oh Dubbya...

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Re: Re: PART 2

Originally posted by MGKrebs


Mr. King, nowhere in all that UN stuff does it say; As soon as Iraq violates these agreements, the USA gets to go in there and open up a can of whoopass. As I have said before, the US Congress can pass any thing they want, but it's a UN deal. They are supposed to decide the course of action. It would be like us passing a law that changes a law in Sweden or something. The US Congress has no jurisdiction as far as I can tell.

But it does say that unless Iraq complies fully with the many resolutions (686, 687, 707, 715, 949, 1115, 1134, and 1154 which are in addition to those still in effect when the Gulf War started) passed by the Security Council, the member states are obliged to make Iraq cooperate until they comply. So how is that done, Mr. Wizard? Doing nothing at all won't get their attention.

And you are right that our Congress can pass anything they want and if it passes Constitutional mustard then it is the law. Also a simple reminder of the powers of Congress to "declare war" does not include any provision for international community support. So, if our Congress says he must go, why do you say it is an UN deal? It wasn't this way after 9/11. was it? As the terrorist attacks were of an international flavor where was the UN authority for our actions in Afghanistan?

The UN has set the ground rules that we are simply complying with. The UN also makes provisions for the use of force by and amongst member states. As long as we are within those rules, where does it say we need their permission?
 
H

Heretic

Guest
how come even when we have "international support" like with desert storm the only ones that do the real fighting is us and Britian?
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Originally posted by Heretic
how come even when we have "international support" like with desert storm the only ones that do the real fighting is us and Britian?
The French, Belguins and Dutch are saving themselves for the "Big One" :lmao:
 

MGKrebs

endangered species
From the peanut gallery

"By the way Jimmy, you might want to become familiar with the words "No Dong" and "Taep'o-dong". "

Why do you guys always drag Bill Clintons unit into every subject?
 

MGKrebs

endangered species
Endgame

There are other options besides destroying Iraq and “doing nothing”, as I have tried to point out before. There are also serious possible consequences of going in without support, as I have also tried to take a stab at. It is just worrisome that we can’t make the case to anybody else, even to those who presumably are most in danger.

There is a significant difference between Iraq and the terrorist attacks here. Iraq was an attack from one sovereign country to another, both members of the UN. We, as a planet, have agreed to have international rules regarding these things, exactly because (I would imagine) we would like to think that it is better than having a “vigilante” or “rogue” nation taking things into their own hands. The UN system certainly isn’t perfect, after all, they’re just agreements. And many countries have seperate treaties and agreements between themselves. And, as you have perceived, we don’t really HAVE to get UN approval, the debate is whether it is BETTER to get UN approval.

The terrorist attacks were against US. We get to fight back. The difficulty, and what I think is fascinating from a philisophical standpoint, is that there are no rules for this kind of war. We might have to invent them. Those guys are not a country, they don’t wear uniforms, they could be anywhere. So my question to you Kyle and Ken and Heretic and Bru, is: do we make rules, or not?

Next.
OK. Fine. We destroy Iraq with no international support or UN approval. We have reduced the threat from Iraq. Give me a likely scenario for what happens after that.
 

jimmy

Drunkard
First, Vrai,

To your question, Wagging the Dog is how I saw that stuff. And it was great because that movie came out at the same time. THat was just some priceless irony there...well, not actually irony...coincidence...but still.

Kyle,

I'm not so sure that you are right with your mosquito-spraying analogy. Because when you spray the mosquitos, it's not like you piss of the bees. You have ONE threat and you eliminate IT and, yes, you are golden.

However, this is a MUCH more complicated situation. This attack could be (and IS) being viewed by surrounding Arab states as an "attack on Arabs" or "an attack on Muslims" or "the US just trying to secure it's oil interests by allowing for a friendly gov't to take control of roughly 10% of the world's oil supply" and the like.

This would doubtless cause the same kind of backlash that we saw one year ago today.

I don't understand why people with your mindset (and I'm not saying that you are wrong necessarily) have your gut instinct lead you to conflict and exhertion of power rather than trying to end the ROOTS of these problems...

Maybe you see it as futile. Maybe its because many of you have military backgrounds and that's how you know to deal with international conflict. I'm not sure.

But if it's TERRORISM that we are fighting, you may want to take a look at the types of things that CAUSE terrorism. Poverty, religous zealotism, foreign influence, hegemonic action (and lack of international cooperation)...I think THESE battles are much more important to wage.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Originally posted by jimmy
Kyle,

I'm not so sure that you are right with your mosquito-spraying analogy. Because when you spray the mosquitos, it's not like you piss of the bees. You have ONE threat and you eliminate IT and, yes, you are golden....
Well if the bees decide to attack then the bees get sprayed or swatted too. Not much of a problem.

... However, this is a MUCH more complicated situation. This attack could be (and IS) being viewed by surrounding Arab states as an "attack on Arabs" or "an attack on Muslims" or "the US just trying to secure it's oil interests by allowing for a friendly gov't to take control of roughly 10% of the world's oil supply" and the like.... They can view it as an attack on Muslims if they like but the facts don't back them up. By attacking Al-Queda and the Taliban we have not gone after Egypt, Saudland or Jordan at the same time. Gee! Doesn't look much like we're at war with the whole Arab world to me! You? If they "CHOOSE" to view it that way there is nothing we can do to stop them. I however do not want our nation to start worrying itself over perception instead of substance. Leave the ignorant, morons and religious fruitcakes to their own imaginations and if they get out of line and cause turmoil in or to the United States.... Make them vapor!

... This would doubtless cause the same kind of backlash that we saw one year ago today.... Jimmy you never answered my question before... Where has anything but force ever made these people chill out and open their eyes? Do you have evidence of instances... Hell even one... Where these maggots have responded appropriately to "DIPLOMACY"?????

... I don't understand why people with your mindset (and I'm not saying that you are wrong necessarily) have your gut instinct lead you to conflict and exertion of power rather than trying to end the ROOTS of these problems...... See Above! Also the root of the problem is a satanic religion that sees it's place in the world as the bearer of destruction to the infidels... i.e. Everyone else! How would you change that? A new religion maybe? Teach them how to hug trees? Cool!

... Maybe you see it as futile. Maybe its because many of you have military backgrounds and that's how you know to deal with international conflict. I'm not sure.... Actually Jimmy it's called history. The history of these people is documented and available. Many have tried reason in the past... In the 18th & 19th centuries the Europeans were paying them tribute not to rob and sink it's ships... Our tactic was to take a little trip and slaughter the @$$-O's! It worked!

Diplomacy doesn't have the desired effect because they are animals and happily living in the Stone Age. Unfortunately for the rest of the world they have modern age weapons.

And since we have a need to trade with these vermin we have to deal with the flotsam that run their pitiful nations. Not the best situation but the only one available. Remember your words Jimmy... We aren't supposed to judge their systems, but respect them and deal with them as they are. Well since we aren't supposed to assassinate and replace their scum we've had to deal with crap like Mubarak, Hussein, etc. I'm for reversing that EO and turn the CIA etc. loose on them. If they are replaced with a more civilized bunch then leave them alone after that.

... But if it's TERRORISM that we are fighting, you may want to take a look at the types of things that CAUSE terrorism. Poverty, religous zealotism, foreign influence, hegemonic action (and lack of international cooperation)...I think THESE battles are much more important to wage. Terrorism is caused by group of malcontents that are too small to overthrow their governments or whose interests aren't being observed by others because they are in the minority. The overwhelming majority of which are criminals, crackpots and religious nuts.

The ARAB nations are impoverished because they live in a ******* desert and have no significant agricultural or other industry!!! They have nothing to trade but oil! Do you suggest we stop buying it? I'm all for it! Let them eat the stuff.

And this "foreign influence, hegemonic action " you keep speaking of... We have to deal with what's there! If they choose an Adolf Hitler we have only two choices... Get rid of him or accept him. Sorry but that's the way it is unless you want to cut off all trade and ties and leave them to starve in their dust.

Damn! All this typing is giving me Carpal Tunnel!
 
Last edited:

Frank

Chairman of the Board
Originally posted by jimmy

But if it's TERRORISM that we are fighting, you may want to take a look at the types of things that CAUSE terrorism. Poverty, religous zealotism, foreign influence, hegemonic action (and lack of international cooperation)...I think THESE battles are much more important to wage.

Isn't trying to solve the world's problems exactly the thing we want to AVOID? You know, when a thug sticks a gun in my face, throws rocks at my window, smashes my mailbox, does 'donuts' in my yard with his car, and so on -- I don't sit and wonder what I did wrong, or if he had a proper upbringing, or if he was breast-fed, or if his mommy loved him. I call the cops or I kick his butt. *MY* problem is what he is doing to me. *HIS* problem is his to solve, and none of my business.

I don't think we should EVER come close to the idea of dealing with terrorists, pirates, criminals in such a way that we must remedy their 'pain' every time they decide to take a shot at us. It's not like they're searching for *therapy*.
 

