| Iraq |  |  | |
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: norm ® 02/14/2002, 10:29:10 Author Profile Mail author |
Both US and international media are reporting that president Bush is "considering military action against Iraq". Nowhere however can I find an adequate explanation of exactly why he would consider such a course of action. Since this seems to be a forum of reasonably clear thinkers maybe soomeone here could help explain why the president would make such an aggresive sounding statement? |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: Iraq Re: Iraq -- norm Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/14/2002, 10:58:19
Author Profile Mail author
I've been following the 'news' too and am very intereted in the issue. However, unlike you, I am not surprised. This has been going on for years. Some even say that Father Bush should've finished the job some ten years ago. But I question the wisdom of that suggestion. The fact is that the UN inspection of Iraq, which was only partially effective, has been stopped for the last few years and we don't what he has been doing to his arsenal. I do think that he has to be contained and controlled but don't know exactly how. I see the administration's rhetoric mostly to scare Saddam into some kind of inspection again. However, if that doesn't work, it would be easier to convince the world that we have to take military action. What is your opinion?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Why have inspections stopped? Re: Re: Iraq -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/14/2002, 13:58:33
Author Profile Mail author
Have the inspections stopped because Saddam won't let them in? Or because the U.N. pulled them out? This is obviously not about the threat Iraq poses to the U.S. Iraq is no threat to the U.S. There must be some other reason for W's blood lust there.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Why have inspections stopped? Re: Why have inspections stopped? -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grendel ®
02/14/2002, 15:32:01
Author Profile Mail author
"This is obviously not about the threat Iraq poses to the U.S. Iraq is no threat to the U.S. There must be some other reason for W's blood lust there." 5 months ago many were saying the same about al qaeda. the fact that saddam hussein is still in power, and the fact that the US is unaware of iraq's mass destruction capabilities makes it a threat. of course, the united states has vastly greater military resources than iraq. but iraq certainly has the capability to harm americans and american interests at home and abroad, whether overtly or covertly.
i am not promoting any military action at the current time. i am simply expressing my disbelief at the speed with which some people have been lulled again into a false sense of security.
grendel
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
When has Iraq ever been a threat to the U.S.? Re: Re: Why have inspections stopped? -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/17/2002, 23:53:15
Author Profile Mail author
but iraq certainly has the capability to harm americans and american interests at home and abroad, whether overtly or covertly. How? What threat could Iraq possibly pose to the U.S.? Any action directed at the U.S. by Iraq would result in the instant annhilation of Iraq. Saddam knows this. He is crazy, but he's not stupid, and there is no way he would commit suicide by attacking the U.S. He has a nice little position in Iraq, having been put there by the U.S., and supported by the U.S.'s attack on Iraqi civilians, which keeps them weak and submissive. Why would he give all that up to commit suicide by attacking the U.S.? What indication has he ever given that he would attack us?
>>i am not promoting any military action at the current time. i am simply expressing my disbelief at the speed with which some people have been lulled again into a false sense of security.
And I am amazed at how easily people are led into thinking there is a threat there when there isn't.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Are you serious?! Re: Why have inspections stopped? -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/14/2002, 16:09:03
Author Profile Mail author
"Have the inspections stopped because Saddam won't let them in? Or because the U.N. pulled them out?" I think both. As I recall, Saddam was putting obstacles in front of the inspectors and they didn't think the inspection would accomplish much under the conditions.
"This is obviously not about the threat Iraq poses to the U.S. Iraq is no threat to the U.S."
I don't consider this statement to be serious! (For more, I refer you to grendel's reply.)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Do you have any facts? Re: Are you serious?! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/17/2002, 23:56:04
Author Profile Mail author
"Have the inspections stopped because Saddam won't let them in? Or because the U.N. pulled them out?"
>>I think both. As I recall, Saddam was putting obstacles in front of the inspectors and they didn't think the inspection would accomplish much under the conditions.Why don't you check on that and get back to us with some facts.
