PDA

View Full Version : U.S. vs. Axis of Weasels



NewsGuy
02-14-2003, 09:22 AM
As has been pointed out by others, Germany, France, Russia, and Belgium have come to be called an Axis of Weasels.

Europe has rarely been motivated by noble principles, but rather by greed, national hatred, and cowardice, historically speaking. That's why there is no doubt that their opposition to a war in Iraq stems from their multi-billion-dollar deals with Saddam's brutal regime.

But what is their relationship to the U.S. at this point? Have they shifted from being allies to trade competitors, and now to political adversaries?

Is NATO finished? Is the UN next? I sure hope that the answer is yes to both.

ibrodsky
02-14-2003, 11:40 AM
Speaking of trade, I think it should be pointed out that Europe has been engaging in a deceptive game of protectionism for years.

Led by France, the EU pretends that its markets are open to competition, but myriad regulatory obstacles are used to keep out select products deemed a threat to European companies.

Unfortunately, the US Dept of Commerce is no more competent than the UN inspectors. I submitted a complaint to them about a specific technology that has been (and continues to be) banned in western Europe and they responded by saying that they were assured such obstacles had been removed. That was about five years ago, and we saw last week yet another example that the obstacles are still very much in place.

Rush Limbaugh suggested an interesting theory regarding their determination to shield Iraq. He doesn't think it is greed. Because they stand to lose much more if relations with the US sour sufficiently.

His theory is that those countries have been involved in supplying Saddam with materials used to produce WMD, and they are worried that a war would unearth the evidence.

NewsGuy
02-14-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by ibrodsky
Speaking of trade, I think it should be pointed out that Europe has been engaging in a deceptive game of protectionism for years.

Led by France, the EU pretends that its markets are open to competition, but myriad regulatory obstacles are used to keep out select products deemed a threat to European companies.

Right, despite our granting European countries MVP status in trade relations, they continue to undermine us with protectionism (both official and subtle), as well as circumventing sanctions on rogue countries, like Iran and Iraq.

At the same time, the American taxpayer continues to bear the cost of stationing American troops in Europe to prevent the Europeans from going to war against one another.

I think that trade competition is fine, provided of course, that the parties are forthcoming about their status.

But now, I think it's becoming clear that France, Germany and Belgium are no allies of the U.S., to say the least. In addition to being trade competitors, I think they have now become political adversaries, as well.



Rush Limbaugh suggested an interesting theory regarding their determination to shield Iraq. He doesn't think it is greed. Because they stand to lose much more if relations with the US sour sufficiently.

His theory is that those countries have been involved in supplying Saddam with materials used to produce WMD, and they are worried that a war would unearth the evidence.

Already, it's been announced that the Iraqis themselves have released documentation pointing to French and German supplies of the materials used to produce WMD.

But I think that France, Germany and Russia just don't see their support of Saddam's regime as risking their trade with the U.S. They don't believe that the U.S. will have the backbone to sanction them economically. France and Germany figure that the EU as a whole will threaten a retaliatory trade war against the U.S., so the U.S. will ultimately shrink in fear.

I will be interested to see how this unfolds. Especially, as French and German companies report worse earnings than expected, and Europe is thought to be slipping deeper into recession. Maybe they think that trade relations with third-world and rogue countries will be their way back to prosperity.

judicial meanz
02-14-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by NewsGuy
As has been pointed out by others, Germany, France, Russia, and Belgium have come to be called an Axis of Weasels.

Europe has rarely been motivated by noble principles, but rather by greed, national hatred, and cowardice, historically speaking. That's why there is no doubt that their opposition to a war in Iraq stems from their multi-billion-dollar deals with Saddam's brutal regime.

But what is their relationship to the U.S. at this point? Have they shifted from being allies to trade competitors, and now to political adversaries?

Is NATO finished? Is the UN next? I sure hope that the answer is yes to both.

This is a great "Axis of Weasels " graphic!..Follow the link

http://saturn.he.net/~danger/weasels.jpg

Its sums it up nicely!

Northlander
02-17-2003, 12:16 AM
Always this "axis". Smart to somehow always link everything to WWII. You gain alot by doing that since its hard to critisise the US during that period. Especially if you are european. However todays conflict is not about WWII as Im sure you know. France surrender to the germans are maybe interesting but hardly relevant today.

As far as NATO goes it has sort of played out its role. Russia is no eminent threat to western europe. There is no reason for Germany and others to be totally allied to USA anymore. At least not in issues where they have different opinions. That cant come as a surprise for you all and cant see why you take it so hard. Sure you bailed them out during the war but as many have said its a long time ago. Things change. For how long must France and Germany be faithful to USA for those things? 100 years? 200?
What you are critisising Germany for basically is that they wont go to war until you present clear evidences that Iraq is a threat to everybody and that they have WMDs. Whats so fundamentally wrong with that opinion? Pacifism we hear alot over here. The Germans are pacifists and cowards is the word on the streets, am I wrong? Expected remarks maybe but obviously not true and had it been true its not that hurting I imagine. According to recent polls in Germany over 50% of the Germans sees USA as a bigger threat to worldpeace than Iraq. The last weeks shows that they are absolutely right. There are still no more reason for war than 5 years ago.

At the same time as the UN inspectors says that Iraq is cooperating N.korea throws out theirs. Still negociations is possible in korea but not in Iraq. The people in N.korea are more oppressed than that in Iraq. Still war is coming to Iraq.
The difference is the resistance the countries can put up and the oil. There are no clear line in US politics right now. No red thread.
There is as always support of several bad regimes and aggression against another. always have been always will be. USA as world police is not working. You are not credible. The europeans wouldnt do any better job. Nor would any other nation. Its just that today, alot of countries do not want USA taking its "responsibility" abroad. You either accept it or not.
You can continue but dont expect your former allies to support you regardless. Sometime you will get support sometimes not. This time no. Why so upset?

When speaking about France and their betrayal towards you, you owe them aswell. Hadnt it been for the French army you would probably still be a part of the british empire. They fought hard for your freedom and they were the first country in the world to accept you as a nation. Followed by my very own. A bit of gratitude thankyou ;)

minusthejihad
02-17-2003, 10:00 AM
"Excuse me, will the French representative please leave the room already so we can vote? Thank you."

"sach reblue!"

"OK, now that the annoying Frenchman has left the room, its time for us (NATO) to vote on Turkey's defence. Germany, Belgium, how do you vote?"

"We accept"

"Thought so, good, let's move on"

In the distance, in the small window on the door to the metting room, we can see a sad Frenchman's face. Not because of the moment, but because the man has realized his country's place in the rest of foreign affairs from this point on. Not to mention the future of their own economy, when they don't get the billions owed to them by Iraq.

MichaelC
02-17-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
Always this "axis". Smart to somehow always link everything to WWII. You gain alot by doing that since its hard to critisise the US during that period. Especially if you are european. However todays conflict is not about WWII as Im sure you know. France surrender to the germans are maybe interesting but hardly relevant today.

As far as NATO goes it has sort of played out its role. Russia is no eminent threat to western europe. There is no reason for Germany and others to be totally allied to USA anymore. At least not in issues where they have different opinions. That cant come as a surprise for you all and cant see why you take it so hard. Sure you bailed them out during the war but as many have said its a long time ago. Things change. For how long must France and Germany be faithful to USA for those things? 100 years? 200?
What you are critisising Germany for basically is that they wont go to war until you present clear evidences that Iraq is a threat to everybody and that they have WMDs. Whats so fundamentally wrong with that opinion? Pacifism we hear alot over here. The Germans are pacifists and cowards is the word on the streets, am I wrong? Expected remarks maybe but obviously not true and had it been true its not that hurting I imagine. According to recent polls in Germany over 50% of the Germans sees USA as a bigger threat to worldpeace than Iraq. The last weeks shows that they are absolutely right. There are still no more reason for war than 5 years ago.

At the same time as the UN inspectors says that Iraq is cooperating N.korea throws out theirs. Still negociations is possible in korea but not in Iraq. The people in N.korea are more oppressed than that in Iraq. Still war is coming to Iraq.
The difference is the resistance the countries can put up and the oil. There are no clear line in US politics right now. No red thread.
There is as always support of several bad regimes and aggression against another. always have been always will be. USA as world police is not working. You are not credible. The europeans wouldnt do any better job. Nor would any other nation. Its just that today, alot of countries do not want USA taking its "responsibility" abroad. You either accept it or not.
You can continue but dont expect your former allies to support you regardless. Sometime you will get support sometimes not. This time no. Why so upset?

When speaking about France and their betrayal towards you, you owe them aswell. Hadnt it been for the French army you would probably still be a part of the british empire. They fought hard for your freedom and they were the first country in the world to accept you as a nation. Followed by my very own. A bit of gratitude thankyou ;) If your words are representative of the general perspective of your natiion, then there are certainly more "weasels" to be roasted than have, thus far, been put on the spit.

Northlander
02-17-2003, 12:59 PM
Both of you better think a minute MichaelC and minusthejihad. Being called a weasel by americans these days are just flattering.

Also France have lost nothing. The NATO veto meant nothing. It was enevidable that USA would alone support turkey anyway. It was just to gain support later on. What matters is the unity of the EU. That is a concern for me and I guess most politicians in europe. In the long run only unity matters.

Germany backed today from its original statement that they could not support a war regardless of UN support. That was also expected. Its not a sign of weakness as you cowboys might belive but rather smart done. France had all along seen war as a thinkable scenario so the Germans basically was alone in EU with the total refusal even though some saw their stance as similar because of this Turkey business. However by having this initial stance Germany now seems inside the EU as the ones compromising. They compromise for the unity of the EU and for supporting France. But that means that Spain and Italy also have thrown in someting on their behalf.
Britain is already out but you and others just dont know it yet.
Britain will not support USA in a war without UN support. Im sure of that now, wasnt before but am now.
Neither will Spain or Italy.

This week we expect a statement from THE WHOLE EU, not only Germany/France that says that the security council alone must decide over war. And we all know that France has veto there if it is needed. Britain might whine a bit more this week but they must support the EU in the end anyway since Germany and France have compromised and Blair knows he is toasted politically in Britain if he doesnt. Remember the smaller countries in europe will also look for unity and not supporting the obstructing ones.

It was never about Turkey, which was obvious. They would get their defence upgraded anyway. It was to object and gain alot in EU and especially in the security council. So far they have played it smart. Tough but not as tough that it ruined the economical ties with USA. Which btw I doubt Germany can afford.

You guys better hurry up in helping the inspectors finding something or this all has just been a very expensive way of destroying the last goodwill you had over here. A singel handed war will finally settle it. Boycotting German wines because they oppose a war? That does not look that good. Without the war I dont think you gained much more than the tan on your soldiers.

andak01
02-17-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by ibrodsky
Rush Limbaugh suggested an interesting theory regarding their determination to shield Iraq. He doesn't think it is greed. Because they stand to lose much more if relations with the US sour sufficiently.

His theory is that those countries have been involved in supplying Saddam with materials used to produce WMD, and they are worried that a war would unearth the evidence.

That's why I always listen to Rush Limbaugh, his infallable logic. Next time I have something to hide, I'll send in a team of inspectors to look for it. That will have less chance of discovering something than if I drop a bunch of bombs and destroy everything. Right.

See that crator where the pharmacy used to be? Well it weren't no pharmacy, it were a weapon o' mass distruction.

See that pharmacy over there? Send in your weapons inspectors and tell me what is being produced.

Mediocrates
02-17-2003, 01:56 PM
pharmacies and insecticide plants use the same chemicals as WMD factoris. It's a matter of scale. If Iraq suddenly needed a million tons of dioxin one would have to wonder what they needed it for. In fact about 25% of Syri's 'dual use' chemical industry which can make weapons or drugs or farm chemicals is owned by French companies according to CSIS reports.

MichaelC
02-17-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Northlander
Both of you better think a minute MichaelC and minusthejihad. Being called a weasel by americans these days are just flattering.
We are very happy that you enjoy being referred to as a "weasel". We'd actually have a few other appellations for the likes of you and your buddies, but the software here is self censoring, so "weasel" will have to do.

You don't get it. We are amused.

MichaelC
02-17-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Northlander
You guys better hurry up in helping the inspectors finding something or this all has just been a very expensive way of destroying the last goodwill you had over here. A singel handed war will finally settle it. Boycotting German wines because they oppose a war? That does not look that good. Without the war I dont think you gained much more than the tan on your soldiers. You and your ilk have never understood that it is not for the inspectors to "find" weapons; it is for Iraq to ACCOUNT for weapons that everyone knows that they have.

They have not done this. They are dissembling.

andak01
02-17-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
pharmacies and insecticide plants use the same chemicals as WMD factoris. It's a matter of scale. If Iraq suddenly needed a million tons of dioxin one would have to wonder what they needed it for. In fact about 25% of Syri's 'dual use' chemical industry which can make weapons or drugs or farm chemicals is owned by French companies according to CSIS reports.

So tell me, in what scenario is there more evidence following a bombing than there is following an inspection? I think we are just jealous that the French horned in on our Iraqi weapons market following the Iran-Iraq war. We wouldn't care a whit if we knew he was planning to use weapons of mass destruction against Iran.

minusthejihad
02-17-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by andak01
So tell me, in what scenario is there more evidence following a bombing than there is following an inspection? I think we are just jealous that the French horned in on our Iraqi weapons market following the Iran-Iraq war. We wouldn't care a whit if we knew he was planning to use weapons of mass destruction against Iran.

Don't worry, Iran and Syria are a little further down the road, but they'll be "disarmed" as well soon enough.

Have I told you how much I liked when the US and Israel sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran before? I can reiterate if you like.

Mediocrates
02-17-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by andak01
So tell me, in what scenario is there more evidence following a bombing than there is following an inspection? I think we are just jealous that the French horned in on our Iraqi weapons market following the Iran-Iraq war. We wouldn't care a whit if we knew he was planning to use weapons of mass destruction against Iran.


I was just making a factual point; that's what dual use technology is. For example ricin comes from castor beans but it is very inefficient. So if Iraq began to process thousands and thousands of gallons of castor bean oil one could surmise that Iraq didn't suddenly hunger for home remedies.

ibrodsky
02-17-2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by andak01
That's why I always listen to Rush Limbaugh, his infallable logic. Next time I have something to hide, I'll send in a team of inspectors to look for it. That will have less chance of discovering something than if I drop a bunch of bombs and destroy everything. Right.

The purpose of the inspectors is not to see if they can find what is hidden in a country the size of California, it's to verify that the Iraqis are disarming as agreed. Saddam Huseein's regime is believed to have put considerable effort over the last decade in hiding things underground.

So if you think logically instead of reflexively, you'll realize that the chances of the US Army finding something once the inhabitants are free to speak is infinitely greater than the chance of UN bureaucrats finding what is hidden by interviewing people who know loved ones will die if they dare say anything revealing.

Northlander
02-18-2003, 12:53 AM
You are very naive. For many Iraqis that hate Saddam, a war which will kill alot of their loved ones and the US occupation after is worse than the situation now. Last time Ive heard we were talking about 2 years with an american general ala Japan 45.

I give you 2 month and people in Iraq will start to oppose you. Very ungrateful maybe but understandable. Also, what does it matter if you find anything AFTER the war when people already died? What if you dont? Will you come out then and agree that the war was indeed unnecessary? I think not.

Mediocrates
02-18-2003, 04:11 AM
This is more or less the same thing people said about Afghanistan. That it would plunge the country into warring anarchy.

Well that's only partially true. Afghanistan was never a cohesive country do much as a confederacy of tribes and now Karzai is really the mayor of Kabul. At any rate some of the warlords are being armed as we speak by the PRC and by the Russians and by the Paksitanis. I see this as the long run outcome for Iraq. Dissected into its constituent parts and held together by a lose central government in Baghdad. Since Iraq today really only represents some British colonel's arabophillic dream where he waived a pointer over a map one day while reading Richard Burton's translation of arabic poetry, it really matters little what the future shape of Iraq looks like. After Saddam is atomized let the different groups attain their own semi autonomy; not secession mind you just a soft confederacy of kurds, shiites, sunnis and so on. I think you would see relative quiet in "Iraq" rather quickly.

Northlander
02-18-2003, 04:38 AM
I dont agree to the quiet thing. There will be a very strong majority trying to get rid of the americans when they forget their earlier problems with Saddam I believe. People adept to the new situation very quickly. Other nations in the area like Iran and the saudis will probably influence religious and ethnical groups in Iraq too. Im very pessimistic about the future for the iraqis both during and after the war.

Since the situation will probably be chaotic the americans have a reason for staying. Which they probably will for quite some time.
For many it will look like a permanent sollution.
Its then the real problems start. Then we have one of the old crusader kingdoms yet again. Men like Osama will have no difficulties finding supporters.

Creating a much more dangerous threat by removing a docile and controllable threat like Saddam is not wise even from an american POW. Are you really absolutely convinced this is the best thing to do for american safety?

MGB8
02-18-2003, 06:05 AM
Couple of big differences between the time of Iran-Iraq war and now.

Biggest one being the END OF THE COLD WAR. At that time...containment and balance was everything.

Our relationship with Europe was good because Europe relied on us to protect them from the big bad USSR.

Now they are relying on us to protect them against terrorists, but want to yell at us while we do it.

I say no more.

Pull our troops out of Europe and also Japan. Why are they needed there? To Guarantee the peace (actually, yes, but that's another story.)

It would be very interesting to see what happens once our troops get pulled out (and that is coming)...I don't think it will take very long for France or Germany or others to start having nationalistic squables...they have learned NOTHING from WWII.

Pull our troops.

As for N. Korea...is that guy completely nuts? A small nation like his is exactly why building a missle defense shield (which will eventually work - technology improves exponentially) - to defend against the newest threats...rogue nations with a couple missles.

By pulling our troops out of Japan, we force Japan, S. Korea, China and Russia to deal with N. Korea, as opposed to everything being placed on the US shoulders. North Korea, btw, is falling apart, and Kim Jong II's government will not last very long. 2 years, tops.

Mediocrates
02-18-2003, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
I dont agree to the quiet thing. There will be a very strong majority trying to get rid of the americans when they forget their earlier problems with Saddam I believe. People adept to the new situation very quickly. Other nations in the area like Iran and the saudis will probably influence religious and ethnical groups in Iraq too. Im very pessimistic about the future for the iraqis both during and after the war.

Since the situation will probably be chaotic the americans have a reason for staying. Which they probably will for quite some time.
For many it will look like a permanent sollution.
Its then the real problems start. Then we have one of the old crusader kingdoms yet again. Men like Osama will have no difficulties finding supporters.

Creating a much more dangerous threat by removing a docile and controllable threat like Saddam is not wise even from an american POW. Are you really absolutely convinced this is the best thing to do for american safety?



Odd how you create a completely different geopolitical reality to the same forces once you talk about intra arab relationships. Iran views "Iraq" as a threat, not some of the people in it, nor are they attempting some kind of liberation movement for anyone. Iran would meddle in Iraqi affairs and/or go to war with them only if they viewed Iraq as an entity some kind of serious threat to them.

It is in no ones regional interests to have a strong cohesive Iraq but neither is it in their interests to have a constant low level war going on either. The Wahabbist plutocracy of the Sauds cannot tolerate any successful cohesive secular state next door. Nor can the mullahs in Iran to the east. And neither country wants an economic competitor operating with any advantage.

No it's in their interests to keep the Iraqis weak, disorganized but relatively quiet.

minusthejihad
02-18-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
Im very pessimistic about the future for the iraqis both during and after the war.

Well, how's about telling us how you feel about the future of Iraqis without any war. Please keep in mind that no one has killed more Muslims than guess who, Saddam Hussein.



Creating a much more dangerous threat by removing a docile and controllable threat like Saddam is not wise even from an american POW.

Docile? Controllable?

I guess it was a pretty docile move to invade and rape Kuwait!

Or I guess, after 11 years of not fulfilling his one duty that spared his life - to disarm - and after kicking out inspectors, Saddam comes off as pretty controlable!

You're absolutely right North, someone's pretty docile and controllable after they gas Kurds and their own people, kill members of their own family, and murder over a million fellow muslims.

By those standards, Hitler must have been Altruistic, Stalin was full of "warm and fuzzy bunny love" and Mao was a teddy bear!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you just accidentally typed those absurd comments, because I can't believe someone could set themselves up so badly.

Of course that's kind of like Iraq saying they don't have any scuds capable of reaching Israel, and any WMDs to use on our troops, but we'll see the truth in that as well.

Northlander
02-18-2003, 09:15 AM
No it's in their interests to keep the Iraqis weak, disorganized but relatively quiet.

Have I said anything else? I just pointed out the fact that they will use their influence in the powerstruggle after the war. The american precense in Iraq after a war will not be good for anyone exept maybe Kuweit..
Also even in arab nations the public opinion matters. There will be anger obvious and the less the arab nations does about the westerners in Iraq the more support men like Usama gets.

As far as terrorism goes the situation will not be better after Saddam is gone but rather much worse.

Northlander
02-18-2003, 09:26 AM
I guess it was a pretty docile move to invade and rape Kuwait!

Harsh language. I dont support the invasion obviously but dont come up with the usual propaganda. It was an invasion period. For your information the "throwing newborns in hospitals" testimonys were lies. So were the "raping women" in the streets stories.


You're absolutely right North, someone's pretty docile and controllable after they gas Kurds and their own people, kill members of their own family, and murder over a million fellow muslims.

That was before the Gulfwar. Also they got american support during that period. Rumsfeld himself was a regular there in the support. Strange how opinions change. We all knew what was happening with the kurds but it didnt stopped USA giving him even more support. Compared to then, he is indeed powerless today.

Saddam is under control and he has been lying low. He did probably learn from the last war. however Iraq is still a nation. They have certain right as such. The too have the right to a defence etc, considering their neighbours.
He cant do anything with or without the american presence there. Get rid of him fine. Support Iraqi opposition or anything similar. I would gladly pay money for actions like that. But war and occupation will make things worse.

minusthejihad
02-18-2003, 09:38 AM
Answer the first question North.

How do you see the future for Iraqis if there is no war?

And secondly, you keep exposing yourself as having very basic, unchecked, anti-American views. You deliberately pass the blame for Saddam's actions to his "US support". He made the orders, we were not involved. But it figures, coming from the same coward who passes the blame from the terrorist to the victim anyway.

That's right, I called you a coward. I've seen you write about how you would do the same if you were a Pal. Why don't you go and be a human shield in Iraq or a Shaheed in Gaza, wimp. You do understand, that because of cowards like you and Takeo, terrorism is a problem now.

I hold people like you DIRECTLY responsible for terrorism going virtually unchecked until now, when people in our Valient militaries in America (the greatest country in the world) and in Israel (the most proud and respectfully deserved country in the world) will fight tooth and nail to stop. You should feel the burden of guilt for all the death and destruction you have permitted to go for so long.

Mediocrates
02-18-2003, 10:04 AM
So today it was noted that "thousands" of people all across the mid east were marching and protesting against the US-Israel today and against a possible war in Iraq.

I'm left wondering where these people were screaming for peace and justice before, I'm left wondering when arab lives became so precious to other arab states?

andak01
02-18-2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
I was just making a factual point; that's what dual use technology is. For example ricin comes from castor beans but it is very inefficient. So if Iraq began to process thousands and thousands of gallons of castor bean oil one could surmise that Iraq didn't suddenly hunger for home remedies.

I didn't really intend for my analogy to steer us to dual use technologies. I suppose thermos bottles could be molotov cocktails and playdoh could become napalm. Gordon Liddy knows ten ways to kill a man with a pencil, so we should inspect for those too. For that matter sand could be melted into glass and made into a giant lens to fit in a killer laser.

My original comment was in response to Limbaugh saying that France is afraid we would discover something if we go to war. What would we discover with a war that we can't discover with inspections?

Mediocrates
02-18-2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
Have I said anything else? I just pointed out the fact that they will use their influence in the powerstruggle after the war. The american precense in Iraq after a war will not be good for anyone exept maybe Kuweit..


Yes you have - you harp on bigbadUSA as if we dream up this stuff on our own. Iraq is surrounded by powerful forces with their own claws in American and European foreign policy aparatus such that Iraq will be brought down. We may take the heat for it, but it started out as an idea in Saudi princes and Iranian mullahs heads.

Mediocrates
02-18-2003, 10:34 AM
Andy that depends on how suspicious you are. Do you think that there is a long trail of baksheesh that connects Arab states to the corridors of power in Europe? We're accused fairly regularly that the supersecret Mossad fueled AIPAC quiety pulls the strings of the US yet raise the suggestion that countries with absolutely unaccountable tyrannies are somehow beyond any suspicion of manipulating the large, complex and poorly documented organization of the European Parliament and the UN we're floored that anyone could make such a cynical suggestion.

Northlander
02-19-2003, 12:37 AM
How do you see the future for Iraqis if there is no war?

And secondly, you keep exposing yourself as having very basic, unchecked, anti-American views. You deliberately pass the blame for Saddam's actions to his "US support". He made the orders, we were not involved. But it figures, coming from the same coward who passes the blame from the terrorist to the victim anyway.

That's right, I called you a coward. I've seen you write about how you would do the same if you were a Pal. Why don't you go and be a human shield in Iraq or a Shaheed in Gaza, wimp. You do understand, that because of cowards like you and Takeo, terrorism is a problem now.

I hold people like you DIRECTLY responsible for terrorism going virtually unchecked until now, when people in our Valient militaries in America (the greatest country in the world) and in Israel (the most proud and respectfully deserved country in the world) will fight tooth and nail to stop. You should feel the burden of guilt for all the death and destruction you have permitted to go for so long.


If war, there is no future at all for many Iraqis. Considering how many exile Iraqis that oppose the war Im not alone with that opinion. We are talking exile Iraqis that have their own personal reason for hating Saddam. I know many. The iraqis are Swedens second largest immigrant group. We have done what we can to support them and taking care of Saddams victims. We know here what Saddam is about.

If I look anti-american because I oppose a war you are about to START it says more about america than me.

Yes, you were involved. So were more countries but mainly USA.
Without USA Saddam wouldnt be in power. It is as simple as that. I hold you responisble for the problems the iraqis had and still have with him. You gave him the clearence to everything. USA gave him photos of the Iranian defences just before his attack on them. That ended in chemical warfare. Commited with chemicals bought from Germany and Britain. Today he might not have that much american weaponry but his position he owes to you. I could see it your way and hold you PERSONALLY responsible.
Maybe some of the exile Iraqis I know do. The region is beyond your jurisdiction. Fail to see it and you will get new enemies. It is really that simple. Who cares today what you did in WWII? I dont really cares what you did during Vietnam to be honest. But killing civilians today causing "collateral damage" will not be accepted.

