L
LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud
Guest
> Well, I see you haven't dismissed my posts after all. While I respect your
> knowledge, it's no more than any other Bush supporter preaches and it's
> generally pure right sided propoganda.
There are plenty of people on the left support intervention against Saddam, and plenty of people on the right who oppose it. So you really make no point here. Isn't it better to just get to the substance of the policy choices?
If it's all propaganda, why are there 17 U.N. resolutions? Don't wanna talk about that? I'd really like to know how I can be a "nazi" to certain people on this board simply because I expressed joy that the U.N. is acting to inspect Saddam's regime for weapons of mass destruction that he AGREED YEARS AGO he'd stop producing. And aren't you concerned that the United Nations will become irrelevant if resolutions can be defied with no consequence? ISrael (to pick the one and only country outside of America that people on this board consider "evil") has resolutions against it, too, you know. Wouldn't it be nice to start enforcing this shit?
>It's ironic that you mention
> people's opposition to war is due to "spoon-fed" information
> from news sources
That's not what I said. What I said was in response to people who claim they don't know enough to decide what position to take. People who claim they aren't being informed, even though they're in the country with the freest access to information on earth, in the internet era where information is easier to get to than ever before. And, again, to them I say, don't sit around and wait for MSNBC to spoon-feed information to you. That has nothing to do with whether they draw the same conclusions as I do. Informed, good-intentioned, moral people can come down on either side (although they've had plenty of time to make their "case" and have yet to do so).
But they're gonna have to have more reasons than that they just can't stand Bush. It's a f***ing insult to the people living in misery under Saddam to use American partisan politics as your guide for deciding how you come down on Iraq policy, which will determine the fate of the Iraqi and Kurdish people, not to mention the neighbors of Iraq and the course of that region and, well, it's gonna have a pretty big impact on the rest of us too. Attempt to rise above the bullshit.
>because it is they who are sending out messages that we
> should be fearing Iraq (oh no!)
You don't? Why not?
>and that unless we stop that mad man
> Saddam, then he's gonna kill us all.
Not kill us all. Hold us hostage. Cause an greater confrontation in the future, where far more lives will be at risk. f*** up the world economy (which btw, would kill people). f*** up the region. Terrify the lives of everyone living near him. Potentially give weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists. And of course, in his speeches we know his ultimate goal is to one day liberate Jerusalem, so yeah, he might nuke Israel. His other stated goal is to be the leader of the whole Arab world. One plan is to offer a nuclear shield to arab states contingent upon them doing as he dictates. He's always wanted to create a super-power in that region, led by him.
>If I beleived what the news was
> telling me, I'd be thinking like you. I call you blood-thirsty because you
> seem so excited to "go kick thier ass".
The ass I want to kick is Saddam's, and I have no problem being excited about that.
>Charming.
Should we defeat Saddam on our terms, now, before he has nukes. Or later?
You can sarcastically say "charming" all you want, but the fact is you have not offered one idea of what our policy should be. Do you care?
>Makes me
> wonder why the rest of the world hates us so.
The rest of the world hates us? The *whole* world hates us? News to me.
Funny how I just read that polls in Iran reveal 3 out of 4 want closer relations with America, and the youth of Iran are becoming more and more pro-American. Funny, too, how there's a 90 nation international coalition fighting Islamic-fascist terrorism in response to 9/11. Also interesting how the United Nations Security Counsel came down unanimously for a 17th resolution to disarm Saddam.
But the whole world hates us? You mean all those people who are desperately trying to live in America...hate America? And what do they think about Idemoratic Iraqis and Kurds? Do they hate them too?
I've never seen a world-wide poll of the world to determine world opinion on America. I suspect if such a poll could be done it would reveal complex, mixed opinions and emotions about the only Super Power left, it's spreading culture, and understandably so.
It's also understandble that in many parts of the world people don't get a clear picture. For example, Egypt is currently airing a 41-part TV series based on anti-Jewish Nazi conspiracy texts that Hitler himself used. You use the word "propaganda" a lot; is that not propaganda?
It's just idiotic to say the entire world hates America when much of the world (generally the more civilized and democratic parts) is working with America as friends and allies. But I guess you only wanna pay attention to those who agree with you. Anyway, most of the people who hate America with **all their hearts** are very bad people indeed.
