Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Well you got me there... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

OK how about in modern times then? Although I thought that the Philippines had their own government.

Edit: There is also this:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Some Americans think that the UN/World Council is trying to do the exact same thing. Intellectually what is the difference? I see none.

[ March 25, 2004, 17:25: Message edited by: Perrin ]

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not to mention biting off about half of Mexico in 1848-50. Everything south of roughly Colorado, from Texas to California. Let's see, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, most of Utah, and California. A very big chunk of land taken by conquest.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

perrin these thoughts and feelings about america are quite common though out the world. I think it is an important issue that one in your country should ponder before they vote for a or b. As it is an important issue.

And no one is out to get your freedoms...

Its about the money. Either you control it or some one else does. Some call this self rule or self government. And until the middle east is controled by the middle east the attacks though out the world will continue.


P.S. I disagree on the concept of a military leader is a better leader. I think that civilians should run the country... To keep an eye on the military.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That land wasn't exactly taken at the demand of the US goverment, mexico let US citizens settle in their territory then the settlers decided they didn't lke being part of mexico so they revolted and broke away, Texas was even its own country for awhile before they applied to join the Union.

The Phllipines have their own goverment now, the downfall of Hawaiis native goverment was far from the fault of the US goverment it was mostly rich business men who did this. I am not the slighest bit familar with what happened with Puerto Rico.

The US trying to create a "New World Order", that is almost laughable take a look at the UN now there is an attempt for a new world order.
Also the UN in their great wisdom are trying to regulate and control the internet.

Europeans please don't preach about manifest destiny unless you are prepared to discuss, Germany and its world wars, England with its crusades and colonization of India and other places, Spain with the Inqusistion, and destruction of a large part of South Americas native population and culture in its crazed quest for gold, Frances constant wars with England, and Napolean trying to take over europe, a very violent Revolutionary war(though done for the right reasons was incredibly violent)

And about Iraq and the whole war on terrorism I will offer this.
Someone said once, something like, "Evil prevails when good men do nothing." In this day of relative good and evil, pacifism is the 'way that seemeth right.'


Very good points Perrin now I don't have to make them

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

There are many differences between a "world order" of the US's doing and a world order of the UN's doing. There are a lot, but the most fundamental one is that rule by the UN is, by it's nature, more democratic becuase it involves input from the ruled. No matter HOW benevolent another power, would you want to live in a world that was effectively ruled by it if you weren't a citizen of it?

There is (was) a strong argument that the dominance of America as a unipole in the post-WWII order was due to the fact that they benevolently and presciently limited their own power by devolving it partly upon others. ie: America limited its own power (via the UN, various multilateral agreements, international laws, etc...and agreeing and acting as if if too was bound by them). In this way, a sort of "constitutional" arrangement was set up that gave the "ruled" a voice and even, in some cases, a veto over actions that affected them. See "After Victory" by John Ikenberry for a good enunciation of this argument.

I say this argument WAS effective and rang true but it does no longer.

I fault the Bush administration for a whole lot of things. (and I have street cred for doing so, but that we can get into later)...but one of the MOST damning things he has done is, in the course of two short years, overturned and effectively destroyed the entire post-war system of alliances and constitutional/law-like rule. By "going it alone" and excersing raw power (rather than simply convincing others of the rightness of a given action) he is returning us to a Hobbessian world of all against all.

And the conservatives NEVER get this. They rail against the UN and international law, spotuing off that "why should we be bound by some intangible thing like international law when it doesn't suit OUR interests?" Well, that's just about as stupid as I can imagine. International Laws, international agreements, coaltions built on convincing arguments rather than bribes or arm-twisting serve VERY important functions that, in the end, benefit EVERYONE. There is a very good reason the US has, up until now, abided by internaitonal laws AND, beleive it or not, been a strong proponent of many of them: becuase it helps us and everyone else. It's not a zero-sum game when it comes to things like that. By increasing transparency, reducing uncertainty, lowering transaction costs, and doing a whole host of other stuff, we and everyone else benefits.