MGKrebs

endangered species
Originally posted by Bruzilla
I still don't see Iraq launching a weapon at Israel. It's just too dangerous. Israel isn't as afraid of looking bad to the dreaded "International Community" as we are. I think that the biggest threat from Hussein is nuclear blackmail of the other Arab countries.
He could safely nuke a smaller country like Quatar or Kuwait, and "encourage" the rest of the Arab world to call him leader, father, etc., just like he intimidates his own people. And who would fire back at him? Would the US, Russia, France, England, Pakistan, or India retaliate with nucs? No. His only real worry would be Israel, and as long as he doesn't shoot at them they won't shoot at him.

I for one see no problem with nuking LA. :biggrin:

Interesting. Let's be hypothetical and say that our administration has decided that this is the most likely scenario. Do we do a pre-emptive strike?
 

Doc

New Member
Originally posted by jimmy
But if it's TERRORISM that we are fighting, you may want to take a look at the types of things that CAUSE terrorism. Poverty, religous zealotism, foreign influence, hegemonic action (and lack of international cooperation)...I think THESE battles are much more important to wage.

Alright, fine. Let's consider the causes of terrorism. The Islamic world (we're talking the fundamentalist Middle Eastern types here--call them what you will) missed out on the Industrial Revolution, the Silicon Revolution, and the Internet Revolution. Living in a desert with few resources may have something to do with this. The modern world has clearly left them behind. Arabs have contributed very little to the world today (The old chestnut about them "inventing" algebra and zero is grossly overexaggerated; the best one can say is that during the Dark Ages of the Western World they managed to archive and translate a large amount of knowledge. But collecting stamps is a very different accomplishment than creating them...).

However, when taken in the extreme, fundamentalist sense, their religion implies that they are god's chosen. The idyll of their faith contrasts sharply with their actual circumstances. Could it be that their faith is wrong? Maybe there is no god, or maybe her name isn't Allah. No, that certainly can't be the case, they reason. It must be that we're evil. Yes, that's it! All the products of the West--medicine, computers, satellites, science, digital watches, Britney Spears, Starbucks, Wal-Mart, etc.--are evil and must be destroyed.

A recent Washington Post article had some man-on-the-street interviews with Arabs, and one of them pointed out that Democracy is wrong. After all, laws come from god--not man. It is right to live by the Koran, and wrong to live by man-made laws.

Clearly, this way of thinking is wrong. (Note to recent college graduates: despite what you've been taught, all ideas are not relative. Some are wrong. For example, creating laws through a democratic process and preserving human rights is good. Whapping men with sticks for not having beards and forcing women to cover themselves head to toe and stay home all the time is wrong.) It's not necessarily a bad thing to have wrong or even silly ideas. Catholics, for instance, practice pretend ritualized cannibalism of their god. Silly, but they're not trying to force their ideas on me through violence (I don't live in Northern Ireland). Islamic notions are silly too, but because these ideas inspire some of their adherents to fly airplanes into buildings full of innocent people--now we've got problems.

The whole point here is that, yes, we understand why They don't like Us. The problem is, there's no way to reason with them and say, "Look. Your religion is different. You don't want to see Britney Spears gyrating her midsection about and squealing--hell, I dont' want to see that. But if it bothers you so much, don't look at it. And if some of your friends find they like looking at that more than their Koran, that's their perogative."

In this instance, understanding the "causes" of terrorism doesn't help us. The only way to stop terrorism by eliminating the "cause" would be for us to regress our society back to the Bronze Age, do away with all forms of modern entertainment, beat our women, and spend every spare second reciting ancient passages from a moldy old book.

Yeah, right. Although Teddy Kazinsky might be on-board with that, the rest of us aren't. If military force is what it takes to change their minds, then so be it.

Does that make us terrorists? No. We just spent the last--what, two decades?--using oodles of money and resources to build finely targeted weapon systems (cruise missiles, etc.). We take an interest in blowing up as few disinterested parties as possible. Terrorists, on the other hand, spend as little money as possible and try to kill as many innocents as possible in order to "send a message." See the difference?
 

MGKrebs

endangered species
Hi Doc. I'm Krebs.

(No offense y’all, just trying to make a point. I really do apologize about the timing..but I didn’t bring it up.)

Alright, fine. Let's consider the causes of terrorism. The Christian world (we're talking the fundamentalist American types here--call them what you will) missed out on the Cultural Revolution, the Socialist revolution, and the Environmental Revolution. Living in a commercial wasteland with few resources that have any spiritual value may have something to do with this. They have clearly left the lessons of the past behind. Christians have contributed very little to the world today (The old fig leaf about them "inventing" morality is grossly overexaggerated; the best one can say is that during the Dark Ages of the Western World they managed to advance the art of rationalizing any behavior. But abusing a morality is a very different accomplishment than understanding one...).

