[patconnole]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
It is certainly preferable to garner a broad coalition of support for our foreign policy, but in a pluralistic society(much less world), it is often very, very difficult. Some threats call for diplomacy and some threats demand action. I believe Bush feels that we have presented the best case we possibly could to the international community without endangering our intelligence assets. Our entreaties fell on ears that refuse to hear, so we are now forced to go it alone save our steadfast friends in the UK. In the modern word as in the ancient one, the guy with the biggest stick decides who gets squashed. We are in possession of the biggest, baddest Louisville Slugger the world has ever known and although we are historically slow to stir from our stance, Saddam has been throwing fastballs by the wrong batter's chin.

Cool. I guess our fundamental difference is that I don't consider Saddam a threat, let alone an immenent one. Not to say we shouldn't have inspectors there, or we shouldn't be approaching this problem..... I just don't think Saddam is a threat to the United States.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by N8
What country is it that all others turn to when they need help/leadership/assistance. It certainly isn't Canada or France for cryin' out loud!!!

It is the USA.

Our government is obligated to protect OUR interests and our way of life regardless of what other nations think....especially those that would hamstring us and make us weaker.

I'm not sure if this is ethnocentrism, nationalism, or patriotism.
Quick question: Morally, what has more value: US citizens, or humans in general?

 

[ummbikes]

Humans in general like the 2500+ killed on September 11, 2001.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by patconnole
A: I'm not sure if this is ethnocentrism, nationalism, or patriotism.
B: Quick question: Morally, what has more value: US citizens, or humans in general?

A: All of the above

B: Depends on your perspective of course. Humans of my tribe are more valuable to me than humans in general.

 

[Trond]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Humans in general like the 2500+ killed on September 11, 2001.

Humans in general + the millions killed by over 280 military inventions in other countries by the US over the past 30 years.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by Trond
Humans in general + the millions killed by over 280 military inventions in other countries by the US over the past 30 years.

Bin Ladin was right all along! We do suck...

Ya, it's to bad you enlightened Euorpeans don't pull your weight in the world... It's easy to sit back and take pot shots when your brothers and friends aren't putting their life on the line to defend freedom. Why the hell doesn't Norway stop Hussein, or even closer to home where were you when Milosovich was slaughtering people?

But hell, I'm just an American what the hell do I know?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
What country is it that all others turn to when they need help/leadership/assistance. It certainly isn't Canada or France for cryin' out loud!!!

It is the USA.

Our government is obligated to protect OUR interests and our way of life regardless of what other nations think....especially those that would hamstring us and make us weaker.

Yeah, except no one's asking for the US to help invade Iraq, the US is trying to garner support for its own decision to invade.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Bin Ladin was right all along! We do suck...

Ya, it's to bad you enlightened Euorpeans don't pull your weight in the world... It's easy to sit back and take pot shots when your brothers and friends aren't putting their life on the line to defend freedom. Why the hell doesn't Norway stop Hussein, or even closer to home where were you when Milosovich was slaughtering people?

But hell, I'm just an American what the hell do I know?

How come you didn't want to invade countries who supported the IRA? Plenty of British people died at the hands of irish terrorists. More dead won't bring anyone back.

 

[spinjunkie]

And as far as America's involment in this whole thing - we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we invade people will be against us and if we don't people will be against us.

Maybe we as a country have flexed our muscles a bit too much. I guess for that reason that makes us a target in other countries eyes. Maybe I'm naieve but I dont think the intent is for the US to rule the world as so many would like to think. A study abroad showed that people in foreign countries think Americans are gluttonous. Our women are whores and we solve everything with violence. When asked where they got many of these impressions, most said from watching American movies. So could the world be basing their opinions on us from what they see in the movies? If so, that's pretty shallow.

So maybe the solution is to stay at home and mind our own business. We don't have to associate with the rest of the world I say. No one comes in though our borders period. Therefore we can keep our so called "elitist" attitudes here and not share them with the rest of the world. When something becomes a problem in another part of the world, it's that countries job to figure the problem out. You stay on your side of the fence and we'll stay on ours so to speak.

Here's where I'm going with this: As a kid, I spent many a day in the hospital by my dad's bedside. He was very ill and his condition required that he stay in the hospital on a regular basis. While spending time there, I found that many a patient at the hospital was of foreign origin. Many paitents had come from various places in the world to have our doctors work on them for various aliments. Alos, my friend was in the insurance buisness for 20+ years, he said the number one place for people to come for medical care is the US. For example, Florida sees more paitents from Ireland to perform MRI's than people in Florida alone.

It's not a problem for other nations to use us to further their own benefits yet we always get criticized for sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. So we wont stick our nose in anywhere. How about that? Canada can close their borders and any trading between the two countries can stop. Africa can figure out their AIDS epidemic by themselves. And so on....

But can't everyone see that's not going to work? We are faced with a gobal problem. The poison ricin has shown up in the UK, terrorist attacks happened in Bali...Does anyone seriously think that if weapons of mass destruction are developed that they wont be used in someway?

Remeber it only took a couple of box cutters to take 2000 innocent lives. Banking on the fact of containing weapons of mass destruction to one area is playing Russian Roulette with a loaded gun. Sadam Hussien has weapons of mass destruction. He's used them before. What's the guarantee he won't do it again?


If you want to pose the argument that he doesn't have any of those chemical weapons, then why is the UN still not satisfied with the inspections they have made? Sure we can make the argument let's let the inspectors do their jobs and give them more time to do that. But as of today we in the US are on a heightened security alert due to the possibility of chemical attack. Is anyone else in the world experiencing the same thing? I'm not implying anything, just asking if that is the case in your part of the world.

It has been said/documented that if he gives them up or proves that he does not have them without a doubt - the war's over. Period. If he doesn't, the campaign will continue. The ball is in his court.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by spinjunkie
And as far as America's involment in this whole thing - we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we invade people will be against us and if we don't people will be against us.

Maybe we as a country have flexed our muscles a bit too much. I guess for that reason that makes us a target in other countries eyes. Maybe I'm naieve but I dont think the intent is for the US to rule the world as so many would like to think. A study abroad showed that people in foreign countries think Americans are gluttonous. Our women are whores and we solve everything with violence. When asked where they got many of these impressions, most said from watching American movies. So could the world be basing their opinions on us from what they see in the movies? If so, that's pretty shallow.

So maybe the solution is to stay at home and mind our own business. We don't have to associate with the rest of the world I say. No one comes in though our borders period. Therefore we can keep our so called "elitist" attitudes here and not share them with the rest of the world. When something becomes a problem in another part of the world, it's that countries job to figure the problem out. You stay on your side of the fence and we'll stay on ours so to speak.

Here's where I'm going with this: As a kid, I spent many a day in the hospital by my dad's bedside. He was very ill and his condition required that he stay in the hospital on a regular basis. While spending time there, I found that many a patient at the hospital was of foreign origin. Many paitents had come from various places in the world to have our doctors work on them for various aliments. Alos, my friend was in the insurance buisness for 20+ years, he said the number one place for people to come for medical care is the US. For example, Florida sees more paitents from Ireland to perform MRI's than people in Florida alone.

It's not a problem for other nations to use us to further their own benefits yet we always get criticized for sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. So we wont stick our nose in anywhere. How about that? Canada can close their borders and any trading between the two countries can stop. Africa can figure out their AIDS epidemic by themselves. And so on....

But can't everyone see that's not going to work? We are faced with a gobal problem. The poison ricin has shown up in the UK, terrorist attacks happened in Bali...Does anyone seriously think that if weapons of mass destruction are developed that they wont be used in someway?

Remeber it only took a couple of box cutters to take 2000 innocent lives. Banking on the fact of containing weapons of mass destruction to one area is playing Russian Roulette with a loaded gun. Sadam Hussien has weapons of mass destruction. He's used them before. What's the guarantee he won't do it again?


If you want to pose the argument that he doesn't have any of those chemical weapons, then why is the UN still not satisfied with the inspections they have made? Sure we can make the argument let's let the inspectors do their jobs and give them more time to do that. But as of today we in the US are on a heightened security alert due to the possibility of chemical attack. Is anyone else in the world experiencing the same thing? I'm not implying anything, just asking if that is the case in your part of the world.

It has been said/documented that if he gives them up or proves that he does not have them without a doubt - the war's over. Period. If he doesn't, the campaign will continue. The ball is in his court.

I don't think many people are pushing for the US to withdraw from the world and close it's borders to avoid offending or being elitists.... That's not my intention. I'm just talking about Iraq... Yes, help out with AIDS in Africa, trade with Canada, etc. It's not as simple as "we're bad" and "they're good" in general to me, so we should mind our own business, I'm just talking about our approach to Iraq, right now.

It's not that I believe Saddam does or doesn't have WMP, it's just that I'm not threatened by them. I don't have all my facts straight, but weren't the inspectors out of Iraq for a couple of years? If Saddam is so bent on attacking us, where was the WMD attack during that time?

Previous to 9/11-- were you threatened by Saddam? Why didn't he arm the terrorists with his VX gas or Anthrax on 9/11 or at some other point? I believe that we haven't seen a WMD attack yet because he isn't planning one-- it's not in his interests.

The argument that "he's used them before", I just don't see how that makes this an immenent threat, especially to US. When he "used them before", Rumsfield actually went to Baghdad and shook Saddam's hand... Why wasn't Rumsfield threatened by that reasoning, "he's used them before, we could be next!"?? Well, now Saddam and the US are enemies.. But he's knows we'd crush him if ever pulled anything--- that's why I doubt he will, that's why I'm not threatened by him. Even the FBI/CIA analysts have said the most likely time he would use them is if he is attacked. Is that a reason for us to attack? Because he would use them if we did? He didn't last time.

There was something on the news today about Saddam authorizing the use of chem weapons if a war breaks out--- and this was taken as a horrible statement?! The US "hasn't ruled out" the use of nukes! What's this double standard?


I'm not banking on containment-- but I think the inspectors should be there until Iraq responds to the specific charges Powell brought, instead of just calling them lies. But even if they don't-- It's not a "threat" to me, and it's not a justification of a US/UK invasion.

Was our security level increased today because of a chemical weapons threat?

 

[bomberz1qr20]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg


This is about combatants dying for Saddam if they choose to ignore the leaflets and non-combatants dying on 09/11/01 in NY, DC and PA.

Ok you lost me here. Saddam is now totally responsible for 9/11?

Oh ok, so they haven't caught those responsible, so let's make it look like Iraq is behind it all to justify an imperialist invasion for oil.

Cool. That Dick Cheney is one smart cookie, and a hell of a ventriloquist. I think I even saw him drinking water at the State of the Union address while Bush was speaking!

OUR LEADERS ARE INSANE, AND SO ARE THE ENEMIES THAT THEY CULTIVATE.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
The argument that "he's used them before", I just don't see how that makes this an immenent threat, especially to US. When he "used them before", Rumsfield actually went to Baghdad and shook Saddam's hand... Why wasn't Rumsfield threatened by that reasoning, "he's used them before, we could be next!"?? Well, now Saddam and the US are enemies.. But he's knows we'd crush him if ever pulled anything--- that's why I doubt he will, that's why I'm not threatened by him. Even the FBI/CIA analysts have said the most likely time he would use them is if he is attacked. Is that a reason for us to attack? Because he would use them if we did? He didn't last time.

There was something on the news today about Saddam authorizing the use of chem weapons if a war breaks out--- and this was taken as a horrible statement?! The US "hasn't ruled out" the use of nukes! What's this double standard?

I'm not banking on containment-- but I think the inspectors should be there until Iraq responds to the specific charges Powell brought, instead of just calling them lies. But even if they don't-- It's not a "threat" to me, and it's not a justification of a US/UK invasion.

Was our security level increased today because of a chemical weapons threat?

See but that's how it all starts. "Its not a threat to me." "It doesn't affect me." "Why should I care that's 8000 miles from here." "I don't feel threatened." All hell is brought down on a group of US soldiers in Somalia. I remember folks getting pissed that US troops were even there because "it doesn't affect us, they aren't a threat to us." A car bombing in Riyadh in 95. A military barracks gets blown up in Dhahran in 96. Two US embassies bombed in 1998. A US warship gets attacked 2000. And still we don't see any of this as a threat or warning.

If we had started a campaign against Afganistan even after all of this, we would be hearing the samething that we hear now. That's not a threat to me, leave them alone, you don't have any real proof that they are responsible, or that they are a threat. But then all of a sudden it wasn't so far away. But maybe NYC is too far from Washington to count.

I can't answer the question about why a chemical attack hasn't happened here yet. I can't tell you why Saddam hasn't starting lobbing them across the desert at his neighbors. I don't even know if he would sell them or not. I don't know why Saddam made the return of the inspectors such a big deal if he isn't hiding anything. Or if the UN sanctions have been so terrible why he doesn't get with the program. How you authorize the use of chemcial weapons if you don't have any? I don't know why the Afgans didn't pack up Osama and send him straight to us when we said give him up or we will rain heavy on your parade. I don't know if Saddam is smarter than the Taliban. I can't figure the North Koreans out. We feed you, you take that as a threat and you still start producing nuclear weapons. Do you? Can you answer any of these questions with a sure answer? Sometimes folks perception isn't close to the reality of a situation. Sometimes folks just aren't wired right. Apparently some places cause and effect aren't taught.

I also don't know why it took Osama and his cronies 10 years to get around to attacking the US proper. But what I do know is that I wish someone would have recognized the threat in 1993 and done something about it then, instead of categorizing it has not a threat.

 

[spinjunkie]

We all were and are threatened by Saddam and terrorists like him before and after 9/11. Saddam has not complied with the resolution 1441. The resolution that claims he is to disarm. The same resolution that has been in place for 12 years. Maybe we're hearing more about it because Clinton never chose to do anything about it. Maybe it wasn't a serious threat until now. I'm not privy to all of the intelligence that the US has done in the past and contiues to do.

You state that a chemical weapons attack is not in his interest. Why then is he assembling them? Is it a hobby?

You said that he didn't use them the last time. Ever heard of Gulf-War syndrome? Did you fight? How can you be so sure the troops weren't exposed? My friend came back from there with a case of hepatitis....The kind you dont get rid of.

Why do you view the use of using nukes differently than using chemical weapons? The UN told him to disarm. He didn't. We said we would disarm him. He said he'd use the chemical weapons. But wait.....he said earlier he didn't have any. Don't you see, they're blowing up the fact that they caught him in a lie?

BTW the use of nukes is a horrible statement as well just as the use of chemical weapons - they're all bombs.

So we go back to the argument if he has them why doesn't he give them up? It would save everybody a lot of hassle. We won't attack if he gives them up - plain and simple. Instead they say we are lying - well here's their chance to prove to the world everything Colin Powell said was wrong. They have the opportunity to address each and everyone of his claims and debunk them.

The point I made about 9/11 is this - if a terrorist organization can reek that much havoc with box cutters, what can happen if they get chemical weapons? I seriously doubt Saddam would turn down anyone that contacted him about purchasing some of the chemicals he and the gents have mixed up in their labs to use on us here in the states.

What is a justified invasion in your mind? When do we stop turning the other cheek? When's the right time to react or simply act? I not trying to be a war monger but, what do we do, ask him - "pretty please will you disarm?" I'm sure the gov't knows far more about this situation than you or I - I'm trusting their judgement. If Bush wanted to go to war so bad why didn't he just do it? If he's got a score to settle, why is the administration taking so much time trying to convince everyone of the need? And if the security council says that the need for a strike is justified, then are we still wrong if we go in?

One thing everyone seems to agree on so far is that he is a thug. A crazy madman many have said. Do we let him stock-pile and then launch the stuff over to boardring countries? I thought you said we should continue to help the world? No one can make the judgement how or when he will use those weapons. Same goes for North Korea. People don't believe in Bush because he's not a charismatic leader. He trips over his words and isn't a great public speaker. Maybe someone that presented himself/herself better would get more respect.

So what's the magic answer to this whole situation? How do we resolve it? I'm all ears...and I didn't mean that sacrcastically. Do we let inspectors continue to be led around on wild goose chases? Do we let Saddam exsist with his arsenal and only address him when he becomes a problem?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by spinjunkie
You state that a chemical weapons attack is not in his interest. Why then is he assembling them? Is it a hobby?

Is it a hobby? That's classic.

 

[SandMan]

Very well said Drunken_Ninja.

 

[Trond]

good words drunken_ninja.

I have some of my best friends in the US also, after living there for three years. Your country offers great opportunity, but sometimes it's too much.

Please understand that the US has invaded so many countries over the past 30 years, and stationed troops there, that some of the purpose vanishes. Sometimes you invade in good purpose, but most of the time it is economical interests that leads your troops. Your papers tell you differently, but for everyone else in the world it seems like propaganda. Take for instance Afghanistan. The US trained, pushed weapons and fundings into Afghanistan in the early eightes. This for the reason to get close to Russia, where the cold war between USSR/US was ever blooming. Troops were trained and Guerilla warfare introduced. But when the wall fell and the cold war ceized to exist, the US backed out of Afghanistan without doing anything with the warfare they had created. In its wake, an estimated 4 million Afghanistan people were killed. No wonder they are pissed off.

Look at Saudi Arabia, they have the largest following of Bin Laden fans in the world with over 70.000 people swearing to his word. The US said they would confront any country who host terrorists. Well, NO terrorists in the 9/11 tragedy were Iraqi - most of them were Saudi Arabians. But the US does nothing there, where conditions among the population are worse than in Irak. Go figure, the oil is too important.

Look, I put flowers down at the American Embassy in Norway at 9/11. everyone thinks it was horrible. It's just that when EVERYONE else thinks this invasion is a bad thing but Americans, isn't it time to at least stop and wonder? Whatever the media tells you, they are colored by western ideologies. Three CNN reporters were fired in 9/11's wake because they were sceptical to the US role in this world.

And, terrorists does not invade America because you represent freedom and Democracy. It's because you've been almost everywhere with troops, and not always in the best interest of that particular country.

BTW. Someone asked (p 3) what Norwegians do in this world. Well, the percent of our GNP that are donated to poor countries, is the highest percent among western countries. It's thought to be preventive for such actions that have occured lately, and that's the sort of work that we can contribute with. It is not a huge country like yours.

Peace, we're all on the same side here.

Trond.

 

[ummbikes]

Drunken Ninja, your prose is simply tripe.

You either have a very narrow view of America or more likely just lack an ability to formulate independent thought.

Have a nice day!

 

[spinjunkie]

But I am confused by this statement - "Firstly on the subject of terrorism. Yes the world community has trepadations about what Saddam Hussein is doing. When U.S. intelligence reports that biological terror is brewing we all believe it and want to contribute all that we can. The U.S. consistently maintains an arrogant obnoxious stance with other countries. The problem originates because the american media in the will report anything based on opinion that is not support by facts only opinions which are to be taken as facts. This is considered to be Illogical argumentation by educated minds. PROPAGANDA in short. There are so many moronic comments based purely on prejudice and discrimination ... that the rest of the world are telling you the same thing time over and over again. PROVE IT. Circumstancial evidence is NOT concrete. We need justifiable proof...We will NOT condemn a people to death based on HEARSAY. So many times have we heard of the importance of chosing sides first. This is real life you dumb fvcks! IT IS NOT A GAME. As for the United Nation's stance on what should be done at this time is to find evidence that supports the claims the U.S. has made. WE finally have found out what we are looking for... the next measure is to seize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Are you saying we are influenced into going to war by our media, or are we influenced by the US intelligence reports that everyone believes...

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by ummbikes

You either have a very narrow view of America or more likely just lack an ability to formulate independent thought.

Have a nice day!

I find the rest of the world has alot more "independent thought" BTW Let stop the insults.

 

[DRB]

Use of force is the last resort. The Iraqis resistance could still potentially be outsmarted without causing a single death. I do believe that countries like Germany and Frace alike are doing their best to help americans understand this. Rather than letting american people go in to Iraq to be slaughtered thoughtlessly we share our concerns and value for human life and preservation of society. A collaborative effort to diffuse the problem requires action. America does not think that enough is being done fast enough and that there should be a more definitive output. HELP US TO HELP YOU to creative a successful outcome. The world does NOT believe that genocide is the answer. That would be foolish

The stupidity of the american people is overwhelming. The sensation that one has to kill or be killed is real. Yet using bombs that are 'almost accurate' to annihilate an entire Iraqi people is the same thing as using weapons of mass destruction. /QUOTE]

Stupidity? Genocide? Annihilation? Nuke the bastards? Your arrogance is beyond belief. When was the last time the US participated in a campaign of genocide? Do you actually believe that? If that was the case we could have already dropped nuclear weapons or tons upon tons of dumb iron bombs on every single enemy civilian center we have had in the last 20 years. GOD I AM PISSED right now. Last time I checked Baghdad was still standing. How many B-52 raids with iron bombs do you think it would have taken to level it to ground? Probably about 20 full raids. Take about 3 days total to complete. The US military put soldiers directly in harms way putting lasers on targets to TRY and keep collateral damage to a minimum. You talk about spending money on war. You are right the US spends tons and tons of money on defense spending, most of which goes to "smart" weapons systems that improve the chances of hitting the intended target and not civilians. 500lb iron bombs are dead cheap and easy to make much easier and cheaper than the slew of smart weapons. It doesn't always work and that's sad. I knew one of the Canadians that was killed in the friendly fire incident in Afgahistan. If we were so hell bent on genocide or annihilation why in the hell would we bother? I certainly don't think the US military deserves a medal, praise or any slack for showing restraint or fighting wars the way we do BUT it certainly does not deserve what you have called it.

Additionally there are financial considerations for the campaigns you are talking about. You KNOW who will foot the bill if military action takes place. Rightly so I say. The US has spent more money than you can shake a stick at rebuilding countries that have started wars and then lost. Its our way.

As for Germany and France being so helpful, why in the world was it so hard to get the latest UN resolution passed to demand UN inspectors be put back into Iraq. Up until about a year ago the French wanted all sanctions dropped completely allowing unfettered trade with Iraq. I'd like to learn but I'm just not getting it.

You should read what you wrote again and really revaluate your support of the US. Because if it was what you say, I would say that ya'll need to be looking to invade and attack us.

 

[Drunken_Ninja]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Drunken Ninja, your prose is simply tripe.

You either have a very narrow view of America or more likely just lack an ability to formulate independent thought.

There you go again. STONEWALLING anyone with a legitimate contribution to your purpose. America has leadership problems. That is all I said. I WILL NOT BE ASSIMILATED. Leadership is a contribution or a collaboration of efforts not just one.

BUSH is a MORON. The rest of you just need an education. One of these days the school of hard knocks is gonna bite you in the a$$ first.

 

[Christian]

Bush probably as a personal beef with Saddam anyway, because is papa didn't do what he intented to do right 12 years ago.
Georgie Boy wants is Papa to be proud now.....

 

[llkoolkeg]

...chop off the head. Saddam was left with quite a black eye after the last Gulf War and contrary to popular belief, he is not a blithering idiot. He has learned that to strike out at Israel, it is less painful to pay large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers than to fire a missile himself. He has learned that to strike out at us, it is easier to fund and arm others to do the dirty work than to try and spash our fighters like our friend Muammar Ghaddaffi. If Saddam is able to stall the UN long enough to implement the delivery systems(missile or human) for his nerve, biological and chemical agents, we and our allies could be in real trouble. Saddam is playing the UN like a string bass, using his weapons shell game and partial compliance to give the weak Europeans a pinhole of hope that a frightening conflict might be avoided. The UN is today's OJ Jury. I frankly think that even if the inspectors found WoMD, the French and Germans would protest invasion so long as Saddam apologizied nicely and said he wouldn't do it again.

Originally posted by bomberz1qr20
Ok you lost me here. Saddam is now totally responsible for 9/11?

Oh ok, so they haven't caught those responsible, so let's make it look like Iraq is behind it all to justify an imperialist invasion for oil.

Cool. That Dick Cheney is one smart cookie, and a hell of a ventriloquist. I think I even saw him drinking water at the State of the Union address while Bush was speaking!

OUR LEADERS ARE INSANE, AND SO ARE THE ENEMIES THAT THEY CULTIVATE.

 

[patconnole]

Jeez dudes, stop taking this crap personally!

DRB--The "it's 8000 miles away from me, why should I care" statements--- I get it, but you lump "not feeling threatened" in with that.... They're different, I do care--- I'm not threatened by his weapons in a way that justifies an invasion. And yes, NYC is close enough for me to care--- but lumping the world trade center in with this is just too great a leap for me. It seems so pragmatic, self-serving--- it seems like the administration is using the memory of something horrible to justify an unrelated goal of ousting Saddam and installing a puppet government.

Bush: "We're going to invade Iraq!"
People: "Why?"
Bush: "........ (better find a reason)"
People: "What's that?"
Bush: "Nothing. Anyway, we're going to invade Iraq because we're now in immenent danger."
People: "Oh, ok. Do you have any proof?"
Bush: "... (can't find any weapons).... Well, he gassed his
own people!"
People: "Oh yeah, forgot about that, 14 years ago."
Bush: "Have you forgotton 9/11!!???"
People: "Was Iraq part of that?"
Bush: ".... (better look for some proof now)...."

With your mention of Somalia, and the various bombings throughout the 90's.... nobody's saying we should ignore those things--- only that we should follow where the evidence leads us, and my impression is that it doesn't lead to Iraq. Does that sound crazy to anyone? At the end of your post, you say you wish we hadn't categorized Osama as "not a threat"... I agree, and the same for Saddam.. When I say I don't feel threatened by him---- don't extrapolate that to mean I don't think we should be dealing with this (if you are).


Spinjunkie-- "Why is Saddam compiling weapons". I don't know, but Bush only offers us one answer (he'll use them on us), using fear as a means to convince us.... Is "deterrant" a possible answer? Do we use our military as a deterrant?

As far as gulf war syndrome--- I didn't serve, and I haven't researched it much.... But are you excluding the possibility that our depleted uranium played a role? Or our vaccinations? Or our method of destroying Saddam's chem/bio weapons, releasing clouds of the stuff? Why was a military doctor researching the link between DU and Gulf War Syndrome fired? Listen, streaming: http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20030130.html from democracynow.org

What do we do? Send more inspectors in. OR, and I like this one: pass a resolution to remove Saddam from power, send in troops with hoards of inspectors to locate the VX gas and anthrax and all the documentation that went along with it, and destroy it. Hold trials against anyone in Saddam's regime accused of crimes against humanity, including Saddam. Set up a representative government that's held in place by the UN for 5-10 years, giving all ethnic factions veto power to prevent civil conflicts.

If the US invades unilaterally, somehow I doubt we'll be hearing something like "We've alleviated the threat! We found the weapons he was hiding!" Nope, we'll have forgottten that's why we invaded (supposedly) and Bush will say, "Peace, Freedom, and Security have been brought to the people of Iraq-- God bless America."

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
Jeez dudes, stop taking this crap personally!

DRB--The "it's 8000 miles away from me, why should I care" statements--- I get it, but you lump "not feeling threatened" in with that.... They're different, I do care--- I'm not threatened by his weapons in a way that justifies an invasion. And yes, NYC is close enough for me to care--- but lumping the world trade center in with this is just too great a leap for me. It seems so pragmatic, self-serving--- it seems like the administration is using the memory of something horrible to justify an unrelated goal of ousting Saddam and installing a puppet government.

With your mention of Somalia, and the various bombings throughout the 90's.... nobody's saying we should ignore those things--- only that we should follow where the evidence leads us, and my impression is that it doesn't lead to Iraq. Does that sound crazy to anyone? At the end of your post, you say you wish we hadn't categorized Osama as "not a threat"... I agree, and the same for Saddam.. When I say I don't feel threatened by him---- don't extrapolate that to mean I don't think we should be dealing with this (if you are).

You missed the point. I was making a comparison. I am not saying the Saddam or Iraq was responsible for 9-11 or any of the bombings I mentioned. What I am saying is that we had a good 10 years of warning that Osama was problem, and yet we did nothing because no one ever identified him as a threat and was will to do something about it. The evidence (and maybe this is hindsight) lead us to Osama and his Afganistan hideout long before 1998 or so. The evidence was there but 2 and 2 never got put together until it was too late. And here stands another "threat" that has been up to mischief for over 10 years now. While he is not responsible for any terrorist bombings (that I know of) he certainly has been a bad boy in responding to UN resolutions. But I can certainly see him selling WMD to the highest bidder eventually if he is left in place. I would just hate for anyone to be in a position to say "Why didn't we deal with him then?" See my point.

I do know that everytime the US start rattling the saber Saddam does seem to react.

I do take some of this personally. Not to the point of anger or anything (well when the US got called genocidal by drunken ninja I got pretty pissed.) Sometimes I stick a zinger in to try to make a point which more often than not doesn't work. Another of my numerous flaws.

But in your defense you have now clarified what you said. I did take it to mean that he is not a threat so lets not deal with it. However, you have indicated that is not what you meant which is more in line with what you have posted before. I don't necessarily agree with you but do understand and respect where you are coming from.

pass a resolution to remove Saddam from power, send in troops with hoards of inspectors to locate the VX gas and anthrax and all the documentation that went along with it, and destroy it. Hold trials against anyone in Saddam's regime accused of crimes against humanity, including Saddam. Set up a representative government that's held in place by the UN for 5-10 years, giving all ethnic factions veto power to prevent civil conflicts.

Be nice wouldn't it. To be honest, I'm not sure what the Iraqi military would do if the forces started moving against them, not shooting. I do know that the last time much of the fight was gone from them by the time the main ground attack started.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by Drunken_Ninja
There you go again. STONEWALLING anyone with a legitimate contribution to your purpose. America has leadership problems. That is all I said. I WILL NOT BE ASSIMILATED. Leadership is a contribution or a collaboration of efforts not just one.

BUSH is a MORON. The rest of you just need an education. One of these days the school of hard knocks is gonna bite you in the a$$ first.

I am well aware of the concept of collaboration. It is what people do when they wish to acomplish a great task together. I just wish more countrys than England, Australia, and yes even Canada would be willing to collaborate with America in riding the world of murderous regimes.

As far as my education is concerned sport I have no worries, I eat liberal dogma for breakfast everyday, it just never seems to fill me and causes gas. The problem with the entire philosophy is it rooted in a dead economic model. The peace movement seems to just veil the true calling of the activists, which seems to be socialism for all...

What do I, an uneducated American, know anyways???

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Drunken_Ninja

The stupidity of the american people is overwhelming.

You speak out of your ass.

I just cant seem to figure out why people think that just because many Americans agree with their government, that they must have been duped into believing something untrue to cause their support.
It is true that our news in the US takes on a certain slant, but shoddy reporting and hidden agendas dont change the minds of what Americans believe in. After all, we do have a conservative president and a largely liberal media base.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by DRB
The US has spent more money than you can shake a stick at rebuilding countries that have started wars and then lost. Its our way.

How many countries are better off as a result of our intervention? How many are worse? (I don't know the numbers... I have a hunch about proportions, but I'm not willing to put any more weight to it than "hunch.")

Of the ones that are worse, how many of them have we openly and publicly recognized as mistakes?

I am disinclined to trust a government that has, for the overwhleming part, failed to admit wrong-doing and learn from its past mistakes. I wouldn't accept that behavior from an individual, why should I accept it from my officials? If we claim everything we have done is "good" and then say this invasion of Iraq will also be "good," I have every reason to believe it will be of the same level of "goodness" as all the other actions. Not promising.

On the other hand, I still reluctantly view it as a necessity, though I recently heard an interesting opinion about offering Hussein the option of exile once our forces have been fully assembled, but proeceding first strike.

 

[Espen]

I totally agreed Tronds post here.

US produces more terrorist if they dont change their politics.

Use your $ to take care of your own people.





E

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Espen
I totally agreed Tronds post here.

US produces more terrorist if they dont change their politics.

Use your $ to take care of your own people.

E

Yes it is politics. And a big part of the change would be to sell out Israel and the Jews that live there. Would that be okay?

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by ohio


On the other hand, I still reluctantly view it as a necessity, though I recently heard an interesting opinion about offering Hussein the option of exile once our forces have been fully assembled, but proeceding first strike.

I have heard that also...

Wouldn't it just be swell is Hussien gave up his weapons, and went in exile in Norway?

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Espen
I totally agreed Tronds post here.

US produces more terrorist if they dont change their politics.

Use your $ to take care of your own people.





E

To the rest of the planet:

Careful what you wish for. If you are going to say something like that you had better be prepared to fend for yourself if your own particular country becomes the next Somalia, Kuait, Poland or France.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True
To the rest of the planet:

Careful what you wish for. If you are going to say something like that you had better be prepared to fend for yourself if your own particular country becomes the next Somalia, Kuait, Poland or France.

Poland? France?

This has been bothering me quite a bit but I'm trying to stay out of these threads as I think the level of argument is getting a bit pointless.

However I need to make this point. Poland was invaded in September 1939. Britain and France declared war on Germany immediately. France was invaded the following year, Britain and France fought against them ineffectively (not through cowardice but with poor tactics and outdated and insufficient equipment). The US entered the war in 1941. What the hell did the US do for Poland apart from sell them down the river to the USSR (along with the rest of Polands supposed allies).

I also remember that Joe Kennedy was quite enthusiastic about the German regime at the time...

Stop trying to fudge the issue, the US is serving its own interests.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I see nothing wrong if our interests lie in protecting our people and making the world a more stable place.

I also think that the US did quite a bit for Poland, however indirectly. I mean, the camps got shut down right?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I see nothing wrong if our interests lie in protecting our people and making the world a more stable place.

I also think that the US did quite a bit for Poland, however indirectly. I mean, the camps got shut down right?

I just think we need a bit more clarity in the debate. The US is serving its own interest and making the world a more stable place in its own image.

The USSR shut down the Polish camps. The Poles still don't like them much though. They have little affection for the British or US either. In fact I'm not sure they like anyone much!

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
Poland? France?

This has been bothering me quite a bit but I'm trying to stay out of these threads as I think the level of argument is getting a bit pointless.

However I need to make this point. Poland was invaded in September 1939. Britain and France declared war on Germany immediately. France was invaded the following year, Britain and France fought against them ineffectively (not through cowardice but with poor tactics and outdated and insufficient equipment). The US entered the war in 1941. What the hell did the US do for Poland apart from sell them down the river to the USSR (along with the rest of Polands supposed allies).

I also remember that Joe Kennedy was quite enthusiastic about the German regime at the time...

Stop trying to fudge the issue, the US is serving its own interests.

(The sound of cracking knuckles)
For starters, does the name Neville Chamberlain mean anything to you? You are completely and 100% correct about Joe Kennedy and several other US businessmen were all for Germany. The interests they had in rebuilding Germany were huge. Roosevelt because of them did not have the political capital to do anything about it. That in addition to isolationism and the great depression made it near impossible to take any action.

HOWEVER, 4000 miles away European governments which were on the scene and could have taken action to stop Germany, did nothing. Oh unless you call a campaign of appeasment something. The Nazis were painfully obvious in the rebuilding of the German Army. The Nazis take Austria in '37. They are given the Sudetenland in '38 promising England and France that was it in the Munich Agreement. Then March, 15 1939, Hitler goes ahead and takes the rest of Czechoslovakia. Even then Chamberlain had the gaul to claim that England was not bound to defend Czechoslovakia because Slovika had "declared" independence the day (March 14) before the invasion. It was ONLY after he took a horrible beating in the Parliament and the press that he changed is tune.

And all of this was predicated on the fact that England and France wanted to extract their pound of flesh from Germany following WWI. Instead of engaging them in a meaningful rebuilding and helping a war torn economy, they did nothing, leaving them for dead. But they weren't dead were they?

Finally with the invasion of Czechoslovakia, England and the rest of Europe came to realize their mistake. But as history has shown it was far far far too late, and countless millions of folks paid with their lives for that mistake.

And just to get all of your facts straight, they didn't declare war immediately. They demanded that Hitler remove his troops and stop the invasion. To which he told them to shove it. So FINALLY 2 days after the invasion started England and France declared war.

So again before you go point fingers, just like you did with that wonderful human rights post you made, please make sure you have your own ducks in a row.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB


And just to get all of your facts straight, they didn't declare war immediately. They demanded that Hitler remove his troops and stop the invasion. To which he told them to shove it. So FINALLY 2 days after the invasion started England and France declared war.

So again before you go point fingers, just like you did with that wonderful human rights post you made, please make sure you have your own ducks in a row.

Errm, did you read my post? Did I mention Czechoslovakia anywhere in it? Or even any countries even beginning with 'C'?

Or with a 'Z' anywhere in it?

Did I defend Chamberlain?

And I drew no parallels between German imperialism and the Iraq situation.

Perhaps before going off at me you might want to read what I wrote?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
Errm, did you read my post? Did I mention Czechoslovakia anywhere in it? Or even any countries even beginning with 'C'?

Or with a 'Z' anywhere in it?

Did I defend Chamberlain?

And I drew no parallels between German imperialism and the Iraq situation.

Perhaps before going off at me you might want to read what I wrote?

I did read it. I did pay very close attention to what you said. Your original post was about serving self interests. Then you wanted some credit for France and England declaring war on Poland and to take a shot at the US "what did ya'll do to help them". But see it isn't that easy. You have to take the whole thing into context to get a complete picture as to why they did it.

And Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain are big parts of that why.

Lastly, just to make sure you saw it, I was correcting your assertion that the declaration was immediate. Was that declaration serving self interests? Yep it certainly was they had hoped to drag the US into the mess they had made at that point. However, that wasn't happening because of the US economy, folks like Joe Kennedy and the American public going that's a Europe problem let them deal with it.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
I did read it. I did pay very close attention to what you said. Your original post was about serving self interests. Then you wanted some credit for France and England declaring war on Poland and to take a shot at the US "what did ya'll do to help them". But see it isn't that easy. You have to take the whole thing into context to get a complete picture as to why they did it.

And Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain are big parts of that why.

Lastly, just to make sure you saw it, I was correcting your assertion that the declaration was immediate. Was that declaration serving self interests? Yep it certainly was they had hoped to drag the US into the mess they had made at that point. However, that wasn't happening because of the US economy, folks like Joe Kennedy and the American public going that's a Europe problem let them deal with it.

Well clearly despite reading it you completely missed the point.

DT mentioned Poland and France in the context of the US saving their asses. Clearly the US did nothing to prevent the German invasion of Poland (or France).

That was the point of the post, that the US are being portrayed (almost, if not entirely, by US posters) as saviours of the free world when that is not the case and certainly not in the specific examples used.

Why and how the situation arose had nothing to do with the point. The point was that the US did not do what DT implied they did. End of story.

Clear enough?

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Damn True
To the rest of the planet:

Careful what you wish for. If you are going to say something like that you had better be prepared to fend for yourself if your own particular country becomes the next Somalia, Kuait, Poland or France.

DT, your mindset reminds me of the famous headline in an English newspaper "Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off". Much as I like Americans in general I fear the gods of hubris are gonna pay you a visit sooner or later if you keep this attitiude up. I mean if America were to disappear completely tomorrow the world would still go on. I hate to think of that happening because in my mind the positives of your country mostly outweigh the negatives but my point is America needs the rest of the world far more than the world needs America.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm of course grateful to those Americans who died in WW2 (as the best example) to protect us but I'm no more grateful to them than to all the other Allied soldiers who died in that war. Sure we couldn't have done it without you but you couldn't have done it without us. Remember it was the Japanese who attacked you and Germany that declared war on you. The idea of any alliance, especially in war, is that by helping others you help yourself. It hasn't all been one way traffic, America has benefited from it's alliances too, particularly in Europe.
Sure America could go it alone for a while but I honestly can't think of anything much positive that would come from American disengagement with the rest of the world, especially for Americans. You're the biggest, toughest kid on the block, no doubt or arguement, and it's nice to have you around most of the time but you're still just one of many. Having a "well if you don't like it I'll take my bat and ball and go home" attitude doesn't do anyone any good.