The alternative, where we "go it alone" and say "the UN be damned" is a world of all against all. And in that world, inevitably, danger increases and, eventually, there will arise a balancing against the unipolar power.

WE live in a much more dangerous world today than we did three years ago. NOT becuase of Al Qaeda (hell, we've had terrorists for thousands of years) but becuase Bush is destroying the international system that the US built up since the second world war and which was perhaps the only example of it's kind in world history: we HAD a world in which there was a unipolar power but one which limited its own power to extend peace and prosperity across the world.

Now, we just care about ourselves.

I've gone on long enough. I try to make it a point to stay out of political discussions on game forums, but sometimes people just need to be educated. Sorry if I have offended, it was not my intention in any way. I am just passionate.

thanks,

Alarik


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Some Americans think that the UN/World Council is trying to do the exact same thing. Intellectually what is the difference? I see none. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

The Bush administration isn't sitting on its as watching evil spread. They realize its not the most popular posistion but it doesn't matter because it needs to be done whether the rest of the world realizes it yet or not. If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.

Heres another quote(its probly not exact):T
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Very good point. Try to remember it next time you defend the current US politics with:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Also, these are issues of the past and there is no one defending them. But you are defending what your country is doing currently, even if you recognize that it can be brought in line with these events?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I don' think you were responding to my (too long) post below yours, for I don't think I ever stated that "sitting on one's ***" was related to the discussion about world orders. But I'll repsond anyways, since I am avoiding work.

I don't think anyone has advocated that the US just "sit on it's ***" and, if you are suggesting that the former administrations did that, you are either being intellecutally dishonest, egnaging in pure rhetoric, or exhibiting willful ignorance. (remember missile strikes into the heart of afghanistan in 92 (IIRC) to get Bin Laden? Remember all the times we dropped bombs on Iraq during the sanctions?)

Fact of the matter is, to eradicate any internationally-organized terrorist organization, you have to work with *other nations.* Getting rid of terorrists is not just a matter of dropping bombs on them. Where are they? Who are they? What resources/plans/ideas/bases do they possess?

To answer questions such as that and to address these with solutions, you have to work with other nations. So, when the US does things unilaterally, -- like it pretty much has since Bush came into office and which is entirely in keeping with what the NeoCons *always* said they would do --- it is counter productive. So we have to resort to bribes or coercion to get people to help us. And that works reallll well. Remember the 4th Infantry Division? How we bribed the Turkish government to let them in to open up a northern front? Well, funny thing, we twisted the Turkish arms behind their backs...and their people (through their reps in parliament) voted it down. And the war plans got screwed up. It was a real pain in the a** for the planners and operators in Iraq, I can tell you that...


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

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I get a bit scared when I read some of these Posts. There seems to be some very strong opinions regarding how to fight the "war on terrorism" based on some very loose asumptions.

I would like to ask a question to among others; Perrin and the Wombat.

- Do you (still) belive that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that by invading Iraq, the US could therefore hurt Al Qaeda in some way ?

If so, your Posts make perfect sense to me and I would be happy to discuss the facts. If not, please explain to me how the invation could be seen as a part of the "war on terrorism". I'm at a loss here
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

And, well, debate by sound bites ("those who ignore history...") is not really useful. I can just as easily say "History never repeats itself" and we have advanced the discussion no further.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.


Interesting post. Who is the little guy and who is the bully?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

That's exactly the question.

The problem with resorting to aphorisms and sound bites is that one can appeal to the "right" emotions without actually presenting any cogent arguments.

So...who is the bully and who is the little guy? and in any given situation, who defines them? And what if the actor who defines the bully is the one who benefits from that defintion? ad nauseum...


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

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

And, it has been definitively shown not only that there was NO known link between AQ and Saddam (in fact, they hated/feared each other even after 9/11), but also that we knew there was no link, and, it seems pretty obvious (unless there has been willful ignorance in play) that the administration lied/misled the US and world publics about all this.