> And while you may deeply care and stay awake at night crying about the
> Kurds and the Iraqi's
I have stayed awake reading about life in Iraq, so that's true. I've always read about totalitarian states. Opposing that shit defines all of my politics.
>(thousands of who which be wiped out as we bomb the
> country side as we will no doubt consistently miss our intended target),
Yes, people die in war. Are you against all war?
So what's your solution? Continue with the policy of the 1990s, which can't succeed for the long term and has indirectly contributed to thousands of deaths? Or just leave Saddam alone, let him do as he pleases and put all his deranged plans into motion? It's easy to just say you disagree with everything we're doing. What would YOU have us do? That's a bit harder to figure out, ain't it? The first thing is, you'll actually have to take the matter seriously.
> Bush could really care less.
How do you know? You can see into his heart? And America is not a dictatorship. Congress has given Bush his support. Do none of them care?
There was also an election a couple weeks ago where the people, had they been won over by the anti-war "case" (which I'm still trying to find...) could have undermined Bush's policy. Instead they gave him their support for the war.
>If you really think he's doing it for them,
> then you are really naive.
If you really think Saddam Hussein isn't building nukes and wants to ass f*** us all with them, YOU are naive. It's what I've long thought about many living in nice countries, that people have it so good they don't really understand truly evil peoeple and what they will do with power.
I'm convinced the reason we're acting is to prevent the nukes. But there are certainly many more reasons. The purely moral reason is because Iraqis and Kurds are living in misery under Saddam. If that's not the #1 reason in the heart of Bush, that doesn't mean it's not a reason at all, and it certainly doesn't mean that can't be one of the main reaosns why *I* support it. America has no choice but to be involved throughout the world, and sometimes it's good policy and sometimes it's not. I try to figure out what policies will lead to good results, and I give those my support. I guess you think it's better to just knee-jerk oppose any policy. And then support what? Isolationism? I can give a laundry list of horrible things which wouldn't have been stopped in this world, and good things which wouldn't have happened, had America not been involved in the world.
>(he's a real people lover, ask any of the
> families of those hundreds of inmates killed while he was governor of
> Texas)
I quite agree with you about the Texas executions, which is quite irrelevant to policy in Iraq.
However, two things, if you insist on this weird changing-of-the-subject argument: Did you protest Bill Clinton for the same reasons? And, can you not see that there *is* a moral argument one can make in favor of capital punishment?
I mean, the people he executed (as far as we know) were murderers. I know plenty of good, ethical people who believe capital punishment is justice. I don't think you can say a supporter of the death penalty has no care for human life. Isn't that ridiculous demonization? As it happens, I once supported the death penalty, and when I did it was because my thoughts were focused 100% on the victims of violent crime. I thought it was a very moral stance. I've come to see and favor the other side of the argument, but it's far from self-evident that executions are evil. If someone killed someone I loved, I might change my mind again. And when I see those two Muslim-terrorist snipers, I feel less than ethusiastic about marching for their right to life. I guess it's all very clear-cut to you, though, and any politician who likes the death penalty obviously can't do anything moral ever?
> And people on here have made fantastic points,
Not one person has made a serious assessment of what kind of danger they think Saddam poses and what policy they'd back. Not one. So don't make me laugh, man. Cut and paste these "fantastic" points. They're all the same. "Bush is dumb." "You're a nazi."
All my first posting did was congratulate the statesmanship of Bush and Powell for achieving, through patience and compromise, a unanimous United Nations Security Counsel vote in favor in weapons inspections. I know lots of people have their fashion-statement politics and all they are about is making silly one-liners that get pats on the back from those who find it stylish to oppose everything. But anyway, the first reply I got was that Morrissey would disapprove (like I care!) and I should leave the board! That set the tone, and some other retard carried the baton from there, using my screenname instead of his own, and calling me a "nazi."
>but you chose to ignore
> them.
I only know of ignoring one, because he called me a nazi and used an anonymous screenname. I've always ignored people who post under anonymous names, because I think they're retarded and cowardly. Even worse when they make their screenname get confused with mine.
