America's Role.

[Guest $iLk]

Was listening to a talk show host a few minutes ago. Don't know what his name was, but he was discussing his constitutional issues with the way that America conducts her foreign policy.

I'm not sure whether to agree with him or not, but he makes a very good point.

The basic premise of his argument is:

The constitution does not give us the authority to send even one dime of taxpayer money to any other country, for any reason.

Further, we have no right to make any kind of "preemptive" strike against a country such as Iraq.

The equivalent of such a strike is tantamount to the idea in Minority Report - we incarcerate or strike against someone before they have done anything. The same as arresting a man because he "might" sell drugs in the future.

Also that we have no right by the constitution to have troops or send aid to Bosnia, Russia, Israel, etc.

I agree with some form of aid to countries, but I agree with his point that our intervention should only be in America's interest.

If Sadam Hussein sits like he is, we shouldn't bother him. But if he comes up with the testicular fortitude to attack the USA, we should blow him into oblivion.

All our foreign policy should revolve around "WE are the USA, we will defend *our* borders, and defend *our* interests.

It is in our interests to have our military positions strong in the world, but it is not in our interest to involve ourself in other people's affairs.

The Middle East policy we currently have seems to make more enemies that we wouldn't have otherwise.

If Sadam sells missles to Iran and Iran attacks us, Sadam is no more liable that a gun store owner who sells a gun to someone who later commits a crime. (oversimplified?)

America should perhaps rethink our position, and worry about whats important *here*.

Thoughts on this? I don't agree with him 100% but he has good points.

[Commander Elio Jason]

i completely agree.

i vote $iLk for president!

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

The constitution does not give us the authority to send even one dime of taxpayer money to any other country, for any reason.

---

I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the Constitution it says something about treaties or international agreements. I'm not sure, but it's in there somewhere, and sending the money would LEGALLY be part of it. But I personally believe that the government shouldn't be sending so much of our money to other countries. Let them deal with their own problems unless we are getting something we need out of it.

quote:

---

Further, we have no right to make any kind of "preemptive" strike against a country such as Iraq.

The equivalent of such a strike is tantamount to the idea in Minority Report - we incarcerate or strike against someone before they have done anything. The same as arresting a man because he "might" sell drugs in the future.

---

There's a line that needs to be crossed. If the police know that someone has a plan or is going to kill their spouse, or the President, or commit a crime, it's against the law and the crime needs to be stopped. You can't tell people that, even though it was highly likely that Iraq was going to use bioweapons on the US, that we shouldn't have pre-emptively attacked Iraq since it wasn't 100%. It's not as simple as stopping someone because they "might sell drugs in the future", it's more like you arrest someone because there was a phone tap and you hear someone say they are planning on selling a bunch of drugs, or killing someone, etc. Our government has information that Iraq is a threat, it's common sense to the people of the US that Iraq is a threat, and since there is no CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION *not* to blow every other country to hell (nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the US can *not* engage in an aggressive war), we should attack Iraq in order to stop the problem which we KNOW is coming before it gets worse and our troops have to worry about nuclear weapons when invading Iraq.

quote:

---

Also that we have no right by the constitution to have troops or send aid to Bosnia, Russia, Israel, etc.

---

We might not have a right to, but it makes us look good. In an ideal world we'd only send our troops to areas where we're invading/bombing to hell, and let everyone else fare for themselves. Of course, if we want to stop war (which can then cause instability, bad regime changes, and THEN hurt American interests), we need to send out our troops, however stupid it may be. (I think it should be in small numbers, to few places, just so that no one will take shots at the peacekeppers in fear of US retaliation)

quote:

---

If Sadam Hussein sits like he is, we shouldn't bother him. But if he comes up with the testicular fortitude to attack the USA, we should blow him into oblivion.

All our foreign policy should revolve around "WE are the USA, we will defend *our* borders, and defend *our* interests.

---

We should bother him because he's going to cause things to get worse. "Leaving him like he is" is what caused 9/11 in the first place. We, as a nation, decided that since it's "unpopular" to attack other countries until we get attacked, we should "leave" the terrorists in Afghanistan as they are. Then we got attacked, and got pissed, now rhetoric such as "leaving him where he is" surfaces. *IRAQ IS GOING TO ATTACK US INTERESTS OR SELL WEAPONS TO DO IT, PROBABLY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION* (arms inspectors denied....AGAIN) Which leads to the next point....

quote:

---

If Sadam sells missles to Iran and Iran attacks us, Sadam is no more liable that a gun store owner who sells a gun to someone who later commits a crime. (oversimplified?)

America should perhaps rethink our position, and worry about whats important *here*.

