PDA

View Full Version : Gulf War 2 (aka World War 2.5)


peter2002
Jan 14, 2003, 11:26 AM
Cool FLASH animation of Gulf War 2.5, coming March 15.

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

allah akbar
Jan 14, 2003, 01:04 PM
The Bush administration is just trying to mop up all the garbage created and left by the Clinton administration.

macfan
Jan 14, 2003, 01:58 PM
... and the garbage left over by the first Bush administration.

Mr. Anderson
Jan 14, 2003, 02:15 PM
Damn funny, really good and actually quite scary :(

rainman::|:|
Jan 14, 2003, 02:58 PM
Yeah, i like the Ashcroft character and his line about the statues. This really is frightening, the outcome of the simulation is much worse than even i had considered. and i'm a pessimist when it comes to war. christ...

well, the good news is, it's probably still a few months away...

pnw

MrMacMan
Jan 14, 2003, 05:14 PM
Yay!

Holy war!

Oh wait, the U.S has OTHER RELIGIONS???? Well I guess guess we are all gonna need to be anti-Islam eh?

Bah, I forcasted this for a while, no one ever belives me... :(

I hate that on the news they say they are 'preparing for a *possible* war this iraq' ******* that!
We are gonna fight a war no matter what the U.N finds, it will happen in feb.
According to the sorces Feb. means a better war for the U.S . Bah.

Screw Bush, I'm not going to war, but I'm preparing for it with lots and lots of FPS. :D

Chef Ramen
Jan 14, 2003, 05:43 PM
****in a man. all those government bigwigs scare me...cept for bush. hes the puppet.

wake up Jobs!!!
Jan 14, 2003, 05:49 PM
I call it world war 3 , because thats what it is world war III and it could spell the end of peace in the world as we know it (I hope not).

-GaBe-O

wake up Jobs!!!
Jan 14, 2003, 06:01 PM
dont spam Bush , because he has done a great job, since what has happened in his term (9/11), which i atribute that slipup to the clinton admin. because he was president when it was planned. Bush has great character and is the kind of asertive leader this country needs. When he says its gonna happen , it happens. I would much rather have him president than my sort-of uncle Bob Grahm , senator of Florida, who has declared he is running for president in 2004 (no kidding he realy is like a uncle, because his daughter married my uncle) . Bob has done little is his term to help the state of Florida, and he didnt even come visit my school when he said he would:mad: . well if we do go to war, Bush is the only president i would trust in this situation (Clinton would be getting head while trying to make launch commands in war lol)

-GaBe-O

Les Kern
Jan 14, 2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by allah akbar
The Bush administration is just trying to mop up all the garbage created and left by the Clinton administration.

Another Clinton-hater no matter the facts. You should read more. Key on Cheney, Bush the First, Haliburton, Caspian Oil, Afghanistan, and Iran/Iraq war and our involvement.
Sheesh.

macfan
Jan 14, 2003, 06:39 PM
Les,
You sound like the character in conspiracy theory!

You should read more, too. Key on Saddam, his brutalizing of the Iraqi people and his desires to restart the Babylonian empire with him as the ruler. Take special note of his tendency to attack other countries and his current support of suicide bombers and other terrorists in Israel.

We may choose to ignore the reports that he personally tortures people, and we may wish to ignore the reports of his training Islamist terrorists, even though he is a secular dictator. We may choose to ignore his continued refusal to disarm as he agreed to do, but we do so at great risk.

The garbage was left by both the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration. The first Bush administration assumed that Saddam would fall, but he did not. Clinton tried to get rid of Saddam via missile strikes in 1998, but failed. We have been a war with Iraq since August of 1990, the instant Iraqi forces crossed into Kuwait. If Saddam will not comply with the UN security council resolutions, it is time to finish the job by force.

mkubal
Jan 14, 2003, 07:30 PM
I love it when people blame your opposing view point on a lack of education. It's even better when they haven't a clue who you are or how well you have been educated. Let me tell you just how much sense this makes.

Also, please realize that the UN is never going to declare war on anyone. It doesn't matter what they find in Iraq or if they kick the inspectors out. They will never declare war on anyone. So lets stop using that poor excuse that we aren't waiting for the UN to approve of action.

Matt

MrMacMan
Jan 14, 2003, 07:37 PM
Let Me hearby be flamed:
I Don't support War with iraq. Wow so he got away with it.
Bush Sr. Didn't take him out and neither did clinton, let the country rest, anyhow if you read:
NORTH KOREA IS BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Now do we want to attack a country that might have a few of the weapons we have or a contry that is getting Nuklear (Bushspeak) weapons?

If we need to attack a country let N. Korea get it.

Iraq Might have some weapons, but I sure as hell want proof of all of these weapons.

U.S: Iraq HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
Iraq: No... not really
U.S: YES YOU DO!
U.N: Okay show us proof.
U.S: Shutup We don't need to show you Anything!
What the hell is the U.S gonna lose if they tell the U.N where they are (if they have them).

Bah!

Happy War!

mkubal
Jan 14, 2003, 07:46 PM
Also, how long have we been hearing this BS from various people predicting that we are going to war within the next month or the next two weeks or whatever. What's funny about it is that people have been predicting these thing for the last few months.

I think I'm gonna come on the boards every day and swear that we are going to war on the following day and everyone should prepare for it. Then one day I might actually be right and I'll tell everyone that I was right and they should have listened to me.

So now that we're predicting things what country do you liberal nutcases see us attacking next after we blow up all the homes of the innocent Iraqi children (since that's who Bush is really after). I think the way Bush does it is by picking them out of a hat (atleast that's what my sources say).

Matt

macfan
Jan 14, 2003, 08:04 PM
MrMacman,
What about look at the last decade or so...

Iraq: Let's invade Kuwait, no one will stop us!
Iraq invades Kuwait.
US/UN: How about you leave or we kick you out?
Iraq: Bring it on, we'll give you the mother of all battles!
US/UN: OK, here it is.
After Iraq is beaten like a rented camel and flees Kuwait...
Iraq: We agree to cease fire. We agreee to disarm, we agree to inspections!
Iraq doesn't disarm, keeps inspectors from doing their jobs.
Iraq: (1993) Let's kill President Bush!
Clinton: Let's bomb Iraq, just a little (after all, he is a Republican!).
US: (Clinton administration, 1998): Inspector's can't do their job! Iraq isn't disarmed. Let's bomb the crap our of Iraq!
US/UK bomb Iraq
US (Bush administration) Saddam still involation, time to take action. Comply with UN or face the consequences.
UN: OK, here's another resolution.
Iraq: We will let inspectors back in.
Inspectors (Blix): Iraq isn't exactly being forthcoming in their report.
US/UK: Saddam will disarm or he will be disarmed by force.

And that is where we are today!

allah akbar
Jan 14, 2003, 10:16 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Clinton-hater no matter the facts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Close. But not exactly. I'm a clinton hater BECAUSE of the facts.

The world is a far far far more dangerous place because of the 8 year holiday-from-history which Clinton decided to take.


During Clinton's reign of terror
IRAQ
- Saddam attempted to assasinate Bush 1.
- Saddam flouted the terms of the end of the war, and the terms of subsequent UN resolutions.
- Saddam kicked out the inspectors, and was openly building up his WMD program.
- Saddam helped train Tim McVeigh in the use of explosives, which resulted in him going from an amateur who could not blow up a milk carton, to an expert who blew up a building
- Clinton pretended to care and did nothing. In the case of McVeigh he destroyed the careers of the FBI agents who were going to prove the case

CHINA
- Clinton allowed the transfer of our most sophisticated Nuclear, Missile and Sattelite secrets to China allowing them to now accurately and lethally threaten western US states

- Clinton destroyed the careers of FBI agents who rightfully attempted to expose the threat

- Wen Ho Lee is guilty. But you would never know it. Clinton and admin. destroyed the agents who were going to prove the case.

- Clinton allowed China to become openly aggressive in their military buildup vs. Taiwan, flouting the US-Taiwan relationship act.

N.KOREA
- Clinton gave North Korea 2 reactors, fuel necessary to enhance their nuclear program then turned a blind eye when US intelligence EXPLICITLY indicated they were continuing their WMD programs.

ISRAEL
- Transformed Arafat from a heinous terrorist into a world diplomat, visiting him more often in the white house, in the latter part of his term , than any other world leader.
- Allowed the world to equate the practice of terrorism ,with the effort to defend oneself from terrorism...raising the importance and justification of terrorism world wide.

MORE
- Clinton dismantled non-proliferation agencies whose purpose was to stop the flow of high-tech dual-use technologies from reaching the hands of those who would destroy us.
- At the same time, Clinton raised unbelievable amounts of political contributions from just these high-tech companies. And despite being found to have been in breach of US laws, he continued the activity.



And don't forget, Clinton and crew were taking serious political donations from the Chinese Red Army and from oil interest in Iraq.

Clinton and crew took money from our enemies.
Allowed them to steal our national security secrets.
Allowed them to put our citizens at risk.
Allowed them to flout our agreements.
Allowed them to attempt to assasinate an ex-president.
Allowed them to perpetrate terrorist acts on American soil, then redirect our attention away from the true conspirators.

This is not just immoral.
This is not just illegal.
It is treason.

Whatever you may say about the oil-guys from Texas, they don't aid and abet our enemies. And their mistakes, were just that ...mistakes.

Clinton and crew were very calculated and objective in their attempts to destroy this country.

And there is only 1 group in the US that has such hatred for American power, prowess, freedom, economic vitality, and moral vitality, that they would generate the support necessary to get such a beast elected.

It is the group which still laments the fall of communism, and its failed ideology, despises the rise of the US as the sole superpower, and the proof of the absolute virtue in its moral strength.

And that is the left-wing faction of the Democratic party.

Supporting these idiots, is the same as arming and paying our enemies.

Wake Up!

Judo
Jan 15, 2003, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by allah akbar
The Bush administration is just trying to mop up all the garbage created and left by the Clinton administration.

I'm sure there was a hell of a mess way before Clinton was elected.

I hope people in America realize that your current actions are creating more anymosity, which will create more bad guys in the future to keep your military busy and the weapon companies wealthy. I live in New Zealand and know of noone who has anything nice to say about U.S.A at the moment.

You do know that it was a republican government who supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran during the 80's fully knowing he was using chemical weapons at the time. don't you??
Or is that just one of those silly mistakes.
If the mistakes you are talking about happened under a Dem gov. would you still be calling them mistakes???

Moral Strength.
What ever!!!!!!!! :mad:

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing good to say about your Democratic parties that have been in power either.

I don't totally hate America, it just frustrates me how your governments and businesses get away with everything.

NO allah you wake up!

alex_ant
Jan 15, 2003, 07:26 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/03/iraq.bush.duel/

An Iraqi VP awhile back proposed a duel between Saddam Hussein and G.W. Bush, with Kofi Annan as the referee. Bush declined it. I thought this was hilarious when I first heard it, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. This whole conflict could have been resolved in an instant with - at most - one person dead. A steel cage match would have been an EXCELLENT way to finally end this situation for good: Bush loses, the U.S. stays out of Iraq's business. Hussein loses, he gets ousted from power. Sounds good to me. Was Bush afraid, or what? He's supposedly in very good shape. He could have probably taken Hussein. Instead he had to reject the offer and make himself and his country look like cowards.

(Note Ari Fleischer's nonsensical response to the challenge.)

alex_ant
Jan 15, 2003, 07:43 AM
"Mr. President! You're up early!"

Hilarious Flash animation. I'm sure its goal was to make us laugh, but I believe the hawks could learn a bit from it as well... specifically with regards to destabilization.

allah akbar
Jan 15, 2003, 10:34 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there was a hell of a mess way before Clinton was elected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is always messy.
There has never been, however , a true traitor in the white house like Clinton.
If you are so sure that there has been another administration as bad, I would welcome an example...or two to back up your feelings. Feelings are nice, facts are better.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope people in America realize that your current actions are creating more anymosity, which will create more bad guys in the future to keep your military busy and the weapon companies wealthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leadership is lonely.
And leadership doesn't mean appeasement.
So...if you're going to lead, not everybody's going to like you.
The communists didn't like us. Nor did the Nazis. Nor did Tojo led Japan.
Are you suggesting that America should have tried to be more conciliatory with these evil empires?

Should we have said, hmmm....the Nazis and Communists are out for world domination...have killed 10's of millions of civilians (many there own people)...are threatenting all of our allies in Europe...but they don't like us...boohoo... so maybe we should back off and try get them to like us a bit more?

The military-industrial explanation is so rehashed left-wing pablum that it's actually comical anybody would even use it with a straight face.

If that is the only lense through which you can see this conflict you ought to consider the billions of dollars of trade in oil and weapons which France, Germany, and Russia engage in with this horrible tyranny (Iraq) and then question why the world community isn't breathing down their necks for supporting Saddam's horrible regime because of THEIR trade


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the mistakes you are talking about happened under a Dem gov. would you still be calling them mistakes???
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely. simple mistakes are mistakes.
What I called out above with Clinton are not simple mistakes. They are treasonous.

Taking money from your enemy and then in return supplying them with nuclear weapons technology which are pointed at your west coast IS NOT A MISTAKE

Destroying FBI agents who are attempting to expose enemies spying at your labs, IS NOT A MISTAKE.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't totally hate America, it just frustrates me how your governments and businesses get away with everything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
like what? again facts instead of feelings would be nice. I know this may be hard for you (given your liberal inclinations) but give it a shot.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in New Zealand and know of noone who has anything nice to say about U.S.A at the moment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
so? what are NZ contributions to the world besides Kiwis and Koalas? Actually, more to the point.. does anybody really care what New Zealanders care about? Isn't Jedi an official religion there or something?



Appologizing for dictators has gotten the world in lots of trouble before.
It resulted in WW2, and the needless deaths of millions of Europeans (thank you Chamberlain!)

Bashing the US, its government and businesses, and regurgitating leftist propoganda about military-industrial motivation, may be a fun thing to do if you're a lefty, but is perhaps the most destabilizing thing you can do for world peace. But then, that may be your objective.

macfan
Jan 15, 2003, 12:55 PM
Hilarious Flash animation. I'm sure its goal was to make us laugh, but I believe the hawks could learn a bit from it as well... specifically with regards to destabilization.

While it is quite humorous, I think we could learn more from the actual history of the 1990-1991 action than we could from a flash animation, however nicely done. Those of us who were alive and aware at that time remember the exact same arguments being made against ejecting Iraq from Kuwait: Israel will get involved and the Arabs will go beserk. Didn't happen.

alex_ant
Jan 15, 2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by allah akbar
Leadership is lonely.
And leadership doesn't mean appeasement.
So...if you're going to lead, not everybody's going to like you.
The communists didn't like us. Nor did the Nazis. Nor did Tojo led Japan.
Are you suggesting that America should have tried to be more conciliatory with these evil empires?

Should we have said, hmmm.... [cut for brevity]
In the second part of this reply, you knock down a straw man. I don't believe the examples you cited (from the relatively distant past) pertain to the current U.S.-Iraq situation the way you've applied them (as direct analogical equals).

In the first part of this reply, you said: "Leadership is lonely. And leadership doesn't mean appeasement. So...if you're going to lead, not everybody's going to like you."

Sentence 1: I believe you could face plagiarism charges if the GOP finds out you've written that on a public web forum.

Sentence 2: Appeasement is not the only alternative to war, and I don't think many Americans are really in favor of appeasement anyway. Containment and diplomacy seem more prudent, and those are those are the paths that are currently being taken.

The military-industrial explanation is so rehashed left-wing pablum that it's actually comical anybody would even use it with a straight face.
I agree that it's rehashed. Not sure how you can come to the conclusion that it's pablum given that the transfers of money and influence are right there for all to see on opensecrets.org (http://opensecrets.org).
If that is the only lense through which you can see this conflict you ought to consider the billions of dollars of trade in oil and weapons which France, Germany, and Russia engage in with this horrible tyranny (Iraq) and then question why the world community isn't breathing down their necks for supporting Saddam's horrible regime because of THEIR trade
I would say it's because neither France, Germany, nor Russia are likely to be entering a war that's subtextually justified in part by the appeasement of their respective petrochemical and defense industries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't totally hate America, it just frustrates me how your governments and businesses get away with everything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
like what? again facts instead of feelings would be nice. I know this may be hard for you (given your liberal inclinations) but give it a shot.
Corporate welfare... soft money... environmental devastation... the use of money and talented lawyers to flaunt the law... legal loopholes that benefit wealthy individuals & corporations... I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg, and I hope someone who is better informed than I will help me out here. The point is that what Judo mentioned is totally real whether or not I have enough time to compile an exhaustive report for you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in New Zealand and know of noone who has anything nice to say about U.S.A at the moment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
so? what are NZ contributions to the world besides Kiwis and Koalas? Actually, more to the point.. does anybody really care what New Zealanders care about? Isn't Jedi an official religion there or something?
Isn't that a bit of an arrogant stance to take, allah akbar? To reinforce what Judo is trying to say: It's not just NZ that is tiring of the way the U.S. conducts itself on the world stage - it's literally every country on the map. You name the country - its respect for the U.S. is souring, and those countries that had sour attitudes towards the U.S. to begin with are getting really, really pissed. This may not concern you until your daughter's elementary school is suicide-bombed by a militant Arab. As an American, I want to be able to travel overseas without having to worry about getting shot or having my rental care firebombed. I want to be able to visit such historically America-allied countries as France and Spain without its citizens spitting in my face.

Dictators are bad, appeasement is usually bad. What this flash cartoon humorously illustrates is that in some situations, simply militarily bulldozing a country and replacing its government may not be the best option for world peace & the preservation of freedom and democracy in the long run.

alex_ant
Jan 15, 2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by macfan
While it is quite humorous, I think we could learn more from the actual history of the 1990-1991 action than we could from a flash animation, however nicely done. Those of us who were alive and aware at that time remember the exact same arguments being made against ejecting Iraq from Kuwait: Israel will get involved and the Arabs will go beserk. Didn't happen.
Middle east sentiment in 1990-1991 was not the same as it is today. It's gotten much, much worse. World history shows us that it didn't happen last time, but it also gives us examples of situations that completely exploded when nobody had any idea such a thing could happen. It's impossible to prove whether this or this or this will happen as a result of a war, but we need to entertain other possibilities besides the suggestion that "nothing will happen because it didn't before."

MrMacMan
Jan 15, 2003, 05:14 PM
I almost forgot this was over a product called oil.

That is all he wants, oil, plain and simple. A simple plan for a simple mind.
'We can kick the crud out of iraq again right?' Bush
'Yeah our army didn't even get a scratch after taking on afganistan' advisor
'Okay so we can get some of what iraq has, and after all, he tried to kill my daddy!'
'yeah sir'

Anyways, I guess that might be acurate if we bet England and turkey on our side, but proabably not in a worldwide poll the U.S was proclamed to be the 'bully of the world'. This will just restate the point.

What I've seen is that Saddam is a bad leader, but the U.S wants to stop them from getting weapons we have already, heck some U.S programs gave them weapons in the first place.

Ech the whole thing is a mess if bush plays it this way.

macfan
Jan 15, 2003, 06:33 PM
While it is never a good idea to assume that something won't happen because it didn't happen last time, it is a worse idea to assume that something will happen because of a spiffy flash animation.

alex_ant
Jan 15, 2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by macfan
While it is never a good idea to assume that something won't happen because it didn't happen last time, it is a worse idea to assume that something will happen because of a spiffy flash animation.
I agree... unfortunately this flash animation proposes a situation that isn't all that unrealistic (minus the comedy).

Judo
Jan 15, 2003, 07:31 PM
Quote

"The world is always messy.
There has never been, however , a true traitor in the white house like Clinton.
If you are so sure that there has been another administration as bad, I would welcome an example...or two to back up your feelings. Feelings are nice, facts are better."


From your post about what Clinton got up to it does sound like he was protecting his own assets, screwing things up a bit and basically not doing the best job. (Have you seen The Clinton Chronicle??). But so have other administrations that have been in office. Why ingnore the stupid self serving things other administrations have done.

Quote
"Leadership is lonely.
And leadership doesn't mean appeasement.
So...if you're going to lead, not everybody's going to like you.
The communists didn't like us. Nor did the Nazis. Nor did Tojo led Japan.
Are you suggesting that America should have tried to be more conciliatory with these evil empires?"

No, I'm suggesting America should stop/not have supporte/d the evil regimes they do!

Do Americans not realize that they get fed propaganda?? do they think that it's just a communist or nazi idea?? Do you not realize it feed the cold war, which you guys and Russia ******** up and now you are paying for it, for the stupid mistakes that have been made in the past, mistakes which are still being made today.


Quote
"so? what are NZ contributions to the world besides Kiwis and Koalas? Actually, more to the point.. does anybody really care what New Zealanders care about? Isn't Jedi an official religion there or something?"

Wow, please just stop and think for a second please, you just prioritised your cares over mine. We live in a world that has become a global community, I am just as much as an entity as you are on this planet. That kind of attitude is just gonna make more enemies.

On a less serious note Koalas are from Australia, the Kiwi is our national bird and how did you hear about that jedi thing??? It was kinda a joke. In our census for a religion to become official it needs something like 5000 followers and word of mouth started that you should put jedi down if you didn't really care, so i guess people did.

I aint the sharpest tool in the shed so I'm sure others will be able to retort in a more articulate way than I. (thanx Alex :) )

allah akbar
Jan 15, 2003, 11:32 PM
The essence of my post is that the responses are typical of people who hate America, blame America for their ills, are complete ingrates for the favors which America does for the world, and are thus leftists.

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the second part of this reply, you knock down a straw man. I don't believe the examples you cited (from the relatively distant past) pertain to the current U.S.-Iraq situation the way you've applied them (as direct analogical equals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Judo originally stated "I hope people in America realize that your current actions are creating more anymosity". My point is this: that in all conflicts vs. evil dictators in modern times, there has been a consistent chorus from the left denouncing taking military action. Military action is not always necessary, I agree, but when it is necessary, you can be sure the left is denouncing it.

To cite "creating anymosity" as a reason to not go to war, when it has been deemed necessary is ridiculous. Particularly when the anymosity is quite disengenuous.

The analogy is very appropriate. Prior to the 2nd world war, Europe had a chance to stop Hitler in his tracks and avert the war. Appologists like Nevil Chamberlain in response to anti-war left rhetoric moved the UK inaction, even as Hitler started rolling over and conquering sovereign nations. The result was utter devastation, caused by the left-induced paralysis.

If you don't deal with situations when you can, often you will need to deal with them when the odds are stacked against you.

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sentence 1: I believe you could face plagiarism charges if the GOP finds out you've written that on a public web forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't typically read the GOP propaganda-garbage, and further don't believe they created the phrase.

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sentence 2: Appeasement is not the only alternative to war, and I don't think many Americans are really in favor of appeasement anyway. Containment and diplomacy seem more prudent, and those are those are the paths that are currently being taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans aren't in favor of appeasement.
Containment and diplomacy are ABSOLUTELY the CORRECT first course of action.
However, after 11 years of flaunting UN resolution after UN resolution, after actively supporting terrorism, continuing its WMD program, enough is enough.

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that it's rehashed. Not sure how you can come to the conclusion that it's pablum given that the transfers of money and influence are right there for all to see on opensecrets.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course its pablum. The left is typically clueless about what they're talking about, and simply regurgitate their mantras. As was the case with Judo

It's also despicable. To suggest that US policy is designed to purposefully create enemies in order to generate more business is as arrogant and ugly as a leftist can get. You should be ashamed.


quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say it's because neither France, Germany, nor Russia are likely to be entering a war that's subtextually justified in part by the appeasement of their respective petrochemical and defense industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally don't get your logic.
F, G, and R are NOT going to war exactly because of their oil and defense relationships with Iraq. They are putting Europe and the US at higher risk because they want to sell more guns and buy more oil

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate welfare... soft money... environmental devastation... the use of money and talented lawyers to flaunt the law... legal loopholes that benefit wealthy individuals & corporations...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

so let me get this...Judo and his hate-America pals despise us because of our Domestic policy.
what mutation of logic is that?
suicide bombings by "militant Arabs" are going to occur because of Corporate welfare.
Judo again offers feeling instead of fact and, I appreciate the effort in citing some evidence and attempting to bail him out.
But you can't seriously believe that domestic policy impacts foreign issues. You're way off base.

Also, had to chuckle at the typical leftist list of grievances. "Environmental Devastation" ooooohhh the mantra of the environmental-wackos. You forgot to include right-wing lunatic Christian wackos and militia groups , and terrorist-supporting SUV drivers (just trying to help you out)


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that a bit of an arrogant stance to take, allah akbar? To reinforce what Judo is trying to say: It's not just NZ that is tiring of the way the U.S. conducts itself on the world stage - it's literally every country on the map...
----------------------------------------------------------------
first of all it was humor.
humor as in the same not-subtle humor of the Flash presentation which showed the President as a dolt, and his entourage as equally denigrated.
Funny how my humor is considered arrogant, and the Flash humor acceptable. Might it reveal yours, and the rest of the boards bias towards hating the US?

And you still don't make the case.

WHAT EXACTLY ARE PEOPLE PISSED OFF ABOUT?
Name the foreing policy issue and I'll consider your argument.
But you haven't
And nobody else has attempted to yet either.

It seems clear to me that given that people are prepared to accuse the US, blame the US for the global hatred being directed towards, and you take the flying-logical-leap to suggest that their actions will lead to terrorist attacks

but

are not prepared to spell out WHAT ACTIONS THE US IS DOING TO CAUSE THIS

THEN
it's clear to me it's just typical left-wing Hate-America garbage.


A.A.
Life, Liberty

allah akbar
Jan 16, 2003, 02:49 AM
What is most offensive about your retorts, Judo, is the fact that you despise the US, and have no basis for the whim. You follow the angry leftist masses. Anger. Condemning. Repeating your mantras.

The US has contributed in blood for the freedom of many nations on this planet. Today, the US has 10's of thousands of troops in South Korea defending their freedom, in the Balkans mopping up for a Euro-ethnic cleansing that the EU couldn't take care of in their own backyard, helping the Taiwanese defend themselves against a China which now has in excess of 500 missiles pointed at their Island as part of their plan to militarily take it over, and provides people and equipment support for many other nations fighting for their freedom and security.

Americans put their lives in harms way day in and day out to help other nations. Americans pay the majority of UN dues, and the vast vast amount of expenses when it comes to enforcing the peace in engagements like Kosovo (expenses which never get reported in leftist media)

And ingrates like you can only focus on the mistakes?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I'm suggesting America should stop/not have supporte/d the evil regimes they do!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know what you're talking about? or are you going to once again ask somebody to bail you out because you're parroting the leftist line, but don't really have a clue.
Do you mean the US supporting Iraq? Ooops. that's right...its the French, Germans and Russians who provide material and military support.
How about North Korea? OOOooops. It's those huminstarian Chinese who provide them with raw material for their WMD programs, and who channel slave labor out of North Korea heading for the west.

Before you so called tollerant and peaceful nations start throwing stones...you ought to consider the glass houses you are living in.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you not realize it feed the cold war, which you guys and Russia ******** up and now you are paying for it, for the stupid mistakes that have been made in the past, mistakes which are still being made today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
and now you equate the US to the USSR? To one of the most heinous regimes known to man. Responsible for the deaths of millions of people, and utterly repressive to those who lived? Did I hear you right?
And what exactly do you mean by ******'ing it up? any examples? Last I checked the regime is no more, and that threat is gone, and the US has had a significant part in it.
My guess is, it is just another US slam, and once again you have no facts to back up your hatred.


At least Alex has a few facts to back up his point of view. The facts may be debatable (I would argue wrong) but he is at least thinking.

You on the other hand are ranting on the US based on hatred. With no facts at all. No thought. Just Bashing.

Very arrogant. Very intollerant.
and very uninformed. Very extreme left wing/liberal.

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 16, 2003, 08:29 AM
posted by allah akbar [/i]
so? what are NZ contributions to the world besides Kiwis and Koalas? Actually, more to the point.. does anybody really care what New Zealanders care about? Isn't Jedi an official religion there or something?[/QUOTE]

Look, you piece of hedonistic fungus. New Zealand has made MANY contributions to world events, and we are NOT strangers to the horrors of war. Ever hear of Gallipoli? A small, yet impenetrable peninsula in Turkey that was held by the Ottoman Empire - allied to Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany in World War I.

The ANZAC (Australian/New Zealand Army Corps) troops who fought there were vastly outnumbered by the enemy, and engaged machine gun posts by charging them from their trenches. Then, there was the Battle of the Somme in France, where much the same happened.

Apparently, the British Generals (aka. Kitchener and Haig) believed that the Colonial soldiers were more expendable than their English counterparts - therefore, we went in first. Unfortunately for us, battle tactics in those times had not taken into consideration the advances in weapon technology - i.e. the aforementioned machine gun - and therefore, in all cases, our losses were devastating, resulting in the extinction of many small communities back home. It was because of this immense loss of life that new forms of attack had to be initiated.

Everyone in the trenches knew of the madness that surrounded them - and they each were given the choice: die by the bullet of the enemy, or by the bullet of your commanding officer...

It is with great pride that I call myself a New Zealander. Our country has a sad history of war - albeit, in other countries. We have always tried to be on the side of the righteous and free - and it is not surprising that the current Prime Minister, Helen Clark, whilst encouraging diplomatic ties with the United States, does not accept the course of action they are taking.

Yes, our country is small - but we have a voice. And we have the right to be heard. If one other country agrees with our stance, then our message has succeeded in getting through. Then, perhaps, the madness of War can be averted.

Our voice has been exercised with conviction before, and the World sat up to listen. Back in 1984, New Zealand was part of a Pacific military alliance known as ANZUS - Australia, New Zealand & the United States. The newly-encumbant Prime Minister, David Lange, made a revolutionary decision - to make New Zealand a Nuclear-Free Zone. And, because of this statement, formally denied any US warships into it's ports (It is US Navy policy to neither confirm or deny the carriage of nuclear weapons in their cache - but this also extended to their power plants) - the first, being the Nuclear-powered and armed submarine the USS Pintado. With this, the ANZUS treaty was terminated, and the US, whilst not losing an ally, certainly had it's nose put out of joint by a small country of 3 million.

Soon, other countries followed in New Zealand's footsteps - including many Scandinavian countries, vital to the defence of NATO in the event of war with the Warsaw Pact. Although not directly responsible, it would seem it was a catalyst to the anti-nuclear proliferation talks with the then Soviet Union.

Then there was the nuclear tests at Mururoa Atoll by the French in the 80's. After the blatant attack on the Greenpeace ship "Rainbow Warrior" in Auckland harbour, 1985, the New Zealand Secret Service tracked down the saboteurs, caught them and presented them for trial. The subsequent repatriation of the two French Military personnel - Alain Marfar & Dominique Prieur - was directly responsible for the cessation of all nuclear testing by the French in the Pacific.

So, "God is Great" (and, of course, I have no doubt that he is...), don't you dare for one moment attempt to diss my country - or I'll send the All Blacks - our World-famous national Rugby Team - over to sort you out (www.allblacks.com).

Les Kern
Jan 16, 2003, 09:32 AM
A GREAT Article that everyone should read:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html

The Text, for your convenience:

America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer’s pocket? At what cost — because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people — in Iraqi lives?

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America’s anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I’m dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam’s downfall — just not on Bush’s terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.

The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another’s, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God’s work.

In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that “somebody” was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr’s cry: “That man tried to kill my Daddy.” But it’s still not personal, this war. It’s still necessary. It’s still God’s work. It’s still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people.

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won’t tell us is the truth about why we’re going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil — but oil, money and people’s lives. Saddam’s misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn’t, won’t.

If Saddam didn’t have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart’s content. Other leaders do it every day — think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, if he’s still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes’ notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America’s need to demonstrate its military power to all of us — to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair’s part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can’t. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can’t get out.

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain’s opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that’s Britain’s tragedy, as it is America’s: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair’s best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world’s greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant’s head to wave at the boys?

Blair’s worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.

There is a middle way, but it’s a tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special relationship.

I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect’s sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can’t explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.

“But will we win, Daddy?”

“Of course, child. It will all be over while you’re still in bed.”

“Why?”

“Because otherwise Mr Bush’s voters will get terribly impatient and may decide not to vote for him.”

“But will people be killed, Daddy?”

“Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people.”

“Can I watch it on television?”

“Only if Mr Bush says you can.”

“And afterwards, will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid any more?”