>Mindy made a few good points, go back and read,
Wasn't Mindy just giving her gut opinion? That's fine, but if that's the end of the matter for her, what am I supposed to say? She just "feels" Bush is lying about everything, and that's that, end of discussion.
>and you never
> addressed why America isn't going after North Korea,
I'm assuming we're all aware of the fact that every country is a unique situation, right? OK, then....
I'm fascinated why you think this is some good point. North Korea *already has* nukes. And they built those nukes in defiance of all the agreements America worked out with them through peaceful diplomacy. North Korea is a huge concern. They have quite the deranged evil motherf***er in charge there, and he's set up an Orwellian state that is literally just like the novel "1984." He's also murdered and starved to death millions. The United States government has delcared North Korea part of the "Axis of Evil," meaning they are considered one of the biggest threats in the world today, and thus policy towards them should be based on that understanding. But the policy must fit the circumstances of the country.
Anyhow, first of all, we all better be praying there won't be a war started with North Korea. Not because we wouldn't kick that f***er's ass, but because the first act by the North Norean regime in that war will be the nuclear destruction of the capital of South Korea, a country I think has been developing pretty well economically and democratically.
So I look at the N. Korea situation and say, "f*** no can we let SADDAM HUSSEIN acquire nukes." With North Korea, we have deterred that madman for decades, with considerable taxpayer dollars and U.S. troops. The deterrence has been successful. War would be a catastrophe for South Korea. That's why we're doing that there. All we can do is deter and wait that guy out, something we can't do with Saddam given his entire history and agenda. So where is this "fantastic point"? You look at the terrifying threat of North Korea being able to nuke South Korea and say, "See, we gotta let Saddam Hussein, who's obsession is to take over the whole Arab world, get nukes too!"????
Amazing what passes for good points in some circles.....
And since we're on consistancy of positions, let me turn that to you now. Many of the people aganst this war are also constantly posting about ISrael and the Plaestinians. Well, what about a state for the Kurds? Unlikes Palestinian leadership, the Kurds have not walked away from peace negotiations to engage in terrorism. Unlike the Palestinian leadership, the Kurds have been making strides for demcoracy, despite being trapped in the most dangerous spot on the globe between people on all sides who want to opress them. The Kurds suffer more than the Palestinians, and there are more of them suffering. Why no solidarity with their desire for a democratic, independant state? And as to the Palestinians, who, depsite walking away from peace a few years ago, Bush has assured can have a state if they make moves for new institutions and democracy...since everything else has seemed to fail in that conflict, can it not be worth a shot to start changing the status-quo of the region in favor of dempocracy? BEginning with IRaq? Or, do you want Saddam to be able to keep funding Palestinian terrorists and come to believe that the more he can keep that conflict raging the safer he'll be?
>Saudi Arabia,
A successful liberation of Iraq could Suadi Arabia's oil monopoly and their anti-democratic royal family.
>and
> other countries who have W.O.M.D.
Case by case.
One of the things I like about the emerging foreign policy since 9/11 is American ideals are being asserted again. Bush is the first U.S. president *ever* to have said the words "Palestinian state." Doesn't that mean something?
Doesn't it signal some sort of awakening? Doesn't anybody notice these things?
Bush won't come out and state it overtly, but if you listen close it sounds to me that there's a recognition that the Cold War is over and the realpolitick that caused so much complexity and often misguided, short-sighted foreign policy is a thing of the past.
Scoff if you want, but the point is backed up by the fact that George W. Bush campaigned for the Preseidency condemning "nation-building" and promising not to engage in it. And look what he's doing now. He's committing America to a long-term nation-building in Iraq if we go to war to remove Saddam, which is a consdierable risk to his own political career. Since it's contrary to his entire previous philosophy and that of his father and all the other right wing isolationists, and because it's such a high-risk undertaking politically, I think he's doing it because he believes it's the right thing to do to start helping the Middle East out of their darkness. For their good and our own good.
>When you go back and look at that fact,
> the reasons Bush is honing in on Iraq are as clear as day.
Yes, they are. The containment policy after the Gulf War can't work for the long-term, and makes us indirect contributors to the suffering of the Iraqi people. And, most urgently of all, Saddam cannot have nukes. And, yes, oil is important too. Only a fool would say they don't care who controls the world's oil.
>It's not some
> humanitarian effort that you speak of.
Removing Saddam, if done right, is a good thing for all. My support is contingent upon it being done right.
>You need to also go back and study
> about the history of the middle east, those countries have existed
> hundreds of years before us and according to you if we just go in there in
> install a democracy then everything will just be just hunky dorey!
Not hunky dorey. But better. And people once said Germany could never democratize either.
>Yeah,
> after we bomb the hell out of them and their country,
The policy is not to bomb "them" (the Iraqi people). The policy is to take down Saddam's horrific regime. Saddam is despised by the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people are dying by the thousands and thousands right now. If a miltary action is done right, it would minimize the civilian casualties and be over quick. I'm of the opinion the Iraqi army are busy making white flags and practicing putting their tanks into reverse as we type. But yeah people are gonna die. There may even be a weapon of mass destruction lobbed into Israel as his last act to go down in history with. But Saddam has never stopped being at war with us. And he's hellbent on getting nukes. We're gonna confront him one way or another.
>offer them a new
> corrupt dictator (and it will be)
If all goes as planned, it will be up to the IRaqi people to pick their own leaders. Just as we allowed Japan and Germany when we rebuilt their nations. I love the way you assume we'll just install someone who will be just as bad as Saddam, so nothing good will come from removing him. And you know what? Eventually someone is gonna come after Saddam. His regime will implode one day. And who knows what comes in the aftermath. By removing him now, the international community will BE THERE to keep Iraq out of total anarchy and civil war. I know you think the democracies of the world are in on some huge conspiracy, but I think it's better for the world to be in Iraq when Saddam falls than to not be. And I think it's better for Saddam to fall before he can cause any more misery, and before he can hit a new level in the catastrophe he wants to bring upon the world.
>it will solve all their problems and
> they will be so happy!
They'll be happy Saddam is gone. No one is suggesting a wave of a wand will make Iraq a paradise, so another silly argument on your part. The kind of argument that's easy to make when you're safe and sound in the USA and don't particularly wanna concern yourself with the difficult task of helping people who are trapped in hell.
>Yeay! That's how ignorant that way of thinking is;
Everyone calls me ignorant, but I'm the only one saying what I support. I'm also the only one who mentions *Saddam Hussein* much, rather than trying to change the subject.
> America is the best, so if everyone could just be like us, life will be
> great all over the world. That statemnt dismisses so much about their
> history and culture that it's sad.
I said they should have their own democracy, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Saddam Hussein has no right to have power in Iraq.
> All I can say is, we want to stop Saddam from making weapons,....WITH OUR
> WEAPONS.?
Yeah, it actually does work that way. Israel was the first to use weapons to set Saddam's nuclear program back. Then America bombed their nuclear facilities. Thanks to those military actions, Saddam doesn't have nukes aimed at us all right now. Then, backed by American military might, we got weapons inspectors into Iraq in the 1990s, who destroyed much of it. And now, again backed up by American military might, Saddam had to write his deranged letter to Kofi Anan and allow that Swede to lead weapons inspections again, and this time with no cat and mouse games allowed. Hopefully he'll be in material breach sooner rather than later so we can kill him already and turn the page for Iraq.
>Think about that statement, does that really makes sense to you?
Perfect sense.
> This war will be all about Bush's ego and good old fashion American
> arrogance. God bless it indeed.
So what do you want us to do?
How come you're not worried about Saddam's ego and arrogance? Bush is a temporary servant in a civilized democracy with checks and balances. Saddam is dictator for life and his ego is so huge he has people tortured if they *accidentally* deface one of those ridiculous portraits of him. His ego is so big he had an hours long film made of his life, which is required viewing for all schoolchildren. Imagine living somewhere where you send your kids to school, not to learn anything, but to have their heads filled with a madman's propaganda film. And imagine those kids being told, 'If you hear your dad saying anything bad about Saddam, report it to us." And then the lovely guards come to the house and slice off dad's tongue. You're right that this war is about someone's ego, and that ego is Saddam's. He wants to go down in history with his madman plans, but I think the sane people of the world should be the one's who decide how this final chapter of that disgusting book goes.
