Guest Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote: I'm not complaining, but I am telling you that the United States is more like the USSR used to be before the wall fell in a lot of ways... Absolutely correct!! Scary, isn't it?
Charles Lindsey Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote:The United States is a Constitutional Repuplic.Haven't heard that one before. But it's believable and sounds nice. quote:A Republic in which the members of the government are divided constitutionally and limited to certain extents of power - theoretically.ok quote:Democracy is majority rule; i.e. three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.Once again we/ya'll are talking a PURE democracy. I agree that might get sticky. We have gone through this before. It is still nicer to call ourselves a democracy. It is democratic because everyone can vote for a representative. Semantics at work I suppose. quote:If you want the true outcome of a democracy, look no further than post civil war Southern States.No knowledge of that. No comment. Sorry. quote:The white majority kept power and the rights of the minority were trampled.I do remember learning about poll taxes and such. quote:This country provides safeguards against that.Cool quote: Democracy is an ugly word,Nope, it appeases the masses. quote: if this were a democracy we would likely be at the mercy of the whim of mob rule. Back to "PURE" democracy vs republican democracy or whatever. Oh well, your vote don't count anyway (start a thread). The politicians will get into office and begin building their power base. Now back to the thread topic. America is an economic and military power. Our "role" should be an example of constraint with fortitude. Nudge other countries toward democracy. Oh my, there is that terrible word again. But, only do so if they want it.
IceCold Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 Thankfully, I do not see a repeat of the purges in this country nor the famine.
Lotharr Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 Heh heh...you sure shot down all my points quote: The only thing these animals understand is force of arms, they need to be trampled into the dust until their will to fight is gone, nothing less will stop the attacks. Now I see why you didn't go into law. Who else do you see as animals? [ 08-06-2002, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
IceCold Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote:Once more, with passion.... Unless you can kill off all the democrats in the United States, it will be, it is, a DEMOCRATIC (note that that's not democracy) REPUBLIC with a Constitution. Period. So long as Democrats have any control of any portion of either the House or the Senate, then it isn't entirely a true Republic. Republicans only are authorized by definition to run a Republic. Any questions?!? The lines dividing the democratic and republican parties have blured a bit since the republicans have pushed the Office of Homeland Security into existance. **DISCLAIMER** The office of Homeland Security sounds too much like the gestapo for my comfort as a citizen of a "free" society. For that office plans to throw the consitiution out with Ashcroft's dirty socks.
Guest Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 Animals are those that celebrate the death of innocent civilians by their comrades the suicide bombers. They are barbarians. And yes, every one of those points was exact, to the point and based on history and logic. All 7 of your points is based on feel good emotional BS that has never worked and will NEVER work. The only way to really stop terrorism is to defeat them to such a point where thier will to fight is gone. Feel good solutions just embolden those same terrorists to further and bigger atrocities. Use logic and history, because using emotion and PC crap will be what destroys us.
CommanderJohnson Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 First a note on Israel, then going straight down Lotharr's post... If the other Arab nations weren't hostile to begin with, Israel would be a lot smaller and would have a lot less problems. It's not our fault, or Israel's, that the rest of the Arab world CREATED their own problem, and are still carrying it on with the stupid suicide bombings. Gee, i'm really likely to negotiate when my friends are getting blown up...riiiiight. Next time your playing BCM as a Terran Commander, approach a Gammulan Stormcarrier, uncloaked with shields down, and keep hitting "c" to communicate and work something out. Keeping hitting "c" all the way down to the time that you get destroyed. That's EXACTLY what your saying Israel should do. Yes, the United States should have the final say in what is hurting our national security and violating our soverignity. Who else has a right to? Your saying that some global organization should have the final say on when a country is a threat to another. I don't know what dream world you live in, but that has so many problems. Other countries dont want to get involved, or they have trade agreements or alliances with the dangerous country, OR they are just TOTAL ANTI-WAR LEFTIST NUTS (no offense to any of them on here), so they say "lets impose sanctions" then the targetted country says "lets set off nukes in the US". The citizens serving in our armed forces are protecting AMERICA, AMERICANS, and the Constitution. The people who have a right to say where they go and who they fight and when they fight are AMERICANS. Not some international decision. If Americans dont want a war, they'll show it in the polls and at the ballot box. There is no excuse for taking away that choice from Americans due to a "greater good". Until EVERY nation in the world is tolerant of other religions and races, and all nations are committed to the good of all, and all nations ARE ON an equal footing, there can be no violation of United States soverignty without destroying the foundation of this nation and violating the rights of every American. Sure, if you want to stage a revolution to overthrow the government of the US, and all other governments of soverign nations, and start some world government, go right ahead. But the amount of support you would get is so small that it would be laughable, and the problems with it abound. How is taking out Iraq going to unleash a "global nightmare"? None of the other Arab nations have threatened hostility if we attack Iraq, so I really do fail to see the problem. Also, we don't NEED aid from the other free countries, so that point really is moot. No, I won't get over the American ego, because America is the greatest country, and violating the rights of the American people is not good no matter how you look at it. If the American people feel that the plight of other nations is ours, they GO TO CHARITIES. They support AID ORGANIZATIONS. What your advocating is that the people who feel the way you do are so right, that the government should FORCE EVERYONE ELSE to support your view. If your view is so great, there will be more aid! Since it's not, there won't, and it sure shouldnt be forced. You see, deep down, I believe the way Lotharr does on one