OT: Election 2004

[AMF]

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...

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
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

[primitive]

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

[AMF]

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.

[tesco samoa]

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?

[AMF]

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...

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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?

[AMF]

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.

Originally posted by primitive:
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

[rextorres]

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.