Thread: How to deal with the peacenick ignoramuses

CONTINUED (it reached the maximum letter count I bet that's a first!)

And unlike the superpowers of past (including your country), we aren't in the business of taking over other countries.

But quite happy to occupy, or assit with them. japan, Germany, fair play, but Vietnam is a bit of an issue. The US was in part using them to get at the Russians.

[quote]Will we overthrow governments? Yes. Will we remain in control of them? No. Examples? Japan, Germany, and Afghanistan.
[quote]
Officially no, but then you can hardly say that the government placed into Afganistan doesnt feel a little big favourable towards the US, I mean they did put them into power.
Similarly with G / J the US made damn sure it got what it wanted from them, and still maintains military presence in both.
Dont tell me that the US is going to spend a lot of money fighting a war to over throw a government in a foreign land and no assit in a US friendly regeim change. Notice the pipe line which had been on the cards for several years, was seriously delayed by the Taliban is strangely going to be built now.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php
http://www.gaianxaos.com/SpecialRepo...ipelinemap.htm (bad source, but it illustrates the point of several other ones)

We do what's in our best interest, as all countries should. We have given more money, liberated more people, and done generally more good in the world than any other country. Ask and I'll cite specific examples, but it's lunchtime.

The US has done what it thinks is more good. It's never bothered to ask anyone. That's what terrorism is about. Why do you think these people are acting in this manner? They are unhappy with policies of the USA that have affected their lives or beliefs. Sadly they are not a mighty super power that just does not listen and so resort to violence.
IS the USA any better? As I pointed out in another post, how does what America is doing really differ from anyone else?

Perhaps the UN/US/UK/France/Russia should go into Iraq, force monitored democratic elections, and leave if the people vote Saddam back into power. If they dont well then that is a victory.

Dave

Originally posted by mikeinsanmarcos
I would just like to see what kind of reaction france would have if 4000 people climbed into the Eiffel Tower and a terrorist plowed into it after saddam offered to make the rest of his family rich...

When did he do that?
I assume you have some evidence that shows Saddam offering someone involved in 911 money?

Do you think they would just sit back and tell the famillys of those dead 4000 french civilians that we are going to pursue peace talks to try to stop any future unprovoked attacks?

To whom are you refering?
I dont believe that anyone has yet proved any ties between Saddam, Iraq, and the planning / execution of 911.

F*&K No... Its easy to make the US into a monster but she is just an angry mother who just lost some of her cubs... and the brother of the hyena that ate them is circling in the bushes!

The US is after Iraq, see above.

I'll tell you what I think about 911.
I think that it was planned and carried out by al Queda (sp?) and that they didnt recieve any help from any US agency.
However, I find it VERY hard to believe that in some form there was no knowledge by any US agency that something was about to happen. The take over of planes, the planning required, no slip ups what so ever is just so strange considering that it was carried out in a country that spends so much money on spying.
It would have been very easy for US agencies to think that 4000 lives (I hasten to add international lives) are absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. It would not be the first time that a government scarificed the lives of civilians for what it perceved to be the greater good.

What they have achieved post 911 is unilateral support from the US people for tighter controls on freedom, creation of a new agency devoted to spying on suspected terrorists within the USA (ie. anyone they suspect), higher spending on military projects, a popular more agressive stance towards other countries perceved as a threat to national security. Full backing of the public towards war in Afganistan, and a majority for the same in Iraq.

Dave

WOW, that pretty much sums up your attitude... You think the USA was responsible for letting the towers fall...

I am out of this debate now that it has taken a uturn at reality...

Mike

Originally posted by Gutter
[B]Why not a year? 10 years? 100 years? The French are already backing out of R1441, what makes you think they'll support us after 120 days? These are stall tactics. If we say, "Ok, we'll wait 45 days." When those 45 days comes around, I'd bet dollars to donuts those same people will clamor for more time. Bush and Blair have set a deadline realizing that after 45 or 120 days, the French will still be curled up in the corner crying, the Germans are afraid, after starting two World Wars, of helping to start another, and Russia has financial and political ties to Iraq. Nothing will change.

The offer I heard was that the non-permanent members would be willing to accept the "disarm by March 17th" resolution if the deadline was extended to be 45 days from now. If the US put that sort of resolution up to the UN, it might have been passed. As it is now, 1441 does not give authorization to use force. If the US had managed to get a hard deadline passed, it wouldn't have mattered if peopel wanted to change it later. I consider not compromising on a deadline to be a huge failure of US diplomacy

Here's the difference. Saddam was given 12 years of opporitunity to disarm. Kim Jong Il was part of a non-nuclear treaty that recently stepped out of it. Strangely, I hear this arguement alot from the anti-war people. Unlike what many think, the US isn't a war monger. We will try diplomacy FIRST with North Korea, then move from there.

The objection is 2-fold. First of all, we aren't willing to negotiate with NK. They want talks, we aren't willing to do so. Secondly, we *know* they have nuclear weapons. We *know* Iraq doesn't. Iraq *may* have chemical weapons (I wouldn't be at all surprised), but we don't know for sure. Why not try to collect solid evidence that they are stockpiling chemical weapons? Why doesn't the US use some of that 100 billion they want to spend on war and offer rewards for information about the location of the chemical weapons?

That's because we bombed the hell out of his chemical and biological manufacturing facilities. He gassed the Kurds and other Iraqis as well as the Iranians. It'd be foolish to assume he wouldn't do the same to us.

He had the opportunity. He still does. He hasn't done anything. You can't have it both ways. Either he has chemical weapons and isn't using them or he doesn't have them and would use them if he could. Which is it?

From the capture of Kalid Sheikh Mohammad, I'd say the war on terror is going quite well. Think about it. What do Saddam and terrorists like UBL share in common? A hatred for the US. Saddam has 10,000 liters of anthrax missing as well as VX and Serin agents. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together and see that animals like UBL could just make a pit stop at Saddam's Chemical Weapon Quick-Stop and buy these weapons from him. It only takes one terrorist to smuggle it into the country. If we have a chance to help control the spread of these weapons, shouldn't we?

Assuming he would give them the weapons. If he did give out his weapons and we found out, he would be gone. He understands this. That is why he hasn't been releasing poison gas in the NYC subways or anything.

In the long term, I think the money spent will come back to us. From the huge oil deposits to the American companies moving over there to provide services, I'm not worried about the initial costs.

I am. This is a time when the government is cutting many basic services, such as education and healthcare. I'm sure in the long term the US would make more money investing in education US students.

You also seem to assume that we are going to go in and take over the oil fields and get a cut of the profit or something. I think it is far more likely that we don't do anything of the sort. We might be able to exert some pressure on a future Iraqi government and convince them not to join OPEC or something, which *might* result in lower oil prices, but I'm not even too sure about that.

Countries that have the balls to take on these people. As the UN becomes more complacent and politically driven, it loses footing. But who decides? I think people like Saddam, Milosevic, and Hitler decided for themselves. We didn't put ourselves in the position of the world's police force; Organizations like the UN did that for us. Go ask people like Kim Day Jung if we should take our troops out of his country and let the North Koreans trample through.

Lots of South Koreans would say we should get out of the country. I don't think this really answers my question. How do you decide who goes in your little "too evil to live" group? Would Stalin go in there? How about the current Chinese government?

Huh? You don't know an alternative, but you've heard many? Sounds to me like they weren't good alternatives.

Perhaps I phrased that poorly. I don't know *which* choice we should be making. See the next section.

It's called "thinking on your own." Martin Sheen, Sharyl Crow, and Jane Fonda aren't your conscience.

And when did I say they were. I think a key part of decision making in a democratic state is public debate and discussion. I am certainly entitled to my own opinion (which I would call "Anti-war, not sure which other solution"), but I think there are a lot of people out there deciding that don't even realize there are options. You yourself said "Removing Saddam by force is our only option." Lots of people think that is *factually* true. We have many other options, you just happen to choose force.

I personally have thought long and hard about alternatives. I hate war as much as anyone, but there are no plausible alternatives. The only ones I've heard have fallen into 3 categories.

1. Diplomacy - We did that. The unanimous passing of R1441 demonstrates that. The UN has tried diplomacy for 12 years and failed.

