America's Role.

[Guest $iLk]

The worst thing in the world we can do is engage in more nation-building. Historically this has not worked well for us except in 'civilized' nations (Germany & Japan), which I have yet to see in the Islamic world (no offense).

I agree Sadam is 'evil' and must be put out of power. However, I do not believe that it is the United State's responsibility to directly oust him and set up a puppet government. We should support the revolutionaries that are there (same as in Afghanistan).

Hell, imagining a world without Sadam Hussein is like imagining Cuba without Fidel Castro isn't it?

I will support Bush's decision, however I think that simply going in and removing Sadam is a mistake in the long run.

We could at least be secretive about it and have him assassainated. Just a thought.

[Lotharr]

I thought assassination is what a rogue nation would do? I thought assassination was considered an act of terrorism and violated international law....but you think stuff like that doesn't need to apply to us...?

[Charles Lindsey]

$ilk, I agree with you. "Going after" Saddam without the support of our world peers would be nothing more than vigilante justice. I can't do that as a person; neither should the US do it as a country.

Whether it's right or wrong is about to become a moot point because as you guys were busy arguing (and I was busy reading) Bush HAS gone to congress for approval, Bush HAS gone to the UN to make his case.

I may not like the thought of it but I admit he's at least doing it the right way.

There's other things floating around but this is going right.

[Guest $iLk]

I think if assassaination of one person (Sadam) using a 50 cent bullet can be accomplished - it is much better than spending 180 million dollars and putting our troops in harms way to fight a war that shouldn't be theirs to fight, at least not alone.

[Guest $iLk]

Oh, and Charles - it's not that I really worry about what the UN or the world thinks, I just believe that the United States - as a sovereign nation should afford other nations the same respect and accountability that we expect for ourselves.

How would we feel if Kofi Annan decided Bush was a new Hitler and had to be ousted and sent 'baby blue' troops to invade the US to "topple a dictator". Now imagine how happy the families of the Iraqi dead are going to be that we 'liberated' them from their leader, at the cost of dead husbands, sons, and fathers.

[Lotharr]

You guys get that....

Not that I agree that assassination should be legal in any context but...he did try to kill 41 so...those many bullets that fall from the sky when certain people celebrate with AK47 fire into the air can be extremely dangerous authorities warn....it would be a shame if he didn't get that particular memo....

AND 43 would have plausible deniability because everyone knows he isn't in charge of much.....heh heh...it's the small things that get you through...

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Oh, and Charles

---

Don't scare me like that. That phrase usually precedes a rant or a stern talking to.

quote:

---

it's not that I really worry about what the UN or the world thinks, I just believe that the United States - as a sovereign nation should afford other nations the same respect and accountability that we expect for ourselves.

---

Exactly right I think.

I could argue that you seemingly contradict yourself though. If you (the US) didn't care what others (other coutries) think you wouldn't give them that respect. Not worth arguing though. . Wars start over misunderstandings smaller than that.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

Told you..all about the oil..I didnt think you would miss that one.our standard of living should never be threatened by a mad manerthat we put into power because we could predict what he would do.er.uh.duh.

---

AGAIN, HOW DOES A WAR WITH IRAQ BENEFIT OUR OIL SUPPLY? Most likely the wells would be set fire to, most likely other arab nations would cut their oil production due to a US war with Iraq, oil prices would go UP. Also, even if they don't go up, we're currently trying to get new sources of oil so we don't even need the Middle East, so why would we risk destroying our economy and going farther into debt by invading Iraq when we have OTHER SOURCES FOR OIL?!? Your liberal BS rants make no sense. You keep repeating the catch phrases but keep ignoring my requests for some sort of logic how business and oil benefits from a war. *IT DOESNT*

quote:

---

Just heard that ol' Rummy actually met with Saddam back in the dayto give him weapons....imagine that...this guy loves playing master of the universe....I wonder how many American deaths Rummy is indirectly responsible for.....If I didnt laugh I think Id have to cry

---

Yeah, we kept him in power then because it was the lesser of two evils. Now we get rid of him since he *IS* the evil. Your point? Fears based on history don't prove anything unless you can spell out a likely scenario for the future.

quote:

---

I agree Sadam is 'evil' and must be put out of power. However, I do not believe that it is the United State's responsibility to directly oust him and set up a puppet government. We should support the revolutionaries that are there (same as in Afghanistan).

---

I would agree, but there are too many problems with that, such as causing uprisings and revolts in Turkey, which would cause the entire Middle East to go to hell. Sure, I don't really care since the people would probably have a good case for uprising, but of course the US would be blamed for those uprisings, and we'd have a lot more problems than we signed up for. At least if we do it ourselves, we have some degree of "control" so we can set up a government that isn't going to fracture into 2-3 seperate nations...

quote:

---

We could at least be secretive about it and have him assassainated. Just a thought.