"This is obviously not about the threat Iraq poses to the U.S. Iraq is no threat to the U.S."
>>I don't consider this statement to be serious! (For more, I refer you to grendel's reply.)Well, then please show me why Iraq is a threat to the U.S. I have never seen a single shred of evidence to suggest that Iraq poses any threat whatsoever to the U.S. I could be wrong, though, and welcome you to show me where the threat lies.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Iraq Re: Re: Iraq -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: norm ®
02/19/2002, 07:12:46
Author Profile Mail author
My great fear is that Bush's stance on Iraq is based chiefly on political motives. War in Afghanistan has made Bush appear a strong leader and increased his popularity with a large section of US voters. Saddam Hussain is a familiar 'enemy' of the US and it seems Bush simply wants to pick a fight to show off.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A blunt question! Re: Re: Iraq -- norm Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/19/2002, 11:54:33
Author Profile Mail author
Let me ask you this: Don't you think that Saddam deserves it?
Or more politely; don't you think that the whole world, and especilly the Iraqis, would be better off without him; no matter what Bush's motives are.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: A blunt question! Re: A blunt question! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: norm ®
02/21/2002, 04:58:08
Author Profile Mail author
Maybe Saddam deserves to be ousted and tried for his crimes. But whether Iraqis would be better off without him is impossible to say, for one thing it depends which Iraqis you're thinking about. I honestly believe the whole Middle East would be worse off if Bush introduces yet more violence and instability into the region. The support given by other Arab countries will not last forever if their population's resentment of the US is aggravated further.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Solomon! Re: Re: A blunt question! -- norm Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/21/2002, 11:36:14
Author Profile Mail author
"Maybe Saddam deserves to be ousted and tried for his crimes. But whether Iraqis would be better off without him is impossible to say, for one thing it depends which Iraqis you're thinking about." You are right about one thing: What alternative is there to replace Saddam? IMO that is the biggest reason not to talk about getting rid of the man until a suitable alternative is created. I know, because that is what happened to Iran in 1979; we jumped from the frying pan to the fire. However, what do you mean by "... for one thing it depends which Iraqis you're thinking about"? I AM talking about the general population of Iraq. Now if YOU mean there is small group of people benefitting from Saddam and don't want any change, that is correct.
" honestly believe the whole Middle East would be worse off if Bush introduces yet more violence and instability into the region. The support given by other Arab countries will not last forever if their population's resentment of the US is aggravated further."
Absolutely right. They have to very careful. They need the
wisdom of Solomon!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: A blunt question! Re: A blunt question! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: norm ®
02/21/2002, 05:00:51
Author Profile Mail author
Maybe Saddam deserves to be ousted and tried for his crimes. But whether Iraqis would be better off without him is impossible to say, for one thing it depends which Iraqis you're thinking about. I honestly believe the whole Middle East would be worse off if Bush introduces yet more violence and instability into the region. The support given by other Arab countries will not last forever if their population's resentment of the US is aggravated further.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The responsibility of journalists. Re: Iraq -- norm Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/14/2002, 13:55:38
Author Profile Mail author
It is the job of the mass media in the U.S. to whip the country into a hysterical frenzy to get ready for war whenever the president wants to go bomb somebody. In this regard, they are doing a marvelous job. My first guess for why W would want to blow up Iraq is to put Iraqi oil into the hands of U.S. corporations. He is also motivated, I believe, by a desire to keep as many wars going as possible, to keep his approval ratings high.
