President Bush - about bush

AltToWar · 2002-12-16 08:13:25

I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the consequences of placing your forces and production centers near civilians.

Nope. It was not intended to do any military damage. We targeted civilians and killed civilians.

Japan's "production centers" were long gone.

You can be an american apologist. you can paint all our past mistakes red white and blue. you can look to our history and look past at all the things we have done wrong.

when you do that, though, you help insure we make the same mistakes in the future.

clark · 2002-12-16 09:50:21

This thread is fast losing my interest.

On the one hand you have a declaration that the means of mass hostage taking is the savior of the 20th century, and on the other, you have declarations of ambiguous foreign policy by the US administration.

This is all wrong.

Morality and ethics have their place. Pragmatism has its own.

The simple facts of the matter is the US enjoys a great deal of prosperity. It does so at the expense of the less fortunate throughout the world.

Our fortune is bought at a price paid by others. Some of that price has included us knowingly supporting those who are the antithesis of the way of life we would choose for ourselves and our families. Part of that price has been to commit horrible atrocities, such as vaporizing civilians for nothing more than political posturing.

Cal, you don't have the perspective to approach WW2 and the use of the nuclear weapons. It was wrong, but it was done for pragmatic, not moral reasons. In all likely hood, it was the fastest way to end a long war and set up the US to be in a dominant position when dealing with Russia. A lot of Japanese had to pay the price for our post war security.

In the case of Iraq. We need oil. If we shouldn't control it, who should? One dictator, or us? If you are a current Iraq citizen, which would you choose? Morality aside, where is the greatest possibility of peace and prosperity for yourself and your family? A dynastic despot? Or the US?

Yeah, civilians will die. It will be horrible. US military men will die. It will be horrible.

The price of inaction though is far greater.

The price of inaction is to see the proliferation of WMD's. The price of inaction is to allow unrepresentative third world dictators use their native population as hostages to blackmail the western world for unacceptable demands.

Shall we wait until the point a threat is materialized and a city is vaporized?

Shall we wait for small pox to reemerge? I along with many of my generation are not immune to this- sit and think if you are willing to place yourself into a situation where you are part of "30%" who die from exposure.

You're the leader of a country, who is charged with protecting the people of said country- how would you view events that occur in the world?

North Korea, why is it different? Because it is. Because it can do severe damage to many places. Put simply, it is not Iraq- it is a beast unto itself.

If foreign policy was as simple as we would wish, then yes, there would be one set of rules and one set of reactions, and we would all know what would happen. But it ain't that simple. Life isn't that simple. A country with a million man army sitting on a border with 30,000 US troops and several friendly allies within target distance makes it severely different. A desperate nation makes it different. A desperate and unimportant nation makes it deadly for it has far more to gain than lose.

The world is filled with bad people, some of whom are the law, not subject to it. We are by no means the best, or the worlds only hope. However, we are our own best, and we are our only hope.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-16 11:41:14

In the case of Iraq. We need oil. If we shouldn't control it, who should? One dictator, or us?

We don't need oil. We are the most powerful country on the planet. We could create an economy of renewable fuel sources overnight, almost literally. All it would take is a law dictating that we ween ourselves off oil over a period of a few years. Get rid of the alcohol tax created by oil barons, encourage biodeasil, and give people who run biodeasil compatable vehicles tax breaks. Our ?need? for oil would quickly become non-existant. We only ?need? it because it's basically the only thing keeping many plutocrats in power.

What if Russia attacked Alaska because they needed the oil there? Would that be justified because they need oil? Or is it only ?justified? when you're the most prosperous state?

The price of inaction is to see the proliferation of WMD's.

Sure, that's what the UN is for. It seems to be working, though for some magical reason we're not focusing on more corrupt nations, and instead focus on those we consider more profitable (see: oil in Iraq). Iraq is extremely benign.

The price of inaction is to allow unrepresentative third world dictators use their native population as hostages to blackmail the western world for unacceptable demands.

What unacceptable demands are those? First, I don't see Iraq disallowing UN actions, so their actions are quite acceptable. Second, and in no defense of Iraq, I would suspect that Iraqi's are more happy in their conditions than you think. Perhaps this wasn't true 10 years ago, when we had huge rebel factions, but it's more true today (mostly due to the fact that we halted on helping them with their uprising once we had the Ramala oil field- that is, after all, what we really wanted there- screw the people; oh well, now they're pissed).

Shall we wait until the point a threat is materialized and a city is vaporized?

You must first establish a threat. Iraq is no threat. This is obvious to the world community, I don't see why it is not obvious to you. If you're speaking in general terms, sure, I would agree that it is best to circumvent a threat once one is established. But even then, the only real solution is diplomacy.

Shall we wait for small pox to reemerge?

Who is going to release small pox? A nation, or individual terrorists who have no real nation? If it is the terrorists, why are we even focusing on nations which have no ties to them? Also, why is it that the real problem-nations aren't even in our spotlight?

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-16 12:59:24

no. like ive said, all we had to do was wait off the coast of Japan.

Why give Japan the chance to regroup and rearm with our troops off shore? The remainder of the Japanese army would have waited there and tried to repel and invasion.

Nope. It was not intended to do any military damage. We targeted civilians and killed civilians.
Japan's "production centers" were long gone.

Nagasaki was a ship building city, and in Hiroshima there were 60,000 Japanese troops waiting inside the city. Don't make the US out to be the evil "peope-slaughtering-machine". We bombed those centers because it reduced Japan's ability to fight the war any longer. If we wanted to kill people, we would have dropped those bombs on Tokyo and Kyoto.

My point about nuclear weapons is, they have saved many more lives than they have destroyed, because of their use as the ulitimate deterrent. Even though their use is a terrible last resort, it is still one of our best options to destroy the enemy, and one of the terrorist's best ways to destroy us.

And this post is getting pretty boring. We're debating history at this point. We need to get back to current affairs.

soph · 2002-12-16 14:09:53

caltech, you forget, we had a huge air force on our carriers and bases. we could have blown up any ship building we witnessed immediately. and what were they going to run their ships on? water? they lost all their oil sources when the americans swept across the pacific.

they were starving. who was going to regroup? they had very little left to strike back with. you really have to learn your facts.

and you cant nitpick, and then call an end to debate, especially when your points are pretty off.

clark · 2002-12-16 14:50:45

We do need oil. We remain in our position by maintaining the flow of cheap oil. Our house of cards crumbles without access to cheap fuels.

Renewable energy sources are more exspensive to produce, and the cost of changing over is huge- the infrastructure and delivery system is huge- we are talking global here. It will nto happen overnight, and it will not happen without serious economic consquences that will lead to severe social consquences. The only way to do this is not overnight, but through a concentrated worlwide effort to phase in the use of new energy sources.

That takes time,probably by the time we run out of oil (read when it becomes to exspesnive to produce, we will be ready for the changover.

Our need for oil is a product of other things not related to transportation.

The justification comes from our ability to do this. What was it you said that establishes property rights? Power and ability.

The deamands we might face in the future is why we must act now. A dictator with nuclear weapons, or even a terroist, that has the power to wipe out millions is a dangerous person. How can we safely proceed in a situation where our ability to deter the use of nuclear weapons is made moot by those with the power of nuclaer weapons do not care about reataliation on their people?

MAD worked only becuase the leaders were in control and didn't really want to lose their entire population or nation to retaliation. Iraq is not benign- one need only look at their recent history to see that. Saddam in control is bent on conquest, which has been stopped only through sanctions and US intervention. Have we used this to our advantage in the past, yes. But the fact remains that Saddam has acted aggresively and shown little compunction in using WMD's.

Iraq is a threat because it presents a dangerous mix of potentials. A dictator with absolute authority. A populace unable or unwilling to make its wishes felt. A leader who cares more for his personal welfare with no care for his popualtion. An unstable area of the world prone to revolution. Fanatical ideology predicated on the extermination of other races. A high concentration of neccessary resources for the world economy, and world stability.

soph · 2002-12-16 15:08:16

josh, if it was so easy, and our private sector has been working on fuel alternatives for so long, why hasnt it been done yet? the government can't stop the companies that arent affiliated with oil-gm, ford, chevy, fine. but there are small companies specifically chartered to research fuel cells, or solar cars. and this has been going on in canada and europe now.

why is it just now that california companies are starting to come out with revolutionary cars. I forgot the site, but I saw a very very interesting prototype that should be commercially available by 2004-5 (the prototype has been tested, its just being scaled up for the average family). It goes 800 miles on a hydrogen tank, and it is sold with an accompanying tank, so you can fill up in your home. The govrenment is trying to stop this, but they cant, it has been upheld in court. This means that the most fuel maintanence youll need is a new $20 tank once a month, and maybe a spare tank for long drives. amazing!

dickbill · 2002-12-16 15:53:49

Hi all,

It's good to see that some american dare to ask the well founded of american policy. I'm not gonna judge it here, I am not an expert in american policy.
It's good to see Sean Penn in Irak, declaring that he is skeptical about the truth broadcasted by the "official" media system, he admits that he doesn't know. He is not antiamerican by saying that, nor are the guys in this list questioning governmental decisions.
It's always better to question yourself when you prepare to kill children, because:

Sadam Hussein is an assassin and dictator. If I was an assassin and dictator like Sadam Hussein, I would order my militaries to hide very close to school children, or hospitals, stuff like that, obviously without saying anything to the teachers in the classroom or the doctors in the hospitals, and of course don't forget the video cameras, in such a way that when the US bombs fall on the school, the all world can see the poor kids dismembred, and the US militaries won't even be able to pretend they didn't know, it's so obvious, everybody know. The best shield for the Iraky is the combination dead civilians plus cameras.

The Sadam story is a job for smart guys and commandos. Fix him first and please don't tell me you cannot find him. Is the ultra technologicaly advanced US army not supposed to see what you put in your coffee every morning trough the wall ?, is that email not automatically processed by CIA computers when they detect the word "Jihad', are the smart bombs not surgically precise ? that the story we hear the all day long from CNN et al., Is that all false Goebles-like propaganda ?

I am tired of that "Sadam" and the "war to terrorism" show. It makes the US more and more impopular and difficult to defend day after day in the world. Please catch Sadam properly following the international rules, under an international mandat to suit him for war crimes. Do it cleanly and smartly and quickly. If you want to show how great is America, don't kill the kids shielding the tanks but rather, remember july 4th 1997 or July 1969, it takes more efforts, but it is worthing for the rewarding.

Again, I am not an expert, but I think that 200 to 500 commandos/paratroopers precisely delivered on the spot by helicopters at night and in complete surprise could control the situation for maybe just 1 hour, enough to catch sadam Hussein with minimal casualties. Don't send the all US army for that job.
Something tells me that the Iraky's soldiers won't fight too hard to defend their beloved dictator if they think HE is targeted, not THEY and if a bit of propaganda preparation has been done to warn them that "resistence is futile".

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-16 17:54:13

clark, could you qualify your statement that the US [remain(s) in our position by maintaining the flow of cheap oil]? Biodiesel becomes competitive at about $1.80 a gallon if I recall correctly, and this is using current technology... hydroponic / airponic plants grow up to, or more than, three times as fast as regular plants. So, with a small leap, we can say that biodiesel could be much cheaper than current fuel if the right technology is implemented.

Renewable energy sources are more exspensive to produce, and the cost of changing over is huge- the infrastructure and delivery system is huge- we are talking global here.

When I say overnight, almost literally, I mean that we could ween ourselves off over a relatively short period of time (say a decade), without costing consumers a dime. In fact, building biomass conversion facilities would create tons of jobs all around the country, increasing our economy greatly.

My god, if you actually consider the politics related to oil, and the bullshit goverment subsidization of it all, you really can't say that the cost of changing over is high.

And I don't quite see why there would be a global impact if we stopped importing oil. In fact, it would just make oil cheaper for lesser technological countries. Not only would it make us independent, it would also make things easier on them.

That takes time,probably by the time we run out of oil (read when it becomes to exspesnive to produce, we will be ready for the changover.

I think I've pointed this about before, but some say that by then, most of the world will simply die off. We'd have to have at least mostly weened off of oil by then to be able to survive, since the global economy depends on it so much. But this, of course, is second to our own dependence on oil. Merely weening ourselves off isn't going to negatively impact the global economy. If anything, it would prompt other countries to follow our lead, since biofuels are arguably much more economical (and realistic for the long run).

The justification comes from our ability to do this. What was it you said that establishes property rights?

That's not a justification, that's an excuse for foolish policy which isn't founded within reason, but rather plutocratic ideology and interest.

soph, one word; monopolization. It's not bloody likely that biofuels can replace regular fuels without government intervention. But since our government is run by plutocrats, they don't care what's in the interest of their people, they care about what's in the interest of those in power.

As long as we're out blowing up other countries for things like oil, and land, and so on, expect terrorism to exist.

soph · 2002-12-16 18:20:11

thats not the point. private industry could have done it by now if it was so easy.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-16 19:55:53

Um, people don't go into business unless they know it's going to be profitable. Biofuels are not a profitable business because there is a fossil fuel oil monopoly. I didn't say it was easy. It's certainly not easier than simply doing nothing. However, I think it's completely within our capablities, and I think that it would be profitable to the long term (and even the short term- since technologies will begin to compete for the best approach) interest of the United States were we to do it.

People argued that lowering fuel emissions (as dictated by law) wasn't easy, and would hurt the economy. They were proven wrong.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-16 20:07:13

If I was an assassin and dictator like Sadam Hussein, I would order my militaries to hide very close to school children, or hospitals, stuff like that, obviously without saying anything to the teachers in the classroom or the doctors in the hospitals, and of course don't forget the video cameras, in such a way that when the US bombs fall on the school, the all world can see the poor kids dismembred, and the US militaries won't even be able to pretend they didn't know, it's so obvious, everybody know. The best shield for the Iraky is the combination dead civilians plus cameras.

As much as I hate to say it, this kind of war will have to happen. Saddam did it in the Gulf War when he put his bio-weapons factory inside of a baby milk factory. It was the same thing with Hiroshima... put your troops in a civilian center, and we will destroy civilians. We can't just let Saddam play around using human shields.

Again, I am not an expert, but I think that 200 to 500 commandos/paratroopers precisely delivered on the spot by helicopters at night and in complete surprise could control the situation for maybe just 1 hour, enough to catch sadam Hussein with minimal casualties. Don't send the all US army for that job.
Something tells me that the Iraky's soldiers won't fight too hard to defend their beloved dictator if they think HE is targeted, not THEY and if a bit of propaganda preparation has been done to warn them that "resistence is futile"

I have advocated this all along. Send in our covert-ops troops already stationed in the region, under cover of darkness, air raid the city, and in the confusion snipe Saddam and the other important people in his regime, and be out.

We all agree that Saddam is a bad leader and person, and needs to be removed. The question now is what means that will happen by. I know Clark thinks the murder (assassination)of anyone is terrible, but the deaths of our soldiers in a full-scale invasion is even worse. And don't try to get Saddam on war crimes (those Europeans will let him go without any thought whatsoever, just like Milosevick in Bosnia).

Oh.. one last thing... MAD works ONLY when the parties involved have something to risk in a nuclear exchange. That's why terrorists pose such a threat to the deterrent that nuclear weapons provide.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-16 20:38:49

Oh.. one last thing... MAD works ONLY when the parties involved have something to risk in a nuclear exchange. That's why terrorists pose such a threat to the deterrent that nuclear weapons provide.

Sorry. I think Clark already got that point. My bad...

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-17 02:16:41

Just a few questions and comments.

Bin Laden and company have already demonstrated what they want to do to America and its allies. If they had access to nuclear and biological weapons, there is no doubt they would use them against a western city or cities.
Josh and AltToWar make black-and-white moral judgments about their country's history and how evil America has been and still is. And it's their right to express those sentiments and aspire towards a better world if that is their desire. But this may be a bad time to get up on the high horse with the prospect of Washington DC disappearing in a nuclear fireball!
And the complete destruction of Washington or San Francisco or Chicago or London is exactly what we're facing here. Make no mistake - as soon as the means are available to Osama and friends, this is what will happen!

Terrorist groups, as such, are viewed as incapable of building atomic bombs and refining biological weapons so as to make them 'deliverable'. The technology and engineering required is something needing the infrastructure and organisation of a state. So it's easier for Bin Laden to simply purchase such weapons from somewhere like North Korea, which apparently has them already, or Iraq, which would dearly love to have them as soon as possible.

My point is, Iraq is almost certainly developing nuclear weapons. At one point, they imported dozens (hundreds? ) of medical appliances, if memory serves, which contained a certain type of high-speed switching device which Iraq is forbidden to import. Why is it forbidden? Because such a switching device is needed in the manufacture of detonators for atom bombs.
The U.S. administration probably knows much more than it wants to reveal right now about Iraq's weapons program because it doesn't want to compromise its espionage agents and show its hand too early. But, if Saddam Hussein isn't in the process of making nuclear and biological weapons, I'll eat my hat!!

Sure, let's deal with North Korea, Iran, ... anybody who threatens mass destruction. But, at the moment, Iraq is on the menu. Why are some of you so happy to take the risk of not dealing with this problem?
Do we have to wait for the mushroom cloud over New York before you people finally realise what you're up against?!

Just curious, that's all.
???

Palomar · 2002-12-17 08:58:02

Sure, let's deal with North Korea, Iran, ... anybody who threatens mass destruction. But, at the moment, Iraq is on the menu. Why are some of you so happy to take the risk of not dealing with this problem?
Do we have to wait for the mushroom cloud over New York before you people finally realise what you're up against?!
Just curious, that's all.
???

*I didn't have to travel out of state to testify in a trial after all [thank goodness], so here I am again.

I understand your puzzlement, Shaun. However, there are a few aspects of the Iraq situation which make me distrustful of Bush's motives. First, bin Laden himself doesn't like Hussein and has referred to him as "a bad Muslim." Is Hussein in cohoots with Al Qaeda? We can't assume that "just because" they are all Muslims, they are all actively and purposefully cooperating with each other and are united. A lot of U.S. citizens feel the "War on Terror" or "Operation Enduring Freedom" has been hijacked by the Bush Administration to focus squarely on Iraq. It doesn't help Bush to have whined publically, "And besides. Saddam tried to kill my daddy." People at message boards ask "Hey Dubya -- where's Osama?" That's a very strong sentiment here.

I agree that bin Laden's network will nuke the United States once they are capable of doing so. No doubt about it. And while I do admit the wrongs of my nation, I also have ZERO illusions about what another nation might be like if they had the might, resources, and wealth the United States does. Many nations can appear benign and/or "nicer" than the USA...by default, since they don't have our might, resources, and wealth and probably never will. You can't push around weight you don't have.

Another complicating factor for some U.S. citizens [like myself] is the foot-dragging and reluctance of many European nations, Canada, and other Western nations, to involve themselves with U.S.-related situations. This sends an alarm signal to U.S. citizens like me. I see it at Yahoo! News message boards all the time: Americans posting at those message boards, who are all gung-ho, wild-eyed, and foaming at the mouth to go kick Saddam's butt call the foot-dragging Europeans "Eurowimps" and suggest Canada annex itself to the U.S., since "Europeans and Canadians are worthless, spineless cowards" -- THEIR words, not mine. On the other hand you have the cooler heads, who are trying to see the overall picture. Why do the European and Canadians often not want to back us up? They don't have to, of course, but you see -- it does send an alarm signal of sorts. After all, if the U.S.A. goes down the tubes via nukes, being the strongest nation in the world -- especially financially -- it would affect most [if not all other] nations very badly, whether anyone wants to admit that or not [and no, I'm not trying to sound like an arrogant Yankee; I'm just trying to relate the facts].

So why are Europe and Canada so reluctant to join in? Is it because they are, as the gun-crazy right-wingers loudly assert at message boards, "wimps and spineless cowards"...or could they have a very good reason not to join in? Thinking people mull over and consider the latter as the likely answer. And the next logical question is WHY are the Europeans and Canadians being reluctant? What is their rationale and reasoning for doing so? Some Americans don't want to ask those questions, or even consider them. I do.

I don't like Saddam Hussein either. He's a tyrant and an a**hole. However, his being a tyrant and an a**hole doesn't give us the right to run over there and "remove" him.

The Iraq situation is a multi-faceted one, in my opinion. And, as mentioned, I'm suspicious of Bush's motives...he is a wealthy oil man, as are his friends and cronies.

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-12-17 09:23:51

quote from President h. Truman's personal handwritten journal:

JULY 18
Ate breakfast with nephew Harry, a sergeant in the field artillery. He is a good soldier and a nice boy. They took him off Queen Elizabeth at Glasgow and flew him here. Sending him home Friday.(4 ) Went to lunch with F.M. at 1:30, walked around to British headquarters. Met at the gate by Mr. Churchill. Guard of honor drawn up. Fine body of men - Scottish Guards. Band played "Star Spangled Banner." Inspected guard and went in for lunch. P.M. and I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told F.M. of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time.

two days after the destruction of Hiroshima, former President Herbert Hoover wrote,

?The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.?

President Eisenhower was a high ranking general during WWII:

?... I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn?t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.?

Albert Einstein

?The use of the atomic bombs was precipitated by a desire to end the war in the Pacific by any means before Russia?s participation.?

These were all contemporaries to the event. They were not radical 60's liberal peace-nicks. Many of those that spoke out on the a-bombs use in japan were Republicans.

AltToWar · 2002-12-17 10:31:29

Bin Laden and company have already demonstrated what they want to do to America and its allies.

Yes, he has. He wants to put the US at war with Islam.

If they had access to nuclear and biological weapons, there is no doubt they would use them against a western city or cities.

If they had opportunity to do so, yes I agree that they would.

Josh and AltToWar make black-and-white moral judgments about their country's history and how evil America has been and still is. And it's their right to express those sentiments and aspire towards a better world if that is their desire. But this may be a bad time to get up on the high horse with the prospect of Washington DC disappearing in a nuclear fireball!

It is black and white morale judgments that I oppose.

I hope to help people understand that we are not the pinnacle of global morality we like to think we are. We are not above criticism or reproach. Everything America does is not Right and Morel simply because we are American.

When a party is so enraged at America it wishes to threaten it's civilians, I asked myself why.

The line given by our president was "They Hate Freedom" and that they are an "Axis of Evil."

I find these reasons to be an insult on my intelligence.

With very little research into foreign news agencies and alternative news sources, you will come across a very different opinion on American foreign affairs.

American foreign policy does not reflect the core beliefs of American citizens. America does not promote abroad the same principles of democracy, tolerance, and economic prosperity that we do at home.

And the complete destruction of Washington or San Francisco or Chicago or London is exactly what we're facing here. Make no mistake - as soon as the means are available to Osama and friends, this is what will happen!

I'm sorry if I have misjudged your intentions, but it seems to me that you are suggesting that because America is facing a foreign threat we should lend a blind eye to the policies we are currently engaged in.

I would suggest that the current policies are doing much to cause the threat you are worried about.

The price of freedom and democracy are eternal vigilance. If we are, as I believe you are suggesting, to ignore our responsibility whenever there is a foreign threat to America; all it will take for an authoritarian regime to dominate America is to constantly invent wars.

Nationalism is a thing of the past. America cannot seek globalization on one hand, and promote nationalism within it's own world view on the other.

The U.S. administration probably knows much more than it wants to reveal right now about Iraq's weapons program because it doesn't want to compromise its espionage agents and show its hand too early.

Is the development of a neucular weapons program reason to invade a soverin nation? If china decided it had suspicions that Tiwan might be producing nuclear weapons, but refused to produce any evidence, would we stand by and let china occupy tiwan? We know both Pakistan and India have nukes. Is that reason enough for one nation to invade the other?

By what authority does america have to circumvent international law and violate the soveringty of another nation, while we expect other nations to play by the rules?

If america does not trust the world courts, the UN and international law to protect it's own interests, how can we expect the rest of the world to do so?

This business about us being the only superpower. Does being a superpower put us above reproach? If that is indeed our attitude towards the world, that our might superceeds any efforts for global diplomacy, cooperation and law, then what is America but a tyrant flexing it's muscle across the globe.

If it is acceptable that America is such a tyrant, how can we not expect that those who fall under the misfortune we impose on the world not to rise up? Lord knows we would. In fact our nation was born out of rebellion of tyrants.

Sure, let's deal with North Korea, Iran, ... anybody who threatens mass destruction. But, at the moment, Iraq is on the menu. Why are some of you so happy to take the risk of not dealing with this problem?

Iraq might be on the menu, but thats not what we ordered. Osama Bin Laden is (supposedly) alive. Afghanistan is falling back into ruin. Al Queda is still alive and well. The world support we had going into Afghanistan has promptly melted and turned into dissent.

Why did we turn so quickly from Afghanistan and Al Queda, and turn our focus on Iraq? Ther has been no answer worth merit.

So what are we doing in the war on terror? Are we setting up stronger diplomatic agreements across the middle east to help weed out terrorist training camps from forming? Or are we instead alienating those nations and casting further doubt on our intentions? Are we taking steps to bridge the communication gap between the American government and the people in the middle east, or are we reinforcing their mistrust in us? Are we promoting world law and order, or are we breaking world laws?

Do we have to wait for the mushroom cloud over New York before you people finally realise what you're up against?!

Will it take that for the world to draw attention to what our government is doing to the world?

Or can we not make the changes now to prevent that from happening?

-- *edit
Had switched Afghanistan for India. Thanks for spotting that cal.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-17 15:44:12

We know both Pakistan and Afghanistan have nukes.

Afghanistan doesn't have nukes. It's the terrorists inside their borders that we're worried about.

Quote
Do we have to wait for the mushroom cloud over New York before you people finally realise what you're up against?!

Will it take that for the world to draw attention to what our government is doing to the world?
Or can we not make the changes now to prevent that from happening?

This is what I don't get about liberalism. You are being hopelessly idealistic. The American policies overseas aren't near as bad as you make them out to be. We are champions of feeding the hungry, defending the defenseless, and helping the needy. It is only when tyrants don't get their way from our intervention that anyone gets mad.

And I don't recall ONCE, not ONCE, a foreign country rushing to our aid when we have a disaster happen. When an earthquake hits Turkey or India, who is there? The US. When terrorists destroy a building full of American citizens, who was there? THE US, THAT'S WHO! The world didn't even lift a finger to condemn the acts of 9/11, aside from their petty denuciations and foney pledges to join our coalition. The world never has, and never will, asist any American goal that doesn't directly benefit them.

And on your point, I can NO foreign policies we as Americans have made that need to be changed.

When will you hippies wise up and realize that the threat of nuclear attack is here, and the terrorists, regardless of our actions, will use it against us. If we don't act against the threat now, New York will be under a mushroom cloud before we know it.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-17 15:46:40

Shawn, don't take the above about foreign governments the wrong way. I actually got a lot of my arguement from a letter I read that was written by a dentist in Australia, and another from a Canadian journalist's article calling for an end to the harping on America.

Thank you for your concern Shawn. It means a lot.

Palomar · 2002-12-17 16:21:35

Cal: When will you hippies wise up

*Erm...I doubt most people here, even those old enough to be a parent to you, are old enough to have been "hippies." The "hippies" were a dying breed by the time I was entering the 2nd grade...and no, I don't remember the Beatles breaking up [most Kindergarteners don't pay attention to things like that].

Cal: and realize that the threat of nuclear attack is here, and the terrorists, regardless of our actions, will use it against us. If we don't act against the threat now, New York will be under a mushroom cloud before we know it.

*You seem to be singing a different tune this week. What? Just last week you were referring to nukes as "the savior of the 20th century, the greatest innovation of the 20th century," and now you're ::warning:: us about nukes? Interesting.

Yes, we are under threat. However, people vary in their opinions as to WHY we are under threat.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-17 16:46:41

*You seem to be singing a different tune this week. What? Just last week you were referring to nukes as "the savior of the 20th century, the greatest innovation of the 20th century," and now you're ::warning:: us about nukes? Interesting.

In all fairness to Cal, he is being consistent on this issue. His position is that nukes were the "savior of the Twentieth Century", due to their deterence value and only became a serious threat when they fell into the hands of terrorists who had no country to defend. I'm inclined to agree with his general sentiment here.

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people

AltToWar · 2002-12-17 17:11:34

And on your point, I can NO foreign policies we as Americans have made that need to be changed.
When will you hippies wise up and realize that the threat of nuclear attack is here, and the terrorists, regardless of our actions, will use it against us. If we don't act against the threat now, New York will be under a mushroom cloud before we know it.

Cal.

It is obvious that you are willing to swallow whatever the current administration desires to feed you.

I understand that you wish to argue your side. I understand you do not intend on listening to any reasonable arguement vs. your current stance.

So there is nothing left to debate.

I hope in time you and others find the wisdom to open your mind.

I know your generation, more so than mine, has been raised in a media saturated world. I know it is much easier to except the 7 second sound bytes force fed to you by your television then to question them. I know it is easier for you to let others do the thinking for you.

I cannot watch fox news channel anymore, because i find it uncomfortable watching only one side of the news broadcast, with so many other sides to the story ignored. I cannot watch CNN anymore because I always feel like the war is like the next superbowl. I feel like the media is marketing the war like some upcoming movie.

I feel voiceless.

I myself feel the desire sometimes to give in, stop thinking, and just enjoy the show.

I don't think you have any perspective of war. I dont think you can connect the flashing lights on the television screen with the real human suffering out there.

When we hear about 500,000 Iraqi children dieing beause america blew out iraqi infrastructure, then turned around and prevented them from importing the food and goods nessicary to rebuild the country; it's easy to imagine that those people were not real. They are not Real people. They are somthing like extras in a movie. It's not somthing to be concerned with. They had it coming. Somehow it's their fault. Believe anything to prevent the idea that I might be in some way connected to 500,000 dead real children. Blame someone else, please. I will believe it. make an excuse for me.

I live in Brooklyn. My office was just a few blocks away from the world trade center. I was on my rooftop when I saw the second plane it the tower. I had ashes fall down on my window sill.

For days I watched my friends and neighbors walk down the street with a vacant, frightened look. To this day, whenever I hear a low jet fly over, I get a slight tremble, and wonder.

New York knows what it is like to be struck by terror. to have buildings crumble around you. to worry in fear about wat happens next.

This kind of terror I would not wish on anybody.

Now imagine not 3,000 adults, but instead 500,000 children.

America has been lucky not to have to deal with this kind of terror until a few years ago. Most nations have endured terrorism, war, genocide, and fear routinely through their history. For america, for most, war is about flickering images on the screen. Until now the vast oceans have protected us from the mad violence of the world.

Many people have said that on 9/11 america joined the rest of the world.

what do they mean by that?

On 9/11 america, and especially new york, learned what war and violence really is. It's not a movie, or a video game. It is real human people, like you or someone in your family, dieing.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-17 20:10:59

Thanks, Cindy, for your response to my 'puzzlement'! I certainly understand your point of view and I believe you're right and sensible to look at situations like this one and ask questions about them.
At the risk of oversimplifying a complex problem, is there not an element of jealousy, and what we here in Australia call 'tall-poppy-syndrome', in these overseas reactions you mention? Historically, nobody likes the most powerful country. What's to like about a people who are richer and militarily stronger than you are?! Why should they have all that money and power? Who do they think they are anyway?!
So they're under threat now, are they? Their cushy little life-style has some fear and uncertainty injected into it, does it?
Well ... ain't that a shame?!!

The rich, arrogant, loud-mouthed, bastards had it coming to them anyway if you ask me .. ! I hope they suffer.

This is school playground politics, I know, Cindy. But the sad fact is that many people never really grow up. This type of very basic human emotion, involving envy and spite, is often the driving force behind many people's politics.
There will always be people who can give a dozen good reasons why they hate the world's number one power ... and why you should hate them, too! It's probably been a kind of international sport since about 4000 B.C.!
I don't think the overseas responses you mention are necessarily based on a reasoned evaluation of the facts. More likely just emotion, in my opinion.

Without wishing to provoke an avalanche of statistics from the world's left-wing protest publications, I'm curious to know where the '500,000 children' stat. came from? It's always good publicity for a cause if you can pin the old "Child Murderer" label on your opponent. I remember seeing First World War newspaper cartoons portraying Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm as a slavering killer intent on eating English babies!
Nothing's really changed, has it? The American Administration is now the mindless baby-killer.
Even if half a million Iraqi babies have died during the period of sanctions, and I have very very serious doubts about such numbers because I've yet to see an emaciated Iraqi on the streets of Baghdad (- and mothers traditionally feed their children before themselves when times are hard), then the blame must lie squarely at the feet of Mr Hussein himself.
If he cared two hoots for his nation's children, he could have bowed to international pressure, he could have offered more oil for more supplies, he could have curtailed the building of extravagant palaces for his own glorification - diverting the much needed water from the ornamental fountains to help irrigate fields to produce food, etc., etc.
But ignoring all that, how do we know 500,000 Iraqi children have died as a direct result of sanctions?

In any event, all this is just talk. What I'm trying to get across to anyone who cares to listen is the fact that the time for semantics, hand-wringing, and moralistic figer-pointing is over. Whatever has gone before is done with. The events of September 11th 2001 and October 12th 2002 (in which over a hundred Australians, and many others, were incinerated by terrorists in Bali), have happened.
I personally don't have time to spend discussing the morality of any particular country's foreign policy while Saddam Hussein is building atomic bombs. I haven't time to pussyfoot around the finer points of politics while Al Qa'ida is quietly negotiating to obtain such weapons from North Korea or Iraq (as soon as they're ready).

I know you have a young child, AltToWar. I have two sons myself. The chips are down! The network of terror doesn't care if your child or mine, or anyone else's, has to die in the next cowardly attack. And it could be your child who's next ... God forbid it should ever happen.
There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq is part of the terror network. Saddam is a cruel and amoral man and will, given the chance, contribute as much as he can towards the destruction of the west ... and that means us! You and me and our children, Alt!

It's high time we all woke up to this ... it's not a hypothetical argument any more. This is real! Sticking your head in the sand is appeasement and appeasement doesn't work against a vicious opponent. If you don't believe me, check out European history around about, say, 1936 to 1939!

???

soph · 2002-12-17 20:24:29

when was the last time you saw an old guy blowing himself up? i havent. the terrorists are like cigarette companies-they go for the kids. the terrorists are afraid to die, so they convince the young that they will be martyrs, since young are easy to brainwash-they dont have world wisdom (i dont, ill admit it).

they have more blood on their hands. they convince their own children to kill themselves to hurt innocent people without warning. this is something americans would never do.

AltToWar · 2002-12-17 21:49:18

The numbers were reported to the UN by UNICEF in 1999.

Other numbers have been saught by others with agendas that would favor lower numbers.

Richard Garfield pressed an estimate of 106,000 to 227,000 children dead.

On 60 Minutes:

Stahl: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price? We think the price is worth it."

?60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Albright did not attempt to discredit the unicef report.

former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay called the sanctions in Iraq "a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide." This was reported in the NY Times.

Saddam is to blame?

Under saddam's oppressive regime, Infant mortality had reached an all time low. Healthcare was free.

The food for oil money goes from iraq to a bank in the US. It is from the bank in the US that the money is distributed to the nations trading oil for food. If there are inappropriate things being done with this money, it is happening right underneath the eyes of America.

Both Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck ran the oil for food program from the UN, and both resigned in protest.

in the washington post in 1991:
ALLIED AIR WAR STRUCK BROADLY IN IRAQ

OFFICIALS ACKNOWLEDGE STRATEGY WENT BEYOND PURELY MILITARY TARGETS

you can pay to read the archives in the washington post site, or read a re-print here:
http://www.scn.org/ccpi/WashPostWarDamage23Jun91.html

A short quote:

Col. John A. Warden III, deputy director of strategy, doctrine and plans for the Air Force, agreed that one purpose of destroying Iraq's electrical grid was that "you have imposed a long-term problem on the leadership that it has to deal with sometime."

"Saddam Hussein cannot restore his own electricity," he said. "He needs help. If there are political objectives that the U.N. coalition has, it can say, 'Saddam, when you agree to do these things, we will allow people to come in and fix your electricity.' It gives us long-term leverage."

June 23, 1991; Page a1

Read the article for a list of explinations for civilian targets in Iraq by officers in the air force who were not directly named.

The Washington Post is a respected and oft quoted conservative american newspaper.

The US military explains it's bombing of civilian targets as a tool for gaining leverage when tring to cause a rebellion in Iraq.

Without power, the water treatment plants shut down. Sewage flowed into thje streets. Hundreds of Thousands of children died of waterborn illnesses.

Once power had been restored vital equipment for sewage treatment, food, and medicine were restrictd from entrance into Iraq.

In effect, in the last Gulf War, America intentionally destroyed civilian infrastructure vital for civilian life. After destroying this infrastructure, the sanctions placed on Iraq insured that these vital industries remained inoperative.

In all the press on CNN and the rest, I have yet to hear any real talk on how a war on Iraq will effect Iraqi citizens. It's as if nobody gives a shit. In this very thread, Americans were touted as the humanitarian heroes of the world. Why is there no debate on the toll of life a future war in Iraq will have?

Do anyone else find this strange?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2002-12-16 08:13:25

Re: President Bush - about bush

#227 2002-12-16 09:50:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

#228 2002-12-16 11:41:14

Re: President Bush - about bush

#229 2002-12-16 12:59:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

#230 2002-12-16 14:09:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#231 2002-12-16 14:50:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#232 2002-12-16 15:08:16

Re: President Bush - about bush

#233 2002-12-16 15:53:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#234 2002-12-16 17:54:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#235 2002-12-16 18:20:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

#236 2002-12-16 19:55:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#237 2002-12-16 20:07:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#238 2002-12-16 20:38:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#239 2002-12-17 02:16:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#240 2002-12-17 08:58:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#241 2002-12-17 09:23:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#242 2002-12-17 10:31:29

Re: President Bush - about bush

#243 2002-12-17 15:44:12

Re: President Bush - about bush

#244 2002-12-17 15:46:40

Re: President Bush - about bush

#245 2002-12-17 16:21:35

Re: President Bush - about bush

#246 2002-12-17 16:46:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#247 2002-12-17 17:11:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#248 2002-12-17 20:10:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#249 2002-12-17 20:24:29

Re: President Bush - about bush

#250 2002-12-17 21:49:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer