OT-Is there a solution to Iraq?

[clearblue]

Nation building doesn't work unless you conquer THE PEOPLE first. It worked well in North America........drum roll symbol splash..... although we are still paying for all the treaties that we broke during those wars.

I'm not sure what the point is here.

To the best of my knowledge --English colonialism,Pol Pot,Hitler,Mussolini,Ida Amin,The Emperor of WWII Japan etc.,etc., never paid anything for broken treaties.

When one is not suffering under the burden of guilt or shame one feel's no obligation to pay for broken treaties or reparations to scoundrels.

Paying reparations and for broken treaties is simply another Socialist feel good strategy for "redistributing income". It's a wholesale Con-Game manipulated and controlled by unscrupulous politicians.

Then was then,now is now---Get over it --and make something of your life in the world's greatest nation.

Nobody owes you anything and guilt ain't working on most Americans any longer,at least, not on those that pay exorbitant taxes and welfare subsidies to people too lazy to work. BTW --the lazy also pay taxes,it's called the lottery,because they won't pay taxes voluntarily.

But if your belief system requires you to couch out and whine about how terrible you and others are being treated and wallow in the mire of victimology then go for it --but don't expect sympathy from those who are not suffering under such delusions and are not buying into the liberal mantra of how bad it is here in America.

After all,there only a limited number of ways to get money you can:
1-Win it-lottery/gambling
2-Steal,cheat,con,extort,welfare,embezzle
3-Work for it
4-Inherit it
5-Gifts like gov't grants,,school loans
6-Accidental discovery -metal detectors,manna from heaven

Most people with integrity choose to work but if guilt will pull it out of another's bank account and into your's many will give that a shot.

All the above, was sugarcoated for palatability.

 

[Hibuke]

I don't believe the majority of Americans have the stomach to do what is necessary to win a war.

Perhaps when the next 9-11 occurs that will change somewhat.

However, here in The (Not So) Merry Land of OZ, even that is not enough! With the Bali Bombing being our 9-11, the sheeple-pacifistic-no-war-it's-all-about-the-oil-naive-myopic-public still won't budge! :grumpy:

 

[munk]

This is moral relativism at work. We go to Iraq, mostly to welcome, and after the limited fighting attempt to establish order in an area formerly under the the most brutal dictatoship. A few of our soldiers mistreat captives in a prison.

Now. Have we, A) become no better than what we were fighting against? Or B) had some few commit crimes that will be punished?



munk

 

[brantoken]

Sorry I still disagree, things could have been handled much better and I point to the first Bush as an example. He developed a coalition. His failing was not to finishing the job he started, by convincing the world that is was necessary. The same could have been done before the war was started. There was no immeadiate threat from Iraq, and there were still time for many other options. The sense of threat was created by the Bush and Blair administration.

We were mislead and that has created the mess that we are in presently.
Would it have been a mess with a larger colation, yes it would have, but
there would have been a lot fewer questions asked.

By going in alone, it weaken the political postion of the US, so that we couldn't level Flauga. Think about it, do you think that in World War II
a city like flauga wouldn't have been crushed Immeadiately. Think things like that didn't happen ?

Has Bush got sand, yeah, too much . I think you need a little more than just that to run a country. Any Idiot can start a war, very few can end one, with just slaugthering everyone in question. Haven't any of you guys read "The Art of War" by Sun Tszu? It is oldest treaties on stratigy, George Bush didn't.

Not to mention, look who's footing the Bill. Wonder why our elderly have to go to a foreign country for perscription drugs? Why we don't have any money for space exploration, the thing that gave us computers and the internet and untold economic wealth and Has the potential to give us much more.

Every one complains about the UN being ineffective and it didn't jump to solve the problem, it is a young organization. Does it need reform ,why yes it does. It needs attention and it need the buy in of rich nations like the US to work. Please do not forget that in the early history of the United States( Yes remember UNITED STATES, a collection of independant states that come together for mutual benifit) , the federal govenment was very much a delicate and tenative thing. The UN is currently is a position very similar to the early
United States. I think there was even a huge dissagreement on how things should be done( states rights, I belive) and that cost us all a great deal (the nastiness in the 1860's). The point is that govenment is still developing, both on a local level , and an international level . If it doesn't we will be going backwards politically , socially and econimically ( a dark age).

Mark my words, there will be a Global govenment in the future, the corporations( mostly bad ones), rogue states, internation gangsters, and terrorist will make it happen. Sooner is better. The real question is how many lives will it take, how much resources and who's going to be the winners and the losers.

Why can't the UN develope a profession army, with an officer corp (like we have here) Dedicated to stop ethnic cleansing , rougue states and international terrorism. Why can't everybody chip in?

