RS7 and Stockoptionist have posted the two most insightful posts I have yet to read in these 15 pages. 90% of the other posts were indeed filled with hatred and hostility towards any opposing viewpoint. Reading those two posts were a breath of fresh air. I think more people should atleast attempt to objectively assess all angles of a situation the way both of you did. Please keep the intelligent posts coming!
Respectfully disagree on a number of points. First of all, to say Iraq did not pose a "clear and present" danger is, IMHO, to ignore some very obvious facts: 1) Saddam was clearly trying to build a nuke. The Israelis didn't bomb the Osirak reactor in '81 because they thought he was cooking pancakes. Former Iraqi scientists who defected, records from the several years when inspectors actually were there, intelligence tracking of shipments and imports - all of these point to that inescapable fact. And let us not forget that he had the means to finance his nuclear ambitions with the oil revenue he diverted from his people..... 2) The man is (was?) a nutcase. This is a guy who executes the messenger of bad news. This is a guy who has attacked three of his regional neighbors. This is a guy who routinely tortured, imprisoned without trial, and executed his own people in the thousands. Combine all the above with an "I am Saladin" messianic complex and you have the frightening potential situation involving nuclear weapons in the hands of a megalomaniacal psychopath who really, really, REALLY doesn't like us. If that doesn't qualify as a Clear and Present Danger to the US, I don't know what does. Are you one of those who believes we are not entitled to defend ourselves until we have been dealt a massive blow first? If so, I must ask - what was 9/11? If that wasn't enough, what is? Furthermore, you cannot compare the India/Pakistan situation to Iraq/US because the former two are kept in check with the concept of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). To appreciate that concept, you have to be rational and sincerely worry about the future of your country and your people. Saddam didn't care one lick about his people. They weren't humans to him, they were props. Chess pieces to be moved around at his whim while he lived out his fantasies. Why would he worry about his country being destroyed? He didn't give a shit about his nation, only about himself. If he did give a shit about his people he would have gone into exile. Regarding Your Oil Argument: This war is only about oil in the sense of ensuring the stability of the global oil supply and trade. To suggest it is because the US lusts after the oil and intends to steal it somehow flies in the face of history and common sense. Why not go to Africa? Lots of dictators, but no markets and no oil you say. Hmmm, last time I checked Libya was part of Africa, and there is some oil there, isn't there? We may yet pay Qaddafi another visit, yessiree.....and come to think of it, there's also a tidy amount of oil in Nigeria, Algeria, and to a lesser extent, Angola and the Sudan, too. But let's excuse your geographical faux pas for the time being.... Lots of dictators, oh yes. HOWEVER, are/do those dictators A) Flush with money, B) In the WMD production business, C) Have visions of regional conquest and a grip on the world's economy, D) Hate the US with a passion? You may find some dictators who possess C & D, but - other than possibly Qaddafi - none with both A & B nor all 4. The point is that no, they do NOT present a Clear and Present Danger to the U.S. And for you to suggest that the US should clear up every dictator on the face of the earth, well, we have neither the resources nor the need, really. Besides, were we even to attempt to do so, we would only incur massive worldwide (and domestic) condemnation for being so blatantly IMPERIALISTIC. By necessity we have to pick and choose our fights, and we have chosen to pick those fights that first and foremost must be waged in order to protect our homeland. This war was NOT fought solely for one reason, but a combination. They were all just. That the US cannot be everything to all people doesn't make our effort over there any less noble.
So are more than half the people who post here. Should we drop "bunker busters" on all of them? Again, too many similar "psychopaths" to set him apart. Many of whom, if they do not already possess nuclear weapons, aspire to. I thought that was Afganistan that was responsible. Didn't we do that one already? Many, many would say that about some American politicians. Speaking of which, did anyone catch old Newt Gingrich last night on Bill O' Reilly when he referred to the Secretary General of the U.N. and called him Idi Amin? Not only did Gingrich not "care one lick about his people", but he thinks Idi Amin is Kofi Amman? And did we go to war with that fat fuck Amin because of the way he treated his people? No, we let him live in exhile in with our pals in Saudi Arabia, another haven of humane treatment for all citizens. "Yessiree"? What are you? Slim Pickens riding the "big one" down on the "Ruskies"? (in Dr. Strangelove for those who missed the reference). I agree. But adding up combinations of reasons to invade would, in essense, give us ample excuse to invade virtually every nation but a handful. It would be far easier to make a list of countries we shouldn't invade than countries we should using this logic. Let's see, we like England, Canada, New Zealand, and, um, uh, let me think.... Rs7
Name those who fit all the criteria Saddam does (did). The list gets shorter, doesn't it? Oh, I see. The Taliban is the only threat we faced! Very informative. Golly gee, if I'd only known that I woulda been out there marchin'! That does it, Bush is Bad! Bad Georgie! Bad! Good grief, RS7, don't tell me you're going to drag this THERE! My point, of course, was to illustrate that Saddam's lack of compassion for his people would thus not serve as a deterrent to prevent him from attacking us with WMD. Our retaliation, the basis of MAD, would have no effect on him because he cares not a lick about his own people. Um.....no. I didn't realize "yessiree" was trademarked and could only be used in reference to your favorite anti-war movie. What?!? Again, show me the leaders of countries that share the same psychosis, WMD pursuit, wealth, history of aggression, and disregard and treatment of their own people as SH....."virtually every nation." LOL! C'mon RS, you can do much better than this. Must be too early for ya.....you're just going through the motions here! Very subpar.
OK, true, and true. But am I not entitled to have a little fun every now and then? Anyway, Slim Pickens actually said "Yeehaaaa" if I remember correctly. So "Yesirreee" was only an indirect reference, a "cowboy attitude" if you prefer, not an actual plagiarism or infringement on Terry Southern's dialogue (or was it Kubrick's? Whatever..). Shorter, yes, but not too exclusive. North Korea, Pakistan, China, Libya, for starters. But since you said it was a combination of factors, and did not specifically mention nuclear weapons, then the list grows rather quickly. I will try better in my next effort. I woke too early, and am working on too little sleep. I will make a stronger case next time. And as I said, I will argue either side of any issue you choose. Because that is how I exercise free speech. I don't have to even believe completely in what I say. Which was my whole point really in the post on page 15. It is our right to agree, disagree, debate, question, express dissent, etc. That is why I think MondoTrader is dangerous. Other than that, I like to keep an open mind. Peace, rs7
moderating this forum, with restraint.... !! It's clear that you and ET understand the merits of free speech as a way to "get it all out there" in the public forum and hopefully allow all (although some may not publicly admit it) on BOTH sides of this issue... to learn and grow by considering ALL points of view... in (what should be) a National, unified goal to reach an accord for ALL Americans... and the world at large..... on these sensitive and not so uncomplicated issues (as some would have us believe) that confront us in an age of terrorism. The issue of appropriate, justifiable use/abuse of power and force will continue to confront all in the 21st century. And without public debate, yes even strong disagreement... this Country although gaining some fleeting victory through use of military might... will have LOST something FAR MORE enduring in suppressing the voices of reasonable opposition. And thus bring us closer to societies we allegedly oppose and seek to distinguish ourselves from.... societies that throughout history place little value on the "power of the pen" and the concomitant rights of ALL citizens to exercise free speech, and (assembly) protest! Bravo ET! Ice
go back to school and take a civics course, and study the Constitution before starting a discussion topic entitled "Anti-war/USA bashers Where Are You Now, mothef*ckers?" because you show you ain't got a clue, bro. And that's sad that so many Americans agree with that point of view. BE CAREFUL what you wish for... i.e. the stifling of opposition and speech in this Country! For that seems to be the implication of your statement (and many others) throughout this chit chat forum !! You may not like the alternative! Ice
A war with China would devastate our economy. What natural resources could we use to help pay for China's reconstruction -- rice? Even if their army isn't as well equipped as ours, they simply have a far larger population base. Iraq was a bit different because the person in charge would have eventually nuked Isreal or the United States if given the chance. China has nuclear weapons but isn't using them. Whatever China is doing to their own people is unfortunate if it involves torture, but again, we're talking about a huge society that would drain every last one of our resources in trying to liberate a billion people. Then you must ask yourself, "what are we going to do with a billion liberated people now that it is our job to make sure that nobody starves?" Its ok if they starve now because it is China's problem -- not ours. As soon as you march an army in there, you're assigned the responsibility of making sure that country's population is fed and treated humanely. Why would the United States attempt to tackle such a huge logistics nightmare? Again, it is sad and unfortunate for the people there who are treated inhumanely -- but this earth was never a garden of Eden. Iraq is a totally different situation than China. You can't just say, "These people are oppressed and so are these" and assume the two are identical.
dude, chill. i'm the biggest supporter of free speech there is. of course people have the right to disagree with me. i only put "mfers" in the thread title to get people (like you) going. after i started the thread, i actually went back and edited "mfers" out because i knew some people (like you) would take me too seriously. look back at my orignal post, "mfers" isn't in the subject. i couldn't edit it out of the thread title though. relax, man.. FRuiTY
yeah Ice, we aren't saying you can't speak, we are saying speak up and take the punishment that is coming to you. You all speak out against the war, talk of massive casualties, etc. and then you RUN AWAY. Any of you got the balls to admit you were wrong ?