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

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Nazi Germany is a good example of what happens when a country's leaders lie to start wars for political purposes and the citizens do nothing or go along. I think that's the real historical lesson in this particular case.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

So may I ask why is spain up in arms because they got attack by AQ because they are helping in Iraq, if Sadam and AQ hated eachother so much why are they attacking countries that helped bring down their supposed enemy.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Once again, much of what I wanted to say has been said much more eloquently than I ever could, but I want to answer this:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'd be happy to discuss it. In fact I'll just tell you what I have to say right now:
We (Britain) were imperialistic. We were rich, we had a powerful military, but we needed more resources. We looked beyond our borders and saw resource-rich continents full of unarmed, unchristian heathens with dark skin and funny customs. In our arrogance we considered ourselves the most 'advanced', most 'civilised' people , of the time. We conquered and colonised at least half the world and we were evil, violent, vicious bastards about it, thinking we had some kind of permission slip from God to do whatever the hell we liked.

So we had our empire for a while, and then we lost it. For a long, long time afterwards, pretty much everyone hated us, and who could blame them? Many of those nations are still completely fkd up as an indirect result of now our wholesale rape, plunder and manipulation of their resources, cultures and people all that time ago. Many of those nations still hate us, but at least we have learned our lesson. Or at least I thought we had. We (The British) are a humbler people now than we were a hundred years ago- though still not humble enough IMO- and we would like the US to learn from our mistakes and stop now- for their own sake and for everyone else's.

Someone said something about history repeating itself..?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

One difference is the US and the coalition did not go to Iraq to conquer it, plunder or rape it. We went to liberate it from an terrible dictator. I will not deny that part of why we went to Iraq was because of the oil, but this is a viable reason. We cannot give an unstable middle east the opertunity to hold the world hostage by threating to cut the oil supply. This is another reason we should begin to drill in Alaska and get working on those hydrogen cars. You cannot say the world is not a better place because of what has been done in Iraq.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Well, ok, that's a logical next question (but I think it has some pretty clear answers).

First, why is Spain up in arms? That's easy: hundreds of innocent Spaniards were just murdered in cold blood by terrorists. Who wouldn;t be outraged?

I think what you're asking is "why would AQ attack Spain becuase they are in Iraq, given that AQ hated Saddam."

A well known motivation for Terrorists are highly visible attacks that help them show their strength, display their cause, aid recruitment, and demonstrate their terror-inducing capabilities. They also have a propensity to use assymmetric means to attack targets that they can get at (you don't see terrorists rushing military bases, but instead they'll walk into ungaurded schools and shoot kids, or blow up trains, etc...)

So, after Saddam fell, you could surmies that Iraq became a "playground" for AQ where they could both recruit at will, shoot at US targets (soldiersand marines! the best targets from an AQ recruitment POV!) and have access to lots of disgruntled, well armed, and jobless muslim youth.

So, why would they attack Spain then? Spain is in Iraq. The presence of any western troops in Iraq is both a rallying cry (the west is crusading/colonizing the Dar Al Islam! throw them off!) and makes the AQ job of recruitment in Iraq that much harder.

If they can push "allied" troops out of Iraq, then they can destabilize the country, recruit much more, and perhaps turn it into a fundamentalist revolution exporting theocracy like Afghanistan was.

And, remember, Terrorists generally strike at 'soft" targets that make a very public and ideally symbolic bloodbath. The spaniard strike did just that and at a very symbolic time (right before the elections, exactly 911 days after 911 IIRC), and showed the Muslim world that AQ is a force to be reckoned with, they can strike the West at will, and they are helping to drive the west out of the Muslim world.

QED


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

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I think the jury is out on whether the world is safer because of OIF, but it is unarguably true that Saddam was evil, it is a very good thing that we have him, and ditto for when we get Osama.

Problem being not only the issues that I laid out in my Last post, but that we have totally lost any moral superiority or claim to legitimacy becuase we LIED about the reason we went to war.

The actual war I was always of two minds on it, it was both a good and bad goal, but I am unequivocally of the opinion that the WAY in which we did it was extremely damaging to our credibility, the war on terror, and the post-cold-war order.

