Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not a military leader but a leader who has been in the military. Those who haven't are less likely to understand the horrors of war and therefore a bit more likely, in my opnion, to get involved in one. Civilians do run the country. It's impossible to be in the military and in elected office at the same time.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is the easiest one to answer. Thought experiment: you're an evil dictator. You rule your people through fear, and you intimidate your enemies abroad through you military might. The US and the UN treat you gingerly, and continually demands you get rid of your WMDs "or else." Why would you do so? What is the motivation? No one, not anyone, belevies you when you tell the US you don't have them. And it is in your local and geopolitical interest to keep everyone thinking you do have them. So you play a standard game of brinksmanship with the US: telling them you don;t have WMDs while not correcting anyone who thinks you do. That way you keep your populace in check (those kurds don't wanna get gassed again!) and keeping your enemies at bay (Iran, Israel, etc...).
Unfortunately, in this case, the US called your bluff and, oops, you didn;t have them all along. QED.

It's the EXACT same reason the Israelis' let it "slip out" twenty years ago that they had a nuclear stockpile. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it sure as heck helps them if everyone THINKS they do...

Old adage in politics and war goes something like: "a secret weapon is no use if it's secret" - ie: deterring your enemies can;t be done if your hole card is secret....

So, no, Dorothy, there are no WMDs in Iraq, and after the sanctions there never were. But it sure as heck was in Saddam's interest to walk that fine line whereas everyone thought he had them... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Unfortunately, this makes more sense than anything else about the situation with Iraq. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif It was very much in his interest to somehow 'leave the possibility open' that he still had these weapons, for both domestic and foreign reasons. What he didn't count on was that the administration of George II would be as ruthless as he himself was and completely disregard international law to take him out over this bluff.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I really have enjoyed reading all of the Posts in this thread. You guys are very insightful.

Just as a precaution though, would everyone please keep an open mind regarding this dicussion and please keep your Posts civil and profession.

Thanks

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I think we have, no? I apologize beforehand (er..."afterhand") if I have insulted anyone or been uncivil.

thanks,

alarik

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree that good men shouldn't stand by and let evil prevail. But who gets to decide what's evil? When individuals or countries act in such a unilateral fashion and set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner then they've become vigilantes. Vigilantes scare the heck out of most folks because there's no telling when they'll turn on you. If I applied the same concepts in my personal life, I'd be in prison for murder. Yeah, the people who live across the street are evil and I should be able to launch a preemptive attack on them, but the law says that I can't do that and if I do, then I'm likely going to find myself in a bit of trouble. I'm all in favor of taking action, but I'm far from certain that the Bush administration's actions were the ones we needed to take. And no, I don't know for sure what the correct action should have been. But it's plain enough to me that attacking Iraq has created two problems. One, we've played into the terrorists hands and probably helped their recruiting effort immeasureably. Two, American soldiers are going to be dying in Iraq for years to come. There's no way we're going to be out of there anytime soon. I'd urge you to stop for a moment each time you read about the death of another soldier and ask if what the war in Iraq has accomplished was worth that person's life?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, but there's a huge difference between the present situation and the situation in Europe after WW-I that lead to Hitler's coming to power. The Allies then had the power of law on their side in the form of the Treaty of Versaille (sp?). The treaty placed limits on what Germany could do. When Hitler violated the treaty the Allies had a legitimate right to put a stop to what he was doing. Whatever treaty, accord, or agreement that ended the first Gulf war was between the UN and Iraq, not the US and Iraq. If the UN had decided to invade Iraq as a result of Saddam's non-compliance, then that would have been fine. But the US did it mostly on its own and with what certainly appears to be trumped up reasons. At the very least it smacks of having a seperate agenda.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">" ... an terrible dictator." Let's not forget recent history. It's not that long ago that the US was enthusiastically supporting that very same "terrible dictator". So long as he was serving our purpose and slaughtering Iranians, we had no problem with him. I think there's another famous quote that spells the situation out pretty well, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And don't think for a moment that Saddam turned evil overnight. We supported him while he was busy oppressing his own people, murdering Kurds in droves, and using those WMDs (poison gas), that we got so concerned about later, on Iranian troops and civilians. It was only after the Iraq/Iran war ended and Saddam turned his attentions elsewhere that we became concerned about him. He'd used up his usefulness much the same as had Noriega and a host of other evil dictators who we supported because it was convenient to do so at the time. Our hands are just as dirty as Saddam's because we not only allowed him to do those things but actively supported him while he did them. Shame on us.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes I do believe that there is a link however I do not draw the line with Al Qaeda. I believe that there is a link between Saddam and Terror world wide.

