President Bush - about bush

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-09 15:34:00

You want to be on two sides of the fence. You say that we shouldn't interfere in Saudi Arabia (or Iraq, or North Korea, or Tibet, etc.) but at the same time, you acknowledge that they are helping to fund terror! So let the US take care of the foreign threat!

clark · 2002-12-09 15:37:21

A hated dictatorship that maintains it's power through terror?

Are you sure?

Perhaps it may be that the current regime maintains control through generous subsidies to the people of Saudi Arabia. It should also be noted that Saudi Arabia doesn't have much of a military to be oppressive with. The current regime takes great pains not to upset the populace- and it should also be noted that Saudi Arabia is considered a moral, cultural, and political leader in the area.

Are they gassing their people?

Are they forcibly raping of killing their minorities?

Are they maintaining social cohesion and stability in a chaotic and unstable area of the world?

PS- Cal, focus on the actual argument- don't get distracted.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-09 15:41:42

What do you think I'm being distracted about? This whole issue has wondered so off topic in the first place that I spend all of my time debunking your theories of why in God's name these "terrible, awful, horrible leaders" in Washington are doing this. I don't know what you want me to talk about! Let's lay down some parameters for the next part of the discussion, if it makes you happy.

I was just trying to point out the flaws soph's arguement. Sorry if I offended you

clark · 2002-12-09 15:47:43

I think yuo misunderstand.

You paint yourself into a corner with your arguments justifying why we don't act in other areas- Tibet, N. Korea, etc.

Your main argument is why we should be acting in Iraq, focus on that- how that is just.

As for N. Korea, we may very well act militarily, if neccessary. However, as part of our previous military posture, we prepared to fight two regional wars at the same time- the new military doctrine has the US militarty be prepared for one regional conflict, while also enaging in a "holding", or containment war.

Tibet is another issue unrelated to anything going on today- nor does our inaction there mean we shouldn't act elsewhere, notably Iraq.

Please also note Cal, you haven't debunked anything. I am playing devils advocate to clearly define my own thinking, and others on this issue. I am trying to give you some pointers so you can be a bit more effective in your arguments.

soph · 2002-12-09 16:10:26

to clarify my view, i dont think we should go in. we all know they have banned weapons, but bush is making our people look like idiots. if wants war, dont make a charade of looking for weapons, then declaring that they have them, even though none have been found. if war is the chosen path, commit to it.

however, i do think that hussein is oppressive. if americans had to live for one year in any other country, outside of a very few, theyd thank the stars, no pun, for the liberties they have. we take so much for granted. we dont know what oppression really is in this country. im going to go out on a limb here and even say that the slaves were not so oppressed as many arabs and asians are.

however, getting to the main point. yes, saudi arabia is maintained through terror. our military is the force that keeps this government in power--keeps our oil flowing. yes, we have troops permanently stationed in saudi arabia.

my solution? fuel cells. see how much they hate us when our green stops pouring in. theyll hate themselves for not realizing the extent to which our dollars are funding their countries.

we shouldnt go to war because iraq poses no real threat to us. and i dont think hussein is stupid enough to launch a serious biological campaign against israel-they have nukes. hussein has no capability of threatening us. wow, he has scuds, that would sink somewhere off the coast of france if he launched them at us. if we beat them that easily in the '90s, and theyre weaker now, why bother?

clark · 2002-12-09 16:27:32

Soph, you may wish to reconsider?

As you so graciously admit, we all know that the current Iraq regime has, or is developing banned weapons in clear violation of preexisting UN mandates, and international treaties. We must also realize that there is a large international community, each with their own perspective and knowledge on this particular situation. This reality requires that we offer the maximum flexibility, and defer to their considerations, which is the primary reason that the US administration has accepted a slower approach predicated on searching for further evidence of wrong doing within Iraq. War is not something to be entered into lightly, and only as a last resort. Even those who disagree with the current US administration must acknowledge the apparent restraint they are showing before they implement any action.

All of that aside, the justification that gross violations of human rights are occurring within the country, and the US has the ability to rectify this situation should be enough of a reason for action. True, we are not the worlds police man, nor should we look to be one- however, the fact remains that an obvious wrong is occurring, and it is within our power to halt such abuse. How many more Rwanda's must be suffered? How many Pol Pots must be endured? While we may not necessarily be able to help those in Tibet, that is no justification for not helping those we can.

