President Bush - about bush

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-17 22:38:56

I should assure you guys, that if we had solid evidence that Saddam was currently constructing atomic bombs, we would have attacked already, with complete UN backing. I can't believe no one can understand this simple fact. Look at our history with Iraq. When Clinton bomed the soap factory, we had ample evidence to do so (despite Clinton-hater claims that it was just a soap factory and that we were experiencing a whole wag-the-dog scenario).

President Bush (oh how it pains me to call that man the President) attempted several times to pass off ?evidence? that Iraq had nuclear weapons, most notably claiming that the IAEA had satellite imagery proving conclusively that Iraq was attempting to build a nuclear bomb; this turned out to be catastrophically false. Of course, the American news media shrugged it off when this was made to light (despite the fact that poor Tony Blair actually used Bush's claims to defend Britians position on ?attacking? Iraq). So as AltToWar suggests, you can't really believe what you hear on the American news.

Since we don't have evidence to suggest that Saddam is (currently) building nuclear weapons, we have to consider what he would do with such a weapon if he actually did. If Saddam had a nuclear weapon he could use it to deter people from invading, he would have no reason to go and blow anyone up, because as has been shown, nuclear technology is a deterence. Saddam isn't insane, and if someone would kindly show me how he is, I would retract everything I've said (even though what I've said is completely true). Saddam simply wants to be left alone, to build his own little country, and use their own wealth the way he pleases.

No one justifies the real question. Why are we going after Iraq and not North Korea?

Palomar · 2002-12-17 23:30:37

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 doubt that this is part of the problem as well.

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-12-18 04:30:57

Let me lay out what I would do if I were president and I had 9/11 happen during my administration.

1: Bring those guilty to justice.
2: Look internaly at what could have been done to prevent this, and how to prevent this from happening in the future.
3: Look at the motivations behind the attack, and make changes in foreign policy to prevent terrorists from having the motivation to do such a horrible thing.

soph · 2002-12-18 05:29:59

3: Look at the motivations behind the attack, and make changes in foreign policy to prevent terrorists from having the motivation to do such a horrible thing.

no. just because they dont like our foreign policy, doesnt give them the right to kill innocents to "protest" it. we cannot give in to terrorism. we are a sovereign country, with a right to have whatever foreign policy we want.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-18 08:07:20

Hi Cindy!
Thanks for the reply! Yes, I think there is an industry devoted almost entirely to decrying America for reasons of envy.
And to hear Alt tell it, the anti-U.S. brigade seem to have every reason to hate America!

Hi Alt!
I really must congratulate you on your thoroughness in assembling so much detail to support your cause! You must either have an encyclopedic memory, or you must keep scrap-books or copious notes or recordings of every newspaper article or TV interview, to ensure no damning phrase is lost to posterity!
There's an almost professional air to your remarkably comprehensive political demolition of your own country. (You don't do it for a living, do you?! )
As a matter of fact, I haven't read such a professional attack since my brief flirtation in highschool with a publication called "Socialist Worker". From memory, people were saying the same things about America then, too.

But what's really scary, is your ability to demonstrate just how many evil people have found their way to the top in U.S. politics.
All the evidence you've presented overwhelmingly supports the notion that Harry S. Truman had no reason at all to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Apparently his sole aim was to kill as many civilians as possible ... just for fun.
You haven't mentioned John F. Kennedy yet. But he was a renowned womaniser and I'd be surprised if you haven't accumulated all sorts of evidence to show, conclusively, that he and Bobby Kennedy murdered Marilyn Monroe. And maybe you'd be right, too!
And I bet you can prove Lyndon Johnson killed JFK over the Vietnam question.
And Nixon was ... well, there's not much even you could tell us about him!
George Bush Snr., forever tainted by the smell of hydrocarbons, utilised an Iraqi attack on Kuwait, engineered by the CIA to begin with, to pick a fight with Iraq. The sole purpose of this war was apparently something to do with Bush's cronies getting their hands on more oil, money, or power, or maybe all three. Why this megalomaniac obeyed the UN resolution and resisted the temptation to simply make Iraq the 51st U.S. State, is a vexed question. I bet his cronies were annoyed.
Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, Madelin Albright, is apparently a particularly callous and cold-hearted bitch! When confronted with a statistic stating that half a million Iraqi children have died because of sanctions her government has endorsed, she is reputed to have calmly responded that it was worth it! What on Earth could she have been thinking?! And, of course, being Clinton's Secretary of State, she must necessarily have been speaking for him too. And as for him ... well, his obvious difficulties with the definition of "sexual relations" at least allow him the possibility of pleading insanity!
And then there's George W. Bush, replete with that odious stench of hereditary oil, and guided by the same cronies who never forgave his Daddy. This time, though, by using trumped up stories about weapons of mass destruction, he's hell-bent on doing the job right! For two of the oldest motives in the book, revenge (for his Daddy) and money (all that oil), George is going to plunge us into a pointless and destructive war, laying waste to the cities and no doubt killing as many Iraqi civilians as possible ... just for fun!

Oh ... this is where we came in with Harry S. Truman - mass murder just for fun.
And all this mayhem is just a brief and incomplete history of American leadership since 1945! God alone knows (and maybe Alt, of course) how much else there is to report!!

Well, Alt ... you've done it. You've made me see that America is the pariah among nations. I see no saving graces and, therefore, see no alternative but to lobby for the dissolution of the Union and the division of the lands and wealth of the United States among the other more deserving nations of the world.
I'm on your side now!

And I agree with you when you ask: "Why is there no debate on the toll of life a future war in Iraq will have?"
It is indeed one of life's mysteries - like the lack of debate about the current toll of fear and oppression on the lives of Iraqi citizens. A recent article in "The Australian", our most respected newspaper, estimated that more than one million Iraqis have been killed by their own leader since he came to power.
And yet, it's exactly as you say: "It's as if nobody gives a shit."
Not completely true, of course. At least you and I care ... don't we Alt?

Palomar · 2002-12-18 09:06:17

3: Look at the motivations behind the attack, and make changes in foreign policy to prevent terrorists from having the motivation to do such a horrible thing.

*Well, I differentiate the Iraq situation from Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda is anti-West [not just anti-U.S.], and has also declared a religious war on the West. Just this morning on the news was information from many European nations, Australia, some central European nations, some Asian islands, and also North America, about Al-Qaeda terrorist cells that have been discovered and broken up.

I don't doubt that some U.S. foreign policy has helped to fuel the hatred; however, on the other hand, if U.S. foreign policy had always been rather nonexistant or as non-offensive as possible, I still believe Al-Qaeda would exist and seek to destroy the West. They are rabid religious fanatics who believe, and put into practice the belief, that all nonbelievers of their faith are evil and should be killed.

Al-Qaeda doesn't leave us a choice; we must fight that terrorist organization because they seek to destroy our culture and our ways of living.

We must stamp out Al-Qaeda. No matter how U.S. foreign policy may have enabled bin Laden and his cohorts in the past, they do present a very "clear and present danger." They must be dealt with; either that, or sit back and let them have their way [I don't think so!]. And the U.S. needs to learn from the mistakes of the past, and not repeat them. I wish to god our leaders would've heeded the warnings of our Founding Fathers, to KEEP OUT of the affairs of foreign nations.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 12:45:53

Wow Shaun, AltToWar is just critical of his countries foreign policy and you make it sound like he's completely anti-American. I'm sure bin Laden made the same claims to Muslims within his own factions which disagreed with his desires to go blow people up (?How dare you demolish of your own religion!!?).

Harry S. Truman had a reason to nuke Japan, the question is whether or not it was justified. History books say, and school children, are taught that it was and that there was no other solution to that situation. The real reason we nuked Japan was to prove to the whole freaking world that we were as insane as we professed to be. I mean, that we had nuclear weapons and were willing to use them.

The rest of your straw men are hilarious. If the US didn't want Kuwati oil, why is it that we annexed Iraqi land after the war? You didn't even believe the suggestion at first, because to you, such a thing is simply out of the question. You're too deluded to criticize the US, perhaps because they're powerful, or prehaps because you don't want to be out of the mainstream. Reminds me of a quote by Lawrenve Korb the former US assistant defense secretary when he said, ?If Kuwait grew carrots we wouldn't give a damn.?

And I don't think anyone has even suggested that the current Iraqi focus is about oil, though it could be on a smaller level, it's more than likely about politics. The US could never get UN backing to attack Iraq without evidence, yet several people in this very own thread can't understand that that's not how things work, especially in this day of information.

The Bush admin has said on several ocassions that focusing on Iraq would get politicians elected, and it did. Most notably, was a quote by the White House Cheif of Staff, when questioned about attacking Iraq, ?From an advertising point of view, you don't launch a new product line until after Labor Day.? An innocent comment perhaps, but when backed up with Karl Roves power point presentation which said the top priority for election 2002 was to focus on the war, it's quite obvious.

The Bush admin could have never gotten international support for attacking Iraq. We would have done it unilaterally, and it wouldn't have helped us in the international community at all.

And cindy, all AltToWar is suggesting in his last comment, is giving criminals no incentive to commit crime. It's not a stretch. Which is better? Jailing everyone who commits a crime, or preemptively stoping that crime be making the conditions in which crime exist non-existant (while, of course, jailing those who have already commited a crime).

This isn't ?letting them off the hook,? this is preventing them from having children who will want to blow us up in the future. I doubt bin Laden and his cronies would exist on the level that they do had they not been incensed by our foreign policy.

To them, our bombing is as terroristic as their own attacks on us. And really, as Noam Chomsky points out, terrorism only happens to us, never to the enemies. To them, attacking us on 9/11 was an act of war. Just like blowing up a wedding, or water filtration places, and so on, is an ?war? to us.

AltToWar · 2002-12-18 13:42:59

Please define Terrorism.

Imagine both sides calling the others actions Terrorism.

Imagine both sides refusing to give in to Terrorism.

Endless bloodbath follows.

AltToWar · 2002-12-18 13:47:48

Hi Cindy!
Thanks for the reply! Yes, I think there is an industry devoted almost entirely to decrying America for reasons of envy.
And to hear Alt tell it, the anti-U.S. brigade seem to have every reason to hate America!

Hi Alt!
I really must congratulate you on your thoroughness in assembling so much detail to support your cause! You must either have an encyclopedic memory, or you must keep scrap-books or copious notes or recordings of every newspaper article or TV interview, to ensure no damning phrase is lost to posterity!
There's an almost professional air to your remarkably comprehensive political demolition of your own country. (You don't do it for a living, do you?! )
As a matter of fact, I haven't read such a professional attack since my brief flirtation in highschool with a publication called "Socialist Worker". From memory, people were saying the same things about America then, too.
But what's really scary, is your ability to demonstrate just how many evil people have found their way to the top in U.S. politics.
All the evidence you've presented overwhelmingly supports the notion that Harry S. Truman had no reason at all to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Apparently his sole aim was to kill as many civilians as possible ... just for fun.
You haven't mentioned John F. Kennedy yet. But he was a renowned womaniser and I'd be surprised if you haven't accumulated all sorts of evidence to show, conclusively, that he and Bobby Kennedy murdered Marilyn Monroe. And maybe you'd be right, too!
And I bet you can prove Lyndon Johnson killed JFK over the Vietnam question.
And Nixon was ... well, there's not much even you could tell us about him!
George Bush Snr., forever tainted by the smell of hydrocarbons, utilised an Iraqi attack on Kuwait, engineered by the CIA to begin with, to pick a fight with Iraq. The sole purpose of this war was apparently something to do with Bush's cronies getting their hands on more oil, money, or power, or maybe all three. Why this megalomaniac obeyed the UN resolution and resisted the temptation to simply make Iraq the 51st U.S. State, is a vexed question. I bet his cronies were annoyed.
Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, Madelin Albright, is apparently a particularly callous and cold-hearted bitch! When confronted with a statistic stating that half a million Iraqi children have died because of sanctions her government has endorsed, she is reputed to have calmly responded that it was worth it! What on Earth could she have been thinking?! And, of course, being Clinton's Secretary of State, she must necessarily have been speaking for him too. And as for him ... well, his obvious difficulties with the definition of "sexual relations" at least allow him the possibility of pleading insanity!
And then there's George W. Bush, replete with that odious stench of hereditary oil, and guided by the same cronies who never forgave his Daddy. This time, though, by using trumped up stories about weapons of mass destruction, he's hell-bent on doing the job right this time! For two of the oldest motives in the book, revenge (for his Daddy) and money (all that oil), George is going to plunge us into a pointless and destructive war, laying waste to the cities and no doubt killing as many Iraqi civilians as possible ... just for fun!
Oh ... this is where we came in with Harry S. Truman - mass murder just for fun.
And all this mayhem is just a brief and incomplete history of American leadership since 1945! God alone knows (and maybe Alt, of course) how much else there is to report!!
Well, Alt ... you've done it. You've made me see that America is the pariah among nations. I see no saving graces and, therefore, see no alternative but to lobby for the dissolution of the Union and the division of the lands and wealth of the United States among the other more deserving nations of the world.
I'm on your side now!
And I agree with you when you ask: "Why is there no debate on the toll of life a future war in Iraq will have?"
It is indeed one of life's mysteries - like the lack of debate about the current toll of fear and oppression on the lives of Iraqi citizens. A recent article in "The Australian", our most respected newspaper, estimated that more than one million Iraqis have been killed by their own leader since he came to power.
And yet, it's exactly as you say: "It's as if nobody gives a shit."
Not completely true, of course. At least you and I care ... don't we Alt?

That was a bit overdramatic, don't you think?

Palomar · 2002-12-18 13:54:38

And cindy, all AltToWar is suggesting in his last comment, is giving criminals no incentive to commit crime. It's not a stretch. Which is better? Jailing everyone who commits a crime, or preemptively stoping that crime be making the conditions in which crime exist non-existant (while, of course, jailing those who have already commited a crime).
This isn't ?letting them off the hook,? this is preventing them from having children who will want to blow us up in the future. I doubt bin Laden and his cronies would exist on the level that they do had they not been incensed by our foreign policy.
To them, our bombing is as terroristic as their own attacks on us. And really, as Noam Chomsky points out, terrorism only happens to us, never to the enemies. To them, attacking us on 9/11 was an act of war. Just like blowing up a wedding, or water filtration places, and so on, is an ?war? to us.

*I understand where you're coming from, Josh. As I mentioned in my post, I was seeking to differentiate between the Iraq situation [to my knowledge, Hussein didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, at least directly or somewhat directly...anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this one] and the anti-West fanatics which are Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda has declared war on us, and a declaration of war *has* to be dealt with.

As for AltToWar's comment: "3: Look at the motivations behind the attack, and make changes in foreign policy to prevent terrorists from having the motivation to do such a horrible thing."

I agree that changes need to be made with respect to some aspects of U.S. foreign policy. However, *foreign* policy isn't the entire matter to Al-Qaeda. Because we Westerners allow pornography, females to go about in public ::not:: looking like beekeepers, freedom of religion, of speech and expression, etc., and the fact that not everyone here is a "devout Muslim" is enough, in their opinion, to make us worthy of death and destruction. We are "The Great Satan" to them, who Allah has instructed to kill and destroy. That is what fundamentalist Islam sects teach.

It's our *everyday* lifestyle policies and culture which Al-Qaeda views as a horrific threat to them, and which they are determined to abolish. They have marked for death every American.

In this regard, it doesn't matter whether it's foreign policy or domestic policy -- they want us wiped off the map period.

We either fight Al-Qaeda or we conform to their puritan radical Islamic dictates, beliefs, and standards in order to appease them and get them off our backs...I don't think so.

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-12-18 13:57:49

3: Look at the motivations behind the attack, and make changes in foreign policy to prevent terrorists from having the motivation to do such a horrible thing.
*Well, I differentiate the Iraq situation from Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda is anti-West [not just anti-U.S.], and has also declared a religious war on the West. Just this morning on the news was information from many European nations, Australia, some central European nations, some Asian islands, and also North America, about Al-Qaeda terrorist cells that have been discovered and broken up.
I don't doubt that some U.S. foreign policy has helped to fuel the hatred; however, on the other hand, if U.S. foreign policy had always been rather nonexistant or as non-offensive as possible, I still believe Al-Qaeda would exist and seek to destroy the West. They are rabid religious fanatics who believe, and put into practice the belief, that all nonbelievers of their faith are evil and should be killed.
Al-Qaeda doesn't leave us a choice; we must fight that terrorist organization because they seek to destroy our culture and our ways of living.
We must stamp out Al-Qaeda. No matter how U.S. foreign policy may have enabled bin Laden and his cohorts in the past, they do present a very "clear and present danger." They must be dealt with; either that, or sit back and let them have their way [I don't think so!]. And the U.S. needs to learn from the mistakes of the past, and not repeat them. I wish to god our leaders would've heeded the warnings of our Founding Fathers, to KEEP OUT of the affairs of foreign nations.
--Cindy

No doubt fanatics will rise up no matter what the political climate is. No doubt there is not much one can do if there is a propaganda machine supporting anger towards the west and the US.

The digree to which they recieve funding and recruits is dependant on our actions abroad, though.

To blanketly assume that these people have no real reasons behind their causes would lead to disaster.

When terrorism strikes, we must bring those guilty to justice. I believe we also must evaluate why it is people are willing to die to bring attention to some injustice they percieve. We must ask ourselves is this just a misdirected injustice fed by a corrupt religious propoganda machine, or do these people have legitimate issues?

soph · 2002-12-18 14:02:33

both.

AltToWar · 2002-12-18 14:05:08

And cindy, all AltToWar is suggesting in his last comment, is giving criminals no incentive to commit crime. It's not a stretch. Which is better? Jailing everyone who commits a crime, or preemptively stoping that crime be making the conditions in which crime exist non-existant (while, of course, jailing those who have already commited a crime).
This isn't ?letting them off the hook,? this is preventing them from having children who will want to blow us up in the future. I doubt bin Laden and his cronies would exist on the level that they do had they not been incensed by our foreign policy.
To them, our bombing is as terroristic as their own attacks on us. And really, as Noam Chomsky points out, terrorism only happens to us, never to the enemies. To them, attacking us on 9/11 was an act of war. Just like blowing up a wedding, or water filtration places, and so on, is an ?war? to us.
*I understand where you're coming from, Josh. As I mentioned in my post, I was seeking to differentiate between the Iraq situation [to my knowledge, Hussein didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, at least directly or somewhat directly...anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this one] and the anti-West fanatics which are Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda has declared war on us, and a declaration of war *has* to be dealt with.
As for AltToWar's comment: "3: Look at the motivations behind the attack, and make changes in foreign policy to prevent terrorists from having the motivation to do such a horrible thing."
I agree that changes need to be made with respect to some aspects of U.S. foreign policy. However, *foreign* policy isn't the entire matter to Al-Qaeda. Because we Westerners allow pornography, females to go about in public ::not:: looking like beekeepers, freedom of religion, of speech and expression, etc., and the fact that not everyone here is a "devout Muslim" is enough, in their opinion, to make us worthy of death and destruction. We are "The Great Satan" to them, who Allah has instructed to kill and destroy. That is what fundamentalist Islam sects teach.
It's our *everyday* lifestyle policies and culture which Al-Qaeda views as a horrific threat to them, and which they are determined to abolish. They have marked for death every American.
In this regard, it doesn't matter whether it's foreign policy or domestic policy -- they want us wiped off the map period.
We either fight Al-Qaeda or we conform to their puritan radical Islamic dictates, beliefs, and standards in order to appease them and get them off our backs...I don't think so.
--Cindy

You are aware that Al Quida was backed by the CIA, and had recieved training from CIA agents, no? These are the kind of foreign policy mistakes we should look into.

Same goes with Iraq. While he was gassing Kurds we looked the other way. Kepts selling him tanks and gun. We also sold him the components to build his chemical weapons plants. A House Bill came up in congress to condem the gass attacks, bet it got shot down. This is another case of poor foreign policy coming back to haunt us.

Palomar · 2002-12-18 14:05:15

When terrorism strikes, we must bring those guilty to justice. I believe we also must evaluate why it is people are willing to die to bring attention to some injustice they percieve. We must ask ourselves is this just a misdirected injustice fed by a corrupt religious propoganda machine, or do these people have legitimate issues?

*Hi Alt:

I wrote the following on 12/17, in response to a post of Shaun's:

"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."

The matters we're discussing here are complex and multi-faceted, in my opinion. Again, I don't view the Iraq situation in quite the same way as I do the threat from Al-Qaeda

I hope I'm being coherent... ???

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-12-18 14:17:54

You are aware that Al Quida was backed by the CIA, and had recieved training from CIA agents, no? These are the kind of foreign policy mistakes we should look into.
Same goes with Iraq. While he was gassing Kurds we looked the other way. Kepts selling him tanks and gun. We also sold him the components to build his chemical weapons plants. A House Bill came up in congress to condem the gass attacks, bet it got shot down. This is another case of poor foreign policy coming back to haunt us.

*Yes, I'm aware of these matters. I also heard last evening on the news that, back in the early 90s, the U.S. tried to whip up pro-US support from a rebel organization somewhere in Iraq [northern or southern, I can't recall which]. When these Iraqis, who hate Hussein, agreed to actively revolt against him, they wound up waiting in vain for the U.S. support that was promised to them...and in the interim were executed by Hussein's men.

Ugly and horrible. Yes, the U.S. has done some really stupid, atrocious things which are coming back on us.

However, I have no mercy for Al-Qaeda, regardless of the CIA's involvement. They have declared their intentions. If the U.S. helped to create this monster, I'm not sure there is an alternative but to destroy it [Al-Qaeda] now? Can they be reasoned with? I doubt it. Can the U.S. government be reasonable? I wonder. And "reason" by whose definition/standards? It's rather like trying to define "terrorism"...just about anyone can accuse anybody else of it [even though I believe there are genuine instances of terrorism and other people using the term simply to guilt induce others to conform by yelling "terrorism!"]. And when and if it gets to this point, the only "answer" [unfortunately; I wish it could be differently] is the law of the jungle response: Survival of the fittest. But don't get me wrong...I'm NOT seeking to absolve the U.S. of its own responsibility in this regard.

Al-Qaeda is targetting not just the U.S. for acts of terror; they are victimizing other nations and peoples as well.

As for defining the word "terrorism." Interesting; the other day someone at a message board referred to boycotting as "financial terrorism." I suppose the word is rather subjective in its orientation. However, the law of the jungle can't be forgotten in all this...and whoever has the upper hand wins.

--Cindy

soph · 2002-12-18 14:21:12

You are aware that Al Quida was backed by the CIA, and had recieved training from CIA agents, no? These are the kind of foreign policy mistakes we should look into.

we didnt train them to kill us, if thats what youre getting at. the soviet union abandoned countries they invaded too, but since they collapsed, they dont get the same resentment.

its true that we're economically imperialist. so what? thats our right. if we were truly imperialistic, we would take over the middle east, and not pay for the oil there. this is true imperialism. people use the word too loosely. we are very lax when it comes to dealing with threats in general.

we have had some foreign policy mistakes, yes. israel is not one of them. neither is keeping saudi arabia's government stable with our troops and money. the alternative is far worse. our war with afghanistan was not a mistake. not using more force to isolate bin laden was. iraq treads a fine line, and could turn into a big disaster if bush doesnt get a handle on what hes doing.

another thing-bin laden is a figurehead, a pocketbook. he was no great warrior. he goes on the air and provides money. we have killed or captured most of the main commanders of al-qaeda. al-zawahiri is the biggest one left, and hes the real brains of the group. i dont believe this crap about the US "letting" bin laden go, the guy is running for his life.

that said, where is the righteous rage against the russian war with chechnya? or the chinese "assimilation" of tibet? or any number of other actions by major powers that are ignored? its kind of ironic when european nations call us imperialist--believe me, if they could have the power we have, they would be just as "bad" as us. we use our power conservatively.

soph · 2002-12-18 14:22:32

and perhaps next time a force threatens to take over europe, we should turn our backs on them the way theyve turned their backs on us.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 14:56:32

Cindy, please don't twist where we're coming from. No one is suggesting giving mercy to Al Qaeda, in fact, if anything, we're suggesting that we stop going about torturing innocents, in the sake of ideology, or what have you.

If I ask you if we ought to have blown up Iraq's water filtration plants, you would answer with a resounding no (any sane person would- only the dilluded would try to justify such an act). But if I were to propose a vague question about ?getting rid of some dictator? you would happily say ?sure?! People like issues so black and white, they're so simple to look at and make a decision about. Most people don't even realize that the US is more friendly to dictators than we are unfriendly. We embrace dictators, indeed, sometimes putting them into power via coup; just recently there was a Venezuelan Coup, and there was evidence to suggest that the US was involved. (We'll neglect to point out that many US papers were supporting the coup... in a highly undemocratic fasion).

Get your own friendly dictator trading cards here http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcar … .html]here! (Uh oh, Shaun, that web site is in AU, must be some conspiracy against Australians! )

Since everyone seems to be ignoring my question, I'll ask it again. Does anyone have any direct evidence that Iraq is constructing nuclear weapons? I ask for direct evidence, because hearsay like, ?They have medical equipment.? won't work with me. I have the materials to create a bomb in my around my house, most likely (alcohol, fertilizer, etc), does that mean I'm building a bomb?

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 15:10:49

Oh, and BTW, soph, not to dumb down Americas intervention in the major world wars (it was a great service to the world what we did there), I must bring it to everyones attention that Germany had a finite supply of people. America's intervention only ended the war early. It would have eventually ended without our intervention (I believe an estimate I read was somewhere was around 7 years without US intervention).

Check out the dictator trading cards, especially the ones about Hitler, they're cool.

soph · 2002-12-18 15:12:58

No, we dont. We didnt have any evidence that the soviet union was violating the biolgical warfare treaties until we sent in investigators around the time of the unions collapse. they found a program far more extensive than ours, capable of producing things like anthrax, the plague, smallpox, and others in huge quantities (tons).

just because its well hidden doesnt mean its not there. for all we know, there could be no nuclear weapons, or biological weapons, in iraq. but i doubt that. bush's ranting for 8 months let the iraqis know wed check the palaces. if they didnt, theyd be idiots. kind of weird that one month they said, "nope, cant look there." and the next, "oh sure, well cooperate fully." sounds a little too convenient.

like i said, theres no proof, but i doubt someone producing weapons would make it visible to the world.

Palomar · 2002-12-18 15:13:11

Cindy, please don't twist where we're coming from.

*That was never my intention. :0

I was simply trying to sort out the differences between the two [Iraq and Al-Qaeda]...perhaps I've muddled it up somewhere along the way, unintentionally.

--Cindy

P.S.: Just heard on the news that Hussein is threatening a "scorched-earth policy" for Iraq, should the U.S. start a war. Bush is backing down, for the time being.

Palomar · 2002-12-18 15:19:55

Since everyone seems to be ignoring my question, I'll ask it again. Does anyone have any direct evidence that Iraq is constructing nuclear weapons?

*I don't believe so. And I'm opposed to the U.S. going to war with Iraq.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 15:25:26

soph, it's like a big game of chess... each side tests to see how far they can get and what the other sides move is going to be. Iraq knew that they wouldn't be able to keep the palaces off limits, they were just biding their time, showing their weight around a bit. It's like a child who locks his bedroom door and won't come out.

Iraq is fully complying. Don't believe this bullshit about weapons of mass destruction. There's no way we would let them have them without attacking. In fact, the US wants to find WMDs, just so we can attack.

Just heard on the news that Hussein is threatening a "scorched-earth policy" for Iraq, should the U.S. start a war. Bush is backing down, for the time being.

Yup, it's common sense, really. If I can't have my resources, no one can. Iraq did this in '91 if I recall correctly. We weren't blowing up oil wells, they were. Just imagine, what if Iraq had a bacteria that consumed oil? Wouldn't that be something else?

But don't think Bush was really going after them in the first place; it was all political- just a wag the dog deal. He had no support from the international community to attack, the only support he has is from an inspector point of view, and even then, the UN wanted them back there to legitimize not attacking. If anything Bush basically threw away any legitimization he did have to attack Iraq by taking it back to the UN. And rightly so.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-18 15:30:03

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.

a.) I do have quite a bit of perspective on war. I realize that as a young American man, if my nation needs me to serve in the armed forces, I will be expected to drop what I'm involved in and fight. There probably won't be draft, but I would enlist just the same, because it is the honorable thing to do. At the same time, I know that I will be part of the most feared, disciplined, and trained fighting force in the history of the world, and I will not be fighting a war in vain. As a young man, I think I have more to fear about a war than you do, a man with two children.

Don't you dare generalize me with images of war being like a Playstation game, or a flashy movie. We will fight this war with people just like me, not you, and we will be successful at it. I have to live with the thought of war day to day, and I realize the sacrifices and risks involved in fighting ANY war. Don't presume that you can sum up my feelings in a quick stereotype.

b.) Living in New York at the time, how could you watch those buildings come down, and not feel some kind of hatred and contempt for the people who did this to us? How can you not wish to erradicate the people who helped them do this to us? WE WILL NOT change our ways to appease the radical actions of these terrorists, and we will not see our way of life destroyed so that the Arabs can have their way.

As for nuclear weapons in Iraq, I am not worried about Saddam using them, because they are a deterrent. I am worried about him selling the technology to terrorists, or giving a weapon to them. I don't think Saddam is crazy enough to use a nuke, because he has something to lose.

soph · 2002-12-18 15:30:19

josh, i know exactly how you feel. it sounds like me saying it-i constantly say the same exact thing. im just answering your question. i didnt say whether or not i thought they did have weapons...i think they do, but i dont think we belong in a war with iraq.

i think the far better approach would be to lift the sanctions. they never work. if we did, the iraqis would say they won, but the people might hate us less if we were feeding them. i dont think bush ever intended to take a diplomatic route. he's taken every diplomatic step forward clinton made, and reversed it. korea was advancing beautifully when clinton left, and there was almost a sense of hope in israel-palestine.

if he wanted to go to war, do it. you cant say youre going, then say youre not, then say you are. the administration is seeking any excuse to send troops over.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2002-12-17 22:38:56

Re: President Bush - about bush

#252 2002-12-17 23:30:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#253 2002-12-18 04:30:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

#254 2002-12-18 05:29:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#255 2002-12-18 08:07:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#256 2002-12-18 09:06:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#257 2002-12-18 12:45:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#258 2002-12-18 13:42:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#259 2002-12-18 13:47:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#260 2002-12-18 13:54:38

Re: President Bush - about bush

#261 2002-12-18 13:57:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#262 2002-12-18 14:02:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#263 2002-12-18 14:05:08

Re: President Bush - about bush

#264 2002-12-18 14:05:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#265 2002-12-18 14:17:54

Re: President Bush - about bush

#266 2002-12-18 14:21:12

Re: President Bush - about bush

#267 2002-12-18 14:22:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#268 2002-12-18 14:56:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#269 2002-12-18 15:10:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#270 2002-12-18 15:12:58

Re: President Bush - about bush

#271 2002-12-18 15:13:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

#272 2002-12-18 15:19:55

Re: President Bush - about bush

#273 2002-12-18 15:25:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#274 2002-12-18 15:30:03

Re: President Bush - about bush

#275 2002-12-18 15:30:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer