Topic awaiting preservation: A people deserves its leader...

I just had to insert this little couple of paragraphs... I used to have an intense and urgent desire to wake people up. But not anymore...

"From his desk in the Oval Office, ?Dubya? peers out from under his brow-ridges. He squints his eyes and wrinkles his forehead, as he struggles to comprehend a planet far too complex, far too rich in history and culture for his feeble mind, warped by old southwestern prejudices, to soundly comprehend. In his world view, distant lands and peoples can only be understood in blanket dualism: ?good? and ?evil?, ?with us? or ?against us?. For him, no one could have a legitimate grievance against American foreign policy ? they must hate us ?because we stand for freedom?. Were it not for our abysmal media and education system, a man would have to be born and raised in an ice cave on the planet Pluto to believe such tripe.

In an odd way, I do feel a bit sorry for George W. Bush. Unlike his neo-conservative mentors- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, etc. ? who are clearly smart enough to know their designs for America?s future world role are truly evil, Bush himself strikes me as totally lost ? a man with little blood-lust of his own, but too stupid and paralyzed by the bigotry and selfishness instilled in his childhood to resist the will imposed by the thorough-going hawks who railroaded him into the Presidency. Incidentally, I think that was one of the principal reasons why the GOP hacks were willing to resort to subverting the electoral process in Florida two years ago ? they wanted a simpleton who would be nothing more than a cipher to carry out their mad fantasies. Thus, Bush represents a new phenomenon without historical precedent ? an exceptionally weak intellect at the head of a huge conquering military. A Neanderthal Caesar, who is poised to cross the Rubicon ? or, as chance would have it, the Tigris and the Euphrates!"

The blind leading the blind, and the whole stinking plan will implode at the appointed time, no clarification required here, If you see you see... if you don't you don't. Who hears the bird sing in the forest? he who listens... the bird cares not wether you listen or not. It needs not explain itself. Those who think they dwell on the greener grass will get what they deserve.


...xpi...

'nuff said'

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-16-2003).]

Actually, history is full of such 'puppet' men (and women).

And this thing is far from over...I think the realization that no WMD is slowly starting to sink in...I think this question is now on the minds of every American, as the 24 hour bombardment of pictures in the media fades...it is an unspoken, uneasy feeling...and I think that Mr. Bush will rise or fall on this one...if no WMD are found, he's a goner...I think that is the main reason that Mr. Bush is backing off of the WMD question regarding Syria...first, it was mentioned that maybe Syria has them...but no real proof of that...and then, things quickly got 'hushed up'. Mr. Blair quickly came out and said there were no plans for going into Syria, and the White house is strongly avoiding mentioning such. Apparently, invasion plans in the Pentagon were dropped, at bequest of the White House (and Mr. Bush).

It's becoming a real problem, as the euphoria fades, from 'liberating' Iraq...many are starting to question...and even the hard liners and conservative hawks are being forced to fall back on the 'well, we liberated the Iraqis, at least' line...which is a small trost, considering that Mr. Bush adamantly insisted that Iraq had WMD and was threatening world peace with them.

I once asked Bugs this very question...what if Iraq has no WMD? His reply was that it was unthinkable, that it wasn't worth considering...that he trusted Mr. Bush to know.

Now, we are all waiting, with abated breath...wondering why Saddam didn't use them, why none have been found...and even Mr. Bush has been vague, on this...'we think Saddam moved them to Syria a year or so ago'...but absolutely no proof of this...and even the CIA is raising its eybrows at such...

So, with an absence of WMD in Iraq, has the world been made safer? The world? No. For the Iraqi people, maybe (that remains to be seen).

Fact is, should no WMD be found, then Mr. Bush lied to the American people, about Iraq, and the war. I highly suspect, that this will be a crucial election topic, should no WMD be found, and will be the downfall of Mr. Bush in the coming election. I suspect that the White house is scrambling to limit the damage...and that maybe, just maybe, 'Pax Americana' has been put on hold, because of this one issue.

It also raises a really ugly specter, among the UN...about the legality of the conflict in Iraq. None of the resolutions had provisions for regime change...or the removal of Saddam by force for any other reason, except possessing WMD. Mr. Bush assured us that Saddam had them...and should it turn out that he didn't...then we unlawfully invaded another country, on any grounds other than 'moral'...and moral reasons are not mentioned in the resolutions...

Pre-empting other lands on 'moral' grounds, is a very, very dangerous thing...which 'moral' reasons? Would it then be reasonable to say, that the US should then be invaded, because of the jailing of minorities? Just about every land has committed crimes against Humanity...the US has the death penalty...one could make a reasonable case, to impose sanctions against the US based on this.

Also, it sets a very dangerous precidence, indeed. One can then pre-empt other lands, based on moral reasons...so India would be justified in invading the Kashmir region...or even Pakistan. Turkey could invade Iraq, based on the threat of a seperatist state of the Kurds...and on, and on, and on...

At least, Mr. Blair can say, we were only helping our friend out, and he lied to us...

No, Mr. Bush must find WMD in Iraq...to justify the conflict there. Expect this to become more and more of an issue, the longer no WMD are found. I largely suspect, that the press may start to slowly turn on Mr. Bush, and his administration, the more that this drags out. It also lends huge support, to people like myself, who were against a war in Iraq based on this issue.

You know, the Bush administration is really caught now, in Iraq. Had WMD of been used, or found in large quantities, then I think that this thing would have then gone further...and other lands (like Syria) would have then of been 'on the list'. But with the absence of WMD (so far, and no use of them in the conflict), the Bush administration is forced to carry out the full re-building of Iraq...and I largely suspect that certain elements of the Bush administration are not happy about it. There are definite signs of a schism within the administration, clearly, over this.

We are 'bogged down' in Iraq, because of this. Without WMD, it becomes imperative, that we follow the 'moral' theme, and put in place exactly that, which we said that we would. We cannot just leave it be, like Afghanistan. Remember, we were supposed to bring democracy to Afghanistan, as well...but no aid has flowed into that country, as promised...and there is still warfare in that country, and the 'government' there is really just the government of the capitol...and nothing else. US soldiers are still losing their lives in Afghanistan...though one doesn't hear all that much about it. Yes, the 'end' of the Taliban regime was a nice thought...and so was bringing democracy to the Afghans...but it has proven a much harder thing to realize it...much better to say we went into Afghanistan as a measure against terrorism...but that won't work in Iraq, unless we find those missing WMD...

Well, time will tell...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-16-2003).]

If you don't have an urgent desire to wake people up anymore... why are you posting this?

Did you want to actually discuss this or are you just making a statement for us to "see or not see"?

WebShamen: I would not be at all suprised if they resorted to planting WMD in Iraq to cover there corrupt asses. In the process of the so-called liberation of the Iraqis they also liberated the Iraqi Museum of some absolutely priceless artifacs, figures and statues from ancient Babylon. ReportS say that these were not your regular looters but treasure hunting specialists from the west with army assistance. hmmm.

Big: For those that hear... and as a little safty pressure valve for myself. This is a far tamer me.. and we are securely locked up in a building of madmen right. ?

I also notice how you failed again to respond to WebShamens' and the worlds questions... he has resorted to persueing you from thread to thread in order to seek your response, but like that legendary Scarlet Pimpernel you are elusive and evasive.

You are supposed to be a spiritual man are you not? Well the bible also says "do not out your faith in the sons of earthling man to whom no salvation belongs" Is Bush and that whole political ideology what your true faith rests upon? Oh dear.... how much we discover my reading between the lines... A house built upon sand.

...xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-16-2003).]

