Full Version: Is Iran Next?
QUOTE(Antny @ Feb 16 2005, 07:44 AM)
Nobody has picked up on this yet, so I'll throw it out there. Oil has been a top National Security issue for dacades. We know this. The current competition is from the Euro. Economically is is very interesting, as the dollar falls on the World market, and the Euro rises. In 2000, Saddam decided to decree that all his oil should be sold in Euro, not dollars. For that, he paid dearly.
Actually, you yourself already brought this up on your last post on this thread, and Carlitoswhey refuted it rather soundly. No kidding Iran is looking to trade in the Euro. We don't trade with them. Aside from nuts and rugs, we have set up sanctions which have been in place for years and years. Europe does trade with them, and is offering trade advantages and technical assistance in exchange for Tehran permanently giving up its uranium-enrichment activities. They will trade in the Euro, and it's nothing to go to war over.
QUOTE(Leonard @ Feb 14 2005, 04:08 PM)
Israel is most afraid of any Arab frontline state gaining nuclear capability.
For good reason. Many of those Arab states have refused to recognize Israel as a nation and many of their most extreme elements are committed to the total and complete elimination of that country.
QUOTE(Leonard @ Feb 14 2005, 04:08 PM)
This is the reason why it bombed the Osirak reactor of Iraq, which at the time, was a nominal ally of the U.S.
Quite "nominal". In other words, less of a problem than Iran at the time.
QUOTE(Leonard @ Feb 14 2005, 04:08 PM)
If Israel attacks Iran (and I think it’s more of a question of when, not if), there are few people on this planet who will not believe that Israel was given the green light to do so by Washington.
I think that is a fair statement.
QUOTE(Leonard @ Feb 14 2005, 04:08 PM)
I just don’t think the Bushies fully understand the concept of Jihad.
Particularly, now that it’s come out that White House and FAA both received specific warnings about 9-11 and did nothing about them.
First, I think that Bush administration understands Jihad far better than the Clinton administration did and that's why the massive global war on terror. Bush and his people understand that appeasement cannot work against Jihad because it is a religious and a fanatical movement for which people committed to it are prepared to die. Clinton, in contrast, thought that ignoring the problem and appeasing it's enablers (like Arafat) would make it diminish. It didn't. It escalated. Bush had this lesson driven home like a hot poker on 9/11/01. Your FAA reference means nothing at this point other than add noise to your argument. It doesn't change the nature of Jihad or the terrorists that we're at war with.
QUOTE(Leonard @ Feb 14 2005, 04:08 PM)
But I don’t believe Israel can keep nuclear arms away from its enemies forever.
And this is a terrible shame.
Because Israel is a vibrant and shiny democracy.
When Israel does attack Iran, it will be an extension of the United States' crusade against fundamentalist Islam.
edited for spelling of Orsirak
Which is it then? Are you for Israel's survival or against the "crusade" against the fanatics that are pursuing the weapons by which to destroy it? Perhaps you should be a bit more clear about where you stand?
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Feb 16 2005, 07:12 PM)
First, I think that Bush administration understands Jihad far better than the Clinton administration did and that's why the massive global war on terror. Bush and his people understand that appeasement cannot work against Jihad because it is a religious and a fanatical movement for which people committed to it are prepared to die. Clinton, in contrast, thought that ignoring the problem and appeasing it's enablers (like Arafat) would make it diminish. It didn't. It escalated. Bush had this lesson driven home like a hot poker on 9/11/01. Your FAA reference means nothing at this point other than add noise to your argument. It doesn't change the nature of Jihad or the terrorists that we're at war with.
During Clinton's office, there were not any huge terror attacks against the US, nor did the majority of the muslims hate the US. The "Jihad" you describe started only after Bush started attacking around.
QUOTE(Fma @ Feb 16 2005, 12:25 PM)
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Feb 16 2005, 07:12 PM)
First, I think that Bush administration understands Jihad far better than the Clinton administration did and that's why the massive global war on terror. Bush and his people understand that appeasement cannot work against Jihad because it is a religious and a fanatical movement for which people committed to it are prepared to die. Clinton, in contrast, thought that ignoring the problem and appeasing it's enablers (like Arafat) would make it diminish. It didn't. It escalated. Bush had this lesson driven home like a hot poker on 9/11/01. Your FAA reference means nothing at this point other than add noise to your argument. It doesn't change the nature of Jihad or the terrorists that we're at war with.
