oh Dubbya...

[Frank]

Originally posted by jimmy
That's what makes you conservatives so scary to me. Because rather than attempt a change in policy or to forge new relationships, you'd rather just kill it, be done with it, world be damned.

Yeah - right.

And you liberals will wait until after they have blown away more innocent lives before you decide which conservative or conservative policy is to blame for it, innocent lives be damned.

Are we through with the ridiculous hyperbole yet?

And you DO realize that a lot of these "gung-ho, yay America" types ARE some of the guys who'll put their lives on the line, right?

Kill it or not -- I'm not into the liberal hand-wringing "why don't they like us" guilt thing. When you're a kid, and the school bully keeps smacking you every day, you might tell his parents, you might tell the principal and you might blame the school and you might whine about what you did to make him not like you - but sometimes the only solution is a punch in the nose.

I don't see how you reasonably negotiate with someone who has spent years trying to kill you - all you can do is buy time.

 

[jimmy]

And there's your problem, Frank.

The school bully metaphor works, alright. But you've applied it in exactly the wrong direction.

 

[MGKrebs]

moral support

I'd jump in and help you jimmy, but I am weary today. Besides, your doing fine.

 

[Bruzilla]

Now you're confusing me Jimmy. If you're so well informed, why do you keep asking for "evidence?" If you know all of this conservative hush-hush stuff, why do you need to be convinced that Saddam Hussein has what the administration alledges he has?

I could see your point if you were focusing on wanting evidence of why we should go to war vice letting Saddam go on his way, but you only argue that case about half the time. The other half is wanting evidence that he has the weapons.

So which is it? Either you know as much as we do, or you're just talking out of your behind. :hohum:

 

[Bruzilla]

Hey MGK, please jump in. Captain Denial is getting a bit boring to argue with. At least you offer some solid reasoning.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by jimmy
And there's your problem, Frank.

The school bully metaphor works, alright. But you've applied it in exactly the wrong direction.

And how is that?

I mean, it has always been tres chic to fault America for everything. But I don't see us slaughtering innocent people just because we CAN.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Frank


And how is that?

I mean, it has always been tres chic to fault America for everything. But I don't see us slaughtering innocent people just because we CAN.

That's it in a nutshell. WE DON'T!

And the "Hate America" crowd on the left spend so much time in Neverland they aren't aware of actual historical fact or the nature of American involvement worldwide.

Personally I'd prefer to send them all to #&!! or stop sending anything overseas. Money, Technology or Food!

 

[jimmy]

Well jeez, bru, sorry I can't more entertaining for you today. Rest assured my pillow will be soaked in sweat tonight.

The evidence I keep asking you for is evidence of a threat posed by Saddam directly to US that would be at the level of severity and the state of immediacy to warrant an action SUCH AS IS BEING PROPOSED by Bush.

No one, at least not me, is suggesting that NOTHING be done about Saddam. But looking at the international community's response, I think it's clear that most would prefer to look at other options before signing off on Bush's plans.

Now, even Bush is starting to realize the error in his original thinking (see also: your thinking) and is attempting to make the international community see his point. On some it will work, on others it won't. But at least he'll have given it a fair shot and he can show the international community and the UN that we respect them, and that we are not the world dictator that such an action could make us seem to be.

My original intent for this thread was to point out how ineffective it seems Bush is being and how his administration has found itself caught in a web of back-tracking and double speak by going the gung-ho, yay-America, damn-everyone-else approach they started with.

I see military action against Iraq as inevitable. I see it as, in many ways, justified. But I see garnering international support--hell, even just quashing internatoinal condemnation--of almost EQUAL importance.

 

[jimmy]

And Frank,

We certainly DO impose our will on other areas of the globe simply because we CAN.

Yes it's true that our tactics don't seem as barbaric as those of the Terrorists. And in most ways, they are not. Terrorist were primarily concerned with killing as many innocents as they could to make a point.

However, don't suppose that through the years our own little pseudo-terrorist organization (the CIA) hasn't done some shady business of their own. Is that necessary at times? Absolutely. Does that place us on some sort of moral high ground above the rest of the world. Absolutely not.

Being the strongest power in the world is going to naturally garner us some enemies. But why must we continue to act in ways that reaffirm those beliefs? Why must we assume that our interests are paramount to others? Why must we allow exploitation by our own companies and only step in when it suits our purposes.

A great philosopher once said "with great power comes great responsibility"...and that man's name...was Spiderman. This is why I think you misapplied your school bully metaphor. How do you think a small group of discontented people like Al Qaida look at US and our involvement in Middle East affairs???? Do you no know what this whole thing is all about???

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by jimmy
I see military action against Iraq as inevitable. I see it as, in many ways, justified. But I see garnering international support--hell, even just quashing internatoinal condemnation--of almost EQUAL importance.

That must be the difference, because I see it as of almost NO importance. I know of no other nation in the world that seems to require international support BEFORE it will do anything. That being the case, it's only snobbery from the UN that thinks it has any right to tell whether or not we CAN.

Yeah, it'd be NICE diplomatically. My brother-in-law asked for my father's blessing to marry my sister. When my dad asked if what if he didn't, he told him he planned to do it *ANYWAY*. That's what I mean. It's our battle, and if they like it, good, but if they don't, let them DEAL with it. They're not our keepers.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by jimmy
How do you think a small group of discontented people like Al Qaida look at US and our involvement in Middle East affairs???? Do you no know what this whole thing is all about???

How do they see us? As infidels. We in the west have a minor tradition of separating church and secular matters. Islam has no such history.

What is it about? It's about getting American dogs off their precious Saudi soil, even though the Saudi royal family WANTS us there. It's about the utter destruction of our 'immoral' culture spread far and wide. It's about hatred. Like I said, they don't want land, and they don't want resources.

This will be an embarassing anecdote but -- I was the tallest kid in my school growing up, but I disdained violence, and would refuse to fight, EVEN though I would win. After a while, it meant that kids would smack me, because I wouldn't hit back. EVENTUALLY, it meant that small kids were sneaking up on me at lunchtime and bloodying my nose, and were I to hit them back, I'd be ripped a new one by the "international community" for 'bullying'. Well I got tired of it, and I decided to smack the hell out the next kid who tried. Nobody bothered me after that.

Yes, I know what the CIA does, but it's not much different from what everyone else does. They're not some super agency that can do everything. Why don't people take a nice shot at China and Russia for all the love they've brought to the world? They won't, because they know THEY won't flinch at swatting them.

 

[MGKrebs]

I'm weary because I've already replied to these...

subjects ad nauseum. But here goes;

Getting allies or UN approval is not about etiquette. It would be intended to minimize problems down the road. If we go in anyway, we very well may be fighting 10 more wars into the foreseeable future. IF we can convince Iraq's neighbors that he is indeed a threat, we're golden. They just don't seem to be buying it right now? Why not? As somebody said earlier, he is more likely a direct threat to them than he is to us...or at least until we started all the sabre rattling, now we may at the top of his list. I don't know, would he attack us knowing that we would certainly vaporize him and his sand dunes? Or does he feel like we're coming in anyway, might as well get his shot in while he can?

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Frank
.... I know of no other nation in the world that seems to require international support BEFORE it will do anything...

There are a few... They're the ones that want the U.S. on board so we'll do it for them! Ya' know some of the lefties favorites like... France, Germany, Belguim, Italy...

 

[MGKrebs]

Re: PART 2

Originally posted by Ken King
After reading this it is apprent that Congress has already authorized the President to take "appropriate action". Shouldn't he comply with the demands of Congress?

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.

 

[Kyle]

Re: I'm weary because I've already replied to these...

Originally posted by MGKrebs
... I don't know, would he attack us knowing that we would certainly vaporize him and his sand dunes? Or does he feel like we're coming in anyway, might as well get his shot in while he can?

He's not going to lob a missle at us. He's going to lob a missle at Israel or more likely he'll hand over a bio/chem/nuke weapon to some vermin like Bin Laden to do his bidding. That last one is the most likely. And I can here you lefties screaming now because your urban centers would likely be the logical targets. (The most bang for the buck)

So MG, Jimmy, what say you after NY-NY or LA gets a pint sized nuke detonated in the middle of the city? How will we know or prove where it came from? So what do we do then when the body count is 50,000? 150,000? More? Just roll over as you no doubt want us to this time?

 

[MGKrebs]

See, this is exactly the problem Kyle.

The same could be said for maybe 10 other countries or pseudo countries; Chechnya, Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Libya, etc. To repeat one more time- he will have to be dealt with. Is now the right time? Is he enough of a threat for a war? And where will this road lead? I know you will say nobody can predict the future, but when making a potentially global scale decision, it seems worth it to at least try for likely scenarios and weigh the options. Maybe they have. I would like to believe that so has France or Germany or any other of a number of countries, and they ain't buying whatever he is sellin' right now. Also, I concede that Bush may not be in a position to convince ME that what he wants to do is right, but how about Saudi or anybody besides Blair, who has no choice, and Israel, who has nothing to lose?

Besides, if Israel gets worried enough, I am confident that they will take care of their own business, as they have in the past, including with Iraq.

So you are saying the REAL direct threat is Osama or somebody like him. I agree. And we seem to be doing all we can (and more) to contain that threat.

As far as NY or LA, you seem to be saying that taking out Iraq will prevent this from happening.
Ahh, never mind. I'm tired.

 

[vraiblonde]

Curious, Maynard and Jimmy, what your reaction was when Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of Baghdad during the impeachment hearings?

 

[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. As long as the guys at the intermediate command level believe that their homes, families, and country will be immediately vaporized if they launch a missile I think they'll have a hard time following an order to fire, especially when that order comes from a guy they don't support unless a gun's pointed at them.

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.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
...I for one see no problem with nuking LA.

It might be a cesspool out there but it's still our soil!

 

[Kyle]

Re: See, this is exactly the problem Kyle.

Originally posted by MGKrebs
... So you are saying the REAL direct threat is Osama or somebody like him. I agree. And we seem to be doing all we can (and more) to contain that threat.

As far as NY or LA, you seem to be saying that taking out Iraq will prevent this from happening.
Ahh, never mind. I'm tired.

No... I didn't say it will "prevent" this.... But eliminating him and his toybox will "reduce" the chance that it will. We can't kill every mosquito but when you spray for them it reduces the chances of spreading malaria doesn't it?

*shaking my head ruefully*