Other than that, it makes no sense.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The responsibility of journalists. Re: The responsibility of journalists. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: chad ®
02/14/2002, 23:23:25
Author Profile Mail author
I will agree somewhat with your remarks on the media. Unfortunatley, ratings rather than news rules content at the moment. But your second statement makes no logical sense at all. How is it that by replacing a despotic dictator (I've always liked that word and still cannot be utterly convinced that it does not refer to a venereal disease) we could somehow claim resources of a nation half a world away? We have in no way shown any penchance for world domination thus far, and I would assume that Mr. Bush's motives do not include conquest and subsequent occupation of foreign soil. The oil argument makes no sense whatsoever. Of course I will concede that any government left in place will be sympathetic to the US and given to granting wishes where oil is concerned, but it would in no way benefit US corporations other than to give them a slightly cheaper price on oil. And that is if OPEC will allow such a deal. Your statement displays ignorance of the disposition of middle eastern countries and the way economies work! It seems as though you are repeating something you heard from somewhere that has absolutely no basis in fact but sounds really good to the uninformed. Which is strange, because you so vehemently accused the news media of the self-same practice.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The U.S. is dedicated to world domination. Re: Re: The responsibility of journalists. -- chad Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/17/2002, 23:32:48
Author Profile Mail author
>>How is it that by replacing a despotic dictator (I've always liked that word and still cannot be utterly convinced that it does not refer to a venereal disease) we could somehow claim resources of a nation half a world away? We install a dictator to our liking, like Suharto, who was in Clinton's words, "our kind of guy." We install a dictator who will open up the resources of the country to exploitation by U.S. corporations -- much like Saudi Arabia has done.
>>We have in no way shown any penchance for world domination thus far, and I would assume that Mr. Bush's motives do not include conquest and subsequent occupation of foreign soil. The oil argument makes no sense whatsoever.
The idea is laughable. The U.S. interferes in markets all over the world, by force, blackmail and bribery, to open markets to exploitation by U.S. corporations. It is world domination that the U.S. seeks - just a new type of world domination.
>>Your statement displays ignorance of the disposition of middle eastern countries and the way economies work! It seems as though you are repeating something you heard from somewhere that has absolutely no basis in fact but sounds really good to the uninformed. Which is strange, because you so vehemently accused the news media of the self-same practice.
Perhaps you could explain how economies work.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The responsibility of journalists. Re: The responsibility of journalists. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: shooter ®
02/15/2002, 21:55:20
Author Profile Mail author
Is stupidity your hobby or are you trying to make it a paying occupation.
The job of journalists if to report what happens. That too many see themselves as crusaders of one sort or another does not change that.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I am speaking of reality, not fantasy. Re: Re: The responsibility of journalists. -- shooter Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/17/2002, 23:39:37
Author Profile Mail author
>>The job of journalists if to report what happens. That too many see themselves as crusaders of one sort or another does not change that. In a free and open society, that is how a press operates. Unfortunately, we are not living in such a society. The U.S. press has always acted to stir up blood-lust in the populace, whenever it suited the needs of the government or corporate elites.
There are all too many examples too choose from. Here are two easy ones:
In the Gulf War, circa 1991, there was zero discussion in the mainstream media about alternatives to war, only discussion of tactics and how to proceed with war. The U.S. mass media repeated every lie coming from the White House as if it was fact.
In 1964 Johnson lied to the country about actions in the Gulf of Tonkin, claiming that the U.S. destroyer the Maddox had been torpedoed by North Vietnamese submarines. It was a 100% fabrication, that the press repeated, despite easily obtainable information that it was false. The reason for the fabrication was to gain Johnson more power to prosecute the war, in order to murder more Vietnamese. The congress enthusiastically acquiesed, passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving Johnson Carte Blanche to wage war. The murder of millions of civilians in Indochina was the result.
We could easily go down through history and describe how the U.S. press has responded to calls for war from the White House. Without exception, they have followed the dictates of Washington, enthusiastically repeating lie after lie, with the aim of getting the public riled up for war.It is a sad commentary on our so-called "democracy," but it is fact.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Iraq Re: Iraq -- norm Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
02/15/2002, 08:54:44
Author Profile Mail author
Tyler, I think you will find an adequate answer here
Hope the link works and that you give it a good look through!
good will,
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
No answer there. Re: Re: Iraq -- zip Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/18/2002, 00:01:38
Author Profile Mail author
>>Tyler,
>>I think you will find an adequate answer hereNope. No answer there. I still don't see the threat. What exactly kind of threat are you suggesting Iraq poses to us? Are they going to launch missiles at U.S. cities? Perhaps an invasion force to take Mannhattan? Or maybe a fleet of Iraqi submarines will station themselves off the Eastern coast and start bombarding the Eastern seaboard? What?
