[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Phoenix-D]

"I am not sure what the mystery is it's not about 9/11 - if it were W would attempt to solve the Israel/Palestinian issue (for instance) because that conflict is the main recruiting tool for terrorist. It's not about WMD because there are more dangerous countries that have these and we aren't doing anything about it."

Suggest you read the post I was replying to. It very clearly said that Bush allowed 9/11 so he would later have an excuse to invade Iraq.

Phoenix-D

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinapus:
So the "serious consequences" mentioned in the UN Security Council resolution was really referring to more harsh language? Perhaps we could get the French to taunt them?

(Not to mention that dismantling their WMD program was part of the terms of the cease fire Iraq agreed to. They have been in violation of that cease fire for 12 years now.)

snip Last bit since it wasn't worth addressing

If Iraq has had wmds for twelve years and it is intent on using them or giving them to a terrorist organization why haven't they been used yet? What would you suggest they are waiting for?

---

I said WMD program, which means manufacturing, R&D, in addition to actual stockpiles. As to why they haven't used what they do have, who knows.

No one has made a case how things will be better after the war.

Judging from your little attempt at "muck raking" that isn't be much of a surprise.

My perception is that the world will be more dangerous for American with all these pissed off muslims floating around.

Like they were supposed to do when we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan? "The Arab Street", and such?

[Thermodyne]

Peace lovers my ***! Where is this peace that you are talking about? What little peace there is in the world has been partly paid for with american blood. And if you think that there is peace in the middle east, then you are a fool.

Last night Saddam said that he would die before he gave up power, so be it! This guy is evil. He is right up there with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Who amoung you is willing to vouch for him? Who is willing to say that he should be left in power? I'm not. There is a large comunity of exiled Iraqi [sp] people here, and while they disagree on a lot of things, the one thing that they agree on is this; no one in Iraq can even speek against Saddam and avoid jail or death. He is not the chosen leader of Iraq, his people fear him. His own kin fear him.

It should also be noted that America does not use much oil from Iraq. Of late there has been a lot comming in because of disruptions in our regular supplies, but we can do without it. Perhaps we should just take out the oil fields and let Saddam live off of Iraq's remaining exports.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... Perhaps we should just take out the oil fields and let Saddam live off of Iraq's remaining exports.

Now you start talking some sense! Isn't it exactly what will happen next month ?

[SamuraiProgrammer]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QB]OK, samurai, I'm sorry I blew up in response to your statement (which could have been worded better, as you point out.)

No need to apologize, friend. (I hope I can call you that.) I was sincere when I said you had found a flaw in my thoughts.

My main source of frustration is directed at people who are happy to take our financial aid (there are precious few countries in the world that do not receive it in some fashion) but are unwilling to accept that maybe we know something about how things ought to be done.

If they don't want us exposing the world to our ideology of civil freedom or if they do not approve of our ideology, they should refuse to accept any aid we provide. Anything else is hypocritical.

The question as to whether Saddam is responsible for 9/11 is certainly slippery. I would say, that the world community's inability to make him 'play nice' has emboldened the likes of Osama Bin Laden to accomplish the tragic events of 9/11. If anyone disagrees with that, fine. I, however, believe it.

The security of the US (as well as the rest of 'Western Civilization') may well depend on our ability to make an example out of the 'thugs' of the world. Iraq, the PLO, and N. Korea are probably the top three candidates.

I still remember how that scant hours before the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, the Iranians released the hostages. (That is likely ancient history to many of you, but it is certainly pertinent.) Why? Because they were afraid we would kick their sorry butts.

If the people funding Osama Bin Laden were afraid we would kick their sorry butts, his funding would dry up. Not completely, but at least partially.

This entire excercise is not so much about actually kicking butt, but rather making sure the enemy believes we will. (Incidentally, that is the core of the doctrine that makes nuclear weapons useful as deterrent.)

This time, I am afraid, we will have to actually do it to prove we have the resolve.

[Instar]

"Al Qaeda is nothing more than the front of the anti American coalition."
That has yet to be proven in any intel circles. By faceless I thought you meant invisible or something.

"Wrong. That's B/S for public consuntion. There are many ways to make that signature vague enogh to be untraceble. There were Soviet plants build for only this porpouse. Besides, if the nuke was stolen from a Russian depot you will never be able to track the user."
Well, the signature of the fissionable material is identifiable, and altering it may or may not be feasible. You can't flat out say that its wrong without stronger evidence. I am no nuclear engineer, but I don't see how your argument holds up.

"I still remember how that scant hours before the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, the Iranians released the hostages. (That is likely ancient history to many of you, but it is certainly pertinent.) Why? Because they were afraid we would kick their sorry butts."
The way I read history as is that it was more of an Anti-Carter move by the revolutionaries. Carter did try a military solution which failed. I doubt the instant Reagan was in power he would be able to change the fact that US forces couldn't rescue those people.

[ February 27, 2003, 04:22: Message edited by: Instar ]

[Andrés]

Samurai, so you're saying I'm the one who should mind my own damn business.
That financial aid is payback of the money you're taking from us.

And of course that your ideology of civil freedom is ok, (BTW that's not something exclusive of the US as you're implying) but your ideology of maintaining your illusion of safety by fear is not.

Of course US government has the right and the duty to ensure its people safety.
They should concentrate in preventing terrorist attacks, and in bringing those responsible to justice, not bombing innocents.
But again, the US is not the police of the world.
Fear of a US retaliation is not what maintains "peace" in the world.

The fact that the US is passing through an economic golden era does not mean they are morally superior to others.

I think that the chose of target in 9-11 was clear enough. It was not the military, not the government, not the innocent civilians (just a little collateral damage), the WTC was canter and symbol of the large neo-imperialistic corporations.
That's what they consider their enemy is, what they see as imperialistic companies ravaging their people and the country that supports them.

Imperialism means your colonies fund you, not the other way!

This is not even a question if your feeling of safety is worth the weight of lives of millions of lives in your consciousness.
Even if everything is this war goes nicely, you manage to kill Saddam, innocent Iraquis casualties are as little as possible, and you help install a new government.
What then?
Will the world be a safer place? Will the US be any safer? Will there be fewer terrorists willing to attack the US?

Oh and I've noticed my ranking has dropped, all I have to say about that is that I couldn't care less.

[SamuraiProgrammer]

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Samurai, so you're saying I'm the one who should mind my own damn business.

What I really want is for you to realize that this country must find a way to make sure that 9/11 does not happen again.

I personally feel that we are less likely to have such an attack if we dethrone Saddam Hussein that if we don't.

That financial aid is payback of the money you're taking from us.

Taking from you? How? I am not aware of my country stealing from you.

If you don't like the terms of trade, then by all means trade with someone else. We like the free world economic model.

And of course that your ideology of civil freedom is ok, (BTW that's not something exclusive of the US as you're implying)

I wasn't aware I implied exclusivity. I certainly didn't mean to. I did mean to imply leadership.

but your ideology of maintaining your illusion of safety by fear is not.

You are entitled to your opinion. Whether we like it or not (I don't BTW), might makes right by virtue of the mighty being the only ones left after the defacatory material hits the oscillatory object.

Of course US government has the right and the duty to ensure its people safety.

Unfortunately, much of the world seems to think that is not so.

They should concentrate in preventing terrorist attacks, and in bringing those responsible to justice, not bombing innocents.
But again, the US is not the police of the world.

Ask the conquered and then liberated portions of Europe and Asia about WWI, WWII, and the Korean Conflict. At the time, they might have disagreed.

Someone has to do it. If we didn't, I suspect another set of people would likely be complaining that with all of our resources, we should do something.

Fear of a US retaliation is not what maintains "peace" in the world.

Fear of US or Soviet retailiation kept the peace in Europe for about 40 years. As soon as the Berlin Wall came down (signifying the beginning of the end of cold war tensions) the same old factions that had been fighting for hundreds of years started all over again. A prime example of this would be what used to be known as Yugoslavia. Oh, by the way, put down the war crime victims of that time period in your list to ask about who is the police force.

The fact that the US is passing through an economic golden era does not mean they are morally superior to others.

