the UN

[ParanoiA]

ParanoiA said.

 

Have you ever considered the idea that perhaps Iraq is nothing more than a point of focus for terrorism created by the administration?

That is even more silly than DD's posting.

 

Then you should have no problem giving me the respect of an actual argument. That one liner is ego. For now, I guess I'll note your answer as you never thought of it.

 

Which, is important, because all of this terrorism you mention is focused in Iraq at the moment. Money is being spent, soldiers from all sides are engaged and on the move - rather than festering and building slowly all around us peacefully - like just before 9/11. I'm not saying this is a really great thing. I'm just saying it's plausible and makes tactical sense.

 

You seemed to have missed the point that Iraq before the invasion was not a terrorist threat. Hussein was NOT a friend of Al Qaeda. In fact, the terrorists regarded Hussein with contempt and enmity.

 

We were at a state of war with Iraq, co-existing under a ceasefire agreement that Hussein had violated over and over again on at least 9 different counts. Hussein was NOT a friend of us either. In fact, we just kicked his ass and disgraced him about a decade earlier, hence the ceasefire.

 

9/11 shook the american sheep and snapped them back into reality - momentarily - and gave them a taste of the reality of the murderous extremists that the middle east cannot or will not control. First thing we did was go after the "gang" in Afghanistan. Hmm..but funny how they weren't quite as interested and optomistic as you've been in this thread - they basically said f*ck you. So, our first attempt at scooping up gangsters police style, as you suggested, didn't work.

 

Iraq was not a terrorist nation any more than Home Depot is a contractor. But they have the supplies and a mutual enemy, while desparate for money. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

 

And I repeat my earlier point. To win in the Middle East, you need to win friends, not enemies. The basic principle sounds sugar sweet, but works.

 

"If you are nice to people, they will be nice to you. If you are nasty to people, they will be nasty to you."

 

Exactly how nice do we have to be? Money, Tourism, open borders - we're basically a crack addict on their oil. Do you really believe this sh!t about the big bad america makes life sucky for the rest of the world? Do you know exactly how many times you have to say something over and over again before people just start believing it? We were their rich buddy they made fun of for decades before they started bombing us - starting in the late 70's I believe.

 

We even tried to help get the Russians out of Afghanistan for them. We've sold them military toys and trained a fraction of that damn continent by now.

 

Don't lecture me about being nice. We've been fair. That's all we should have to be. Extremists are nuts and illegitimate regimes and dictators are inheriting and gaining access to the really dangerous stuff mankind has been spreading about the globe. Look at Iran and North Korea. Do you really trust a death obsessed culture like that with WMD's? Are you really so naive to risk your children's lives on that on? Because it's likely not your kids that will suffer, but rather some other innocent person's child that just happens to live in the strike zone of these nations that can't defend themselves.

[Dr. Dalek]

The people who are joining Al Queda now probably would have joined Al Queada anyway, we are just creating a situation to flush them out and kill all that attack us.

 

The people who are recruited by Al Qaeda are not, at first, evil. They are mostly angry young men of the type who would become Greenpeace activists in our society. Except that their religion is Islam, not the natural environment. If they feel that their nation and their religion is threatened, they will react. If there is no threat, then why should they?

Because a false threat planted in their minds by Al Quead Propaganda, or they could just be predisposed to hate Americans. The thing is you are assuming that Terrorists follow logical lines of reasoning. THEY ARE RELIGIOUS FACISTS! They don't need logic just passion and hate.

 

If you look back you would see that oil prices took a sharp spike around the same time as the war, same goes for the Persian Gulf War. Given this it seems unlikly that Oil was the motavation.

 

That rather strange logic is a bit like the following :

"Joe Blow robbed a bank. He was caught, and sent to jail. He lost a lot of money through being in jail. That proves that his motive for robbing the bank was not money."

Compairing a bank robber to the United States is like compairing Swiss cheese to Ross Perot.

Bank robbers expect to get away without getting caught; since money is the part of this argument we could say that the robber expected to get free money. The US government cannot make that assumption because in the past Oil prices had increased along with events in that region, so it could be expected that it would happen again. Furthermore there is the cost of the War itself to consider, if the governments motavation was Oil they can't be making much money from it if it costs so much, or if they are spending all sorts of money overseas to fix the stuff that got blown up during the invasion. So the administration must have expected to lose money, both in the government, and in the private sector because of gas, and energy costs.

 

The fact that the Iraq war did not go as the US administration wanted, does not obviate the fact that access to oil was a major motive.

You may not know this, being from New Zealand as you are, but

THE UNITED STATES DOSN'T GET ITS OIL FROM THE MIDDLEAST! IT COMES FROM VENEZUELA!

