's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

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

You're President, what would you do or what would you...?(24 posts)

You're President, what would you do or what would you...?94Nole
Aug 4, 2003 8:54 AM
have done with regard to IRAQ, had you had the political power and authority to make it happen? And try to do it without attacking the otherside and what has been done. Do it with what YOU would DO, NOT what the other side SHOULDN'T have done.

Let's all assume that there truly are WMDs, what should be done about it, if anything? Should rogue nations be allowed to develope WMDs? Should we have nuclear weapons and deny others the same right of aquiring/developing those same weapons? Should the UN be allowed to dictate to us how we act throughout the world?

I am one who is naive enough to think that even with the evils within our borders, we are a positive force in the world. As that, I believe it is our responsibility to allow those throughout the world to enjoy the freedom (albeit shrinking) that we enjoy and that we SHOULD attempt to influence the world in a good way. If that means building alliances and attacking the countries that threaten the world then so be it. I do follow the philosophy that the reason we spend billions each year on military and weapons systems is so that we will never have to use them. We have seen what religious zealots will do with open access to commercial aircraft. Imagine that same aircraft with a nuclear warhead attached.

Where is your point of saying "okay, it's time to let the dogs out"?
I pretty much subscribe toOldEdScott
Aug 4, 2003 9:06 AM
Norman Mailer's theory, as outlined in this interesting (TRULY fair and balanced) exchange with a reader in this week's New York Review of Books.

Basically, containment couldn't have put us in any worse predicament vis a vis rogue states, and conceivably could have worked better.
Help me out here, OldEd, what is he saying? Do nothing but94Nole
Aug 4, 2003 9:42 AM
try and police these zealots? And what would that police force look like? Who will provide that service?

Did he really say as long as we aren't losing more American lives than those lost on the highways, then why worry about American casualties resulting from WMDs? I think there are lots of differences in those who died on America's highways on 9/11 and those who died due to the 9/11 attack. I hope I totally misunderstood what he was saying.

And how are we losing our democracy? That is assuming that we have one, which we don't. I'll admit that I like Boortz's definition of a democracy - When the two foxes and one hen get together to decide what's for dinner. Is he concerned that we are giving up freedoms in the name of fear of terrorism?

Help me out, I was a business major.
Who cares?No_sprint
Aug 4, 2003 10:05 AM
Who cares what a bunch of whackos think? Ask a freak a question, you're sure to get a freaky answer. We're doing the right thing. Most of the country supported the moves of the coalition. Facts are facts in the real world. We'll never see 100% agreement on anything.
most of the country supported it?ColnagoFE
Aug 4, 2003 10:25 AM
where do you get your information? did you ask everyone or are you just relying on the liberal media reports?
Masters of mendacity and public manipulationcritmass
Aug 4, 2003 10:22 AM
Enuff said.

The cries of war and revenge were brought to the surface by just that. Nothing could have been easier and more ripe for manipulation after 9/11. Talk and arguments of anything less drastic were manipulated to be unpatriotic. Then when the half-truths and lies start to unravel more misdirection is thrown out. Rove and Wolfowitz and Cheney know the game. Dubya is a good boy just along for the ride like so many other non critical thinking Americans.
Since you are obviously a "critical thinking American"94Nole
Aug 4, 2003 11:16 AM
answer the questions. I asked that respondents not attack but tell us what she/he would have done instead. And what you would be doing now?
There isn't much critical thinking in a blanketNo_sprint
Aug 4, 2003 11:26 AM
and blind slam of the millions of people who simply critically think differently.