“Hush child, and go to sleep.”

Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: “Peace is also Patriotic”. It was gone by the time he’d finished shopping.

3rdpath
Jan 16, 2003, 02:15 PM
please don't interpret the insulting dismissal of your country by a singular misinformed and misguided person as the general sentiment of the U.S.( or posters on this forum).

though i enjoy the sometimes heated debate here, insults really cross the line and are not appreciated.

might i suggest you join me ( and others) in ignoring this guy.

Les Kern
Jan 16, 2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
please don't interpret the insulting dismissal of your country by a singular misinformed and misguided person as the general sentiment of the U.S.

Okay. But the trouble is that he's right in many respects. What happened to us? We're supposed to be the GOOD guys!
http://www.dubyadubyadubya.com

macfan
Jan 16, 2003, 03:16 PM
Les,
Per the article you linked. Bush is not mad. The United States is not mad. Tony Blair is not mad. Hans Blix is not mad. They are all quite sane. Saddam is quite mad, and the author of the piece you linked is quite ignorant. Saddam has been mad for many years, and for many years he has been tolerated in the name of geopolitical interests or non intereference in internal affairs or other such nonesense. The people of Iraq deserve the blessings of freedom. Saddam's conduct in Iraq alone is justification for him personally being removed from power, without regard for oil, weapons of mass destruction, or his tendency to attack his neighbors and associate himself with terrorists. The first Gulf War never ended for Saddam. There was a cease fire, but there was no treaty, and Saddam has continually violated the terms of that cease fire. The United States botched the process in the end and sentenced the people of Iraq to an additional decade or more of oppression by Saddam. We owe them their liberty because we are the ones who hung them out to dry.

The author of your piece understand America and Americans about as well as allah akbar understands New Zealand. As an American, I can assure you that I am neither ignorant of the situation nor fearful nor browbeaten. Even the author admits that Saddam should be removed, but his hatred of America generally and Bush specifically has blinded him. He similarly turns a blind eye to the dangers that Saddam does pose both to his neighbors and the world at large. It is convenient for him to ignore these dangers and realities because of his political hatred of Bush, but it does not make the reality of the situation any less of a concern.

About Israel. If the Palestinians lay down their arms, there will be no more violence. If the Israelis lay down their arms, there will be no more Israel.

Finally, about your friend and the bumper sticker. In California and across America, there are many who are protesting the possible completion of the Gulf War which began in August 1990. They are not oppressed, they are not beaten, and I see plenty of bumper stickers that say "War is not the answer" which are by no means removed from their automobiles. Do not take one instance as being representative.

kiwi,
Some of us are aware and appreciate the efforts of NZ and AUS over the years. They fought along side Americans defending their homeland against Japan and they stand today as allies and as testaments to the superiority of a democratic system of government and the rule of law. However, you do a disservice to history when you say that it was anti nuclear sentiment that led the US and Soviets to arms negotiations. Indeed, these negotiations were going on long before 1984. What finally brought about an end to the Cold War wasn't negotiation or anti nuclear protests, but capitulation on the part of the Soviet Union, a withdrawl on their part from the occupation of Eastern Europe. Support of Poland's labor movement, a rhetoric that supported Soviet dissidents and called the Soviet Union what it was--an evil empire, and large increases in United States military spending on nuclear missiles and on missile defense technology and on conventional military forces pushed the Soviets beyond their capacity to compete. The inefficiencies of their system could not stand the economic or moral strain, and they passed on to the ash heap of history.

The world can afford a county like New Zealand having an anti militray bent. It cannot afford for the United States to take such a position. For better or worse, usually both, the United States bears the burden of protecting freedom loving peoples from those who would oppress them. It is done well at times, and poorly at times, but were it not to be done at all, chaos would certainly ensue.

The use of military force is never a good option, but it is sometimes the best option of a series of bad options. I fear that this may be one such time.

alex_ant
Jan 16, 2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by allah akbar
The essence of my post is that the responses are typical of people who hate America, blame America for their ills, are complete ingrates for the favors which America does for the world, and are thus leftists.
With regards to "hating America": Left-wingers don't hate America. They love America as much as right-wingers do, which is why they don't all move to Canada and why they care enough to criticize American policies. Criticism is not hatred.
Judo originally stated "I hope people in America realize that your current actions are creating more anymosity". My point is this: that in all conflicts vs. evil dictators in modern times, there has been a consistent chorus from the left denouncing taking military action. Military action is not always necessary, I agree, but when it is necessary, you can be sure the left is denouncing it.

To cite "creating anymosity" as a reason to not go to war, when it has been deemed necessary is ridiculous. Particularly when the anymosity is quite disengenuous.
First of all, the animosity that would likely follow a war in Iraq is hardly the only reason "the dirty liberals" are citing. Second of all, you say it's ridiculous, but you don't explain why.
The analogy is very appropriate. Prior to the 2nd world war, Europe had a chance to stop Hitler in his tracks and avert the war. Appologists like Nevil Chamberlain in response to anti-war left rhetoric moved the UK inaction, even as Hitler started rolling over and conquering sovereign nations. The result was utter devastation, caused by the left-induced paralysis.
The analogy is wholly inappropriate because you've taken World War II completely out of context. It wouldn't have been the same if only a few of the millions of variables which brought it about were different. You use World War II as justification for any military action that pleases you: "We must stop _____ immediately. The liberals didn't stop Hitler as soon as they could and look what happened!"
Americans aren't in favor of appeasement.
Containment and diplomacy are ABSOLUTELY the CORRECT first course of action.
However, after 11 years of flaunting UN resolution after UN resolution, after actively supporting terrorism, continuing its WMD program, enough is enough.
"actively supporting terrorism": Of course they support "terrorism." They hate us, and it's not like they can send their fleet of battle cruisers over to pound the East Coast. When you're fighting a massive enemy and have little chance for victory, you'll fight by any means necessary. That's not to justify terrorism, it's just to recognize one of its primary causes.

"continuing its WMD program": I don't believe you have any evidence to support this, and I don't have any evidence to prove this wrong. We must err on the side of "innocent until proven guilty"... although granted, the current U.S. administration is not a big fan of innocent-until-proven-guilty anyway. The reason we must do this is because if we don't, we will have free reign to pulverize any country we wish. The reason this is bad is... well, if you need this reason explained to you, you've got serious problems.

Of course its pablum. The left is typically clueless about what they're talking about, and simply regurgitate their mantras. As was the case with Judo
Ad hominem.
It's also despicable. To suggest that US policy is designed to purposefully create enemies in order to generate more business is as arrogant and ugly as a leftist can get. You should be ashamed.
Yes, this US policy is despicable. Unfortunately, the evidence strongly suggests that this is exactly what is going on. You're making another ad hominem by attacking those primary responsible for such ideas rather than the ideas themselves. It would help if you would criticize your opponents less, and criticize their ideas instead.
I totally don't get your logic.
F, G, and R are NOT going to war exactly because of their oil and defense relationships with Iraq. They are putting Europe and the US at higher risk because they want to sell more guns and buy more oil
The US wants to control the oil.
so let me get this...Judo and his hate-America pals despise us because of our Domestic policy.
what mutation of logic is that?
suicide bombings by "militant Arabs" are going to occur because of Corporate welfare.
Judo again offers feeling instead of fact and, I appreciate the effort in citing some evidence and attempting to bail him out.
But you can't seriously believe that domestic policy impacts foreign issues. You're way off base.
You're right... domestic policy doesn't impact foreign issues at all. That's why we totally don't care about Saddam Hussein being so brutal to his own people, because that's a domestic issue that we don't care about because it doesn't affect Iraq's foreign issues. ????????

Also, had to chuckle at the typical leftist list of grievances. "Environmental Devastation" ooooohhh the mantra of the environmental-wackos. You forgot to include right-wing lunatic Christian wackos and militia groups , and terrorist-supporting SUV drivers (just trying to help you out)
Another ad hominem. Respond to the argument, not the originator of the argument.
first of all it was humor.
humor as in the same not-subtle humor of the Flash presentation which showed the President as a dolt, and his entourage as equally denigrated.
Funny how my humor is considered arrogant, and the Flash humor acceptable. Might it reveal yours, and the rest of the boards bias towards hating the US?
The flash humor was acceptable because it was obviously humor. You didn't put any smilies or say "joke" near what you said, so there was no way for us tight-arses to know you were kidding. Now that I know what you said was humor, ha ha, there you go.
It seems clear to me that given that people are prepared to accuse the US, blame the US for the global hatred being directed towards, and you take the flying-logical-leap to suggest that their actions will lead to terrorist attacks

but

are not prepared to spell out WHAT ACTIONS THE US IS DOING TO CAUSE THIS
It would be possible to compile an extremely long list, but I don't have the time or the knowledge.

- Our behavior toward Iraq
- Supporting Israel's frequently brutal responses to "terrorism"
- Preaching freedom & democracy and then installing U.S.-friendly puppet governments (Iraq & Afghanistan among many others)
- Getting involved where we shouldn't be and not getting involved where we should (we're watching Iraq with a keen eye... while millions of people in Africa die of famine and AIDS each year while we do nothing)
- Pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty
- Pulling out of the ABM Treaty
- Building an NMD system
- The relentless spread of American culture across the globe
- Our unilateralism and frequent disrespect of the UN
- Our extremely arrogant and self-righteous culture that includes people like you, allah akbar, who have no problem with any of this, who don't understand how anyone in the world could be opposed to it, and who will attack anyone who criticizes it.

Whether or not you think any of these are good is irrelevant. The point is that they HAVE pissed off large segments of people over the world. This is my point. How come a Canadian, who is very similar to an American, can travel around the world without having to worry about getting kidnapped and murdered, and an American can't? You don't know the answer to that, but I do.

A lot of these actions are directly self-interested. What I hope we can learn in the long term (after hundreds of millions have died in a Republican nuclear war in the name of freedom) is that sometimes we need to sacrifice our own well-being for the good of humanity, as cliched as that may sound.

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 16, 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by macfan
For better or worse, usually both, the United States bears the burden of protecting freedom loving peoples from those who would oppress them. It is done well at times, and poorly at times, but were it not to be done at all, chaos would certainly ensue.

First, let me begin by saying that I am not in any way biased against the United States. However, I still cannot understand the American ethos regarding their so-called "God-given right" to police the World in the name of "Democracy".

In my lifetime, I have been privileged to live and work in many countries (around 45 at last count), and have visited and worked in the United States on numerous occasions. But I have to say that I was shocked, and sometimes appalled, at the attitudes of many people that I met there.

Although they could recite their Constitution back-to-front, and pledge allegiance to the flag in their sleep (which I find refreshingly patriotic, and awe-inspiring - and if many other countries had that same sense of pride, I'm sure the world would be a brighter place), it was amazing that the majority of people had absolutely no idea what lived outside their borders.

A recent poll indicated that out of the approx. 480 millilon residents of the United States of America, a staggering 87% had not ventured outside her shores - yes, that meant only 13% of the population owned passports. Compare those statistics to little-old New Zealand: Out of a population of 3.7 million people, an amazing 6 million valid New Zealand passports have been issued to it's citizens. That indicates (not as some of you may believe that we can't count...) we are a country of voyagers - searching and studying, and taking in all of the experiences the world can offer. Have you ever wondered why, no matter in what far corner of the World you may be, you'll always find a New Zealander or Australian?

Another recent poll of Americans over the age of 30 showed that over 70% of those asked couldn't locate the Pacific Ocean on a globe - yes, a staggering statistic, considering the Pacific Ocean is the largest body of water on the face of the Earth, taking up a quarter of it's surface.

I've even been asked by a Professor at Stanford University which State is New Zealand in...

I mean, honestly?!?

My point is this:

Perhaps if the majority of people in the United States would take the time out to study the other cultures of the World, and not be so quick to condemn their ways of life, then their leaders won't be so headstrong as to think that their way of life is far superior to anyone elses.

Although the Muslim culture is brutal in some forms, it is no more brutal than the US's. Their culture has remained fundamentally unchanged for over 1000 years. Who are we to say who the savages are? Every civilisation has had its setbacks and downsides: The US's were the Slave-Trade era, the McCarthyite Communist Witch-hunt era, and the Civil Rights abuses in the South - which, in some cases, are still occurring.

All I can say is - the World is a big and beautiful place, filled with interesting people and wonderous cultures. It would be an absolute travesty (and even a great injustice) to anyone who doesn't take the time to look around for a bit. And if more people looked around, then maybe - just maybe - they would see just what's at stake in situations such as these.

Judo
Jan 16, 2003, 05:26 PM
Quote

"What is most offensive about your retorts, Judo, is the fact that you despise the US, and have no basis for the whim. You follow the angry leftist masses. Anger. Condemning. Repeating your mantras."

Offensive???? Get over it!!

Well I could say you follow the beligerent right wing masses. Blindly patriotic, condemning and you repeat your mantras too.

Here's a page I found on the web which gives a little more about the history of the U.S and it's involvement in the Middle East.

Allah, if you guys manage to oust Saddam as leader of Iraq, what then??
Do you think that a democratically elected leader by the people of Iraq should be the put in place??
An American appointed leader with Americas intersts at heart??

macfan
Jan 16, 2003, 06:27 PM
kiwi,
I can explain a little of what you call America's perception of a God given right to police the world in the name of democracy.

First, there are significant numbers of Americans who have no such belief. In fact, the argument is often made that we are not the world's policeman, we should just look after our own interests.

Second, it is not so much a God given right as it is a recognition of where we are in history, and where we have been.

The US has traditionally tried to avoid the "European entanglements." WWI was joined in only at the end. Then, we refused to join the League of Nations, an organization that has become the historical poster child for futility. After WWI we cut our military to the point that we had NO military option against Japan when Japan began it's rather terroristic conquest of China and the rest of Asia. Likewise, neither we nor anyone else had the military capacity to turn back Germany when Hitler decided to take over Chezchoslavakia. While we sat around in the 1920s and early 30s with a third-rate military, the powers that would drag us into the worst war in history began to assemble. Even when our friends were attacked, we held back because many American people felt that Europe should be left to her own devices and we were simply not interested in more dead Americans. Lacking a military option to check Japannese aggression in the Far East, we imposed economic sanctions (a popular tool even today). As it became clearer that we would be drawn into the conflict, and the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, the United States committed itself fully to victory and the allied cause. With the help of loyal and worthy allies, as well as the marriage of convience with Stalin, victory was gained. It was a victory of such high cost and left a world so devastated that Japan and Europe had to be rebuilt largely throught the generosity of the American people and government. Japan became a modern democratic state with an economy of global importance. Western Europe, even West Germany, prospered and enjoyed political freemdom courtsey of the United States willingness to face down a new totalitarian enemy. The United States did not do this willingly. Even up to the time of Pearl Harbor, America had a strong isolationist movement. Following WWII, the US reduced its forces to the point that we were barely able to lead a United Nations force from many countries to defend South Korea against the North. We are still there, and South Korea, with our protection, has prospered and developed democratic institutions. Had we withdrawn American influence from the affairs of Europe, their was a very good chance that we would have been back in Europe fighting WWIII against the Soviets to defend Europe yet again. With this knowledge, the United States fromed NATO with its former WWII allies and foes and did the heavy lifting to contain and eventually overwhelm the Soviet Union. This was done imperfectly, but it was accomplished and there are many more free people today because of it The United States is in a position today where we cannot leave the rest of the world to its own devices and expect everything to work out for the best. We must remain engaged.

A recent poll indicated that out of the approx. 480 millilon residents of the United States of America, a staggering 87% had not ventured outside her shores - yes, that meant only 13% of the population owned passports.

You should question the source of your poll. There are only 290 million of us in America. I find it amazing that that New Zealander would not have noticed! ;)

In any event, the United States is a big country. You could spend all of your time in the US not exhaust what there is too see. You could also visit people from almost every culture on earth without leaving one of our major cities. I have no doubt that most Americans have limited knowlege of political affairs around the world, but I also have no doubt that New Zealanders do not exactly have a firm grasp on the political dymanics of Houston or Los Angeles, places with populations many times that of New Zealand. I know many Americans whose knowlege of world geography and poiltics is quite extensive. I also know many Americans who could say the pledge of allegiance if you spotted them first 30 words. Do not make the mistake of thinking that Americans are some kind of monolithic lot.

Although the Muslim culture is brutal in some forms, it is no more brutal than the US's.

The forms of brutality in certain Islamic countries today (some even counted as allies) are worse by far than anything currently existing in the United States. Slavery and racial problems in America (thanks, your majesty) stand as a darkest stain on our history. However, we put an end to slavery in the United States with a terrible war almost a centruy and a half ago, while it is still a way of life in certain Muslim cultures. As a country we began to live closer to the ideals espoused in our founding documents. In the United States today, a large majority of Black Americans do not find that racism is something that impacts their own lives on a regular basis. Racism is denounced by all save a lunatic fringe (KKK types and Nation of Islam types). McCarthyism was not comparable in any way whatsoever to the kind of brutality that was conducted and is conducted in other countries. There were no gulags, there were no show trials, and there were no communists hauled off in the night to be executed for their political beliefs or to watch their families be tortured to create false confessions.

Perhaps if the majority of people in the United States would take the time out to study the other cultures of the World, and not be so quick to condemn their ways of life, then their leaders won't be so headstrong as to think that their way of life is far superior to anyone elses.

You are right when you say we should take time out and understand other cultures. Is it the witholding of food aid for political purposes by a local government which leads to starvation, (Zimbabwe) the beating and execution of women for failing to adequately wear a burka or venturing outside of the house (Taliban), the political prison and torture camps (North Korea, China) the selling of slaves (Sudan) or the suppression of freedom of worship (fill in virtually the entire Mulsim world) that we need to "take time out and understand?" We need to understand that those cultures are not like ours and that they cannot always be dealt with in the way that we deal with other democracies. However, we must also understand that there are universal human freedoms that transcend human cultures, and we cannot allow "understanding" to become an excuse for ignoring savage behaviour (I'm trying to display my understanding of New Zealand spelling). Our way of life, which is also your way of life, is, in fact, superior. It is not perfect, but democracy, liberty, and the rule of law is the best thing we human beings have been able to come up with so far. I'm willing to listen if you have a better option, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Who are we to say who the savages are?

Rather, who are we to turn a blind eye, as we so often do to the savage behavior around the world? If we do not say who the savages are, who will?


Have you ever wondered why, no matter in what far corner of the World you may be, you'll always find a New Zealander or Australian?

Is it because Australia is too hot? ;)

alex_ant
Jan 16, 2003, 08:14 PM
I believe Kiwi's point was that most of the countries we accuse of being savage would accuse us of being savage. Who is right? We've got the International Declaration of Human Rights on our side, but that is our own invention. There is no binding law of the universe that says what the West stands for is good and what the West's enemies stand for is bad. That's not to say I don't agree about it being terrible that over 1/6 of the world population lives under totalitarian dictatorships - it's just to say that it is extremely difficult to justify being the world's policeman on a moral basis. (As much as I would like to.)

My opinion is that the best thing we have going for us right now is the existence of the UN - a milestone in world civilization. A nation which believes in democracy at its core should not be afraid to be a participant in a democracy itself. (Conservatives say US participation in the UN is unconstitutional. If this is true, then the Constitution should be amended.) As it stands, the UN has no authority to declare war. That's why the UN needs to be made stronger. If the US believes that the government of Country X is horrible and repressive and needs to be immediately replaced, then it should make its case at the UN and the countries of the UN should decide whether or not to send UN troops to war. It should be illegal for any UN member - including the US - to conduct action unilaterally, since by doing so, the unilateralist would be guaranteed to be doing only what is in its own self-interest.

The reason the US needs to submit itself to a higher power is that it is doing a terrible job of managing the power it wields now. Its involvement in world affairs is selective and, above all, self-interested. It does what it wants to do when it wants to do it, everybody else be damned. This is no way for a mature & responsible democracy to conduct itself on the world stage. Critics of the UN say that the UN never agrees on anything. With such a large and diverse membership, this is to be expected, but this problem can be resolved democratically. The concept of a world government is still in its infancy, but I believe that in the coming decades, we will find it more and more necessary.

Les Kern
Jan 16, 2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

My opinion is that the best thing we have going for us right now is the existence of the UN - a milestone in world civilization. A nation which believes in democracy at its core should not be afraid to be a participant in a democracy itself.

I like your post. Not too long ago I was not much convinced that the UN wasn't worth as damn. I feel I might be wrong due to in part that I had my epiphany and began to look at the world from the perspective of a world citizen instead of taking the "arrogant American" stand.
I was much like MacFan, but not any more. Note: What's hiding in his quite eloquent note is, well, balderdash. And it's obvious, I'm sorry to say, that he/she missed the point of the article entirely, and makes off-topic generalizations to fit his beliefs which, additionally, don't seem to be aligned with any of the points set forth. Or maybe he skimmed over it. Who knows. It's quite good and I'm finding it real hard to shoot down most all the points.
Oh well.

allah akbar
Jan 16, 2003, 11:23 PM
I would love to address all of the issues which were raised, but simply don't have the time.

First off, as I mentioned in my previous post, I have no issues with people from New Zealand. Far from it. A member of my family is from Australia, a close friend lives in NZ, and generally I like the people from there.

I wanted to simply show the complete hypocrisy of the America bashers on this board: how they relish in the accusations, innuendos, and arrogance of Bush and America bashing and call it humor, but when the shoe is on the other foot (in fact the retort was far far less disrepectful) that they no longer see the humor in it. The flash humor on the web page in no way attempted to mute their criticism of Bush and the administration.

The main aspect of my reply is simply to point out the hypocrisy and America-hatred on display.

So much of the anger against America is simply Anti American hatred. Plane and simple.

Les Kern's posted article is simply innuendo. Bush Junta, rich vs. poor, disregard for the world's poor, war for oil , war for the industrial-military complex, anti-religious slurs, ..etc.etc.

It's just disgusting. And yet for all the sanctimonious rant about arrogant Americans, it is in fact all of the anti-American posts which are by far the most angry , arrogant, intollerant, and woefully ungracious. Les' article is a great synopsis of the pure innuendo hatred which is on display.

3rdpath, you have expressed your dislike of insults. Can you not even see but 1 in the article which Les' posted?

As for left wingers hating America...no...not all left wingers hate America. But if you do hate America...odds are....you are left wing.

And now for some facts, responding to the laundry list of reasons why the world hates the US:
- Our behavior toward Iraq
> What issue do you have with the beaviour visavis Iraq? Getting them to back out of Kuwait the first time? Or forcing the UN to enforce resolutions which have gone unenforced for 11 years, and with clear signs that they are acquiring WMD.

- Supporting Israel's frequently brutal responses to "terrorism"
> By your putting the word terrorism in quotes, are you suggesting that you don't really believe that people who strap themselve with bombs, packed with nails and spikes, laced with poison, who blow up women and babies on busses and pizza parlors are terrorists? You are revealing much about yourself with the quotation marks.

- Preaching freedom & democracy and then installing U.S.-friendly puppet governments (Iraq & Afghanistan among many others)
> What would have been your approach in Afghanistan? From all reports, women are now free to work, children are now free to go to school, and a vibrant society is once again thriving. I live close to an Afghani community where people are excited about the transition and are now actively considering going back to help out.
If this is the effects of a US-friendly puppet government, then maybe there should be more of them.


- Getting involved where we shouldn't be and not getting involved where we should (we're watching Iraq with a keen eye... while millions of people in Africa die of famine and AIDS each year while we do nothing)
> To say we do nothing for Africa and AIDS is again a lie. Just as Senator Patty Murray suggested that we never did anything for Afghanistan.

- Pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty
> We were never in the Kyoto treaty. We are a country of laws, here in the US. Laws are passed by Congress. The senate had already indicated that they were going to reject the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 97-3. Very very bi-partisan rejection.
Why you might ask? Because many people here believe that it is bogus science.


- Pulling out of the ABM Treaty
> The ABM treaty is a treaty between 2 parties: the US and the USSR. It is a treaty which served a very specific purpose, and at a very specific point in time, between those 2 countries.
It's utility has ended, and is now a detriment to our national security.

- Building an NMD system
> Building a NMD will improve US and allies security, not deteriorate the situation.
China has an issue with it , because they want to be able to retain the right to blow up California.
Ditto North Korea.


- The relentless spread of American culture across the globe
> Nobody forces people to consume American culture. There is no gun pointed at people's heads to consume McDonalds, watch Mickey Mouse, or buy BayWatch T-shirts. If people hate America because their local citizens are consuming American products, they should turn their blame to those who are demanding the produts.


- Our unilateralism and frequent disrespect of the UN
The UN deserves disrepect.
It is the tyranny of the majority where backwards nations like Iraq, or China, or Syria have as many votes as the US. Despite the fact that the US pays for most of its operations. Its rampant anti-semitism, disrespect for the US, inability and unwillingness to deal with issues which are important to the US, while promoting anti-US causes should be reason for us to leave the fold.

As for unilaterlism, countries OUGHT to develop policy which is in their best interest while attempting to reconcile this with their friends and allies. By far, we collaborate extensively and well with most democratic nations, but we need to do so freely while

- Our extremely arrogant and self-righteous culture that includes people like you, allah akbar, who have no problem with any of this, who don't understand how anyone in the world could be opposed to it, and who will attack anyone who criticizes it.
> The arrogance and anger comes from your Anti-American club. It is far more vitriolic, hateful, and intollerant than anything I have posted.


The United States is an amazing experiment in freedom. The rights to freedom are given by God, and enshrined in the Constitution. This is why Congress can not pass a law allowing a foreign entity to pass laws applicable to US citizens. This is not a Conservative or Liberal thing...it is plain and simple Constitution.

The founding fathers undestood very well that abdicating these rights to a foreign power (what you describe as higher power) would lead to the end of the experiment in Freedom.

Democracies without Constitutional boundaries, as I indicted above, are tyranies of the majority. Where the US vote would have as much weight as the vote of Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Cuba ...etc.

Thankfully most people are not so blinded as yourself to believe that life would be better if we were ruled by laws in-part developed by those basket-case nations.

And even more thankfully, the laws of this land do not permit it.


AA
Peace, Freedom

Phil Of Mac
Jan 17, 2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by wake up Jobs!!!
I call it world war 3 , because thats what it is world war III and it could spell the end of peace in the world as we know it (I hope not).

-GaBe-O

What peace?

US foreign policy (and domestic policy for that matter) has historically been arrogant, stupid, and bad for this country. Corporate welfare abounds, and we've largely gotten ourself into trouble.

Here's some Middle Eastern blunders:

1. The whole Israel thing. I'm down with the Jewish state idea, but our involvement with Israel has allowed the growth of a massive socialistic government (because their deficits are financed by gifts from American taxpayers) and has gotten us mass murder in return.
2. Our involvement with the Shah of Iran practically inspired Muslim fanaticism, for no clear national interest.
3. We supported al-Qaeda in the Russian war with Afghanistan. Brilliant idea there, Reagan.
4. We sent Madeline Albright, a Jewish woman, to negotiate with patriarchial, anti-Semitic Arab leaders. Great decision there, Clinton.
5. We support Saddam against Iran. Smooth move, Reagan.
6. We invade Iraq to protect Saudi Arabia, when in fact the Saudis are just as bad as the Iraqis. Thanks, Bush.
7. We ignore our Afghani allies, and blow up some of them "accidentally", when they warned us that that particular convoy was theirs. Good one, Little Bush.
8. We try and mediate peace between Arafat, a mass murdering anti-Semitic terrorist, and Israeli politicians, who are worse than regular politicians because they capitalize on terrorism like nobody's business. (At least according to my Israeli friend). Keep up the good work, Clinton.

There's probably more, but isn't that more than enough?

macfan
Jan 17, 2003, 01:55 AM
Les,
I understand the point of the article only too well. However, I believe it to be a load of pablum. I was not providing a point by point refutation of the posted editorial because that opinion piece is not an intellectual or reasoned argument, but a string of polemic tripe that is not worthy of a point by point refutation. However, let's examine a little more closely a single contention.

If Saddam didn’t have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart’s content. Other leaders do it every day — think Saudi Arabia...

For whatever reason, the author seems to think that Saudi Arabia, unlike Iraq, doesn't have any oil.

There is an absence of rationality in the author's thought process and he's simply not worth the effort. kiwi, on the other hand, is much more thoughtful than this author.

Phil of Mac,
US foreign policy (and domestic policy for that matter) has historically been arrogant, stupid, and bad for this country. Corporate welfare abounds, and we've largely gotten ourself into trouble.

Indeed, this must be how we came up with one of the most free, wealthiest, and strongest nation in the history of human civilization. Imagine what we could have done with a policy that wasn't arrogant and stupid.

If you had a more balanced take on the effects of US foreign policy in the world, one might be tempted to take your points seriously, but as they are scattered, overly simplistic, and one sided, it seems that this would not be a wise course of action.


Alex,
There is no binding law of the universe that says what the West stands for is good and what the West's enemies stand for is bad. That's not to say I don't agree about it being terrible that over 1/6 of the world population lives under totalitarian dictatorships - it's just to say that it is extremely difficult to justify being the world's policeman on a moral basis. (As much as I would like to.)

There is a binding moral law in the universe, although it does not relate to "everything the West stands for." If one wants to take the position that there is no binding law in the universe (never mind what the West stands for), then one is placed in the curious position of not being able to be critical of any form of evil, be it from Islamic fundamentalists or US and European agricultural tariffs. One must be cautious in declaring something worthy of condemnation on a moral basis, but most of the moral calls we need to make in today's world are pretty clear cut. They are calls that we all too often fail to make, usually because of greed, fear, or simple ignorance.

Thanatoast
Jan 17, 2003, 04:18 AM
OMFG!

@^%$)^##@*&#$%&)*&%##$#*&**%##@^&((*@*&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, now that I’ve got most of THAT out my system, let’s see if I can respond rationally to your arguments, AA.

- Our behavior toward Iraq
I believe the behavior he is referring to are our plans to bomb a soveriegn nation (and UN member) back to the stone age, while ignoring the opinions of ~190 other nations. 2 to 190 seems a little Quixotic doesn’t it? And the fact that we haven’t yet found any EVIDENCE of WMD might have something to do with that.

> By your putting the word terrorism in quotes, are you suggesting that...
I thought that after two reminders you woulda learned to attack the argument, not the arguer.

>If this is the effects of a US-friendly puppet government, then maybe there should be more of them.
If you will recall, both Saddam and the Taliban were at one time US puppet governments.

> To say we do nothing for Africa and AIDS is again a lie.
You’re right. We spend ten billion a year on foriegn aid. But we’re ready to spend 100 billion on Saddam. (BTW, that is enough money to fund inspectors for 1250 years!)

- Pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty
>Why you might ask? Because many people here believe that it is bogus science.
Wrong. Because corporations who don’t wanna have to watch their emissions produce campaign funds for senators.

- Pulling out of the ABM Treaty
>It's utility has ended
Wrong again. This one is just common sense. IMHO anything that prevents nuclear proliferation is a good idea. In fact, this is Bush’s argument against Saddam and NK. But apparently what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander.

> Building a NMD will improve US and allies security, not deteriorate the situation.
China has an issue with it , because they want to be able to retain the right to blow up California.
Ditto North Korea.
BS. It MIGHT be useful if it WORKED. As it is, we’re simply inviting countries to shoot missles at us before we can get it to work, and putting our allies at risk by building the necessary early warning stations in their territories. (The key to attacking is to take out these stations so we can’s see where the missles are coming from)

> Nobody forces people to consume American culture.
The ONLY valid point in your post.

>The UN deserves disrepect.
Goddamnit! It is this kind of ignorant, stupid, morally supieror bullcrap that gets us into more trouble than anything else. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the UN could get more accomplished if we weren’t continually degrading, ignoring, complaining about it? How do you expect any nation to listen to UN mandates, when the US clearly doesn’t? Why should they? And the US sits on the Security Council, which means it’s vote DOES count for more than any of those nations you mentioned. And despite the UN trying to solve problems in a democratic nature, whenever things don’t go our way, we just shove them aside! What kind of leadership attitude is that? Do as I say, not as I do? Did you enjoy hearing that when YOU were a kid? What makes you think any other nation does?

> The arrogance and anger comes from your Anti-American club.
I disagree. You may say you stand for America, but you obviously don’t stand for American values. And that IS a personal attack.

>The rights to freedom are given by God, and enshrined in the Constitution.
Enshrined in the constitution? What is this, America as religion? There’s a great idea...NOT.

