PDA

View Full Version : CNN: Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces 'World War IV'


patrick0brien
Apr 3, 2003, 03:48 PM
-All

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/index.html

What happened to 'World War III?

Did I Rip Van Winkle?

crazytom
Apr 3, 2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-All

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/index.html

What happened to 'World War III?

Did I Rip Van Winkle?

Did you read the article?

" In the address to a group of college students, Woolsey described the Cold War as the third world war and said "This fourth world war, ..."

patrick0brien
Apr 3, 2003, 04:57 PM
-crazytom

Yessir! Couple of times! He's trying to call the cold war World War III, but that's a first in my book.

crazytom
Apr 3, 2003, 05:21 PM
I'll admit that it's a first for me, too...

But I have to wonder what would constitute a war being called a "World War" nowadays?

lmalave
Apr 3, 2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-crazytom

Yessir! Couple of times! He's trying to call the cold war World War III, but that's a first in my book.

It kind of makes sense, though. He's looking at conflicts that split most of the world into two camps. The Cold war clearly pitted Communism vs. Capitalism and involved most of the world, it was just a much lower intensity conflict.

His terminology is rather extreme, but this "clash of civilizations" has been foreseen for years now. Like I asked in another thread: Syria or Iran next? Right now my money's on Syria.

JesseJames
Apr 3, 2003, 05:23 PM
Despotic regimes. You gotta love 'em.
We're just cleaning up the mess from the last century.
When you think about it. This struggle has been going on for millenia. Nothing new.
Jews, Arabs, political agendas, mistrust, distrust, and plain good ol' hate.

toontra
Apr 3, 2003, 06:04 PM
JesseJames - what are you talking about?
What mess from the last century are we (US?) "cleaning up".
I guess you're being sarcastic but about what I don't know.
To explain away a war by saying "this kind of thing's been going on for years" with a kind of shrug-of-the-shoulders inevitibility seems callous to me. That's the kind of impotent sentiment that tyrants (on all sides) rely on, leaving them free to get on with their dirty business.

pseudobrit
Apr 3, 2003, 06:32 PM
It's easy to see the Cold War as WWIII.

-- It encircled the globe, that's a fact.

-- It was a shooting war -- despite the "Cold" designation -- where the two opposing forces used other people and other nations to wage their battles against each other rather than attack one another outright.

skunk
Apr 3, 2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
the two opposing forces used other people and other nations to wage their battles against each other rather than attack one another outright.
Except in Vietnam and Afghanistan....

lmalave
Apr 3, 2003, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by skunk
Except in Vietnam and Afghanistan....

Vietnam and Korea, you mean? We were never "officially" involved in Afghanistan - we just gave covert aid to the Mujaheedin. Have you been watching too much Rambo?

NavyIntel007
Apr 3, 2003, 09:23 PM
Actually all these wars have their own themes of defeat...

WWI: Imperialism
WWII: Facism
Cold War: Communism
War on Terrorism

What's the next one?

ddtlm
Apr 3, 2003, 09:33 PM
NavyIntel007:

What's the next one?
Freedom.

Thanatoast
Apr 3, 2003, 09:34 PM
Freedom.

Edit: Damn. Too quick for me.

ddtlm
Apr 3, 2003, 09:37 PM
Thanatoast:

Edit: Damn. Too quick for me.
Dude, you're 60 seconds behind. Get with it. :)

crazytom
Apr 3, 2003, 09:50 PM
To follow the trend, Freedom isn't an 'ism'...unless we start calling it 'freedomism'...:eek:

:p

The environmentalist in me thinks the last war we'll have to fight will be against the 'organism' we call Earth. With enough SUV's on the road, victory is all ours *sinister laugh*!!!

macfan
Apr 3, 2003, 11:48 PM
This is probably more like WW VI or something like that.

The concept of a World War isn't what it used to be.

pseudobrit
Apr 4, 2003, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Actually all these wars have their own themes of defeat...

WWI: Imperialism
WWII: Facism
Cold War: Communism
War on Terrorism


That's kind of a fallacy. I'd say all those wars were the result of expansionist imperialism. You're looking at it from the view of the US having "defeated" all these "enemies," which is a bit oversimplification and a little self-righteous.

WWI was indeed the result of imperialism, but to say imperialism was defeated is wrong. It simply shuffled the deck as to who the imperialist powers could be.

WWII was simply the second phase of that war, being that it never really ended. I wouldn't say it was about defeating fascism at all; nobody really cared about fascism until Hitler's imperial land grabs got to be too much. Even then, it wasn't a war against fascism but the German nation.

