An Interesting Perspective

[Menchise]

I agree that I get carried away with my arguments at times.

It's got nothing to do with hatred of anyone.

I am motivated (perhaps too much so) to tell one side of a story because so many are telling the other side as if it's the only one.

I clearly don't know the details of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and I concede that part of the argument, which was off-topic anyway. However, I still question America's role in supplying weapons.

Anyway, back to the debate.

quote:

---

They are worth considering and have been considered. And we have a right as a

free nation to deal with whom we please in a manner we see fit.

---

I don't see any evidence of any serious consideration.

quote:

---

And since when is American influence murdering millions of Arabs and how? Even

Isreal isn't doing that.

---

'Murdering' is not the exact definition of what American influence is doing. I was just illustrating a point of view with that word. A more accurate definition would be indirectly causing death on a large scale.

I only know of a couple of examples, and my details are not exact, but I'll put one on the table for examination.

First, there is the issue of economic sanctions against Iraq. This is obviously being done in an attempt to damage Saddam's ability to run the country. There are two problems with this measure:

1. It doesn't work. Despite years of poor conditions, Saddam is still in power.

2. The economic sanctions have crippled Iraq's economy, leaving most of the population in poverty. Hundreds of thousands are starving to death, hence the indirect causing of death.

quote:

---

Since when are we condemning the entire people?

---

I just gave you one example.

quote:

---

Small groups of people supported by GOVERNMENTS which are the overall, inherent

responsibility of ALL the people, many of whom OVERTLY support the activities of both the militants and the governments.

---

I disagree. Overall, the people do not support the activities of the terrorists. As for governments, I think there's a bit of generalization there.

[Guest]

OK, time for me to jump in here now.

First off, Israel is in danger from all her neighbors, WHY? because she is a western democracy in the middle of a whole load of either dictators, military rulers or religious rulers. They do not want Israel in thier backyards, it is an example to thier people of what a free society is like and it is an abomination to them.

They are also Jews, and that just makes for a GREAT excuse to destroy them.

Iraq has had many opportunities to trade oil for food and medical supplies for thier people, Saddam has refused. This is somehow OUR fault? Iraq took over another country, Kuwait, and MURDERED thousands of it's citizens, and it is our fault that they are under sanctions? No, it is a direct result of actions by the Iraqi government. Actions cause counteractions, the UN sanctions were a punishment against Iraq for its aggression.

You will notice that Saddam is not taking the money that he is making, somehow, and feeding his people, he is rebuilding his military, rebuilding his palaces, and financing terrorism agains the US and others.

Yes, he is financing terrorism, there are clues that are leading US investigators of the WTC attack directly to Saddam Husein and his son. Didn't know that did you?

You may not like it that we are going to go after the terrorists in a BIG way, but we are. Israel is going to help us as well. You will also notice that Arafat has declared a cease fire, after saying that he could not control the terrorists attacking Israel, well he seems to be doing it now. I wonder why?

The terrorists are running scares, as they should be, we are finding and dismantling terrorist cells in the US right now. Japan is, Britain is, Germany is, and yes, Australia is as well. All western countries have been targeted, including yours.

THe terrorists want us destroyed, why, because we are indeed a bastion of freedom, whereas they believe that they have the god given right to rule the world. They are EVIL, and deserve nothing less then to be destroyed outright and wholesale. With any means necessary to do the job.

Notice I say terrorist, not the people of whatever country. The terrorists and those the support them are the enemy. and they are going to suffer the consequences of thier actions.

I would love to live in the world you live in Menchise, but it does not exist. Violence begets more violence, yes, this is true. But overwhelming violence against violence, makes it so that the enemy will no longer have the means nor the will to fight again.

This is where we are at, OVERWHELMING FORCE against those that would do us evil. They will be destroyed!!!

We have tried everything else, we have been patient to the point of stupidity if you ask me. The WTC attack proved to me that these people cannot be reasoned with, they MUST be and WILL be destroyed.

