Friedman: Ah, Those Principled Europeans - Page 2

President Bush is in office, not President Clinton.
(This is in response to Blunt.)

No. Being a moderate never helped to avoid a war with a bloodthirsty dictator. Not once. I hate to bring up his name once more, but Neville Chamberlain was a moderate.

Being a moderate in the face of extremism of any sort is just weak.

Hitler was the aggressor, not the allies.

Oddly enough, Dubya had nothing to say about this until AFTER 9/11, even though it was the same Iraq and same Hussein as before 9/11.

Oddly enough, Dubya had nothing to say about this until after he realised that he couldn't capture Bin Laden.

[quote]Call:
Bloodthirsty? Let's pile on the melodrama, shall we?

How many bloodthirtsy regimes exist in the world? How many are we allied with?

Thanks for calling.

Again, comparing Saddam to Hitler is really stretching any credibility.

Comparing the Brits to Iraq is a stretch, even for the most radical purveyor of anti-imperialist whackiness.

And JFK showed his WILLINGNESS to go to war with the communists. He was prepared to do it, and the Soviets knew it

Ever heard of self-fullfilling prophecies? You claim Saddam would start a war with the US, so you start a war with Saddam.

Call has a pretty huge hard on for war.

[quote]mikah912:
I can think of THREE right off the top of my head. Your sensitivity to words that are 'non- moderate" never fails to amuse me.

And keep trying. I'm sure you'll think of a proper comeback eventually.

I suppose that Denmark, Australia, Kuwait, Turkey, Spain, Great Britain, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Japan, Qatar, and Israel are "small potatoes?"

I find it amazing that people who asked the US to get a coalition are now angry at the US for not getting the coalition they want. "Well, you have a coalition that includes many states, but it isn't a true coalition unless Germany and France are in it." If we don't have Germany and France, who cares?

Well, tell that to the Indian peaceful protestors who were guned down in cold blood. We've all seen the movie.

And the point is that JFK didn't go to war. He found a diplomatic solution.

How is this a self-fulfilling prophecy? We don't want him striking us first, on his terms, so we take the fight to him and finish it before he has a chance to hurt us.

Yes, that's might whacky.

[quote]Call:
3 that we're allied with? Good. Then you know that you're making no sense whatsoever when we ask the "noble" Saudi Arabia to help us in our fight with "evil" Iraq.

You do know you're babbling, right?

How is he going to attack us?

I recall Bush talking about Saddam pre-Sept 11.

Any indications that Saddam is planning to strike first?

I didn't think so...

Saddam is going to build a really huge slingshot.

Talking invasion and regime change?

I recall lots of people talking about saddam, I missed the administrations calls for how important it was to have americans killed to get him out of power.

Simply the funniest post in this entire thread

Care to elaborate and enlighten this peacenik?

No, I think it stands very well by itself.

Translation: I can't.

No it doesn't.

Sorry if I'm blunt, but you're using an ancient tactic. You don't have anything to back up your opinion, so you present it in such a way as if it's common knowledge that you're right and I'm terribly ignorant for not realising it.

In truth, I don't think you can elaborate on why you're right and I'm wrong.

I'm sure the president said so.

Apparently it's only common knowledge on one side of the aisle around here.

I can't elaborate on why I think Saddam is constantly planning on ways to hurt the United States? What's the guesswork here? What's the obstacle standing in your way of seeing this?

You're still not answering my question.

If you feel so strongly that you are right, then I'm sure you can share your thoughts on this matter.

The obstacle would be proof of him planning aggression against the United States.

Which, of course, doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, but what have I been doing throughout this entire thread?

I'm not even asking for proof. I'm cutting some slack and ask for mere indications. Is it too much to ask?

Everytime Iraq takes a shot at coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone he's demonstrating aggression against the U.S. AND her allies.

So basically he demonstrates it every day.

Issuing contradictory theories?

You are arguing that Saddam is a threat to the US.

My question is why do you say that Saddam is a threat to the US (apart from the fact that he's evil)? And let's face it, he's as mean as he was 10,20,30 years ago. Why is he now a threat?

What makes you think that he is planning to strike the US?

It's a simple question.

How does taking pot-shots at planes flying over Iraq equal to planning an attack on the US?

Sounds like a pretext to me.

His willingness to hurt the U.S. is higher than ever. He knows we mean to be rid of him. He's in a no-win situation however you cut it. Which makes him even more dangerous and a bigger threat.
He has aided terrorists, conspired against Israel,He stockpiles bio, chem, and nuclear weapons to use in battle. He shoots at our airplanes, conspires to assasinate ex-American presidents, and so on.

he is a clear threat to us and will continue to be so.

And check your PM's.

You sound like any number of cold war soviet leaders. I think we avoided WWIII by not fighting them. But now we are hell bent on trying our best to start it.

So, if you didn't plan to attack him, his willingless to hurt the US would be far smaller. Coming back to the self-fullfilling prophecy bit.

Conspiring against Israel does not equal planning to hurt the US. Israel is a sovereign state.

And he's had the chemicals for ages and hasn't used them against the US. The mean bastard only uses them against those that can't hurt him back, i.e. his own people.

Sorry for not checking the PM, I sent you a reply.

</strong>

All supposition, so let's examine the proof...

</strong>

So has Saudi Arabia. So has the United States. How exactly does this signal that he's intending to specifically do the United States harm?

</strong>

Much like every other Arab nation at odds with the faith of Israel, some of whom are "allies."

</strong>

As do we and a number of other nations. This proves nothing.

</strong>

Because Iraq has never recognized the no-fly zone forcibly slapped on them after we bombed them. Quite odd, that...

</strong>

We've sanctioned the assassination of numeorus political figures through the CIA, yet I believe that we're not trying to go to war with those countries. That would be a problem with those INDIVIDUALS.

Do you have any actual proof?

Are you making fun of Iceland? A peace loving country with only 300 thousand people living there. You bastard wink

Why are you bringing up things from 20+ years in the past? You always complain when the right says "Saddam did this" or "Saddam did that." The CIA did assassinate people - before 1976. The US did support groups that could be called terrorists (the Sandinistas, the mujahadeen) - in the early to mid 1980s. What have we done lately? Saddam does assassinate people. Saddam does harbor terrorists. He does aid Hamas, Hezbollah, al Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, and others.

You can't possibly believe that the US having WMD is justification for Saddam to have WMD. One nation is a democracy, a leader of the world in every sense of the word; and the other is a totalitarian regime that kills people who don't agree with it.

</strong>

I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on atrocities and murder. My bad. If we can keep him inactive for 20-30 years, we might as well welcome him as an ally, then.

No, I'm not equating America's government with Iraq's. They are clearly different, and I'd prefer to live here, thanks.

HOWEVER, the salient points of Call's argument apply to America as well - just to a different degree. We've done these things...just not as much.

And that - to me - invalidates the cries of "evil" that imply a moral superiority on our part.

Each nation acts in its best interests first and foremost. The thing with Iraq is that it's amost like the USA concept. Saddam may be leader of the nation for now, but it's increasingly divided among ethnic and political lines, and he doesn't control all of it. These other groups ALSO support terrorists. They also murder. They ALSO do many bad things. And they'll still be there vying for control long after he is gone, unless we have a definitive, well-funded and committed approach to taking over the country and running it for the next couple of decades.

There isn't a statute of limitations on these things, however, if we accept these as salient points, we must also accept everything Saddam has done over the past 30 years as the same (including the 2 million plus people who have died as a direct result of his domestic terror activities).