X, just so you know, WS posted the stuff above after I started writing my reply to you. I've been sitting here since then trying to figure out just how to dislodge that stick for you and then I had an epiphany:

quote:

---

and as a little safty pressure valve for myself

---

By all means, vent.

But I would really like to carry on a real conversation with you on these issues. I don't know how long you've lurked here but you have to know that I try to answer everyone as honestly as I can. I really value our interactions here and usually we have some good ones. I really don't think I'm elusive and evasive. Maybe you should ask WS his opinion on that.

And this:

quote:

---

You are supposed to be a spiritual man are you not? Well the bible also says "do not out your faith in the sons of earthling man to whom no salvation belongs" Is Bush and that whole political ideology what your true faith rests upon? Oh dear.... how much we discover my reading between the lines... A house built upon sand.

---

What in the world are you talking about? Which verse is that? Matt 7:6 perhaps? True faith rest on Bush? Huh???

[edit]
"...they seek him here... they seek him there... It's just like the Scarlet Pimpernel", exclaimed Mr. Humphreys
[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-16-2003).]

Actually, the way things are going (no WMD), I'd be quite happy if WMD were 'planted'...as long as it is done correctly (meaning that no evidence links the US to the WMD 'plant'). Why? Because the alternative to that is a political disaster (if no WMD are found, that is). Now, I don't particularly like Mr. Bush, and I don't like his policies, either. However, the potiential for this thing to get wildly out of control...no, that would be irresponsible, I think. Like it or not, WMD must be found...in order to 'justify' the war...and pre-empting. Otherwise, it's going to be rough going on America...and that is where my loyalties lay. Other countries should not get the idea, that pre-empting can be done on a moral ground. In fact, I think I've made a good case that it can't be done legally.

Don't get me wrong...I'm quite happy that Saddam is gone...one dictator less in the world. I, however, do not have Bugs optimism that Iraq will be turned into an 'ideal' democracy in the middle-east...in fact, I don't think it's going to work, or that it is really planned. I was mainly against this war for this, and other reasons...no evidence of WMD possession, for example, and also, that there are far greater threats to world peace than Iraq...and of course, the Pax Americana thing.

And no, I sincerely doubt that Bugs is avoiding my questions...that is namely not his style...and I would be quite shocked, and disappointed if he did so...but that just wouldn't be the Bugs that we know and cherish. Though we differ in opinion and belief on a wide range of things, one thing is certain : that we can at least discuss our differences intelligently, and without unnecessary insults...I believe it's called respect for the opinions of others...certainly, he has my respect along those lines and it has been earned!.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-16-2003).]

I don't think whether Saddam should have been removed from power was ever a question for much of anyone.

The important question has always been - are *we* the ones to do it? Why? On what grounds? Towards what end?

And after 25 years of dicatatorship and all of the criminal acts that accompany it, why *now* ?

And then, of course, now that we've started this crusade, who's next? Do we go after Iran? Syria? Hell, how about Israel - they've done plenty wrong and ignored UN resolutions too.

What I find the scariest of all - and I don't have confirmation of this, so maybe it's not even true - but I read in an online news article that Bush had said that he felt certain this is what god wanted him to do.

Yikes!

^^^^^
i second that.

__________________________________________
"Art has to be forgotten. Beauty must be realized."
Piet Mondriaan

Wait a second, why is that anymore worrying than if he were an atheist and thought it was the right decision? Or for that matter, whether or not he thought the alignment of the planets backed up his decision? I think what matters is whether or not it was the right course action on its own merits, his personal motivations are his business and secondary to his actions.

quote:

---

his personal motivations are his business and secondary to his actions.

---

When his personal motivations* are endangering the lives of American citizens as well as American tax dollars, its the business of the entire country. Bush-lover or hater, his original message was that Iraq threatened the globe and the United States in particular, that is why he needed to be thrown from power. With multi-billion dollar oil contracts being given to close personal friends of the administration, the absence of a WMD paints a very sour picture for President Bush. This absence also leaves a lot of questions to be asked.

As a Political Science major and avid Republican opponent, I'm real curious as to how this is going to turn out. If WMD are not found in Iraq, essentially Bush and other warhawks are responsible for the death of thousands of Iraqi citizens and the desturction of billions of dollars in damage to secure billions of dollars to his supporters. Regardless how you slice it if WMD aren't found the Bush Administration will be in violation of the exact same thing they insisted there needed to be a regime change for. For months now Republicans have been calling anyone who doesn't agree with them as either terrorists or unpatriotic. I'm curious what reaction will be if they found out the administration lied to them for their own benefit.

*Disclaimer - I'm not suggesting he does, but if he does.

Jestah

This may be a first, but I agree with Jestah here.

Bugs - the point is that he'd be basing his reasoning for going to war on what 'god' wants of him. Not that he'd be making a sound decision based on the facts and seperately beleiving that god approves.

That is a truly frightening thought.

As I alluded to before - can we say CRUSADES??

what we *don't* need in the global scene is a holy christian ruler waging war on the evil muslims again, and such sentiments as what I mentioned make that a very real issue.

Now again, I can't vouch for the above quoted statement, but the thought is frightening enough.

OK I'm slightly frightened by this scenario:

Christ failed to return to Earth around the millenium to mark the end of days and so the fundamentalist Christians in the White House have decided to help him out with the end of the world by throwing a lit match (well it is more of a flamethrower) into the Middle East. I think we all know where Armageddon is?

Its ridiculous of course.... isn't it?

If Bush was another leader from a religion with a scary apocalyptic flavour to it would we ben reading a lot more about this kind of thing?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I think we may be overlooking the fact that when and if the powers that be decide that WMD absolutley need to be found, sure enough they will FIND some. With lots of media coverage, of course.

Just a side note:

in my Project Management class we were divided into several groups and each one had to decide on a project to plan, and of course, inform the instructor what we had choosen. My idea for a project was to take over small third-world country and establish a Puppet Government, in order to reap the economic profits.

The instructor suggested that I come up with something more original.

Bugimus - If no evidence of WMD are found in Iraq in a timely mannor, will you still support the war?

Jestah

Xpirex - don't mess with Bugs...he can control any bug from thousands of miles away, and he will sick a minion of ants on you that will eat your skin while you sleep.

quote:

---

Propagandhi - "..and yes I recognize the irony, the system I oppose affordrs me the luxury of biting the hand the feeds thats exactly why privalleged fucks like me, should feel obliged to whine and kick and scream, ya 'til everyone has everthing they need.

---

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 04-17-2003).]

Unfortunately, I find myself in agreement with both DL and Jestah...imagine that.

The question of WMD in Iraq (are there, or are there not?) will be the deciding question in the days to come, IMHO. It really opens a can of worms, as one can see...and goes downhill from there, no matter how one twists and turns it. I too, am curious to see where Bugs stands on this issue...and I think I've stated that before...

As for the 'religious' thing, it really sets a dangerous precedent...I'm sure there are lots of fanatical elements waiting to capitalize on this...and already are (on both sides of the fence). In that sense, it doesn't really matter if it is true or not...again, a case of 'implied' thought...or real, it doesn't matter, as DL so eloquently put it.

Sounds as though Hans Blix and the UN are concerned of the US planting weapons as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44572-2003Apr17.html

Jestah

DL you said:

quote:

---

...the point is that he'd be basing his reasoning for going to war on what 'god' wants of him. Not that he'd be making a sound decision based on the facts and seperately beleiving that god approves.

---

I have absolutely no reason to believe he is basing his decisions on anything but the facts. You cannot separate a man from who he is. That goes for you, me, Jestah, or anyone. I will say this again, what matters is what he DOES and not what motivates him. As our president, we have given him the reigns and it is his job to make these decisions.

I have a question for you, DL. Would you have been one of those people opposed to electing John F. Kennedy because you would have thought he would have become a stooge for the Pope in Rome? I am wondering why this is any different from that. Dubya has sworn an oath and allegiance to the United States of America.

I am going to just try and finish my comments on this by saying that I am very familiar with the brand of Christian that occupies much of the current administration. I know there is very little I can say to disuade your fears about this but I can only offer to you that they do not have any interest in a "holy war" or some new "christian ruler embarking on a crusade against the evil muslims". That is not how the world is viewed by these folks. I really don't know what else I can say so I'll just try to leave it at that.

Emps, the idea of "inducing" the second coming of Christ is not only considered heretical by the vast majority of Xians but it is also considered as you put it, "ridiculous". There was, in fact, a fringe group who tried this and they were arrested in Israel a few years back. It's totally out of the question that Dubya or anyone in his administration subscribes to that notion.


Jestah, WS.

quote:

---

If no evidence of WMD are found in Iraq in a timely mannor, will you still support the war?

---

Absolutely.

First of all, they will be found... one way or another. I think we can all agree to that. Secondly, I have never said that was the only reason for this war. I tried to go back and collect all the main reasons I supported this war:
1. Iraq consistently refused to comply with the Gulf War I cease fire agreements.
2. We know WMD existed in 1998 and we had no verification that they were destroyed. Why no verification? Because Iraq refused to do so.
3. Hussein proved that he was interested in taking over some if not all of the Middle East. He tried to take Iran and he tried to take Kuwait. Left unopposed, who could have predicted what he could have achieved. The point is that it was his goal.
4. Allowing the world's chief oil reserve to fall into the hands of a despot like Hussein was unimaginable and unacceptable on *every* level.
5. I think 12 years is long enough time to prove the only way to solve the issue was by force. Simple as that, he left us no choice.
6. The brutality and cruelty of this regime was unquestioned by anyone here. Iraqi children were dying daily as a direct result of the regime and that was also a good reason to suppor this regime change.
7. Links to international terrorism. This is now confirmed and falls under the "harboring terrorist" criteria. Abul Abbas was hiding there and terrorist training camps were run there, and Hussein paid money to the families of the suicide bombers attacking Israel.

I don't care what the Bush administration had to say to justify the war to the public. Hussein had to be taken down for the reasons above. Diplomatically if at all possible and by force if not.

While I respect the opinions of those who wanted to invade Iraq with UN inspectors and blue helms, I honestly believe that was nothing more than a matter of delaying the inevitable. I guarantee you the points above would not have been solved by that approach. In fact, waiting could have created even more and worse problems.

So, Jestah, please take a look at this and let me know how you see each of these points. I am glad you're back in the mix here and I understand you see things through a completely opposite political filter than I do. I am willing to hear you out.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-17-2003).]

Hmm...interesting question Jestah has thrown into the mix.
Since no rational minded 5 yr old could ever take seriously the words of the Bush administration with regard to this event, talking about WMD is really pointless. We all 'know' (or should) that this really wasn't about WMD anyway, right?
Still, you've asked a question.
I'd have to say, I agree with Bugs (kinda =) )
It's not entirely a bad thing that Saddam Hussien was removed from power, WMD or not. I've said that from the beginning.
The answer, then, is 'yes for invasion' IF the US is quickly going to turn over power to the Iraqi people, let them do as they wish with their oil (that includes selling to whomever they wish, at whatever price they wish) and establish some sort of very aggressive aid package to overcome 2 annialations and 12 years of death and starvation imposed on the Iraqi's mostly by US demand.

A far better question to ask of Bugs (and anybody else, of course) is, "Will you still support the war if the Iraqi people are put under a long-term puppet-government of the West? Will you still support the war if, in 5 years, the average Iraqi is no better off educationally, economically, or just in general quality of life than they were 15 years ago? Will you still support the war if this is used as the beginning of a 'pax americana' (read: 'take over the world')? Will you still support the war if Iraq's new dictator is just as ruthless and murderous as the old one?"

OK, OK, so that's four questions, but they all point to the same general uneasiness/distrust I have and a lot of people the world over have with this administration, their stated goals, and their past performance.

Well, first of all, thanks for posting that, Bugs...I knew that you eventually would. Sorry if I came across as 'hounding'.

1. Is really a moot point...because the 'no-fly zones' were not covered under a UN resolution. And Saddam didn't send any ordinance outside of the border of Iraq after the first Gulf War. So...I don't see this as being a violation of anything.

2. This is a very tricky one...actually, the Inspectors did a very good job of removing WMD...and were mostly pulled out (and not ejected, contrary to popular belief). Certainly Saddam was at most a reticent complier...but then, in the same situation...who really would do differently?

3. Saddam would never have done the Iran and Kuwait thing, without the backing/apparent lack of reaction from the US...we know this. He was more than encouraged to attack Iran from the US...and intentionally ignored, in the case of Kuwait. Put simply, he never would have done it, if he thought that we wouldn't have supported him (or done something about it). Thus, irregardless of whether or not he 'entertained' notions of ruling the entire Middle-East, the fact is, he wouldn't have attempted it without our sayso...or unless he was the one wielding Overwhelming Force, that is...

4. I can kind of agree with this...but then, one has to consider both Iran and Saudia Arabia in the same light.

5. I think this is subjective...

6. This is a very touchy subject...before the sanctions, the children of Iraq were pretty well off, for Middle-East standards, enjoying some of the highest of living standards...only after the sanctions, did this change. Thus, the US and the international community bears some responsibility here. Without finding WMD...I don't even wish to consider this. It just makes me sick to my stomach.

7. Wrong. The Palastinians were very shortly involved in international terrorism...and dropped that form as unviable quite awhile ago. Or do you have evidence of other terror groups linked directly to Iraq?

One point has to be made. With the lack of WMD being found in Iraq (and yes, I do agree that they must be found, irregardless of 'how'), it does seem that Saddam did indeed disarm. It's just that we were not prepared to trust him or the UN, on that. That being true, then comes the point of the sanctions...one can see why WMD have to be found...without them, it just opens up a huge can of worms...that's a lot of dead children...

And that is another reason why I am infuriated with Mr. Bush...because he brought us into such a mess...wtf was he thinking? Didn't he even plan for such an eventuality? Idiot! Under the cover of a full-blown conflict, it would have been child's play to plant some stuff...I'm hoping that they did, in case they don't find any real stuff...because everyone knows that any find is going to be very closely scrutinized, now...

I will say this : should (for whatever reason) the US be caught red-handed 'planting' WMD in Iraq, there will be hell to pay, of that there can be no doubt. And with 2000~3000 US 'inspection' teams scouring Iraq for WMD, they had better find something.

Can anyone imagine the consequences of the contrary?

And a quick answer from me... for once

Absolutely.

Taking down this regime was the right thing to do. Now we talk about what is the right thing to do *now*.

You omitted setting up a constitutionally based democracy. It will be no good if we have elections and control goes right back to a dictator by the Iraqi's votes. We need protections built into the new government to protect against that. In fact, it is because of the ethnic diversity that will actually help achieve this. Each minority will see the need for protections against the ruling party. But that's another discussion probably.

I thank you for calling it uneasiness/distrust instead of a forgone conclusion. I was a little worried a few threads ago when you said "I told you so" about installing a new thug. We need to wait and see... and speak out should it come to pass.

