Jurgen

Just to echo my points on the other threads. We don't know if pacifism is working with North Korea. There is a difference between sabre-rattling and actions. As an alternative, second guessing then taking a hard line approach also seems to incite the situation.

And no, you can't pack up and leave Afghanistan. Once these things are started they can't be done half-assed. All the more reason to be wary of starting them.

Exactly. And precisely the reason why many voices of reason and experience, (including retired military commanders and war veterans), are not so gung-ho to bring our troops to foreign soil when the outcome might, (probably) not be what was intended. :cool:

Island, Nothing wrong w/ my reading ability, still waiting for that link. I will read it. You have been very forthcoming w/ links to other sources for your arguments, so I'm counting on you here. Just kindly supply some evidence of atrocities being committed to the Iraqi people whom you care so deeply about, :rolleyes: , that would justify the current unprecedented, (in U.S. history), unilateral attack on another country. Even if it is from a questionable right-wing news source, I'll still read it. :)

A big part of the argument of the pro-war crowd is the "clean hands/ dirty hands" theory that basically disregards any contrary, inconsistent policies of ours in the past, (such as arming Iraq 15 years ago), which does have some legitimacy, (hope I haven't lost you here, read slooooowly), ;) , so therefore I am asking for evidence that supports attacking them NOW, as opposed to the danger of letting the U.N. do their job. TIA, :cool:

I guess we made the problem, so we are cleaning it up now. :)

As far as why we are attacking right NOW, I don't have that answer. I wonder why NOW was the time. However, I have more faith in the US gubmint than the United Nations. Interesting times are ahead. What I do know is that our enemies do not abide by past rules of war. Perhaps this requires a proactive offense to promote good defense. I'm just guessing...

Jurgen

WTF are you talking about? . . .I never said I was going to give you "a link" to anything.
What; you can't find your own "reliable evidence" of Iraqi brutalities? (rhetorical)

I am curious about one thing though. What's with this over the top presumption game your playing?

In a few posts you've proclaimed I'm a:

Republican.
hypocrite.
"Iraqi people lover (:rolleyes: )"
provider of links on demand.

I am none of these.

So, I've got to ask; What the hells going on with your topic focus?
War is the topic of this thread. War is happening now. Yet you seem to have an ax to grind, over Regan/Bush/North events.
It would be one thing if you were bring these up in context of current events;but it seems you want to bring them up for no other reason than that's where you feel you'll be able to stick-it to any conservative.

So, are these just common diversionary tactics?. . .or, kind of a stick in the spokes of these threads? . . .. are you just loosing it . .. or what? (hope I haven't lost you here, read slooooowly);)

I have to disagree with Island on this one. They are not "killing each other," that makes it seem like there is some sort of parity. The guys in charge are definately the "killers" and anyone who doesn't kiss their ass is the "kill-ees". Well not all of them, some are the "torture-ees" or "rape-ees", or just in prison.

UK Home office report on human rights
http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/KFile/hrdossier.pdf

Infant mortality numbers, and how they have gone up since the UN sanctions after Gulf war 1. If he had followed the UNSC resolutions, the sanctions would have surely been lifted years ago.
http://www.unicef.org/media/publications/iraqmaternalmortality99.htm

Some friendly stuff from last year:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2056376.stm

Some neighbor threatening from 1999
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,209021,00.html

Mass exocutions from 1998
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,406101,00.html

Systematic torture of political prisoners:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\IRAQ?Ope nDocument&of=COUNTRIES\IRAQ

And of course, the dead women and children from the Kurd villages he gassed.
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
But then, you don't think that matters because it is over "10-15 years ago," regardless of the fact the same people are in charge.

You probably don't remember, but the whole reason the "no-fly zones" exist are because he was attacking villages with helicopter gunships. But again, that is irrelevant to you because it was "10-15 years ago"

Since you seem to think anything that happened "10-15 years ago" stops being relevant, I have a request for you. Send an letter to the California Bureau of Prisons, and ask them to release good old Charlie Manson to your custody. The Manson family shenanegans was 34 years ago. After all that time, it is like those murders never happened. :rolleyes:
Is there a point in there someplace?

Romania was a pretty peacfull place under Nicolae Ceausescu, Yugoslavia was a pretty peacefull place under Tito, as was The Soviet Union under Stalin (once the Nazi's were driven out).

