Any pacifists out there?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bobcathy1, Jan 13, 2003.

  1. How about "This is a nasty guy who hates us and possibly has nukes/biological weapons, has used chemical weapons to kill thousands of his own people, and would possibly supply terrorists with those weapons to use against American civilians"?

    If this is not good enough for you and those who think like you, my only conclusion must be that you are willing to bet, with your lives and those of your families and fellow Americans, that he won't.

    That is not only unacceptable to me, but suicidal.
     
    #41     Jan 15, 2003
  2. It's not that there are a lot of poor people here it's that the rich are absurdly so.
    actually the US constitution allows disobeying unreasonable and absurd laws.
    it's human nature there are schmucks everywhere. so what?
    so who's to blame americans or the terrorists.
    It's always been that way the media caters to the average joe who cant balance his checking account, eats at mcdonalds, and loses money in the stock market.
    This idiot has never been in a U.S. university every weekend there is some dumb anti-racism anti-war anti-market anti-everything student march. And in the classroom some snob preaches either a totally negative or totally naive vision of US society. And let's not talk about the media, hollywood or the music industry, I can't believe so many mass-consumption bands have anti-american communist lyrics.
    Actually New York city is much safer than Paris to give an example, and I don't believe there is more drug use here than in Amsterdam.
    "free"? right, people don't pay for it, not even taxes.
    giving handouts is temporary relief but not help.
    so why russians and eastern europeans are desperate to come here?
    I always hear americans are arrogant but arrogant why? because we don't kiss their unwashed stinky european a#$es? I think it's the european particularly the french who qualify for "arrogant" they are smug and rude.
     
    #42     Jan 15, 2003
  3. **************************************************
    How about "This is a nasty guy who hates us and possibly has nukes/biological weapons, has used chemical weapons to kill thousands of his own people, and would possibly supply terrorists with those weapons to use against American civilians"?

    If this is not good enough for you and those who think like you, my only conclusion must be that you are willing to bet, with your lives and those of your families and fellow Americans, that he won't.
    **************************************************
    Sorry, but I still don't understand our policy. I'm not being combative, so please enlighten people "who think like me". Domino theory/Containment and other international strategies were at least understandable. But I truly don't understand the "Bush Doctrine".

    Are we going to attack 2nd and 3rd world countries if they
    1) kill a certain number of innocent people?
    2) use weapons of mass destruction?
    3) build weapons of mass destruction?
    4) enter aggresive war with neighboring countries?

    #2 is the only criterion that singles out Saddam's regime from other dictators around the globe. Pakistan, North Korea and other countries could all satisfy 1, 3 and 4. So why are we singling out Saddam?

    Again, I'm not opposed to the war and I don't think anybody will miss Saddam. I just want our foreign policy to be semi-clear. Otherwise, we're going to be playing global cop in every dark corner of the globe. (And in my mind that is a special concern from an "establishment insider" like George Bush.)
     
    #43     Jan 15, 2003
  4. white17

    white17

    If we do go to war I want it to be for a "good" reason also. However, I believe Saddam qualifies on all 4 of your counts above. Unfortunately we are already playing global cop and have been since the end of the Spanish-American war by no choice of our own many times. The simple fact is that no other nation is able or willing to do it. When people say "let the UN handle it" that means the US is going to put up the blood and treasure to get whatever done. I'm not the least bit alarmed over who is President.....only the outcome and the cost. Frankly I think Iraq is a "cheap" opportunity to deal with North Korea without fighting them. if they see that this president means what he says perhaps the rhetoric can ratchet down on all fronts. Maybe not. In the long run it seems worth the risks and the costs to remove Saddam now rather than wait until he for sure has nukes.

    It might be a good time to watch airline stox. Normally I wouldn't touch one but consider that a lot of commercial flights will be used by the military in the near future.
     
    #44     Jan 15, 2003
  5. I don't think it has anything to do with #1-4 actually. You nailed the real issue in what you said: I think Bush has a No Nukes policy. But why can't he and a few of the other nuclear countries just boldly state that as a new global policy? Why doesn't Bush simply state "no new countries can develop nuclear weapons. If you do, we will dethrone you regime."

    I think 2/3 of the planet would be glad to have such a policy. Let's take a poll in the metropolitan areas of Pakistan and India to see how many people are thrilled that their government acquired nuclear capability.
     
    #45     Jan 15, 2003
  6. white17

    white17

    Yeah I could support that. It's clear and up front .
     
    #46     Jan 16, 2003
  7. The only thing that I worry about is that future backpressure from the int'l community could be placed on us to slowly disarm which would imo leave our national security vulnerable. But one thing at a time I guess.
     
    #47     Jan 16, 2003
  8. I'm not saying the end justifies the means, but I believe that, strangely enough, such a policy is the only hope to preserve our freedoms as we know it. If nuclear weapons spread throughout the globe, eventually they will be detonated within our borders.

    A simple dirty bomb is bad enough, but can you imagine what would happen if a suitcase nuke went off in Manhattan or DC? Every freedom that we enjoy would vanish forever (unless someone can install a geiger counter on every street corner!).
     
    #48     Jan 16, 2003
  9. white17

    white17

    Until the Intl community can take care of itself they need to mind their own businesses in regards to our national security. Especially when they are the ones wringing their limp-wristed hands expecting us to take care of the worlds problems and then bitching about it when we do. Can you tell that's a sore point with me?
     
    #49     Jan 16, 2003
  10. white17

    white17

    I think one will be detonated within our borders regardless. It's just a matter of time and technology.
     
    #50     Jan 16, 2003