> knowledge, it's no more than any other Bush supporter preaches and it's
> generally pure right sided propoganda.
There are plenty of people on the left support intervention against Saddam, and plenty of people on the right who oppose it. So you really make no point here. Isn't it better to just get to the substance of the policy choices?
If it's all propaganda, why are there 17 U.N. resolutions? Don't wanna talk about that? I'd really like to know how I can be a "nazi" to certain people on this board simply because I expressed joy that the U.N. is acting to inspect Saddam's regime for weapons of mass destruction that he AGREED YEARS AGO he'd stop producing. And aren't you concerned that the United Nations will become irrelevant if resolutions can be defied with no consequence? ISrael (to pick the one and only country outside of America that people on this board consider "evil") has resolutions against it, too, you know. Wouldn't it be nice to start enforcing this shit?
>It's ironic that you mention
> people's opposition to war is due to "spoon-fed" information
> from news sources
That's not what I said. What I said was in response to people who claim they don't know enough to decide what position to take. People who claim they aren't being informed, even though they're in the country with the freest access to information on earth, in the internet era where information is easier to get to than ever before. And, again, to them I say, don't sit around and wait for MSNBC to spoon-feed information to you. That has nothing to do with whether they draw the same conclusions as I do. Informed, good-intentioned, moral people can come down on either side (although they've had plenty of time to make their "case" and have yet to do so).
But they're gonna have to have more reasons than that they just can't stand Bush. It's a f***ing insult to the people living in misery under Saddam to use American partisan politics as your guide for deciding how you come down on Iraq policy, which will determine the fate of the Iraqi and Kurdish people, not to mention the neighbors of Iraq and the course of that region and, well, it's gonna have a pretty big impact on the rest of us too. Attempt to rise above the bullshit.
>because it is they who are sending out messages that we
> should be fearing Iraq (oh no!)
You don't? Why not?
>and that unless we stop that mad man
> Saddam, then he's gonna kill us all.
Not kill us all. Hold us hostage. Cause an greater confrontation in the future, where far more lives will be at risk. f*** up the world economy (which btw, would kill people). f*** up the region. Terrify the lives of everyone living near him. Potentially give weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists. And of course, in his speeches we know his ultimate goal is to one day liberate Jerusalem, so yeah, he might nuke Israel. His other stated goal is to be the leader of the whole Arab world. One plan is to offer a nuclear shield to arab states contingent upon them doing as he dictates. He's always wanted to create a super-power in that region, led by him.
>If I beleived what the news was
> telling me, I'd be thinking like you. I call you blood-thirsty because you
> seem so excited to "go kick thier ass".
The ass I want to kick is Saddam's, and I have no problem being excited about that.
>Charming.
Should we defeat Saddam on our terms, now, before he has nukes. Or later?
You can sarcastically say "charming" all you want, but the fact is you have not offered one idea of what our policy should be. Do you care?
>Makes me
> wonder why the rest of the world hates us so.
The rest of the world hates us? The *whole* world hates us? News to me.
Funny how I just read that polls in Iran reveal 3 out of 4 want closer relations with America, and the youth of Iran are becoming more and more pro-American. Funny, too, how there's a 90 nation international coalition fighting Islamic-fascist terrorism in response to 9/11. Also interesting how the United Nations Security Counsel came down unanimously for a 17th resolution to disarm Saddam.
But the whole world hates us? You mean all those people who are desperately trying to live in America...hate America? And what do they think about Idemoratic Iraqis and Kurds? Do they hate them too?
I've never seen a world-wide poll of the world to determine world opinion on America. I suspect if such a poll could be done it would reveal complex, mixed opinions and emotions about the only Super Power left, it's spreading culture, and understandably so.
It's also understandble that in many parts of the world people don't get a clear picture. For example, Egypt is currently airing a 41-part TV series based on anti-Jewish Nazi conspiracy texts that Hitler himself used. You use the word "propaganda" a lot; is that not propaganda?
It's just idiotic to say the entire world hates America when much of the world (generally the more civilized and democratic parts) is working with America as friends and allies. But I guess you only wanna pay attention to those who agree with you. Anyway, most of the people who hate America with **all their hearts** are very bad people indeed.