[aramike]

[Mano Faber]

quote:

---

The war on terrorism is a war that will never end as long as terrorists have a cause to fight for. You may be successful in the operation you plan to implement, but you will never win by military force. Nobody will win, unless you believe in the existence of a devil.

---

I agree, i don't think you can win this. I don't think the US should say we're gonna win this war. Take a look at Israel, Ireland (IRA), Spain (ETA), France (GIA) etc...

I agree with aramike and jaguar, however it should be a limited military action. Something with Special Forces but nothing like Desert Storm. Just something that will only hit Bin Laden and not any civilians.

I just have concerns where bombs drop on house and it kills the mom of a kid. He will dedicate his life to fly/drive into the next building in Europe or the US. He may be misinformed he is living in poverty has just lost his mom and has nothing to loose. In country wiht war and oppression for decades. Ten years of war against the Sovjets then years of domestic problems.

A military action should be taken however even if it is just symbolic, flying a few tomahawks up a mountain. You can't just sit back, it would be a bad example. It means something like "we terrorists can attack the US and they won't even defend themselves". Nobody demanded anything they just hit civilian targets and we have to speculate why.

I don't think the anwser lies in the military

(maybe some SFs to pick up/take out some terrorists). The long term should be diplomacy, sanctions and somehow a way to cut-off the finance of terrorism. Kill the funding somehow.

Maybe the US and the EU should put more effort in the Israel-Palestian problem, it would create a more stabile world. Many people in MiddleEast countries (and bordering countries) identify themselves with the palestinians.

quote:

---

I don't want anything like that. But 'politics through murder' is exactly what the military strike will be. The terrorist attack was one way of saying "Leave us alone". The military response is the same way of saying "No way hosay", among other things. Both ways escalate violence, and I disagree with both ways.

---

I do believe using excessive force wil destabilize the Middle East. There are several countries (Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakasitan) where people support the taliban. (i don't mean the goverments). Jaguar mentioned iraq might be tied, read this myself in the paper, and that the US might possibly attack Iraq. I hope they won't since they'll definitly try to drag Israel into this shit. Saddam has done it before and he'll do it again. Since the UN inspectors don't have access to Iraq anymore who knows what he has now.

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Mano Faber ]

[Commander Elio Jason]

Right you are Faber.

hey haven't seen you in a while.

[Menchise]

[Guest]

quote:

---

The people of those nations are not living in your world. If you told them that "the government is the responsibility of the people" and expect them to suddenly stand up and fight, they would probably raise their eyebrows at you and then ask you how the hell they're supposed to overthrow a government that has the full support of its military, especially when the military IS the government, then they'll ask how they're supposed to get the food, raw materials, and weapons to sustain a rebellion.

---

The founding fathers of the USA had the same exact problems, but do you see where we are?

No, the people are responsible for thier governments, no if's and's or but's. That does not mean that they should be targeted in a military way, but sanctions are another matter all together. If the people of Iraq, got together and actually atempted a Coup, I assure you the US and other countries would somehow get aid to those that were doing it. Discretely of course.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

The founding fathers of the USA had the same exact problems, but do you see

where we are?

---

The founding fathers of the USA were in a much better position to fight. They owned the land, they had their own sources of food and raw materials, they had access to weapons, and they had the French Navy on their side.

quote:

---

If the people of Iraq, got together and actually atempted a Coup, I assure you the US and other countries would somehow get aid to those that were doing it. Discretely of course.

---

I don't see any indication that the people of Iraq are capable of even attempting a coup. Besides, the US attempted to support the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions in Iraq by enforcing the No Fly Zones, and the rebellions still failed.

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Mano Faber]

quote:

---

hey haven't seen you in a while.

---

he, never respond that much. I'm somehow reluctant ot place a message on a messageboard. Usually because i don't have facts to support my opinion. I have to read articles or a couple books first.

quote:

---

No, the people are responsible for thier governments, no if's and's or but's. That does not mean that they should be targeted in a military way, but sanctions are another matter all together. If the people of Iraq, got together and actually atempted a Coup, I assure you the US and other countries would somehow get aid to those that were doing it. Discretely of course.

---

Ilk and aramike said something like this as well. I think this counts for Afghanistan and Iraq (and others)that these people are just battle-weary.The Iran-Iraq war was not that long ago. Then the Gulfwar and not feeling safe because you're continuously being watched by the Mukhabarat (Iraqi secret service). When you might be able to set up a rebelgroup but the next person you try to rally might be a snitch.

I watched tv and there was someone from holland helping people in Aghanistan for some time now. But she said the same about the taliban. There is always someone from the taliban among a group people. You don't know who you can trust.

I think most of us cannot comprehend what it is like in those circumstances. So i don't think one can say they don's fight or don't fight hard enough. It's kinda harsh in my opinion.

Just an hour ago a refugee who lives in holland for two decades or so, told that he was 17 when he fled from Iran. He showed

the camera a picture of 10 graves or so. He told us that about 15 years ago (i think it's more liberal now though) thousands of

people of the oposition were killed for the following reasons (examples).

1 ) are you a moslim?

One answered "not really but..." Killed

2 ) do you pray 5 times a day ?

One answered "well no that often but.." Killed

Sadly forgot the 3rd. He also used the phrase

"Political Islam" and that this should be eradicated. If course this is not realistic but at least be minimized. Note that "Polcitical Islam" , he stated, means that Islam is abused to justify political reasons. So i'm not talking about Islam which is a religion like Christianity or like any other religion.

[ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: Mano Faber ]

[aramike]

quote:

---

The infamous "Oil for Food" programs were a farce. What sane leader would deliberately make his nation completely dependant on a hostile nation for economic survival? In the words of Aramike, that would mean "sacrificing the nation's freedom".

---

What freedom? Also, the US was NOT hostile to the nation before the nation fell hostile to the rest of the world. They made their own bed, they then should lay in it.

If the leader cared one iota about the people, he'd deal with the CONSEQUENCES of his mistakes. That's right, certain actions have consequences.

quote:

---

There are several contradictions in that argument. First, it was Saddam and the Iraqi military who took over Kuwait, not the people of Iraq.

---

The people of Iraq make up the military and the leadership. People are responsible for government. If they did not want anything to do with this, they should be defiant of Saddam, not compliant.

There are no contradictions in that argument.

quote:

---

You indicated this when you said that the sanctions were a direct result of actions by the Iraqi government.

---

And I've said repeatedly that governments are the responsibility of the people. If the people are defiant, the government has NO control. It wouldn't be able to just kill all of its people...

quote:

---

Finally, the UN sanctions punish the whole of Iraq, instead of Saddam.

---

And, Nick, please tell me how Saddam Hussein came to power.

quote:

---

He is rebuilding his military because, just like Israel, Iraq has many enemies, including Kuwait, Iran, and Israel. Secondly, there are CLUES that Saddam may be involved in the terrorism. There is no confirmation yet.

---

None of these enemies are attacking Iraq, and if they did they'd come under UN scrutiny. I personally can't believe you're JUSTIFYING Saddam Hussein rebuilding the military rather than feeding his people. In actuality, you're blaming US for his people starving while JUSTIFYING their own GOVERNMENT for doing what MAKES them starve.

As for the CLUES remark, we have PROOF that Saddam Hussein is involved in terrorism, just not absolute confirmation of this INCIDENT.

Again, only one side of the story.

quote:

---

Actually, Iraq was provoked by Kuwait.

---

Not really.

quote:

---

The relations between Iraq and Kuwait have been strained ever since the British withdrew from the region. There was a long-running territorial dispute over the claim that Kuwait was part of the Iraqi nation before the British arrived. Negotiations were attempted for years without much agreement from either side. Then, in 1988, while Iraq was busy fighting Iran, Kuwait invaded Iraqi territory and annexed the Rumaila Oil Fields.

---

Check the territorial maps again.

quote:

---

This led to more heated negotiations over the return of Rumaila, but no progress was made. Saddam was making threats of invasion as early as May of 1990, but the Emir of Kuwait made no concessions. This led to a complete breakdown of diplomacy and the decision by Saddam to annex Kuwait.

---

So, yet again, you suggest that everyone conceeds to militants. No dice. If you want peace, that won't get it, EVER.

quote:

---

The Kuwaiti government is not peaceful.

---

Actually, they are QUITE peaceful. In fact, they are a lot like a government you'd support. They offer FREE medical care to ANYONE, regardless of what country they are from. Low poverty and great government programs keep everyone living rather well. Also, unlike most strict Arabic countries, women are not faced with major impediments. Yes, they are not allowed to vote, but they can take in free education and hold senior economic positions.

And here is what REALLY happened between Iraq and Kuwait. The British GRANTED them independance. Iraq then argued that it had been separated ILLEGITIMATELY.

Then, when the war occurred, Kuwait HELPED the Iraqis. I'll cut and paste from the Encarta article located here: http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=...=2&ti=761563200 ...

In 1980, when war broke out between Iran and Iraq, Kuwait helped the Arab Iraqis even though it exposed them to Iranian attacks. In 1990, however, relations with Iraq worsened. Iraq accused Kuwait of exceeding OPEC production quotas for oil and “stealing” more than $2 billion in oil from a contested reserve that lay beneath both countries. Iraq also demanded Kuwait cancel the debt Iraq owed from the Iran-Iraq War. When Saddam Hussein mobilized Iraqi troops on the border in late July, Kuwait had neither the military might nor the external protection to prevent an invasion. On August 2 Iraq invaded Kuwait and quickly overwhelmed Kuwaiti forces. An international force assembled in neighboring Saudi Arabia and evicted Iraq from Kuwait after six weeks of fighting in early 1991 (seePersian Gulf War).

Did you READ that? Iraq DEMANDED that a debt be cancelled! Iraq CLAIMED that Kuwait had exceed OPEC production! *THAT* is why they attacked! Is that sufficient reason to you for attacking ANYONE?

quote:

---

The people of those nations are not living in your world. If you told them that "the government is the responsibility of the people" and expect them to suddenly stand up and fight, they would probably raise their eyebrows at you and then ask you how the hell they're supposed to overthrow a government that has the full support of its military, especially when the military IS the government, then they'll ask how they're supposed to get the food, raw materials, and weapons to sustain a rebellion.

---

...and where does that military come from?

[Guest]

"and where does that military come from"

Aramike, such military is either conscripted OR served by people who are so poor that the military is the only "job" they can get. Higher up in the ranks you get people that see the military as the only means of maintaining their elite status (or improving their social/$$/power standing or feeding their families) over the population and/or those who truly support such government.

My country's army is mostly composed of conscripts, proffesional soldiers (volunteers making career out of the military) and those who voluntarily enlist because it pays better than most jobs an uneducated man can find in our screwed up economy.

Guess what our army is fighting? Guerillas. These guerillas recruit also from the lowest classes, people who are isolated from the gov., are in serious poverty, are angry, illiterate and uneducated and who get money to feed their family by joining the rebels. In time, these guerillas tighten their grip on these people by threatening their familys or take advantage of their ignorance and anger and make them believers in the rebel cause (the propaganda cause that is).

And this is without bringing religion into the picture.

Now imagine the Taliban and their army. Economy is fekd up, poverty is gripping people, they cannot get an education or any jobs that would improve their lives (though I doubt education for those purposes is allowed), and they see how much power and priviledges those who work and support the taliban get. Give them enough time and a generation or so and you get a population base that sees such military as the only way to "up" the social ladder. Once inside, they get assimilated by taliban and become either supporters OR addicts. And remember they have mixed politics AND religion in the picture.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

None of these enemies are attacking Iraq, and if they did they'd come under UN

scrutiny. I personally can't believe you're JUSTIFYING Saddam Hussein rebuilding the military rather than feeding his people.

---

Look at your argument again, only this time, replace the word "Iraq" with "United States", and the phrase "Saddam Hussein rebuilding the military" with "George Bush building a missile shield", then explain the difference to me. Don't even think about using the attacks on New York and Washington as an example; the proposed "anti-nuke" system is useless against terrorists.

I never said that I agreed with Saddam's military buildup, I was just explaining the motivations behind it.

quote:

---

As for the CLUES remark, we have PROOF that Saddam Hussein is involved in

terrorism, just not absolute confirmation of this INCIDENT.

---

I was referring to the current incident. I should have been more clear about that. Anyway...

quote:

---

Check the territorial maps again.

---

What do you mean?

quote:

---

Actually, they are QUITE peaceful.

---

I retract my statement that Kuwait is not peaceful.

quote:

---

Did you READ that? Iraq DEMANDED that a debt be cancelled! Iraq CLAIMED that

Kuwait had exceed OPEC production! *THAT* is why they attacked! Is that sufficient reason to you for attacking ANYONE?

---

No. Thanks for clearing that up. Now to the next issue.

quote:

---

What freedom? Also, the US was NOT hostile to the nation before the nation fell

hostile to the rest of the world. They made their own bed, they then should lay in it.

If the leader cared one iota about the people, he'd deal with the CONSEQUENCES of his mistakes. That's right, certain actions have consequences.

---

The "Oil for Food" issue had nothing to do with consequences of actions. It was all about power and spheres of influence. In fact, the entire situation of American actions in the Middle East revolves around power and spheres of influence.

The Middle East is a region that has the richest supply of crude oil in the entire world. The United States consumes more than a quarter of the world's supply, thus it needs to control as much of it as possible in order to ensure high quantities and low prices for its citizens. That is the biggest reason why American troops are stationed there in the first place.

The "Oil for Food" programs were an attempt to control the supply of oil from Iraq. [assumption] Instead of exchanging oil with Iraq for the means to grow its own food and rebuild its hospitals [end assumption], they tried to make the country dependant on American food and medical supplies, just as Britain made China dependant on opium to control the supply of goods in that region during the 19th century. Saddam's aggressions in the past were the perfect excuse for this proposal. If he accepted the offer, Iraq would become a puppet state. If he refused, he would be condemned.

This latest terrorist attack is quickly becoming an opportunity for America to get rid of Saddam once and for all. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I wonder if they would lift a finger against him if he accepted and continued to follow the "Oil for Food" proposal, even if he was responsible for the attack. Sure, they probably would have bombed a few facilities, maybe even a lot of facilities, but I doubt that they would have overthrown him.

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[aramike]

[Guest]

Geez, From now on, I stay out of ALL debates with Menchise, Aramike just chews him up and spits him out, why should I even bother.

GO ARAMIKE GO!!!! YES!!!

I am lazy by nature anyway, and letting Aramike respond is so much better and easier on my heart... besides, my responses NEVER sound as good!!

[Põdi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Geez, From now on, I stay out of ALL debates with Menchise, Aramike just chews him up and spits him out, why should I even bother.

---

I'd say it's about all square at the moment. The game is becoming a classic, with attack and counter-attack from both sides. Houllier should really think about bringing on Fowler for a change in tactic..............

Erm, wait a minute.

Sorry. Still in footy mode from the weekend.

Please, as you were.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Not quite. That's an "anti-power" sentiment if I've ever heard one.

---

It's an opinion. Calling it an "anti-power" sentiment doesn't make it false.

quote:

---

And we PAY for what we take, and our payment allows many of our middle-eastern

friends to have very lucrative lives for their people. It also allows them to be independant in the fact that they do not have to rely on the mercy of others for needed supplies -- they can purchase those supplies from funds they achieve through their dealings with us.

---

I never said that America didn't pay for it, and I agree that the Middle Eastern countries have more wealth because of it, but that does not make them independant, and the people of the region are not necessarily better off.

Let's take Saudi Arabia as an example. Saudi Arabia is the world's second largest producer of oil. Therefore, one would expect its people to be well off.

Even I was surprised by the fact that its literacy rate is less than 70 percent, it has 1 hospital bed per 400 persons, 1 physician per 800 persons, and its defense spending in proportion to GDP is twice that of the USA. Before you say so, I am NOT blaming this on the USA. I'm pointing out the likely possibility that the distribution of wealth in Saudi Arabia is very disproportionate. After all, it produces more oil than America does.

In addition to the economic questions, there is the issue of the government, which is a monarchy with no constitution, no parliament (or congress), and restricted freedom, especially for women (not as restricted as in Afghanistan, but you get the idea).

You're probably asking, what's my point? Here it is. In order for America to receive an undisturbed supply of oil from Saudi Arabia, a status quo needs to be maintained. Therefore, if the people of Saudi Arabia decide that they want a new government (I have seen no evidence that proves or disproves this), America would have to support the existing government in suppressing the dissent. If they don't, then the supply of oil is disturbed and the US government loses the support of the oil companies, which can be a serious problem when you're looking to fund the next election campaign.

I admit that this is just a hypothetical situation, but similar situations have occurred before in places like El Salvador.

quote:

---

Not really. They were an attempt to feed the citizenry while not allowing Iraq to

PROFIT from oil sales and be able to rebuild its military.

---

It's possible. In any case (whether it was the goal or an added bonus), the programs would also have given control of the oil supply to America.

quote:

---

LOL! As soon as you find a way to make the desert fertile, please let me know...

---

I don't need to. 13 percent of Iraqi land is arable.

quote:

---

You always assume the worst motivations of the powerful, don't you? If someone is powerful there is no way they can be good in your eyes, is there?

---

You always assume the best motivations of the powerful, don't you? If someone is powerful there is no way they can be bad in your eyes, is there?

Such comments, no matter who makes them, add nothing to a debate.

quote:

---

Uhm, RIIGHT. They've wanted to overthrough him for YEARS, even DURING the

oil-for-food program...

---

Then why hasn't he been overthrown? America is very capable of it, yet the efforts to get rid of him have been half-baked. Secondly, if America intended to overthrow Saddam, then why was the "Oil for Food" program proposed in the first place?

[ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Põdi]

Let me just butt in here.......

Been reading with great interest, good arguments from both sides (though personally I think menchise has the slight upper hand at the moment).

Just for arguments sake, what would happen if there was an Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia à la Iran in 1979? (Let's face it, who saw that coming?) What would be the West's stance? Would they go all out to protect the Saudi royal family and fear condemnation for interfering in another country's internal affairs, or let them get on with it and deal with the consequences ie oil prices through the roof, breakdown in stability in the Middle East etc? Let's not forget, as Menchise said, Saudi is a Monarchy (VERY un-American), so any intervention can't be seen as an excuse to protect democracy or freedom (just the oil supply).

Could it be a possibilty? Probably not, because of the 1000s of Western troops stationed there.

How convenient.

[Kush]

Very good question! And the possiblity of that happening is not that far fetched.

[aramike]

[aramike]

quote:

---

Been reading with great interest, good arguments from both sides (though personally I think menchise has the slight upper hand at the moment).

---

Hmmm, could you be saying that because you agree with him and not based upon what was actually said?

I don't see how someone could have the "upper hand" when his facts are wrong.

quote:

---

Just for arguments sake, what would happen if there was an Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia à la Iran in 1979? (Let's face it, who saw that coming?) What would be the West's stance? Would they go all out to protect the Saudi royal family and fear condemnation for interfering in another country's internal affairs, or let them get on with it and deal with the consequences ie oil prices through the roof, breakdown in stability in the Middle East etc? Let's not forget, as Menchise said, Saudi is a Monarchy (VERY un-American), so any intervention can't be seen as an excuse to protect democracy or freedom (just the oil supply).

Could it be a possibilty? Probably not, because of the 1000s of Western troops stationed there.

How convenient.

---

We have thousands of western troops in Europe and Japan alone.

How convienient.

[ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

I don't see how someone could have the "upper hand" when his facts are wrong.

---

Exactly my point and why I am going to stay out of this. Aramike has far more facts then I do, and with Those, Menchise arguments are easily debatable. Memchise likes to throw around so-called facts, but a majority of them are A: guesses on his part B: assumptions on his part or C: Old facts that he has failed to update.

And as long as Aramike continues to disuade those, then I will sit back and watch, but I may step in if someone gets a little too imaginative with facts again.

[Kush]

I'm just glad Menchise is here to pick up my slack.

Okay, one more then I have to go back to work. [Wicked deadline staring me in the face.]

Aramike, right now, Iraq is another Cuba, you can embargo the heck out of the country, but it ain't gonna change the leader. And the Gulf War has strengthened Saddam's support among his own people. Those who could have leaned towards his enemies have rallied behind him. Now there's nothing really that America can do about this. It was right to defend Kuwait, it was important to show solidarity with Saudi Arabia, Arab emirates et al. for the sake of continued relations in the middle east. The US has gained Iran as an 'ally' and held back a threat to stability. Personally I think the embargo has gone on long enough. The west should arm and defend Iraq's neighbours, and keep and eye on her military with the help of other arab states. Besides, the US is going to need Iraq as an ally again to help put pressure on the Palestinian govt.

I don't think Saddam or Iraq was behind the attack, not because I don't think they didn't want it to happen, I just don't think they needed to lift a finger. As we speak, cells all over the world are hard at work on other attacks, and it is going to take WAY more than attacking the Taliban to make America safe from another terrorist attack.

A ground war in Afghanistan won't succeed. They know it. We know it. And even if Bin Ladin is handed over with his plans and first in command, and a blueprint of his operations, you won't be able to stop terrorism. It will delay it, it will hinder it, but it won't stop it. He is the leader of an umbrella organization with cells in many different parts of the world. I actually have three ideas about how to cut off the terrorists at the knees.

a) Deal with Palestine! I know that the US cannot magically procure a solution to an ancient problem that dates back to the bible, but if the US (and other nations) can get the cease fire back on track, deal with Jerusalem and at least create the appearance of forward momentum it would help alot.

Deal with Iraq. I know the chances of this happening are about the same as a snowball lasting two minutes in Hell, but if the US could figure out a way to return Iraq to its former ally status, they would have a major head ache out of commission. Saddam did a very important job of keeping Iran at bay, and he could be used again on many different fronts, but the political will for this to happen is about as strong as Ellen getting back together with Anne Heche.

c) This is the most crazy, out there suggestion I have, and I know it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime, but the West should really take a look at reducing their dependancy on crude oil. For many reasons, yes partially environmental, but also economic, and political. Im not suggesting trying to bankrupt the middle east, just reducing our dependancy on a handful of nations who are, at best, fractious and at worst, down right hostile towards each other in a way that places access to a precious resource constantly in flux. This flux has a MAJOR effect on our markets, and our lives. Again, I'm not talking about bankrupting countries who are our allies, I'm talking about easing our dependancy, so that the stakes aren't as high for us, and the urgency of dealing with every ancient grievance in a place half way across the world reduced.

There you have it. I've gotta go. Come on Aramike, Jaguar, $ilk; Have at thee!

[ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

a) Deal with Palestine! I know that the US cannot magically procure a solution to an ancient problem that dates back to the bible, but if the US (and other nations) can get the cease fire back on track, deal with Jerusalem and at least create the appearance of forward momentum it would help alot.

---

Sharon has just offered Arafat what he has always wanted, an independent state. YES, you heard right. He just offered an independent Palestinian state. And guess what? It ain't gonna happen. Arafat will lose all support if he gets what he says he wants. The palestinians had a country, but the arabs took it away when they attacked Israel, yes, you heard right there too. The other Arab countries went through Palestine in order to get to Israel, and destroyed it. Israel had to hold it for security purposes.

What is now going to happen is EASY to see, Arafat will balk, and then Israel will go in and clean up. They have to make the effort though, and they have, but it is not going to happen. The palestinians are going to have a hard time of it, and it is because of the PA, and thier terrorist agenda!!

Israel has every right to defend itself, and defend itself it will.

quote:

---

the US is going to need Iraq as an ally again to help put pressure on the Palestinian govt.

---

We don't need Iraq for this, we have Israel for this. Israel keeps the pressure on, and Palestine is going down, and it's thier own fault.

quote:

---

I don't think Saddam or Iraq was behind the attack, not because I don't think they didn't want it to happen, I just don't think they needed to lift a finger. As we speak, cells all over the world are hard at work on other attacks, and it is going to take WAY more than attacking the Taliban to make America safe from another terrorist attack.

---

There is now proof that a couple of the terrorists A: met with Iraqi intellignce agents before the attack, and B: were partly financed through Iraqi front companies.

No, Saddam is DIRECTLY involved with this attack and many others, Iraq has a big target painted on her, and Saddam is not going to be happy when he becomes a target as well.

quote:

---

A ground war in Afghanistan won't succeed. They know it. We know it. And even if Bin Ladin is handed over with his plans and first in command, and a blueprint of his operations, you won't be able to stop terrorism. It will delay it, it will hinder it, but it won't stop it. He is the leader of an umbrella organization with cells in many different parts of the world. I actually have three ideas about how to cut off the terrorists at the knees.

---

First of all, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE WAR AGAINST Afghanistan, this will be a war aginst the Taliban, BIG DIFFERENCE. This will not be what you would call a typical groundwar, like Vietnam, we will be directly involved only with Special Ops and aircraft support. There are enough Afghani's that will do it for us, all we have to do is support them. As far as Ossama is concerned, he is a walking dead man. He WILL NOT be brought to justice, if you think he will, you are dreaming. And we don't need his paperwork and all that, we know where the networks are, we know who his people are, we just have to find them and stop them. Not easy, but it will be done.

quote:

---

c) This is the most crazy, out there suggestion I have, and I know it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime, but the West should really take a look at reducing their dependancy on crude oil. For many reasons, yes partially environmental, but also economic, and political. Im not suggesting trying to bankrupt the middle east, just reducing our dependancy on a handful of nations who are, at best, fractious and at worst, down right hostile towards each other in a way that places access to a precious resource constantly in flux. This flux has a MAJOR effect on our markets, and our lives. Again, I'm not talking about bankrupting countries who are our allies, I'm talking about easing our dependancy, so that the stakes aren't as high for us, and the urgency of dealing with every ancient grievance in a place half way across the world reduced.

---

Nice dream, but you're right, not gonna happen any time soon, in the meantime, we will support those that we need to, to keep the oil flowing. In the meantime, drilling in Anwar and off the coasts of Florida and Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico would help a great deal.

[Wolferz]

Terrorist Agenda:

1. Do anything to accomplish the goal of removing the U.S. Military from the Persian Gulf. Once that is accomplished.....

2. Attack and destroy Israel.

3. Annex all Arab/Muslim countries with ties to the west.

They want to have total control of the resources in the Persian Gulf with the intent of spreading their fanatical Islam throughout the world.

It's a simple agenda, but they're going to find out that they can't do it.

[ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: Wolferz ]

[aramike]

Due to time constraints, I'm only going to comment on this at this time:

quote:

---

Aramike, right now, Iraq is another Cuba, you can embargo the heck out of the country, but it ain't gonna change the leader.

---

I agree with that, and this is why more drastic measures need to me taken.

As for the other things, I just want to reassert that the west should not and will not acceed to any terrorist demands. Imagine the fallout.