OT: Election 2004

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
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.

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.

---

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.

[Lord Chane]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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.

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.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by alarikf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Perrin:
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.

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...

---

Unfortunately, this makes more sense than anything else about the situation with Iraq. 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.

[Atrocities]

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

[AMF]

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

thanks,

alarik

Originally posted by Atrocities:
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

[Lord Chane]

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

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.'

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?

[Lord Chane]

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

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.