Simply showing what armaments Iraq has says nothing about the threat they pose to the U.S. Lots of countries have arms, but they are no threat to us. In fact, I think you will find it fairly standard that nations attempt to develop weapons to defend themselves and increase their military might. I think England even has a pretty good military. England, in fact, poses much more of a threat to the U.S. than does Iraq. Should we bomb England?
Modified by Tyler at Mon, Feb 18, 2002, 00:02:41
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: No answer there. Re: No answer there. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
02/19/2002, 09:31:46
Author Profile Mail author
Tyler, I can't believe you're trying to use that argument. "Self-defense"? Iraq has attempted to use military force against several neighbors during Saddam's reign. The other Arabs were so frightened of him that they even allowed us infidel Americans to set up camp on their soil.
You think Saudi Arabia wants him to have nuclear weapons? Or Kuwait? Or Iran? Or Israel? But, perhaps you think the thousands of people who live in these nations don't count because their governments are repressive, and they export terror, yadda yadda yadda.... How about the Kurds? Would they be better off if Saddam had the bomb? Couldn't he just trump up self-defense charges against hapless opponents when he's really just trying to test his weapons or going for the first-strike iniative?
Oh, and there's the little matter of the fact that they have repeatedly and publicly called for the destruction of America. Maybe that’s what sets them apart from Britain, China et al.
Tyler wrote: "What exactly kind of threat are you suggesting Iraq poses to us? Are they going to launch missiles at U.S. cities? Perhaps an invasion force to take Mannhattan? Or maybe a fleet of Iraqi submarines will station themselves off the Eastern coast and start bombarding the Eastern seaboard? What?"
Well, if a few airplanes can successfully kill off thousands of Americans, why wouldn't some other extremists be willing to try tinkering with the big toys? (By extremists, I mean a government that is willing to carelessly spray poisonous gas over large areas of land.) Besides, vital American interests don’t end at our shoreline, you know.
I don't think you're that dense; maybe you are just on an "America sucks" soapbox so high that you can't see the little things like that.
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Completely irrational. Re: Re: No answer there. -- zip Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/19/2002, 11:20:49
Author Profile Mail author
It is amazing how many people buy into the propaganda that Saddam is some new Hitler who is going to take over the world. Look, this guy couldn't even defeat a decimated Iran when he had the full backing of the U.S. Iraq is no threat to the U.S. Never has been, isn't now. >>I can't believe you're trying to use that argument. "Self-defense"? Iraq has attempted to use military force against several neighbors during Saddam's reign. The other Arabs were so frightened of him that they even allowed us infidel Americans to set up camp on their soil.
So? That doesn't mean he is a threat to us. Israel invaded Lebanon a while back, but we continue to send them arms.
>>You think Saudi Arabia wants him to have nuclear weapons? Or Kuwait? Or Iran? Or Israel? But, perhaps you think the thousands of people who live in these nations don't count because their governments are repressive, and they export terror, yadda yadda yadda.... How about the Kurds? Would they be better off if Saddam had the bomb? Couldn't he just trump up self-defense charges against hapless opponents when he's really just trying to test his weapons or going for the first-strike iniative?
I don't think anybody should have nuclear weapons. As for Iraq obtaining nukes, the threat to us is non-existant. Even if he did obtain them, he wouldn't be so suicidal as to launch a strike at the U.S. Get real.
There is a much worse threat of the use of nuclear weapons from the U.S.A. If anything, the U.N. should be inspecting the U.S. for weapons of mass destruction. We are, after all, the only country to ever actually use nuclear weapons to kill people.