The only people I have ever seen defend the Oil motavation theory are conspiracy theorists, I know your smarter than that.

 

we are just creating a situation to flush them out and kill all that attack us.

 

Does not work that way. First, as stated above, you are genuinely creating new recruits, not just flushing out old ones. A whip for your back.

Second : You do not flush them out. They stay in hiding till they kill people.

But we are flushing out who are predisposed to want to kill us fourign devils, probably because of their upbringing. And we use the oportunity when they come out to attack to kill them.

[mike90]

Again I think the point was just because it did not work out in a way that America could profit from the war does not mean that was not the intention. And I see no fundamental difference between the concept " Jihad Jihad we must kill the infidels" and " We must hunt down and kill all these religious extremists". Two wrongs do not make a right. We are going to have to find other solutions then violence as simply killing people is only going to perpetuate the problem

 

1) Its impossible to kill all of them, there will always be more left and they will be twice as angry.

 

2) Using violence as our preferred method of solving the problem makes us no better or more moral then they are

 

3) People seem to forget that our country spends a lot of time meddling in the affairs of the rest of the world, providing arms, training and fincancial aid. This aid historically has been dependent on which side the government thought would benefit them the most by being in power, not on any measuring stick of morality.

 

Our meddling has gotten a lot of people in other countries killed or aided in them being oppressed. Behaving as if there is no possible reason for any other countries to be angry at us is what perpetuates the problems in the first place. No the response of religious extremists is not rational, but we should not pretend as if America is entirely innocent.

 

4) America is NOT the worlds police force. We are no better, no more moral, then anybody else. Our very history of using our superior power to smack around anyone that disagrees with us is why we are in this situation to begin with, doing more of that is not going to help

 

 

 

5) This is not an episode of G. I. Joe and America is not the " good guys".

 

 

6) The reason it is so easy for our government to get away with as much as it does is simply because a lot of people have no idea how many shady schemes our government is involved in worldwide, again we are not the " good guys"

We are simply trying to look out for number one like everyone else, and this concept of america as some noble crusader taking on the injustice of the world sickens me because we ourselves are no more just then anyone else. And when we do stamp out corruption somewhere, it is generally for our own motivations directly attributable to us gaining something out of it, not the noble motives out government force feeds us.

 

 

7) Morality again does not fit as a valid reason for our actions throughout history. Iraq is an evil regime that we must topple, But China, Africa, Korea, Iran, and etc etc etc are just peachy? Our governments reasoning is in no way morally consistent. We pick confrontations that are to our advantage, and avoid those that are not. Much like every other country in the world The main difference is WE then later on attach various satisfying moral reasons that justify our actions. If we cared so deeply for human rights we wouldnt be in bed with brutal regimes around the world.

[Dr. Dalek]

Again I think the point was just because it did not work out in a way that America could profit from the war does not mean that was not the intention. And I see no fundamental difference between the concept " Jihad Jihad we must kill the infidels" and " We must hunt down and kill all these religious extremists". Two wrongs do not make a right. We are going to have to find other solutions then violence as simply killing people is only going to perpetuate the problem

Doesn't mean it was the intention either, but you don't seem to open to that possibility, at all.

You seem to assume that they must have planned to profit from the oil and it didn't "work out for them" but where is the evidence of this planing? Where is the evidence that this plan for oil was put into action? Were is the evidence that it failed?

If they had planed to profit from Iraqi oil they made one crucial error. WE GET OUR OIL FROM VENEZUALA!

 

1) Its impossible to kill all of them, there will always be more left and they will be twice as angry.

The point isn't to kill all of them, just kill enough so that the rest are left scattered and dispirited.

 

2) Using violence as our preferred method of solving the problem makes us no better or more moral then they are

Are you talking about the problem with Saddam, or the terrorists?

If the terrorists then we have to respond in force because we know for a fact that their primary motavation is to see us dead. How can you negotiate with someone who wants you dead?

If Saddam, and the Iraqi military, they obviously had it coming, the people were mistreated, miserable, killed senslesly, and he was bribing the UN through the Oil for food program.

 

3) People seem to forget that our country spends a lot of time meddling in the affairs of the rest of the world, providing arms, training and fincancial aid. This aid historically has been dependent on which side the government thought would benefit them the most by being in power, not on any measuring stick of morality.

 

Our meddling has gotten a lot of people in other countries killed or aided in them being oppressed. Behaving as if there is no possible reason for any other countries to be angry at us is what perpetuates the problems in the first place. No the response of religious extremists is not rational, but we should not pretend as if America is entirely innocent.

Thats wh I don't think we should help other countries unless we have to like in the case of Iraq.

 

4) America is NOT the worlds police force. We are no better, no more moral, then anybody else.

Someone has to do it and the UN sure isn't going to do it.

 

 

5) This is not an episode of G. I. Joe and America is not the " good guys".

Whats G. I. Joe have to do with this?

 

6) The reason it is so easy for our government to get away with as much as it does is simply because a lot of people have no idea how many shady schemes our government is involved in worldwide, again we are not the " good guys"

Again, evidence, where is the evidence for these conspiracy theories?

We are simply trying to look out for number one like everyone else, and this concept of america as some noble crusader taking on the injustice of the world sickens me because we ourselves are no more just then anyone else.

Whats wrong with that?

 

 

7) Morality again does not fit as a valid reason for our actions throughout history. Iraq is an evil regime that we must topple, But China, Africa, Korea, Iran, and etc etc etc are just peachy? Our governments reasoning is in no way morally consistent. We pick confrontations that are to our advantage, and avoid those that are not. Much like every other country in the world The main difference is WE then later on attach various satisfying moral reasons that justify our actions. If we cared so deeply for human rights we wouldnt be in bed with brutal regimes around the world.

What you think we can handle every country in the world at once?

Come on do you seriously think the re alignment of every country in the world is this countrys top priority? If it is a seriously problematic country like Iraq and we happen to be in the area we go after it. In the case of North Korea, Bush probably would have gone after it already. However he might just be trying to use more diplomacy than Iraq because of all the complaints he got last time for acting when he did.

[Pangloss]

THE UNITED STATES DOSN'T GET ITS OIL FROM THE MIDDLEAST!

 

I don't believe that's correct. Last I checked we were getting something like 13% from Saudi Arabia (out of the 60% or so that we import to make up our total usage).

 

It may be true (I'd have to check but I believe it's the case) that we don't import any oil from Iraq. If memory serves, that oil typically goes to European markets.

 

Not that any of this matters. Oil is a commodity, bought and sold on an equal by all purchasers on a common exchange. The main reason we get it from specific countries is because of transportation convenience and other logistical concerns, and a certain (small) percentage of contractual exchange. (The 40% we "home grow" being an obvious exception, although not entirely so -- some, particularly from Alaska, is sold overseas, particularly in Asian markets. We probably sell oil to China, who in turn sells some of that to North Korea. Go figure.)

[ParanoiA]

Let me repeat a point. Al Qaeda is NOT a sovereign nation. Therefore it is impossible to deal to them by waging war. Instead, they are a bunch of gangsters - the moral equivalent of the mafia. Thus, the appropriate way to deal with them is by suitable police action. Now, the only practical way of doing this is to begin by gaining information. This is done by inserting undercover agents into the Al Qaeda organisation. I have no doubt at all that this process is, in fact, underway. I suspect that Al Qaeda includes, among its members, agents from the CIA, MI5, Mossad, Pakistan, and others. These agents have probably already been responsible for some of the information leading to raids that badly damage Al Qaeda.

 

Somebody's been watching too many James Bond movies. Al Qaeda is not a soverign nation. Instead, they are supported by soverign nations. That's the ultimate army. They do the region's bidding for them, without any government accountability nor cooperation. Yes, America is hated in that region. So is Israel. So is Britian. So is Italy. So is Germany. So is Spain. So is < insert any nation that doesn't worship Allah and doesn't take their sh!t >.

 

You squash gangs with massive government and people support by squashing the governments that support them or sell supplies to them as well as the gangs themselves. So it's a little James Bond, and a little Francis Ford Copola.

 

The problem is that effective action is not politically sufficient. The voting public need to see things being done, and the government is not going to tell them about undercover operations. Thus, we get the invasion of Afghanistan. This made Bush temporarily very popular. Politicians love this, and this was without doubt a factor in the decision to invade Iraq. He would have expected a quick victory which would have boosted his popularity even more. The fact that Iraq had oil, and the USA was insecure about oil supplies was doubtless a major reason also. The bumff about weapons of mass destruction etc were just rationalisations, as anyone who lacks naievity will realise.

 

We went into Afghanistan because their Taliban government would not give us the SOB's that murdered over 3,000 innocent multi-national human beings. Not because the voting public needed a war to make us feel better. That's an asinine, short sighted analysis if I've ever heard one.

 

Iraq also was not wanted by the people. If we had the support of WWII going into Iraq, then I could at least understand why you might make such a conclusion - but the administration has been going against the grain from this point to present. Americans are sheep, but we're not THAT asleep. The campaign in Afghanistan destroyed much of Al Qaeda and sent Osama on the run. We're happy with that - other than we want Osama. We didn't want Iraq. We want Osama. We still want Osama. All of us agree with that.

 

Securing oil is definitely on the agenda. And it should be. But it's not to make it cheaper, rather it has inflated the cost of oil and jeopardized the republican majority the administration enjoys at the moment. All of which was realized before mobilizing a single piece of equipment eastward. Anyone who thought this would make GWB popular, would be an idiot. GWB and the administration is a lot of things, but they're not stupid. Try not to let your ego shadow your better judgment.

 

This applies to nations as well as individuals. It is so basic' date=' that it gets overlooked. Hate and aggression provokes hate and aggression right back.

Politicians sometimes word this as 'winning the hearts and minds of the people'. Different words, but the same principle.[/quote']

 

Good point. The middle east has hated us for decades, jealous and humiliated by our achievments without oppressive governing, and have repeatedly attacked us over the past three decades with their aggression. And you're right, now we respond with hate and aggression. Too bad they didn't read your post before they got started.

 

History has shown that aggressive prejudice is the most successful response to aggressive prejudice. I know, it sucks. I'd rather make love not war also, but that's not reality. America is the superpower, so everything is our fault. Just like the wealthy and powerful are to blame for everyone's problems domestically. It's never the poor, the middle class - it's the rich and powerful taking advantage of the little guy. It's so much easier that way isn't it?

[ParanoiA]

Again I think the point was just because it did not work out in a way that America could profit from the war does not mean that was not the intention. And I see no fundamental difference between the concept " Jihad Jihad we must kill the infidels" and " We must hunt down and kill all these religious extremists". Two wrongs do not make a right. We are going to have to find other solutions then violence as simply killing people is only going to perpetuate the problem

 

So why don't you back this up Mike? America wasn't stalking and killing these terrorists before. Yet the problem perpetuated. We've been providing financial aid and economic incentives to do business with the middle east. Yet the problem perpetuated. We hadn't done squat to them well into the 80's - yet the problem perpetuated. Seems to me, sitting on our ass and trying to friends is what perpetuates this problem.

 

1) Its impossible to kill all of them, there will always be more left and they will be twice as angry.

 

It's not impossible, but it's reprehensible. And who cares how pissed they are when they already want to kill you for their god.

 

2) Using violence as our preferred method of solving the problem makes us no better or more moral then they are

 

When fighting for my life, morality is the last thing on my mind. Like any good predator, I prefer to be more alive, not more moral. Next time you wrestle with an armed intruder, let me know how your struggle for moral high ground worked out.

 

 

3) People seem to forget that our country spends a lot of time meddling in the affairs of the rest of the world, providing arms, training and fincancial aid. This aid historically has been dependent on which side the government thought would benefit them the most by being in power, not on any measuring stick of morality.

 

Just like every other country in the world. It's called international politics and nobody plays fair. Morality and equality doesn't have much of a place in that arena either. We (the US) are actually good and decent about most of it, comparable to the rest of the world and their history with one another.

 

4) America is NOT the worlds police force. We are no better, no more moral, then anybody else. Our very history of using our superior power to smack around anyone that disagrees with us is why we are in this situation to begin with, doing more of that is not going to help

 

Not the world's police force, but apparently the dumping ground. Smack around anyone that "disagrees" with us? Please back that up with an example. We don't smack anyone around for not agreeing with us.

 

 

5) This is not an episode of G. I. Joe and America is not the " good guys".

 

Right. And America is not the "bad guys" either. We prefer to live and concentrate on quality of life. They prefer to obsess over death and religion and focus on quality of worship, which often includes death.

 

Your points 6 and 7 are good ones but you're as obsessed with morality as the extremists are obsessed with their faith. Look, morally speaking we have no right to tell anyone they can't have nuclear weapons - but it would also be stupid to allow illegitimate regimes to achieve them. So, what are you more concerned about - being morally right and responsible for the death of millions of innocent people, including little kids and fluffy animals? Or morally wrong and alive to explain yourself?

 

I know we're not talking about nuclear ambitions specifically, but these are the kinds of reasons why the idealistic "dove" approach doesn't make any more sense than the imperialistic "hawk" approach. What we're doing right now, looks to me more like tactic with a dash of ethical implimentation. If ethically bankrupt, we would have wiped the entire region off of the map with neutron warheads. Instead we've been nice enough to kill selectively, and accept casualties on our side.

[mike90]

Paranoia:

 

I'm not trying to say America is less moral then other

countries, or that every nation on earth isn't looking out for number one. I simply disagree with this mode of thinking and its America I'm taking to task for it because thats where I live.

 

And its more the blatant hypocrisy then anything else I wanted to point out, the smarmy condescending worldview that we are somehow always without blame, which I was attempting to take on in points 6 and 7.

