's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

us reasons for the war. correct me if i'm wrong:(30 posts)

us reasons for the war. correct me if i'm wrong:colker
Mar 28, 2003 9:23 AM
dismantling the international terror network. i'll buy that.
what i understand as the gameplan:
deppose middle east tyrants that support hamas, hezbollah etc... then create a palestinian state without them around.
alqaeda and other anti american orgs. would lose reason to exist and support from the muslim world without the palestine fight for land agenda.
at the same time, without hamas and friends, israel will be forced to accept a palestine state. security reasons will be less urgent with the demise of terrorism.
will it work?
You're so naive...53T
Mar 28, 2003 9:44 AM
...but you are correct. I hope it works.
yup. as a side effect, i hope it breaks the drug network too.colker
Mar 28, 2003 9:54 AM
muslim and all around terror make deals with the balkan mafias, south american drug cartels, russian arms dealers and other MF's.
Now you are being naive!Dwayne Barry
Mar 28, 2003 10:07 AM
Very few people want terrorism, clearly lots o' people want drugs. Without the demand, being in the supply business would be pointless. As long is there is a demand, someone will always be willing to supply it, and the harder it is to get on the street the more lucrative the trade becomes.
who is naive? it's an artificial demand!colker
Mar 28, 2003 11:15 AM
no one needs cocaine. no one needed them before the cartels decided to expand operations into the u.s. in the seventies.
it's not like food, water and oil!who needs cigarettes?
dealers offer drugs to kids. drugs give instant grattification. once you make it difficult for drugs to hit the streets they'll lose favor and something else will be around. better be something legal.
a couple of months a go, brazilian police have found iraqui money in the hands of local criminals who have connnections with colombian FARCS..
drug cartels are enemy number one of democracy. it began in the seventies just after vietnam war, with heroine coming in the u.s. from laos and cocaine from colombia. south america is being destroyed by those cartels.
Who said anything about need?Dwayne Barry
Mar 28, 2003 11:30 AM
It's about want. Once the Genie is out of the bottle how do you put it back?
The idea that most drug users/experimenters come to it via the street corner drug dealer enticing them when they are little unknowing kids is silly.

The vast majority of people who try drugs do so because they are curious, and the ones who keep using do so because they enjoy the "high".

The only sure way to get rid of the problem you highlight is to legalize the drugs and control the trade. How much money from the sale of alcohol do you think gets filtered into terrorist organizations?
i agree to a point.colker
Mar 28, 2003 11:40 AM
not from the street corner? maybe. most try it socially. someone in the party has the dealer phone number.
it's cool to use drugs and uncool to put them down. drugs are part of our western angst, our extreme individualism which is in my opinion vastly superior to the alternatives around: no questions asked mysticism.
as for legalizing.. it's a mistery to me why it's not done! you can buy whatever you want right now but the money goes to drug lords instead of tax/ paying industry. maybe this decade. the biggest proponents for legalizing are conservative economists: they say drug combat is a waste of public money.
i hope it also eliminates reality tv and boy bands...nmmohair_chair
Mar 28, 2003 10:21 AM
NO WAY!!!!No_sprint
Mar 28, 2003 10:25 AM
Take away Survivor and you'll have another war on your hands buddy!!!!!! :)
Speaking of Survivor, have you noticed...Captain Morgan
Mar 28, 2003 10:41 AM
Rob has man boobs? That's why he's always wearing that tank top. Not a good look. He is funny, though.
Mar 28, 2003 10:51 AM
and I'd pay a handsome sum for an uncensored copy of Wednesday's show.

The show is just plain old hilarious.
Schoolmarm in hot water in Mid-MODale Brigham
Mar 28, 2003 2:08 PM
The middle school teacher who took off her top for snack foods (oh, to live in such a paradise and have a big jar of peanut butter!) on Survivor is in hot water with the local school board that employs her back home in Eldon, MO. Seems as if this is not the role modeling they want from their teachers.

I think the best approach would be for the school board to follow the approach that teachers used back in my school days, when they found somebody passing notes: "Let's show the whole class what you have there."

Schoolmarm in hot water in Mid-MONo_sprint
Mar 28, 2003 2:13 PM
LOL She didn't only take her top off. They both went full bore commie! Bush in the bush.

The show just keeps gettin' better and better. The meat tearing fest last week nearly suffocated me with laughter.
A new kind of reality TVKristin
Mar 28, 2003 11:38 AM
Terrorist survivor. Lets see. We'll capture several top terrorist/cartel leaders and put them on a deserted island. Each week they get to knock someone off the show. We'll let Bush be the show overseer and Rumsfeld can be the executioner. Now that's quality TV.
sounds like must see TV! nmmohair_chair
Mar 28, 2003 11:41 AM
Mar 28, 2003 10:36 AM
I think you're kinda right.

I was slow to realize it, but I now think that Iraq is the first step in a broader Middle East "fix" to be imposed by the US, militarily if need be. This war is primarily about asserting US power in the Middle East and secondarily, if at all, about defending the US from possible threats.

Iraq was first because it plausibly had WMD that might be passed to terrorists who might use them in the US. That gave the veneer of relating to US self-defense. Of course, the Bush Admin. couldn't ever come up with any terrorists that were Iraq supported by Iraq and threatening the US, but why get bogged down in details... A possible threat 5 yrs from now apparently required a rush to war now... Let's hope reinforcements get to Iraq before too many of our folks get hurt...

Syria, Libya, and others seem to be on The (Wolfowitz's) List. One thought seems to have been that those countries would fall into line once they saw with shock and awe how well we crushed Saddam, kinda like the nation-wide popular Iraqi uprising would sweep Saddam from power once we crossed the border. Oh wait, that isn't happening... Or, we could always invade them too since Iraq was going to be such a cakewalk... Syria's Assad has reason to be worried.

Of course, the "international" terrorist network of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. is forcused on Israel, not the US or the rest of the world, so I'm not so sure that it's worldwide security we are headed toward. As for the US imposing a Palestinian state on Israel, we can't even get Israel to stop settlers from encroaching on existing Palestinian lands. I'm not sure we will be doing any imposing on any non-Arabs in the Middle East.

Saddam is an evil menace, but that is just window dressing to Wolfowitz's broad Middle East Plan and the contrived extent to which Iraq is said to threaten the US. This war is not about Saddam's psycopathic crimes against humanity, because if it were we should be lining up to invade Zimabawe and Myanmar too, and we're not.
You...Jon Billheimer
Mar 28, 2003 10:46 AM
took the words right out of my mouth, Pdx. I think a couple of reasons why Iraq was selected is because of Saddam's prior aggressiveness against Kuwait and Iran. Plus Iraq is geographically central in the middleast.

If this war and its political aftermath turn out to be real ugly, I think this will dampen American enthusiasm to follow Wolfowitz and his Strangelove colleagues into a NewAmericanCenturyofEndlessWar.
Thank God for America53T
Mar 28, 2003 11:51 AM
...or naysyers like yourselves would have nowhere to live. Iraq is first because they are the biggest baddest state in the Middle East, rivaling even Israel. Military spending and troops in uniform far exceed any other US-hating middle eastern nation. Hell, it's even taken us more than two weeks to eliminate the regime, using about 30% of our firepower. Doesn't anyone remember how long WWII took?

Yes Iraqs "prior aggressiveness" was a factor in the decision. You guys and your PC code speak are getting to be too much. Iraq dumped mustard gas on the Iraqi army, and gust plain took over Kuwait, then set it on fire on the way out. Calling Iraq "aggressive" is like saying Bill Clinton was "a little horny."

Regarding your last paragraph, if the war and the aftermath turns out to be ugly, will it advance your political objectives? As long as we all know where we stand.
Thank God for AmericaNo_sprint
Mar 28, 2003 12:05 PM
Good thing there are a whopping 13 of them in total. Spin it however they like, fact remains, if the maniac had upheld his part of the bargain with the world, the world wouldn't be kickin' his @ss right now. For Syria to be supporting them by supplying them with weapons puts them right along side. Time to kick some more @ss. After the 9/11 incident that took out thousands of our beloved, we made a serious statement to the world about our intent to bring those to justice and to take a proactive stance against all terrorism. Any nation willing and proceeding to buck that, well, they're going to have to deal with a nation and it's people's support in taking them out. Regardless of how anyone spins it, we're doing the right thing and will continue to, and right now, most of us believe in it and support it. Nothing is 100% when you're talking billions of people. Not everyone likes ice cream.
Parfait! Everyone loves parfait! nmPdxMark
Mar 28, 2003 1:31 PM
Thank God for AmericaPdxMark
Mar 28, 2003 1:28 PM
OK. When you say "iraq dumped gas on the [Iranian] army," are you saying that as justification for this war? The same mustard gas we helped Iraq make? The same Iranian army we were helping Iraq to stop to block the Islamic Revolution? Because if you are citing Iraqi use of gas against the Iranian army as support for this war, you are either profoundly hypocritical or an idiot to see the logical nonsense of your position. Why were American-aided chemical weapons OK then, but now a reason for war? Use of Iraqi gas against Iran is not what this war is about.

"Just plain taking over Kuwait." Didn't we fight that war? Are we fighting that war again? GWB isn't saying so, so why are you? Is Iraq thrreatening Kuwait agin? No. Why do you cite facts that are not relevant to the stated purpose of this war?

What offensive military threat has Iraq posed to any neighbor in the past 12 years? Kuwait? Israel? Saudi Arabia? Who? What point are you trying to make in reference to the size of Iraq's military? It's not Saddam's military that is the reason for this war. It's the likelihood that he has chemical or biological weapons and the possibility he might share them.

I don't post here to try to convince anyone of my position. I'm actually stating my position, trying to fit the actions of GWB into a reasonable context, and trying to understand your positions... in part to see if I'm wrong... But all I get back is a string of isolated facts. Piecing those together it seems that your explanation for this war is that: 9/11 happened and we therefore have the God-given right to subjugate any and all unfriendly Arabs.

Well, I think thats a retarded reason for war and if I've mis-stated your understanding of the purpose of the war, I apologize. But that's all I can make of your string of seemingly dis-connected facts.

Finally, it seems profoundly unAmerican of you to question my patriotism and love of this country simply because I disagree with the rambling explanations GWB has given for this war. t amazes me that you don't even understand what it means to be American. You rail about Clinton when GWB has gotten Americans killed in Iraq over a war that was not necessary at this time.
You're loud, but no debater53T
Mar 28, 2003 5:12 PM
My post is very clear (except I did type Iraqi instead of Iranian, thanks for correcting) in that I was presenting examples of Iraqi inhuman behavior to counter your assertion that they are "aggressive." I will restate: you give Iraq far too much credit and obscure the truth when you caracterize Iraqi behavior as "aggressive." I made no connection between Iraqi behavior and the justification for war. however, Iraqi behavior has played a role in selecting Iraq to be first (or second to Afganistan) in the preemptive anti-terror campain.

Please point out where I question your patriotism? I praised the nation that we share for its tollerance of your opinions, regardless of how extreem and dangerous they are. I also pointed out that you have outlined the political disadvantage that the conservatives would face if the war turned out badly. I used simple logic to illustrate that your political objectives run counter to the conservatives and therefore, your political objectives would be advanced by a bad outcome in Iraq. Is there something factually erant in this analysis? Are you starting to see the mistake of mixing politics and war?

Perhaps my ramblings are disconnected. Perhaps my arguments are "retarded". Perhaps you are feigning ignorance to avoid facing the futility of your stance. But make no mistake that I think we have the "god-given" right to defend our soil, our intrests and our children from those who have demonstrated thier intent and readiness to do us harm. Subjugation is far too expensive, and in the case of SH and his suporters, far too lenient.
I'm really trying to understand.PdxMark
Mar 28, 2003 5:49 PM
The list of Saddam's inhuman acts is long and horrendous. I agree with you. I'm willing to call him anything you want -though it was someone else that refered to Saddam's attacks of Iran and Kuwait as "aggressiveness." I was willing to take that as shorthand for having to list again all of Saddam's crimes everytime we refer to him, but it seems that you took it as a minimization of them. We read the same words and reached two different ways.

I agree too that we have a right to "defend our soil, our intrests and our children from those who have demonstrated thier intent and readiness to do us harm." That's really my entire point. I just don't see how Iraq demonstrated intent to harm the United States. If he had "demonstrated" the intent to harm the US... I agree, we would be justified to attack.... All he domeonstrated though was noncompliance with UN resolutions.

I think the difference for me is between Saddam ACTUALLY threatening us ("demonstrating intent" in your words) and him being a POSSIBLE threat. GWB has decided that a POSSIBLE threat is good enough for a dash to war. My problem with that is that anyone can be deemed a possible threat to anyone else.... War in GWB's world can now be justifiably launched by anyone who senses a "possible" threat.

My political "objectives" are secondary to the exposure of our troops in Iraq. As I stated, my wishes for the war, now that's it's started, are counter to my political objectives. This is not about politics for me. I hope we win quickly, for our troop's sake.

But I think I see now... this is a step in the war on terror, and it's Saddam's turn because he's evil. Is that a fair summary of your position? If so, who do you think should be next?
The nature of the threat53T
Mar 29, 2003 2:38 PM
We disagree about whether SH has threatened US intrests, and I'm not sure if you believe he has the means. If you truly believe that SH wants to be our ally and that he has no programs to create weapon systems that threaten our intrests (Turkey, S. Arabia, the Washington Metro), then your position is quite logical. I think he has every intention of attacking US intrests whenever he can. I also believe he is investing heavily in the means to carry out such attacks.

The Bush doctrine was born out of 9/11. It is a plan to rid the world of regimes and associations that are activly preparing to do us harm. It is analogous to a fighter jet engaging any position that illumintes them with fire control radar, or a surface warfare cammander firing on aircraft that fly over his ship. We do not wait for the attack, now that we all know what the consequences will be.

In the cold war we had MAD. It worked exceedingly well, witness we are still alive. MAD does not work against Sadam or Osama, or a lot of these crackpots. As responsible guardians of the nations security, we have adopted a new plan.
Thank God for AmericaLive Steam
Mar 30, 2003 8:12 AM
"You rail about Clinton when GWB has gotten Americans killed in Iraq over a war that was not necessary at this time."

What makes you an expert judge of when this war would or would not have been necessary? I really don't appreciate input from the left when they offer no answers, but only provide "expert" criticism.
Mar 28, 2003 2:00 PM
From my perspective, the negative aftermath has already occurred. We launched a preventive war without legitimate justification.

At this point, I hope that our forces quickly win and that Iraq quietly settles into middle class complacency... just like GWB dreamily hopes. I'm not confident that it will work out that way. And with the 4th Division weeks away I fear that our guys will be stuck outside Baghdad, or entering it, as temperatues start to rise...

What I hope for as a result in the war would strengthen GWB, which is not my political "objective." What I think is very possible is that we will have US combat troops trapped in an urban war that alienates the world and has many currently "good" war-supporting Americans changing their "minds" because this is not the easy war they'd been sold.
"easy war they'd been sold"?bic
Mar 28, 2003 6:30 PM
That seems to be the hot phrase the past few days. Who has been selling that and who has been buying?
That God Damn Dan Rather again. (nm)53T
Mar 29, 2003 2:39 PM
it's wrong under international law but...colker
Mar 28, 2003 11:31 AM
it could change some things that needed to be changed.
sure this war is not about saddam being evil or a tyrant or human rights but the israel/ paklestine conflict is in the center of the motivations of the 9/11 attack. the arab world supports the palestine cause and i suspect israel will have to resign and let a palestine state happen.
it won't happen if hamas and hezbollah are strong. barak, ex israeli premier almost did it with arafat in the nineties but arafat backed down due to hamas pressure. hamas didn't want to "receive" a state from us and israel. it would make them lose face and power. iraq probably backed hamas on this.
israel dropped barak and elected sharon, a falcon. violence escalated.
israel depends on the u.s.. it's the only country that supports israel's policy. even with the jewish lobby, the u.s. may talk loud with isarle if it comes to establishing a new midddle east map that gurantees u.s. security.
things will change dramatically this deacde for sure.
rummy's already laying the groundwork for moving....rufus
Mar 29, 2003 4:14 PM
against syria and iran after we're done with iraq, or maybe even before, with his statements this week. basically standing up and saying 'quit it, or we're coming after you too". and the bush administration will take that and spin it, and add a bunch of unrelated info, and some that's outright falsified(just like with iraq) until they feel they have justification for moving against them too.

hopefully the ameriucan people will be smart enough not to fall for the same ploy twice, and their opposition will prevent the next go-round.