---

If Iraq sells missiles to Iran and Iran attacks us, Iraq probably sold the missiles to begin with in order for them to attack us, thus they would be a little bit more liable. The point is to stop Saddam from doing it to begin with, which means bombing Saddam to hell. I agree that we should worry about what's important HERE, but I also think that the US should stop applying US law to foreign policy. We don't need there not to be "reasonable doubt" before bombing Iraq. Iraq doesn't like the US, Iraq is probably building WMDs, Iraq shoots at our planes, and Iraq's leader brainwashes most of his people. If we bomb Iraq, it sucks for Iraq, but no matter how you look at it, it protects us from a future danger.

And when you say we should worry about what's important *HERE* I hope you aren't referring to welfare, since that only makes people lazy and is a stupid socialist attempt to take money from the ones who work for it and give it to those who don't.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dredd:

(nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the US can *not* engage in an aggressive war),

---

That was my single thought. It don't think it's actually prohibited either. Meaning $ilk's points. Doesn't say we can but doesn't say we can't either.

I'm guessing the question is should we?

[Steve Schacher]

ARTICLE I:

Section 8. Clause 10.

quote:

---

[The Congress shall have Power] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and

Offences against the Law of Nations

;

---

Piracies and felonies on the high seas. Air travel wasn't conceivable to them, but in their vernacular the high seas would include in the air. Pirating airliners and crashing them into buildings would be a felonious act as well as being an offense against the Law of Nations.

Section 8. Clause 11.

quote:

---

[The Congress shall have Power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and

make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

;

---

"Captures on land" means invasion of other countries. "Captures on water" means attacking hostile ships.

Section 10. Clause 3.

quote:

---

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,

or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay

.

---

Does this mean that Congress could authorize the state of New York to engage in war with Iraq because New York is in imminent danger of a dirty/nuclear attack?

[Lotharr]

You'll notice the Constitution talks about Congress ALOT. That is a key point I think. In the era of hyper war, congress doesn't have much of a say until too late. That is the difference between a presidential and congressional war. And that is a reason I believe why other countries refer to the Bush, Clinton regimes etc.

All I know is this. Ever time we act without heeding the word of the international community we piss people off. Colin Powell believes in building coalitions. Bush believes in old western sayings like "wanted dead or alive"....blaza bla. I dunno....

[Guest Grayfox]

i believe we should concentrate on the problems here in the US before we go getting into other countries business.

i mean cmon, we give several billion dollars in aid when we could use half of that as funding to provide a soloution to the homeless problem here in the states.

or we could use the money to beef up businesses to hire more people to lower unemployment, or put the money into a social security fund for retiring people etc etc...

i mean if the money goes to a country that has a major impact on our life, i can understand that somewhat, but i still think we need to check ourselves first before we toss our money someplace else.

[Guest]

Here's my take on that silk..

First up I agree with you in most parts, however, here's the flip side of it:

Historically, whenever the world did not have a powerful nation "overseeing" the others, we've had terrible wars and, in the 20th century, WORLD WARS. Do you believe that WW1 wouldve happened if there was a superpower in place (say, the Vatican ) which would've put diplomatic, economic and threat of military force pressures on the German government so they wouldn't had pledged their support to the Austrians (remember, WW1 was NOT started by Germany!).

Or would WW2 had happened? Heck I see little difference between 1930 Germany and present day Iraq! A nutbag dictator in power, its people piss poor and starving, and both commiting mass murder against ethnic groups. The only difference is that today, Iraq cant start a world war and invade its neighbors because..oh wait, they already tried it.. they got their asses handed over to them in a silver platter with a thank-you note and a cherry on top.

Should the US now become an introvert nation and not give a damn about what happens around the world (which is their major interest in the current world-economy!), Israel may get wiped out (though the Israelis may decide to nuke everyone around them before they get overrun), Iraq and its likes would develop nice germ bombs and nukes and who knows how they'll use them... perhaps in a war against some other non-US nation ...then the germ mutates, gets carried over in the high wind layers, gets carried to US mainland, etc etc); the French would philosophise their neighbors to death, Pakistan and India would become the world's largest mirror and dont forget China, they'll take over the world too.

[Kevin Trotter]

I'm in agreement with $ilk on this one. It seems pretty clear that while we can not be an isolation

-ist power, we must spend the bulk of our already dwindling resources on Americans. Besides isn't policing the world part of the reason the UN was formed? I mean most of the foreign policy problems we have seem linked to subverting the governments of sovereign nations and replacing them with *******s just as bad as they were.

I'm reminded of a movie "The Mouse that Roared"

in which a small country without resources and flat broke , declares war on the US (with about eight guys) soley to collect foreign aid after they lost.

We have to remember , Charity starts at home.