Becuase we LIED to INVADE another country, we violated most any precepts about international law and soveriegnty that we ourselves have protected for umpteen years, and hence everyone in the world can't help but think: OK, now the US is not someone we can rely upon to do anything but what is in their interest. And since they are so powerful, we can't stop them unless we oppose them. Eventually, a counter-balancing coalition may arise becuase of this. Poof, right back to Great Power politics, and a much more dangerous world...


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

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Naw, we won't learn from your mistakes. We're the inheritors of your empire unfortunantly. Whatever lessons are gonna be learned will be learned the hard way while lining the pockets of Busch's friends and Halliburton Inc.
However before you think I'm a total cynic I would like to say that Iam glad for the overthrow of the Iraqi regime. The Husseins would have been in power for many more generations and would have probably been worst than they were. I think their is no nobler cause than removing dictators from power. Baby Doc, Milosovic, Hussein & Sons, The U.N. doesn't have the guts to do it. The only country I trust is the Swiss, and they don't have aircraft carriers. So it's America and friends to the rescue once again. Unfortunantly we were lied to and that is insulting to me and dishonest to our friends. I would have respected someone saying "Let's get Hussein because he is setting up a dynasty that represses democracy and threatens his neighbors" Even then I think N. Korea should have been first anyway. Who's next on the deposed world leaders?....BUSH?
I'm kind of a militant moderate, just so you know.

I think we need U.N. Elections monitors in Florida.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm sorry but I have this pet peeve about when people state things as fact when they have no actual evidence to back up their claims. There is no proof that anything has happened with Halliburton besides the fact that they over charged the US and got caught nothing showing the President had anything to do with it, if there was Kerry and the Democratic Party would be all over it. Lets stay away from conspiracy theory.
And why because Bush and Cheny were CEOs of a large company automaticlly make them evil or automaticlly prove that there is anything like what you said is going on.

My hands are starting to make loud cracks when I move them so I am going to try to cut down on large Posts.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

And their never will be any evidence of collusion with Halliburton. As long as those with the gold make the rules and refuse to testify or release documents. I'm sick and pissed at the status quo and am I paranoid? Yes, and most my fears are coming true. I use to vote Republican but since the Fat Cats and Bible Thumpers have taken over the party my politics have gone just a little left. If only I could genetically combine McCain with Dean everything would be peachy.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

If this is as deep and awful as you say it is, how did the information about them over charging get out in the first place?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

actually i think the fat cats are leaving the republican party for a while. Now its time for the other side for a few years.... The current party did what it thought was in the best interests of the country. This at this moment these decisions has been prooven to be a failure. I think that they should pay for their mistakes by being voted out.

If your a true republican. You should work to get your party back. And make sure that the 2012 Version is not another repeat of the 80's one and the current one.

If your a democrate. Look at the politicians. and look at who supports them via money and how they vote. And work to get rid of the right wing democrates.

America needs to get away from being a right wing country and it needs to seperate church from state. To me this is the reason why the west has advanced so much over the Last few hundred years.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

How do you feel the government is not seperated from the church?

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

[ March 25, 2004, 23:14: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I think it started under Reagan (who I voted for). Secretary of the Interior James Watt actually thought Jesus was coming soon so there fore eviromental protection wasn't really needed.

I have also heard that there are those in both the Israeli Government and the U.S. Government who think that Israel needs to carry out it's part in the end times and destroy the Mosque at The Dome of The Rock and rebuild The Temple of Solomon there. The Red Heffer is already alive and on a farm ready for it's part. Yeah, sorry no proof there though about WHO in wich government it is but you just have to trust that there are people thinking it. Hurry jesus hurry!

I work with one of those jittery end times, Art Bell listening, food hoarding, gun shinning types. He make us nervous with his talk of Chemtrails, Alien Strap on canisters (don't ask) and
Aztec Calendar stuff. There has just gotta be somemore of those types in government.