---

Not a bad thought. I always thought it was stupid how in the Civil and Revolutionary Wars and prior to that the British and American Armies (or whatever nation), all lined up then attacked each other. It was stupid and ended up with a lot more bloodshed than needed. Sending in troops is stupid compared to just getting the end result (death of Saddam) with less risk of life.

quote:

---

I thought assassination is what a rogue nation would do? I thought assassination was considered an act of terrorism and violated international law....but you think stuff like that doesn't need to apply to us...?

---

We are international law, just like we are the UN. I didn't think it was considered an act of terrorism (since it isn't against a civilian population), but even if it is, it shouldn't be since he's effectively the leader of the armed forces.

quote:

---

How would we feel if Kofi Annan decided Bush was a new Hitler and had to be ousted and sent 'baby blue' troops to invade the US to "topple a dictator". Now imagine how happy the families of the Iraqi dead are going to be that we 'liberated' them from their leader, at the cost of dead husbands, sons, and fathers.

---

Look at Afghanistan. We killed some of their families in the bombing, but they were extremely glad to be free from the Taliban and out of oppression. They are always going to prefer freedom to oppression, and no one can say that they aren't oppressed, or present any evidence to that fact, since if they claim to be oppressed, they immediately and oddly "disappear".

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

AGAIN, HOW DOES A WAR WITH IRAQ BENEFIT OUR OIL SUPPLY?

---

Not the supply in and of itself but who gets to profit from it. I read a (probably very obscure by now) article on Yahoo news. It was wither AP or Reuters. American oil companies are already petitioning the white house for the chance to deal with Iraq.

The Sanctions against Iraq prohibit them from dealing wth Iraq.

quote:

---

I would agree, but

---

But the argument is whether the US should act with unilateral abandon.

quote:

---

. I always thought it was stupid how in the Civil and Revolutionary Wars and prior to that the British and American Armies (or whatever nation),

---

Umm if I remember right the british lined up according to the prim and proper rules of war and Americans invented guerilla tactics.

quote:

---

We are international law

---

We are NOT. How arrogant.

quote:

---

just like we are the UN

---

We are NOT. We might be a charter and permanent member but we are NOT the entire UN. UN means United Nations. Or did you forget that?

[Guest]

quote:

---

We are NOT. We might be a charter and permanent member but we are NOT the entire UN. UN means United Nations. Or did you forget that?

---

Sorry Charles, but I must disagree. without us the UN would not exist. We finance it almost 78% the last time I checked. WE ARE THE UN, because without us they would be a bunch of little dictators crying to each other in some 3rd world country, instead of here in the US with thier big limos and cushy job.

WE ARE THE UN, and we should leave it and let it fold up for the sham that it is.

And Bush has already reversed the Executive order that Jimmy Carter put into effect saying that we would not go after a particular leader of a foreign country and assassinate them. He got really upset that Israel was going around the world and killing terrorists. So he made an executive order stating that we could not do it. The wussy!! President Bush has since reversed that order. Saddam is fair game for a SF sniper team, or any other weapon for that matter.

Assassination is part of the US arsenal now.

2 guys and a rifle is all it would take, and that is probably what will occur in the end.

Hey when you're waiting for an army, you're more then likely gonna miss a little Sniper team camping in the hotel across the street.

[ 09-21-2002, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

An offer we can choose to refuse

Washington Times ^ | 9/21/02 | Paul Greenberg

What's this, a good word for George W. Bush from Kofi Annan, secretary-general and appeaser in chief of the United Nations?

Yep. It took only four days after the American president and, we emphasize, the American commander in chief addressed the United Nations before Iraq's Saddam Hussein was making nice again.

"I believe the president's speech galvanized the international community," concluded Kofi Annan. We don't know about that — the French and Russians and Arab delegations appear as sluggish as ever, the Chinese as inscrutable. But the president's words, and more important, the growing suspicion he meant them, certainly galvanized Saddam Hussein. Now he's hanging out banners saying, "Welcome, U.N. inspectors."

Translation: The Mideast's own Wile E. Coyote is no longer insisting on impossible conditions before agreeing to let international inspectors back into his country. If the past is any guide, and it is, said impossible conditions will only be reinstated later, when the heat's off.

Saddam Hussein is playing for time. He's done it for years now. It may take those inspectors weeks or months before they get to Baghdad and start fanning out in their search for signs of his strategic weapons and attempts to develop them. Chances are he can keep them at bay. And if he's found out, again, what are the inspectors going to do about it? Report it to the United Nations, that glorified Dead Letter Office? The only thing such a report will set off is still another round of negotiations, and the games will begin again.

Word is that Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein worked together on the draft of Iraq's letter accepting the inspectors; they could wind up working together on the letter withdrawing them once they haven't found anything Saddam Hussein doesn't want them to find.

By now Saddam has tossed these same inspectors out a couple of times — whenever they started closing in on his weapons labs. It's not exactly a secret why he's relented this time: the fear that the Americans may actually mean what they say this time.

To turn around Karl von Clausewitz's dictum — diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means. Saddam Hussein's latest diplomatic offensive was as predictable as it was practiced. Remember how he sent his foreign minister to negotiate Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait in January 1991, once Washington had made it clear it was serious about forcing him to relinquish his oil-rich prize?

After a six-hour confab between his oily foreign minister and James Baker, it turned out Saddam was interested only in negotiating his withdrawal from Kuwait, not in withdrawing. And the war came.

Now Iraq's own Ibn Hitler is interested in having the U.N.'s inspectors return, but certainly not in their finding anything to inspect. Like supplies of anthrax, or nerve gas, or the makings of a nuclear weapon. You can bet he's got his agents out now bidding for fissionable material. That's the word from American intelligence, the New York Times and assorted Iraqi defectors. And no one who has followed Saddam Hussein's dangerous career would doubt it.

Time and again, Iraq's ruthless ruler has assured the world he's not developing strategic weapons, preparatory to harassing and then expelling inspectors who got too close to discovering the truth. Now the world is supposed to believe him again. Much of it will. The credulous at home and abroad will want to believe it. So will those who would just rather not challenge him and hope for the best. The attractions of appeasement did not end when the 1930s did. It's as if we never learn.

Saddam Hussein has a strong hand to play at the United Nations. He can count on the Arab nations to declare the crisis is over now that Saddam Hussein has accepted international inspectors once again. On the Security Council, both France and Russia have a material interest in doing business with Iraq. Germany's prime minister has already given notice that, whatever the U.N. decides, his country can be relied on not to be relied on. ("The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." — Edmund Burke)

Only if Washington begins to play its own strong cards, call in its debts and press ahead will Saddam's latest ploy fail.

In the end, this mounting confrontation is not a matter of Saddam Hussein vs. the United Nations. It boils down to America, a few steadfast allies like the British, and some wobbly friends vs. Saddam Hussein. And the crucial arena will not be the U.N. Security Council but American public opinion.

Saddam Hussein's last best hope is the Congress of the United States and its immense capacity for confusion and division. If it speaks with a dozen tongues, and reflects the image of a wavering nation it won't be long before Saddam Hussein won't care if those inspectors find his bomb. He'll have it.

Paul Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist.

---

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Or did you forget that?

---

I'll apologize for that. Typical usenet tactic.

quote:

---

WE ARE THE UN, and we should leave it and let it fold up for the sham that it is.

---

So we are the biggest contributor and the teeth of it. Fine. It's a tool we should take serious advantage of.

(wish we had the devil smilie I've seen.)

I thought the non-assasination policy/doctrine was older than Jimmy Carter. I'm not entirely against assasination. The only trouble with it is someone just as bad may come behind. Doesn't he have a brother?

You'll probably have a conniption over this. I think we ought to leave him alone. Let him get whatever he wants. Let him become the biggest threat to the region. Then wait till those little sandboxes ask for our help.

But no solution is perfect.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Lindsey:

quote:

---

AGAIN, HOW DOES A WAR WITH IRAQ BENEFIT OUR OIL SUPPLY?

---

Not the supply in and of itself but who gets to profit from it. I read a (probably very obscure by now) article on Yahoo news. It was wither AP or Reuters. American oil companies are already petitioning the white house for the chance to deal with Iraq.

---

It's still more likely to hurt oil than help it since all the other oil producing nations are going to cut their supplies if we invade, and just about everyone agrees on that. Oil and big business obviously isn't the intent of the invasion since the economy is probably going to suffer and the oil production, and thus the oil companies, will lose money.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I would agree, but

---

But the argument is whether the US should act with unilateral abandon.

---

No, the argument is whether the US should invade Iraq. Either:

1. Attacking Iraq and removing Saddam, a threat, from power is right and should be done (regardless of what everyone else thinks).

OR

2. Attacking Iraq is somehow wrong or immoral, as is removing Saddam.

There is an objective truth, so which is it? That's what the argument is over. What the UN thinks is irrelevent to the need for the United States to act.

quote:

---

Umm if I remember right the british lined up according to the prim and proper rules of war and Americans invented guerilla tactics.

---

Yes, and the prim and proper rules of war were totally stupid and illogical and resulted in a huge loss of life, and they also seemed to occur during the Civil War. You don't line up to get shot, you take COVER. The concept of war is not to "be nice", it's to kill the other guy without killing civilians and to win. Assassinating every leader we don't like is a lot better than bombing their entire country to rubble.

quote:

---

quote:

---

We are international law

---

We are NOT. How arrogant.

---

Well, we are. Think about it. We enforce it, and if anyone doesn't like what we do...tough luck. No one can invade us (they know they'd be glowing green), and we are critical to the global economy (people don't like embargos against Iraq, just think of how mad people in other countries would be with embargos against the US.) We do what we want, and what we do is typically right.

quote:

---

quote:

---

just like we are the UN

---

We are NOT. We might be a charter and permanent member but we are NOT the entire UN. UN means United Nations. Or did you forget that?

---

---

I know what UN stands for, but without the US, the UN means nothing. Jag covered that well.

quote:

---

You'll probably have a conniption over this. I think we ought to leave him alone. Let him get whatever he wants. Let him become the biggest threat to the region. Then wait till those little sandboxes ask for our help.

---

I'd agree with that, except for two personal objections.

1. I live near a major city. If he gets a nuke, I don't want to be one of the ones killed by it.

2. If he gets WMDs and/or uses one, we'd possibly just lower our ICBM count by getting rid of him with one. That would kill a lot of innocent life, and it'd be because we waited to act until he was a threat.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

I could argue that you seemingly contradict yourself though. If you (the US) didn't care what others (other coutries) think you wouldn't give them that respect. Not worth arguing though. . Wars start over misunderstandings smaller than that.

---

Sorry if I scared you earlier Charles .

The distinction is small but important. If the UN did not approve of a certain action the United States took, tough. Same as I would feel if my neighbor didn't like how i cut my grass.

However, I'm not going to disrespect my neighbor just like he's not going to disrespect me. It's a good way to get punched in the nose.

I believe we should carry on our own business as it pertains to us, however not infringe on other sovereign nations right to do the same thing.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

I believe we should carry on our own business as it pertains to us, however not infringe on other sovereign nations right to do the same thing.

I agreed with you earlier on this topic to some extent (like on page 1 or 2), but after thinking a lot about the current global situation, I must disagree.

9/11 and terrorism may be partially influenced by US actions around the world, and people may point to it as a huge cause, but that isn't the problem.

The problem is the totalitarian and oppressive regimes around the world that treat their populations like ****. Iraq is one of them. Other Middle Eastern nations also do, to varying extents. These governments keep their power through oppression of their people, often using religious motives or views. Their people are not free, they follow the authoritarian regime or are shot/executed. The people don't have a voice in the government, the people follow the government or cease to live.

The United States then becomes a convienent scapegoat, as does Israel. Two nations that support the idea of freedom and personal choice, and are thus a threat to the Middle Eastern nations (since if their people see and understand the concept of freedom, then it increases the chances they will rise up against the governments). Israel, because it is nearby and was formed out of another nation (which is really irrelevent, when you think about the governmental form of the nation), and the United States, because we support Israel (and because we put our troops in the Middle East to maintain stability in the Gulf War and to make sure that the world economy didn't go to hell due to lack of oil).

The governments of these totalitarian nations then realize that they can solve two problems at once. They aren't really in danger of their people rising up to begin with (since they have the advanced guns and the money, they can have rebellions destroyed by the army or by hiring mercs), but they would prefer it if they didn't need to have their own people shot. So they do the most logical thing. They blame the oppression of their people on the United States and Israel and their actions, and in addition, they mark us as immoral as a whole.

"The Americans are killing you."

"The United States is keeping food from you."

"The United States wants to destroy Islam, that's why they have troops here and support Israel"

"People in the United States (list immoral acts here). They are evil and should be destroyed"

At the point the regimes do this, they are no longer the enemy of the people. Freedom for the people isn't a priority anymore, it's their personal survival which, according to the government, is threatened by Western culture. They don't realize that they are being oppressed, and that intrinsically, they should rise against their government and be free (reminds me of government in Europe prior to the 1500s).

Now comes my point. We can't leave "soverign nations" alone, when they are oppressing their people. It is wrong for a number of reasons:

1. Morally-it's against natural law, and it's against what our country stands for. Yes, we need to ensure freedom for our people, but we shouldn't stand by and LET governments OPPRESS and SILENCE their people. Those people have no choice and no chance of overcoming their oppression.

2. Pragmatically-if a person or a group of people have total control over a population as in a totalitarian regime, they can mold them to do anything, including suicide bombings, illogical wars, etc. Letting totalitarian regimes exist allows them to get Weapons of Mass Destruction and rise in power and actually become a threat to the United States. Wouldn't it just be peachy if Iraq and North Korea got ICBMs? I don't know if Korea would use them, but Saddam is a nutcase. If he had terminal cancer, he'd probably just leave Iraq and then press the little red button from a hidden house in Switzerland and eliminate Washington D.C., or he'd just attach it to himself and go meet the President and let it go BOOM.

3. And a small, unintended but nevertheless good benefit-we gain more power. No totalitarian regime is going to screw with us or stand up to us once they know that if they do, they are going to be removed from power. I know that the US wont get enough support, even domestically, to take on EVERY totalitarian regime, but other nations aren't going to take the chance of standing up to the US once they see both Iraq and Afghanistan fall and be replaced by a free government. Also, more free governments in the Middle East increase the chances of the peoples of other nations to see the benefits and rise against THEIR governments, thus we take out all of them by only taking out Saddam. So yes, i'm saying Middle East instability=good thing.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

And perhaps what Rumsfeld knows is best not known by the public. They want support, not a bunch of crazies screaming for Saddams head on a platter, and trying to tell them how to do the job.

---

Excuse me? Is that supposed to be a point or a neo-fascist platitude? If Rumsfeld is going to be responsible for risking 200,000 American lives in war, he had better convince them and their families that HE is not crazy. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a totally lame excuse for death and destruction. If he is not burdened with a public demand for evidence then he can avoid accountability at his leisure. So much for the republic. Hello to US fascism.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

quote:

---

And perhaps what Rumsfeld knows is best not known by the public. They want support, not a bunch of crazies screaming for Saddams head on a platter, and trying to tell them how to do the job.

---

Excuse me? Is that supposed to be a point or a neo-fascist platitude? If Rumsfeld is going to be responsible for risking 200,000 American lives in war, he had better convince them and their families that HE is not crazy. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a totally lame excuse for death and destruction. If he is not burdened with a public demand for evidence then he can avoid accountability at his leisure. So much for the republic. Hello to US fascism.

---

There's already enough reason to attack Saddam without evidence proving he HAS WMDs (read the 8-10 points I posted a looong time ago). Even IF Rumsfeld has no strong evidence, there's still enough reason to attack. No facist state there. Although I don't buy it, it is POSSIBLE that Saddam is such a threat that they don't want us all to panic. Sorta like the "Alien conspiracy theory".

[Guest]

quote:

---

Mark Steyn: Place blame where it belongs

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 09/22/2002 | Mark Steyn

There are few things sadder than a rape victim who blames herself, adding self-insult to injury. So what are we to make of a New York Times/CBS News poll from earlier this month? According to this survey, 75 percent of Americans place ''a lot of blame'' or ''some blame'' for the 9/11 mass murder on ''United States policies over the years.''

If by that they mean the State Department's "Visa Express" program for dodgy young Saudi males or the over-subsidy of Mubarak's squalid regime in Egypt, then I'm with that 75 percent. But I suspect most respondents mean that, in some vague way, the United States was insufficiently ''nice'' (as Canada's idiot prime minister put it the other day) to the Middle East. And that somehow the ''arrogance'' of American foreign policy provoked an inevitable response.

Listen up, folks: Don't beat yourselves up, there's plenty of crazy Saudis willing to do it for you. I don't have a problem with attempts to identify the ''root causes'' of 9/11, only with the particular root cause everyone settles on--to wit, poverty. The late Osama bin Laden was a wealthy man. Loaded. Mohammed Atta and most of the other killers belonged to the privileged middle class. Omar Sheikh, who kidnapped and beheaded the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, is a British ''public'' (i.e., private) schoolboy and graduate of the London School of Economics. Saddam Hussein's personal fortune is estimated at $7 billion, a career in public service in Baghdad being rather more lucrative than one in, say, Copenhagen. And let's not forget the representative two or three hundred Saudi princes currently accompanying King Fahd on his convalescence in Spain. A lucky London escort agency has landed the contract for servicing the Saudi swingers: The gals all have to be blond and they're replaced every two weeks, having been thoroughly, er, exhausted by then.

So we could increase foreign aid. It would enable Saddam to expand his anthrax factory and the House of Saud to rotate its hookers every 48 hours. But would it do anything else? Under the terms of the Camp David accords, Egypt has been the beneficiary of the largest amount of U.S. aid apart from Israel. What's happened to it? In the 1950s, Egypt and South Korea had more or less identical per capita incomes. Today, Egypt's is less than a fifth of South Korea's.

The campus left haven't had an original idea since Vietnam, so ask 'em what's to blame for Sept. 11, and they fall back on that old standby ''global poverty,'' the growing ''inequality'' between rich and poor. Let's spell it out: There's no such thing. The story of the last 30 years is the emergence of ''a new world middle class,'' as Professor Xavier Sala-i-Martin calls them in his study "The World Distribution of Income." This class is made up of some 2.5 billion people in the developing world, whose standards of living now approach those of the West. That's to say, roughly half the people in the developing world are doing pretty well economically. As Virginia Postrel wrote in the New York Times recently, taking the world's population as a whole, in 1998 ''the largest number of people earned about $8,000, a standard of living equivalent to Portugal's.''

Why hasn't the Middle East shared in this economic growth? Because they're failed states run by kleptocrats who govern by clan and corruption. The West could quadruple aid to the Arab world and it would have zero effect on either poverty or terrorism.

OK, forget poverty. Let's take the broader point of those 75 percent of poll respondents, the underlying assumption that there's some kind of accommodation you can reach with these guys so that they'll cease flying planes into Manhattan landmarks. What is it the Islamists want?

In the words of Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah: ''We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.''

But maybe that's just his opening position, and we could reach some sort of compromise--if not with Massawi, then with more ''mainstream'' figures in the Islamist movement such as Sheik Muhammad al-Gamei'a, an Egyptian big shot who was the imam at the Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque in New York at the time of last September's unfortunate example of the price of American arrogance. Back in October, the big-time Westernized imam thought it was all to do with America's Jewish influence: ''You see these people all the time, everywhere, disseminating corruption, heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs. Because of the Jews, there are strip clubs, homosexuals, and lesbians everywhere. They do this to impose their hegemony and colonialism on the world.''

Hmm. Sheik al-Gamei'a and those 75 percent of respondents are in agreement: America brought the attacks on itself. They differ only on the details: Western self-loathers think it's because of "arrogance,'' lack of niceness; the sheik puts it down to decadence, Jews, lesbianism, Budweiser, etc. Already, one can see the parameters of a potential settlement emerging:

The Islamists want to kill all the Jews. What about if we split the difference and just kill half of 'em? They want to behead all the sodomites. What about if we offered, say, 40 percent?

The Islamists have no negotiable demands, and no conceivable changes to U.S. policy will deflect them. And the more inventively you try to ''explain'' the Islamist psychosis as a rational phenomenon to be accommodated, the more you risk sounding just as nutty as them. Take former President Bill Clinton (please), who thinks Sept. 11 was blowback for 1095 A.D.:

''Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless. In the First Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it.''

You know something? Call me an ''arrogant cowboy,'' but I honestly think I am blameless for the First Crusade. It was 1095. That's 907 years. Even Paula Jones would have settled. If ever there was an occasion for the great Clintonian invocation that ''we need to move on,'' a grudge over the First Crusade is surely it.

President Bush has to confront the real root causes--the comprehensive failure of the Middle East's various despotisms. If you've a different theory, let's hear it. But no offer to al-Qaida or Hamas or the other Islamists short of the West's conversion and submission to Islamic law will stop them from wanting to kill you. Memo to the American people: It's not your fault.

---

Now what do you know about that?

I have been saying this all along, those of you who blame Policy for this attack, are blowing so much hot air as far as I am concerned. You really can't admit that these guys want to kill you because you are not muslim.

If you are not Muslim, you are to be killed, that's what these terrorists think. So, what are you all going to do about it?

Are you going to make nice and become Muslim, or are you actually going to consider that Bush knows what is going on and is doing the correct things to stop it.

[ 09-22-2002, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

If you are not Muslim, you are to be killed, that's what these terrorists think. So, what are you all going to do about it?

---

You are so off base....you couldn't hide it if you wanted too....

He and various other groups have already declared war on the ruling parties of the majority of Arab countries because while they claim piety...those kings and princes run around party, drink, and basically act like westerners....

This is about oil control. We know that if he acquires radiological weapons he can effectively deny us those resources and big oil is pissing in its pants....

As is the rest of a county who been told its entire well being is based on oil control.

And Dredd please stop...they set the oil on fire before but it doesn't work.....and nukes would work too.

Why can't people see through the manipulation and BS? The only reason I can think of is because we don't want too. To admit that Aristocracy is alive and well and in control in this country would be too hard in the land of the free.....it would be like everyone in the country really having to take a look at themselves....

Or maybe while publicly well say that Plutocracy is bad.really it has brought us a great standard of living..sort of..

