|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 10:28:53 GMT -5
Bertine -- I have more that I want to post, but for some reason, it keeps telling me that my post is more than 10,000 characters (it's not, so I don't know what's going on). Guess I'll have to try again later . . .?
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 13, 2004 10:36:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 13, 2004 10:39:31 GMT -5
I DO NOT HATE THE US ! No name in her passion for Bush and in order to excuse all the Americans are doing considers that I hate America and Americans. But when one has had the bad experiences of American policy he certainly will not be friendly with people who try to excuse a war that was based on lies, that creates attrocities and that is fought for the oil. No name will never change her mind and try to see things differently - and why should she ?
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 13, 2004 10:42:32 GMT -5
I hope you don't - because many people all over the world live with this feeling permanantly - because of your compatriots and because of the policies of your government - WAKE UP no name WAKE UP.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 13, 2004 10:44:35 GMT -5
Which positive aspects
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 13, 2004 10:48:09 GMT -5
Many people in the world today consider that the US is the source of evil - you cannot ignore this fact no name. And you cannot decide to eliminate them because they DO HAVE FACTS that concur to this belief ...
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 13, 2004 10:59:35 GMT -5
Bertine -- I have more that I want to post, but for some reason, it keeps telling me that my post is more than 10,000 characters (it's not, so I don't know what's going on). Guess I'll have to try again later . . .? Probably that includes spaces, quotes, and lots of control characters that govern the properties of the message. This overhead can be up to 50% on some word processors. I don't know about this editor. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 13, 2004 11:03:13 GMT -5
Which positive aspects We keep hearing about them but after this amount of time there still has not been a response. I guess that really proves the point that there are good things going on!
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 11:03:51 GMT -5
Your posts indicate otherwise. Well, there you go again -- this is not true. War in itself is an atrocity. And you would do well to also consider atrocities committed by our enemies instead of being so quick to condemn the U.S. so viciously. Not true. Yep -- I've woken up alright. I've woken up to the fact that there are many people so blinded by their own "hatred" they cannot see clearly. The more you post, the more you continue to prove my point. Of course they would -- and they would be wrong. Successful and powerful nations will always be reviled; the U.S. is no exception to that. However, it's disappointing to see such lack of appreciation for the immense good we have done in this world! And I'm sure you wouldn't agree, but the good we've contributed far outweighs any "bad" we have done. You're right -- why should I change my mind when your attempt at argument has been to make excuses for fanatical Islamic terrorists who intentionally kill innocent people, and when you've attempted to compare the U.S. as being on the same level as the terrorist monsters we are fighting -- sorry, but when someone has such an outlook as this, whatever they say is pretty impossible to take seriously.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 11:26:09 GMT -5
Since America made it clear that those who harbor or help terrorists are considered against us in the war – Iraq was definitely on the list of nations that we had to confront. I’m strongly guessing that the reason Iraq was the next target after Afghanistan was because Iraq had such a long history of violations and was also connected to terrorists. Saddam was in the practice of paying $25,000 to the families of suicide/terrorist bombers that kill innocent Israelis. It seems pretty clear, but as I said, many countries (and the UN) balked at the idea of actually going after Iraq for their own reasons – not the least of which was to protect their own dealings with Saddam.
There was definitely not full and complete worldwide support for that war – protests were waged all across the globe when the U.S. attacked Afghanistan. There was probably less of an outcry then as opposed to now, because September 11 was still fresh in people’s minds, but no, we definitely didn’t have the support of “everyone”.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 11:26:50 GMT -5
Yes. And it absolutely infuriates me that these soldiers did something so utterly awful/evil and stupid and how their actions have reflected so badly not only on our wonderful military, but also on the U.S. At the same time I realize that this is not reflective of the majority of our soldiers, nor the American people, and it is getting irritating to see how the whole thing is being taken so completely out of context and blown out of all proportion, especially since the military has taken action against those involved. Something that also gets on my nerves is how these soldiers involved are attempting to play the blame game – give me a break, and take some responsibility already! I’m more inclined to think the abuse is more related to lack of supervision rather than an okay by higher ups. Especially since more is coming out about the personal background of some of the soldiers in the photos. Apparently, this wasn’t something uncommon for one of the fellows to do. The girl in the pictures also happens to be his girlfriend. We’ll see, I guess, but some of the soldiers are desperately trying to push blame elsewhere and escape responsibility; this doesn’t fly with me – our military does give soldiers the provision to refuse an action they consider to be illegal or immoral. This is what some people say. I dunno. You probably won’t believe this, but I did hear an “expert” say that one of the reasons we may be having problems in Iraq now is because we didn’t totally destroy the country! Because we didn’t adopt a scorched earth policy and obliterate the place (which we have the capability to do), this may now be a contributing factor in some of the conflicts. There may be some truth to that, but a scorched earth policy was never our intent, anyway – we wanted to prove (to the world) and the Iraqi people that we were not waging war against them, but against Saddam and his tyrannical regime. I’ve no doubt there are innocent people who were incarcerated because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But I seriously wonder about the validity of a 90% claim. Did you know there is doubt as to whether the Iraqi detainees are actually covered under the Geneva Convention; pretty ironic how much of an outcry there is about us needing to abide by the Geneva Convention, when we know full well that terrorists feel no such compunction to do so, and how they abused and killed our own soldiers. However, we are not like them and so it is incumbent upon us to prove this to the world, and that would mean no abusing or degrading of those we take into custody. Just wish this would be clear to people who insist upon crucifying America and conveniently being fairly calm when abuse occurs on the other side. Where were the calls for Iraqi soldiers to be held accountable for what they did to our men? I . . . . don’t recall hearing such outrage across the world. Do you see the double standard I’m talking about? (A double standard that is even more evident in the Arab world). It gets a little old after awhile. It does distress and make me sick that our soldiers harmed/abused/raped/sodomized the detainees, because not only was it wrong, but it is also reflecting badly on our whole military (erroneously) and our country. I hope those soldiers involved pay a huge price, because their evil actions have also harmed us in our efforts to secure our goals. As far as underwear on their head – nope, I’ll not lose any sleep over that. That’s all well and good that Muslims are offended by female underwear on the head of a Muslim man, but I find the thought of the death of innocents to be far worse than humiliation. Kind of funny that there’s so much emphasis on said humiliation in the Muslim faith – does this rise to the level of how much the Arab media flaunted what those sweet Iraqi fighters did to our own soldiers? Don’t think so . . . . Does such propriety and humiliation in the Muslim world logically explain what happened in Saudi Arabia – where school girls were left to die in a fire because in their haste to escape the fire, they didn’t have scarves to cover their head? “Better to die horribly then to have your head uncovered for a few minutes and tempt a weak Arab man.” I’d rather suffer humiliation than death – for some Muslims, humiliation is far worse than death! Go figure. Again – when 4 American civilians were massacred by the animals in Falugia who then killed, burned, hacked up and dragged the dead bodies through the streets, an influential Muslim cleric only condemned the disfigurement of the dead bodies, but not the actual murders! I’m sorry, but to me that indicates something very out of priority . . . . And I’m quite aware that this isn’t a sentiment shared by all Muslims across the world, but it is quite deeply ingrained into many, many Islamic countries – where death is preferable to the breaking of various “rules/“customs” pertaining to modesty or sexuality.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 11:27:13 GMT -5
Some of the actions against the Iraqi prisoners was the result of vigilante action taken against soldiers suspected of being the ones who raped/sodomized Jessica Lynch. And in war, good men can certainly do barbaric things. The My Lai massacre in Vietnam being one such example. Of course we as a society/group of people need to be extremely careful about not abusing our power. And you’re correct to say that war can bring out the beast in anyone. The difference between our men (in general) and the terrorists we are fighting is one main thing – the terrorists already are beasts. Yep – and there was an article written at some point. Okay, I just found one of the articles: To Iraqis, prisoner abuse story is largely a non-issue deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595061679,00.html Of course, Bertine – you realize that no matter what we do, there will be some Iraqis (or Arabs for that matter) that don’t accept the apologies of America for what its soldiers did, but as one Iraqi said, during Saddam Hussein's regime there were genocides committed, but no one dared reveal them. He said that even now, officials of Saddam's government haven't apologized. Just like there have been no “apologies” issued from Al-Queda for sawing off the head of Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl. America’s reaction to the prisoner abuse scandal alone should be enough to prove to anyone that we do value moral integrity, decency and compassion. We are not like those we are fighting. Well, as you know the American people have never claimed to be a perfect group of individuals, and what has happened should not be surprising. Of course there are going to be people who abuse their power. Sadly, it was only a matter of time before some of our military men/women did something of such a nature. But again, our country’s response – apologies and bringing our soldier up on charges (this is happening even before Saddam himself is brought to trial!) should reveal once again the difference between our people and those we are fighting against. The media does a great job at making the whole world itself seem like it’s terribly out of control. And you should also keep in mind that the intensity of the terrorist attacks against our soldiers and the Iraqi people lately is actually something happening out of desperation by the terrorist forces. They do not want us to succeed in stabilizing that country – they want us to leave now while some areas are in near chaos. The closer we get to June 30 (the handover date) the more desperate they become. They’ve been trying to start civil wars in Iraq without much success, but they see that no matter what they do to us, we are not pulling out, and this is making them desperate. A terrorist operative said as much in an memo that was found a few months ago. At any rate, here are a few sites that delve into more than just "bad" happenings in Iraq. A Progress Reportwww.nationalreview.com/comment/marshall200403190820.aspOperation Iraqi Childrenwww.operationiraqichildren.org/ Stuffing the Good Newspatterico.com/archives/002201.phpGood News In Iraqwww.kmax.ws/b/goodnewsiniraq.htm Because these are the types of people who also sawed off the head of Daniel Pearl. It is unwise for anyone to think there is any trustworthiness or moral integrity in their words. It is quite disappointing when some people here in our country put more weight in the words/promises of someone like Saddam or various terrorist groups than in the words of our own people. I don’t think the military would have negotiated, even if he was a soldier. Terrorists aren’t logical people that can be negotiated with – the more everyone can realize this, the better – because then they will realize just what the civilized world is up against. I just found another recent interesting statistic: more Iraqis believe removing Saddam was worth it than Americans. Wonder why. But in any event, of course they don’t want to rule their own country! The U.S. has the same sentiment! We don’t want to stay there any more than the decent Iraqis want us to. Problem is, as long as the Iraqi insurgents (and fighters from other countries) are carrying on in the manner that they are, and as long as some areas are not stable, we will have to stay to help the new Iraqi government maintain security. As I said, it was never the intent of the U.S. to control/rule over Iraq or its people. The intent was to remove Saddam and his regime. That part has been taken care of, but there is still a long road ahead of the Iraqi people (as well as the Afghani people); but in the end, the world will be better off with a stable and free Iraq than one ruled by the likes of Saddam.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 11:28:06 GMT -5
Probably that includes spaces, quotes, and lots of control characters that govern the properties of the message. This overhead can be up to 50% on some word processors. I don't know about this editor. inatent I finally figured it out -- my cut and paste function was doing nutty things . . .
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 11:31:37 GMT -5
Kids should not be taken to the store. It'll corrupt their little minds. . . . especially the candy aisle! You did keep them out of the candy aisle, didn't you? inatent Well, I did keep them out of the "candy aisle", but my son was so carsick from the drive, I got him a Pepsi! I've been having the worst time with him and his carsickness. He's kind of like Pavlov's dog, now -- when he knows we're going to drive somewhere, he feels sick even before we start the car! I don't know what to do about this problem . . .
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 11:31:57 GMT -5
inatent Okay, now I want some CHOCOLATE!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D Yum Yum!
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 13, 2004 11:36:59 GMT -5
Apparently, he worked for a communications company and was helping to build/rebuild communication towers. Apparently? Like some other 'facts' you post this one not right on the mark. He was not under contract to any company, could not find any work, and was planning on returning home on March 30. He was detained by the US government and missed his plane. His parents filed a suit against the department of defense. A lot of the US troops over there are not US military either. And all are not American, although with the way Bush is going it is becoming increasingly difficult to get any country to send so much as a single policeman. People fight for what they believe in. Did you fault the US airmen who went to Canada to fight the Germany before the US entered the war? Were they terrorists because they went to another country to fight for their beliefs?A stable government in any country is much better for the citizens than an unstable one. You cannot force government on people. Not everyone wants to be an American or be governed by their type of government. The US has tried this in many places and the success rate has not been good.I am rooting for humanity. People are people. I do not think the US has the right to dictate to foreigh countries what their government will be.{quote]Who do you hope wins the ultimate war on terror?[/quote]There will be no winner. We will give upout rights to fight the war on terror and in the end we will have lost the very rights you think we are fighting to protect. Someone could hijack a plane tomorrow and fly it into the Sears Tower and there is not anything anyone can do about it. Fighting the war on terror will be about as successful as fighting the war on drugs.Oh? They have discovered the weapons of mass destruction that were the 'clear and eminent" threat to the security of the US? The forged documents regarding the yellow cake were not forged after all? Bush was incorrect and Iraq was involved with the 9/11 event?It is no more his fault than it is the fault of children who get caught in the crossfire of war. He is a battlefield casuality.I guess that would be the same court where US citizens are tried when a prisoner dies while being questioned. We are not different.Don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on May 13, 2004 12:14:30 GMT -5
Ts, Ts, Ts ... what a christian 2x2 attitude ... On Sunday Jesus will be very happy with you no name ...
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 13, 2004 12:28:28 GMT -5
OK folks. I have the SOLUTION to this argument:
I say we round up all those responsible for the hideous crimes in Iraq, Americans and Iraquis and Foreigners; lock them all in stocks in a public square along with Saddam Husein; and protect their lives, but let Iraqi citizens, including the Kurds, throw rotten eggs, tomatoes and women's underware at them all day long. Then turn them loose. Which do you think would rather stay in the stocks than to be turned loose among the people?
inatent
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 13:48:19 GMT -5
I suggest you read the entire post instead of taking a portion of it out of context.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 13:55:44 GMT -5
Nick Berg indicated he was arrested by Iraqi police. BTW, how do any of your above comments justify, excuse, or diminish in any way the barbaric act of sawing his head off? The ones responsible for his death were the animals who committed the killing.
Don’t try to equate terrorist killings with noble people fighting for what they “believe in”. There is no glory in the purposeful intent to kill innocent people, which is the motivation of terrorists, not the coalition forces.
What are you talking about here?? Who says there is attempt to turn Iraqi into Americans? As far as type of government – you find something wrong with helping a country set up a governmental power that doesn’t govern with tyranny or brutality? The Iraqi government won’t be a mirror image of ours, but it will represent freedom and liberty, which is the right of all humankind, wouldn’t you agree??
As do I! Humanity itself is why the world should unite to help those under the oppression of brutal dictatorships. I’m hard pressed to agree with the assumption that people enjoy living under such brutality.
What a fatalistic outlook – Is your solution to do nothing and therefore allow terrorism to expand and flourish? Or seek to stop it? Personally, I vote for stopping them before they kill more innocents. I don’t see the value in sitting back and waiting for the next attack. No thanks.
The above inaccuracies have already been debunked. As far as “imminent” – I’d rather not wait for another 9/11.
Difference between children getting caught in battlefield crossfire and what those monsters did to Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl is quite substantial – those who hacked off his head have the intent to kill innocents. We, as a whole, do not. It's rather disappointing that some people can’t see the difference.
Yes, we are different.
I realize some people simply cannot accept that fact, but it is the truth. I never said we are perfect and that we don’t have our problems – but we are better than the terrorists we fight in this war on terror. Were you aware that the U.S. is paying some restitution to the families of innocents accidentally killed or injured in the Iraq war? I ask again – when was the last time you saw an apology issued, restitution paid, or legal procedures underway taken by Al-Queda against their own people for intentionally harming or slaughtering innocent people (or even "enemy" soldiers!)? It’s not happening.
Don’t let your bias get in the way of reality.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 13:58:34 GMT -5
OK folks. I have the SOLUTION to this argument: I say we round up all those responsible for the hideous crimes in Iraq, Americans and Iraquis and Foreigners; lock them all in stocks in a public square along with Saddam Husein; and protect their lives, but let Iraqi citizens, including the Kurds, throw rotten eggs, tomatoes and women's underware at them all day long. Then turn them loose. Which do you think would rather stay in the stocks than to be turned loose among the people? inatent Ohhhhhhhh . . . That's a good one!! I'd agree with that approach! I would wager, however, that all of the above groups of people would prefer to stay in the stocks! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Thinking Aloud on May 13, 2004 14:11:50 GMT -5
Does such propriety and humiliation in the Muslim world logically explain what happened in Saudi Arabia – where school girls were left to die in a fire because in their haste to escape the fire, they didn’t have scarves to cover their head? “Better to die horribly then to have your head uncovered for a few minutes and tempt a weak Arab man.” I’d rather suffer humiliation than death – for some Muslims, humiliation is far worse than death! Go figure. That is their faith. I cannot believe that you would stoop so low as to belittle their beliefs while at the same time you talk with respect of the Christian martyrs who died for their beliefs. Killing in a war is not murder. We do not say we are sorry for killing their soldiers. The disfigurment of the bodies was all that needed to be addressed. You do understand that war involves the killing of the people on the other team, don't you? Why is it when American troops are killed it is a massacre? Have you seen bodies hit with depleted uranium rounds? They are pretty much hacked up and dismembered either while they are dying or just after. They die for their faith. Suffer for their beliefs. Would you curse God to save your life? To some people sticking to convictions , even in the face of death, is the right thing to do. If we cannot respect the beliefs and ideals of those who think differently than we do, there is no hope of peace.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 16:26:34 GMT -5
A faith in which it is habitual practice for fanatics to twist it in such as way that places more emphasis on mere humiliation rather than the barbaric actions of those who kill innocent people. I’m sorry if you think that outlook has some kind of legitimacy; I’m having a hard time seeing the validity of it. And many level-headed followers are either too scared or are unwilling to rise up in active opposition to such travesty. www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm#quranWritten by Muslims/ex-Muslims. I am not particularly sorrowful their fighters are being slain, and I know that our soldiers volunteered for service knowing the potential dangers. I am sorry for innocents who have been accidentally caught in the middle, even though I know it can't always be avoided (but it was common practice during the initial fighting that our "enemy" would purposefully kill their own people and use them as human shields). And Nick Berg was not a combatant in the war, but was a non-fighter (innocent) who was specifically and intentionally targeted. Have you seen the Nick Berg video? I have. Was he a soldier? I don’t think so. Do you think there’s something respectable about the maniacs who slaughtered 3,000 innocent people on 9/11? Do you think there’s something respectable about teaching young Arab (“Palestinian”) children that there’s some kind of “glory” in killing innocent people? This is actively done. Talk about child abuse . . . I don’t think the goal of intentionally killing innocent people should ever be respected. Do you? Excuse me for being a little "emotional" here -- I just saw video of a man getting his head hacked off bit by bit as he screamed in anguish while those sawing away at his neck chanted about how great Allah is. Again -- these are the people we are up against; I don't respect anything about them.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 13, 2004 18:52:56 GMT -5
Nick Berg indicated he was arrested by Iraqi police. BTW, how do any of your above comments justify, excuse, or diminish in any way the barbaric act of sawing his head off? The ones responsible for his death were the animals who committed the killing. And then he was delivered to US troops and detained. My comments were not condoning the act. He was a civilian in a war zone. You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the means of death. Beheading is another way to kill someone. It had been around since the beginning or recorded history. Killing is barbaric. The method is a footnote. I can see this does not make you happy but please point out the difference between the people who go to Iraq to fight and kill the enemy and the Americans and English who dropped the bombs on Dresden, a city with no military objectives, and killed between 30,000 and 100,000 citizens who lived there. It was a mission to strike terror into the minds of the German citizens. You see, sometimes who is and who is not the terrorist depends on your vantage point. It has nothing to do with what is in place. The US is just not good at setting up governments in countries. We supported Castro to get rid of Batista. That was not a good deal. In Chile we supported Pinochet in his fight against Allende. You can read about this fine choice (it is not pleasent reading) www.trentu.ca/~mneumann/pinochet.html. In Viet Nam the US supported Diem but by 1963 he was so corrupt that the US back a coup to have him replaced (aka murdered). We supported Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in their fight against the Soviet Union. The US supported Duvaliers in Haiti. When the citizens voted for Aristide (in Haiti's first democratic election) the US supported a coup in 1991 thaht resulted in the death of thousands and then in 1994 put Aristide back in power. And how did that work out? As I said, the US does not have a good track record. We need to learn from history not just blindly repeat it.Who do you think elected the 30 people in the new government? But let's allow them to decide and not force it on them. Not fatalistic but realistic. The war on drugs does nothing but increase the cost of drugs which in turn increases the amount of crime that people will commit to get the drugs. Just imagine if tomorrow a heroin habit was $5 a day instead of $1,000. Imagine what would happen to the whole criminal element that supplies illegal drugs. And the war on terrorism is the same. Since several college students have demonstrated the ease in getting almost anthing onto a plane what is the point of all the increased security? Window dressing. Don't you think Bin Laden might have saved one or two of the many stinger missiles the US gave him? So there were weapons of mass destruction? Of course it is different. They do not care if they are caught. They have limited resources and need to get the biggest bang they can. That is no excuse. But it points to the the war on terrorism will fail unless you execute everyone who you think would ever do something like that. As it has been pointed out, if a person is willing to die there is little to do to stop them. It is indeed much like the drug war, If drugs cannot be kept out of prison how can they be kept out of a country? If a person is willing to die to accomplish their deed, how can you prevent them?
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 21:48:49 GMT -5
He was in an Iraqi prison until an American MP noticed him, then he was transferred to US troops where he was investigated and then released. How does this change what happened to him? It doesn’t. I guess I do place a lot of emphasis on the means of death, because the method indicates the level of "personal" involvement or not (if that makes any sense). It’s not as emotionally involving to, let’s say – shoot someone, as it is to use a knife to kill them. Close personal proximity to the victim indicates (to me) the level of bloodlust in the heart. Perhaps you don’t see it that way – I do. As another example – I don’t view taking a life in self-defense as being on the same level as intentionally killing an innocent person. Again, maybe you don’t draw that distinction. I do. I read about the Dresden bombings and contrary to what you indicated, the city did have military objectives: [Air Marshall Arthur Harris came under attack for the bombing raid on Dresden. In his autobiography he explained why he ordered the bombing of the city in February, 1945.] In February of 1945, with the Russian army threatening the heart of Saxony, I was called upon to attack Dresden; this was considered a target of the first importance for the offensive on the Eastern front. Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front and it was considered that a heavy air attack would disorganise these communications and also make Dresden useless as a controlling centre for the defence. It was also by far the largest city in Germany - the pre-war population was 630,000 - which had been left intact; it had never before been bombed. As a large centre of war industry it was also of the highest importance.Of course, whether you buy his explanation or not is another matter. One has to remember that Hitler began the war in Europe and was the epitome of evil (besides the current evil we face in terrorism). Or is there some kind of spin that can be done on Hitler as well . . . .? Today, bombing campaigns are carried out using weaponry designed for more accuracy so as to eliminate as much loss of innocent life as possible. It’s not in the American psyche to wipe out innocent people intentionally – this is why my back goes up when anyone attempts to label us as such. I remember shortly after 9/11, Reuters news agency gave some kind of pathetic politically correct line like: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. I don't buy that spin, not in relation to the current face of terrorism we're facing. I’m sure the "terrorists" feel they are fighting for some kind of glory or noble cause, but for other, seemingly coherent, people to buy that argument is simply beyond me -- Since Iraq was part of the war on terror, what do you propose we should have done when Saddam was toppled? Should we have left it just as quickly as we left Afghanistan after we pushed the Soviets out? I don’t think so. I know who appointed the Iraqi Governing Council; I also know that it is the most diverse body Iraq has ever had, containing members from Iraq’s religious and ethnic groups. I also know that IGC members work in close consultation with the CPA – is there something wrong with the CPA advising the IGC on how to draft a constitution that will provide freedom and liberty so the Iraqis can live without fear of tyrannical brutality such as the type of “government” they lived under for the past 30 years? Again, I’m hard pressed to agree with the assumption that people enjoy living under such brutality. And how in the world were the Iraqi people supposed to decide when they had no power to do so under Saddam’s control?? Again I ask – is your solution to do nothing and therefore allow terrorism to expand and flourish? Intelligence agencies are at work every day tracking down terrorist cells and attempting to foil further attacks. This is one aspect of the war. You keep saying your outlook is “realistic”, but I can’t see what will be so effective about doing absolutely nothing. We basically did nothing for 20+ years, and this never deterred the terrorists; in fact, it emboldened them to the point that they succeeded in carrying out 9/11. Should we just sit back and passively wait for the next 9/11? [/b] The above inaccuracies have already been debunked. So there were weapons of mass destruction?[/quote] Go back and read earlier pages on this thread – I’m not really wanting to type everything out all over again; for summary’s sake, I will cut and past key points that Kay made this past January, I believe: - A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?
- "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"
- New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.
- A line of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."
- "Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."
- "Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] - well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."
- In addition, through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles - probably the No Dong - 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment," Kay reported.
And yet, the main thing that got reported in the headlines (which can be very misleading) was “NO WMD STOCKPILES FOUND!” Just what kind of “stockpiles” were people expecting? Do people not realize that weapons such as Anthrax don’t take up that much room? Remember how much havoc the anthrax attacks on our country in 2001 wreaked on the U.S.? And yet no one has been able to successfully find or track down where it came from. With all the time that Saddam had to get rid of whatever he did have (and intelligence agencies besides the U.S. indicated that he did have such weapons – even the UN said this), is it really so far-fetched to realize that the materials could have been easily hidden and transported out of the country?? Below are links to some other articles that don’t get much airtime in the media (if at all). But if one is bound and determined to believe something like “Bush Lied!”, then I don’t know that anything will really change their mind, even if a mountain of Iraqi WMDs are found. Besides, Saddam alone was a WMD – mass graves being uncovered with anywhere from 300,000 to 1,000,000 bodies. I’m glad the man is out of power and that his people won’t be under his oppressive thumb any longer. Found: Saddam's WMDswww.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13168Iraqi Weapons in Syriawww.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670123King Abdullah: Al-Qaida WMDs Came From Syriawww.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 13, 2004 21:49:06 GMT -5
You keep talking about the war on terrorism failing and have repeatedly compared it with the war on drugs. Again, what is your answer? How do you propose we deal with the problem? Should we legalize terrorism? Should we be complacent? Did that ever stop them? Nope. Of course they don’t see that what they are doing is wrong – but is the rest of the civilized world not able to make the obvious distinction between terrorists and those who try to stop them? Are people too afraid (or politically correct) to make that judgment? Gee whiz . . . Maybe I am wrong, but you seem to be attempting to establish moral equivalency between us and them. Do you see what they are doing as wrong? I don’t think it’s right for any civilians to be purposefully targeted -- but what you mentioned reminded me of how the Iraqi fighters would dress as civilians so as to approach coalition forces and kill them, and to also make it appear that we are slaughtering innocent people on purpose. It also reminds me of how they would use civilians as human shields and had no compunction about mowing them down while they shot at coalition forces. Additionally, I’m reminded of the (seemingly) damning story of Israeli forces stopping an ambulance from getting to the hospital – turns out the driver of that ambulance was transporting a “Palestinian” terrorist. These people use any means to fight their fight, and they don’t fight “fair” (if that word can even be used to describe warfare); they don’t wear uniforms, they don't fight using "regular" war tactics, etc., etc. It can be very difficult, if not impossible, to discern who is the enemy and who is not. “U.S. Military Goes After Insurgents, But Tries to Spare Civilians”For the insurgents, civilian casualties may be part of the plan. "That is the insurgents' explicit tactic," said Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. "Try to draw civilians into the process and to try to either prevent the United States from responding or ultimately to drum up support for the insurgents' cause against the United States by having innocents caught in the middle." abcnews.go.com/sections/World/WorldNewsTonight/fallujah_combat_040428-1.htmlThat is your solution? You really and truly think this will somehow make them change their mind about killing us? September 11 was an unprovoked attack. Do you really think that if we had just sat back and done nothing then they would have somehow left us alone? These people don’t work that way. Why don’t people realize that?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 13, 2004 21:59:33 GMT -5
Someone suggested that all of these anti American, terrorist sypathysers should go over to Iraq to show their concern. At least the terrorists would have more unarmed Americans to execute and show on TV.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 14, 2004 0:26:15 GMT -5
. . . . The war on drugs does nothing but increase the cost of drugs which in turn increases the amount of crime that people will commit to get the drugs. . . . . Regarding the "war on drugs" I agree with you totally, but the comparison between that and the war on terrorists is invalid. Drugs kill people by their own choice, and yes a lot of crime results from the high price they have to pay, so reducing the cost will reduce the crime. Drug users don't really want to kill anyone, they just do it to get drugs. Drug dealers don't particularly want to kill people either, but they do it for money. Now I will agree with you to this extent, that a lot of people who might otherwise have been unconcerned have become terrorists because of the actions taken by our government that they feel is restricting their rights. Most of these, however, are within our own society, and regardless of how they got that way, the solution is the same if the rest of us (perhaps better able to tolerate the pressure) are to survive. I will also opine that near total elimination of internal security (no security checks) in our country coupled with cessation of the publicity on which terrorists thrive, might well, after an initial period of disaster and huge loss of life and property, reduce the incentive of the terrorists and, if coupled with our pulling back from the rest of the world and becoming as self-sufficient as we once were, could make us as secure as we used to be. (In other words, security contributes to insecurity.) But this isn't going to happen because people would not tolerate the initial cost. As things are now, with the terrorists as they are in the world, the less we do to fight them, the more of us they will kill because their objective is to wipe us off the map! If we fight, some will die. If we do not fight, we all will die! To say we caused them to be angry enough to kill us invites the reverse argument that they have made us angry enough to kill them and so nothing is accomplished by this line of thinking. I will never forget the stupid question I once asked when there was a lot of fighting in the city near where I was stationed in Viet Nam during the Tet offensive of 1968. I asked when it would end. The answer was correctly given: "When they get all of us, or we get all of them!" That's just how it is some times. inatent
|
|