The Cold War was about the imperialism of ideas and control -- communism vs. capitalism -- and who could spread their view and influence further.

The "War on Terror," well, doesn't really exist as there's no one to "defeat." The only way to fight a War on Terror short of becoming a total police state is to make people stop wanting to attack you, and the administration is doing all it can to make sure that's not happening. You could say the War on Terror is an attempt by the US to enforce its ideals and controls on the world while not giving them a voice or a method of striking back. In that sense, it would be a war against opposition.

Thanatoast
Apr 4, 2003, 01:52 AM
Very insightful, pseudobrit. Wouldn't've thought of that myself. Didn't in fact. Ha! But anyways, I find you point intriguing. All major wars so far have been about imperialism...the expansion of power and influence over our external enemies. But now the enemies are internal. I think you're right, it's either police state or less hate. I vote less hate. Do I have a second from the floor?

Dude, you're 60 seconds behind. Get with it.
:hides face with shame: ;)

Kethoticus
Apr 4, 2003, 01:59 AM
WWI: Imperialism
WWII: Facism
Cold War: Communism
War on Terrorism

What's the next one?
Alien Expansionism. Hey, you never know.

The "War on Terror," well, doesn't really exist as there's no one to "defeat." The only way to fight a War on Terror short of becoming a total police state is to make people stop wanting to attack you, and the administration is doing all it can to make sure that's not happening.
I half agree with you. When someone's single-minded fixation is to destroy you, I don't see how waging a propaganda war is necessarily going to clog up his efforts.

However, I do believe that while our war against terror has been multi-faceted, it has ignored one very important dimension: doing what we can to win the hearts and minds of Arab Muslims. The fanatics have a great voice and are able to get their message out to ignorant, poor masses who likely have little in the way of morale or self-esteem. We need to learn how to counter that and show these Muslims that we are not trying to wipe out their way of life or religion--lies the fanatical leaders are pounding into their skulls.


You could say the War on Terror is an attempt by the US to enforce its ideals and controls on the world while not giving them a voice or a method of striking back. In that sense, it would be a war against opposition.
Oh brother. I'll tell that to Osama next time he tries to blow up a skyscraper or a dam or something. I can picture it now... a tear will come to his eye as he realizes there is an American who understands. There is an American who understands that attacking terrorists is not about self-defense, but about imposing our will on the terrorists... err... innocent sheep-herders of the ME.

pseudobrit
Apr 4, 2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
Alien Expansionism. Hey, you never know.


I half agree with you. When someone's single-minded fixation is to destroy you, I don't see how waging a propaganda war is necessarily going to clog up his efforts.

However, I do believe that while our war against terror has been multi-faceted, it has ignored one very important dimension: doing what we can to win the hearts and minds of Arab Muslims. The fanatics have a great voice and are able to get their message out to ignorant, poor masses who likely have little in the way of morale or self-esteem. We need to learn how to counter that and show these Muslims that we are not trying to wipe out their way of life or religion--lies the fanatical leaders are pounding into their skulls.

Oh brother. I'll tell that to Osama next time he tries to blow up a skyscraper or a dam or something. I can picture it now... a tear will come to his eye as he realizes there is an American who understands. There is an American who understands that attacking terrorists is not about self-defense, but about imposing our will on the terrorists... err... innocent sheep-herders of the ME.

I don't think a propaganda war is the right avenue in this case. We've tried that and it rings hollow, as it should. What's needed are serious concessions to Arab demands, aid and providing them with defense. Right now, the US tries to tell the Arabs we're with them while pumping money and guns into Israel. You can't have it both ways; Israel can take care of herself.

And this is a war against opposition, as we're admittedly no longer after bin Laden. To misquote and misuse the line from that stupid country song, "Bush has forgotten." If Osama is and was not the target, then the target can be whomever we say it is. This month it's Iraq! Lucky them!

skunk
Apr 4, 2003, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by lmalave
Vietnam and Korea, you mean?
No. I meant Vietnam and Afghanistan, being examples of how the USA and the USSR did not ALWAYS use proxy armies during the Cold War.

JesseJames
Apr 4, 2003, 05:32 AM
Yeah, I guess I'm getting too cynical for my own good. I need a vacation.

pseudobrit
Apr 4, 2003, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by skunk
No. I meant Vietnam and Afghanistan, being examples of how the USA and the USSR did not ALWAYS use proxy armies during the Cold War.

Yes, but they never fought each other directly and overtly, that's the key.

Warren
Apr 4, 2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit

And this is a war against opposition, as we're admittedly no longer after bin Laden.

Who said that? Didn't we send a thousand troops into southern afgnastan to get rid of some more pockets of Al-Qaida and Taliban at the same time we started going into a iraq?

ebow
Apr 4, 2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Yes, but they never fought each other directly and overtly, that's the key.

Directly and covertly though. As far as I know, it's a pretty sure thing Soviet pilots were flying some of the North Korean MiGs, in a few air battles with US pilots over Korea. No real point here; I just find it interesting that the Cold War did involve a tiny bit of real shooting between the two superpowers.

GeneR
Apr 4, 2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by crazytom
I'll admit that it's a first for me, too...

But I have to wonder what would constitute a war being called a "World War" nowadays?

And if he/she is standing on the other side of a country border, and she has two friend, and she tells two friends, and so on and so on... is that a world war? ;)

This reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail for some reason, especially when King Arthur asks the French why they were in England... :D

beatle888
Apr 4, 2003, 02:02 PM
edited to remove flames.

ebow
Apr 4, 2003, 04:33 PM
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

:D

pimentoLoaf
Apr 4, 2003, 05:48 PM
As I recall, Nixon wrote a book about the cold war being WW3 -- can't remember the title, though.

chrisfx811
Apr 4, 2003, 05:56 PM
"what can we do to win the hearts and minds of arabs/muslims?"
how many times are people going to use this tired old "hearts and minds" line?
what can arabs/muslims do to show that they are in some way concerned about human rights and freedoms?

Dont Hurt Me
Apr 4, 2003, 06:02 PM
Do something now? do something later?

pseudobrit
Apr 4, 2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Warren
Who said that? Didn't we send a thousand troops into southern afgnastan to get rid of some more pockets of Al-Qaida and Taliban at the same time we started going into a iraq?

The administration has said that Osama is not the target anymore and it's not important if we catch him.

lmalave
Apr 4, 2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by chrisfx811
"what can we do to win the hearts and minds of arabs/muslims?"
how many times are people going to use this tired old "hearts and minds" line?
what can arabs/muslims do to show that they are in some way concerned about human rights and freedoms?

What can we do to show that we support human rights and freedoms? Why do we support Mubarak? King Fahd? Why did we support the Shah of Iran and Saddam? When did we ever support the self-determination of any country in the region except for Israel?

To most of the Arab world, not to mention the rest of the world, our claims of wanting to spread democracy and freedom are laughable, considering we've supported the oppression of hundreds of millions of people around the globe, not to mention the murder and rape of countless of thousands. If we had any consistency in our foreign policy, then they might be inclined to believe us. But if we are 'liberating' a country that we supported a decade ago, and to this day supporting dictators in the region, then what are they supposed to think?

The only thing we've succeeded in doing is radicalizing Arab countries. Since the dictators that we support have tended to suppress Islamic influence, it has only inflamed Islamic fundamentalism. So our support of Islam-suppressing dictators combined with our support of Israel is why they hate us so much. Get the picture? I am firmly of the belief that if we didn't meddle in their region the Arab world would have been better off overall. And certainly we wouldn't have terrorism directed at us if we didn't meddle in their region.

chrisfx811
Apr 4, 2003, 07:28 PM
americans are free (compared to the rest of the world)
we have done more to further women's rights than any and all arab countries combined.
we don't bomb, gas, or gun down the populations of entire cities and towns in our own country.
if we sit here and do nothing, people b!tch that we don't care. if we do something, people b!tch that we do it the wrong way.
how is it we created terrorism? these people make conscious decisions to take the actions they take.
yes, many times the u.s. has supported terrible people. and in many cases it had to do with the people these countries were fighting.
if we created this radical version of islam that is responsible for terrorism, then i guess we should be the ones to destroy it. after iraq, i guess, we just move on from there.
quick question: what do you think of the iraqi civilians who are embracing the u.s. soldiers now that we have pushed more of the iraqi army further into baghdad? funny how that works huh?

chrisfx811
Apr 4, 2003, 07:35 PM
name one arab country that we could possibly support that is free, democratic, and cares about the rights of all it's population?
kind of hard to support the right people when it's all just a big sewer of racism, intolerance, sexism, and genocide over there?!
we dropped 2 friggen nuclear bombs on japan in ww2, and they have the closest thing to a democratic gov't besides the u.s. not to mention up until recently one of the most thriving economies in the world.
i don't see japanese people flying planes into our skyscrapers, do you?

lmalave
Apr 4, 2003, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by chrisfx811
name one arab country that we could possibly support that is free, democratic, and cares about the rights of all it's population?
kind of hard to support the right people when it's all just a big sewer of racism, intolerance, sexism, and genocide over there?!
we dropped 2 friggen nuclear bombs on japan in ww2, and they have the closest thing to a democratic gov't besides the u.s. not to mention up until recently one of the most thriving economies in the world.
i don't see japanese people flying planes into our skyscrapers, do you?

Why do we need to intervene and support anybody? If it's the will of the people to be an Islamic state, why do we subjugate the people's rights to self-determination? But note my thesis - my thesis is that there would be less Islamic fundamentalism, not more, once you take out the polarizing force of American intervention.

And as for your Japan example, dropping nukes did not democratize Japan (and by the way remember Japan was an industrial powerhouse before WW2). It was the years and years of patient effort after the war that transformed the political mentality in Japan. And this rebuilding effort was led by visionary and compassionate people that were willing to do whatever it took to work with the people of Japan to build a new society. Unfortunately, our country today is led by people who think this about the Arabs: "kind of hard to support the right people when it's all just a big sewer of racism, intolerance, sexism, and genocide over there?!"

Let me ask you this: how we doin' in Afghanistan? Do you propose we do for Iraq what we did for Afghanistan: promise to rebuild the country but then cut and run when we find out that rebuilding a country is, like, uh hard?

chrisfx811
Apr 4, 2003, 09:15 PM
so the people of iraq chose saddam hussein?
name one arab country that has a democratically elected ruling gov't?
i've sometimes felt we should bail out of these *****h@le countries; if the u.s. can do something about the unrestricted immigration that allows people who hate us, our gov't, and our way of life to flow so freely into our country.
btw, why do you have such a problem with our country supporting israel anyway?

lmalave
Apr 4, 2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by chrisfx811
so the people of iraq chose saddam hussein?
name one arab country that has a democratically elected ruling gov't?
i've sometimes felt we should bail out of these *****h@le countries; if the u.s. can do something about the unrestricted immigration that allows people who hate us, our gov't, and our way of life to flow so freely into our country.
btw, why do you have such a problem with our country supporting israel anyway?

Well, Turkey is not technically an Arab country, but it is a democratic Muslim country, and in the most recent elections an Islamist party swept to power. That's why they were opposing our invasion of Iraq. See, that's why we support dictators throughout the Middle East and Latin America. Much easier to have a dictator that we can just buy out to do whatever we want. God forbid we should let the people decide their nation's policies.

And yes, I agree we shood bail out of these "*****h@le countries". That is, in fact, precisely what I'm advocating.

And hehe, really original there with the anti-immigrant sentiment. Oh well, there will always be people like you I guess.

I don't have any problem with Israel on the whole. But I don't think we should be sending them $3Billion a year in aid - the are stable enough at this point to fend for themselves. If you've read my posts, I have often been the lone voice on a forum defending Israel.
See the following thread where I address Israel by name a couple times:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22293

That being said, I am against Sharon's approach to the Palestinians for the same reason I am against Bush's "war on terrorism". You cannot defeat terrorism with violence: it just begets more terrorism. Unless you take it to the extreme of genocide, which I notice you seem to advocate. Nuke any country run by rag-tops and diaper-heads, right? But even then you'd still be making more enemies. If we go on a rampage against all the Arab countries I guarantee you the rest of the world would unite to fight us.

Kethoticus
Apr 5, 2003, 05:02 AM
I don't think a propaganda war is the right avenue in this case. We've tried that and it rings hollow, as it should.
Please explain this.

What's needed are serious concessions to Arab demands, aid and providing them with defense.
Defense against whom? And concessions to Arab demands sounds like caving in to terrorism to me. Sorry, but you're worried about where this war in Iraq's going to take the world. Imagine if the world's "sole superpower" started giving in to every nation that sponsors a suicide bomber or airline hijacker?

This war on terrorism needs a balance of backbone and compassion. We've shown the former. It is my opinion that we need to also start showing the latter.

Right now, the US tries to tell the Arabs we're with them while pumping money and guns into Israel. You can't have it both ways; Israel can take care of herself.
Yes, thanks to us. Israel STILL needs to defend itself against people who have no qualms with murdering little children--deliberately.

I don't know if Israel is going too far or not against the Palestinians, but I'll say this much: there's been one or two homicide bombings in the past few months since Israel laid down their hammer. Before Christmas, it was almost every day that we heard about a bus or dance club that was obliterated.

Sir, no flame here (you've been civil to me), but arming the Arab nations?!? That's maniacal. Look at what they've done with the weapons they've already managed to get. Besides, why are we going to reward terrorism by arming the terrorists?

Besides, no matter what we do, the terrorists are going to spin it against us. And their many followers will believe them. Why would they spin it against us? Because they truly believe that we are the enemy.

To them, we are a weak and dying culture that sees the superiority of Islamic culture as a threat. Yes, you read that right. Hence, we are supporting Israel in order to destroy Islamic culture. And what does the Koran teach? To defend Islam with your life.

The truth of the matter is that a) we have a lot of Jews in this country who no doubt influence public policy toward their homeland, and b) they're the only democratic nation in the region, currently. But to the terrorists, it goes much, much deeper and is much more insidious. Paranoia? Perhaps. But nonetheless very dangerous.


And this is a war against opposition, as we're admittedly no longer after bin Laden.

I don't believe that anymore than I believe the cult of the Raelians. We are most certainly after him. I believe the problem is that we're frustrated with not having captured him yet and we're trying to deflect attention away from that.


To misquote and misuse the line from that stupid country song, "Bush has forgotten." If Osama is and was not the target, then the target can be whomever we say it is. This month it's Iraq! Lucky them!

If we attack France or South Africa, I could see your point here. But if we start putting the heat on Syria or North Korea, I would be behind it. The UN is supposed to be the international policing body, but it's simply not capable of doing that. Neither are we (the US), but we can affect those changes that directly affect our national security or our allies. I believe common sense will teach us when it crosses the line of self-defense into outright paranoia or worse.


And I do still believe that instead of arming the Arabs or giving them food or money (which will fall victim to the propaganda of our self-declared enemies), we need very much to start preaching a very different message to the Arabs. I'm not sure what that message should be, but it needs very much to counter the Crusades message that the loonies over there are blowing themselves up for. If we can convince them that neither we nor Israel are a threat to the Islamic way of life, then we can win the war against terrorism without firing an additional shot.


You cannot defeat terrorism with violence: it just begets more terrorism.
It is the only way when they're convinced in their minds that God has commissioned them to destroy us. Do you think anything less than force is going to persuade them otherwise? The ones on the fence--those who are not fully committed to the fanatics yet--are the ones we can still reach.

Unless you take it to the extreme of genocide, which I notice you seem to advocate. Nuke any country run by rag-tops and diaper-heads, right? But even then you'd still be making more enemies. If we go on a rampage against all the Arab countries I guarantee you the rest of the world would unite to fight us.
Agreed. And this is what Osama wants. He believes that ultimately, we'll turn away because we don't have the stomach for it and his people will emerge victorious. He WANTS a pan-Arab war against the so-called Christian west. He WANTS it. We all know who'd ultimately win, but that would come at the expense of nuclear devestation and the extermination of a people. And I don't think anyone but the extreme racists out there actually want that.

This whole thing is a very delicate balance. We need to use force because if we don't, they'll take it as a sign that we won't bite if bitten, and that'll be it for our civilization. Gradually, we will fade away as terrorism and anarchy take hold.

But like you said, this can get crazy. The last thing I want to see is this thing erupting into a genuine WW with the US against the Arab world. Holy smoke. That would be horrible. We MUST convince them that if they stop blowing up buses and stores, we will not bomb their bases and overthrow their governments.

lmalave
Apr 5, 2003, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
It is the only way when they're convinced in their minds that God has commissioned them to destroy us. Do you think anything less than force is going to persuade them otherwise? The ones on the fence--those who are not fully committed to the fanatics yet--are the ones we can still reach.


Agreed. And this is what Osama wants. He believes that ultimately, we'll turn away because we don't have the stomach for it and his people will emerge victorious. He WANTS a pan-Arab war against the so-called Christian west. He WANTS it. We all know who'd ultimately win, but that would come at the expense of nuclear devestation and the extermination of a people. And I don't think anyone but the extreme racists out there actually want that.

This whole thing is a very delicate balance. We need to use force because if we don't, they'll take it as a sign that we won't bite if bitten, and that'll be it for our civilization. Gradually, we will fade away as terrorism and anarchy take hold.

But like you said, this can get crazy. The last thing I want to see is this thing erupting into a genuine WW with the US against the Arab world. Holy smoke. That would be horrible. We MUST convince them that if they stop blowing up buses and stores, we will not bomb their bases and overthrow their governments.

How do we show Arabs that we don't want to destroy them? Well, attacking them doesn't seem to be the best option, especially when simultaneously we support evey Islam-suppressing dictator in the region. And you realize we are just radicalizing those moderates we're trying to reach out to, right?

Let me put it to you this way. If 1 of 100,000 Muslims is a suicide bomber/terrorist, that's still 10,000 suicide bombers! The problem is that these few terrorists can cause a tremendous amount of damage, both physically and psychologically. So let me ask you this: in our efforts to "root out terrorism", do you really think we havent increased the pool of suicide bombers? That's why my contention that you can't "root out terrorism" through violence. It only takes a tiny, tiny percentage of the population to be extremely radicalized in order to wreak mass havoc. And violence of the sort we're propagating will always alienate at least a tiny, tiny percentate of the population. Get the picture.

Let me continue with a couple of anectdotes/analogies.

1) My friend's father is a big-wig real estate developer. Now, in his position you can't help but make a lot of enemies/rivals. Not just rival real estate developers, but also politicians, unions, citizens groups, you name it. What does he do in this situation. Fight back? Be combative? No, if he did that his troubles would never end.
His approach is to always stand his ground (e.g. if he gets sued he'll try to win in court instead of settle), but he never, never goes on the attack - that would just give more ammunition to his enemies. They would just be like "oh, look how evil this real estate developer is - we have to stop him." Instead he is magnanimous to everyone. No matter what anyone tries to do to him, he is always magnanimous and always extends the hand of friendship even to someone who's steadfastly opposed him. Now, by and large, everyone in the town likes him. Some of his biggest enemies have ended up being his best friend.

2) The following analogy is just common sense: let's say someone starts a fight with you. If you are the stronger and can easily defend yourself, it is always the best policy to just subdue the attacker and then immediately try to defuse the situation that led to the attack in the first place. If you just kick his ass in a show of force, then guess what, maybe the next day he sneaks up on you and puts a bullet in the back of your head. You just don't know. Now let's say you pre-emptively kill him so he won't sneak attack you. Well, now you've made the situation worse. You've possibly made blood enemies out of his whole family, so now one of his brothers or one of his cousins might put a bullet in the back of your head. Get the picture?

chrisfx811
Apr 5, 2003, 07:35 AM
i believe it's hussein who advocates a genocidal policy against the kurds.
in regards to the vote in the turkish parliament, a majority did vote to allow us to use the lans, unfortunately it was not the required majority by their laws. i'm sure if we had coughed up a few more billion dollars it would have passed:rolleyes:
so we are supporting dictators who suppress islam? there actually seem to be many different sects of muslims in these various countries. and when a particular group is in power, then it seems the other groups oppose this power and are suppressed.
kurds and shiites in iraq.
kurds in turkey
even osama bin laden does not like the ruling government in saudi arabia.
in your 2nd analogy however the person trying to fight you would have already gassed and murdered much of his family if the situation were a correlation to iraq.
i cannot understand , why you advocate caving in to the demands of societies that have:
1. done nothing in the past 100 years to support women's rights.
2. shown no sense of religious tolerance
3. sponsored terrorist organizations
4. done nothing to fight the hunger crises (outside their own country)
5. done nothing to combat the aids crisis in africa
6. done nothing to try and eradicate the terrorist cells who operate within their countries

as far as the use of nuclear weapons: i never directly said we should resort to their use in this conflict. however i do value the lives of american soldiers more than the lives of the iraqi civilians and iraqi soldiers who are disguised as them also. sound harsh and racist? i disagree.

Kethoticus
Apr 5, 2003, 04:42 PM
...I understand the points made here regarding defusing the situation, taking a more pacifistic approach. I know what pacifism means. You needn't have explained it in such detail. I know that by responding to aggression with aggression, you run the risk of making even more enemies. But I believe that the current situation has no easy, risk-free solutions.

I also believe that the only way to teach an animal not to attack you is to use force. If you show them that they can hit you without reprisal, their appetite will be whet and they'll become encouraged to come at you again. Osama bin Laden in particular has declared war on every US citizen, not being happy with anything less than our complete destruction. How do you contain or defuse something like that? He believes he's commissioned by God. So do the thousands or millions of people who sympathize with him. This is not a business competition or a personal conflict between 2 people. In the former, you're not even talking about lives being lost, just business. So you fight back on a business level. Violence is totally inappropriate here, as is the analogy. In a personal conflict, violence is sometimes necessary, but sometimes pacifism can work as well.

But when one group of people declares war on your nation, the situation becomes entirely different. I just don't see any solution to this other than fighting back, wiping out as many of the terrorists as we can and giving those who remain no reason to justifiably hate us (read: avoid civilian casualties as much as possible; avoid hitting religious sites; help the helpless as much as you can; etc.). But our fight is also ideological. They believe something that is completely false and is even psychotic. But their belief is very real and something that can breed more and more terrorists. I think we can agree on this one point: we need to find a way to show the Arabs that we're not their enemy unless they attack us. I'm just not sure how to do that. There may be no way to do it. It may mean abandoning our alliance with Israel and caving in to their demands, taking on the side of Islam as they see it. But that is not a viable option for me.

Unfortunately, this is the problem. They want Israel gone. Their goal is nothing less than a complete destruction of the Israeli state. Is that what we should give in to or else we'll be attacked? This is insane and we need to stand our ground, IMO. As for supporting dictators in the region that suppress Islam, my knowledge of the region is not that extensive and I'm not aware of anyone other than the Shah of Iran who might fit that description. What others are there? Feel free to email me privately about this since I don't feel like contributing to this thread anymore (it's just taking up too much of my time).

Am I right? I can not say that for certain. Neither can you. This whole thing is filled with open, unpredictable elements. This may come back to bite us in the rump some day, just like so much of our foreign policy has. Or, it may end like WWII did, minus the nukes, preferably. Only time will tell.

NavyIntel007
Apr 6, 2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
That's kind of a fallacy. I'd say all those wars were the result of expansionist imperialism. You're looking at it from the view of the US having "defeated" all these "enemies," which is a bit oversimplification and a little self-righteous.

WWI was indeed the result of imperialism, but to say imperialism was defeated is wrong. It simply shuffled the deck as to who the imperialist powers could be.

WWII was simply the second phase of that war, being that it never really ended. I wouldn't say it was about defeating fascism at all; nobody really cared about fascism until Hitler's imperial land grabs got to be too much. Even then, it wasn't a war against fascism but the German nation.

The Cold War was about the imperialism of ideas and control -- communism vs. capitalism -- and who could spread their view and influence further.

The "War on Terror," well, doesn't really exist as there's no one to "defeat." The only way to fight a War on Terror short of becoming a total police state is to make people stop wanting to attack you, and the administration is doing all it can to make sure that's not happening. You could say the War on Terror is an attempt by the US to enforce its ideals and controls on the world while not giving them a voice or a method of striking back. In that sense, it would be a war against opposition.

Whoah PSUEDObrit. I'll be the first to tell you the US chickened out of WW1 and WW2. Don't dare call me self rightous.

But do you remember the reasoning of why we didn't get involved?

"It's not our business. It's not our fight. The rumors of Hitler killing Jews, that's just rediculous. The economy is bad."

Look at much of the reasoning for not going to war now... oh it's the same? HMM...

Don't flame.

NavyIntel007
Apr 6, 2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by chrisfx811
i believe it's hussein who advocates a genocidal policy against the kurds.
in regards to the vote in the turkish parliament, a majority did vote to allow us to use the lans, unfortunately it was not the required majority by their laws. i'm sure if we had coughed up a few more billion dollars it would have passed:rolleyes:
so we are supporting dictators who suppress islam? there actually seem to be many different sects of muslims in these various countries. and when a particular group is in power, then it seems the other groups oppose this power and are suppressed.
kurds and shiites in iraq.
kurds in turkey
even osama bin laden does not like the ruling government in saudi arabia.
in your 2nd analogy however the person trying to fight you would have already gassed and murdered much of his family if the situation were a correlation to iraq.
i cannot understand , why you advocate caving in to the demands of societies that have:
1. done nothing in the past 100 years to support women's rights.
2. shown no sense of religious tolerance
3. sponsored terrorist organizations
4. done nothing to fight the hunger crises (outside their own country)
5. done nothing to combat the aids crisis in africa
6. done nothing to try and eradicate the terrorist cells who operate within their countries

as far as the use of nuclear weapons: i never directly said we should resort to their use in this conflict. however i do value the lives of american soldiers more than the lives of the iraqi civilians and iraqi soldiers who are disguised as them also. sound harsh and racist? i disagree.

Exactly, but apparently people like Psuedobrit and such don't think the muslim people need these things.

NavyIntel007
Apr 6, 2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by lmalave
What can we do to show that we support human rights and freedoms? Why do we support Mubarak? King Fahd? Why did we support the Shah of Iran and Saddam? When did we ever support the self-determination of any country in the region except for Israel?

To most of the Arab world, not to mention the rest of the world, our claims of wanting to spread democracy and freedom are laughable, considering we've supported the oppression of hundreds of millions of people around the globe, not to mention the murder and rape of countless of thousands. If we had any consistency in our foreign policy, then they might be inclined to believe us. But if we are 'liberating' a country that we supported a decade ago, and to this day supporting dictators in the region, then what are they supposed to think?

The only thing we've succeeded in doing is radicalizing Arab countries. Since the dictators that we support have tended to suppress Islamic influence, it has only inflamed Islamic fundamentalism. So our support of Islam-suppressing dictators combined with our support of Israel is why they hate us so much. Get the picture? I am firmly of the belief that if we didn't meddle in their region the Arab world would have been better off overall. And certainly we wouldn't have terrorism directed at us if we didn't meddle in their region.

I don't care what my parents say, Ronald Reagan did more damage to this world than we've ever known.

noht*
Apr 6, 2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by chrisfx811
(...) however i do value the lives of american soldiers more than the lives of the iraqi civilians (...)

:(

vniow
Apr 6, 2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by chrisfx811
however i do value the lives of american soldiers more than the lives of the iraqi civilians and iraqi soldiers who are disguised as them also. sound harsh and racist? i disagree.

Ashcroft?

Is that you?

What are you doing trolling around Mac boards?

pseudobrit
Apr 6, 2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Whoah PSUEDObrit. I'll be the first to tell you the US chickened out of WW1 and WW2. Don't dare call me self rightous.

But do you remember the reasoning of why we didn't get involved?

"It's not our business. It's not our fight. The rumors of Hitler killing Jews, that's just rediculous. The economy is bad."

Look at much of the reasoning for not going to war now... oh it's the same? HMM...

Don't flame.

Sorry if I came off as flaming you; I was saying that the argument that we needed to "defeat" the "enemies" listed in that post is self-righteous. We were there to serve our own interests first, and any humanitarian benefit came second. Plus, I argued that we never really defeated imperialism, fascism and communism, just as we won't defeat terrorism.

This war is not the same anyway. You have a piss-pot dicatorship that can't fight its way out of a wet paper bag vs. a highly advanced, industrialised nation committing itself to total war (Japan and Germany) with victories and aggression already ongoing.

Iraq has a flimsy military that's a shadow of its former self. He is a threat to no one but his own people.

This is what saddens me: we could have gone in for humanitarian reasons if we could convince the UN that it was so terrible in Iraq that failing to take imminent action would mean many deaths would take place. That would have been a terrific precendent, I think. Show the dictators and despots of the world that if they don't treat their people humanely, they will be removed by world force. And proceed to apply that standard to each and every regime that abuses human rights.

Instead, we've used the hollow, shallow and insulting lie that Iraq has WMD that it will give to terrorists any day now and invoked the horror of the 9/11 card yet again. We did cite humanitarian reasons -- his people are oppressed and starving -- they're starving because of our sanctions and oppressed because of a dictator we supported for decades.

pseudobrit
Apr 6, 2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
I don't care what my parents say, Ronald Reagan did more damage to this world than we've ever known.

I strongly agree with you there. Which is what scares me so much about Bush Lite. The conservative establishment (Limbaugh and the like) have been parading him around as being Reagan-like since he emerged as a candidate. As if that were automatically a good thing... :(

pseudobrit
Apr 6, 2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
I also believe that the only way to teach an animal not to attack you is to use force. If you show them that they can hit you without reprisal, their appetite will be whet and they'll become encouraged to come at you again.

Wow. You've just likened an entire religion and race of people to dogs. Bravo!

beatle888
Apr 6, 2003, 10:02 PM
psuedobrit you are such a joy to have around, i mean it.:)

pseudobrit
Apr 7, 2003, 09:58 AM
Now, now, don't encourage the rabble! ;)

rickvanr
Apr 7, 2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Actually all these wars have their own themes of defeat...

WWI: Imperialism
WWII: Facism
Cold War: Communism
War on Terrorism

What's the next one?

War on Iraq: Modern Day Imperialism

Thanatoast
Apr 7, 2003, 03:22 PM
How about corporatism. This war is a boon for the defense and oil industries. We're doing it (at heart) to protect the economy. Can't very well keep up spending with (Iraqi funded ;) ) terrorists blowing up buildings around us, can we?

lmalave
Apr 7, 2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
How about corporatism. This war is a boon for the defense and oil industries. We're doing it (at heart) to protect the economy. Can't very well keep up spending with (Iraqi funded ;) ) terrorists blowing up buildings around us, can we?

I'm reminded of all the flip-flopping on the Justification for GWI. On at least three occasions, James Baker stood up and said: "this is about one thing: jobs".

pseudobrit
Apr 7, 2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
How about corporatism. This war is a boon for the defense and oil industries. We're doing it (at heart) to protect the economy. Can't very well keep up spending with (Iraqi funded ;) ) terrorists blowing up buildings around us, can we?

Very prescient of you...

After he had developed a powerful militia and secret police, he reorganized the state economy into a corporate state.

Who is he? Mussolini, granddaddy of fascism and father of the corporate state, which are one and the same.