2. More inspections - 8 years of inspections weren't enough? (Yeah, it's less than what I said in my original post. Inspectors were out of the country for about 4 years.) Obviously they were ineffective, so what is another 8 years going to do besides sweep the problem of Saddam under the rug?

3. Send a sniper team into Iraq and take out Saddam! - Riiiiggghhtt. I've actually heard this one. Watch a great documentary about Saddam called, "Uncle Saddam." That'll explain why this is not plausible.

I'm glad you did some thinking, but I think you aren't presenting the whole truth here.
1) One could also say that 1441 proves that diplomacy *can* work. Diplomacy is always a give and take process. Bush wants war now, France doesn't. I think there is a middle ground that might be acceptable to both parties. It wouldn't be "War tomorrow", but it also wouldn't be "No War ever". Why are we rejecting that possiblity? Don't we owe it to our soldies to do everything we can possibly do before we ask them to die for our country?
2) Again, you are ignoring some facts. Even if you think that the inspections have not found all the WMD, they have at the very least stopped Iraq from producing more. So they are somewhat working. Perhaps if they were stepped up they would find the cached WMD that Bush claims they have.
3) A sniper might be unrealistic. I don't think the problem begins and ends with Saddam as well. I don't see this as a possible solution.

I have to get some work done, so I can't respond to the rest. I will try to finish later today.

Twostep

Originally posted by Gutter
But 1441 did mention "serious consequences." If the UN is no longer able to uphold and enforce their resolutions, they did it to themselves.

Note that it does not specify what "serious consequences are"
Also, the US happens to be in breach of clause 10 of R1441, as noted by various people here:
http://www.nowarblog.org/archives/000644.html
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm
As ever, take what you read on the web with a pinch of salt, but Im sure if one was to google one would find plenty more.

We asked for WW2?

Pretty much. We cripled Germany with the Treaty of Versailles and then sat back expecting them to accept it and play by the rules in future.

Are you one of those people who say a woman is asking to be raped because she wears a short skirt?

Do you really expect an answer to that?
I honestly know know what such a suggestion aims to acheive. Do tell.

Or the Russians could maintain and build those ties even further by assissting us and having a stake in the future Iraq.

Exactly, they could toe the US line, help to invade and be rewarded. If they dont do what the US wants them too, then come the end of the war, they wont hear anything from the US.

If you're talking about North Korea, they agreed to the non-proliferation agreement. Our stance is the same as when they signed into it. A stance they agreed to when they signed into it. I don't understand why you don't expect them to uphold their decision.

Have you ever know any government to make something they sign dissappear when it becomes politically inconvenient for them to stick to it?
When the US said to NK "you are an axis of evil" they werent exactly being nice to them. When they curtailed the supply of oil to NK, they were trying to create a reaction.
The US is provoking a reation from NK. NK is naturally doing something they know is going to annoy the US.

"Saddam, we're kinda sorta not happy with the idea that you have WOMD. If it's alright with you, could you stop please? Please, with a cherry on top?"

Nicely done of taking the two great extremes. Well maybe one of them...
Of course not. As I have said, and will say again is that I do not want the US to be taking the lead and invading Iraq without the support of the UN.
It doenst help tha he US took the weapons report dossier and removed bits. Good bit of PR that one

"Saddam, you are a threat to our country and way of life. You have not, and will not comply with UN resolutions, so prepare for the *** whooping of your life."

Please tell me, exactly how Iraq is a threat to the US.
What threats (other than some silly speech on Iraqi TV) have been made, and do they actually have the means to back it up?

So to be fair, we should let everybody have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?

I didnt say that.
So you dont think that having one country dictate terms to the rest of the world on what they can and cant do is fair and just?
Would you like it if I said to you, "you cant buy chicken?", and expected you not to. OK, it's not a brilliant example, but then I only have access to wepons of minimal destruction but I hope you get my point.
What makes the USA so perfect that it has earned the right to say to people that have nothing to do with them: You cant do that.

Unlike your stance, I feel that continued proliferation of WOMD is a bad thing.

Id quite like to know where you get the idea that I believe everyone having access to WOMD is a good idea. I certainly havent said so.

