, improvised terrorism is their recourse. Imagine the same scale of death and destruction happening here in the USA....(think 9-11 multiplied many times over)...I recall the anger and grief here only too vividly: I felt it myself, as we all did. Here, we have a skilled military force which bombed the living hell out of Afghanstan (despite there being no Afghans responsible for 9-11) which meant that US citizens didnt have to join mercenary or terrorist groups to exact revenge. (Altho' I recall numerous reports of incidents post 9-11 of mid-eastern people being beaten up by yahoos, some even murdered because of their faith, or dress.
The BushCorp version of the "war on terror" is more an exercise in reactionary penis waving than a genuinely constructive effort from the ground up to rid the world of terrorism. The world is potentially a far more dangerous place now than it was pre 9-11, and the risk of further attacks, both in the short -term and more especially in the longterm and has been inflated because of their current approach.
You really should stop with the scare mongering. Saddam murdered hundred of thousands of Iraqis, but I didn't see any suicide bombers crash 747's into his palaces. Going after terrorists is not going to create more terrorists. That's a bogus argument. What creates terrorists is Islamic fanaticism and these tin-can regimes that lend support to these Islamicists.
Originally posted by alcimedes
actually, US consumers get a lot of great products as a by product of military spending.
it's one of the only areas where you have huge budgets to work on technology, ignoring whether or not it would make you money.
people always bitch about military spending, but the research, techonology, production etc. that go into producing those products don't disappear. that knowledge slowly makes its way out to the US consumer.
I agree with you. Many important technological advances have occurred directly or indirectly as a result of war. I'm not an economist, but I would think we could get higher efficiencies..
For example, what exactly should we do about terrorism, if not what "BushCorp" has done? Should we have done what Mr. Clinton did? (I doubt you're on that side though). I'm not sure I see where you are going, though it seems you are implying that the US has somehow caused terrorism and is at fault. If not, I still must ask what are the alternatives? We must hunt these people and destroy them. It's the only way I see. And quite frankly, I think we're doing that. I would like to see a tougher approach with the Saudis, but it seems they have come along as well after being attacked themselves.
Now, if you are arguing for fixing "the cause" of terror, I don't believe that's generally possible. Regarding Islamic terrorists, the "cause" really has a lot to do with an extreme sect of their religion, one that essentially says all non-believers are worthy of death. How do we fix that? How do we prevent that from being taught or having been invented in the first place? I'm not sure we could have. Granted, we are the most powerful nation in the world and that generates resent. Granted, we support Israel, but are you arguing we shouldn't? Islamic terror may be caused by a lack of voice, and abhorent conditions, but it is also caused by these people living in countries which are backwards. They have not yet adopted democratic and therefore stable governments with basic standards of human rights. Many governments encourage teacing of this extreme sect through madrassas, and therefore sponsor terror. What I'm saying here is that I think force is needed and appropriate. Terrorists will and do respect only raw power. They must be hunted and exterminated, and we must deal with the governments who sponsor terror as well.
In any case, it certainly seems you are saying that we have somehow caused this through "imperialism". I disagree. We have become powerful mainly due to our system of government...and we are resented and hated for our influence. A natural thing, I suppose.
Can you elaborate on your solutions?
Originally posted by majorspunk
I think that less dependence on oil from the ME would equal less spending on military hardware and personnel to secure that oil. Less spending on the military thingys is a good thing. As hopefully that money and energy can be put into better use elsewhere. I think that subsidizing higher education is one area I would be in favor of. And not that leftist commie artzy bs, but Science. Another, would be subsidizing mass urban transport system, and a redesign of the whole North American urban landscape around people and not the automobile.
Of course that's not true at all.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well sammi we're back to disagreeing. I understand what you're saying but I stand in firm opposition to it, as well as question it.
For example, what exactly should we do about terrorism, if not what "BushCorp" has done? Should we have done what Mr. Clinton did? (I doubt you're on that side though). I'm not sure I see where you are going, though it seems you are implying that the US has somehow caused terrorism and is at fault. If not, I still must ask what are the alternatives? We must hunt these people and destroy them. It's the only way I see. And quite frankly, I think we're doing that. I would like to see a tougher approach with the Saudis, but it seems they have come along as well after being attacked themselves.
Now, if you are arguing for fixing "the cause" of terror, I don't believe that's generally possible. Regarding Islamic terrorists, the "cause" really has a lot to do with an extreme sect of their religion, one that essentially says all non-believers are worthy of death. How do we fix that? How do we prevent that from being taught or having been invented in the first place? I'm not sure we could have. Granted, we are the most powerful nation in the world and that generates resent. Granted, we support Israel, but are you arguing we shouldn't? Islamic terror may be caused by a lack of voice, and abhorent conditions, but it is also caused by these people living in countries which are backwards. They have not yet adopted democratic and therefore stable governments with basic standards of human rights. Many governments encourage teacing of this extreme sect through madrassas, and therefore sponsor terror. What I'm saying here is that I think force is needed and appropriate. Terrorists will and do respect only raw power. They must be hunted and exterminated, and we must deal with the governments who sponsor terror as well.
Don't get me wrong here. I firmly supported the strike on Afghanistan at the time: however I was led into believing that Afghanistan was the prime culprit. Since then we found that (although al qaida cells operated out of Afghanistan and bin Laden was rumored to be based there, although nobody has seen him there in years), this was far from reality, and many countries (some 60 quoted by Bush himself) have al qaida sleeper cells and training camps, with support systems and financial aid. Saudi Arabia's connection to al qaida is as every bit as intimate as Afghanistan's was, especially when it comes down to financial aid. However, our response to Saudi Arabia's culpability was pretty much zero relatively speaking: perhaps this is because Saudi is invested in the US economy to the tune of over $One Trillion..and they are a huge trading partner, unlike Afghanistan. So here we have a case of vested interests and favoritism actively preventing the US (and allies) from executing the "war on terrorism" as regards [i[the[/i] probable key player. As far as who attacked the Saudis recently, the jury is out...there are numerous theories flying about, some plausible and some absurd.
Now as regards the war in Iraq: Bush has related this as the centerpiece of the "war on terror". Sure, Saddam's regime has provided funds for suicide attackers in Israel, but this should have remained an internal matter between Israel and Iraq. Israel has more than adequate military means and intelligence resources to deal with Hamas and others (on the US taxpayer). Regarding Iraq and terrorism, neither Iraq nor Iraqi organizations have ever attacked the United States, or US facilities, and as far as the intelligence services know, there is no known or purported connection between Iraq and al qaida. Bush has misled the US people via a pathetically uncritical media into believing that Iraq and terrorism against America are intimately connected. Yes I am glad....aren't we all....that Saddam is about to face justice for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. But it all starts to look a little hollow when you look at how the US (amongst others) provided support for this brutal regime when they perpetrated their worst atrocities, and we looked the other way.
In any case, it certainly seems you are saying that we have somehow caused this through "imperialism". I disagree. We have become powerful mainly due to our system of government...and we are resented and hated for our influence. A natural thing, I suppose.
But...but....imperialism is the impled aim of the "neocon" group most responsible for shaping US foreign policy, the Project for a New American Century. To simplify: they believe that American military power should be (a) stengthened far beyond what we have now, and (b) actively projected throughout the globe. If that isn't imperialism, then I don't know what *is*. We all know what happens with an empire: firstly it is a short term boon to the ruling nation, then it becomes a burden and a liability, then it fails. This has happened throughout history without exception. I do not want to see America follow this path to folly and ultimate failure because of a gaggle of folk with more power than foresight.
When it come down to it, we all want what's best for the US (and the world at large). Where we disagree is the how and wherefore. And...what is very scary and sinister even, is that right now, opposing viewpoints are being marginalized, vilified and even criminalized. This is a charade of democracy, not a good example to show to the world, and makes us look damned hypocritical. When we are preaching about the fostering of representative democracy, we shouldn't be simultaneously destroying our own act. It is counter productive.
Can you elaborate on your solutions? [/B]
Solutions....see next post!!!!
Originally posted by bunge
Revealed: the real reason for Gaddafi's WMD surrender
.
Too late, read it. Not sure it matters. Oh no, we caught them and forced their hands...terrible.
Sammi jo,
I see what you're saying. I still supported the Iraq war because I believe the reasons for going to war far outnumbered the reasons not to. We've been through it and will have to disagree. I can't agree about things like the terror connection and never threatening the US.
As for imperialism, prjecting American military power around the globe is not necessarily imperialism. It depends on how it is interepreted. I agree that we are involved in places we shouldn't be, and places that it's now time to leave. In other words, we are too stretched in the long term. But this cases terror? I'm not sure it does. Terror comes from many other sources, such as the ones we have listed. A lot of "terrorist thinking" (specifically Islamic) comes form truly warped world-views and fanatical beliefs, don't you agree? How does one negotiate and deal with that? One doesn't. Sometimes we must have war to have peace; we must defeat, not negotiate.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Too late, read it. Not sure it matters. Oh no, we caught them and forced their hands...terrible.
You're terrible. You get mad when I post something that's not pro Bush so I come back and post something that is pro Bush but you're still upset.
Part
eye
san.
Originally posted by bunge
You're terrible. You get mad when I post something that's not pro Bush so I come back and post something that is pro Bush but you're still upset.
Part
eye
san.
Upset? no. How is that pro-Bush?
Originally posted by majorspunk
Jews never abandoned their Judean nationality. So to them Israel never ceased to exist, international politics not withstanding.
...and the people evicted from their homes on the creation of the state of Israel haven't abandoned their "Palestinian" nationality either.
Can they have the right of return too?