|
lox
Feb 14, 2003, 12:05 AM
Post #26 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
WORD.
It makes me think of a John Cleese Fawlty Towers bit... you know the one...
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 14, 2003, 12:11 AM
Post #27 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
kriso9tails,
That was an interesting post and I agree with much of it. However, France, Germany, etal. who are infact NATO members are legally bound to assist other NATO members if they come under attack.
They are currently refusing to even engage in the planning for this for Turkey--another NATO member.
Perhaps France should not feel "obligated" to the US, but some sort of reciprocity should exist in helping each other out in view of a common threat.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that the US does an "about-face" and does not go to war with Iraq right now due in part to pressure by france, Germany, etc. Suppose further that the US is right in its predictions and Iraq accumulates countless weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Iraq will not have ICBM capability for many years, but they will have the ability to launch these weapons against Europe as soon as they are developed.
So, in a few years then when Iraq is far more dangerous than today and France and Germany are screaming for us to assist them with their very real threat, what should the US do?
I maintain that if this scenario unfolds, we should not lift a finger to help them.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
ontario_guide
Feb 14, 2003, 12:34 AM
Post #28 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2002
Posts: 526
|
I'm sorry to annoy my friends to the south with this post but I feel it must be done.
1) The American Revolution- (Some of you might remember the Mel Gibson movie.) Who was it that provided you with a navy and troops that ultimatley won the war for you? The French.
2)World War One and World War Two- No Mel Gibson movies here but perhaps some of you will happen to know that after both of these wars the United States and its allies did a very noble and wise thing in trying to prevent Germany from EVER going to war again. So we screwed that up in 1918 but it seems we accomplished that in 1945. Here we are almost 60 years later complaining that Germany is doing EXACTLY what we've been paying them to do all this time. NOTHING. Why are we surprised that we ingrained in their national psyche the idea that war is wrong and then when it comes to call on them for a war they say "war is wrong" and we freak out!
3) In WW1 and WW2 the countries that suffered the most were France, Germany and Russia. Hey wait, these people are now telling us that war is not fun but really, really sucks and they don't want any part of it. Maybe they know what they're talking about...
4) George Bush- As long as the U.S. has a president that probably can't tell you the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia and thinks that the Baltics and the Balkans are the same thing, the U.S. is probably NOT going to have the greatest relationship with Europe.
Sorry for the rant. If we are going to go to war with Iraq for our own reasons then let's stop complaining and just do it. If Europe doesn't want in that's ok for them. Who knows, maybe they know what they're talking about.
Edited for spelling.
Apparently I can's spell because this was edited for spelling again...
[ This Message was edited by: ontario_guide on 2003-02-13 16:41 ]
[ This Message was edited by: ontario_guide on 2003-02-13 18:01 ]
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 14, 2003, 12:43 AM
Post #29 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
ontario_guide,
Hopefully your knowledge of Canadian history is better than your knowledge of American History.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
ontario_guide
Feb 14, 2003, 12:45 AM
Post #30 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2002
Posts: 526
|
Please enlighten me...
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Feb 14, 2003, 12:56 AM
Post #31 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Curt... that isn't what France & Germany are saying anyway. They aren't like DO NOTHING !!!1 lol.
They both think that military action is not the best course of action. They think international policing and diplomacy are better than simply rebuilding a soverign nation because we make moral judgement on it's leader.
They support:
- more and more frequent weapons inspection. Triple the amount of inspectors and let them truly go anywhere.
- establish UN Peacekeeping force. Way bigger than Saddam's tiny, ramshackle army. SAddam GOT PEEPS out of PRISON to fight for him that's how desperate he is to defensd himself against our 400 BILLION dollar army.
- constant surveillance by US spyplanes. You know, to make sure they are not moving stuff around in the dark.
Of course, when you think that winning a summer war there is going to be WAY ROUGHER and that this thing needs to be done by election season, it's easy to see why we want war now.
And just think how much oil the puppet government is going to sell Saudi Arabia to rebuild the country !
I refer you to my previous statement.
I see a dangerous precedent set, based on public opinion and empty rhetoric, by people who will obviously say what they need to to get what they want.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 14, 2003, 12:56 AM
Post #32 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Quote:
Who was it that provided you with a navy and troops that ultimatley won the war for you? The French.
The French contributed mainly money in our war of independence from England. The did provide Naval forces, which were much appreciated and very few fighting army soldiers.
The sole motivation for the French entry into the American Revolutionary war, was to benefit itself directly in its ongoing war with England.
Also,
Quote:
World War One and World War Two- No Mel Gibson movies here but perhaps some of you will happen to know that after both of these wars the United States and its allies did a very noble and wise thing in trying to prevent Germany from EVER going to war again. So we screwed that up in 1918 but it seems we accomplished that in 1945.
The Second World War was a war that never needed to be fought. As so eloquently laid out by Winston Churchill in "The Gathering Storm" it was the pacifism both in the US and in Europe that allowed Hitler to rearm.
It would have taken a mere hint at the use of force by the allies to keep Hitler in check in the early through mid-1930s. Sometimes it is better and wiser to not follow a policy of pacifism.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
ontario_guide
Feb 14, 2003, 1:13 AM
Post #33 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2002
Posts: 526
|
Curt- While your point on the American Revolution is entirely accurate, I must point out that it was the money, naval assets and troops (although limited in number) that allowed the Continental Army to win when they did. Furthermore, the fact that France aided the U.S. just to weaken Britian is valid but I don't really understand the relevancy. Isn't it enough that they did it and maybe the U.S. should be somewhat greatfull for that.
As for you point of appeasement towards Germany during the inter-war years, you and Mr. Churchill are absolutley correct. However, the roots of appeasement lie in the extremley harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Those terms, as modeled on Wilson Fourteen Points, were so restrictive to the German economy that they basically guaranteed a second war. Secondly, Britian had no way of knowing that Hitler was a maniac at the time and were simply trying to right some of the unjust rules of the Treaty. It wasn't until the invasion of Poland that the world realized what was going on and responded in kind. I must caution you against judging the actions of the British policy makers during the inter-war period using what we know now.
Regardless of whether you agree with the above statements or not is irrlevant to the discussion at hand however. Iraq and Germany are two very different cases. While Germany was expansonistic with a strong military and an strong industrial base, Iraq has a regional military which is no match for any developed nations army, a weak industrial base and is not making any overt attempts at expansionism. While they did attack a neighbour 10 years ago, the U.S. and it's allies responded with the correct amount of force and taught Saddam a lesson. I think he's more concerned about staying in power then anything else right now.
Also, regardless to any of this, I would hope that in the land of the free, it would be acceptable to have differing opinions then that of your President. Why are Americans so concerned about France or Germany not participating? You don't need them. Why sour a good relationship for basically nothing? My guess is that deep down most Americans know that a war with Iraq right now is wrong and they just don't like other countries telling them that.
Respectfully-
Jeff
edited for spellin'
[ This Message was edited by: ontario_guide on 2003-02-13 17:59 ]
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Feb 14, 2003, 2:48 AM
Post #34 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
Interesting discussion.
But I've already made up my mind. When my kids are out of the house, I'm figuring out some way to move to France.
I'm tired of living at the center of a would-be global empire with a value-system from the 1890's. I want to live someplace where people's priorities are straight: food and wine (and climbing).
Vive la France.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Feb 14, 2003, 3:37 AM
Post #35 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
props to SFOG.
|
|
|
|
|
knuckles
Feb 14, 2003, 4:19 AM
Post #36 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 650
|
War with Iraq may be an inevitability at this point, but the US has unfinished business elsewhere. Afghanistan is a wreck, Osama is STILL out there, Indonesia and the southern Philipines pose seious wild card potential all backed with Saudi money. Saudi Arabia has not been held accountable at all for thier role in current events and Israel refuses to tow the US line and continues to stir the pot in the region despite America's wishes and substancial aid (oh, I'm gonna catch some crap about that one). I agree that Saddam has got to go, period... but this is starting to look like that plate spinning act at the circus.
The French are entitled to disagree with George W., I sure do. I hold no grudge for disagreeing at the U.N. level, go right ahead fellas... but we are talking about NATO here. France, Germany, and Belgium (remember that the capitol of the European Union is in Brussels before you write them off) have turned thier collective back on Turkey, a NATO ally. They were not asked to declare war, they were not asked to commit troops to an invasionary force, they were asked to discuss plans for the defense of Turkey in the event of an Iraqi invasion or attack... and they refused. France, Germany and Belgium disagree with America and so they leave Turkey twisting in the wind, make sense? Not to me.
Hopefully there is someone here who can explain it to me. I invite argument and education on these issues and am approaching this with an open (and skeptical) mind. I've got the background info, I understand the French and American contributions to each others freedom... but is ther not an obligation to defend one's allies in NATO? Isn't that the whole POINT?
Thomas, I sincerely hope we are not alienating you with all of this... so few Americans have the opportunity to speak with anyone outside our borders. Your input is especially valuable and relevant here.
brad
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 14, 2003, 4:53 AM
Post #37 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Jeff,
I think we both can agree that France assisted us in winning the American Revolutionary War.
I must take issue with this, however...
Quote:
Secondly, Britian had no way of knowing that Hitler was a maniac at the time and were simply trying to right some of the unjust rules of the Treaty. It wasn't until the invasion of Poland that the world realized what was going on and responded in kind.
Churchill knew what you stated in your previous post (i.e. that a second war with Germany was likely to be inevitable.) He started making speaches in Parliament in the mid 1930s on this very topic. He also spoke of England's need to gear-up their armaments. So it is not fair to say that England did not know what Hitler was up to, instead Attlee, Chamberlain, etal. decided to ignore the clear evidence.
I am not even sure in my own mind that war right now with Iraq is necessary. I do however, see similarities between Germany between the wars and Iraq. I know that you say they are not expansionist--but remember it was their incursion into Kuwait that really started all of their international problems.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
flagstaff_climber
Feb 14, 2003, 5:06 AM
Post #38 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 310
|
Maybe france could do something constructive instead of just trying to hamper our efforts to get rid of saddam. Maybe they could send some of their top military people to Baghdad to offer training on the art of surrender.
Rick
And BTW, my submarine was black thank you very much.
[ This Message was edited by: flagstaff_climber on 2003-02-13 21:08 ]
|
|
|
|
|
ontario_guide
Feb 14, 2003, 5:11 AM
Post #39 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2002
Posts: 526
|
Curt- Thanks for the great Discussion. Just a point to clarify on the Churchill thing. you are completly right that Churchill warned Parliament about Hitler long before the war. However, Chamberlain was the Prime Minister (as you know) and did not think that Hitler was such a bad guy. I'm writing an essay on the topic right now and it seems that Chamberlain was fairly naive about Hitler's ultimate intentions until it was almost too late. Your point about Iraq being an aggressor is well taken though.
I don't think that you will have a hard time convincing me the Saddam is crazy. Personally I believe we should be stoping him. However, the point of my posts was to try and illustrate that the issue is not so cut and dry that we should be outraged when our allies do not come to the same conclusion. This is not an obvious war like the World Wars where the choice for France and England were fight or be conquered. In this case we have the luxury to weigh some of our alternatives and try and let the inspection process and embargo's work. Maybe if we helped the rebel groups inside the country instead of hanging them out to dry as we did to the Kurds after the first Gulf War they could take care of the problem for us...
|
|
|
|
|
ontario_guide
Feb 14, 2003, 5:14 AM
Post #40 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2002
Posts: 526
|
Just to address a comment to knuckles--
NATO was formed to defend against attacks from the U.S.S.R. Now that the Cold War has ended, there is really no need for NATO. Secondly, NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance. I hardly think anyone can say that Turkey is being attacked right now. What Turkey wants is support in the event that the U.S. uses bases from its territory to attack Iraq and the Iraq conterattacks. I think this recent fiasco was just an end run by the U.S. to get the allies on board and they saw that for what it was.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 14, 2003, 5:23 AM
Post #41 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Jeff,
I believe after the last few exchanges, we are pretty much in agreement.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
uncle_big_green
Feb 14, 2003, 5:38 AM
Post #42 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2002
Posts: 261
|
People seem to be very divisive on what to do about Iraq right now. I have to give kudos to this hippy that works at a Boulder convenience store for giving a good perspective on the situation. The first thing he said that on one hand war sucks because people will die. Very true. However, he also said that the world can't let Saddam remain in power because people will die. As we all know by now, whacking him is easier said than done.
Most people aren't as enlightened on the situation as they think they are. For example, we hear people whining that the UN inspectors haven't found anything, so there's no evidence against Sadam and he should be left alone. The fact is that the resolution calls for Iraq to provide proof that their WMDs have been eliminated/destroyed. Why? It was already known that they possesed these weapons. Duh. They agreed to do something and haven't done it.
Pappy wrote a nice perspective on the Iraq situation and I'll search for a link to it and post it next. I'll also see what else I can find.
ATG wrote the following:
"i'm embarrassed to be a us citizen right now."
Fair enough, but remember that you should also be proud for not being prevented from saying so.
As for boycotting the French, there are several other reasons to do so: not bathing regularly, chipping holds, and liking Jerry Lewis so much - to name just a few. Maybe what the original poster should have instead suggested to just ignore them.
[ This Message was edited by: uncle_big_green on 2003-02-13 22:07 ]
|
|
|
|
|
uncle_big_green
Feb 14, 2003, 5:43 AM
Post #43 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2002
Posts: 261
|
OK, here's the link to Pappy's eloquent synopsis:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=24827&forum=32&start=30
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Feb 14, 2003, 12:25 PM
Post #44 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
Right with ontario_guide about NATO and Turkey. Turkey is not yet attacked, we can wait few more days.
About Iraq and weapons. Iraq has been extensively disarmed by UNSCOM from 91 to 98. Iraq could have bought new weapons, but with no money, who would sell them expensive weapons. I don't realy think they have massive destruction weapons but that's just a personnal view and I have no authority in that domain.
You, Americans, should basically know what kind of weapons Iraq does own, as you armed Iraq in the 70's and 80's before and when it was fighting Iran (before arming Iran to free the hostages -Irangate, contras...). So maybe you are frightened because things you sold them didn't appear again.
Today Tarek Aziz meets the Pope. I didn't know that Aziz was a Christian! Far from being a friend of Bin LAden, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Feb 14, 2003, 2:20 PM
Post #45 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
Reporter: "Mr. President, how can you be sure that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
Bush: "We kept the receipts."
[Sorry if you've heard that one already.]
|
|
|
|
|
daisuke
Feb 14, 2003, 2:23 PM
Post #46 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2001
Posts: 904
|
This whole war thing is nothing but a bunch of horse crap that bush has conjured up to serve his buddies in the petroleum industry (not to mention his own family) you should all just have a look at the book "stupid white men" written by michael moore (yeah he's white too and american) before you start saying that france and germany are "traitors". I wouldn be surprised if bush was making all this come up just to pass up the fact that he's screwing up just about everything else that has to do with running the country.
"WAR IS FUN WHEN YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DIE"
now tell me the connection between those two words in bold and then preach to me about how iraq should be brought to it's knees with military force.
On the turkey subject... turkey has the largest standing army in NATO outside possibly of the US, so there is no real need to arm turkey for a "just in case". all that is just bush trying to find more legal ways to put MORE weapons within range of Iraq.
all that said I don't agree with the way saddam runs things, but I sure wouldn't have a say in a dictatorship, those in the NATO nations do have a say tho and the only ones with the balls to use it are germany france and belgium.
my 2 bucks!
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 14, 2003, 2:41 PM
Post #47 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
“They think international policing and diplomacy are better than simply rebuilding a soverign nation because we make moral judgement on it's leader.”
Nearly 3000 people from all over the world died on 9/11.
“…its easy to see why we want war now.”
Nearly 3000 people from all over the world died on 9/11.
“I see a dangerous precedent set, based on public opinion and empty rhetoric, by people who will obviously say what they need to to get what they want.”
Nearly 3000 people from all over the world died on 9/11.
“But I've already made up my mind. When my kids are out of the house, I'm figuring out some way to move to France.”
Nearly 3000 people from all over the world died on 9/11.
“You, Americans, should basically know what kind of weapons Iraq does own, as you armed Iraq in the 70's and 80's before and when it was fighting Iran (before arming Iran to free the hostages -Irangate, contras...). So maybe you are frightened because things you sold them didn't appear again.”
Nearly 3000 people from all over the world died on 9/11.
----The reason you are sucking breath right now is because of the past sacrifice of American lives. No conflict was ever clearly right or wrong. In any conflict there is always truth on both sides. This one is and will continue to be no different.
Regardless of your “feelings,” by this afternoon, or perhaps tomorrow or next week, or who knows when, thousands or perhaps even millions of Americans could die from another attack, which could be chemical, biological, or nuclear.
Perhaps some of you are right. Perhaps we should do nothing but hide behind our plastic-covered duct taped windows, and keep our fingers crossed. Or maybe we should seek counsel from the ACLU. Or invite the terrorists from within our borders to sit and discuss the matter over a cup of tea…if only they would just start wearing some signs, perhaps a ball cap that reads: “I Am A Terrorist” so that we might be able to clearly identify the players.
The rules have changed. Deal with it. Whether or not you can comprehend that, you may still die today, gurgling and puking up your own lungs from some smuggled horrid chemical that you could not even see, touch, or smell.
The UN? NATO? Agreements? Sanctions? Containment? These people think they’ll get 72 virgins for killing innocent civilians in a suicidal flash…your poetic western reasoning is lost here.
Maniacs understand only fire and even then there is significant lag time in their thought processes (See Japan WWII).
Where are the traditional battle lines? Where is the threat? It is where you are as you read this.
Obviously more Americans must die. How many is probably a function of your inability to understand that not every homo sapiens is human.
When it happens (further attacks on our own soil) and it appears as though it will, will you still think that it is a Republican conspiracy for oil; a way to get votes, or perhaps good old American Imperialism? But then perhaps you will remain convinced that "we deserved it."
War is not a function of “1890’s values systems.” It is a result of the universal mandate for self-preservation.
Man has never learned from his past and he never will.
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Feb 14, 2003, 2:47 PM
Post #48 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
Quote:by this afternoon, or perhaps tomorrow or next week, or who knows when, thousands or perhaps even millions of Americans could die from another attack, which could be chemical, biological, or nuclear.
Quite true. It's just that a signficant number of people judge that war with Iraq is not going to make this scenario any less likely. Some people judge that it might conceiveable make it even more likely.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Feb 14, 2003, 3:42 PM
Post #49 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
I love how no matter what kinda of logical arguement or evidence to the contrary is presented to them, some people simply cannot think past "But but but, 3000 people died... like, somethign should be totally DONE ABOUT IT or something!"
lol.
Gag me with a spoon.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 14, 2003, 6:05 PM
Post #50 of 170
(3903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
The Bush Administration’s new global strategic doctrine states that the U.S. will make preemptive strikes based on anticipatory risk.
Anticipatory risk, people! Not self-defense. Not in response to attack. Not based on irrefutable evidence. Anticipatory risk means we will attack another nation because we THINK they MIGHT pose a threat to us. This is about the lowest standard for justification of war one could dream up. About the only thing lower I can think of is just flat out pathological aggression, and this is pretty darn close to that.
What data are we using to assess anticipatory risk? Our intelligence? Our intelligence has a long history of being wrong. That’s the nature of intelligence – it’s not a cut and dried business. The CIA grossly over estimated the Soviet Union’s military capability during the cold war. What would have happened had we responded to that anticipatory risk with a preemptive strike doctrine?
The new doctrine is misguided at best. It goes against every value that I’ve learned about what it means to be American. It is immoral.
If we are to attack another country we’d better have 3 things established without a doubt. 1) Darn good evidence of an imminent threat. 2) International legitimacy for our action. 3) Overwhelming support at home. We have none of that right now. Without those 3 things it is not fair to our troops to send them to war, and we will end up creating more problems for ourselves (blowback). The Bush Administration is bungling this so far. They haven’t done their diplomatic homework. Instead, they are using military threat abroad and propaganda at home (40% of Americans now think that most or all of the 9-11 highjackers were Iraqi). They are undermining the U.N. by not sharing intelligence with the inspectors from the start. They are failing to gain international legitimacy and overwhelming support at home. Regardless whether you think the war is appropriate at this time, without those things we must not put our troops in harms way.
This is from General Norman Schwarzkopf on the question of going to Baghdad at the end of the first Gulf War (quoted from PBS Frontline).
Quote:
If you remember the Vietnam war, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result we, first of all, lost the battle of world public opinion and eventually we lost the battle at home. In the Gulf War we had great international legitimacy in the form of eight United Nations Resolutions, every one of which said "Kick Iraq out of Kuwait", did not say one word about going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, conquering the whole country and hanging Saddam Hussein.
. . . had we gone on to Baghdad, I don't believe the French would have gone and I'm quite sure that the Arab coalition would not have gone, the coalition would have ruptured and the only people that would have gone would have been the United Kingdom and the United States of America. And, oh by the way, I think we'd still be there, we'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit, we could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying one hundred percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.
I don't think we could have found Saddam Hussein if we'd done that. We forget the lessons of Panama. We had ten thousand Americans on the ground in Panama before we went into that very small country, we still couldn't find a fellow named Noriega, so what makes you think that we would go into a nation the size of Iraq and be able to find one person who has all the ability in the world to escape and hide and fly out of the country.
But I think, more importantly, there's a strategic consideration. Saddam Hussein portrayed that war from the very beginning as "This is not a war against Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. This is the Western colonial lackey friends of Israel coming in to destroy the only nation that dare stand up to Israel, that is Iraq".
Had we proceeded to go on into Iraq and take all of Iraq, I think that you would have millions of people in that part of the world who would say Saddam was right, that that was the objective. Instead we went in, we did what the United Nations mandate asked us to do and we left and we didn't ask for anything.
Rather ominous words from a pretty smart military man, don’t you think?
I am so disappointed with America right now. So we got our nose bloodied on 9-11. What are we? A nation of cowards who would abandon the moral high ground at the first sign of adversity, give up our values and traditions, and start lashing out at anyone who looks at us funny? That’s called bullying. Courage is walking tall, with a stiff lip, taking the hit, holding to the moral high ground, and responding appropriately against the people who hit you. America is not behaving very courageously, in my view.
Even if the war is justified and we’ve set the table for it properly both domestically and internationally - Terrorism will not be defeated with military might. I have to say that again.
TERRORISM WILL NOT BE DEFEATED WITH MILITARY MIGHT!
Look at Israel. They have the entire country under marshal law, with the Palestinians cordoned off in distinct geographical areas, most of their citizens are armed, and they still can’t stop terrorism. Do you think we can stop it here by force? What are you willing to give up, America, for your security? How many of your Constitutional rights? Which of your values? Shall we have a tank on every corner and a soldier in every public place? What degree of security is sufficient for you? Terrorism must be defeated through other means.
Thank God for the French and the other people of the world who are standing up to our misguided policies and aggression. Maybe their actions can save us from ourselves.
Just a couple counter points to some things stated in previous posts:
The situation in Iraq is in no way comparable to Nazi Germany. Germany had a first class war machine. The best in the world, with superior technology deployed, and even more superior technology under development. Hitler was hell-bent on dominating Eurasia and possibly the world, and there was little chance of containing him at the time. Their technology might have won them the war had Hitler not blundered that advantage away. Right now the U.S. is the best-equipped, best-trained army EVER. The Iraqi military capability (as told to me by a 3 star general) is 3rd rate. Saddam doesn’t stand a chance of dominating his region, much less the world. He is completely contained. So what if he has bio and chemical weapons? He knows that if he uses them in any situation he will get smacked down hard. He does not present anything close to an imminent threat. He doesn’t have nukes, and I’ve seen no evidence that he’s close to getting them.
NATO is not breaking apart because France, Germany, and Belgium just don’t like the U.S. NATO is at risk because the U.S. is taking action that is so egregiously unacceptable to them that they feel they can’t support it at any cost. We are instigating the possible break up of NATO, not them. We are the ones forcing action. They are reacting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