Had I been a Pal I would not blow up children. I would use arms to kill and fight the invaders. As most people would. Like you would had you been invaded. Come on. You cant see things that differently? You call me a coward at the same time you object to me saying that use of force is necessary to defend you loved ones and your land.

Being a human shield is tempting from a moral POV. However there are enough shields as it is now. Many will die. I really dont think another dead westerner will make any difference. Whats the point of die in vain when you try to change something? If I want to fight american aggression I do it the way I see fit. You personally tempt me alot. The things we heard from USA about americans being form mars and europeans from venus is really funny. Europeans are wimps and americans are real men. Maybe its a common opinion or it is just your media. Regardless of which, it would be fun to see anyone of you say it here on the streets.

Anti-americanism doesnt just exist you know. It hasnt been from the beginning of time. It is a result of american action. NOT because of something in the air we breath or something we eat.
Wake up.

I take no responsibility for the terrorism in the world. Blame you valiant military instead. USA is not the greatest country in the world. Its just the most powerful. Its ok for me as long as you keep on your side of the atlantic and doesnt bother others.
If you do more and more will become "anti-american". Its really up to you. Im not the one bying tape to seal my windows from eventual chemical attacks. Im not the one living in fear. If you goes through alot to make people hate you this it what you get.
Its not a game you know. For every young european you offend you get a new problem. Do you expect them to take your side later on when you are dealing with a new enemy? I think not.
Probably the opposite.

elke
02-19-2003, 01:04 AM
Im not the one bying tape to seal my windows from eventual chemical attacks. Im not the one living in fear. If you goes through alot to make people hate you this it what you get.

It's only a matter of time, Northlander - you just wait. Unless and until the world decides that terrorism is intolerable anywhere at all, and takes the necessary steps you so deplore, you will be buying tape soon enough.

humus_sapiens
02-19-2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
I take no responsibility for the terrorism in the world.


I share Minusthejihad's opinion here: whoever supports and defends terrorists, should share the responsibility for the consequences. You can't have it both ways.


Blame you valiant military instead.

You must've meant "violent". BTW, the military is supposed to be violent. It is up to politicians to control them. So far, the "violent" US saved Europe (the origin of 2 World Wars, colonialism, and millenia of bigotry) and the rest of the planet from the Brown plague and from the Red one. The Green one will be defeated, too.

Back to the point: how would you explain the terrorist attacks on

* French tanker
* Indian, Pakistani, Lebanese, Nigerian, Egyptian, - Christians, Hindus, Jews, even moderate muslims.
* Australian disco, - actually, any disco. Do you accept it as a legal mean of fighting for "freedom"? BTW, in the ME this usually means freedom from Jews. Does your soul turn upside down - like mine - at the news of discos, cafes and schoolbuses bombed?


All because those bad violent americans? Your logic is crooked. Some things just cannot be tolerated or justified.

Northlander
02-19-2003, 01:58 AM
which was first the hen or the egg?

the terrorism comes from something.

We all know there are terrorism. One can say as some here have said that you doesnt need to know why but rather just fight it. Fine. But if fighting it on some cases means that there will be even more terrorism later on its a win-lose situation. You win a little and lose even more later on. Im convinced that removing Saddam with war is bad if fighting terrorism is your main objective.

Doesnt mean I support terrorism. I dont even know why we have this discussion. I think armed resistance can be right sometimes but that is not terrorism.
There will probably always be some terrorists that want to blow up about anything. Kill anyone regardless. But the majority of terrorists probably have an agenda. Its no coincidence that USA is the main target. I agree that terrorism is a threat to me as well.
War in Iraq just make the threat worse so you wont get me on your side with that arguement.

I wrote valient not violent because minusthejihad used the word in describing the US military. I found it funny so I used it too.
Violent would have been more true of course.

Kapiti
02-19-2003, 04:04 AM
Iraq has no chance of winning the war or even defending its borders for anything other than a neglible period of time. But then what ??

The Yanks put some puppet regime whom they hope will actually have some popular support. This on the basis that many iraqis actually would like a change of government but under its present regime can do nothing about it.

I think otherwise. I think most Iraqis will hate the Americans and while they may not do it openly will plot against the Americans controlling their country. I suspect it will not be a safe place for any Americans to be.

Also muslims world wide will feel nervous and hateful of the Americans. The governments will feel especially nervous but fearing the same thing happening will do largely nothing. The muslim citizens however will become in part more radical. This will feed the reservoir of suicide bombers, terrorists, extremists whose focus will be revenge and killing westerners to achieve this.

No question in my mind beating up Iraq will make the whole world a much less safe place. Certainly in the short term.

The problem is that as technology increases and people live closer together it makes killing lots of them easier. A korean nut case killed 130 odd people. Imagine if someone tried to kill a lot of people and actually approached it with some level of sophistication. Very nasty.

So what will all our governments do. Increase the controls, the monitoring, the searches, reduction of civil liberties. I prefer the old world as it is now before this happens but if people starting dieing from fundamentalist terrorists then the Western Countries will become more like Israel with all its controls and searches. Not a nice thought but perhaps necessary.

Frankly the extra-ordinary stupidity and short sightedness of most of the subscribers to this forum amazes me. Do you really think that in 20 years or 50 years technology will not have advanced such that governments or wealthy groups with a reasonable level of resource will not be able to create weapons of mass destruction. Within 50 years my guess, and I concede it is speculation but I have a lot of technological advancement to support my point of view, is that nuclear weapons will be much easier to develop as will all the other nasty ones.

When this happens (whether it be 20-50-100 or 200 years) the nuclear advantage which Israel has over the region will be lost and how secure will Israel then feel if it has not made real peace with its neighbours and with the Palestinians.

Then it will not matter if Israel's borders encompass Palestine or not. The level of security that you have when your neighbours have serious weapons to fight, will not be great. 50 -100 KM will not make much difference.

Frankly I could not care less if Saddam has nuclear weapons or other nasties. He is a bad man not a mad man. He would know he cannot use them and would not use them. Why would he if he faces aniliation immediately thereafter.

Northlander
02-19-2003, 04:19 AM
Very good post Kapiti. I totally agree. Despite warnings like this many westerners will complain later on when we see an increase in terrorist attacks not remembering the choice they stood infront of. War or no war.

andak01
02-19-2003, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by ibrodsky
So if you think logically instead of reflexively, you'll realize that the chances of the US Army finding something once the inhabitants are free to speak is infinitely greater than the chance of UN bureaucrats finding what is hidden by interviewing people who know loved ones will die if they dare say anything revealing.

Well, I am for U2 spy planes, inspections, removal of scientists to safe locations, destruction of WMDs if any are found and even digging up the entire country. What I am against is carpet bombing of Iraq. I am against punishing the people of Iraq in order to punish Saddam, knowing that in the end, Saddam is not going to get punished.

I have no love of Saddam. I wish he was out, but not at the cost of another 100,000 Iraqi lives. Not at the cost of American lives. He is contained and I would approve of even more measures to insure that.

MichaelC
02-19-2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by andak01
Well, I am for U2 spy planes, inspections, removal of scientists to safe locations, destruction of WMDs if any are found and even digging up the entire country. What I am against is carpet bombing of Iraq. I am against punishing the people of Iraq in order to punish Saddam, knowing that in the end, Saddam is not going to get punished.

I have no love of Saddam. I wish he was out, but not at the cost of another 100,000 Iraqi lives. Not at the cost of American lives. He is contained and I would approve of even more measures to insure that. If you could only bring yourself, by some incredible effort of will, to see the possibilities in FREEING the Iraqis from Saddam and his thugs, maybe you could understand those on the other side of this argument.

Is it at all conceivable in your world view that handing Irag back to the Iraqis is a desirable thing? And if you think that to be a good idea in principle, do you really think Saddam will change his stripes and institute democratic reforms to allow it?

Mercury
02-19-2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti


Frankly the extra-ordinary stupidity and short sightedness of most of the subscribers to this forum amazes me. Do you really think that in 20 years or 50 years technology will not have advanced such that governments or wealthy groups with a reasonable level of resource will not be able to create weapons of mass destruction. Within 50 years my guess, and I concede it is speculation but I have a lot of technological advancement to support my point of view, is that nuclear weapons will be much easier to develop as will all the other nasty ones.

When this happens (whether it be 20-50-100 or 200 years) the nuclear advantage which Israel has over the region will be lost and how secure will Israel then feel if it has not made real peace with its neighbours and with the Palestinians.

Then it will not matter if Israel's borders encompass Palestine or not. The level of security that you have when your neighbours have serious weapons to fight, will not be great. 50 -100 KM will not make much difference.

Frankly I could not care less if Saddam has nuclear weapons or other nasties. He is a bad man not a mad man. He would know he cannot use them and would not use them. Why would he if he faces aniliation immediately thereafter.


Personally, I don't know what the downfall of Saddam will bring to the region. I agree that other equally bad (but not mad) dictators can in future acquire weapons of mass destruction. One thing I have not quite understood from your post is how we supposed to deal with them. You hint that Israel (where I happen to live) should make "real peace" with its neighbours instead of relying on its military strength. Well, was there any conflict between Kuweit and Iraq prior to the invasion? Or do you think we can do something that will permanently endear us to Hussein, Asad, Kaddafi and their likes?

Unfortunately, dictators value force much higher than peace agreements. In my opinion, the main benefit of overthrowing Saddam is not just getting rid of one dictator, but showing all others that aggression and treaty violations won't be tolerated.

ibrodsky
02-19-2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by andak01
Well, I am for U2 spy planes, inspections, removal of scientists to safe locations, destruction of WMDs if any are found and even digging up the entire country. What I am against is carpet bombing of Iraq. I am against punishing the people of Iraq in order to punish Saddam, knowing that in the end, Saddam is not going to get punished.

I have no love of Saddam. I wish he was out, but not at the cost of another 100,000 Iraqi lives. Not at the cost of American lives. He is contained and I would approve of even more measures to insure that.

Let me put this to you another way.

Iraq is in blatant violation of the agreement it signed to end the Persian Gulf War.

Now the US is at war with Islamist terrorists and regimes that support them.

If the US does not enforce the terms imposed on Iraq after Iraq was justly thrown out of Kuwait, then any threat of force the US makes to terrorist-sponsoring regimes will ring hollow.

So the US has no choice but to enforce the terms that Iraq agreed to and then quickly violated - and has been violating for the past nine years.

You don't want 100,000 innocent Iraqis to die. Neither do I. That leaves no choice but to demand that either Saddam Hussein accept exile, be removed from power by his own people, or be removed from power by the US.

And let's not forget that >1 million people have died in wars started by Saddam Hussein.

MGB8
02-19-2003, 03:19 PM
Ah...Northlander and Kapiti are back to threats...and make no mistake, that is what they are doing, threatening.

In terms of Iraq....most of the people their will WELCOME the removal of Saddam. After that, just like the US did in Germany, Japan and Afghanistan, the US will work to set up a real, self sustaining government...not a "puppet government" but something viable. And, as long as we don't overstay our welcome, like we have in Europe and maybe in Korea, we will be fine for it.

Not loved...look at how Europe treats the US after the Marshall plan, the two workd wars, and saving their buts from the Soviets for 45 years...but not hated either (as opposed to say, the french in Africa.)

What is going on now is the REAL results of the post Cold War Era...France is making a political power move, and China, Russia and Germany aren't exactly sure where they want to side, with Germany currently leaning towards France.

The Arab nations, who hate Europe just as much as they hate the US (although they don't show it), are waiting on the sidelines, to side with the "winner." They'll make their own play later...if they are allowed to develop into such a power.

The Problem with France's power play is that it relies on the concept of a "united Europe" .... but Europe's smaller countries, who appreciate French bullying less than US bullying (at least the US has done something and continues to do things for them...Bosnia, the Marshall plan, aid...) etc. look like they are siding with the US.

Poor poor france.

MGB8
02-19-2003, 03:20 PM
As for the causes of terrorism...its AMBITION by a few men, and stupidity by many others. the TERRORISM that we are talking about here is really just:

ISLAMIC NATIONALISM

just like the European Nationalism that preceeded it.

The best cure is the democritization of the Islamic world.

That STARTS with Iraq.

Israel, frankly, has very little to do with it.

humus_sapiens
02-20-2003, 12:10 AM
http://www.netanyahu.org/speecattrafs.html

I shortened this great but longish speech. It has all the answers.


Netanyahu's Speech at Trafalgar Square Rally
London 6 May 2002
...
Today, Britain stands before another fork in the road of history. It must choose, along with the other free nations, between two opposing paths: the path of appeasing terror, or the path of confronting it. The path of appeasing terror entices those who embark on it with what seems like a quick and painless passage. Yet paved with flawed logic and false hopes, it leads only to defeat and despair.

The path of confronting terror, by contrast, is strewn with evident dangers. But armed with moral clarity, those who pursue it will overcome its perils and end their journey in triumph and hope.
...
Today, history has placed the people of Israel on the front line in a war against another pathological evil that threatens our entire world – the evil of terrorism.
...
Every day, in Arabic, a Palestinian media fully under Arafat’s control preaches the doctrine of policide – the destruction of a state – through the means of suicide -- suicide and mass terror.

Every day, in their schools and mosques Palestinians are told that their goal is not a Palestinian state next to Israel, but a Palestinian state instead of Israel.

In live broadcasts to his people Arafat calls for a million martyrs against Israel.

He runs suicide kindergarten camps, suicide universities and suicide museums that glorify a culture of death and wanton murder.
...
Let me be clear. With a murderous and fraudulent regime such as Arafat’s, it is impossible to make peace.

Only with a new Palestinian leadership that abandons terror and abandons the goal of destroying Israel can we negotiate a genuine peace – a peace for which we all yearn, pray and dream.

Indeed, every time Israel was faced with an Arab leader, like Anwar Sadat and King Hussein, who genuinely wanted peace, and spoke peace to his people -- Israel made peace.

But with Arafat there can be no peace, because he doesn’t want peace.

Instead of becoming a Palestinian King Hussein, as many had hoped, he has turned out to be a Palestinian Sadaam Hussein.

And what do you do with Sadaam Hussein?

Do you negotiate with him?

Do you placate him?

Do you make concessions to him?

No, you throw him out.

And just as America and Britain must, and will throw out Sadaam Hussein, Israel must ---- and will --- throw out Yasser Arafat.

Now that Arafat’s terror is being steadily unmasked, the appeasers of terror are left with one last argument in their arsenal.

It may be true, they say, that Arafat runs a terrorist regime, but eliminating that regime will not eliminate terror.

For the root cause of terror, they claim, is the deprivation of national and civic rights.

Address that deprivation, they say, and you will end terror.

Well, I suppose you could make that argument to a people whose sense of history extends to breakfast.

For in modern times there have been countless struggles for national independence and civic rights.

If terror is indeed rooted in the absence of rights, we would have expected to see countless examples of terrorism accompanying these struggles.

But we do not.

Mahatma Ghandi fought for the independence of India without resorting to terrorism.

So too did the people of Eastern Europe in their struggle to bring down the Berlin Wall.

And Martin Luther King’s campaign for equal rights for American eschewed all violence, much less terrorism.

And we, the Jewish people, in our struggle for an independent Jewish State did not resort to terrorism.

Sure, they may have called us terrorists. But terrorism is only defined by the nature of the act itself, by the question of whether civilians are deliberately targeted.

The Jewish underground movement did everything in its power to prevent civilian casualties.

They pulled civilians off trains that were to be blown up. They telephoned the British before attacking military barracks so that the lives of soldiers would be spared.

They did not target women, children and non-combatants, nor of course, did they ever blow up buses, coffee houses and shops in London.

In the countless actions taken by the entire Jewish underground, you will not find even a handful of attacks that targeted civilians. Maybe one or two at most.

In striking contrast, if you look at the thousands of attacks of Arab groups, you will see the undeniable target of these murderous terrorist groups are civilians.

If the deprivation of rights is indeed the root cause of terrorism, why did all these people pursue their cause without resorting to terror.

Put simply, because they were democrats, not terrorists. They believed in the sanctity of human life, were committed to the ideal of liberty and championed the values of democracy.

But those who practice terrorism do not believe in these things. In fact, they believe in the very opposite.

For them, the cause they espouse is so all encompassing, so total, that it justifies anything.

It allows them to break any law, discard any moral code and trample all human rights into the dust.

There is a name for the doctrine that produces this evil. It is called totalitarianism.

Indeed the root cause of terror is totalitarianism. Only a totalitarian regime, by systematically brainwashing its subjects, can indoctrinate hordes of killers to suspend all moral constraints for the sake of a twisted cause.

That is why from its inception, totalitarianism has always been wedded to terrorism – from Lenin to Stalin to Hitler to the Ayatollahs to Sadaam Hussein, to Osama bin Laden, to Yasser Arafat.

It is not merely that the goals of terrorists do not justify the means they choose. It is that the means they choose tell us what their true goals are.

Osama bin Laden is not seeking to defend the rights of Muslins but to murder as many Americans as possible, and ultimately to destroy America and the West.

Sadaam Hussein is not seeking to defend his people but to subjugate his neighbors.

Arafat is not seeking to build a state, but to destroy a state.

Arafat established the PLO in 1964 not to liberate the so-called occupied territories.

After all, the entire West Bank and all of the Gaza strip were under Arab sovereignty in 1964.

No, Arafat established the PLO to pursue his unchanging objective: the destruction of Israel – any Israel, of any size in any boundary.

Those who fight as terrorists rule as terrorists.

People who deliberately target the innocent never become leaders who protect freedom and human rights.

When terrorists seize power, they invariably set up the darkest dictatorships – whether in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or Arafatistan.

In short, the reason why some resort to terror and others do not is not any any absence of rights, but the presence of a tyrannical mindset.

The coupling of this fanatical mindset with weapons of mass destruction is the greatest danger facing our world.

If the regimes and terror organizations spawned by this mad militancy are allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, they will use them with no hesitation and no concern for themselves, let alone their enemies.

And if Arafat’s factory of human bombs is not shut down, it is only a matter of time before this technique spreads to your cafes, to your pizza shops, to your supermarkets –- just as Arafat’s pioneering of airline hijackings quickly spread to the entire world.

If not stopped today, the suicide bombers of tomorrow will carry suitcase devices of mass death to New York, to Washington and yes, to London.

As Prime Minister Blair has said, we either defeat terror or be defeated by it.

The terrorists and the terrorist regimes must be stopped.

The Taliban has gone, Sadaam has to go. Arafat must go.

My friends,

Sixty years ago, Europe did not lift a finger to save millions of Jews who were butchered on its soil by a mass killer.

Today, there are many in Europe who shamelessly side with the new mass killers, who seek to destroy the Jews and their state.

And what’s even worse, they condemn Israel for taking legitimate action to defend itself.

To them I say: History’s shame will again be upon you.

To European governments that are squeamishly allowing attacks against their Jewish citizens to go unanswered, I say: Stand up and take action --- Now!!

For you should know that the Jews are merely the first target of these fanatics. But I assure you, they are not the last.

Anti-Jewish violence may begin with the Jews, but it never ends with them.

This too must be stopped. Now!!

My dear friends,

The choice that lies before all free societies is clear - to choose between appeasing terror and confronting it.

The people of Israel, like the people of Britain many decades ago, have made their choice.

We have chosen to confront evil.

We have chosen to live and not to die.

We have chose to fight.

And we have chosen to win.

Let us hope that every free nation follows Israel’s example and joins us in eradicating terror from the face of the earth.

Let us hope that we will summon the wisdom to refute the apologists of terror.

And let us hope that we will summon the courage to secure a peaceful tomorrow.

Kapiti
02-20-2003, 03:36 AM
humus_sapiens To you I say : Boring. Same old tripe but you didn't even have the energy to write so you just copied and pasted with minimal editing I am sure.

MGB8 "Ah...Northlander and Kapiti are back to threats...and make no mistake, that is what they are doing, threatening."

What the hell does this mean. Are you suggesting that we are ourselves planning on becoming terrorists. What have you been drinking ? Yes I see bad consaquences resulting from the war but I will keep hoping I am wrong. Being able to tell you I told you so is no compensation for the loss of freedom and life that I fear this path of war will take from me.

Maybe you should study a dictionary and read what threaten actually means.

"China, Russia and Germany aren't exactly sure where they want to side, " I don't think so. I think they are very nervous about the US in its current policy of the pursuit of self interest at all costs regardless of the rights, wrongs or consaquences. They will oppose the US as a balance and a good thing it is too.

Mercury You deal with bad guys the way George the first did. You don't let them get away with it and you contain.

No Kuwait was not at war with Iraq at the time of Iraq's invasion. The Middle East borders are relatively new however and as Israel has shown itself quite flexible if you have the power.

Iraq has claims to Kuwait and the reason why it was seperated was largely because of colonial interests rather than any differentiation of the land or people.

Dictators are not so bad. Singapore had the most successful and benevolent leader of virtually any country and he has been largely a dictator. Democracy is what we in the West are used to but frankly I do not think that any Israeli should start to feel comfortable in case all the leaders of the Middle East were replaced by popular government. I suspect the most popular thing that would follow would be the planning for a united war against Israel.

No need for George the second to teach Saddam a lesson because his dad taught him a pretty good lesson 10 years ago.

MGB8
02-20-2003, 04:38 AM
No, you are threatening dire consequences, although you are not threatening to act. Threaten is the wrong word...using a scare tactic is more like it.

As for you...Europe tried to "contain" Hitler. We tried to "contain" Iraq and it violated the peace treaty, kicked inspectors out for 4 years, and no one did anything about it (including the US.)

We tried to contain North Korea and they just got around it.

"Containment" is a joke. You are at war, hot or cold, or you are at peace. Cold war is just an interim period between hot wars.

Since there will be no peace with Saddam, the quicker we take him down the better it is for all involved.

And now a lefty supports dictatorship....its funny how the left goes so left that it actually becomes right wing reactionary.

Its how the neo-nazi's and crazy lefties have met here, also.





Originally posted by Kapiti
humus_sapiens To you I say : Boring. Same old tripe but you didn't even have the energy to write so you just copied and pasted with minimal editing I am sure.

MGB8 "Ah...Northlander and Kapiti are back to threats...and make no mistake, that is what they are doing, threatening."

What the hell does this mean. Are you suggesting that we are ourselves planning on becoming terrorists. What have you been drinking ? Yes I see bad consaquences resulting from the war but I will keep hoping I am wrong. Being able to tell you I told you so is no compensation for the loss of freedom and life that I fear this path of war will take from me.

Maybe you should study a dictionary and read what threaten actually means.

"China, Russia and Germany aren't exactly sure where they want to side, " I don't think so. I think they are very nervous about the US in its current policy of the pursuit of self interest at all costs regardless of the rights, wrongs or consaquences. They will oppose the US as a balance and a good thing it is too.

Mercury You deal with bad guys the way George the first did. You don't let them get away with it and you contain.

No Kuwait was not at war with Iraq at the time of Iraq's invasion. The Middle East borders are relatively new however and as Israel has shown itself quite flexible if you have the power.

Iraq has claims to Kuwait and the reason why it was seperated was largely because of colonial interests rather than any differentiation of the land or people.

Dictators are not so bad. Singapore had the most successful and benevolent leader of virtually any country and he has been largely a dictator. Democracy is what we in the West are used to but frankly I do not think that any Israeli should start to feel comfortable in case all the leaders of the Middle East were replaced by popular government. I suspect the most popular thing that would follow would be the planning for a united war against Israel.

No need for George the second to teach Saddam a lesson because his dad taught him a pretty good lesson 10 years ago.

Mediocrates
02-20-2003, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
No Kuwait was not at war with Iraq at the time of Iraq's invasion. The Middle East borders are relatively new however and as Israel has shown itself quite flexible if you have the power.

Iraq has claims to Kuwait and the reason why it was seperated was largely because of colonial interests rather than any differentiation of the land or people.

No that's not right. At the time Iraq owned multibillions to German Banks (mostly German, others as well) for the purchase of Russian weapons systems, ostensibly to replenish his stocks from his disasterous attack on Iran. Revenue streams were drying up at the time because the end of the Iran-Iraq war heralded a long period of oil price drops. Saddam was not paying back his debts and his creditor banks were threatening to cut off his credit. Saddam invaded Kuwait to acquire hard cash in order to both pay off his debts and continue his military expansion. The old argument of the missing 25th province is a well known old sham. No one believes it especially the Iraqis who participated in the final negotiations that created Kuwait in the 1960's.


Dictators are not so bad. Singapore had the most successful and benevolent leader of virtually any country and he has been largely a dictator.

The great thing about analogies is that you can make them mean practically anything. Mussolini made the trains run on time.


Democracy is what we in the West are used to but frankly I do not think that any Israeli should start to feel comfortable in case all the leaders of the Middle East were replaced by popular government. I suspect the most popular thing that would follow would be the planning for a united war against Israel.

I tend to agree - after all lots of countries like Algeria had one election, once. So did Zimbabwe and all sorts of other countries. Democracy is merely a tool, the mechanics of civil order. But let me ask YOU what you mean? Is there a sliding scale? Is Saddam the same as the King of Jordan? Is your dictator the same as the PRC? There is probably room to liberalize ME countries toward some semblence of democratic processes - perhaps Turkey is the model. At any rate it's not a binary decision, is it?

Do you understand this?

Mediocrates
02-20-2003, 06:27 AM
http://hnn.us/articles/1264.html


Intro -->

FOLLOWING HANS BLIX'S devastating report and President Bush's compelling State of the Union address, Saddam Hussein looks more and more like a dead man walking. In all likelihood, Baghdad will be liberated by April. This may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history--events like the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall--after which everything is different. If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if), it may mark the moment when the powerful antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and began to transform the region for the better. For the United States, this represents perhaps the last, best chance to do what it has singularly failed to do since World War II--to provide the Middle East with effective imperial oversight. It is not entirely America's fault, but our mismanagement and misconceptions have allowed a backward, once insignificant region to become arguably the main threat to the security of the United States and the entire West.


8 1/2 pages follow.

Mercury
02-20-2003, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti

Mercury You deal with bad guys the way George the first did. You don't let them get away with it and you contain.

No need for George the second to teach Saddam a lesson because his dad taught him a pretty good lesson 10 years ago.

What exactly the lesson was? Prepare better next time?
Saddam once said about US that "theirs is a nation that can't take 10.000 casualties in a single battle". The only ones who got punished are the ordinary people of Iraq and those who have risen against him.



No Kuwait was not at war with Iraq at the time of Iraq's invasion. The Middle East borders are relatively new however and as Israel has shown itself quite flexible if you have the power.