>>Oh, and there's the little matter of the fact that they have repeatedly and publicly called for the destruction of America. Maybe that’s what sets them apart from Britain, China et al.
Bah! When? When the U.S. was invading them! Of course Saddam will use this rhetoric when he is about to be invaded.
>>Well, if a few airplanes can successfully kill off thousands of Americans, why wouldn't some other extremists be willing to try tinkering with the big toys? (By extremists, I mean a government that is willing to carelessly spray poisonous gas over large areas of land.) Besides, vital American interests don’t end at our shoreline, you know.
That just makes no sense. What would Saddam have to gain by attacking the U.S.? He is not a suicidal fanatic - he is a power monger. This is, in fact, why the U.S. has kept him in power for so long, because he is fairly stable.
As for carelessly spraying gas over large areas of land, the U.S. has Iraq beat on that score hands down. The chemical agents used on Vietnamese civilians in the 60's and 70's out-do Saddam by a factor of 100's to 1.
>>I don't think you're that dense; maybe you are just on an "America sucks" soapbox so high that you can't see the little things like that.
It is really quite impressive how many people have bought into this so-called "threat" from Iraq. Try to think about it rationally for a few minutes, and you will see that there is no threat there. This is just something powerful people are using to scare you so that you will accept the wars they are about to wage. You face much greater threats than Saddam every day.
Try not to be so easily fooled.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Completely irrational. Re: Completely irrational. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
02/19/2002, 16:41:32
Author Profile Mail author
Tyler wrote: "It is amazing how many people buy into the propaganda that Saddam is some new Hitler who is going to take over the world." I don't know Saddam, personally. Do you? Maybe he is the Easter Bunny. Or maybe he is the next Hitler. At least I know that Hitler really did exist, and he did what he did because people wanted to leave him alone instead of confronting him right off the bat.
Tyler: "Look, this guy couldn't even defeat a decimated Iran when he had the full backing of the U.S. Iraq is no threat to the U.S. Never has been, isn't now."
Full backing of the US? I never heard about US forces being depolyed at that time. Besides, Iran is more populous and they almost certainly had other powers backing them.
Tyler: "As for Iraq obtaining nukes, the threat to us is non-existant. Even if he did obtain them, he wouldn't be so suicidal as to launch a strike at the U.S. Get real."
He wouldn't nead to "launch" them. Just drive across the Canadian or Mexican border where the guards are as likely to wave at you as inspect your vehicle.
Tyler: "There is a much worse threat of the use of nuclear weapons from the U.S.A."Why would we use nukes when we have so many other less expensive and less radioactive toys to deploy?
Tyler: "If anything, the U.N. should be inspecting the U.S. for weapons of mass destruction. We are, after all, the only country to ever actually use nuclear weapons to kill people."In wartime. Or isn't the use of a weapon relative?
Tyler: "That just makes no sense. What would Saddam have to gain by attacking the U.S.? He is not a suicidal fanatic - he is a power monger."
Like I said, I haven't met the man, so I wouldn't be able to say with the certainty that you seem to have.
Tyler: "As for carelessly spraying gas over large areas of land, the U.S. has Iraq beat on that score hands down. The chemical agents used on Vietnamese civilians in the 60's and 70's out-do Saddam by a factor of 100's to 1."
Again, a weapon used in wartime against an opponent. Not against our own people.
Tyler: "It is really quite impressive how many people have bought into this so-called "threat" from Iraq. Try to think about it rationally for a few minutes, and you will see that there is no threat there. This is just something powerful people are using to scare you so that you will accept the wars they are about to wage. You face much greater threats than Saddam every day."
Yeah, like airplanes and suicide bombers and anthrax-using scumbags. But, of course, it is the American government who is going to try to kill me needlessly. No way a foreign "power monger" is going to get me, right?
Tyler: "Try not to be so easily fooled."
Right back at ya'.