During Clinton's office, there were not any huge terror attacks against the US, nor did the majority of the muslims hate the US. The "Jihad" you describe started only after Bush started attacking around.
That is factually incorrect. Islamic terrorists attacked the world trade center in 1993, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in '96, our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in '98 and the USS Cole in 2000. Every time, Clinton "talked tough" and did nothing.
Bin Laden himself declared Jihad against the US in 1998.... when Bill Clinton was the president.
This doesn't even include the endless series of escalating attacks against Israel which were condoned by the terrorist Arafat.
Please get your facts straight before making such inaccurate and incorrect assertions. Thank you.
Well, for whatever it's worth, now it looks like Iran has decided that Syria is a good ally.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021605I.shtml
I'm pretty sure Russia will back them. Russia is apparently considering shitfting it's oil currency to the Euro. And is the contractor building their nuclear program.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis...ilpriceeuro.htm
And so this looks to be the makings for a real WWIII. Who gets control of the world oil market? Dollars or Euro?
It is the single most valuable resource in the world right now.
QUOTE
"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari.
Washington has accused Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons and has withdrawn its envoy to Damascus.
US tensions with Syria have soared since Monday's killing of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri in a bombing.
To point to Syria in a terrorist act that aims at destabilising both Syria and Lebanon is truly like blaming the US for 9/11. Many Lebanese blame the car bombing in Beirut on Syria, but the Syrian government has denied it was responsible for the blast.
The US has recalled its ambassador to Syria in protest at the attack, although it has not directly accused Damascus of responsibility.
Washington has accused Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons and has withdrawn its envoy to Damascus.
US tensions with Syria have soared since Monday's killing of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri in a bombing.
To point to Syria in a terrorist act that aims at destabilising both Syria and Lebanon is truly like blaming the US for 9/11. Many Lebanese blame the car bombing in Beirut on Syria, but the Syrian government has denied it was responsible for the blast.
The US has recalled its ambassador to Syria in protest at the attack, although it has not directly accused Damascus of responsibility.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021605I.shtml
I'm pretty sure Russia will back them. Russia is apparently considering shitfting it's oil currency to the Euro. And is the contractor building their nuclear program.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis...ilpriceeuro.htm
And so this looks to be the makings for a real WWIII. Who gets control of the world oil market? Dollars or Euro?
It is the single most valuable resource in the world right now.
Well, I guess I was wrong about Syria not wanting to come to the aid of Iran.
This is an interesting development.
And proves the old Middle Eastern axiom: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
It remains to be seen if Britain, Poland and others want to tangle with a three front war.
It also interesting to note that the CIA said worldwide terrorism will be a problem for the next decade directly as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Now, if that is the CIA's conclusion, I wonder what the agency will say in respects to the aftermath of a U.S. attack on Iran.
This is an interesting development.
And proves the old Middle Eastern axiom: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
It remains to be seen if Britain, Poland and others want to tangle with a three front war.
It also interesting to note that the CIA said worldwide terrorism will be a problem for the next decade directly as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Now, if that is the CIA's conclusion, I wonder what the agency will say in respects to the aftermath of a U.S. attack on Iran.
Ill-conceived and misguided policy decisions have brough us to this point. Neither Syria nor Iran would have been friends given better national-level decisions on our part - but we were in a position to more effectively mitigate the potential threat. Lest we forget, after 9/11 Syria permitted the FBI to open up an investigative office in Damascus, and the Iranians agreed to help any downed pilots in an informal CSAR agreement at the initiation of OEF in Afghanistan.
However, instead of a carefully structured carrot-and stick approach, our national-level decision makers took the initial cooperation for granted and continued with simply the stick - insisting on more and more one-way cooperation in a zero-sum policy game. The recent Syria-Iranian announcement, and their related individual actions, illustrates the utter and complete failure of that approach.
Too many who should know better don't seem to understand that the '80s are long gone and both Iran and Syria are very different countries than they were in those day - Khomeini and Hafez Assad have both been worm food for a while. The threat that Iran and Syria pose today is greatly overstated.
Iran: US Concerns and Policy Options
Iran: Developing Military Capabilities
Syria: Political Conditions and Relations with the US After the Iraq War
Syria, the US, and Terrorism
...of course, you can't discuss Syria without discussing Lebanon.
But, on the other hand, Pakistan has already developed nukes, is a proven proliferator, and harbors terrorist groups on its soil. A significant element of the Pakistani population supports Al-Qa'ida ideologically, if not materially. But they're our ally in the GWOT.
Pakistan's Nuclear Proliferation Activities
Proliferation Unbound: Tales from Pakistan
WMD: Trade Between North Korea and Pakistan
Pakistan-US Relations
The South Asia Terrorism Portal
However, instead of a carefully structured carrot-and stick approach, our national-level decision makers took the initial cooperation for granted and continued with simply the stick - insisting on more and more one-way cooperation in a zero-sum policy game. The recent Syria-Iranian announcement, and their related individual actions, illustrates the utter and complete failure of that approach.
Too many who should know better don't seem to understand that the '80s are long gone and both Iran and Syria are very different countries than they were in those day - Khomeini and Hafez Assad have both been worm food for a while. The threat that Iran and Syria pose today is greatly overstated.
Iran: US Concerns and Policy Options
Iran: Developing Military Capabilities
Syria: Political Conditions and Relations with the US After the Iraq War
Syria, the US, and Terrorism
...of course, you can't discuss Syria without discussing Lebanon.
But, on the other hand, Pakistan has already developed nukes, is a proven proliferator, and harbors terrorist groups on its soil. A significant element of the Pakistani population supports Al-Qa'ida ideologically, if not materially. But they're our ally in the GWOT.
Pakistan's Nuclear Proliferation Activities
Proliferation Unbound: Tales from Pakistan
WMD: Trade Between North Korea and Pakistan
Pakistan-US Relations
The South Asia Terrorism Portal
1.) Do you think the US is/will be engaged in military conflict with Iran under the Bush Admin.?
2.) What would be/will be the effects of this in terms of other countries responses?
3.) Would this constitute WWIII?
1. Not under the Bush administration, but possibly another future administration.
2. The effects may set off WWIII, but possibly not.
3. Maybe. We'll see what happens with N. Korea and Syria.
LordHelmet,
I stand for peace and a fair foreign policy that takes into account the rights of those who claim to be aggrieved.
I don’t support violence, except in self-defense. That said, I do support a just punishment, providing only the truly guilty are being punished.
The United States has a long and disturbing history of brutalizing people of color within its own borders, supporting vicious dictators who made life miserable for millions outside its boundaries and backing regimes and governments that made profits easy for U.S. corporations but unfair for native peoples.
That’s not a track record to be proud of. And it seems the U.S. has returned to its old dictatorial ways with this current administration. The continuing effort to destabilize the government of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is but one example.
One of the reasons for the Jihadists’ war against the U.S. is this country’s often one-sided maneuverings in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its usual short-sighted policy in dealing with the various players in that region.
Supporting the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan against invading Soviet forces in the 1980’s is what helped to create Osama bin Laden. Ignoring the terrible repression of the Shah and the deprivations of the House of Saudi is what cemented much of the terrorist coalition that the U.S. faces today.
People want to forget that the United States officially backed Iraq in its war with Iran. And when Saddam Hussein was cheerfully butchering Kurds, imprisoning his people and gassing the villagers of Halabja, he was on good terms with the Reagan administration.
Whose side am I on? The side of peace.
I’d love to see the Palestinians give up their silly demands for all of Jerusalem and accept a nation made up of contiguous land on the West Bank — not the Apartheid-type territories that Binyamin Netanyahu was offering Yasser Arafat.
Israel must cede all of Gaza and most of the West Bank. I do hope they keep their wall. It’s one guarantee of safety.
In the event of a terror attack, Israel has every right to strike back in a commensurate fashion.
Just as the United States had every right to exact a firm justice against al Qaeda and their shelterers, the Taliban, after 9-11.
Above all, people should be free, to speak their mind, publish their thoughts or form whatever type of government they wish.
Without being told what to do, whom to vote for or what energy source to use by a country that brandishes the threat of an invasion for failing to choose a particular policy course.
I stand for peace and a fair foreign policy that takes into account the rights of those who claim to be aggrieved.
I don’t support violence, except in self-defense. That said, I do support a just punishment, providing only the truly guilty are being punished.
The United States has a long and disturbing history of brutalizing people of color within its own borders, supporting vicious dictators who made life miserable for millions outside its boundaries and backing regimes and governments that made profits easy for U.S. corporations but unfair for native peoples.
That’s not a track record to be proud of. And it seems the U.S. has returned to its old dictatorial ways with this current administration. The continuing effort to destabilize the government of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is but one example.
One of the reasons for the Jihadists’ war against the U.S. is this country’s often one-sided maneuverings in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its usual short-sighted policy in dealing with the various players in that region.
Supporting the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan against invading Soviet forces in the 1980’s is what helped to create Osama bin Laden. Ignoring the terrible repression of the Shah and the deprivations of the House of Saudi is what cemented much of the terrorist coalition that the U.S. faces today.
People want to forget that the United States officially backed Iraq in its war with Iran. And when Saddam Hussein was cheerfully butchering Kurds, imprisoning his people and gassing the villagers of Halabja, he was on good terms with the Reagan administration.
Whose side am I on? The side of peace.
I’d love to see the Palestinians give up their silly demands for all of Jerusalem and accept a nation made up of contiguous land on the West Bank — not the Apartheid-type territories that Binyamin Netanyahu was offering Yasser Arafat.
Israel must cede all of Gaza and most of the West Bank. I do hope they keep their wall. It’s one guarantee of safety.
In the event of a terror attack, Israel has every right to strike back in a commensurate fashion.
Just as the United States had every right to exact a firm justice against al Qaeda and their shelterers, the Taliban, after 9-11.
Above all, people should be free, to speak their mind, publish their thoughts or form whatever type of government they wish.
Without being told what to do, whom to vote for or what energy source to use by a country that brandishes the threat of an invasion for failing to choose a particular policy course.
QUOTE(Leonard @ Feb 18 2005, 02:57 PM)
LordHelmet,
I stand for peace and a fair foreign policy that takes into account the rights of those who claim to be aggrieved.
I don’t support violence, except in self-defense. That said, I do support a just punishment, providing only the truly guilty are being punished.
So I take it you reject the idea of preemptive strikes against a country that is plotting against us, supporting the terrorists who have vowed to destroy us, and have flaunted both previous cease fires and UN resolutions? Oh, in other words, we should talk tough but when the rogue nation says "go stuff it", we should just shrug and go away???
QUOTE(Leonard @ Feb 18 2005, 02:57 PM)
The United States has a long and disturbing history of brutalizing people of color within its own borders, supporting vicious dictators who made life miserable for millions outside its boundaries and backing regimes and governments that made profits easy for U.S. corporations but unfair for native peoples.
That’s not a track record to be proud of. And it seems the U.S. has returned to its old dictatorial ways with this current administration. The continuing effort to destabilize the government of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is but one example.
I cannot deny the previous faults of the United States. But our history is also one of promoting freedom and democracy more than ANY other country in the history of the world. We ended the slavery of the Nazi's in Europe and the Imperialist Japan in Asia. We fought a civil war to END slavery. We stood up to the USSR when pacifism was the fashion in Europe and the USSR was clear in its desire to expand.
When you post what you post, you completely disregard the overwhelming positive things that the US has brought to this world in a relatively short period of time.
QUOTE(Leonard @ Feb 18 2005, 02:57 PM)
One of the reasons for the Jihadists’ war against the U.S. is this country’s often one-sided maneuverings in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its usual short-sighted policy in dealing with the various players in that region.
Frankly, I think that assertion is bunk. Palestine is a convenient excuse. Jihad is motivated by radical Islam and they see the US (and all the west) as standing in the way of their goal of fundamental Islamic world, or at least a series of Islamic states (with all the associated oppression and lack of freedom) in the middle east, Asia, and Africa. Palestinians were killed by the thousands by both Jordan and Egypt in the past. This is not the root cause of "jihad". Not even close.
QUOTE(Leonard @ Feb 18 2005, 02:57 PM)
Supporting the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan against invading Soviet forces in the 1980’s is what helped to create Osama bin Laden. Ignoring the terrible repression of the Shah and the deprivations of the House of Saudi is what cemented much of the terrorist coalition that the U.S. faces today.
No, Bin Laden was created by radical Islam, not the war in Afghanistan. The short-sighted foolishness by hapless Jimmy Carter gave the radical Islamists a foothold in the region when they took over Iran. It wasn't a matter of ignoring the repression of the shah. The repression of the Islamists is worse and more far reaching.
QUOTE(Leonard @ Feb 18 2005, 02:57 PM)
People want to forget that the United States officially backed Iraq in its war with Iran. And when Saddam Hussein was cheerfully butchering Kurds, imprisoning his people and gassing the villagers of Halabja, he was on good terms with the Reagan administration.
Good terms with Reagan? I don't think so. More like the lesser of two evils. But, given your logic, should we never forget that we fought a long and extremely bloody war with Germany, Italy, and Japan. Should we never consider them friends because "people want to forget" that we once were in a death struggle with them??
QUOTE(Leonard @ Feb 18 2005, 02:57 PM)
Whose side am I on? The side of peace.
I’d love to see the Palestinians give up their silly demands for all of Jerusalem and accept a nation made up of contiguous land on the West Bank — not the Apartheid-type territories that Binyamin Netanyahu was offering Yasser Arafat.
Israel must cede all of Gaza and most of the West Bank. I do hope they keep their wall. It’s one guarantee of safety.
In the event of a terror attack, Israel has every right to strike back in a commensurate fashion.
Just as the United States had every right to exact a firm justice against al Qaeda and their shelterers, the Taliban, after 9-11.
Above all, people should be free, to speak their mind, publish their thoughts or form whatever type of government they wish.
Without being told what to do, whom to vote for or what energy source to use by a country that brandishes the threat of an invasion for failing to choose a particular policy course.
Well, being on the side "of peace" and desiring all the idealistic things that you listed don't mean much if you're not prepared to fight for them.
The fastest way to get into a war is declare that you'll never fight one. And finally, allowing our enemy, who has declared war on us through a network of global organizations to plot, plan, and prepare unimpeded is absolutely and totally immoral.
Iraq not only was a state sponsor of terrorism (as redeclared by the Clinton administration) and hosted a who's who of anti-American terrorists, but they, according to ALL of the world's intelligence services, desperately wanted to obtain WMD's to be used against the "great Satan". On top of that, they routinely fired on our patrol aircraft (an act of war), ignored the terms of the cease fire imposed after the Gulf War, and defied numerous UN resolutions demanding their compliance. Oh, and they also tried to assassinate an ex-president of the United States.
Not doing anything to address Iraq, which, according to democrat presidential candidate General Clark in sworn testimony "would only continue to get worse" would have been wrong... it would have been foolish.... and it would have been immoral.
Let's not wander off into every conceivable foreign and domestic policy issue.
We have specific questions for debate here:
1.) Do you think the US is/will be engaged in military conflict with Iran under the Bush Admin.?
2.) What would be/will be the effects of this in terms of other countries responses?
3.) Would this constitute WWIII?
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM]
So I take it you reject the idea of preemptive strikes against a country that is plotting against us, supporting the terrorists who have vowed to destroy us, and have flaunted both previous cease fires and UN resolutions? Oh, in other words, we should talk tough but when the rogue nation says "go stuff it", we should just shrug and go away??? [/quote]
If you’re referring to Iraq, I’d like to see any proof of the Iraqi people plotting against the United States.
I’d also like to see any proof of these WMD’s that the Bushies swore that Iraq possessed.
And more importantly, where is the proof that Baghdad was complicit in the 9-11 attacks?
U.N. sanctions? No country is in violation of more U.N. sanctions than Israel. And who cares if Iraq was in violation of U.N. sanctions?
When that body was asked to vote to go to war against Iraq because it was violation of those sanctions, the members overwhelmingly voted no.
Bush ignored world opinion, which asked that war only be used as last resort. Because, despite thoughts to the contrary, there never was any evidence that Iraq had amassed WMD’s.
Memo story
There already is a country plotting against U.S. interests. It’s called North Korea. And it just admitted it does possess WMD’s.
But you notice, George W. wants no part of that fight. Mostly because the North Koreans will fight back — viciously.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] I cannot deny the previous faults of the United States. But our history is also one of promoting freedom and democracy more than ANY other country in the history of the world. We ended the slavery of the Nazi's in Europe and the Imperialist Japan in Asia. We fought a civil war to END slavery. We stood up to the USSR when pacifism was the fashion in Europe and the USSR was clear in its desire to expand.
When you post what you post, you completely disregard the overwhelming positive things that the US has brought to this world in a relatively short period of time. [/quote]
Since I am member of those groups the U.S. committed vicious act against, I'll say jolly good when this country stops abusing my people and severely punishes those who continue to do so, thank you.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] Frankly, I think that assertion is bunk. Palestine is a convenient excuse. Jihad is motivated by radical Islam and they see the US (and all the west) as standing in the way of their goal of fundamental Islamic world, or at least a series of Islamic states (with all the associated oppression and lack of freedom) in the middle east, Asia, and Africa. Palestinians were killed by the thousands by both Jordan and Egypt in the past. This is not the root cause of "jihad". Not even close. [/quote]
I disagree with you. The plight of the Palestinians does motivate millions of people who are either Arabic or Muslim to act on their displeasure of U.S. mideast policy.
We both know that many Arab regimes mouth their support of the Palestinian people. But there's no denying that millions of ordinary people actually do something about it.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] No, Bin Laden was created by radical Islam, not the war in Afghanistan. The short-sighted foolishness by hapless Jimmy Carter gave the radical Islamists a foothold in the region when they took over Iran. It wasn't a matter of ignoring the repression of the shah. The repression of the Islamists is worse and more far reaching. [/quote]
Hapless Jimmy Carter?
Why, because a U.S. Air Force pilot couldn't tell his left from his right in the desert night?
Carter did notthing to deserve the rap he's got. He tried to free the hostages and did what any other sitting president would do for a sick and ailing former despot who was a long time ally of the U.S. — find a good hospital for him.
Carter didn't give anyone a foothold.
Ayatollah Khomeini did that.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] Good terms with Reagan? I don't think so. More like the lesser of two evils. But, given your logic, should we never forget that we fought a long and[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] extremely bloody war with Germany, Italy, and Japan. Should we never consider them friends because "people want to forget" that we once were in a death struggle with them?? [/quote]
He was on good terms with Reagan. Deny it all you want. During the Iran-Iraq War, when an Iraqi MIG attacked the USS Stark one night in May 1987, killing 37 U.S. sailors, Reagan did nothing. He accept Saddam's apology and the intelligence from U.S. satellites on Iranian troop positions continued flowing to Iraq.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM]
Well, being on the side "of peace" and desiring all the idealistic things that you listed don't mean much if you're not prepared to fight for them. [/quote]
I said I'm for peace. Notice, I did not say anything about fighting.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] The fastest way to get into a war is declare that you'll never fight one. And finally, allowing our enemy, who has declared war on us through a network of global organizations to plot, plan, and prepare unimpeded is absolutely and totally immoral. [/quote]
When you find proof Iraq was part of this mythical network, let me know. No proof has been found yet, just like no WMD's have been found.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] Iraq not only was a state sponsor of terrorism (as rede [quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM]clared by the Clinton administration) and hosted a who's who of anti-American terrorists, but they, according to ALL of the world's intelligence services, desperately wanted to obtain WMD's to be used against the "great Satan". On top of that, they routinely fired on our patrol aircraft (an act of war), ignored the terms of the cease fire imposed after the Gulf War, and defied numerous UN resolutions demanding their compliance. Oh, and they also tried to assassinate an ex-president of the United States. [/quote]
I think all countries have a right to control their own air space. Particularly when those "patrol aircraft" as you call them, routinely dropped bombs and fired missiles which invariably killed innocent Iraqi civilians.
So I take it you reject the idea of preemptive strikes against a country that is plotting against us, supporting the terrorists who have vowed to destroy us, and have flaunted both previous cease fires and UN resolutions? Oh, in other words, we should talk tough but when the rogue nation says "go stuff it", we should just shrug and go away??? [/quote]
If you’re referring to Iraq, I’d like to see any proof of the Iraqi people plotting against the United States.
I’d also like to see any proof of these WMD’s that the Bushies swore that Iraq possessed.
And more importantly, where is the proof that Baghdad was complicit in the 9-11 attacks?
U.N. sanctions? No country is in violation of more U.N. sanctions than Israel. And who cares if Iraq was in violation of U.N. sanctions?
When that body was asked to vote to go to war against Iraq because it was violation of those sanctions, the members overwhelmingly voted no.
Bush ignored world opinion, which asked that war only be used as last resort. Because, despite thoughts to the contrary, there never was any evidence that Iraq had amassed WMD’s.
Memo story
There already is a country plotting against U.S. interests. It’s called North Korea. And it just admitted it does possess WMD’s.
But you notice, George W. wants no part of that fight. Mostly because the North Koreans will fight back — viciously.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] I cannot deny the previous faults of the United States. But our history is also one of promoting freedom and democracy more than ANY other country in the history of the world. We ended the slavery of the Nazi's in Europe and the Imperialist Japan in Asia. We fought a civil war to END slavery. We stood up to the USSR when pacifism was the fashion in Europe and the USSR was clear in its desire to expand.
When you post what you post, you completely disregard the overwhelming positive things that the US has brought to this world in a relatively short period of time. [/quote]
Since I am member of those groups the U.S. committed vicious act against, I'll say jolly good when this country stops abusing my people and severely punishes those who continue to do so, thank you.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] Frankly, I think that assertion is bunk. Palestine is a convenient excuse. Jihad is motivated by radical Islam and they see the US (and all the west) as standing in the way of their goal of fundamental Islamic world, or at least a series of Islamic states (with all the associated oppression and lack of freedom) in the middle east, Asia, and Africa. Palestinians were killed by the thousands by both Jordan and Egypt in the past. This is not the root cause of "jihad". Not even close. [/quote]
I disagree with you. The plight of the Palestinians does motivate millions of people who are either Arabic or Muslim to act on their displeasure of U.S. mideast policy.
We both know that many Arab regimes mouth their support of the Palestinian people. But there's no denying that millions of ordinary people actually do something about it.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] No, Bin Laden was created by radical Islam, not the war in Afghanistan. The short-sighted foolishness by hapless Jimmy Carter gave the radical Islamists a foothold in the region when they took over Iran. It wasn't a matter of ignoring the repression of the shah. The repression of the Islamists is worse and more far reaching. [/quote]
Hapless Jimmy Carter?
Why, because a U.S. Air Force pilot couldn't tell his left from his right in the desert night?
Carter did notthing to deserve the rap he's got. He tried to free the hostages and did what any other sitting president would do for a sick and ailing former despot who was a long time ally of the U.S. — find a good hospital for him.
Carter didn't give anyone a foothold.
Ayatollah Khomeini did that.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] Good terms with Reagan? I don't think so. More like the lesser of two evils. But, given your logic, should we never forget that we fought a long and[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] extremely bloody war with Germany, Italy, and Japan. Should we never consider them friends because "people want to forget" that we once were in a death struggle with them?? [/quote]
He was on good terms with Reagan. Deny it all you want. During the Iran-Iraq War, when an Iraqi MIG attacked the USS Stark one night in May 1987, killing 37 U.S. sailors, Reagan did nothing. He accept Saddam's apology and the intelligence from U.S. satellites on Iranian troop positions continued flowing to Iraq.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM]
Well, being on the side "of peace" and desiring all the idealistic things that you listed don't mean much if you're not prepared to fight for them. [/quote]
I said I'm for peace. Notice, I did not say anything about fighting.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] The fastest way to get into a war is declare that you'll never fight one. And finally, allowing our enemy, who has declared war on us through a network of global organizations to plot, plan, and prepare unimpeded is absolutely and totally immoral. [/quote]
When you find proof Iraq was part of this mythical network, let me know. No proof has been found yet, just like no WMD's have been found.
[quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM] Iraq not only was a state sponsor of terrorism (as rede [quote=lordhelmet,Feb 18 2005, 03:18 PM]clared by the Clinton administration) and hosted a who's who of anti-American terrorists, but they, according to ALL of the world's intelligence services, desperately wanted to obtain WMD's to be used against the "great Satan". On top of that, they routinely fired on our patrol aircraft (an act of war), ignored the terms of the cease fire imposed after the Gulf War, and defied numerous UN resolutions demanding their compliance. Oh, and they also tried to assassinate an ex-president of the United States. [/quote]
I think all countries have a right to control their own air space. Particularly when those "patrol aircraft" as you call them, routinely dropped bombs and fired missiles which invariably killed innocent Iraqi civilians.
CLOSED.
This thread has wandered way too far from its original questions for debate.
Thanks for those who participated and stayed on-topic.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.