No, I would say any moral superiority (if we have it) comes from the willingness to spend our resources in improving the standard of living of people around the world who hate us. I defy you to find another culture in history that did this much for this many without occupying first.

I think that the chose of target in 9-11 was clear enough. It was not the military, not the government, not the innocent civilians (just a little collateral damage),

A little collateral damage? My response would get me Banned from this newsgroup. I encourage anyone who is offended by this statement to voice that offense.

the WTC was canter and symbol of the large neo-imperialistic corporations.

Please note that the corporate structure of this country is what fuels the economy that provides the foreign aid. More on this in a moment.

That's what they consider their enemy is, what they see as imperialistic companies ravaging their people and the country that supports them.

Actually, I think you are on to something here. The foreign aid encourages people around the world to appreciate the USA and, to some extent, our values. THIS is what really bothers some of these people. They know that if the concept of educating the masses ever gets to their turf, they will likely lose their power base. THAT is why the leadership hates us.

This is not even a question if your feeling of safety is worth the weight of lives of millions of lives in your consciousness.

I sincerely do not believe that millions of lives are at stake at this time. If we let this go on, someday it could come to that. If we end it now, nowhere near that many people are likely to be affected.

Think of this a pulling a thorn. We have already waited 12 years too long and it is now infected. If wait much longer, we may lose the limb.

I say pull it now while we still can (if it is not already too late).

Even if everything is this war goes nicely, you manage to kill Saddam, innocent Iraquis casualties are as little as possible, and you help install a new government.
What then?
Will the world be a safer place?

It will be for the Kurds. Oh by the way, add them to your list about who is the police. Ask them how many would have died in the Last 12 years had it not been for the forces we have kept in the area. They were the targets of chemical warfare before. Maybe you will accept their opinion.

Will the US be any safer? Will there be fewer terrorists willing to attack the US?

I honestly think so. Bullies never seem to attack the strong, only the weak. I think that the weakness shown by our government in the 8 years prior to 9/11 is part of the problem.

Our government uncovered evidence showing there had been a failed assasination attempt on the president by the IRAQI GOVERNMENT. Not some rogue band of terrorists --- THE GOVERNMENT.

Our response was one missile. One.

Weak.

And as for your rating.. I have not voted your rank down. You earned your rating for activities pertinent to Space Empires. I think your shipsets are exceptionally fine. You have great talent in that area.

I disagree with your politics. I think you have said some things for effect that you really don't mean (like collateral damage). I hope that I can give you food for thought that might sway your opinion. (As you are trying to sway mine.)

I have no idea how old you are, but I suspect that in 10 or 20 years, you will feel much different than you do today. Unfortunately, idealism is usually a casualty of experience. (It is not as bad as it sounds... Realism is more reliable.)

If I have said anything that angers you, I apologize. It is not my intent.

Sincerely

[ February 27, 2003, 06:21: Message edited by: SamuraiProgrammer ]

[SamuraiProgrammer]

Originally posted by Instar:

The way I read history as is that it was more of an Anti-Carter move by the revolutionaries. Carter did try a military solution which failed. I doubt the instant Reagan was in power he would be able to change the fact that US forces couldn't rescue those people.

If I have misunderstood your statement, I apologize.

With all respect, I didn't read it. I lived it. I was a young adult at the time.

I felt that Reagan won a landslide victory in part because the public was tired of how Carter's foreign policy was making us a laughing stock.

I feel the truth is closer to 'the Iranians were not sure just how far Reagan would go.'

Carter's military solution was an attempt to rescue the hostages. At no time did we deploy a force to punish the government for allowing it to happen. I always heard (from military sources that may or may not be reliable) that the failure of the rescue mission can be pinned sqarely on Carter. I was told that he personally insisted that no one but the rescue team know what their mission was until the left the carrier. Because of this the flight crew did not know to install sand filters on the engine intakes. When the choppers got over the desert, the engines ate themselves.

For the record, I supported Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election. I think he has been the best ex-president we have ever had.

I still disagree with his foreign policy.

Sincerely

[dogscoff]

Without getting too deep into the subject, I'd just like to point out the situation in Israel is a LOT more complex than "Isreal=good, palestinians=evil" as implied by some recent Posts.