Are countries that already have them going to give them up? No. Are we going to try to prevent other countries from developing them? Aboslutely. That's common sense, which you stated you had in an earlier post.

So much for everyone coming to the table of discussion on an equal footing then.
Dont you think htat having these WOMD is a bit of a feather in your cap? In makes other countries respect you more so. Technologically you are in the same ball park. Thats why they want them. It's very unlikely anyone (any country) will never use nuclear weapons in anger, the cold war showed us that. With regards to the nukes, they are a handy deterant.

Do you own a gun? Are you ever going to use it against anyone in anger? Do you think that it is fair that in the US you are allowed to own a gun, but in the UK I am not? Do you think that I am not allowed a gun and you are because it is safer in your hands than mine? Do you think you should be allowed to own a gun?

You just proved my point. Now we're ousting him from power, so using what you just stated, what is he going to do with his Anthrax, VX gas, and Serin?

I believe that whilst it may be his wishes to use it, not many people in his army are going to do that as they most likely know what will happen to them should they follow that course of action.

The good ol' "Blame America First" strategy.

The good ol it isnt our fault reply!

There is absolutely nothing we could do to appease people like UBL. Do you honestly think taking troops out of the middle east would do anything?

I dont know. Did anybody actually stop to ask him?
Death to the infidel might well be the chant, but assuming he is actually serious with his views he is likely to have reasonable grounds and points of arguement to make, and concessions he would be happy with.

I'm not saying that we haven't gotten in bed with the wrong people in the past. Again, we did what was in our best interest at the time. Unfortunately, it was the wrong decision and policies have changed.

I hope that in the future people will be able to look back with hind sight and say that this whole mess was handled badly too.
With hindsight, everything is handled badly.

But we know how perfect the UK is.

I'll let you into a secret, I aint staying in this crappy country much longer.

And everytime some crazed dictator in some squatty little country is eradicating his people, who do they call on for help? The UN? I think not. We are not the first to suggest the UN is ineffective and undermining its own authority.

By no means is the UN an effective force to be reckoned with. No political setup is going to be. Too knee deep in their own adgendas, politics, fueds, and god knows whatever else. But please dont think that the US is in the habit of helping out with the goodness of their own heart, Im sure pretty high on the list before action is "what's in it for US"

If we are not the world's "police force," then would you feel the world would be more stable if we removed our troops from places like Afghanistan

let us remember that the US put the taliban there in the first place, much the same for Saddam too, he just went a little too far with what he believed the US was going to stand for with GF1 (Gulf War 1 )

Who do you think has kept the North Koreans from invading the south?

Do you think that they really want to fight SK?
What are they going to gain from opening themselves up to condemnation from the rest of the world?
They have much more to gain from staying put and taking on a threatening stance. People are scared, they get to use anti US propaganda, the US gets a presence in SK, everyone is happy! Why spoil it with warfare?

Riiiiggghhhtt. And it's not the heavily armed nuclear communists dancing on the 38th parallel? Try again.

Are you trying to tell me that the money doesnt come into the equation at all?
If not, then why did they bother to threaten Germany with the removal of their forces and all the money that goes out with it.
Im sure they are quite happen for the support, it's saved them from having to bother spending a LOT of their GDP on military budgets, but they do make money from having the US based there.

Dave

Originally posted by mikeinsanmarcos
WOW, that pretty much sums up your attitude...
You think the USA was responsible for letting the towers fall...

So my attitude is that I have an opinion to express that is counter to yours?
Sorry, I must remember to stick to what Im told in future, not form my own ideas, and not have the balls to stand up for what I think.

Dave

Originally posted by thenominous
So my attitude is that I have an opinion to express that is counter to yours?
Sorry, I must remember to stick to what Im told in future, not form my own ideas, and not have the balls to stand up for what I think.

Dave

I am basically saying that just the thought that the gov't would knowingly let the towers fall to rally the people behind the war efforts is crazy. It borders on the theory that JFK was killed by the CIA. Can you imagine what would happen if that really happened and the truth came out (it always does)? We are talking a complete meltdown... You might as well say it was alien backed..

Opinion is one thing but lets get back to reality here..

I respect your right to an opinion but I dont see any revelance to the debate in what you are saying.