I dont know but lets get real.there are a number of other sources that are more of a threat to us then Iraq.money talks.why pretend?

[Guest]

I cannot believe that you actually believe this stuff.

That's OK, I guess, but it makes your views on the US totally contradictory to what you do for a living.

Go be a roadside scholar like Clinton was, you would fit right in I think.

The left is dying in this country, socialism is dying, GLOBALISM is dying, thank goodness.

The fact of the matter is this, if we are going to have a secure world and be at peace, all countries that are ruled by despots and meniacs, need to be overthrown, and replaced by a democratic government and a free market economy. Once the people of those countries are able to experience the fruits of their own labors and give up on this Jihad, kill the infidels mentality, we will NOT have peace.

Islam is based on world domination, that is a fact, they wish to destroy all those that do NOT believe as they do. We do not believe as they do, they wish to destroy us, end of story.

You can believe your crazy conspiracy theories all you want, but the fact is, if Saddam gets nukes, the entire middle east will unravel like one big quilt, it may not be exactly calm over there, but once he gets nukes, today will look like a sunday luncheon comparably.

We have to stop Saddam, or it will destroy just about the entire middle east, and MILLIONS will die.

[CommanderJohnson]

Only thing I disagree with Jag on is that *RADICAL* Islam (the Islam that is fed to the people of the totalitarian Arab countries) wants to kill us all, not ALL of Islam.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

This is about oil control. We know that if he acquires radiological weapons he can effectively deny us those resources and big oil is pissing in its pants....

As is the rest of a county who been told its entire well being is based on oil control.

And Dredd please stop...they set the oil on fire before but it doesn't work.....and nukes would work too.

---

Well, finally someone makes an argument how a war would benefit US oil, and now I realize that the argument is worse than i'd ever have imagined.

Saddam getting nukes would let him say "we are sending out no more oil"? Highly doubtful. It would cause the other Arab nations to hate him, the international community would come down on him for violating the NPT and other treaties, the United States would immediately attack him before he had a chance to get MORE weapons and sell them to terrorists to use against the United States. There's no way Saddam would EVER be allowed to keep WMDs, and your position seems to be that stopping Saddam from getting nukes is based on OIL? Sure, whatever, it doesn't matter, but it's obvious to just about anyone that even *IF* oil is a factor, it's down the list after the fact they would use them to attack the United States and threaten their neighbors.

Not to mention Saddam getting nukes wouldn't stop the other Arab nations or Africa or Russia from exporting oil. Arrggh, your argument doesn't make any logical sense in terms of international relations or security, and your virtually changing your position from "Saddam isn't getting nukes and isn't a danger" into "Saddam is getting nukes and should be allowed to get nukes since he'd only be using them to stop oil exports to the US, stopping him would only be for oil". Arrggh, make up your mind.

quote:

---

Why can't people see through the manipulation and BS? The only reason I can think of is because we don't want too. To admit that Aristocracy is alive and well and in control in this country would be too hard in the land of the free.....it would be like everyone in the country really having to take a look at themselves....

---

If your really into all of the conspiracy theories, why don't you look at the BIGGEST one? The one that the UN is the basis for a one-world government (that may or may not exist now), which is ruled by the richest people in the world and is used to manipulate every aspect of government in the entire world. Then you say we should turn to the UN for help? Yeah, right, sure.

quote:

---

I dont know but lets get real.there are a number of other sources that are more of a threat to us then Iraq

---

Please, name a nation and provide some newspaper articles, other evidence, or just some analytical arguments or logic.

Also, you contradict yourself! You say we are stopping Iraq from getting WMDs because it'd mess up our oil flow (which makes no sense, especially since war HURTS oil prices and HURTS the economy, you still fail to recognize that oil prices go up from attacking the Middle East), and then you say that Saddam isn't a threat. Ok, so Saddam getting WMDs is OK?

*HE MASSACRES HIS OWN PEOPLE, AND HE'D ATTACK ISRAEL*

*HE HATES THE US AND WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM SELLING WMDS TO TERRORISTS*

*HES EXPANSIONIST AND WOULD PROBABLY USE WMDS TO GAIN POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST*

HOW IS HE NOT A THREAT?!?!??!?!?

[Guest]

Actuall Dredd, we agree, I made a general statement and should have been more specific, my bad...

[AWells]

My own opinion is that Saddam needs to be taken out by force, and the US is one of the few nations that accomplish the feat. He should've been removed back in 1991, and letting him fester this long is already a mistake.

Is Saddam close to having nuclear weapons at this time? Maybe he is, maybe he's not. Would you like to wait until he nukes your town before acting, just to make sure? Do you believe that somebody who has turned attack helicopter gunships on his own people will not use weapons of mass destruction freely when he has the capability? Do you believe he'd loose any sleep at night if he was to vaporize Washington D.C., Boston, New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, or any other of dozens of major population centers in the United States?

Do the people in Iraq that Saddam kills have any less right to live than you or your family? If somebody in your neighborhood was killing of his family members, would you be happy with simply just making sure that he didn't have any bigger weapons that could reach your house?

Though I think that Israeli style assassination is the best weapon against terrorists, I don't think it is appropriate in the case of Saddam. Military action and a strong show of force is important to let the world know that we mean business.

Yes, the thought of sending 200,000 American soldiers into Iraq is not pleasent. However, the American Soldier is not a draftee or a conscript, they're a professional volunteer that chose to serve in defense of our country through military service. It's their job, it's what they signed up for, and what they've been trained for. To question sending them in because they might be injured or killed is like questioning sending firemen to a fire because they might get burned.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

He should've been removed back in 1991, and letting him fester this long is already a mistake.

---

Finally someone said it. But woulda, coulda, shoulda doesn't count. Now it's a mess all over again.

Saw a bunch of political shows this morning. SAme stuff we talking about. Some good points. Some I disagreed with.

Will be interesting to see how it chakes out.

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

Islam is based on world domination, that is a fact, they wish to destroy all those that do NOT believe as they do. We do not believe as they do, they wish to destroy us, end of story.

---

Don't try to take it back...this is what you really think...like most of your beliefs...all black and white...full of hate, narrow minded,lacking thought....it's cool lots of people are like that....

Anyway, I believe Saddam enjoys life. To think he would give away nukes if he ever got them is kinda silly...he needs them under his control..why would he give them away? That makes no sense..

Ok just for fun....

quote:

---

Well, finally someone makes an argument how a war would benefit US oil, and now I realize that the argument is worse than i'd ever have imagined.

---

Nukes work too well. If anyone were to use nukes on the oil it would most likely take enormous resources to get oil production going again...not cost effective....

So if he gets them he can threaten to destroy those resources for everyone....a nightmare for big oil and ever economy that needs oil. That is the reason we are moving as strongly as we are.

quote:

---

Not to mention Saddam getting nukes wouldn't stop the other Arab nations or Africa or Russia from exporting oil.

---

How much oil we use do you think comes out of the Middle East? I would bet almost all of it....or maybe it stabilizes the market so we don't have to pay exorbitant prices from other places....

Africa? Russia? No I don't think that is enough for the world...maybe Russia when it gets it flowing in fifteen years....

So we turn Iraq into little America....problem solved...except for the thousands upon thousands of enemies we may have just made....

quote:

---

Arrggh, make up your mind.

---

Calm down take a breath....if he had those weapons he could use them as a deterrent....of a last ditch screw the world strike....but this country might do the same thing in other circumstances....but still not a good thing...

quote:

---

If your really into all of the conspiracy theories, why don't you look at the BIGGEST one?

---

Hee hee....libertarians ROCK! We will never subordinate ourselves to anyone bla bla bla....so arrogant....

UN working for the rich? Read the development report...they talk specifically about the threat to democracy BY money....wake up....THIS country is the mecca of wealth....however, wealth has a funny way of collecting and having influence outside of the clear lines of nation state politics...lets talk IMF and world bank.....they are trying to shape the world and I don't recall anyone having a vote on who runs them....

quote:

---

Please, name a nation and provide some newspaper articles, other evidence, or just some analytical arguments or logic.

---

State funded terrorism is mostly out of Iran that is a fact.

quote:

---

Also, you contradict yourself! You say we are stopping Iraq from getting WMDs because it'd mess up our oil flow (which makes no sense, especially since war HURTS oil prices and HURTS the economy, you still fail to recognize that oil prices go up from attacking the Middle East), and then you say that Saddam isn't a threat. Ok, so Saddam getting WMDs is OK?

---

War would only hurt in the short term. Full control of the area would let us act like...well...like the UK to America a few years ago....controling that area has some real power....

Anyone having WMD is bad....anyone...even this country....and especially Israel....they don't need it....but if they do why wouldnÔÇÖt everyone else want them also?!?

Anyone who violates international law needs to be held to account...anyone.

Of course international law needs to be defined fairly and equally by the free world.

Until the world realizes a fuller sense of equality this crap will go on and on and on...while law is used by the wealthy to sustain and further its own ends any real democracy/self governance will not be fully realized...I am not saying capitalism is wrong....I just saying that money and politics do not mix with freedom and liberty. In any countryeven one that believes itself to be so pure.