level. Yes, we are all connected. We all should be able to live together free and happy and working for the better good of society. If you see Independence Day, you all can probably see what I mean. But the problem is the way the world is now. There is no way that all the problems of the world will be solved just by countries "working together". Unless all nation-states are abolished, and all people are educated and have a common goal, there is no way that your idea can work. It'd destroy national soverignity, violate the rights of the "minority", and subject the world to mob rule. What you're advocating seems to be close to global socialism. "Take from the rich (America) and give to the poor". Gee whiz, that'd be a great idea if it would DO ANYTHING. Money doesn't solve all problems. Umm, if Africa has no resources to develop, there really isn't anything to do with the area to "develop" except move them out of the area. They all need EDUCATION to do jobs that dont require natural resources, and if there are no natural resources they don't really have anything good they can do for society. No education infrastructure there, and there's no way it's just going to pop-up. Not to mention the "rulers" of the different countries aren't going to give up power by having the people educated. You see, for your idea to work, you'd need to have ALL people give up their selfish ambitions. If ONE world leader didn't agree, or a significant portion of the world population didn't agree, your idea either WOULDNT work, or it would be carried in on a ocean of blood. Ahh, get into Israel here. It related to America's role, and it's really impossible to justify ditching the Israelis and condemning them for fighting back while their people get attacked all the time, and they WONT give peace a chance. If the Palestinians CARED about peace, they'd at least STOP THE BOMBINGS during NEGOTIATIONS. Instead, they keep attacking. Obviously, those bombers are saying "any peace negotiated will not be good enough, and these bombings will continue no matter the outcome". Well, that sort of takes away any Israeli insentive to give in. What your saying is if your house is being robbed, the robber asks you "where's the safe?" and then you ask "will you kill me if i show you where the safe is?" and the robber says "yes", you'd immediately show him to the safe. Gee, talk about a good idea. Give up things just to proceed being attacked. CONTELPRO...from what you've said I can understand how it was justified for the times, although unneeded (due to lack of support). A leftist movement had no place during the Cold War, and the USSR saw it as a US weakness when they heard about them. Movements that were a threat to the US though, and could have caused a civil war, had a right to be *observed*, and ended if they preached treason. There's no way we could have known Bin Laden would repay us with the WTC towers. If I was in charge then, and I had all the information, I probably would have made the same decision as the leaders at the time did, and I bet most Americans would too. And dont think your leftist "world community" view would have worked during the Cold War. I would have gotten us nuked by the Soviet Union. Saddam, same thing. We couldn't have seen it coming. Uh, the United States has that right since we're being threatened. We shouldn't have to wait until something happens to move in, and we shouldn't have to wait till other countries agree. Also, the United States wants world peace, but that peace can only be achieved by war, especially when there is a dictatorship. Have you ever tried to change a REALLY stubborn person's mind? I know from personal experience that SOMETIMES it just DOESNT WORK. In a dictatorship, that's what it comes down to, and when you have ABSOLUTE power of a country, they are even LESS likely to change their mind. You aren't going to pull it off, so you need to remove the person. Jaguar answered your 7 steps well, but just to cap it off, Palestine would just keep attacking Israel cause they didn't like the settlement, Israel would have to retaliate because of the attacks (since the people would eventually get fed up, and if the government stayed soft-line, the people WOULD overthrow a passivist government), the UN wouldn't agree to go in, and the entire region would be hell. Actually, Israel would probably just invade and take over Palestine for the attacks, and we'd be right back where we started.
DraconisRex Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote:The lines dividing the democratic and republican parties have blured a bit since the republicans have pushed the Office of Homeland Security into existance. No, the lines were drawn when Federalists (as in George Washington) were no longer the only party.... It's all about control... quote:The office of Homeland Security sounds too much like the gestapo for my comfort as a citizen of a "free" society. For that office plans to throw the consitiution out with Ashcroft's dirty socks. There's nothing in the world like a good ol' revolution to wash socks and such. You can call this a free society if you want to, but I keep thinking of all the taxes collected illegally to support a Gestapo -- what's next? Are we gonna start burning Canandians or Mexicans in Incenarators (sp??) because terrorists MIGHT get past them? And the minute anybody says, "But it's the patriotic thing to do," I'm going to remind them, forcefully, that the "SS" were patriots too. Either learn from history, or get to repeat it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the early bird can stop the new Roman Empire from starting.
Lotharr Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote: Animals are those that celebrate the death of innocent civilians by their comrades the suicide bombers. They are barbarians. Thanks for clearing that up. Because from this statement: quote: The only thing these animals understand is force of arms, they need to be trampled into the dust until their will to fight is gone, nothing less will stop the attacks. I believe would demonstrate what a true quote: arrogant wannabe is. When a person takes a whole group of people.....blankets them under one dehumanizing comment....and speaks on policy from this truly enlightened 1930ish position we see who is who. I'll post on the rest when I get a chance.
IceCold Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 Remember, Hitler drummed up support for the Nazis by promising to protect Germany from certain groups and degraded them to a sub human state. Sound familiar? Germany was the cultural capital of the world before the world wars.
DraconisRex Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote:Originally posted by IceCold: Remember, Hitler drummed up support for the Nazis by promising to protect Germany from certain groups and degraded them to a sub human state. Sound familiar? Germany was the cultural capital of the world before the world wars.Is that where we're headed? If so, what do we do about it?
Lotharr Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 How 'bout we stop referring to anyone as animals. Still don't have enough time for a full post. Get back later.