[Guest $iLk]

Far be it from me to take the middle road .

Normally I would jump on the bandwagon of wiping everyone out that could conceivably pose a threat.

But I've been thinking about this one seriously, and would like to borrow on a few points made here to emphasize what I'm thinking.

quote:

---

There's a line that needs to be crossed. If the police know that someone has a plan or is going to kill their spouse, or the President, or commit a crime, it's against the law and the crime needs to be stopped. You can't tell people that, even though it was highly likely that Iraq was going to use bioweapons on the US, that we shouldn't have pre-emptively attacked Iraq since it wasn't 100%. It's not as simple as stopping someone because they "might sell drugs in the future", it's more like you arrest someone because there was a phone tap and you hear someone say they are planning on selling a bunch of drugs, or killing someone, etc. Our government has information that Iraq is a threat, it's common sense to the people of the US that Iraq is a threat, and since there is no CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION *not* to blow every other country to hell (nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the US can *not* engage in an aggressive war), we should attack Iraq in order to stop the problem which we KNOW is coming before it gets worse and our troops have to worry about nuclear weapons when invading Iraq.

---

While I completely agree that if we have undeniable evidence that an attack is going to be made against us, we should respond.

I'm a bit concerned about the government "beating the drums of war" in order to get our public into a frenzy to support an act (invasion of Iraq), that technically isn't right for us to do in the first place. Moral and Social concerns of what happens in Iraq constitutionally do not concern us.

So Sadam might be sitting there doing nothing, and we want to attack because he might is a far cry from actually having solid evidence to act on.

Circumstantial evidence is always suspect, we can't act on it.

quote:

---

We might not have a right to, but it makes us look good. In an ideal world we'd only send our troops to areas where we're invading/bombing to hell, and let everyone else fare for themselves. Of course, if we want to stop war (which can then cause instability, bad regime changes, and THEN hurt American interests), we need to send out our troops, however stupid it may be. (I think it should be in small numbers, to few places, just so that no one will take shots at the peacekeppers in fear of US retaliation)

---

When I really think of what we are doing in the world, and place myself in another countries shoes, I see it as the height of arrogance for us to believe that we are morally superior and have a right to intervene in other countries. I do not believe we have that right unless it is in America's best interest.

quote:

---

We should bother him because he's going to cause things to get worse. "Leaving him like he is" is what caused 9/11 in the first place. We, as a nation, decided that since it's "unpopular" to attack other countries until we get attacked, we should "leave" the terrorists in Afghanistan as they are. Then we got attacked, and got pissed, now rhetoric such as "leaving him where he is" surfaces. *IRAQ IS GOING TO ATTACK US INTERESTS OR SELL WEAPONS TO DO IT, PROBABLY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION* (arms inspectors denied....AGAIN) Which leads to the next point....

---

"Walk softly but carry a big stick", rather than openly be the aggressor nation.

quote:

---

If Iraq sells missiles to Iran and Iran attacks us, Iraq probably sold the missiles to begin with in order for them to attack us, thus they would be a little bit more liable. The point is to stop Saddam from doing it to begin with, which means bombing Saddam to hell. I agree that we should worry about what's important HERE, but I also think that the US should stop applying US law to foreign policy. We don't need there not to be "reasonable doubt" before bombing Iraq. Iraq doesn't like the US, Iraq is probably building WMDs, Iraq shoots at our planes, and Iraq's leader brainwashes most of his people. If we bomb Iraq, it sucks for Iraq, but no matter how you look at it, it protects us from a future danger.

---

WHat if we aren't in any danger to begin with? It is simplified in my example, but what you are refering to is a gun shop owner selling a gun he has pre-knowledge is going to be used for a murder, he should be liable. If Sadam sells weapons just as an arms trade, if they are one day used against us I don't see how he is liable. I don't support Sadam one bit, but he would not be at fault in my opinion.

quote:

---

And when you say we should worry about what's important *HERE* I hope you aren't referring to welfare, since that only makes people lazy and is a stupid socialist attempt to take money from the ones who work for it and give it to those who don't.

---

You should know enough about me to know that I am no proponent of socialized welfare. What I am referring to is the strengthening of borders, tightening of immigration, and dealing with our own social and economic problems before other countries problems.

quote:

---

Should the US now become an introvert nation and not give a damn about what happens around the world (which is their major interest in the current world-economy!), Israel may get wiped out (though the Israelis may decide to nuke everyone around them before they get overrun), Iraq and its likes would develop nice germ bombs and nukes and who knows how they'll use them... perhaps in a war against some other non-US nation ...then the germ mutates, gets carried over in the high wind layers, gets carried to US mainland, etc etc); the French would philosophise their neighbors to death, Pakistan and India would become the world's largest mirror and dont forget China, they'll take over the world too.