 

Also you may note earlier in this thread I said I was for america preventing hostile nations from obtaining nuclear technology, with force if necessary. I am a pacifist by nature but I'm not naive enough to think you can solve every problem with talking

 

As for who we smack around, well there have been many numerous incidents throughout history that are well documented. I haven't read up on my History in a looooong time ( although I've always found the topic to be incredibly interesting) so I dont have anything off the top of my head to offer up. Again I also don't think we are any worse then any other country in this regard, I simply resent this attitude we seem to have that we are so noble, and that America doesn't have any blood on its collective hands.

 

Its true our previous policy with the middle east wasn't a success either, but I dont find what were doing now to be a good alternative. Force only works when your willing to kill everyone, or enough people to make them back down.

 

We obviously are not going to kill all of them, and as tightly wound up as they are in their madness I don't think anything short of that will make them stop.

 

 

Dalek:

 

The G. I. joe comment was a reference to the way the general public seems to view it. But life is not a cartoon and international politics are not generally black and white with heroes and villains, and as stated earlier I resent the idea that we are " stalwart defenders of justice around the globe". In short as I have been repeatedly trying to say to you, the motivation for our actions is What I ultimately find important, not the results. Doing a good thing( if thats what we did in Iraq even is) for a bad reason is still wrong.

 

And as to why I think the motives were other then what we were told? Simple. our government lies to us to justify what they do on a regular basis and I didn't hear anything from them to justify going to war, and most of their reasoning for going to war ( like the WMDs for example) has since been refuted.

 

In short its just my opinion of the situation given the information I have, which is exactly what everyone else has been doing, so I don't think I need any evidence as its just my opinion im representing, not absolute fact.

 

I might also note that even If I am right and the government is covering something up, there would be no way for me to prove it as they would be.... covering it up. Is it really a stretch though given our governments history of dishonesty that they could have lied to us? And if you think so what is your reasoning for this?

[ParanoiA]

Again I also don't think we are any worse then any other country in this regard, I simply resent this attitude we seem to have that we are so noble, and that America doesn't have any blood on its collective hands.

 

I wonder if this is in reference to the sick romantic way republicans sell this war. All of this gung ho patriotism that reeks of propaganda and selective memory. I agree with your resentment.

 

Although, a portion of that mentality could also be considered morale. You're not going to motivate your troops very well if you're pointing out all the ugly things you're country has done.

 

I might also note that even If I am right and the government is covering something up, there would be no way for me to prove it as they would be.... covering it up. Is it really a stretch though given our governments history of dishonesty that they could have lied to us? And if you think so what is your reasoning for this?

 

Not a stretch at all. But why? So they can destroy us? Or protect us? To make Halliburton rich? National security?

 

I think motivations matter more than the lie. Some lies need to happen. You couldn't tell 300 million americans your big plan on destorying terror and "just keep it a secret". It may be a really good lie and cover up. It may be an ingenious plan to thwart global terrorism.

 

...Or, it might just be a ploy by a circle of greedy rich bastards getting rich off of this thing...

[mike90]

I honestly don't know the real reasons why we went to war. It could be as you said part of some ingenious plan, but of course with our government Id be more inclined to beileve the latter option.

 

And yeah you hit the nail on the head of where most of my anger is directed at. Im beyond tired of our countries leadership using a tired recycled mix of patriotism, propaganda, and evangelism ( We actually elected by a majority a man asinine enough to say things like " God is in the white house"? Some days I can't quite credit it)

 

But far more than Im pissed off at the politicians for using such tired ploys, I'm tired of the American Sheeple soaking up everything our government tells us as if its beyond questioning. A lot of Americans really seem to beileve our government is concerned with our welfare, and not the narrow interests of their friends and the people that purchased them

[SkepticLance]

Thank you Pangloss. You made my point for me and very well.

Oil is a global market. Venezuela is a very insecure source - not friends of the USA. To secure sources is very much to America's interest.

 

However, the biggest point of all in this argument seems to be overlooked. We can argue morality all we like. But note this :

 

America's current courses of action are totally failing, and making the situation much, much worse.

 

The USA has invaded any number of countries, or attempted to. Since WWII it has succeeded in doing so only in cases where the 'enemy' was so tiny as to be of negligible threat - such as in the invasion of Granada.

North Korea fought the USA into stalemate.

Viet Nam kicked the USA out most ignominiously

Afghanistan is well on the way to making that war utterly intolerable.

Iraq has turned into a hot bed that the USA will not be able to stay in for much longer.

 

America can win wars only by :

1. Attacking the utterly defenseless, like Granada.

2. Waging a war of punishment, as opposed to occupation, which is what Bush senior did in the first Gulf War.

 

With Iran and North Korea starring as likely next theatres of war, the administration had better think things through carefully. The world's only superpower may find itself supplanted by being weakened in stupid wars, while China quietly builds and builds.

[Pangloss]

So you're saying it's better for us to attack and then leave?

 

In the case of Iraq, wouldn't that have just result in the US taking a public relations bath for not taking care of a problem it created? Wouldn't we just be blamed for creating the "Second Shi'a State"?

 

I hear your attempt to be reasonable and I applaud it, but I'm not sure that your suggestions are really all that much better. Which makes your conclusion (in bold above) somewhat unfair, and still about demonization instead of solution-finding.

[ParanoiA]

So you're saying it's better for us to attack and then leave?

 

In the case of Iraq' date=' wouldn't that have just result in the US taking a public relations bath for not taking care of a problem it created? Wouldn't we just be blamed for creating the "Second Shi'a State"?[/quote']

 

This is a major point of disagreement for me with the libertarian ideology. I love so many aspects of libertarian philosophy, but they are more cut-and-run than any other think tank I've heard yet. They don't give a crap what kind of a mess we leave, just that we leave. Disgusting...

[Dr. Dalek]

Dalek:

 

The G. I. joe comment was a reference to the way the general public seems to view it. But life is not a cartoon and international politics are not generally black and white with heroes and villains, and as stated earlier I resent the idea that we are " stalwart defenders of justice around the globe". In short as I have been repeatedly trying to say to you, the motivation for our actions is What I ultimately find important, not the results. Doing a good thing( if thats what we did in Iraq even is) for a bad reason is still wrong.

But isn't that just a "Black and White veiw of things anyway?

 

And as to why I think the motives were other then what we were told? Simple. our government lies to us to justify what they do on a regular basis and I didn't hear anything from them to justify going to war, and most of their reasoning for going to war ( like the WMDs for example) has since been refuted.

That wan't a lie it was an international mistake. The White House believed it, the senate believed it, other countries believed it! It was an honset mistake not a crazy conspiracy theory!

 

In short its just my opinion of the situation given the information I have, which is exactly what everyone else has been doing, so I don't think I need any evidence as its just my opinion im representing, not absolute fact.

Then your opinion is foundless and therefore worthless.

 

I might also note that even If I am right and the government is covering something up, there would be no way for me to prove it as they would be.... covering it up. Is it really a stretch though given our governments history of dishonesty that they could have lied to us? And if you think so what is your reasoning for this?

It is not the dishonesty that I find unliky any idiot can see that a war would do very little to help us get Oil,

[mike90]

And of course the things you post aren't your opinion, they are absolute fact. And of everything everyone else has been posting is fact too. None of it was opinions:rolleyes:

[ParanoiA]

Actually they have found evidence of WMD's in Iraq. And we know Hussein had them because we sold much of it to him. The entire world knows he used them on his own people as well. Then we gave him 6 months or so to hide them while we played patty cake with the UN.

[Dr. Dalek]

And of course the things you post aren't your opinion, they are absolute fact. And of everything everyone else has been posting is fact too. None of it was opinions:rolleyes:

I ment they were foundless and therefore worthless in my eyes because you have not presented your "information" as evidence to me. You need to support your claims of conspiracy with evidence.

Actually they have found evidence of WMD's in Iraq. And we know Hussein had them because we sold much of it to him. The entire world knows he used them on his own people as well. Then we gave him 6 months or so to hide them while we played patty cake with the UN.

I have heard that also, even dug up an article on it once, I usualy do not present that because I always got shot down with a Time Magazine article that said "We were Wrong". I have no idea why people think that Time Magizine is more credable than my sources but they do. What sources do you have, cause if they are good ones I want to use them.

With Iran and North Korea starring as likely next theatres of war, the administration had better think things through carefully. The world's only superpower may find itself supplanted by being weakened in stupid wars, while China quietly builds and builds.

 

War can be good for the economy actualy.

[ParanoiA]

I have heard that also, even dug up an article on it once, I usualy do not present that because I always got shot down with a Time Magazine article that said "We were Wrong". I have no idea why people think that Time Magizine is more credable than my sources but they do. What sources do you have, cause if they are good ones I want to use them.

 

I'll see if I can dig it up, but I'm sure it's not any better than what you found. I thought it was common knowledge at this point.

 

 

With Iran and North Korea starring as likely next theatres of war, the administration had better think things through carefully. The world's only superpower may find itself supplanted by being weakened in stupid wars, while China quietly builds and builds.

 

I do believe this is a good point. I remember looking up the military specs on China a few years ago, I think it was after that spyplane that went down and landed on their soil. I was shocked at how advanced they actually were. Lots of Russian equipment, old Russian equipment but still quite formidable. I imagine that's only advanced more at this point.

 

I would never want to tango with China.

[Dr. Dalek]

I'll see if I can dig it up, but I'm sure it's not any better than what you found. I thought it was common knowledge at this point.

How about this?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

[ParanoiA]

How about this?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

 

 

That's way better than the source I had. I was just talking about a news story. That's a sweet document there.

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss said :

 

So you're saying it's better for us to attack and then leave?

 

No, I do not say that. I say it is better not to attack at all.

As far as the Iraq war goes, there is no easy answer to the sorry mess that currently exists. If the USA leaves, tens of thousands will die needlessly. If the USA does not leave, tens of thousands will die needlessly. The only winners are the Kurds, who will probably get the homeland they have been desperately looking for.

 

What I have been trying to say is :

 

First - try to understand the people of the Middle East. Our Muslim neighbours are still people. They deserve respect and understanding. Make the effort, damn it!

 

Second : Act to help your neighbours, not attack them. It is a really simple principle. if you give aid, understanding, and support, you win friends. If you attack, you make enemies.

 

Think like a Middle East Muslim. First, you have the lesson of the early part of last millennium - the crusades - with Westerners attacking to steal your homes. Then you have America and Britain kicking out your friends, the Palestinians, from their homeland, and providing assistance to the invader, the Israelis. Now they have attacked Afghanistan, and Iraq. They have set up military bases in Saudi Arabia. They have suborned the President of Pakistan. They even invaded Somalia.

 

Now, I am not personally making judgments here. Much of the above actions were done with the best of motives. What I am asking you to do is look at these episodes through a Middle East Muslim's eyes. It looks bloody bad. Do you wonder that they distrust and even hate America and the West?

 

We need to uderstand how Muslims think and feel, and act with some sensitivity and understanding. We should NOT be doing what Bush junior does - acting with aggression and without thought.

[ParanoiA]

First - try to understand the people of the Middle East. Our Muslim neighbours are still people. They deserve respect and understanding. Make the effort, damn it!

 

We do too. Why isn't this asked and expected of them? I've been in a permanent state of awe at the one sided expectation of the US by everyone. We gave them the respect and understanding long before any of that was remotely returned. Why can't the same be expected from them? They were calling us the great satan while we were helping them kick the russians out of Afghanistan. It's a two way street man...

 

Second : Act to help your neighbours, not attack them. It is a really simple principle. if you give aid, understanding, and support, you win friends. If you attack, you make enemies.

 

Oh boy, you really need to do some reading or pay attention to current events. The US is arguably the most helpful nation in the world. No nation on the planet lends and offers more assistance, particularly in times of natural disaster, than America. Actually, there's a handful of nations that always contribute to these kinds of things, America is always one of them. That's why everyone threw such a fit over New Orleans and Katrina, because we are able to mobilize small armies of assistance and get them around the world to help, but apparently couldn't help our own people on our own soil.

 

You have good intentions, but they are thoroughly misplaced. Reading your posts sounds like a plea from a contestant in the miss america pagent repeating the world peace pledge.

 

You expect so much from us, and nothing from them. You tell us to be nice. Not them. You say we should do this and we should do that. Nothing to them. As if we have control over our actions, and they don't. As if they can't be blamed for their actions, and we can.

 

Where does that come from?

[Pangloss]

Pangloss said :

 

So you're saying it's better for us to attack and then leave?

 

No, I do not say that. I say it is better not to attack at all.

 

K, that was my position so we agree. Not that I (nor, I'm sure, you either) LIKED what Saddam was doing, but it was not appropriate for us to intervene without the agreement of the majority of the free world. The more appropriate and responsible action would have been to take our time, and continue to apply consistent and patient pressure over the long haul.

 

And frankly, as an American, I don't feel like it was my problem. Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11, he wasn't an imminent threat, and he was being actively monitored with international cooperation (corrupt though it may have been; that problem could have been solved as well).

 

 

As far as the Iraq war goes, there is no easy answer to the sorry mess that currently exists. If the USA leaves, tens of thousands will die needlessly. If the USA does not leave, tens of thousands will die needlessly. The only winners are the Kurds, who will probably get the homeland they have been desperately looking for.

 

Well the Turks aren't real happy about that, and there may be some trouble there over the long term. But for the moment they seem to be cooperating.

 

 

Second : Act to help your neighbours, not attack them. It is a really simple principle. if you give aid, understanding, and support, you win friends. If you attack, you make enemies.

 

I don't agree with the principle here. There are times with fighting is necessary, and freedom is worth fighting for. In fact one could argue that freedom MUST be fought for (in various ways that don't necessarily include violence), or it means nothing. To that end, "attacking" can be helpful. You've already cited examples of this such as Kuwait/Gulf War I.

 

I reject the premise that Americans attack out of preference. I don't agree that the precedents exist, I don't agree that the international community has an accurate understanding of the American psyche (any more than we have of theirs) in this area, and I resent the fact that opinions like these seemed to be formed primarily on an image of Americans born out of 17,000 action movies.

 

 

Think like a Middle East Muslim. First, you have the lesson of the early part of last millennium - the crusades - with Westerners attacking to steal your homes. Then you have America and Britain kicking out your friends, the Palestinians, from their homeland, and providing assistance to the invader, the Israelis. Now they have attacked Afghanistan, and Iraq. They have set up military bases in Saudi Arabia. They have suborned the President of Pakistan. They even invaded Somalia.

 

Now, I am not personally making judgments here. Much of the above actions were done with the best of motives. What I am asking you to do is look at these episodes through a Middle East Muslim's eyes. It looks bloody bad. Do you wonder that they distrust and even hate America and the West?

 

We need to uderstand how Muslims think and feel, and act with some sensitivity and understanding. We should NOT be doing what Bush junior does - acting with aggression and without thought.

 

You have a valid point, but it's just not as one-sided a picture as you paint it to be. I agree that we need to understand the Muslim world better -- you're absolutely right.

 

Then we need to destroy it, because it is not compatible with the future course of humanity.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting killing people, conquering nations, subverting races or even dismantling religions. What I'm talking about is usually phrased more politely as "winning hearts and minds". But I am suggesting that we, the stronger and more successful western world (NOT the US acting alone), decide what's best for humanity, and then we proceed to accomplish our goals. And since it is apparent that we can no longer "live and let live", because they will not let us do so, we will instead have to drag them along with us, kicking and screaming though they may be.

 

Are you ready for that? Because it's what you want just as much as it is what I want, and I can assure you that it's going to cost you every bit as much as it is going to cost me. There will be no islands of solicitude like New Zealand in that "new world order" -- BANK on it.

 

EVERYONE will be involved.

[CPL.Luke]

and how do you suppose we drag them along? I agree with the premise that the middle east is the one place on earth that doesn't have the same vision of continued economic prosperity like the rest of the world has, and this has to stop for humanitie's sake, but they have also demonstrated that traditional warfare utterly fails to do anything to them. In fact it strengthens them this is because all of the rebellious youths are turning to rebellious organizations (like humas, al-quaeda etc.) in order to rebel. There is nothing more attractive to a teenager looking for something meaningful than "oust the infidels". And in that part of the world arms are so pentiful that for less than a dollar someone can toss a grenade at a humvee and cost the US economy over a hundred thousand dollars.

 

Or we respond to this grenade throwing with million dollar missiles, or increased troop levels. When the fact is that you can never get all the grenade throwers. and over time the economic bleed and lost friends gets to be too much and you leave. and who takes over? the religious radicals who you were fighting in the first place.

 

As middle-eastern history has proven, the only way to govern those tracts of land is to make defiance unthinkable, this is what sudaam did, and up until the invasion of kuwait the country did alright for itself. This is something that America does not want to do, and indeed can not do, because its not our country and so we don't benfit from relative peace that has to be enforced with tyrrany, and we certainly don't benefit from the hate that it would bring upon us (remember that nobody liked sadaam over there either).

 

What we need to do as a country is to drop the middle east (I'm ignoring Iraq for the time being to outline a general policy), we need to stop trading with them and then we will just let them sit. We can develop alternatives to oil and we can spend the billion dollars a day that were currently spending in Iraq on making iron clad borders, heck with that much money we could have every single car electronicly scanned on its way into New York City, LA and anywhere else in the country that we think needs it.

 

We can always use israel to carry out airstrikes against nuclear facilities (thats how we kept sadaam from getting a nuclear reactor back in the day).

 

Eventually The people of the middle east will grow tired of their governments using the West as a scape goat, just like the american people are growing tired of Bush and the republicans constantly using the terrorists as scape goats. Eventually there will be popular movements in the Mid-East to end the oppression, to end the religious propaganda, and to allow democracy.

 

Opressive regimes do not last forever.

 

This happened in the soviet union in America (remember slavery anyone) and the rest of the world, the change will happen, but not as long as the governments of the middle east have America to blame.

[ecoli]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting killing people, conquering nations, subverting races or even dismantling religions. What I'm talking about is usually phrased more politely as "winning hearts and minds". But I am suggesting that we, the stronger and more successful western world (NOT the US acting alone), decide what's best for humanity, and then we proceed to accomplish our goals. And since it is apparent that we can no longer "live and let live", because they will not let us do so, we will instead have to drag them along with us, kicking and screaming though they may be.

Unfortunately, we can't do this because there are people in Western nations that believe that the 'indigenous' cultures of the middle east are more important their the security of the human race in general.