Abscence Of A Pearl Harbor Moment

[TheEnforcer]

For all the bitching we do about how the europeans don't want to support us in this war it's is really no different than what we did in WWII. We didn't care who died and how much territory Hitler conquered until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor by Hitler's allies and he then declared war on us 4 days later. Until then we were VERY content to sit back and say that "it's a European problem" and it's none of our concern.


It illustrates the problem of detachment and self interest. and as much as we would like to believe that we have always been white knights that rode to the rescue, history when put in it's proper perspective, tells us otherwise. We are still the greatest nation on earth but we are often blinded by our eagerness to always look at history through rose colored glasses.

[Mike AI]

TE the difference is that Rooservelt knew what the deal was, and began posisitioning the US to be ready for war. He did not tell the French to give up, or the British to give up hope ( that was Joe Kennedy! haha)

Rooservelt knew what a tyrant Hitler was, and the threat of Germany and Japan.... He knew before the mass of American people, and helped lead the US to war....

While I am no fan of Rooservelt overall, when it came to WWII and the years before it he did a great job....

Where is the Winston Churchill for the 21st Century??? While Bush does not have Winston's oral skills, he is a visionary, who is willing to take a stand.

[TheEnforcer]

I understand that. But Hitler is/was a much more "quantifiable" threat for everyone and their brother and mother to see. I can understand how people can think of the war on terrorism in more detached and abstract terms because it's essentially a stealth war. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.

Tony Blair has more stones than anyone in this whole mess because he's getting his nuts put through the grinder daily and there is a high probability it will cost him his position barring a Pearl Harbor moment that galvanizes the British public.

[Almighty Colin]

The US did much more than just tell them not to give up.

The Land Lease Act was signed earlier in 1941 and the US started to supply Britain, Russia, and China with war materials. I think the US ended up supplying 50 billion dollars worth of materials to allied countries in WW II.

[RawAlex]

Mike, you may find Bush to be "visionary", but to many, he is "delusional"... in both cases he is seeing things...

Right now, there really isn't anything concrete, solid, visible that is going to galvanize people. Pushing into Kuwait and blowing up the oil fields was that moment for the world - everyone could see the tyrant for what he is. It wasn't hard to get almost the whole word on side to attack him during Daddy's rule.

But now we are faced with a bizarre collection of coded phone calls, blurry spy sat photos, and bookkeeping exercises on chemical stocks that honestly doesn't translate well for the average person. More importantly, the common man is seeing increased fuel prices, declining economies, most of which is blames on the "uncertainty of Iraq"... more out of pocket is solid, people can understand it, and they don't like it.

Worse, Colin Powell's speech at the UN was billed as "the US shows the proof", the reason we all should go to war. Instead, it was a very technical and dry discussion with nothing for the average joe to sink his (or her) teeth into. This one speech did more than anything to turn people against the war...

As I mentioned else where, the problem now is this: Either you:

go to war without everyone else, and lose the respect and support of the rest of the world

don't go to war, look like wimps, and have to put up with saddam and bin ladin saying your a chicken.

These are two poor choices, and the only person that put the US there was Bush - he may be visionary, but he's been played - suckered into a no win situation.

Alex

[Peaches]

Hey, Alex - can you email me at webmaster at onlinebeach dot com? You're confusing the heck out me with your link lists and I need to beat you up a bit

Thanks

[RawAlex]

Peaches, YGM.

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

I can see both sides of the "War on Iraq" debate.

I agree with Alex's assessment that Bush has a tough decision to make and that neither is a great one and that he has painted himself into a corner.

I disagree about Powell's speech though. Polls show Powell's speech had little effect on people either way - actually an increase of 7% in the US of those in favor of war. A Feb 6 Gallup poll taken after Powell's speech showed 57% of Americans favored war.

Also, I think the US economy is better this year than last and most economic indicators are positive. Venezuela weights heavy on fuel prices also.

But maybe Bush is right and as Mike says he is a visionary. Hard to tell. I think Bush is underrated by many at any rate. The (NATO) defense of Turkey has now been approved. We knew that would happen, right? Posturing.

As far as losing support, that will likely be temporary and depend more on how everything actually plays out. A quick war and this will have just been a small little bump in history. Bush could lose or gain from the war. Most leaders do. Bush needs Saddam's or Osama's head for the trophy case.

Good point about US citizens being disinterested in Europe's War during the first half of WW II.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 16 2003, 07:31 PM

[Mutt]

There was a Pearl Harbor, it happened September 11th, two symbols of what America stands fell to the ground with thousands of people inside, the Pentagon was attacked, the White House was next.

War was declared on the United States, and its Western Allies.

We can't go to war with Al Qaeda, we can go to war with the countries who support them, train them and share their ambitions. Iraq is convenient, i'd much rather blow out the Saudis.

Nobody feels America's pain.
America is Shaquille O'Neal, nobody feels sorry for him when he gets mugged and hacked, because he's bigger and stronger than everybody else. Most resent him.

Bush and Blair are right, the Middle East needs to dealt with in the only language they understand, violence, war . These are primitive people who are religious delusionals. They need to be taught a lesson and put back in their place.

[RawAlex]

Mutt, sorry, bad logic. Pearl Harbour meant spank the japanese, not "someone else close by that might have talked with them"... otherwise the stars and stripes would fly over thailand and indonesia....

9/11 was an act of terror, not an act of Iraq. If anything, it was an act of Saudi Arabia, where BinLadin is from...

Colin, I heard a recent poll of americans showed most wanted the inspectors to have more time. Also, polling only americans gets you a view from only one side... Remember, Blair is getting it in the nuts because he is supporting an unpopular war effort...

What can I say? I can understand why to do it, and I can understand why enough people are not convinced.

Alex

[PornoDoggy]

You will forgive me if I am skeptical ... unconvinced ... okay, if the idea of comparing GWB to FDR makes me wanna PUKE. The man has squandered a wave of sympathy for the United States after 9/11 in no time flat. The man who believes the U.S. has a right to act unilaterally where ever it wants to hardly seems like the ideal candidate for the stature of the President who created the United Nations.

Mutt, you are kidding, right?

There was a Pearl Harbor, it happened September 11th, two symbols of what America stands fell to the ground with thousands of people inside, the Pentagon was attacked, the White House was next

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor we knew the Japanese did it. Everybody in America knew war was coming except the Isolationists and the U.S. Senate.

When alQaida committed that unspeakable act, we went after them. I repeat what I have said all along - if the U.S. government had a shred of credible evidence that Saddam Hussein/Iraq was involved in 9/11, we would be discussing him, his regime, and quite possibly the city of Baghdad in the past tense. No nation on earth would have stood in our way. There is a circular logic, smoke and mirrors aspect to the way Bush and Co. are selling this thing that makes me very nervous - and I think we need to go in and do this job.

I think we need to go in and do this job - but I wonder if people know what this job entails. I'm hearing this fantasy talk from so many people - we're going to go into Iraq and make a nirvana of stable democracy out of it. The people in the other countries in the region will be so jealous of the McDonalds and Starbucks overwhelming Iraq that they'll overthrow their governments and set up more democracies. The Palestinians will be convinced that armed struggle is futile and become passive, thus making Israel safe. The lions will lie down with the lambs, dogs and cats will live in harmony, and everybody will be happy and earn tax-free dividends.

BULL FUCKING SHIT. I think viewing it as doing ANYTHING to stop terrorism is absolutely delusional. The idea that this will materially improve the security of Israel is ludicrous. The President who campaigned against nation building is now going to figure out why Humpty-Daddy didn't go there - we're going to go in and build a stable country in the Arab version of Yugoslavia. We've got troops in Afghanistan with a government that depends on us for it's very existence, and where we have control of 5% of the country 12 hours a day on a good day - and that makes somebody from my generation really fucking nervous. We are going to provide alQaida with the best recruiting campaign they've ever had. We're going to alienate a substantial portion of the world with our heavy-handed pseudodiplomacy. And meanwhile, back at the ranch, the North Koreans are showing their asses ...

I think we need to go in and do this job. But selling the people on the whole "domino" theory of how things will improve on the terrorism front and in the Middle East is selling snake oil. This is a long, hard road down a very slippery slope we're taking. What I'm afraid of is that it will still be going on when that grandson of mine (who turns 9 in a few weeks) is old enough to serve (because his grandpa thinks that's what real patriots do).

Bush as Franklin Roosevelt? Hardly. I worry he's more like another Democrat, one far more recent. "Hey, Hey, LBJ ... "




Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 16 2003, 10:37 PM

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 16 2003, 05:40 PM
While Bush does not have Winston's oral skills, he is a visionary

Mike, did you chow down on some bad gumbo? Explain these hallucinations you are having here, my friend.

He is a visionary on WHAT exactly? On deciding to clean up his Daddy's mess a decade later? I doubt that qualifies as a "vision"?

Maybe it's his vision to fuck up twenty-five years of eliminating the Natioinal Debt, in which case he's already suceeded in under two years; so that's no a vision either. Do name a single thing he is a Visionary on, Mike, please.

I doubt his visions are capable of going beyond a day and a half. No doubt the grandest "vision" he is capable of is what desert to have with his dinner tomorrow night.

[Mutt]

PD, because these fuckers have cleverly created their terrorist networks and by definition terrorists work clandestinely i could care less about finding bin Laden or getting concrete evidence that this country or that country gave the go ahead on the 9/11 mission.

I want the countries who fund these fuckers, who train them, who cheer them on as they do the dirty work to be held accountable.

You can wait around. I'm sure you still think OJ Simpson might be innocent.

Well OJ should join the French and Germans and maybe they all work together to track down Nicole Simpson's murderer and who was responsible for 9/11 at the same time.

The weapons of mass destruction have all been moved to Lebanon, Hussein is laughing his ass off at the United States and the United Nations. We play by the rules, they don't - and they use that fact for everything it's worth.

I hate the Middle East. I'm not even a super Jew, haven't been inside a temple more than 5 times in the last 15 years but they are my people and every last piece of shit Arab wants one thing - to see the destruction of Israel and the Jewish race.

You can go on being manipulated by these religious lunatics - I'm glad Bush and Blair are ready to put a stop to it.

[Mike AI]

Colin, the Lend lease act is part of laying the ground work that Rooservelt did.


Bottom line is we are going in. We cannot build up all the forces, rattle the saber and not use it. ( of course if Iraq would live up the UN agreements we could back down.)

There is NO other solution. backing down, recalling our troops would be a disaster for the US and eventually the world.

Dictators LIE, thus diplomoacy which is built on making deals and people living up them them HAS not, NOR will it work. Look at N. Korea and Iraq... the only difference is that the N. Koreans had the balls to say they lied, and have built nuclear weapons and will make more. Iraq continues to lie and hide and postpone... but yet still continues to hide their weapons programs.

It is something that is so clear to me....

As far as Powell's speech, it was meant to be technical - Bush has been the one giving the passionate speaches, long on rhetoric short on details.

[PornoDoggy]

Sorry, Mutt, but I think OJ was guilty as hell, I still haven't heard any proof that Iraq funded or trained any terrorists that attacked the United States, and I think you are contradicting yourself.

You tell me that

You can go on being manipulated by these religious lunatics -

after you've made the statement

every last piece of shit Arab wants one thing - to see the destruction of Israel and the Jewish race.