---

If it can be proven that we are NEEDED in order for the world to function as *we* need it to, it is in America's interests and I cannot argue with it.

If we simply involve ourselves because we think it is our "moral obligation" I think it is the height of arrogance.

I don't propose selling out our allies, but I do propose cutting back our involvement on their behalf.

[Lotharr]

I think it may be good to consider a few things. It seems your mind is not set on any one or series of actions but consider this.

quote:

---

While I completely agree that if we have undeniable evidence that an attack is going to be made against us, we should respond.

I'm a bit concerned about the government "beating the drums of war" in order to get our public into a frenzy to support an act (invasion of Iraq), that technically isn't right for us to do in the first place. Moral and Social concerns of what happens in Iraq constitutionally do not concern us.

So Sadam might be sitting there doing nothing, and we want to attack because he might is a far cry from actually having solid evidence to act on.

Circumstantial evidence is always suspect, we can't act on it.

---

Good points. However I think it is critical that we appreciate what our actions will do to the population that are nothing more then hostages in their own country.

If we plan on ever reshaping the political landscape over there we have to understand and support the people.

quote:

---

When I really think of what we are doing in the world, and place myself in another countries shoes, I see it as the height of arrogance for us to believe that we are morally superior and have a right to intervene in other countries. I do not believe we have that right unless it is in America's best interest.

---

If we made choices that only reflect our best interest the world would turn against us. And if that happens we are going to have serious problems.

All I'm saying is we are a part of the world. Yes our dad can beat up...er...we can destroy a countries infrastructure faster than any other nation but we are a part of something more and we need to act that way.

quote:

---

"Walk softly but carry a big stick", rather than openly be the aggressor nation.

---

Yep....like that a lot. Good personal motto and super power way of doing business. Egos drive a lot of people and policy....go figure.

quote:

---

If we simply involve ourselves because we think it is our "moral obligation" I think it is the height of arrogance

---

That's a very interesting idea. Isn't that why we are so proud of our actions in WWII?

I don't know but people deserve freedom. Does it fall on us to provide it? No....however that is one of the main problems in the Middle East right? They are so far from free it is ridiculous....so we can't deal with a rational set of leaders.

And what about here? Why is it one man can make war without due process of congress. I wonder about those things.

[Epsilon 5]

I just think the United States are too much involved in the world's political problems.

[Commander Elio Jason]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epsilon 5:

I just think the United States are too much involved in the world's political problems.

---

i agree also on this.

the U.S acts like it's the big brother of the world and needs to be out there to solve stuff.

perhaps the wars between Jerusalem and it's Arab neighbors might be because of U.S involvement.

hey this might turn out to be another long debate like the Capitlaism vs Socialism!

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

If it can be proven that we are NEEDED in order for the world to function as *we* need it to, it is in America's interests and I cannot argue with it.

If we simply involve ourselves because we think it is our "moral obligation" I think it is the height of arrogance.

I don't propose selling out our allies, but I do propose cutting back our involvement on their behalf.[/QB]

---

I agree with that. Especially the point about "moral obligation". The US is not the world's policeman. We shouldn't be worrying about other countries problems, etc, while we have our own. Deal with the unemployment, economy, starvation, and homelessness here in the US before worrying about other countries.

The only thing I disagree with is attacking Iraq or any other country devloping weapons of mass destruction. It is clearly in the United States best interest to preemptively attack countries that are developing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons if they are hostile toward the United States. Those types of weapons would immediately make them a regional superpower, and that threatens all US interests in the region. Especially in regards to Iraq, with all the nearby oil wells. Then, even if we aren't in danger from Iraq's military (as I think we are due to the weapons they are most likely developing), it'd still be in the US interests to attack Iraq since if we attack them, it'll make oil easier for us to get. (not sure how, but i've heard it multiple times, probably because other arab nations aren't exactly happy with Iraq sitting there with WMDs)

[Guest Grayfox]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silk:

What I am referring to is the strengthening of borders, tightening of immigration, and dealing with our own social and economic problems before other countries problems.

---

amen.

[Guest $iLk]

I don't have any set belief on this yet as I just posted this topic in reaction to some thinking I had been doing myself and hearing someone discussing it yesterday on the radio.

Exactly how many times has our meddling in international affairs came back to bite us in the rear end?

Which country saved the life of Ho Chi Mihn during WW2?

Us.

Which country trained and sided *with* Sadam Hussein before the Kuwaiti problem?

Us.

Which country trained the Taliban, and people like Osama Bin Laden, and other terrorists who threatened this country?

Us.

I'm not going to go on and place blame on America for what those people did, but I will point out that we have created many of our own enemies.

I see websites like NEWSMAX.COM proclaiming undeniable "evidence" of this that or the other, and what I have found is that it is later either uncorroborated, fades into history, or was inaccurate to begin with.

Many of these stories that "Sadam's top scientist says he has the BOMB!!" and such, only to find out three weeks later that another headline reads "Sadam now has ability to start research on the BOMB!!" followed by "Sadam now has ability to steal research that would allow him to start researching the bomb!!" leads me to believe that most of these stories are scaremongering, and are exactly the type of things that our government is perpetrating in order to develop wide support of conservatives who love America and are in a frenzy to "bomb the badguys".

quote:

---

Good points. However I think it is critical that we appreciate what our actions will do to the population that are nothing more then hostages in their own country.

If we plan on ever reshaping the political landscape over there we have to understand and support the people.

---

1. Is it really our responsibility to decide how they should behave?

AND

2. How much of the "mistreatment" and "abuse" we hear about and see in movies is merely propaganda designed to develop support for an unpopular war, and to give focus as to why we are fighting (to save people) while drawing focus away from what those we claim to save see us really saving (the oil) ?

quote:

---

If we made choices that only reflect our best interest the world would turn against us. And if that happens we are going to have serious problems.

All I'm saying is we are a part of the world. Yes our dad can beat up...er...we can destroy a countries infrastructure faster than any other nation but we are a part of something more and we need to act that way.

---

The world community would find us a dangerous enemy, just as much so as they have found a very beneficial partner. I'm saying we shouldn't turn our backs to our allies, merely restrict exactly what kind of aid we do give them.

quote:

---

That's a very interesting idea. Isn't that why we are so proud of our actions in WWII?

---

While I do support what happened in World War 2 with us joining in, I do disagree that we should have focused on Germany.

Japan was our enemy at the time, but we allowed "international alliances" to bind us to attack Germany, which regardless of what they did, we had no quarrel with them.

Hitler stupidly declared war against us which valididated our actions regardless.

quote:

---

The only thing I disagree with is attacking Iraq or any other country devloping weapons of mass destruction. It is clearly in the United States best interest to preemptively attack countries that are developing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons if they are hostile toward the United States. Those types of weapons would immediately make them a regional superpower, and that threatens all US interests in the region. Especially in regards to Iraq, with all the nearby oil wells. Then, even if we aren't in danger from Iraq's military (as I think we are due to the weapons they are most likely developing), it'd still be in the US interests to attack Iraq since if we attack them, it'll make oil easier for us to get. (not sure how, but i've heard it multiple times, probably because other arab nations aren't exactly happy with Iraq sitting there with WMDs)

---

What makes Iraq so different from Soviet Russia post WW2?

I agree that Sadam with a nuclear weapon doesn't sound too hot, but I believe that simply because a country has nuclear weapons does not automatically make it a valid target.

If someone sets off a nuke in the US, find out who it is and respond in kind. Don't attack first unless there is undeniable evidence they are planning an attack.

[CommanderJohnson]

First, in response to the parts of your last post that I sort of disagree with, all of the "enemies" we set up for ourselves were a choice at the time. If we didn't do what we did by allying with a certain group, a WORSE group would have had power due to our lack of action. It just depends on the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

What makes Iraq so different from Soviet Russia post WW2?

I agree that Sadam with a nuclear weapon doesn't sound too hot, but I believe that simply because a country has nuclear weapons does not automatically make it a valid target.

If someone sets off a nuke in the US, find out who it is and respond in kind. Don't attack first unless there is undeniable evidence they are planning an attack.[/QB]

---

The difference between post Soviet Russia was that we couldn't have taken them out if we tried due to anti-war feelings, and the fact that we were under the perception that Russia would have kicked our asses in a war.

I fail to see how "waiting for the nuke to go off" is a good idea, and I also fail to see how it doesn't make them a good target if they are trying to make nukes and will use them if they have the chance. Attacking them is in our best interests, "valid target" or not, and waiting for them to hit us since we dont have 95%+ proof that we are going to be attacked is a waste of citizens lives. If troops die, at least they knew what they were getting into. Waiting for a city to go POOF is hardly the right thing to do. The Constitution says to protect OUR lives, not lives of Iraqis.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

I fail to see how "waiting for the nuke to go off" is a good idea, and I also fail to see how it doesn't make them a good target if they are trying to make nukes and will use them if they have the chance. Attacking them is in our best interests, "valid target" or not, and waiting for them to hit us since we dont have 95%+ proof that we are going to be attacked is a waste of citizens lives. If troops die, at least they knew what they were getting into. Waiting for a city to go POOF is hardly the right thing to do. The Constitution says to protect OUR lives, not lives of Iraqis.