We already know that Saddam was paying the families of Suicide bombers in Israel. Therefore if he supports those terrorist then why would he not support others? There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. These are places that Al Qaeda could train. Why would Saddam who hates the US not support others who were fighting against us? Even if it was only with money and weapons.

Did you know that members of the IRA have trained in camps in the Middle East? I do not see terrorist Groups as individual Groups anymore. I see them all as a plague upon all of Humanity.

And although there has been no direct link found yet between Saddam and Al Qaeda the fact that he refused to comply with the UN resolutions makes me very suspicious.

I will now ask the question that others who are on the other side have asked? Where are the WMD's?! The world knows that he had them. That is why the UN resolutions existed. He agreed to destroy them. But to this day know one know what has happened to them. If it was me and I was complying with the agreement to destroy something I would open my doors and invite all to see that I was getting rid of them. (Bonfire party at my place) If Saddam had done that he would still be in power today. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perrin,

You got to distinguish between local and international terrorism.

- Local terroirsm you can find many places. This ranges from the single nutcases (Unabomber, Oklahoma) to full out civil war (Colombia, Sri Lanka, Tetchenia (sp)). The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is by nature a local conflict. Sure, Saddam supported some of the Palestinian families, but so did/does almost every other Arabic leader in the region. Bad, but it's still a local conflict.

- Al Qaeda on the other hand is international terrorism. This is something new and completely different. Before 9/11 Al Qaeda was (according to public data) a small organisation and while capable of pulling of an exceptional attack, they never had the strenght to pull off wast numbers of attacks. Madrid was 2.5 years after 9/11 and also earlier there has been more than a year between their operations. The very fact they need to train (and brainwash) their grunts extensively to make them ready will always keep the number of attacks down.

The campaign by Bush to spread fear in the US population after 9/11 was quite astonishing to watch from the outside. There are (again from public sources) sill no indications that the Al Qaeda ever had plans for follow up attacs nor that they had the capability to launch lunch them. I'm sad to see the Bush fear propaganda is still working, and that the deliberate mixups with Saddam and local Palestinian terrorism continious.

I am not against taking the war to Al Quada. Safe heavens for this kind of scum should not be available anywhere. Given bases they have the opportunity to grow, forced underground they would/will eventually crumble away to nothing. This is why International law is so important, and unilateral actions only will be counterproductive. The invation in Afganisthan was a good move, and if the promises to the Afgan people had been kept it might actually have been of help in the long run. The invation of Iraq was a stupid move (for the war agains Al Qaeda) for at least 3 reasons.
- It gave Al Qaeda a new theatre of operations, with plenty of new fundings, recruits and training opportunities.
- It emasculated UN, who was the only organisation who would have had the chance to coordinate/enforce police style operations in rouge contries (without going to full on war)
- Using CIA to come of with lame excuses for the war destreoyed all cred they have in the area. Any claim the US makes of the Al Qaeda operating in these same rouge contries can now easily be dismissed.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If Saddam and AQ were so close and Saddam was providing so much aid and support, then with Saddam and Iraq out of the picture we should see a definite decline in terrorist activity world wide, shouldn't we? Iraq has been toast for almost a year. Has the world wide terrorist activity declined any?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Wow this has definitely all been very interesting to read. However, I would offer one suggestion: Please take the time to consider your Posts and how they will be recieved before you post them. Mostly, for 2 reasons.

1. It would make it a lot easier for me to keep up on this thread!

2. I've read a few Posts that, to me, seemed to step over the line of courtesy and civilized discussion. Maybe more time to think about your responses would help to calm some of the emotions flying around here.