And the " if we had obeyed international law and not invaded this country w/o the approval of the U.N.??" nonsence, we don't need UN approval, because we already have it.
There is a chronology of applicable security councel resolutions here.

You note by its absence a resolution removing 678's requirement to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions"

The chronology is what is infuriating, it is 11 years of the UN proclaiming:"Stop, or I'll say stop again." You know, the same UN who elected Libya as the chair for human rights, and had the "UN Councel on Women" in China.

Tom

Island, I did not "proclaim you a hypocrite", I wanted you to clarify some of your views to proove that you are not one of those people. There is a difference. And I am sorry for implying that you are a Republican, that was a low blow.

And emcom, (Tom), I appreciate those links. They certainly contain evidence that Sadam and his sons are brutal dictators, but that has never been in contention by anyone, as far as I know. The argument is over the best way to contain him, and I believe that the course that we were on before invading Iraq was a good one.

Why didn't we intervene in 1988? That is what I want to know. History is not supporting the argument that we are in the liberation business. I wish that we were, the people of Africa and Latin America could have really used our help these last 15 years. And we wouldn't have to even commit troops, we financially support half of the world, if we told them to stop or no more $$, it would be done.

I do believe that Latin America and Iran-Contra is relevent to this conflict, it goes directly to our credibility w/ the rest of the world, (and many U.S. citizens, including me), about our true motivations and goals w/ our foreign policies. The fact of the matter is that we have never given a rat's ass about dictators silencing their own people through brutal means as long as said dictators were furthering 'U.S. interests' in some way. The compromises that we have been willing to make in that area have always been unacceptable to me, and many others.

If this is truly the dawn of a new age where as the world's foremost superpower we will no longer tolerate human rights abuses by anyone, anywhere, than I am all for it. But count me as sceptical, if no oil is involved. :cool:

I do believe that Latin America and Iran-Contra is relevent to this conflict, it goes directly to our credibility w/ the rest of the world, (and many U.S. citizens, including me), about our true motivations and goals w/ our foreign policies. The fact of the matter is that we have never given a rat's ass about dictators silencing their own people through brutal means as long as said dictators were furthering 'U.S. interests' in some way. The compromises that we have been willing to make in that area have always been unacceptable to me, and many others.

Well, your comment should be directed at mankind in whole, because there are NO innocent leaders in this world. The leaders made decisions they deemed proper due to the information in hand, at that time. Sometimes there was no right decision, and instead a policy was chosen since it was the least worse option. History teaches us where we went wrong, but that doesn't imply we lack credibility now. Where do you draw the limit on past policy. If you look back far enough, every country has a dirty past.

In the case of Iraq, liberation complements the attack, since removal of Saddam in essence IS a liberation. Liberation is not the ONLY task of this war. I argue that removal of Saddam and his aides would have prevented today's events, AND it would have prevented sufferring by the Iraqi people. That seems to be a win-win solution, but the U.N. seems to have a stance where they slap one's wrist and say,"You be nice now. We're going to let you sit in this sandbox, but we're gonna take away your shovel. Now these guys over here have a shovel, but you be nice now." Is it a call for immediate war? No, but I understand why and where we are heading.


If this is truly the dawn of a new age where as the world's foremost superpower we will no longer tolerate human rights abuses by anyone, anywhere, than I am all for it. But count me as sceptical, if no oil is involved. :cool:

Comon, this is America, not Utopia. It will take great intestinal strength to further human rights in the world. It means all U.S. citizens must sacrifice. Let's start with China. It also means we have to take corruption out of the gubmint. It also means we have to become isolationists, since peace-lovers would want us to act through diplomacy and trade relations. Military force is not the answer for all situations. Of course, the French will hate us even more, but who cares. :)

j

Island of course WMD cause instability....but thats the point the region needs to be stabilized for the above stated reasons. Mostly I see you guys looking at the trees and not the forest.

Oh Auerl what a Socialist you are....exploitation of the masses and all that rot.....and there is more oil out there than can be imagined... Nippon has just given 10 billion $ in loan guarntees for oil exploration in Thailand and Singapore, or the natural gas pipeline from central Asia. Or off the coast of Africa.......

The US imports realitivily little from the Middle East, we get our oil from Venizula.

The thing that you guys also don't get is that fundalmentalist Islam doesn't seperate church from state like the West does....and their idea of government is a return to the 14th century.....and pray tell how the global economy will run under those conditions. So we might as well all got back to our mud huts...

I see those who are oposed to the US actions (in the Middle East it's more a case of damed if you do and damed if you don't) as cutting off their own noses to spite their face..... A course of action had to be taken to stabilize the region....now the French and Germans were selling arms to Ireck in spite of UN Resolutions...that really is a case of them providing Sodamn the gun and ammunition to hold to their own heads..as Europe gets more Ireck oil than the US...

Someone made this clear to me in a phone conversation last night....THIS IS WORLD WAR THREE....

uhm, you've seem to have misread. (?)
I said "WMD in the hands of a tyranical element are MORE a threat (than lack of oil.)"

Operative word being MORE (it seems all caps the first time was too subtle.) ;)

We disagree on, just what the forest is made of; that was my point.

BTW, you're right; many people are looking at the trees and not the forest. Some will be so simple minded to proclaim. 'the war must be about this tree or that rock; you can't have it be about both'
Bloody brilliant.:rolleyes:
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for condensing towards a unified theory. But sheesh, a Bush does not make for a forest.

Denis - I have to comment on what you claim to be a policy of if we don't get involved, there will be no American casualties: to be frank, it's quite a polyana (sp?) way of thinking. To echo what Tabs said, the region has to be stabilized. If we weren't getting involved, who knows how many American lives, military not withstanding, would be lost as out war against terrorism escalates. The fact is we're in a no-win situation with the Middle East in general. The general feeling from the Mid-East toward all things American is hatred, and has since the last Gulf War, increased mightily. So if we are to have any global interest in that area, it needs to be stabilized first. Stability and bloodshed are sacrosanct. They go hand-in-hand, as seen any historical conflict. But if we were not to be involved at Saddam was allowed to go unchecked, what might be hard row in stabilizing at this point, could be almost impossible in one or two years from now.

This brings up my second point: the forest and the trees are one in the case of Iraq. What more can be gained from the country than oil. Iraq have three times the amount of oil than the U.S. and if given the opportunity and infrastructure, could completely unseat the Saudis as the principal suppliers of oil. Stability in Iraq's case means oil can be extracted from the country more easily. Already some have been saying the drop per barrel of crude could be about 20 percent if it were taken specifically from Iraq. This yet another reason for the Saudis to be greatly afraid of not necessarily this war, but its outcome.

So, it's really not about the forest or the trees, but what's underneath the forest itself.

I cannot imagine what some people think causes terrorism? And don't say, "they will hate us no matter what, it doesn't matter what we do". That is a lie, as well as the "they hate us for our freedom" garbage that was spouted by people immediately after 9/11. They could give a rat's ass about "our freedom". We Americans have always been a sucker for a good marketing campaign, but that one sucks.

Most sane people disavow terrorism in all forms, but to claim that it does not have a cause or to blatantly lie about its causes is pure propaganda. There is no fathomable justification for flying jets into the WTC, IMO, but a far more honest explanation for their motive would be hatred for the U.S. due to various alligiences that we have around the world, or that we have U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. I am not going to use the word 'logical' while discussing Islamic extremists, (or any religious extremists anywhere, including in the U.S.), but the most believable motive for their hatred would be along these lines. The argument of, "they will hate us no matter what for our freedom, so it does not matter what our policies are", is a steaming pile of B.S., intellectually dishonest and really cynical when spoken by leaders who know better in order to influence the opinion of a public that generally is not very conversant in foreign matters, (to put it politely).

What's the point? That if we really want to end terrorism, and the hatred that is behind it, we must become a credible enforcer of human rights everywhere, not selectively. We have a horrible track record of looking the other way when "allies" or countries deemed insignificant to U.S. security engage in gross violations of human rights laws. This hurts our standing in the world immeasurably and sows the seeds of terrorism. Lastly, terrorism is not something that conventional military power is very effective in fighting, just look at Israel. Probably the most security consience place on earth, and the most terrorist attacks. (By a group w/ zero conventional military capability). :cool:

"Hate" comes from strange places:

The Arnett yo-yo
 

I can never tell if Rumsfeld is being straightforward or just taking the reporters for a ride. If anything needs assailing with him, it's his lack of ability to speak in a trusted tone. He seems more like he's hiding something than being forthright.

WSJ is highly respected. But so is Peter Arnett. Evidentally, NY Times had an op/ed piece by Walter Cronkite this morning. His point was the most valid of all that I've heard: more or less, he said Arnett's action was a gross misjudgment that harms not just US policy and troops, but the American public because his absence will mean one less journalist in Baghdad who could provide insight from the Iraqi point of view.

Supposedly the only other journalist left there is a freelancer who being a freelancer probably does not have nearly the experience that Arnett has.

Geraldo is another story: he's just a sad hack who isn't worth listening to.

BTW: as soon as Arnett was fired by NBC and Nat'l Geographic, he was immediately hired by the Daily Mirror out of Britain.

Geraldo R. has never been anything but a disgrace to journalists everywhere, IMO. I am not surprised in the least by his latest ass-clownery. I would find it hilarious if some Marines beat his ass while no one was looking. :cool:

What's the point? That if we really want to end terrorism, and the hatred that is behind it, we must become a credible enforcer of human rights everywhere, not selectively. We have a horrible track record of looking the other way when "allies" or countries deemed insignificant to U.S. security engage in gross violations of human rights laws. This hurts our standing in the world immeasurably and sows the seeds of terrorism. Lastly, terrorism is not something that conventional military power is very effective in fighting, just look at Israel. Probably the most security consience place on earth, and the most terrorist attacks. (By a group w/ zero conventional military capability).


In the largest sense, our new foreign policy remains unproven. It’s unclear if we can - or should try - to liberate a beaten down and terrorized country like Iraq.

I suppose it’s not out of the question that Bush has moved for all the wrong, twisted, greedy, oil-soaked reasons. And I suppose it’s certain that there are some liars and cheats in high places in the U.S. Government. Despite all this, being in Iraq today DOES NOT prove that America’s new foreign policy is a sham, and that America is power-hungry and evil.

Think about what you are saying: How would things look if America decided to START enforcing human rights everywhere? How would things look if we decided to STOP looking the other way when our "allies" violated human rights?

Wouldn’t it look something like what we see today? Wouldn't we start by reversing long-held policies of "stability over liberty" and then engage ourselves in the most argumentative places on earth? Wouldn't we stop worrying about the opinions of the leaders who regularly supply us with oil but also routinely suppress their people? Wouldn't we put the long-simmering Palestinian question back on the table?
And wouldn't it be possible to explain America's long standing "neglect" of the region by noting that we had larger, more important and more pressing battles to fight for most of the last 55 years? That since the demise of the powerful Soviet dictatorship in Asia - a dictatorship which threatened US - that we are now finally free to go ahead and liberate OTHERS?

Couldn’t America’s new policy just as easily be trying to address all the smaller evils we once had to live with in order to keep the larger evil at bay? Don't all the realities we see today fit this explanation just as well?

The war in Iraq proves that we are changing our foreign policy - nothing more, nothing less.

Events themselves will soon prove whether we are trying to right past wrongs and aspire to our highest ideals, or instead trying to continue suffering around the globe in order to power our SUV’s. Whatever the outcome, a lesson will be learned from this war that will affect our foreign policy for a generation.

I for one believe that the vast majority of the tens of thousands of leaders and “bureaucrats" in the State Dept. and the Pentagon have their hearts in the right place. And that it is not just possible, but likely, that this push in Iraq is in earnest.
I may be wrong and events may prove this is very naive. But nothing conclusively tells me I am in error so far.

If our policy fails, I would bet on it failing due to the standard reasons of hubris or fuzzy thinking or just plain wrong-headedness, rather than to the fact that tens of thousands of loyal Americans in positions of authority in our government and military and media have been duped en masse in order to supply oil to a few rotund white men. That sort of simple paranoid fantasy is just not in keeping with the real nature of humanity.

To beat the terrorists long-term, you must address their legitimate grievances. To address these grievances you must reform and improve the governments of the region. And what is most likely to reform a government? Trade? Talk? Or the violent overthrow of a similar governement nearby? Revolutions of 1830 anyone?

Is this right? No.

Is it the way things work? Yes.

Do I wish there was another, more peaceful way? Yes.

Is this war worth it - worth the risk to right the wrongs of the region? We won't know until it's over.

All interesting and some good points! I am against overthrowing the dictatorship there at all costs.
Yes they MAY not have followed the UN security council, but we have still not seen enough evidence that there is a threat (direct or indirect) to the US, therefore it is not warranted to invade the country.
Who made the US the enforcer for the World?, yes there are travesties of human rights all over the World, will the US Government stand-up and clean this up? Not if there is no benefit to them. They have openly and secretly been putting people in power and over throwing governments for years. Supplying arms to countries then getting upset when their pawns in power use them against their own people or other countries.
I am sad anyone is dieing in this, and more worried that the US have given "warnings" to Syria and Iran about assisting Iraq. There are now men who left Iran because of Saddam coming back to the country to defend their Country....makes you think if someone doesn't like our democracy and decides to overthrow it what would you do?

Who's next China? North Korea?

I'm sorry to post my negative opinion of this war on this board, and I do hope all Brit, US & Aussie soldiers stay safe, but I don't condone this action.

Flame me if you want....

No matter how the modern world tries to gloss over human nature, it still jumps up and bites us in the a** sometimes.

Every age thinks it is too civilized to go to war, to allow one society to crush another, or to allow the existence of injustice.

But every age wars and crushes and suffers nevertheless. Human nature has not improved appreciably since the dawn of recorded time.

Mark Twain said:

"Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."

"All say, 'How hard it is that we have to die' - a strange complaint to come from the mouths of people who have had to live."



What horrible choices we have to make as human beings! How tough it is to try and be moral in an immoral world!

Yes, even a Superpower has limits, and no, the U.S. will not and cannot protect everyone, everywhere.

The U.S. is a nation, and it can only protect or destroy other nations. But if there is no nation - Yugoslavia or other civil wars - we can do nothing (see Vietnam). Nor can our huge army defend a wife against a husband, or an innocent child from an angry bullet.

But the fact that we have limitations does not mean we can never police the world, just that we need to know if and when we can.

Whether we SHOULD police the world - well, that's the question really. And the answer is yes and no.

Morally, yes, of course. We are powerful, and thus have a duty to help all those we can, and not let anyone suffer.

Legally, practically, no, of course not. We aren't our brother's keepers. Iraqis should have taken care of Saddam themselves, and if a people show by their inaction that they accept a tough, murderous leader, it's not our problem.

Hence our vacillation, inconsistency, and just plain humanity. Are others around the world confused? Then they just don't understand the human race. Looking across the Ages from the beginnings of agriculture to the beginnings of bioengineering, I'm betting most people couldn't do any better.

But we need to keep trying, learning from our mistakes and doing our best. Anything less is a disservice to the human race. And constant repetition of what we do wrong - said in order to stop progress rather than redirect it - is the kind of 600 year-old recrimination that holds so much of the world back from Churchill's sunlit uplands of peace.

RickC very good...if you saw GW's face when he was told about the WTC....you can see that Greed and Revenge are not his motivation but a real desire to protect America and it's people....Now who in the Gawd knows if he is doing the "right" thing..do you want to throw the first stone ...but he is taking a course of action that he believes is right and in the interest of the American people....

Terrorism is a direct threat to the CONFIDENCE of investors in the Global economy.....without stability there can be no confidence and without that confidence the Global economy can not thrive.... it may even fail....and with that failure everything we know and take for granted is up for grabs.....we are in uncharted waters here...nothing like this has happened before....the world is in flux.... This is the nearest thing to the Great Depression of the 1930's that we have seen...My feeling is that the American people and people in the West World in general should realize what side of the bread the butter is on......and it ain't with Bin Laden, Sodam Huessin, the Taliban or anyother supporter of Islamic Jihad... they are your ENEMY and are out to destroy everything you know or have as a way of life.....Your best bet is with ole GW and Tony Blair.....

Theres something ele that needs to be said...it seems that in the Arab world and in the Central Asian world in general only strength of arms and willingness to use them is respected....just take a long term look at the history of the region.it is filled with violence, brutality and deceit...

RickC - Awesome

It sometimes takes a look insides ones own Country, State/Province, City at what's going on to realise how good and bad things are everywhere.