Iraq has claims to Kuwait and the reason why it was seperated was largely because of colonial interests rather than any differentiation of the land or people.


Syria still claims that both Jordan and Palestine (read Israel) are the southern part of historic Syria province. I can't guess what claimed Nasser had when Egypt invaded Yemen. Do you really believe that a peace treaty would have protected Israel against them? Really?

TheyAre
02-20-2003, 12:56 PM
I really must ask this question of Northlander and Kapiti - why is it that none of the Iraqis outside Iraq who do not work for Saddam Hussein only speak of how evil he is and how he should be taken out, and none of the Iraqis inside Iraq have one bad thing to say about good ole Hussein?

Its an interesting comparison. 100% of Iraqi 'exiles' want Saddam gone, 100% of Iraqis still living under Saddam's boot and within his reach sing praises about him. I wonder why.

Typical anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric. We should be the ones to apologize for something they did. Violence is just so awful that is must somehow be the victim's fault, obviously the victim somehow provoked the attacker, seeing how violence is just so awful and all and no one would ever commit an act of violence unless provoked, right?

Iraq has no claims to Kuwait. Stating that provides legitimization to the brutal occupation the Kuwaitis went under when the Republican Guard was sitting in Kuwait City. There are dozens of eyewitness accounts from Americans, Kuwaitis, Saudi Arabians, Pakistanis, etc. etc. about the torture, mass executions, and mass rapes the Kuwaitis endured under Saddam's boot. Are we to merely take your word, the word of a person who wasn't there, over the word of dozens of people who were simply because if we take your word there is no justification for war?


Frankly the extra-ordinary stupidity and short sightedness of most of the subscribers to this forum amazes me. Do you really think that in 20 years or 50 years technology will not have advanced such that governments or wealthy groups with a reasonable level of resource will not be able to create weapons of mass destruction. Within 50 years my guess, and I concede it is speculation but I have a lot of technological advancement to support my point of view, is that nuclear weapons will be much easier to develop as will all the other nasty ones.

When this happens (whether it be 20-50-100 or 200 years) the nuclear advantage which Israel has over the region will be lost and how secure will Israel then feel if it has not made real peace with its neighbours and with the Palestinians.

Where do you come up with like this? Israel is under no obligation to 'make peace' with its neighbors, who have pre-emptively attacked it twice (1948 and 1973) and were preparing to attack it again in 1967? Nevertheless, Israel sent out countless representatives to try to make peace, and were greeted with Nasser or Hassad or King Hussein of Jordan thundering how they were going to take extreme pleasure in eradicating the Jewish state and killing its citizens. Perhaps the Arab states should show they are willing to have peace, to stop the anti-semitic garbage their state-run medias spew, to stop aiding the funding and equipping of terrorists. Maybe then Israel should 'make peace.'


War in Iraq just make the threat worse so you wont get me on your side with that arguement.

I wrote valient not violent because minusthejihad used the word in describing the US military. I found it funny so I used it too.
Violent would have been more true of course.

Violent like the French, massacring the Algerians in the fifties and sixties? Violent like the Jordanians killing thousands of Palestinians and expelling 200,000 to Lebanon when Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein in 1970?

Or perhaps you mean violent like dropping food on Afghanistan, rebuilding infrastructure, pouring millions into a country that we have no real strategic interest in. I guess if that's your definition of violent, then violent we Americans are!

Northlander
02-24-2003, 04:17 AM
As for you...Europe tried to "contain" Hitler. We tried to "contain" Iraq and it violated the peace treaty, kicked inspectors out for 4 years, and no one did anything about it (including the US.)

You are wrong. He didnt really kick the inspectors out. They were actually withdrawn by the UN. Partly because some of the inspectors were found, by the UN, to work for USA. Spies to use a different word. You have the wrong angle to all this if you think that USA is the world community. USA is a part in this conflict just as Iraq.


I really must ask this question of Northlander and Kapiti - why is it that none of the Iraqis outside Iraq who do not work for Saddam Hussein only speak of how evil he is and how he should be taken out, and none of the Iraqis inside Iraq have one bad thing to say about good ole Hussein?

Its an interesting comparison. 100% of Iraqi 'exiles' want Saddam gone, 100% of Iraqis still living under Saddam's boot and within his reach sing praises about him. I wonder why.


That I can answer easily. I too have not a single good thing to say about Saddam and that can be said about most people outside Iraq. Those Iraqis inside Iraq that speak about Saddam are probably to afraid to speak openly. Clearly? Some might support him, the numbers cant really be checked with accuracy.

For the Iraqis OUTSIDE Iraq you think 100% is against Saddam. I think that too. What I KNOW is that a clear majority of those are still against a war against Iraq? How come that people that have personal reasons for wanting Saddam dead still oppose a war? think about that for a few moments. Is it possible that they dont want their relatives dead by american bombings? Do they know more about the region in general maybe, so that they are afraid of the results long term? Probably alot of reasons.

In my country we had large anti-war demonstration but we also had an exile-iraqi demonstration FOR the war. They were 100 something. In the anti-war demonstration there were thousands of Iraqis. Of maybe 50 000 Iraqis in Sweden around 100 came to support USA.
They all want Saddam to disapear but they do not want a war.
At least not the majority.

minusthejihad
02-24-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
They all want Saddam to disapear but they do not want a war.


But this so perfectly fits into your bleeding-heart world philosophy:

Saddam, please go away!
Israel, please make peace!
America, please stop pursueing your own interests!
Jews, please cease to exist!

MichaelC
02-24-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
You are wrong. He didnt really kick the inspectors out. They were actually withdrawn by the UN. Partly because some of the inspectors were found, by the UN, to work for USA. Spies to use a different word. You have the wrong angle to all this if you think that USA is the world community. USA is a part in this conflict just as Iraq.



That I can answer easily. I too have not a single good thing to say about Saddam and that can be said about most people outside Iraq. Those Iraqis inside Iraq that speak about Saddam are probably to afraid to speak openly. Clearly? Some might support him, the numbers cant really be checked with accuracy.

For the Iraqis OUTSIDE Iraq you think 100% is against Saddam. I think that too. What I KNOW is that a clear majority of those are still against a war against Iraq? How come that people that have personal reasons for wanting Saddam dead still oppose a war? think about that for a few moments. Is it possible that they dont want their relatives dead by american bombings? Do they know more about the region in general maybe, so that they are afraid of the results long term? Probably alot of reasons.

In my country we had large anti-war demonstration but we also had an exile-iraqi demonstration FOR the war. They were 100 something. In the anti-war demonstration there were thousands of Iraqis. Of maybe 50 000 Iraqis in Sweden around 100 came to support USA.
They all want Saddam to disapear but they do not want a war.
At least not the majority. You make outrageous claims with no source reference. Your own "beliefs" are clear on the matter and it looks like you just "make up" whatever story sounds good to flesh out your argument and give a "phoney" sense of authenticity.

christian
02-24-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Northlander
.
In my country we had large anti-war demonstration but we also had an exile-iraqi demonstration FOR the war. They were 100 something. In the anti-war demonstration there were thousands of Iraqis. Of maybe 50 000 Iraqis in Sweden around 100 came to support USA.
They all want Saddam to disapear but they do not want a war.
At least not the majority.

Northlander,
It is sad to say, but Tony Blair is the official representative of UK. The 80% anti-war protesting in UK means nothing to the arabs, when UK-US bombs Iraq into pieces.

Ironically to say, Tony Blair is the offical representative of anti-war protester.

Terrorism will hit UK.

Northlander
02-25-2003, 12:01 AM
My god you are stubborn. UN left Iraq voluntarely in 98. Now every single western media agency use the word "kicked out". Just because you support the war doesnt mean you must be totally blind towards your own countries propaganda.

Whats wrong with thinking for yourself and at least try to see things with a little suspicion? If they lie, the following question must be: why are they lying? If they lie on this, can they lie about more? Like when you ask yourself questions about Saddam or N.korea. Why are N.korea throwing out their inspectors now?
Maybe they are hiding something?

Suspicion shouldnt end where democracy begins. I sort of think the opposite is true since more has to be hidden here. Check it out for yourself. The facts are clear. UN did leave Iraq, they were never kicked out.


The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.
-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98

To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.
--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02


This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.
--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out.
--John King, CNN, 8/18/02


Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council.
--USA Today, 12/17/98

Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.
--USA Today, 9/4/02


Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.
--Washington Post, 12/18/98

Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons,
--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02


A lie becomes a truth if you say it enough times.
Expelled or kicked out. Over and over again until it becomes the truth.

humus_sapiens
02-25-2003, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
UN left Iraq voluntarely in 98. Now every single western media agency use the word "kicked out".


Saddam have not cooperated as he was supposed to be, according to many UN resolutions. That was the condition of his staying in power after he lost the Gulf War of 1991. He broke it time and time again. How many lines in the sand are you willing to draw, brave descendant of Chamberlain & Deladier?



Just because you support the war doesnt mean you must be totally blind


You must consider risks of action or inaction. IMO, we support peaceful democratic future. You support future with ruthless dictators armed with WMDs.

Europe has a pathological love to tyrants. Without America, your country would be either Soviet Socialist Republic or a part of the 3rd Reich. It is easy to be peacenik when someone else protects your freedoms.

Hisardut
02-25-2003, 02:28 AM
Europe has a pathological love to tyrants. Without America, your country would be either Soviet Socialist Republic or a part of the 3rd Reich. It is easy to be peacenik when someone else protects your freedoms

Well said.

Salim
02-25-2003, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Hisardut
Well said.

Jawohl Herr Oberstleutnant!

Northlander
02-25-2003, 04:57 AM
Europe has a pathological love to tyrants. Without America, your country would be either Soviet Socialist Republic or a part of the 3rd Reich. It is easy to be peacenik when someone else protects your freedoms.

Without europe there wouldnt be any United States of America. No Israel either.

USA protects the freedom of no one. Ask the Iraqis that live under the rule of the Baath party á la USA.

Now it seems more and more clear that Turkey is trying real hard to get their hands on the Iraqi parts of kurdistan. They will probably get it too since USA needs Turkey in this. Nice mess we will have of all this. Turkish rule over the kurds, an american general in the middle of the desert. Real nice. Very effective against terrorism. :rolleyes:

Mediocrates
02-25-2003, 05:23 AM
No actually what Turkey is worried about is to prevent the creation of Kurdistan . That is unacceptable to them. Nor do they want a porous border between Iraq and their own Kurd province. which will create nothing but civil unrest inside Turkey. They have a legitimate complaint as far as it goes.

Northlander
02-25-2003, 05:49 AM
I guess the Turkish ban on the kurdish language in schools and the torture of political prisoners etc etc are legitimate as well in your opinion?

As long as it is a democracy anything goes, am I right?

Feels like the kurds will be the big losers in this conflict. They who oppose Saddam the most will gain the least. What was the latest numbers? 70 000 turkey soldiers into northern Iraq. A Turkish demand is that they double the numbers of american troops there.

According to people I know from there they say that many iraqi kurds fear the turkey soldiers even more than saddams troops. Turkish army comes over the border from time to time and they are not happy about kurds in general.

I dont think the american presence will change much. I hope it does but doubt it.

Mediocrates
02-25-2003, 06:22 AM
That wasn't my point and you know it. And while we're on the topic why in the hell don't all the human shields do anything about the Kurds.

BTW it's a fairly complex chicken-egg problem. They kill each other so stop waiving your bloody shirt over your head. It is NOT a prima facie case that any group making the claim of seperatist civil war has either clean hands or a self justified cause.

As a matter of international law since you're the one so keen on that, a country is in fact allowed to have firm borders w/o permitting insurgents in just because you say so.

humus_sapiens
02-25-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Northlander
Without europe there wouldnt be any United States of America.


Maybe. But then, without the US Europe would be a proud part of CCCP.



No Israel either.


Without Europe (Romans) Israel would not be destroyed and renamed into Palestine. Without Europe the Jews would not be persecuted for millenia. The Europe's track record: Colonization, Bigotry, Pogroms, Holocaust, World Wars. Finally, the liberal left has decided to make it up by... surprise! appeasing another bloody tyrant and terrorist threatening the humanity.


USA protects the freedom of no one.

Where did you graduate from: Peshawar Medresse or Sorbonne?
Europe alone was saved by the US in 2 World Wars, Cold War. And what Europe did to save Yugoslavia? Demonstarated...


Ask the Iraqis that live under the rule of the Baath party á la USA.

Make up your mind. Are pro-Saddam or against? Or just anti-US and Israel? BTW, the Baath Arab party is the last remaining descendant of the Nazi Axis.

Northlander
02-26-2003, 12:05 AM
Mediocrates, I dont know why the human shields doesnt do anything about the kurds. Its not the first time they are forgotten.
Firm borders I can accept, but it has to go both ways. The kurds doesnt even have their own border.

Humus:
US alone saved europe during WWII?? Personally I think the russians did far more against the germans than USA did.

Maybe I should have supported the soviet invasion of afghanistan just because of that. Hell, the germans more than anyone saved us all from the romans so why did anyone oppose them last century? Come on, real politics are not about gratitude and friendship no matter how many times your president refer to his allies as "our friends".


Make up your mind. Are pro-Saddam or against? Or just anti-US and Israel? BTW, the Baath Arab party is the last remaining descendant of the Nazi Axis.

Black and white. If things were that easy we wouldnt have this discussion.
Nevertheless Im against Saddam. Im also clearly anti-US, at the moment. A change of president and politics would take care of that rapidly.
I like that word better than anti-american which Im not. Anti-US because of the arrogant, destructive, dangerous, illegitimate foreign politics driven by your current administration. Because of the tendency I see in general from USA. Everything is very militarized and nationalistic in a negative way. It sort of remindes me about the SU and Nazi-germany. Flags and soldiers in every larger event. Military parades. Religious undertones in the whole state of the union. In most speeches as a matter of fact religion is there. Very creepy.

USA have to calm down in general. Germany and France have given example of more sane reactions towards the current threats. Fear, its said, is the most common reason for violence.
Fear of communism, fear of terrorism, fear of losing face, what have you.
There is a limit in how many foreign interventions USA can launch in the name of "selfdefence".
I think we have to change that word in the english dictionaries soon.

humus_sapiens
02-26-2003, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
Humus:
US alone saved europe during WWII?? Personally I think the russians did far more against the germans than USA did.

You are correct, but I didn't imply otherwise. Note the SU was attacked by the Nazi Germany, the US was not. Also, the Stalin's regime was not better than Hitler's.


Maybe I should have supported the soviet invasion of afghanistan just because of that. Hell, the germans more than anyone saved us all from the romans so why did anyone oppose them last century?

The Russians and Germans were bloody totalitarian regimes. You want to support or appease such regimes... Actually, that is exactly what you are doing. :(
OTOH, the US acts as an adult in a sandbox full of rambunctious violent kids.


It sort of remindes me about the SU and Nazi-germany. Flags and soldiers in every larger event. Military parades. Religious undertones in the whole state of the union. In most speeches as a matter of fact religion is there. Very creepy.


Parades? Where did you get this BS? If you make such comparisons, you obviously have no slightest idea what are you talking about. You are comparing a thriving democracy to the worst totalitarian regimes. The US were too lax, and it's been long overdue to add some security.

The pseudo-religious stuff I don't really care about, as long as it does not affect the policy or invites bigotry.


Germany and France have given example of more sane reactions towards the current threats.

ROTFLMAO, you're so naive! They are just protecting their investments in Saddam. Watch for some scandals really soon now. BTW, have you noticed: you just acknowledged the current threats do exist. ;(

Mediocrates
02-26-2003, 04:21 AM
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/25/oil/index.html


It's not about the oil kids. This says pretty much what the Wall Street Journal printed last week.

andak01
02-26-2003, 07:06 AM
So in short, here is a war that is:

Bad for the Iraqi people
Bad for the Turks
Bad for the UN
Bad for NATO
Bad for the EU Nations
Bad for the oil companies
Bad for the American economy
Bad for the European economy

Good for Ratheon, Haliburton (of which Cheney was former CEO), Brown and Root and a couple of other companies

This is a war that will save us from the immediate threat from Saddam while exposing us to North Korea, Al Qaida and others. This is a war against people who hate America that is going to increase hatred of America.

This is a war that is going to end in disaster unless about 50 different things happen exactly as planned.

Micah
02-26-2003, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by andak01
So in short, here is a war that is:

Bad for the Iraqi people
Bad for the Turks
Bad for the UN
Bad for NATO
Bad for the EU Nations
Bad for the oil companies
Bad for the American economy
Bad for the European economy

Good for Ratheon, Haliburton (of which Cheney was former CEO), Brown and Root and a couple of other companies

This is a war that will save us from the immediate threat from Saddam while exposing us to North Korea, Al Qaida and others. This is a war against people who hate America that is going to increase hatred of America.

This is a war that is going to end in disaster unless about 50 different things happen exactly as planned.

Of course, appeasement in the short term is:

Good for the EU
Good for the UN
Good for oil companies
Good for American economy
Good for European economy
Good for NATO

It isn't so good for the Iraqi people, because they will have to continue to live under Saddam's regime.

But who cares about our morals?

Mediocrates
02-26-2003, 08:48 AM
Good for Ratheon, Haliburton (of which Cheney was former CEO), Brown and Root and a couple of other companies



People say this as if it is self evident. It is not. What exactly does this mean?

Mercury
02-26-2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Northlander


Black and white. If things were that easy we wouldnt have this discussion.
Nevertheless Im against Saddam. Im also clearly anti-US, at the moment.

You didn't answer my question last time, so let me put it again. You protest against US, Israel etc. Did you ever publicly protest against Saddam or any other muslim dictatorship?

humus_sapiens
02-26-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by andak01
Good for Ratheon, Haliburton (of which Cheney was former CEO), Brown and Root and a couple of other companies

I'm not convinced. We won the Gulf War. Why we did not take over oil fields of Quwait (and Iraq too, for that matter)?



This is a war that is going to end in disaster unless about 50 different things happen exactly as planned.

The same was said in the Fall 2001 about impending US attack on Taliban. So, make up your mind. Are you against it for moral reasons or just scared of bad planning? Or just against and looking for any reason?

BTW, I didn't say I'm all for it. Still hope it won't be necessary.

NewsGuy
02-26-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by andak01
(of which Cheney was former CEO)

Hey, btw - where in the world is Cheney anyway??

The administration is just about as unpopular as ever, and Cheney is nowhere to be found.

I wonder if he's really deceased and instead of Weekend at Bernie's, the White House is doing a "Weekend at Cheney's".

Maybe they're having him sit in a chair with dark sunglasses, with a phone resting on his shoulder and strings lifting his hand every few minutes like he's talking into the phone. :D

Communication
02-26-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by andak01
Good for Ratheon, Haliburton (of which Cheney was former CEO), Brown and Root and a couple of other companies


When it comes to oil, I don't think the issue turns on whether it's good for big business. However, do you think we can take a hard line on the Saudis while Saddam Hussein is still in power?

JustPat
02-26-2003, 08:49 PM
So the choices are WAR or appeasement ...

Can you tell me of even one time that appeasement had a good outcome?

Kapiti
02-28-2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by JustPat
So the choices are WAR or appeasement ...

Can you tell me of even one time that appeasement had a good outcome?

Kennedy had the chance to bomb Cuba in the early sixties and effectively rejected the declaration of war. Maybe not appeasement in any sense which any normal person uses the word but since you give people only two choices then I guess in your small mind it must have been appeasement that he was pursuing.

In my view the outcome was a good one and certainly better than the alternative. Are you going to dispute this ?

abu afak
02-28-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Kapiti
Kennedy had the chance to bomb Cuba in the early sixties and effectively rejected the declaration of war. Maybe not appeasement in any sense which any normal person uses the word but since you give people only two choices then I guess in your small mind it must have been appeasement that he was pursuing.

In my view the outcome was a good one and certainly better than the alternative. Are you going to dispute this ?

Really stinky history there guy.

Kennedy gave the Russians and Cuba an Ultimatum: remove the Missiles or War.

SAME as Bush is Giving Saddam: Leave or war

Kennedy rejected Nothing... The Russians backed down

(BTW, aside/beside the above... ever heard of the 'Bay of Pigs'?)

djnvcm
03-01-2003, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by NewsGuy
As has been pointed out by others, Germany, France, Russia, and Belgium have come to be called an Axis of Weasels.

Europe has rarely been motivated by noble principles, but rather by greed, national hatred, and cowardice, historically speaking. That's why there is no doubt that their opposition to a war in Iraq stems from their multi-billion-dollar deals with Saddam's brutal regime.

But what is their relationship to the U.S. at this point? Have they shifted from being allies to trade competitors, and now to political adversaries?

Is NATO finished? Is the UN next? I sure hope that the answer is yes to both. : This is totally true since the cold war is over people start to think that the other superpower is not a good example to follow. The american way of life is mostly leading to be fat and to pollute twice the rest of the world. Thus the time is now to raise Europe for the good sake of american people themselves

JustPat
03-01-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Kapiti
Kennedy had the chance to bomb Cuba in the early sixties and effectively rejected the declaration of war. Maybe not appeasement in any sense which any normal person uses the word but since you give people only two choices then I guess in your small mind it must have been appeasement that he was pursuing.

In my view the outcome was a good one and certainly better than the alternative. Are you going to dispute this ?
You'd have to ask a Cuban, but those I have talked to wish we had gone in and taken Castro out.

JustPat
03-01-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by djnvcm
: This is totally true since the cold war is over people start to think that the other superpower is not a good example to follow. The american way of life is mostly leading to be fat and to pollute twice the rest of the world. Thus the time is now to raise Europe for the good sake of american people themselves
Oh look, another Frenchman who hates the US! How surprising.

Perhaps you would do well to study pollution word-wide and see the truth from a scientific standpoint. The only reason the US gets numbers for volume is because of our productivity.

elreason4
03-02-2003, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by JustPat
Oh look, another Frenchman who hates the US! How surprising.

Perhaps you would do well to study pollution word-wide and see the truth from a scientific standpoint. The only reason the US gets numbers for volume is because of our productivity.

Q: How many Frenchman does it take to defend Paris?

A: Nobody knows. It's never been tried.

Kapiti
03-02-2003, 01:56 AM
JUSTPAT
If the USA had invaded Cuba as openly as fools like you would have liked, the chances are we would have had a nuclear confrontation. It is the imbeciles of this planet who cannot see that taking the risks at that time would have been stupid, who also think that there are currently only two choices : war and appeasement.

abu afak

You really need to go back to both your history books and your newspapers. Try a bit harder please.


Kennedy did not say Remove the missiles or war. He said remove the missiles or you don't get any ships through.
Bush did not say to Saddam leave or war. This is not even close.
Yes I have heard of Bay of Pigs. This was not the US government starting a true war. It merely half supported Cuban exiles to try and over throw Castro. Very different to bombing the hell out of cuba don't you think.

elreason4
03-02-2003, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
JUSTPAT
If the USA had invaded Cuba as openly as fools like you would have liked, the chances are we would have had a nuclear confrontation. It is the imbeciles of this planet who cannot see that taking the risks at that time would have been stupid, who also think that there are currently only two choices : war and appeasement.

abu afak

You really need to go back to both your history books and your newspapers. Try a bit harder please.


Kennedy did not say Remove the missiles or war. He said remove the missiles or you don't get any ships through.
Bush did not say to Saddam leave or war. This is not even close.
Yes I have heard of Bay of Pigs. This was not the US government starting a true war. It merely half supported Cuban exiles to try and over throw Castro. Very different to bombing the hell out of cuba don't you think.

thanks for the history lesson. and i was somehow under the illusion that the bay of pigs had to do with the soviet union shipping nuclear arms within 100 miles of the u.s. in cuba thus bringing world to the very edge of complete global nuclear war. thanks for clearing that up, it was simply about some missles and an embargo-nothing to do with the cold war and the soviet union.

apples and oranges

Kapiti
03-02-2003, 03:25 AM
elreason4

Kennedy put pressure on the Cubans and Russians not by bombing anyone but rather by a blockade. This is the point and it is addressing the issue raised originally by Justpat who gave just two options : War or Appeasement. What Kennedy showed as I have demonstrated is that there are more than just two options. For instance a blockade as simply an example.

Your sarcasm is not necessary and more importantly not at all relevant.

elreason4
03-02-2003, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
elreason4

Kennedy put pressure on the Cubans and Russians not by bombing anyone but rather by a blockade. This is the point and it is addressing the issue raised originally by Justpat who gave just two options : War or Appeasement. What Kennedy showed as I have demonstrated is that there are more than just two options. For instance a blockade as simply an example.

Your sarcasm is not necessary and more importantly not at all relevant.
When national or global security is at issue, the threat of war is necessary. After a certain point though, if the threat is not backed up with action, one has appeased by default. The blockade was an immediate action, with an implicit threat of real war. That was the nature of the cold war. In any event, the last 12 years of the global security threat by Iraq’s refusal to disarm has made a mockery of the threat of war as a tactic that could produce results. As the U.S. continues to ready its strike force, and unless Sadaam can show he is clean before then, any U.S. further delay IS DEFINITELY appeasement. JustPat is right at this point in time, it is only war or appeasement.

The real tragedy of further appeasement is that at that point the U.S. can not deny it had the power, but failed, to stop further murder from Sadaam. The U.N. does not have the power to stop Sadaam, only the U.S. This is the burden which Bush faces, to do the right thing because it is only in his power. The popular view (as expressed in the U.N.) is not necessarily the right thing to do. It would be the U.S., not the U.N., who is ultimately responsibility for inaction and appeasement.

Mediocrates
03-02-2003, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
elreason4

Kennedy put pressure on the Cubans and Russians not by bombing anyone but rather by a blockade. This is the point and it is addressing the issue raised originally by Justpat who gave just two options : War or Appeasement. What Kennedy showed as I have demonstrated is that there are more than just two options. For instance a blockade as simply an example.




That's pretty simplistic. JFK threatened the SOVIETS with atomic war. It was not entirely important how the Cubans felt about that. Blockade was not meant to embargo Cuba it was meant to impress upon the Soviets our serious intent.

djnvcm
03-02-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by JustPat
Oh look, another Frenchman who hates the US! How surprising.

Perhaps you would do well to study pollution word-wide and see the truth from a scientific standpoint. The only reason the US gets numbers for volume is because of our productivity.

You misunderstand me I don't hate the US
My point was on the "American way of life" which may not be a reference anymore in XXI century. You should study what are the benefit of your productivity

Kapiti
03-02-2003, 11:56 AM
Mediocrates

Your post seems quite irrelevant. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the point you are trying to make.

Elreason

You say "When national or global security is at issue, the threat of war is necessary" After that the threat must be backed up with war.

The problem I and many others have with this is that you (the USA) are the determiner of when your national security is at issue and you able to be drawing this conclusion too easily.

If Iraq is a risk to you then next by the same loose standards would be North Korea or maybe Iran or maybe those pesky Malaysians who have been critical (and probably housing terrorist elements somewhere). We in Australia through our human suppository prime minister have been sucking up big time but if we don't would we be next.

Do you understand the reservations the world has with the power the USA has and its present policy of using that power when it thinks it necessary. Most people in the world don't think the use of your power is either necessary or adviseable. Once used the first time it becomes easier the next and the next.

MGB8
03-02-2003, 12:15 PM
Kapiti,

Your point is irrelevant, to this issue at least.

Iraq can only bejudged on its own merits.

What we have is a dictator who has violated his cease fire agreement for years. He violates countless UN resolutions, too.

Finally, the UN passes a resolution saying "show your cards, or face consequences."

What has Iraq done...certainly NOT show its cards. Now people are saying stuff was destroyed in 1994. Where was that in the 12,000 page report Iraq gave??? That would have been the time to reveal such a thing, if it was in fact the truth.

The thing is, once revealed, it could be checked for accuracy, whereas now they can set stuff up to look like the acted.

This is not a "New" war. This is a continuation of the 1991 War, because Saddam has violated the ccease fire. That's it.

Does Saddam pose a threat to US and world security. Undeniably. He has shown a willingness to use WMD which no one else has, and has consistantly tried to better his arsenal. He has punished his people in order to gain public sympathy (nothing new in the arab workd) and murdered anyone who opposed him. he even brags about his "%100" re-election. How can he have ANY CREDIBILITY - no one gets %100 unless you live in a perfect world. But Saddam does. Hmmm...maybe, just maybe he's a liar.

Saddam poses a threat to the world economic market (and billions of jobs) because of his proximity to oil, which makes it very possible for him to start a world-wide depression.

He posses a huge threat via terrorism.

And, he poses a great threat to his own people. we didn't seem to have these kind of complaints with Bosnia and Somolia when a lefty President went in for crimes similar to what Saddam has commited (albeit those crimes where ongoing whereas Saddam has already killed many of his enemies). The US military is NOT at the command of the world...it is in the hands of the US...and the world needs to realize that.

People argue for containment as opposed to war. Containment simply means delaying and allowing for the possibility that Saddam gets much stronger. Why take that chance, when we can have a shorter and less bloody war now?

I think this is more protest for protest sake, than anything else.





Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates

Your post seems quite irrelevant. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the point you are trying to make.

Elreason

You say "When national or global security is at issue, the threat of war is necessary" After that the threat must be backed up with war.

The problem I and many others have with this is that you (the USA) are the determiner of when your national security is at issue and you able to be drawing this conclusion too easily.

If Iraq is a risk to you then next by the same loose standards would be North Korea or maybe Iran or maybe those pesky Malaysians who have been critical (and probably housing terrorist elements somewhere). We in Australia through our human suppository prime minister have been sucking up big time but if we don't would we be next.

Do you understand the reservations the world has with the power the USA has and its present policy of using that power when it thinks it necessary. Most people in the world don't think the use of your power is either necessary or adviseable. Once used the first time it becomes easier the next and the next.

MichaelC
03-02-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates

Your post seems quite irrelevant. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the point you are trying to make.

Elreason

You say "When national or global security is at issue, the threat of war is necessary" After that the threat must be backed up with war.

The problem I and many others have with this is that you (the USA) are the determiner of when your national security is at issue and you able to be drawing this conclusion too easily.

If Iraq is a risk to you then next by the same loose standards would be North Korea or maybe Iran or maybe those pesky Malaysians who have been critical (and probably housing terrorist elements somewhere). We in Australia through our human suppository prime minister have been sucking up big time but if we don't would we be next.

Do you understand the reservations the world has with the power the USA has and its present policy of using that power when it thinks it necessary. Most people in the world don't think the use of your power is either necessary or adviseable. Once used the first time it becomes easier the next and the next. It is almost embarrasing to read what you post here. I wonder if you just type it out and fling it up there, supposing that you have created some masterpiece of analysis.

The issues of the planet continue despite your ability to understand them or persuade others of the proper course to take.

Dangerous times? Doubtlessly.

Lay down before the enemy? Hide one's head in the sand? Perhaps for Australians and Frenchmen.

Let killers do what they will no matter what weapons fall into their hands? It seems there are some whose vision of safety predicates such meager response, though in this sense, response is not really a term that applies.

Those unaware of history are doomed to repeat it. Many of us do not wish to go down with that ship.

elreason4
03-02-2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates

Your post seems quite irrelevant. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the point you are trying to make.

Elreason

You say "When national or global security is at issue, the threat of war is necessary" After that the threat must be backed up with war.

The problem I and many others have with this is that you (the USA) are the determiner of when your national security is at issue and you able to be drawing this conclusion too easily.

If Iraq is a risk to you then next by the same loose standards would be North Korea or maybe Iran or maybe those pesky Malaysians who have been critical (and probably housing terrorist elements somewhere). We in Australia through our human suppository prime minister have been sucking up big time but if we don't would we be next.

Do you understand the reservations the world has with the power the USA has and its present policy of using that power when it thinks it necessary. Most people in the world don't think the use of your power is either necessary or adviseable. Once used the first time it becomes easier the next and the next.

Kapiti :

I suppose the Europeans or Australians are a more appropriate determiner of when U.S. national security is at issue?!? Are you serious? The Europeans would have allowed hundreds of thousands of more deaths in Bosnia, had it not been for the U.S. The U.S. plays by a moral code (the moral code lacking in anything U.N. related). The U.S. has given Sadaam every chance to avert a war, even going through the U.N. which has really failed in its function. This is not suddenly out of the blue, rather a cap to a 12 year venture with the last year witnessing the U.S. trying every rational way out possible. Allowing Sadaam to continue to support terrorists and continue his murderous campaign is not acceptable to the one power that can stop him-the U.S.

Since you appear to have not read my second paragraph which already addressed these concerns, here it is again. ‘The real tragedy of further appeasement is that at that point the U.S. can not deny it had the power, but failed, to stop further murder from Sadaam. The U.N. does not have the power to stop Sadaam, only the U.S. This is the burden which Bush faces, to do the right thing because it is only in his power. The popular view (as expressed in the U.N.) is not necessarily the right thing to do. It would be the U.S., not the U.N., who is ultimately responsibility for inaction and appeasement.’

JustPat
03-03-2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti JUSTPAT
If the USA had invaded Cuba as openly as fools like you would have liked, the chances are we would have had a nuclear confrontation. It is the imbeciles of this planet who cannot see that taking the risks at that time would have been stupid, who also think that there are currently only two choices : war and appeasement.
Taking risks was not "stupid," as you so eloquently state. The "foolishness," then and now, is in the policy of containment. Castro has been contained for virtually all of his reign and to what end. We have not seen any benefit to the Cuban people as a result. Without dialogue there has been no serious progress toward normalization of relations. Had we instead liberated Cuba there could have been a true gem in the crown of the Carribean. Instead there is a wart on its nose.

Secondly, what is gained by turning a legitimate discussion into a name calling. Raise your standards and stop defaming those who don't share your opinion. Just a suggestion where a word to the wise is sufficient.

JustPat
03-03-2003, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti Do you understand the reservations the world has with the power the USA has and its present policy of using that power when it thinks it necessary. Most people in the world don't think the use of your power is either necessary or adviseable. Once used the first time it becomes easier the next and the next.
What other country has ever had this kind of power and abused it less. Were this a thousand years ago we would be at a redrawing of the global map to show an American Empire. Today, we see instead a nation with the power and influence of the US that uses her power and influence to try, though often imperfectly, to bring freedom to those who are under oppression and living in bondage.

Australia, in my opinion, being our sister country and a free people, is not guilty of "sucking up" as you insist, but rather is a willing partner in bringing freedom to this world of ours. Amazingly, in such a free soeciety those who desire may rant and rave about how rotten their home is as a result of the freedom they enjoy. Try that in Iraq.

Northlander
03-03-2003, 04:48 AM
Im getting really tired of this. Most of the dictators in the world, even today, are in their position thanks to US or Soviet support.
We all know that the Iraqi people suffers, but they should mainly thank USA for that. However that is not even the issue here. Just answer the question why USA supported Saddam after he showed his real face? Maybe they did it with good intentions, I cant say really, but it didnt turn out so good in the end.

Now USA will move in again. In the name of peace and democracy as it has always been. It never works. The thing is you know nothing about what will happen. Its nothing but a gamble. Anyting can happen and probably will. Afghanistan cant be used as a good example of an operation like this, cause we havent seen the end of that either. My guess is that the problem in afghanistan just moved across a border and is biding its time in pakistan. Usama is not caught and he is irrelevant in the long run anyway. Other people will follow.

When people start to die in Iraq, USA creates a whole lot of new problems. Like many times before. Stay out once and for all and you wont need to clean up the mess later on. Its not hard to imagine USA in another war ten years form now with this new government the will put in Iraq.

Mediocrates
03-03-2003, 05:05 AM
We overtly stay pretty much out of sub saharan africa and in the last quarter century most of SE Asia. I guess it's paradise there.

Mediocrates
03-03-2003, 05:06 AM
Kind of interesting thought the strongest supporter of American isolationism is a Swede.

Northlander
03-03-2003, 05:14 AM
We overtly stay pretty much out of sub saharan africa and in the last quarter century most of SE Asia. I guess it's paradise there
maybe not paradise but my guess is that most SE asians are kinda relieved as long as you stay away. You are so popular over there.


Kind of interesting thought the stronget supporter of American isolationism is a Swede.
why is it interesting?

Mediocrates
03-03-2003, 05:40 AM
What point do you hope to make. Anything short of perfection is failure if it's stamped with the 'Made in the USA" logo and anything just this side of cannibalism is Ok by you as long as someone else is pulling the strings. Frankly it's childish to have this big bad boogeyman view of the world.

I didn't pull SE Asia out of my ear and I didn't stipulate 'in the 25 years' accidently - see here's the thing. SE Asia is much the same as it was during the Viet Nam era just a differnt bunch of criminal drug lords running things. Of course now they are inching toward capitalism so I'm guessing that's just evil out of hand.

But for example the same half century civil war in Burma is going on against the Karen people. And AIDS is rampant in Thailand. And Malyasia is unstable and so on. But hey - it must be paradise.

Similarly Big White Bwana has mostly stayed out of that other Eden on earth, Central Africa. We left that to the post colonial revenant from Europe. Good job guys - kudos to you. We put Noriega in jail, you welcomed Mobutu with open arms (until he died). Mugabe, Kenya, Angola, Namibia, Cote d'Ivoire. Yeah good job.

Northlander
03-03-2003, 06:24 AM
there are alot of bad things in the world and I dont blame USA for everything.
When USA is involved it usually is in a negative way. Its only then you get the blame. I dont blame USA for anything where they werent involved. Its no big anti-american conspiracy. You were involved in creating Saddams terror regime. If you hadnt been, I wouldnt blame you at all. Its has nothing to do with communism, capitalism, left, right, black or white or anything.

Im the first to critise europeans for colonialistic behavior. Whats your point? That europe is equally bad or worse than USA so I shouldnt complain?

What it all comes down to is the fact that today USA can do basically anything that suits their interests. I would be naive to belive that the decisions made by your administrations during the next century would be wise and beneficial for us all.
The history shows that is usually not the case. In your own eyes your nation is moral and rightous. Even if that would have been true today it would not necessarely mean that things would continue that way. Its stupid, dangerous and irresponsible to lay your own decisions in the hands of others.

USA taking to much liberty in foreign politics must always be opposed, even the times when you basically agree to them. UN is no playground for american internal affairs or economical or political ambitions. Well, it is but it shouldnt be. Until you understand that your military and economical power doesnt necessarely give you rights that others doesnt have you must be opposed. Im not naive, I know it gives you more rights but that is what I oppose. All men are created equal etc etc. I dont feel more for 3000 dead new yorkers than I would for 3000 dead iraqis.
That I dont think can be said about most westerners.

If we give you one finger today you will take the whole hand tomorrow. After Iraq we will have another invasion and then another. After one dictator we will have another and another. Its about using diplomatic tools instead of force which really is an american problem more than anything else. That is a point worth making.

Mediocrates
03-03-2003, 07:04 AM
But if that were true you'd be living in a world far different than this. If we really could and wanted to reshape the world in our own image with impunity then we would not suddenly become the multilateralists we have become with hat in hand to the Imperial UN in a grand game of "Mother-May-I?".

Fact is, American interests are mostly economic and where we tend to muck things up is where the local government is weak to begin with. Look at Taiwan, South Korea, Philippines. All fairly strong and self sufficient national governments that allow us to help them w/o falling apart. Look at Mexico - almost all of our cross border relations and international relations with them are very narrowly 'legal' that is circumscribed by treaty or law exclusively.

See the point is, things go off the rails when the indigenous political force is broken to begin with; corrupt, weak, poorly decentralized, tribal, oiligarchic. So it's not really a matter of big bad bwana so much as the choices we make to become involved in the first place. And frequently the fact that some local government or a nation is weak is a good enough reason to begin with because it is exploitable. By us, by the Russians, by terrorists by fill-in-the-blank. That's where the world's hotspots are. Where countries are weak. No one is going to invade Holland or Japan or the Nordic countries because they are cohesive.

But Georgia and Iraq and Armenia and Chad and Sudan and Algeria, Liberia and a half dozen other places are ripe for it because frankly, everybody is queueing up to exploit them because they are weak and have built in hatreds someone can exploit. That's where things go wrong.

I imagine old Soviets and Maoists have the same discussions "what were we thinking when we went into.............?" But again, countries don't invade other stable strong countries they invade weak disorganized fractured countries because it serves their purposes to do so. And often all this goes in crapper because of that underlying disorganization, dysfunction, tribal hatreds and the like.m It stands to reason.

MGB8
03-03-2003, 07:36 AM
How quickly we forget about the Cold War.

It was the FRENCH that created the mess in South East Asia. We only went in to stop the spread of communism, and the western world was only too happy to see us there.

We now see the measure of our "allies" gratitude.

The world seems to think that the US military is some sort of "world" police force. Its not. Its the UNITED STATES military, sent to protect UNITED STATES interests.

Frankly, this outcry kind of confuses me. If the US wants to declare war on Iraq, and has valid reasons for doing so, which it does, why should the Europe have ANY say in what the US does.

Its not like this is an unjust war. No one says that Saddam is some sort of benevolent dictator, much less a representative of his people.

Its time for the US to be isolationist where its appropriate. We should get out of Europe, and possibly out of South Korea (let China, Russia, Japan and South Korea deal with the possibility of a Nuclear North Korea...let South Korea fall...they don't seem to want us there, lets take them at their word.)

That's the wonderful thing about the missle defense shield. Its only a matter of time before technology gets good enough for it to work, and then a country like Korea really doesn't have the resources to develop to many long range missles. we'd have to monitor sales to terrorists....but this can be done.

Northlander
03-03-2003, 09:05 AM
There will always come new weapons and strategies that beats any defence. Always. I hope you get your shield and that it make you feel safe so you once and for all stop your more offensive defence so to speak. However I doubt it. And please MGB8, do you really not understand why europe and others should have a say in what USA are doing? Im sure the Germans felt they had perfectly good reasons for invading Poland too. The point is that it werent really up to them to decide. It was not up to Saddam to decide wether it was legitimate or not to attack Kuweit either.

Attack and take the consequences. Its not a threat from me, calm down. Its just worth pointing out. If you win you win and everyone live happily ever after. If you lose, like others have before, you just have to accept it. The thing is that 9-11 and coming terrorist attacks ARE a result of your foreign politics. Do it now and some people someday will have to pay the price. There are not many easy military victories throughout history. Some people always lose and today the stakes are higher. I dont think you learned anything from 9-11 and Im SURE your enemies havent learned from the reprisals. Back at square one basically and now you plan to get a whole load of new enemies. You cant even find one guy. ONE guy, and you cant find him. Despite your technological advantage Osama is still out there and after the Iraqi attack he will have thousands of new supporters. Since 9-11 you have gained nothing. You are not safer now than when the talibans were in Afghanistan and the same thing will happen after Saddam is gone.

I dont see USAs army as world police. Its USA that pretends that from time to time. I always sees it as an american military force and nothing else. That what it is as long as they are not under foreign command, which they never are, not even in UN operations.

MGB8
03-03-2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
There will always come new weapons and strategies that beats any defence. Always. I hope you get your shield and that it make you feel safe so you once and for all stop your more offensive defence so to speak. However I doubt it. And please MGB8, do you really not understand why europe and others should have a say in what USA are doing? Im sure the Germans felt they had perfectly good reasons for invading Poland too. The point is that it werent really up to them to decide. It was not up to Saddam to decide wether it was legitimate or not to attack Kuweit either.

Attack and take the consequences. Its not a threat from me, calm down. Its just worth pointing out. If you win you win and everyone live happily ever after. If you lose, like others have before, you just have to accept it. The thing is that 9-11 and coming terrorist attacks ARE a result of your foreign politics. Do it now and some people someday will have to pay the price. There are not many easy military victories throughout history. Some people always lose and today the stakes are higher. I dont think you learned anything from 9-11 and Im SURE your enemies havent learned from the reprisals. Back at square one basically and now you plan to get a whole load of new enemies. You cant even find one guy. ONE guy, and you cant find him. Despite your technological advantage Osama is still out there and after the Iraqi attack he will have thousands of new supporters. Since 9-11 you have gained nothing. You are not safer now than when the talibans were in Afghanistan and the same thing will happen after Saddam is gone.



You are wrong or simply misguided on several points.

First, comparing the US to Nazi Germany is insulting and completely false. The Nazi's wanted to conquer the world. The US reasons to invade Iraq include (1) because Iraq is in violation of a ceasefire from the 1991 war, (2) to prevent Saddam from destabilizing the world economy, (3) to prevent Saddam from developing and using weapons of mass destruction or giving them to terrorists, (4) to change the political climate of the middle east.

Second, the idea that its US policies that caused 9/11 is at best unprovable and much more likely flat wrong. It is EUROPES policies that have caused this mess, not the US. EUROPE carved up the mideast into little despotisms, not the US. Al-quida has NOTHING to do with Israel other than a shared alliance with Palestinain Arab terrorists - so THAT policy DID NOT cause 9/11. You could say that the Gulf War did, because US stationed troops in the mideast, but that was at the REQUEST of the Arab dictatorships created by Europe, to protect them from Saddam.

Terrorism is not a result of far off politics, but a result of oppression at home. Europe, post cold war, has stepped up its dealings with these tyrants, while the US has pressured them into concession on Human Rights and is pushing for change.

Its EUROPES CURRENT policy that will lead to the continuation of terrorism for decades, because its current policy is to maintain the status quo. Only democratization of the mideast will eventually lead to the end of terrorism.

minusthejihad
03-03-2003, 09:28 AM
Northlander,

You either have some serious gall or some version of Turet's to blurt out something so offensive and inexcusable like "it's your fault that terrorists attacked you". Its no wonder that we call people like you appeasers, apologists, and weasels.

What kind of a mean spirited person are you to accuse 3000 innocent people of being at fault for their own deaths? That's just wrong and you should feel ashamed. But who knows who you are really? With an attitude like that, it makes me think you are some sort of rapist or molestor, that you have learned to blame the victim. With people like you out there, immature, hate-filled, and condescending, I really have doubts for the future of humanity, except of course, when you bring on your own death by appeasing terrorists, which would make perfect sense.

"It's their fault that they got killed!" - is that what you learned from your father when he talked about the Jews in the Holocaust? I'd like to see your face right now.

Northlander
03-03-2003, 09:29 AM
Every single word you write are rubbish MGB8 exept this:

"Only democratization of the mideast will eventually lead to the end of terrorism."

That is at least partly true. Its a step in the right direction. However, USA have tried many times to achieve democracy by using force and it mostly fail. Post war Germany and Japan are not good examples. I think many top americans fail to see that. Those two countries are in many ways unique in the world, for good or bad.

Its naive to think that the world would be any more safe with Saddam gone.

Northlander
03-03-2003, 09:49 AM
What kind of a mean spirited person are you to accuse 3000 innocent people of being at fault for their own deaths? That's just wrong and you should feel ashamed. But who knows who you are really? With an attitude like that, it makes me think you are some sort of rapist or molestor, that you have learned to blame the victim. With people like you out there, immature, hate-filled, and condescending, I really have doubts for the future of humanity, except of course, when you bring on your own death by appeasing terrorists, which would make perfect sense.

Its their governments fault. Partly.

Its like when you say its Saddams fault that his people have to die from american weapons. Since I know we wont have silent minutes when thousands of Iraqis dies I also know this world has gone totally rotten. All men are not created equal. We live indeed in a rasist world where power, money and race decides if you should live or not.

I often hear that its the palestinians own fault that their children die so dont pretend to be any better than me.

If there are world wide silent minutes for the dead iraqis when the deathtoll gets over 3000 I will rethink. If there are not we know Im right.


"It's their fault that they got killed!" - is that what you learned from your father when he talked about the Jews in the Holocaust? I'd like to see your face right now.

You would have to take that back if you ever saw my face I guarantee you that.

minusthejihad
03-03-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
Its their governments fault. Partly.

Its like when you say its Saddams fault that his people have to die from american weapons. Since I know we wont have silent minutes when thousands of Iraqis dies I also know this world has gone totally rotten. All men are not created equal. We live indeed in a rasist world where power, money and race decides if you should live or not.

I often hear that its the palestinians own fault that their children die so dont pretend to be any better than me.

If there are world wide silent minutes for the dead iraqis when the deathtoll gets over 3000 I will rethink. If there are not we know Im right.



You would have to take that back if you ever saw my face I guarantee you that.

What, are you 12 years old? Did you just hear your first conspiracy theory? Lemming.

JustPat
03-03-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Northlander Most of the dictators in the world, even today, are in their position thanks to US or Soviet support.
Care to provide a list with the applicable proof?


Originally posted by Northlander Now USA will move in again. In the name of peace and democracy as it has always been. It never works. The thing is you know nothing about what will happen. Its nothing but a gamble. Anyting can happen and probably will. Afghanistan cant be used as a good example of an operation like this, cause we havent seen the end of that either. My guess is that the problem in afghanistan just moved across a border and is biding its time in pakistan. Usama is not caught and he is irrelevant in the long run anyway. Other people will follow.
While it is true that the final outcome cannot be predicted, at least the people of Iraq will have the freedom to choose. To me, that is worth the risk and the cost.


Originally posted by Northlander When people start to die in Iraq, USA creates a whole lot of new problems. Like many times before. Stay out once and for all and you wont need to clean up the mess later on. Its not hard to imagine USA in another war ten years form now with this new government the will put in Iraq.
Why is it that people who are so adamant about keeping our nose out of other's business are so ready to stick theirs in ours? What is Sweden willing to do besides sit on your assets and collect the money from the crooks of the world?

JustPat
03-03-2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
maybe not paradise but my guess is that most SE asians are kinda relieved as long as you stay away. You are so popular over there.
Perhaps you should research further before you venture a guess. My personal experience is that much of the African continent is quite friendly to America, or at lest to Americans. Quite the contrary in Europe where American blood is responsible for the freedom of many.

Micah
03-03-2003, 10:29 AM
Ok...

It's America's fault because of our government's policies (I haven't heard examples as of yet). We are also hated because we won't let the UN and terrorist supporters like France to control us. It is also our fault because we serve our interests, instead of like the wise and humble Europe that does everything they do for the common good of all mankind, never serving their interests alone.

I still am waiting to hear what you think the US should do. I mean, just leave Saddam there, he isn't a threat?

It's funny, because when I saw you say, "Its stupid, dangerous and irresponsible to lay your own decisions in the hands of others." I was wondering if you actually knew what you were saying. Do you?

JustPat
03-03-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Northlander there are alot of bad things in the world and I dont blame USA for everything.
How quickly we forget! Who was it that said:

Originally posted by Northlander Most of the dictators in the world, even today, are in their position thanks to US or Soviet support.
You really should check your previous posts before making contradictory statements. Especially when you contradict yourself within a single post!

Originally posted by Northlander When USA is involved it usually is in a negative way. ... If you hadnt been, I wouldnt blame you at all. Its has nothing to do with communism, capitalism, left, right, black or white or anything.
Right, it's America against the World, or at least against your world.


Originally posted by Northlander What it all comes down to is the fact that today USA can do basically anything that suits their interests. I would be naive to belive that the decisions made by your administrations during the next century would be wise and beneficial for us all. The history shows that is usually not the case. In your own eyes your nation is moral and rightous. Even if that would have been true today it would not necessarely mean that things would continue that way. Its stupid, dangerous and irresponsible to lay your own decisions in the hands of others.
I do not ask you to leave your decisions to the US. I ask you to leave our decisions to us. If you do not agree, thank G_d you are free to voice it, mainly because the US is strong enough to keep evil at bay for our friends and neighbors across the globe.


Originally posted by Northlander USA taking to much liberty in foreign politics must always be opposed, even the times when you basically agree to them. UN is no playground for american internal affairs or economical or political ambitions. Well, it is but it shouldnt be. Until you understand that your military and economical power doesnt necessarely give you rights that others doesnt have you must be opposed. Im not naive, I know it gives you more rights but that is what I oppose. All men are created equal etc etc. I dont feel more for 3000 dead new yorkers than I would for 3000 dead iraqis.
That I dont think can be said about most westerners.

If we give you one finger today you will take the whole hand tomorrow. After Iraq we will have another invasion and then another. After one dictator we will have another and another. Its about using diplomatic tools instead of force which really is an american problem more than anything else. That is a point worth making.
How tortured and conflicted it must make you to be so anti-American. You feel obligated to oppose the US even when you agree with us! What kind of rationale is this?

The bottom line is this, without the ability to enforce agreements with military force, diplomacy is worthless.

MGB8
03-03-2003, 10:52 AM
Wrong again.

Everything I wrote was the truth. Was it not Europe who carved up the mideast?

Isn't it a fact that desperation at HOME is what causes terrorism - that's what YOU say in regards to the Pal Arabs, but it doesn't apply in Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran?

You are sooo full of it.

Just because America does things that some Arabs don't like doesn't justify terrorism, which is WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO!

There is NO justification.

Israel is in a different position - its a unique conflict because it is the same 1948 Arab-Israeli WAR. And that's what's happening. Two peoples want and/or need the same land (Israel needs it, BTW, as well as wants it, while the Arabs there DO NOT need it, because they have 99% of the middle east, and its serves no purpose for them as opposed to the defensive and religio-historical reasons.)





Originally posted by Northlander
Every single word you write are rubbish MGB8 exept this:

"Only democratization of the mideast will eventually lead to the end of terrorism."

That is at least partly true. Its a step in the right direction. However, USA have tried many times to achieve democracy by using force and it mostly fail. Post war Germany and Japan are not good examples. I think many top americans fail to see that. Those two countries are in many ways unique in the world, for good or bad.

Its naive to think that the world would be any more safe with Saddam gone.



Also, I love how you simply discount the experiences of Germany and Japan. No basis for this, just, "they don't count." There have been other successes, too. Much of eastern europe, for example, under the Marshall plan.

Its stupid to think that Saddam being gone WON'T make the world safer. Conditions should then improve (slowly) in Iraq. People will be free. They will focus their energies inward as opposed to destructive outwards.

MGB8
03-03-2003, 10:55 AM
As for 3000 dead Iraqi's, where's your sympathy for the thousands that Saddam murdered and will likely continue to murder?

Where is your outrage at the Arab on Arab genocides in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan?

Your position is full of holes.

The bottom line is that it is very likely inevitable, given Saddam Husseins past actions, that not only will he oppress and kill his own people again, (continue too, excuse me), but that at some point, if not confronted now, he will force the issue by having enough strength to destabalize the mideast and then going ahead and doing it in the name of the "great Arab nation."

JustPat
03-03-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
Its [the 300 victims'] governments fault. Partly.
60 governments from across the world are to blame, is that what you meant to say? No, you meant to say that the US government is to blame. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the target was one of the few monuments to globalism in America. It wasn't picked randomly. It wasn't the building height. It wasn't the strategic location. This target (WTC) was chosen becasue of it's global implications. Blame the US if you like, but you cannot seriously defend that accusation.

cerulean
03-03-2003, 11:40 AM
Al Qaeda has hit Arab states, it has hit France, it has hit Bali, it has tried to hit various European locations, it has hit Africa, and it has hit the US. The target is the established order, not the United States per se. The goal of Al Qaeda is to promote chaos and destruction and thereby lead to the creation of a single Islamic state (by Al Qaeda's definition) worldwide.

MGB8
03-03-2003, 12:02 PM
Another thing that Northlander said that defies logic...

He tried to compare casualties to terror to kids being used as human sheilds or being sent out to attack soldiers. In other words, he STILL doesn't recognize the difference between TARGETTING civilians and the collatoral deaths of civilians in an operation to get rid of the enemy, because the enemy hides behind his children and the skirts of his women.

The American Military isn't going to try to kill Iraqi civilians just for the heck of it. They are going to battle another army, and hopefully, like in the first gulf war, a few disasterous losses by the enemy will convince most of the enemies troops to surrender, stopping further bloodshed.

If Israel doesn't like Belgium's foreign policy, is it justified in sending a suicide bomber into the Hague? In Northlanders logic, it is.

minusthejihad
03-03-2003, 12:06 PM
Right now, there's millions of very affraid Iraqi soldiers (hungry too), just waiting to turn themselves into American forces for nicer treatment than from Saddam. Just like last time.

Am Yisrael
03-03-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by minusthejihad
Right now, there's millions of very affraid Iraqi soldiers (hungry too), just waiting to turn themselves into American forces for nicer treatment than from Saddam. Just like last time.
Sad but true. These "soldiers" are merely men who have no choice but to join the Saddams army. They usually recruit men who have had their villages destroyed by the same army and therefore are left with no choice but to serve Saddam.

Out of the whole of Saddams army there is maybe a handfull of small units that will actually fight and die for the state and Saddam. All the other "soldiers" will probably give up straight away, and some will even support an invading US army.

Northlander
03-04-2003, 12:33 AM
My english is not perfect but I still think you should be able to understand "I dont blame USA for everything" and "most of the dictators...". There are no contradiction.

Again you come back to the collateral damage. Its a fairly new invention. For all times war has been hard on the civil populations but these days we have a new word for it which makes it sound better. Who knows which american bombs are targeted at civilians for strategic purposes and which are misses. Its impossible to know for sure if you dont have total insight into the command centres which I belive no one of us have. The tactic of blaming the vicitims for being in a area they shouldnt are very low. If you target anything in a city like belgrade its deliberate. Its not Milosevics fault when a bridge is bombed in central belgrade. Should he have thought about where he layed it when the bridge were constructed? Your views of war and the american military are childish.

Obviously there is a moral difference between the targeting of civilians the way al-qaeda does and the times when american bombs kills civilians accidently. But you make it sound like US troops never were involved in deliberate murder of civilians, which again, is naive and childish. War is war. You are no better no worse than others. Just more frequent in your killings of civilians. Therefore any morally higher standards are irrelevant.

If the Iraqis should get rid of Saddam its their fight. Give them a push in the right direction if you like but american men killing innocent humans for very suspicious reasons are not the way to go. You do not need to agree with me. But please try to understand that american men killing innocent civilians will always be seen as just that. Denying its true to me makes no difference does it? The fact is still there that you are under threat of terrorism. If terrorism is here today, doesnt anyone of you think its a good idea to look on what went wrong in the past and try not to make the same misstakes?

Changing regimes in ME and elsewhere are one of those misstakes. You had your reasons then and you think you have your reasons now. But in the end the outcome will be the same.

As for the deliberate killings of civilians USA have already threatened Iraq with WMDs if Saddam uses it. He didnt threat with that. It wasnt he saying it first. Do you get whats wrong the picture? Why use WMDs on iraqi civilians if they are the reasons for you being there? Its all rubbish. Do you think Saddam cares about them?

I will use you logic in this conflict hereafter.
Iraq doesnt have to obey UN resolutions because UN resolutions doesnt count according to you. Israel should be force to comply too if that were true. Iraq should be allowed to have WMDs since USA and others have them and they are necessary for defence. USA should have accepted the Iraq invasion of Kuweit since they accepted and supported the attack on Iran. The should also stick to supporting their ally Saddam who trusted and belived in them. Those are the american views on France so it should go both ways. Iraq were an ally and you stabbed them in the back.
Saddam being a dictator is not at all wrong. USA have installed others and supported them so why not Saddam?

If USA attacks, you that supported the war are responsible for any civilians iraqis killed. Guilty as hell. All you can wish for is that your army prevent any pictures of dead iraqi children so that you doesnt need to see the bloody business yourselves.

I especially hope that you minusthejihad doesnt blame the victims in this. Remember not to blame the victims.

cerulean
03-04-2003, 07:09 AM
An airport in Mindanao in the Philippines was blown up by Muslim rebels that have been linked in the past to Al Qaeda. I'm sure someone wants to blame the US and Israel, although that would clearly be stupid.

http://msnbc.com/news/880411.asp?0ql=crp
19 killed in Philippines airport blast

One American reported among dead; dozens wounded

MANILA, Philippines, March 4 — A powerful explosion ripped through the waiting area of an airport in the southern Philippines, killing at least 19 people, including an American, and injuring scores of others, authorities said Tuesday. With many of the injured in serious condition, officials feared the death toll could rise.

THE BLAST ROCKED the Davao airport on the island of Mindanao at 5:20 p.m. local time, said local civil defense chief Susan Madrid.

Two other explosions were reported in the area on Tuesday. Local officials told NBC that one person was killed and at least two wounded in Tagum city, which is northwest of Davao city.

No one claimed responsibility for the blasts but the military has blamed Moro Islamic Liberation Front rebels for a string of attacks, including a car-bombing at nearby Cotabato airport last month that killed one woman. . . .

Micah
03-04-2003, 10:05 AM
Relating Israel to Iraq, how quaint.

Iraq's record: Kills millions of his own people using mustard gas, kills more Kuwaitis as well. Also bombed Israel when under attack by US forces. Making efforts to obtain Nuclear capabilities. Supports terrorist's families in Israel.

Israel's record: Won every single war waged by Arab nations to destroy her. Makes a huge effort to avoid civilian casulties when taking out terrorists in the WB and Gaza. Made a precision stike against an Iraqi Nuclear plant, stalling Iraq's Nuclear weapons program by decades (which the French were helping out with).

djnvcm
03-04-2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by cerulean
Al Qaeda has hit Arab states, it has hit France, it has hit Bali, it has tried to hit various European locations, it has hit Africa, and it has hit the US. The target is the established order, not the United States per se. The goal of Al Qaeda is to promote chaos and destruction and thereby lead to the creation of a single Islamic state (by Al Qaeda's definition) worldwide.

I think we give too much importance to Al Qaida. It is a kind of sect having a lot of money and motivated as you say by chaos and destruction agst the West. The problem in the muslim world is the permeability between the "true faith" and this madness. Else I'm not aware of those people having ever hit France. Terrorist attack in Paris subway were from GIA algeria related to the algerian civil war

cerulean
03-04-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by djnvcm
I think we give too much importance to Al Qaida. It is a kind of sect having a lot of money and motivated as you say by chaos and destruction agst the West. The problem in the muslim world is the permeability between the "true faith" and this madness. Else I'm not aware of those people having ever hit France. Terrorist attack in Paris subway were from GIA algeria related to the algerian civil war

It's hard to avoid giving attention to Al Qaeda after September 11 and Bali, among other events.
There were the French engineers killed in Pakistan (now it's possible this wasn't Al Qaeda, but I think it was - although I won't look it up now) and the French tanker in Yemen (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2334865.stm) that was blown up in classical Al Qaeda style. Various plots in progress in France have been halted. You might find this thread interesting:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=2468

minusthejihad
03-04-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by djnvcm
I think we give too much importance to Al Qaida. It is a kind of sect having a lot of money and motivated as you say by chaos and destruction agst the West. The problem in the muslim world is the permeability between the "true faith" and this madness. Else I'm not aware of those people having ever hit France. Terrorist attack in Paris subway were from GIA algeria related to the algerian civil war

Its funny that you still see a difference between terrorism and terrorism.

Northlander
03-04-2003, 10:56 PM
Its funny that you still see a difference between terrorism and terrorism.

There are huge differences.


An airport in Mindanao in the Philippines was blown up by Muslim rebels that have been linked in the past to Al Qaeda.

This "links" to al-qaeda. What does it mean really?
Saddam has links to al-qaeda its said. Al-qaeda is in indonesia and phillipines and all over the place. Soon everybody have links to al-qaeda. And this is a terrorist organisation that is supposed to have been severely damaged from hundreds of captured and killed leaders and operatives since 9-11.

something is wrong. either the "links" are exaggerated or this war against terror has given nothing. "We are winning" bush said in state of the union. If that is true I wonder how al-qaeda can still pull so many strings.

Kapiti
03-05-2003, 03:16 AM
Imagine if 15 of the bombers on September 11 had been from Iraq. Would Iraq have survived this long. No way. This would have been sufficient linkage to warrant in the minds of the US decision makers, an attack by the US on Iraq.

Is this more of a link than an Al Qaeda suspect with one leg turning up in an Iraqi hospital. (I think I got that right). Of course it is.

The difference is that the US will apply a different causality level of linkage for its friends than for its enemies. Otherwise Saudi Arabia would have been bombed long ago.

The necessity to kick Sadam out because of his connection with Al Qaeda is pretty weak. But then again that doesn't make it the strongest reason to fight the war as all the other reasons are equally weak.

To prevent him developing weapons of mass destruction. He had them (apparently) in the gulf war and did not use them. Conclusion : He is not a mad man who would use a defence which while it may kill many of his enemy would result in his own aniliation.

To bring democracy to the country. Oh how benevolent of the US. Why not to Myanmar/Burma where the government wasn't even smart enough to rig the election. Why not to any of the other ME monarchies. Why not to Algeria where free election results have been over-turned. The reason is obvious. The self interest of the American government is not served by the involvement in these other countries.

Oil. Maybe but actually I don't see how the US will be able to dictate what happens in Iraq after the war is over. Maybe this is it.

None of the reasons for fighting the war are strong. The reasons for not doing it however are much stronger. There is no way that Clinton would be doing what George is up to.

I think the fear of Al Qaeda is what is driving the US. I think it has it wrong however and its own arrogance and ignorance is to blame. They think that they can attack the symtoms of Al Qaeda and close it down while watering feeding and nurturing the cause of Al Qaeda. The better approach is to attack its life blood and cause. The disatisfaction of Muslims in their treatment by the west (and especially the US) The world will be a much safer place for all if the US recogised this.

And to finish off this little gem to get you all excited. The first place that the US must act after having beat up Saddam is to put the same pressure on Sharron to get out of the WB and Gaza. If he is not a hypocrite and has the ability to show some even handedness and the forsight to realise that what Israel is doing in the G and WB is probably the most substantial causes of hatred for the west by the muslim world then maybe some good can come from all this. Unfortunately given the blind support for Israel that the current administration shows the possibility of this is pretty much zero.

andak01
03-11-2003, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
This "links" to al-qaeda. What does it mean really?

In the McCarthey era, we had 'links' to Communism. There are seven degrees of separation to every person on the planet. Go four people away from yourself and you'll hit either Bin Laden or Kevin Bacon or both.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/07_link.html

1. In December of 2002, actor Sean Penn went to Baghdad, home of Saddam Hussein.

2. Sean Penn is married to actress Robin Wright Penn.

3. Robin Wright Penn made the movie "Forrest Gump" with Tom Hanks.

4. Tom Hanks made the film "Apollo 13" with Kevin Bacon.

5. Kevin Bacon made a Visa card commercial with Indian-born character actor Sahid Benjali.

6. Sahid Benjali used to bartend at the Lingerie Club in Hollywood. In the early 80's he served drinks to Carmen bin Laden, a former USC student, who is Osama's sister-in-law (estranged).

There you have it. Kevin Bacon is only four degrees of separation from Bin Laden and three from Hussein!

MGB8
03-11-2003, 10:34 AM
Kapiti,

get this straight.

The Middle East is where most terrorism directed against the US and US Interests (Europe, etc.) comes from.

It comes from there because (1) People have political ambitions that run counter to the US, (2) Lots of poor people are in despair enough to be manipulated by those with ambitions, and (3) the people with ambitions think that they can get away with it.

The American Invasion of Iraq is a response to these 3 PILLARS OF TERRORISM. It responds to the first by creating an American presence to monitor the ambitions of others, like the WMD development in Iran or the Terrorist training in Syria. It counters the despair by starting to build a democracy their and forcing that country to spend its oil wealth not on military but on CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE - on its people. It also sends a message to those who think they can attack the US and get away with it...the US will get you, sooner or later.

It is not linked directly to Al-qauida...al-quaida is just one kind of virus, this is meant to change the Environment in which all of these viruses need to develop.

Kapiti
03-11-2003, 12:01 PM
MGB8 I do not suspect you of not believing what you say but it really is quite extra-ordinary that you can point to the causes of Middle East Terrorism and not refer, even in part, to Israel.

Extremist religous people can be blind in their faith and see no wrong of their people and you are the best evidence so far of this.

Your blindness to anything other than your own side is why most reasonable people in the world are fearful of the Bush administration's new pro-active approach.

Vive La France.

Andak01 - An interesting comment you make and I am sure I will use it.

MGB8
03-11-2003, 12:08 PM
Israel is only part of the cause because it is part of fundamental Islamic political dogma and ambition, that no land once Islamic should ever "go back." It is the same as the Rhineland was a "cause" of Hitler.

Terrorism in Israel is a different matter not because the political ambition is different, but because Israel bares some (not all, not even the majority or near it) responsibility in creating the despair that allows the manipulation of foolish people to ambitious people's causes.



Originally posted by Kapiti
MGB8 I do not suspect you of not believing what you say but it really is quite extra-ordinary that you can point to the causes of Middle East Terrorism and not refer, even in part, to Israel.

Extremist religous people can be blind in their faith and see no wrong of their people and you are the best evidence so far of this.

Your blindness to anything other than your own side is why most reasonable people in the world are fearful of the Bush administration's new pro-active approach.

Vive La France.

Andak01 - An interesting comment you make and I am sure I will use it.

Mediocrates
03-11-2003, 12:22 PM
no you missed his point - his point was that the only mid east terrorists are Israel and the US. Gawd, man don't you read Zmag?

They tried to hang 'racist' on Israel for about 12-18 months, that got tired and now the moniker is 'terrorist'. But that's kind of unsexy and not really one of those selfsufficient dialog stopper words so I'm sure they'll hack up another one soon.

yehudi
03-11-2003, 11:43 PM
The NY Times is taking a "seek consensus before going to war" stance.

I won't cut and paste the whole editorial, but read it if you will : the editorial is called "Grapes of Wrath"

direct link : http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/opinion/12FRIE.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/opinion/12DOWD.html

(I guess some will say they are probably just UN-sponsored terrorists or frenchmen-weasels)

MichaelC
03-12-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by yehudi
The NY Times is taking a "seek consensus before going to war" stance.

I won't cut and paste the whole editorial, but read it if you will : the editorial is called "Grapes of Wrath"

direct link : http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/opinion/12FRIE.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/opinion/12DOWD.html

(I guess some will say they are probably just UN-sponsored terrorists or frenchmen-weasels) Pretty much the latter.

Johnny Yuma
03-14-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Kapiti
Imagine if 15 of the bombers on September 11 had been from Iraq. Would Iraq have survived this long. No way. This would have been sufficient linkage to warrant in the minds of the US decision makers, an attack by the US on Iraq.

I agree that we would have attacked, but not just because of their point of origination; their being from Iraq. It would be from the culmination of all that Iraq has done and all they could conceivably do.

I bet Saddam is glad Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, and not Iraq! :rolleyes:


Is this more of a link than an Al Qaeda suspect with one leg turning up in an Iraqi hospital. (I think I got that right). Of course it is.

I agree.....this was a big mistake. It's like Chris Rock said in the film How To Keep From Getting Your Ass Kicked By The Police, "Use common sense....... If your friend wants you to give him a ride in your car, stop! Your friend just might be crazy! Ask him: Do you have any drugs? Do you have any weapons of mass destruction? Do you have any warrants? Are you a member of Al Qaeda? If you do, you just might keep from getting your ass kicked by the Police!"

Surely you understand the analogy?


The difference is that the US will apply a different causality level of linkage for its friends than for its enemies. .

Yep. Just like France, Germany, Russia, China, ad naseum... Pretty clear as to whom the enemies are....


Otherwise Saudi Arabia would have been bombed long ago.

I don't hear any fat ladies singing.... not yet. Must not be in Germany, at Octoberfest.... :rolleyes: (Booyah! Two not so thinly veiled messages, here!) Speaking of thinly veiled.... (Ohh! Make that three!)



The necessity to kick Sadam out because of his connection with Al Qaeda is pretty weak. But then again that doesn't make it the strongest reason to fight the war as all the other reasons are equally weak.

To prevent him developing weapons of mass destruction. He had them (apparently) in the gulf war and did not use them. Conclusion : He is not a mad man who would use a defence which while it may kill many of his enemy would result in his own aniliation.


You're right. He didn't use them in the Gulf War, because he was told that if he used his weapons of mass destruction that we (the United States) would turn Bagdhad into a parking lot.... (I left out the "N" word). Besides, the objective of the Gulf War was not to take him out, it was simply to get "them out" of Kuwait. Sadly, they did not heed the warning and many of them left in bags, if there was anything left to leave (the pieces, I mean), but they did eventually leave.

And as far as whether or not Saddam Hussein is a mad man, the jury's still out on that. I suppose it will become known relatively soon, depending upon whether he behaves in the manner you describe, or not. I think, in Las Vegas, the smart money is on He's A Mad Man and not on He's Reasonable.

I understand why Europeans have a difficult time understanding our rationale for going to war. Really. I do.

Let me make it as simple for you, as it is for the unheard majority of the people in the United States:

On September 10th, 2001, we Americans were cruising along, happy with our economy, and our -for the most part- relations with the rest of the world. Then, the very next day, out of a crystalline blue sky, four American airliners that had been hijacked by members of a group called Al Qaeda, came roaring through the sky, two of which slammed into the heart of American finance, another, into the headquarters of our military, and the last, fortunately ended up in a Pennsylvania farm field, short of its intended target; the capital of our homeland. The big three.

Realize that most Americans have never left the state they were born in. Some of them have never left the county they were born in. Some have traveled less than 200 miles in any one direction, in their entire lives. The vast majority of these Americans have never even met anyone from another country. But when they did, they were, usually, thrilled. All in all, they are a simple, hard working, G_d fearing people.

They don't like having to be suspicious of "foreigners", simply because they might want to kill us; again, for reasons that the average American cannot begin to comprehend. All they know is there are people "out there" that want to kill us and destroy our way of life. And that, my friend, is what has awakened the sleeping giant that is the United States Of America.

From that day, on 9/11/2001, it became a duty to root out terrorism, where ever and whenever we find it, because "we" could all see that, without a doubt, we had become a target. Israel is the other.

Understand, however, that we hate being the policemen of the world. WE HATE IT! We want to go back to September 10th, 2001. We want our lives back; back to the way they were, then. We want the money that was in our retirement accounts that we worked so many years to accumulate to be there.

We hate having to deplete our treasure on military campaigns. We would much rather spend it curing AIDS, and Cancer, and on going into space. But noooooo!!!! Now we have to go out and find all the roaches and make sure we don't get them again.


To bring democracy to the country. Oh how benevolent of the US. Why not to Myanmar/Burma where the government wasn't even smart enough to rig the election. Why not to any of the other ME monarchies. Why not to Algeria where free election results have been over-turned. The reason is obvious. The self interest of the American government is not served by the involvement in these other countries.

What makes you think we don't have a long laundry list?
Just because your phone's off the hook, doesn't mean you are....


Oil. Maybe but actually I don't see how the US will be able to dictate what happens in Iraq after the war is over. Maybe this is it.

Oh.... it's quite simple. Just look at Japan and Germany(albeit an ingrate).


None of the reasons for fighting the war are strong. The reasons for not doing it however are much stronger. There is no way that Clinton would be doing what George is up to.

Wrong-o! Under Mr. Clinton's administration, America invaded, without a UN Security Council mandate, the Balkans. Have you forgotten Kosovo?


I think the fear of Al Qaeda is what is driving the US. I think it has it wrong however and its own arrogance and ignorance is to blame. They think that they can attack the symtoms of Al Qaeda and close it down while watering feeding and nurturing the cause of Al Qaeda. The better approach is to attack its life blood and cause. The disatisfaction of Muslims in their treatment by the west (and especially the US) The world will be a much safer place for all if the US recogised this.

Uh uh.... That's not how Americans play. We have nothing to say we're sorry for. We did not draw first blood, but I guarantee you that we are not going to be the last people hurt.

Here's an amusing anecdote about how Americans play:

A friend of mine was in a bar, drunk, and mouthing off. Another man took offense at what my friend was saying and walked up behind him at the bar and tapped him on the shoulder.

When my friend turned around, the man punched him in the face and my friend hit the floor. My friend got back up, pulled up his pants by the belt, and said, "You don't think this fight's over?" and proceeded to break most of the furniture in the bar, including most of the bottles, with the other man's body.

Suffice it to say that the other man (not my friend) spent several weeks in the hospital and many months recovering from his indisgression; that of sneaking up and punching my friend.

The moral should be obvious...


And to finish off this little gem to get you all excited. The first place that the US must act after having beat up Saddam is to put the same pressure on Sharron to get out of the WB and Gaza. If he is not a hypocrite and has the ability to show some even handedness and the forsight to realise that what Israel is doing in the G and WB is probably the most substantial causes of hatred for the west by the muslim world then maybe some good can come from all this. Unfortunately given the blind support for Israel that the current administration shows the possibility of this is pretty much zero.

No. Not Israel. Israelis are the good guys. We're only after the bad guys.

Here's some sound advice:

1) Use common sense.
2) Don't develop weapons of mass destruction and don't tell anyone if you do. Put them on your shelf and admire them as you would an object of art, but don't sell or give them to anyone else.
3) Don't threaten the United States, or Israel, or its citizens.
4) Don't attack the United States, or Israel, or its citizens.
5) Don't let terrorists live in your country, and, most importantly,
6) Don't join any groups that advocate the overthrow of the United States or Israel.

If you do these things, you may just keep fron getting a visit from the United States Marines.... maybe.

Kapiti
03-15-2003, 03:13 AM
"If you do these things, you may just keep fron getting a visit from the United States Marines.... maybe. "

What a fine way to end a response. Are you trying to be an ignorant and arrogant war monger or does all this come naturally ?

Since you like most Americans seem ignorant of anything other than what happens in America a couple of points for you.

I am guilty of bias. I have been married to an American for 6 years, I have sponsored a Jewish family to come to Australia, I work with in my office a slight majority of Jews and call one of them, a very close friend. I live in a country where our Prime Minister has been one of the very few supporters of Bush. I believe in international Government intervention, pre-emptive attacks and pressured regime change all in the right circumstances.

Very simply there is not an Iraqi or even Muslim interested in my views because of the anticipated heavy bias towards the American and Israeli positions.

Having declared my bias let me say this. In Australia " there is a very strong anti-Bush feeling and it goes right across the political parties. Why? I don't think Australians like Bible-bashing leaders invoking God, whether they wear tea towels or cowboy boots" These are not my words but are well written and succinctly descriptive of the feeling in Australia.

"Bush is deeply unpopular and distrusted in middle Australia. I can't express too strongly how deep these feelings are." These are all the words of a conservative jounalist from Australia's most read newspaper.

I concurr with them personally and believe that they accurately capture the mood and feeling of our country.

Regardless of what our Prime Minister says and does, supporting the American position is very unpopular in Australia. Imagine what the anti-American feeling is like in the rest of the world. If I was an American and the bombs started dropping on Bagdad then I would make sure I was in the US or surrounded by my precious marines. Certainly the world is going to become a much less safe place for you all.

Rightwinged religous extremists like youself deserve all the pain that will come to you. What is unfortunate is that you will inflict so much pain on the rest of the world and in your own stupidity not be able to work out why you are hated world wide. It is equally unfortunate that as you make the world less safe for you, you also make it less safe for me.

You really have no idea.

Johnny Yuma
03-15-2003, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
"If you do these things, you may just keep fron getting a visit from the United States Marines.... maybe. "

What a fine way to end a response. Are you trying to be an ignorant and arrogant war monger or does all this come naturally ?

Oh.... it comes very naturally. We're an extremely violent culture. You know that already, since you're so keenly aware of the United States.... And most certainly the enemies of this country are aware of that, as well.

Why then would they expect any less of us, having attacked and or threatened us?

You talk about stupidity.


Since you like most Americans seem ignorant of anything other than what happens in America a couple of points for you.

Don't fool yourself. We're not ignorant of what goes on in the rest of the world. Quite the contrary. We are everywhere and we understand very clearly what makes the world tick.. That is what disturbs people like you.

You would like to believe that we are ignorant of the rest of the world, so you can feel like you have something that we don't know about, or can't possibly understand, to stay in a comfort zone.

Why do you think the French are always railing about the spread of fast food across Europe? Because it's successful and it goes against the cultural self-perception..

And why do you think it's successful? Because we know how to market it, and it follows that we understand the ethos of the target markets. And that's just fast food. Imagine how much more we understand about the nuances of the psyches of this planet....

Why do you think that students flock to the universities in this country? Do you think it's because we don't understand what's going on in the world aound us, or do you think, perhaps, that this is where they believe they can get the best education, because the opposite is true?



I am guilty of bias. I have been married to an American for 6 years, I have sponsored a Jewish family to come to Australia, I work with in my office a slight majority of Jews and call one of them, a very close friend. I live in a country where our Prime Minister has been one of the very few supporters of Bush. I believe in international Government intervention, pre-emptive attacks and pressured regime change all in the right circumstances.

Very simply there is not an Iraqi or even Muslim interested in my views because of the anticipated heavy bias towards the American and Israeli positions.


Stop! You're breaking my heart... Now no one will listen you to you. Looks like you need to get off the fence, and make a stand.



Having declared my bias let me say this. In Australia " there is a very strong anti-Bush feeling and it goes right across the political parties. Why? I don't think Australians like Bible-bashing leaders invoking God, whether they wear tea towels or cowboy boots" These are not my words but are well written and succinctly descriptive of the feeling in Australia.

Tea towels and cowboy boots... Those are well written? I don't think I've stooped that low.

I haven't owned a pair of cowboy boots since I was a little kid. Just shows how narrow the world perception is, of living in the US.

Most of what you think of as cowboys are probably banging away on keyboards and wearing Nikes.....


"Bush is deeply unpopular and distrusted in middle Australia. I can't express too strongly how deep these feelings are." These are all the words of a conservative jounalist from Australia's most read newspaper.

I concurr with them personally and believe that they accurately capture the mood and feeling of our country.

Politicians are mistrusted in the United States, as well. Usually, they are unpopular, unless the economy is good, people are employed, and there is harmony.



Regardless of what our Prime Minister says and does, supporting the American position is very unpopular in Australia. Imagine what the anti-American feeling is like in the rest of the world. If I was an American and the bombs started dropping on Bagdad then I would make sure I was in the US or surrounded by my precious marines. Certainly the world is going to become a much less safe place for you all.

Okay. The next time you have elections, vote for someone who shares the feelings and concerns of the electorate.


Rightwinged religous extremists like youself deserve all the pain that will come to you. What is unfortunate is that you will inflict so much pain on the rest of the world and in your own stupidity not be able to work out why you are hated world wide. It is equally unfortunate that as you make the world less safe for you, you also make it less safe for me.

Right-winged religous extremists like myself?

Not once have I made any claims to religion or referenced a religion in any way shape or form, in a single premise within any argument I have put forth on this web site.

My experience tells me that your use of ad hominems is a sign of a last ditch desperation, because you have no substance in your arguments.

And for the record, I don't hate anyone. I hate behaviors.

And as far as people like me being hated worldwide, how someone else feels is how someone allows themself to feel. I am not responsible for how you feel. That's your problem. You are not responsible for how I feel.



You really have no idea.

You'd like to believe that. Let me just enlighten you as to what the problem is, and then you can make the judgement of whether or not I have an idea.

The very basic reason America is perceived to be a problem is because we supply the Israelis with military hardware. And when the Palestinians are being shelled and bombed, they see American equipment and arms. And when their houses are being bulldozed, they see American heavy equipment. So they are being killed and injured with American goods. They see America doing the hurting. Perception becomes their reality.

Regardless, America continues to supply Israel with equipment.

America, also, is perceived as the only country that Israel will listen to, because of the support they receive from the United States. So the Palestinians and the rest of the world, sympathetic to their cause, want America to broker and enforce the peace between the two parties. They want us to force the issue of the Palestinian homeland and the road map to peace.

France, Germany, Belgium and other countries have large populations of Muslims, yet they don't suffer the kinds of attacks from terrorists. Of course not. Not yet. Until the recent past, those where safe places for them.

However, if those aforementioned countries showed an inkling of support for the US and its allies, there will be even more demonstrations against the United States and Israel, and they can't control that type civil unrest, let alone withstand the attacks that may come to them. The infrastructure to do it within their own borders does not exist, let alone on a global scale.

With respect to the Iraqis, it is believed that since he has had weapons of mass destruction and hasn't used them in the past 12 years, he won't use them, because many believe he's not "that" crazy. They just believe he's a little crazy.

Now.... because France, Russia, and other countries have successful business dealings with Iraq, he is a man that can be reasoned with. So why not reason with him? (By the way, some of these deals are teetering on the edge of collapse. Reference one of the two oil field deals with Total Fina Elf.)

The world believes he can be contained with embargos, no-fly zones, and weapons inspections, all of which, may I remind you, are mandated by the UN Security Councils' cease fire agreement. However, any suffering occuring under the same is readily blamed on the US.

With respect to how we all are view the world and view ourselves:

Imagine our world (the one you say Americans, and me, specifically, don't understand) as a window with many panes of glass.

Some of those panes, you can see through; some are clear, although some are tinted, and some are distorted.

Some of them are mirrored, and you look back at yourself. Some of them are like two way mirrors; you see yourself, but those on the outside can see you, as well, but you can't see them.

Some of them are dark, and you can't see through them at all. And some of them are dark and you can't see through them, but others on the outside "can" see through them and see you. And some of them are dark and neither can see either way; in or out.

Within this, is the key to self-perception and all our cultural biases.

JustPat
03-15-2003, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti What a fine way to end a response. Are you trying to be an ignorant and arrogant war monger or does all this come naturally ?

Since you like most Americans seem ignorant of anything other than what happens in America a couple of points for you.

I am guilty of bias. I have been married to an American for 6 years, I have sponsored a Jewish family to come to Australia, I work with in my office a slight majority of Jews and call one of them, a very close friend. I live in a country where our Prime Minister has been one of the very few supporters of Bush. I believe in international Government intervention, pre-emptive attacks and pressured regime change all in the right circumstances.

Very simply there is not an Iraqi or even Muslim interested in my views because of the anticipated heavy bias towards the American and Israeli positions.

Having declared my bias let me say this. In Australia " there is a very strong anti-Bush feeling and it goes right across the political parties. Why? I don't think Australians like Bible-bashing leaders invoking God, whether they wear tea towels or cowboy boots" These are not my words but are well written and succinctly descriptive of the feeling in Australia.

"Bush is deeply unpopular and distrusted in middle Australia. I can't express too strongly how deep these feelings are." These are all the words of a conservative jounalist from Australia's most read newspaper.

I concurr with them personally and believe that they accurately capture the mood and feeling of our country.

Regardless of what our Prime Minister says and does, supporting the American position is very unpopular in Australia. Imagine what the anti-American feeling is like in the rest of the world. If I was an American and the bombs started dropping on Bagdad then I would make sure I was in the US or surrounded by my precious marines. Certainly the world is going to become a much less safe place for you all.

Rightwinged religous extremists like youself deserve all the pain that will come to you. What is unfortunate is that you will inflict so much pain on the rest of the world and in your own stupidity not be able to work out why you are hated world wide. It is equally unfortunate that as you make the world less safe for you, you also make it less safe for me.

You really have no idea.
Poor kapti, your leftist heart is bleeding all through your post, and your ignorance of American values, American passion, and American culture is obvious. You cannot equate journalistic reporting or international editorials with reality.

You claim to be biased toward the US, yet you slam us. What's the deal? You assume the leftist stance of indicting those who oppose you as "Right-wing religious extremeists" and curse them with what you feel is fated pain and suffering. You accuse those same people of violent hatred and threaten their safety with terrorism. Me thinks you protest too loudly.

I am pro-Israel without apology.
I am thankful to be an American, part of the one super-power left in the world.
Unlike Johnny, who you bash without cause, I have freely shared my religious convictions.
An extremist I am not. Passionate I am.
I, along with many of my fellow Americans, understand that public opinion is often short-sighted, misinformed, and wrong (be it American or Australian.) Leadership requires ding the right thing in spite of public opinion. The people we honor in history as having taken a brave stand in the face of opposition understood this. I believe that history will show George Bush and Tony Blair to be just such leaders, even if public opinion turns them aside.

MichaelC
03-15-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
Since you like most Americans seem ignorant of anything other than what happens in America a couple of points for you.
As you have tarred MOST Americans with the same brush, I think it fair to interject myself into your little joust with Mr. Yuma.

This statement is so blatantly bigoted that it certainly ought to reveal your agenda to every reasonable person who reads it. To make such a sweeping statement about 250,000,000 people is, if I may mix my metaphors, "ignorance, par excellent". The french phrase is strategically placed to infer disdain.


I am guilty of bias. I have been married to an American for 6 years, I have sponsored a Jewish family to come to Australia, I work with in my office a slight majority of Jews and call one of them, a very close friend. I live in a country where our Prime Minister has been one of the very few supporters of Bush. I believe in international Government intervention, pre-emptive attacks and pressured regime change all in the right circumstances.
I am generally amused by those who like to list their credentials, always it seems, in order to disavow any hint of a bias. Those who do this apparently fail to understand that they are speaking to others who have credentials of their own which they too could "doctor" a little in order to create a favorable emphasis for their own statements. On the net, people can make whatever claim they might want with no evidence of veracity.

Not only is it somewhat meaningless to do so, is smacks of that old adage, "Why, some of my best friends are_____________ (fill in the blank with appropriate disclaimer).


Very simply there is not an Iraqi or even Muslim interested in my views I don't blame them. Nobody here is particularly interested in your views either.


Having declared my bias let me say this. In Australia " there is a very strong anti-Bush feeling and it goes right across the political parties. Why? I don't think Australians like Bible-bashing leaders invoking God, whether they wear tea towels or cowboy boots" These are not my words but are well written and succinctly descriptive of the feeling in Australia.

"Bush is deeply unpopular and distrusted in middle Australia. I can't express too strongly how deep these feelings are." These are all the words of a conservative jounalist from Australia's most read newspaper.

I concurr with them personally and believe that they accurately capture the mood and feeling of our country.

So what. Who cares?. Big deal.

Such opinions are just more noise. Since when is YOUR concurrence with anything of import to anyone?


....the world is going to become a much less safe place for you all.....

....Rightwinged religous extremists like youself deserve all the pain that will come to you.....

....in your own stupidity not [..] able to work out why you are hated world wide.

Your hatred and vitriol belies any message of peace that you may think you possess.

Americans are not a vassal state of the UN nor a client state of Australia. I am sure that Australia has a multitude of fine people, doing great things for their fellow man. But America does not require Australia's permission to defend herself.

We have been savagely attacked upon our own shores, losing thousands of innocent lives in the process. Al qaida is one of many Islamic cabals with an intense hatred for America. Our fight is with all of them and the vacuous whining of some ignorant bigot from the other side of the world will make no difference in the measures that America takes to insures its own security.

Prior to 911, the U.S. was far too reserved in its response to terrorism. But anyone who thinks to bring death and destruction to the shores of America needs to know that we have our limits. Those limits have been exceeded and I, for one, am glad that the fight is being taken to the enemy and coopting the initiative.

Let him run, let him try to hide, let him look furtively over his shoulder and seek cover. America is coming for his head and the heads of his fellow killers. You can mock it, try to demean our efforts with rhetoric, cast your hatred and vitriol where you want. The war began the moment those planes crashed into the American landscape.

Australians may not defend themselves when attacked. Americans do.

Kapiti
03-15-2003, 11:31 AM
quote from MichaelC
" We have been savagely attacked upon our own shores, losing thousands of innocent lives in the process. Al qaida is one of many Islamic cabals with an intense hatred for America. Our fight is with all of them and the vacuous whining of some ignorant bigot from the other side of the world will make no difference in the measures that America takes to insures its own security.

Prior to 911, the U.S. was far too reserved in its response to terrorism. But anyone who thinks to bring death and destruction to the shores of America needs to know that we have our limits. Those limits have been exceeded and I, for one, am glad that the fight is being taken to the enemy and coopting the initiative.

Let him run, let him try to hide, let him look furtively over his shoulder and seek cover. America is coming for his head and the heads of his fellow killers. You can mock it, try to demean our efforts with rhetoric, cast your hatred and vitriol where you want. The war began the moment those planes crashed into the American landscape.

Australians may not defend themselves when attacked. Americans do."

You guys get terribly attacked by Terrorists so you want to hit some-one. OK no problems with Afganistan they deserved it for their link to Al Quaeda.

The links from Iraq to Al Qaeda are very faint and no-one so far has shown anything to suggest that they are responsible.

However by attacking Iraq who does not deserve to be attacked, (inspite of the fact that their government has done a terrible job for their people) you fail to see that you are indeed going to make life less safe for Americans.

You think with all your military superiority you can make life safe world wide for your citizens. Clearly to you guys that simply means sending your marines everywhere. A little hint for you. Thats not going to make you real popular and its not going to get a peaceful safe existance. You think life is tough now it will only get worse.

You are going down the wrong path. There are symptoms and their are causes. You fail to see the difference and don't understand that the best way to fix a problem is to attack the cause not the symptom.

Sharron has been all so successful with his approach to the Palestinian suicide attacks. Yes hardly any still happen since he got tough. But inspite of his total failures you think it may work on the international scale.

You really have no idea.

Johnny Yuma
03-15-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Kapiti
You guys get terribly attacked by Terrorists so you want to hit some-one. OK no problems with Afganistan they deserved it for their link to Al Quaeda.

Hey! We agree on something! :eek:


The links from Iraq to Al Qaeda are very faint and no-one so far has shown anything to suggest that they are responsible.

However by attacking Iraq who does not deserve to be attacked, (inspite of the fact that their government has done a terrible job for their people) you fail to see that you are indeed going to make life less safe for Americans.

I'd like you to be specific, as to how this is going to make life less save for Americans.


You think with all your military superiority you can make life safe world wide for your citizens. Clearly to you guys that simply means sending your marines everywhere. A little hint for you. Thats not going to make you real popular and its not going to get a peaceful safe existance. You think life is tough now it will only get worse.

You are the ones hung up on this popularity issue. We're not.

I ask you, again. Specifically, how life is going to get worse? Try hard not be nebulous. Give me something concrete.


You are going down the wrong path. There are symptoms and their are causes. You fail to see the difference and don't understand that the best way to fix a problem is to attack the cause not the symptom.

When you precipitate the problem down to its essence, the Arab world views the existence of the State of Israel as an infection, and the stated goal is the erradication of the State of Israel.

You think there is a simple solution, because an infection and that which the infection feeds off of can be eliminated. The error is that you're not dealing with just an infection.

What you're dealing with is something that behaves like a virus. It's the eye-for-an-eye cycle of killing; you kill some of them, they kill some of you. It's an endless loop. It never goes away.

Because of that, just like a virus, you can only treat the symptoms, because there is no cure for a virus. The virus is always with you. Sometimes it flares up, sometimes it's inactive, but it remains. You just learn to live with it.

The Palestinians and the rest of the Arab say that Israel doesn't have the right to exist and will never be satisfied until Israel is erradicated. That's the underlying cause that has to fixed, first.

An independant homeland at this stage is simply a wedge that's being driven into the area to gain a foothold and to make the ultimate goal easier. Israel would be foolish to allow that to happen.


Sharron has been all so successful with his approach to the Palestinian suicide attacks. Yes hardly any still happen since he got tough. But inspite of his total failures you think it may work on the international scale.

You really have no idea.

Which way is it? Is it successful, or is it a failure? Your statement is blatantly contradictory; it contains opposite truth values which makes your argument fallacious. I really wish you'd make up your mind. :confused:

It is evident that it's you that have no idea.

JustPat
03-15-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Kapiti You guys get terribly attacked by Terrorists so you want to hit some-one. OK no problems with Afganistan they deserved it for their link to Al Quaeda.
Actually, we have had very little experience with Terorist attacks on our soil up until now. There is something to be said for having the biggest stick. When we are done swinging this time many will have to think long and hard before taking us in thier sights like they did on 9/11. We take payback very personally.


Originally posted by Kapiti The links from Iraq to Al Qaeda are very faint and no-one so far has shown anything to suggest that they are responsible.

However by attacking Iraq who does not deserve to be attacked, (inspite of the fact that their government has done a terrible job for their people) you fail to see that you are indeed going to make life less safe for Americans.
This isn't about an Iraqi/Al-Qaeda Connection. This is about an open door and outstretched hand to groups like Al-Qaeda. When a government actively recruits terrorism and rewards those who perpetrate it, MOAB should come to visit. We are glad to let him drop in. I hope the Saudi's are listening.


Originally posted by Kapiti You think with all your military superiority you can make life safe world wide for your citizens. Clearly to you guys that simply means sending your marines everywhere. A little hint for you. Thats not going to make you real popular and its not going to get a peaceful safe existance. You think life is tough now it will only get worse.
Our obligation to our citizens is to make life as safe as possible. We don't live in a bubble, there are no force fields, and Santa Claus moved to Nirvana long ago. Popular or not, we will do what needs to be done to make our people safe. Hopefully we can help others along the way. Strength, not appeasement, is what has always led to peace. We will demonstrate strength.


Originally posted by Kapiti You are going down the wrong path. There are symptoms and their are causes. You fail to see the difference and don't understand that the best way to fix a problem is to attack the cause not the symptom.
Note to kapiti, when dealing with snakes, cut off the head. (Sssss...addam, we are coming.)


Originally posted by Kapiti Sharron has been all so successful with his approach to the Palestinian suicide attacks. Yes hardly any still happen since he got tough. But inspite of his total failures you think it may work on the international scale.

You really have no idea.
57 attacks foiled of late, sounds pretty successful to me. Using the Israeli model, I think we have a very good chance of putting an end to terrorism, but not until we can get people like France, Germany, and Belgium to stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

MichaelC
03-15-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Kapiti
The links from Iraq to Al Qaeda are very faint and no-one so far has shown anything to suggest that they are responsible.
As I've been saying to you and andak lately, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

It is called the 'WAR ON TERRORISM", not the War on al qaida. If you happen to be an international terrorist or a supporter of same, your future looks bleak. You guys who don't pay attention seem to think that the rest of us are hiding our heads in the sand too.

It must be embarrasing for you to be spitting into the wind like that. Your face must need a good wiping by now.


However by attacking Iraq who does not deserve to be attacked,
Yes, as a matter of fact, they do deserve intervention to block their ambitions and that intervention is just around the corner. Whitewashing Saddams savagery by reducing it to


"their government has done a terrible job for their people"

is just beyond insipid. Do you reread your text before posting? Euphemistic statements like that ought to embarrass even people like you.


You think with all your military superiority you can make life safe world wide for your citizens. Clearly to you guys that simply means sending your marines everywhere. A little hint for you. Thats not going to make you real popular and its not going to get a peaceful safe existance. You think life is tough now it will only get worse.

When thousands of our fellow citizens are slaughtered, we already know that someone doesn't like us. Frankly, I don't care what they think or what they want. At the moment my concern is for the security of my country. We will not sit on the sidelines any longer granting avowed enemies the time to hatch more of their murderous plans. Not going to happen. We've had enough.

This is a WAR, not a popularity contest. In war, it is expected that the enemy will not like you. I count people who espouse nonsense such as you post on this board as among that group.

You are going down the wrong path. There are symptoms and their are causes. You fail to see the difference and don't understand that the best way to fix a problem is to attack the cause not the symptom.
This is nothing more than your own limited opinion, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."


You really have no idea.
Any peruser of this board need merely access your posts by clicking on the proper icon to see who REALLY has no idea.

Kapiti
03-16-2003, 02:46 AM
Johnny, How will Americans be less safe after you have knocked off Saddam? This is the question you ask.

My point about bringing up my background bias in favour of the American position is that inspite of this I feel that the US is acting like an aggressive unreasonable international bully. If I feel this way then rest assured that most of the rest of the world is going to feel at least this way. Many with much more interest at stake perhaps and whose leaders are not so chummy with George are going to feel very hateful of the US. Some of these are going to feel vengeful. A Newsweek poll from the US just published here said 82 per cent predicted a US-led war against Iraq would inspire terrorist attacks against American citizens.

My view which appears to be supported by most Americans is that the Iraq war will inspire more terrorism. I recognise that the inverse is it will make some governments more nervous about any sort of tolerance towards or encouragement of terrorism within their borders but my position is that the terrorist infra-structure which is out there will come out stronger rather than weaker from the American efforts.

You also say " The Palestinians and the rest of the Arab say that Israel doesn't have the right to exist and will never be satisfied until Israel is erradicated." This is not accurate. This is what the official position may have been and at the time they had this position it was completly understandable and from their perspective reasonable. The Palestinians felt and many still feel cheated of their land by Zionists who "invaded" (legally or illegally) in the 1900s. In 1948 they thought the UN was implementing a compromise hopelessly in favour of the Jews. I prefer to leave an examination of this to a different thread but understand that this was the background to their refusal to accept Israel's right of existance.

Largely because of force the Palestinians and many Arab nations now would accept an Israeli state within the 1967. There will be those that would never be satisfied until Israel is erradicated but my making peace they will be marginalised.

Clearly you did not detect the sarcasm in my comments that Sharron has been "successful" in eradicating terrorism through his hardline approach.

MichaelC - The existance of your type with your views, so ablely represented by your cowboy president is why Americans are feared at present. Why the hatred towards your American govenment will increase so greatly.

You think that with your military power you do not need to listen to the rest of the world. Your government will push all other countries including mine and the Brits your two most vocal supporters against you. There is a very popular upswelling on anti-Americanism world wide to such an extent that the French who typically have been regarded as arrogant are now the good guys.

elke
03-16-2003, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
Johnny, How will Americans be less safe after you have knocked off Saddam? This is the question you ask.

Yes, we are all ears on this one


My point about bringing up my background bias in favour of the American position is that inspite of this I feel that the US is acting like an aggressive unreasonable international bully. If I feel this way then rest assured that most of the rest of the world is going to feel at least this way. Many with much more interest at stake perhaps and whose leaders are not so chummy with George are going to feel very hateful of the US. Some of these are going to feel vengeful. A Newsweek poll from the US just published here said 82 per cent predicted a US-led war against Iraq would inspire terrorist attacks against American citizens.

The fact that you feel this way doesn't mean it's necessarily accurate for everyone. Therefore, "rest assured" is a misnomer here: your opinion is valid - simply because you are entitled to your own opinion; but no more and no less so than anyone else's, whether Johnny's, or mine, or Susan Sarandon's.

Public sentiment comes and goes. It depends on many things, not the least of which is media coverage. In addition, public sentiment rarely translates into action, and that only when the population's vital interests are perceived to be at stake.

IMO, what we are seeing in Europe and the Muslim world as far as "pulbic sentiment" is concerned, is pretty much hot air, mostly. If/when US trounces Saddam, and the country is stabilized and becomes productive, the sentiment will swing - some. The fear and jealousy will remain, of course, and will continue on low temperature, as it has been for many years before. There is no cure for that, really, short of US abrogating its leadership status - which it won't do.


My view which appears to be supported by most Americans is that the Iraq war will inspire more terrorism. I recognise that the inverse is it will make some governments more nervous about any sort of tolerance towards or encouragement of terrorism within their borders but my position is that the terrorist infra-structure which is out there will come out stronger rather than weaker from the American efforts.

First of all, as has been discussed ad nauseam, terrorism does not happen in a vacuum: it requires money, logistic support, training, and pretty much everything else that's required by any military or paramilitary force anywhere in the world. Therefore, if no sort of tolerance or encouragement of terrorism is forthcoming, it will indeed wither and die. Short term - yes, it probably will increase. Long term - it's the only hope to eradicate it.


You also say " The Palestinians and the rest of the Arab say that Israel doesn't have the right to exist and will never be satisfied until Israel is erradicated." This is not accurate. This is what the official position may have been and at the time they had this position it was completly understandable and from their perspective reasonable. The Palestinians felt and many still feel cheated of their land by Zionists who "invaded" (legally or illegally) in the 1900s. In 1948 they thought the UN was implementing a compromise hopelessly in favour of the Jews. I prefer to leave an examination of this to a different thread but understand that this was the background to their refusal to accept Israel's right of existance.

How is this view not accurate? Do you know something we don't? With the exceptions of Egypt, Jordan, and a couple of Gulf states, the big players in the Arab/Muslim world are officially hell-bent on Israel's destruction, not the least of which is the self-same Saddam's Iraq. It is perfectly immaterial how or what they feel, and why. The fact is that they are the enemy and need to be fought.


Largely because of force the Palestinians and many Arab nations now would accept an Israeli state within the 1967. There will be those that would never be satisfied until Israel is erradicated but my making peace they will be marginalised.

Clearly you did not detect the sarcasm in my comments that Sharron has been "successful" in eradicating terrorism through his hardline approach.

Where are you getting this from? The "floated" Saudi proposal? Until that becomes serious, - i.e. they begin actually discussing the details; - it's nothing but a red herring, designed to distract from the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 murderers were Saudi.


MichaelC - The existance of your type with your views, so ablely represented by your cowboy president is why Americans are feared at present. Why the hatred towards your American govenment will increase so greatly

You think that with your military power you do not need to listen to the rest of the world. Your government will push all other countries including mine and the Brits your two most vocal supporters against you. There is a very popular upswelling on anti-Americanism world wide to such an extent that the French who typically have been regarded as arrogant are now the good guys.

Talk about stereotypes! Americans have been feared for at least 50 years. However, prior to the end of Cold War, they were perceived by other Westerners as the "necessary evil", as in "the lesser of two evils". Now that there is no longer an "Evil Empire", they are perceived as the only evil. Make no mistake: if/when China, or international terrorism, or any other threat is perceived as vital to these same people, they will go back to the "low grade" anti-Americanism.

Johnny Yuma
03-16-2003, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
Johnny, How will Americans be less safe after you have knocked off Saddam? This is the question you ask.

My point about bringing up my background bias in favour of the American position is that inspite of this I feel that the US is acting like an aggressive unreasonable international bully. If I feel this way then rest assured that most of the rest of the world is going to feel at least this way. Many with much more interest at stake perhaps and whose leaders are not so chummy with George are going to feel very hateful of the US. Some of these are going to feel vengeful. A Newsweek poll from the US just published here said 82 per cent predicted a US-led war against Iraq would inspire terrorist attacks against American citizens.

My view which appears to be supported by most Americans is that the Iraq war will inspire more terrorism. I recognise that the inverse is it will make some governments more nervous about any sort of tolerance towards or encouragement of terrorism within their borders but my position is that the terrorist infra-structure which is out there will come out stronger rather than weaker from the American efforts.

You also say " The Palestinians and the rest of the Arab say that Israel doesn't have the right to exist and will never be satisfied until Israel is erradicated." This is not accurate. This is what the official position may have been and at the time they had this position it was completly understandable and from their perspective reasonable. The Palestinians felt and many still feel cheated of their land by Zionists who "invaded" (legally or illegally) in the 1900s. In 1948 they thought the UN was implementing a compromise hopelessly in favour of the Jews. I prefer to leave an examination of this to a different thread but understand that this was the background to their refusal to accept Israel's right of existance.

Largely because of force the Palestinians and many Arab nations now would accept an Israeli state within the 1967. There will be those that would never be satisfied until Israel is erradicated but my making peace they will be marginalised.

Clearly you did not detect the sarcasm in my comments that Sharron has been "successful" in eradicating terrorism through his hardline approach.

MichaelC - The existance of your type with your views, so ablely represented by your cowboy president is why Americans are feared at present. Why the hatred towards your American govenment will increase so greatly.

You think that with your military power you do not need to listen to the rest of the world. Your government will push all other countries including mine and the Brits your two most vocal supporters against you. There is a very popular upswelling on anti-Americanism world wide to such an extent that the French who typically have been regarded as arrogant are now the good guys.

No Kapiti. You did not address the question. What I asked for was to tell me "specifically how" life would be less safe; that you supply me with "specific incidents".

All you have done is reference vague predictions and repeat that terrorist attacks may, could, or might increase.

The fact of the matter is that no one "knows" what will happen after a war in Iraq, and no one "can know". All that can be done is guess....

Mediocrates
03-16-2003, 07:26 PM
It's vogue now to blame the Jews (Moran, Buchanan, Saddam,et. al.) for the pending war with Iraq. Jonah Goldberg makes an excellent case why this is pure stupidity and sour grapes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/goldberg/goldberg031303.asp

If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."
To paraphrase Dickens, if that's what Jim Moran says, then Jim Moran is "a ass." Of course, few people who've followed Moran's fertile career of asininity needed to hear about this to make their mind up about that.
But the issue of the Jews and war is in the air these days; it's certainly in my e-mail box. It's certainly in the backroom rhetoric of Pat Buchanan and those who claim to be more conservative, more pure, more "paleo." It's a staple trope of Chris Matthews who talks about Jews in the administration the way Tailgunner Joe talked about Communists in the State Department and has dedicated countless segments of his show to the "takeover" of the GOP by the pro-Israel neoconservatives.
So let's talk about "the Jews" and "the war."
I use quotation marks because to discuss "the Jews" is already a bit of a slander. There are Jews against invading Iraq, you know? The New York Times, long considered the in-house newsletter of the Zionists, has actually been editorializing against war for quite a while, while the WASPier Washington Post has boldly gone the other way. Thomas Friedman — America's most influential pundit on Middle East affairs — favors disarming Iraq, but certainly doesn't support George Bush's method of doing it. Eric Alterman, Todd Gitlin, Michael Lerner, Tony Kushner, and Robert Reich are just a few of the Jewish noses I've counted against war with Iraq. But I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find more. Why, just look here.
You might notice from that small list that most of the Jews against war with Iraq are — surprise! — liberals. Funny thing, that. Liberals tend to be against the war and Jewish liberals tend to be against the war too. Weird.
Weirder still: Jewish conservatives tend to be in favor of the war. Now that is bizarre. And, as I look around, it dawns on me that gay conservatives tend to be in favor of forcibly disarming Saddam if necessary, while gay liberals generally insist that inspection will do the trick. And, you know, tall conservatives also favor war but tall liberals tend to be against it. My God, it's true everywhere I look: left-handed conservatives, pro-war. Left-handed liberals, antiwar. Bald conservatives: pro, bald liberals, anti. It's almost like there's a pattern here.
Okay, I'm having fun at the expense of people who think they are being incredibly brave and manly for daring to tell the world that Jewish conservatives share a position with other conservatives. But they don't say Jewish conservatives are in favor of war, they say "the Jews" are in favor of war. They loudly invoke the hook-nosed roll call of Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, and — before he joined National Review — David Frum, but then they mumble and whisper through the roster of the Jews' Gentile bosses: Rumsfeld, Powell, Ashcroft, Card, Cheney, and, let's not forget, George W. Bush, scion of the famously less-than-philo-Semitic Bush clan.
But that's what Jews are: string pullers, whisperers; clever people with clever ideas. Their loyalties aren't to Bush or America, they're to puppeteers like Bill Kristol, King of the Neoconservatives. That's why Chris Matthews could sleep with an untroubled conscience after asking a reporter about the Jews in the White House: "Are they loyal to the Kristol neoconservative movement, or to the president?" And: "Is Bill Kristol, leader of the neoconservatives….taking over the Bush White House?" "Does the president think Cheney is an honest broker or a neoconservative…."
Let's look at my invaluable colleague and friend, David Frum. For much of last year, Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, and others have had their dresses over their heads about the perfidious neoconservative influence Frum has had on the president. You see, Frum wrote two of the three words in the phrase "Axis of Evil," while his devout Christian boss, Mike Gerson, added the word "Evil" to the phrase and, more importantly, added the phrase to the speech the President of the United States delivered. But somehow the neocon Frum pushed the country to war, while Gerson is merely a humble Christian servant of the president. Except, the funny thing is, Frum isn't a neoconservative: He was never liberal nor Communist, he is libertarian on economics and culturally quite conservative. He is, however, a Jew and a foreign-policy hawk and he's been in the employ of The Weekly Standard: three strikes. He must be guilty, taking orders from Ariel Sharon.
I'm sorry if I sound like I'm making too big a deal out of this — even though that's to be expected of someone named Goldberg. It's just that, you see, I'm very confused. Whenever I pay attention to the supposed keepers of the faith supposedly to my right, I hear that the Republican party has been "hijacked" by warmongering neoconservatives. I'm told that inauthentic conservatives have taken over the GOP and are dragging the real conservatives and the whole country unwittingly to war. What's confusing about this is that, according to all of the polls, the vast majority of Republicans are in favor of war and an increasing majority of Americans favor war too. The latest CBS poll has 90% of Republicans favoring war. The Washington Post/ABC poll has a mere 86% of Republicans favoring military action. If the Republican party and the nation have been hijacked, the Stockholm syndrome has kicked-in, big time.
THE LOSERS
I shouldn't be too hard on the beautiful losers — to borrow Sam Francis's half-accurate phrase for the paleos who wandered into their own exile. Almost every day, the elite media tells us that the neocons are running everything. Just this week the New York Times ran a near parody about The Weekly Standard's influence on the Bush administration, all but making the case that Baghdad will be renamed Kristolgrad in a month or so. Serious magazines and journals of opinion from across the ideological spectrum, consistently refer to conservatives who favor war as "neoconservatives" — which many unfortunately read as Jewish conservatives — despite the fact that most conservatives favor war and there's nothing inherent to neoconservatism which requires being Jewish.
Yes Commentary, the neocon organ published by the American Jewish Committee favors war. But Tikkun, its Jewish opposite steadfastly opposes war. And National Review — where no Jews regularly attend editorial meetings or write editorials (or get paid what they deserve! — in my humble opinion) — favors invading. The National Interest, a realist publication if you go by what it actually says, favors toppling Saddam. Crisis, a Catholic magazine, and First Things, run by a Catholic, both lean on the pro-side of what they say would be a "just war," and many of their leading writers are far from ambiguous in defense of war. Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Bill O'Reilly John O'Sullivan, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly: the list of non-Jewish pro-war conservatives and conservative organizations goes on and on. Hell, Young Americans for Freedom (!) sells "Give War a Chance" buttons on their website and tramples French — not Israeli — flags at their protests. If the party was ever really hijacked, the kidnapped are now flying the plane and guarding the doors.
But let's look outside the rarefied world of magazines and conservative organizations. Michael Kinsley offers a clever defense of Jim Moran, accurately noting that the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, really is very powerful. Alas, what Kinsley doesn't offer is any evidence that AIPAC has actually lobbied particularly hard in favor of war or had any notable success doing so. Maybe they have. But boldly pointing out the influence of AIPAC in defense of Moran — who claims he was talking about religious leaders, not the Israel lobby — doesn't prove the lobby actually pushed for war, does it? AARP is very powerful too, but before I dedicated a column to defending someone who says AARP is inordinately pushing this country to war, I might be tempted to find some evidence that they are. The AIPAC website, which Kinsley quotes at length, doesn't seem to be beating the war drums too loudly.

Mediocrates
03-16-2003, 07:28 PM
If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."
To paraphrase Dickens, if that's what Jim Moran says, then Jim Moran is "a ass." Of course, few people who've followed Moran's fertile career of asininity needed to hear about this to make their mind up about that.
But the issue of the Jews and war is in the air these days; it's certainly in my e-mail box. It's certainly in the backroom rhetoric of Pat Buchanan and those who claim to be more conservative, more pure, more "paleo." It's a staple trope of Chris Matthews who talks about Jews in the administration the way Tailgunner Joe talked about Communists in the State Department and has dedicated countless segments of his show to the "takeover" of the GOP by the pro-Israel neoconservatives.
So let's talk about "the Jews" and "the war."
I use quotation marks because to discuss "the Jews" is already a bit of a slander. There are Jews against invading Iraq, you know? The New York Times, long considered the in-house newsletter of the Zionists, has actually been editorializing against war for quite a while, while the WASPier Washington Post has boldly gone the other way. Thomas Friedman — America's most influential pundit on Middle East affairs — favors disarming Iraq, but certainly doesn't support George Bush's method of doing it. Eric Alterman, Todd Gitlin, Michael Lerner, Tony Kushner, and Robert Reich are just a few of the Jewish noses I've counted against war with Iraq. But I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find more. Why, just look here.
You might notice from that small list that most of the Jews against war with Iraq are — surprise! — liberals. Funny thing, that. Liberals tend to be against the war and Jewish liberals tend to be against the war too. Weird.
Weirder still: Jewish conservatives tend to be in favor of the war. Now that is bizarre. And, as I look around, it dawns on me that gay conservatives tend to be in favor of forcibly disarming Saddam if necessary, while gay liberals generally insist that inspection will do the trick. And, you know, tall conservatives also favor war but tall liberals tend to be against it. My God, it's true everywhere I look: left-handed conservatives, pro-war. Left-handed liberals, antiwar. Bald conservatives: pro, bald liberals, anti. It's almost like there's a pattern here.
Okay, I'm having fun at the expense of people who think they are being incredibly brave and manly for daring to tell the world that Jewish conservatives share a position with other conservatives. But they don't say Jewish conservatives are in favor of war, they say "the Jews" are in favor of war. They loudly invoke the hook-nosed roll call of Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, and — before he joined National Review — David Frum, but then they mumble and whisper through the roster of the Jews' Gentile bosses: Rumsfeld, Powell, Ashcroft, Card, Cheney, and, let's not forget, George W. Bush, scion of the famously less-than-philo-Semitic Bush clan.
But that's what Jews are: string pullers, whisperers; clever people with clever ideas. Their loyalties aren't to Bush or America, they're to puppeteers like Bill Kristol, King of the Neoconservatives. That's why Chris Matthews could sleep with an untroubled conscience after asking a reporter about the Jews in the White House: "Are they loyal to the Kristol neoconservative movement, or to the president?" And: "Is Bill Kristol, leader of the neoconservatives….taking over the Bush White House?" "Does the president think Cheney is an honest broker or a neoconservative…."
Let's look at my invaluable colleague and friend, David Frum. For much of last year, Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, and others have had their dresses over their heads about the perfidious neoconservative influence Frum has had on the president. You see, Frum wrote two of the three words in the phrase "Axis of Evil," while his devout Christian boss, Mike Gerson, added the word "Evil" to the phrase and, more importantly, added the phrase to the speech the President of the United States delivered. But somehow the neocon Frum pushed the country to war, while Gerson is merely a humble Christian servant of the president. Except, the funny thing is, Frum isn't a neoconservative: He was never liberal nor Communist, he is libertarian on economics and culturally quite conservative. He is, however, a Jew and a foreign-policy hawk and he's been in the employ of The Weekly Standard: three strikes. He must be guilty, taking orders from Ariel Sharon.
I'm sorry if I sound like I'm making too big a deal out of this — even though that's to be expected of someone named Goldberg. It's just that, you see, I'm very confused. Whenever I pay attention to the supposed keepers of the faith supposedly to my right, I hear that the Republican party has been "hijacked" by warmongering neoconservatives. I'm told that inauthentic conservatives have taken over the GOP and are dragging the real conservatives and the whole country unwittingly to war. What's confusing about this is that, according to all of the polls, the vast majority of Republicans are in favor of war and an increasing majority of Americans favor war too. The latest CBS poll has 90% of Republicans favoring war. The Washington Post/ABC poll has a mere 86% of Republicans favoring military action. If the Republican party and the nation have been hijacked, the Stockholm syndrome has kicked-in, big time.
THE LOSERS
I shouldn't be too hard on the beautiful losers — to borrow Sam Francis's half-accurate phrase for the paleos who wandered into their own exile. Almost every day, the elite media tells us that the neocons are running everything. Just this week the New York Times ran a near parody about The Weekly Standard's influence on the Bush administration, all but making the case that Baghdad will be renamed Kristolgrad in a month or so. Serious magazines and journals of opinion from across the ideological spectrum, consistently refer to conservatives who favor war as "neoconservatives" — which many unfortunately read as Jewish conservatives — despite the fact that most conservatives favor war and there's nothing inherent to neoconservatism which requires being Jewish.
Yes Commentary, the neocon organ published by the American Jewish Committee favors war. But Tikkun, its Jewish opposite steadfastly opposes war. And National Review — where no Jews regularly attend editorial meetings or write editorials (or get paid what they deserve! — in my humble opinion) — favors invading. The National Interest, a realist publication if you go by what it actually says, favors toppling Saddam. Crisis, a Catholic magazine, and First Things, run by a Catholic, both lean on the pro-side of what they say would be a "just war," and many of their leading writers are far from ambiguous in defense of war. Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Bill O'Reilly John O'Sullivan, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly: the list of non-Jewish pro-war conservatives and conservative organizations goes on and on. Hell, Young Americans for Freedom (!) sells "Give War a Chance" buttons on their website and tramples French — not Israeli — flags at their protests. If the party was ever really hijacked, the kidnapped are now flying the plane and guarding the doors.
But let's look outside the rarefied world of magazines and conservative organizations. Michael Kinsley offers a clever defense of Jim Moran, accurately noting that the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, really is very powerful. Alas, what Kinsley doesn't offer is any evidence that AIPAC has actually lobbied particularly hard in favor of war or had any notable success doing so. Maybe they have. But boldly pointing out the influence of AIPAC in defense of Moran — who claims he was talking about religious leaders, not the Israel lobby — doesn't prove the lobby actually pushed for war, does it? AARP is very powerful too, but before I dedicated a column to defending someone who says AARP is inordinately pushing this country to war, I might be tempted to find some evidence that they are. The AIPAC website, which Kinsley quotes at length, doesn't seem to be beating the war drums too loudly.
Also, their supposedly pliant vassals in Congress aren't so pliant when it comes to war. In 1991, when another war allegedly for the benefit of Israel and their amen corner was on the horizon, the majority of Jewish members of Congress voted against authorizing the use of force while, obviously, the majority of non-Jews voted aye. Last October, a majority of Jews did vote in favor of the use of force, but at a lower rate than the body as a whole. Funny thing about those Jews, they can get 4,000 tribesmen out of the World Trade Center in time, but they can't get them to vote for war when they need them.

Mediocrates
03-16-2003, 07:30 PM
But let me back up for a moment. I don't want to merely deny, deny, deny. Of course, there's some "there" there when it comes to Jewish conservatives and interventionist foreign policy. Buchanan & co. giggle with excitement over their brave declaration that Jewish conservatives are pro-Israel. Well, who could deny such a thing? But it's hardly as if the Perle-Wolfowitz-Kristol-Abrams crowd is only in favor of supporting Israel. These guys wanted to "bomb before breakfast" to defend the interests of the United States in such myriad and sunny locales as Grenada, Nicaragua, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Consistency should stand for something. Surely, these weren't all dry-runs for a war for Israel? I mean for a while there The Weekly Standard seemed to be getting beer muscles for a fight with China. Someone needs to explain to me why that would be a good idea for Israel — or for America for that matter. (It's a good thing the Standard's influence over the administration then wasn't so total as it is today).
I don't dispute that Jewish-American conservatives might see the world a bit differently than, say, Irish-American ones. As Edmund Burke said, example is the school of mankind and they will learn at no other. Jews have learned from the example of the Holocaust that turning your back on evil only abets evil. That's Elie Wiesel's argument, but he's just a Jew. Of course, Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel see it the same way.
I think it's totally fair to point out that the Holocaust and the plight of Israel feeds into Jewish thinking about politics. Tragically, in my mind, Holocaust victimology has made too many Jews dismayingly liberal. But for the conservatives, it's made them hawkish. Hawkish in the defense of American principles and interests. That Jewish conservatives see the only democracy in the Middle East as something worth protecting shouldn't shock anyone. And it's perfectly fair to argue that some Jewish (and non-Jewish) conservatives overemphasize the importance of Israel (I await the cries of pacifism from Chris Matthews when Ireland is invaded). I'm not necessarily making that charge, but I think it's certainly an arguable proposition.
But maybe instead of Richard Perle secretly receiving orders from Ariel Sharon, he might actually believe what he says. After all, if the "Dark Prince" thinks it's in America's interest to risk American blood and treasure in defense of our Taiwanese or South Korean allies, is it so treasonous that he might think we should do it for our Israeli ones as well? Apparently so, according to Buchanan. He claims that Perle & co. are "colluding with Israel" at the expense of the United States. Funny how he whimpers about "neocon smears" but has no trouble charging treason.
Anyway, one wonders how this is supposed to work. "Neocons" are supposed to have one set of motives for war, which they keep secret, but they persuade the president, the vice president, the entire Cabinet, Tom Delay, Denny Hastert (not to mention Dick Gephardt and Tony Blair), the Republican party, the conservative establishment and the majority of American citizens with an entirely separate set of arguments? I know Jews are expert manipulators, but presumably they cannot create a whole separate case of facts. And, one hopes, our leaders are persuaded by the facts as they see them not the Jedi mind-tricks of some cosmopolitan scribblers who eat smoked fish on Sundays.
But even if they — "we," I suppose — could manage this, would it matter? In a democratic system, private motives matter much less than public arguments. Nobody has been saying publicly, "Let's do it for Israel!" I haven't. No one at NR or NRO has. No Republican has. So presumably, the public hasn't been persuaded by that argument because nobody has made it. The case for war is a long checklist which includes, strategic, moral, economic, and political rationales. We've debated those rationales for a very long time now and one side has lost.
Sure, Jim Moran might be right. If the "Jewish Community" were more opposed to this war, it might not happen. But that's not because the Jews are pushing this war. Rather, it's because the moral arguments are such that Jewish Americans are persuaded like most everyone else, ideological differences notwithstanding, by the president's case. A rising moral tide lifts all boats, even Jewish ones. Though I would bet that support for this war is stronger among Republicans generally than it is among Jews generally.
And that's why Moran, Buchanan, Matthews, Novak — and more leftists than I can count — should be ashamed. They've lost an argument. They lost it on the merits and they don't like it. In their arrogance or bitterness, they assume they couldn't have lost the fight fairly, and so they look for whispering neocons and clever Jews (or, in other contexts, nefarious oil traders). This is an ugly, ugly way to argue because it forces the opposition to prove a negative and it questions the patriotism of people who've never said an unpatriotic thing. In short, they are sore losers, and the farthest thing from beautiful.

MichaelC
03-16-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Kapiti
Johnny, How will Americans be less safe after you have knocked off Saddam? This is the question you ask.

My point about bringing up my background bias in favour of the American position is that inspite of this I feel that the US is acting like an aggressive unreasonable international bully. If I feel this way then rest assured that most of the rest of the world is going to feel at least this way. Many with much more interest at stake perhaps and whose leaders are not so chummy with George are going to feel very hateful of the US. Some of these are going to feel vengeful. A Newsweek poll from the US just published here said 82 per cent predicted a US-led war against Iraq would inspire terrorist attacks against American citizens.

My view which appears to be supported by most Americans is that the Iraq war will inspire more terrorism. I recognise that the inverse is it will make some governments more nervous about any sort of tolerance towards or encouragement of terrorism within their borders but my position is that the terrorist infra-structure which is out there will come out stronger rather than weaker from the American efforts.

You also say " The Palestinians and the rest of the Arab say that Israel doesn't have the right to exist and will never be satisfied until Israel is erradicated." This is not accurate. This is what the official position may have been and at the time they had this position it was completly understandable and from their perspective reasonable. The Palestinians felt and many still feel cheated of their land by Zionists who "invaded" (legally or illegally) in the 1900s. In 1948 they thought the UN was implementing a compromise hopelessly in favour of the Jews. I prefer to leave an examination of this to a different thread but understand that this was the background to their refusal to accept Israel's right of existance.

Largely because of force the Palestinians and many Arab nations now would accept an Israeli state within the 1967. There will be those that would never be satisfied until Israel is erradicated but my making peace they will be marginalised.

Clearly you did not detect the sarcasm in my comments that Sharron has been "successful" in eradicating terrorism through his hardline approach.

MichaelC - The existance of your type with your views, so ablely represented by your cowboy president is why Americans are feared at present. Why the hatred towards your American govenment will increase so greatly.

You think that with your military power you do not need to listen to the rest of the world. Your government will push all other countries including mine and the Brits your two most vocal supporters against you. There is a very popular upswelling on anti-Americanism world wide to such an extent that the French who typically have been regarded as arrogant are now the good guys. You are getting to be a joke around here. And a kind of bad one at that. Sort of a slapstick routine. Your grand claims of prescience about how all things shall be is just hilarious. If you feel some "some particular way", then of course, as you have pointed out, the rest of the world certainly must feel the same way.

Your ego has swallowed what's left of your brain. You prattle on, nonsensically making your little predictions and your shallow analysis of just how things are and how they will be.

Aren't you embarrassed yet? You ought to be.

Kapiti
03-17-2003, 02:42 AM
MichaelC - No I am not embarrassed except having to dignify your mindless drivel with a response.

I suppose if you constantly stick your head in the sand or some even less polite part of your own anatomy you would not have heard of the world wide anti-war movement.

Bring your head out some time. You will see the smell is much more pleasant.

Mediocrates. - Your response is too long and unpunctuated to read. I make one note however that I do not blame the jews for the war against Iraq.

JohnyYumar - You are being silly. I have told you that Americans will be less safe because of a greatly increased risk of world wide terrorism in reprisal. This is as explicit as anyone can be. I do not know what form this terrorism is going to take. To suggest that I have to predict the actual type of terrorism for my point to have any validity is simply being stupid. Of course I cannot.

I agree no one knows for sure what is going to happen. However educated guesses or speculation is what intelligent decisions are built upon. To dismiss discussion because it cannot be 100 percent accurate is again silly.

Elke - You dismiss the whole anti-war movement as hot air, simple "stupid" public opinion upon which no action will follow. I think you misread the strength of the anti-war movement. Time will tell.

Elke I also think you mis read the threat of terrorism. More than 200 people died in Korean trains went a nutcase simply set fire to the train. 96 people died in a US night club when a fireworks display went horribly wrong. These terrible losses of life were not caused by "money, logistic support, training". My point is that in the modern world that we live in there is a now a greater opportunity to kill many people without high tech but rather simply because at different times we necessarily accumulate together. On this one I will be most happy to say you were right and I was wrong. Really I value my way of life (a very care free one for my family and me) much more than any opportunity to say I told you so. (Australia is also at risk from the US action, assuming our Prime Ministers follows you in)

I am sure that the big players of the Arab world would readily accept the state of Israel within the confines of the 1967 boundaries. This would be an easy sell for just about all.

Americans have not been feared for 50 years. Where did you get this one from. They were very definately the good guys.

Elke, you have conceded that terrorism could increase in the short term. If it does and is really nasty what could happen is that there would be further action against muslims or other Middle East countries. This could further increase the real risk of terrorism all over the place. Hardliners would say that any negotiotion is tatamount to giving in to the terrorists which they would say could further escalate the problems. Hence a visicous cycle without a means of settling.

This is my concern but I am very very happy to be wrong.

Johnny Yuma
03-17-2003, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
JohnyYumar - You are being silly. I have told you that Americans will be less safe because of a greatly increased risk of world wide terrorism in reprisal. This is as explicit as anyone can be. I do not know what form this terrorism is going to take. To suggest that I have to predict the actual type of terrorism for my point to have any validity is simply being stupid. Of course I cannot.

I agree no one knows for sure what is going to happen. However educated guesses or speculation is what intelligent decisions are built upon. To dismiss discussion because it cannot be 100 percent accurate is again silly.



I got what I wanted; you to agree that no one knows what's going to happen.

The fact is, anything is possible. There may be more attacks, or it may be that it gives those that would attack, pause, knowing with a surety that we will come after them if they do.

The latter, in my opinion, is what is more likely to be the case.

Kapiti
03-17-2003, 04:01 AM
Johny Yumar - If all you wanted was an admission that no-one knows for certain what is going to happen, then you are very easily pleased. My comment about educated guesses and speculation being the mother of wize decisions still stand however.

I hope you are right and I am wrong but these days I would have thought it pretty easy for a group or individual without much sophistication to create mayhem without giving up their identity. Then who do you bomb. The fact is that your proposals given some much greater motivation for the angry and frustrated to do just this.

Mediocrates
03-17-2003, 04:52 AM
1 - kapiti, go to the source link provided if you have difficulty reading the posting.

2 - what is this one simple truth based on? where do you naturally know that war, any war will of course increase terrorism? what factual basis does this come from?

3 - was there less terrorism before? before what? we're not at war now so what's the dividing line now? who were we @ war with september 2001?

4 - and what if your even right? therefore what? let's say there really is an increase in terrorism? let's say that America is plunged into era proportionally similar to that which the Israelis suffer today, say 33,000 people murdered a year, what should therefore the response be then? according to you, nothing.

I'm just trying to get a sense your plan.


And I'll point you to this:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=45902#post45902

Johnny Yuma
03-17-2003, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
Johny Yumar - If all you wanted was an admission that no-one knows for certain what is going to happen, then you are very easily pleased. My comment about educated guesses and speculation being the mother of wize decisions still stand however.

You're right. I'm easily amused.


I hope you are right and I am wrong but these days I would have thought it pretty easy for a group or individual without much sophistication to create mayhem without giving up their identity. Then who do you bomb. The fact is that your proposals given some much greater motivation for the angry and frustrated to do just this.

"The people of this country" never asked for, nor deserved to have our simple lives interrupted by someone that doesn't know us, nor we them -the people you claim that won't give up their identities- , because of some perceived notion that it was our responsibilty to cure the middle east, or because we weren't doing anything about it, or because we sell military hardware and equipment to other countries, if that's the logic for us being attacked, then there are far more countries that "deserved" it more than we.

You talk about peaceful approaches. They picked one hell of a way to get our attention. And now all you people that make excuses for them, and how "we" should use the peaceful approach, how hypocritical! All I can say is that whatever you've been smoking, you need to take the stems and seeds out of it because it's messing up your head.

There's an old proverb: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it...

MichaelC
03-17-2003, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
MichaelC - No I am not embarrassed except having to dignify your mindless drivel with a response.

I suppose if you constantly stick your head in the sand or some even less polite part of your own anatomy you would not have heard of the world wide anti-war movement.

Bring your head out some time. You will see the smell is much more pleasant.
I bear your disdain as a badge of honor. There is nothing that pleases me more than any comments made by any person at any time that defines YOU as being at the opposite end of the intellectual spectrum from me. Thank you for making it ever more clear to whomever reads these posts that your abysmal commentary is diametrically opposed to my own perceptions.

The way in which you pharased your reply speaks for itself. The less a man has to say, the more his words tend to take on a certain stench of sewage.

MichaelC
03-17-2003, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
I am very very happy to be wrong.
Apparently then, you are in a vertitable excess of bliss while posting here at the Israel Forum.

MichaelC
03-17-2003, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
My comment about educated guesses and speculation being the mother of wize decisions still stand however.
It is clear that educated guesses are not also the mother of correct spelling, but I digress.

While I think that you ought to drop the modifier "educated" from your guesses, I do agree that you are guessing and speculating. Poorly at that.

Communication
03-18-2003, 11:03 AM
To those of you asking which nations support us and what type of support they are offering, here's a start:

Knight Ridder Newspapers
28 Feb 03

A Look at Military Support Offered for Potential Action Against Iraq:

Albania -- Approved U.S. use of airspace, land and territorial waters

Australia -- 2000 troops

Bahrain -- A frigate

Belgium -- Allowed movement of troops and supplies through Belgium en route to Kuwait

Britain -- 42,000 troops

Bulgaria -- Approved U.S. use of military air port and 150-member non-combat unit

Canada -- Military planners

China -- No promises

Croatia -- Will allow refueling of ships

Czech Republic -- Sent unit specializing in dealing with aftermath of chemical, nuclear and biological attacks in Kuwait

Denmark -- Offered 70 elite soldiers and a Saelen submarine

Egypt -- Promised to keep Suez Canal open

Germany -- No participation

Greece -- U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. Sixth Fleet

Hungary -- U.S. allowed to use a Hungarian air base to train Iraqi opposition figures for non-combat support

India -- No participation without U.N. backing

Italy -- Offered use of bases, ports and air space

Jordan -- Several hundred U.S. troops are stationed in Jordan

Kuwait -- More than 70,000 U.S. troops training in Kuwait

Lithuania -- Authorized use of air space

Netherlands -- 360 Dutch troops

Norway -- Offered to send 10,000 chemical warfair suits to Turkey

Oman -- Sent one battalion

Poland -- A dozen Grom elite commando troops and a transport ship

Portugal -- Granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores

Qatar -- Site of U.S. Central Command Headquarters

Romania -- 278 non-combat nuclear, biologial and chemical decontamination specialists, military police troops and demining units

Saudi Arabia -- Will allow U.S. to launch air support missions from Saudi bases

Slovakia -- 69-member anti-chemical warfare unit

Spain -- Will allow use of the Rofa naval base and Moron air base

Turkey -- Plans to allow 62,000 U.S. combat troops, 255 war planes and 62 helicopters for possible northern front against Iraq. Still needs parlimentary approval.

United Arab Emirates -- 4,000 troops backed by Apache attack helicopters, Leclerc tanks, BMP3 amphibious armored vehicles, a missle boat and a frigate

Johnny Yuma
03-18-2003, 11:56 AM
President George Bush has made an announcement that we will not attack Iraq as previously announced. He states that, as of today, he wants to give inspections another chance and is agreeing to additional inspectors to be deployed throughout the country of Iraq. Therefore, he will be sending 250,000 additional inspectors into Iraq.

Among the additional inspectors are:

50,000 members of the 1st Infantry Division

30,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division

30,000 members of the Marine Special Amphibious Forces

5,000 members of the Navy Seals

5,000 members of the Army Special Forces

10,000 members of the 4th armored division with their " M1-A1 all
terrain vehicles"

Special air deliveries to aid the inspections will be made by aircraft
from the USS Constellation, USS George Washington, USS Abraham Lincoln, and USS Enterprise.

The President stated: "with these additional inspectors the inspections should be completed in a few weeks".

There were no comments from Hans Blix, or the Security Council members of the United Nations.

JustPat
03-18-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
President George Bush has made an announcement that we will not attack Iraq ...

LOL!

I hear that those who will be in charge upon the arrival of these new inspectors have agreed to unfettered access. :D

MGB8
03-18-2003, 03:53 PM
Kapiti,

You do two things at once.

First, you place no blame on the Arab nations for trying to genocide the Jews and Israel, in violation of the UN Charter and partition agreement.

Yet you condemn Israel's use of force.

THEN, you say "you are sure" that Arabs would accept a 1967 bounded Israel.

What are you, Nostradamous?

You see, I hear and see plenty to the contrary, from Arabic sources. But more than that, even if I THOUGHT the Arab states might accept it, now, I STILL wouldn't be sure.

And, as an Israel, while I hope for the best, I must prepare for the worst. And the worst is that they won't accept it - that this is still a "trojan horse" - that subsequent generations will reject the deal, ala the treaty of Hubidayah (sp), that this state will simply be a terrorist nest.

You see, Israel doesn't have the luxury on relying on your "I'm sure's." They live in the real world, where very little is certain.

That is what you miss, what your BIAS (clearly evident) doesn't allow you to see.

What is the quote - If the Arabs lay down their weapons there would be no war, If Israel lay down its weapons their would be no Israel.

Your own quote "Largely do to force" even admits this.



Originally posted by JustPat
LOL!

I hear that those who will be in charge upon the arrival of these new inspectors have agreed to unfettered access. :D

elke
03-19-2003, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Kapiti
[B]Elke - You dismiss the whole anti-war movement as hot air, simple "stupid" public opinion upon which no action will follow. I think you misread the strength of the anti-war movement. Time will tell.

"Stupid public opinion" is not my expression, it is yours. I never said that it was "stupid": what I did say is that it changes over time, and has many underlying causes, included but not limited to, the media coverage.


Elke I also think you mis read the threat of terrorism. More than 200 people died in Korean trains went a nutcase simply set fire to the train. 96 people died in a US night club when a fireworks display went horribly wrong. These terrible losses of life were not caused by "money, logistic support, training". My point is that in the modern world that we live in there is a now a greater opportunity to kill many people without high tech but rather simply because at different times we necessarily accumulate together. On this one I will be most happy to say you were right and I was wrong. Really I value my way of life (a very care free one for my family and me) much more than any opportunity to say I told you so. (Australia is also at risk from the US action, assuming our Prime Ministers follows you in)

Are you trying to say that the RI nightclub was terrorism? I can assure you that I know of no person who thinks so. In my professional judgment (I have been in insurance industry for the past 13 years, and bear 2 professional designations), that fire was plain and simple negligence: negligence on the part of the club owner(s), the band, and the municipality with its cockamamie building and fire codes.

And yes, for major attacks - and even for minor ones, - terrorists need money, training and logistical support. There have been reports, for example, of the terrorist attacks in Israel that never happened simply because the idiot could not get a ride.


I am sure that the big players of the Arab world would readily accept the state of Israel within the confines of the 1967 boundaries. This would be an easy sell for just about all.

Where are you getting this idea? What facts are you basing it on? Your personal assurances are comforting, but... which country do you represent?


Americans have not been feared for 50 years. Where did you get this one from. They were very definately the good guys.

You may be too young to remember, but I am not: I remember the demonstrations in Europe, especially Germany, against the nukes, against the troops stationed there, etc. etc. Look up some of the older newspapers and magazines, you'll see what I am talking about.


Elke, you have conceded that terrorism could increase in the short term. If it does and is really nasty what could happen is that there would be further action against muslims or other Middle East countries. This could further increase the real risk of terrorism all over the place. Hardliners would say that any negotiotion is tatamount to giving in to the terrorists which they would say could further escalate the problems. Hence a visicous cycle without a means of settling.

This is my concern but I am very very happy to be wrong.

You mean that without attacking Iraq, there would be no terrorist activity? Dream on! I have a date for you: September 11, 2001.

The "real risk of terrorism" is already high. The risk of terrorists acquiring the WMD is much higher with Saddam in power than without him in power. Are there others like him in the world? Sure there are! And I hope they will be next. I live less than 15 miles from NYC, and work across the street from the Grand Central Station, one of the prime targets. This is of vital interest to me and my family. If regular munitions are used, like in WTC, I may go, but my husband and children would be safe. If WMD is used - my whole family is gone. That's the choice I have here.

Northlander
03-20-2003, 04:06 AM
Wasnt this about the USA vs Axis of weasels? Why the long defence for Jews Mediocrates?

If USA are responsible for the spying in the EU parlament you have together with this war gotten yourself in a load of trouble.

With this war its only too clear that USA is defying all international laws in their pursuit of power. Lets just hope China and others doesnt see this as an excuse for behaving the same. I think about Taiwan and kashmir etc.

Now Europe will soon wake up and understand who is the biggest threat to our common interests.

Northlander
03-20-2003, 04:35 AM
The "real risk of terrorism" is already high. The risk of terrorists acquiring the WMD is much higher with Saddam in power than without him in power. Are there others like him in the world? Sure there are! And I hope they will be next. I live less than 15 miles from NYC, and work across the street from the Grand Central Station, one of the prime targets. This is of vital interest to me and my family. If regular munitions are used, like in WTC, I may go, but my husband and children would be safe. If WMD is used - my whole family is gone. That's the choice I have here.

You are so naive. Have you any idea how they go on about the bombing of their belgrade embassy in China even today? Its amasing really. They will never forget and never forgive even a small incident like that. You move on from conflict to conflict without seeing the real dangers. That is the biggest sign of your arrogance since you give clear evidence of not understanding that we non-americans see things exactly the way you do. Its not about balls or us being inferior. I dont even understand where you get BS like that from. There are millions of russians shaking of anger and frustration this very moment when seeing the behaviour of the USA, the old enemy.

Millions of muslims will react the next couple of weeks. Thousands will think about acting. You are provocing the wits out of the french and the europeans in general. Do you actually think we are so different from you? What goes around comes around. You are getting yourself so many enemies these days so I cant see how you will be able to live in peace for much longer. What prevents new nations to take up where the russians left in supporting your enemies everywhere. What should you do? Invade China or Pakistan? France? Good luck. You stand in front of a decision where you have to decide if its worth it or not. We can never accept things as they are now you must understand that. It has with everything to do. From the bumperstickers of "France is next" to you breaking international laws and the eventual killings of civilians in Iraq. Most of all it has to do with the simple fact that you are today saying it even openly. "It doesnt matter what you think we will go through with our plans regardless". That for us looks like it would for any american. It can never be accepted. It has to do with pride or balls or anything you would like to call it.

Alot of angry people in all parts of the world. I would too live in fear if I were you. Its not that people want to hate you but rather you give us no choice. You tell me how I should react as a democrat and fairly peaceful man when other men behave how they like without taking into account the way we feel about it.
Sure we can act in democratic ways using dialog and democratic tools. But when those tools are not available? When the opposite side doesnt give a damn about the democratic forums and the right of the majority? What can we do? What would you do?

Mediocrates
03-20-2003, 05:36 AM
So your basic proposition is that 'they' are all angry ungovernable maniacs who seek whatever outlet happens to randomly pop into their heads on any given day. That's the same thing we say about about kids with ADHD.

MGB8
03-20-2003, 09:41 AM
You wrote a lot without saying anything. Almost a record.

To the extent that you said anything, I got, "you are doing things that other people disagree with."

Wow. Guess what. Happens all the time. Everyone does it. Interests aren't always convergent, sometimes not even reconcilable.

What YOU are naive about is the fact that sometimes war is a necessary evil. In this case, this war is not a matter of "if," but "when."

Containment has failed. When Saddam gets stronger he would once again destabalize the region, and thus the world. The US would have to get involved (and the rest of the world would beg us to) but there would be many more casualties than there will be now.

Am I %100 sure of this scenario. No. Do Saddam's shown intentions suggest that this is the most likely scenario. Yes.

Another scenario is the proliferation of WMD to terrorist groups. Again, one less rogue producer of WMD means one less source. Since there are a fairly limited amount of nations that can produce WMD, this isn't a "Hydra" situation - killing one creates two.

In fact, acting against Saddam acts as a huge detterent against other nations developing such weapons, because if they are caught, they too may recieve similar treatment.

Finally, Having a US military foothold right in between Saudia Arabia (the source of Islamic Wahabiism), Iran (world's #1 Terrorism Supporter) and Syria (world's #2 terrorism suppporter)...that's tactically a pretty darn good thing to have.

Oh, and did I mention that Saddam was a ruthless, murdering dictator.

But, Northlander, in "with us or against us" terms, you DO seem to side with the terrorists. You pick your own side. Live with your decision.




Originally posted by Northlander
You are so naive. Have you any idea how they go on about the bombing of their belgrade embassy in China even today? Its amasing really. They will never forget and never forgive even a small incident like that. You move on from conflict to conflict without seeing the real dangers. That is the biggest sign of your arrogance since you give clear evidence of not understanding that we non-americans see things exactly the way you do. Its not about balls or us being inferior. I dont even understand where you get BS like that from. There are millions of russians shaking of anger and frustration this very moment when seeing the behaviour of the USA, the old enemy.

Millions of muslims will react the next couple of weeks. Thousands will think about acting. You are provocing the wits out of the french and the europeans in general. Do you actually think we are so different from you? What goes around comes around. You are getting yourself so many enemies these days so I cant see how you will be able to live in peace for much longer. What prevents new nations to take up where the russians left in supporting your enemies everywhere. What should you do? Invade China or Pakistan? France? Good luck. You stand in front of a decision where you have to decide if its worth it or not. We can never accept things as they are now you must understand that. It has with everything to do. From the bumperstickers of "France is next" to you breaking international laws and the eventual killings of civilians in Iraq. Most of all it has to do with the simple fact that you are today saying it even openly. "It doesnt matter what you think we will go through with our plans regardless". That for us looks like it would for any american. It can never be accepted. It has to do with pride or balls or anything you would like to call it.

Alot of angry people in all parts of the world. I would too live in fear if I were you. Its not that people want to hate you but rather you give us no choice. You tell me how I should react as a democrat and fairly peaceful man when other men behave how they like without taking into account the way we feel about it.
Sure we can act in democratic ways using dialog and democratic tools. But when those tools are not available? When the opposite side doesnt give a damn about the democratic forums and the right of the majority? What can we do? What would you do?

Northlander
03-20-2003, 11:53 PM
On the contrary mediocrates. People get angry of a number of clear reasons. Its only for you that it is impossible to separate them. When young chinese are determined to avenge there humiliating loss of the embassy I dont find it strange you have forgotten it. For them its one important incident, for you just one of many operations. When you sum them all up you have a growground for terrorism. Ok, not all react by blowing things up but the anger and frustration is there. USA can never benefit from it. At least not the public which always will pay the price in form of future wars and attacks. Insecurity in other words. Which is what you are fighting if I should belive your administration.

MGB8. I do not side with any terrorists. I dont agree to the "my enemies enemies are my friends". I have nothing against getting rid of Saddam since I still sees him as an american puppet who has caused alot of terror to his people. You can get N.Korea as well, it doesnt matter anymore. The thing is that you already started all this and whats done is done. You should have listened to the concerns from others but your administration didnt. You have to take responsibility for it as a nation. You think you will cope as in the past, I dont think you will in this new era. When you try as hard as your administration do to provoke and make new enemies, you will succed. Fairly simple. By going to war despite the international right you lose credability. If you had any.
What everybody knows here which you dont is that when the UN tried to get resolutions in the past against Saddam after his gasing of kurds, USA vetoed. Now, you critisise France for even threaten to use a veto. USA did even use it. In support of Saddam WHEN USING WMDs. Rumsfeld sat in Baghdad normalising the relations the very same time UN tried to oppose him. Do not come up with the BS of impotant UN etc. They have warned and worked against Saddam all the time. USA have not. When you finally react its by NOT cooperate with UN and letting the turks into the arena. Planing to install an american general etc etc. Creating total havoc in the region. Its the same destabilization as it always have been. Why else would the turkish army be let in? Why else would a change in regime be necessary at just this time when not earlier when he was indeed a threat and much stronger? There is a long list of reasons for USA going to war and Saddam is NOT one of the reasons. You know it yourself and the constant argueing that he is such a threat and so dangerous is ridiculous. It will be very interesting to see if you will do the same with the real threats like N.korea or Pakistan. I think not. Because its not about liberating the iraqi people. It has never been the issue and never will. Its a dream of exile-iraqis and many arabs that USA will save them and democratisising the whole ME. It wont happen because there is no will to do so.

Now I hear that turkish troops is on the move to iraqi kurdistan. If I were american soldier up there I would keep an eye on those or you will have a total mess out of all this. There is a reason for even the iraqi kurds being more terrified of the turks than of Saddam.

If you force me to choose if Im with you or against you, Im against you. Nothing personal of course just common sense. Your new politics of pre-emptive strikes is a danger and just an excuse of tightening your grip on the world economics. We cant have that.

elke
03-21-2003, 01:14 AM
I am naive? You are not the one directly, currently in danger. Your turn will come, nothing surer - if it's not taken care of before then; but you do not see it coming... yet.

Russians are angry? Yes, so? And why do you think that Kashmir and Taiwan are in more danger now than they were before? Is this the first time in history that a country invaded another country? Your arguments do not make sense. There are good arguments against going in - such as additional loss of life, possibility of using intelligence and "surgical strikes" to prevent the sales of WMD, etc. However, at this point they are moot anyway - the die is cast, and the decision made.

I don't think that there is anyone here who believes that bombing the Chinese embassy was a good thing. It was an error. Based on my experience in FSU, I am aware of the general paranoia prevalent in this type of society - and therefore, I believe you that China still remembers and is angry about it. However, their paranoia is not something anyone can do anything about: it's something that has to be dealt with. Mistakes are part and parcel of all military operations, barnone.

mimil
03-21-2003, 01:55 AM
When you look at american foreign policy, we are all in danger, even Israel.

News today:

"However, the formulation of the text caused the anger of certain democratic elected officials who estimate that one tried to force them to approve the strategy of preventive war of the American president. According to them, the republican majority of the Room placed in front of the following choice: to offer a "unambiguous support" for the White House "for its firm direction and its decisive action in the control of the military operations in Iraq" or to reject a resolution in addition supporting the soldiers and their families in times of war. After a sometimes surging debate, the Room of the representatives finally voted for this text by 392 votes against 11. This result contrasts with the absence of reserves of the American Senate which voted for unanimously Thursday a similar resolution but which posted less its enthusiastic adhesion with the policy of the Bush administration. "I am convinced that the American people will clearly see in this attempt to force adhesion with these doctrines of preventive war", declared the representative democratic John Conyers."

After september 11, Bush said: "If you are not with us, you are against us". Another perfect example of American democracy.

Maybe "gangs of new york" is not that much of history.

Let's go back a little further in history, the ultimate american propaganda: "Manifest Destiny", God put americans on the planet so that they control the land from the east to the west, not to mention of course that god put the indiens there so that they could go to hell.

Regards

elke
03-21-2003, 02:02 AM
What exactly is your point in the above disjointed post?

JustPat
03-21-2003, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Northlander MGB8. I do not side with any terrorists. I dont agree to the "my enemies enemies are my friends".
The saying is not as you quote. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" would be much closer. I prefer to call it as it is, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You may not give it mental assent, but you do practice it.


Originally posted by Northlander I have nothing against getting rid of Saddam
You just have a problem with what? ... America doing it? ... with doing it by force? ... with doing it in our lifetime?


Originally posted by Northlander I still sees him as an american puppet who has caused alot of terror to his people.
Well, it that is the case, it is the puppet master who must control the puppet. At least the US had the backbone to do it. What leadership has your country shown?


Originally posted by Northlander The thing is that you already started all this and whats done is done. You should have listened to the concerns from others but your administration didnt. You have to take responsibility for it as a nation. You think you will cope as in the past, I dont think you will in this new era. When you try as hard as your administration do to provoke and make new enemies, you will succed. Fairly simple. By going to war despite the international right you lose credability. If you had any.
You really should get cable. Even the Communist News Network (CNN) has shown the documentation of Iraq's material breach. Scuds, long range surface-to surface missles, torching the oil wells at Basrah, need I go on. Even the UNSC has stated that it is Saddam's non-compliance that brought us to this point. Dr. Blix stated yesterday that "maybe the US can accomplish what our inspectors could not."


Originally posted by Northlander When you finally react its by NOT cooperate with UN and letting the turks into the arena. Planing to install an american general etc etc. Creating total havoc in the region. Its the same destabilization as it always have been. Why else would the turkish army be let in? Why else would a change in regime be necessary at just this time when not earlier when he was indeed a threat and much stronger? There is a long list of reasons for USA going to war and Saddam is NOT one of the reasons. You know it yourself and the constant argueing that he is such a threat and so dangerous is ridiculous. It will be very interesting to see if you will do the same with the real threats like N.korea or Pakistan. I think not. Because its not about liberating the iraqi people. It has never been the issue and never will. Its a dream of exile-iraqis and many arabs that USA will save them and democratisising the whole ME. It wont happen because there is no will to do so.
Amazing! What planet do you live on?
-We attempted to act incooperation with the UN, remember Resolution 1441. They refused to enforce their own resolution.
-Turkey's troops have not been brought into this, though they are on standby. It is the Kurdish troops we are using.
-Regime change is necessary to change the course this Iraq is set upon, from terror of its own people and the world to being a true global partner, from being a culture of afluence for the dictator and poverty for the people to an equitable opportunity for all, from being a nation ruled by a thug minority to a nation where all have a part.
-Liberation is no longer a dream, its reality began at 2243 Wednesday, 19 March 2003. Today US troops were welcomed as the liberation force they are by free Iraqi's in Southern Iraq. Soon we will see the same in Bagdad.
-We will see what this leads to in the future for the ME.


Originally posted by Northlander Now I hear that turkish troops is on the move to iraqi kurdistan. If I were american soldier up there I would keep an eye on those or you will have a total mess out of all this. There is a reason for even the iraqi kurds being more terrified of the turks than of Saddam.
You hear wrong.


Originally posted by Northlander If you force me to choose if Im with you or against you, Im against you. Nothing personal of course just common sense. Your new politics of pre-emptive strikes is a danger and just an excuse of tightening your grip on the world economics. We cant have that.
We do not force you to do anything. Every man does what he chooses. You chose long before this conflict. Sadly, you chose wrongly.

MGB8
03-21-2003, 02:44 PM
Norhtlander,

Now you are ignoring the politics of the cold war. Not that I agree with any support that the US gave Saddam, or Iran (the Shah) etc. in the past.

That policy was a policy of status quo retention and supporting the lesser of two evil governments - either Soviet Dictatorship or non-Soviet Dictatorship.

But the US has realized that era is over. While we still support many brutal regimes, we now apply tons of pressure to reform. It may have really taken 9/11 for us to change, but we are worlds ahead of Europe, which still coddles these regimes, including Saddams.

After all, Everything that you accuse the US of doing in terms of bad dictatorships is just as applicable to France, Germany and Russia - France was the driving force behind Osirac, as you should recall.

Maybe you think the US is hypocritcal for changing course after the end of the cold war and moreso after 9/11, but at least we are not following the same failed policies of the past, which is what "old" Europe is doing.

Also, its funny to hear Russia and France talk about "illegal" military actions considering their current actions in Chechnya and Africa.

elreason4
03-22-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Northlander
You guys better hurry up in helping the inspectors finding something or this all has just been a very expensive way of destroying the last goodwill you had over here. A singel handed war will finally settle it. Boycotting German wines because they oppose a war? That does not look that good. Without the war I dont think you gained much more than the tan on your soldiers.

There is no need for any more worthless UN inspections, whose job was never to play mystery detective in the Scooby Doo mystery van. Do you seriously take us for fools, arguing that Saddam had actually purged his coveted WMD? Not even France ever argued that Iraq was free of WMD, only that UN inspections could somehow do it. Is it not obvious that once the Iraqi scientists have no reason to fear for the lives of their loved ones many will come forward with the real evidence? The UN ‘inspectors’ were never meant to play detective. Saddam was not only caught red handed by the useless UN inspections program over and over again, but Iraq has fired ‘banned’ scud missiles at Kuwait-which he could not possibly have Northlander, right? It could not be clearer that he never had any intention to disarm, as even the toothless UN inspectors continued to discredit the Iraqi sham document of ‘full disclosure’. The question is HOW much more will be found, not IF anything will be found.

The best chance for worldwide prosperity and freedom has perhaps been set because of this American attempt to ‘tan its soldiers’ (in spite of French/German arrogance fighting for the opposite). The importance of the destruction of Iraq’s WMD will be completely overshadowed by the liberation of the Iraqi people and the inevitable earthquake over the Arab worlds remaining 21 tyrannies. There will be no turning back when an Arab country can show that Arab people are quite capable of running their own lives. Peace with Israel will finally be possible, but only when the Arab people are free from their own tyrannies first. The Saddam BLOOD payments to terror (the 10’s of thousands of dollars going to the families of terrorist suicide bombers) will dry up, as well as its corrosive cancerous moral implications. The world can not end terrorism so long as the targeting of non-combatants is ever justified. These crucial victories in the war against terrorism are dependent on the removal of Saddam.