posted
Iraq did not completely comply with UN demands. One of the demands was to prove that the weapons that Iraq possessed had been destroyed. To date, there is no proof that they have been destroyed, that I know of. Where did these weapons go?
A kid brings a three bombs to school. Everyone sees that he has the bombs, he even blows up two people to show that he is 1337. The kid then hides out in the lunchroom, is caught by the police-- but there is no third bomb. He refuses to produce the bomb, demanding that the authorities believe he's doesn't have any more, even though EVERYONE in school saw that he had three.
What do you expect the authorities to do?
Do you think that John Kerry is going to disrupt current operations in a fragile economy and country simply for the sake of pluralism? Perhaps new contracts will go to new, international contractors under Kerry's administration, but you can bet that he's not going to take away from Halliburton's presence.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well considering his position on the issue, it appears to go like this. Very little of the money that was appropriated in the infamous 87 billion dollars has actually been spent, presumably because Halliburton is working at capacity in Iraq and obviously can't do everything at once. Also, Iraqis have seen no significant improvement in basic services like electricity. As far as I can tell, Kerry wants to bring in additional contractors from nations on the fence to give them an incentive to contribute their military support, and to speed the process of showing the Iraqi people we are serious about rebuilding.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Agree on a course of action - as opposed to agreeing on a course of action, and then having one individual authority ignore that agreement and go out on his own to kill that kid if he doesn't talk.
posted
A course of action was agreed on. From one point of view, the UN reneged on its obligations to secure Iraq militarily, after Iraq repeatedly broke the treaty made after the Gulf War.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No course of action agreed upon ever agreed to invasion.
The U.N. only has an obligation to do what is agreed upon as best. It did exactly that. It decided war would be unnecessary and counterproductive, and given all the destruction it has caused and the fact that there were no WMDs, I would say their judgment on that matter was fine.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I saw on a news program where, as much as some people don't like Haliburton, it was truly the only company that had the expertise and resources to do what they are doing over there.
posted
They didn't waffle. They understood the merits of innocent until proven guilty, and that some punishments were too extreme to undergo without following proper proceedures and ensuring that they are absolutely necessary first.
To call measured responses to complex situations waffling is just asking for foolish decision making, and thus disaster.
posted
I see the UN's (and the US') failure to act militariliy on Iraq's violation of the Gulf War treaty as a form of appeasement, or at worse, indulgence.
If WMD's had been found, would you be singing praises to Bush for making the right call, and denigrating the UN for their indecision and cowardice?
[ September 22, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The proof remains in the pudding, though. Until WMDs are found in Iraq, any claims that the U.N. was not following through on disarming Iraq simply contradict the evidence.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's only if the weapons inspectors goal ONLY including the discovery and disarmament of WMDs.
Their responsabilities also including finding documentation that the WMD's Saddaam had at the end of the gulf war had been destoryed.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you suggesting the U.N. has a duty to invade nations, overthrow governments, and kill thousands of innocents over incomplete documentation? Don't you think there's a possibility the world, collectively, might decide that is not worth it - that lighter sanctions might be more approriate?
Is the U.S. government waffling on it's duty to protect Americans when it doesn't execute businessmen who fail to have complete accounting practices? Do I have the right to decide to take it upon myself to execute them whenever I feel thet government isn't doing its job as quickly or as completely enough as I would want it?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Incomplete why? Why are the WMD's missing? Where did they go?
Were they sold to terrorists? Were they destroyed? If they were destroyed, please present evidence. If they were sold to terrorists, please provide credit card numbers. . .
We're not talking about Buxley forgetting to turn in March's sales numbers, Xap. These are weapons that take financing and skill. Weapons that have been used to wipe out cultures.
quote:lighter sanctions might be more approriate?
You do realize that Iraq had already been under heavy sanctions for 10+ years before the Iraqi invasion, correct? Sanctions rarely touch policy-makers. See Cuba and Iraq for examples.
quote:Is the U.S. government waffling on it's duty to protect Americans when it doesn't execute businessmen who fail to have complete accounting practices?
YES. I don't know about execution, but the corporate scandals hurt the economy and American confidence far more than 9/11. Shame on the government for not using the Great Big Paddle of Justice sooner on the Big Fat Behinds of corporate sleaze bags.
quote:Do I have the right to decide to take it upon myself to execute them whenever I feel thet government isn't doing its job as quickly or as completely enough as I would want it?
Xap, this argument is invalid. Your relationship to the government is not the same as the U.S. relationship to the U.N.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're not talking about Buxley forgetting to turn in March's sales numbers, Xap. These are weapons that take financing and skill.
So you DO think we should invade nations and kill thousands over missing paperwork then, assuming those papers concern things of importance?
It seems to me the appropriate thing to do is send in auditors - a.k.a. weapons inspectors - and then let them find out what the papers would have said. And accept their conclusions, rather than ignore their conclusions and invade anyway.
quote:You do realize that Iraq had already been under heavy sanctions for 10+ years before the Iraqi invasion, correct? Sanctions rarely touch policy-makers.
And yet those sanctions succeeded in eliminating the WMDs, did they not?
quote:YES. I don't know about execution, but the corporate scandals hurt the economy and American confidence far more than 9/11.
You "don't know about" execution? The U.N. didn't know about invasion of Iraq (favoring lesser punishments) and then you blamed them for doing nothing. Isn't by the same logic the U.S. doing nothing if they don't apply the harshest possible punishment to all conceivable crimes?
quote:Your relationship to the government is not the same as the U.S. relationship to the U.N.
Why not? The U.S. government makes rules for citizens to follow within our nation, based on our joint consent to be governed by them. The U.N. makes rules for nations to follow in the international arena, based on our joint consent to allow them to. Why would individual nations get to overrule the U.N. and do whatever they want while individual citizens do not get to overrule the U.S. government and do whatever they want? It seems to me that when you consent to a rule-making body and expect others to be bound by that body's decisions, you must also expect to be bound by those same decisions - whether you are a citizen, state, or nation.
posted
I think aliens took the WMD's. That or the genie from the lamp made them disappear.
But there still is the very, very real possibility that he did have WMD's and that they were buried, or smuggled through the fluid border of Syria.
We really don't know.
All we do know is that there have been no WMD's found (parephenalia is a different story) and that it's probable that there were none. It's also just as probable that he did have some (since he had used them in the past) and that we can't find them due to any number of reasons.
The facts are to me at least that no WMD's have been found thus far and it's probable that they may never be found.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So you DO think we should invade nations and kill thousands over missing paperwork then, assuming those papers concern things of importance?
I'll just say that it's not "missing paperwork". It's we threaten you with force for 10 years and you still don't cooperate but our commander in chief has no balls to do anything about it (to busy inventing new uses for cigars).
Someone comes to power who reacts when we are attacked, etc. etc.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you DO think we should invade nations and kill thousands over missing paperwork then, assuming those papers concern things of importance?
I believe that the United Nations showed its efficacy in International Hemming and Hawing with the way that it dealt with Iraq's treaty-breaking.
I believe that the majority of UN members thought Iraq had both the desire to use WMD and the capability to do so, and made a conscious decision to not do anything to change the status quo.
I believe that most UN members understood that sanctions would never prove effective in dealing with Sadaam's recalcitrance.
quote:It seems to me the appropriate thing to do is send in auditors - a.k.a. weapons inspectors - and then let them find out what the papers would have said. And accept their conclusions, rather than ignore their conclusions and invade anyway.
We tried. For years, we tried. We got a good count of the weapons back after the Gulf War, and then UN inspectors got tossed out. When they were let back in, all the weapons they'd documented had disappeared, and there was no trace of where they had gone. And no one in Sadaam's regime could provide any details as to where the weapons went off to.
quote:And yet those sanctions succeeded in eliminating the WMDs, did they not?
No, that's not the conclusion I reached at all.
Do you have evidence that Sadaam had the WMD destroyed because of the sanctions? Because if you do, Kofi Anan wants to talk to you.
quote: Isn't by the same logic the U.S. doing nothing if they don't apply the harshest possible punishment to all conceivable crimes?
There's a difference between hiding your accountant in Colorado, and hiding serin gas in Nevada, wouldn't you say?
quote: The U.N. makes rules for nations to follow in the international arena, based on our joint consent to allow them to.
But the UN does not have consent to make international law at all, because it lacks the confidence and trust of the member nations. It is ineffective, toothless, and fairly worthless. Much like the first Continental Congress. It could become great, and perhaps should become great-- but you're doing no one any favors by thinking that it is the be-all-end-all of international law right now.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that the majority of UN members thought Iraq had both the desire to use WMD and the capability to do so, and made a conscious decision to not do anything to change the status quo.
I believe that most UN members understood that sanctions would never prove effective in dealing with Sadaam's recalcitrance.
Is there any evidence for these beliefs, though?
I have evidence against them. For one thing, these two beliefs seem contradictory - why would UN members consciously want to not do anything against Iraq if they simultaneously thought the status quo would never prove effective? And for another thing, statements made repeatedly from UN members against the Iraq War directly contradict you claims - stating that (1)they wanted to change the status quo, and (2)they felt further sanctions would work. Now you are asking me to believe they were deliberately lying in those statements, and to instead believe their actual opinions are something that makes little sense - why?
quote:Do you have evidence that Sadaam had the WMD destroyed because of the sanctions?
Why else would he? For one thing, the U.S. WMD search team just recently concluded Saddam likely discontinued the weapons programs because of international pressure, and was waiting for the pressure to end before he looked into restarting them. I believe I linked to that in my recent Iraq War thread.
quote:There's a difference between hiding your accountant in Colorado, and hiding serin gas in Nevada, wouldn't you say?
Yes, but I also said there was a difference between having serin gas and not having the papers that prove you don't. You didn't accept that difference as critical, so why accept this one?
quote:But the UN does not have consent to make international law at all, because it lacks the confidence and trust of the member nations. It is ineffective, toothless, and fairly worthless.
If that were true, why are we still a member of it?
Heck, most Americans lack confidence in the U.S. government. That doesn't mean they can ignore laws and dispense justice themselves.
posted
This latest piece by Richard Wolffe sums up my feelings on Iraq pretty well:
quote:
In the U.S., the biggest question remains: when will American troops come home from Iraq? Speaking at the United Nations on Tuesday, Bush made it clear again that his goal was a permanent, stable democracy in a terrorist-free Iraq. “Today, I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq, and every enemy of liberty: We will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled,” he told the world’s leaders. Given the state of the insurgency in Iraq, and the number of coalition troops there, that’s going to be a very long-term deployment. The coalition’s track record in Afghanistan gives little ground to be optimistic about withdrawing troops any time soon. And the fact that Iraq has served as a recruitment zone for new terrorists suggests it will take decades to rid the country of violent groups.
In contrast, Kerry predicted a day earlier that if everything went according to his plans, U.S. troops could start to be withdrawn as early as next summer. Kerry even forecast that all the troops could “realistically” come home within four years, if all goes well in Iraq. That kind of prediction is as unrealistic as the idea that the United States is going to stay in Iraq until the nation is stable and democratic.
If both candidates are true to their commitment to Iraqi democracy, there’s no chance of troops coming home for a decade or more. In the meantime, the number of troops (American, international or Iraqi) will have to climb sharply, in line with Sen. John McCain’s long-standing call for more boots on the ground. Are the candidates willing to discuss that option, or are they going to talk vaguely about winning the war and the unthinkable prospect of failure? That’s the kind of detail that voters need before Nov. 2.
quote: All we do know is that there have been no WMD's found (parephenalia is a different story) and that it's probable that there were none. It's also just as probable that he did have some (since he had used them in the past) and that we can't find them due to any number of reasons.
The facts are to me at least that no WMD's have been found thus far and it's probable that they may never be found.
I'm not a mathematician, so I have to ask. Is it possible for two opposite things to be equally probable?
quote: I'll just say that it's not "missing paperwork". It's we threaten you with force for 10 years and you still don't cooperate but our commander in chief has no balls to do anything about it (to busy inventing new uses for cigars).
Someone comes to power who reacts when we are attacked, etc. etc.
And by etc., etc... you mean of course, "reacts by invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack, based on the suspicion that this country might hypothetically attack us at some point in the future with weapons that as it turn out are hypothetical as well."
[ September 22, 2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And by etc., etc... you mean of course, "reacts by invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack, based on the suspicion that this country might hypothetically attack us at some point in the future with weapons that as it turn out are hypothetical as well."
Actually that suspicion might be PART of the reason.
I'm more of the Democratic Foothold towards long term democratization of the Middle East. The establishing of a VIABLE POWERFUL democracy which has never existed in that part of the world and which every attempt at diplomacy since the British left has failed miserably.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weren't you strongly declaring earlier in this thread that the sole reason for the war in Iraq was humanitarian in narure? Where did this viable democracy come from. Never mind the fact that the only kind of democracy the U.S. has any success setting up is the puppet variety. If that's your justification for the war in Iraq, fine. But don't tie it to the statement, "we were attacked." Iraq did not attack us. It had neither the means, nor the intention of attacking us. The war in Iraq is NOT the war on terror / terrorists. If anything, it hinders the war on terror.
Edit: I apologize for misrepresenting your earlier statement. You said that the "main" reason for the war in Iraq was humanitarian in nature.
[ September 22, 2004, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Never mind the fact that the only kind of democracy the U.S. has any success setting up is the puppet variety.
You know, this is true...and interesting. I wonder why this is so?
Is it just the nature of trying to establish a government for someone else--you're always trying to make sure the country doesn't bite the hand that fed it? Or is it something about us? Or is it something about the kind of country that doesn't already have democracy itself, that somehow it's not a suitable match?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Weren't you strongly declaring earlier in this thread that the sole reason for the war in Iraq was humanitarian in narure? Where did this viable democracy come from. Never mind the fact that the only kind of democracy the U.S. has any success setting up is the puppet variety. If that's your justification for the war in Iraq, fine. But don't tie it to the statement, "we were attacked." Iraq did not attack us. It had neither the means, nor the intention of attacking us. The war in Iraq is NOT the war on terror / terrorists. If anything, it hinders the war on terror.
I never claimed anything Humanitarian about it unless you are saying that bringing Democracy to the Iraqi people, supporting it, and helping it thrive is "Humanitarian". I didn't use that verbige although it could be assumed that that is "humane" (although that is subjective depending on the person). The War in Iraq is one step in Establishing Democracy in a region of the world where ALL diplomatic efforts have failed.
Other than ISRAEL (is that a "puppet" democracy?) there isn't anything near a democracy.
As to your puppet quip. It's factually wrong. Japan, Phillipines, Germany and South Korea (and MORE) are all democratic countries and their current governments were all founded by the United States.
quote: But don't tie it to the statement, "we were attacked."
I'm not tying to attacks to Iraq. I'm tying the attacks to the beginning of the war on terror of which Iraq is a fundamental step of.
9/11 brought the fight to OUR SOIL over the Military Islamization of the world.
The most radical and harmful branch of Islamic Fundamentalism is Wahabbism (which was the foundation for the Taliban Government and of which tenets can be found in Shiite Iran as well). Think of the KKK add more violence, more radicalism, and the teaching that the spread of your doctrine by ANY and ALL means available is an absolute necessity to please God.
I'm getting off topic so I'll bring it back. If you have more questions about this then please ask.
9/11 (and every other Islamic Terrorist attack in the world) brought to the forefront the need for intervention. ALL diplomatic attempts at change in that part of the country have failed. EVERY ONE. In fact the only successful democracy in the Middle East is a "puppet" Israel.
But WHO are you going to take action against? Iran? No there were pending UN resolutions backed up by Military threats against Iran. Saudi Arabia? No country in their right mind would invade Saudi Arabia because EVERY Muslim on the planet would retalliate. And I mean ALL 1 Billion of them. All of the other smaller Arabian Peninsula Countries were already cooperating with the US. You can't invade ANY country around Israel because Israel has a history of Past Aggression that if the US acts on is Immediately viewed as acting on behalf of Israel.
The only country you can take action against is Iraq. (or you can continue to do the diplomatic alley and continue failing). From an International standpoint Iraq is the perfect candidate because they are the only country on EVERYONE's wrong side of the fence. They have a leader that the whole world wants to see gone, AND the Majority of their own country! Plus they already have a government that is LESS Islamic than any other, so the People aren't going from Shariah to having a voice and freedoms.
If you are going to go in and Militarily remove a government and install a democracy...
Which country in Arabia do you do that to?
The Middle East has been a Festering Cancer which we really didn't have to worry about too much.
But now it's spreading and affecting EVERYONE.
Containment gets you 9/11, Bali, Spain Trains, Phillipine Hostages, Thai Terrorist, Indonesian Civil War, Taliban, Black September, John Mohammed, etc. etc. etc.
You can clip the branches of the tree, but they'll keep comming back unless you root it out.
The fundamentalist are willing to do ANYTHING (and I mean anything) to ensure that Islam is the Law of the World and it's governments. That your children are taught it in your schools. That your women are at least Hijabed and even better Burka'ed, and that Homosexuals are stoned or have walls knocked over on them. And that Alcohol is completely made illegal.
Once their indoctrinated with that, how are you going to change it?
You have to not allow that to be taught and accepted as the law.
That's what the current war is about.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
If we must build a stable democratic government in the Mid East (like Turkey for example), why don't we start--and finish--with Afghanistan. After all, they did harbor the people who fought against us.
The answer--we did take action against Afghanistan. It was easy and the victory cheap. However, building that democracy there was not easy and far from cheap. Instead of doing the work to build a thriving democracy where even the Soviet Union failed, we invade Iraq.
Iraq, who under Sadaam Hussein, attacked the same Shiite fanatics you claim we are at war with now.
President Bush's answer to the War on Terrorism is to treat it like his father's war--big armies, big tanks, big victories.
But terrorists are like ants. They nip at you and cause pain and occasionally poison your system. You can stomp on them all day with your boots, but you wind up killing a lot of other things besides the ants, and the ants keep on coming.
The only way to kill the ants, to defeat the terrorists, is to poison them. Poison their food supply, their money and thier recruiting base.
Unfortunately that is not as impressive looking or sounding or emotionally appealing as bombing a city.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What it seems you are sayings is that the US has the right, created by its arsenal, to overthrow a government it believes is bad, in order to defend itself, even if the government we are overthrowing is not part of what we are defending ourselves against.
The ouster of Hussein is supposed to be a lesson to the Radical Muslim world? What lesson? That Democracy can work? The lesson I am hearing them reach is that the US is an agressive bully that needs to be stopped before it forces everyone to do be like them.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Because us NOT taking action isn't going to stop them from taking action against us anyways. As the beheadings have shown. It doesn't matter if you are an unarmed civillian, they'll cut off your head anyways.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, could that be a response to the US attacking them in the first place? And, also not doing enough to protect those civilians. They shouldn't even BE in Iraq until Iraq is really stable!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we must build a stable democratic government in the Mid East (like Turkey for example), why don't we start--and finish--with Afghanistan. After all, they did harbor the people who fought against us.
Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. Also Afghanistan is not the ROOT of Wahabbism, it's the RESULT of Wahabbism. The Taliban were ARAB fighters and Students and their Afghan converts.
Again, you are talking about a BRANCH, not the ROOT.
It's akin to suggesting making Chechnya a democracy will turn the Middle East into a democracy.
quote:The answer--we did take action against Afghanistan. It was easy and the victory cheap. However, building that democracy there was not easy and far from cheap. Instead of doing the work to build a thriving democracy where even the Soviet Union failed, we invade Iraq.
We are doing both I assure you. Talk to soldiers who are serving in Afghanistan or who have returned. My Brother-in-Law just returned after serving a year there. The work towards a democracy is progressing.
quote:Iraq, who under Sadaam Hussein, attacked the same Shiite fanatics you claim we are at war with now.
No we are at war with the Wahabbist Ideal. Shiite Islam is a different sect entirely, although having the same basis of faith, they have alot of the same ideals.
And Sadaam attacked Iran because our DIPLOMATIC solution in Iran FAILED.
quote:President Bush's answer to the War on Terrorism is to treat it like his father's war--big armies, big tanks, big victories.
No President Bush Sr's position was CONTAINMENT. So was President Clinton's. That's why Sadaam was still in Power. Well Containment got us 9/11.
quote:But terrorists are like ants. They nip at you and cause pain and occasionally poison your system. You can stomp on them all day with your boots, but you wind up killing a lot of other things besides the ants, and the ants keep on coming.
Not if you kill the queen (Buggers anyone?). An idiot tries to "contain" the ants and play nice with them thinking they won't come into your house if you leave them alone. Doesn't happen. They'll come into your house regardless.
A smart person kills the source of the ants.
quote:The only way to kill the ants, to defeat the terrorists, is to poison them. Poison their food supply, their money and thier recruiting base.
Exactly. In this case it's the mentallity. It's the schools. It's their media, it's the blanket of hatred that surrounds them from their birth that you have to strip away.
quote:Unfortunately that is not as impressive looking or sounding or emotionally appealing as bombing a city.
Or how about BUILDING THOUSANDS of schools, which is what is happening in Iraq as a FACT. Schools where although Islam is still taught to be supreme, you are not going to have children being taught that Jews are Dogs whom God created out of Pigs and Apes. Or that women are property. Or that the testimony of one woman is only worth 1/4 of a mans, etc.
We are in Iraq to create a generation of Muslims who realize that Islam is NOT the ONLY WAY. A generation which is SENSITIVE to secular ideals.
If you want to continue being diplomatic with the Ants, then that's fine.
But containment with Ants only "looks" effective.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: What it seems you are sayings is that the US has the right, created by its arsenal, to overthrow a government it believes is bad, in order to defend itself, even if the government we are overthrowing is not part of what we are defending ourselves against.
Using the "Ant" analogy, we are placing the poison to kill the queen as close as we can to the source. We can't place it IN the source because every ant in the anthill (1 billion muslim world) would attack us for it.
We're placing the poison in the only country that we feasibly could over there.
Containment has given us a failed Diplomatic Solution in Iran and an Iran that now has Nukes.
You think it's hard to "Not deal with terrorists" when their beheading one or two Americans.
Give him a nuke and Manhattan Island and tell me we don't "Deal with Terrorists".
You're dealing with an enemy who doesn't give a flying "f" if you are armed or not. Whether you are building Schools or not. Whether you are a clothes washer or not. Whether you are an Iraqi Policeman or not.
If you aren't for the Complete Islamization of the world according to the Wahabbist belief.
You're his enemy and your head will roll.
The reason WHY he is that way is because he was TAUGHT to be that way.
That's the reason we are building schools so freakin' fast.
We want the children in Iraq to grow up learning that the people chopping off heads aren't Hero's but Murderers. We want the children who look at the Mural of the twin towers being struck in Iraq (if it exists anymore) to look at it with HORROR instead of PRIDE.
You do that through education and government.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Terrorism has no queen. There is no source. Wahabbism has no one leader, but thousands of cells of followers, each sharing an idea. To kill the "Queen Bee" of this ideal you need to kill the ideal. A Western invasion of an Arab country feeds that ideal, not kills it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct, Dan. That is why I think that the US should pull out when the infrastructure and police are built back up to 'reasonable' levels. I don't believe the the situation will ever stabilize in Iraq as long as the various Islamicists and Baathists, their ideal of an Islamic, or fascist, state, is left alive in Iraq.
Of course, no one knows how many of these people there are, really. Are there enough of them to make enough of a critical mass such that those who want democracy won't be able to fend them off? In the end, it's beside the point to us. We can't kill them all if they are militant, and we can't erase their ideology if they take the sensible course and just vote their views into power.
At some point, the people of Iraq have to take responsibility for their country. While we can hope they will choose democracy peacefully, we can't make that happen, no matter how long we stay, imho.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's where EDUCATION comes in. As the US proves. If you teach Religion in the Schools, then the people turn out religious. Even more so if all other opinions are SILENCED/OUTLAWED.
You remove RELIGION from the Schools so that the only place they get it is at Home or Church, you get a society that moves MORE and MORE away from Religion.
I would be willing to wager that alot of people on this forum were raised Religious or Quasi religious, but that exposure to NON-Religious opinions AND lifestyles allowed them to consider for themselves and they either no longer Practice or they no longer believe in it.
You have to give them an open window to see the world outside. And I guarantee they aren't getting it through Al Jazeera. It's like CBN.
So, How SHOULD the mentallity be changed over there if people who oppose the current plan, had their way.
Keep in mind that every diplomatic solution in the area has failed in the past. Every one.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because us NOT taking action isn't going to stop them from taking action against us anyways. As the beheadings have shown. It doesn't matter if you are an unarmed civillian, they'll cut off your head anyways.
And exactly HOW many of unarmed civilians were beheaded BEFORE we invaded Iraq?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