Here's just one of many roadmaps for this new phase: Memo: How to Rebuild Iraq


[edit]
I just read your response, WS, you posted while I answered mobrul.

quote:

---

Can anyone imagine the consequences of the contrary?

---

Can you please explain why this would be *so* disasterous? I seriously don't know why you're making this sound so extremely troublesome. I agree it would be a black mark, but please explain why it would be anything worse than that? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I seriously don't understand your thinking on this, I just need some clarification.
[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-17-2003).]

..I guess another thread goes down the same old path. These things must have a life of their own...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-18-2003).]

Bugimus, you're making plenty of generalizations and assumptions.

It's no secret that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil and Iraq was heavily influenced by the United States to invade Iran. The fact that they've invaded two countries in their history, doesn't make them the notorious nation you're claiming. The United States have had its troops in plenty of countries but up until now I don't believe we were honestly trying to take over the globe.

Iraq's previous living standards were more of a product of US and UN actions then Saddam Husseins. That point shouldn't be disputed.

The reasons you apply for us NEEDING to go to war with Iraq apply to dozens of countries. Why Iraq? If no WMD are found on Iraqi soil, then all of your claims of Iraq being a threat to world peace are moot. As much as Bushies love to play the 9-11 card and cause people to become riled up, theres simply no proof of their involvement. You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe the hunch of a man who couldn't tie his shoes without his family name on this one.

To sum things up, my sole question for you is with there being dozens of worse dictators in the world, why Iraq?

Jestah

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 04-18-2003).]

The United States have enlisted 10 American former UN weapons inspectors to help locate WMD. While I think its a step in the right direction, the United States needs to allow weapons inspectors from various nations to become involved.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=1H3PFG3TDE1WQCRBAEOCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=2585677

Jestah

I'm very surprised that you ask this question, Bugs...I thought that it must be obvious...however, to some, maybe it isn't.

So, let's assume that WMD are not found...let's open up that can of worms for a minute (distaste).

First of all, it should be no surprise, that the invasion (yes, it would then by default be an invasion) of Iraq was not 'sanctioned' by the UN...and most of the worlds populations were against it. About the actual governements, we can argue. By not being able to 'legitimize' the invasion, we put a hell of a lot of our coalition partners governments in peril...that of course leaves room for a lot of anti-american governments coming to power...we certainly do not want that. And even if the new governments are not hostile, they will most certainly be very wary, of 'trusting' America again...or supporting us...especially when the price can mean being not being re-elected. So what happens, when we really need a coalition again? What about the war on terrorism? And on, and on...

Second, it does open up the very real possibility of war crimes, against the US...we have never had an American President that was convicted of war crimes...I shudder to think of the political and social consequences of such...whether or not it actually happens, is a moot point.

Third, the 'moral' (something you seem to be more in touch with) thing...

Fourth, it really then opens the 'reason (s)' for invading Iraq wide open...and sets a very dangerous precident on a global scale for acquiring Nuclear weapons, for it sends the message 'If you don't have them, you may be in danger of being invaded'.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ApplicationToBecomeaBushCrony

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49974-2003Apr18.html

Jestah

but Bugs....
You are trying to seperate one thing (going to war) from another (what happens after the war) as if they are totally unrelated. They are undeniably one event. The event started with the rhetoric before the march to the UN and will not be over 'til Iraq's new government is in place. It is one event.

You got a kid, right? If my memory is correct, she's not yet old enough for crayons, but certainly you can imagine a day in the not so distant future when you or ladyBugs will give little Miss Bugs a box of crayons and a piece of paper.
Now, you turn around, and next thing you know little Miss Bugs has colored your hall in purple and red scribbles.

A week passes and you try again. You sit down with the paper and the crayons and you show little Miss Bugs how to color and draw on the paper. Finally it seems she gets it. You turn your back and your kitchen is now yellow, green, blue and orange-red.

Do you give her crayons again? Of course not! (at least not in the near future) She has made it clear to you that she does not have the responsiblilty to handle crayons...whatever good things MAY come of her having crayons (creativity, fine motor skills, etc) she has not earned the right to have crayons.

I fear, Bugs (all due respect), you (and most of the American public) are being played for a fool by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/et al Administration.

Administration: Mr. Bugs (people of the United States), can we play with crayons (guns)? We need them to learn creativity and fine motor skills (to protect us from evil). Please?
Bugs: Well, the last 317 times I've let you play with crayons you colored all over the walls (fought illegal wars, lied to congress and the American people, installed ruthless dictators for profit, tortured and murdered innocent civilians and assassinated democratically elected leaders).
Administration: We promise we'll be good this time. We promise to only color on the paper. We promise we won't color on any walls.
Bugs: You say you will only color on the paper, enhancing your fine motor skills, and not coloring on the walls. Why should I believe you? Prove it to me.
Administration: I can't. That's a matter of national security...top secret. You just have to trust is. Pleeeeaaaaaase can we have the crayons now?
Bugs: Well, maybe if you told me what it is you are going to draw. Tell me what your plan is.
Administration: Nope, can't tell you that. I don't know. Don't have all the details worked out. This is difficult business, you know. Now pllllleeeeeeeeaaaaaaase, preeettty pleeeeeeeeeeaaase can we have the crayons?
Bugs: OK, but only if you promise to be good. Here's your box of crayons.

*hehehehehe...scribble scribble scribble scribble...hehehehehehe*
*look Rummy! He gave us the crayons...scribble scribble scribble*

Bugs: Well, they COULD have done something good with them. Nobody argues that coloring isn't good for fine motor skills...

You could only think I was being played the fool by the administration if you believed I believe all their rhetoric. Right?

[edit]
mobrul, I have been thinking about your crayon analogy all night and I must admit it really hurt me to hear that you think that I would so easily be bamboozled by the Bush administration.
[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-19-2003).]

Mobrul: Dam thats wild, I love it.

<Xpirex sits and wonders if anyone is selling popcorn...>

Bugs: no not ALL their rhetoric but a large part of it. Sure seems as though you have a lot of faith in those people.


...xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-19-2003).]

Jestah,

I finally got some time to read your stuff closer since my last reply.

This is the first time I've heard anyone excuse Iraq's war against Iran or it's invasion of Kuwait. Is that what I should take from your point? No one forced Iraq to attack in either case. And even if the US wanted Iraq to do either invasion, why did Iraq have to comply? And I have never heard anything about Kuwait stealing Iraqi oil but how would that justify destroying a sovereign state? I don't think attacking Pearl Harbor was justified just because we were helping the Chinese against Japan's invasion of China.

The US and the UN definitely imposed the sanctions. The blame for the living standards should fall squarely on Hussein's regime for diverting all the money meant for humanitarian relief to his weapons build up and palace construction. I honestly don't understand your point on this. If you didn't want to attack and you didn't want to pressure Iraq economically, then what did you want to do?

WMD will be found. But if they are not, as I have already said, I will admit I was wrong. But please hear me, I did not say that was the only reason *I* supported the war. *I* would still be glad we toppled Hussein. *I* am not marching in lock step with pro-war rhetoric because I take a broader view of these affairs.

I don't believe I said Hussein was directly linked to 9-11. I personally believe there was a connection but I can't prove it nor do I care to try. I'm not going to defend a bunch of "bushies" who trumpet that claim.

Before you talk about all the other countries that need invading, let's talk directly to the points about Iraq. Every case is different. In lots of cases other methods short of war *can* work. Don't you think we should exhaust those first? I have told you precisely "why Iraq" in the above post. What do you want me to say more than my reasons? I'm sorry you disagree with them.

But I'm sure you still want to know what country is next on the list. I'm sure you would agree that we cannot make the world a perfect place by bombing everyone we don't like. I can assure you that is not my intention. We could take an isolationist approach but hasn't that failed in the past? I think it has failed miserably and usually leads to worse confrontations because hot spots were allowed to build up pressure until they blew up in a big way.

Iran -- totally unacceptable situation there with its theocracy. We need them to change and I believe they will have a revolution in the not too distant future, and they will be relatively pro-West as most of the youth there seem to be leaning in that direction.

DPRK -- Complete nightmare that. We need to do everything possible to difuse that one diplomatically because they have nukes and we have to be extremely careful how we handle that one. They need to change too, but I honestly don't see the way out of that one.

Syria -- You can fly to Damascus and catch the first taxi and ask to be driven to any number of terrorist organizations. They operate freely there. That has to change and since we are going to be their chief source of revenue now that Hussein is gone, we may have a lot more leverage with them than we did before.

Saudi Arabia -- These guys are to the United States as Iraq was to France. mobrul, you speak of thugs we support, guilty on this one. I don't know the way out of this one either but it has to change.

Afghanistan -- We already did a pretty good job of taking down the Taliban and propping up the "governor of Kabul". But the warlords and the poppy fields are still in full bloom and we are in danger of dropping them from our radar once again. We cannot allow this to happen. We must pour support into there to give them the chance to develop their potential.

Now you see how I just mentioned a few? How many other nations do you think we can simultaneously address? Think about all the other countries that no one ever cares about whose internal conditions suck. They don't have oil, they aren't a threat to their neighbors, and many have never even been heard of by most Americans so they will continue to be ignored.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-19-2003).]

oops, I wanted to delete this but you know what happened,

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-20-2003).]

Poor Bugs, you do really have quite a heavy workload with being in the hot seat so much. How do you cope? Your brain must be quite overworked.

...xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-20-2003).]

^ hehe. yes, quite a workload. but he handles it with grace =)

I have to say I fall somewhere down the middle on this issue, and I think both Jestah and Bugimus are very wrong in their thinking, in different ways...

I think jestah is extremely oversimplifying in order to try to make a point, ignoring anything that runs counter to that point, and I think bugimus is using the evils of the regime to it's own people as a legal justification for invasion, and we could invade a *whole* lot of people based on that, and i don't think bugs woudl agree we'd be justified doing so.

Bugs, I meant not to attack you...I hope you know that.

That crayon analogy is really absolutely how I see this playing out. The facts are pretty obvious. The members of the Bush Administration has done illegal thing after ruthless thing after dishonest thing time after time after time. One of them has even called for the GENOCIDE of the Palestinians. Sure, he didn't use the word 'genocide'...no reasonably schooled person would...but the actions he proposes would lead to genocide, and he knows it. Genocide. Let that word ring around in your head a bit.

Don't just instantly dismiss this. Think very carefully. If a highly influential member of the Bush Administration has (recently) advocated genocide of the Palestinians as a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem, would you accept that answer? Would you still trust these people's motives?

I've gone through the details of the tragedies, the murders, the rapes and tortures here before. It would be overkill to do it again. It's just simple. I don't trust these guys to do the right thing. I have seen them lie and cheat and steal before and I absolutely have no doubt they will do anything, including puting American, Iraqi and any other lives (but their own) in danger for their own egos and pocketbooks.

I don't think you're buying all their rhetoric...but I do think you are missing an important point. They want you to believe that this is not about power and money and oil; this is about freedom and democracy and liberty. You, and most Americans, believe them.
I think they're laughing all the way to the bank.

It's really that simple.
You believe them, I don't.

Bugimus - I'm not attempting to excuse previous Iraqi wars. What I'm attempting to do is show that they aren't the war mongers that the Republican party is labeling them. The Bush family together has as many wars under their belts as Iraq. Do we consider them a threat to the world? WebShamen, Xpirex don't answer that.

I'm with you a 100% on exhausting all possibilities before war, which is why I supported UN inspectors. The inspectors must have been doing something right. We tore through Iraq in a week. We found fairly slight resistence and the stock pile of nuclear weapons were no where to be found. Not exactly the global threat Bush is making the country out to be, is it?

I know that you're not some uninformed partyline voter who's just taking the party line on this one. You believe we should have invaded Iraq because you don't like their leader. Thats a fine opinion to have but the leader of the free world MUST have some other reasons.

I think you've misunderstood my question on why invade Iraq. The question was meant to come across as why invade Iraq over various other countries. You've given me a list of various countries whos rulers are more harsh then Saddam Hussein. You've listed nuclear nations as well as those openly supporting terrorism. Personally, I'd add another few countries into that list. Perhaps I'd put Isreal at the top of the list. I'd be very interested though if you could list, in order, which country possesses the biggest global threat using the countries from your list and a Hussein controled Iraq.

DL - I'm not trying to ignore anything. I understand entirely what type of a ruler Saddam Hussein was. While I acknowledge his ruthlessness, I find plenty of countries who have more ruthless leaders. I find plenty of countries who openly harbor terrorism. I find plenty of countries who openly begin nuclear weapons programs. When I rank countries concerning the threat to my peace, Iraq falls very low. I'm forced to find a reason why we've invaded Iraq. Looking at the near $8 billion dollars in contracts given to Bush supporters, I think I've found my answer.

There's an abundance of unfit leaders in this world. There's very few countries that can give the benefits our top donators seek. There's even fewer countries that can not only give these benefits, but invasion won't result in a quagmire to drive support down. Iraq fits the bill nicely, no?

Jestah

Bugimus - What I'm most concerned now is precident for Bush's lying. The Republican party consistently talks up the fact that Saddam Hussein has invaded countries before, therefore he will do it again. What scares me lately is the Bush Administration has been releasing press releases recently talking up the idea of Iraqi officials fleaing to Syria as well as Iraq moving WMD to Syria. If we can't find WMD in Iraq why should we believe the President when he tells us Syria now has WMD?

Isn't this the same party line the Republicans used against C*****n? We couldn't possibly believe a President who lied about sex. Well if thats true, how can we possibly believe a President who lied about a country containing chemical and biological weapons?

Jestah

My my, what a rousing response this has produced. My faith is re-inspired in that objectivty and independant rational do exist across the pond. There is enough weighted argument here to to scupper several tankers of lies, cargos of deceipt , and the shiploads of crap which that corrupt collective is attempting to float upon us all.

Run!, flee, shred your enlistment papers and escape that sinking ship while there is yet time Bugs... grab hold of the bouancy aid of logic and reason and save yourself, or like the true stalwart will you elect to cling to that rotten and worm eaten mast and go down with her to the bitter and sad end.

Jestah: Ok I am fixing tape across my mouth untill you give me permission to remove it....

..Xpirex retires to his cell in muffeled silence.. ...mmmm..

...xpi...

"nuff said"

I personally find that North Korea is one of the biggest threats to the US on the planet - directly, that is. And I don't think that the war in Iraq helped matters at all...in fact, I think it made things worse. There is no way that North Korea will trust us...so no paper, or agreements, will be worth anything. It is my opinion, that there is nothing at this point in time, that will de-escalate the current situation (in regards to NK nuclear weapons). It is especially worrying, that Chinia is the close neighbor of NK...it certainly complicates matters.

I do not support the optimisim that Bugs has in regards to Iran...wishful thinking, IMHO. Examining their history, I see absolutely no chance of Iran becoming a 'friendly' nation to the US, as long as Israel is our No. 1 friend. It is really not a secret that Iran supports many terrorist groups and cells, mostly covertly...and yes, often through Syria.

Actually, I find it strange...why is it impossible for someone who believes so strongly, not to recognize this type of faith in others? The Islamic Faith is very strong in the Middle-East...and isn't showing any signs of fading...in fact, it appears to be growing stronger. Despite what the English tried to do there (during it's colonizing phase in world history), and Crusades, and now, not only haven't the Moslems of that area 'bowed' their heads, they have instead succeeded in spreading their religion to other countries...some very far away. And though Mecca is the 'center' of Moslem belief, Jerusalem is also important - a constant problem. I personally see no way for the two religions, Christianity and Islamic, to live peacefully with one another because of Jerusalem. And history bears this out. In fact, I'm quite sure, that a clash is coming...and is probably already happening. I don't see Iraq as becoming a 'positive' denominator in a change to the region in this regard...but more, one of a 'negative' nature.

These people believe differently then we do, are from a different heritage, and see things differently. Imposing our views, beliefs, and ideas on them will not work. The only thing we had to hope for before, was that the example that we set would be followed by others. But with the lack of WMD in Iraq, and the then 'invasion', we have hopelessly undermined this principle. Without the WMD, it is easy to draw conclusions for the real reason(s) to invade Iraq...and any leading authority would be dumb not to use the incident to further their own aims. It's not even a question of morality here...it's a question of political power. And like it or not, the religious leaders of the Middle-East hold the power...through the faith of their followers. We have so far been very lucky, that they haven't been able to unite. Instead, they have their 'groupings', factions, sects, etc. However, Iran is slowly changing this - by actively supporting fundamentalistic Islam. Sort of the way the Catholic Church did through the Vatican...and still does today.

I don't think that Iran (or any religion, for that matter) will change the way that it perceives and imppliments its faith anytime soon in the future...these type of things normally take a long time. I don't think Europe would ever have 'broken' the power of religion from the state, were it not for the Dark ages, and the atrocities that the Church committed...

One should ask the question 'Why did fundamentalistic Islam come into being, and what powered it?'...and the answer to this question, will be the solution to the problem.

First of all, is Israel. Of all things in the Middle-East, it is this one that is causing the most problems...there is no way around it (as we have seen). Because the US is supporting Israel very heavily, we have come into the crosshairs, as well. This was to be expected, actually...and I see no real way out of the mess unless we start taking the Moslems seriously. As I see absolutely no hope in the current approach of the Israelis in accomplishing anything other than more animosity, and killing, and hatred, and strife...I feel that we should re-examine our position with Israel accordingly. Now that we have Iraq, and the oil...we don't need Israel. If the US is really interested in bringing a change about in the Middle-East, this will have to change...and our understandings of the Moslems there will have to, as well.

Second, we must empower the peaceful side of Islam...and in no way, shape, or form support the fundamentalistic side (as we tend to do know). We need contacts with Clerics of the Faith that support a peaceful Islam...we need to help them get organized...and become empowered. They have a direct line to the people, after all.

We have seen what this type of religion can bring with it - in Northern Ireland. All you need is religious differences, real (or implied) unfair treatment, and disputed borders, and you have everything one needs for a raging inferno - just toss a lit match. And we all know how difficult it is, to put it out, once it has started...

I personally see no result of putting out the fire coming out of the Iraq conflict.

quote:

---

If patriotism has to precipitate us into dishonour, if there is no precipice of inhumanity over which nations and men will not throw themselves, then, why in fact do we go to so much trouble to become, or to remain, human? --Jean-Paul Sartre

---

...xpi...

"nuff said"

I think this article supports DLs statements fairly well Wonder-Working Power.

Obviously, Mr. Bush is very religious, even willing to go on record with

quote:

---

His 1993 pronouncement to an Austin-American Statesman reporter that non-believers will go to hell infuriated a lot of non-believers

--AlterNet

---

In fact, I find the article to be very intriguing on a number of religious issues...and I'm curious now, as to what Bugs thinks of the Article, and what communion he considers that he belongs to.

quote:

---

...bugimus is using the evils of the regime to it's own people as a legal justification for invasion...

---

DL, I never said I thought what we did was "legal". I think it we did the right thing but from everything I can see about the UN and international law, what we did was clearly illegal. I'm really curious now to know your views on this more clearly because if you fall somewhere between me and Jestah and we are both *very* wrong as you say, then are you saying your position is just right? If so, I would really like to consider it and see how it compares to other opinions here.

X, interacting with everyone here is a great way to test out ideas and I like to think I will learn something from it all. I guess it does get a bit tiring sometimes and I do get a little discouraged but then I realize how stupid and self-centered that sentiment is and jump right back in. I have come to trust most of the people here to not take my words too personally and I trust them to offer me the same courtesy so we can focus on the issues rather than engaging in flame wars. If I wanted that I would go to any number of other discussion boards where that is the norm.

Jestah, you asked

quote:

---

...how can we possibly believe a President who lied about a country containing chemical and biological weapons?

---

Let's give this search for WMD and indefinite amount of time like so many wanted to give the UN inspectors and then you can talk about lying. The indefinite amount of time argued for the inspectors really bothered me but seriously, you must give the US at least 5 months time (the time afforded Blix and Co) before you assume there are no WMD to be found. I promise that if no evidence turns up, then I'll apologize to you. Fair deal?

The reason it seems you are ignoring things is this. I have already answered your question about "why Iraq". In my last post, I reiterated that I answered it and I even expanded on it and took a good deal of time to do it respectfully. What more do you want me to tell you other than my answer? If you disagree with it, perhaps you just need to do so and move on. If you can explain to me why my answer is lacking then please do so but at least acknowledge to me that you have read and understood what I said so I don't think I'm wasting my typing.

Maybe it really comes down to this, to you Iraq is very low on your threat list and it is higher on mine. If you want to know the reasons it is higher on mine, review my answers above.

The list of countries I outlined for you show you that I am not single-sighted on this issue. I see lots of problems and there is no perfect schedule to deal with them. We have limited resources and limited resolve and we have to do what we can with what we have when it has the best chance of success. Sometimes we don't take on the harder problems simply because we can't do it. I know this may come as a shock, but we are not all powerful. We are the strongest but we can't even prevent attacks on our own cities so that should demonstrate that we can only do so much. We have to choose our battles carefully.

mobrul,

quote:

---

One of them has even called for the GENOCIDE of the Palestinians.

---

Please provide more information and a name. The Palestinian/Israeli issue is a tough one to be sure and I have read some of your thoughts on that one and once again we see things very differently. I'm sure it deserves its own thread but at the very least you are going to have to be more speicific when you throw around words like genocide... especially when you leave out any mention of all the rhetoric about pushing the Zionist state into the sea which is repeated so often by some it is virtually ignored.

WS, I'm going to get to your stuff as soon as I can. I haven't read the article yet but am looking forward to it.

A fair deal?

Bugimus, we invaded a country and killed thousands of their citizens on the belief that President Bush HAD evidence of WMD in Iraq. Regardless of your reasons, this was the reason of our government. We had photographic evidence, taken from satellites, of these labs and storage areas. Both you and I argued many times on the merits of those claims. After all, the United Nations, with a decade of inspectors being there, weren't able to uncover any WMD but the Bush Administration,from the other side of the world, found them in a matter of months. Not only did they uncover this evidence but they REFUSED share it with the rest of the world because it was too secret. Now you're suggesting we plum lost the evidence and need several years of searching to find these weapons? Whatever you say buckeroo. Let's face it, twenty years from now you'll be arguing with me on this very forum that the reason former President Bush still hasn't shown us any of this evidence is "national security" & you still feel convinved that he has this evidence and hasn't lied to the American people,

Fair deal? After an invasion based on the sole reason of our evidence you're asking for an "indefinite amount of time" to find this evidence. Yea that sounds like a real fair deal Bugimus. It really seems to coincide with Republican beliefs nicely, shoot first and find some evidence later.

My questions regarding "why Iraq" are two different questions. One inquired why we should invade Iraq, while the other inquired why we should invade Iraq other various other countries. You've only now answered my question as to why we should invade Iraq over other nations. While I understand the need to pick and choose your battles, maybe we could try some better judgement. Maybe its me but when we need about half a year to find a weapon in a country, we might be wasting our time. Yea, we won a real big battle. Sure, we can't actually find any of their weapons, but it's good to know that rather then confronting a nation who is stockpiling nuclear weapons or promoting terrorism, we've taken out the dominating force that is Iraq.

With the strong resistence they showed, who knows what would have happened if they got the jump on us!

Jestah

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 04-24-2003).]

How long were you willing to give the UN inspectors to do their job? Give me a specific time period. It is fair for you to give the same amount of time to find them now. If you can't do that, then wouldn't that just show you to be more concerned with your political agenda rather than real evidence?

That being said, I will admit to you that I had hoped they knew exactly where some of these sites were located and could go right to them and get them. I will admit I am disappointed this was not the case and it does give me some pause.

On the other hand, I can see how we would have targeted the most obvious sites if they were thought to be capable of launching attacks against our troops. If this was the case then we will only know about it once the teams get in there with the proper equipment to detect the substances.

We are also getting reports from Iraqi scientists who were ordered to destroy the stuff they were working on before the UN inspectors arrived which just further proves how futile that effort was and shows why some of the stuff may be hidden better than we thought.


I'm glad to know you read my answer as to why I think we needed to invade Iraq. Now you say your question really was two questions. Ok, but didn't I also anticipate your second question and list many of the countries where there are serious problems? I also told you quite directly that not every country requires military action to effect a change.

Jestah, you are a political science major, please tell me you are able to think on more levels than just "attack or not attack". We should only go to war when necessary and when the diplomatic options have been exhausted. We more than exhausted them in the Iraq situation but we haven't in all the others. There may come a time when we have but we have to try everything short of war first. I'm sure we can agree on that.

So, I've held back on asking too many questions for a little while now in order to allow more to be asked of my position. I've been working very hard to formulate why I hold the positions I do. But I really want to know from you, Jestah, how you would handle the list of countries I gave above. Please tell me the most effective way to proceed. Please be specific and please be realistic. In other words, I do NOT want to hear how we should all just be able to get along. I want to know how you would advise a US administration of your choosing on how to deal with the nations I mentioned.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-24-2003).]

Bugimus, considering we have photographic evidence of the location of these WMD, the area relatively secured, all the technology in the world - how does 15 minutes sound? Hell, if I had satellite pictures showing that I left my car keys on my dinning room table, it would take me however long it took me to get into the room to find them. So is my allocation of 15 minutes reasonable? UN Weapons Inspectors had a slight disadvantage - the Bush Administration wasn't willing to share its insight with them.

I need to run to the library though, I'll be back about midnight to finish my post.

Jestah

Bugimus - would I call my position 'just right'? Nope. At this point the best I can label my position is 'really confused'. Fair enough?

And I also made the assumption that you were saying we were legally justified as well as morally. My mistake.

I guess my big issue is, before we can presume to be the morality police in the international community, we better get our act together ourselves.

While we may not be as blatant and overt with our criminal and immoral actions, we have too much dirt on our hands to be invading other countries based on their internal actions.

DL, very fair.

I generally agree with you about not attacking nations based on their internal affairs. That is why in my list of reasons to go after Iraq, I included the part about attacking Iran and Kuwait. I personally have no doubts that had he never been challenged, he would have made a move to take over much of the region. Also notice that I don't believe that is called for in most cases. Iraq fought every single attempt at a diplomatic solution, anyone who knew how Hussein viewed the world could not be surprised by that.

About not doing anything until we get our act together? I think you know me well enough now to know I would most certainly prefer that we get our act together. But I just can't believe we ever will do so sufficiently before we need to act elsewhere. Can we really afford not to act if that would mean a far worse outcome? I'm personally not prepared to accept that without more convincing.

Jestah, I think you expecting them to pop up instantaneously is not reasonable and I am eagerly awaiting the completion of your post.

Bugs, his name is Richard Perle.
Currently he is holding a position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board and he held a high post (assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, if my memory is correct) in the Reagan administration. In 1996 he wrote (with a handful of others) a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" advising then incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu how to deal with his new job. It addressed Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and the Palestinians.

As for the Palestinians, it said Israel needed to stop negotiation with the Palestinians, stop trying to work out a peace, give up on the Oslo accords, and basically annex the West Bank and Gaza strip. He argues Israel is strong enough to take over, so stop negotiating. He advocates creating new 'facts on the ground' (read: increase settlement areas into Palestinian controlled areas, killing and destroying anything in their way).
Now, if Israel (the self-proclaimed Jewish state) annexes the West Bank and Gaza Strip, then the Palestinians (who have virtually zero rights in a state strictly for Jews) would either be killed off, starve or leave.
That's 'ethnic cleansing' or genocide.
Perle doesn't ever call it that...but that's the likely outcome.

Another interesting point -- it was in that same paper (in 1996) that Perle advocated war on Iraq and Syria. This has nothing at all to do with WMD, it has nothing at all to do with democracy or liberty; it has to do with power and who is going to control the world and its resources. Do you really want our country to take over the world? Do you want 'pax Americana'?

I don't trust this guy and I don't trust his friends. I want to make the US a great leader in the world -- a promoter of human rights, an advocate of fair trade, a shining light of inspiration.
These guys, these guys in whom you place your trust, want to turn the US not into a great leader, but the all-powerful madman -- a destroyer of human rights, a ruthless and extorting thug, a great fire to be feared.

I'm not disagreeing here but, of all the countries who have the ability to take over the world(and there aren't that many really, if any) I'd much rather see the US do it then any other country. Life in America isn't bad. If we were to be imperialistic and 'impose' our lifestyle on others... for most it would be an improvement. Other countries probably wouldn't like it but it would probably still be an improvement for them.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-25-2003).]

But it wouldn't last, GD...and afterwards, we would be hated...like never before. America would probably be taken apart, after the 'Empire' fell...the first Global Empire...I imagine the hate would be enormous.

I just can't reconcile this...sorry. It goes against everything, that we supposedly stand for. We are a land, of people that came here to get away from repression and tyrancy (Native Americans excluded, of course...and many of the African Americans, as well).

If we were to become a part of a world government (like the UN, for example), that would be not only fine by me, but justified, IMHO. Seeing that we are having problems even with that (esp. currently)...I shudder to think what could be done in 'Americas good name' as a Global Ruler.

I echo Mobruls post, in this.

I know of many white middle class and intelectual British people that are becoming strongly anti-American. They are starting to despise American arrogance and the fact that they think their opinion and perspective is the only valid one. That they have taken it upon themselves to become the tyrannical, hypocritical bully of the world. Ideas of megalomania and enforced 'New World Order' syndrome gets them pretty heated and nervously agitated. I say this because it is not only those in distant parts of the world you choose to oppress that are angry but those that you may consider your allies that are observing you closely and are getting seriously pissed off. You claim Bush and his ilk does this in your name and does that in your name and that next time you will vote this and that. But there people wonder how you let such a man get in power in the first place and how you all as a people have tolerated all this and sat back politely and let it all happen in the name of democracy. For that you ALL become responsible and - share blame. The most you do is cautiously voice your opinions in carefully worded essays, so safe and non committal. You will all be held personally responsible for you apathy, detachment and indifference, and that they don't accept pathetic excuses fo the population of America allowing and handful of individuals you run amock in the world.

If you wonder if you will be hated..the answer is yes... it is already happening. It is common knowledge that America does not see the rest of the world as as it extended family, as it's God created brothers and sisters. But just as potentially threatening enemies. That soounds like some 'national insecurity' neurosis prompted by a massive and all pervading and inbuilt sense of guilt in the American psyche. Americans only value other Amercans (on the surface that is for in the five years I spent in the States I saw just the opposite. but while it's convenient to pretend that they care they will)

Democracy = goverment by the people for the people. You chose, or you allowed the choice. You are all party to the crimes, lies and guilt. You will have to sleep in the bed you are making or rather are allowing to be made for you...or so it is claimed. People round the world are just not buying it anymore.


...xpi...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-27-2003).]

Oh...so. Well, the British will first have to point the finger at themselves, because of Mr. Blair. Funny, I didn't see the British storming their halls of government, demanding the immediate halt to the participation of the UK...

Now, many (and I do mean many) protested, as is their right in a democracy against it, all over the world...in Britian, and in America, as well.

And it is our right, to vote according to our beliefs. And yes, you may hold all Americans accountable...but then, we can also hold all British accountable, accordingly...what, exactly, does that solve? Personally, I prefer to solve the matter at the polls...that's what a democracy is, IMHO. Should Mr. Bush win the Presidency again...well, then the majority of Americans have spoken...I may not like it...but I have to accept it as long as he is duly elected! I recall only one real event, in American history, where this was not so...the Civil War. It was the bloodiest conflict in American History.

Now, should Mr. Bush attempt to hold office, without being duly elected (i.e. no elections, or declare some sort of martial law, whatever)...that is another matter, entirely. I don't think he is stupid enough to do it, though...we will see. In such a case, I would be one of the first, to take up arms. I suspect, I would be one from many. 'Defend America, from all enemies, foreign and domestic'. I took this oath, and I was serious then, and I am serious about it now.

'Cast the first stone...' in other words, don't preach, unless the pulpet is clean.

Now, if someone from...say France were to say something like you did...that would be a bit different, right?

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-26-2003).]

Yes, don't you share all the blame for this war being British, X? Aren't you, in fact, condemning yourself as you condemn us? Besides, I think you have blinded yourself to certain realities in this world.

Why have I never heard you complain about the abuses of far worse countries than Britain or the US? Have you ever heard of the black slave trade in Sudan? What about the millions and I mean millions of people slaughtered at the foot of communism? What about Cuba?

You don't have to drag out the litany of American abuses because we are all quite aware of them around here and unlike many of our fellow citizens, we don't deny them. But please show me that you are not solely animated by your hatred for your own society by expressing your outrage about the other atrocities that happen in this world.

I just want to know you are aware of them. Because if your emotions only become enraged at the US and Britain's actions while ignoring all the rest, then that would make you a hypocrite.

No Bugs I am not British... and yes they get a kick in the ass too. .but the topic here is Amerca...

..and I find you make an excuse for everything, never taking responsibilty, evasion and shifting the focus is your main defense...

...xpi...

"nuff said"

You live in the UK, right? I assumed you were British, sorry. What is your citizenship and nationality?

[edit] And please... if you're going to cast the stone, make sure you're not in the proverbial glass house. I have answered and am in the process of answering every question you have asked of me. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-26-2003).]

X - you toss your accusations and personal insults around a little too freely...especially for a guy who very rarely offers any backing for the sometimes wild claims you make, and who is very sparse with actual information.

I have never seen bugimus do anything but give a straight answer to any question you (or anyone else) has ever asked.

Perhaps you don't like his answers....but that's a different story altogether.

quote:

---

Jestah, I think you expecting them to pop up instantaneously is not reasonable and I am eagerly awaiting the completion of your post.

---

Not reasonable? Bugs, both you and I have argued several times whether or not President Bush has evidence of WMD. President Bush has stated that he has satellite evidence of where these WMD are being kept, and you've said every time now that you believe him. Why are you alotting so much time? Our satillite pictures are essentially maps. Are you able to read a map? Someone in the military HAS to be.

My political agenda means absolutely nothing in this case. I've never claimed to know where WMD were, Bush did that. He based a war on this. Now its time to deliver. Surely you can see that his unwillingness to provide this evidence is a problem.

I'm not really sure who's the one thinking along the lines of "attack or not attack." I'm thinking along the lines of co-exist and prosper, a direction the Bush administration is unwilling to consider. We should go to war only when its absolutely necessary and I honestly don't believe you really think this situation was absolutely necessary. Theres absolutely no reason to believe the Iraqi government planned on attacking us or selling its supposed WMD to terrorist organizations.

How would I handle things? Personally, I'd cut off all ties to Isreal. I'd try and persuade the United Nations to invest in even more weapons inspectors in Iraq. I'd then negotiate with South Korea. Thats about it.

Jestah

You talk about accepting it if Bush is 'duly elected'... well that sounds kinda fair...in theory.. so tell me this.. if the Iraqi people 'duly elect' to have an Islamic government, why will that NOT be accepted. America has already said that it will not allow such a thing!! So what does that tell me... one rule of democracy for you and and another for them? It seems as though the Iraqis can have any government the choose as long as America approves ... and they have already placed their puppets in the running. Surely that sucks. Don't even try to tell me that this is right. Some one please give me an answer for this.

Listen everyone I am not British, and I don't claim to defend the British system, (that is a another whole barrel of worms and I have reams to say about them), I have no nationalistic tendencies whatsoever, but the subject here is what the US is doing in this world. Isn't it? What good is it to say 'they are also to blame', and 'what about them?' Why can't someone admit that the US is just completely unjustified in what it is doing? and is going way over the top?

D-L: What wild claims are you refering too? I can certainly back up every thing I say but it will certainly not be politically correct or even polite. This is not the time, place or forum for that.

(for your curiosity Bugs my mother is German, my father Jamaican and I was born in another country still, spent my childhood in yet another, and have lived in many others...last count spent time in about 18 different countries. I'm a bit of a globalist. So without giving you my fingerprints and a DNA sample what does that make me in your opinion?)

I should also say that I did throw insults at any one individual, You see that my posts are rarely directed to any one in particular. I am reacting to ideas and actions.. not you people. Please accept my apologies if it seems that way, I'm sorry to all if that's how it came across. I respect you all and appreciate the chance to exchange with such an interesting group of individuals. I don't have the space to put every detail and source of why I think the way I do and perhaps this is not even the right place to do such a thing as the subject is just too dam big. Maybe I should just shut up altogether...

ps. Don't be so fragile.

...xpi...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-27-2003).]

Come on, X, what is your citizenship and nationality? I'm getting a little tired of you telling me I'm evasive when you still haven't told me where you're from or where those prophecies you keep mentioning come.

[edit] I read your reply before you added the edit [/edit]

So what country were you born in?

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-27-2003).]

No, don't shut up. Just have a conversation with us. It's no big deal.

Well, it does look like the British are punishing Mr. Blair for Iraq...wooohooooo! Tories fail council seats test. Just got to love that...wonder how elections in the US will do next year...

Imagine that Mr. Bush wins, and old ally Britain does an aboutface...do you think they'll get labeled as traitors and backstabbers? But of course they would...that's the Bush way...