>Democracies without Constitutional boundaries, as I indicted above, are tyranies of the majority.
As opposed to the US on the world stage, which is a tyranny of the one.

>those basket-case nations.
Attitudes like yours are making me beleive THIS is a basket case nation. Everyone’s out for themselves, screw everyone else. We can do what we want, never mind the international community. God is on our side. Sound like any other nations you can think of?

So there. I’ve had my say. It was vitriolic and nasty but needed to be said. I hope I didn’t offend (too much) any innocent bystanders.

John

alex_ant
Jan 17, 2003, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by allah akbar
I wanted to simply show the complete hypocrisy of the America bashers on this board: how they relish in the accusations, innuendos, and arrogance of Bush and America bashing and call it humor, but when the shoe is on the other foot (in fact the retort was far far less disrepectful) that they no longer see the humor in it. The flash humor on the web page in no way attempted to mute their criticism of Bush and the administration.
What would you do if we were talking about President Nader, allah akbar? You'd criticize him to no end. Would you deserve to be called anti-American for it? No. Criticism and open discussion is a vital part of any democracy (or republic). To say "liberals hate America" is asinine. Once again, they love America, which is why they care enough to change it for the better, and why they don't move to Canada in disgust.

I read the article Les Kern presented and I thought it was too sensationalized. It made some good points, but I don't like the way it was written - too inflammatory.

To you, anyone who disagrees with the American government hates America. Because the far-right is already in office, they have little to complain about, so the left-wing are the only ones you see complaining. As I said before, if a liberal were put in the White House, conservatives would freak, and left-wingers would be as justified as you are in calling conservatives America-haters. (Which is to say, not justified at all.)
And now for some facts, responding to the laundry list of reasons why the world hates the US:
You completely and utterly missed the point. You asked for reasons the world's attitude toward the U.S. is souring. It doesn't matter if you disagree with them - they are valid no matter what your attitude. They are select reasons the world attitude toward the U.S. is souring. That's what you asked for and that's what I gave you.
The United States is an amazing experiment in freedom. The rights to freedom are given by God,
So in other words, they're given by Allah, since Allah is a direct Islamic translation? Hmm, what other nations do we know whose rights are given by Allah... I can think of a few.
and enshrined in the Constitution. This is why Congress can not pass a law allowing a foreign entity to pass laws applicable to US citizens. This is not a Conservative or Liberal thing...it is plain and simple Constitution.
The world as a whole isn't ready to govern itself yet, but the time will have to come, and when it does, the Constitution will have to change to make way for the next level of civilization.
The founding fathers undestood very well that abdicating these rights to a foreign power (what you describe as higher power) would lead to the end of the experiment in Freedom.
This is nonsense. Counties abdicate their rights to states, and states abdicate their rights to a federal power. There is no reason the federal government could not subordinate itself to a world government. As I said, neither the U.S. nor the world are ready for this step yet - but, in the long term, it's inevitable.
Democracies without Constitutional boundaries, as I indicted above, are tyranies of the majority. Where the US vote would have as much weight as the vote of Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Cuba ...etc.
Nobody said the US vote would have as much weight as anything. As the US will have to change for this to happen, so will the UN.

allah akbar
Jan 17, 2003, 11:50 AM
Angry Angry Leftist.
Whatever America does makes you Angry.

Quote:
I believe the behavior he is referring to are our plans to bomb a soveriegn nation (and UN member) back to the stone age, while ignoring the opinions of ~190 other nations.
> The sovereign nation in agreeing to a cease fire 11 years ago, also agreed to terms. Which they have ignored.
If you're asking me how I'm going to believe...Bush and Blair, or Saddam Hussein, with regards to whether or not they have WMD, I guess I would have to say Bush and Blair. It goes to show where your allegiances are...with a horrible dictator. no surprise for an American hating lefty like yourself.

As for proving Evidence of WMD, the UN resolution called for Iraq disarming, not for inspectors finding the weapons. Experts are conclusive on this point, if Iraq doesn't want there weapons to be found, that it is quite possible they can keep hiding them for years. Thanks for being so complicit with this global threat.

As for whether or not there is a breach, when the UN team exited Iraq in 1998 they had documented significant WMD. Sadam Hussein was to have documented how they were destroyed, which he did not in his recent submission to the UN. Meaning, again, he is in breach.

Quote:
I thought that after two reminders you woulda learned to attack the argument, not the arguer.
>> Of course I'm attacking you. Any freedom loving sensible person would attack a terrorist-sympathizer...or should I say "terrorist-sympathizer"? Do you think it helps your cause siding with people who blow up innocent civilians? Then celebrate it by dancing in the streets? What are you?


Quote:
If you will recall, both Saddam and the Taliban were at one time US puppet governments.
>> And so? What's your point?


Quote:
You’re right. We spend ten billion a year on foriegn aid. But we’re ready to spend 100 billion on Saddam. (BTW, that is enough money to fund inspectors for 1250 years!)
>> Yes. We will spend the 100B, because nobody else will. If we don't enforce UN resolutions who will? Surely as a UN supporter you would want to see their resolutions enforced.


Quotes:
- Pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty
Wrong. Because corporations who don’t wanna have to watch their emissions produce campaign funds for senators
> Wrong. Because greedy impoverished nations who are run by dictators or the other socialist states whose mind-numbing socialistic burocracies leave their citizens hungering for a better life, and their greedy leftist leaders who need need a scapegoat, and a sugardaddy to keep funding their decadent and innefetive social systems.
Sorry lefty, bad science is bad science.


Quote: Re ABM
>It's utility has ended
Wrong again. This one is just common sense. IMHO anything that prevents nuclear proliferation is a good idea. In fact, this is Bush’s argument against Saddam and NK. But apparently what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander.
> No. Again leftist propoganda. During the ABM treaty, ballistic missiles in the US and USSR more than doubled. The number of countries with ballistic missiles skyrockted to something like 27 (I'll get you the list if you'd like).
The ABM treaty served one specific purpose betwen the US and USSR. But evidence of the massive proliferation of ballistic missiles proves my point: it is useless for dealing with todays proliferation problems


Quote
BS. It MIGHT be useful if it WORKED. As it is, we’re simply inviting countries to shoot missles at us before we can get it to work, and putting our allies at risk by building the necessary early warning stations in their territories. (The key to attacking is to take out these stations so we can’s see where the missles are coming from)
>> Yawn. The issue now is engineering, not research. With the advance of the program, the incremental successes in the subsystems, in the initial proof of the integrated architecture...each step brings it closer.
So...we're actually kinda close on this issue. You think it might be useful if it worked, it's just that you listen to angry leftist scientists...who don't really practice science. It's coming. It will work.


Quote:>The UN deserves disrepect.
Goddamnit! It is this kind of ignorant, stupid, morally supieror bullcrap that gets us into more trouble than anything else.
> Well actually I find your sanctimonious ranting to be ignorant, stupid, morally supieror bullcrap.

Further, I can't get excited about an institution that clearly works in the disinterest of the US. It is dominated by liberal-leftist ideology that espouses very unpallatable concepts, and calls you names if you don't sign up to treaties based on bogus science and refuted political ideologies.

Quote:
I disagree. You may say you stand for America, but you obviously don’t stand for American values. And that IS a personal attack.
> And you think that your pro-terrosist, anti-American bashing IS an American value?


Quote:
Enshrined in the constitution? What is this, America as religion? There’s a great idea...NOT.
- You got me on this one. I meant to say in the declaration of independance

Quote:
As opposed to the US on the world stage, which is a tyranny of the one.
- Again, I don't see your example of American tyranny on the world stage. Where are we a tyranny.
If you don't want our military to help support your citizens, just ask us to leave.
If you don't want us to bail Europeans out of their Balkan ethnic-cleansing mess because they have no military power to speak of, then don't ask.
If you don't want us to save the Taiwanese or South Koreans from sure invasion, we don't have to help out.
If the Afghanis want to go back to tribal warfare, we can leave.
You leftists are as disengenuous as you are hateful.
Name the tyrannies.

Quote:
Attitudes like yours are making me beleive THIS is a basket case nation. Everyone’s out for themselves, screw everyone else. We can do what we want, never mind the international community. God is on our side. Sound like any other nations you can think of?
> Sorry to have to break it to you, but there are lots of basket case nations. We are definitely not out to screw everyone else. We have strong relationships with many in the international community. But you make it sound like if we don't kowtow to every demand, nobody how stupid it may be, that we are attempting to screw the world.

Bottom line: we are a free nation. We will collaborate with countries on many issues. We will disagree on other others. And when we disagree on those issues, we will consider their point of view, but will act in our countries best interest.
As all countries do.
It's actually kind of simple, and not mean-spirited at all.

Quote:
God is on our side. Sound like any other nations you can think of?
> I'm assuming that means you are equating Christianity with the fundamentalist wahabi-strain of Islam which promotes violence.
Sorry to have to break this news to you, but Christianity has always been a big part of the history of the US. I never said God is on our side, but I did say that the concepts behind the founding of the nation, indicated very specifically that our rights come from God.
I am sorry you feel that Christianity in the US, is equivalent to terrorist-promoting countries.
Care to elaborate on how you see that link?



You should take a pill to calm down the hatred.

AA

3rdpath
Jan 17, 2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by allah akbar
Angry Angry Leftist.


timesaver...

you just can't help it can you?

macfan
Jan 17, 2003, 01:14 PM
> To say we do nothing for Africa and AIDS is again a lie.
You’re right. We spend ten billion a year on foriegn aid. But we’re ready to spend 100 billion on Saddam. (BTW, that is enough money to fund inspectors for 1250 years!)

First I would note that the interest is not in having inspectors, it is in disarming Saddam.

More to the point, international giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year.
Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually.
American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
$1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students.
Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000.

These do not include foreign aid paid directly out of the US government funds, which, as you noted, is about 10 billion a year. It is quite popular to bash the United States for not "giving enough" to the developing world, but that is not the problem. The problems are these: the way in which the aid is provided is ineffective, the governments in many developing countries are unable or unwilling or unable to create, support, and promote the kind of economic system that will raise their people out of poverty. People don't need aid, they need freedom. The need the security of a government that is democratic and guided by the rule of law, and they need an international trade system that will allow them to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world.

US-based NGOs, religious organizations, foundations, and businesses collectively give more money to developing counties than any single government, including Japan, the US, France, Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands. The total is as much as the that given by the governments of Sweeden, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Spain, Australia, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, Finland, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Luxembourg, and New Zealand combined. This does not even include the 18 billion dollars in personal monies sent from the United States to the developing world each year. People come here, work, and send money back home. The United States is not doing everything well with regard to foreign aid, but to say we are doing nothing is an insult to every American who has given their own money to provide medical care, feed, clothe, house, educate, and otherwise support the developing world.

Thanatoast
Jan 17, 2003, 02:52 PM
Yes, I AM an angry leftist. And why shouldn't I be? Bush's behavior abroad affects perceptions of Americans worldwide, and I for one don't like to be thought of as a war-mongering redneck.

Point by point:

Yes Iraq agreed to certain concessions when they surrendered. Does this mean invasion is the only option for finding his alleged weapons?

I don't hate America, I disagree with it's leader on foriegn policy issues. Loudly.

Seems to me that it's difficult to keep a nuclear weapons lab productive when it's constantly being moved. I can't speak with any authority on the subject, but if Iraqi scientists are packing up their equipment every other week then there's not gonna be enough time to actually develop a bomb.

Any sensible person would see that invading Iraq has a much greater chance of destabilizing the region, giving more fuel to fire up terrorists (which you're purportedly against) and will cost much more in money and human lives than other alternatives (inspectors).

AND I can't believe you fell for the old Iraq=Terrorism line. Man, Bush has got some good PR people on his side. That was a great bit of spin.

My point in mentioning that Saddam and the Taliban were once US puppet governments was obvious. Here, I'll post it for you again, in your own words: "If this is the effects of a US-friendly puppet government, then maybe there should be more of them." Apparently we didn't like the effects of the last puppet governments we installed. Maybe we should stop installing them. Would you listen to the edicts of a puppet government installed in the US by France?

Of course I want to see UN resolutions enforced. But shooting first isn't always the answer. In fact, IMO it should always be the last resort. What's that quote? "Violence is the refuge of the weak mind?" Meaning we should be able to figure out a way to stop Saddam w/o resorting to all out war.

" > Wrong. Because greedy impoverished nations who are run by dictators or the other socialist states whose mind-numbing socialistic burocracies leave their citizens hungering for a better life, and their greedy leftist leaders who need need a scapegoat, and a sugardaddy to keep funding their decadent and innefetive social systems.
Sorry lefty, bad science is bad science."
What? Where's the bad science in this argument? And why do you equate socialism with the corrupt leadership of nations that are obviously not socialist, but tyrannical or oligarchic?

ABM treaty: There's a great message to send to the world. "This treaty limiting development of ABM's is inconveinient. We're pulling out. But just b/c we're pulling out doesn't mean any one else should develop nuclear arms or delivery systems of their own."

Missile defense: Good job ignoring my points. Here they are again: 1) It doesn't work YET, and encourages attack until it does. 2) It creates danger for our allies. And here's a new one just for grins, 3) It's not as close as you think.

Whether you find my ranting to be sactimonious bullcrap or not, you haven't adequately refuted any of it.

"Further, I can't get excited about an institution that clearly works in the disinterest of the US." So working in the interests of the planet as a whole is tantamount to working against the interests of the US? Wow, to think that the US might have to compromise on a few economic and political issues in the name of human decency is a little too much for you to handle, isn't it. Gotta love that "me first" attitude.

So now anti-war is pro-terrorist? Questioning the motives and methods of our leaders is anti-American? I GOTTA get the numbers for Bush's PR guys.

Doesn't matter if you're quoting the DOI or the Constitution. When you quote it like scripture from on high, it still sounds scary.

In every one of the cases you've mentioned, US military was foisted upon the situation, not asked for. The US demanded the UN intervene in the Balkans. SK was defended in the name of the domino theory, not for the sake of the South Koreans. Same for Taiwan. And I haven't heard any news about what a great job we're doing in Afghanistan either. Might that be b/c as soon as we were done bombing we declined to provide any money to rebuild?

Name the tyrannies:
1) Plan Columbia. In the name of the drug war. But only the Columbians get the short end of the stick. A repressive gov't and a nasty, unending civil war.
2) The embargo on Cuba. In the name of defeating communism. What would Cuba be like w/o such an embargo? Undoubtedly better off.
3) Threatened sanctions against Canada, possibly our closest allies. And over what? Legalization of pot, in their own country! How weak.
4) Economic sanctions against India and Pakistan, for having the comeuppance to develop nuclear weapons of their own.

To name a few.

No, I'm equating the general "me first" attitude of the US with the same attitudes in some of the countries you believe are basket cases. An out of control gov't, a disdain for the international community, and the tossing aside of guaranteed liberties (have you read some of the stuff Ashcroft is promoting?)

So there. The same post, w/o the hatred. I await your response.

(edited for various typos)

alex_ant
Jan 17, 2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by allah akbar
The sovereign nation in agreeing to a cease fire 11 years ago, also agreed to terms. Which they have ignored.
If you're asking me how I'm going to believe...Bush and Blair, or Saddam Hussein, with regards to whether or not they have WMD, I guess I would have to say Bush and Blair. It goes to show where your allegiances are...with a horrible dictator. no surprise for an American hating lefty like yourself.


The problem is that you have an allegiance, period. It's better to have none. Too often people do the wrong thing because doing the right thing goes against their "allegiance."


[quote][b]As for proving Evidence of WMD, the UN resolution called for Iraq disarming, not for inspectors finding the weapons. Experts are conclusive on this point, if Iraq doesn't want there weapons to be found, that it is quite possible they can keep hiding them for years. Thanks for being so complicit with this global threat.
In order to disarm, one has to have arms in the first place. We haven't even proven that Iraq does. "Pah, of course Iraq has arms!" you might say. OK, let's assume that it's very likely that they do. Probability != guilt. Iraq says it has no WMD. We say they do. The burden of proof is on us, like it or not. We haven't yet reached it, and until we do, we are not justified in attacking Iraq on this basis, as much as we might like to.
As for whether or not there is a breach, when the UN team exited Iraq in 1998 they had documented significant WMD. Sadam Hussein was to have documented how they were destroyed, which he did not in his recent submission to the UN. Meaning, again, he is in breach.
Let's assume you're right. A breach != a call for war
Of course I'm attacking you. Any freedom loving sensible person would attack a terrorist-sympathizer...or should I say "terrorist-sympathizer"? Do you think it helps your cause siding with people who blow up innocent civilians? Then celebrate it by dancing in the streets? What are you?
It's disgusting that you can call anyone here a terrorist sympathizer. I guarantee you that everyone who has posted in this thread so far hates terrorism just as much as you do. Where the "terrorist sympathizers" (which they aren't) differ from you is in their more cautious, less hawkish attitude toward any kind of response or preemptive activity with regards to terrorism. They believe that their position is more likely to net what's best for the U.S. in the long run.

If you will recall, both Saddam and the Taliban were at one time US puppet governments.
>> And so? What's your point?
The point is that U.S. foreign policy is retarded. There are too many instances of us doing whatever is in our own self interest at the moment and getting hurt in the long run.

(other "points" deleted because they are irrelevant to this thread)
Again, I don't see your example of American tyranny on the world stage. Where are we a tyranny.
Dude. Open your eyes. I just gave you a very brief list. And for the third time, it doesn't matter if you are blind and can't see a thing. The point is that hundreds of millions or even billions of other people do see it and are angry at us about it.
If you don't want our military to help support your citizens, just ask us to leave.
Yes... our military is great at supporting other countries' citizens. And when other countries' citizens ask us to leave, we always do. ????????

> Sorry to have to break it to you, but there are lots of basket case nations. We are definitely not out to screw everyone else.
No, you've already said that you are out to do what is in your own best interest, ignoring what others would like you to do. It's other countries' faults for being offended and feeling "screwed" by this, right?
We have strong relationships with many in the international community.
And most of our international relationships are eroding fast thanks to this right-wing me-first, screw-you approach to foreign policy.
But you make it sound like if we don't kowtow to every demand, nobody how stupid it may be, that we are attempting to screw the world.
Nobody is saying we must kowtow to every demand. They're saying we should act responsibly and prudently on the world stage.
Bottom line: we are a free nation. We will collaborate with countries on many issues. We will disagree on other others. And when we disagree on those issues, we will consider their point of view, but will act in our countries best interest.
As all countries do.
It's actually kind of simple, and not mean-spirited at all.
Right. So I'm walking down the street with you, and you have a heart attack. But I'm late for work. Am I going to do what's in my own best interest? No!!! I'm going to say **** work and I'm going to call an ambulance and get you to the hospital. You're welcome.

God is on our side. Sound like any other nations you can think of?
> I'm assuming that means you are equating Christianity with the fundamentalist wahabi-strain of Islam which promotes violence.
No, it has nothing to do with violence. It has to do with what people think is a divine right to behave the way they wish to behave.
I am sorry you feel that Christianity in the US, is equivalent to terrorist-promoting countries.
Care to elaborate on how you see that link?
I don't feel this. Thanks for summing up what I didn't say.
You should take a pill to calm down the hatred.
I'd just like to point out that while others have insulted you in this thread, I haven't. And you've called me clueless, an America-hater and a terrorist sympathizer. (And accused me of being full of hatred.) So, um, whatever.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 17, 2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Phil of Mac,
Indeed, this must be how we came up with one of the most free, wealthiest, and strongest nation in the history of human civilization. Imagine what we could have done with a policy that wasn't arrogant and stupid.

If you had a more balanced take on the effects of US foreign policy in the world, one might be tempted to take your points seriously, but as they are scattered, overly simplistic, and one sided, it seems that this would not be a wise course of action.


Of course we have the strongest nation. We have The Power To Crush All The Other Kids™. And again, we do have the freest and wealthiest nation, and that's because compared to the rest of the world, our domestic polices are great! Compared to the ideal, however, they suck.

I was talking about the effects of US foreign policy regarding the Middle East on the US. Israel's mere existence is a positive result of our foreign policy, but September 11 is a negative result. I want Israel to survive, but not at the cost of millions of dead Americans. It's just wrong to sacrifice America for the sake of Israel, especially when Israel does not live up to the same ideals that we support them for.

Can anyone here name anything that the US has done well in terms of foreign policy since the Cold War? September 11 is a direct result of our foreign policy actions in the Middle East. And if we aren't careful, we'll cause another September 11 by responding to the first. Or do the politicians want this so they can stay in power?

macfan
Jan 18, 2003, 01:34 AM
Of course we have the strongest nation. We have The Power To Crush All The Other Kids™. And again, we do have the freest and wealthiest nation, and that's because compared to the rest of the world, our domestic polices are great! Compared to the ideal, however, they suck.

So, it seems that the US the freest and wealthiest nation, but our domestic policies suck; it's just that they are better than everyone else's. Given that, wouldn't the best place to focus be on encouraging some of the other countries to adopt some of our policies so that they could be wealthy and free as well? Convincing people that freedom, democracy, and the rule of law are good ideas is not really too difficult. Convincing governments is a much different proposition, however.

Again, it is far too simplistic to attribute the attacks of September 11 to US policy towards Israel.

And if we aren't careful, we'll cause another September 11 by responding to the first. Or do the politicians want this so they can stay in power?

Conspiracy Theroy is a feature film, not a documentary. You are attributing motives that are very far fetched and unsupported by evidence and rational thought.

alex_ant,
The burden is actually on Iraq to cooperate with the weapons inspectors and to reveal the disposition of their weapons programs, both active an inactive. The burden is not on the inspectors to "catch" them with weapons. Were they to be cooperative, they would be revealing things like the recently discovered chemical weapon shells. They would be requiring scientists to leave Iraq and travel to another country to debrief the weapons inspectors on their work. They are not doing that. You can bury your head in the sand if you want, but that's not going to change these facts. Nothing would make me happier than to see Iraq cooperate and remove the need to disarm Saddam by military force or other means. (OK, a new 17 inch powerbook might be close).

Phil Of Mac
Jan 18, 2003, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by macfan

So, it seems that the US the freest and wealthiest nation, but our domestic policies suck; it's just that they are better than everyone else's. Given that, wouldn't the best place to focus be on encouraging some of the other countries to adopt some of our policies so that they could be wealthy and free as well? Convincing people that freedom, democracy, and the rule of law are good ideas is not really too difficult. Convincing governments is a much different proposition, however.

Again, it is far too simplistic to attribute the attacks of September 11 to US policy towards Israel.

Conspiracy Theroy is a feature film, not a documentary. You are attributing motives that are very far fetched and unsupported by evidence and rational thought.


We can convince other countries, but not with heavy-handed, "we are better than you" foreign policy. The way we convince other countries is by staying relatively neutral, improving our domestic policies, letting them succeed, and letting them watch our policies succeed. It's called "leading by example".

US policy toward Israel is not the entire cause of September 11. American military occupation of Muslim countries is another cause. US obsession with Middle Eastern oil is another. If we invested as much in researching fuel cells or even Alberta oil sands as we are investing in researching how best to shellack Middle Eastern despots, we wouldn't have 3000 deaths and the destruction of one of the greatest accomplishments of construction ever erected.

So far, there are two possibilities as to why we have such a self-destructive foreign policy. Either our leaders want the power, or they're incredibly stupid. Both qualities are common among politicians, and both remain very possible.

allah akbar
Jan 18, 2003, 02:20 AM
3rpath:
the ironic thing...is nobody is actually listening to you.

macfan:
I believe we need to add one additional number to the international giving tally.
And that number is $100B.
Because if we, as seems to be the inevitable case, expend $100B on military action, and free the people of Iraq from a dictator who has gassed tens of thousands of his own people, and kills and tortures other persona-non-grata, I could not imagine how we could not consider this expenditure humanitarian.
If other countries are unwilling to shed blood and money to ensure the freedom of other people around the world, it should not mean that we do not consider the expenditure as humanitarian.
So lets add $100B to the total.


Thanatoast:
Unfortunately, many a politician in the EU simply use the "war-mongering redneck" as fodder to boost their election results. Equating Bush to hitler may boost your pol results, but it does not make the statements accurate.
Are you prepared to make wrong decisions merely because a German or French politician is racist, and their media affords few opportunities for their populace to hear alternative points of view?

I feel sorry for you that you are so insecure that you care what a German politician has to say during a campaign cycle.

quote:
will cost much more in money and human lives than other alternatives (inspectors).
>Unfortunately, the inspection route has been tried for 11 years and has failed.
Even under the threat of military action, and with specific requests to present their WMD, Iraq continues to lie.
Given that the experts are clear that if Iraq wants to hide their WMD, we will most likely not find them, then I don't think its prudent that we continue to believe inthis inspection sham.

quote:
Of course I want to see UN resolutions enforced. But shooting first isn't always the answer.
>It isn't the first answer. We've spent 11 years attempting to make other options work, and they haven't.
Unfortunately War IS sometimes the right answer.
Had we stopped Hitler when he first started attacking Europe, millions of lives would have been saved.
If we wait for another 11 years of lies and obfuscation, Sadam will use his WMD with devastating effects, and many lives lost.
Your suggestion that we never resort to war puts all of our lives in great danger.

quote:
ABM treaty: There's a great message to send to the world. "This treaty limiting development of ABM's is inconveinient
> you're confusing many issues. And in so doing setting up the US to be vulnerable. Which is in many ways the goal of the left.

the ABM treaty was a treaty signed between the USSR and the US. Exclusively. Nobody else. And was meant to deal with the specific US-USSR ABM risk.
We're not pulling out because it's inconvenient.
We're pulling out because
- it is no longer needed. the USSR is no longer a threat.
- it is ineffective. its ability to stop proliferation of ballistic missiles elsewhere is clearly and observably non-existent, as is evidence of the massive proliferation of missiles
- it is harmful to our defense. as provisions of the treaty stop us from developing systems which might otherwise protect us from incoming missiles.


quote:
Missile defense: Good job ignoring my points. Here they are again: 1) It doesn't work YET, and encourages attack until it does. 2) It creates danger for our allies. And here's a new one just for grins, 3) It's not as close as you think.
> re 1) you're right it doesn't work yet, and won't until 2004.
1.b) why does it encourage attacks? it is purely a defensive system?
2) It does not create danger for our allies. In fact it will offer options to protect our allies. Hence Russias recently expressed desire to paricipate.
3) I've been following this one in detail for about 4 years now...you're wrong. It will be up and running in 2004.

quote:
So now anti-war is pro-terrorist?
> Not exactly. But you have to wonder why HAMAS, and PLO, and Iraqi flags all fly at anti-war rallies in the US, particularly when all of those mentioned have been involved or supported terrorist activities against US citizens.

you leftists keep ugly bedfellows.

quote
" So working in the interests of the planet as a whole is tantamount to working against the interests of the US? .. in the name of human decency
> If it was about human decency that would be one thing.
But it isn't
Kyoto is a farce and based on garbage science.
Reparations is a racist ideology.
The ICC is fundamentally flawed, and unconstitutional
The US has too much moral decency to pass around Jew-charactures at the so called UN human-rights conventions, and follow the anti-semitic world in incorrectly brand them an appartheid state
I could go on. If it is a mere economic put and take , that's one thing.
But the fundamental ideology wafting through the UN air is Anti-american, it's philosophy primarily left-socialist, it's aim is to blame America for the world's ills, and through the guilt attempt to suck undeserved $$ from the US for aims which we don't believe in.

If the left wants to brand that "me first" so be it, I'm proud that we don't follow the stupid masses. But fundamentally, the notions coming out of the UN are mostly garbage.

Instead of focusing on our ills. Why not force China to exit Tibet, or remove its 500 missiles which are pointed at Taiwan and growing by 100 missiles per year? Why not fix the Kashmir problem? Why not get proactive with North Korea?

The answer is, because the UN wants to simply focus on areas where they can hammer the US.

quote:
Doesn't matter if you're quoting the DOI or the Constitution. When you quote it like scripture from on high, it still sounds scary.
> God isn't scary.
And I'm sorry for you if you don't understand the profound meaning of the constitution. The constitution is supposed to be profound.
It is the essence and primary moving force, and defining document, of this great nation, and is the reason behind why this nation is the most free, and tolerant, and progressive nation on the planet.
It's a pity our schools don't educate people onthe importance of these documents.
But that's of course, because our public schools are all run by the liberal-elites, who hate America as well.

quote:
And I haven't heard any news about what a great job we're doing in Afghanistan either
> Are you oblivious to the overwhelmingly liberal bias in the media?

I'm curious about the Ashcroft stuff. Enlighten me

and too late for me to edit for typos ;-)


to Alex_Ant- the leftist Terrorist-appologist:

quote
In order to disarm, one has to have arms in the first place. We haven't even proven that Iraq does
also
quote:
The burden of proof is on us, like it or not
> If you kept current, you would know the most recent UN resolution states the exact opposite. The burden of proof is on Iraq.

1998 UN inspectors documented the WMD which Iraq possessed. As part of the current process Iraq needed to direct the inspectors to the WMD known from the 1998 report (as well as others0, or indicate explicitly how they were destroyed.
Iraq has done neither ... and this constitutes an explicit material breach.
also you are revealing much about yourself if you are suggesting that you will trust the dictator Saddam, over the words of Bush and Blair.
Thank you very much, but I won't side with today's Hitler.
I know a leftist like you, however, has no qualms in doing so.


quote:
Let's assume you're right. A breach != a call for war
> After 11 years of obfuscation, a definitive plan to acquire WMD, an active participation in conflicts outside its borders, and very clear and present dangers to proliferate its weapons to such leftist organizations as Hamas and Al-Qaeda, I for one am not interested in watching us sit idly by as Sadam arms our enemies with weapons to kill millions of Americans
thanks for suggesting we put ourselves at greater risk.

quote:
It's disgusting that you can call anyone here a terrorist sympathizer.
> You brought it on yourself. You purposefully put terrorists in quote when you used the reference, to indicate not so subtly your lack of concurrence with the term.
Again, if you don't think that blowing up innocent women and children is terrorism, and is instead "terrorism"...what other conclusion would peacefull people conclude.

Frankly your point of view on this is disgusting. Because though I really like the leftist point of view, not all leftists are terrorists. so this is shocking.


quote:
The point is that hundreds of millions or even billions of other people do see it and are angry at us about it.
> hundreds of millions....no...billions of people live in oppressive regimes where the only news of the world that they receive is government produced and distributed. And they will never hear a spec of truth from the other side.
Hundreds of millions of people are being told that Osama did not commit the attrocities on 9-11
Hundreds of millions of people will never hear about the humanitarian aid which the US was giving to Afghanistan before or after attacking the Taliban.
Hundreds of millions are told that jews steal the blood of christians to make pastries.
A billion people in China will never hear the other side of the Tibet or taiwan issue.
These people will be hateful and angry because of the propoganda they are fed.
Are you suggesting we should bow down to these propoganda generated horrific beliefs?

As a leftist, I'm sure if we submitted to Communist China propoganda, nothing would make you happier



quote:
No, it has nothing to do with violence. It has to do with what people think is a divine right to behave the way they wish to behave.
> I didn't say that.
I simply said that the DOI states explicitly that the rights emanate from God.
Again, your tone is very anti-Christian. You need to be more tolerant.

AA

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 18, 2003, 07:18 AM
You know, I still believe that to invade Iraq would be a mistake. And to BOMB Iraq, and harass it's people, would be a mistake. In fact, to take it upon a nation's shoulders to police the world and force other countries to conform to their way of thinking is a mistake. All it will do is to generate more ill-feelings toward the US from the Arab nations, just like in the flash animation.

Here's something I said in another post a while back:

You have to make an attempt to communicate, and to not use "Stormtrooper" tactics - otherwise NO-ONE will listen. Jimmy Carter did so much for the stability to the region - through diplomacy. Bill Clinton wanted to be remembered as a fair and just President by use of the negotiating table. Unfortunately, there was too much animosity between the warring factions he was trying to unite in peace to make any headway in the time he had left (Israel/Palestine - a nightmare situation, and a mammoth task in any case). At any rate, during Mr. Clinton's tenure, many of his policies couldn't be implemented - as they were blocked by a Republican-run Senate. It was ironic that many of those policies would have given the American people a better life. But Newt Gingrich and his fellow party members voted against these policies to belittle the Democrats, and to convince the nation that the Republcans would be a better choice.

However, with every term of office, there are always mistakes made, and interpretations not understood. But these errors in judgement make us who we are, and we learn from them. The fact that we're all still here shows that the volitility of the situation can still be diffused - it's never too late to listen.