However, when taken in the extreme, fundamentalist sense, their religion implies that they are god's chosen. The idyll of their faith contrasts sharply with their actual circumstances. Could it be that their faith is wrong? Maybe there is no god, or maybe her name isn't Jesus. No, that certainly can't be the case, they reason. It must be that everyone else is evil. Yes, that's it! All the products of the East-- mud huts, camels, olives, fireworks, rugs, burkhas, etc.--are evil and must be destroyed, and the only thing of value, oil, must be taken and used up.

A recent Washington Post article had some man-on-the-street interviews with Christians, and one of them pointed out that Democracy is wrong. After all, laws come from god--not man. It is right to live by the Bible, and wrong to live by man-made laws.

Clearly, this way of thinking is wrong. (Note to recent college graduates: despite what you've been taught, all ideas are not relative. Some are wrong. For example, using one’s military to open new markets for capitalist businesses, such as in Venezuela, is wrong. Preserving human rights is good.) It's not necessarily a bad thing to have wrong or even silly ideas. Chevron, for example, thought they could build a pipeline through Afghanistan. Silly, but they're not trying to force their ideas on me through violence ( I don’t live in Kabul). Our notions are silly too, but because their ideas inspire some of their adherents to abuse innocent young boys--now we've got problems.

The whole point here is that, yes, we understand why. They don't like Us. The problem is, there's no way to reason with them and say, "Look. Your religion is different. You don't want to see Britney Spears gyrating her midsection about and squealing--hell, I dont' want to see that. But if it bothers you so much, don't look at it. And if some of your friends find they like looking at that more than their Bible, that's their perogative."

In this instance, understanding the "causes" of terrorism doesn't help us. The only way to stop terrorism by eliminating the "cause" would be for us to ask the Christians what we must do to live in peace, remove our soldiers from their holy ground, stop setting up puppet capitalist dictators everywhere, stop sending our missionaries to turn them away from the Bible, pray only once a week instead of every day, and spend only an hour a week reciting ancient passages from a moldy old book.

Yeah, right. Although Billy Graham might be on-board with that, the rest of us aren't. If military force is what it takes to change their minds, then so be it.

Does that make us terrorists? No. We go in with massive force, with or without any “allies”, with expensive and sophisticated equipment. Terrorists, on the other hand, commit their violence with “found material”.

See the difference?
 
Last edited:

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
MG,

Doc has the perponderance of evidence on his side. You have a cute little fairy tale. :lmao:
 

Doc

New Member
Re: Hi Doc. I'm Krebs.

Krebs,

Your reply is silly to the point that I hardly need point out your falacies, but I shall. By the way, you'll get no argument from me that fundamental Christianity is evil too. I'm an atheist. As far as I'm concerned, all religions are stupid and counterproductive.

Originally posted by MGKrebs
The Christian world...missed out on the Cultural Revolution,

Excuse me? Let's reterm your "Christian world" back to my "Western World"--I'm not a xtian, but I am a Westerner. The West has spent hundreds of years preserving our artwork, our literature, our music. In this country, in particular, by force of our belief in freedom of speech we allow even controversial works of art to be produced. Our technology--film, television--has resulted in new media for artwork. Let's think about the fundie Muslims for a second. They (Taliban) blew up some of their most ancient art (Buddhist statues), and throw people in prison for listening to the wrong sorts of music.

Score: Western World 1; East 0.

Needless to say, if the fundie Christians had their way, life here would be a lot like the Taliban. Note, though, that the fundies don't have their way over here, apart from the odd posting of the Ten Commandments in inappropriate places, and occasionally getting their panties in a bunch over an art exhibit of questionalbe legitimacy. The fundies don't run things here. They do (did) in Afghanistan.

the Socialist revolution,

If, by "missed out," you mean "ignored a socio-economic development that plainly couldn't work, didn't work, failed, and is now being dropped by the wayside," then yes, we did miss out. We missed out the shitty lives that Eastern Europeans lived. We missed out on having our human rights trodden up like the Chinese government does to their folks. Hey, you think socialism is so great? Go on, I dare you to go live in a country that claims to be socialist (China, Cuba, whatever). Feel like giving up your standard of living? No? Didn't think so. Socialism died because Capitalism proved itself to be superior. Under socialism, "equality" is enfoced by bringing everyone down to the same level. With Capitalism, those that have the skills are allowed to rise to whatever level they like.

Western capitalists: 2; Eastern Commies: 0

and the Environmental Revolution.

Without Western science, there would be no study of the environment--no satellites to monitor how humans are affecting the globe, no computer models, etc. I suppose Afghanistan, with rivers of crap running down the streets and into the aquifer, is a paragon of Environmental responsibility? Been to the former East Germany lately? They've gotten better, and it's still horribly polluted there. Sure our industry causes pollution, but we're getting better. Doesn't that count for anything?

Living in a commercial wasteland with few resources that have any spiritual value may have something to do with this.

I've said it before in one of these forums; I'll say it again. We--Westerners--today live a life far richer than that dreamed of by any ancient king. We have immediate, cheap, near-universal access to knowledge and communication. For the price of dinner, as Carl Sagan once said, you can hold in your hand the history of the Roman empire. The happy socialist Chinese peasant that slaves away all day planting rice never has a chance to think about spiritual issues. The fundie Muslim has religion pushed upon him. In this country, you can believe what you like. In fact, you can go to the library for free, and be as spiritual as you like. Go to your local library. Note that you can browse the best writers of the world for free. What wasteland with few spritual values is this? Can you do the same in Saudi Arabia? (Answer: no).

West: who cares, we can see where this is going anyway...

Christians have contributed very little to the world today

Who cares? Back to the Western world (which includes atheists and non-fundie Christians)--our science produced modern medicine (NMRIs, drugs that work, vaccines), put men on the moon, invented the internet, and pretty much everything else that's good. What did the fundie Muslim world produce? (Sound of crickets chirping.) That's right--not much.

However, when taken in the extreme, fundamentalist sense, their religion implies that they are god's chosen. The idyll of their faith contrasts sharply with their actual circumstances. Could it be that their faith is wrong? Maybe there is no god, or maybe her name isn't Jesus.

Again, I'm not arguing for the fundie Christians and their Jeebus. But you completely missed my argument. The fundie Muslims are the way they are because their religion tells them they're the Ones, but their pragmatic circumstances prove that their lives suck. They get violent. In this country, Christians' religion tells them they're the Ones, and clearly they do lead good lives. This makes them be *******s, but they don't go round flying planes into buildings.

All the products of the East-- mud huts, camels, olives, fireworks, rugs, burkhas, etc.

Insulated houses with running water and electricity beat mud huts hands down. And freedom to wear what you like beats being forced to wear a burkha. Olives are rather nice, but camels smell bad and tend to be fould-tempered. I like fireworks and rugs. Those are nice. Modern medicine is nicer though. See? You're trying to defend them, and you can't think of anything really useful they've invented.

--are evil and must be destroyed, and the only thing of value, oil, must be taken and used up.

Well, while we're on the subject, remember that it was Western science and technology that discovered the oil, and had uses for it. When the Arabian princes whined, "Oh, we're just poor arabs. Please let us have the oil so we can raise our people up," we bought their foolish story, and allowed them to nationalize their oil reserves and steal them from us (remember we discovered and exploited them first). What was the result--a rich strata of princes who don't share the wealth with those below them. Nice going guys.

A recent Washington Post article had some man-on-the-street interviews with Christians, and one of them pointed out that Democracy is wrong. After all, laws come from god--not man. It is right to live by the Bible, and wrong to live by man-made laws.

Like I said before, the difference between Us and Them, is that the worst thing the fundies do here is put up the Ten Commandments where they shouldn't and make kids pray in class. In Saudi Arabia, if you play the wrong sort of music you get smacked around. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

I notice you didn't bother to respond to my point that we spent years of effort and money to build targeted weapons so we could take out the bad guys and leave the civilians alone. Hey, we could have bought an awful lot of daisy cutters for that money. It's cheaper to just saturation bomb a target (think Dresden), but we've realized that's wrong and we make a HUGE effort to leave the civilians out of it. Terrorists like killing civilians. *******s.

Krebs, your point is you think that Christians are just as bad. Look, I don't like the Jeebus crowd any more than you. But the fact of the matter is, apart from Northern Ireland, you don't see people running around killing oodles of folks in the name of Jeebus.

The original point of my post was that a previous writer had said we must understand the causes of terrorism. My point is that no we don't. Once you fly airplanes into buildings filled with people that have absolutely nothing to do with the military and vaporize something like 3000 folks, you kind of lose any sympathy people might have for understanding your point of view.

This bears repeating: When you vaporize 3000 innocent civilians--WITHOUT PROVOCATION--there is no onus upon me to understand your motivation. You must, at all costs, be stopped from similar action in the future. Don't like it? Don't fly planes into buildings anymore. 'Nuff said.
 
Last edited:
Top