posted
But it's a very important thing to question motives. I'm making no moral comparisons here (though undoubtedly some people have made a similar comparison), when a crime-figure sponsors an orphanage or a playground or something, I don't just say, "Well the world's a better place."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, regardless of whether or not Bush actually received more Florida votes than Gore (and I doubt that any one source can really give you a definitive answer to that question because of the insane circumstances that surrounded FL '04) President Bush was selected by the Supreme Court to be the President of the United States, so my verbiage is correct.
Only if you would be willing to say the same thing about Gore had he prevailed in the court cases he initiated to seek repeated recounts until he got the result he wanted. Especially when you consider the election board attempted to change the rules for how votes were counted AFTER the election.
The Supreme Court did not select Bush. They ruled against blatant post-election attempts to change the results.
quote: The issue of whether Bush lied is a different issue from whether the war was justified, and should not be minimized. But it does not change the basic equation that the world is better for Sadaam not being in power any more.
Then lets just make sure we don't use the fact that the "war was necessary" to prove that Bush was great or right.
I'm just sayin'.
I think the war was probably necessary, but I still think the way that the Bush administration handled it was crappy.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
The question of whether the world is safer without Saddam is nearly irrelevant to my objections to Iraq 2.0. My problem is that I would have preferred an Iraq 1.5 (whatever that means), or at least have 2.0 turn out to have been about what we said it was about, thereby maintaining our credibility among the peoples of the world and my faith in leadership here at home.
Rakeesh:
Fair enough to point out that "selected" usually means "didn't win". For future reference I don't make any assertions about who won how many votes in Florida '00. And I generally don't believe anyone who does. The little amount of research I've done on the debacle leads me to believe that I don't have any reason to trust anyone about any recounts. The Supreme Court decision itself is enough for me to find the circumstances of his (election, if you prefer) objectionable enough to warrant the occasional selection verbiage.
posted
The notion that Iraq is better off without Saddam is predicated on the notion that it will now have a democratic government, and not just another tyrannical government or just plain anarachy for years and years. At the moment, with terrorism and tribal conflict, this is very much in question.
The notion that the world is better off is predicated on the idea that Saddam is more of a threat than the support for terrorism that our preemptive strike will create. Given that we could fairly easily contain Saddam, and that he had no WMDs to hand out, and that we are having a much more difficult time stopping terrorism, this assumption is very much in question too.
We must also consider the possibility that by taking out Saddam, we simply handed extremism another country to take over.
posted
Here is something I have heard little discussion on in the news, president, and elsewhere. It is my personal justification.
Cry all you want "No blood for oil," but if oil is the blood of democracy, and an enemy of America has one of the richest supplies of oil, I think we should enter a new age of colonialism.
Having a "sweaty toothed crazy mad man" in charge of the Iraqi oil is downright scary to me. Us striking also re-asserts our strength and sends a message that we "can and will topple you."
I think the ripple effects of this war will be positive. I think the majority of the Iraqis are thankful. I think now that the schools will have a western influence, then the children will not grow up with blind hatred that dances on corpses.
Granted, there are other oil rich countries that we could attack, but Saddam gave us a precedent. I think our actions are ringing all the way to North Korea in our favor.
We just better win and not pull out and leave the freedom loving people alone to be rounded up-- like we did in Iraq 1.0.
quote:Us striking also re-asserts our strength and sends a message that we "can and will topple you."
That was the terrorist plan in 9/11 too.
The problem is that we think they will interpret it as "they can hurt us, so we should appease them," when in reality they will interpret it as "they can hurt us, so we must destroy them before they do." This is how we interpretted 9/11, and I see no reason to think that's not how other Arabic nations will interpret Iraq.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Back in Middle School, I had a math teacher who I really respected, say that we have already invented cars that get like 300 miles/gallon, but the government made it illegal because of what it would do to the world economy.
I heard that again in college from a professor who was smart, but I had less respect for.
Is this hick-town anti big government hype, or has anyone else heard about that?
Since oil is the best resource the Middle East has, and we are so dependent on oil, I think the solution to the Middle East is to introduce a world that needs MUCH LESS oil and let their economy starve unless they get better at production.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The problem is that we think they will interpret it as "they can hurt us, so we should appease them," when in reality they will interpret it as "they can hurt us, so we must destroy them before they do." This is how we interpretted 9/11, and I see no reason to think that's not how other Arabic nations will interpret Iraq."
There are a few difference betwwen the events of 9/11 and the Iraqi invasion that makes this point invalid. First, 9/11 did little to our country as compared to the changes we have initiated in Iraq and Afghanistan (sp?). They sucker punched us, so we kicked the crap of them to show them we were not afraid to do so. This is the best way to handle a bully on the playground and these actions send completely different messages.
Second, they are not able to destroy us. I don't mean to sound cocky but it would take alot more than Al-queda and Iraq put together to actually take us out. And by us, I mean more than the US, I mean free democracies around the world. What they refer to as the incideuos west. They can hurt us by targeting our civilian populations, but militarily speaking there just is no way.
Third, we are not out to destroy them in the classical sense. We are there to remove certain violent aspects of their society. We do not want to change their religion or society except in that we wish to remove the aspects that are dangerous to us. And incidentally these are the same aspects that are dangerous to their own civilian populations. We want to destroy their terroist networks and infrastructure, not their people. This is a clearly stated goal and will be made more so when we eventually withdrawl from Iraq.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The notion that the world is better off is predicated on the idea that Saddam is more of a threat than the support for terrorism that our preemptive strike will create. Given that we could fairly easily contain Saddam, and that he had no WMDs to hand out, and that we are having a much more difficult time stopping terrorism, this assumption is very much in question too.
That would be a very good argument for why we should focus on terrorism instead of unrelated military dicatorships. Except Saddam did support terrorism, and was thus a very important part of the war against terror.
Of course terrorism will increase in the short run after we start attacking terrorists. But in the long run, after Ba'athists in Syria and Iraq and radical mullahs in Iran have lost power, Islamic terrorism will stop being a threat on the scale that it was beforehand.
quote: We must also consider the possibility that by taking out Saddam, we simply handed extremism another country to take over.
If we do our job right creating a liberal democracy in Iraq, hopefully that won't happen.
I don't agree with the way you're constructing and/or overstressing connections between terrorism and Iraq. Going by your logic, I can easily construct just as many connections, or plenty more, between terrorism and the United States.
To me, the war on terrorism and the Iraq war are two completely different things. The current endless repetition of using the two in the same sentence is a great example of brainwashing; effective too, as many people have fallen into this trap.
The war on terror is one of the hardest wars ever fought. It is quite likely that it can never be "won". How can you choose to ignore the many, many expert voices out there who say that the war on terror was considerably weakened by the Iraq war?
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think I need to clarify my position. I think it’s not really terrorism that we’re currently fighting against. Terrorism is only the method that our enemies are using to achieve their goals, and it’s what the terrorists are trying to achieve that I’m so opposed to: a medieval state where the Koran is the only law and it’s a capitol offense to teach a girl to read.
For me, Saddam’s regime was just as odious as the new world order that Al Queda is trying to create, and must be combated (not necessarily militarily) just as resolutely. This is the reason that I don’t condemn the Jewish terrorists in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s as harshly as I do the Arab terrorists operating in Israel today. The Jews used terrorism as a means to create a liberal, democratic state where people of all races and religions are free to vote, run for office, and practice their religion freely. Conversely, the primary goal of groups like Hamas is to destroy Israel and replace it with a state in which it would be a crime not to be Muslim.
All that aside, Saddam really does have a very sordid history of supporting Islamist terrorism. He’s been giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for years as well as operating state-run training camps for the PLO. As much as I resent being misled by the Bush administration, I truly believe that replacing Saddam’s government with a liberal, free Iraq will have positive results for the region, the United States, and the world as a whole.
And as for your claim that the war in Iraq can never be won, I would cite the examples of Japan, Germany, El Salvador, Guatemala, and the other states in which America, after much battle and hardship, has been able to build real constitutions and democracies. It can be done; it’s been done before. So why should we doubt our ability to grant such a boon to a country that clearly needs it so dearly?
posted
Hey, sorry that the welcome wasn't friendlier! I was in a big rush. Still am, so just a quick clarification on my part:
I was saying that I think the "war on terror" is extremely hard to win (not necessarily the Iraq war; and again, to me these two are very different.) Just look at the long history of terror organizations like the IRA or ETA. Has any "war" against such groups ever really been successful? What I'm dreading most is the--hopefully remote--possibility of ALL those guys eventually coming together. Imagine a worldwide net of sleeper cells that's hitting at random with an ever increasing level of technological sophistication... The "war on terror" is an utterly difficult, hugely ambitious operation. It will take much more effort worldwide, not only of the US.
What's happening in Iraq (by the way, as far as I know the Hussein regime wasn't all that devoted to the Koran) is not only depriving the "war on terror" of badly needed resources, in my view it's actually strengthening the enemy in this "war on terror".
quote: Back in Middle School, I had a math teacher who I really respected, say that we have already invented cars that get like 300 miles/gallon, but the government made it illegal because of what it would do to the world economy.
I heard that again in college from a professor who was smart, but I had less respect for.
Is this hick-town anti big government hype, or has anyone else heard about that?
posted
Nevermind the questions. I think the views and exchanges in this thread really deserve some reflection.
The wrinkly folds of even the brightest cerebrum can't warm some kinds of black-hearted callous rationalizing.
Posts: 3061 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
fallow, despite 50+ years of claims to the contrary, the reason why there are no cars that get 200 miles to the gallon is that they never existed. Not that some evil conspiracy of car-makers has suppressed them, or to prevent a collapse of the economy, or any other supposed reason.
quote: As sometimes happens in the world of urban legends, desire for something to be true transforms a rumor into certainty that this very thing is fact. Over the years, our legend about a 200 mpg car has bobbed to the surface in community after community, been debunked in numerous respected publications, and bobbed right back up in the wake of those debunkings. The need to believe in this wondrous technology and the evil car manufacturers who are deliberately withholding it from the market appears too strong to combat.
A bit of rational thought should be all that's needed to lay this legend to rest. Why would the car manufacturers at all care about keeping such a technological advance away from consumers? Unlike the petroleum companies, they've no vested interest in how much fuel a car uses. An automaker's self interest is best served by getting the newest irresistible technology to the consumer before his competitors do. If any one of them possessed the secret of the 200 mpg car, he'd have rushed it into production, hoping to beat his competitors to the punch.
Those who are tempted to believe the Evil Government is responsible for keeping this miracle out of our hands should reflect for a moment on the current state of world politics. The government of the United States would like nothing better than to throw off the yoke of dependence upon foreign oil. A miraculous carburetor would grant that freedom, allowing Americans to continue to enjoy current levels of use without the need to go hat in hand to OPEC or even those dastardly Canadians. The domestic supply would be more than enough.
posted
The person who can produce a 200+ MPG car will make more money off it than the oil companies will be able to bribe him with. Think of the potential savings not just to average drivers but to other business as well (long haul truckers, for example). Especially when you consider that at that efficiency, it might make generators cheaper than power off the grid (not sure - I'd have to run a lot of numbers I don't want to).
posted
Wars against terrorist groups have definitely been won before. Magsaysay did it against the Huks in the Phillipines and the British did it against the Mai Mai in Kenya, to name a few examples. It's definitely hard, but I think that the United States has the resources to effectively win the war against Islamist terrorism. The question, like it was in Vietnam, is whether we have the willpower to see it through.
Although Saddam did support terrorism, it's true that his government was not a theocracy and was definitely not all that devoted to the Koran. But I think that replacing a dictatorship with a Western liberal democracy will be a great help in that war against Islamism. The new Iraqi state is a message to countries like Syria and Iran that says "yes, it's possible to be a devout Muslim and still embrace religious freedom and democracy. And what's more, if you do, your quality of life is going to be a whole heck of a lot better than it is under the mullahs and Assads." From what I've read, this is already starting to happen. Kurdish anti-Ba'ath protests have kicked up a few notches in Syria over the last few months in response to the liberation of the Kurds across the border in Syria.
When the Arab street sees a free, prosperous country right next door, how long do you think it will take before they start wondering why their countries don't look like that? How long do you think it will take before they start realizing that if the Iraqis can do it, they can too?
Fallow, what that has been said here makes you want to vomit? What do you disagree with?
I disagree that the war in Iraq is an attack on Terrorism. That is unless you include states that terrorize their own people.
The donations Hussein made to PLO families have been rumored, but from everything I've seen, been very limited. Many Saudi Princes, Emir's and other leaders gave, and give more. There was never any PLO training camps in Iraq. There was one camp in Norther Iraq that did terrorist training, but this was in an area on the Iranian border, patroled by the US No-Fly Zone. Hussein had no way of either helping or hindering them.
Hussein did run a Secular state. He feared and imprisoned any clerical challengers since he did not run a Muslim government. Add that to his attacks and illegalization on anything Shiite' and you will see that he was Osama's --a strict Shia Muslim-- enemy.
There is a song that was popular on country stations shortly after 9/11. One line proudly states, "I don't know the difference between Iraq and Iran." I do not want the world to think that all Americans, especially those in our government feel the same.
Great amounts of resources went into toppling the dictator Hussein and removing this evil, repressive, cruel government. That is a good thing.
I am all far doing that.
But when the President of the US, or anyone else, says we did this as part of our war on terrorism, I cringe. Either they are lieing to us, or to themselves, or just repeating what others have said without knowing what is going on.
That is fine if you do that.
It is scary when anyone in the top levels of our government does that.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Back in Middle School, I had a math teacher who I really respected, say that we have already invented cars that get like 300 miles/gallon, but the government made it illegal because of what it would do to the world economy.
Didn't this happen in an episode of The Lone Gunmen?
[ April 02, 2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
I'm still befuddled. I didn't get your post in the context of the other posts I was reading. I'm sure I missed something. Apologies for asking again as I'm probably being a dunderhead.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