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Incredible. Re: Re: Completely irrational. -- zip Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/19/2002, 19:51:20
Author Profile Mail author
It really says something about the state of our culture when Iraq can be blown up into this big threat that is going to take down America. If we lived in a non-Orwellian world, such a proposition would be laughed at. Zip implies that Iraq poses a threat because it sponsors terrorism. Yet, I have seen no evidence that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism. If there is a threat there it should be addressed, but I have not seen any evidence that there is a real threat.
The administration, the one before it, the one before that, and the mass media, have expended a lot of effort in their propaganda campaign to scare the American people into thinking that Iraq poses some threat to the U.S. Don't let yourself be manipulated in this cynical way.
It is clear that W wants to increase the military budget, in order to transfer more wealth from the poor to the rich. In order to do this, he must convince the people that there are countries out there who pose a threat to us militarily. I would have thought this would be impossible, since the idea of any nation right now posing a threat to the U.S. is just insane. But, apparently I have underestimated the gullability of people, at least in zip's case.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
How soon we forget Re: Incredible. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
02/20/2002, 12:59:04
Author Profile Mail author
Tyler wrote: "...the idea of any nation right now posing a threat to the U.S. is just insane." You dare dismiss the desire of people who want to kill us simply because we live in America? Thousands of people were killed less than six months ago by an organized group of individuals (possibly state-sponsored, you don't know) who were able to launch suicide attacks in our largest city and at our military headquarters! OUR NATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS WERE PROVEN TO BE VULNERABLE AND YOU STILL THINK NO ONE WOULD ATTACK US?! How foolish can you be?
If anyone hates America enough to do that, then certainly the powers-that-be in Iraq would like to do it if they ever suspect that their number is up. Or did you think that they would always have the same regime in power forever? Nope, sorry! And history has shown that dictatorial regimes like to go all out when they are seriously contested. If they have to bring someone down with them, they will surely try to do so. THAT is why it is imperative that we constrict the access that unstable and/or hostile nations have to nuclear or biological materials.
Tyler: "Zip implies that Iraq poses a threat because it sponsors terrorism. Yet, I have seen no evidence that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism. If there is a threat there it should be addressed, but I have not seen any evidence that there is a real threat."
Gee, I'm sorry. Didn't you get the invitation to the latest National Security Council briefing? They really do try to keep everyday citizens like yourself up-to-date on all the world's events.
Tyler: "The administration, the one before it, the one before that, and the mass media, have expended a lot of effort in their propaganda campaign to scare the American people into thinking that Iraq poses some threat to the U.S. Don't let yourself be manipulated in this cynical way. It is clear that W wants to increase the military budget, in order to transfer more wealth from the poor to the rich."
So what was Clinton's excuse for eight years? Do you think his war-mongering profits are as great as Bush's? And one more thing: when we go to war, the enemy would like nothing more than to wipe out our infrastructure and our government. Since this would most directly affect "the rich" in this country, then they would certainly not benefit all that much from instigating war, would they?
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Indeed. Re: How soon we forget -- zip Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/20/2002, 13:20:58
Author Profile Mail author
:=Tyler wrote: "...the idea of any nation right now posing a threat to the U.S. is just insane."
>>You dare dismiss the desire of people who want to kill us simply because we live in America?Obviously, we are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. I am not speaking of such terrorism, but attack by a country. There is zero possibility at this time that the U.S. could be defeated by a foreign power. Of course, we are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, but countries like Iraq pose no threat to us because of the deterrence our military machine poses, and the unfeasability of launching a strike from Iraq against a country half-way around the world. For Christ's sake, they couldn't even defeat Iran!! And you think they pose a threat to the U.S.!? Really, that's just crazy.
If you would like to argue about terrorism, then let's switch to that topic. When I am talking about the threat Iraq poses, I am speaking of the military threat, which is nil.
If you have some evidence that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism, I would like to hear it.
Modified by Tyler at Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 13:22:54
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Indeed. Re: Indeed. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
02/21/2002, 08:57:27
Author Profile Mail author
Tyler: "There is zero possibility at this time that the U.S. could be defeated by a foreign power."