Alien Strap on Canisters = New Phong sex weapon?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Did 'we'? I was told it was to capture Osama Bin Laden... for a while. Then when it became clear no one was believing that lie I was told it was to get rid of the WMDs... for a while.Then when it became clear no one was believing that lie either I was finally told it was to get rid of Saddam.

This was a selfish, brutish and destructive war that has had many, many bad consequences because of the way it was fought. Getting rid of Saddam was just a happy side effect. A war to depose Saddam as its primary objective would have been waged differently, and would have had different results for the Iraqi ppl, and would have had my support.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I just did :-)


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well its links with the current US govenrment is matter of record, in terms of ex-employees, campaign contirbutions etc. On the other side, you have the fact that the contracts to rebuild Iraq were given to Halliburton (and a number of other, similarly aligned companies) after a closed bidding process.

I heard on the news today that unemplyment in Iraq is so bad that kidnapping is now one of the biggest industries. Why not give some of those rebuilding contracts to Iraqi firms? The did an impressive job of rebuilding after the first war, and that was with international sanctions in place.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Firstly I will defend the listeners of Art Bells show. Most listeners aren't crazy alien seeing nut jobs.

I agree with the fact that there have been a few people like James Watt and I think that opinion was misplaced and crazy, but that doesn't violate the seperation of church and state, a goverment offical can base his decisions on what he feels is morally right or wrong, now how long that offical stays in his current posistion after a comment like that is another story, but this in no way constitutes the goverment endorsing a specfic religion.

This is my opinon on what Watt said: if Jesus was coming I would want to clean the place up. You clean up your house when a guest comes over why wouldnt you do the same for Jesus?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Or if your in a hurry you could use the Ark of the Covenant. All that super suck Nazi face melting power will do wonders for my place, just don't look!

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.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">IIRC these were in the Kurdish- controlled part of Iraq...

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I think it is safe to say that the Iraq situation could be debated until the end of time. However what is done is done. Time to move forward and think about the future.

This war has both hurt and helped both canadates and I think it will be a minor point in the up coming election.

The big issues are going to be over the economy, and jobs not Iraq so much as in the past.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I personally have become disillusioned with the world recently. I used to think it was good versus evil. But lately I come to realise its realy everyone for themselves. We have countries going to war because of information which afterwards turn out to be false, or at least so far. We have the survivors of the holocaust , or Shoah, or endlosung, saying "never again" to their murder and persecution and crushing all opposition or assasinating enemy leaders. I'm not against this stuff, we need to stop those who threaten our dominant culture or the rights of the Jewish people to their homeland. It does show that things aren't black and white though. I just think its loyalty to your culture and the strongest will be the victor.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I became disillusion when I started reading philosophy back in 2000. It was then that I discovered that nothing matters for in a 100 years non of us, or what we have done, will matter. This is simply the way thing work and have always worked.

Our voices will fade into the dim recesses of history and only the actions of those we elect will be remembered.

So we must insure that those we elect to lead us lead us well.

I like GW and would like to see him re-elected, however I am upset over some of the choices he has made and lack of involvment in important issues like Enron, and the energy crisis scams. Telling us that Manufacturing jobs were on the rise when in fact it was BURGER FLIPPER jobs that was on the rise was to say the least insulting.

But given the choice between Kerry or Bush, I would have to go with Bush. Kerry is just not the right man for the job at this point in the game.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I think this is a good place to end this thread.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's the difference between the way the world works and the way it should work.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

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

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...

[ March 26, 2004, 01:30: Message edited by: alarikf ]

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That land wasn't exactly taken at the demand of the US goverment, mexico let US citizens settle in their territory then the settlers decided they didn't lke being part of mexico so they revolted and broke away, Texas was even its own country for awhile before they applied to join the Union.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh, the US citizens moved to a foreign country and then called for the US to come take it over instead of picking up guns and invading directly. This changes the injustice of taking half of Mexico in what way? Yes, Texas was technically 'independent' from Mexico but had not settled its borders when it decided to join the US. When annexing Texas, the US simply claimed all of the land that was in dispute as part of the US, touching off the war. There is no way around the fact that it was US aggression.

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.