You see, I'm not being motivated by the religion of ANYONE. Not Islamic, not Jewish, and not fundamentalist Christian. I have no more use for an antisemite than I do for any other bigot - and that includes those bigoted against Arabs. One of the things I am proud of is the bipartisan support that this country has shown to Israel since it was founded, and the way we helped them through some horrible wars. But that doesn't mean that every Israeli fight is my fight, or that I'm willing to see this nation embark on a foolish course that could end up doing Israel more harm than good.

There is an undercurrent about this rush to war that seems to suggest another crusade to liberate the Holy Land from the infidels - and that should have no place in it, because it is folly of the worst sort - makes seeking out a land war in Asia seem like a good idea. If the US is going to use armed might to get involved in the Palestinian/Arab conflict, than it should go in, kick EVERYBODY's ass, and bring them to the negotiating tables. And woe be unto any pissant nation that attacks a U.S. Navy ship, "accident" or not.

I'm more than willing to go to war with Saddam to ensure he doesn't have WMD that can threaten the United States and its interests (and in part to clean up one more mess that our muddle-headed foreign policy at least in part helped create). I don't think the United States has any fucking business liberating the Holy Land from either the sons of Abraham or the sons of Ishmael, or helping the fundamentalists prepare for the rapture.

[Mutt]

ok i'm off to go read Debka. Laugh at that site all you want but
it seems to beat all the big media outlets story after story.


booga booga

[RawAlex]

... and powell gave long on detail, short on content and proof.

It's too bad you aren't outside of the US to see how much all of this sounds like rhetoric from ALL sides of the discussion.

Simple question (and Mike, you studied more than long enough to know about evidence): Does Saddam CURRENTLY have weapons of mass destruction?

I see alot of "perhaps" and "maybe" and "use tos" and "not sures" and "unaccounted fors" - but nothing concrete that says "yup, he could kill us all tomorrow".

I feel deep down inside that he does have them, that he will try to use them, and thousands if not millions of Iraqis and foreign soldiers will die or be seriously affected as a result.

Do I know it? nope.

There's the rub.

Alex

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 16 2003, 11:41 PM
Bottom line is we are going in. We cannot build up all the forces, rattle the saber and not use it.

Are you quoting Franz-Joesph or Kaiser Wilhelm?

[Mutt]

well Mike is definitely right, it would be a disaster for Bush and Blair
to back down now. Bush should resign if he miscalculated how this would play out this badly. But I think he's right.

[cj]

Originally posted by Mutt@Feb 16 2003, 07:54 PM
There was a Pearl Harbor, it happened September 11th, two symbols of what America stands fell to the ground with thousands of people inside, the Pentagon was attacked, the White House was next.

War was declared on the United States, and its Western Allies.

We can't go to war with Al Qaeda, we can go to war with the countries who support them, train them and share their ambitions. Iraq is convenient, i'd much rather blow out the Saudis.

Nobody feels America's pain.
America is Shaquille O'Neal, nobody feels sorry for him when he gets mugged and hacked, because he's bigger and stronger than everybody else. Most resent him.

Bush and Blair are right, the Middle East needs to dealt with in the only language they understand, violence, war . These are primitive people who are religious delusionals. They need to be taught a lesson and put back in their place.

oh puhlease

this was the biggest load of self flattering shit i've read in a long time!!!

your country is not an innocent victim and YOU are delusional if you truly believe that. America has killed MANY MORE INNOCENTS than have been lost in this LONG battle that DIDN'T begin on September 11th 2001.

the attitude of your posts is EXACTLY why the rest of the world refuses to support you!!!

>>> These are primitive people who are religious delusionals. They need to be taught a lesson and put back in their place.

i nominate this for the morons page!!! you can tell you hang out at gfy a lot. do you still use the word nigger and think that women should be at home raising children for abusive husbands? do you truly think that anyone who isn't a pigheaded ignorant american like yourself doesn't deserve the right to their own beliefs???

you can still have an opinion about whether or not this war is a good or a bad move without resorting to blatant ignorant hatred. people like YOU are the problem - products of american media propaganda who lap it all up like good little hitler soldiers - only unlike other countries you are truly convinced you are only country who has 'got it right'.

HA!!

mutt, go buy a plane ticket ... travel some. get an opinion based on some real perspective.

[Mike AI]

PD - you are so wise and knowing....

Tell us specificaly what you would do right now if you were President of the US?

Would you go in? Would you wait for more inspections? How long would you give for inspections to work? 2 month? 6 months? a year? 5 years?

Would you back down? Would you understand the consequences of backing down?

[Mike AI]

Using Military Power is not always a bad thing. I am sure many of you, including my friend PD have read The Prince... ( PD went to public school back when they were actually teaching! )

The fundemental question the Prince wants to know is it better to be loved or feared.

Do you know the answer?

Terrorists, people in the middle east, as well as many parts of the world understand power. The islamic fundementalist will never love us, they will never like us, but they do understand power....

The future war in Iraq will go beyond Iraq, it will go beyond the middle east. We have to make it clear the United States will use all methods to look out and protect OUR interest, as well as the interest of our allies.

We have twisted a lot of arms of friends to have them stand by us in this conflict. Especially the nations in the middle east, and the area - including Pakistan... we cannot indefinately hold out waiting for Saddam. We cannot continue to leave our alies in a lirch. We will never be trusted or relied upon again....

Bush is doing the righ thing.... Blair is doing the right thing, and has my respect. I hope for a peaceful solution, but I know the reality is the US will be going into Iraq with our without the UN approval.

I still think the time frame is going to be around first week of march.... it will be a new moon....

[JR]

i think that Bushs "fuck you if you dont like it" style of leadership has put him in a nasty position.