Guest Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote: How 'bout we stop referring to anyone as animals. Sorry, not gonna do it. I call them as I see them, and if they act like uncivilized animals, then they are animals, end of story....
CommanderJohnson Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote:Originally posted by IceCold: Remember, Hitler drummed up support for the Nazis by promising to protect Germany from certain groups and degraded them to a sub human state. If the analogy was correct, i'd say "great, let's take over the world, that way we can have a one-world government". But the analogu is incorrect for one major reason: Hitler drummed up support by dehumanizing a RELIGION/RACE (depends if you call people Jewish as a religion or race) of people, a group of people that were not intrinsically harmful to society, and were guilty of DOING nothing. Dehumanizing TERRORISTS, however, is different since terrorists ARE intrinisically harmful to society. They are being singled out because of their *actions* not because of their race or religion. The Jews couldn't do anything to stop the persecution, the terrorists can (stop doing it!). Now, I don't think of the terrorists as animals (cause I think that they are engrained with this propoganda), but I can't say Jaguar is wrong or that he's looking at it the wrong way because i'm sure some of them actually believe the mission themselves, and they ARE acting like barbarians and animals. They massacre innocent civilians and think it's going to make people sympathize with their view. And for some ODD reason, people like Lotharr start to feel SORRY for groups that have suicide bombers that massacre innocent people. I would understand feeling sympathy for them if they organized mass rallies with each other in the middle of a field somewhere in Israel, and all set off bombs to kill themselves, not harming civilians. That would show the desprate plight of the people, and people would listen to what they say about the causes of it (America, Israeli oppression, etc, whatever they believe is the cause), since they are giving their lives JUST to send a message, not to kill innocent people. But as long as the Palestinians keep trying to get revenge, no one is going to listen, since it's insane to think that if someone is at war with you, that by being nice to them and throwing down your guns, they are suddenly going to stop shooting at you. Leftist intent is good, but it doesn't work in reality....
Lotharr Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 Really all I hear you guys talking about is keeping the same system in place. Violence to meet violence. We ended the cold war without ÔÇÿforceÔÇÖ of arms. We were ready but I never said vigilance is wrong. There is a clear separation between those that use terrorism and those who suffer between two sides that are both equally guilty of failing to make any real progress. To remove the will to fight, those people must want to live. While forces continue to deny basic human needs there will always be a recruiting ground. Military action is advocated to topple a leader that is holding a nation together. Very poorly but he is. If that binding force is removed and a "western friendly" democracy is installed regional resentment will grow. Especially in the face of a single nation that is being told by most other countries to back off for a while. If that new government is not stable and accepted then we will have to commit assists to that area for up to twenty years. If that new country falls apart I don't think it is going to be pretty. The concern is what will happen after such an attack. That is key in understanding what has to be done. So far Bush II (well his bosses) is taking his time. I think his whole administration is feeling the resistance to cowboy tactics. Good for them. We live with other people on this planetÔǪ get over it. As more time goes by we can build relationships or we can throw them away. I don't believe the citizens of this country will allow the world to think of us as the bad guy. We know we can not be like by all...but to hated or resented by too many is unacceptable. We'll see if we can keep it together. I am convinced as time moves forward it will become clear what peace will take. I also believe this clarity will not be created by those currently in power in our country. I further think that those in power may not stay there. While fat cats make millions and people are unemployed by corporate/congressional losers.....the people may truly ask for a change and a reevaluation of certain truths that some see so clearly. So what should America's role be? Look out for our interests but not at the expense of a global partnership aimed at advancing human development and building peace. Take action when needed and do it right the first time Become a leader in a global sense. Adhere to international laws designed to bring peace. Become that beacon of light that we could be. Not settle for sucking in all kinds of material to satisfy an already unsustainable appetite. But thatÔÇÖs just my opinion. It could be right. It could make things harder. But at least I know I donÔÇÖt know it allÔǪhow about you?
Lotharr Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote: Hitler drummed up support by dehumanizing a RELIGION/RACE (depends if you call people Jewish as a religion or race) of people, a group of people that were not intrinsically harmful to society, and were guilty of DOING nothing. Dehumanizing TERRORISTS, however, is different since terrorists ARE intrinisically harmful to society. They are being singled out because of their *actions* not because of their race or religion. The Jews couldn't do anything to stop the persecution, the terrorists can (stop doing it!). Dehumanizing any person or group is the first step in creating some authority base on which to build the justification of killing another human being. It is the home of the ignorant.filled with the morally impoverished and insecure. But it is a large home and makes one feel safe. [ 08-07-2002, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
CommanderJohnson Posted August 8, 2002 Report Posted August 8, 2002 quote: Really all I hear you guys talking about is keeping the same system in place. Violence to meet violence. We ended the cold war without ÔÇÿforceÔÇÖ of arms. We were ready but I never said vigilance is wrong. So you want another Cold War, where countries that have WMDs and totalitarian regimes can take over other nations with no threat of retaliation? Where those regimes can kill their own people for speaking out against the oppression. So you'd advocate waiting for Iraq's people to rise up against Saddam...great idea, too bad by that time he will have already sold some WMDs to terrorists, and New York will probably be empty and radiated... quote: There is a clear separation between those that use terrorism and those who suffer between two sides that are both equally guilty of failing to make any real progress. Ok, I think we all understand that people suffer in war. We all understand that it'd be nice if war wasn't needed. You seem to be saying that all life is valuable and we should try our best to preserve life, and I agree with that too. What we seem to be disagreeing on is what is going to save the most lives. Listening to the "global community" while they are full of many non-committal anti-war activists (until THEY get attacked), is going to cost many more lives. Following their lead, we would wait for Saddam to have WMDs, or use WMDs, or sell WMDs, then attack him with allied support. That SOUNDS good, but that increases the death toll. Saddam's military will be stronger, more people will be in it, and thus more Americans would die AND more Iraqis would die, and more likely than not, WMDs would have been proliferated, and US or European cities would be destroyed, or maybe Israel could fall apart. You seem to be saying "listen to the international community" *and* "all life is valuable". Well, which is it? You cant have both. More people are going to die and suffer under oppressive regimes for a longer length of time if we "follow the international community" than if we take out the totalitarian regimes by force. quote: To remove the will to fight, those people must want to live. While forces continue to deny basic human needs there will always be a recruiting ground. Now, you may maintain that these "forces" are the capitalistic countries like the United States. Well, your wrong. If you look at the countries that the vast majority of terrorists come from, you'll notice that in none of those countries is it a republic/democracy, and/or in none of those countries are the people truly FREE. They are all oppressive regimes. It's not the US that's causing the problems, it's the fact the regimes are oppressive and FEED THEM messages of hate. "Destroy America, they caused your plight! Destroy America, they caused your plight! (repeats over and over daily in the presses and on the radio)" When you don't have anything contradicting it, and your suffering, what else is there to do except believe it? quote: Military action is advocated to topple a leader that is holding a nation together. Very poorly but he is. If that binding force is removed and a "western friendly" democracy is installed regional resentment will grow. Especially in the face of a single nation that is being told by most other countries to back off for a while. If that new government is not stable and accepted then we will have to commit assists to that area for up to twenty years. If that new country falls apart I don't think it is going to be pretty. That "leader" threatened all of his neighbors and invaded Kuwait. His neighbors may not LIKE United States action now, but it sure isn't going to destablize the region. They are going to be glad to see a power-hungry and dangerous leader like Saddam go. Also, if the new nation was not accepted and was attacked by its neighbors, we would probably just go in and take out those regimes too. But I honestly believe that the leadership of other countries in the Middle East is NOT going to mess with the United States. They know that if they do, they are going to get invaded just like Iraq did. The less power concentrated in one person, the more rational the regime seems to be... quote: I don't believe the citizens of this country will allow the world to think of us as the bad guy. We know we can not be like by all...but to hated or resented by too many is unacceptable. Most of this country doesn't know what the rest of the world thinks about us, or doesn't care. Those that do care (I actually care, just not to your extent), realize that the nations that are going to get really UPSET about military action in Iraq pose absolutely no threat to us, and are going to harm us in no way at all. On a cost-benefit analysis, taking out Saddam is a good idea, and it's thinking ahead. If we don't do it now, more will die. For some reason people like to procrastinate "He's not a threat now, let's wait" on and on until finally he IS a threat, and it's too late to get it over with easily. quote: Look out for our interests but not at the expense of a global partnership aimed at advancing human development and building peace. Could you define this "global partnership..."? What countries are invovled now? What exactly do other countries do and the US should do that would help this global partnership, what kind of US laws would need to be passed, etc, and how would it advance human development and build peace? And how does attacking Iraq without other nations support ruin it? quote:But thatÔÇÖs just my opinion. It could be right. It could make things harder. But at least I know I donÔÇÖt know it allÔǪhow about you? Learning daily. quote: Dehumanizing any person or group is the first step in creating some authority base on which to build the justification of killing another human being. It is the home of the ignorantÔǪ.filled with the morally impoverished and insecure. But it is a large home and makes one feel safe. Races were dehumanized in order to win wars (Japanese during WW2 springs to mind). You can't order a soldier to kill someone who they think is like them, because then they could possibly think of it as murder, hesitate, and get killed themselves. So yes, your right, groups are dehumanized in order to make people feel better about killing others. That shows exactly where the analogy falls apart though. Hitler dehumanized the Jews. The Jews did nothing to deserve to die. Terrorists, however, dehumanized themselves through suicide bombings of civilians in Israel and ESPECIALLY after 9/11 they were dehumanized to the vast majority of the American public. It didn't even take a government propganda campaign! The terrorists, also, deserve to be dehumanized either way. Now, honestly, I don't think people *deserve* to die, but if the terrorists are a group that is singled out for elimination by society, I see nothing wrong with it. They CHOSE to be terrorists, they KILLED INNOCENT CIVILIANS, and *DIRECTLY* SUPPORT the killing of INNOCENT civilians. If they are going to be an evil force, and they are evil, they should be incapacitated, and it seems that the only way to do that is with a bullet.
IceCold Posted August 8, 2002 Report Posted August 8, 2002 quote: I don't believe the citizens of this country will allow the world to think of us as the bad guy. We know we can not be like by all...but to hated or resented by too many is unacceptable. It is unfortunate that the Arab world views us as the "Great Satin" but this cannot be helped with the current approach. The Islamic world in general is a backwards looking culture meaning they look more to their past for responses to present problems than the western world. This view is problematic for the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I represented the decline of Islamic influence in the modern and post-modern eras. When the "Black day" is referenced in Islamic cultures everyone understands the symbol for it defines the defeat of the Islamic world at the hands of the west. The United States is the most powerful western country and therefore is the recipient of the vengeance enticed by and event that took place 85 years ago. -Possible solution Improve the standard of living for the Islamic countries and the populations will become more conservative. Content countries do not often succumb to dictatorships or radical actions such as terrorism. If this plan succeeds, Arab terrorism should be at a minimal-nonexistent rate in 50 years. -Regards to Nazi omen I do not foresee the United States becoming a fascist state in the next 75 years for the standard of living now is too high to warrant a "strong leader to save the country," Germany was in a weakened cultural state after World War I and allowed the Nazi party to rise up and rescue their nation; which it did, but at a terrible price. I wrote more of a warning about hatred for hate corrupts a society which could spread like a cancer and weaken the culture enough to allow radical decisions. ***random note I am an ensign now! ...Still working on that commander promotion though [ 08-07-2002, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: IceCold ]
IceCold Posted August 8, 2002 Report Posted August 8, 2002 quote: If they are going to be an evil force, and they are evil, they should be incapacitated, and it seems that the only way to do that is with a bullet. Dehumanizing in any form, warented or not, can lead to dire consequences.
IceCold Posted August 8, 2002 Report Posted August 8, 2002 quote: So you want another Cold War, where countries that have WMDs and totalitarian regimes can take over other nations with no threat of retaliation? Where those regimes can kill their own people for speaking out against the oppression. So you'd advocate waiting for Iraq's people to rise up against Saddam...great idea, too bad by that time he will have already sold some WMDs to terrorists, and New York will probably be empty and radiated... The the majority of the population of Iraq rally to the support of thier leader and would die for him in any confilct especially if it means protecting him from the "Great Satin".
Guest Posted August 8, 2002 Report Posted August 8, 2002 OK, this article is rather long, but he says it exactly right, and in a humorous way. Read it and weep!! This is by Mark Steyn, a canadian who lives in the US. When a canadian can see it this clearly, but US citizens cannot, it worries me. Mark Steyn: A War for Civilization quote: War with Iraq looms and not everyone is happy about it. ÔÇÿI think the principle of ÔÇ£first things firstÔÇØ does apply,ÔÇÖ says Al Gore, ÔÇÿand has to be followed if we are to have any chance of success.ÔÇÖ By this he means that, instead of SaddamÔÇÖs removal, AfghanistanÔÇÖs stability ÔÇÿneeds to be assured firstÔÇÖ. In Britain, those two old pantomime dames, Ted Heath and Denis Healey, are pursing their lips and hoisting their bosoms, not for the first time. Wisely, Lord Healey is not being quite as specific in his predictions of doom as he was in 1991, when he confidently asserted that war with Saddam would ÔÇÿpush up the price of oil to $65 a barrel for about a year, produce a collapse in the American banking system ...and produce a world recessionÔÇÖ. Meanwhile, the Continentals are all hot for Unmovic. I assumed Unmovic was the new and even more obstinate Serb strongman, but apparently itÔÇÖs the latest inspections regime ÔÇö the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission ÔÇö that SaddamÔÇÖs suddenly all eager to invite in. Now why do you think that might be? Of course, his vice-president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, wants an assurance from the UN that its inspections wonÔÇÖt be ÔÇÿintrusiveÔÇÖ, and no doubt theyÔÇÖd be happy to go along. Give Saddam a quick glide with the electronic wand, no need for a full cavity search, itÔÇÖs all just for show anyway. That the old butcher is developing weapons of mass destruction is not in doubt. The only question is whether or not heÔÇÖll use them ÔÇö or, more to the point, use them on anybody we give a toss about. The Eurosophists reckon he wonÔÇÖt. Washington would rather make sure he canÔÇÖt. Beyond that, the President isnÔÇÖt really interested in making a case. Those who want to do so on his behalf draw attention to a pre-11 September meeting in Prague between SaddamÔÇÖs man and Mohammed Atta. Others say that, if the new Bush Doctrine of ÔÇÿpre-emptionÔÇÖ means anything, SaddamÔÇÖs the obvious place to start. But I prefer to look at it this way: WhatÔÇÖs the real long-term war aim of the United States? IÔÇÖd say itÔÇÖs this ÔÇö to bring the Middle East within the civilised world. How do you do that? Tricky, but this we can say for certain: youÔÇÖll never be able to manage it with the present crowd ÔÇö Saddam, the Ayatollahs, the House of Saud, Boy Assad, Mubarak, Yasser. When Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, warns the BBC that a US invasion of Iraq would ÔÇÿthreaten the whole stability of the Middle EastÔÇÖ, heÔÇÖs missing the point: thatÔÇÖs the reason itÔÇÖs such a great idea. Suppose we buy in to MoussaÔÇÖs pitch and place stability above all other considerations. We get another 25 years of the Ayatollahs, another 35 years of the PLO and Hamas, another 40 years of the Baathists in Syria and Iraq, another 80 years of Saudi Wahabbism. What kind of Middle East are we likely to have at the end of all that? The regionÔÇÖs in the state itÔÇÖs in because, uniquely in the non-democratic world, itÔÇÖs too stable. ItÔÇÖs the stability of the cesspit. So if you want to destabilise the entire region, whereÔÇÖs the best place to start? Answer: the regime that represents the height of the stability junkiesÔÇÖ folly. It was the fetishisation of stability that led to Bush Sr, Colin Powell and co. leaving the Saddamites in power 11 years ago. In Britain, Joe Biden is known, if at all, as the only man in America crazy enough to try to become president by plagiarising Neil Kinnock (the stuff about being the only Kinnock, er, Biden, in a thousand generations to go to college). But in America he is, believe it or not, still a powerful Democratic senator and these days just about every ten minutes somewhere on your radio or TV dial you can hear him re-telling a pompous little anecdote in which he explains how heÔÇÖs warned Bush against taking out Saddam. ÔÇÿMr President,ÔÇÖ he claims to have said, ÔÇÿthere is a reason your father stopped and did not go to Baghdad. The reason he stopped is he didnÔÇÖt want to stay for five years.ÔÇÖ And your point is...? By my arithmetic, that means weÔÇÖd have been out in 1996. Sounds a good deal to me. Instead, itÔÇÖs late summer 2002 and weÔÇÖre still ineffectually bombing Iraq every week while somehow managing to get blamed for systematically starving to death a million Iraqi kids ÔÇö or two million or whatever itÔÇÖs up to by now ÔÇö through UN sanctions, though funnily enough UN sanctions donÔÇÖt seem to have so tightened SaddamÔÇÖs purse strings that he canÔÇÖt find 25,000 bucks to give to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber. More than that, heÔÇÖs still here. And, simply by being still here, heÔÇÖs what passes for a success story in the Arab world. HeÔÇÖs living proof to the boneheads on the ÔÇÿArab streetÔÇÖ that you can be violently anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-everything, and get away with it. Today, French flights are once again landing at Saddam Hussein International Airport in Baghdad. With every year he survives, the will to constrain him diminishes and his legend throughout the region increases. So Saddam has to go. He will fall quickly, as quickly as the Taleban fell. The disparity between poorly trained and scared Iraqi troops and the American forces will be greater even than 11 years ago, and without the hand-tying multilateralism of a Stanley Gibbons collect-the-set coalition. What happens then is harder to predict. I doubt whether any coherent post-Saddam administration can come from the disaffected freaks, creeps and losers assembled by the realpolitik set in London the other week and launched as the ÔÇÿIraqi National MovementÔÇÖ. But, as Al Gore would say, first things first: itÔÇÖs not strictly necessary for a new regime in Iraq to be better than its predecessor, only different. That sends the important message that whose fingernails you rip out in the dungeon of the presidential palace is your affair, but start monkeying with us and youÔÇÖve written your last romantic novel, moustache boy. ThatÔÇÖs the immediate and critical US aim. Nonetheless, whoever succeeds Saddam will almost certainly be an improvement. ThatÔÇÖs to say, he will, at worst, be a post-11 September General Musharraf ÔÇö a non-deranged dictator whoÔÇÖll stick the anthrax programme on the back burner, attend to more pressing economic matters, and thereby set in motion a chain of events, state by state. Just to run through a few: Saudi Arabia: I donÔÇÖt believe those stories in the British press about the Kingdom being on the verge of collapse. In fact, IÔÇÖd say they most likely came from Crown Prince Abdullah himself, desperate to stave off the invasion of Iraq. His ludicrous ÔÇÿPalestinian peace planÔÇÖ served as a grand diversion this spring and heÔÇÖs hoping this latest wheeze will see him through to New Year. One reason why the House of Saud wants Saddam to stick around is because the first thing a new Iraqi regime will do, liberated from UN constraints on oil exports, is start pumping an extra couple million gallons a day. ItÔÇÖs a small point but one worth noting that, by keeping Saddam in power but restricting his ability to sell oil, the West to a certain extent punishes itself. A new regime in Baghdad, whether democratic or not, means more oil, which means cheaper prices at the pump, which means more pressure on the House of Saud, whose underpants get tightened a notch with every per barrel dollar drop. Thus, SaddamÔÇÖs removal could be seriously crushing. There are no good guys in Saudi Arabia ÔÇö the choice is between those who are openly pro-al-QaÔÇÖeda and those who are quietly buying them off ÔÇö but the less money theyÔÇÖre getting from oil, the less they have to fund Islamist recruitment in Europe, South Asia and North America; and the more internal dissension there is in the kingdom, the more likely their excitable young men are to wage the jihad at home rather than abroad. Jordan: there are rumours doing the rounds in Washington that King Abdullah has been more or less bought by Saddam, and pretty cheaply, too. This is in the grand tradition of King HusseinÔÇÖs decision to stick with his Iraqi ÔÇÿbrotherÔÇÖ during the last Gulf War, when even the Syrians signed up with the Americans. ItÔÇÖs obvious that the longer Saddam stays in power the more Jordan will be corrupted, and eventually weÔÇÖll wind up with one more fetid Arab sewer state. The Hashemite Kingdom is already an important route for Iraqi sanctions-busting, and Saddam would quite like to use it as a military highway, too. Of all the hardline anti-Jew rejectionist regimes in the Middle East, the Saddamites are the only ones anxious to send their troops into combat against Israel. All thatÔÇÖs restraining them is the Arab countries theyÔÇÖd have to pass through en route. Every year Saddam stays in power increases the chance heÔÇÖll turn Jordan into a de facto colony and thruway to the battlefield. IÔÇÖm not a Hashemite romantic: when you actually sit down and try and work out why Jordan gets such a good press, it seems to boil down mainly to the royal familyÔÇÖs taste in hot-looking Westernised women. But, if their good points remain kinda mysterious, itÔÇÖs nevertheless the case that theyÔÇÖve got fewer bad points than any of their neighbours. The problem is theyÔÇÖve been beached by history in a chronically vulnerable state. So it would be nice to be able to give them a chance to reclaim their destiny. The best solution for Saudi Arabia would be to dismember it, share the coastal regions between the friendlier Gulf emirs, take over the oil fields and