Saudi Arabia government is not maintained through terror, and the US military is not keeping the current regime in power. I challenge you to provide evidence of your assertions Soph.

Iraq may not pose a current "real" threat as of now, but the prospect for threats in the future are more than legitiamte. As Hussein stands now, he is little more than a backward dictator in charge of a small country- yet with atomic weapons, and a greater arsenal of biological or chemical weapons at his disposal, the threat becomes magnified- the damage he is capable of inflicting upon us, or our allies, is too great not to consider.

If he can reach France, he can reach Italy, Germany, Turkey, Isreal, the Saini straights, Cyprus, Greece, and Saudi Arabia. He can do untold economic damage to all of these areas, and he may well be tempted to trade his WMD know how with other despotic regimes and would be enemies of America. Why allow this possibility? Why allow for a more dangerous world with greater proliferation?

Why choose the greater of two evils?

AltToWar · 2002-12-09 16:30:44

here's a nice way to sum it all up.

Lets say your the president.
Just after 9/11 you come across a magic jinni bottle.

The jin appears and tells you that you can have every last one of the individuals responsable for 9/11 killed instanty.

The Catch is that in addition to killing every individual responsable, 500,000 innocent people will die, most of them children under the age of 12.

What would your choice be?

During the last gulf war 200,000 people were killed by the coalition forces. After that approx 500,000 people had died due to lack of food, shelter, medicine, and sanitation.

Say what you will, if those babys wer white, we would have never done such a thing.

This next war will be fare more bloody for both sides. The next with Iraq will require urban warfare. In urban warfar you will experience at least a 25% casualty rate. American boys WILL be coming back in body bags. Expect to double or triple the body count on the innocent iraqi civilian side.

Oh, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

clark · 2002-12-09 16:38:22

That's all very nice and good, but we live in a world without magic bottles or wish granting genies.

People die in war. People suffer in war. If we could, we would prevent all innocent life from being lost... as it is, the US military is pretty consious of the value of innocent life, and looks towards methods of mitigating the loss of life.

We can bandy back and forth, blaming those who might be responsible for all those deaths- Iraq or the US. The economic embargo's would not have been needed if Saddam simply stopped trying to develop WMD's.

Is it our fault Saddam dosen't value the lives of the people he rules?

Our work towards creating smart sanctions, to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people should be evidence of our overall intent.

Saddam's continued pursuit of WMD's and continued "palace" building while his people starved should be evidence of his intent.

Yes, war comes with a heavy price, and it is a heavy burden for those who will answer the call- but that can only be a consideration, not what makes the decision.

25% casulaties of our fine men and women is a high price, yet the price is trivial if it prevents the death of untold MILLIONS of civilaians- Americans and others.

soph · 2002-12-09 16:41:27

apparent restraint? please, bush is like a dog on a leash. they havent found anything, so theyre commanding iraq to "admit" to having banned weapons. it was in the new york times yesterday. the administration is trying to find any excuse to send troops in.

alt, you are far too extreme. we did the same thing to germany. the only reason we didnt have to use the a-bomb on germany, besides us not having it, was because defeating germany would not have taken 2 million (estimated) lives. we could not have sent the a-bomb in to help d-day, because we'd be bombing our allies. by the time we got in launch range of german soil, the german army was done. not so with the japanese. they were ready to die to stop invasion. so the white/asian thing doesnt hold water.

and why does america have to be every countries food supply? i dont see why nobody else is capable of supplying the starving people of the world.

and as for liberating oppressed people. the somalis hate us for our attempt to help feed them, to direct the food from the warlords to the people. there was no strategic impetus for us to be there, it was purely humanitarian. and every time we do help somebody, somebody else asks why we didnt help them. in rwanda, people (trust me, there are many who do), claim that we helped bully around a smaller tribe, we intervened in a civil war, and the same people turn around and ask why we didnt intervene in sierra leone. so you see, we have a lose-lose situation. isolationism doesnt look so bad, after all.

soph · 2002-12-09 16:42:22

Saddam's continued pursuit of WMD's and continued "palace" building while his people starved should be evidence of his intent.

heh, i said the same thing a few pages ago.

clark · 2002-12-09 16:50:51

It may be true that the administration is trying to find an excuse to legitimately engage in a conflict with Saddam, yet the administration is restrained, and is at least following the rules.

Haven't you ever wanted to get into a fight with someone and all you needed was ONE good reason? There may be a myriad of reasons, personal or otherwise, why our current administration want to act in Iraq, yet they are restraining themselves until they have that ONE good reason.

We may not be able to help everyone, and some may question why we did not help them, but the fact remains, it is within our power to help here and now. Should we not provide charity to some because we cannot provide charity to all? There will also be instances where our help backfires, yet the attempt vindicates us as a people, it establishes that our intentions are at the very least noble. Isolationism isn't the answer- being engaged in the community of nations, just as we as individuals should be engaged within our own communities, is the answer.

We must have the will to say what is and is not acceptable, and to make the necessary decisions, with action if necessary, to uphold what is right.

Not tyrants or masters, just leaders.

soph · 2002-12-09 16:57:08

thats nice, until you have enemies with nukes next door to the country bush is focusing on, thats more than willing to use them on us given the chance.

i agree, on a moral level, we must do whats right, but the value we put on human life in this country, unfortunately, excludes the possibility of doing the noble thing. we would rather see a million people oppressed in another country than 10,000 of our own die. theres nothing immoral with it, we just cant deal with death. we've been pampered. we are willing to help, as long as we can do it with a casualty count of under 100.

AltToWar · 2002-12-09 18:41:58

That's all very nice and good, but we live in a world without magic bottles or wish granting genies.
People die in war. People suffer in war. If we could, we would prevent all innocent life from being lost... as it is, the US military is pretty consious of the value of innocent life, and looks towards methods of mitigating the loss of life.
We can bandy back and forth, blaming those who might be responsible for all those deaths- Iraq or the US. The economic embargo's would not have been needed if Saddam simply stopped trying to develop WMD's.
Is it our fault Saddam dosen't value the lives of the people he rules?
Our work towards creating smart sanctions, to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people should be evidence of our overall intent.
Saddam's continued pursuit of WMD's and continued "palace" building while his people starved should be evidence of his intent.
Yes, war comes with a heavy price, and it is a heavy burden for those who will answer the call- but that can only be a consideration, not what makes the decision.
25% casulaties of our fine men and women is a high price, yet the price is trivial if it prevents the death of untold MILLIONS of civilaians- Americans and others.

People die in war. People suffer in war.

then dont advocate war on the premise to save people, when the process to save them kills them.

We can bandy back and forth, blaming those who might be responsible for all those deaths- Iraq or the US. The economic embargo's would not have been needed if Saddam simply stopped trying to develop WMD's.

So you say it was just to kill 500,000 children to press our political agenda on Iraq.

Recall that Water Treatment Plants, Medical Facilities, and Power Plants were destroyed by the Coalition. Recall that after the war we did not allow for the materials needed to rebuild these life nessessities into the nation.

Is it our fault Saddam dosen't value the lives of the people he rules?

Is it our fault that we dont value the lives he rules?

Yes, war comes with a heavy price, and it is a heavy burden for those who will answer the call- but that can only be a consideration, not what makes the decision.

Especially when that price is paid by the poor innocent people of a faith and race we don't particularly care for.

25% casulaties of our fine men and women is a high price, yet the price is trivial if it prevents the death of untold MILLIONS of civilaians-

Untold Millions of dead people by means of what? Iraq was and is contained.

- Americans and others.

This is the kicker. It's easy to let pass 500,000 dead Iraqi children, but if you have 2,000 dead american adults, it's suddenly an "event that changed the world"

AltToWar · 2002-12-09 18:52:26

alt, you are far too extreme. we did the same thing to germany. the only reason we didnt have to use the a-bomb on germany, besides us not having it, was because defeating germany would not have taken 2 million (estimated) lives. we could not have sent the a-bomb in to help d-day, because we'd be bombing our allies. by the time we got in launch range of german soil, the german army was done. not so with the japanese. they were ready to die to stop invasion. so the white/asian thing doesnt hold water.

I bet re-writing history is fun

soph · 2002-12-09 19:03:53

re-writing history? i bet you are preparing your own version of it right now, blaming every death that occured in pearl harbor on the americans. ???

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-09 22:44:37

You guys are becoming the double-edged sword now...

Somehow it is okay to remove a despot and destroy his military if it helps free people, but it is morally injust and not within our rights to remove that leader if he is building banned weapons.

Now, don't get me wrong. I agree that right now we should wait this thing out, and see if the UN weapons report comes up with anything. If we have reason to invade, so be it.

I would be even more pissed off if I found out Saddam had weapons now than any time before this.

Imagine if the Kuwait invasion apology, the early weapons report, and the UN inspector co-operation were all just a face... And then the US would be able to thumb its nose at the "international community" and say, see, we told you so.

clark · 2002-12-10 09:52:18

Ah, so how should we save the people of Iraq? More economic sanctions? Further containment? Create a "dialogue" with a tyrannical despot? For 9 years, and 500,000 civilian deaths, we have waited- we have chosen not to engage Saddam in open conflict. It hasn't worked, and there is little evidence to support the assertion that any other means, other than war, will resolve this oppression.

Please also note that it is not US policy to kill children for any kind of political agenda, the suggestion is just absurd. Iraq's leaders are fully capable of redirecting funds and resources to help alleviate the suffering of the people, but they choose not to. Instead, they continue to focus on the creation of WMD's. While I will agree that we delayed the delivery of certain material necessary for reconstruction, that issue is no longer the case. We are a part of developing the smart sanctions- in an effort to help the people of Iraq, so your complaint is without substance.

Saddam shows he does not value the lives of his people; unless you think that rape and torture as a means of population control is "humane". Perhaps the US administration doesn't give a flying pigs fart about the people there, but the fact remains that US intervention, irregardless of the cost of life, will provide greater opportunity and a greater chance for peace than living under the despotic rule of one man. It is horrible that lives will be lost for this conflict, but it is we who offer the greatest peace.

The threat of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people dying from terroism, is very real. Yes, Iraq is contained, for now. However, that equation all changes with the development of nuclear weapons. It becomes a dangerous game of brinkmanship, whose cost is final. Imagine a single despot, who shows he cares little for the people he governs with nuclear weapons- he then threatens to nuke something- how are we to respond? Nuke his people? Please, they are little more than hostages to the whims of a madman. By acting now, we avoid this very real possibility and save more lives in the long run.

We must also realize that no third world nation would detonate a nuclear weapon with a missile- they would simply put it on a boat and sail it into one of our harbors. Please also realize that the real threat is from the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons, which can be harder to detect, and far more deadly.

I don't for a minute believe the loss of 2,000 Americans changes the world- however, it does change OUR world. Shall we wait for another 2,000 civilians to die? 20,000? 200,000? At what point do you feel comfortable that enough of our people have died to justify preemptive action?

dicktice · 2002-12-10 11:23:45

I say: stick with the U.N.
As long as the authorized inspection teams are free to come and go in Irak, allowed access wherever and whenever they want, able to follow-up any lead, substitute U.N. personnel at will...the situation will be containable. Healthcare and medical supplies dispensation inspection should be added to the weapons inspection, as a further condition of acceptance by the U.N.
If, and, or when, any unannounced inspection is resisted misdirected, prevented, hostages taken, whatever...the Security Council will have retained the final option of collective action, including invasion (as in the Balkans), and S.H., et al, placed on trial, as S.M. is now.
In the long run, the U.S. will have demonstrated by example that might does not mean right to unilateral actions; by avoiding unilateral military actions, preserved innocent lives; and by supporting collective U.N. actions and on-going efforts towards eliminating the despot-created conditions throughout the world that encourage international terrorism, eliminate this growing threat.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-10 14:50:06

Exactly clark! We need to invade now to save our American lives from terrorism at home, and use covert-ops to minimize civilian harm abroad.

clark · 2002-12-10 14:55:46

Cal, think about your statement:

We need to invade [Iraq] now to save our American lives from terrorism at home,

This statement implies that invading Iraq will prevent further terroist activities that may happen in the future, or reduce overall terroism.

The simple fact of the matter is that no evidence exsists to support the absurd notion that Iraq is actively supporting terroism or engaging in terroist activities against the US and her allies.

If anything, the coming war will create more hostility as terroists use our actions in the middle east as a rallying cry to insite hatred.

Palomar · 2002-12-10 15:21:59

so you see, we have a lose-lose situation. isolationism doesnt look so bad, after all.

*Well, I'm not in favor of isolationism, but I have noticed a contradictory message coming from foreign nations:

1. If the USA does assist in helping another nation upon that nation's request, we are later reviled for being "Yankee Imperalists"...Noam Chomsky not withstanding [he is right, IMO, on many issues]. And this isn't to say the USA always waits to be invited.

2. If we don't come to the assistance of another nation which seeks our help, we're accuse of being "aloof" and "self-absorbed."

It seems to me that many anti-American critics want to have it both ways. They can't. I don't doubt that sometimes, perhaps even often, these accusations are fitting and just...but some foreign nations like to throw them at us willy-nilly, and I certainly have no doubts that this is sometimes done out of attempts to guilt induce and manipulate us.

--Cindy

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-10 15:38:49

This statement implies that invading Iraq will prevent further terroist activities that may happen in the future, or reduce overall terroism.
The simple fact of the matter is that no evidence exsists to support the absurd notion that Iraq is actively supporting terroism or engaging in terroist activities against the US and her allies.
If anything, the coming war will create more hostility as terroists use our actions in the middle east as a rallying cry to insite hatred.

If Iraq has a nuclear weapon, then it could fall into the hands of terrorists who only need a boat and a death wish to detonate it in an American harbor.

Granted, we don't think that Iraq is hosting al Qaida training camps, but it can still help terrorism in other ways...

clark · 2002-12-10 15:44:12

:0

If Iraq has a nuclear weapon, then it could fall into the hands of terrorists who only need a boat and a death wish to detonate it in an American harbor.

:0

This is faulty logic.

We need to act to prevent possible WMD's from possibly falling into the wrong hands...

You have now declared war on every government possessing WMD's.

This possibility exsists anywhere, not just Iraq. It weakens your overall point becuase it does less to point out why we must act in Iraq particulary versus anywhere else.

We might as well attack Pakistan for the SAME reason.
Oh, then there are all those old soviet republics, looks like we will have to go in there, for our own saftey. And don't forget South Africa, North Korea, France (never know what them frogs will do)...

Anyone can help terroism. We should act in Iraq for reasons not related to terroism but simply for national security and common decency.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-10 15:45:49

I'm not worried about ALL nations with WMD's, just ones with open hostilities and grudges towards the US who would be INCLINED to provide weapons technolgies to terrorists.

soph · 2002-12-10 15:48:40

iran, iraq, pakistan, china, north korea, should i keep going?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2002-12-09 15:34:00

Re: President Bush - about bush

#127 2002-12-09 15:37:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

#128 2002-12-09 15:41:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#129 2002-12-09 15:47:43

Re: President Bush - about bush

#130 2002-12-09 16:10:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#131 2002-12-09 16:27:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#132 2002-12-09 16:30:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

#133 2002-12-09 16:38:22

Re: President Bush - about bush

#134 2002-12-09 16:41:27

Re: President Bush - about bush

#135 2002-12-09 16:42:22

Re: President Bush - about bush

#136 2002-12-09 16:50:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#137 2002-12-09 16:57:08

Re: President Bush - about bush

#138 2002-12-09 18:41:58

Re: President Bush - about bush

#139 2002-12-09 18:52:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#140 2002-12-09 19:03:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#141 2002-12-09 22:44:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#142 2002-12-10 09:52:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#143 2002-12-10 11:23:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#144 2002-12-10 14:50:06

Re: President Bush - about bush

#145 2002-12-10 14:55:46

Re: President Bush - about bush

#146 2002-12-10 15:21:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#147 2002-12-10 15:38:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#148 2002-12-10 15:44:12

Re: President Bush - about bush

#149 2002-12-10 15:45:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#150 2002-12-10 15:48:40

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer