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.
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.
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.
It's only "absurd" because absorption weakens if not eliminates your case for war- which, of course, has to be "absurd."
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's funny how I sort of agree with a lot of what you post in that last remark, especially some of Bush's motivations, that is finding himself unable to deal with the spectre of al queda, he might be tempted to fight a war he can spin into an abiding sense of security. If that is the intention (however unspoken and possibly unconscious it may be) then Americans are going to get a very ugly reminder in one form or another before they're done. I hope not, I hope they're thinking deeper, but that is a very legitimate concern about the state of mind of the American executive and of most of the American people, who WANT to forget.
The evidence is abundant, though it is disguised as rhetoric about "protecting our freedoms/way of life." Think, that the hyper-letigious American society has STILL failed to produce a lawsuit condemning the wide spread security practices of the airline industry despite MASSIVE loss of life and about 25 years worth of independent reports warning of just such a disaster. Ask the head of El Al in Isreal what he advised more than a decade ago, and whether any such measures were ever instituted? The airline industry got off scot-free whenthey deserved to be crushed by an avalanche of legalese. Why? Largely because Americans would like to believe in a fantasy of immunity.
America does want to put it's head in the sand.
I wish they wouldn't, I hope they aren't using Iraq to dig the hole, but I have to say also that he must be dealt with before his technological advance goes much further. Bush is late. Clinton was late, and you must lay a good portion of it on the republican led witch hunts that plagued him, and also his idiotic inability to control his libido, but that's besides the point now.
Getting Saddam is the right move, and very late, if all the wrong moves come, they will come AFTER Iraq v2.
I hope not, I hope they're thinking deeper, but that is a very legitimate concern about the state of mind of the American executive and of most of the American people, who WANT to forget.
Like you, I have my hopes that they are thinking deeper. I always have. Unfortunately the more inept they look, the less I trust their judgement.
It's funny, because on 9/11 my first thought was to move 100,000 (evidently 300,000 would have been a better choice) troops into Iraq. I had faith that the connections existed and just weren't public knowledge. Assuming they existed and concrete evidence was held away in some X-File, an attack would have been the right response.
Over the past year and a half though, I've been waiting for any public acknowledgement of the connections and there have been none. The only circulstantial evidence I've caught wind of is the fact that when the super-secret evidence was shown to Russia, China, Germany, France and others, it didn't move them. If it doesn't move them, then I'm pretty sure it's flimsy at best.
So my read of the situation with Bush is that we've gone down the wrong path. It may never come back to bite us on the ass, but I'm not very hopeful. The evidence over the past ten years has shown that our aggression gives rise to more aggression against us. I don't expect anything different with this situation.
I also don't expect Bush, who puts more faith in god than a president should, to understand global politics. He's not well traveled and doesn't seem to grasp the idea that the U.S. is one of many equals rather than the lone 'super-power'. That mentality, if it persists, will also lead to another bite on the arse.
America does want to put it's collective head in the sand. They really do want to believe that killing Osama & Hussein will end the terrorist threats. They really don't see how our actions as a nation lead to global problems including a severe rise in anti-U.S. sentiment. More and more the people want less say, and more the ability to trust in the Military to solve a problem far, far away.
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.
Sorry, Bunge, wrong on both accounts. This person stated his hatred for Israel, no if's and 's or but's.
As far as his arguements, they are insane. 'Absorbtion' of terrorist attacks is an insane strategy and only comes from blindness and cowardness. Sorry, but go back and read his post and tell me his arguement has any merit. A brief run down of his beliefs:
Israel could VX Palestine, but Saddam doesn't have any WMD, so he is no threat. What sort of mind makes that up?He is more concerned that one of your GI's would nuke Bagdahd than he is about your GI's getting VX'd (because how could then when Saddam has none).
It would be better to allow terrorists to strike as they please, to prevent attacks.Umm...again, that's insane.
We shouldn't give terrorists more motives: Sit back and just take it. They will always hate you and try to kill you in mass numbers, but perhaps they won't be as angry when they do it.
Sorry, but his arguements hold no water. Most seemed based on 2 premises: Israel is evil and the US is evil. Now I know he is american, and will soon proclaim his patriotism, but it is hollow. He is quick to dismiss anything nehative about radical islam or Saddam and Iraq, but quick to point blame, with bizzare arguements anything bad in the world on the US and Israel.
But Iraq has nothing to do with terror on American soil, or on U.S. installations elsewhere.
You may be right, you may be wrong. Regardless, both those posters are advocating the US adopt a policy of absorb terror instead of preventing terror. Why fight back if it will anger them more, is what they are saying...
So, why was the alert system bumped up to red then?
I think the color system has very little to do with reality. You ask this question to dispute my argument but I do not think you honestly put faith in that particular system. That is a childish way to engage someone in discussion.
tonton, I said absoultely nothing like that. At all. If I did you could have quoted me and refuted it but instead you just make it up so you can attack the made-up statement instead of what I actually said.
You are acting like UN mandates remove terrorist motivations and that is crazy.
What we need to do this is a UN referendum or at least apparent support from the rest of the world. We had such a consensus before each of the examples mentioned above. We have no such a consensus this time around.
We have 45 nations backing us now. Would it really be that much different if you counted France, Germany and Russia in with those 45?
I think that far from not moving them, the evidence probably incriminates a few of them. There's a LOT of surplus soviet weaponry that has never been accounted for, and after a history of backing Iraq's mortal enemy, Russia came to the rescue a few years back... hmmm... just things to think about.
It's always a waiting game, with the march of tech ticking away in everyone's mind. The Russians, Chinese, and French probably figured that nuclear or more advanced chemical threats are still a ways off. The US probably figures this might be the last chance they get to fight a clean fast war and not face the threat of some Iraqi dropping a battle field nuke in the middle of 50K soldiers, or something on that level.
They don't want to deal with another N.Korea, which is what they'll get if they wait any longer. And you can bet that N.Korea is dying to sell a nuke, Saudi's would pay BIG money for it, indirectly of course.
You may be right, you may be wrong. Regardless, both those posters are advocating the US adopt a policy of absorb terror instead of preventing terror. Why fight back if it will anger them more, is what they are saying...
I think the actual belief is fight back under U.N. auspices to avoid making a bigger target out of ourselves.
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.
Not true. There has been evidence. It isn't overhwelming as of yet. I saw photos the other day of a known terror camp in Iraq. Guess what was there? A fvcking 747 aircraft! That's right, bunge. Truthfully, they were posted on Rush Limbaugh's site. I know that's not exactly mainstream news. I suppose they could be faked....who knows. In any case, if Saddam gives WOMD to Al-Qaeda (and I don't care what you say, that's a real possibility), we could be in serious trouble.
I also need to say this. One can call Bush dumb. He's not, but one can call him that. He certainly doesn't speak in public well...one of his main flaws. I have heard the he is completely different in private and that when the cameras go on, it all just "goes away". His speaking is definitely getting better. BUT, one thing I do not believe is that he has some sinister motive for this. Oil may be a factor, but I really believe that HE believes he is doing this to liberate the Iraqi people and rid the nation of WOMD. I have no doubt that he KNOWS Iraq has these weapons and he KNOWS Saddam is lying about it. I also have no doubt that he truly considers Iraq a threat.
And that's the real issue. The President of United States considers Saddam's Iraq a threat to US national security. If you don't believe that, any and all further arguments are moot, because one assumes you believe that he has some ulterior, super-secret sinister plan up his sleeve. If you do believe him, then are you actually going to disagree? He has access to the best and most recent intelligence available. When he, and his national security team (not to mention Prime Minsister Blair...who has NO political motivation to support Bush) look at this intelligence and come to the conclusion that Iraq represents a threat...you are still going to disagree? Really? Do you have more info than the POTUS does? Or, is your opinion justified by simply dismissing Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Blair and others as hawks who for some unknown reason, love to kill people?
I think the color system has very little to do with reality. You ask this question to dispute my argument but I do not think you honestly put faith in that particular system. That is a childish way to engage someone in discussion.
Actually I think it shows that the administration believes that attacking Iraq increases our immediate vulnerability even if in their minds (right or wrong) it increases our long term security and stability.
Quote:
Originally posted by AdamB
We have 45 nations backing us now. Would it really be that much different if you counted France, Germany and Russia in with those 45?
Yes, because with those, and at the very least an abstain from China, we're able to fight under the U.N. flag.
I think the actual belief is fight back under U.N. auspices to avoid making a bigger target out of ourselves.
Because any terrorist would care if you went through the UN? Regardless, his beliefs go beyond that, into the realm of hysterical hatred and a blind belief that the hatred of radical islam is only the fault of the US and it's policy toward's Israel, which he also blindly hates.
Comments
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?
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
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."
Originally posted by AdamB
The popular idea is that the war will increase terrorism. To me that is a tenuous idea based on largely irrational fears.
So, why was the alert system bumped up to red then?
Originally posted by Tulkas
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.
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.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
It's only "absurd" because absorption weakens if not eliminates your case for war- which, of course, has to be "absurd."
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Are you and tonton actually arguing that we should simply ACCEPT and ABSORB terror???
But Iraq has nothing to do with terror on American soil, or on U.S. installations elsewhere.
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...
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.
Originally posted by Matsu
That's not exactly true.
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.
It's funny how I sort of agree with a lot of what you post in that last remark, especially some of Bush's motivations, that is finding himself unable to deal with the spectre of al queda, he might be tempted to fight a war he can spin into an abiding sense of security. If that is the intention (however unspoken and possibly unconscious it may be) then Americans are going to get a very ugly reminder in one form or another before they're done. I hope not, I hope they're thinking deeper, but that is a very legitimate concern about the state of mind of the American executive and of most of the American people, who WANT to forget.
The evidence is abundant, though it is disguised as rhetoric about "protecting our freedoms/way of life." Think, that the hyper-letigious American society has STILL failed to produce a lawsuit condemning the wide spread security practices of the airline industry despite MASSIVE loss of life and about 25 years worth of independent reports warning of just such a disaster. Ask the head of El Al in Isreal what he advised more than a decade ago, and whether any such measures were ever instituted? The airline industry got off scot-free whenthey deserved to be crushed by an avalanche of legalese. Why? Largely because Americans would like to believe in a fantasy of immunity.
America does want to put it's head in the sand.
I wish they wouldn't, I hope they aren't using Iraq to dig the hole, but I have to say also that he must be dealt with before his technological advance goes much further. Bush is late. Clinton was late, and you must lay a good portion of it on the republican led witch hunts that plagued him, and also his idiotic inability to control his libido, but that's besides the point now.
Getting Saddam is the right move, and very late, if all the wrong moves come, they will come AFTER Iraq v2.
Originally posted by Matsu
I hope not, I hope they're thinking deeper, but that is a very legitimate concern about the state of mind of the American executive and of most of the American people, who WANT to forget.
Like you, I have my hopes that they are thinking deeper. I always have. Unfortunately the more inept they look, the less I trust their judgement.
It's funny, because on 9/11 my first thought was to move 100,000 (evidently 300,000 would have been a better choice) troops into Iraq. I had faith that the connections existed and just weren't public knowledge. Assuming they existed and concrete evidence was held away in some X-File, an attack would have been the right response.
Over the past year and a half though, I've been waiting for any public acknowledgement of the connections and there have been none. The only circulstantial evidence I've caught wind of is the fact that when the super-secret evidence was shown to Russia, China, Germany, France and others, it didn't move them. If it doesn't move them, then I'm pretty sure it's flimsy at best.
So my read of the situation with Bush is that we've gone down the wrong path. It may never come back to bite us on the ass, but I'm not very hopeful. The evidence over the past ten years has shown that our aggression gives rise to more aggression against us. I don't expect anything different with this situation.
I also don't expect Bush, who puts more faith in god than a president should, to understand global politics. He's not well traveled and doesn't seem to grasp the idea that the U.S. is one of many equals rather than the lone 'super-power'. That mentality, if it persists, will also lead to another bite on the arse.
America does want to put it's collective head in the sand. They really do want to believe that killing Osama & Hussein will end the terrorist threats. They really don't see how our actions as a nation lead to global problems including a severe rise in anti-U.S. sentiment. More and more the people want less say, and more the ability to trust in the Military to solve a problem far, far away.
Originally posted by bunge
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.
Sorry, Bunge, wrong on both accounts. This person stated his hatred for Israel, no if's and 's or but's.
As far as his arguements, they are insane. 'Absorbtion' of terrorist attacks is an insane strategy and only comes from blindness and cowardness. Sorry, but go back and read his post and tell me his arguement has any merit. A brief run down of his beliefs:
Israel could VX Palestine, but Saddam doesn't have any WMD, so he is no threat. What sort of mind makes that up?He is more concerned that one of your GI's would nuke Bagdahd than he is about your GI's getting VX'd (because how could then when Saddam has none).
It would be better to allow terrorists to strike as they please, to prevent attacks.Umm...again, that's insane.
We shouldn't give terrorists more motives: Sit back and just take it. They will always hate you and try to kill you in mass numbers, but perhaps they won't be as angry when they do it.
Sorry, but his arguements hold no water. Most seemed based on 2 premises: Israel is evil and the US is evil. Now I know he is american, and will soon proclaim his patriotism, but it is hollow. He is quick to dismiss anything nehative about radical islam or Saddam and Iraq, but quick to point blame, with bizzare arguements anything bad in the world on the US and Israel.
Originally posted by bunge
But Iraq has nothing to do with terror on American soil, or on U.S. installations elsewhere.
You may be right, you may be wrong. Regardless, both those posters are advocating the US adopt a policy of absorb terror instead of preventing terror. Why fight back if it will anger them more, is what they are saying...
Originally posted by bunge
So, why was the alert system bumped up to red then?
I think the color system has very little to do with reality. You ask this question to dispute my argument but I do not think you honestly put faith in that particular system. That is a childish way to engage someone in discussion.
tonton, I said absoultely nothing like that. At all. If I did you could have quoted me and refuted it but instead you just make it up so you can attack the made-up statement instead of what I actually said.
You are acting like UN mandates remove terrorist motivations and that is crazy.
What we need to do this is a UN referendum or at least apparent support from the rest of the world. We had such a consensus before each of the examples mentioned above. We have no such a consensus this time around.
We have 45 nations backing us now. Would it really be that much different if you counted France, Germany and Russia in with those 45?
It's always a waiting game, with the march of tech ticking away in everyone's mind. The Russians, Chinese, and French probably figured that nuclear or more advanced chemical threats are still a ways off. The US probably figures this might be the last chance they get to fight a clean fast war and not face the threat of some Iraqi dropping a battle field nuke in the middle of 50K soldiers, or something on that level.
They don't want to deal with another N.Korea, which is what they'll get if they wait any longer. And you can bet that N.Korea is dying to sell a nuke, Saudi's would pay BIG money for it, indirectly of course.
Originally posted by Tulkas
You may be right, you may be wrong. Regardless, both those posters are advocating the US adopt a policy of absorb terror instead of preventing terror. Why fight back if it will anger them more, is what they are saying...
I think the actual belief is fight back under U.N. auspices to avoid making a bigger target out of ourselves.
Originally posted by bunge
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.
Not true. There has been evidence. It isn't overhwelming as of yet. I saw photos the other day of a known terror camp in Iraq. Guess what was there? A fvcking 747 aircraft! That's right, bunge. Truthfully, they were posted on Rush Limbaugh's site. I know that's not exactly mainstream news. I suppose they could be faked....who knows. In any case, if Saddam gives WOMD to Al-Qaeda (and I don't care what you say, that's a real possibility), we could be in serious trouble.
I also need to say this. One can call Bush dumb. He's not, but one can call him that. He certainly doesn't speak in public well...one of his main flaws. I have heard the he is completely different in private and that when the cameras go on, it all just "goes away". His speaking is definitely getting better. BUT, one thing I do not believe is that he has some sinister motive for this. Oil may be a factor, but I really believe that HE believes he is doing this to liberate the Iraqi people and rid the nation of WOMD. I have no doubt that he KNOWS Iraq has these weapons and he KNOWS Saddam is lying about it. I also have no doubt that he truly considers Iraq a threat.
And that's the real issue. The President of United States considers Saddam's Iraq a threat to US national security. If you don't believe that, any and all further arguments are moot, because one assumes you believe that he has some ulterior, super-secret sinister plan up his sleeve. If you do believe him, then are you actually going to disagree? He has access to the best and most recent intelligence available. When he, and his national security team (not to mention Prime Minsister Blair...who has NO political motivation to support Bush) look at this intelligence and come to the conclusion that Iraq represents a threat...you are still going to disagree? Really? Do you have more info than the POTUS does? Or, is your opinion justified by simply dismissing Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Blair and others as hawks who for some unknown reason, love to kill people?
Originally posted by AdamB
I think the color system has very little to do with reality. You ask this question to dispute my argument but I do not think you honestly put faith in that particular system. That is a childish way to engage someone in discussion.
Actually I think it shows that the administration believes that attacking Iraq increases our immediate vulnerability even if in their minds (right or wrong) it increases our long term security and stability.
Originally posted by AdamB
We have 45 nations backing us now. Would it really be that much different if you counted France, Germany and Russia in with those 45?
Yes, because with those, and at the very least an abstain from China, we're able to fight under the U.N. flag.
Originally posted by bunge
I think the actual belief is fight back under U.N. auspices to avoid making a bigger target out of ourselves.
Because any terrorist would care if you went through the UN? Regardless, his beliefs go beyond that, into the realm of hysterical hatred and a blind belief that the hatred of radical islam is only the fault of the US and it's policy toward's Israel, which he also blindly hates.