OT: Election 2004

[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.

[Combat Wombat]

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.

[dogscoff]

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:

don't preach about manifest destiny unless you are prepared to discuss ... England with its crusades and colonization of India and other places

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..?

[Combat Wombat]

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.

[AMF]

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

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
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.

[AMF]

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...

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
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.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

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.