Bush has made many mistakes. The first, was declaring after he was elected that the policy of his government was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

i did not think that Colin Powell was particularly convincing with his speech to the UN. i mean, i believe he may be correct in what he said, i believe that he beleives that Saddam Hussein is a threat. the problem that Bush and his crew have, is that they failed to convince the world. I saw a lot of flimsy and circumstantial evidence that told me that if that was the best case they had to make to the world... they were better off not making it.

in my opinion THEIR LARGEST MISTAKE BY FAR was a simple issue of semantics that cost them world support - that was continually referring to the UN inspection team as "inspectors" and referring to their work as "inspections". The word inspection implies that they are there to search and discover and that the burden of proof rests fully on them.

they made early and repeated demands about Saddam not letting "inspectors" do their job. now "inspectors" are there and though Saddam Hussein is in complete non-compliance with the UN Resolution 1441 - he is able to turn the tables and say "they are looking... and just as we told you, they are not finding anything". Because of that, he was able to help Bush paint himself into a corner by creating a situation where an attack could not be justified in the worlds opinion.

It occurred to me early on that they should of been referring to them as a "verification" team or use some term that suggests that they are there not to find anything but to verify, based on information given to them by Saddam. then the case could have been made that Saddam was not cooperating since large stockpiles of weapons were unnacounted for and their location/destruction could not be verified.

as it is, they are not finding new evidence of what happened to massive stockpiles of weapons that are still unnacounted for AND they are even finding undeclared and illegal weapons and the world is saying "yeah, well... its PROOF that the INSPECTIONS are working". Saddam once again, cleveryly maneuvered to put the US President in the hotseat and not himself.

Iraq is still not accounting for stockpiles of VX gas, Anthrax, rockets, chemical bombs and other weapons - BUT that is where reality and world opinion clash. People are under the impression that "inspections" are supposed to discover these things and it can only be concluded that "inspections" need more time.

i think that simple word "inspection" was a primary cause of a loss of world support.

BUSH MADE A FIRST GAMBLE that came back to haunt him

the whole use of "weapons of mass destruction" and making a weak case for Saddams government trying to pursue or obtain nuclear weapons. a case that today, still is 100% unsubstantiated in the worlds opinion. He went before the world talking about aluminum tubes as "proof" and i watch the news all day long and have to admit that they totally lost me there. i had to do a bit of research just to understand what the fuck they were talking about.

of course, now the Inspectors are saying that they are not convinced that they tubes were for a nuclear weapons program... oops.

BUSH MADE A SECOND GAMBLE that came back to haunt him.

Bush rambled on and on at the UN about Saddam Hussein not letting "inspectors" in the country to do thier work. That was one of the bigger arguements BEFORE Resolution 1441 and it was a gamble that Saddam Hussein WOULD NOT cooperate once they were allowed back in similar to how he did in the past. thus justifying military action. Now what? inspectors are there. The first report said clearly that Iraq was not cooperating. That was the final window of opportunity to justify war. it closed. NOW "Iraq, is more cooperative". So world opinion is now that the process is working.. and should be allow to work because people seem to believe in peace at any price.

I dont think the US will get support for a second UN Resolution authorizing them to attack Iraq. I think they really thought that either they would... or that the case would be so strong enough in world opinion to do so. Today, it looks really doubtful.

BUSH MADE A THIRD GAMBLE that came back to haunt him.

He tryed to tie Iraq and the need to overthrow Saddam Hussein to terrorism in a VERY unconvincing way. They cost themselves credibility on that front by making unconvincing refferences to Al Quaeda that no one took seriously which cost them credibility on two fronts 1) the war on terrorism 2) attacking iraq.

the fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein is a much better politician than George Bush. He is a tactitian. They are not even in the same league. Saddam Hussein is an evil and murderous dictator who has told the world to fuck off for 12 years... and today, the world is standing by his side.

The worlds opinion today is "yeah, he is a ruthless murderer, a bad person and is bringing nothing but misery and death on his people - but lets give him some more time".

Beginning a Presidency by declaring that "the policy of this government is the removal of Saddam Hussein from power" then building up a massive fighting force in the Gulf and then failing to convince the world that Saddam needed to go, and causing more support for Saddam Hussein was one of the bigger political blunders in US history.



Last edited by JR at Feb 16 2003, 11:15 PM

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 17 2003, 01:43 AM
Terrorists, people in the middle east, as well as many parts of the world understand power. The islamic fundementalist will never love us, they will never like us, but they do understand power....

Mike, actually, from what I can tell, they understand power, and they also understand REVENGE. The middle east has a long history of an eye for an eye, and for grudges never forgotten.

You strike them without good cause, and it will be remembered forever, passed down from father to son, from mullah to worshipper, from high to low... nobody will care WHAT the story is, but they will know that you are evil and your people deserve to die.

I don't think it is easily curable - but going to war with Iraq without support and without allies is just going to stir the pot and make it worse.

As for what to do if I was President, well... I dunno - but I hope I would have been smart enough not to be played by Saddam.

Alex

[PornoDoggy]

Mike, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Saddam's gotta go. I don't think making Saddam go will materially contribute to the demise of the likes of alQaida - and in fact may strengthen alQaida by rallying more people to its cause. If I were President you wouldn't have seen a pattern of arbitrary indifference and outright hostility toward international agreements well displayed before 9/11. If I were the President my focus would be on alQaida, Afghanistan, alQaida, North Korea, alQaida, and Iraq.

The very first thing I'd do is muzzle the Secretary of Defense and any other moron in government talking silliness like "new" and "old" Europe. It is factually innacurate; diplomaticly, it's somewhat like striking the guy you hope to be your second with the glove across his face. I'd tell the SecDef to run the services and leave the diplomacy to the Secretary of State. I'd tell Connie Rice to calculate the significance of the sum of the 18 nations "firmly behind us" and do a pie chart comparing their significance with that of France and Germany.

