Here Gore Goes Again

[MGKrebs]

- I do not view pacivism as "weakness".
- No problem going after bin laden. Except, we should learn a lesson here. What pisses him (them) off, are some of our previous actions- our soldiers in Saudi Arabia, for example. Of course, he's a lunatic, but that doesn't mean we can't learn something from all of this. We should re-evaluate our behavior in certain areas to see if we can reduce future animosity. Maybe we can't, but the obvious alternative is to not give a sh*t and keep pissing people off forever.

Granted, we are the big guy on the block, so we are going to get more than our share of attention from pissed off people, but having said that, you don't hear about Canada or Sweden being targeted for attacks.

It's not all or nothing. It's better or worse. We will never end terrorism. But can we reduce our risk? I don't think threatening 1/3 of the worlds population enhances our security.

- I'm not sure what hypocrisy you are referring to Vrai.
I don't make those connections you cited.

- Here's the link about our imperialism:

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

Gotta go. Will finish later.

 

[Oz]

Re: I want to try and say this delicately.

Originally posted by MGKrebs
There are those who are saying that the comparisons to pre-WW2 Germany more closely resemble our behavior. WE are the ones threatening pre-emptive aggression. WE are the ones talking about world domination. WE are the ones who threaten to ignore international will.

I suppose I believe that saddam is a bad guy.

Open Carry of firearms is permitted in some states. Would you allow someone who is obviously crazy and maniacal and acting that way, to walk down the streets in Tempe, Arizona with a loaded gun, or would you go get him off the street, or out of the mall?

That's about as simple as this analogy can get. Saddam, and bin Laden, and other maniacs are carrying their weapons down the streets of the world, and we're going to go stop them before they cause damage and death to us and our allies.

I don't agree that this makes us the aggressors. I think Saddam has already shown acts of aggression, by shooting at planes in the no-fly zone, and trying to avoid weapons inspections, etc. bin Laden has obviously already been aggressive towards us.

 

[vraiblonde]

What pisses him (them) off, are some of our previous actions- our soldiers in Saudi Arabia, for example.

So should we pull our troops out of Saudi, even though we are there at the invitation of the Saudi government?

you don't hear about Canada or Sweden being targeted for attacks.

That's because they're not big dogs and they don't give international charity or send their military on "peacekeeping" missions. I, personally, would like to see the US do the same but the liberals always scream their heads off when the US doesn't jump in with aid to every Godforsaken place on the planet.

We should re-evaluate our behavior in certain areas to see if we can reduce future animosity.

If they'd behave their stupid selves and quit threatening other nations and torturing their own citizens, maybe we'd leave them alone. bin Laden has made it perfectly clear how we can appease him - are you willing to do those things?

We will never end terrorism. But can we reduce our risk?

We will never end crime in the US, either, but that doesn't stop us from punishing criminals.

 

[Bruzilla]

I don't see Iraq directly attacking the United States... ever! There's no need for him to do so. What I do see him doing is using the threat of WMD to take control of the Middle East, which would be more of a disaster for the US than a missile or two.

I'll also be honest and say I LIKE CHEAP GAS! I don't want any self-proclaimed religious zealot forcing me to pay more at the pump. I pay my federal taxes every April 15th, and expect some return on my investment from the military. If they have to go in and bag Hussein to keep the oil markets running smoothly, I say you go boy!!!

 

[Heretic]

Originally posted by MGKrebs
- I do not view pacivism as "weakness".

It doesn't matter if you do, your not the threat.

 

[Oz]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
I don't see Iraq directly attacking the United States... ever! There's no need for him to do so. What I do see him doing is using the threat of WMD to take control of the Middle East, which would be more of a disaster for the US than a missile or two.

Everyone forgets that -ANY- war in the Middle East will involve Israel, because the Arabs hate the Jews. This would pull us into war regardless. We either have to remove the threat before it happens, or deal with an even bigger problem in the future.

Britain said if you mess with the US, you mess with us. Well, the US says if you mess with Israel, you mess with us. That's what friends and allies are for. (Breaking into song...)

 

[demsformd]

Well, here's some more liberal viewpoints for you. I oppose the war in Iraq, I do not see the point of our nation getting involved in what my opinion is another Vietnam. I see this preemptive strike as a conquest mission, not a safety mission. Reading President Bush's speeches suggest that we are going to annex Iraq. If we just go in, take Hussein out, and leave the country there to develop their own government, that new government will be just as disagreeable and dangerous as the Hussein regime. Look at Afganistan, guess who aided them in the 1980s, America. We can never stop instablity in that region, no matter how hard we try.
Does Iraq really have nuclear weapons? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, but guess who does North Korea. Well, why the hell aren't we beating the war drums against them? They definetly have the bomb so aren't they more of an immediate threat?
Anyway, America has 1200 nuclear warheads and we aren't slowing up to a halting pace, why should Iraq? It is their right as a soverign nation to defend themselves. Maybe we should disarm and lead the way.
As for the oil, maybe we should require the car companies to increase mileage standards so we didn't need the oil. Or maybe we should become a renewable energy source nation. You know every time that you buy that gas, you support terrorism.
The Iraq War is not a good idea.

 

[Oz]

Originally posted by demsformd
As for the oil, maybe we should require the car companies to increase mileage standards so we didn't need the oil. Or maybe we should become a renewable energy source nation. You know every time that you buy that gas, you support terrorism.
The Iraq War is not a good idea.

Because I don't want to drive a tuna can that doesn't get out of its own way.

Every time you buy gas, you support terrorism? WOW! Sounds like you just made a case to take Iraq and turn it into the 51st state.

 

[Heretic]

demsformd - Although North Korea isnt our friend they haven't threatened us, they are less likely to give a weapon to terrorists to get back at America, they haven't used chemical weapons on their neighbors or their own population that we know about, Im really not all that sure why Bush included them in an Axis of evil maybe I haven't paying close enough attention to them.

Saddam agreed to certian conditions after the gulf war, he has ignored these conditions. Why do you not think he should live up to them? If the UN only makes rules that nobody follows then what use are they? What incentive does anyone have to even bother with them?

It was thought like yours that allowed Hitler to build up Nazi Germany's power and almost allowed them to control half of the civilized world, but then again maybe if Germany had of been successful we wouldn't have this middle east problem everyone over there would be speaking German since Im sure Hitler would have tried to wipe out the muslims like he did with the jews.

 

[MGKrebs]

Good point Oz!

If someone is carrying arms in the street, we lock them up!. in other words, CONTAIN them. We don't automatically kill them or destroy their home.

 

[MGKrebs]

I'm curious about Iraq shooting at our planes.

This seems like it should be a slam dunk reason for stepping this whole thing up to the next level. And yet, it' been going on for eight years or so, no planes have ever been hit, and we supposedly wiped out their ability to do this anyway. How much of a threat is this? Are they just turning on their radar? Do they shoot off a random missile every now and then and 5 minutes later we fly in to bomb something?

 

[Heretic]

MGKrebs, but then what happens if they make it clear that they are not going to allow you to contain them? Do you say "Pretty Please"?

 

[MGKrebs]

and now to continue form this afternoon...

Vrai.
Pre-emptive aggression- The choice is: bomb the crap out of another country, risking increased animosity and therefore terrorism, or believe in deterrence, which has worked for 57 years.

If he is a madman who threatens world stability, this should be obvious to more than just George Bush. Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, saddam believes he has a claim on Kuwait, and that picture IS a bit muddy. My point is that the attack on Kuwait is not necessarily the act of a madman. If you want to use the case of him gassing his own people, well the Kurds are trying to overthrow him. he gassed them. The Chechyens are trying to overthrow Russia, they got gassed too.

“The best interests of the US” is too vague. Europe has oil needs too. Europe needs stability too. Many places around the world are eligible terrorist targets too.

We have had a policy about not killing other foreign leaders for many years now. it was recently rescinded.

Hi Ken!
Yes, we have gone to the UN. But it seems like it was a close thing there for a while. We are still threatening to do whatever we decide regardless of what the UN says.

I wonder if the peace protesters had any effect on our deciding ( finally) to go to the UN.

Being available for help is quite a different role than actively pursuing world domination.

Vrai again.
We should pull our troops out of Saudi if the cost is greater than the benefit. What are they there for?

Sweden and canada don’t give international aid?

We give the lowest percentage of GDP to foreign aid of all industrialized countries. I’ll find the statistics if you don’t believe me.

It’s not about appeasing hussein. It’s about minimizing future problems.
I was talking to an acqaintance the other day, and he felt that we should go take out saddam because he was laughing at us. I don’t care if saddam is laughing at us. he’s a nobody in the “we should care if he’s laughing “ catagory.

Yes, we punish criminals. We dont’t always kill them. You don’t think Iraq is being punished?

 

[MGKrebs]

And let me just say..

I'm not trying to sell you guys anything. i have no illusions about changing any of your minds at this point. I am just a little insecure after the election and trying to figure out if there is something that I am missing.

 

[Heretic]

Yes Iraq is being punished but its not exactly working. Kind of like sticking the mob boss in jail and he runs everything from jail wiating for his parole. Punishing Iraq isnt doing anything to deter Saddam from persuing weapons of mass destruction i believe that we should have helped the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam after desert storm, we made a big goof up there.

 

[Oz]

Re: Good point Oz!

Originally posted by MGKrebs
If someone is carrying arms in the street, we lock them up!. in other words, CONTAIN them. We don't automatically kill them or destroy their home.

Yes and No... You use whatever force is necessary to control and contain them. Without control, you CANNOT contain.

Using my analogy, I see what you're advocating as driving the maniac to the next town, and let him out with his gun.

I do not understand why you give Iraq the benefit of the doubt, and think that they are diplomatic and will respond to negotiations and sanctions. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt Bush (the leader that WE elected,) and Blair...

 

[Ken King]

Re: I'm curious about Iraq shooting at our planes.

Originally posted by MGKrebs
This seems like it should be a slam dunk reason for stepping this whole thing up to the next level. And yet, it' been going on for eight years or so, no planes have ever been hit, and we supposedly wiped out their ability to do this anyway. How much of a threat is this? Are they just turning on their radar? Do they shoot off a random missile every now and then and 5 minutes later we fly in to bomb something?

First, we never completely de-armed the Iraqis. They still have some command and control functions, some fire control systems and some SCUDS. Next, if you have ever been "painted" by fire control radar then you would know that it is an immediate threat that needs to be taken out. Under the UN Resolutions, calling for the cessation of violence with Iraq, it was clearly stated and has been adhered to that their use of this equipment in a provoking nature would result in the loss of that radar site. "Just turning on the radar" is a threat as it isn't surveillance radars but fire control tracking radars.

The reasons that the Iraqis haven't taken any planes out since the Gulf War is simple. They never were any good with the gear to begin with and usually activate it prior to the target being within range. All they have done is give away their position, ability, and lives once the HARM rides back to the source. The only reason they knocked done a few of our aircraft early on in that war was simpy due to probability of throwing a lot of weapons at a lot of aircraft. Every once in a while they got lucky.

 

[MGKrebs]

It's not that I give saddam

the benefit of the doubt, it's just that if there IS doubt, I will almost always come down on the side of consensus, and lean towards violence last.

In this case, we have:
1. very little interest in Iraq until the terror war started fading from the headlines.
2. The imperialist agenda, linked to earlier.
3. A couple of slips Bush has made referring to an alleged attempt against his father's life and a "crusade", i.e. personal vendetta?
4. Energy policy devoted to increased consumption and oil industry support.
5. Possible involvement in the coup in Venezuela- a major oil supplier that was raising prices at the time.
6. The reluctance of top military people to support an attack at this time.
7. The effort to circumvent the UN, which should be and could be the forum to define international will.

I am pleased we ended up going to the UN. I am pleased we are trying inspections one more time. If we can show continued dangerous behavior on saddam's part, world opinion should support action, and I will too.

 

[demsformd]

Agreed, krebs. If it is found out that Hussein has nukes, I would support war with Iraq but I still think that our country should do more for the disarmament cause like passing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Anyway, I think that instead of having the whole were gonna blow Iraq up, maybe we should be concerned more with inspections and that area. I just hope that the compassion of our mean-spirited president and their evil dictator will prevail in this ordeal.

 

[vraiblonde]

I just hope that the compassion of our mean-spirited president and their evil dictator will prevail in this ordeal.

Please explain this statement.

#1: Where do you get that Bush is "mean-spirited"? I think he's a candy-a$$, personally. Reagan would've blown a hole int heir country by now.

#2: Where do you get that Saddam has any compassion? By the way he treats his citizens? By the way he turns his son loose on their soccer team?