And whilst we're on the topic of leadership - how is it that when you look at things from the outside looking in, they become so clear? The use of "spin-doctoring" tactics to bamboozle and confuse voters happens in all countries - it's what polititians are good at. Billy Connolly, the Scottish comedian, once said - "...The actual desire to be a politician should ban you for life from ever being one... ...Don't vote - it encourages them!".

The world looks to America not for inspiration, but to see where Bush decides to put his foot - forward, in hopeful anticipation of a peaceful outcome, or in his mouth. It is, therefore, ultimately up to George "Dubya" to learn from historical events, and not to live up to the legacy his father left. War is not a viable solution. It is a short-term offering that will result in the alienation of the peoples of the United States by millions of people around the world.

I can't help but compare this series of events to a computer game:

Level 1: Afghanistan (complete)
Level 2: Iraq (Game Saved - In Progress...)
Level 3: North Korea (?)

The idea of a World Government is a really inspiring one. The current United Nations is far too weak in it's own state - no power to wield, and no muscle to exercise. It's very easily lead, and simply controlled, by a powerful government (i.e. the US). I suppose a much better way to diffuse the current situation would be to use an intermediary - a neutral party - that both sides would listen to: someone like Switzerland, or Russia, or even China (? - hey, I'm out on a limb, here!).

Let's face it - if you were bullied by someone at school, finally got fed up with the bullying and took matters into your own hands (like take up Kung-Fu or something) to protect yourself, would you then turn around and deal with them directly? No - not only would you never trust their decisions (after all, they attacked you before, then why not in the future?), but you would be bullied yet again, by having their terms dictated to you. However, you would feel differently if a neutral mediator were to make a decision - after taking each side's argument into consideration, they would draw a conclusion that would be fair and satisfactory to all parties.

Now, isn't THAT one definition of working democracy? I, for one, would like the message of an understanding, just and fair society to be portrayed to the world, in the hope of a better life for us all in the future.

P.S: By the way - I don't know why I put down 480 million for the US population - I intended to put down 240 million - the figure I got from the CIA World Factbook (but I'm just crap!!!).

:)

Thanatoast
Jan 18, 2003, 07:23 AM
Ya know AA, it's actually gotten to the point where I can't decide whether you really believe what you say, or whether you're just tweaking our noses for a reaction. On the the off chance that you're just misguided I will respond again.

On adding $100B to the total: That's a novel excuse for war, humanitarianism. We had to kill 'em. It was for their own good. :)

Where precisely did German politicians come into the discussion? I was able to see on my own that Bush is a war-monger.

How is it that inspections have failed? Eleven years and no nuclear, chemical or biological missles have been lobbed at us from Iraq. Sounds like a success.

I did not say we should never resort to war, but that it should be a last resort. I still see options.

BTW, Saddam could never dream of war or propaganda on Hitler's level.

ABM Treaty: If the treaty is not inconvienient, then why are we pulling out?

Missile defense:
1) Unless some vast advance in technology has been made in the last several hours that has somehow slipped by the media, I don't believe you are correct. Sure, the military got one missile to hit another, once. And there was only one target over a specified area. What happens when there is more than one missile? And when we don't know where they're coming from? It is not physically possible to outfit the entire nation with a missile defense in one year. It requires new tracking stations, new missiles, unprecedented allied cooperation, and a whole boatload of cash.
1b) It encourages attackers to launch their missiles NOW, before we are ready (if we ever will be).
2) I thought this was a North American shield, not a global one. Well, up the cost by a factor of ten. And add the militaries of at least a dozen more nations. Forget one year, heck, forget two. I give it five, bare minimum.
3) Perhaps a small portion protecting the Northwest coast of Alaska will be up and running (I seem to remember hearing about that) but not the whole system.

Flags at protest rallies:
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot, and in America we're still allowed to express our opinion on which is which. Stop. Don't even think it, I do not support terrorist activities. I simply reserve the right (for myself and others) to express our opinions as we see them.

The UN:
1) You still haven't said WHY Kyoto is garbage science. Everyone outside the US seems to think the science is okay. Everyone else signed the treaty. Japan, Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, Australia, and I'll throw in Antarctica too, since that is where the hole in the ozone layer is studied.
2) Sorry, the idea of reparations is home grown, the UN had nothing to do with it.
3) How is the ICC fundamentally flawed, and show me where in the Constitution that it says we can't join it by treaty. Unlike most people, I got tired of others quoting the Constitution, so one day I downloaded it and read it. I don't recall any such passage, but if you can find one I will conceed the point.
4) The UN is not anti-American, it is pro-global. The US is more often than not of the opinion that we should get what we want, and hang the rest of the planet. This does put us at odds with the UN. But who is the bigger fool here, the UN for thinking towards the good of all, or the US for thinking of only itself.

You're right, God isn't scary. People who use His name to promote violence and a particular way of life to the exclusion of all others are. Doesn't matter whether you're Islam or Christian. Your God is not necessarily mine, and I shouldn't be forced to live by yours. Even if yours has the "better" ideals, in your opinion.

Overwhelmingly liberal bias in the media? Are we watching the same news? Doesn't Fox News already have a program titled Target:Iraq? Every time I hear war mentioned it's always the "inevitable" war in Iraq, no matter what channel I'm on. Is this what you call liberal? Here's a link for you: Blah3.com (http://www.blah3.com/index.shtml)

Ashcroft:
First they take away our rights:
Homeland Security (http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/hr_5005_enr.pdf)
Then they take away our privacy:
Total Information Awareness (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,56620,00.html)

And to steal from your reply to alex:
It is a given in this nation that we are innocent until proven guilty. Shouldn't we give others the same courtesy? It only makes us more hypocritical when we toss aside our ideals in the name of expediency.

On propaganda:
What makes you think the gov't hasn't used propaganda on you? The only difference is that our propaganda supports our side, and their propaganda supports their side.

alex_ant
Jan 18, 2003, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by allah akbar
to Alex_Ant- the leftist Terrorist-appologist:
Why not go one step further and just call me a terrorist? You know you want to.
If you kept current, you would know the most recent UN resolution states the exact opposite. The burden of proof is on Iraq.
You're right. And how screwed up is that. Honestly. You're a prosecutor up against suspected criminal. Now, is the burden of proof on the criminal? Or is the burden of proof on you? It's on you. This is the very foundation of our legal system. Yes I'm aware that Iraq is not a participant in our legal system, but it seems awfully hypocritical to hold them to guilty-until-proven-innocent rules while we berate China and North Korea for doing the same thing with their prisoners. You do realize, I hope, that there is no chance for Iraq to comply with any resolution of this sort. They're screwed. If they've got WMD, they get invaded. If they don't have any WMD, they get accused of hiding them and get invaded. If we want to invade Iraq we should do it for an actual valid, provable, significant reason.
1998 UN inspectors documented the WMD which Iraq possessed. As part of the current process Iraq needed to direct the inspectors to the WMD known from the 1998 report (as well as others0, or indicate explicitly how they were destroyed.
Iraq has done neither ... and this constitutes an explicit material breach.
Of course they haven't done either yet. This is why the inspections are still going on. The AP (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_IRAQ?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME) is much less alarmed about this than you are, and if it comes down to a question of who to trust - you or the AP - I'm going to choose the AP.
also you are revealing much about yourself if you are suggesting that you will trust the dictator Saddam, over the words of Bush and Blair.
Thank you very much, but I won't side with today's Hitler.
I know a leftist like you, however, has no qualms in doing so.
When did I say that? Never. Thanks again for twisting what I say. I said allegiances were bad and that everyone should be critical and reasonable in evaluating what is said by each of these leaders.

After 11 years of obfuscation, a definitive plan to acquire WMD, an active participation in conflicts outside its borders, and very clear and present dangers to proliferate its weapons to such leftist organizations as Hamas and Al-Qaeda
It would be ok if they were rightist, though, right?
, I for one am not interested in watching us sit idly by as Sadam arms our enemies with weapons to kill millions of Americans
thanks for suggesting we put ourselves at greater risk.
You think millions Americans would die if we didn't invade. I think it's much more likely this would happen if we did. Yeah... the Arabs really love us now. Let's stir them up even more. Let's piss them off so they send a rash of suicide bombers to blow up a few hospitals and daycare centers on our own soil. So that they start beheading American tourists and sending us more anthrax-laced mail. Are you so shortsighted that you can't see the likely repurcussions of an Iraq invasion?
You brought it on yourself. You purposefully put terrorists in quote when you used the reference, to indicate not so subtly your lack of concurrence with the term.
And lack of concurrence with the term OBVIOUSLY means I LOVE "terrorists," right? After all, under Pres. Bush's John Wayne "you're either with us or you're against us" foreign policy, it would be impossible for it to be any other way.
Again, if you don't think that blowing up innocent women and children is terrorism, and is instead "terrorism"...what other conclusion would peacefull people conclude.
Maybe I would use the U.S. term "collateral damage." (sarcasm)
Frankly your point of view on this is disgusting. Because though I really like the leftist point of view, not all leftists are terrorists. so this is shocking.
Yup, it's true. Not only am I a terrorist sympathizer, I'm a terrorist myself!
quote:
The point is that hundreds of millions or even billions of other people do see it and are angry at us about it.
> hundreds of millions....no...billions of people live in oppressive regimes where the only news of the world that they receive is government produced and distributed. And they will never hear a spec of truth from the other side.
Hundreds of millions of people are being told that Osama did not commit the attrocities on 9-11
These are not the people who are pissed off. The ones who are pissed off are living in perfectly civilized countries like France, Belgium, Spain, Australia, Japan... you name the first-world country - it's pissed off at us. And getting more fed up by the day.
As a leftist, I'm sure if we submitted to Communist China propoganda, nothing would make you happier
1) China is totalitarian capitalist, not communist
2) I would hate to live there, as it's not democratic either.
No, it has nothing to do with violence. It has to do with what people think is a divine right to behave the way they wish to behave.
> I didn't say that.
I simply said that the DOI states explicitly that the rights emanate from God.
So in other words... You said that.

alex_ant
Jan 18, 2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by macfan
alex_ant,
The burden is actually on Iraq to cooperate with the weapons inspectors and to reveal the disposition of their weapons programs, both active an inactive. The burden is not on the inspectors to "catch" them with weapons. Were they to be cooperative, they would be revealing things like the recently discovered chemical weapon shells. They would be requiring scientists to leave Iraq and travel to another country to debrief the weapons inspectors on their work. They are not doing that. You can bury your head in the sand if you want, but that's not going to change these facts. Nothing would make me happier than to see Iraq cooperate and remove the need to disarm Saddam by military force or other means. (OK, a new 17 inch powerbook might be close).
From what I've just now read, you're right... but also from what I've read, the diplomatic process hasn't been abandoned and there is still hope for a peaceful outcome.

Right now it seems like there are many who say things like "Iraq didn't dot the lower-case J on page 8,384 in Chapter 425, paragraph 63, subparagraph 6 of their weapons report! The UN resolution called for all lower-case Js to be dotted. They're in breach!" Which is of course an exaggeration, but you get my drift.

I wish the resolution to this problem were as easy as sending in a few paratroopers to kidnap Hussein like in Air Force One. But the lack of a real obvious violation of UN orders... combined with the likelihood of thousands of people being killed in any war... combined with Bush's obvious alterior motives... combined with the probable outcome of this war... is what makes me wary of it. I'm glad there are people like you who argue from the opposite side with civility, though, unlike *cough* some other people on this board.

macfan
Jan 18, 2003, 01:33 PM
combined with Bush's obvious alterior motives...

Why attribute ulterior motives when the facts on the ground indicate that Bush is doing a good job in Iraq in what is an extremely difficult situation? Saddam needs to be disarmed. Use of force is the administration's last option, but history has shown us that with Saddam, it needs to be an option. He doesn't cooperate without the threat of force. The only reason the inspectors are in Iraq today is that the United States and the UN, particularly the Bush administration and US Congress have made it clear that Saddam will no longer be allowed to violate a large number of UN Security Council resolutions. US leadership led to the most recent Security Council resolution. Might we be successful with the inspectors? That is the ideal solution, but that may be only wishful thinking given the nature of Saddam. Saudi Arabia is said to be floating a plan to remove Saddam via a coup. This would also be a better resolution than a conventional military attack, but Saddam is a tough to get at.

kiwi,
I do not think that you understand the American politics because you are looking at it from the outside. You are looking at US politics like we have a parlimentary system. We don't. In our system, the president has significant constitutional responsibility in foreign policy. President Clinton's policy on Iraq was not particularly differnt from that of President Bush's policy. This is not a case of the evil Republicans with their evil policies seeking after war while the peaceful Democrats and their wonderful policies seeking after peace.

You have to make an attempt to communicate, and to not use "Stormtrooper" tactics - otherwise NO-ONE will listen.

First, the US does not use "Stormtrooper tactics" in most situations. Second, the facts tend to indicate that Saddam does not listen except when "Stormtrooper tactics" are used. Third, the "Stormtrooper tactics" (threat of force) have caused the UN to get serious about Iraq, inspectors are back in Iraq, and Arab leaders are plotting ways to remove Saddam either by coup or by exile. People are listening.

War is not a viable solution. It is a short-term offering that will result in the alienation of the peoples of the United States by millions of people around the world.

War is not a viable solution? Nice bumper sticker slogan, but not really a rational statement. History has shown us that war is sometimes a viable solution, and sometimes is the best solution among a series of bad solutions. Our strongest ally is a country against whom we fought two wars. Another of our strongest allies is a country against whom we fought the worst war in history. We even fought a Civil War over slavery, but are one nation today. Thus, history shows us that war does not always lead to alienation. Saddam is a destabilizing influence in the Middle East. He is among those helping to maintain the atmosphere of terror in Israel which makes a negotiated settlement virtually impossible. Removing him would be a step in the right direction to peace in the region.

alex,
Iraq simply isn't cooperating according to Blix. It isn't a matter of technicalities, misunderstanding, or unreasonableness on the part of inspectors. The better analogy is not that Iraq is on trial with an inappropriate burden of proof, but that they must cooperate in the discovery phase of the trial.

phil,

We can convince other countries, but not with heavy-handed, "we are better than you" foreign policy. The way we convince other countries is by staying relatively neutral, improving our domestic policies, letting them succeed, and letting them watch our policies succeed. It's called "leading by example".

While I do think the US needs to be as considerate and nuanced as possible in it's foreign policy, your idea sounds a lot like isolationism rather than an active foreign policy. If there is one thing that is certain, it is that for the US to remove itself from the international arena is a very bad idea for the US and for the world. Different situations require different tactics. Saddam is not one who is going to be changed by the example of a thriving, prosperous democracy. Our foreign policy errors are just as often the result of inaction as they are the result of heavy handedness. Do you know what the current US foreign poicy doctrine is called? (Hint: It was called "containment" from 1947 to the end of the Cold War, but there is now a new concept and terminology.)

Thanatoast,

1) You still haven't said WHY Kyoto is garbage science. Everyone outside the US seems to think the science is okay.

As I understand it, whether Kyoto is garbage science or not isn't particularly relevant given that China and India would not be required to reduce their emissions. It is a bad treaty first in that it would not accomplish what it sets out to do without regard for whether the science is good or not. Second, the science on human activity causing global waming is, in fact, uncertain. Consider that the earth has gone through many periods of warming and cooling in the past without any assistance from us. In the early 1970s, the same scientists were assuring us that the great danger was from a coming ice age, not from global warming. What happened? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing pollution, but the idea that we should do it because of global warming is an uncertain one at best. One might also note that the United States environment is getting cleaner, not more polluted.

allah,
Maybe if you discuss things in a more temperate tone, you will get such a tone in return.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 18, 2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik
You know, I still believe that to invade Iraq would be a mistake. And to BOMB Iraq, and harass it's people, would be a mistake. In fact, to take it upon a nation's shoulders to police the world and force other countries to conform to their way of thinking is a mistake.

The idea of a World Government is a really inspiring one. The current United Nations is far too weak in it's own state - no power to wield, and no muscle to exercise. It's very easily lead, and simply controlled, by a powerful government (i.e. the US). I suppose a much better way to diffuse the current situation would be to use an intermediary - a neutral party - that both sides would listen to: someone like Switzerland, or Russia, or even China (? - hey, I'm out on a limb, here!).

Let's face it - if you were bullied by someone at school, finally got fed up with the bullying and took matters into your own hands (like take up Kung-Fu or something) to protect yourself, would you then turn around and deal with them directly? No - not only would you never trust their decisions (after all, they attacked you before, then why not in the future?), but you would be bullied yet again, by having their terms dictated to you. However, you would feel differently if a neutral mediator were to make a decision - after taking each side's argument into consideration, they would draw a conclusion that would be fair and satisfactory to all parties.

Now, isn't THAT one definition of working democracy? I, for one, would like the message of an understanding, just and fair society to be portrayed to the world, in the hope of a better life for us all in the future.



We don't plan to invade Iraq to "force them to conform to our way of thinking", we plan to invade them to keep them from building a nuclear bomb and giving it to Al-Qaeda for another shot at New York.

If I was bullied by someone at school and beat them down, I wouldn't *have* to deal with them any longer. I could just leave them alone, and they would leave me alone, if they were smart. And China as a neutral mediator! This is a country that uses political prisoners for slave labor and commits mass murder!

The idea of a World Government is a terrible one. First, what system of law does the world government use? English common law? Napoleonic law? I sure as hell would NOT go along with being assumed guilty until proven innocent, as is common in many countries. I would certainly NOT relinquish my right against double jeopardy and my right of self-defense, which are both recognized only in the United States. A World Government would be worse than American dominance, because it would be even more powerful. A World Government would be constantly at civil war, and American, German, and British men would be sent to suppress a Palestinian intifada or an African squabble. And the tax burden caused by a world government would result in crushing poverty and economic collapse.

As for the person who referred to China as "totalitarian capitalist", welcome to the Oxymoron Of The Month Club. Communism is when the government controls business, and fascism is where business controls the government. In China, the government controls the business, but "businessmen" have the opportunity to reciprocate and gain some control over government. China is a mix between communism and fascism, which are really the same thing, because in both cases, there's one group of people who controls both the government and the economy.

Capitalism, on the other hand, requires the two to be seperate. The government can't interfere in the economy--which means that businessmen can't take over the government and use it to their own economic advantage, because at that point, they're using government to interfere in the economy.

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 18, 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by macfan
kiwi,
I do not think that you understand the American politics because you are looking at it from the outside. You are looking at US politics like we have a parlimentary system. We don't. In our system, the president has significant constitutional responsibility in foreign policy. President Clinton's policy on Iraq was not particularly differnt from that of President Bush's policy. This is not a case of the evil Republicans with their evil policies seeking after war while the peaceful Democrats and their wonderful policies seeking after peace.

I don't really profess to know much about the way US politics works. In fact, I find it pretty un-democratic in some ways.

Let's see: the candidate with the most nationwide votes in the last Presidential election (Al Gore) lost, because some States have more power than others, and therefore more voting clout. ("...my brother Jeb said it was a done deal..."). Whatever happened to the "First-Past-The-Post" system - where the candidate with the highest number of votes should be declared the winner? That would surely silence all the critics - it shouldn't be a State-by-State affair, but more like a nationwide voter's decision. Then, no-one will be able to complain about the final outcome - after all, it would be a fairer decision, made by all Americans.

Nice bumper sticker slogan, but not really a rational statement. History has shown us that war is sometimes a viable solution, and sometimes is the best solution among a series of bad solutions.

Well. Macfan - if you truly believe that war is the answer, then I really feel for you. You obviously have no idea about the true horrors of war - I, for one, have experienced them first-hand, and am in a position to comment. When you see the death, carnage and destruction around you, you can't help but feel the despair caused by these events, and the horrible effects inflicted on the innocent civilians.

When you see children killed, horribly disfigured, or orphaned, you realise war is a hideous beast that must be averted. Those pictures will forever be imbedded in my consciousness for the rest of my days - and I pray that no-one else gets to experience the sheer terror that those people had to deal with.

The most dangerous thing of all is the Media - it's amazing how seperated you are from the atrocities when you have a volume control and an on/off switch. If you don't like it, turn it off, and it'll go away. For you, maybe. For the poor bastards on the receiving end, it never stops. Spare a thought for them whilst you're sitting in your cosy living room and you reach for your remote...

Phil Of Mac
Jan 18, 2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik


I don't really profess to know much about the way US politics works. In fact, I find it pretty un-democratic in some ways.

Let's see: the candidate with the most nationwide votes in the last Presidential election (Al Gore) lost, because some States have more power than others, and therefore more voting clout. ("...my brother Jeb said it was a done deal..."). Whatever happened to the "First-Past-The-Post" system - where the candidate with the highest number of votes should be declared the winner? That would surely silence all the critics - it shouldn't be a State-by-State affair, but more like a nationwide voter's decision. Then, no-one will be able to complain about the final outcome - after all, it would be a fairer decision, made by all Americans.



The United States, essentially, is not a single nation like New Zealand, but rather an assembly of smaller states. The President is elected not by the people, but by the states. Think of it like the European Union.

I don't tell you how New Zealand's government should be, please refrain from telling me how the US government should be. I don't have to live under your government, and you don't have to live under mine.

And I'd like the peaceniks to tell me how we could have stopped Hitler without a war.

macfan
Jan 18, 2003, 03:06 PM
kiwi,
Do not think that that I am anxious for a war. As it said, it is that last option, it is always a bad option, but sometimes it is the only option in a series of bad options. Were you to have been making the decisions instead of FDR, New Zealand might well be a Japanese labor camp today.

If you realy think that war is never the answer, then I feel for you. Indeed, how might one have dealt with Hitler without a war?

Regarding the US electoral system. It is an elegant design that balances the rights of large and small states. It is set up so that candidates cannot simply appeal to large states with promises that will act to the detriment of smaller states. The election it requires a majority of electoral votes, and that is what the candidates were competing for. (Thus, Bush didn't try to pump up his vote totals in Texas, nor Gore in New York because those were "safe" states). The electoral votes are determined in proportion the population of the states, with certain minimun representation. The system works quite well. If a candidate wins more popular votes, but loses anyway in a close election every 100 years or so, that is something we can live with. Some state elections require a majority for their own senate elections (50 percent plus one), while others do not. One might argue that to win with a plurality, as is done in many parlimentary systems, is undemocratic compared to this, but I do think that would be a little obnoxious. The US doesn't force countries to adopt the mechanics of our electoral system, and you should understand it and its history a little better before criticizing it.

allah akbar
Jan 18, 2003, 04:40 PM
Thanatoast

I believe 100% in what I'm posting.
The selection of my words, however, is definitely intended to tweak your noses.

Subject: Leftist lies and support of dictators
quote:
On adding $100B to the total: That's a novel excuse for war, humanitarianism. We had to kill 'em. It was for their own good.
> We are not going in to kill Iraqi civilians. We are going to trounce their leadership, and their military, and free their people. It is sad that their leadership military choses to enslave their people, and I will not lose much sleep when they are gone, and their people are free. I am sorry you are think it is inhumane to get rid of dictators. I don't. Particularly when we will have a relatively large contingent of countries backing us.

Subject: Leftist obfuscation and aspiration for American deaths
quote:
How is it that inspections have failed? Eleven years and no nuclear, chemical or biological missles have been lobbed at us from Iraq. Sounds like a success.
> They have failed because it has allowed Iraq to advance their WMD program. You seem to suggest we should only take action after a failure, a failure which you describe as a WMD being lobbed at us. I am not prepared to wait for millions of Americans to die before we take action. That may be acceptable for leftists, but not for me, nor for your congressional representatives on the vast majority. We have seen explicit evidence that they have continued to pursue their WMD program with the express intent of using them (directly or indirectly) against us. They have continued their association with terrorist groups who have trained in their country, and who would be very eager recipients of the fruits of their WMD activities. Thank you lefty for wanting to see more Americans die. Not me.


Subject:Leftist desire to destroy our ability to defend America
quote: ABM Treaty: If the treaty is not inconvienient, then why are we pulling out?
> The ABM treaty threatens America, because it does not allow us to build the systems we require for our defense. It is a threat, AND it does not in any way help reduce missile proliferation because only the USSR and the US were signatories, not the countries who are currently threatening us.


Subject:Leftist desire to destroy our ability to defend America
Missile Defense
quote
1) Unless some vast advance in technology has been made in the last several hours that has somehow slipped by the media, I don't believe you are correct. Sure, the military got one missile to hit another, once. And there was only one target over a specified area. What happens when there is more than one missile? And when we don't know where they're coming from? > The program is advancing and meeting its intermediary target. It was not supposed to, at this point in time, provide a completely integrated end-to-end implementation. It is hitting its technological milestones, with a projected on-date of 2004. The fact that it hasn't yet been completely and fully worked doesn't mean anything, as it was never intended to do so by this date. The fact that it is hitting its milestones is good evidence that it will by 2004
What about all the technological issues? multiple missiles? decoys? The fact of the matter is, that today, we can not defend ourselves against ANY missiles. We are completely vulnerable. With missile defense in 2004, we may be 60% safe. With improvements, we may be at 80% by 2008. or maybe 2006.
I don't know about you, but I'll take the 50% survivability odds. over the 0% odds anydays. Because it means that if only half the incoming missiles make it through, the system will save 100 of thousands of lives.
As for participation of allies: Russia has already indicated they want to sign on, Japan and Israel will sign on, the UK is about to sign on, and guaranteed we will have select other sites as well. We already have critical mass.

1)
quote:
It is not physically possible to outfit the entire nation with a missile defense in one year. It requires new tracking stations, new missiles, unprecedented allied cooperation, and a whole boatload of cash.
> No it most likely isn't. But we will be able to defend those areas which are at the highest probability of risk.
As for boatloads of cash...are you suggesting we shouldn't spend boatloads of cash to save lives?

1b) It encourages attackers to launch their missiles NOW, before we are ready (if we ever will be).
>Actually, no. Because countries like North Korea are close, but still about 24 to 36 months from being able to accurately and consistently hitting the mainland. Today there missiles simply don't reach. China's arsenal is aging and unreliable. Middle Eastern countries are a bit further out than North Korea, and would be much further away if it wasn't for North Korea's booming business in proliferation

2) I thought this was a North American shield, not a global one. Well, up the cost by a factor of ten. And add the militaries of at least a dozen more nations. Forget one year, heck, forget two. I give it five, bare minimum.
>The initial concept has always been as a tool for Global missile reduction. From the initial speeches by Reagan (I will pull up the quotes and dates) to Bush II (ditto on the quotes), the intent has been to put in place a global defence for all nations who wish to be free from the threat of missiles. Then once in place, the bullying to get rid of Ballistic Missiles would intensify.

3) Perhaps a small portion protecting the Northwest coast of Alaska will be up and running (I seem to remember hearing about that) but not the whole system.
> You're not too far off here. The Alaska system would be able to defend the west coast. Launchers would be required in Florida and or New York state to defend the east coast ... but what do you know...in the most recent appropriations bill I believe they have already asked for money to include defensive systems for the east coast as well.


Subject: Leftist support of Terrorism
quote:
Flags at protest rallies:
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot, and in America we're still allowed to express our opinion on which is which. Stop. Don't even think it, I do not support terrorist activities. I simply reserve the right (for myself and others) to express our opinions as we see them.
> you are very confused and evil at the same time.
confused because I do not in any way suggest that the government should impeded your right to free speech.
evil, because we must as individuals denounce those who support terrorism.
Would you be as eager to call a KKK march as being partiotic? I wouldn't
Would you be eager to call a Nazi gathering as being patriotic? I wouldn't
Then why are you so eager to not denounce terrorists?
If we do not denounce these actions as individuals, and demand a more tollerant and peaceful existence, then we give the terrorists the moral room to operate.
Leftists have shown consistent ability to denounce racism, class issues, ecology issues....why do you stay so silent when it come to terrorism.
It looks really bad on you.

Subejct: Overwhelming liberal media bias
Overwhelmingly liberal bias in the media? Are we watching the same news? Doesn't Fox News already have a program titled Target:Iraq? Every time I hear war mentioned it's always the "inevitable" war in Iraq, no matter what channel I'm on. Is this what you call liberal? Here's a link for you: Blah3.com
> I agree that Fox has a conservative media bias.
However, they are the only network or cable station that has that bias.
The rest, are staunchly liberal, which means that only 3.25% of all national viewers are seeing conservative biased news.
I don't know about you, but I consider a 96.75% liberal representation on TV as being an overwhelming bias.

Subject: Leftist Bogus accusations about rights violations
Would you mind specifically itemizing the areas where you believe there are violations, as opposed to making accusations and then not being specific.

Subject: Leftist hypocrisy
quote
And to steal from your reply to alex:
It is a given in this nation that we are innocent until proven guilty. Shouldn't we give others the same courtesy? It only makes us more hypocritical when we toss aside our ideals in the name of expediency.
> Given the leftist ideology to always defer to foreign powers for our foreing policy, shouldn't you be very happy with the current approach that Iraq must proactively PROVE its compliance, given that the policy was agreed to unanimously by the UN security council? Shouldn't this make you automatically agree to its rightness due to its unanimous vote? I don't understand your reluctance.

Subject: Propoaganda of the left
quote
On propaganda:
What makes you think the gov't hasn't used propaganda on you? The only difference is that our propaganda supports our side, and their propaganda supports their side.
> no doubt there is propoganda here. But there is an overwhelming counter message which is spun on ABCCBSNBSPBS, in 95% of the university classes, 90% of the newspapers in this country, and an incredibly diverse set of points of view on the web.
The dictatorships have no opposing points of view. None. They allow only the state run TV's and typically monitor and ban most if not all of the internet. You can't possible be equating our situation to theirs

AA

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happines

Phil Of Mac
Jan 18, 2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by macfan

phil,

While I do think the US needs to be as considerate and nuanced as possible in it's foreign policy, your idea sounds a lot like isolationism rather than an active foreign policy. If there is one thing that is certain, it is that for the US to remove itself from the international arena is a very bad idea for the US and for the world. Different situations require different tactics. Saddam is not one who is going to be changed by the example of a thriving, prosperous democracy. Our foreign policy errors are just as often the result of inaction as they are the result of heavy handedness. Do you know what the current US foreign poicy doctrine is called? (Hint: It was called "containment" from 1947 to the end of the Cold War, but there is now a new concept and terminology.)



I would venture that whatever they call our current foreign policy doctrine, "stupidity" would be a far more accurate name.

An "active foreign policy" is the LAST thing we need. Whether we try to or not, our foreign policy comes from a position of overwhelming power and control. What I am advocating is not isolationism, but rather neutrality. Isolationism involves trade barriers and other such things. Our foreign policy should be to encourage other countries to trade freely with the United States, because free trade causes a degree of economic interdependence, which is the surest guarantee of peace.

If we weren't involved in the rest of the world, they'd have to fend for themselves. Israel would have to find a system of government that can actually survive without US foreign aid. Russia would have to do the same, although they're already moving in that direction out of pride. Europe and Japan would have to be able to defend themselves, as would Taiwan and South Korea. The simple fact is that America is a crutch for part of the world and a club for the other part. Part of the world depends on us, the other part is periodically smashed by us, and both parts resent us.

Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and Jiang Zemin are despots with blood on their hands. Smashing them would be good for their people, but their people would only resent us, as the Afghans are starting to resent us for our arrogant and heavy-handed treatment of them and our appointment of a puppet government. Not to mention the fact that we blew up part of that puppet government when they specifically warned us NOT to. Are the Afghans better off because we smashed the Taliban? Yes. Will they resent us? They already do. Will they commit more terrorist attacks? If we keep this up.

Peace, commerce, and good will to all nations, entangling alliances with none. With no Soviet Union to use as an excuse, that is the wisest foreign policy we could have.

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 18, 2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The United States, essentially, is not a single nation like New Zealand, but rather an assembly of smaller states. The President is elected not by the people, but by the states. Think of it like the European Union.

The EU is nothing more than a group of foreign countries who have nothing more in common than an interest in trade, a few stars on a flag, and generally the same currency (apart from a few members). If you're trying to equate the United States to the EU, then your country is more divided than I thought...

I don't tell you how New Zealand's government should be, please refrain from telling me how the US government should be. I don't have to live under your government, and you don't have to live under mine.

Well, Phil - whether you like it or not, unfortunately - for the time being - we do have to live under your system of government, considering George "Dubya" pretty much calls all the shots because he's got the biggest guns in the Corral, and because Kofi Annan and his minions are too spineless to say "enough is enough", and that there are certain protocols that must be maintained in the diplomatic community for peace and order to reign supreme.

