IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by shartley

And why was the bomb DROPPED? Oh, you want to IGNORE that little part. I didn’t say people would not hate us, but just because they DO does not mean they are right to DO so. But they ARE according to you. Forget that the reason the bomb was dropped was directly caused by the actions of the terrorists, and then by the country they are in not doing anything about it, and the bomb was the final step, not the first.

But you always want to start the chain of hate AT the bomb, when the bomb was actually the last step in a series of actions that could have been stopped anywhere along the way. I am not shifting blame, I am assigning the correct blame.

Here is another example of wrongful blame assessment using the same criteria as the terrorist argument. A criminal gets put in jail and he is angry because of it. He gets out and commits more crimes. Thus the reason he committed the crimes is because of the system that put him in prison… not the fact that he committed a crime FIRST that put him there.

Sorry, but that is wrong, as is the blame assessment you place on bombing terrorists.

But you will just come back with… No I am not, you are wrong. So let’s just agree to disagree on this.. as with almost everything.

---

I don't even think you get what I am saying.

We are talking about how dropping a bomb creates more hatred and more terrorist. Do you think the civilians on the ground could care less that we wed attacked first. All they know is that they are now being attacked, and now their innocents are being killed. I am not blaming the innocent lives lost on us, I know that happens in war, but the civilians are. And if we are going to combat future terrorism, that is all that matters.

And let’s not destroy drug fields and drug factories in Central and South America either, because the workers will not understand why their jobs and livelihoods are being taken away… and they will hate us for it.

You are seeming to think that dropping bombs are the first actions taken. They are not. They are the LAST actions taken when all else has already failed….. get it? FAILED. Not worked. Didn’t take care of the problem.

If you keep doing something and expect a different outcome, that is pure insanity. What has been being done is NOT WORKING by itself. LOL

Dropping a bomb is also not “only” a preemptive measure to stop future terrorism, it is a retaliation for acts already committed. You seem to want to maintain that dropping bombs is the only solution on the table and that we have not tried anything else but just want to drop a bomb on someone, as well as it being only a preemptive tool. LOL

No Shartley if you once again read you will see that I agree with the taking out of high ranking officials, with the seizure of money, and the stopping of supplies to the terrorist. But I also believe the most important thing to help slow down terrorism (for you will never stop it) is to stop its recruitment base. Bring aide to the civilians; help to give them a better life. Try and bring down that huge wage difference between leaders and workers. Give them a reason not to hate America.

But by all means do not add to their hatred by giving them a reason to hate America.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jojo1
Screw SaddaM, Bin Laden, and all other people who do not support the US...We do not need anyone they need us...just think about this all you people with different opinions...some countries can not even have a discussion like this...America is a free country and we should be very thankful, but you forget people have to stand up and fight for this $hit.....

---

What does the right to freedom of speech have to do with an invasion of Iraq? We are not talking about an invading hostile power. Saddam had tons of chemical weapons in the first Gulf War and they were basically useless to him because Bush Sr. told him if he used them there would be armageddon in Baghdad. The guy is so powerless against our army that he cannot even kick us out of the no fly zone. According to one of cphillips previous posts his troops want to surrender before the war even begins. We do not have an immediate threat. It would be great to see the administration heal the breech with our allies and get a united front. According to oldsoldiers last post this may be possible.

If anything I see everyone saying, "I support the president because he is the president" much more terrifying than Iraq. What would be next? Are we all going to goose step and sing songs about our beloved Fatherland? If people support the president because they are convinced of the REASONS I don't really have a problem with that. I may disagree with those reasons but at least it isn't the "Because Stone Cold SAYS SO!" reason.

Quote:

---

All i am saying is this do not be scared of a war in Iraq...be scared if the United States would not invade...Also i say fight fire with fire...you bomb our country then we will bomb yours...you kill our families then we will kill yours...Already iam going to get some grief for saying this, but this is the only way to fight terrorism...when people are brought up to hate Americans then there is nothing we can do about it...i say take there oil and whatever else we want...maybe a taste of there own medicine will sober them up!!

---

They are not raised to hate us! Many people emmigrate here because they want to experience opportunity in the US and enjoy our way of life. When you see people dancing in the street that is only a small percentage of the total population. We have marches in the US as well yet people who partake in them are a very small percentage of the whole. A Serbian once told me that the reason that peace is so difficult is because one side loses his father and the child is raised being constantly reminded by the mother, "remember what they did to your father!" He grows up and takes his revenge and a mother now on the other side is reminding her child, "remember what they did to your father!" That is NOT the path of our nation. Everything that Bush Sr. said in the quote above is what makes the US GREAT not what makes us weak. We do not want to become a country of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, bigots!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Collegeboy
No Shartley if you once again read you will see that I agree with the taking out of high ranking officials, with the seizure of money, and the stopping of supplies to the terrorist. But I also believe the most important thing to help slow down terrorism (for you will never stop it) is to stop its recruitment base. Bring aide to the civilians; help to give them a better life. Try and bring down that huge wage difference between leaders and workers. Give them a reason not to hate America.

But by all means do not add to their hatred by giving them a reason to hate America.

---

Oh, yeah, I missed that..:rolleyes:

And if you think only seizure of funds and supplies will stop terrorism, you are truly living in another world. Yes, it is one of the many tools we use (note I said we USE), but those things do not address acts already committed by terrorists. You offer NO opinions of plans of action to deal with crimes already committed. And want to act like bombing is not a retaliatory measure, but only a preemptive one.

And of course if we don’t bomb anyone, folks will flock to hold our hand and sing “Kumbia (sp?)”. Not.

And sure, let’s feed other countries’ people! Forget that we have starving people here in the US. Let’s raise the standard of living in other countries. Forget that we have a huge homeless problem here in our own country. Sure, live your life not wanting to make anyone “hate” you for what you do, or don’t do….. even though you have NO problem pissing off people here. LOL

Oh, and the difference between leaders and workers in OTHER countries is OUR fault right? LOL It has NOTHING to do with their own government and leaders, right? And what do you think will happen if we try to “improve” these other countries, where the leadership is very happy living high off the hog? Oh, the US will not be hated for that either, right? Sure, the “people” may love us for a short amount of time. But the GOVERNMENTS will hate us and then begin their propaganda machine and turn the populous against us AGAIN. LOL

Honestly CollegeBoy, I DO wish we lived in YOUR world, but we don’t. And I am not saying this to be insulting, or in any sort of attacking manner… I am serious. I DO wish we lived in the world you think we do…. But we don’t.

I don’t know why I bother any more………..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Collegeboy
So fight terrorism by causing more hatred. You my friend are a genius. :rolleyes:

---

then by more of your superior "logic" you better be hoping we lose this war big time right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I don't even think you get what I am saying.

We are talking about how dropping a bomb creates more hatred and more terrorist. Do you think the civilians on the ground could care less that we wed attacked first. All they know is that they are now being attacked, and now their innocents are being killed. I am not blaming the innocent lives lost on us, I know that happens in war, but the civilians are. And if we are going to combat future terrorism, that is all that matters.

---

The circle of violence begins with the violence caused by the terrorists. They generate hate on the retaliating side.

As for the Iraqi situation. There should be no civilians at military targets. The use of human shields by Iraq is illegal. If you are referring to the Palestinian situation, the terrorists should not be hiding amoungst the civilian population. They are drawing the retaliation onto the civilians. Though the civilians will not see it that way, the price of doing nothing is too severe!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Collegeboy
No Shartley if you once again read you will see that I agree with the taking out of high ranking officials, with the seizure of money, and the stopping of supplies to the terrorist. But I also believe the most important thing to help slow down terrorism (for you will never stop it) is to stop its recruitment base. Bring aide to the civilians; help to give them a better life. Try and bring down that huge wage difference between leaders and workers. Give them a reason not to hate America.

But by all means do not add to their hatred by giving them a reason to hate America.

---

We do this now! How much aid do we give to the Palestinians? What we need to do is bring in NGOs to administer the aid so that the corrupt Palistinian Authority doesn't pillage it and then take credit for it. We won't do it, because no NGO will step forward to administer it. Why? Think hostages and Beruit!

A very good interview with Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's Middle East envoy.

Here

An excerpt:

"I'm not convinced we need to do this now. I am convinced that we need to deal with Saddam down the road, but I think that the time is difficult because of the conditions in the region and all the other events that are going on. I believe that he can be deterred and is containable at this moment. As a matter of fact, I think the containment can be ratcheted up in a way that is acceptable to everybody.

I do think eventually Saddam has to be dealt with. That could happen in many ways. It could happen that he just withers on the vine, he passes on to the afterlife, something happens within Iraq that changes things, he becomes less powerful, or the inspectors that go in actually accomplish something and eliminate potential weapons of mass destruction -- but I doubt this -- that might be there. "


I think its a fair article with an honest view of the situation. I hope you read it.


JDub

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
A very good interview with Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's Middle East envoy.

Here

An excerpt:

"I'm not convinced we need to do this now. I am convinced that we need to deal with Saddam down the road, but I think that the time is difficult because of the conditions in the region and all the other events that are going on. I believe that he can be deterred and is containable at this moment. As a matter of fact, I think the containment can be ratcheted up in a way that is acceptable to everybody.

I do think eventually Saddam has to be dealt with. That could happen in many ways. It could happen that he just withers on the vine, he passes on to the afterlife, something happens within Iraq that changes things, he becomes less powerful, or the inspectors that go in actually accomplish something and eliminate potential weapons of mass destruction -- but I doubt this -- that might be there. "


I think its a fair article with an honest view of the situation. I hope you read it.


JDub

---

How Dare You Bring That Article To Our Debate!!!;) :p

Nice article. Maybe all of this pressure is part of Bush's plan to give Saddam a heart attack!;) :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
A very good interview with Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's Middle East envoy.

Here

An excerpt:

"I'm not convinced we need to do this now. I am convinced that we need to deal with Saddam down the road, but I think that the time is difficult because of the conditions in the region and all the other events that are going on. I believe that he can be deterred and is containable at this moment. As a matter of fact, I think the containment can be ratcheted up in a way that is acceptable to everybody.

I do think eventually Saddam has to be dealt with. That could happen in many ways. It could happen that he just withers on the vine, he passes on to the afterlife, something happens within Iraq that changes things, he becomes less powerful, or the inspectors that go in actually accomplish something and eliminate potential weapons of mass destruction -- but I doubt this -- that might be there. "


I think its a fair article with an honest view of the situation. I hope you read it.


JDub

---

Yeah, I like that. Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow. Isn’t that how we got into this mess? This problem is not being “rushed” into like some people think, it has actually built up for over 12 years. We are now saying “The buck stops here.”

There will always be people within an administration that do not agree on every point. But it is the job of the head of that administration to take all the information (of which NONE of us have) and make the best decision he can. And I personally don’t agree with permanently putting of for tomorrow what can be done today, or SHOULD be done today. Because hoping for a “better time” seldom sees that “better time”, and what ends up happening is nothing.

But that way, it is someone else’s mess. :D

I don't know about you all but I rather stop future terrorist attacks the helping to cause more. I rather stop the terrorist in the future then to worry about retaliatory for something that has already happened. For it is this retaliatory attitude that will get us in trouble and has gotten us in trouble.

The plain FACT is terrorism thrives on torment, on strife, on trouble. By causing more of that you are only leading to an increase of terrorism. It doesn't matter who did what first, this isn't the 1st grade, it matters on whom did what last.

We step up the populace disproval of these terrorist groups, when get these peoples on our side. We get these people to deal with their own terrorist. We get these people to handle their problems. WE DON NOT DO ANYTHING TO CAUSE MORE TERRORISM.

And no this isn't some thing in my world, it can work and will work. If people would give it a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

How Dare You Bring That Article To Our Debate!!!;) :p

Nice article. Maybe all of this pressure is part of Bush's plan to give Saddam a heart attack!;) :p

---

As even the French have pointed out Bush's stance has forced Iraq to be more compliant with the weapons inspectors. You may have a point here. We rarely see Saddam in front of the camera but when we do it is obvious that the last ten years have not been kind to him. He's looking kind of gray and toothless. There was another article like this from the US commander in the UN that was printed in our local paper. He didn't come out and say he was against the war but he kept implying that Saddam was contained and not much of a threat.

Quote:

---

There will always be people within an administration that do not agree on every point. But it is the job of the head of that administration to take all the information (of which NONE of us have) and make the best decision he can.

---

What you say is true. We don't have all the information. We can, however, only debate what we know about and what we can guess. If we were in a position to know other facts we certainly would not be posting our thoughts on the internet (I hope not anyway!:)) As I have mentioned previously, however, seeing people advocate total faith in the government scares me. It may be that in 50 years (when I am in my eighties) and all the facts have been released I may call myself an idiot. I'm sure Shartley will counter with "I'll save you the 50 years and call you an idiot NOW!":D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
I don't know about you all but I rather stop future terrorist attacks the helping to cause more. I rather stop the terrorist in the future then to worry about retaliatory for something that has already happened. For it is this retaliatory attitude that will get us in trouble and has gotten us in trouble.

The plain FACT is terrorism thrives on torment, on strife, on trouble. By causing more of that you are only leading to an increase of terrorism. It doesn't matter who did what first, this isn't the 1st grade, it matters on whom did what last.

We step up the populace disproval of these terrorist groups, when get these peoples on our side. We get these people to deal with their own terrorist. We get these people to handle their problems. WE DON NOT DO ANYTHING TO CAUSE MORE TERRORISM.

And no this isn't some thing in my world, it can work and will work. If people would give it a chance. [/QUOTE

How can we aid them? When they are being led by and have elected a leadership that tacitly supports terrorism? How are you going to get this aid and help directly to the people? You have to root out that leadership to reach the people. How much of the humanitarian aid that we sent to Somolia got to the people? Not much as it was raided and stolen by the warlords we left in place. How much of the billions in international aid sent to the Palistinian Authority reaches the Palistinians? Not much. It is pilfered or diverted to buy ships full of weapons (that Israel will catch and sieze anyway)! We can't give them a chance if their own leaders won't. In Iraq though, we can give them a choice after we take Saddam down!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aaron_mag


It may be that in 50 years (when I am in my eighties) and all the facts have been released I may call myself an idiot. I'm sure Shartley will counter with "I'll save you the 50 years and call you an idiot NOW!":D

---

Ooh, ooh I'll do it!;) :p

aaron,

How does freedom of speech deal with Iraq? This will be my last post because some peoples opinions on here are idiotic and starting to piss me off.

Anyway so many people take advantge of our rights, and are to afraid to fight for them. Do you not understand that it only takes ONE bomb brought into this country to cripple us? You say Saddam is no threat, but I guess neither is Bin Laden. If murdering thousands of people is not threatning to you then what is? Imagine instead of planes they used bombs, chemical, biological, whatever. Iraq has more bombs than even our own government knows about. Tell me do you think Saddam would hold out to any terrorist group wanting a bomb to use on the United States? Do you realize that if America gets attacked like 9/11 again your lives and mine are going to change dramaticaly. Already look at the security at the airport, and everywhere else you go. If another attack happens you will see the government tightening down and squeezing our freedom from us. YES invading Iraq has a lot to do with everyone in America some are just to stupid to realize it, and they have got so used to the good life that they do not even know what tough times are.

In response to "They are not brought up to hate us", I have to disagree with that one. I am not saying every Iraqi does, but when the their religion has a "Jihad" and America is the devil....than ya i think they dont like us to much. Say what you want i do not care..if we do not go to war with Iraq its going to make the United States look weak. Again ill say WHY MUST WE BE VICTIMIZED BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I don't know about you all but I rather stop future terrorist attacks the helping to cause more. I rather stop the terrorist in the future then to worry about retaliatory for something that has already happened. For it is this retaliatory attitude that will get us in trouble and has gotten us in trouble.

The plain FACT is terrorism thrives on torment, on strife, on trouble. By causing more of that you are only leading to an increase of terrorism. It doesn't matter who did what first, this isn't the 1st grade, it matters on whom did what last.

We step up the populace disproval of these terrorist groups, when get these peoples on our side. We get these people to deal with their own terrorist. We get these people to handle their problems. WE DON NOT DO ANYTHING TO CAUSE MORE TERRORISM.

And no this isn't some thing in my world, it can work and will work. If people would give it a chance.

---

Edited all my post.... someone else please handle this.

Sorry, had to do it.. but I will try to address the issues and what was posted and not the person posting it….

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I don't know about you all but I rather stop future terrorist attacks the helping to cause more. I rather stop the terrorist in the future then to worry about retaliatory for something that has already happened. For it is this retaliatory attitude that will get us in trouble and has gotten us in trouble.

---

Of course this is a noble thought. And I don’t think anyone would argue that it would be better if we could stop future attacks than “helping” to cause more. Of course you would rather try to stop the terrorist in the future without having to worry about punishing them for things they have already done. That would mean you would not have to deal with anything, ever. Because as soon as they blow up another US Target, it will have just entered the “past”… and you would rather stop FUTURE events.

It is not this “retaliatory attitude” that has gotten us in trouble, but more so our inaction to terrorist actions that have taken place over and over again, but NOT on US soil. We as a nation buried our heads in the sand and thought that by not punishing the terrorist groups that we would not further add fuel to their fires. Well, we saw how well THAT worked, didn’t we? With two burning fires of our own….. in NYC.

It is not only foolish to think that by not taking immediate actions to retaliate against terrorists you somehow stop them from future hatred, but it is dangerous as well. They will hate us whether we do nothing, or if we punish them for their actions. In fact, by NOT punishing them for their actions, they escalate their terror knowing that they can NOT be touched for it. It is a cycle that does not get better by lack of reprisals, but in point of fact, gets much worse.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The plain FACT is terrorism thrives on torment, on strife, on trouble. By causing more of that you are only leading to an increase of terrorism. It doesn't matter who did what first, this isn't the 1st grade, it matters on whom did what last.

---

Actually the 1st Grade comment fits well with thinking like what was just posted. You see, in 1st Grade you have a teacher, and the teacher is who does the last thing. But the world does not HAVE that teacher. And the UN would be the closest thing to it, but it has become impotent as a governing body because its words are not worth the paper they are written on.

If a man takes a baseball bat and smashes another man in the face, and the man who was attacked does nothing about it, will the first man stop hitting him? If there is no “teacher” out there to stop the man from doing this, does he stop doing it? Or, does he continue to not only hit the other man, but do so to others? It is only by fear of punishment for one’s bad actions does crime keep in check. And terrorism is crime. That does not say it eliminates it, but it “keeps it in check”. And every case where crime is left without fear of punishment, it escalates. But of course you will probably argue about that as well.

Also terrorism causes the same things it thrives on. And without us “causing more” of it, it will still flourish. Again, because they CREATE it themselves.

Don’t discipline the child because it will just get angry and be bad. Ignore the fact that the child was bad FIRST, and if you do NOTHING, it will be worse the next time. Oh, sorry, I am letting personal experience cloud my views. I forgot that you feel that by experiencing life or in fact anything, that disqualifies you as being someone who knows about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Collegeboy
We step up the populace disproval of these terrorist groups, when get these peoples on our side. We get these people to deal with their own terrorist. We get these people to handle their problems. WE DON NOT DO ANYTHING TO CAUSE MORE TERRORISM.

And no this isn't some thing in my world, it can work and will work. If people would give it a chance.

---

First of all, they are not just THEIR terrorists. I would consider the terrorists that took out the NYC Towers pretty much “our” terrorists as well. And since you can’t punish the dead, you have to punish those who planned, funded, and all the other aspects of the operation.

Anyone who thinks that by doing nothing will not add to the problem more than doing something is just wrong. By saying “We don’t do anything to cause more terrorism.” Just puts the blame of THEIR actions back on us and gives THEM power. You don’t think freezing funds causes great anger? You don’t think restricting movement causes great anger? You simply don’t realize (or actually from reading all your posts, you REFUSE to realize or admit) that no matter what we do, terrorism will continue. But doing NOTHING (which is actually doing something) it increases, not decreases.

Don’t punish the criminal because that causes them great anger and thus makes them to commit more crime. Silly thinking at best….. dangerous thinking for a society.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jojo1
Anyway so many people take advantge of our rights, and are to afraid to fight for them.

---

Exercising their rights are not taking advantage of them. Now I believe in some limits. If a kid goes to school with a picture of Bush on his shirt that says terrorist I think he should be sent home. Not so much because it is anti presidential but because it disrupts the school and creates too much controversy that takes away from the reason they are supposed to be there! If everyone could just ignore the kid I'd have no problem with him wearing the shirt.

Quote:

---

Do you not understand that it only takes ONE bomb brought into this country to cripple us?

---

It takes alot more than one bomb to cripple us. If we were so crippled by 9/11 then why is the Taliban gone? How the heck are we in Afghanistan? Even Pakistan tried to tell the Taliban that the writing was on the wall and to hand over Bin Laden. As soon as 9/11 happened there were tons of organizations claiming NON responsibility. That was how afraid they were of a crippled United States.

Quote:

---

You say Saddam is no threat, but I guess neither is Bin Laden. If murdering thousands of people is not threatning to you then what is? Imagine instead of planes they used bombs, chemical, biological, whatever. Iraq has more bombs than even our own government knows about. Tell me do you think Saddam would hold out to any terrorist group wanting a bomb to use on the United States? Do you realize that if America gets attacked like 9/11 again your lives and mine are going to change dramaticaly. Already look at the security at the airport, and everywhere else you go. If another attack happens you will see the government tightening down and squeezing our freedom from us. YES invading Iraq has a lot to do with everyone in America some are just to stupid to realize it, and they have got so used to the good life that they do not even know what tough times are.

---

If Bush was said that key members of Bin Ladens group were hiding in Iraq I would be saying lets go get them. France, Germany, Russia, and China would ALL be supporting invasion. Saddam would be scouring the country LOOKING for these individuals because he is really interested in saving his own butt. He was even too afraid to use chemical weapons against the U.S. in the first Gulf War because he was afraid of strikes against him with nuclear weapons. If he knew we would take that kind of reprisal against our troops what kind of retaliation do you think he expects on chemical attacks traced back to him against our civilians. We cannot invade every country with chemical weapons that might be sold to terrorists. The U.S. CANNOT become a victim of our own paranoia. I do not wish to see our troops in foriegn occupation all over the world (more than we already are anyway) because this will NOT prevent a terrorist attack. We have to continue to have a strong military as a deterrent and the memory of the Taliban to support it. This works very effectively against established governments (like Iraq despite being despotic and tyrannical). Unfortunately totally different tactics are necessary against terrorist organizations.

Quote:

---

In response to "They are not brought up to hate us", I have to disagree with that one. I am not saying every Iraqi does, but when the their religion has a "Jihad" and America is the devil....than ya i think they dont like us to much. Say what you want i do not care..if we do not go to war with Iraq its going to make the United States look weak. Again ill say WHY MUST WE BE VICTIMIZED BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

---

This is not about invading a country because they might use chemical weapons against us. This is about violations of a UN resolution. As I have said (in a post long ago that you might not have see) we are probably going to have to attack Iraq without UN support because of the corner the administration has backed us into. The military buildup was necessary and good because as even the French authorities have stated it forced some compliance with the weapons inspectors. If a non war solution is eventually reached it will be because of the threat of the US military. It would be great if a compromise can be reached for a deadline where the UN can present a united front. It is not the deployment of military force that angers me but the lack of diplomacy with our allies. We cannot let fear of being victims set our foriegn policy. We do not want to BECOME the monsters that some UNJUSTLY portray us as.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aaron_mag
This is not about invading a country because they might use chemical weapons against us. This is about violations of a UN resolution. As I have said (in a post long ago that you might not have see) we are probably going to have to attack Iraq without UN support because of the corner the administration has backed us into. The military buildup was necessary and good because as even the French authorities have stated it forced some compliance with the weapons inspectors. If a non war solution is eventually reached it will be because of the threat of the US military. It would be great if a compromise can be reached for a deadline where the UN can present a united front. It is not the deployment of military force that angers me but the lack of diplomacy with our allies. We cannot let fear of being victims set our foriegn policy. We do not want to BECOME the monsters that some UNJUSTLY portray us as.

---

Actually, this isn’t about our administration backing us into any corners. The UN did that. They made a resolution and then failed to back up their words with actions. If we go to war without the full backing of the UN (and mind you that even if the MAJORITY agree with us but France or Germany VETO it, we will technically NOT have the backing of the UN although we DO have the MAJORITY backing… interesting isn’t it?) it will be because of the actions of Saddam and his economic partner(s).. I.E. any country that does not support the war simply because of economic ties to Iraq.

Also, to expect every nation to agree with every other nation, all of the time is silly. And if nations do not agree, or they upset the other nation it is not always a sign of “lack of diplomacy”. I would argue that it is them (France, Germany, Russia) that are the ones showing lack of diplomacy, not us. And I would almost be willing to reverse this opinion IF the reasons for them not wanting the military actions were anything BUT because they have financial ties to Iraq….. OR that they have not shown a history of being interested in ONLY their “best interests” and not what is truly best for the global community.

I bring back into light the fact that France and Germany has no problems utilizing the US to go into Kosovo and take out Milosovich(sp?) who was by their own definition not even as bad as Saddam (who they openly state is the most evil ruler since Hitler), and they did so caring less about having ANY UN backing for the action. But now they swap sides on the issue, and for what? Moral reasons? No. Purely economic reasons because of the ties they made with this “Evil” ruler.

Isn’t that odd? They proclaim Saddam the most evil ruler since Hitler, yet still go full speed ahead with business contracts with him.

No my friend, it is not the US that is being un-diplomatic. It is our “allies”… or at least some of them. They are also reveling in the fact that they have so much “power” sitting on the UN Council…. Being that this is the ONLY place they have any. This is not a matter of the US being out of line, it is about Saddam and its economic allies being out of line and the US having to stand its ground. I for one am PROUD to live in a country that finally has another leader that has a backbone.

Not to mention the fact that Schroder ran his re-election campaign on the Anti-American/Anti-Bush line. How about that for an allie? Want to talk about countries being less than diplomatic? Look to the countries you seem so worried about offending.

No, it is not an issue of presenting a united front in the UN. If that was the case, France, Germany, and Russia would not threaten to Veto a clear majority view. And they (the UN) would have backed up its own resolutions and mandates, but they have NOT. And now folks want to make the US look bad because they are actually willing to stand behind their words. I don’t know about you, but that is the type of country I would want to deal with, not a flip flop no backbone leadership. A country that stands behind its own words, even if you don’t like those words is at least a country you can respect.

And I would sooner sit down and eat with an enemy I can respect, than a “friend” that I can’t.

And I will also point out that we MUST let our fear of being victims “help” set our foreign policy. That is what foreign policy is all about, protecting our interests. And our fears play an important factor in that. This is not to say we should let our fears rule our heads, and dictate our every decision, but they had better be an important factor in it all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aaron_mag




It takes alot more than one bomb to cripple us. If we were so crippled by 9/11 then why is the Taliban gone? How the heck are we in Afghanistan? Even Pakistan tried to tell the Taliban that the writing was on the wall and to hand over Bin Laden. As soon as 9/11 happened there were tons of organizations claiming NON responsibility. That was how afraid they were of a crippled United States.

Our economy is still suffering the effects of 9/11. One bomb can do much more then take 3000 lives. It took the US off the road to recovery and back to a psuedo-recession. It has cost our economy Billions. Our economic might was crippled. We are still not back to where we were.


If Bush was said that key members of Bin Ladens group were hiding in Iraq I would be saying lets go get them. France, Germany, Russia, and China would ALL be supporting invasion. Saddam would be scouring the country LOOKING for these individuals because he is really interested in saving his own butt. He was even too afraid to use chemical weapons against the U.S. in the first Gulf War because he was afraid of strikes against him with nuclear weapons. If he knew we would take that kind of reprisal against our troops what kind of retaliation do you think he expects on chemical attacks traced back to him against our civilians. We cannot invade every country with chemical weapons that might be sold to terrorists. The U.S. CANNOT become a victim of our own paranoia. I do not wish to see our troops in foriegn occupation all over the world (more than we already are anyway) because this will NOT prevent a terrorist attack. We have to continue to have a strong military as a deterrent and the memory of the Taliban to support it. This works very effectively against established governments (like Iraq despite being despotic and tyrannical). Unfortunately totally different tactics are necessary against terrorist organizations.

I bet France would still be against it. They are too concerned about their $ in Iraq and are willing to let Saddam slide. We can not afford that! By the way, the payments the Iraqis are sending to families of suicide bombers in Israel directly supports terrorism!


This is not about invading a country because they might use chemical weapons against us. This is about violations of a UN resolution. As I have said (in a post long ago that you might not have see) we are probably going to have to attack Iraq without UN support because of the corner the administration has backed us into. The military buildup was necessary and good because as even the French authorities have stated it forced some compliance with the weapons inspectors. If a non war solution is eventually reached it will be because of the threat of the US military. It would be great if a compromise can be reached for a deadline where the UN can present a united front. It is not the deployment of military force that angers me but the lack of diplomacy with our allies. We cannot let fear of being victims set our foriegn policy. We do not want to BECOME the monsters that some UNJUSTLY portray us as.

---

Saddam has played hide and seek with the UN for 12 years. If left unchecked, he could become a global threat. Yes he is complying now, but what happens if the threat of war goes away? He will stop! France is so full of cowards that they can't see this point.

SHartley made a great point about this in a previous thread. I will paraphrase: "The approach the UN is taking is stop breaking the rules or I will yell at you. If you keep breaking them, I'll yell louder!" There has to be a stick behind the threat!

I thought it was clear enough but let me explain it in a different way.

By say I rather stop future terrorism then punish people for past actions I am saying that the first thing you need to ask yourself is will this action lead to more terrorism or created more terrorism (OUTSIDE THE GROUP WHO DID IT). Meaning you punish the group through cutting of their funds, and such. You punish the group, not the civilian population around them.

That should get it done.

I will answer 1stdeadeyes question when I get back.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I thought it was clear enough but let me explain it in a different way.

By say I rather stop future terrorism then punish people for past actions I am saying that the first thing you need to ask yourself is will this action lead to more terrorism or created more terrorism (OUTSIDE THE GROUP WHO DID IT). Meaning you punish the group through cutting of their funds, and such. You punish the group, not the civilian population around them.

That should get it done.

I will answer 1stdeadeyes question when I get back.

---

How is cutting funds an adequate punishment for the crime of MURDER? Is dimply isn’t. Cutting funds is not a punishment, it is a proactive measure to reduce their effectiveness and ability to support themselves. Again, that is not a “punishment’.

On the matter of punishing civilian populations around them, sorry but that is saying you are targeting civilians. And that is not what is happening, so, your argument is without merit. If civilians are killed in an action targeted at the terrorists it is called collateral damage. This happens in almost any military action and is a price that must be seriously weighed against the outcome of the action. And sorry, I would consider “limited” civilian casualties a worthwhile price to take out the LEADERSHIP of a terrorist group. And even more so when it is shown that that LEADERSHIP has planned and helped execute actions that have killed thousands of innocent people around the world, and without their deaths (the LEADERSHIP) they would plan and help carry out more of the same.

You may not be willing to have that price paid, but I would. And if you think gaining even 100 foot soldiers is worse than letting even 2 LEADERS of these terrorist groups live, than you don’t understand how pointless foot soldiers are when they have no direction. You have to cut off the head of this snake. You have to take out the brains.

It was not the actions of 9/11 that were the worse part, it was the PLANNING and execution of those actions. And without the leadership it would not have happened. Have you ever seen what happens to a Mob when you remove the leaders from within it? It becomes unorganized and easily controlled. Same with terrorists.

And if you first let the individual countries take care of the terrorist, you don’t HAVE to drop bombs. That is only a final solution for when all else has failed. I am all for sending in hit squads controlled directly by the country they are in. No problem. But thus far, that has not been a solution that has produced any real results.

You act like we would purposely target innocent civilians, and that is just not the case. But openly stating that because innocent civilians may be injured or killed will and should stop us from even considering using bombs or any other lethal force only gives terrorists the “safe zone” that they currently use as their shield from any such actions. They are cowards. And they count on people with your same ways of thinking to help protect them from retribution….. and no, freezing funds is not retribution, as I stated, it is to help reduce or hamper future actions, not punish for past actions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I thought it was clear enough but let me explain it in a different way.

By say I rather stop future terrorism then punish people for past actions I am saying that the first thing you need to ask yourself is will this action lead to more terrorism or created more terrorism (OUTSIDE THE GROUP WHO DID IT). Meaning you punish the group through cutting of their funds, and such. You punish the group, not the civilian population around them.

That should get it done.

---

Please explain how not going after the fanatics who are terrorist that hide amoungst the civilian population will lead to less terrorism! If anything, it will embolden them to new hieghts. If Clinton had severly attacked Al Qaida after the embassy bombing in Africa, do you think September 11th would have happened? If we had bombed and attacked the terrorist camps then instead of launching a few cruise missles and leaving that they would have had the infrastructure to organiza and launch the attacks they did? Think about it. If we had ordered the Taliban to give up Osama and then atacked them as we did post 9/11, 9/11 couldn't have occurred. Osama would have been a fugitive hiding in a cave with Mullah Omar!:p

OK I said that was my last post, but I just cant stop typing =).

Aaron,

First of all the United States should have went into Iraq 12yrs ago when Saddam wasnt complying with UN resolutions. Second when did you join the CIA? You seem to know everything about Saddam. Anyway he gases his own people. You said that he would not use chemical weapons on the United States...Well have you ever heard of Gulf War Syndrome? I know a few vets who came back from Iraq who have trouble moving there hands now. Also the so called BOMB i am talking about is not just one silly bomb that can blow up a building. Imagine a terrorist hijacking a plane and detonating a chemical weapon 20,000ft above Washington D.C. To me that is pretty crippling. Also you are talking about Saddam like hes a normal person. He is a maniac and now he knows the US is not going to let him slide. He may do some terrible act out of desperation. I am really not trying to argue with you. I just think this country has become far to liberal and far to politically correct. Our own freedoms will and up being our demise.
Interesting fact: The French in the mid 80's gave Iraq the technology to use and produce plutonium. If the Israelis would not have not taken it out think out what Saddam might have. It seems in this new century everyone is joining the nuclear age. On the news two days ago Iran announced they are well on there way to producing there first nuclear weapon. So how can you say Saddam is no threat to us? When clearly nuclear weapons are becoming more common.

I will not try and quote 1stdeadeye and Shartely since many of their arguments are the same (as each others). I will not just restate my arguments. I am saying that the administration should have been more diplomatic in dealing with allies. If I just keep repeating my stance and never conceding any points then wouldn't I be the ultimate hypocrite?:)

When I say diplomacy I would have liked to see the U.S. take the lead in coalition building. This would mean drawing up a plan that included France and Russia in the reconstruction of Iraq after the war. This would also mean that France and Russia would be responsible for contributing aid to Iraq for reconstruction. The long range plan, however, would be to let the people of Iraq take over after reconstruction was complete and not to make them subservient to the U.N. of course. I realize this is easier said then done.

I will also concede that a timeline for action would have to be drawn up. If the French, Germans, Russians, and China would not follow the timeline they agreed to then we would have go it alone. Of course France and Russia would then not be part of reconstruction. The core of my disagreement with most of you is that I don't believe the administration did enough to build a coalition about when to invade Iraq (including letting the opposing countries submit a timeline and reach some sort of accord). Many of you maintain that the opposed nations would never have come to a satisfactory compromise. Again I will concede that you may be right. Still I do not want my country to deal with other nations in a high handed forceful manner. That is not the country I am proud to be a part of.

Switching gears I am glad to see President Bush starting diplomacy on Palestine. No peace in the middle east will ever be possible until some sort of settlement can be reached. It is also good to see that the Palestine issue has been hammered out in the UN and is a coalition approach. I realize that getting those two groups to agree on anything, however, is going to be tough. This type of effort, however, is the country I am proud to be a part of.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jojo1
OK I said that was my last post, but I just cant stop typing =).

---

Quote:

---

First of all the United States should have went into Iraq 12yrs ago when Saddam wasnt complying with UN resolutions.

---

I thought the quote (in a post above) from Bush Sr. explained the rational for not invading the Iraq at that time explained it well.

Quote:

---

Second when did you join the CIA? You seem to know everything about Saddam. Anyway he gases his own people. You said that he would not use chemical weapons on the United States...Well have you ever heard of Gulf War Syndrome? I know a few vets who came back from Iraq who have trouble moving there hands now.

---

I watched a special on the Gulf War and a General was explaining why Saddam did not use chemical weapons. Of course I do not know for sure that this is true. I believe the official government stance is that chemical weapons were not used. This does not mean it is true. This relates back to my previous statement that just because the President says so doesn't mean I automatically accept it as fact.

Quote:

---

Also the so called BOMB i am talking about is not just one silly bomb that can blow up a building. Imagine a terrorist hijacking a plane and detonating a chemical weapon 20,000ft above Washington D.C. To me that is pretty crippling. Also you are talking about Saddam like hes a normal person. He is a maniac and now he knows the US is not going to let him slide. He may do some terrible act out of desperation.

---

That is the one fear I have as well. I do not fear a Saddam that is contained but I do fear a Saddam who fears he is going to die anyway so might as well take as many with him as well. I suppose I feel the same way as the general above who felt they had him contained and that time to create a united front in the United Nations only weakens his position.

Quote:

---

I am really not trying to argue with you. I just think this country has become far to liberal and far to politically correct. Our own freedoms will and up being our demise.

---

I feel the opposite. I feel like our paranoia will destroy us and we will end up taking away from ourselves what no one else in the world can take away from us. The proliferation of conservative talk shows scares me.

Quote:

---

Interesting fact: The French in the mid 80's gave Iraq the technology to use and produce plutonium. If the Israelis would not have not taken it out think out what Saddam might have. It seems in this new century everyone is joining the nuclear age. On the news two days ago Iran announced they are well on there way to producing there first nuclear weapon. So how can you say Saddam is no threat to us? When clearly nuclear weapons are becoming more common. [/B]

---

The fact that India and Pakistan are nuclear armed scares me also! One thing is clear, however, that to control the proliferation of nuclear powers the U.S. CANNOT go it alone. To be effective it will have to work with Europe, Russia, and China. As "traditional" nuclear powerhouses we all share the interest of capping nuclear power. Like it or not we must work with these other countries or watch smaller nations play us against each other.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jojo1
Anyway he gases his own people. You said that he would not use chemical weapons on the United States...Well have you ever heard of Gulf War Syndrome? I know a few vets who came back from Iraq who have trouble moving there hands now. Also the so called BOMB i am talking about is not just one silly bomb that can blow up a building. Imagine a terrorist hijacking a plane and detonating a chemical weapon 20,000ft above Washington D.C. To me that is pretty crippling. Also you are talking about Saddam like hes a normal person. He is a maniac and now he knows the US is not going to let him slide. He may do some terrible act out of desperation. I am really not trying to argue with you. I just think this country has become far to liberal and far to politically correct. Our own freedoms will and up being our demise.
Interesting fact: The French in the mid 80's gave Iraq the technology to use and produce plutonium. If the Israelis would not have not taken it out think out what Saddam might have.

---

Just a few points..I know this has been gone over before...

Yes he gassed Kurds. But we supported him knowing full well that he was gassing Kurds. And dont forget our ally Turkey has killed its share of Kurds. So in effect gassing of Kurds is AOK with us.:rolleyes: As CollegeBoy has pointed out in the past, the Kurds are considered terrorists in that area.

Yes France built him a nuclear reactor. But didnt the CIA give him *anthrax*? Did we not give him billions in money/food/weapons? Why does France get all the blame for helping him?

As for Gulf War Syndrome. I totally believe there is Gulf War Syndrome. I knew someone who had problems after serving in the Gulf.
But last I checked the government still denies there is Gulf War Syndrome. Hows that for "Supporting Our Troops"?


JDub

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious


Just a few points..I know this has been gone over before...

Yes he gassed Kurds. But we supported him knowing full well that he was gassing Kurds. And dont forget our ally Turkey has killed its share of Kurds. So in effect gassing of Kurds is AOK with us.:rolleyes: As CollegeBoy has pointed out in the past, the Kurds are considered terrorists in that area.

Yes France built him a nuclear reactor. But didnt the CIA give him *anthrax*? Did we not give him billions in money/food/weapons? Why does France get all the blame for helping him?

As for Gulf War Syndrome. I totally believe there is Gulf War Syndrome. I knew someone who had problems after serving in the Gulf.
But last I checked the government still denies there is Gulf War Syndrome. Hows that for "Supporting Our Troops"?

JDub

---

On the gulf war syndrome thing note that this is not an attack against Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. Clinton was in office in the intervening years and did not suddenly reverse the official stance on Gulf War Syndrome. We tend to get into accusing each other of being conservative/liberal. However, I really don't fully trust either side. I certainly did not trust Clinton! His caring and concerned manner always seemed false to me and I voted for him! I suppose I find myself in agreement with Jack Dubious so much is because like him I'm very dubious!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aaron_mag
I will not try and quote 1stdeadeye and Shartely since many of their arguments are the same (as each others). I will not just restate my arguments. I am saying that the administration should have been more diplomatic in dealing with allies. If I just keep repeating my stance and never conceding any points then wouldn't I be the ultimate hypocrite?:)

You're not a hypocrite? :p


When I say diplomacy I would have liked to see the U.S. take the lead in coalition building. This would mean drawing up a plan that included France and Russia in the reconstruction of Iraq after the war. This would also mean that France and Russia would be responsible for contributing aid to Iraq for reconstruction. The long range plan, however, would be to let the people of Iraq take over after reconstruction was complete and not to make them subservient to the U.N. of course. I realize this is easier said then done.

I will also concede that a timeline for action would have to be drawn up. If the French, Germans, Russians, and China would not follow the timeline they agreed to then we would have go it alone. Of course France and Russia would then not be part of reconstruction. The core of my disagreement with most of you is that I don't believe the administration did enough to build a coalition about when to invade Iraq (including letting the opposing countries submit a timeline and reach some sort of accord). Many of you maintain that the opposed nations would never have come to a satisfactory compromise. Again I will concede that you may be right. Still I do not want my country to deal with other nations in a high handed forceful manner. That is not the country I am proud to be a part of.

---

Okay, when Colin Powell shared his overwhelming evidence last December, that still wasn't enough for France. What more could they want to see? If that did not convince them, what would? A terrorist strike on Paris?

You can't convince someone who is determined to disagree!