I can hear you all scream now..... But think about it , if we don't support
the UN that means another organization will have to take the role ( with authority to deal with rogues states and terrorist), That is one world war at least. Can the United States and the UK do it alone, Well maybe, but
that is a bunch of wars there for sure as no one wants to be invaded.
What choice do we really have?

I can also hear you scream, I don't want to be ruled by another country in anything,neither did South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennesse....etc , funny that seemed to work out didn't it?

Has it occured to anyone that if we had UN buy in, we could most possibly use tac nukes? I think that every one the nuclear treaties is on the security councel by happenstance. Does it not also reason that it is difficult to pick one country to target for terrorism when the law and its enforcement is coming from a Global agency?

Has it occured that to anyone that if the international community based chemical lazer in space, the threat of balistic missles and nuclear catrophe would be forever gone. No doing our selves is not the same, if you were russian would let the US have a antibalistic system? Please realize that we did land troops in the crimea..... yeap that's Russian soil.

We live in a global society, corporations have already accepted this fact and are moving on. The time for us to accept this and develope a governmental structure is well past due. We will all ( the entire globe and the US) be better off.

The first Bush( he knew and even said so) gave the UN some teeth, starting us on a path to a gobal way to deal with international problems. The second Bush pulled them out and He has placed you and I higher on the terrorist target list in the process. We will all pay the price for his arrogance, both econimically and socially in the future.

Have you forgotten that no one is attacking Sweden, or Switzerland?
Funny how they have a Higher standard of living isn't it ? Fact is
funding wars is not the way to get ahead these days, too much darn competition.

Scream liberal all you want, It's not all bad, new ideas are a good thing, if conservatives were right all the time and we followed their path, we would be still living in caves ,chipping stone believing the world was flat, You would be a peasant with just enough to live on, we would still have kings with absolute power and there would be not a United States,The United State was founded on liberal ideas at that time and We supported slavery in this country. It take a balance, too far to the right is just as ugly as too far to the left. It must evole as we move forward or we are going backwards.

I'm not a liberal in the classic sense, I just refuse to be programed by ANY
political party.

 

[arty]

Bush said that there was no link between Al Quaida and 911.

The only link to terrorism that I see in Iraq was Hussein's offer to provide $25,000 to the family of suicide bombers... This is a real "link" - but not to 911.
There is no moral reason for our troops to torture anyone. This ethical monstrosity came about when we put our troops in harm's way, and our leadership tried to remove the restrictions of the Geneva conventions from the treatment of prisoners.
The citizens of Iraq did not kill us here at home. The terrorists in those planes were Saudis. Prince Bandar is very happy right now....just watch the fox smile on TV.

I should point out that most of our leaders do not listen to good counsel. They tend to ignore the military when they should listen to the generals. The army war college predicted the problems that we now have in Iraq... and the costs and range of troop levels that might be needed. The generals know what to do - the problem is that the politicians like to do things on the cheap - like not buy enough body armor for our soldiers.

Clarke tried to get Clinton to set up an air defense system for the Pentagon and Washington - the Clinton folks thought that he was nuts. He got the same reaction from the Bush Admin. All share in the blame for not listening to the warnings. They knew.....

If our government can't protect the Pentagon, who can they protect?

War is a dirty business. I suspect that some people follow the dictum:
"All is fair in love and war."

But we are not at war. We are "at piece." We broke it and we now own it.
Kay said the July before the invasion that he wanted to leave Iraq, because there were no WMDs. He was told to stay on, or people would think that the admin is crazy. This is according to Kay.

I don't know what to believe in all of this, but I do think that our government has screwed up royally. I am generally skeptical of the spin put out by papers or the media ... and especially the bull put out by politicians.

I hope that it turns out better than I think that it will - I have people I like on the way over there.

I am concerned about 3 things:
1. The threat that we face from Iran, Syria and Korea. The Iranians are on the way to getting nukes, if they don't have them already. Korea has nukes, and may try to sell them. All of these countries have supported terrorism - big time, not the little time as with Iraq.

2. The threat to our constitution from our "liberal government." I define conservative as an attempt to preserve the status quo, maintain personal liberties, and state's rights. I see our present government trying to eliminate the constitutional rights of our citizens, weaken the states, and change the constitution.

THIS IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE GOVT.

Bush senior was a good president, far better than Clinton. Bush junior is no Bush senior!

3. I don't want to see more needless wars and the resulting loss of life and economic costs in the long run. We are all paying for the war. We lose our friends in the sandbox, and we pay for wars in other ways. Wars are sometimes necessary, but remember -

We are not at war in Iraq. We "WON." Now we pay the price of this adventure in nation building. If the middle East becomes stable - soon - then that will be the ultimate test of the wisdom of this war. If it goes the other way - then that gives us another answer.

 

[DannyinJapan]

I will agree that we didnt go in with enough men and equipment.
We needed to have a soldier standing outside of every house.
Sit on their heads while you educate their children and force feed them democracy and the separation of church and state.
Mayne people may not realize that this was the situation in Japan.
The japanese "emperor" is the head of the shinto religion, considered a "god" until he was forced by the allies to publicly deny his own divinity.
To this day these people have not accepted that denial.
It took 7 years of sitting on the Japanese before we could leave them to run things on their own and we had to leave several bases there and we stil have them there to this day!

I believe that the wars of the last few decades have been wars between the old world and the new world, between between tradition and law, between the past and the future.
I also honestly believe that, once its all done with, we wont ever have to face the prospect of a World War ever again.
Once the old world countries have been converted, we will be able to work things out in a better way.

Education, equality, opportunity.
I really do see an amazing future just around the corner. I believe that there are technological advances that are being kept secret until such a time as it is safe for the world to share in that new power.
This work has to be done.

 

[Spectre]

It took 7 years of sitting on the Japanese before we could leave them to run things on their own

But, if we only look at the time involved, we ignore the cultural identity of the Japanese, as opposed to the Iraquis. The Japanese have had a long tradition of copying what works, as well as respecting strength. They were primed to accept some direction from a king like McArthur.

John

 

[DannyinJapan]

it may be that the next generation must be reared in the new way and the parents kept on a leash.
i dont know...

 

[Mike Kilo Niner]

Don,

"The last shall be first, and the first last":

Thanks for your fair and unbiased reply. I appreciate it.

I'm not sure it's unbiased, but I do appreciate your sentiment. Likewise, I want to begin my reply with a compliment: your arguments are reasonable, justified with evidence and free from the usual "rabid attack dog" mentality that appears so often in political debate these days. Would that the Ann Coulter/Michael Moore set would follow your lead!

Actually, that's really quite easy. When these guys are picked up, one can document the circumstances under which they were apprehended/captured. You take photographs and fingerprints. And, if in doubt, you err on the side of caution and go with no torture. (shrug)

Well then perhaps we don't disagree so much after all. I'm skeptical of our ability to make those determinations with 100% accuracy, especially on the battlefield. Provided our policy mirrored that of our jurisprudence ("innocent until proven guilty"), I have much less problem with what you're suggesting.

I think the reason this Abu Ghraib scandal seems to have legs is that precisely wasn't our policy. Heads need to roll (figuratively) over this, and the administration needs to make absolutely plain to the military what is and isn't acceptable.

You: "Besides which, the Geneva Convention has some very strong words to say about the mistreatment of captured combatants and detained non-combatants. The atrocities committed by terrorists do not justify retaliation against innocents."

Me: I couln't agree more - with your last sentence anyway. Do the Geneva Accords apply to terrorists I wonder?

A fair question, and one I don't actually know the answer to. It seems like "world leaders" don't know either. That's part of the problem with terrorism: there's no concensus on how to classify it, let alone deal with it. My wholly non-expert opinion is that we basically have three options:

(1) Terrorists are "enemy combatants," and therefore are covered by the Geneva convention.

(2) Terrorists are criminals, and therefore are subject to the laws of our country (we're "extraditing" them from the battlefield).

(3) Terrorists are their own, special category. They're not clearly (1) or (2), but somewhere in between... sort of. What's their legal status? I dunno, it's not an easy question.

Regardless, all people (even "bad hombres") are people and have human rights (Natural Rights, if you prefer -- I use them interchangeably, some do not). One of those rights is freedom from "cruel and unusual punishment," to use our phraseology. That sounds to me like "no torture."

Me: So, what is your source for "repeatedly shown to be unreliable"? I can cite you some very specific cases from special ops friends of mine who were able to act on information extracted under torture that was EXTREMELY reliable.

I have no direct line to special ops types or anything like that. I'm thinking specifically of "Iron Maiden Conversions" during the Spanish Inquisition and more recent psychological studies carried out post-WWII. I'm not terribly familiar with the psychology literature, but can try to track down references if there's any interest.

For me, the moral argument is the more important. We could experience a 100% decrease in rape by castrating every male in the country. A very effective strategy. Does that justify it?

Do you think it's an accident that Afghanistan has been so quiet considering it was the home base of the Taliban for years and now that we have only a skeleton force there now?

To be honest, I'm not so sure how quiet it actually is over there. Every report I read about Afghanistan involves a bombing, and assasination of a member of the government, or renewed militia activity. Wasn't it just two days ago that our troops were calling in precision-guided munitions to uproot a group of Taliban militiamen ensconced on a hill top.

Granted, the news media is governed by the "if it bleeds, it leads" principle, but that doesn't sound like a quiet front to me.

Also, to me, not all torture is equal. There is a distinct difference between sleep depriving a fellow for days straight, and sawing his fingers off an inch at a time. There are literally hundreds of ways of making people "very uncomfortable" and not even a large fraction of them entail permanent damage. One should be as creative as possible, and again, err on the side of "playing nice" if in doubt.

I'm not so sure "permanent damage" is the right threshold to maintain. A whole lot of pain and suffering can be inflicted without leaving permanent marks. Sleep deprivation and other techniques designed to disorient an interrogation-subject is probably okay, and a case for humiliation can possibly be made. But electric shocks? Beatings? That is morally unjustifiable to me.

Iraq was pretty straight forward in my opinion

I disagree, but let's table that for the time being.

Libya, Iran and North Korea are VERY cooperative with respect to WMD's. That is not an coincidence.

Correlation is not causation. Our agressive stance against Iraq and Afghanistan certainly brought things to a head, but I think their decisions were based on more than simple fear of an American invasion. North Korea, in particular has little to fear on that score. They don't get along that well with China, but Beijing would not simply stand aside if we seized Pyonyang. This argument seems equivalent to claiming that Reagan single-handedly "won" the Cold War. The credit for that (and blame for some of the activities that went along with it) are shared between our post WWII presidents to a greater or lesser extent.

Anyway, this post is getting really long, and I really should get some work done today. Again, Don: thank you for such a civilized debate. We not entirely agree, but I have the utmost respect for you.

 

[Spectre]

We could experience a 100% decrease in rape by castrating every male

Not actually true. Rape is a crime of aggression, and arousal (or even a penis) is not required...but I understand your point.

The times I have been about ready to kill people almost always involved sleep dep. And it is permanently damaging, though not as obvious.

John

 

[brantoken]

as sad as it may be,

The petrolium resourse are dwindling with more and more people to use it.

As long as people starve and have nothing to loose. terrorosim between the haves and have nots will get worse. International terrorism is just getting started. some people blam islam, it's poverty people......

the world population is starting to strain the resource, we loose fisherys and
ariable land to polution everyday.

The world govenment hasn't been established as of yet, and that in itself may
cause more than one big war.

We are pissing resourses away on a war( yes a war, they are shooting) that can't be won and we loose freedom and rights every day.

And most importantly Human culture is not adapting to the new challenges, we still cling to the old things that weigh us down or won't help us.

The corporations are the new kings, they buy our politicials from both parties,
and use the influence to retain their power. While people allow themselves to be brainwashed by the resulting political diatribe and issues that have no meaning. ( gay marriage, why should anybody care? Mind your own business people, it's not a recruiting drive)

I gotta stop this It's too depressing.........

 

[Don Nelson]

Hi, Bran;

You wrote, "Sorry I still disagree, things could have been handled much better and I point to the first Bush as an example. He developed a coalition. His failing was not to finishing the job he started, by convincing the world that is was necessary."

Me: I'm not sure I follow this. You do of course realize that Bush 41 did not have authorization from the UN to do anything more than push Saddam out of Kuwait. You've criticized Bush 43 for not following the UN, yet to criticize Bush 41 because he followed the UN's lead. So, which is it - do we follow the desires of the UN or do we do what we think is in our best interest?

You: "The same could have been done before the war was started. There was no immeadiate threat from Iraq, and there were still time for many other options. The sense of threat was created by the Bush and Blair administration."

Me: You do not know that. You didn't know it then, you don't know it now. You can say from the safety of 20-20 hindsight that since Iraq didn't hand off a load of chemical weapons to a terrorist group who set them off on say, December 25th of 2001, that there was no imminent threat. But you cannot in fairness have said it at the time, and you cannot in fairness even say it now. Just because a crocodile swims past you while you're in the river and doesn't attack you, does not mean you weren't in danger.
The sense of threat was not created by Bush or Blair. The sense of threat was created by Saddam, and I don't understand how you can sit there and suggest that Saddam was not the problem. Every single national leader, and every single intelligence agency of every single nation, believed Saddam had WMD's. Please find me say, two articles written between 9/11 and when Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, that quotes any national intelligence agency from any country that said, "Iraq has no remaining WMD's and Iraq does not have an ongoing WMD research program."

Even the French and Germans and Russians, who fought us tooth and nail, did not offer up a single contrary statement of threat. They merely said, "Give the inspectors more time."

Again, it's easy for THEM to say "give Saddam more time", they didn't just have 3,000 people atomized and were not likely to either.

You: "We were mislead and that has created the mess that we are in presently."

Me: Indeed, we might have been. But do you know by whom? Not Bush and Blair, but by Saddam's generals and scientists who were misleading Saddam into thinking they had the weapons available. Or maybe by Saddam himself even. The facts are undeniable:

1. Saddam ACTED like he had weapons of mass destruction.

2. Our own pre-war radio intercepts picked up communication after communication between Iraqis telling them the locations and destinations of the weapons inspectors and directing specific people to "move" things and "hide" things. Sounds pretty suspicious to me.

3. During the opening stages of the war radio intercepts picked up orders fro the Iraqi high command authorizing chemical release. That was very specific and there was no doubt about that order.

4. Also during the opening stages of the war, Iraqi troops were seen in full chemical protective gear moving barrels of something into trucks and leaving the area. I SAW this, on CNN or FOX news, through the camera lens of the imbedded reporter on the scene. Now, please tell me why a bunch of Iraqi soldier are in chem warfare suits in hundred degree heat, loading barrels onto a truck?

5. Also during the war, the Euphrates River tested positive for trace elements of nerve and mustard gas.

Tell ya what: If some dirtbag walks up to you with his hand in his jacket pocket and it looks like he has a gun in there, and he is required to not have that gun, and he won't confirm it is a gun, but it sure looks like a gun, are you the guy at fault if you kick his butt and then discover he didn't really have a gun? And again, what if you assumed he didn't have a gun, and you were wrong?

You: "Would it have been a mess with a larger colation, yes it would have, but there would have been a lot fewer questions asked."

Me: Who cares about questions asked. Seriously. Do you live your life doing what you think is right, or do you live your life based on whether someone "asks questions"?

You: "By going in alone, it weaken the political postion of the US, so that we couldn't level Flauga. Think about it, do you think that in World War II
a city like flauga wouldn't have been crushed Immeadiately. Think things like that didn't happen ?"

Me: How is the US weakened politically? I hear this kind of general claptrap all the time, but not one person has so far been able to give me one single concrete example of how the US's "political position is weakened". Hey, if all translates into is that others don't like it, then I can live with that. Tough beans on them. Show me how a "weakened political position" actually harms US citizens, then I might be more inclined to worry about such a non-issue issue.

We didn't allow Falluja to remain standing because we were in a "weak political position." We left it standing precisely because we generally try not to kill innocents for the actions of a few. Were you not one of those guys telling us how the US needs to follow the high road? Flattening Falluja, and killing all those innocents to get a few hundred insurgents would have turned mainstream Iraqis against us.

I don't have a problem at all torturing and then executing a known dirtbag, but I do not like the idea of killing hundreds or thousands of innocent non-combatants because I'm pissed off that four Americans were brutally slain and mutilated while hundreds danced for joy around them. I'm all in favor of helicopter gunships strafing those dancing jerkoffs and killing every last one of them, because they have proven by their actions that THEY are in fact our enemies. But I would never support nor approve of a wholesale carpet bombing for example.

You: "Has Bush got sand, yeah, too much . I think you need a little more than just that to run a country. Any Idiot can start a war, very few can end one, with just slaugthering everyone in question. Haven't any of you guys read "The Art of War" by Sun Tszu? It is oldest treaties on stratigy, George Bush didn't."

Me: How do you know Bush hasn't read Sun Tzu? Also, no one in the Bush administration is proposing to win this war by slaughtering everyone. In fact, if you'd been paying attention you'd see that the approach all along as been as follows:

1. Topple Saddam. Done.
2. Rebuild infrastructure. Mostly done. And please note, Iraq's infrastructure was not a mess because we bombed it. It's a mess because Saddam built himself some SIXTY-EIGHT palaces with the Palaces for Oil Program, oops, I meant the Food for Oil Program that's been in place since 1991. Saddam didn't spend squat on infrastructure. Spent that money on palaces and re-arming his troops.
3. Turn over control of the country to the Iraqis. Happening even now.
4. Stay long enough for the new government to get its feet under it.
5. Then leave.

Now, some of you wanted this to happen in the space of an hour, including 18 minutes for commercials, but real life ain't like that. Bush knew from the beginning that this might take years and he's always been up front about that.

You: "Not to mention, look who's footing the Bill. Wonder why our elderly have to go to a foreign country for perscription drugs? Why we don't have any money for space exploration, the thing that gave us computers and the internet and untold economic wealth and Has the potential to give us much more."

Me: We are footing the bill because there is no one to foot it for us. That does not make it a bad or wrong thing. Who footed the bill for WWII? Just because wars are expensive, does not mean they should not be fought. You think it's unfair that the elderly have to pay high drug costs. I think it's unfair that Americans have to die because someone DIDN'T pay the cost of preventing them being killed by terrorists. Besides, you do of course realise that the Congress signed Bush's elderly prescription drug benefit program, right? Space exploration? I don't suppose you've read any polls on that topic lately have you? Most Americans think space exploration is waste of money. Convinve them, not Bush. Besides, you do of course realize that Bush recently signed another funding boost into NASA a few months back, right? Check it out.

You: "Every one complains about the UN being ineffective and it didn't jump to solve the problem, it is a young organization. Does it need reform ,why yes it does. It needs attention and it need the buy in of rich nations like the US to work. Please do not forget that in the early history of the United States( Yes remember UNITED STATES, a collection of independant states that come together for mutual benifit) , the federal govenment was very much a delicate and tenative thing. The UN is currently is a position very similar to the early United States."

Me: The UN is a YOUNG organization? Oh come on. It's over FIFTY years old! And most of its membership spends its time banging away at how evil the US and Israel are, despite the fact the US ponies up the hugest amount of money to run the thing. Also, please cite me TWO examples of anything the UN ever did that succeeded in any meaningful way without the US there to fund it and push it. I can cite you one, but I'll keep that one to myself and see how well you do your homework assignment to come up with two on your own. I can't come up with two. This is why I'm asking your to.

The UN is not, nor has even been in a position similar to the early United States. The UN is a debating society with little or no power, until and unless the US and those others who are willing to bleed for a higher cause, step forward to do the job. For the most part they are a collection of hand-wringing anti-American socialists and dictators. Don't you think it very ironic that Communist China and Syria are on their Human Rights Committee?

I see no good in the UN. Never have. And unless something changes, I doubt I will.

You: "I think there was even a huge dissagreement on how things should be done( states rights, I belive) and that cost us all a great deal (the nastiness in the 1860's). The point is that govenment is still developing, both on a local level , and an international level . If it doesn't we will be going backwards politically , socially and econimically ( a dark age)."

Me: Funny you should mention the US's Civil War. Five years of fighting, hundreds of thousands killed on both sides. And yet, you and others are annoyed that Bush hasn't gotten Iraq with its Ba'athists, Sunnies, Shi'ites, and Kurds all singing kum-by-ya after a year. Think about it, when you compare it to the US's history, Iraq is looking pretty tame really.


End part 1

 

[Don Nelson]

Begin part 2

You: "Mark my words, there will be a Global govenment in the future, the corporations( mostly bad ones), rogue states, internation gangsters, and terrorist will make it happen. Sooner is better. The real question is how many lives will it take, how much resources and who's going to be the winners and the losers."

Me: If there is a global government (won't ever happen by the way), you better hope it's one modeled on the US Constitution and free markets. You might not like what you get otherwise.

By the way, mark my words, I will fight any move toward a global government. Why? Because just about everything you put in the hands of government to do, with the exception of fire figting and defense, they do less efficiently, less effectively, and more expensively than if it's done by the private sector. The bigger government is, the less efficient, less effective and more expensive it gets. Government basically stinks, and the bigger it is, the worse it smells.

You: "Why can't the UN develope a profession army, with an officer corp (like we have here) Dedicated to stop ethnic cleansing , rougue states and international terrorism. Why can't everybody chip in?"

Me: Because the UN can't agree on anything except that they hate Israel and the US. Are YOU willing to see your tax money go to an organization that will field troops who are essentially hostile to your own country? (I'm assuming you're an American)

You: "I can hear you all scream now..... But think about it , if we don't support the UN that means another organization will have to take the role ( with authority to deal with rogues states and terrorist),"

Me: We already have an organization in that role - it's called the US and its allies.

You: "That is one world war at least. Can the United States and the UK do it alone, Well maybe, but that is a bunch of wars there for sure as no one wants to be invaded. What choice do we really have?"

Me: We (Americans) have one choice and one choice alone - we need to act in our best interest. The UN does NOT have the best interest of America at heart. So why would we, why should we, and how COULD we, support an organization that literally thinks WE are the root of all evil in the world. Screw them and the horses, camels, donkeys and ostriches they rode in on.

You: "I can also hear you scream, I don't want to be ruled by another country in anything,neither did South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennesse....etc , funny that seemed to work out didn't it?"

Me: There are a LOT of people who will argue that it has NOT worked out nearly so well. Just ask California what they think of getting back about 60-cents of services for every dollar of taxes they pay to the federal government. Ask Californians if they love sucking up SEVEN BILLION dollars in costs directly related to illegal aliens while not providing one dime in return to cover it, and while having the borders between the US and Mexico so wide open that literally thousands of illegals cross into California every week.

Nope - it has not worked out nearly as well you might think. More and more the federal government intrudes on things they should not be doing.

You: "Has it occured to anyone that if we had UN buy in, we could most possibly use tac nukes?"

Me: Are you serious? Good grief. First off, we could use tac nukes anyway if we damned well wanted to. WHAT exactly would the UN do to stop us? Huh? Would they try to invade America? Oh wait, they already are - through Mexico. Second, ya know, you REALLY need to do some serious thinking. How can you honestly believe that the same organization that tried to stonewall a conventional land force invasion would then sanction the use of nuclear weapons? Amazing (Don shakes head).

Besides, are you willing to kill say, oh pick a number, say, 10- or 20-thousand INNOCENT men, women and children, not to mention turning a major city into a radioactive rubble no one could live in or near for a decade or two, not to mention that the radioactive clouds will eventually drift over someone else, just to kill a few hundred insurgents?

Man, talk about alienating the rest of the world not to mention every single Iraqi who isn't already against us. Shees.

You: "I think that every one the nuclear treaties is on the security councel by happenstance. Does it not also reason that it is difficult to pick one country to target for terrorism when the law and its enforcement is coming from a Global agency?"

Me: It doesn't matter. There are plenty of terrorists to go around.

You: "Has it occured that to anyone that if the international community based chemical lazer in space, the threat of balistic missles and nuclear catrophe would be forever gone. No doing our selves is not the same, if you were russian would let the US have a antibalistic system? Please realize that we did land troops in the crimea..... yeap that's Russian soil."

Me: Forever gone? Not by a long shot. I am far less concerned about a ICBM entering US airspace than I am about a misplaced former Soviet tac nuke widing up in a shipping container in New York Harbor or Los Angeles Harbor. Do you think that Zambia is going to want to kick money in to a program like that, or say, Nepal?

So, when did we land troops in the Crimea? And what was our purpose there? Last I checked, I didn't see the Crimea as a US territory.

You: "We live in a global society, corporations have already accepted this fact and are moving on. The time for us to accept this and develope a governmental structure is well past due. We will all ( the entire globe and the US) be better off."

Me: No we won't. (shrug)

You: "The first Bush( he knew and even said so) gave the UN some teeth, starting us on a path to a gobal way to deal with international problems. The second Bush pulled them out and He has placed you and I higher on the terrorist target list in the process. We will all pay the price for his arrogance, both econimically and socially in the future."

Me: Did you notice what you just said? Please note that the only time the UN has any teeth is when the US supplies it. (LOL) You have made my case for me - the UN is basically a worthless debating society.

Also, let me tell you something, amigo, we ALREADY high on the terrorist target list BEFORE Bush 43 told the UN to go pound sand. And, do please recall that Bush 43 went to the UN a number of times BEFORE he went into Iraq. But to remind you about being a target: Achille Lauro, Beruit, World Trade Center, North Africa, the USS Cole, AND the World Trade Center again. There are maybe a half dozen other instances I can cite of terrorists killing Americans BEFORE Bush gave up on the UN. You cannot, in fairness make the claim you made.

You need to face a very important fact - the people who are our enemies, are our enemies not because of George Bush. They are our enemies because of our freedoms, because of our women, because of our lifestyles, because of our success and high standards of living,and our support of Israel. That is why they are our enemies.

You: "Have you forgotten that no one is attacking Sweden, or Switzerland?
Funny how they have a Higher standard of living isn't it ? Fact is
funding wars is not the way to get ahead these days, too much darn competition."

Me: No one is attacking Sweden or Switzerland because the US is a much more inviting target. Sweden and Switzerland didn't liberate Kuwait, did they? Sweden and Switzerland don't support Israel, do they? Sweden and Switzerland weren't guarding Saudi Arabia from Iraq, were they?

I also notice that neither Sweden and Switzerland helped stopped the ethnic cleansing against MUSLIMS, which the US and Britain did. I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

I also notice that Sweden and Switzerland haven't donated $15 BILLION to Africa to fight AIDS.

And, let me make this point too, it wasn't Sweden and Switzerland who have been attacked repeatedly over the last 20 years by Muslim extremists and Arab terrorists. Maybe Sweden and Switzerland can afford to enjoy the fruits of their economies because they have never been the targets of attack. Please look at the history of the middle east and terrorism, and go back say, 30 years. Please cite for me all the times the US has been invading and killing the "poor Muslims" versus the number of times the US has been attacked by them.

You: "Scream liberal all you want, It's not all bad, new ideas are a good thing, if conservatives were right all the time and we followed their path, we would be still living in caves ,chipping stone believing the world was flat, You would be a peasant with just enough to live on, we would still have kings with absolute power and there would be not a United States,The United State was founded on liberal ideas at that time and We supported slavery in this country."

Me: This statement has so many offensive ideas I don't even know where to start. I will address only one of them. Slavery was a practice that was protected by Democrats (liberal), and was abolished by Republicans (conservative). The Equal Rights Act of 1964 was pushed through by Republicans (conservative) and fought by Democrats (liberal), including Al Gore's own father.

The notion that "conservatives" are incapable of exploring new ideas is so anathema to the reality that I can't even begin to address it. So I won't (shrug).

You: "It take a balance, too far to the right is just as ugly as too far to the left. It must evole as we move forward or we are going backwards."

"I'm not a liberal in the classic sense, I just refuse to be programed by ANY
political party."

Me: I'd say it's too late (grin).

Don

 

[clearblue]

Arty Quote:
The only link to terrorism that I see in Iraq was Hussein's offer to provide $25,000 to the family of suicide bombers... This is a real "link" - but not to 911.

Here are two articles one from CNN the most anti-American,anti-Bush media outlet- short of Al-Jazerra
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/
Al Qaeda, Iraq partners in terror -- Powell

and another from a Pro-American outlet
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-preston100102.asp
Inside Al Qaeda’s Training Camps

All it took to find these two pieces was a simple google search using these words:"al qaeda training camp in Iraq"

Mike Kilo Niner opines:
I think the reason this Abu Ghraib scandal seems to have legs is that precisely wasn't our policy.

No wrong---the reason the "scandal" seems to have legs is precisely because it is a topic for the Anti's to keep center stage and rail and rant against this Republican Administration. Hollywood knows,Israel knows,the liberal media knows that the key to propaganda is to,at all costs, keep the spotlight. Psychologists learned long ago that it's nearly impossible to think about something you've never thought about-- before. The liberal agenda is to tell you what to think about and how to think -using only their premises.

I know this sounds ridiculously simple but the reason that the liberal propaganda machine is losing credibility is because it is a lie. The truth doesn't comport with the facts. Their rhetoric, if examined in the light of evidence and facts, will be found to contain only enough truth to sell it to those unable or unwilling to think and reason. This is exactly the technique that is being used to teach the Muslim children,who cannot yet think or reason, the hate spun Moslem tenets from the Koran.

The behavior by a miniscule group of people in Abu Ghraib, relative to the over 130,000 other good and honorable soldiers in Iraq is a non-issue --Yes! an insignificant twitch compared to the horrors imposed on the 4 contractor personnel,the Berg man and the 3000+ innocents in the New York Trade Centers and the Iraqi people.

BUT---for those who desperately need to show that the exception proves the rule and that all America must shoulder a terrible burden of guilt-- I say Bull manure --go peddle your snake oil in another venue!

I also know that passionate and spirited debate can be depressing.

And it is excruiatingly painful to open mind and insert facts,that are counter to established belief, to proceed to a conclusion.

It is so much easier to roll over and say,"Can't we all just get along."

Nope! we can't all just get along. For example, when a two bit thug(Rodney King), high on chemicals,endangering the public, running from the police, resisting arrest,can win a large civil law suit,get several excellent police officers fired,get a U.S.President to destroy those same police officers(in a civil suit)- even though they were acquitted of all criminal charges, and win a very large court settlement, and then continue on his rampage for years after,then the system is breaking down.

I do not expect the American public to know that the elements of an arrest are:

1-An Officer of the Law must either witness or have reliabe information that a crime has been committed.
2-The Officer must have authority to enforce the law(statutes) that makes the act a crime.
3-The Officer must have Jurisdiction in the area.
4-The Officer must identify himself to the violater that he is a law enforcer and state his intent to arrest.

5-The violater must SUBMIT to the custody of the Officer

If you'll notice the Officer must comply with 4 strict conditions and the criminal only one. Until the criminal submits, there is no arrest.

This might seem like beating a dead horse, but why isn't the American public better informed so their police and soldiers can receive the appreciation they deserve for doing a tough and often thankless job-

Maybe we could ask Al Gore and his compatriots who wanted to keep the Military absentee votes from being counted in the 2000 election--- that question.

Or maybe we could ask Bush 41 who prosecuted those fine California Officers, in order to cowtow for a few votes from a minority, aided by a liberal media,who knew they had a spotlight issue --- just like the Abu-Ghraib'ers,that question.

 

[arty]

The terrorists are scum, but I still am not convinced by Powell's 180 degree reversal of his position when he went to the U.N. The weeks before that, the State Dept. was claiming that there was no link between Iraq and the terrorists.

Bush has said that there was no evidence that Al Quaida was involved in 911.

I did look at the second link. The problem we have is that our governments, Republican and Democratic, have spent too much time helping people like Sadamm Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Rumsfeld supported the nut in Iraq and we gave stinger missles and money to Osama. Now we are dealing with years of mistakes!

I do not see CNN as anti Republican, and I also do not know that Bush represents all Republican values. CNN has many shows that seem super pro Bush ...

I also don't get the liberal media argument. The media tend to support the people in power. But - they are always hungry for a big story.

Personally, I have the highest regard for our soldiers. I do not share the same regard for some of our leadership. I have always thought that we should put guns in the hands of our Presidents and send them off to the front lines. If They really want us to fight, then they should share in the honor.

This might make them think twice about putting our best out there in the streets of Bagdad or ....Vietnam.