Anyway - I now live in the UK (y'know - where that little lap-dog Blair sits yapping away in unison with your chappie), and left NZ in 1992. However, my understanding now is that they are using Proportional Representation - where a majority in the house rules the country (a very dangerous situation, as governments can theoretically change overnight if coalitions break, and MP's cross the floor to the Opposition party). I personally like the First-Past-The-Post system, because it's fair - who you vote for is what you get, with no strings attached.

And I'd like the peaceniks to tell me how we could have stopped Hitler without a war.

I'd like to think that there's one thing we've done since WWII - learn from our mistakes. Ultimately, though, it seems we tend to make the same ones over and over again. After WWII, the world's governments vowed that a person like Hitler would never emerge to threaten the world again. Thus, the League of Nations was created - a rag-tag congregation of countries who met in a paultry effort to maintain order in chaos. From this, the United Nations was born - continuing in this tradition.

It usually takes a war to realise how dreadful one really is. After WWII, many world leaders had experienced battle in one form or another in their lives, which helped them remember how horrible wars were - and that would be enough to steer them away from confrontation. Some of the most volitile times in our lives (and before) were during the Cold War, where our precious Earth was on the brink of annhialation on more than one occasion. It was only the fact that cool heads prevailed - heads that knew what was at stake.

George "Dubya" hasn't faced a war - Daddy got him out of the draft for Vietnam. Perhaps if he had gone, maybe he'd place more value on human life, and then he wouldn't be so quick to become Judge, Jury & Executioner.

macfan
Jan 18, 2003, 07:14 PM
kiwi,
Phil's analogy is imperfect, but the general principle applies. We have proportional representation in the House of Representatives, two Senators per state, and an executive elected by an electoral college whose electors are selected by the voters. States may allocate their electoral votes in any way they choose, but most have a winner takes all set up.

Also, you do not live under our system of government, despite your protestations to the contrary. If you would like to discuss a comparative analysis of the benefits of a parliamentary system vs. a bicamrel legislature with an independent judiciary and executive branch, feel free. However, your concern about stability in a parliamentary system is something that we do not have to deal with in our system.

After WWII, the world's governments vowed that a person like Hitler would never emerge to threaten the world again. Thus, the League of Nations was created - a rag-tag congregation of countries who met in a paultry effort to maintain order in chaos. From this, the United Nations was born - continuing in this tradition.

Poppycock. The League of Nations was not formed because of Hitler after WWII. It was formed after WWI, and was supposed to prevent another European war. However, when Hitler came along, and Mussolini, it lacked the will to act. You talk about learning from our mistakes, but you don't have any answer to the very basic question of how we were going to get rid of Hitler without fighting him.

War is hell, but peace is more than the lack of military action.

alex_ant
Jan 18, 2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by allah akbar
We are not going in to kill Iraqi civilians. We are going to trounce their leadership, and their military, and free their people. It is sad that their leadership military choses to enslave their people, and I will not lose much sleep when they are gone, and their people are free. I am sorry you are think it is inhumane to get rid of dictators. I don't. Particularly when we will have a relatively large contingent of countries backing us.
"We are not going in to kill Iraqi civilians." What you mean is "we are not going in with the intent to kill Iraqi civilians. Many Iraqi civilians will die in this war. There are plenty of Iraqis who hate their leader, but there are even more who will fight for him and form human shields to protect him.
Subject: Leftist obfuscation and aspiration for American deaths
"Leftist aspiration for American deaths." Welcome to my ignore list.

alex_ant
Jan 18, 2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The idea of a World Government is a terrible one. First, what system of law does the world government use? English common law? Napoleonic law? I sure as hell would NOT go along with being assumed guilty until proven innocent, as is common in many countries. I would certainly NOT relinquish my right against double jeopardy and my right of self-defense, which are both recognized only in the United States. A World Government would be worse than American dominance, because it would be even more powerful. A World Government would be constantly at civil war, and American, German, and British men would be sent to suppress a Palestinian intifada or an African squabble. And the tax burden caused by a world government would result in crushing poverty and economic collapse.
As I said, the time hasn't arrived for a world government yet. This is something that will start to take full effect in the next 50-150 years, if all goes well. Nobody has any idea what its legal system will look like, how much power it will have, how it will tax its citizens (if it does), how it will deal with regional conflicts, etc. But it has to happen to ensure world stability. (My opinion)
As for the person who referred to China as "totalitarian capitalist", welcome to the Oxymoron Of The Month Club. Communism is when the government controls business, and fascism is where business controls the government. In China, the government controls the business, but "businessmen" have the opportunity to reciprocate and gain some control over government. China is a mix between communism and fascism, which are really the same thing, because in both cases, there's one group of people who controls both the government and the economy.

Capitalism, on the other hand, requires the two to be seperate. The government can't interfere in the economy--which means that businessmen can't take over the government and use it to their own economic advantage, because at that point, they're using government to interfere in the economy.
China used to be communist but has grown more and more relaxed over its markets, and no longer can be said to really reflect Marxist-Leninist economic principles. (Capitalist) Its grip over its citizens has loosened since Mao but is still strong. (Totalitarian) Obviously it's not clear-cut. No country is pure capitalist or pure anything, and China is no exception.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 18, 2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by macfan
kiwi,
Phil's analogy is imperfect, but the general principle applies. We have proportional representation in the House of Representatives, two Senators per state, and an executive elected by an electoral college whose electors are selected by the voters. States may allocate their electoral votes in any way they choose, but most have a winner takes all set up.


Historically, the EU is where the US was during the Articles of Confederation era. When the EU forms their super-state in a few years, my analogy will be better.

Originally posted by alex_ant

As I said, the time hasn't arrived for a world government yet. This is something that will start to take full effect in the next 50-150 years, if all goes well. Nobody has any idea what its legal system will look like, how much power it will have, how it will tax its citizens (if it does), how it will deal with regional conflicts, etc. But it has to happen to ensure world stability. (My opinion)

China used to be communist but has grown more and more relaxed over its markets, and no longer can be said to really reflect Marxist-Leninist economic principles. (Capitalist) Its grip over its citizens has loosened since Mao but is still strong. (Totalitarian) Obviously it's not clear-cut. No country is pure capitalist or pure anything, and China is no exception. [/B]

The only thing that has to happen to ensure world stability is the LIMITATION of the power of governments, not the founding of yet more governments. A number of limited governments, governing over various regions, and freely trading with one another, will create more peace than any bureaucracy that could ever be created.

China never was Marxist/Leninist. However, the government *still* has almost-complete control of the economy. It is not capitalist by any means. (Fascist Italy wasn't Marxist either, but it wasn't capitalist, it was fascist.) Plus, the concepts of totalitarianism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Totalitarianism is total government control over society, capitalism is a system under which the economy is free to prosper without government interference. If the government does not control the economy, it is not totalitarian. If the government DOES control the economy, it is not capitalist.

alex_ant
Jan 18, 2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Why attribute ulterior motives when the facts on the ground indicate that Bush is doing a good job in Iraq in what is an extremely difficult situation? Saddam needs to be disarmed. Use of force is the administration's last option, but history has shown us that with Saddam, it needs to be an option. He doesn't cooperate without the threat of force. The only reason the inspectors are in Iraq today is that the United States and the UN, particularly the Bush administration and US Congress have made it clear that Saddam will no longer be allowed to violate a large number of UN Security Council resolutions. US leadership led to the most recent Security Council resolution. Might we be successful with the inspectors? That is the ideal solution, but that may be only wishful thinking given the nature of Saddam. Saudi Arabia is said to be floating a plan to remove Saddam via a coup. This would also be a better resolution than a conventional military attack, but Saddam is a tough to get at.
One thing is for sure: We're going to war. I know I'm arguing against something that's destined to happen. We will have a clearer idea of the proper course of action at the end of this month, but no matter what the findings of the inspectors are, we're going to war. This whole situation has given me lots of respect (and disgust) for Bush's team of political strategists. First the administration wanted to go to war with or without the support of the UN, without weapons inspections. Now they seem so cautious, eager to see the inspections through. Bush said something to Iraq to the extent of "your time is running out" when he had also supposedly said there was no timetable for action. I don't trust him to be incredibly smart, but his advisors are incredibly keen and I know there must be lots of late-night military (& political) strategery sessions being spent at the White House right about now.

I remain hopeful that Bush will change his mind and accept the challenge of the cage-match duel. It would be quicker and far fewer people would die. I don't understand why Cheney isn't all for it. And I'm serious.

macfan
Jan 18, 2003, 08:18 PM
kiwi,
Your contention that Bush is going to war because he hasn't seen war is not a compelling one. Indeed, a number of leaders who have led their countries into war have seen war. Churchill comes to mind, and does George H. W. Bush. Harry Truman, a veteran of WWI, send US forces to Korea. In addition, the forceful military action being considered comes on the heels of more than a decade of trying something less.

Phil,
Your foreign policy plan sounds like it come right out of the libertarian platform. If we were starting from nothing, like a SIM game, it might be the best course of action. However, I don't think we are in a position where that can be done.

Alex

"We are not going in to kill Iraqi civilians." What you mean is "we are not going in with the intent to kill Iraqi civilians. Many Iraqi civilians will die in this war. There are plenty of Iraqis who hate their leader, but there are even more who will fight for him and form human shields to protect him.

I suppose you took a poll of the Iraqi people on their willingness to defend Saddam. Last time around, they were not real anxious to defend him. In fact, if we hadn't botched it, Saddam wouldn't be there today, courtesy of the Iraqi people.

Sometime, you are going to realize that Bush is not the idiot you would like him to be.
1. Saddam is a serious problem, and has been for more than a decade.
2. Inspectors were kicked out back in 1998, as Iraq refused to cooperate. Clinton sougt to solve the problem with cruise missiles.
3. Bush has generated support in Congress, has guided a new, tougher and unanimous UN resolution.

Because of Bush's leadership, we have moved from a situation were Saddam was unchecked to one where the inspectors are back in Iraq and where failure to cooperate may lead to Saddam's removal by any varietly of means. Whether there is war depends on whether Saddam cooperates or not.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 18, 2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Phil,
Your foreign policy plan sounds like it come right out of the libertarian platform. If we were starting from nothing, like a SIM game, it might be the best course of action. However, I don't think we are in a position where that can be done.


Well, yes, we have a number of obligations we have stupidly gotten ourselves into. And we'll have to wrangle our way out of these obligations. And it won't be easy. But neutrality really is the way to go. The difficulty of getting out of a self-destructive policy is not a good reason to stay in that policy.

macfan
Jan 18, 2003, 08:35 PM
Phil,
Neutrality toward what? Iraq and Kuwait? North and South Korea? Western Europe and the Soviet Union? Germany and the UK? We had a policy of neutrality for a time leading up to WWII, but look where a policy of neutrality got us in that case.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 18, 2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Phil,
Neutrality toward what? Iraq and Kuwait? North and South Korea? Western Europe and the Soviet Union? Germany and the UK? We had a policy of neutrality for a time leading up to WWII, but look where a policy of neutrality got us in that case.

Our "neutrality" consisted of sending aid to China and the UK and fighting the Nazis and Japanese by proxy. If we were truly neutral, Japan would have no reason to attack Pearl Harbor, and the US would have been fine.

Thanatoast
Jan 18, 2003, 09:20 PM
Whether we intend it or not, Iraqi civilians will die. That happens in war by accident, and also when people are used as human shields.

I am against war b/c I want to see LESS Americans die, not more. I believe that in the long run and the short that not going through with this war will save more lives than not.

Instead of spending hundreds of billions on missile defense, how about we change our foriegn policy in such a way that people no longer want to blow us up. Won't work in every case obviously, but there are issues I believe we have wiggle room in, and we choose not to use it.

I'll beleive in missile defense when I see it. The day it works you have my permission to point and laugh and say "I told you so." See you in 2008.

When America has a problem, its solution usually involves throwing large amounts of money in the general direction (and sometimes not in the direction at all). In this case, the amount of money needed to "fix" the problem is money enormous, and more than I think we can afford.

Sure, once we get missile defense in place we can, as you so eloquently put it, bully other nations in to giving up their missiles. Think we're gonna give up ours?

I really thought you would nail me on my flag response, but I guess not. Yes, I would support a Klan rally or a meeting of the Nazis. These people have rights, even though their personal attitudes may be despicable.

"demand a more tolerant and peacefull existence..." I assume you see the irony?

Check your cable listings. Every news channel speaks of "the coming war" or just use the present tense.

On rights, one small example. Been to the airport lately? At DIA if you want to park your car, it is searched. When you go inside, you can be pulled aside at any time and searched. If you see suspicious behavior, you are to report it immediatly. Tweezers are confiscated. I would rather die on the plane with my rights intact than live in a police state.

On privacy, did you read past the first paragraph? The gov't wants to collect data on you from every facet of your life. Emails, phone calls, credit card transactions, travel inteneries, and more. I find this chilling. It baffles me that you don't.

Propaganda is propaganda, whether opposition is allowed or not. I question any gov't that uses propaganda to support war.

Thanatoast
Jan 18, 2003, 09:26 PM
On world government: the sooner we start thinking of ourselves as one people rather than self-interested groups, the better off we will all be.

allah akbar
Jan 18, 2003, 10:00 PM
re: world government
The moment we relinquish the consitutional protection which has given us freedom, and allow others in lands far away to establish our laws...others who...
... do not cherish freedom as we do,
... are not elected and are not accountable to our citizens
... in fact in many cases do not understand accoutability
... in some cases truly dislike this country

is the day you can kiss this experiment in freedom goodbye.

Further, can you possibly consider countries like Iraq, Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea ...etc. having a say in what our laws would be like?

The war of indepenedance was fought explicitly because our so called rulers and taxers were a sea apart and did not represnt the people it ruled here.

The prospects of having unacountable, uncaring, and potentially very violent basket case countries have a say in our laws is downright scary.

So long as we have any degree of memory, of the history, intent, and core moving force of America, we will never allow unacountable people, in lands far away to make our laws and take our money.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 18, 2003, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
On world government: the sooner we start thinking of ourselves as one people rather than self-interested groups, the better off we will all be.

So we have one large collective instead of seperate smaller collectives? Screw that. The sooner people start thinking of themselves as individuals, the better off we'll all be. Individualists don't sacrifice themselves in suicide bombings or devote themselves to stupid wars for their countries.

Thanatoast
Jan 18, 2003, 10:40 PM
My point was that we should all think of eachother as human beings. Treat others as we would like to be treated. I thought that if we all belonged to one gov't we'd be more inclined to give our fellows the benefit of the doubt. Guess I was wrong. :( We've got a long way to go...

>The prospects of having unacountable, uncaring, and potentially very violent basket case countries have a say in our laws is downright scary.
What do you think everyone else thinks about us?

>The sooner people start thinking of themselves as individuals, the better off we'll all be.
Where do you think the problem arises from? The palestinians are interested in only themselves, so they blow up Israelis. And vice versa. America is only interested in how it can promote its own welfare, and now the rest of the world is upset with us. How does thinking individualistacly help?

allah akbar
Jan 18, 2003, 10:51 PM
I’m amazed at this, but you’re actually starting to sound a tad more coherent.

Quote:
I am against war b/c I want to see LESS Americans die, not more. I believe that in the long run and the short that not going through with this war will save more lives than not.
> Well that is in essence our disagreement.
A survey of history suggests that there are times when you must fight when you can win, as opposed to waiting until your enemy has armed and is far more dangerous.
Waiting for Iraq to complete its WMD program, and start distributing its weapons to AlQaeda, I believe , WILL cause more , many more, Americans to die

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill


Quote:
Instead of spending hundreds of billions on missile defense, how about we change our foriegn policy in such a way that people no longer want to blow us up. Won't work in every case obviously, but there are issues I believe we have wiggle room in, and we choose not to use it.
We need to do both. We need to have a strong military, strong defense, and ensure that our foreign policy does not cause unneeded problems.
The reason why we need BMD, is because of your comment “won’t work in every case obviously”, and for those cases where it doesn’t work, we need to be damn sure millions of American’s won’t die.

Quote:
I'll beleive in missile defense when I see it. The day it works you have my permission to point and laugh and say "I told you so." See you in 2008.
> I work in a field where I’m familiar with how you develop and deploy complex systems which take multiple years to design and deploy , and which are developed in iterative steps.
I’ve read the plans, followed the progress…and I’ll be laughing in 2004, not 2008.


There is a very strategic element to this as well.

If our opposition thinks…thinks for a moment…that the BM won’t get through our defense, it will make them think twice about launching them.

The Russian General responsible for the USSR military during the fall of the Soviet Empire stated explicitly that our BMD program EXPEDITED THE FALL OF THE USSR BY 5 YEARS, because despite their massive military outlays, they could not keep pace militarily with the implications of our BMD program.

If the USSR could not keep pace, I’m confident the North Koreans and other rogue states will not either.

Quote:
When America has a problem, its solution usually involves throwing large amounts of money in the general direction (and sometimes not in the direction at all). In this case, the amount of money needed to "fix" the problem is money enormous, and more than I think we can afford.
> What’s the value of a million lives? If we can stop 1 missile from hitting 1 city , with a million people…exactly what price tag would you put on it?
MD costs just 3% of our current military budget, less than .5% of our 2002 federal budget…is this too much money to save a million people? Or 2?
I don’t think its too much.
The real, very very real issue here, is that the global-left does not like the US’ military dominance, and they do not want the US to improve its military or defensive ability. An improved defense, will give America a greater sense of security, and hence will continue to distance America from blackmailing nations.
The global-left does not want to see a strong America, see BM as a way of being able to threaten it, and hence are very angry about this potentially effective counter.


Quote:
Sure, once we get missile defense in place we can, as you so eloquently put it, bully other nations in to giving up their missiles. Think we're gonna give up ours?
> We have already expressed that we will unilaterally disarm. Yes I think we will reduce our arms as the threat subsides

Quote:
I really thought you would nail me on my flag response, but I guess not. Yes, I would support a Klan rally or a meeting of the Nazis. These people have rights, even though their personal attitudes may be despicable.
> But what about denouncing them? Why can’t the left bring

Quote:
Check your cable listings. Every news channel speaks of "the coming war" or just use the present tense.
> Concluding that the odds of war are high does not make you liberal or conservative. Liberals can equally come to this conclusion, while lamenting it at the same time.
Drawing conclusions about its rightness or wrongness, blaming America for its justification, blaming America for problems in the world….does put you in a category.
It is a very well documented fact that the news media in vast vast majority in this country is liberal.


Quote:
I travel all the time.
Frankly, I like being able to think that I will be able to return to my wife and kids at the end of my trip. Kinda quirky, I know, but you maybe I’m just weird.
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but about 1 ½ years ago these wacky terrorists hijacked a plane with boxcutters and flew the planes into buildings. You must not have heard. Maybe they don’t have media in the police state in which you live.
Also, they just showed this really interesting video on TV what would have happened if Richard Reid had blown up his shoes on the plane. The plane would have been destroyed. Massive hole.

Here’s the deal.
Passing security clearance to get into security required areas is not a police state.
In fact, maybe you didn’t fly before, but security has ALWAYS been part of the routine at airports. Your comment may be highlighting that it sucked before, and needs to be improved.

If you are suggesting that you’d rather not have people more aggressively searched before going on planes then you are an absolute idiot, and are in an extremely small minority.

That’s just loony to equate this to a police state. Stupid.


Quote:
On privacy, did you read past the first paragraph? The gov't wants to collect data on you from every facet of your life. Emails, phone calls, credit card transactions, travel inteneries, and more. I find this chilling. It baffles me that you don't.
> This is a very bad idea. And I certainly don’t approve.
If they did this only for aliens, those who haven’t yet become Americans, whether they are permanent or temporary aliens…I’m totally cool with that.
But not for Americans…so if you are quoting it right…that it would be applied against Americans…then I agree with you. (yikes!)

Quote:
Propaganda is propaganda, whether opposition is allowed or not. I question any gov't that uses propaganda to support war.
All governments engage in propoganda. You would not be able to show me one that does not. Any government possibly about to engage in war would also engage in propoganda. Show me one example otherwise.
The real issue is how available counter opinions are in the country, and how legal it is to express those opinions. In the US, and certainly in part to the monopoly of liberal media outlets, you can get 24 by 7, on most channels, opposing viewpoints to the government.


Summary:
The angry opposition to this war is mostly coming from the global left who actually want to see America harmed. Weakening our military, weakening our potential defenses. Imposing laws from foreign rulers, by blaming us for everything in the world and hoping to guilt us into submission. Taxing us for bogus environmental claims.

Sorry. Won’t buy it.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 18, 2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
My point was that we should all think of eachother as human beings. Treat others as we would like to be treated. I thought that if we all belonged to one gov't we'd be more inclined to give our fellows the benefit of the doubt. Guess I was wrong. :( We've got a long way to go...

>The sooner people start thinking of themselves as individuals, the better off we'll all be.
Where do you think the problem arises from? The palestinians are interested in only themselves, so they blow up Israelis. And vice versa. America is only interested in how it can promote its own welfare, and now the rest of the world is upset with us. How does thinking individualistacly help?

A world government wouldn't help at all. If governments were minimial in power, doing only what is essential for them to do, national borders would become irrelevant. The solution is not more government, but less.

And don't tell me Palestinians who commit suicide bombings are individualists! They're committing the very acts of self-sacrifice that collective thinking leads to! If Ahmed thought of himself as an individual and treated Iftach across the street as an individual, they would coexist peacefully. Only when Ahmed thinks of himself as a member of the "Palestinian" collective and of Iftach as a member of the "Israeli" collective does he strap a bomb to himself, stand next to Iftach, and detonate himself. Only when Jeff thinks of himself as a member of the "white" collective and of Randy as a member of the "black" collective does Jeff commit an act of racism. Let men deal with one another not as nations or races, but as individuals, and there will be no nationalism or racism. Nationalism and racism are merely suppressions of the individual to a collective.

allah akbar
Jan 19, 2003, 12:18 AM
PHil of Mac -
Great Post.

Thanatoast
Quote
- My point was that we should all think of eachother as human beings. Treat others as we would like to be treated. I thought that if we all belonged to one gov't we'd be more inclined to give our fellows the benefit of the doubt. Guess I was wrong. We've got a long way to go...
> There are few places in the world where human beings are as respected, irrespective of their race, religion, sex ...etc. than in the US. Which is why most want to immigrate here.

Quote:
The prospects of having unacountable, uncaring, and potentially very violent basket case countries have a say in our laws is downright scary.
What do you think everyone else thinks about us?
> I'm sure they don't think that we make their laws

FINALLY
I rethough my comments re: Ashcroft. I think your lying. I can't believe that they would be proposing abbrogating those types of rights for Americans. That's typically what the left does, destroy rights. And I believe your lying here.
Care to point me to a web site somewhere proving the point with quotes or impending legislation?

AA

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Thanatoast
Jan 19, 2003, 12:18 AM
On war:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

On missile defense:
I conceed the point on cost.
I'm not convinced about the time table. We'll have to wait and see. ;)
On need, I ask this question: Would North Korea be so rash as to attack us, knowing they would be instantly crushed? We've already got enough of a military advantage to destroy them. This of course applies to others as well, not just NK. Why missile defense? And (I don't know definitively) isn't the trend now towards non-traditional delivery systems anyways? Airplanes, cargo ships, Ryder trucks, etc?

I can only hope you're right about us disarming. Another wait and see, but I'm not holding my breath.

I can denounce the actions of extremists but only I can only encourage them to change their attitudes. If after we've talked it over and they still wanna raise PLO/Nazi/Klan/Hamas flags then they can. Besides, they are trying to use powerful imagery to make a point, like we do here.

You're right, the airport argument was weak, here's a stronger one: fun reading material from the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=10898&c=207)

I guess seeing the media as liberal or conservative is something that comes from our own perceptions. I hold to my assertion that the media is conservative.

America harms itself by brushing aside the attitude of the rest of the world, even though they *may* be wrong. It just creates more resentment. Can't we afford to be a gracious Most Powerful Nation On Earth?

To Phil:
I think we're arriving at the same point from opposite sides of the spectrum.

Thanatoast
Jan 19, 2003, 12:57 AM
AA, 2nd post.

Quote 1)
While we may treat our own citizens with respect (and less lately), we have a poor record (IMO) otherwise. For example, rights for legal immigrants have already been reduced through anti-terror legislation. Check my link in the post above for corroboration. Also, while we claim to support human rights, we only do so sporadically. We intervened in the Balkans, but ignored the massacre in Rwanda. Why? We punish Castro by embargo for human rights abuses, but trade with China while accusing them of the same crimes.

Quote 2)
I'm sure they do think we stick our nose into places it doesn't belong and impose our will when we have no right to.

Quote 3)
Hopefully the article at the ACLU helped you see what a dangerous path Ashcroft is following.

macfan
Jan 19, 2003, 02:16 AM
We punish Castro by embargo for human rights abuses, but trade with China while accusing them of the same crimes.

Actually, no. The Cuba embargo was put in place because of economic issues. It had nothing to do with human rights. It remains in place out of habit and because a strong Cuban American community doesn't want it stopped as long as the Cuban dictator remains in power.

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 19, 2003, 06:49 AM
Hmmm - whatever you think of my opinions, my bottom line is that I'm against war. Now, you're either in the affirmative or the negative to that view.

All that I'm saying is that there HAS to be another way. And the problem is, Iraq is compelled not to cooperate because they are believing (and rightly so) that the US are calling the shots in laying down terms and conditions to diffuse the situation.

What people fail to realise is that it was the US who supported Saddam in the first place, and Donald Rumsfeld was a key element in the supply of arms to Iraq against the "Evil Empire" that was run by Ayotollah Khomeini in Iran during their devastating 7 years' war (does that term "Evil Empire" sound familiar? Should do - now it has been pinned on Saddam. Don't get me wrong, though: he is an evil bastard...).

It's funny that the US has a history of backing the "wrong horse" - the Taliban in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion, General Pinochet in Chile during his reign of terror, and Slobodan Milosevic during the Bosnian war in the early 90's. Perhaps it's time to let countries decide for themselves how to organise their affairs, and not place apparently easily controlled people in positions of power, only to find that they will become your worst enemy.

Therefore, the message should be clear - butt out of other people's business in the first place.

Maybe the US just won't learn from their mistakes. But consider this - the amount of money saved by minding their own business could be made available for internal use: be it education, housing, employment or transportation (or, quite literally, thousands of other uses that would benefit the community).

So why on earth are you prepared to go to war with a country you can beat, wasting billions of dollars in the effort, just to come away with the whole of the Islamic nation at odds with you? Wars don't make a great man. Greatness comes from acceptance and a willingness to listen. Sure, Saddam is the epitomy of evil, but the people of Iraq are the victims here. Their leader is the bad guy. Sanctions on these people are unfounded, and create needless suffering. You don't think for one minute that an invasion by the US won't create provocation and a call to arms from the citizens of Iraq - regardless of who's in power. They'll want to defend their homeland, and - whether you like it or not - the action will generate patriotism and an unwanted love for Saddam, making him a fighter for their freedom. That's the power of a dictatorship. Scary, but true (just look at the Kosovo war, and Serbia's staunch defiance of NATO alongside the nasty Milosevic.). What you're going to have is house-to-house combat - and a brand new Vietnam.

allah akbar
Jan 19, 2003, 12:21 PM
Kiwi...
you are totally out to lunch

quote:You don't think for one minute that an invasion by the US won't create provocation and a call to arms from the citizens of Iraq - regardless of who's in power. They'll want to defend their homeland, and - whether you like it or not - the action will generate patriotism and an unwanted love for Saddam, making him a fighter for their freedom.

> You are completely wrong on this point. In fact, the people of Iraq will not (with few exceptions) come to defend their dictator. They may make appearances at the beginning , for fear of retribution from their current day Hitler. But once freed they will be eternally grateful that they will be able to live their lives without the threat of having their heads chopped off, or their children gassed, or their wives raped.

They will then truly own their homeland, and be able to live their lives free from tyrany.

You're out to lunch if you think they are going to long for the days of this evil man.

Why are you such an advocate for people living under oppression and tyrany?

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 19, 2003, 02:53 PM
Allah akbar - you really need to get rid of some of that teenager angst and testosterone.

Why shouldn't I be an advocate for the innocent? It's not their fault they are oppressed by an evil dictator. The US are the ones who should be answerable to that action - after all, they were the ones who put him in that place of power (and gave him the weapons to keep him there) in the first place.

If you'd ever studied psychology - or even history, you would realise that fear remains the foremost factor in keeping people in order - i.e. Adolf Hitler during his rise to power in the 30's (using fear and patriotism to exercise his power). I suggest you read "1984" by George Orwell - a classic example explaining the power of a Totalitarian regime, and the control it exudes over the proletariat.

May I also suggest that you try and imagine being in the situation that the Iraqi people have been placed - with nowhere to turn (on one side, a leader with the power to execute dissidents, and the other side, the Americans - ready for retribution, and not caring who they give it to). You'd be scared and alone. And, face it - you would probably want to defend your paultry possessions, and your family, against the only aggressor that you care to remember - the one that's caused your extensive suffering for the past 12 years, from it's crippling sanctions and constant harrassment from the air.

Now - what would you do?!?

:confused:

macfan
Jan 20, 2003, 02:23 AM
kiwi,
Allah akbar may need to get rid of angst, but you need to get a grasp of history. Would you mind citing real evidence that Jimmy Carter was responsible for the rise of Saddam in Iraq? Remember, he can to power in 1979. I think it was New Zealand that caused Saddam to rise to power. You've shown as much evidence for that as you have for blaming Carter's policy!

Also, you haven't offered a viable solution.

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 20, 2003, 05:08 AM
It is not necessarily a presidential decision - if I may point out the Contra-arms deal in the 80's with Colonel Oliver North, where President Reagan did not recall any covert activities...

You probably realise that it can also be other people with influential decisions who call the shots. What about the CIA? Covert operations have taken place by them for decades - some of them unknown at even the highest level. And it's the CIA who placed and funded people such as Manuel Noriega and General Pinochet to combat the rise of Communism throughout Central and South America.

It is therefore justifiable to state that the US had a vested interest to create some form of stability and control in the Middle East (with Saddam Hussein), which is why Donald Rumsfeld was amongst the US contingency who delivered weapons to Iraq in the 80's - on the (incorrect) assumption that Saddam would be a "good bedfellow" if he was on their side.

Jimmy Carter's plan was for a stable and secure Middle East - he orchestrated the talks between Egypt & Israel to diffuse their war. His orders were probably followed - rather loosely by the CIA - to aid and assist in any way to maintain stability in the region.

Hang on - wasn't George Bush Snr. the head of the CIA?!?

;)

trebblekicked
Jan 21, 2003, 12:37 AM
so if we beat iraq, there won't be anymore terrorists, right?

macfan
Jan 21, 2003, 01:30 AM
kiwi,
Saddam came to power in 1979. George H. W. Bush was CIA director for about a year from January 1976 to January 1977. Hate to break it to you, but he had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power. Also, in 1979 Rumsfeld was the CEO of drug company G.D. Searle & Co. and likewise had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power in Iraq. There isn't a "hidden hand" behind every despot. Sometimes they manage to murder and intimidate their way to the top without help from outsiders.

You have yet to offer a viable solution for the Saddam problem. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Removing him by force is a viable solution and you don't support it, so we can only assume that you have a different, viable solution. Let's hear it.

Thanatoast
Jan 21, 2003, 02:53 AM
viable solution: continuing inspections.

Blix himself has said he needs more time, why not give it to him?

Pros: cheaper, less likely to stir up the middle east, builds goodwill with the rest of the world, no spiking oil prices, casualty count: 0.

Cons: Saddam still in power, miniscule chance that weapons may be developed, deported, placed and used right under the noses of the inspectors and our new more oppressive INS/FBI/CIA/TIAO/HS, and of course most importantly, we don't get to use any of our big toys to blow anything up and shoot bad guys with.

Just my opinion though.

macfan
Jan 21, 2003, 03:41 AM
Blix also says that Iraq is not cooperating. If Iraq was disarming, then inspectors would be a useful tool to confirm that fact. However, they are not a useful tool to compel Iraq to disarm. It is only the direct threat of force that has led Saddam to permit inspectors back in the country, and there isn't any sign that he is disarming. Iraq was able to prevent the inspectors in the past from disarming them, so it is reasonable to think that they can do so again should they choose to do so, and they appear to be choosing that course. The chances of Iraq developing WMDs are not miniscule. The chances are 100 percent since they have already developed and used such weapons. Inspections alone are simply not viable in the face of an Iraq that wants the weapons. It's just not a viable solution any more than Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" ushered in an era of peace.

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 21, 2003, 11:26 AM
Thanatoast -

I couldn't have said it better myself!



Macfan -

Hang on a minute, here. Who's the dictator?

You can't possibly expect someone to abide by your rules if you've a gun to your head. I accept that Saddam Hussein is behaving like a man clinging to power by any means, and is not a nice bloke in general. However, if you want to get better results, a different form of diplomacy may be in order.

What about Pakistan - a muslim military leadership that has all the benefits of being an ally with the US, and having a common understanding with Iraq (i.e. religion as common ground).

An Islamic nation will find it particularly distasteful for the American "infidels" to dictate terms to, even though we all feel those terms are justified. Face it - they will not listen to the Americans. With all the bad relations between them, I doubt whether they will for quite some time.

So, as a form of an olive branch, the US should stop demanding terms, and allow an intermediary to deal with the Iraqis - like Pakistan, who I mentioned before, or even Indonesia (the world's most populated Islamic nation). Everyone wants to bring peace to the Middle East. It's in the world's best interest.

Iraq just needs a way out - think of it like an argument. Iraq's view is irrational. But rather than lose face, they would rather go down fighting the enemy. They won't fight someone who is disconnected to the situation - and that could be their way out of conflict, with everyone happy in the end.

That's what intermediaries do - they settle disputes. Better to do it through discussion and compromise rather than to count the cost in lives of innocent men, women and children.

Don't you think?

Thanatoast
Jan 21, 2003, 06:02 PM
macfan, i disagree. the chances of anything happening are miniscule. while the iraqis may have developed some wmd's they still would have to smuggle them out of the country, transport them to the us, place them and set them off. all the while having inspectors running about in their backyards, sorties being flown by american and british pilots weekly if not daily (they never stopped after the war your know), and anyone with a funny looking name being pulled aside while entering the us. all these things combined add up to a whole lot of security between us and whatever weapons the iraqis may have developed. i think inspectors, combined with kiwi's idea for a third party mediator is the more rational solution. oh, and we can't just have a puppet mediator, we're actually gonna have to *gasp* negotiate. btw, negotiate is not a synonym for "give in".

trebblekicked
Jan 23, 2003, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
oh, and we can't just have a puppet mediator, we're actually gonna have to *gasp* negotiate. btw, negotiate is not a synonym for "give in".

well put..//
bush's whole deal used to be that terrorism was a global problem. he hasn't convinced even a small minority of our allies and neighbors that military action will be a successful deterant to the terrorist problem. You can beat up on iraq all you want, but angry saudi nationals, kuwaite citizens, pakistani and afghani tribes, jordanian students, syrian fundamentalists, egyptian revolutionaries, and chechnyan rebels will just have more "proof" of america's hatred of muslims, with which to increase their numbers, and increase those people's willingness to kill americans (dying while doing it, if need be).

multinational diplomacy is the only way to win this "war on terror". war with iraq will make that war nearly impossible to win.

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 23, 2003, 05:33 AM
True - just look at the lengths the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, and French President, Jaques Chirac, will go to - if it means avoiding a war.

They both are staunch allies of the United States, yet are both vehemently against any further hostilities, in favour of a peaceful solution.

And why not? They only know too well the true horrors of war - their two countries have been decimated by two World Wars. It's only fair that their voices should be heard - even President Putin is against such action. Why, then, does the United States have to take matters in their own hands? Doesn't the popular consensus count for anything anymore? What about "Truth, Justice and Liberty for All", in a truly democratic utopia? Wasn't that the message that great men such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were trying to portray? I think it's time that George "W" went back to his roots.

And they talk of Saddam being ignorant...

Phil Of Mac
Jan 24, 2003, 05:48 PM
Everyone talks about democracy as if it meant that everyone should do what the majority agrees on, and whenever they say that, I get a mental image of three men gang-raping a woman. The majority of those four agreed on what to do, right?

Bush may be corrupt and evil, but in this case, to have the courage to stand for what is right, no matter what others think, is admirable. And the other fact is, the terrorists aren't upset at us because we hate them, they're angry because we exist. The only way to stop them is to convince them that killing us is a bad thing and kill the ones who can't be convinced. With Iraq, it's an issue of simple self-preservation. If Saddam gets the nuclear bomb and gives it to Al-Qaeda, millions of Americans will die. Instead of simply destroying two skyscrapers, they will destroy all of Manhattan.

Iraq is the greatest threat to do this. Iran and North Korea are threats too, but we can only fight one war at a time. Personally, I thought we should have deployed forces on the Afghan/Iranian border and made a pincer movement through Iran, and Syria leading to Iraq. But I don't have the latest reports from the CIA, and I'm no strategy expert. People say violence is not the answer. That's untrue. Al-Qaeda is just like Nazi Germany: it's come to the point where violence is the only answer. That's how they choose to deal with us, and we will deal with them and their sponsors likewise.

Thanatoast
Jan 24, 2003, 05:59 PM
with an "eye for and eye" policy, all you get is...two ruined eyes. sure, we can go bomb iraq back to the stone age b/c osama (not saddam) orchestrated a massive strike against america. instead of looking at the symptoms, why not look at the cause? why does osama want us dead? why does saddam have it in for us? once we answer these questions, then we'll have a better idea of how to turn their agression away. until we decide to admit that we might hold some fault, the violence will only escalate, until it's no longer an eye for and eye, but a life for a life. what does such thinking accomplish?

alex_ant
Jan 24, 2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Everyone talks about democracy as if it meant that everyone should do what the majority agrees on, and whenever they say that, I get a mental image of three men gang-raping a woman.
Yikes! When I think of democracy I think of Athens. I guess that would make me the historically informed and you the sick bastard! :)

Phil Of Mac
Jan 24, 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
with an "eye for and eye" policy, all you get is...two ruined eyes. sure, we can go bomb iraq back to the stone age b/c osama (not saddam) orchestrated a massive strike against america. instead of looking at the symptoms, why not look at the cause? why does osama want us dead? why does saddam have it in for us? once we answer these questions, then we'll have a better idea of how to turn their agression away. until we decide to admit that we might hold some fault, the violence will only escalate, until it's no longer an eye for and eye, but a life for a life. what does such thinking accomplish?

Why does Osama hate us? Why did Hitler hate us? Questions for the historians, but to make a stab at it: Islamic fundamentalism, as a worldview, is amazingly skewed from American society. America is all about achievement. In Osama's culture, the nail that stands up just gets hammered down. In our culture, people use reason and rational thought. Osama thinks we should live by the teachings of Muslim clerics and not think for ourselves. In America, diversity is good. For Osama bin Laden, everyone ought to be a Muslim who thinks exactly the same.

Saddam Hussein has contacts with Al-Qaeda. He has harbored Al-Qaeda terrorists. He supports the murder of children in Israel. Saddam is a petty dictator allied with fanatics who want to destroy us, just like Mussolini was in World War II.

Appeasement will not work. We can't use Israel as another Czechoslovakia, giving part of it to the Muslims and turning the other way when they take the rest. We can't leave them alone, hoping that they won't destroy us. Osama bin Laden would not be happy until every American converted to Islam--specifically, his own deluded version of Islam.

The terrorists and their supporters chose in 1993, 1998, and 2001 the only way they want to deal with us--violence. They are willing to die for their cause. The only deal we can make for them is to grant their wish. If they want destruction, give them destruction, but of the only ones they had the right to destroy--themselves. They want to die for their cause, so, to paraphrase Patton, instead of dying for our cause, we ought to make those poor dumb bastards die for theirs.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 24, 2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Yikes! When I think of democracy I think of Athens. I guess that would make me the historically informed and you the sick bastard! :) [/B]

In a true democracy, the rights of the individual are superior to the will of the majority. When I think of democracy, I do not think of gang rape. Gang rape is not democratic, but it is exactly what most people mean when they misuse the term "democracy". What people really mean is "the tyranny of the majority." The greatest question of a democracy is how to prevent that.

alex_ant
Jan 24, 2003, 06:57 PM
The gang rape thing was only a wisecrack, sir.
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Bush may be corrupt and evil, but in this case, to have the courage to stand for what is right, no matter what others think, is admirable. And the other fact is, the terrorists aren't upset at us because we hate them, they're angry because we exist.
Terrorists are not angry at us because we hate them nor because we exist, but because of our policies which they see as arrogant and highly offensive. They represent the fringe extreme of a much larger group of people who feel the same way but to a lesser extent, or to the same extent minus the bloodthirst.
The only way to stop them is to convince them that killing us is a bad thing and kill the ones who can't be convinced. With Iraq, it's an issue of simple self-preservation. If Saddam gets the nuclear bomb and gives it to Al-Qaeda, millions of Americans will die. Instead of simply destroying two skyscrapers, they will destroy all of Manhattan.

Iraq is the greatest threat to do this. Iran and North Korea are threats too, but we can only fight one war at a time. Personally, I thought we should have deployed forces on the Afghan/Iranian border and made a pincer movement through Iran, and Syria leading to Iraq. But I don't have the latest reports from the CIA, and I'm no strategy expert.
Firstly I assume by nuclear weapons you mean WMD. Nukes do require significant time/technology & land area to build, so if Iraq were up to this there is no way they'd be able to hide it from our spy satellites even if the whole operation were underground (as we'd see the excavation & the surface support).

Let's assume Iraq is up to no good in the biological & chemical weapons departments (a thought I don't find too unlikely). As has been beaten into our heads by the pro-war people, such weapons are relatively easy to make, require far fewer resources and far less money and their production can be easily concealed etc. They are less sophisticated than nuclear weapons. Which is probably why the inspectors aren't finding anything. Now... if these weapons are so easily concealable... and Iraq is hiding them... and we bomb the **** out of the entire country and go over it with a fine-toothed comb... is the threat gone? No. Hardly. In fact, the threat is even stronger now, because we just managed to infuriate millions of Arabs who hated us enough before, but who are now so incensed at our callousness and arrogance that they themselves will lend support to any organization/regime that feels inclined to develop WMD itself. The bottom line is that a war with Iraq will stir up a huge mess (made messy in part by the spilled blood and guts of thousands of American civilians who will lose their lives in subsequent terrorist attacks) that we will not want to deal with.

The pro-war stance seems to me to be like a struggle to fight our way out of quicksand. We're so (whatever) that we think that the harder we fight, the better chance we'll have of escaping.
Why does Osama hate us? Why did Hitler hate us? Questions for the historians, but to make a stab at it: Islamic fundamentalism, as a worldview, is amazingly skewed from American society.
Hitler was an Islamic fundamentalist?
America is all about achievement. In Osama's culture, the nail that stands up just gets hammered down. In our culture, people use reason and rational thought. Osama thinks we should live by the teachings of Muslim clerics and not think for ourselves. In America, diversity is good. For Osama bin Laden, everyone ought to be a Muslim who thinks exactly the same.
You have to understand that an Islamic fundamentalist could have written the exact same paragraph as you did, and it would have made no more or less sense: "_____ is all about achievement. In Bush's culture, the nail that stands up just gets hammered down. In our culture, people use reason and rational thought. Bush thinks we should live by the teachings of Christian preachers and not think for ourselves. In _______, diversity is good. For George W. Bush, everyone ought to be a Christian who thinks exactly the same." I'm not saying that the paragraph of yours I just modified is anything I agree with - my point is that one has to look past his/her own biases in dealing with this problem.
Saddam Hussein has contacts with Al-Qaeda. He has harbored Al-Qaeda terrorists. He supports the murder of children in Israel. Saddam is a petty dictator allied with fanatics who want to destroy us, just like Mussolini was in World War II.
There is also a flip side to this paragraph, as well, which I won't go into because it's a waste of time. What it boils down to is a lack of objectivity. I have a couple of questions, though:

- If the (unproven) connections Hussein has with al-Qaida exist, do you think this is the only relation al-Qaida has with a soverign nation? If not, then in order to be ideologially consistent, you must advocate the military overthrow of every government thought to have connections to any anti-American terrorist organization... so you must be in favor of the invasion of dozens of countries around the world.
- If al-Qaida did train in Iraq, why does this necessitate an invasion, since al-Qaida has the ability to train in a variety of countries, and since Iraq is not even one of their main hideouts?
Appeasement will not work.
Nobody is arguing for appeasement.
We can't use Israel as another Czechoslovakia, giving part of it to the Muslims and turning the other way when they take the rest. We can't leave them alone, hoping that they won't destroy us. Osama bin Laden would not be happy until every American converted to Islam--specifically, his own deluded version of Islam.

The terrorists and their supporters chose in 1993, 1998, and 2001 the only way they want to deal with us--violence. They are willing to die for their cause. The only deal we can make for them is to grant their wish.
Is it the only deal?

Thanatoast
Jan 24, 2003, 07:02 PM
and so we come full circle...

interesting you should equate osama with hitler. hitler hated europe b/c their heavy handed policies following wwi crushed germany's economy and caused a generation's worth of extreme poverty and strife. much like the us's foriegn policy is always slanted against islam in the middle east. we tolerate the entire area simply b/c they control oil, and now we don't even do that. we americans seem to have a problem with allowing people to live their lives. saying osama hates us simply b/c we encourage free thought and action is disingenious and not worthy of you, phil.

interestingly, not one time in all the times i've asked has anyone ever posted a link reporting the ties between osama and saddam. and until someone does i am loathe to believe it, and consider it bush propaganda.

who said anything about appeasement? i believe the last thing i posted on the subject involved inspectors and negotiations (though not necessarily in this thread), and in another thread kiwi had an idea for a third-party mediator that i liked. there is a difference between ignoring a problem, appeasement, and finding a solution that doesn't invovle heavy munitions. i prefer the third.

as for dealing with violence with more violence, you already heard my opinion on that, but i think you missed my essential question. why are they so pissed we exist? b/c we love freedom? b/c we open mcdonalds' in every city across the world? (honestly, that would be enough for me ;)). or is it something else? something deeper? here's a couple of links that give a little background. who knows what's really going on in osama's head, but the sooner we start to find that answer, the sooner our troubles end.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/world/2001/review_of_2001/1716962.stm)

who is osama (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1551100.stm)

i just re-read my post and found it amusing that as soon as osama got brought up again (you know, the guy who's actually to blame for the terrorist attacks?), saddam kinda fell by the wayside. kinda makes me wonder what this war is for. :eek: :)

Phil Of Mac
Jan 24, 2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Terrorists are not angry at us because we hate them nor because we exist, but because of our policies which they see as arrogant and highly offensive. They represent the fringe extreme of a much larger group of people who feel the same way but to a lesser extent, or to the same extent minus the bloodthirst.

Firstly I assume by nuclear weapons you mean WMD. Nukes do require significant time/technology & land area to build, so if Iraq were up to this there is no way they'd be able to hide it from our spy satellites even if the whole operation were underground (as we'd see the excavation & the surface support).

Let's assume Iraq is up to no good in the biological & chemical weapons departments (a thought I don't find too unlikely). As has been beaten into our heads by the pro-war people, such weapons are relatively easy to make, require far fewer resources and far less money and their production can be easily concealed etc. They are less sophisticated than nuclear weapons. Which is probably why the inspectors aren't finding anything. Now... if these weapons are so easily concealable... and Iraq is hiding them... and we bomb the **** out of the entire country and go over it with a fine-toothed comb... is the threat gone? No. Hardly. In fact, the threat is even stronger now, because we just managed to infuriate millions of Arabs who hated us enough before, but who are now so incensed at our callousness and arrogance that they themselves will lend support to any organization/regime that feels inclined to develop WMD itself. The bottom line is that a war with Iraq will stir up a huge mess (made messy in part by the spilled blood and guts of thousands of American civilians who will lose their lives in subsequent terrorist attacks) that we will not want to deal with.

The pro-war stance seems to me to be like a struggle to fight our way out of quicksand. We're so (whatever) that we think that the harder we fight, the better chance we'll have of escaping.

Hitler was an Islamic fundamentalist?

You have to understand that an Islamic fundamentalist could have written the exact same paragraph as you did, and it would have made no more or less sense: "_____ is all about achievement. In Bush's culture, the nail that stands up just gets hammered down. In our culture, people use reason and rational thought. Bush thinks we should live by the teachings of Christian preachers and not think for ourselves. In _______, diversity is good. For George W. Bush, everyone ought to be a Christian who thinks exactly the same." I'm not saying that the paragraph of yours I just modified is anything I agree with - my point is that one has to look past his/her own biases in dealing with this problem.

There is also a flip side to this paragraph, as well, which I won't go into because it's a waste of time. What it boils down to is a lack of objectivity. I have a couple of questions, though:

- If the (unproven) connections Hussein has with al-Qaida exist, do you think this is the only relation al-Qaida has with a soverign nation? If not, then in order to be ideologially consistent, you must advocate the military overthrow of every government thought to have connections to any anti-American terrorist organization... so you must be in favor of the invasion of dozens of countries around the world.
- If al-Qaida did train in Iraq, why does this necessitate an invasion, since al-Qaida has the ability to train in a variety of countries, and since Iraq is not even one of their main hideouts?

Nobody is arguing for appeasement.

Is it the only deal?

Bin Laden himself has demanded that Americans convert to Islam. There is an irreconcilable cultural issue here. We could leave them alone, but they wouldn't leave us alone. Jihad-based Islam *requires* these holy wars.

Invading Iraq would not really enrage many people. The Saudi people might get upset, but they already hate us--no loss there. No one in the region would miss Saddam. Assuming we won the war (considering our overpowering military power, we certainly can), the Turks and the Kurds would be gleeful.

Hitler was not an Islamic fundamentalist. He was, however, a meglomanical psychopath, much like the Islamic fundamentalists.

It's not a matter of my own biases. It's a matter of cultural differences. An Islamic fundamentalist wouldn't have written that paragraph because there are these differences. What do we call them? We call them murderers, and we are disgusted by their disregard for human life. What do they call us? <i>Infidels.</i> They are disgusted because we are not Muslim. I don't lack objectivity here. There are contradictions in our culture, and there are contradictions in theirs. But as for the essence of the two cultures, there's a difference. Objectivity does not mean refusing to recognize actual differences.

Sure, I think we should deal with every country that sponsors Al-Qaeda. I'm sure some of them would just give up if we smacked Iraq, because they'd know what was coming to them. But blunt force isn't the best way to deal with all of them. In countries where there's already dissent, we support the dissenters. There are many weapons in our arsenal. Use the right tool for the right job.

With those governments that are true supporters of terror, and with the terrorists themselves, the only option is violence. The question is whether or not these governments are truly supporters of terror. My opinion on whether or not war with Iraq is a good idea changes often, to be honest, and it mainly depends on whether or not Bush just wants more power, or if Iraq is really an ally of Al-Qaeda.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 24, 2003, 08:36 PM
Wow what a heated bunch, but really dictators love appeasement and do gooders they really do! Look at the history folks 50 years ago France/England/Poland and all those others were appeasing Hitler and he bombed the s_ _ t out of them! His eyes were also on the mideast. If America would have waited and tolerated him just a little longer all those countries would be speaking german. Almost a good thing Japan jump started us if you can call it that! He could have had it all except for a few blunders and he had the technology to make it happen. They were ahead of everyone in almost every key field,Jets/heavy water experiments/v2 v1 rockets/ subs/tanks and this goes on and on. Everyone here was saying our president was wrong, of course most loudly from the other party who in typical politics will try anything to get back power control and votes! The Democrats are doing this right now. Anyways we lost a lot of good men taking down Hitler who was just fine with the fact that if he lost he would take every German with him and nearly did! It was about Power & Control and he could really care a less anymore for his people then for the allies! Well we won, the oil fields went back to the arabs, we restored all those European countries and even fought for a free Germany ! remember the berlin wall. DICTATORS/TYRANTS/KILLERS are interested in only POWER & CONTROL at any and all costs. We now have Saddam and the Korean Dictator, now ask yourselfs are they TRUELY interested in their people or is this about them keeping POWER & CONTROL. Both these guys could care a less for their own people as long as they have that POWER & CONTROL You know the answer, you know what the world must do ! and you know in todays world NO DICTATOR/TYRANT/KILLER CAN OR SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO STAY IN POWER ANYWHERE NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY! If the U.S didnt do anything how many dictator/killer/thugs would we now have??? We would be totally surrounded. The UN is worthless! They have never done a thing to free anyone without the U.S. pushing madly. Doing nothing is just that nothing and those TYRANTS love it! Why ? they keep POWER & CONTROL and thats all that matters to them. Look at Cuba you know that if those people had true Freedom/Democracy that they would be a lot better off then where POWER & CONTROL CASTRO has kept them. Seems to be a common theme for DICTATORS. MILLER TIME :D

alex_ant
Jan 24, 2003, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Bin Laden himself has demanded that Americans convert to Islam. There is an irreconcilable cultural issue here. We could leave them alone, but they wouldn't leave us alone. Jihad-based Islam *requires* these holy wars.
I agree that there's probably an irreconcilable cultural incompatibility between militant Islamic religions and western society. But I believe that the actions we take outside our borders help this religious zeal to ferment. There will always be religious kooks in the world, but their numbers are increasing thanks to us. "Leaving them alone" isn't the only alternative to war. My ideal war alternative would be the adoption of a more humble, more passive, less self-righteous foreign policy, but I know that's not going to happen.
Invading Iraq would not really enrage many people. The Saudi people might get upset, but they already hate us--no loss there. No one in the region would miss Saddam. Assuming we won the war (considering our overpowering military power, we certainly can), the Turks and the Kurds would be gleeful.
I agree that not many people in the region would miss Saddam. The problem is that many in the region are near the boiling point when it comes to their contempt for us, and a removal of Saddam is not going to result in any kind of rah-rah yay-for-the-U.S. sentiment anywhere. A lot of people hate both the U.S. and Saddam, but if pushed to choose, would choose the lesser of two evils: Saddam. They know that we won't give a rat's behind about them, and quite honestly, they're right, given the dismal job we did and are doing with our laughable puppet government in post-Taliban Afghanistan. I think of the 1969 Detroit riots when I think of one situation in which a group of people was oppressed for so long until they couldn't take it anymore, then exploded in rage. If you're alone with a weaker kid on the playground, you can do whatever you like to him, and he may even acquiesce - but you shouldn't think that the thought isn't entering his mind that he'd like to get you back if only he were stronger.
It's not a matter of my own biases. It's a matter of cultural differences. An Islamic fundamentalist wouldn't have written that paragraph because there are these differences. What do we call them? We call them murderers, and we are disgusted by their disregard for human life. What do they call us? <i>Infidels.</i> They are disgusted because we are not Muslim. I don't lack objectivity here. There are contradictions in our culture, and there are contradictions in theirs. But as for the essence of the two cultures, there's a difference. Objectivity does not mean refusing to recognize actual differences.
I see their choice of words - whether it be infidels or murderers or imperialists or whatever - as mostly unimportant. I think the big problem is that people are being driven to these religions out of their contempt for America. If the actions by which we represented ourselves overseas were not so offensive to such a huge group of people, we wouldn't have to worry about such wacky religions, because the emotions that fuel them would never have the chance to ignite.
Sure, I think we should deal with every country that sponsors Al-Qaeda. I'm sure some of them would just give up if we smacked Iraq, because they'd know what was coming to them.
I'm sure some of them would. Others would hold their anti-U.S. principles more closely to their hearts and be willing to die for them. The problem with us attacking every country that sponsors terrorists, again, is that we'll end up attacking dozens of countries. And that will probably kind of irk the international community just a little bit. Before you know it, France is using its UN veto power, the US is withdrawing from the UN, and then all hell is breaking loose. In the flurry of activity, China decides to take advantage of the situation by firing a couple missles into the Taiwan strait. North Korea starts buzzing its nukes over Japan. Al Qaida takes advantage of the U.S.'s preoccupation by blowing up a couple more of its embassies and maybe another warship. Bin Laden and all the religious Middle East psychos begin US-flag-burning rallies chanting "Death to the Imperialists" - and backing it up with a full-fledged assault on Israel. This is not the kind of course of events I'd like to see play out. But I think us getting overwhelmed and the world situation spiraling out of control is something that's highly likely if we are to subscribe to a policy of worldwide indiscriminate simultaneous invasions. We have a very large & strong military, but it's not enough to do the kind of things you are proposing it do.
But blunt force isn't the best way to deal with all of them. In countries where there's already dissent, we support the dissenters. There are many weapons in our arsenal. Use the right tool for the right job.
There's a big problem with this approach. We know this because we've been using it for decades. Oftentimes supporting the dissenters leads to big problems down the road and requires the temporary suspension of our own principles in the interest of what's deemed immediately necessary. Bin Laden was a dissenter, as was Hussein, and we supported both of them. There's no reason to believe the dissent we support won't evolve into a strong, stable, despicable regime or terrorist threat time and time again. Also, accomplishing our goals overseas with regards to terrorism is rarely as simple as surgery. It demands the consideration of long-term consequences which I don't believe are much of a priority when it comes down to politicians who are running for reelection in 6 months and want to be seen as "tough on terrorism."
With those governments that are true supporters of terror, and with the terrorists themselves, the only option is violence. The question is whether or not these governments are truly supporters of terror.
I think the question is whether the only option is violence. I don't think it is. It's obvious we can't get Osama bin-Laden and his worshippers to love us overnight - or maybe even ever. But we do possess the ability to both cool the flames of hatred and to remove or reduce the necessary conditions for their future eruption.

Thanatoast
Jan 24, 2003, 09:06 PM
but ya see dhm, that saddam isn't hitler, right? or anywhere close to hitler. i think it was already brought up in this thread even, how the current situation is nothing like wwii. saddam has no powerful army. saddam is not trying to take over his war-torn neighbors. kuwait is not poland. and most importantly, if saddam did try anything, he knows he would be instantly crushed, unlike hitler, who was under the (almost correct) assumption that he could do as he pleased. it is my considered opinion that conservatives like to bring up hitler in order to stir up hatred against saddam. it's not gonna work with me.

assumption number two: if all saddam wants is
power and control, what is the quickest way for him to lose it? by provoking the us, right? seems to me it's in his best interests to pipe down. he's survived the last 12 years by not making enough fuss to get the us public's attention. we only pay attention to him now b/c bush had supposedly linked him w/ osama.

i'll go so far as to agree that no tyrant should be allowed to stay in power. after all, we get to vote ours out in 2 years, why not everyone else? but going in guns blazing only works in john wayne movies. and in reality, the bad guys are better shots. so you should ask yourself, if you're really concerned about american lives, if you think starting a war in the middle east (a section of the world that already doesn't really like us) is going to cost more or less americans their lives (through battle and renewed terrorist attacks, and their freedom (tiao, hs, fbi, cia).

saying the un is worthless is a self fullfilling prophecy. the un has exactly as much authority as we give it, and when we choose to ignore it (as now) we destroy not only its credibility but our own as well.

i don't know why those who are pushing war equate no war with doing nothing. simply b/c we are not actively destroying buildings, lives, infrastructure and goodwill with weapons of war does not mean we are doing nothing. if we had been doing nothing the last twelve years, then we'd really be up ***** creek w/o a paddle. but we haven't done nothing. we've kept constant surveilance, had daily bombing runs, enforced a no fly zone, and generally leaned on saddam harder than we've ever leaned on anyone before. don't make the mistake of thinking war is the only option. there are many others. read above posts if you don't believe me.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 24, 2003, 09:16 PM
Hey alex ant you need to talk to the ones that have fled iraq and i think you will find they dont hate us like you think. I would tell you to talk to the ones in iraq but most of those have a. fled elsewhere

b. wont talk for fear of losing their own & families lives

c. been killed by Saddam and the Gang for disagreeing
with anything they say!



GO AHEAD PICK YOUR FAVORITE of coarse there is


d. agree with everything saddam says and you get to live!!!!


I think you will find a lot of Deeeeeeeee's in iraq right now! Wonder why?

Phil Of Mac
Jan 24, 2003, 09:29 PM
There is a large question of whether or not our involvement will inspire others against us. Sure. This is a dilemma for me, because on the one hand, we need to protect ourselves from wackos, while on the other hand, we don't want to inspire others to become wackos. If we promised everyone we'd be neutral once we spanked whoever killed 3,000 of our people, would that work? If we were less arrogant and recognized our bounds as we defended ourselves, would that work? I don't know. I really don't, but I do know that if we do nothing, we'll be vulnerable, and if we attack them, we'll anger people.

Les Kern
Jan 24, 2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
i just re-read my post and found it amusing that as soon as osama got brought up again (you know, the guy who's actually to blame for the terrorist attacks?), saddam kinda fell by the wayside. kinda makes me wonder what this war is for.

You sir, have had the epiphany! Excellent post too.
Nobody knows what this war is about, do they? I sure haven't seen enough evidence, and I have been looking hard. Okay, it could be argued that I'm looking through the eyes of anti-war, and that is perhaps true. But I'm smart enough to know just when 2+2=4.
The war is stupid... and it's coming. May anyones version of god help us.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 24, 2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
but ya see dhm, that saddam isn't hitler, right? or anywhere close to hitler. i think it was already brought up in this thread even, how the current situation is nothing like wwii. saddam has no powerful army. saddam is not trying to take over his war-torn neighbors. kuwait is not poland. and most importantly, if saddam did try anything, he knows he would be instantly crushed, unlike hitler, who was under the (almost correct) assumption that he could do as he pleased. it is my considered opinion that conservatives like to bring up hitler in order to stir up hatred against saddam. it's not gonna work with me.

assumption number two: if all saddam wants is
power and control, what is the quickest way for him to lose it? by provoking the us, right? seems to me it's in his best interests to pipe down. he's survived the last 12 years by not making enough fuss to get the us public's attention. we only pay attention to him now b/c bush had supposedly linked him w/ osama.

i'll go so far as to agree that no tyrant should be allowed to stay in power. after all, we get to vote ours out in 2 years, why not everyone else? but going in guns blazing only works in john wayne movies. and in reality, the bad guys are better shots. so you should ask yourself, if you're really concerned about american lives, if you think starting a war in the middle east (a section of the world that already doesn't really like us) is going to cost more or less americans their lives (through battle and renewed terrorist attacks, and their freedom (tiao, hs, fbi, cia).

saying the un is worthless is a self fullfilling prophecy. the un has exactly as much authority as we give it, and when we choose to ignore it (as now) we destroy not only its credibility but our own as well.

i don't know why those who are pushing war equate no war with doing nothing. simply b/c we are not actively destroying buildings, lives, infrastructure and goodwill with weapons of war does not mean we are doing nothing. if we had been doing nothing the last twelve years, then we'd really be up ***** creek w/o a paddle. but we haven't done nothing. we've kept constant surveilance, had daily bombing runs, enforced a no fly zone, and generally leaned on saddam harder than we've ever leaned on anyone before. don't make the mistake of thinking war is the only option. there are many others. read above posts if you don't believe me. America loves all people of all lands thats why we are just to cool! George SR should have taken his butt out but he was listening to all the do gooders appeasers here and in the UN. after all these years of the UN doing nothing and Billy boy not doing much of anything either it is time to straighten out the whole mess! funny how there isnt much democracy with the muslim world they just dont get it! INACTION is just that inaction! If we had free democracy everywhere the world could be fantastic for everyone! Hey we are not trying to kill innocents we are trying to free the oppressed! Iam for freedom and thats why i use a mac instead of that evil force it on you microsoft!

Thanatoast
Jan 24, 2003, 09:47 PM
ok phil, i ask this question in all sincerity:

if we promised to be nuetral after we spanked whoever killed 3000 of our people, how many would believe us? especially when the person we're spanking isn't the one who orchestrated the attacks?

quote:
If we were less arrogant and recognized our bounds as we defended ourselves, would that work?
>i'm sure it would go a long way towards building peaceful relationships w/our neighbors, instead of building more resentment. i'm glad you recognize the possibility.

and i think you're forgetting that even if we don't attack, we're not doing nothing. besides the pressure we keep on saddam, we have also been upgrading security in our own country (almost to a scary point, but that's another thread...)

but now you start to see the alternatives (though you might not agree)

:)

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 24, 2003, 10:23 PM
sorry 1 more thing if we are so bad wouldnt all those europeans countries be U.S. States by now. Wouldnt we have owned all those oil fields , wouldnt japan be a nice tropical U.S State. S korea would be communist if not for us ,just compare them to the north. The north is starving but can build plenty of weapons while the South is thriving! and i could go on and on but the truth is we dont operate that way sure we will save your ass,rebuild you,help you etc etc. funny how everyone forgets this except those few like Britian & Australia. we dont want war with iraq nor korea but we got get those thugs out of there and bring freedom to those people and anywhere else cause if we dont no one will!