> And while you may deeply care and stay awake at night crying about the
> Kurds and the Iraqi's
I have stayed awake reading about life in Iraq, so that's true. I've always read about totalitarian states. Opposing that shit defines all of my politics.
>(thousands of who which be wiped out as we bomb the
> country side as we will no doubt consistently miss our intended target),
Yes, people die in war. Are you against all war?
So what's your solution? Continue with the policy of the 1990s, which can't succeed for the long term and has indirectly contributed to thousands of deaths? Or just leave Saddam alone, let him do as he pleases and put all his deranged plans into motion? It's easy to just say you disagree with everything we're doing. What would YOU have us do? That's a bit harder to figure out, ain't it? The first thing is, you'll actually have to take the matter seriously.
> Bush could really care less.
How do you know? You can see into his heart? And America is not a dictatorship. Congress has given Bush his support. Do none of them care?
There was also an election a couple weeks ago where the people, had they been won over by the anti-war "case" (which I'm still trying to find...) could have undermined Bush's policy. Instead they gave him their support for the war.
>If you really think he's doing it for them,
> then you are really naive.
If you really think Saddam Hussein isn't building nukes and wants to ass f*** us all with them, YOU are naive. It's what I've long thought about many living in nice countries, that people have it so good they don't really understand truly evil peoeple and what they will do with power.
I'm convinced the reason we're acting is to prevent the nukes. But there are certainly many more reasons. The purely moral reason is because Iraqis and Kurds are living in misery under Saddam. If that's not the #1 reason in the heart of Bush, that doesn't mean it's not a reason at all, and it certainly doesn't mean that can't be one of the main reaosns why *I* support it. America has no choice but to be involved throughout the world, and sometimes it's good policy and sometimes it's not. I try to figure out what policies will lead to good results, and I give those my support. I guess you think it's better to just knee-jerk oppose any policy. And then support what? Isolationism? I can give a laundry list of horrible things which wouldn't have been stopped in this world, and good things which wouldn't have happened, had America not been involved in the world.
>(he's a real people lover, ask any of the
> families of those hundreds of inmates killed while he was governor of
> Texas)
I quite agree with you about the Texas executions, which is quite irrelevant to policy in Iraq.
However, two things, if you insist on this weird changing-of-the-subject argument: Did you protest Bill Clinton for the same reasons? And, can you not see that there *is* a moral argument one can make in favor of capital punishment?
I mean, the people he executed (as far as we know) were murderers. I know plenty of good, ethical people who believe capital punishment is justice. I don't think you can say a supporter of the death penalty has no care for human life. Isn't that ridiculous demonization? As it happens, I once supported the death penalty, and when I did it was because my thoughts were focused 100% on the victims of violent crime. I thought it was a very moral stance. I've come to see and favor the other side of the argument, but it's far from self-evident that executions are evil. If someone killed someone I loved, I might change my mind again. And when I see those two Muslim-terrorist snipers, I feel less than ethusiastic about marching for their right to life. I guess it's all very clear-cut to you, though, and any politician who likes the death penalty obviously can't do anything moral ever?
> And people on here have made fantastic points,
Not one person has made a serious assessment of what kind of danger they think Saddam poses and what policy they'd back. Not one. So don't make me laugh, man. Cut and paste these "fantastic" points. They're all the same. "Bush is dumb." "You're a nazi."
All my first posting did was congratulate the statesmanship of Bush and Powell for achieving, through patience and compromise, a unanimous United Nations Security Counsel vote in favor in weapons inspections. I know lots of people have their fashion-statement politics and all they are about is making silly one-liners that get pats on the back from those who find it stylish to oppose everything. But anyway, the first reply I got was that Morrissey would disapprove (like I care!) and I should leave the board! That set the tone, and some other retard carried the baton from there, using my screenname instead of his own, and calling me a "nazi."
>but you chose to ignore
> them.
I only know of ignoring one, because he called me a nazi and used an anonymous screenname. I've always ignored people who post under anonymous names, because I think they're retarded and cowardly. Even worse when they make their screenname get confused with mine.
>Mindy made a few good points, go back and read,
Wasn't Mindy just giving her gut opinion? That's fine, but if that's the end of the matter for her, what am I supposed to say? She just "feels" Bush is lying about everything, and that's that, end of discussion.
>and you never
> addressed why America isn't going after North Korea,
I'm assuming we're all aware of the fact that every country is a unique situation, right? OK, then....
I'm fascinated why you think this is some good point. North Korea *already has* nukes. And they built those nukes in defiance of all the agreements America worked out with them through peaceful diplomacy. North Korea is a huge concern. They have quite the deranged evil motherf***er in charge there, and he's set up an Orwellian state that is literally just like the novel "1984." He's also murdered and starved to death millions. The United States government has delcared North Korea part of the "Axis of Evil," meaning they are considered one of the biggest threats in the world today, and thus policy towards them should be based on that understanding. But the policy must fit the circumstances of the country.
Anyhow, first of all, we all better be praying there won't be a war started with North Korea. Not because we wouldn't kick that f***er's ass, but because the first act by the North Norean regime in that war will be the nuclear destruction of the capital of South Korea, a country I think has been developing pretty well economically and democratically.
So I look at the N. Korea situation and say, "f*** no can we let SADDAM HUSSEIN acquire nukes." With North Korea, we have deterred that madman for decades, with considerable taxpayer dollars and U.S. troops. The deterrence has been successful. War would be a catastrophe for South Korea. That's why we're doing that there. All we can do is deter and wait that guy out, something we can't do with Saddam given his entire history and agenda. So where is this "fantastic point"? You look at the terrifying threat of North Korea being able to nuke South Korea and say, "See, we gotta let Saddam Hussein, who's obsession is to take over the whole Arab world, get nukes too!"????
Amazing what passes for good points in some circles.....
And since we're on consistancy of positions, let me turn that to you now. Many of the people aganst this war are also constantly posting about ISrael and the Plaestinians. Well, what about a state for the Kurds? Unlikes Palestinian leadership, the Kurds have not walked away from peace negotiations to engage in terrorism. Unlike the Palestinian leadership, the Kurds have been making strides for demcoracy, despite being trapped in the most dangerous spot on the globe between people on all sides who want to opress them. The Kurds suffer more than the Palestinians, and there are more of them suffering. Why no solidarity with their desire for a democratic, independant state? And as to the Palestinians, who, depsite walking away from peace a few years ago, Bush has assured can have a state if they make moves for new institutions and democracy...since everything else has seemed to fail in that conflict, can it not be worth a shot to start changing the status-quo of the region in favor of dempocracy? BEginning with IRaq? Or, do you want Saddam to be able to keep funding Palestinian terrorists and come to believe that the more he can keep that conflict raging the safer he'll be?
>Saudi Arabia,
A successful liberation of Iraq could Suadi Arabia's oil monopoly and their anti-democratic royal family.
>and
> other countries who have W.O.M.D.
Case by case.
One of the things I like about the emerging foreign policy since 9/11 is American ideals are being asserted again. Bush is the first U.S. president *ever* to have said the words "Palestinian state." Doesn't that mean something?
Doesn't it signal some sort of awakening? Doesn't anybody notice these things?
Bush won't come out and state it overtly, but if you listen close it sounds to me that there's a recognition that the Cold War is over and the realpolitick that caused so much complexity and often misguided, short-sighted foreign policy is a thing of the past.
Scoff if you want, but the point is backed up by the fact that George W. Bush campaigned for the Preseidency condemning "nation-building" and promising not to engage in it. And look what he's doing now. He's committing America to a long-term nation-building in Iraq if we go to war to remove Saddam, which is a consdierable risk to his own political career. Since it's contrary to his entire previous philosophy and that of his father and all the other right wing isolationists, and because it's such a high-risk undertaking politically, I think he's doing it because he believes it's the right thing to do to start helping the Middle East out of their darkness. For their good and our own good.
>When you go back and look at that fact,
> the reasons Bush is honing in on Iraq are as clear as day.
Yes, they are. The containment policy after the Gulf War can't work for the long-term, and makes us indirect contributors to the suffering of the Iraqi people. And, most urgently of all, Saddam cannot have nukes. And, yes, oil is important too. Only a fool would say they don't care who controls the world's oil.
>It's not some
> humanitarian effort that you speak of.
Removing Saddam, if done right, is a good thing for all. My support is contingent upon it being done right.
>You need to also go back and study
> about the history of the middle east, those countries have existed
> hundreds of years before us and according to you if we just go in there in
> install a democracy then everything will just be just hunky dorey!
Not hunky dorey. But better. And people once said Germany could never democratize either.
>Yeah,
> after we bomb the hell out of them and their country,
The policy is not to bomb "them" (the Iraqi people). The policy is to take down Saddam's horrific regime. Saddam is despised by the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people are dying by the thousands and thousands right now. If a miltary action is done right, it would minimize the civilian casualties and be over quick. I'm of the opinion the Iraqi army are busy making white flags and practicing putting their tanks into reverse as we type. But yeah people are gonna die. There may even be a weapon of mass destruction lobbed into Israel as his last act to go down in history with. But Saddam has never stopped being at war with us. And he's hellbent on getting nukes. We're gonna confront him one way or another.
>offer them a new
> corrupt dictator (and it will be)
If all goes as planned, it will be up to the IRaqi people to pick their own leaders. Just as we allowed Japan and Germany when we rebuilt their nations. I love the way you assume we'll just install someone who will be just as bad as Saddam, so nothing good will come from removing him. And you know what? Eventually someone is gonna come after Saddam. His regime will implode one day. And who knows what comes in the aftermath. By removing him now, the international community will BE THERE to keep Iraq out of total anarchy and civil war. I know you think the democracies of the world are in on some huge conspiracy, but I think it's better for the world to be in Iraq when Saddam falls than to not be. And I think it's better for Saddam to fall before he can cause any more misery, and before he can hit a new level in the catastrophe he wants to bring upon the world.
>it will solve all their problems and
> they will be so happy!
They'll be happy Saddam is gone. No one is suggesting a wave of a wand will make Iraq a paradise, so another silly argument on your part. The kind of argument that's easy to make when you're safe and sound in the USA and don't particularly wanna concern yourself with the difficult task of helping people who are trapped in hell.
>Yeay! That's how ignorant that way of thinking is;
Everyone calls me ignorant, but I'm the only one saying what I support. I'm also the only one who mentions *Saddam Hussein* much, rather than trying to change the subject.
> America is the best, so if everyone could just be like us, life will be
> great all over the world. That statemnt dismisses so much about their
> history and culture that it's sad.
I said they should have their own democracy, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Saddam Hussein has no right to have power in Iraq.
> All I can say is, we want to stop Saddam from making weapons,....WITH OUR
> WEAPONS.?
Yeah, it actually does work that way. Israel was the first to use weapons to set Saddam's nuclear program back. Then America bombed their nuclear facilities. Thanks to those military actions, Saddam doesn't have nukes aimed at us all right now. Then, backed by American military might, we got weapons inspectors into Iraq in the 1990s, who destroyed much of it. And now, again backed up by American military might, Saddam had to write his deranged letter to Kofi Anan and allow that Swede to lead weapons inspections again, and this time with no cat and mouse games allowed. Hopefully he'll be in material breach sooner rather than later so we can kill him already and turn the page for Iraq.
>Think about that statement, does that really makes sense to you?
Perfect sense.
> This war will be all about Bush's ego and good old fashion American
> arrogance. God bless it indeed.
So what do you want us to do?
How come you're not worried about Saddam's ego and arrogance? Bush is a temporary servant in a civilized democracy with checks and balances. Saddam is dictator for life and his ego is so huge he has people tortured if they *accidentally* deface one of those ridiculous portraits of him. His ego is so big he had an hours long film made of his life, which is required viewing for all schoolchildren. Imagine living somewhere where you send your kids to school, not to learn anything, but to have their heads filled with a madman's propaganda film. And imagine those kids being told, 'If you hear your dad saying anything bad about Saddam, report it to us." And then the lovely guards come to the house and slice off dad's tongue. You're right that this war is about someone's ego, and that ego is Saddam's. He wants to go down in history with his madman plans, but I think the sane people of the world should be the one's who decide how this final chapter of that disgusting book goes.
