http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/devil-baby-strikes-new-york-city-article-1.1580159
We should not attack Iraq
-
Saddam got into power somehow; he has support. Somebody (and I’ll bet it wasn’t us) wanted him in power, who are we to say that he shouldn’t? And moreover, who is to say that we are more right than Saddam is? I’m not saying I agree with the little dictator’s ideas, beliefs, or actions, but we cannot judge Iraq becuase it doesn’t conform. If Saddam was truely terrible then there would be a revolution (they aren’t terribly hard to come by in the last century, they can’t be that difficult) and a new government would be put in it’s place. Why are we so quick to replace other people’s governments? We aren’t the ones that should be doing that, the oppressed themselves have that honor.
OMG. You gonna say the same thing about Osama Bin Laden? He doesn’t conform, but we should leave him alone right? Who are we to judge his actions? Pleeeeease. Wake up and smell the coffee….
-
To me it just seems like America on occassion acts like the master of a dog. He regularly beats the dog, disciplines it with no rational pattern, trains it poorly, and starves it off and on. Then when the dog snaps, the master has it killed.
Bombing and invading - the classic American kneejerk reaction (unless it’s, say, WWII in which case the reflex takes a while). -
This whole idea of not being able to judge other nations because we don’t understand them is a late 20th century form of Pacifist garbage that is used to stop fighting. All it does is escalate the problem, which America has a history of doing. By not getting involved early, America suffers attacks such as Pearl Harbor and September 11. You’re right that America is not perfect, and that it’s horrible to have to crush any enemy regime and to kill people, but other choice is there? When they are coming to get you and you have to make a choice between you and them, you’re going to pick yourself because people have an inborn instinct of survival. Bush doesn’t want to horrible attacks during his presidency, so he’s opting to stop the problem of Iraq before it begins. I say let him do so.
-
CC, so we regularly beat, discipline with no ration patter, starve, and poorly train Iraq?
-
@cystic:
To me it just seems like America on occassion acts like the master of a dog. He regularly beats the dog, disciplines it with no rational pattern, trains it poorly, and starves it off and on. Then when the dog snaps, the master has it killed.
Bombing and invading - the classic American kneejerk reaction (unless it’s, say, WWII in which case the reflex takes a while).That might make sense is somewhere else. But here in reality, Saddam is not a product of us, didn’t belong to us, and his actions are not a result of us.
-
@CC:
To me it just seems like America on occassion acts like the master of a dog. He regularly beats the dog, disciplines it with no rational pattern, trains it poorly, and starves it off and on. Then when the dog snaps, the master has it killed.
CC, just a few problems with your Analogy. Exactly how are we trying to discipline it [Iraq] with no rational pattern? What is our current “discipline” (neglect) and what is a rational pattern? If you ask me, our foreign policy hasn’t done enough. When’s the last time we regularly “beats the dog?” I’m interested in seeing if “regularly” doesn’t mean “sparingly” in reality. A better metaphor would be a dog that attacks other dogs (or cats), forcing the “master” (assuming this dog even listens to us and we are even “masters” henceforth) to put it to “sleep” (at least the current Iraqi regime).
@Emu:
This whole idea of not being able to judge other nations because we don’t understand them is a late 20th century form of Pacifist garbage that is used to stop fighting.
Warning! Political Correctness is contagious! :)
Saddam got into power somehow; he has support. Somebody (and I’ll bet it wasn’t us) wanted him in power, who are we to say that he shouldn’t? And moreover, who is to say that we are more right than Saddam is? I’m not saying I agree with the little dictator’s ideas, beliefs, or actions, but we cannot judge Iraq becuase it doesn’t conform. If Saddam was truely terrible then there would be a revolution (they aren’t terribly hard to come by in the last century, they can’t be that difficult) and a new government would be put in it’s place. Why are we so quick to replace other people’s governments? We aren’t the ones that should be doing that, the oppressed themselves have that honor.
I think Emu God answered this fairly well. Saddam has support from his militant loyalist - no doubt about it. When starting a revolution in which the dictator has control of the army (and a powerful one it is) - it’s generally not a good thing. This is especially true when your have many different factions opposing Iraq with no clear guidelines, agenda, or alliance unity. Also, Saddam has a great propaganda campaign at manipulating the people (ex. hatred of the “Great Satan” AKA George Bush and hatred toward Jews) and quickly silencing those who oppose him.
-
Less force may be the way to go. Have the CIA like kidnap Sadam and his family, and maybe his top generals, and give the pro-democracy forces loads of cash.
-
Yea, that’s probably the most feasible plan. It’s not black and white here people, there are shades of gray. Our choices aren’t just destroy Iraq or do nothing, it is possible to just take out Saddam and replace his regime. Why are people under the assumption that America wants to go in and turn Iraq into a parking lot?
By the way, this is izcoder. I changed my s/n.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Our choices aren’t just destroy Iraq or do nothing, it is possible to just take out Saddam and replace his regime. Why are people under the assumption that America wants to go in and turn Iraq into a parking lot?
Yeh, since when have you heard Bush preaching for the total destruction of Iraq at any means possible? The main object is to knock out Saddam and replace his regime - NOT to demolish Iraq or whatnot. Bush suggested that Iraq would not be invaded if only Saddam let UN Inspectors back in Iraq. So far the news has been bleak.
Less force may be the way to go. Have the CIA like kidnap Sadam and his family, and maybe his top generals, and give the pro-democracy forces loads of cash.
Doubtful. This is merely a “quick fix” to the situation that won’t have very many far reaching implications - save anarchy maybe. What’s not to prevent one of Saddam’s generals, his loyal followers, or another, far worse tyrant from coming home and claiming Saddam’s throne? What do you expect to do with Saddam afterwards? Execute him? Hold him for ransom? Feed him dinner? Brainwash him? What? Then lets not forget the power vaccum that follows. With Saddam out of the picture, the situation in Iraq might deteriorate even further as various foreign powers (ex Iran), political leaders, and tribal warlords vie for power.
-
Americans want a quick and easy solution to all problems. Just take take out Iraq and make more “parking space”. They don’t want to deal with the aftermath of our actions. Afghanistan is old news. It’s almost to the point where no one cares. Didn’t we win that months ago ??? That would be the standard response. Raise Iraqi cities to the ground. Then what. What about all the dead and destroyed lives, the dying and suffering, the refugees, the political vaccuums, etc., etc. Americans don’t want to think about these things. Turn off the TV and forget about it. This is the mentality here in New England. Again, I do not endorse such feelings. Not everyone believes in this manner, but it staggers me to see how many do.
I know this is a little rough on my fellow Americans. It seems that no one really wants to deal with foreign policy until it affects us directly (9/11). Then, bomb 'em and it’s Miller Time. Back to our lives, our jobs, our houses, our kids, etc., etc. Never mind half a world away people live in war-torn areas, in poverty, with disease, starving…
Just close your eyes…
-
@Field:
Americans want a quick and easy solution to all problems. Just take take out Iraq and make more “parking space”. They don’t want to deal with the aftermath of our actions. Afghanistan is old news. It’s almost to the point where no one cares. Didn’t we win that months ago ??? That would be the standard response. Raise Iraqi cities to the ground. Then what. What about all the dead and destroyed lives, the dying and suffering, the refugees, the political vaccuums, etc., etc. Americans don’t want to think about these things. Turn off the TV and forget about it. This is the mentality here in New England. Again, I do not endorse such feelings. Not everyone believes in this manner, but it staggers me to see how many do.
I know this is a little rough on my fellow Americans. It seems that no one really wants to deal with foreign policy until it affects us directly (9/11). Then, bomb 'em and it’s Miller Time. Back to our lives, our jobs, our houses, our kids, etc., etc. Never mind half a world away people live in war-torn areas, in poverty, with disease, starving…
Just close your eyes…
That’s exactly the point I’ve been tyring to make since I started posting in this thread. It’s historicla repitition. America didn’t do much in World War 1 until the Lusitania sank. In World War 2, it didn’t acitvely start fighting Fascism until Pearl Harbor. And now September 11th has finally convinced America to fight terrorism. It’s much harder now. Decades ago America could have crushed terrorism in its infancy, like it could have done to Fascism in its infancy. The time has come to break the chain of historical events.
BTW, to all of you who are saying that Bush simply wants a war for his political interests, that is not true. If it were, Bush would pick a target that America would have to spend lots of time fighting, like China or Russia. That would help solve the economic problems because as we all know, war cures depression, but it takes a war worth fighting to truly do that and Iraq won’t give such a big fight.
As for kidnapping Saddam, that is not possible. Last I heard, he had taken some of his most loyal advisros and made them have plastic surgery to look like him in case of an emergency. A way to make sure he can live on in case he were to die in some sort of accident. How can the CIA capture dozens of Saddam clones so easily? I say call in the Mossad to have him assassinated. If they could almsot have their spy as President of Syria, find Saddam’s closely guarded nuclear reacotr and wipe it out, assassinate terrorist leaders, then surely killing Saddam wouldn’t be too hard for them.
-
If we do end up invading Iraq, we should make them like us ala Japan. Install a democracy, have it support American values like Freedom. We should do that in Palestine. And NOrth Korea. Iran. China.
But first Canda…
-
@TG:
@CC:
To me it just seems like America on occassion acts like the master of a dog. He regularly beats the dog, disciplines it with no rational pattern, trains it poorly, and starves it off and on. Then when the dog snaps, the master has it killed.
CC, just a few problems with your Analogy. Exactly how are we trying to discipline it [Iraq] with no rational pattern? What is our current “discipline” (neglect) and what is a rational pattern? If you ask me, our foreign policy hasn’t done enough. When’s the last time we regularly “beats the dog?” I’m interested in seeing if “regularly” doesn’t mean “sparingly” in reality. A better metaphor would be a dog that attacks other dogs (or cats), forcing the “master” (assuming this dog even listens to us and we are even “masters” henceforth) to put it to “sleep” (at least the current Iraqi regime).
Keep in mind that America has been influencing events in the middle east since well before 1990. America (read: CIA etc) has been mucking about in the middle east throughout the Iran-Iraq war, and well before then. If only it were so simple as “Iraq attacked Kuwait and then we attacked it back” - then America might have some morally high ground here. Attacking Iraq would be viewed by the international community as a high-handed bit of bullying intended to make George Bush Jr. look like he’s completing the work his father began.
No, there has been warfare, feuding, and meanspiritedness (as well as goodness, generosity, and peace) in the middle east since the beginning of time. I think that America should long ago have paid attention to Gene Roddenberry’s “Prime directive”. At least then She would not be in the position of having so much hatred (mis)directed at her.
Please keep in mind that i am sympathetic to America - who knows - i may well live there one day (in spite of many of my friend’s and acquaintances protestations to not take my degree to the States). I am just afraid that this Texas gunslinger is biting off more than he can chew. -
THe U.S. is the most powerful country and therefore everyone’s favorite topic, including Fisternis and Falk.
-
yourbuttocks, Palestine does not exist.
-
@Field:
Americans want a quick and easy solution to all problems. Just take take out Iraq and make more “parking space”. They don’t want to deal with the aftermath of our actions. Afghanistan is old news. It’s almost to the point where no one cares. Didn’t we win that months ago ??? That would be the standard response. Raise Iraqi cities to the ground. Then what. What about all the dead and destroyed lives, the dying and suffering, the refugees, the political vaccuums, etc., etc. Americans don’t want to think about these things. Turn off the TV and forget about it. This is the mentality here in New England. Again, I do not endorse such feelings. Not everyone believes in this manner, but it staggers me to see how many do.
First of all, our war wasn’t with Afganhistan, it was with Al-Qaeda, and it’ll follow them wherever they hide. Did we go in and bomb every house and kill every civilian? Of course not. So what makes you think we’re going to do it with Iraq? Where are you getting your information from Field Marshall…I question it’s reliability.
-
“Keep in mind that America has been influencing events in the middle east since well before 1990. America (read: CIA etc) has been mucking about in the middle east throughout the Iran-Iraq war, and well before then. If only it were so simple as “Iraq attacked Kuwait and then we attacked it back” - then America might have some morally high ground here. Attacking Iraq would be viewed by the international community as a high-handed bit of bullying intended to make George Bush Jr. look like he’s completing the work his father began.”
Again, the question was Iraq – not the Middle East. You made the statement that [America] “regularly beats the dog [Iraq],” I want to question that. Exactly what events (pending the Gulf War) has America regular “beat” Iraq with? If anything, US and British engineers have largely been responsible for building up the Middle East’s oil rich conglomerate that has made the wealthy Middle East nations what they are today. International community? Should we wait until Saddam starts directly arming Palestinian and Al-Qaeda Terrorist with NBC weapons before they finally do anything about it? Bush (Jr) is definitely doing something that should’ve been done a long time ago.
-
Moses - from Western Washington Fellowship of Reconcilliation -
Late 1940s - after WWII British power begins to wane and America steps in. George Kennan, U.S. State Department stated in 1948," The US has about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."1972-Iraq announces the nationalization of oil. Pres. Nixon plots with Shah to arm Iraqui Kurds. Iraq placed on list of nations supporting terrorism
1975-Iraq Vice-president Saddam Hussein and Shah reach agreement ceding control of Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iran. Kurdish aid abruptly stopped. Concerning the Kurds who were left in the lurch, Henry Kissinger said , " Covert operations should not be confused with missionary work".
1979-Shah is overthrown. National Security adviser Brzezinski publicly encouraged Iraq to attack Iran to take back the Shatt-al-Arab waterway - which the U.S had forced Iraq to cede to Iran four years earlier.
1980-“Carter Doctrine” states U.S. will intervene militarily to protect U.S. access to oil. Iraq invades Iran at U.S. urging.
1982-Iraq removed from terrorist nation list
1984-U.S restores full diplomatic relations with Iraq. Pres. Reagan authorizes intelligence sharing with Iraq. At same time U.S. begins sharing intelligence and selling weapons to Iran.
1985-Oliver North tells Iran that U.S. will help Iran overthrow Saddam Hussein
1986-U.S increases aid to Iraq
1987-Norman Schwartzkopf Jr. Named head of CENT-COM. U.S bombs Iranian oil platforms.
1988-Cease fire signed between Iran and Iraq. Center for Strategic and International Studies begins 2 year study predicting outcome of war between U.S and Iraq. Saddam Hussein announces $40 billion plan to peacefully rebuild Iraq.
1989-War Plan 1002 originally conceived to counter Soviet threat is adjusted to name Iraq as main threat in region. Plan renamed 1002-90.
January 1990 - CENT-COM stages computer games testing 1002-90. U.S. War College report states that “Baghdad should not be expected to deliberately provoke military confrontations with anyone. Its best interests now and in immediate future are served by peace”.
February 1990-Schwartzkopf tells congress of need to increase U.S. military presence in Gulf region
May 1990 - At Arab summit Saddam accuses Gulf states of waging economic war against Iraq. The Iraq economy has been devastated by the war. Iraq had borrowed billions to wage war against Iran. Price of oil was down because Gulf states were dumping oil on world market. Kuwait was slant drilling with American equipment into Iraqi oilfields. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at behest of U.S. demanded immediate repayment of loans to Iraq.
July 1990 – Saddam accuses Kuwait of conspiring to destroy Iraq economy. Iraq troops mass on Iraq border
August 2, 1990 -Iraq invades Kuwait.
I mean this is the kind of BS that i was talking about. There is more . . . . And when i mention the interference in the middle east . . . well, you know that American activities in Iran, Israel, Egypt, Syria, etc. all affect Iraq. In the American civil war - British aid to the south must in some way have affected the north - nearly to a position of destabilizing the future of the country.
Also wrt Kuwait - although i believe that it was rude (maybe even monstrous) for Iraq to invade - they did have reasons for doing so (i.e. Kuwait was accused of stealing Iraqi oil). Now i’m not going to justify any of the evil things that the Iraqi regime has committed, however between British and then American interference in the middle east, they have done much to create this “monster”.
Also please try to be realistic. Nearly any military action in Iraq WILL result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqis. I have no doubt that FM is correct in his assessment. -
THe U.S. is the most powerful country and therefore everyone’s favorite topic, including Fisternis and Falk.
… By not getting involved early, America suffers attacks such as Pearl Harbor and September 11. You’re right that America is not perfect, and that it’s horrible to have to crush any enemy regime and to kill people, but other choice is there? When they are coming to get you and you have to make a choice between you and them, you’re going to pick yourself because people have an inborn instinct of survival. Bush doesn’t want to horrible attacks during his presidency, so he’s opting to stop the problem of Iraq before it begins. I say let him do so.
Emugod is one of the reasons, why the US are such a hot topic.
[ironic]
I am happy, that there are some ppl in the US who can forecast the future, who just know which country will turn “evil” …. go Emu, could you please tell me what the weather will be like in about three weeks, and which horse will win next weekend?
After that minor distraction you can look for “villains” again. And of course, be as tight as possible in that definition… “villain”=“everyone who doesn’t bow to the US” …
[/ironic] -
Deviant:Scripter - My point is clear. Do Americans care, beyond killing the terrorists, what happens to the Afghan people? Probably not. Do they care towns and villages are rebuilt? Do they care if the Afghan people affected by the fighting have proper medical attention and supplies (food / shelter)? Do Americans care if a stable, democratic government is established and maintained? No, they don’t. In Iraq, the situation will be worse. It won’t take much for Saddam to convince most Iraqi’s to resist an American invasion with their lives. If a foreign army marched into your home town, would you care why? This hypothetical army will preach a better government, economics, religion, way of life, etc. Were you happy before they arrived? Would you care why they were here? Kill the invaders, drive them out. It will be a patriotic Iraqi war to repell the invaders, bottom line. Quite obviously, the American administration will be looking for successor group/s. It would be a Vietnam scenario without them. There’s always someone looking to profit from the previous leader’s defiance from the world view. This is probably why we have not invaded already. Again, do Americans give a hoot what happens to the Iraqi’s - the statement “turn it into a parking lot” answers that question…
Suggested Topics