Now that's what I call a real moron.
Since you are obviously a "critical thinking American"critmass
Aug 4, 2003 1:50 PM
My post wasn't in response to yours. If you'll look it was a response to the Mailer article OldEdScott posted.
But since you asked. We elevated Hussein's position in Iraq and the region by undermining international law with the Woflowitz, Rummy, Cheney plan of regime change and constant confrontation. We deliberately had no diplomatic engagement under that plan. Diplomatic engagement under the auspices of the U.N. would have helped. It worked for Ray-Gun Ronnie and Rummy (the true hypocrite here) and even Clinton keep dialog open. We are using it with North Korea, a much bigger threat, now. By enforcing the "no fly" zones the way we did we killed many Iraqi civilians with errant bombs as a consequence of attacks on military sites near civilian populations. That aggressive policy gave Hussein little incentive to cooperate with weapon inspections and strengthened Hussein domestically and diminished the U.S.'s statute in the Muslim and Arab world. For eleven years the U.S. led an economic sanction against Iraq that led to people dying of curable and preventable diseases. Again diminishing our statute in the area. We should have put the same energy into an embargo of military equipment from us and the Russians and Chinese into the area. I think the U.S. should lead an international moratorium on the sale of weapons into all countries in that region. But then that wouldn't sit well with U.S. arm's makers would it.
There are many ways we could have waged peace. We should have given the U.N. arms inspectors the time, resources and POLITICAL support to remain engaged. We should have helped the UN tighten a weapons embargo by providing funds for border monitoring and offsetting the costs of lost trade. If the U.S. had put as much political time and energy into the U.N. supervised disarmament of Iraqi carrier systems for any WMD as it did the economic sanctions that may have yielded a much different result especially if, at the same time, we had spent our money helping to fund EU and U.N. humanitarian and development assistance inside Iraq for the people of Iraq. We should have encouraged and helped the EU's and particularly France's work with Turkey and the Arab League in protecting the Turkish and Iraqi Kurds.
There were many feasible alternatives to this war. But the bottom line is that Dubya and the boyz didn't even give them a cursory glance. Critical thinking is about finding paradigm cases. Something that No Sprint and some of the others on this board know nothing about.. From Afganistan to Iraq it's there to see.
You obviously have no clue, do you?Live Steam
Aug 4, 2003 7:30 PM
The embargo was a farce. Not only was it unenforceable, but countries like Syria, France, Russia, Germany and China continued business as usual with Iraq and ignored the sanctions. Iraq built an underground pipeline to send oil to Syria at a discounted price. Billions of gallons flowed through that pipe for years and billions of dollars flowed the other way. If there were starving Iraqis, as you purport there to have been, Saddam kept them starving. He had billions of dollars stashed and billions more was spent on his military machine, as lousy as it was.

The UN is no longer a valid entity either. They participated in this little charade too. The food for oil program was nothing more than a money laundering scheme for Saddam and the UN. You should try reading the non-fiction version of the news. Oh, by the way they unearthed quite a few MIGs in the desert today. Hey do you think it's possible that there are WMD buried their too?

The diplomacy and sanctions had 12 years to work. I think that was a fair amount of time to see they were failing.
You obviously have no clue, do you?critmass
Aug 4, 2003 9:53 PM
I'm sorry, I should have added your name to No Sprints in my previous post. I should have remembered your Howard Dean post. Anyway on to your BIG evil pipeline secret, another bit of disinformation out there for people like you to hang your silly arguments on. You have to be talking about the underground pipeline from the Iraqi Kirkuk fields to the Syrian city of Banias that operations to restore were started on in July of 1998 after being closed by Syria in 1982 in support of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. First, it was built by Royal Dutch not Iraq, second, look into UN resolution 1284 (paragraph16) which allowed under resolution 986 the reopening and the building of a non-completed new underground line. But then you think the UN is the anti-christ of global politics don't you. That fact alone means we aren't able to communicate in a reasonable way on this.
Now that Dubya and the boyz control Iraqi oil that Syrian pipeline has been shut down in what I'm sure is the beginning of the new disinformation/pressure campaign against Syria. All you boyz that just love the juice you get from the Iraqi war may be able to get another fix soon.
Funny about that closure though it came just as Dubya and the oil boyz said they were planning a pipeline from Iraq across Jordan to Israel. Now who would have thunk that!
You obviously have no clue, do you?Live Steam
Aug 5, 2003 6:37 AM
You are an obvious believer in the UN and the power they hold to enforce resolutions adopted by it's member nations. The resolutions you cite allow for the "permitting the use of additional export routes for petroleum and petroleum products, under appropriate conditions otherwise consistent with the purpose and provisions of resolution 986". The funds obtained through the sale of petroleum was to held in escrow and could be used to pay debts accrued from purchasing items of humanitarian necessity - food stuff, medications, etc. You fail to mention that the flow of oil from Iraq to Syria was not monitored, thus allowing Saddam to export more than any UN sanctions allowed. You also failed to mention that the money from the sale of this oil did not go to purchase items of humanitarian necessity. Why don't you read resolution 1441? Why shouldn't the UN support and enforce 1441? This whole episode was a farce from the get go. If some how you believe that Saddam was honoring the UN sanctions and the UN was properly monitoring and enforcing it's rules, you must also believe in Santa Claus.

How many visits were required and how much more time was required by the inspectors? How many more years do you think they would have needed? Why don't you respond to my post below - "The real cost of Duyba's and the boyz lies and misadventures"? You say they are lies, but show no proof other than the lack of WMD. That is and was always only part of the reason for the war. They just found DOZENS OF MIGS, MIRAGE AND OTHER FIGHTING AIRCRAFT buried in the desert. The MIGs and Mirage were late models. I guess France and Russia didn't read the resolutions. I am sure if they can hide dozens of large aircraft, they can hide small boxes of WMD. I can't wait to hear what all of you pundits have to say when the WMD are unearthed too!
You obviously have no clue, do you?critmass
Aug 5, 2003 9:29 AM
First, the capacity of the Kirkuk to Banias pipeline has been KNOWN for over 28 years. The U.N. and anyone else paying attention knew exactly how much was being exported. Just cuz you can't figure out its capacity means nothing to me.
Second, resolution 1441 was written last year by the U.S. as Dubya's and the boyz attempt, through U.N. mandate, to take unilateral military action against Iraq. Because of France and a skeptical U.N. it didn't work though did it.
Third, if those hunting for WMD can only come up with some 12 to 25 years old jets buried in the sand RIGHT NEXT to the airbase they were based out of it's looking bad for Dubya. Buried jets are such an eminent danger to the U.S.
Since you are throwing nothing but nonsense in your posts to me I'll let you continue without further interruption.
You obviously have no clue, do you?Live Steam
Aug 5, 2003 9:49 AM
The nonsense is coming from your keyboard. Yes 1441 was written last year, but it simply reiterated and reinforced the first 8 - 10 resolutions dealing with Iraq. How many more resolutions did they need or how much more time was required? Inaction was not an option any longer.

As for it not working, well I guess you didn't read the news, Iraq was invaded by a coalition force and sanctioned by more than 50 nations. The coalition forces won! Saddam is on the run and will never, I repeat, never ever rule over the Iraqi people again. He will be caught or killed. You can feel sorry for him then if you like, as you are obviously his sympathizer.

France is but a meaningless player in all of this. When did they become the ruling body of power and reason? I'd say they are suffering more from their lack of support for the war than the US or GB is from demanding that Iraq comply or face the consequences they did. The action, as you can see, was not unilateral. Just because a few communist/socialist countries didn't support it, didn't make it unilateral. It just made it clear what side everyone was on and who the communists/socialists really are.
Don't you have anything new?czardonic
Aug 5, 2003 10:02 AM
You are still spouting the same cheap arguments months after they have been discredited by facts on the ground or crumbled to dust under belated scrutiny.
Don't you have anything new?Live Steam
Aug 5, 2003 10:12 AM
What has been discredited and crumbled to dust under scrutiny? He repeated the same BS without adding anything new either. Facts are facts. The war was brought about by a coalition that lacked support from a few communist/socialist countries. It also lacked support form a few commies/socialists here in the US too.

Why don't you respond to my post below. I am sure you have read it. I know it is just a theory, but so is saying that there are no WMD when everyone knew there was a lot of it not too long ago. Why do you and those like you demand to see the reports that show the WMD were destroyed as per the resolutions? Why don't you hold the real culprits accountable? Why don't you hold France, Germany, Russia and China responsible for not providing a unified front that Saddam couldn't have denied? Why don't you hold those same "friendly nations" accountable for doing "illegal" business with Iraq? Why? Because you are all a bunch of hypocrites that have a political agenda to discredit the administration because your boy didn't win the last election. That's why.
"He repeated the same BS without adding anything new either."czardonic
Aug 5, 2003 12:08 PM
You must be talking about Bush.