---

My disagreement comes at the point of;

1. How can we arbitrarily decide who makes a valid target and who does not - or who is in our best interests? Is Iraq a much better target than Korea? Korea poses more of a threat to us. What about China? China has nuclear weapons, and has made veiled threats of their use against the "paper tiger" a la USA.

How can you determine that Iraq will use nuclear weapons if they develop or purchase them? Common sense in my perception would dictate that were Sadam Hussein to aquire nuclear weapons he would most assuradly *not* use them beyond a bargaining position.

The results of his use of Nuclear Weapons would be suicidal and Sadam Hussein is smart enough to know that. Were he truly suicidal the Gulf War outcome would have been much different.

If we have conclusive evidence that Sadam Hussein is planning an attack on the United States, bomb the hell out of him. If he is sitting there in Iraq doing nothing, it is none of our concern.

My belief is that unless it can be proven through the gathering of sufficient evidence that Sadam Hussein is definately planning and/or preparing to carry out an attack against sovereign United States territory, we have no reason to "pre-empt" his "attack".

What is being painted by the government and perpetrated by the media, is this big Islamic boogeyman in control of Iraq who wants to launch a suicidal assault against the USA with Nuclear Weapons.

Here is what would happen should this scenario/fantasy occur.

1>Nuclear weapon explodes in major US city.

2>FBI, CIA, Federal Government investigates.

3>Evidence conclusively points to Iraq.

4>Iraq and all surrounding countries glow in the dark within 24 minutes.

I doubt that Sadam is that stupid.

If you believe that he does indeed pose a credible threat, what is the basis of your belief?

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

The world community would find us a dangerous enemy, just as much so as they have found a very beneficial partner. I'm saying we shouldn't turn our backs to our allies, merely restrict exactly what kind of aid we do give them.

---

Makes us sounds like Microsoft. Hehe.

[Guest]

Welp, it sounds to me the US now has the dilemma the British had when they had the empire where the sun never sets: global interests

Only with modern day tech and issues *grin*

[CommanderJohnson]

Iraq is a valid target for a number of reasons:

1. It's a dictatorship-the citizens have nothing to do with the government and are fed propoganda that is almost 100% believed, thus if Saddam wants to nuke someone or use the nukes as a bargaining chip, he can. Then his citizens die while he's on a plane out of the country. And he won't care.

2. The oil-if Saddam gets WMDs, he can use them as bargaining chips. Him using them as bargaining chips with an attempt to undermine US interests (aka raise oil prices, dont trade with the US, etc), would NOT directly cause a WMD retaliation by the US (since in our great democracy, we would NEVER advocate NUKING a country for MONEY/(oil)) when we aren't under attack.

3. The hostility-Iraq doesn't like the US. The US is painted to be 100% evil to it's citizens. If Saddam wanted to attack a country, any country, in any fashion, his people would support him. If he has WMDs, even better.

Korea isn't a threat yet (but they ARE on the list, obviously below Iraq), and China has enough of a diverse population and government that they wouldn't want to get wiped out. They are content with using their weapons to stop anyone from bothering them.

It doesn't matter if Iraq WILL use the weapons or not. The international community is telling them not to build the weapons, they aren't listening. What matters if that if Iraq is ABLE to use the weapons, we should stop them. If there's a medium, maybe even low chance, of them doing it, they need to be stopped. In order to protect UNITED STATES CIVILIANS, they should be stopped. The Constitution gives no protection to Iraqis from us if we decide to go on random bombing runs against various countries. Not attacking them is equivilent to a number of negative things, such as:

1. 9/11. "The terrorists aren't attack us yet, we'll leave them alone."

2. World War II. "Germany is ignoring international agreements in regards to troops/arms buildups and invasions, but we'll leave them alone."

3. I walk toward you saying "Yo, ****er, i'm going to beat your ****ing *** into the ****ing ground" In response, you don't move a muscle, and wait for me to hit you with the baseball bat i'm carrying.

I think he poses a credible threat on the grounds that he can take over the Middle East, or at least most of it, under the protection of Weapons of Mass Destruction. He can hurt the economy, destroy our supply of oil, and attack our allies, without fear of a WMD retaliation. If he attacked the US, it still isn't guarnteed Saddam would be nuked, since we wouldn't want to piss off the entire Middle East from radiation. Saddam is a master at staying in power, and he will use them in ways that won't allow us to attack him. That's why we need to attack now, BEFORE Iraq becomes a superpower. All we need is a DICTATORSHIP that HATES the US with nukes.

[Menchise]

On the issue of Iraq, here is an article from Boston Indymedia (21 May 2002):

quote:

---

Vigil for Iraq; Former Weapons Inspector Argues War is Unnecessary

by Matthew Williams

From 5:30 to 6:30 today in Copley Square, about fifty people held a vigil in solidarity with the people of Iraq, opposing the sanctions on and on-going bombing of Iraq and the possibility of a wider war against the country. People held signs such as "Another war will spare Saddam but not the people" and "500,000 children dead from sanctions". After the vigil, Scott Ritter, a major in the US Marines and former chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the UN, spoke; he argued that war with Iraq was unnecessary as there is no evidence that Hussein's regime has weapons of mass destruction any more and that Iraq poses no threat to the US's national security.

Members of United for Justice with Peace (UJP), the main Boston-area peace coalition, have been holding vigils on Tuesday evenings in Copley since September in opposition to the Bush administration's so-called "war on terror". They chose to hold a vigil focusing on solidarity with the people of Iraq because of the high probability that there will soon be a second full-scale war with Iraq.

People at the vigil emphasized that they did not support Saddam Hussein's regime. Instead, they pointed to the way US policy hurts ordinary Iraqi civilians. John McLeod of the Community Church of Boston and the Committee for Peace and Human Rights said, "I think our government's policies are immoral simply because of the immense civilian consequences of the sanctions that have been going on for 11 years and have resulted in the deaths of so many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians." Although it is impossible to calculate exact figures, responsible estimates for the number of civilian dead run from 200,000 to one million.

McLeod, who traveled to Iraq a year ago with Conscience International, continued, "The main impression I had was that the sanctions have been devastating to the society. It isn't just a matter of the number of people killed. It's an entire generation deskilled. The social fabric has been very badly hit by these sanctions. And now we're going to launch a bloody war."

In his talk after the vigil, Ritter (a self-described "card-carrying Republican") argued that there was no evidence that Hussein's regime posed any sort of threat to the United States and that therefore was no reason to go to war. He was chief weapons inspector in Iraq for seven years as part of UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission. Based on his experiences, he said, "Iraq *had* weapons of mass destruction. We destroyed them, the factories that produced them, and the means of production. I won't say we destroyed 100% of them, but we destroyed 90-95% of them. From 1994 to 1998, we monitored Iraq's infrastructure. We never detected any evidence that Iraq was attempting to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction program." He argued that this filled the UN Security Council's requirements for Iraq. "We could make a case that we had qualitatively disarmed Iraq. Not 100%, but we had fulfilled the intention of the Security Council."

Ritter also took care to refute the myth that Iraq kicked the weapons inspectors out in December 1998. "The weapons inspectors were ordered out by the US deputy ambassador to the Security Council. This was not done with the Security Council's authorization." By the time the Security Council found out the next day, the US government was already bombing Iraq.

Ritter, an expert in military intelligence, said that based on the evidence gathered by satellites and military planes flying over Iraq, "It is highly unlikely Iraq has rebuilt its weapons of mass destruction capability. This is not something you can do in a laboratory or underground. There is no evidence that Iraq has rebuilt factories capable of producing weapons of mass destruction."

People at the vigil argued that a war would not help the people of Iraq any more than the current sanctions do. Elizabeth Leonard of the UJP and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom said, "We've been bombing Iraq every single day for years now, but we're talking about a full-scale invasion. That country, like Afghanistan, is already in a state of stone-age inhabitation and we would be killing mostly civilians. [ . . . ] They say that their smart bombs are so well guided, but they really aren't. It's impossible when bombing a city not to kill civilians." The daily US and UK flights in the "no-fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq drop bombs regularly; although they are supposed to be responding to military threats, they frequently hit civilian targets.

Ritter, who fought in the Gulf War, said that while he believes that there is such a thing as a "just war", there is no such thing as a "good war": "In modern warfare, the civilian dies more often than the soldier."

Asked why the US government would attack Iraq if not because of weapons of mass destruction, Leonard said, "The number one reason the US government has so much interest in going into Iraq is that they have so much oil. That was the reason we started this war in the first place. And I think we just want the power over all the Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries. We're going into every country that has any access to oil at all." As a result of the war in Afghanistan, the US government has been able to set up military bases in the oil-rich former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan in Central Asia. The interim president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is a former consultant to Unocal, a US oil company that has long sought to build a pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan.

McLeod said, "Iraq is actually a third-rate, rinky-dink military power. I think this [threat of weapons of mass destruction] is fabrication to enable the United States to put together a client regime in Iraq."

Any invasion of Iraq would be an undertaking of massive proportions. Ritter noted that while only 7,000 US troops were deployed in Afghanistan, invading Iraq would require 70,000-250,000 troops. Leonard predicted the US would simply get hopelessly bogged down in Iraq: "We went into Afghanistan and we still haven't gotten Osama bin Laden. We're still in fighting there, trying to get the terrorists out of there. The same thing is going to happen in Iraq."

---

I think that says it all.

[CommanderJohnson]

Nah, that doesn't say it all. First of all, the vigil was about 50 people. Secondly, i've seen similar "evidence" judging high school debate, it's accepted there but is recognized clearly as unwarranted. That entire article was leftist ****, even if one person cited was a Republican. If you watch LIVE INTERVIEWS in Iraq, you can note a number of the things that article points to are false. Much of Iraq, especially in Baghdad is already recovering. The population is educated (even though it is all propoganda dictated by Saddam), the quality of life has already improved to at least 2nd-world, and the military is recovering. Iraq's own officials state that they removed the weapons inspectors and don't want them there.

Also, REGARDLESS of all of the stuff i've just said, the article still doesn't point out why we should not attack Iraq. It gives the United States power over oil in the region. THANK YOU! That's enough reason for me, at least when it's combined with the 5%-10% of WMDs that may be left AND the hostility Iraq holds toward the United States, AND the possibility it can hurt neighbors. As you said, your article "says it all". Well, yeah, it does. Not to mention as i've said, the constitution protects US civilians, not Iraq's.

EDIT:

And as for the comment about getting "bogged down in Iraq", we've almost taken Baghdad before. We can do it again and actually take it this time. If your article is true and they have more military power, it'll be even EASIER than last time. If i'm right, it'll almost be as hard as last time. Either way, we get Saddam out, get rid of all of the WMDs, get rid of future attacks by Saddam with or without WMDs, and get the oil. Cost-benefit analysis=invade.

[ 07-12-2002, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Nah, that doesn't say it all. First of all, the vigil was about 50 people.

---

It did say that.

quote:

---

Secondly, i've seen similar "evidence" judging high school debate, it's accepted there but is recognized clearly as unwarranted. That entire article was leftist ****, even if one person cited was a Republican.

---

First, he's not just a Republican; he's the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq and a Major in the US Marine Corps.

Secondly, you did not mention any of the evidence that you associate with high school debates.

quote:

---

If you watch LIVE INTERVIEWS in Iraq, you can note a number of the things that article points to are false.

---

Ahh. So you think the Ritter interview was rubbish because it wasn't a three minute live interview from Iraq? He was there for FOUR YEARS in the middle of it!!!

Once again, you didn't mention any of the things that you claim are false.

quote:

---

Much of Iraq, especially in Baghdad is already recovering. The population is educated (even though it is all propoganda dictated by Saddam), the quality of life has already improved to at least 2nd-world, and the military is recovering.

---

Says who?

quote:

---

Iraq's own officials state that they removed the weapons inspectors and don't want them there.

---

Correction: News room anchors state that Iraqi officials stated such things. They never use direct quotes (I wonder why). Unlike those talking heads, Ritter was actually there, and his statements contradict what the mainstream media is saying.

Compare the testimony of a military officer and weapons inspector who was in Iraq for four years to the sound bytes of overpaid news anchors who have never set foot in Iraq and you'll understand why I have more faith in Indymedia.

[ 07-12-2002, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Also, REGARDLESS of all of the stuff i've just said, the article still doesn't point out why we should not attack Iraq. It gives the United States power over oil in the region. THANK YOU!

---

Read to yourself! Any war between the USA and Iraq would kill tens of thousands of people (if not more), and create millions more refugees, for what? Oil profits!

quote:

---

That's enough reason for me, at least when it's combined with the 5%-10% of WMDs that may be left AND the hostility Iraq holds toward the United States, AND the possibility it can hurt neighbors.

---

Read the article again, especially the parts where Ritter says that there is no evidence that Iraq is a threat to the USA despite the minimal WMDs remaining. It also cannot harm any neighbours even if it wanted to: Israel would tear the Iraqis to pieces if they were attacked, and Saddam won't dare attack Kuwait again because that would guarantee war with the USA.

quote:

---

As you said, your article "says it all". Well, yeah, it does. Not to mention as i've said, the constitution protects US civilians, not Iraq's.

---

The Taliban didn't guarantee protection of US civilians either. Try again.

quote:

---

And as for the comment about getting "bogged down in Iraq", we've almost taken Baghdad before. We can do it again and actually take it this time. If your article is true and they have more military power, it'll be even EASIER than last time. If i'm right, it'll almost be as hard as last time. Either way, we get Saddam out, get rid of all of the WMDs, get rid of future attacks by Saddam with or without WMDs, and get the oil. Cost-benefit analysis=invade.

---

In case you didn't notice, Kabul was taken eight months ago, and the troops are still bogged down in Afghanistan.