give the Muslim holy sites to Jordan. If King AbdullahÔÇÖs really in bed with Saddam, too bad: thereÔÇÖs always his uncle, Prince Hassan. But getting Saddam off the Hashemite windpipe will be the first step in letting the most reformable Arab regime start reforming. Iran: as I write this, the original Islamist nutters are firing on their hapless citizens in Tehran, Esfahan, Ghazvin and other Iranian cities. The popular demonstrations are to mark the 96th anniversary of the constitutional monarchy and, so far as one can tell from the patchy reports, it sounds more like Hungary 1956 than Czechoslovakia 1989. But there are some interesting details. Protesters report that the regimeÔÇÖs riot police are speaking Arabic. That confirms rumours that the mullahs have hired Saudis, Iraqis and others to do the heavy work of shooting civilians. The likelihood that a young pro-Western population will be cowed by Arab outsiders decreases significantly after SaddamÔÇÖs gone: theyÔÇÖll no longer be the crack troops of the regional superpower but only the despised remnants of a loser regime. The Palestinian Authority: the Palestinian people are perhaps the best testament to the defects of stability. TheyÔÇÖve been kept in an artificially stable environment for half a century: the faux ÔÇÿrefugee campsÔÇÖ of Jenin and the like, which are effectively UN-supervised terrorist-training facilities now populated by three generations of ÔÇÿrefugeesÔÇÖ whoÔÇÖve never lived in the places theyÔÇÖre supposed to be refugees from. The millions of displaced persons in postwar Europe or India at partition should thank God they never caught the eye of the UN. All-out war to the death would be preferable, regardless of who won. Either the Arabs would get their way and push the Jews into the sea or the Arabs would be decisively beaten once and for all. But neither scenario would have led to the remorseless descent into depravity that the Palestinians have accomplished in their UN-mandated limbo. The death-cult psychosis doesnÔÇÖt exist in isolation: itÔÇÖs armed by Iran, bankrolled by Iraq, and philosophically sustained by Saudi Islamism. It will not survive the liquidation of its state patrons. This is good news for any Palestinians interested in actual life. None of the above will happen without a massive humiliating military defeat of the Arab worldÔÇÖs Number One loonitoon. Shortly thereafter, the Ayatollahs and olÔÇÖ man Yasser will be gone, and the House of Saud, Junior Assad and Mubarak will follow. Think IÔÇÖm crazy? Look at the map the last time we went to war with Saddam. In 1991, Afghanistan was still communist, as were the Central Asian republics; Pakistan was under the corrupt Sharif regime; and the newly united Yemen was on its way to civil war. Eleven years later, General Musharraf is trying his hardest to be WashingtonÔÇÖs new best friend, and American forces are in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and even Georgia. The Middle EastÔÇÖs eastern and northern borders have quietly become an American sphere of influence. The regimes on the ground are of varying degrees of unattractiveness, but none of ÔÇÖem is causing the West any trouble. ThatÔÇÖs the way Araby will look in a couple of years. It starts in Baghdad, and soon.
Commander Elio Jason Posted August 8, 2002 Report Posted August 8, 2002 i agree completely. and it will all start when the B2s fly in.
Lotharr Posted August 8, 2002 Report Posted August 8, 2002 quote: So you want another Cold War, where countries that have WMDs and totalitarian regimes can take over other nations with no threat of retaliation? Where those regimes can kill their own people for speaking out against the oppression. So you'd advocate waiting for Iraq's people to rise up against Saddam...great idea, too bad by that time he will have already sold some WMDs to terrorists, and New York will probably be empty and radiated... When has the UN ever sanctioned one country taking over anotheror aggression without reason? You have been here the whole time right? I will put it to you again. Experts that have been called to testify about Iraq agree that he does not represent an immediate threat that the Bush administration would have us believe. So I would say before we run in guns blazing we use this time to create a multi lateral plan and then take action. quote: Ok, I think we all understand that people suffer in war. We all understand that it'd be nice if war wasn't needed. You seem to be saying that all life is valuable and we should try our best to preserve life, and I agree with that too. What we seem to be disagreeing on is what is going to save the most lives. Listening to the "global community" while they are full of many non-committal anti-war activists (until THEY get attacked), is going to cost many more lives. Following their lead, we would wait for Saddam to have WMDs, or use WMDs, or sell WMDs, then attack him with allied support. That SOUNDS good, but that increases the death toll. Saddam's military will be stronger, more people will be in it, and thus more Americans would die AND more Iraqis would die, and more likely than not, WMDs would have been proliferated, and US or European cities would be destroyed, or maybe Israel could fall apart. You work off the assumption that the international community is dumb as a box of rocks. I don't believe they are. They have shown more patience and deeper understanding then this country could begin to muster. Sorry but Europe lived war. We saved them and we think we some bad mo fo's....Vietnam took us sown a notch...as poorly thought out policy will. Perhaps we haven't learned the full lesson yet. Your extrapolation is based off of a poor assessment of the global communities situational awareness skills. They know Sadam is a problem and a threat. What they don't like (I believe) is the greater threat of a powerful country running around making calls without all facts. And I don't like it either. But Bush is now taking his time because his betters have told him to hush for a while. quote: Now, you may maintain that these "forces" are the capitalistic countries like the United States. Well, your wrong. You said that not me. quote: If you look at the countries that the vast majority of terrorists come from, you'll notice that in none of those countries is it a republic/democracy, and/or in none of those countries are the people truly FREE. They are all oppressive regimes. It's not the US that's causing the problems, it's the fact the regimes are oppressive and FEED THEM messages of hate. Global demonsrators at various conventions have been called terrorists and they didn't do anything but catch a beating. I do not assume that a group is actually terrorist because the admin tells me so. But I think one thing is true. As totalitarian regimes fall it will be harder to dismiss people out of hand. quote: "Destroy America, they caused your plight! Destroy America, they caused your plight! (repeats over and over daily in the presses and on the radio)" When you don't have anything contradicting it, and your suffering, what else is there to do except believe it? Destroy Iraq! There gonna get us Destroy Iraq their gonna get us!! That's all I was hearing after 9-11 from our free media....but I'm still here somehow.... quote: That "leader" threatened all of his neighbors and invaded Kuwait. His neighbors may not LIKE United States action now, but it sure isn't going to destablize the region. K God. quote: They are going to be glad to see a power-hungry and dangerous leader like Saddam go Make room for some CEO's quote: Also, if the new nation was not accepted and was attacked by its neighbors, we would probably just go in and take out those regimes too Cool more fighting....you like this cause when your old enough you can still have a war to fight? quote: But I honestly believe that the leadership of other countries in the Middle East is NOT going to mess with the United States Well if your sure..thats enough for me quote: They know that if they do, they are going to get invaded just like Iraq did So then you understand why no one in that immediate are wants us to invade. So do we start a new draft to hold all this land? quote: The less power concentrated in one person, the more rational the regime seems to be... Heh heh....but we got Bush....and all his buddies...and I can't find the rational in running off to war without some good solid debate. quote: Most of this country doesn't know what the rest of the world thinks about us, or doesn't care. Those that do care (I actually care, just not to your extent), realize that the nations that are going to get really UPSET about military action in Iraq pose absolutely no threat to us, and are going to harm us in no way at all. On a cost-benefit analysis, taking out Saddam is a good idea, and it's thinking ahead. If we don't do it now, more will die. For some reason people like to procrastinate "He's not a threat now, let's wait" on and on until finally he IS a threat, and it's too late to get it over with easily. You have no idea how pissing on the rest of the group leads to individual ruin. But one day you will have to work with others. I bet you don't run your personal life shooting from the hip. And again it is all speculation on what would be better in the long run. Who is to say. One man and his crooked advisors? If congress believes it then I would feel a lot better. quote: Could you define this "global partnership..."? What countries are invovled now? What exactly do other countries do and the US should do that would help this global partnership, what kind of US laws would need to be passed, etc, and how would it advance human development and build peace? And how does attacking Iraq without other nations support ruin it? Don't have time for all that I'm a full time soldier at present. However I am joining the Guard and will reclass to 19D tomorrow. So after I get my PHD I will fill you in. For now I would settle for the UN.....international law....international decision making. quote: Races were dehumanized in order to win wars (Japanese during WW2 springs to mind). You can't order a soldier to kill someone who they think is like them, because then they could possibly think of it as murder, hesitate, and get killed themselves. So yes, your right, groups are dehumanized in order to make people feel better about killing others. That shows exactly where the analogy falls apart though. What? No it doesn't it. It does show how governments based of supremacist thinking loose though....and we Americans are pretty awesome aren't we? quote: Hitler dehumanized the Jews. The Jews did nothing to deserve to die. Terrorists, however, dehumanized themselves through suicide bombings of civilians in Israel and ESPECIALLY after 9/11 they were dehumanized to the vast majority of the American public. It didn't even take a government propganda campaign! The terrorists, also, deserve to be dehumanized either way. Now, honestly, I don't think people *deserve* to die, but if the terrorists are a group that is singled out for elimination by society, I see nothing wrong with it. They CHOSE to be terrorists, they KILLED INNOCENT CIVILIANS, and *DIRECTLY* SUPPORT the killing of INNOCENT civilians. If they are going to be an evil force, and they are evil, they should be incapacitated, and it seems that the only way to do that is with a bullet. Yep and now Israeli policy is dehumanizing Palestinians...full circle. Terrorists are people. To stop them we have to understand what it takes to stop people from strapping explosives on their backs. We don't let terror win...we allow freedom and liberty to prevail. And if some people have gone so far as to remove themselves from the humanity we cherish we have to deal with them. That was a good article. However, a lot is based on the assumption that Iraq will fall over and the region does not go crazy. Of course it doesn't have to go crazy we can just piss enough people off that they feel they shouldn't deal with a rouge nation anymore.
Guest Posted August 8, 2002 Report Posted August 8, 2002 I am going to say 2 things. 1: the UN is a fricking JOKE!! they couldn't tie their own shoes let alone run a war, look at what's left of Serbia. If we are going to play policeman, I would rather have it for our national interest then WORLD interest. America is the sole superpower, we don't have to ask for permission from ANYONE!! The rest of the world needs us, far more then we need thier cowardly pansy behinds. 2: Iraq HAS the WMD's, I don't care what some ex-inspector has to say. If he gets his long range missiles built, bye bye Israel, then ALL hell breaks loose when we nuke the hell out of the middle east. Either we take him out now, before he is capable of using his WMD's, or we will have to NUKE the whole middle east later. Hmm, which would I choose? hard choice there Lothar!!
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now