The coalition was a farce. You'd have to be an idiot to trot it out. You're not an idiot, are you? Then move on.

Neither France nor Russia are communist/socialist countries? Again, idiotic. You're not an idiot, right? Then move on.

No WMD or WMD programs have been found. Those that might be found can hardly be argued to have been significant or a clear and present danger to the US. Regardless of what is found, unless it proves the specific charges made by Bush in the SOTU and Powell to the UN, they will remain discredited liars. Only an idiot would hold up a couple dusty old shells from the Iran-Iraq War as "proof" of the thousand of tons and liters of CBW material that Bush and Powell claimed we knew to exist. You're not an idiot, are you? Then move on.

I didn't discredit Bush. He discredited himself by his lies and his lousy leadership.
Tell me what happened to the WMD and I'll agree with you nmLive Steam
Aug 5, 2003 4:29 PM
It expired and was discarded or it was destroyed by the UN. nmczardonic
Aug 6, 2003 8:36 AM
Here is what <i>I</i> would have done.czardonic
Aug 4, 2003 11:58 AM
First, I think it is important to mention that your question is rigged towards legitimizing a certain nameless President's "plan". No WMD's have been found. Any that may be found here-on can not possibly vindicate the notion that they were a clear and present danger to the United States. How can weapons nobody can find be "clear"? How can weapons so well hidden represent a danger that is "present"? Indeed, doesn't the fact that we invaded Iraq and chased its leader underground without a single chemical or bilogical shell being hurled in our direction pretty much close the matter?

So I guess the first thing I would have done is my f**king homework (apparently, that's not how they do things at Yale and Harvard). I happen to think that prudence is a virtue when it comes to war. And it cuts both ways. Prudence dictates that we take potential threats seriously. But it also dictates that we have serious evidence that those threats are real before we commit ourselves to a war.

Thus, right off the bat I wouldn't have gone to war over the WMD "threat". I would have recognized all the evidence that we are now seeing that shows our assumptions about Saddam's military capability to have been overblown, and our suspicions about his weapons programs to have been overstated. This evidence was available before the war, and should have been paid attention to.

But getting back to your rigged question, had the tales of Saddam's weapons and programs been true, or at least based on reliable evidence, I would have recognized that "liberating Iraq" was not going to be a cake-walk. Rather than satisfy myself with palatives about how grateful the Iraqis were going to be, I would have recognized that such good will would evaporate if I couldn't deliver on my promises of peace and prosperity, and at a minimum guaranteed a level of stability and livability on par with Saddam's regime. Again, I would have done my homework, and I would have done the extra-credit questions too, instead of assuming that I didn't need to because I was going to get every question I answered right.

So to answer your question: the dogs come out when there is a clear and present danger and a coherent plan to counter it.

We should indeed be encouraging freedoms around the world. We should also be resisting the shrinking of our freedoms at home. But we need to remind ourselves that the price of freedom is eternal vigilence. 9/11 wasn't perpetrated by criminal masterminds who used our freedoms against us. It was perpetrated by a few crazies to took advantage of known vulnerabilities. It was decided that it was cost effective to let these vulerabilities go un-addressed. Freedom isn't our weakness, our devotion to the bottom line is.
Order of warMR_GRUMPY
Aug 4, 2003 12:45 PM
1) bomb Iraq
2) bomb North Korea
3) bomb Iran
4) bomb France
5) send wife on fact finding mission
6) check out hired help
7) listen to people complain about killing 800,000 people
8) sending people who complain to camps
9) get caught sleeping with the hired help
10) get impeached for sleeping with the hired help.
Glad you were not electedmoneyman
Aug 4, 2003 1:39 PM
With that list, you make czardonic look reasonable.

With <i>that</i> list he makes <i>Bush</i> look reasonable. nmczardonic
Aug 4, 2003 1:50 PM
Come on, wars are good for businessMR_GRUMPY
Aug 4, 2003 6:42 PM
Beat those drums. War is good for everybody except the underclass, who has to do the dying.
(Don't look behind the curtain)