Terrorism

[LuigiMan]

And yet, I must agree with Erdawn as well. Iraq sorta popped up out of the open sky. Threw me off, I'll tell you that much.

[DELICIOUS POISON]

Oil industry experts could have told you Iraq would be next on the list

In fact, many of them did...

[Erdawn Il Deus]

A'ight. And another question. I hear a bunch've stuff about Michael Moore, being a bigmouthed antipolitical whatever.

Does that make everything he says groundless? His books do have... perturbing information. And I'm just curious as to whether or not they can be considered credible. =p

[El Barto]

I've seen 'Bowling for Columbine.' And while I found it very entertaining- and sometimes insightful- credible just doesn't come to mind.

[Juliet]

We shouldn't try to rid this world of one evil dictator just because there are other evil dictators in this world? That's complete bull. Out of one corner of your mouth you criticize our involvement in Iraq to begin with, and out of the other you suggest that we aren't involved enough in world affairs. Talk about hard to please...

Saying that its a minority of people abusing prisoners and its isolated is like saying "Pol Pot isn't so bad because he didn't kill as many people as Mao, Stalin, or Hitler."

No one is saying that the people who abused prisoners "weren't so bad." The point is, they don't fairly represent Americans in general, nor do they fairly represent Bush.

[ June 05, 2004, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Juliet ]

[Flamethrower Mario]

^No one's saying they do.

Anyway, we paid far too high a price to remove Hussein when we had more important things to deal with at the time.

[Koga]

I agree with the Standing Man and Lurch.

The war on Iraq was not a war on terror at all. No WMDs, no connection to Al Qaeda, no direct threat to the US.

[Juliet]

...yet.

[Super Shy Guy]

Too bad the US isn't the crusader in shining armor of justice that sadly many seem to think it is. It never gets involved unless it can benefit from it.

[Flamethrower Mario]

Originally posted by Juliet:
...yet.

What brilliant logic for war! Lets invade a country because we might find connections to terrorism some day!

[ June 09, 2004, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: The Standing Man ]

[El Barto]

Well, Saddam Hussein did seem like the kind of guy who'd have terrorist connections...

[Nick]

Reading Comprehension: Learn it, Use it, Love it.

Yet? Actually, we did find a link between Iraq and Terrorism. You see, after we took over, al Qaeda membership in Iraq EXPLODED because they don't want us in the country. Yes, WE BROUGHT IN MORE TERRORISM.

[Ditto]

Once more, students:

We didn't invade Iraq for oil, money, or balloons. It went like this. In 1992, after the first Iraqi engagement...

1. ...we passed a law saying Iraq had to dismantle all of it's weapons of mass destruction. Following this, the UN would send in inspectors who would be given unfettered access to Iraq's... everything. In the event they did not comply, the UN would commit troops to enforce it. (Note: The disarmament process that took place was shaky. Some weapons were unaccounted for).

2. Iraq didn't comply. Inspectors were watched by 'escorts,' phone-tapped, refused entry to some places and were stalled before going into others. The UN did not commit troops. It passed a resolution "deploring" Iraq's actions and passed another resolution with the same wording as before.

3-7. See 2.

8. Iraq eventually threw out all inspectors. We responded with some low-level bombing (I'd like to know if the UN approved of that. I can guess, though).

9. September 11th, 2001. The U.S. government began taking careful looks at rogue regimes around the world to look for possible threats.
One of, yes, several dozen blips on the rader screen was Iraq. The U.S. convinced the U.N. to resume inspections.

10, 12, 14, 16. See 1.

11, 13, 15, 17. See 2.

18. Taking into account that the Hussein regime was clearly not allowing inspectors to actually do their job unhindered, that any interviews with Iraqi scientists were watched by government officers, that refugees leaving the country provided reports of weapons testing taking place and terrorist training occurring in the North, and that the U.N. was clearly unwilling to back up it's own laws, the Bush Administration decided to assume that Hussein was doing the worst and began dealing with them directly, as opposed to via the UN.

19. President Bush issues an ultimatum to Hussein. Present all WMDs at once and destroy them in public, or the U.S. will invade. Hussein declares he is hiding no weapons.

20. The U.S. declares that war may be avoided if Hussein and his family will simply abdicate Iraq peacefully, within 48 hours. Hussein and much of the world declares such an action unrealistic.

21. The U.S. finally invades. Within a day, Hussein and his family escape, taking the time to rob a bank of several million dollars along the way.

22. The U.S., finally able to conduct uninhibited searches, finds no weapons, but does find a list of IOUs from the former Hussein regime to officials in France, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, and several other U.N. nations. Whispers spread that weapons could possibly have been secretly transported to another country, possibly Syria.

23. The U.S. takes the opportunity to attempt to establish a second Democratic nation in Iraq, but efforts are hindered due to the large numbers of radical Muslim-affiliated terrorists found within the borders. Americans at home are divided as to whether these terrorists were already there or whether they're choosing to flood into there for unknown reasons, but note they sure do seem upset about the fall of Iraq for some reason.

[Nick]

US doesn't equal the UN or international law. A country that shrugs off international law countless times has no right to enforce it. They put the cart before the horse (to use a disgusting cliche') with Iraq. Intel analysis was taken the wrong way at best by politicians (at worst: cooked books). Hell, look what the Bush admin did to Former Ambassador Joe Wilson (appointed by G HW Bush) when he repeatedly denounced US-Iraq policy and came out against the reports that they had sought Uranium in Africa: they leaked that his wife was a CIA operative into the press and blew her cover. Just that one instance should set off warning flares.

I'm sure when we do invade Syria and don't find Iraqi WMDs, we'll claim they went to Lebennon with them or something equally false.

Democracy cannot be forced on people.

Lets clarify that: Take a country that isn't homogenous and is made up of three ethnic groups: Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds that really doesn't have natural borders. They all dislike each other, and putting them into a democratic representative government is dangerous because the minority groups will fall victim through a concept called "Tyranny of the majority." Yeah, everyone has a say, but it doesn't mean a damn if 49% of the population wants to pass a certain law when the 51% ruling majority will simply vote against it. The more safeguards you put into place, the more unstable your Bringcivic structure becomes. Look at the disaster known as Lebennon. A country that was once the Switzerland of the Middle East in terms of banking and commerce turned into a warzone because of the various groups and the post-mandate power-sharing governments used.

Bringing it back, everything I've read suggests a pretty decent mix between homegrown and foreign terrorists. Certainly, you're going to see a flood of radicals with any action in that area, but not to the extent of what was seen by the Soviet Union in Afghanastan. However, the US has become increasingly unpopular with the Iraqi people...likely due to the perception that we aren't exactly imposing order and we aren't exactly leaving. Combine the fear of ending up as another colony/mandate with the recent abuse stories, and you have the perfect message for an insurgant recruiting drive. Every time an Iraqi citizen dies from US bullets, more people pick up against the US.

[Ditto McCloaker]

US doesn't equal the UN or international law. A country that shrugs off international law countless times has no right to enforce it. They put the cart before the horse (to use a disgusting cliche') with Iraq. Intel analysis was taken the wrong way at best by politicians (at worst: cooked books).

Dude... You believe the U.N. represents international law... even when it doesn't enforce those laws? Look, I believe in the rule of law as much as anybody. But if the law's not being enforced, you're pretty much on your own to defend yourself the best you can. This was something far more important than us not signing the (unfair) Kyoto Treaty. This was a guy who may or not have been a threat to the entire world, but wasn't letting us prove he wasn't. Given his past record, that's as good as marking him for dead.

Hell, look what the Bush admin did to Former Ambassador Joe Wilson (appointed by G HW Bush) when he repeatedly denounced US-Iraq policy and came out against the reports that they had sought Uranium in Africa: they leaked that his wife was a CIA operative into the press and blew her cover. Just that one instance should set off warning flares.

Ah, but there was no proof that was an act of the Bush Administration (which means that it's something Bush wanted done), yet you make the assumption it was. Yet you claim we had no right to act against Saddam Hussein because we didnt' have clear evidence against him. It's pretty obvious what you're doing; you're giving Saddam Hussein, a convicted murderer, the benefit of the doubt, over a conservative President of the United States. Do you realize that?

I mean, that almost makes it official: You're trusting the United States last over almost anyone else in the world.

I'm sure when we do invade Syria and don't find Iraqi WMDs, we'll claim they went to Lebennon with them or something equally false.

Not if we don't get some possible information it occurred. Personally, I don't think there were WMDs. But I think the Administration's actions were justified for the reasons given in my last post.

Democracy cannot be forced on people.

What forced? There are enough people there who want it. And, thankfully, the ones who don't are violent, and can therefore be removed without hurting our conscience.

Go back and read critics of the U.S. occupation of Japan, Germany and Italy post World War II.

Lets clarify that: Take a country that isn't homogenous and is made up of three ethnic groups: Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds that really doesn't have natural borders. They all dislike each other, and putting them into a democratic representative government is dangerous because the minority groups will fall victim through a concept called "Tyranny of the majority." Yeah, everyone has a say, but it doesn't mean a damn if 49% of the population wants to pass a certain law when the 51% ruling majority will simply vote against it. The more safeguards you put into place, the more unstable your Bringcivic structure becomes. Look at the disaster known as Lebennon. A country that was once the Switzerland of the Middle East in terms of banking and commerce turned into a warzone because of the various groups and the post-mandate power-sharing governments used.

People of different ethnic backgrounds can't live in harmony? Sure they can. You just have to remove the ones predisposed to violence.

We're a country with 50 States. We were pretty wild when we started with 13. They only have to start with about 3. True, it won't be easy. It'll be extremely difficult. But the alternative of letting it become a home to terrorists is not acceptable. And we're America. We've accomplished the impossible dozens of times. All it requires is courage, faith, and commitment.

However, the US has become increasingly unpopular with the Iraqi people...likely due to the perception that we aren't exactly imposing order and we aren't exactly leaving. Combine the fear of ending up as another colony/mandate with the recent abuse stories, and you have the perfect message for an insurgant recruiting drive. Every time an Iraqi citizen dies from US bullets, more people pick up against the US.

But none of that is true. What if we'd chickened out of the Revolutionary War because of the 'perception' that we were going to get our butts kicked there, too?

I suspect that a person like you living in those days would have been among those who say "Look, being a British colony is better than getting hanged, am I right?"

[Flamethrower Mario]

But, to give a progress report, the composition part is complete, I have a title and all that's really left is to plug in samples.

Actually (correct me if I'm mistaken), I think that the US was a part of the Kyoto protocol under Clinton - Bush simply backed out of it (kinda like how he backed out of the anti ballistic missles treaty, etc.).

[Nick]

Why aren't we enforcing human right codes and labor practices with China or any of the countries in the Indian subcontinent? We didn't go to war over Saddam's tyranny, we went to war because he possessed or was near possessing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons (which we haven't found) and for a possible al Qaeda link (which the 9/11 commission just issued a report that states the contrary).

Novak blew her cover based on a source he got from inside the Bush administration. This info was leaked to several other papers. If i go by your logic, the Nixon administration wasn't responsible for Watergate, Reagan wasn't responsible for Iran-Contra, and Kennedy wasn't responsible for the Bay of Pigs.

We went to war over WMDs and terrorism, both of which have been debunked. We didn't use "he's a bad man" as a reason. We went to war over mobile labs, launches in 20 minutes, North African Uranium, labs in palaces, stockpiles from the 80s, NOT torture of the Kurds (which we IGNORED after 1991 Gulf War).

Forced, as in, they have no control of their own destiny. If they wanted to democratically elect radical clerics to office, they should. Do you think we're going to allow that? Hell no. Enough of them want us out at all costs that its making it difficult for us. They assassinate a minister in the government frequently as of late. During the fallujah uprising, at least half of the police forces (conservative estimate) were shooting AGAINST US troops.

Are you kidding? Look at US History. 13 colonies where only white, male landowners had power expanded through buying territory from the French, slaughtering Natives, the entire south was based on SLAVERY until the 1860s, women didn't have rights until the late 19th/early 20th century, Blacks didn't have equal rights until the 60s, discrimination and racism are still present, religious divides, and hell, the original 13 had religious disputes (Catholics in Maryland, Puritans in NE, etc). It took us over 200 years to evolve to this point and work out our kinks, and you're expecting this area to manage this in a few years?! That's like Mao trying to industrialize in a decade instead of a century. IMO, we'd be better off making a Kurdish homeland and working with the rest of them.

You think they like us? HAHA. NOBODY in that region likes us.

We were part of the protocal, but we never signed the treaty and most actions to bring us in compliance with Kyoto was blocked by the Republican controlled Congress.

[Flamethrower Mario]

IMO, we'd be better off making a Kurdish homeland and working with the rest of them.

But wouldn't that kinda create a situation similar to Israel/Palastine?

[Ditto]

Why aren't we enforcing human right codes and labor practices with China or any of the countries in the Indian subcontinent?

Even if that were our duty, we don't have the resources to liberate the entire world, so we merely get by being home to more private organizations pushing for world-wide human rights than anywhere else in the world. Iraq wasn't about human rights either. It's just a bonus many of us think of fondly.

We didn't go to war over Saddam's tyranny, we went to war because he possessed or was near possessing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons (which we haven't found) and for a possible al Qaeda link (which the 9/11 commission just issued a report that states the contrary).

Bush was a bit irresponsible in saying what Saddam had, but, in a way, it was a sort of cruel justice for Saddam, for not letting us prove he didn't have them. Again. Justification was because Iraq wasn't letting us prove he had nothing, and he was too untrustworthy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Novak blew her cover based on a source he got from inside the Bush administration. This info was leaked to several other papers. If i go by your logic, the Nixon administration wasn't responsible for Watergate, Reagan wasn't responsible for Iran-Contra, and Kennedy wasn't responsible for the Bay of Pigs.

Um, I don't think Kennedy ever denied the Bay of Pigs attempt? Why would he, it was a noble try, if disastrous and ill-prepared. Reagan wasn't responsible for Iran-Contra. He was guilty of not paying enough attention to his underlings to recognize it. Nixon may or may not have been behind Watergate. We'll never be able to prove it one way or another.

By your logic, also, Clinton tried to murder several people, including Vince Foster.

We went to war over WMDs and terrorism, both of which have been debunked. We didn't use "he's a bad man" as a reason. We went to war over mobile labs, launches in 20 minutes, North African Uranium, labs in palaces, stockpiles from the 80s, NOT torture of the Kurds (which we IGNORED after 1991 Gulf War).

Who said this was about Kurds? And we didn't ignore it after 1991. We watched all too painfully. It wouldn't have happened if we hadn't listened to some whiny peaceniks saying our war was terrible, we should strive for peace, only our war is evil, Saddam's cruelty is okay, it's the way things are done over there... argh, you want to kill people like that... >_<

Forced, as in, they have no control of their own destiny. If they wanted to democratically elect radical clerics to office, they should.

Some children want to drink detergent. We should let them do that, too. You think we're going let people who don't know any better hand that region over to terrorists? God, I hope you're never in charge of foreign policy.

Enough of them want us out at all costs that its making it difficult for us.

And enough want us to fight for them to make it worthwhile.

They assassinate a minister in the government frequently as of late. During the fallujah uprising, at least half of the police forces (conservative estimate) were shooting AGAINST US troops.

Your view is that there is no distinction between the violent extremists and insurgents and the ordinary people. To you, they're all as good as our enemies? Is that it?

Are you kidding? Look at US History. 13 colonies where only white, male landowners had power expanded through buying territory from the French, slaughtering Natives, the entire south was based on SLAVERY until the 1860s, women didn't have rights until the late 19th/early 20th century, Blacks didn't have equal rights until the 60s, discrimination and racism are still present, religious divides, and hell, the original 13 had religious disputes (Catholics in Maryland, Puritans in NE, etc). It took us over 200 years to evolve to this point and work out our kinks, and you're expecting this area to manage this in a few years?! That's like Mao trying to industrialize in a decade instead of a century. IMO, we'd be better off making a Kurdish homeland and working with the rest of them.

We started with 13 barely-united colonies, filled with people of multiple nationalities and innumerable religious persuasions. Among them was racism, religious extremism, bigotry, slavery and hatred of women.

In 200 years time we've led the world in ending slavery, granting of women's rights, civil rights, racial tolerance, religious plurality, gained the forgiveness of the descendants of those we've abused, have successfully extended to them education and prosperity (when they take advantage of it), expanded our 13 states to 50, have saved the entire world on several occassions, lead the world in charity to poverty-stricken nations, and have become the world's single greatest economic and military superpower. We successfully reformed Germany, Japan, and Italy, caused the collapse of evil Soviet Communism...

And when we started, we were starting at just barely above the level of the bronze age. Not bad. Not bad at all.

You think they like us? HAHA. NOBODY in that region likes us.

Not surprising, considering the decades of one-sided propaganda.

We were part of the protocal, but we never signed the treaty and most actions to bring us in compliance with Kyoto was blocked by the Republican controlled Congress.

And a good thing, too. That thing required us to restrict our industry more than any other nation, while some had to do nothing. It would have been a HUGE disadvantage to us.

I'm an environmentalist, but I'm not throwing away our prosperity for it until things are a little more balanced.

And, yes. You want to know how badly people in that region hate the idea of a Kurdish state? It'd be like Palestine and Israel, only Israel would be completely surrounded and be about the size of the head of a pin. You want to talk about slaughter.

[ June 18, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Ditto, Sadly, Not a Boss In SSB:M ]

[AJ Middleton]

Originally posted by Ditto, Sadly, Not a Boss In SSB:M:
In 200 years time we've led the world in ending slavery, granting of women's rights, civil rights, racial tolerance, religious plurality, gained the forgiveness of the descendants of those we've abused...

Excuse me?! What history book are YOU reading? The US was behind everyone in ALL of those issues, and some would argue that we haven't even caught up yet.

Are we talking about the same country?