I agree that a nation like Iraq does not seem to have the capability of defeating us. But it is obvious that those who hate us do not necessarily want to defeat us - they just want to inflict as much harm as they possibly can. And, as I said before, if a regime like the one in Iraq ever gets the sense that they are going to be taken down, they are going to lash out as forcefully as they can. I mean, why not? They're going down anyway so they may as well go down with guns blazing (I know that sounds cliche, but it still holds true for people who dedicate their lives to military power).
Tyler: "Of course, we are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, but countries like Iraq pose no threat to us because of the deterrence our military machine poses, and the unfeasability of launching a strike from Iraq against a country half-way around the world. For Christ's sake, they couldn't even defeat Iran!! And you think they pose a threat to the U.S.!? Really, that's just crazy."No, crazy is strapping yourself into the pilot's seat of an airliner and taking several conscious minutes to guide the plane into a building. And, from the press releases coming out of Palestime/Israel the last several months, there's no shortage of crazy people in that region of the world for dictators to throw around.
Tyler: "If you would like to argue about terrorism, then let's switch to that topic. When I am talking about the threat Iraq poses, I am speaking of the military threat, which is nil. If you have some evidence that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism, I would like to hear it."Let's try this one. Note, the first paragraph points out that most of the recent terrorist activity has been assigned within Iraq's neighborhood, which is why we haven't heard too much about it. Here's another one. Yes, I know...After you read this, you can say that China and Russia and a host of other states can be sited for some of the same things. But, as I have contended before, they do not actively voice their desire to watch the west, especially America, go down in flames. Iraq does, which is why we should consider them a viable threat.
good will,
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
One quick thing Re: Re: Indeed. -- zip Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Christopher ®
02/21/2002, 23:53:28
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Zipperhead,
You and Tyler have both raised some good points here. Just a quick interjection concerning this comment:"No, crazy is strapping yourself into the pilot's seat of an airliner and taking several conscious minutes to guide the plane into a building. And, from the press releases coming out of Palestime/Israel the last several months, there's no shortage of crazy people in that region of the world for dictators to throw around."
It might be that we have differing concepts of what 'crazy' means. I'm sure you don't mean it in the clinical sense? There is method to their madness, after all. I think the suicide bombing phenomenon offers insight into just how strongly many people feel about what is happening to them. Why do they do it? The U.S. government simply refuses to even address that question--we're all only too aware what their solution is. But as long as we don't compliment our extensive self-defense strategem with a sincere attempt to see where they're coming from, we're truly missing the mark. We're putting a band-aid on a deep puncture wound.
These are people who feel the advance of an aggressive foreign culture--it oppresses them in a way that you or I probably can't fully appreciate. They are devoted to their ways, their identity, just as we are. However, theirs are endangered. It's been discussed here what other recourses the U.S. could consider in its approach to the situation, but what about these groups? What options do they have?
Of course, I truly doubt the U.S. government really wants to try and see things from the POV of their enemies. To them it's quite simple: threat known to exist--eliminate threat. They behave as if the world were one huge collection of first-come, first-serve business opportunities. If they have to crush every opposing government to ensure the safety and freedom of U.S. business interests, and to guarantee access to the resources needed to support our lifestyle, then that's just what they'll do.
Regards,
Chris
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Iraq Re: Iraq -- norm Top of thread Archive
Posted by: shooter ®
02/15/2002, 21:53:36
Author Profile Mail author
He is doing this because he can. He is on a roll. He will win the war on terrorism just as the US has won the war on poverty and the war on drugs. As long as the first drunk keeps it up people will be preoccupied with something far away & not pay as much attention to his asinine method of 'leadership'. Better he had choked on the damn pretzel & we got Chicken Cheney in his place who would soon croak of a heart attack & then we could play revolving doors with new guys getting in to replace the court appointed idiots.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page