If I had proof of a link between Iraq and alQaida, I'd share it with the world. Not in some technical mumbo-jumbo presentation, but with the quiet rage and dignity of Adli Stevenson at the U.N. in '62. I'd do the same thing with any proof that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction.

I definitely would NOT use the "we've got the troops there, we have to use them" routine as a rationale, particularly with Europeans, to whom the folly of Wihlem and Franz-Joesph, et al. - "ve have mobilized, and ve must follow ze plan!" - may not be seen as a persuasive arguement.

Assuming that my motivation is disarming and removing Saddam, and not showing how macho I am, then I'd be willing to "back down" without war if Saddam was disarmed and removed peacefully. If I have to leave the troops there for a while without a war for that to happen, I'd be willing to do that. Quite frankly, I'd welcome it, particularly if I didn't have an appetite for nation-building - because if I did I could think of far better places to take on as my second project. If Saddam is disarmed and removed peacefully without the use of force the victory is still mine. My goal would not be to go in and "kick some raghead ass", which I suppose could lead to the disappointment of some constituencies - but it's unlikely that President PornoDoggy would have gotten many of their votes anyway, since his support would come from liberals, tree-huggers and other traitors.

I'd make a PUBLIC statement that the existing contracts between any nation and Iraq would be honored once the regime was removed - and that the U.S. relinquishes any right to profiteer from the war. And mean it.

I'd sit down with the Permanent members of the Security Council in CONSULTATION and work out a timetable for the Inspectors. And no - it would not be a year, or five years.

Would I go in alone? Not if I could help it. And I suppose if I couldn't help it, I'd do what nations have always done when they want a war. I'd provoke the sonofabitch.

Watch the skies over the no-fly zone.

[JR]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 16 2003, 11:15 PM

Mike, actually, from what I can tell, they understand power, and they also understand REVENGE. The middle east has a long history of an eye for an eye, and for grudges never forgotten.

You strike them without good cause, and it will be remembered forever, passed down from father to son, from mullah to worshipper, from high to low... nobody will care WHAT the story is, but they will know that you are evil and your people deserve to die.

i like the "enabler" crowd.

"yeah, they are crazy murderers and terrorists with a stone age "eye for an eye" mentality passed down from father to son for generations and they want all of us dead. thats precisely why would should do everything possible to make sure we dont upset them, disturb them and do our best not to offend them. because who knows what those crazy people may do. lets just close our eyes and hope they go away"

RawAlex, are you from France?

[Rolo]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 16 2003, 10:36 PM
Tell us specificaly what you would do right now if you were President of the US?

Ok - I´m not PD, but I would like to be president for 1 day too

I would take just 1-5% from the Iraq war budget ($5 billion or more) put in a offshore bank account, and call Pentagon. Tell them to offer that money to one of Saddams top men, if he can get rid of Saddam and his sons... Someone will take the money and get rid of Saddam. Hire one of his doubles to show his face on Iraq and Arabic TV until new Iraq goverment was in place. When the new goverment is in place, then release the story that Saddam and his sons died in a plane crash while trying to leave Iraq. Then let the new goverment take over - give them all the support they want behind the scene... invite new president of Iraq to the whitehouse - and lift the trade embargo while he is there... he will return to Iraq as a hero, and US will get credit for supporting a new future for Iraq

No US trops in Iraq and we still get what we want - get rid of Saddam.

Next day I will resign as President, because I think someone much more wiser than I should lead the country



Last edited by Rolo at Feb 16 2003, 11:56 PM

[RawAlex]

lets just close our eyes and hope they go away

JR, I didn't say that, not in the slightest - quit trying to put words in other people's mouths - state your opinion, don't try to rephrase mine to make me look like an asshole - I can do that all by myself!

Let me make this clear: Saddam and BinLadin are both murdering bastards that deserve to die horrible deaths. You don't ignore them, EVER.

But, come on, realize there are risks to this action, longterm repercussions from it, that you and I and every other westerner will have to live with for a long time to come. America now looks over it's shoulder all the time, and that is NEVER going to go away. Your innocence was lost, and it sucks...

We had the FLQ here in quebec when I was a kid, I can still remember the army coming to the door to check the house (they checked every house in our town, door to door, no exceptions)... assasinations, bombs... it scared alot of people.

but back on topic...

Anyone ever remember that the least popular kids in school was the bully? Respected, yes... but liked, no.... and everyone was always planning a way to take a pop at him. Right now, the US is looking like the bully to many people in many countries... and it is almost a certainty that someone will take a pop at the bully...

sad but true.

Alex

[The Other Steve]

It's sad when in a debate like this the only way some people can conduct themselves is by calling anyone who counsels caution and reason as cowards.

The French are not cowards, the Canadians are not cowards and neither are PD or Raw Alex.

Nor is anyone who suggests that if this war starts it will never be over. They are not cowards - they are just pointing out what will happen. There is no doubt of it so give up any idea of a quick surgical strike that will cure all the problems because it just won't happen.

Instead you will start to see what happens in Israel happing all over the western world and you will not be able to stop it.

Huge military juggernauts like the US are particularly ineffectual against radical fundamentalist terrorists who believe they are doing God's will when they blow themselves and a handful of innocent civilians right off the planet.

A bunch of unshaven ill-disciplined terrorists driven by religious zeal are far more likely to win the war - even if the US or an alliance of western nations win a few of the opening battles. Any keyboard warrior who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves and living in some sort of sad Hollywood fantasy world.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 17 2003, 01:43 AM
Using Military Power is not always a bad thing. I am sure many of you, including my friend PD have read The Prince... ( PD went to public school back when they were actually teaching! )

The fundemental question the Prince wants to know is it better to be loved or feared.

Do you know the answer?

Terrorists, people in the middle east, as well as many parts of the world understand power. The islamic fundementalist will never love us, they will never like us, but they do understand power....

The future war in Iraq will go beyond Iraq, it will go beyond the middle east. We have to make it clear the United States will use all methods to look out and protect OUR interest, as well as the interest of our allies.

We have twisted a lot of arms of friends to have them stand by us in this conflict. Especially the nations in the middle east, and the area - including Pakistan... we cannot indefinately hold out waiting for Saddam. We cannot continue to leave our alies in a lirch. We will never be trusted or relied upon again....

Bush is doing the righ thing.... Blair is doing the right thing, and has my respect. I hope for a peaceful solution, but I know the reality is the US will be going into Iraq with our without the UN approval.

I still think the time frame is going to be around first week of march.... it will be a new moon....

First of all, I have a nine-year-old grandson in public schools in an urban area who is getting one hell of an education, just like his mother and aunts did. Well, I'm worried about that oldest child of mine - she's a registered Republican. You buy 'em books and you send 'em to school ...

Second, I could have gone a long time without thinking of The Prince. Wasn't quite as dumb as Jonathan Livingston Seagull or Love Story - but damned near. Me ... I'm more "walk softly and carry a big stick."

Third, I'm slipping. I still haven't figured out if you were quoting Kaiser Wilhelm or the Emperor Franz Joseph in an earlier post, and now I can't figure out the one above either. I'm not sure if it's Maxwell Taylor, William Westmoreland, or Boris Gramovor. You're going to scare the terrorists out of being terrorists? How you gonna do that, Mike? What is fear to some poor slob who's going to get himself a herd of virgins in the afterlife for fighting us?

What is it you want - a peaceful settlement of the situation in Iraq, or the war "...beyond Iraq ... beyond the middle east [where we] make it clear the United States will use all methods to look out and protect OUR interest, as well as the interest of our allies."? The scope of what you are advocating seems a little broader than disarming Saddam, buddy.

Which allies, Mike? Which of our allies is crying out for us to take out Saddam? "[A]ll the means at our disposal..."? What are you talking about, Mike? Who you gonna nuke? What makes you think that, even if we DO start tossing nukes around, we're going to inspire enough fear to stop the terrorists? If more bomb tonnage than was dropped during all of WWII couldn't stop the third-world residents of a pissant nation from carrying supplies down a 3000 mile trail on foot, how you gonna compete with visions of heaven?

You want to talk rationally about the need to remove Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, I'm with you, buddy. You want to start talking bullshit, I ain't buying.

[JR]

i dont recall using the word "coward". i respect RawAlexs opinion because right or wrong, he can usually defend it with sound reasoning. Same with PD.

but peace always comes at a cost. so does appeasement. so does innaction. People use the notion of "upsetting the terrorists" as a defense for innaction. thats pretty absurd. that was the reason Osama Bin Laden existed for so long, training, funding, planning and executing terrorist attacks.

i think that there is a simple formula that causes terrorism -

poverty+anger+religion=terrorism.

that will not go away with changes in US policy.



Last edited by JR at Feb 17 2003, 12:17 AM

[The Other Steve]

My apologies if I misunderstood you - but I'm not talking about appeasing them either. I doubt that anyone will describe the aftermath of another gulf war as a time of peace.

I just believe that there are other, more subtle ways of ridding the world of Saddam than by invading and stirring up a hornets nest.

I suppose when you command the greatest army in the world then the urge to use it is almost irresistable. In this situation though sounding the charge is the last thing George should be doing.

[JR]

Originally posted by The Other Steve@Feb 17 2003, 12:27 AM
My apologies if I misunderstood you - but I'm not talking about appeasing them either. I doubt that anyone will describe the aftermath of another gulf war as a time of peace.

I just believe that there are other, more subtle ways of ridding the world of Saddam than by invading and stirring up a hornets nest.

I suppose when you command the greatest army in the world then the urge to use it is almost irresistable. In this situation though sounding the charge is the last thing George should be doing.

i dont beleive that you really believe there are "other ways" to get rid of Saddam Hussein. what would those be? more sanctions? alienating Iraq? more UN Resolutions? its all been done. its all failed. thats why we have the situation today.

its easier to criticise proposed solutions than it is to present a proposal and defend it against the scrutiny of the masses and world opinion.

i respect peoples dissagreement with attacking Saddam Hussein and concerns with the day after. but to say "i am categorically against it" and not be able to state in clear terms what you propose as a better course of action, or what course of action you would support 100% - does not exactly make for a better arguement.

what "subtle ways of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein" would you support? how would it be subtle?

[JR]

Originally posted by The Other Steve@Feb 17 2003, 12:27 AM

I just believe that there are other, more subtle ways of ridding the world of Saddam than by invading and stirring up a hornets nest.

would this be comparable to the "hornets nest" that was stirred up in Afghanistan? The "hornets nest" of attacking a Muslim country, of destroying as a fighting force and deposing the Taliban as a government, all but destroying Al Queda in Afghanistan, destroying weapons caches, destroying terrorist bases, making thousands of arrests worldwide, destroying terrorist training camps and gathering massive intelligence and documents of terrorist cells, members and activities... all while ending 23 years of war... AND securing tremendous international committments to rebuild the country?

i remember the same concerns being voiced beforehand. how did those same concerns beforehand, match up to the reality afterwards?

[The Other Steve]

JR there is one thing that anyone who knows me here - or on any other board will tell you - and that is I don't pussyfoot around. I say what I believe - I always have and I always will and I don't give a stuff whether what I say is popular or not.

If you want to start an arguement with someone then go find some keyboard warrior who has more time on his hands.

If you think that you guys have achieved anything in Afghanistan then maybe you should look again. You guys control Kabul - in daylight and not much more - and that's not my opinion that came from several experts on the News Hour.

The facts will speak for themselves when it comes to Iraq and the aftermath and personally I hope that in 12 months you can come back here and tell me that I was wrong.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 17 2003, 12:06 AM
It's too bad you aren't outside of the US to see how much all of this sounds like rhetoric from ALL sides of the discussion.

Alex,

Sad that you said that. Americans aren't capable of figuring out the things that you so brilliantly can because you live outside the US? You are not exactly the bastion of balanced beliefs.

Let me repeat what I said earlier: 'I can see BOTH sides of the "War on Iraq" debate.'

In the end, Bush will be many things to many people. To some he will be a great president, to others an average president, and yet others a poor president. How does one even judge that though? We can't agree now on our past presidents. Some think Reagan was a great president, others that he was a poor one. We're all going to agree on Bush on 20 years?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 16 2003, 09:11 PM
Colin, I heard a recent poll of americans showed most wanted the inspectors to have more time.

It's too bad you only hear about polls instead of actually reading them.

From Gallup:

'PRINCETON, NJ -- In the wake of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's appearance before the
United Nations Security Council last week, as well as President George W. Bush's speech to
the nation the week before, public support for war against Iraq appears to be on the rise,
according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Overall, 63% of Americans support an
invasion of Iraq, up from 58% last week prior to Powell's U.N. presentation, and 52% the week
before, prior to Bush's State of the Union speech. The percentage of supporters with firm
opinions has also increased, to 37% from 31% last week.

A solid majority of Americans say that the Bush administration has made a convincing case for
military action against Iraq. The percentage is slightly higher than it was last week, but is
up by seven points over the past two weeks. Also compared with last week, Americans are now
more likely to say that Iraq is obstructing U.N. weapons inspectors, has facilities to create
weapons of mass destruction, and has biological or chemical weapons.

At the same time, Americans remain unconvinced that Iraq represents an immediate threat to
the United States, and only four in 10 are willing for the United States to invade Iraq
without a new authorizing vote by the U.N. Security Council.

The poll was conducted Feb. 7-9, and shows that support for an invasion of Iraq is the
highest it has been since November 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.'

[JR]

Originally posted by The Other Steve@Feb 17 2003, 01:35 AM
JR there is one thing that anyone who knows me here - or on any other board will tell you - and that is I don't pussyfoot around. I say what I believe - I always have and I always will and I don't give a stuff whether what I say is popular or not.

If you want to start an arguement with someone then go find some keyboard warrior who has more time on his hands.

If you think that you guys have achieved anything in Afghanistan then maybe you should look again. You guys control Kabul - in daylight and not much more - and that's not my opinion that came from several experts on the News Hour.

The facts will speak for themselves when it comes to Iraq and the aftermath and personally I hope that in 12 months you can come back here and tell me that I was wrong.

unfortuneately an opinion combined with inflamatory, vague and ambiguous remarks is not worth much when it cannot be supported with facts.


i dont know what the "news hour" is and why you think it represents the last word in international politics. but i really doubt you can make the case that life in Afghanistan is not better today than it was during the Taliban rule.

23 years of war stopped.
Taliban gone.
International Community rebuilding the country.
women dont get hit with sticks while walking down the street.
people dont get shot in the face in the soccer stadium.
people dont hang from lamp posts in the street anymore.
girls can go to school
hospitals rebuilt
schools rebuilt
etc etc etc etc.

can you explain how life in Afghanistan was not improved?

can you explain how all the predictions of "stirring up a hornets nest" came true in Afghanistan?

[RawAlex]

Colin:

Poll: Give inspectors more time
Patrick E. Tyler and Janet Elder - New York Times
Friday, February 14, 2003


Even after the Bush administration's aggressive case for going to war soon in Iraq, a majority of Americans favor giving U.N. weapons inspectors more time to complete their work so that any military operation wins the support of the Security Council, the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll shows.

The public supports a war to remove Saddam Hussein. But Americans are split over whether the administration and Secretary of State Colin Powell have made a convincing case for going to war now, even though much of the public is inclined to believe that Iraq and al-Qaida are connected in terrorism.

The poll found that although the economy still commands the greatest concern among Americans, the prospect of combat in Iraq, fear of terrorism and the North Korean nuclear standoff are stirring additional anxieties.

These worries may be taking a toll on President Bush's support. His overall job approval rating is down to 54 percent from 64 percent a month ago, the lowest level since the summer before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Three-quarters of Americans see war as inevitable, and two-thirds approve of war as an option. But many people continue to be deeply ambivalent about war if faced with the prospect of high casualties or a lengthy occupation of Iraq that further damages the U.S. economy.

Twenty-nine percent of respondents in the poll, which was conducted Monday through Wednesday, disapprove of taking military action against Iraq. The random telephone poll of 747 adults throughout the United States had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

With major decisions of war and peace still pending, 59 percent of Americans said they believed the president should give the United Nations more time. Sixty-three percent said Washington should not act without the support of its allies and 56 percent said Bush should wait for U.N. approval.

Bush's job approval ratings have lost ground across the board. Fifty-three percent of Americans disapproved of the way he is handling the economy, and 44 percent disapproved of his overall management of foreign policy.

Though 53 percent of Americans said they approved of the way Bush is handling Iraq, only 47 percent approved of his foreign policy management overall.

A year and a half after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist assault, only a third of Americans said they think the United States and its allies are winning the anti-terror campaign, while 38 percent think that neither side is winning and 20 percent regard the terrorists as still having the upper hand.

Only 49 percent of Americans think Bush has a coherent plan for dealing with terrorism, the poll indicates.

[RawAlex]

Colin, most americans (outside of a limited number of curious / intelligent / open minded) get their only news from the TV, most likely the network news at the dinner hour. Their entire understanding of the world situation comes those sources - along with the pseudo-journalism of the endless news magazine shows on the air these days. Those viewers tend to get a one sided, pro-american, pro-whitehouse point of view of world events.

As soon as you leave the US and start looking at other news sources (CBC, BBC, ITV as examples) you start to see that there are at least 2 sides to every story, and more often than not one of those sides didn't make the nbc/cbs/abc news that night.

Spend some time watching the BBC news, and see that even the so-called allies have a differnt view of the situation. You will understand more why so many people have a bad opinion of the current situation.

Alex

[Mike AI]

Poll: Give inspectors more time
Patrick E. Tyler and Janet Elder - New York Times
Friday, February 14, 2003

This whole article was merely a poll that people are getting nervous, and their is anxiety, blah blah blah. Everyone should have some anxiety, this is about to become a war.

I have yet to see any real arguements against war, the only ones that hold any water is to give "inspections" more time. But we have done that, will probably do it again, and then we will have to go in.

The longer period that goes on, the more people will not want to go in, the longer it goes on what coalition is built will continue to fall apart, the stall tactict is one that Saddam is an expert at - and has even said that is the key part of his strategy.

We should have went in last year, PERIOD. Actually we should have done this 10 years ago.... Waiting a few more months will lead us to Summer where we will probably not want to fight in. I doubt we will wait that long.... regardless of world public opinion.

I find it humurous that the people in Europe has so much free time to protest so much.... it must be nice to have 8 weeks paid vacation, and all the other socialist rules for employment....

Bush better go in soon, because world opinion - especially being lead by protestors will only get worse.... they are feeling embolden, and will just keep raising the level of noise.

Go in, get it over with, and move on....

Funny no one has yet to mention the people of IRaq... the people who have been surpressed, killed, victemized by Saddam... Belevie me, I realy do not care about them, I only care about US interests, but all the liberal, socialists, peacnics should examine the brutality of Saddam's regime...

Why is it these protestors, and wimpy countries like France always want to take the side of the evil dictator?

[RawAlex]

I have yet to see any real arguements against war, the only ones that hold any water is to give "inspections" more time. But we have done that, will probably do it again, and then we will have to go in.

Mike, this is where I think you (and many people in America) have it all wrong... you shouldn't need an excuse not to go to war - you should need a damn good reason TO go to war.

Without solid justification for action, Bush is going to be very lonely out there... and justification isn't made of negatives, 'non-proofs' and blurry spy photos that could be anything.

As a note, the article was posted mostly as a reply to Colin's other article posting. It is key to understand that not only is Bush's support in the rest of the world slipping, but voters at home are less and less supportive of a man who is almost entirely focused on a single issue, and has spent most of his political capital, time, and efforts on it. The results in domestic issues polling is very low, and does not suggest a second term at this point, from what I can see.

Alex

[The Other Steve]

JR

dont know what the "news hour" is and why you think it represents the last word in international politics.

Jim Lehrer's Newshour on your very own PBS network.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 17 2003, 11:51 AM
Those viewers tend to get a one sided, pro-american, pro-whitehouse point of view of world events.

You underrate Americans, Alex. Over and over again I read non-Americans claiming their press
coverage is so much better and balanced than that here in the US. The average American does
see both sides of stories. Debate styled news programming is very popular on the American
news networks. Think about that. "Debate". That's right. People are hearing both sides of an
argument. Who. What. When. Where. Why. That's the news. What other side IS there? After that, the rest of the story is all about what background is provided, what stories are linked and
the sneaky (aka very bright) writers getting their word in. English riters everywhere present news in pretty much the same format and with their own biases. Well, that is ALL the news. I
have found the BBC's coverage of the events to be very similar to CNN's. Maybe you are like my friend at GFY that is blinded by his passions. Read on!

I turned CNN on yesterday at 4pm because I read a post on GFY that CNN was horribly biased and was claiming that there were only hundreds of protestors out when there were
actually millions. I turned it on right at the top of the 4pm ET hour to get a fair sample. Instead of what the GFYer saw, I saw extensive coverage of the world-wide protests and about 60 seconds of coverage of George Bush's response. Terms such as "massive demonstrations" and "millions of marchers" were used and millions of marchers were shown. There was no balance. No pro-whitehouse viewpoints. There was coverage of the biggest news story of the day, as it should be.

Yeah, sure, a heavy dose of pro-whitehouse viewpoints. The US News media shreds the whiteouse to bits when given half a chance. Please, like the news media let up on the Monica Lewinski bit or the Iran Contra Affair or any other number of White House mishaps. Nope. They go to town for a news story that slams the administration. Trust me, with the nearly even number of Democrats and Republicans in this country, half the people would be happy as hell to see an anti-whitehouse news story during any administration. A sad thing but maybe that is the fuel of the American Democratic Republic.

Opinion in America is split nearly right in half because opinions are largely split on political lines. Current polls show Americans DO understand the way the US is viewed right now.

If you want to buy into the "Brainwashed Americans" myth, just go ahead. You underrate Americans.

[JR]

Originally posted by The Other Steve@Feb 17 2003, 11:35 AM
JR

Jim Lehrer's Newshour on your very own PBS network.

you mean you get your best info on current world events and global politics somewhere between Mister Rogers Neighborhood, Masterpiece Theater and Alphabet Soup?

[The Other Steve]

Originally posted by JR+Feb 17 2003, 11:44 AM-->