Thanatoast
Jan 24, 2003, 10:38 PM
dhm, no they wouldn't. b/c they have armies that at the time were big enough to take us on. and it wasn't in our economic interests to do so.

i'll point out that japan has a pacifist constitution (they are not allowed to deploy forces abroad, only defend themselves) and no one is trying to blow them up. coincidence? hmmmmm?

also, south korea lived under an authoritarian regime until the mid to late 80's. we didn't help them at all. we just were afraid of the spread of communism.

and who says the only way to bring freedom to a country is to start a war?

if we loved all the people of all the lands, i think there would be less of them burning our flags in the streets and hanging our president in effigy.

and again with the "if we don't go to war we aren't doing anything/inaction" thing. enough already.

quote: Hey we are not trying to kill innocents we are trying to free the oppressed!
yeah, we just happen to kill the innocents, and cause those oppressive gov'ts still in power to clamp down harder....

sorry for the tone, everyone. i'm gettin' tired

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 25, 2003, 04:47 PM
Yes - we don't see the US running to help every poor country that comes along, unless of course it fits in with their plan.

Take for instance Ethiopia - a country on the brink of starvation. However, I remember a time when their government paid £30 Million (USD) for alcohol to celebrate 2 years in power... ...surely a misappropriation of funds, creating torment and suffering for their citizens. It took Bob Geldof and a flotilla of musicians to open the eyes of the world to the horrors of famine. And the major World Powers did nothing to assist. And hey - guess what? That same government is still in power in Ethiopia...

Then there was Rwanda, with over half a million Tutsis massacred by the Hutus. The Western response? Nothing.

Even worldwide pleas for the US (amongst other First-World countries) to alleviate world debt seem to fall on deaf ears. The US Government can go a long way to being more caring, and would definitely get a more favourable response from the Global Community by setting an example on how the world really should behave (an example would be to renegotiate their stance on greenhouse emissions, as set out at the Kyoto Summit last year), instead of trying to fight 3rd World countries to give the President a superiority complex, and to aid his re-election chances by giving his public something else to think about other than his failing domestic policies.

Perhaps then, so many countries won't hate them so much...

macfan
Jan 27, 2003, 05:08 PM
kiwi,

The US doesn't alway take action only in its own interest. The Somalia operation carried out by Bush in 1992 was humanitarian in nature. It was criticized by some because there was no US interest involved. Much of the aid given by the people of the United States is criticized by some citizens because it is not seen as advancing any US interests.

About Ethiopia, the US is the world's largest food donor and has given large amounts of food to that country. Europe has also given food, and I'm sure New Zealand sent something as well. To say the west has done nothing is both false and unfair. If you think the government of Ethiopia is intolerable, maybe you should do something about it.

When the Hutus are killing Tutsis, you say we should do something. I agree. We should have. Maybe you New Zealanders should have dispatched an expeditionary force to Rwanda. Why didn't you?

A word about Bush and war and domesitc policies. US presidents are generally elected on how the economy is doing. Fighting a war in Iraq isn't likely to help the economy. Wars are often followed by recession, as was the last action in Iraq. If Bush was only after reelection, he wouldn't be confronting Saddam like he is. Bush could win in Iraq, as his father did, but face failure in the 2004 election because of a poor economy, as his father did in 1992. Victory in some foreign war doesn't win elections in the United States, jobs win elections in this country. This confrontation with Iraq is about real dangers, not Bush's reelection.

Still waiting for a viable solution on Saddam other than the threat likely eventual use of military force. Today, Mr. Blix has said that Iraq isn't getting it done when it comes to disarming and cooperating with UN inspectors.

Finally, why is it so hard for people to distinguish between Bin Laden's gang and Saddam's gang? Why do we hear people saying that Saddam is not the enemy, bin Laden is the enemy, as though it is not possible to have more than one enemy at a time?!

Phil Of Mac
Jan 27, 2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik
Take for instance Ethiopia - a country on the brink of starvation. However, I remember a time when their government paid £30 Million (USD) for alcohol to celebrate 2 years in power... ...surely a misappropriation of funds, creating torment and suffering for their citizens. It took Bob Geldof and a flotilla of musicians to open the eyes of the world to the horrors of famine. And the major World Powers did nothing to assist. And hey - guess what? That same government is still in power in Ethiopia...

Then there was Rwanda, with over half a million Tutsis massacred by the Hutus. The Western response? Nothing.

Even worldwide pleas for the US (amongst other First-World countries) to alleviate world debt seem to fall on deaf ears. The US Government can go a long way to being more caring, and would definitely get a more favourable response from the Global Community by setting an example on how the world really should behave (an example would be to renegotiate their stance on greenhouse emissions, as set out at the Kyoto Summit last year), instead of trying to fight 3rd World countries to give the President a superiority complex, and to aid his re-election chances by giving his public something else to think about other than his failing domestic policies.

Perhaps then, so many countries won't hate them so much...

How do you expect us to unseat destructive regimes in Ethiopia and Rwanda? There's only one way: war. But I thought you were against war! You're just shown us your complete and total hypocrisy here.

It is not the obligation of the US government to protect Ethiopians and Rwandans. It is their obligation to protect Americans, and if millions of Americans die from Iraqi chemical weapons delivered by al-Qaeda, the US government has failed in their task. The US government therefore needs to prevent that from happening, and the only way that will happen is if we unseat Saddam Hussein in Iraq (who has incidentally been as brutal as the Ethiopian and Rwandan governments you mentioned). If we free the Iraqi people from Saddam, good for us! But the real purpose is to free the American people from the threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorism.

As for allieviating world debt, apparently you think the US should forgive the debts of third world countries. Kiwi, these third world governments take IMF low-interest loans, buy $30 million worth of alcohol with them, and ask us to forgive the loans. First off, no one in their right mind would give such low interest rates to brutal and wasteful tin horn dictators with delusions of grandeur. The sane thing is to give them high interest loans so they might have a reason to use them to DEVELOP THE DAMN COUNTRY ENOUGH TO PAY US BACK! Or, if they just remove economic controls all at once and let the free market work, they would be just like Singapore or Hong Kong.

Does the US have a dumb foreign policy? Of course! But letting African dictators get stoned on our money won't help, and neither will letting other countries dictate our internal policies.

wdlove
Jan 30, 2003, 07:15 PM
Laura Ingraham 'Lie of the day"

The 'statement of conscience' of the anti-war group Not In Our Name equates 9/11 terror with US actions in defense of our liberty: "In our name, within the U.S., the government has created two classes of people: those to whom the basic rights of the U.S. legal system are at least promised, and those who now seem to have no rights at all."

The Truth
Those "without rights at all" according to the far-left organization presumably include prisoners at Guantanamo who were captured in during the war on terror. Those prisoners of war get three "culturally appropriate" meals a day, prayer mats, and health care when needed. Their right is to be released upon termination of the conflict, or alternatively be tried for war crimes. And as for those citizens who joined enemy ranks, they are properly classified as "enemy combatants" whose status and treatment has been repeatedly upheld in federal court challenges.

alex_ant
Jan 30, 2003, 08:00 PM
What the hell? Laura Ingraham is a retard. She didn't even answer the "lie." She even admitted that the "enemy combatants" are prisoners of war!
Their right is to be released upon termination of the conflict, or alternatively be tried for war crimes.
How generous! Gee whiz, I hope that when I get arrested by Ashcroft's goons for being in the same building as a "suspected terrorist" (read: random brown skinned guy with a beard and a funny name), I will be so privileged to have 3 culturally appropriate meals a day, a prayer mat, and health care if I ever need it. It might even take the sting out of knowing that I have no access to a lawyer and that I won't have an opportunity to be tried or released until the War on Terror (which isn't really a war, well, it is, but I'm not a prisoner of war because it's kind of not that kind of war...) is over, which could be next year or next half-century.

So, what in tarnation did ever happen to the right to a fair trial? If these prisoners are such terrible people (and they probably are) then try them and get it over with! It's almost certain that they'll be found guilty, and then they can be executed! I don't see how any conservative could be opposed to seeing smoke plume from the charred flesh of an Arab terrorist in the electric chair. Bzzzzzt! Yehaw!

Thanatoast
Jan 30, 2003, 08:07 PM
the truth: part two

first of all, don't make the mistake of calling the prisoners at gauntanamo "prisoners of war". pows have rights under international law. when these people were captured, bush made up a new classification on the spot, "enemy combatants" so that he would not have to abide by international conventions. not only does this annoy our allies, it sets dangerous precedent among our enemies. doesn't matter how many meals or prayer mats you give 'em, they still got no rights.

macfan
Jan 31, 2003, 02:27 AM
While not technically classified as POWs, these GTIMO Taliban/Al Qeada types are provided with most of the rights generally afforded POWs (not giving them scientific equipment strikes me as rather prudent). Being tried or released while their comrades still fight are not among those rights, nor should they be. They are getting better than they deserve.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 31, 2003, 01:49 PM
It should be noted here that the "enemy detainees" were all captured inside Afghanistan during hostilities. It should also be noted that by detaining them at Gitmo, we're saving them from the wrath of Afghan tribesmen, who are much less picky about the Geneva Conventions.

If you don't want to be detained at Gitmo, don't move to a foreign country and enlist in an army that the United States is fighting. Seems rather simple to me.

Thanatoast
Jan 31, 2003, 07:48 PM
if u.s. servicemen were being held the way we are holding these prisoners, dubya would be raising holy hell, and rightly so. just b/c they're on the other side doesn't make it a good idea.

so since we're not breaking all of the geneva conventions, just some of them it's okay?

oh, and i love that "better than they deserve" comment. according to osama, 9/11 was better than we deserve. that kinda attitude helps no one and breeds contempt.

chrisfx811
Jan 31, 2003, 08:09 PM
i believe it was alex_ant who in one of his posts said that america is driving people into these religions that hate us so much? are you serious? america has been around for a lil over 225 years and islam has been around for how long? we are not driving anyone to these religions! not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists have been muslim. and to whomever made the comment about voting out "our tyrant" in 2 years: you better check your other options on the democrat side. can't wait to see how al sharpton ruins american's view of democrats in the upcoming primaries.:p

macfan
Jan 31, 2003, 08:17 PM
Thanatoast,
oh, and i love that "better than they deserve" comment. according to osama, 9/11 was better than we deserve. that kinda attitude helps no one and breeds contempt.

Your drawing of a moral equivalency between Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the one hand and the United States and its allies in the war on terrorism on the other is quite telling. Indeed, if you think that it is just fine to go off and join a terrorist army, conspire with your friends to fly planes into buildings, then come back and whine about the Geneva convention, you have lost the part of your mind that allows for rational thought. You want us to abide by the Geneva convention and treat them as a real army and thus as POWs? Fine. We can charge them with being spies--out uniform on the battlefield and execute every last one of them. That's the Geneva Convention way! They are getting better than they deserve. Besides, last I heard, Al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions.

If the US had POWs held in the same condidtions as those enemy combatants at Gitmo, we would be shocked and pleased. Those conditions are a whole lot better than the ones faced by many of our POWs in most of the wars of the 20th century.

Thanatoast
Jan 31, 2003, 08:23 PM
i think you must have misread that post. but just b/c we've only been around 225 years doesn't mean people can't hate us. our foriegn policy of the last 25 years has been enough for that. not all terrorists fave been muslim, either. tim mcveigh, terry nichols, and paul reid come to mind. and who says i'd vote for al sharpton? i have little doubt that he'd make for a bad president. you think he'll make it past the primaries? i don't. the dems will come up w/ someone who is strong counter-point to bush though, considering the drubbing they got in '02. bring it on.

chrisfx811
Jan 31, 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Thanatoast,


Your drawing of a moral equivalency between Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the one hand and the United States and its allies in the war on terrorism on the other is quite telling. Indeed, if you think that it is just fine to go off and join a terrorist army, conspire with your friends to fly planes into buildings, then come back and whine about the Geneva convention, you have lost the part of your mind that allows for rational thought. You want us to abide by the Geneva convention and treat them as a real army and thus as POWs? Fine. We can charge them with being spies--out uniform on the battlefield and execute every last one of them. That's the Geneva Convention way! They are getting better than they deserve. Besides, last I heard, Al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions.

If the US had POWs held in the same condidtions as those enemy combatants at Gitmo, we would be shocked and pleased. Those conditions are a whole lot better than the ones faced by many of our POWs in most of the wars of the 20th century. with a staunch, unblemished record of heterosexuality, i would like to say that was beautiful:D
are you people seriously equating terrorists with pow's

Thanatoast
Jan 31, 2003, 08:47 PM
quote: We can charge them with being spies--out uniform on the battlefield and execute every last one of them. That's the Geneva Convention way!
then that's the way it should've been done. don't you understand? it's the rules that matter, not the labels. if we start breaking the rules, what's to stop anyone else from doing the same. in terms you can understand: we lose the moral high ground.

quote: are you people seriously equating terrorists with pow's
not you people, just me. and i'm sure the english called the americans terrorists in the revolutionary war. it's a label that helps demonize one group of people against another.

can't you people think outside the box for one second? violence begets violence. instead of fighting, try talking, negotiating, telling a joke, anything. the lack of meaningfull communication between the middle east and ourselves has caused this mess. our superior attitudes and big guns will not get us out of it. there's gotta be a better way out there, it's just a matter of finding it. and i never believe in striking first. if i can't find a way out of a situation without throwing the first punch, i consider it a personal failure, and i believe that's the way we should operate as a nation.

and yes, i would rather be one of those killed in [insert random axis member of the week here]'s first strike than live by bullying others before they get the chance to bully me.

it must be nice living where there's only one side to a story, and one solution to a problem. probably makes life a lot simpler (and more violent, and adds to the constant fear of reprisal and the revocation of liberties, and gains the hatred of your neighbors)

Phil Of Mac
Jan 31, 2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
if u.s. servicemen were being held the way we are holding these prisoners, dubya would be raising holy hell, and rightly so. just b/c they're on the other side doesn't make it a good idea.

so since we're not breaking all of the geneva conventions, just some of them it's okay?



We aren't breaking any part of the Geneva Convention, as far as I know. Certainly not with these prisoners. The POW statutes relate to uniformed members of a national army, which the Al-Qaeda and Taliban are not. They are ununiformed combatants, and under the Geneva Convention, they are classified as spies and it is perfectly acceptable to summarily execute them. We choose to imprison them instead, because they might have useful information.

I think you need to realize that we were fighting a war in Afghanistan. And when you're at war (especially when you're the U.S.), people surrender to you and you have to hold them prisoner. If American troops were taken prisoner and treated as well as we're treating the detainees, it would be perfectly acceptable under the rules of war.

macfan
Jan 31, 2003, 09:10 PM
instead of fighting, try talking, negotiating, telling a joke, anything

Hey Osama, did you hear the one about the Irishman in Belfast? A masked man jumped him, held a knife to his throat, and said "Catholic or Protestant". The Irishman thought fast, "If I say Catholic, he'll be Protestant and kill me, but if I say Protestant, he'll be Catholic and kill me." Out loud he said: "I'm a Jew!" "Ah! the masked man replied, "I'm the luckiest Arab in Ireland!"

Yep, instead of fighting terrorists, we should just tell them jokes and they will come around. I've got to admit that is really thinking outside of the box. However, the central concept in thinking outside the box is "thinking" not "outside the box." In your world, John Adams is the equivalent of Osama bin Laden. If you can't see the differences, you haven't been thinking at all, box or not.

In Iraq, we are not striking the first blow. Indeed, we have shown great restraint in dealing with Iraq. It is a continuation of the aftermath of Saddam's war on Kuwait. In Afghanistan, we did not strike the first blow. Our initial strikes were in response to embassy bombings in Africa, and the more recent removal of the Taliban as a power in Afghanistan was a response to almost 3,000 dead Americans and our guests.


it must be nice living where there's only one side to a story, and one solution to a problem. probably makes life a lot simpler (and more violent, and adds to the constant fear of reprisal and the revocation of liberties, and gains the hatred of your neighbors)


I wouldn't know, it seems that is the world in which you live. A world in which platitudes like "there must be another way or violence begats violence" and bumper sticker slogans substitute for clear thinking. I might remind you that violence solved the problem of Hitler, and we were negotiating with Japan as they bombed Pearl Harbor. There are many sides of the story from my perspective, and there are multiple solutions. However, the pie in the sky concept that introducing Osama to Jay Leno will make everyone happy is absurdity. It must be nice living in a world where talking solves all problems.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 31, 2003, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
quote: We can charge them with being spies--out uniform on the battlefield and execute every last one of them. That's the Geneva Convention way!
then that's the way it should've been done. don't you understand? it's the rules that matter, not the labels. if we start breaking the rules, what's to stop anyone else from doing the same. in terms you can understand: we lose the moral high ground.

quote: are you people seriously equating terrorists with pow's
not you people, just me. and i'm sure the english called the americans terrorists in the revolutionary war. it's a label that helps demonize one group of people against another.

can't you people think outside the box for one second? violence begets violence. instead of fighting, try talking, negotiating, telling a joke, anything. the lack of meaningfull communication between the middle east and ourselves has caused this mess. our superior attitudes and big guns will not get us out of it. there's gotta be a better way out there, it's just a matter of finding it. and i never believe in striking first. if i can't find a way out of a situation without throwing the first punch, i consider it a personal failure, and i believe that's the way we should operate as a nation.

and yes, i would rather be one of those killed in [insert random axis member of the week here]'s first strike than live by bullying others before they get the chance to bully me.

it must be nice living where there's only one side to a story, and one solution to a problem. probably makes life a lot simpler (and more violent, and adds to the constant fear of reprisal and the revocation of liberties, and gains the hatred of your neighbors)

How do I say this clearly? You are an utter and complete moron. If there was a society entirely filled with people like you, it would be destroyed by the first gang, riot, or shoplifter that came along.

For instance, you can't tell me that you'd rather we killed the detainees instead of taking them prisoner. If we take them prisoner, we can get information and prevent further attacks. It's pretty likely that this has already happened.

The simple fact is, a foreign organization murdered 3000 innocent people who did absolutely nothing to them. Whatever our foreign policy has been, the secretaries, executives, shoppers, and other people at the World Trade Center had done nothing wrong to deserve being murdered under a heap of burning and collapsing steel. Forget the term "terrorist" for a moment. What these people are, are murderers. We can't tell jokes to them or communicate with them, because their only intention is to kill you and me.

Thanatoast, there are none so blind as those who will not see. If there be any reason left in you, use it. Don't close your eyes, push your fingers into your ears, and sing John Lennon songs, finding more evil than holding enemy combatants prisoner than in murdering thousands of innocent people.

Thanatoast
Jan 31, 2003, 09:49 PM
quote: If there was a society entirely filled with people like you, it would be destroyed by the first gang, riot, or shoplifter that came along.
you forget, if there was a society filled with people like me, there would *be* no gang, riot or shoplifter. it's called mutual respect and avoidance of needless violence.

i preach peace, and you call me a moron. you preach retaliation, are willing to start an all out war, and invite more terrorist attacks. i think your approach is not only wrong, but harmful to the nation. after saddam, then kim jong il, right? after kim, then iran, right? after iran, then who? you know it'll be someone. we've gotta ensure our "safety" after all (read: assert our power). it's never ending. stop the violence here, and find out why they want us dead, then do your best to fix it. don't say it won't work. it's never been tried.

quote: For instance, you can't tell me that you'd rather we killed the detainees instead of taking them prisoner.
i can, and i did. if you claim that int'l law says "shoot em" then do it. don't follow the rules only when it's convenient. if int'l law says we *may* shoot them, or we *may* take them prisoner, then obviously i'd prefer we took them prisoner, *in accordance w/said rules*.

quote: We can't tell jokes to them or communicate with them
have we tried?

i don't think you get to call me blind. you're just as quick to condem any chance for peace as i am to condem any path that leads to war.

actually, part of what irks me is that we haven't declard a war since 1941. we just send troops to countries we don't like. i think congress would be a lot more reluctant to send troops anywhere if they had to actually declare war, b/c then the responses of those we invade would be legitimized.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 31, 2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
quote: If there was a society entirely filled with people like you, it would be destroyed by the first gang, riot, or shoplifter that came along.
you forget, if there was a society filled with people like me, there would *be* no gang, riot or shoplifter. it's called mutual respect and avoidance of needless violence.

i preach peace, and you call me a moron. you preach retaliation, are willing to start an all out war, and invite more terrorist attacks. i think your approach is not only wrong, but harmful to the nation. after saddam, then kim jong il, right? after kim, then iran, right? after iran, then who? you know it'll be someone. we've gotta ensure our "safety" after all (read: assert our power). it's never ending. stop the violence here, and find out why they want us dead, then do your best to fix it. don't say it won't work. it's never been tried.

quote: For instance, you can't tell me that you'd rather we killed the detainees instead of taking them prisoner.
i can, and i did. if you claim that int'l law says "shoot em" then do it. don't follow the rules only when it's convenient. if int'l law says we *may* shoot them, or we *may* take them prisoner, then obviously i'd prefer we took them prisoner, *in accordance w/said rules*.

quote: We can't tell jokes to them or communicate with them
have we tried?

i don't think you get to call me blind. you're just as quick to condem any chance for peace as i am to condem any path that leads to war.

actually, part of what irks me is that we haven't declard a war since 1941. we just send troops to countries we don't like. i think congress would be a lot more reluctant to send troops anywhere if they had to actually declare war, b/c then the responses of those we invade would be legitimized.

Look, we're attacking al-Qaeda and their allies out of self-defense. They murdered 3,000 innocent people. If you believe in "mutual respect" and "avoidance of needless violence", you would agree with me, because al-Qaeda certainly has no respect for those 3,000 innocent people who they needlessly murdered.

Without recognizing a moral right to defense, you leave yourselves vulnerable. If a person or country is unwilling to defend itself from attack, then it will simply be attacked even more. If you declared that you would never call the police or defend your home, I'm sure that several people would realize that if they burglarized your home, they could get all sorts of free furniture and electronics. You're free to morally condemn them for it, but until you're willing to call the police and have them defend you (with force) or defend your property yourself (with force), they're not going to stop.

They want us dead because we aren't Muslim and because we're economically productive. They want us dead because we don't agree with their religion. It's a jihad--a war, INITIATED BY THEM, intended to expand the Muslim religion. If we do nothing, they will only kill more and more of us.

How ironic of you to claim you "condemn any path that leads to war" when Osama bin Laden declared war on us in 1998 as he bombed the US embassies. It took three years and 3,000 murders later for us to declare war on him. As Patrick Henry once said, "Peace, Peace, you cry. The war is already begun!" Indeed it has, and the only type of unilateral declaration of peace is a surrender.

chrisfx811
Jan 31, 2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
quote:
after saddam, then kim jong il, right? after kim, then iran, right? after iran, then who? you know it'll be someone. we've gotta ensure our "safety" after all (read: assert our power). it's never ending. stop the violence here, and find out why they want us dead, then do your best to fix it. don't say it won't work. it's never been tried.
actually, part of what irks me is that we haven't declard a war since 1941. we just send troops to countries we don't like. i think congress would be a lot more reluctant to send troops anywhere if they had to actually declare war, b/c then the responses of those we invade would be legitimized.
after iran, we can deal with syria. then libya. then saudi arabia. then we can step back and see who still has the balls to harbor and sponsor terrorists.
find out why they want us dead? simple because we are infidels! the solution? convert to radcal islam and join the jihad. so i guess you can get in line with the ***** @$$ french outside your nearest mosque and succumb to the wishes of radical , muslim terrorists. what message are you sending? if you scare us enough with your acts of savage terrorism.. then we will bow to you and submit to your demands.
please tell me how declaring war officially, would legitimize the claims of those we invade? generally, by nature of their oppressive ways they are illegitimate!
why is it if there is suffering in the world, everyone looks to the u.s. and it's deep pockets for help? yet if we do anything that would also benefit our own people we are seen as wrong?!

Phil Of Mac
Jan 31, 2003, 10:15 PM
"If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged!...
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

--Patrick Henry

alex_ant
Jan 31, 2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by chrisfx811
i believe it was alex_ant who in one of his posts said that america is driving people into these religions that hate us so much? are you serious? america has been around for a lil over 225 years and islam has been around for how long?
Radical America-hating Islam has been around for roughly <225 years. Many specific varieties of religion are products of their times.

alex_ant
Jan 31, 2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by chrisfx811

after iran, we can deal with syria. then libya. then saudi arabia. then we can step back and see who still has the balls to harbor and sponsor terrorists.
It's all about balls isn't it? Who has the biggest cock?

alex_ant
Jan 31, 2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Look, we're attacking al-Qaeda and their allies out of self-defense. They murdered 3,000 innocent people.
"Self-defense?" Isn't defense about resisting an attack before or as it happens? And we're not attacking al-Qaida, we're attacking Iraq. Contrary to what George Bush would have us believe, the 2 aren't one in the same. (And probably have very little if anything to do with each other)
Without recognizing a moral right to defense, you leave yourselves vulnerable. If a person or country is unwilling to defend itself from attack, then it will simply be attacked even more.
Downing the planes on 9/11 before they hit would have been defense. Building a big forcefield outside the WTC & Pentagon would have been defense. Retaliating against a country vaguely affiliated (if at all) with the terrorist organization that perpetrated these attacks 15 months after the fact is not defense.
If you declared that you would never call the police or defend your home, I'm sure that several people would realize that if they burglarized your home, they could get all sorts of free furniture and electronics. You're free to morally condemn them for it, but until you're willing to call the police and have them defend you (with force) or defend your property yourself (with force), they're not going to stop.
Locking my door would be defense. Buying a gun and saying "Get the **** out or I'll shoot" would be defense. Having something of stolen and then having the thief arrested 15 months later would not be defense.
They want us dead because we aren't Muslim and because we're economically productive.
No, they want us dead because we oppress them. It's true, mate. Read the Amnesty International reports for countries in their region. We support their godawful regimes, we pit them against each other for our own benefit, we apply our principles to them selectively, unilaterally, and heavy-handedly. We don't give a flying faadlsfkjalfj about them.
They want us dead because we don't agree with their religion. It's a jihad--a war, INITIATED BY THEM, intended to expand the Muslim religion. If we do nothing, they will only kill more and more of us.
2 points: 1) Nobody is saying "do nothing."
2) Their religion was given a chance to form by their hatred for us which has been building steadily over the past decades as a result of our asinine foreign policy. If we had behaved differently towards them, it's quite likely they would be talking about buying us a beer rather than hitting us with anthrax.

alex_ant
Jan 31, 2003, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Looks like he ended up getting both. Much like the civilian population of Baghdad in a few weeks.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 31, 2003, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

"Self-defense?" Isn't defense about resisting an attack before or as it happens? And we're not attacking al-Qaida, we're attacking Iraq. Contrary to what George Bush would have us believe, the 2 aren't one in the same. (And probably have very little if anything to do with each other)

Downing the planes on 9/11 before they hit would have been defense. Building a big forcefield outside the WTC & Pentagon would have been defense. Retaliating against a country vaguely affiliated (if at all) with the terrorist organization that perpetrated these attacks 15 months after the fact is not defense.

Locking my door would be defense. Buying a gun and saying "Get the **** out or I'll shoot" would be defense. Having something of stolen and then having the thief arrested 15 months later would not be defense.

No, they want us dead because we oppress them. It's true, mate. Read the Amnesty International reports for countries in their region. We support their godawful regimes, we pit them against each other for our own benefit, we apply our principles to them selectively, unilaterally, and heavy-handedly. We don't give a flying faadlsfkjalfj about them.

2 points: 1) Nobody is saying "do nothing."
2) Their religion was given a chance to form by their hatred for us which has been building steadily over the past decades as a result of our asinine foreign policy. If we had behaved differently towards them, it's quite likely they would be talking about buying us a beer rather than hitting us with anthrax.


If you point a gun at me and I shoot you, that's defense. If you declare you'll kill all my friends and me and then shoot my friend, and I shoot you, that's defense. It is their stated intention to carry out more attacks in the future.

Arresting criminals could be classified as retaliation. It's the knowledge that you would call the police, and that police exist, which deters people from stealing your possessions, which makes the threat of retaliation in case of attack defensive.

I sure care about the people of Saudi Arabia. Do you care about them? I guess *we* care about them. I don't know about our government, but I guess that the 3,000 people that the terrorist bastards murdered care about the people of Saudi Arabia.

I agree, to a point, about foreign policy. However, Islam has historically always had a hatred for the non-Islamic world. I mean, they're still angry at us for the Crusades, which none of us were alive for. There are irreconcilable cultural differences. And still, none of that defends what they did. Do you see them attacking their own governments? Do you see them restricting their attacks to military and government personnel, like revolutionaries and guerrillas who have historically acted with a sense of ethics? No, they're simply racist murderers.

alex_ant
Feb 1, 2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It is if it is their stated intention to carry out more attacks in the future.
Whose, al-Qaida's? Because I know it's not Iraq's stated intention. And attacking Iraq != attacking al-Qaida.
That could be classified as retaliation. It's the knowledge that you would do that which deters people from stealing your possessions, which makes the threat of retaliation in case of attack defensive.
I'll give you that. But if the terrorists have no sense and are willing and eager to die for what they believe in, what makes you think that a threat of US retaliation will stop them from terrorizing us any more? The way I see it, it makes them even more dangerous, because it puts pressure on them to do as much damage to us as possible before they die. That theory renders your idea of self-defense pretty impotent.

I sure care about them. Do you care about them? I guess *we* care about them. I don't know about our government. I'm sure the 3,000 people they murdered care about them.
You say you "care about them," and I do too, and I'm sure most Americans if asked would say the same thing. But our actions are not and haven't been consistent with our words. (The 3k people they murdered probably care of nothing much at the moment.)

I agree, to a point. However, Islam has historically always had a hatred for the non-Islamic world. I mean, they're still angry at us for the Crusades, which none of us were alive for. There are irreconcilable cultural differences. And still, none of that defends what they did.
If there are irreconcilable cultural differences, then it follows that either all Westerners or all Islamists will eventually have to be destroyed, doesn't it? I don't believe that there are irreconcilable differences that go that deep. Surely reconciliation must be theoretically possible. Even if we think it impossible, we have to hope for it to be possible and try as hard as we can to make it possible, otherwise millions of us will have to die. (Even with all that aside - perhaps it's not necessary to become buddy buddy with the radical Islamists. Perhaps it's only necessary to find a way to carry on without them so fiery mad at us that they want to vaporize us.)

Phil Of Mac
Feb 1, 2003, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Whose, al-Qaida's? Because I know it's not Iraq's stated intention. And attacking Iraq != attacking al-Qaida.

I'll give you that. But if the terrorists have no sense and are willing and eager to die for what they believe in, what makes you think that a threat of US retaliation will stop them from terrorizing us any more? The way I see it, it makes them even more dangerous, because it puts pressure on them to do as much damage to us as possible before they die. That theory renders your idea of self-defense pretty impotent.

You say you "care about them," and I do too, and I'm sure most Americans if asked would say the same thing. But our actions are not and haven't been consistent with our words. (The 3k people they murdered probably care of nothing much at the moment.)

If there are irreconcilable cultural differences, then it follows that either all Westerners or all Islamists will eventually have to be destroyed, doesn't it? I don't believe that there are irreconcilable differences that go that deep. Surely reconciliation must be theoretically possible. Even if we think it impossible, we have to hope for it to be possible and try as hard as we can to make it possible, otherwise millions of us will have to die. (Even with all that aside - perhaps it's not necessary to become buddy buddy with the radical Islamists. Perhaps it's only necessary to find a way to carry on without them so fiery mad at us that they want to vaporize us.)

It is arguable that Iraq is aiding and abetting al-Qaeda. But all that's left to discuss there is the facts of the matter and how much we trust the President. It's a tangental issue that I'd rather not get into.

If the terrorists are eager and willing to die for what they believe for, that's great! The only disagreement is that we'd rather have them die without killing any more office workers in New York. If they really mean it, that they're willing to die, then I'm sure killing them is the ONLY way we can prevent future attacks, and thus protect ourselves. However, many of the governments harboring the terrorists are simply doing so for political reasons, or for their own interest. If they find out that we are able and willing to replace such a government by force, they will conclude it is no longer in their best interest.

