Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 42 1 2 3 4 5 41 42
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 100
D
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
D
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 100
Thanks for the reasonable expressions Mike.

As the father of a soldier in Irag right now, my feelings echo yours, and I'm sure that you too feel the pain of every news report that comes out of the Middle East, all of it.

The problems of the world, of which we are a member whether we wish to ignore it or not, will not go away, or leave us alone.

Are the current solutions correct? Probably not all of them, but I'm not in any sort of position to make sweeping statements about massive lies, coverups or greed driven motives.

I don't think the UN, with it's spinelessness is going to accomplish anything either.

What a mess...

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Mike, I found your post very moving and have no doubt of your sincerity. And I agree with many of your points. However there are still too many questions in my mind.

Quote:
Originally posted by mchimes:

Then as I re-read this I think about how costly our freedom was (and is) for us. Do we really expect freedom for others to be that cheap? Do we now think that diplomacy and sanctions and the UN can solve EVERY problem? Think about it . . . if this war is unjustified, what WOULD be a just war . . . where would you draw the line?
Here is where I personally draw the line: a "just" war is one in defense of an attack on our soil, or one of our stated allies.

Freedom isn't really freedom if someone else gives it to you by force. Since today is July 4th, let's suppose we didn't win our independence by revolution. What if a third nation with a very powerful military but a completely different set of cultural values, had come over here and kicked England's ass, "liberating" the colonists. Let's just say they were Muslims or some other entirely different religion and culture to ours, and espoused a lot of values that we didn't agree with, yet after "liberating" us they hung around and insisted that it would be in our best interest to adopt a government just like theirs.

Do you think America would be the kind of place it is today? Do you think we'd have the same kind of pride in our freedom that we do, if we hadn't fought the revolution OURSELVES, with allies that WE chose and negotiated with? WE framed the basis of the Constitution, and drafted the Declaration of Independence, before a shot was ever fired. WE chose what kind of government we wanted, not someone from afar who literally had no clue what was best for us and didn't even bother to ask.

I think the idea that it's up to us to solve the world's problems is overly idealistic at best and paternalistic/imperialist at worst. A sovereign nation is a sovereign nation and unless they are a DIRECT threat to the United States (which Iraq never has been) or we are directly ASKED for assistance, then our job is simply to minimize any threat, not to get into the business of "selling" democracy to others at the point of a gun. Afghanistan asked for our assistance in overthrowing the Taliban for years, and we ignored them until 9/11. Somalia has much stronger ties to terrorist groups and we don't go after them. Why Iraq?

Quote:

I do know that if 9/11 had not happened, we would not be in Iraq right now. I know there is no formal "proven" link between Al-queda and Saddam, but they are linked "in spirit."
Not true, and it's very disturbing how many people believe this obvious propaganda. Al Qaeda and Saddam had completely different interests, and even Bush and company didn't attempt to link them together UNTIL it became obvious that the world wasn't going to go along with "let's attack Iraq because they violated U.N. 1441." Then they pulled the old "bait and switch," making Saddam the "terrorist bad guy" instead of Osama (convenient since they never could find bin Laden). By the time we actually attacked, it was suddenly about "Iraqi liberation" and the previously stated justifications were being downplayed.

But the bottom line was "let's attack Iraq whatever reason we have to give for it." All of which were flimsy at best, and suggest a deeper underlying motive. Sorry. I believe we would have gone there whether 9/11 had happened or not, and if we wouldn't have, in a way that's even worse, because it's pretty obvious Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. If there were ANY credible evidence to that effect, Bush would have tried to sell that point to the U.N. in his early efforts to gain their support. He didn't even try, because even he knew they'd laugh at him.

Quote:

As far as us being over there for oil and to give american companies contracts . . . how cynical have we become?
Sorry... I am not a cynical person by nature but I call 'em like I see 'em and this has been an obvious political/economic power play to me since day one.

Quote:

So was Powell in on it? and Blair too? (who has taken a enormous beating for his position in the UK and you can't say his decision is helping him politically . . . nor can you deny his intelligence)
Yes, Blair is a smart man and therefore he knows better than to piss off the United States. Unfortunately the UK seems all too anxious to turn itself into a clone of the U.S., to the dismay of many of its own people. Powell has disappointed me, I always thought he was a good man, but he's also in an extremely difficult position. He may disagree with the Administration's position and may have even considered resigning, but he also might feel that his guidance would be valuable in the aftermath of the war and it would be prudent to suck it up and go along in the meantime. There are a lot of reasons why these guys would go along with Bush's agenda even if they don't agree with it or aren't "in on it."

That there IS an agenda beyond those that have been stated, though, is beyond any doubt to me.

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
i have been TRYING to stay out of all political discussions. i have given up on the government, the political process... and their slavery of the constituants.

but if lying is a criminal offense, then all politicians should be rounded up and shot.

furthermore, i think republicans are the most narrow minded fuckheads in the US, and the democrats are the most pathetic whiny bitches in the US.

but even mediocre is better than bush. personally, i am thinking the federal government is becoming more and more less of value to americans. i think more should be happening on the local level. i think the feds are so far up the multinational corporations asses everyone is going to get homogenized and sodomized in the process.

i think the 200 million that bush has raised so far for re-election is about the biggest waste of money i can think of. 200 million spent to keep a dimwitted jackass in office. even his speech writers are fucking morons.

it is a sad state we are currently living in. all the social change of the 60's wasted... all the grand ideas of the time forgotten in 401k's, retirement funds and beamers.

funny too how we despise a group of individual who want to destroy what we stand for yet we destroy everything they stand for and thats okay. their attacks are called terrorism and our attacks are called freedom.

its time humans end this zero sum mentality before we destroy everything that is beautiful, before we lose our individuality, our personal freedom [of which i have very little... and now have less].


alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
RIGHT ON, alpha! That about sums it up.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 22,333
Likes: 604
5x KCFFL Champ
20k Club
Offline
5x KCFFL Champ
20k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 22,333
Likes: 604
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
RIGHT ON, alpha! That about sums it up.
Hear, hear.

Lee, your previous post was pretty spot-on as well.

dB

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
i have 5 more years before i can run for president. maybe i will start my bid now and by the time im 185 i can have 200 million for my campaign. i will run under the "tired of all the bullshit" platform. i would vow to end all monopolies, corporate pollution, reform the education system and health system. take the power away from the pharmaceutical companies and put it back in the hands of the sick. mandate the FCC put the power of the airwaves back into the hands of the local people and get rid of all censorship. i would end PAC's and limit campaign expendatures and redirect their money towards the interests they hold in a positive manner. i would put the focus back on the PEOPLE with their elected officials on a local level and have policies migrate upwards instead of downwards as it has been. i will cut the bloated federal government back to its sole purpose of keeping the security of the nation rather than being the agressor to other nations and upholding the rights of every american protected under the bill of rights. i will extend open arms to other countries even if their beliefs differ from the US's while not favoring one ideology over another and try to create understanding of our differences and celebrate them.

that is what i would do if i were president.


alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Me too alpha - only trouble is, we'd get assassinated right away... probably before even getting elected. \:D

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
the gang and the government are no different, that makes me only 1% -pf


alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,411
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk:
i have 5 more years before i can run for president. maybe i will start my bid now
I haven't given a flying fuck about assisting a political campaign since McGovern's in '72... I'd volunteer for this one.

Alpha... we really ought to run you for at least Congress first... whaddaya say?


Fletcher
Mercenary Audio

Roscoe Ambel once said:
Pro-Tools is to audio what fluorescent is to light
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Oooh, Fletcher can be the head of the Secret Service! Would YOU want to mess with him? \:D

The Presidential escort can all be on Harleys. \:\)

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 477
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
Oooh, Fletcher can be the head of the Secret Service! Would YOU want to mess with him? \:D

The Presidential escort can all be on Harleys. \:\)
It makes me lok at the newest merc shirt in a whole other light.. campaign slogan anyone?

[img]http://store4.yimg.com/I/mercenary-audio_1746_1922763[/img]

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
I nominate Phil "The Jazzinator" Traynor for running mate. AJ needs a stately type to counterbalance his "freak in your face" demeanor \:D

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
nah, i would have lee as my running mate. then i wouldnt get assasinated if elected because all those old fucks wouldnt want a woman as president.


alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 168
M
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
M
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 168
Lee,

You make some good points, but I disagree with a couple of your premises.

you said, "A sovereign nation is a sovereign nation and unless they are a DIRECT threat to the United States (which Iraq never has been) . . ."

But terrorism by it's very nature is not DIRECT. Nor is it easy to root out exactly who funds and supports terrorism. Terrorism doesn't have "soil," it is a state of mind that is fueled by hate and a determination to act on it. It is that state of mind that is shared by Saddam and Al-queda. They may not agree on much else . . . but I'm sure they would both be happy to see the "infidel's throat slit." That alone doesn't justify our action in Iraq, but it is a line of reasoning that when stranded together with others forms our policy.

Saddam very well may have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 . . . that doesn't mean he wouldn't do everything in his power to harm us if he could. The question then became "Can he hurt us?" The answer from the intelligence community was "Yes." We can sit back all day and say "well they are wrong" but we will never know. We trust that our government is doing the right thing. I work in DC and know FBI, CIA, and intelligence agents. They are not robots programed to do the bidding of a right-wing nut job. They are red-blooded citizens who put their pants on every morning, laugh at Jay Leno, and download copyrighted files from Kazaa! You have to put your trust somewhere. You can put it in a conspiracy theory or give our government the benefit of the doubt. Think about it . . . why would the benign UN be sniffing around Iraq for a decade if they weren't a threat.

As far as roads to freedom . . . there are many . . . not just one. You said,

"if we hadn't fought the revolution OURSELVES, with allies that WE chose and negotiated with? WE framed the basis of the Constitution, and drafted the Declaration of Independence, before a shot was ever fired. WE chose what kind of government we wanted . . ."

That is true. However, we were a month's sail from the "Tyrant." And we had natural resources, geographic (north american terrain) and diplomatic (the French!) allies and newly found "gorilla tactics" to help us (from native americans). We had a chance . . . we took it and at great price won.

What do the Iraqi people have? How could they revolt against Saddam? He is in their bedrooms, kitchens, restaraunts . . . everyone who has tried has been killed by the party or has fled in exhile. It is a different situation in Iraq.

As far as freedom only working if it is "self generated," look at Japan and Germany after WW2. the german people fell to the most brutal dictator who decided to take over the world. So the world fought back and destroyed his creation . . . and "forced" their way of doing things on them. The net result is a free democratic Germany. I'm sure there were Germans who loved the Nazi party and there were those that in secrecy despized it.

Was Germany a DIRECT threat to us in 1940?

Sometimes you have to kill something to bring about a greater good . . . the surgeon removes the cancer to save the patient. The free world removes a tyrant to save the oppressed. It is NEVER pleasant or without controversy. Time is the only judge.

What seems like a bad decision now may be a bad decision now . . . or it may be just what was needed to bring about the greater good.

I again reject the idea that we would even be discussing this right now if 9/11 had not happened. Our world was forever changed on that day . . . we WERE attacked DIRECTLY. There is just no universal culprit. There are millions of people who hate us now, before Iraq, before 9/11, and they will hate us until they are happy with their lives (with whatever brings them that peace). But if the only way they will stop is when the US is no more, then we all have a very arduous road ahead.

Mike

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
Quote:
Originally posted by mchimes:
But terrorism by it's very nature is not DIRECT. Nor is it easy to root out exactly who funds and supports terrorism. Terrorism doesn't have "soil," it is a state of mind that is fueled by hate and a determination to act on it.

I again reject the idea that we would even be discussing this right now if 9/11 had not happened. Our world was forever changed on that day . . . we WERE attacked DIRECTLY. There is just no universal culprit. There are millions of people who hate us now, before Iraq, before 9/11, and they will hate us until they are happy with their lives (with whatever brings them that peace). But if the only way they will stop is when the US is no more, then we all have a very arduous road ahead.
as unfortunate as terrorism is, it has brought humanity to a crossroad. the mere assumption that we can bomb the enemy is absurd. look at afghanistan and look at iraq. two missing targets. the threat is still there, possibly now even more than before. isnt it 3 strikes and your out?

so the enemy cant be bomb or otherwise conventionally fought. so one must change the perception of the US through other means. maybe its time we find out their beef with america and reflect on ourselves to how we can change the relationship from hate to kindness... or at least the ability to co-exist.

or we can keep trying to bomb people until it escalates from commercial planes flying into buildings to full nuclear attacks.

i must say the current foreign policy is just pissing people off. sure isnt fucking working so far.

their biggest gripe im guessing is our involvement with isreal, who btw... does some pretty nasty things as well. i couldnt back isreal with their current policies. so what if the arabs just pummel them? arabs would have more power? well, they got oil, but they live in a fucking desert. im sure we have MANY things they would trade the oil for. like food? they are pissed because we put sanctions on them and provide means for non-arabs to shoot at them, with some pretty heavy weapons. why do they hate us?

its sad to that religion plays such a role in everything. allah jihad god bless. why are people so fucking dense that on the base level its the same fucking concept? yet everyone acts in the exact opposite manner?

people need to wake the fuck up.


alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
oh and PS... 9/11 didnt suprise me one fucking bit. i think the first words out of my mouth were "damn, they finally did it"

its sad that america is so fucking ignorant that they were blind in seeing this happening. so blind that they didnt see it in time to correct our behaviour in the world and still fucking blind that we still keep making the same muthafucking mistakes.


alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
I'm inclined to agree that stupid US Foreign Policy is largely responsible for 9/11. Stupid Foreign Poicy is why so many people around the world hate the US Government's Bush Administration.

The US Gov't supports dictators and tyrants when it suits the interests of huge, faceless, and unfeeling corporations. The US knocks those dictators off when they get in the way of the corporations making money. In a very real way, our military is nothing more than a police force for big corporations.

The explanations and rationalizing of the bad actions is just propaganda using emotion-packed words like "liberty" and "freedom." It's all smoke and mirrors.

A wise man who worked for the US State Dept once told me, "You'll never understand foreign policy if you try to apply logic to it. To have a chance at understanding what is really going on, you must follow the money trail."

Taking his advice, the success of a nation can be measured when it creates a large and healthy middle-class. Otherwise you have the super rich and the abject poor. A situation that breeds conflict.

Now, I'm no mideast expert, but my understanding is that 40 or 50 years ago, British Petroleum, Shell Oil, and Exxon had huge oil fields in Iraq.
At some point, these oil fields were nationalized and taken over by the government. Now you have some huge multi-national oil companies who are very unhappy.

So what did the government do with the new found oil profits? They built roads, hospitals, schools, and created a fairly large middle class. Despite the local success, the oil companies still fumed with anger.

Oil companies have a long memory, deep pockets for spreading money around, and they know when to ask their bought-off people in the US government to take action.

So then, the Bush Administration sells chemical and other nasty weapons to Sadam on credit. They tell him to use these nasty weapons on his neighbors in Iran. Sadam does what the Bush Administration tells him to do, but it does not work! After a while the war ends, but now Iraq has a massive debt to the west.

They ask, "How do we pay our bills?"

"Oil," comes the answer.

But then they find out that oil production is falling and they don't know why. "Hey, it's those Kuwait guys using that Texas slant-drilling method and and they are stealing our oil.
And they jacked up the prices for using their port too. We used to own that port. That's not fair!"

"Let's go kick those guys out from slant-drilling and get our old port back."

"Wait, we better clear this with the US State Dept."

"Hey, they gave us the go ahead. Here we go."

Now right here was a huge mistake on the US State Dept's part. They spoke too soon without finding out about the other corporate toes they would soon be stepping on. Oops!

It was too embarrassing to admit the truth, so they reassigned the US State Dept lady who gave Iraq the go-ahead and told her to keep her mouth shut.

In addition, if they spun the story right, it provided a possible opportunity to get the old nationalized oil fields back for BP, Exxon, et al.

So Sadam went from Bush's good friend to demon virtually overnight with the help of good propaganda. The US sent in with the storm troops. But they were not able to get back the oil fields for BP, Exxon, et al. "Oh well, maybe next time."

So a group of right-wing conservatives, funded by the angry oil companies, worked for several years on a plan. A plan to create some plausibe reason or excuse to go back into Iraq and get those oil fields. Eventually they settled on the WMD excuse since the Bush Admisinstation was sure they were there because Bush and Cheney sold them to Sadam in the first place.

It was always about the oil!

In fact, if you go back to the link to John Dean's article, you see one of the Bush minions saying something like "we settled on WMD [excuse] because it was the only thing everybody could agree on." Tellingly, he alludes to the real reason when he says, "Iraq is swimming over a sea of oil."

Then you get huge no-bid contracts awarded to who? Bechtel and Halliburton. Oh yeah, Dick Chenney again.

So you see, foreign policy all does make sense if you follow the advice of the old state dept guy and "follow the money trail."

But as John Dean points out, the Bush Gang had to commit crimes to carry out this scheme. Those acts are felonies, for which Bush and Cheney should be impeached and jailed.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 944
R
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
R
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 944
Quote:
Was Germany a DIRECT threat to us in 1940?
Yup, but it took until 1941 for them to declare war on the US.

The occasional peak at history would be of some use.

Remember the Maine? That was another dirty little war. And barely an ounce of truth in it - more like an excuse for the ex-secretary of the navy to bolster his position at home.

If you want to get into cause and effect you have to dig much deeper than "Germany and Japan did better after WWII".

The question of "Why Hitler" is not simple - you can cite many causes for his rise (apart from his own desire to take over) not the least among which was the economic and political fallout from the Treaty of Versailles, which among other things had the effect of plunging Germany into a long and pervasive economic depression. The whole population felt as if they were being whipped by the world. Then an eloquent fellow in a nice uniform came along and started laying blame.

With respect to our adventures in Iraq I think it is far too soon for any of us mortals to know who was pulling what strings and why. The fact that the story has shifted so much in the process, and the utter lack of consensus outside the immediate sphere of GWB's influence should be convincing enough that something's amiss.

We have an administration that now believes it can put children in harm's way without citing real reasons.

We'd better keep watching, and watching carefully. There are two "aftermaths" we're dealing with already - Afghanistan (nightmare) and Iraq (very very bad dream).

When Afghanistan got boring, suddenly Saddam was Hitler again.

Canadian Prime Minister Chretien asked the simple yet trenchant question "One wonders who is next?"

JW

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk:
nah, i would have lee as my running mate. then i wouldnt get assasinated if elected because all those old fucks wouldnt want a woman as president.
ROFLMAO!!!!!

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by mchimes:

you said, "A sovereign nation is a sovereign nation and unless they are a DIRECT threat to the United States (which Iraq never has been) . . ."

But terrorism by it's very nature is not DIRECT. Nor is it easy to root out exactly who funds and supports terrorism. Terrorism doesn't have "soil," it is a state of mind that is fueled by hate and a determination to act on it.
Exactly. Therefore invading a NATION just to root out individual terrorists is insane. There are terrorists within the U.S. too, some of them even American - Timothy McVeigh anyone? Once we found out it was McVeigh who'd bombed the OKC building, should we have just bombed ourselves hoping to take out McVeigh? And no big deal if we killed a few thousand innocent people too?

Don't you think if we did that, it would breed even more hatred of us, and more terrorism? DUH.

Quote:
It is that state of mind that is shared by Saddam and Al-queda. They may not agree on much else . . . but I'm sure they would both be happy to see the "infidel's throat slit." That alone doesn't justify our action in Iraq, but it is a line of reasoning that when stranded together with others forms our policy.
Sorry but that doesn't fly either. It's a sad day when we think we can bomb somebody based on what they THINK about. We can be concerned, and we can keep a sharper eye on what they're up to than we normally would, but that's it.

In any case, your information is faulty. Saddam is not bin Laden. He may have been a tyrant but he's not crazy. If he really were simply a madman likely to use his weapons against us or our allies at any time, we'd have had much more support from the rest of the world. The U.S. would certainly not be Saddam's first target, that would be - duh - Israel. Israel is right next door, and much of Saddam's hatred for the West comes from our support of Israel. Yet, he never even attacked Israel except during the first Gulf War, when we were attacking HIM!

Israel has intelligence about Iraq far superior to ours - they have reason to be extremely paranoid. If Saddam were that much of a threat, you can bet Israel would have been the first to tell us they needed our help. They didn't - in fact they were quite concerned that we were going in there.

Quote:

Saddam very well may have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 . . . that doesn't mean he wouldn't do everything in his power to harm us if he could. The question then became "Can he hurt us?" The answer from the intelligence community was "Yes."
Again, we can't bomb everybody who "can hurt us." That would be most of the world. You wanna go after Russia and China next? How about North Korea?

There are lots of people who have the capability to hurt us. But, just as you are not allowed to shoot somebody just because you know they own a gun and they MIGHT hurt you, we can't throw our weight around with other nations either. Not if we expect not to breed more hatred and more terrorism. The U.S. is seen by the rest of the world right now as an overgrown bully - and everybody likes to see a bully fall. It behooves the bully to stop acting the way he does before that happens.

Quote:

We can sit back all day and say "well they are wrong" but we will never know. We trust that our government is doing the right thing.
Maybe you do. I don't trust our leaders in the least.

Quote:

I work in DC and know FBI, CIA, and intelligence agents. They are not robots programed to do the bidding of a right-wing nut job. They are red-blooded citizens who put their pants on every morning, laugh at Jay Leno, and download copyrighted files from Kazaa!
I too know lots of good people who work in government. I also have many friends, good people, who work for corporations where the bosses are corrupt jerks. I don't think the average Joe whether in government or the private sector, necessarily reflects their leaders. In fact they seldom do.

Quote:

You have to put your trust somewhere. You can put it in a conspiracy theory or give our government the benefit of the doubt. Think about it . . . why would the benign UN be sniffing around Iraq for a decade if they weren't a threat.
I never said they weren't a POSSIBLE threat and that we shouldn't be concerned about them. However there's a big difference between "sniffing around" and "killing them."
And to follow your train of thought further - if Iraq is SUCH a huge threat then why didn't the U.N. support our invasion?

Quote:

What do the Iraqi people have? How could they revolt against Saddam? He is in their bedrooms, kitchens, restaraunts . . . everyone who has tried has been killed by the party or has fled in exhile. It is a different situation in Iraq.
Then why wasn't Iraq clamoring for our help, as is happening in quite a few other countries who are run by dictators? If we had been ASKED for help - as we asked the French during the Revolution, as Afghanistan asked us to help them get rid of the Taliban - then we would have much more of the world's goodwill.

No one was asking for the U.S.'s help in overthrowing Saddam. Well, the Kurds asked during the Gulf War, and we told them we'd help, but we left thousands of them to be slaughtered.

Quote:

As far as freedom only working if it is "self generated," look at Japan and Germany after WW2. the german people fell to the most brutal dictator who decided to take over the world. So the world fought back and destroyed his creation . . . and "forced" their way of doing things on them. The net result is a free democratic Germany. I'm sure there were Germans who loved the Nazi party and there were those that in secrecy despized it.
Again, a different story, and the question is not whether the Iraqi people loved Saddam. It's clear that most didn't. The question is whether they thought Western aid was the answer. Many Iraqis don't trust our motives and they have good reasons for that. So, you often stick with the devil you know rather than the devil you don't know. Iraq in all likelihood wanted to bide its time and work out its own problems, perhaps with the help of other Muslim nations who more closely reflected their own values.

In any case, Germany and Japan both have relatively homogenous cultures, and they were already similar to ours in that they are "developed" capitalist/industrialist countries. Iraq's very borders were delineated by the West, and it contains many internally warring factions. For us to think we can just march in there and install a democracy, is sheer idiocy.

Quote:

Was Germany a DIRECT threat to us in 1940?
Yep... It was pretty obvious by then we were probably going to get drawn into the war somehow, because they were attacking our allies.

Quote:

Sometimes you have to kill something to bring about a greater good . . . the surgeon removes the cancer to save the patient. The free world removes a tyrant to save the oppressed. It is NEVER pleasant or without controversy. Time is the only judge.
I agree with that in principle, but I don't agree that it applies to this situation. I don't believe we went over there to "liberate" the Iraqi people in the first place. If ridding the world of tyrants is our true aim, there are lots of other places in need of that who have been ASKING for our help for decades.

One doesn't have to believe in conspiracy theories to see something isn't right about this. It's so obvious and blatant that it's laughable.

Quote:

I again reject the idea that we would even be discussing this right now if 9/11 had not happened. Our world was forever changed on that day . . . we WERE attacked DIRECTLY. There is just no universal culprit.
Actually, we have a pretty good idea who was responsible for 9/11, and it wasn't Iraq. It's extremely disturbing to me that people believe propaganda like that. Again, are we to go around bombing any nation where anybody who hates us might be living? Guess we'd better bomb ourselves, then.

I think the real fight against terrorism is being fought by special operations and intelligence forces - people we don't see. There are no dramatic news headlines about wars and bombing and patriotism. Just guys doing their jobs, going into countries where terrorists are hiding (including here at home), ferreting out those individuals (usually with the help of the local government) and apprehending them. That is the way to fight terrorism - that, and improving our relations with other countries so they will cooperate with our investigations. Not bombing somebody just because they MIGHT be a threat, and spying on all Americans and threatening our freedoms at home because there are terrorists living here somewhere.

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 219
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 219
Quote:
Israel has intelligence about Iraq far superior to ours - they have reason to be extremely paranoid. If Saddam were that much of a threat, you can bet Israel would have been the first to tell us they needed our help. They didn't - in fact they were quite concerned that we were going in there.
So far, this is the MOST illuminating point I have read on the US-IRAQ conflict. I've been thinking the same thing for a while too...

NYC Drew

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
To me, the advice from the man who worked at the US State Dept makes the most sense:

"You'll never understand US Foreign policy if you try to apply logic to it. To have any chance at understanding, you must follow the money trail."

Right now, I believe the worst un-American terrorists in the world are wrongfully occupying the people's White House. The Bush Crime Family made a fortune off of Hitler's Auswitz, but the Neo-Nazis and Neo-Facists and Bush still believes in eugenics. Scary! Not to mention Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft's deliberate attempt to destroy all free-thinking Americans "liberty."

The Bush Crime Family uses the "big lie propaganda" just like Big Brother and Hitler.

Remember: "Follow the money trail."

It's always been about the oil, and only about the oil!

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 14
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 14
Johnny B,

That is a fascinating tale you tell . . . you don't drive an Escalade do you? I genuinely wonder how much of what you say is actually true.

You know when I read some of these responses I'm struck by how certain some of you are about your position. If you carefully re-read my posts you will see a person who is conflicted about our actions in Iraq and their repercussions. Unlike some of you, I don't know the answer to these problems. But I have a propensity for trust that you may not.

Lee . . . I don't know how useful it is for us to keep going back and forth. I respect your position, I am just coming from a different one.

To get off Iraq a moment and speak to the larger issue of why people (at some least arabs) hate us, in my view it centers around our policy in the middle east. If you listen to these interviews with the Muslim clerics, they all say that our policy of what seems like universal approval of Israel and our presence in the region are the main sticking points.

I agree that our policy needs to be seriously revisited if we are to move ahead. Our policy, however inapropriate it may be, has become a scapegoat for the general discontent of the region's common people. The despots who rule their have successfully channelled the collective angst of their subjects into hate. It is much easier to hate someone when the basic needs of you and your family are going unmet. And it is much easier to hate someone who is different, rich, and powerful. This hate has found an able vehicle in terrorism.

So . . . we have people who hate us and are willing to kill themselves to fully express it. We don't know where or who they are or when they may strike again.

Do we settle this problem with diplomacy? Do we try to bring them to justice through questing and force? Do we keep our poise, having confidence in the ideals that have brought us this far?

I think we should do all of these things. That takes decision making that will be controvrsial.

A word on symbols (as those I have brought up have been challenged) . . . it seems that it is easiest to jest at "freedom" and "liberty" from within their arms. It is just like the rich son who grows up with no appreciation of the value of money- a fish that doesn't know it's wet. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that separates us from the animals is our use of symbols. And one symbol that I think about alot right now is hope.

Mike

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 14
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 14
For those who are certain of the current administrations idiocy . . . I would be interested to hear how you would have handled things.

Let's pretend you are the president . . . let's go back to October of 2001. So we got our big wake-up call from the terrorists. You are in charge. What would your actions/policies be? . . . how would you steer us into peace?

And try to respond without bashing the administration. You even have the benefit of hindsight, which they did not.

Any takers?

Mike

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 395
K
KSmith Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
K
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 395
The first thing I'd have done is fire the moron who made it legal to carry box cutters on airplanes!

I'd have made Afghanistan a shining example of how America can work with Islamic peoples on a set of common goals - peace, security, and prosperity.

Once succesful there I would have worked with the world community to bring those goals to other Muslim nations.

I'd have told Israel that our support will cease unless they comply with the various UN resolutions they've been violating since the 1960's, and forced them to embrace the creation of a Palestinian state.

And that's pretty much it. I would -not- have created the so-called Patriot Act because it does little or nothing to prevent terrorism. Honestly, there isn't much that anyone can do to prevent a committed fanatic from doing incredible harm. The PA is a classic case of the "cure" being worse than the disease.

The only thing that stands a chance of working in the long term is to erode support for groups like Al Queda by improving the lives of the people they recruit.

It's encouraging that the Bush administration is the first one to openly promote a Palestinian state, and is asking Israel to vacate (at least some of) their illegal settlements. And if they can turn the disasterous situation in Iraq around and truly make life better for it's people, there's a slight chance we'll win some new friends in the Arab world. Maybe.

IOW, they're doing a few things right. Unfortunately, the misinformation or deception that led to the Iraq war, and the resultant instability it created, is likely to undermine the few positive steps they've actually taken.

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 100
D
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
D
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 100
Fire the moron who made it legal to carry box cutters on airplanes????

AAArrggghhh.

Get your fucking head out of your ass.

Dan Kennedy
Great River Electronics

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
I think one of the majpr points here is that Bush and Cheney had long ago decided they would look for any excuse to go to war. They cherry-picked small facts and distorted beyound all recogition any intellegence reports in order to deliberatley mislead the public and the Congress to get them to go along with their war plans. Now the falsity of what Bush and Cheney did has come back to haunt them and people all over the world are rightfully demanding that Bush and Cheney be held accountable. Lying to Congress is a crime.

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
Quote:
Originally posted by KSmith:

I'd have made Afghanistan a shining example of how America can work with Islamic peoples on a set of common goals - peace, security, and prosperity.

Once successful there I would have worked with the world community to bring those goals to other Muslim nations.

I'd have told Israel that our support will cease unless they comply with the various UN resolutions they've been violating since the 1960's, and forced them to embrace the creation of a Palestinian state.
Not trying to just make fun or be insulting...
...but that kinda' sounds like the type of answer you get at a beauty pageant.

It's very noble and humanitarian-likein a generic, meaningless sort of way...and it kinda' goes with the assumption that the only thing the USA (or any major power) has to do is sort of want or wish for things to be a certain way...and shazzam...we have world peace and prosperity!!!

If you are going to be critical, you need to have specific, detailed solutions and examples of how it could have been different.
Of course...it's a bit hard to do that when most of us are sitting so far outside of the "foreign policy and world reality loop".

There are so many variables...and, even though the USA may be a "super power"...all those smaller countries still have their trump cards, and their interests, and their agendas...
that often, are working completely AGAINST true world peace and prosperity.

Anyway...not looking to JUST defend the present Administration...however, it's just too easy for many to play armchair quarterback with such matter-o-fact attitudes, when often everyones view is skewed by their own personal life and agenda.

We can sit here all day and talk about "what if"...but that's not going to prove a damn thing.

No mustard gas?

No WDMs?

Well...maybe...so far...

But one thing's for sure...there is also NO Saddam!
And quite frankly, I think that's a good start!

Apart from the direct war damage...the USA didnt screw up Iraq and bring it to it's current situation...it was Saddam.

We will help rebuild what was destroyed during the war...and if the Iraqi people are willing to participate, they CAN have a better life than they ever did under Saddam's rule.
It's a shame that lives were and continue to be lost...but from where I sit...that was all the direct result of Saddam's policies...NOT the USA's.

Of course, many will blame the USA for everything...it's seems to be the current "in-thing" to do... :rolleyes:


miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by mhimes11:
If you carefully re-read my posts you will see a person who is conflicted about our actions in Iraq and their repercussions. Unlike some of you, I don't know the answer to these problems. But I have a propensity for trust that you may not.
I am perfectly capable of trusting people and in fact am willing to extend trust to most people so long as they don't give me specific reasons to mistrust them. Placing trust in people who are untrustworthy, though, is not a good thing. It allows people to continue to do evil while you trustingly sit by.

Quote:

Lee . . . I don't know how useful it is for us to keep going back and forth. I respect your position, I am just coming from a different one.
Well, obviously if you trust the administration and I don't, then you're right, we are never going to agree. However, logic really doesn't dictate that I can trust these guys. I will ask a few direct questions and if you can answer them, then perhaps my level of trust will improve. If you can't answer them or at least come up with a plausible answer, then it seems to me that these guys don't deserve your trust or mine.

1) If the reason we invaded Iraq is because they violated a U.N. resolution (as the administration first claimed), why did we invade them despite the fact that the U.N. did not support the idea of an invasion at this time? And why are the U.N. not involved in the current weapons inspections or the rebuilding process?

2) If the reason we invaded Iraq is because we really think they have WMD and they're a legitimate threat to us, why doesn't Israel, their next door neighbor and worst enemy, not to mention a country with military intelligence second to none, think they are such a threat?

3) If the reason we invaded Iraq is because they sponsor terrorism or have ties to terrorist organizations, why didn't the administration say this from the start? Following 9/11, the U.S. had the world's sympathy and most countries were willing to open their doors and offer aid to root out terrorists. No one opposed our going into Afghanistan. If there were any legitimate ties to terrorism at all, Bush could easily have used them as reason enough to go into Iraq with full support of the world, without having to cite U.N. violations or other bogus reasons. But he didn't, because even he knew that Saddam had no ties to terrorist organizations. Yet he tried to cite this as another weak reason to invade Iraq. So why not Somalia?

And 4) If the reason we invaded Iraq was to "liberate its people from an evil dictator" (as the administration said at the eleventh hour when it was obvoius none of their other excuses were gaining any sympathy), why did we do this without being asked, when there are so many other countries ruled by evil dictators who ARE asking for help in establishing a new government?

There are other, smaller questions which add to my mistrust, but those are the main questions which lead me to believe that whatever the actual reasons are for invading Iraq, they have never been what the administration says they are.

Quote:

To get off Iraq a moment and speak to the larger issue of why people (at some least arabs) hate us, in my view it centers around our policy in the middle east. If you listen to these interviews with the Muslim clerics, they all say that our policy of what seems like universal approval of Israel and our presence in the region are the main sticking points.

I agree that our policy needs to be seriously revisited if we are to move ahead. Our policy, however inapropriate it may be, has become a scapegoat for the general discontent of the region's common people. The despots who rule their have successfully channelled the collective angst of their subjects into hate. It is much easier to hate someone when the basic needs of you and your family are going unmet. And it is much easier to hate someone who is different, rich, and powerful. This hate has found an able vehicle in terrorism.
Yes, I think you've summed it up quite nicely there. Also, industrial development in the region has come along quite recently, and too rapidly (this has happened in a lot of other places in the world, too, but none with such a dramatically rich resource to offer as oil). Entire cultures have been destabilized because of rapid development. People are scared (besides being poor) and thus the door is wide open for extremists to manipulate people to their own ends.

Quote:

So . . . we have people who hate us and are willing to kill themselves to fully express it. We don't know where or who they are or when they may strike again.

Do we settle this problem with diplomacy? Do we try to bring them to justice through questing and force? Do we keep our poise, having confidence in the ideals that have brought us this far?

I think we should do all of these things. That takes decision making that will be controvrsial.
I think there are a lot of possible solutions which never seem to be discussed, which again adds to my mistrust. I'll get to some of those in my "what would I have done in the president's shoes" post.

Quote:

A word on symbols (as those I have brought up have been challenged) . . . it seems that it is easiest to jest at "freedom" and "liberty" from within their arms.
I'm afraid I don't see what this has to do with anything - who's jesting at freedom and liberty?

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by mhimes11:
For those who are certain of the current administrations idiocy . . . I would be interested to hear how you would have handled things.

Let's pretend you are the president . . . let's go back to October of 2001. So we got our big wake-up call from the terrorists. You are in charge. What would your actions/policies be? . . . how would you steer us into peace?
Lots of possibilities... here are a few.

- I would have used the incredible outpouring of sympathy from the world following 9/11 to strengthen international relationships, not squander it and take advantage of it as the current administration did. I would frame the problem of terrorism as the world's problem, not just a U.S. problem - because it IS. Many other countries have been suffering for decades from far worse attacks of terrorism than 9/11. I would make sure that any other countries who helped in our antiterrorist efforts got back at least as much as they gave, in the form of antiterrorist aid in their own countries. But my focus would be on rooting out individual known terrorists. I'd beef up the budget for the CIA and military intelligence. Clinton thought we wouldn't need that after the Cold War ended, but obviously that ain't the case.

- Any foreign corporation in which the U.S. invested, and any U.S. owned corporation which operates in another country, would have to abide by U.S. law in terms of fair wages for and treatment of workers, as well as environmental regulations. Anything that we don't want in our own back yard, we shouldn't feel free to dump in someone else's - especially not when we're already taking advantage of inequities in the exchange rate and getting oil and other consumer goods so cheaply. It is in our own best interest not to create situations where only a few despots profit from foreign investors while the majority of the people are still starving.

- Any foreign leader who won't play nice according to the U.N. rules of foreign trade and the basic program I've outlined above, cannot do business with the U.S., period. You know, there was a general U.N. embargo against Iraqi oil following the first Gulf War and the U.N. (supported fully by the U.S.) tried to conditionally lift some of those sanctions in an effort to help the Iraqi people. Saddam didn't use the money for its intended purpose, so IMO we should have simply gone back to the full embargo, as the U.N. resolution stated. Put the blame squarely on Saddam where it belongs, for being the kind of leader no one wants to do business with. Terrorists can't commit acts of terror if they have no money to carry it out (believe me, there are plenty of poor agricultural countries who hate us just as much as the oil countries do, but they are very poor so they can't cause us much trouble). And the common people can't blame the West for their troubles if we just get the hell out of there - withdraw our money, withdraw our troops, do everything the Muslim clerics want us to - and let them work out their own problems if they won't play nice.

- Work with local leadership in other countries where we propose to invest/develop, to develop plans in concert with them which will allow development without destabilization. We have been well aware for decades of the effects of a sudden influx of cash and the "promise" of riches on poor communities, yet we look the other way and this is a serious mistake.

- Tell Israel there needs to be a Palestinian state and the Israel/Palestine madness needs to stop, or we withdraw our support for Israel.

- Sign the *%&*$# Kyoto treaty and in fact take a leadership role in solving the energy and environmental problems that plague the industrialized world. Initiate an international program to share knowledge and develop alternate forms of energy (NOT hydrogen thank you) as well as (most importantly) energy-conserving technologies. Make sure that cooperative oil producing nations are involved, so that they will not feel their economy is threatened if the world reduces its dependence on fossil fuels. Provide incentives for existing energy companies to invest in these alternatives, too.

- Abolish NAFTA and the World Trade Organization.

Well, there's a start anyway.

Page 3 of 42 1 2 3 4 5 41 42

Moderated by  gm 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5