News article about USA vs. Iraq

[El Feo]

[i] I agree that we should have removed him at the time.[/B]

I concur, Michael. However, at the time, there was a little body called the United Nations that refused to consent to let us do it. Like fools, we agreed to play along. Why does no one seem to remember that now?

The rest of the world isn't in much of a position to quibble about why we didn't do it in 1991, are they?

I pray we aren't played for fools like that ever again.

[Journeymouse]

Originally posted by El Feo
I would note that the prime movers behind the Treaty of Versailles were the Eurpoean powers, particularly France and Great Britain, NOT the United States.

And I never said America was responsible. I intended most of my posts to be pretty general. Although in a lot of cases, as with the original article, the USA is traditionally seen as the prime mover. And you are not the only nation to have friends and relatives on peacekeeping duty.

I tried to resist, but I just can't... There is the theory that the USA gets so gung ho about defending democracy just because they were late for the two world wars. (And, yes, I can admit 'we' needed the backup, too.)

[Tranplanner]

Originally posted by El Feo

Toppling Saddam will be about the best demonstration of our respect for the people of Iraq that there could possibly be.

Agreed - but who would replace him? I don't think there's much of a selection out there.

While I don't always agree with the methods and the politics , I'd rather have an America active on the world stage than an isolationist American (a la pre WW II). If only the noble ideas expressed by some here were more tightly held by those in power. Some of the slimeballs that the U.S. has cosied up to in the past (including Saddam) tend to tarnish that image of America as the world's saviour and protector.

I also have a problem with that notion that America is doing all this alone. While it is true that America is pulling most of the weight, please do not overlook the contributions of those other nations that have been involved in safeguarding the free world.

[el Guapo]

Too be frank with you I have never heard an American muse over our being "late" as you say. It is not something we lose sleep over. We do however muse over your inability to keep Europe under control and out of trouble.

Transplanner - Kudos to Canada - Always pulling their weight on the world stage. (DEW Line, D-Day, The Gulf - too many others to name.)


Let's not worry now about who would replace Saddam -Let's ensure that his replacement knows that if he screws with us we will kill him. It is just that simple. Screw with us - Die.

[El Feo]

Originally posted by Journeymouse
I tried to resist, but I just can't... There is the theory that the USA gets so gung ho about defending democracy just because they were late for the two world wars. (And, yes, I can admit 'we' needed the backup, too.)

Fair enough, Journeymouse. I would simply state that prior to 1945 (or 1942, or sometime in between, the date is arguable) the preeminent democracy in the world was the UK. We were "late for the two world wars" because the mantle was not ours, nor, admittedly, did we want it along with all the responsibility to "defend democracy" it implied.

Now we are the world's preeminent democracy (well, democratic republic, thank God, but you know what I mean), and like it or not, we do bear that responsibility.

Defending democracy in a world where it is a fragile historical exception takes aggressiveness, and nothing short of it honors the notion of self-determination.

We're gung-ho about it because we're supposed to be and we have to be - just as Britain was gung-ho about it because they were supposed to be and had to be before us.

[boiker]

if we can't reason with something, we tend to hurt it or kill it.

fly stop bothering me... fly stop bothering me... fly stop bothering me....SMACK.

I want the candy... no... I want the candy... no....PUSH, GRAB.. I got the candy.

This war, to me, feels like it was created because of a unusal sequence of events.

[conspircay mode on]

1. Massive oil reserves located near the Caspian Sea. Problem: no good economically feasable way to get the oil.

http://members.tripod.com/~KELSAGHIR/Caspian/index

2. Oil Executives have been throwing around ideas for correct ways to construct pipelines, the problem? No 'friendly' governements on nearly every possible route. However, thruogh Afganistan is the shortest of the routes.

3. Bin Laden, being harbored by the Taliban, being affiliated with Al-Queda, being an Agent of the Taliban attacked the US.

4. We attack Afganistan, oust the Taliban, establish a oil-pipeline friendly government

http://www.oilandgasinternational.co.../10_29_01.html

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/...103/index.html

http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=1149

5. the pipeline is going to be soon constructed and was only able to happen due to the war on terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

[/conspiracy mode off]

back to my original point. We war because we war, it's a quick solution to any problem. Violence will get you short-term compliance and peace. Reasoning, Logic, Cooperation, etc will attain long term peace for the world.

What's the longest amount of time between any wars on this planet? Probably zero. Quick to react, slow to think.

Those statements above reflect a perferct world or logical people, which we don't have, therefore... war is the only alternative to make things the way we want them.

[el Guapo]

Oh' to live in the perfect world of pure reason and great love where all the pilots learn to land and some children in NY still have mommies and daddies.

El Guapo leaves this thread to clean his guns and stand vigilant.

"You want us on that wall - You need us on that wall." Thus, whacking day is never over...

[boiker]

A person who is not an idealist at age 20 has no heart, but if they are still an idealist at age 30 they have no brain
-well put.


Gaupo-

I went to college where they teach idealism. Of the many things in my life right now(lay offs, my second child, billz, economy, family issues, etc, I'm learning realism.
FORGIVE MY NAIVETE

on a current even note again, what is the status of the war on terror? are we still fighting over there?

[Journeymouse]

Originally posted by El Guapo
Oh' to live in the perfect world of pure reason and great love where all the pilots learn to land and some children in NY still have mommies and daddies.

Thank you. Summed it all up nicely. Ta muchly. Excuse me. I'm going to go hurt myself for not being good enough in a former life to be born American. And maybe some penitance for assuming that non-Americans can be murdered innocents. Or feel pain. Or be wronged. Or be responsible citizens of the world. Of course, I should have known this, living in a country known for its camp and over the top bad guys, horsey women and inneffective, effeminate, tea-drinking men.

*shrug* Anyway. Sorry I even mentioned the damn article. I suppose I should have known better than to do so. I'm going to go have a strong tea and visit my friend Flicka.

[troy]

Well...I'm not gung-ho about knocking out Saddam Hussein. I don't see how we can justify such action at the moment...now that he appears to be behaving somewhat.

We should have knocked him out during "Desert Storm". We should have knocked him out when he slaughtered our Kurdish allies after we withdrew.

Right now, who's he hurting? Can we prove he's harboring terrorists? Who in the mideast isn't harboring terrorists, and how many other nations will we need to invade (Libya, Syria)? Don't we, here in the U.S., have domestic terrorist networks we also need to knock out? I'm personally more nervous about my fellow motorists than about a terrorist attack.

I find war abhorant, but there are times when fighting is the only answer. My family has taken up arms many times in the past, and we will do so again in the future. I just hope that when we are called upon to make such sacrifices, the cause is clear and just, and that we, as the People of the United States, have the resolve to see the job to the end.

In my lifetime, I'm not sure I've seen such an occasion...

The war against Afghanistan? Best argument for a just cause I've ever seen. We had to hit Al-Queda, of that there is no doubt. I'm not sure we used the best approach, but I don't have all the information that our intelligence forces possess. But why did we topple the Taliban? It was the morally correct thing to do, but in 2000, they were oppressing women and slaughtering their enemies, yet we refused to take action... Was the case successfully made that they had sponsored Al-Queda? Or were the terrorists, as I suspected, just a bunch of wackos hiding out in the countryside that the government had little control over. (I was preoccupied with burying family members at the time the decision was being made to hold the Afghani government responsible for the attack, so I wasn't paying as much attention to world events as I should have...and I missed the arguments against the Taliban regime)

Perhaps the liberation of Kuwait? But there, I'm not sure that we were so concerned with the welfare of the Kuwaiti people as we were with our access to oil... and we didn't have the will to finish the job.

Panama? Did we have to invade a country to arrest one former CIA operative? Isn't that the exact same thing we are proposing now in Iraq?

Grenada? Didn't it turn out those Cuban "mercenaries" actually were construction workers, and that the American students we had to rescue weren't actually in any danger?

Somalia? Bosnia? Please use police for police work...not soldiers. Its not really the sort of thing an army is trained for...

My real concern is that we will start some sort of action against Iraq, and lose half a dozen men. Then there will be a media outcry against the tragic loss of American lives (why is one dead American always more newsworthy than two hundred dead foriegners?), and suddenly our forces will be withdrawn before the job is done in order to satisfy the political polls.

If its worth one life, its worth a million lives! If its worth your son dying for, its worth my son dying for...and I don't want to lose anyone that I don't have to. The cause had better be worth it.

I would prefer a diplomatic solution, but that isn't always possible. As my favorite book says "While the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword speaks louder at any given moment!" Occasionally, it is necessary to speak loudly, but make sure that what you say is necessary and right.

[Tranplanner]

Nicely put, Troy.

[GeogPlanner]

well...i just see the star trek prophesy (timeline) coming true...

2053
World War III begins and humanity struggles to survive.

2063
In the post-war era, Zefram Cochrane converts an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) into the first faster-than-light, or warp, spaceship – the Phoenix. The Phoenix's test flight attracts the attention of other space travelers and "first contact" is soon made between humans and Vulcans.

woo-hoo...WARP DRIVES!

[boiker]

I'll just goto a long time ago in a galaxy far far away and offer my services to the imperial army.