Have my actions been consistent with my words? I don't recall supporting the Saudi government recently. Do you? Very few of the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, when they were alive, had even malicious intentions towards the Saudi people, much less did they act on them, But it is those 3,000 who are dead. If al-Qaeda assassinated the President or attacked our *government*, things would be different. But the fact remains that they did not even try to focus their attack on government officials, they didn't try to kill anyone who was directly responsible with US foreign policy. Instead they targeted American civilians.

Yes, there are irreconcilable differences, and either all Westerners or all "Islamists" will have to be destroyed. Let me go into this further.

Many Middle Easterners have differences with the US Government. Islamic religious authorities note this and make sure that they get to see MTV while they're getting a full dose of Islam in their schools. So not only is the US foreign policy bad to them, but *gasp* we allow women to wear pants and expose large parts of their skin in public! They make a connection between these two because they are taught that we are the Great Satan. As a result, they decide it's okay to kill Americans just because we're infidels.

I sincerely believe that most of those people are just misguided. If their minds weren't twisted by the religious authorities, they'd be willing to accept such ideals as religious tolerance. At the very least, they'd accept the ideal of not killing people who have not and never intend on harming you.

Those who cannot be brought to reason, must be prevented from killing innocent people. Those who can be brought to reason, should be. Hitler twisted many minds in Germany, and when we liberated Germany from him, we had to kill many Nazis, but most of the German people came to their senses and realized that freedom was a good thing. We did not have to kill every person who supported Hitler, as long as that person was unable to cause further harm or came to his senses about the entire thing. Likewise, what has to be done, is that we must destroy the leaders of fundamentalist Islam and let their people come to their senses about the destructive ideology they'd been brainwashed into. We were quick to de-Nazify Germany, and we must be just as quick to liberate people from terrorist ideology. (Incidentally, it's perfectly fine if they choose to practice a peaceful version of Islam. There is a significant ideological difference between Osama bin Laden and Muhammed Ali, and I think we all recognize that.)

Thanatoast
Feb 1, 2003, 02:35 AM
quote: At the very least, they'd accept the ideal of not killing people who have not and never intend on harming you.

so we're going to war w iraq, a nation that may or may not be loosely related to the perpetrators of 9/11, destroying their gov't, economy, and possibly their own lives in order to prove we mean them no harm? bzzzzzzt. warning: blatant contradiction alert.

quote: It's a tangental issue that I'd rather not get into.
yeah, it was a tangent that connected osama to saddam, and now we're going to war w saddam. i'd say it's a pretty important "tangental issue". (and STILL no one has posted a link backing this up in any way)

quote: "Yes, there are irreconcilable differences, and either all Westerners or all "Islamists" will have to be destroyed" + "At the very least, they'd accept the ideal of not killing people who have not and never intend on harming you" != sense

Phil Of Mac
Feb 1, 2003, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
quote: At the very least, they'd accept the ideal of not killing people who have not and never intend on harming you.

so we're going to war w iraq, a nation that may or may not be loosely related to the perpetrators of 9/11, destroying their gov't, economy, and possibly their own lives in order to prove we mean them no harm? bzzzzzzt. warning: blatant contradiction alert.

quote: It's a tangental issue that I'd rather not get into.
yeah, it was a tangent that connected osama to saddam, and now we're going to war w saddam. i'd say it's a pretty important "tangental issue". (and STILL no one has posted a link backing this up in any way)

quote: "Yes, there are irreconcilable differences, and either all Westerners or all "Islamists" will have to be destroyed" + "At the very least, they'd accept the ideal of not killing people who have not and never intend on harming you" != sense

There's no contradiction. We Americans mostly accept that we shouldn't kill people who don't intend to harm us. However, there is significant empirical evidence that Saddam Hussein and his cronies do intend to harm us. At the very least, we are certain that al-Qaeda is an organization devoted to that cause, and to support al-Qaeda is to be an accomplice to murder and attempted murder.

The issue of whether or not Saddam Hussein is allied with al-Qaeda is tangental from whether or not we should take retaliatory action against al-Qaeda's allies. Many people here were arguing that we shouldn't attack Iraq even if they are allied with al-Qaeda. That's all I was trying to refute.

I have no qualms about killing or supporting the killing of every single person who intends to devote their lives to my murder. If their followers can be convinced that murder is wrong, that is a better course to take, but it is the leaders themselves who must be killed. Osama bin Laden is one of the most evil men who has ever lived, because he consciously intends and has full knowledge of his evil. Any given one of his followers or supporters does not necessarily have this, and if that follower could be freed from the destructive ideology fed to him by bin Laden, he would probably be a productive human being. It's much like the difference between Hitler and his top officials, and the German people. Hitler and Co. were evil, the German people were misguided.

macfan
Feb 1, 2003, 02:50 AM
Thanatoast,
It must be very dark where your head is. We are not attacking Iraq simply because of 9/11, no matter how many times you repeat it. If Saddam was cooperating with UN inspectors, we would not be in this situation. Given his history and his present conduct, removing Saddam from power would be a prudent policy even if 9/11 had never happened. The current policy on Iraq is, in fact, a continuation of the pre 9/11 policy on Iraq. The constant whining about Al Qeada and Iraq is a classic red herring.

Phil Of Mac
Feb 1, 2003, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Thanatoast,
It must be very dark where your head is. We are not attacking Iraq simply because of 9/11, no matter how many times you repeat it. If Saddam was cooperating with UN inspectors, we would not be in this situation. Given his history and his present conduct, removing Saddam from power would be a prudent policy even if 9/11 had never happened. The current policy on Iraq is, in fact, a continuation of the pre 9/11 policy on Iraq. The constant whining about Al Qeada and Iraq is a classic red herring.

Finall, an intelligent post that I can appreciate and respectfully disagree with! (alex_ant, your posts also fall in this category, but Thanatoast's posts leave a bad flavor in my mouth.)

While I would agree that the course against Iraq has been going since the Clinton administration, the now more highly visible threat of terrorism after September 11, as well as Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism, make it all the more urgent to act now. It seems to me that there's more going on here than we know about. It is without a doubt that the government has more information on this situation than they can afford to share with us, and that carries through in a lot of ways--allies that we trust and share intel with (like the UK and Israel) support us more than other allies. Also, the al-Qaeda connection has been made by Bush himself, and he gives good points about the threat of terrorists using Iraqi WMD. (This is not meant as an endorsement of Bush, however.)

Thanatoast
Feb 1, 2003, 03:09 AM
"We Americans mostly accept that we shouldn't kill people who don't intend to harm us."
i'm sure the iraqis would think the same way about us if they didn't see four carrier battle groups off their coast.

"I have no qualms about killing every single person who intends to devote their lives to my murder."
maybe if you'd spend more time figuring out what made them devoted to your murder, and less time on figuring out how to kill them first, you could *both* live.

macfan, i'm not the one who connected osama to saddam and then decided we should invade b/c of it. that's dubya you're thinking of. i'm mearly arguing the material i was given. nice try to turn it around though. it wasn't until later that dubya invented this un resolution designed to give him an excuse to invade. i'd like to see the u.s. list every single aspect of it's weapons programs in two weeks. what a crock. and when the international community saw through that he said it was to liberate the iraqi people. but then, we're always so quick to point out that we're not the worlds policemen, right? so why now, why here? so then he said saddam's got wmd's (the new catchphrase of the week) and intends to use them against us. but still has managed to convince eight other countries he's right, and didn't manage to convince the lead inspector in iraq (the guy most expert on finding these weapons)

you guys seem to be so intent on making sure somebody gets blown the **** up this year. doesn't really matter who, does it? you would be just as happy if it were north korea, iran or france. after all, like dubya said, if you're not with us, you're against us.

macfan
Feb 1, 2003, 03:10 AM
While I would agree that the course against Iraq has been going since the Clinton administration, the now more highly visible threat of terrorism after September 11, as well as Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism, make it all the more urgent to act now.

I agree that the 9/11 makes action against Iraq more urgent, and easier to generate public support for such action, but it doesn't provide the sole justification for that action. Saddam himself and his actions alone are sufficient cause for his own removal.

Thanatoast
Feb 1, 2003, 03:15 AM
a bad flavor? bitter truth perhaps.

Phil Of Mac
Feb 1, 2003, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
"We Americans mostly accept that we shouldn't kill people who don't intend to harm us."
i'm sure the iraqis would think the same way about us if they didn't see four carrier battle groups off their coast.

"I have no qualms about killing every single person who intends to devote their lives to my murder."
maybe if you'd spend more time figuring out what made them devoted to your murder, and less time on figuring out how to kill them first, you could *both* live.

i'd like to see the u.s. list every single aspect of it's weapons programs in two weeks.

you guys seem to be so intent on making sure somebody gets blown the **** up this year. doesn't really matter who, does it? you would be just as happy if it were north korea, iran or france. after all, like dubya said, if you're not with us, you're against us.

The Iraqi people are greatly misguided if and when they support Saddam Hussein. Again, we hate Saddam's government because he supposedly is an ally of al-Qaeda and because he has WMD that al-Qaeda could use against us. If that is true, we're justified.

Thanatoast, unlike you, I'm not willing to just let someone murder me because I don't value my own survival. I rather like being alive, and I have a right to that. If someone tries to take that away from me, he's forfeited his right. If you saw a crazy man charging at you with a bloody butcher knife, would it matter to you why he wanted to kill you? If you took the time to understand that and to do what was needed (perhaps referring him to psychological counseling or something), you'd be dead before you could do anything. You may be willing to accept that, I'm not.

The US government could list all their weapons programs in two days. They have inventories of this stuff. I know that Iraq runs a ****ty little po-dunk army, and that became rather clear in the Persian Gulf War, but throwing all sorts of extraneous and irrelevant information at UN inspectors just to bog them down in it is not exactly compliance.

I would be gleeful if we could liberate Iran from the Ayotallahs, or if we could free North Korea from Kim Jong Il. I'm sure every single person languishing in their concentration camps would be gleeful as well. I wouldn't really miss France if they blew them up, but I would recognize that that would be somewhat wrong.

Phil Of Mac
Feb 1, 2003, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
a bad flavor? bitter truth perhaps.

No, more like that nasty brown acid you must be tripping on to see things that aren't really there, and to not see things that are there.

Thanatoast
Feb 1, 2003, 03:32 AM
phil, that's a post i'm willing to accept. b/c you cogently parried each of my points. not enough of that going around these days.

as for the nasty brown acid, i see the same things you do, just not the same reasons behind them.

chrisfx811
Feb 1, 2003, 09:00 AM
philofmac: while it is true some iraqi people are misguided in their support of saddam, however, many are friggen terrified of the repurcussions for NOT supporting saddam. the kurds know all to well what happens to iraqis who oppose saddam's rule. this of course is another perfect example of why saddam must be deposed.
alex_ant: you say having someone arrested 15 months after the crime is not defense? are you also implying that it's wrong as well? if so, what do we have police for?
thanatoast, you say: maybe if you'd spend more time figuring out what made them devoted to your murder, and less time on figuring out how to kill them first, you could *both* live.
by this wonderful piece of logic, you would also agree child molesters should be placed in counselling and therapy until they can be safely placed back into society.
:rolleyes: basically, all murderers should be counselled as to why they commit their crimes so that we can find ways to avoid triggering these feelings that "cause" murder. wtf, why don't you just come out and say: " i am a ***** who can be blackmailed and held hostage by any person or group of people who choose to act violently as a direct or indirect result of my actions and/or way of life." again, i believe this is a direct quote of french foreign policy!:rolleyes: so it is safe to say you do have support for your feelings.
alex_ant says: If there are irreconcilable cultural differences, then it follows that either all Westerners or all Islamists will eventually have to be destroyed, doesn't it? I don't believe that there are irreconcilable differences that go that deep. Surely reconciliation must be theoretically possible.
you don't believe that radical muslims ideas "go that deep"? who are you fooling here? or are you just that unrealistic and believe that a bit of casual debate and negotiations over a pepsi and camel burger will all of a sudden enlighten people who believe they are engaged in a holy war, and death will result in them passing into heaven for their awaiting virgins? wtf do you have to offer this person that could possibly be better than fulfilling religious prophecies that result in a free pass to heaven and a stable of virgins?

Thanatoast
Feb 1, 2003, 12:44 PM
perhaps i've simplified my argument too far. i've tried to make it as simple as possible to get my point across: talk. here's the full one. why does saddam want us dead? why does osama want us dead? what did we do to them? does anyone here know? b/c you don't go out running planes into buildings b/c some guy spilled your coffee. we must have really done something to piss these people off. seething hatred does not appear out of a vacuum. i advocate finding out what that is, and changing our behavior in such a way that makes them less likely to want us dead.

"people who choose to act violently as a direct or indirect result of my actions" - what is it you've been doing that makes people want to blackmail mail you?
"again, i believe this is a direct quote of french foreign policy!" - when's the last time the french got their wtc blown up? it's our interests that keeping getting attacked, not theirs, it's something *we're* doing to piss the terrorists off. before you talk about the french being bitches, remember that they aren't having to go to war with anyone to protect themselves. and they haven't surrendered to osama, saddam, kim, or the shah either.

arresting someone 15 months after a crime *is* acceptable. killing the neighbor who may not even know the criminal is not.

?Walk a mile in my shoes? is good advice. Our children will learn to respect others if they are used to imagining themselves in another?s place. - neil kurshman

Phil Of Mac
Feb 1, 2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
perhaps i've simplified my argument too far. i've tried to make it as simple as possible to get my point across: talk. here's the full one. why does saddam want us dead? why does osama want us dead? what did we do to them? does anyone here know? b/c you don't go out running planes into buildings b/c some guy spilled your coffee. we must have really done something to piss these people off. seething hatred does not appear out of a vacuum. i advocate finding out what that is, and changing our behavior in such a way that makes them less likely to want us dead.


The time for talk is over. The terrorists have made it clear that they are interested in talk only as far as giving and recieving demands. Talk is not going to do anything. Why they hate is is academic. When a homicidal knife-wielding maniac charges at you, and you see your dead children behind him lying in a pool of their own blood, you don't try to talk to him or ask what you may have done that caused him to kill your children. You ask those questions after you defend yourself. If you wait and try to talk, you end up dead.

In perhaps a better analogy, we can conclude that Versailles caused Hitler's rise to power. But if we tried to reason with him and apologize, Hitler would simply smile, accept the apology, and invade when you weren't looking. Osama is the same way. Changing our behavior can only make us more vulnerable, because unlike Europe in World War II, we cannot even defend ourselves from attacks as they occur. There are no invading armies to repulse, only terrorists who come into the country, blow themselves and several Americans up, and are gone.

Thanatoast
Feb 1, 2003, 02:17 PM
The time for talk has just begun, especially since no one's tried talking yet.

The reason they hate us is most definitely NOT academic.
read this. all the way to the bottom. (http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html)
now you know osama's position. does this help? do you understand a little more where he's coming from? is there room for reasonable people to disagree? in his seven demands (you made it that far, right?) i actually agree with 3, 5, 6, and 7. 4 is negotiable. 1 isn't gonna happen, but i think it's more of an urging than a demand, like mormons. and he makes some strong arguments in 2.

break out the sunscreen boys, it's about to get toasty in here.

Phil Of Mac
Feb 1, 2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
The time for talk has just begun, especially since no one's tried talking yet.

The reason they hate us is most definitely NOT academic.
read this. all the way to the bottom. (http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html)
now you know osama's position. does this help? do you understand a little more where he's coming from? is there room for reasonable people to disagree? in his seven demands (you made it that far, right?) i actually agree with 3, 5, 6, and 7. 4 is negotiable. 1 isn't gonna happen, but i think it's more of an urging than a demand, like mormons. and he makes some strong arguments in 2.

break out the sunscreen boys, it's about to get toasty in here.

We've been talking with and negotiating with and coddling these terrorists since 1979.

These are terrorists. These are murderers. These are demands of us. They aren't negotiable. If we concede any of them, it will be the same as conceding Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. Note that their first demand is that we convert to Islam. This is the true cause of their terrorism. It's a jihad--a war intended to expand the Muslim religion.

Number two would involve reinstutution of prohibition, the outlawing of homosexuality or any sex outside of marriage, gambling, and banking. It also involves repealing the First Amendment and converting from English common law to Islamic law (which notoriously allows mercy killings, but gives the death sentence for adultery, but only if you're female).

They claim that Jews have taken over our economy, which is just more anti-Semitic ************.

And it is very ironic that they mention the Lewinsky scandal as an example of our moral ineptitude. It's like the Christian Coalition, only with suicide bombings.

"That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history" <--that distinction belongs not to us, but to the People's Republic of China

Number five would seem to prohibit tourism and trade between the US and the Middle East, thus causing even greater isolation.

It's quite simple here that actions speak louder than words. If al-Qaeda's major concern was the US foreign policy, they would attack the US Government. They would not specifically attack civilians, which is their known rule of warfare. No matter your political demands, if you commit mass murder, you are not to be negotiated with.

I can't believe you'd consider negotiating with these thugs. The only time you negotiate with thugs and murderers is for your own life. But that's not negotiation--that's surrender and begging for survival. bin Laden deserves to die, and so does every sick bastard who follows that fanatical, mass-murdering son of a bitch.

Thanatoast
Feb 1, 2003, 03:46 PM
"We've been talking with and negotiating with and coddling these terrorists since 1979."
so we've kept the same stupid american foriegn policy for 24 years and it's only brought us more grief? imagine that. guess we should go bomb someone.

"Note that their first demand is that we convert to Islam."
so they think the world would be a better place if everyone believed the same things they do, and lived the same way they do. kinda like who? we push our ideals on the world too. mostly we push our economic interests on the rest of the world, and then say it's our ideals. perhaps the two aren't so far apart.

look at our economy from his point of view. in islam it is not permitted to loan money with interest. it's not brotherly. our entire nation is based on credit and interest. jewish people have been the bankers in other parts of the world (including europe, b/c chrisianity didn't allow this either) because their religion permits loaning with interest. i don't think he's right, but at least i can see why he thinks the way he does.

you forgot the second half: "not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits."

i'd like to specifically point out demands 2ix, 2x (except for the crack about jews obviously), 2xii, 2b, 2c, and 2e(link (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uswitn182929808sep18,0,7511482.story) )

no diatribes against 3, 6, and 7?

"The only time you negotiate with thugs and murderers is for your own life."
in case you hadn't noticed, our lives are exactly what's at stake. i don't want to be the next casulty in a suicide bombing b/c bush decided to start a war in the middle east. bush is only giving osama more reason to hate us. you don't win friends by intimidation. they are striking at us b/c of what they see as fifty years of oppression.

both bush and osama are playing the same game. osama wants us all dead, b/c we'll fight to the last man. bush wants all the terrorists dead for the same reason. neither side can ever win. i'd say starting to talk is a better option than permanent war.

"bin Laden deserves to die, and so does every sick bastard who follows that fanatical, mass-murdering son of a bitch."
which is exactly what osama thinks about bush. both sides need to calm the **** down, loose the rhetoric and posturing, and have a sit down. we're in a position to start this process. instead we've decided to fan the flames. congrats.

alex_ant
Feb 1, 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by chrisfx811
alex_ant: you say having someone arrested 15 months after the crime is not defense? are you also implying that it's wrong as well?
It's not wrong, it's just not defense. (Or, not a plan of defense that is likely to work at all against suicide terrorists.) All terrorists deserve justice. Being oppressed does not justify their doing what they do. But it's justice they deserve, not revenge. I'm very opposed to the "You kill us, we'll kill you" idea. If killing is wrong, then don't kill - otherwise, especially against multitudes of religious psychopaths who would love nothing more than to blow themselves and us up to gain entry into the gates of Heaven to be fed peeled grapes by 72 virgins or whatever, the killing will just spiral out of control.
by this wonderful piece of logic, you would also agree child molesters should be placed in counselling and therapy until they can be safely placed back into society.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to gain an understanding the phenomenon of sexual pedo-fascination to the point where we could prevent and eliminate it? Then no child would get molested, and nobody would have to be locked up because there would be no child molesters.
:rolleyes: basically, all murderers should be counselled as to why they commit their crimes so that we can find ways to avoid triggering these feelings that "cause" murder.
I don't understand what's wrong with this approach. Of course is probably won't be 100% successful anytime soon, and murderers should still be punished if they happen to "slip through" the "system." But murder is an effect. Every effect has a cause. If you can negate the cause, you can preclude the effect. No, it's not as simple as giving everyone on earth a 1-hour conseling session, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, or that it wouldn't be worthwhile even if it were only partially effective.
you don't believe that radical muslims ideas "go that deep"?
No, if you had read what I typed, I said I don't believe there are irreconcilable differences that go that deep.
wtf do you have to offer this person that could possibly be better than fulfilling religious prophecies that result in a free pass to heaven and a stable of virgins?
A Mac with a PPC 970 in it.

Phil Of Mac
Feb 1, 2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
All terrorists deserve justice. Being oppressed does not justify their doing what they do. But it's justice they deserve, not revenge. I'm very opposed to the "You kill us, we'll kill you" idea. If killing is wrong, then don't kill - otherwise, especially against multitudes of religious psychopaths who would love nothing more than to blow themselves and us up to gain entry into the gates of Heaven to be fed peeled grapes by 72 virgins or whatever, the killing will just spiral out of control.


If you shoot a man on my left and a man on my right, and aim at me, it's not at all wrong for me to kill you, because you're the one that initiated the killings. Likewise with terrorists, if they kill 3,000 people who had nothing to do with the US foreign policy, it's not wrong to kill them. The flaw in that thinking is that you seem to think that all violence and killing is evil. It's not, only the initiation of it is.

Face it, either every terrorist wacko dies, or more innocent people die. And the terrorist wackos are the ones willing to die for their cause. Why not grant them their wish?

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 1, 2003, 09:42 PM
Phil of Mac is correct! ------=====Also give em their wish!--------===========Resistance is Futile!!!!! Hey this way they get their 17 virgins even faster!

Thanatoast
Feb 1, 2003, 10:20 PM
"if they kill 3,000 people who had nothing to do with the US foreign policy"
did you skip that section in osama's letter to america? he says that since we vote our politicians in, we are responsible for their actions. they are our *elected representatives*. if we disagreed with their foriegn policy, we would vote them out. since we do not, he says (with fairly sound logic) that the citizens of the u.s. are responsible for its foreign policy.

"all violence and killing is evil."
all violence and killing *is* evil, even if it's for a good cause. remember what your mom used to tell you about two wrongs?

"the terrorist wackos are the ones willing to die for their cause."
so rather than get them to change their cause, we should grant their wish? how many terrorists do you want to send to heaven?

Phil Of Mac
Feb 1, 2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
"if they kill 3,000 people who had nothing to do with the US foreign policy"
did you skip that section in osama's letter to america? he says that since we vote our politicians in, we are responsible for their actions. they are our *elected representatives*. if we disagreed with their foriegn policy, we would vote them out. since we do not, he says (with fairly sound logic) that the citizens of the u.s. are responsible for its foreign policy.

"all violence and killing is evil."
all violence and killing *is* evil, even if it's for a good cause. remember what your mom used to tell you about two wrongs?

"the terrorist wackos are the ones willing to die for their cause."
so rather than get them to change their cause, we should grant their wish? how many terrorists do you want to send to heaven?

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Several of the 3,000 people in the WTC weren't US citizens. Out of those that were, there were doubtlessly several who did vote for candidates who opposed the US foreign policy. In fact, I'm sure some of them even voted for Pat Buchanan, who happens to agree with the majority of Osama's demands (convieniently replacing "Islam" with "Christianity", etc.)

If all violence and killing is evil, then why do we have police? After all, they often arrest criminals, which involves a certain degree of violence, or a threat of violence. Why is self-defense a legal defense? To declare that all violence is evil is to declare that it's wrong to defend what is rightfully mine.

And we won't convince these maniacs to change their cause any more than we could convince Hitler.

alex_ant
Feb 1, 2003, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If you shoot a man on my left and a man on my right, and aim at me, it's not at all wrong for me to kill you, because you're the one that initiated the killings. Likewise with terrorists, if they kill 3,000 people who had nothing to do with the US foreign policy, it's not wrong to kill them. The flaw in that thinking is that you seem to think that all violence and killing is evil. It's not, only the initiation of it is.
I'm willing to go along with this, if killing is made the last resort, and if it's only done after all other options (like capturing) are impossible. But, to relate this to the topic of Gulf War 2, it still hasn't been established that an attack on Iraq will have any positive impact on the reduction of terrorism anywhere. Osama bin-Laded is not going to say, "Uh-oh, Iraq has been defeated. Looks like it's time for me to hang it up." Terrorists are not going to say, "Uh oh, Iraq's bioweapons are no more. I guess we're going to have to download potato gun instructions off the internet." If we could somehow crush al-Qaida instantly, it would only be a temporary solution. The long-term elimination of terrorism will require a long-term, consistent change to our foreign policy - or else a few million dead humans.

Phil Of Mac
Feb 1, 2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

I'm willing to go along with this, if killing is made the last resort, and if it's only done after all other options (like capturing) are impossible. But, to relate this to the topic of Gulf War 2, it still hasn't been established that an attack on Iraq will have any positive impact on the reduction of terrorism anywhere. Osama bin-Laded is not going to say, "Uh-oh, Iraq has been defeated. Looks like it's time for me to hang it up." Terrorists are not going to say, "Uh oh, Iraq's bioweapons are no more. I guess we're going to have to download potato gun instructions off the internet." If we could somehow crush al-Qaida instantly, it would only be a temporary solution. The long-term elimination of terrorism will require a long-term, consistent change to our foreign policy - or else a few million dead humans.

It's almost scary how much I agree with you.

If I were President, I would launch a campaign to smash every sponsor of terrorism that exists. (If they are not sponsors of terrorism, they would of course be spared.) At the end of it, I would give the Middle East a generous Marshall Plan and then declare neutrality, with perhaps the Monroe Doctrine as the only remaining foreign policy.

However, some people have to die first. Terrorist wackos, for the safety of everyone involved, cannot stay alive.

alex_ant
Feb 2, 2003, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It's almost scary how much I agree with you.

If I were President, I would launch a campaign to smash every sponsor of terrorism that exists. (If they are not sponsors of terrorism, they would of course be spared.) At the end of it, I would give the Middle East a generous Marshall Plan and then declare neutrality, with perhaps the Monroe Doctrine as the only remaining foreign policy.

However, some people have to die first. Terrorist wackos, for the safety of everyone involved, cannot stay alive.
The Marshall Plan and the declaration of neutrality, at least in the region, are key. We've got to stop giving aid to Israel. If we could get these accomplished - fat chance - then I would be very happy, and I think the world would be a better place. I actually think the simple act of cutting off Israeli aid would settle the militant psychos down enough to not want to go out of their way to blow us up again. The terrorism will stop when what fuels it stops, not when we kill all the terrorists.

trebblekicked
Feb 2, 2003, 05:10 AM
wow.
i just read osama's letter and some of the recent posts...i'll try not to make this too long.

this letter and bush's speeches ring eerily similar to me. from what i can tell, the rest of the world, iraqi citizens, american citizens, eurpoean, asian, australian, new zealanders, indonesians, ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE are again pawns in a pissing contests between two ideologies as polarized as capitalism and communism ever were.

what the world needs now are REAL HUMANS. Real humans are people who stare adversity and oppresson in the face, and take a slap or two, but react with patience, intelligence, argument, demonstration, and goodwill. Real humans do not use religious mandate as an excuse for murdering thousands. Real humans, by the same token do not starve millions of children to punish one psychopath. Real humans do not force their views on others; they find common ground which makes coexistance possible. Mahatma (sp?) Ghandi was a real human. Martin Luther King was a real human. Albert Einstein and John Kennedy and Nikita Kruschev were real humans. American citizens are being just as manipulated by corporations as Muslim citizens are by religious fanatics. Both sides are being led by people so ignorant of the other that no compromise (read: no peace) will be possible.

trebblekicked
Feb 2, 2003, 05:18 AM
the comment in bin laden's letter about woman's rights...that was a gas.

i know the us isn't perfect, and we do have a while to go before we can say we treat women equally, but seriously, claiming that his version (read: Taliban) of islam treats woman as equals? that's ********** hillarious.

abdul
Feb 2, 2003, 06:08 PM
well if they didnt give them the weapons in the first place maybe this wouldn have happened!! oil.....really thats what this war is bout ......sorry what are they know building across afghanistan which the taliban didnt allow.....a train line..... no a oil pipe which stretches to pakistani and indian ports for oil to come more cheaply to.......wait for it........the US. not about oil......Ha

abdul
Feb 2, 2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by trebblekicked
the comment in bin laden's letter about woman's rights...that was a gas.

i know the us isn't perfect, and we do have a while to go before we can say we treat women equally, but seriously, claiming that his version (read: Taliban) of islam treats woman as equals? that's ********** hillarious.

That is f***in hillarious, the taliban were too extreme even for my liking, but how did the takliban come from such a nice religion, do ur history lesson boys....and equally speaking girls. What did the British have to do with it and the MI6 (british special secret service) while they colonised india (which split up into pakistan and india, and pakistan borders afghanistan for u who didnt know).... they formed a new flavour of Islam which they prefer to take pointers from.

Islam is a religion which preaches equality but it is the cuilture that doesnt allow this equality, as these countries have been in war for a long time, so at the end of the war they try and go back to identify what they were fighting for....go back to their grandparents culture which didnt have equality just like our grandparents culture dont forget.

job
Feb 2, 2003, 06:31 PM
Another interesting twist, this time with the Mossad...

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%5E663,00.html

PeteyKohut
Mar 1, 2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by allah akbar
The Bush administration is just trying to mop up all the garbage created and left by the Clinton administration.

I don't think I could have said it better myself. And do any of the people out there who think Bush is to blaim for the economy realize that the recession began during the Clinton administration. Mr. Clinton's gift to Mr. Bush, along with a funny little stain on the rug of the Oval Office. GEORGE W. BUSH IN 2004!

Les Kern
Mar 1, 2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by PeteyKohut
I don't think I could have said it better myself. And do any of the people out there who think Bush is to blaim for the economy realize that the recession began during the Clinton administration. Mr. Clinton's gift to Mr. Bush, along with a funny little stain on the rug of the Oval Office. GEORGE W. BUSH IN 2004!

ANYBODY but Bush in 2004.
You should think about what you read more. But that's too hard, huh? Want just one example of a recap of the Bush legacy so far? Here's one: http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html
You might argue on the left-leaning source, but it's hard to argue with actions. Want more? Probably not. Beware the sheep.

macfan
Mar 1, 2003, 10:50 AM
well if they didnt give them the weapons in the first place maybe this wouldn have happened!! oil.....really thats what this war is bout ......sorry what are they know building across afghanistan which the taliban didnt allow.....a train line..... no a oil pipe which stretches to pakistani and indian ports for oil to come more cheaply to.......wait for it........the US. not about oil......Ha

Abdul,
The idea that the invasion of Afghanistan was over an oil pipline is assinine.

Les,
While there are a number of policies with which I do not agree on your link, some of them are pretty good ideas, and generally the policies are not appropriately classified as "evil" save in the minds of Bush's political enemies.

Les Kern
Mar 1, 2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by macfan
...and generally the policies are not appropriately classified as "evil" save in the minds of Bush's political enemies.

As I said concerning the site's obvious hatred of Bush.... But any sane person, when looking over the sheer volume of Bush's bad decisions, must see that they don't seem to be in our best interests. Add them all up, and you get... well, maybe "evil".

macfan
Mar 1, 2003, 11:19 AM
The thing is that they are not all bad decisions, probably not even most of the ones mentioned, and they do not take into account any of the good decisions the administration has made. Just as an example, the affirmative action decision is correct. The specific Michigan policy, adding 20 points for the color of one's skin, is immoral on its face, and of dubious legality under the Constitution.

One wouldn't link to a site that blasted the Clinton administration policies in similar manner and say that any "sane" person would conclude that Clinton had evil policies. The fact is, any person who already thought Clinton had evil policies would reach that conclusion. Same thing with Bush.

trebblekicked
Mar 1, 2003, 02:59 PM
the wage-slave site is by no means an unbiased site, and he does summarize the articles with his oppinions, which is pretty dumb. But still, having major newspaper/media outlet stories (no op/ed) linked right there gives someone a chance to look at the policies individually or as part of a whole. The site tries to debunk the compassionate conservative mantra, and i think it does a good job.