Thoughts on this e-mail I got? - Page 2

When did we become an imperial nation? Does Devin know you're giving Bush the go-ahead to bitch slap every nation who might have terrorist ties? Maybe we should let Israel nuke them all. That would solve a bunch of our problems. Are you the same Mikah912 that has consistently opposed using military force against Iraq but is now willing to have the US shit on the floor of four or five nutso countries with who knows what kinds of weapons?

I, of course, was only talking about the Saudis but way to bring in a whole bunch of crap that I didn't mention.

If hydrogen cells are possible, you can bet some private company will figure it out... not the government?

Afghanistan is a UN problem, not just a USA problem. Maybe Annan is on a coffee break or maybe we should just dissolve the UN right now if they're letting Afghanistan go into the toilet again. I still prefer today's Afghanistan to the Taliban.

If the majority of Iraqis wants a democratic theocracy, then that's their own fault. The USA should not be telling them not to have one, if that's what they themselves choose.

I'm glad you're willing to play global cop, i guess. I'm glad you know Saudi Arabia is a problem. I still think slow and steady is the way to go in this particular instance.

</strong>

Whoa, Tex. You're 50 paces ahead of me.

I SAID that the THREAT (and hopefully, not force itself) will compel Saudi Arabia - THE BIGGEST SUPPORTER FINANCIALLY OF MIDDLE EASTERN TERRORISTS, historically speaking - to abandon that methodology and immediately turn over the proper people and resources to our custody. We should do this now while we're on our best terms with them.

We've tried more soft-shoed diplomatic efforts. They clearly aren't taken seriously. And if they aren't after 9/11 and Iraq, when will they be?

But I'm all for imposing a timetable with a deadline.

OR... if we're going to keep playing at faux diplomacy, immediately withdraw all of our troops currently fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, The Phillipines, and elsewhere.

Because we're wasting their lives.

</strong>

But without government incentives to:

A) research the technology and
B) make automakers embrace it

It won't take hold for many decades down the road, and that could be too late.

But even just mentioning the Saudis, how do you figure our stance has "worked" thus far? They still have terrorist financiers. We're still fighting the people they fund. AT some point, you have to put a bullet in the head or heart of your adversary (terrorism), or the fight never ends.

The Bin Ladens are the head. And a Hydra head at that.

Better to rip out the heart: The money. We've frozen a considerable amount of funds so far, but if we don't get ALL of the Saudi funds frozen, it's for naught.

As long as they keep funding them, NOTHING is "working," because they're continuing to kill Americans across the globe.

</strong>

Well, it's nice to say safely from here in America, but the people outisde of Kabul at the mercy of warlords, religious oppression, and dictatatorship maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay not agree with you.

But Afghanistan is America's problem. WE invaded, not the UN, and so it's our responsibility for how that country turns out now.

I belive in slow and steady as well, but steady indicates that pogress is being made, not that we're regressing - as Afghanistan is doing and Iraq is in danger of doing as soon as we leave.

But who says you have to play global cop to stop Middle Eastern terrorism? There are obvious funding sources, obvious supporters, and obvious paper trails. If we're unwilling to follow them to their logical end in the name of "diplomacy," then those 3,000+ Americans, British, and others, and every single military and civilian casualty in "The War on Terror" is a wasted life.

It's just like the War on Drugs. If you're not gunning for the kingpins, then you're wasting resources. Their underlings are all replacable and dime-a-dozen.

Like I said, I'm glad you hate Saudi Arabia. I do too. I'm surprised that you're willing to let the USA go alone on this mission without the apron strings of the UN. But fine. I think the war on Iraq sends a harsh but firm message to those who support terrorists. We can already see how Syria has been cowed. Once Iraq is back on the crude oil map, then we will be in an excellent position to "persuade" SA of the error of their ways. I'm glad you want everything NOW NOW NOW but the world does not and cannot work that way.

I wish Bechtel had a 600 billion dollar contract to rebuild Afghanistan. They don't. I can't imagine the situation there being worse than the weekly stadium executions though or the centimeter of bare woman flesh equals a stoning. Since they don't seem to have any natural resources, they should probably go ahead and start building casinos immediately (yes, I realize the sadness of that statement but darn if it hasn't worked for the Native Americans).

Neither you or I know if our government is working on tying Saudi Arabia to global terrorism. I hope you're wrong about their level of guilt, but if you're right I hope we do something about it. I feel that recent moves by this administration have strengthened our position in this matter, and hopefully we will slowly be able to break free from their crude suckling teat.

Which is both irrelevant and deflection. Pretty impressive.

That being said, I hate these emails. Some truth, some spin, some lies. They usually get erase immediately.

How exactly did Bush bring those responsible for the Oklahoma bombing to justice?

Exactly how has the invasion of Iraq contributed towards bringing the others to justice?

Are we going to bring the financial backers of those responsible to justice with all that entails for Saudi Arabia?

Be sure to let us all know when Bush has sorted it all out.

On the Saudi thing, I see us tightening the screws on them because we don't need their bases anymore. It won't happen overnight, but our relations with the Saudis will deteriorate unless they reform some of their ideas. Rest assured, they are the most morally bankrupt regime on the planet at this time. I know why we have done business with them in the past, but I can't wait for things to change.

In the meantime, we remain hypocrites and actually support terrorism by supporting them.

And just how are the Iraqis protesting against US "occupation" going to feel about four permanent military bases in their country?

I wonder if we've simply created another fanatical Moslem country that will eventually decide they hate us too.

As long as we support Israel, a significant portion of the arab world will hate us... no matter what.

Ce la vie.

How are we establishing permanent bases there, when:

1) Shiites are the majority of the population and are absolutedly united under the "Yes to Islam, No to America" platform. The odds are that the new government will be a fundamentalist Muslim, anti-American government under their grasp.

2) We repeatedly say we'll leave the country ASAP.

Doesn't add up at all.

Which illustrates yet another dilemma with these idiotic regime changes:

These countries no longer have the personnel or military resources to have an effective standing military, so we have to provide one. But we can't police the entire country, so - just like in Afghanistan - warlords spring up in areas we don't cover, vigilante "justice" runs wild as does anti-U.S. sentiment, and as soon as we leave, one or more the best armed warlords seize power and hit the reset button on this whole process.

Wait, didn't certain terrorists get pissed when America decided to open bases in Saudi Arabia ten years ago?

And now, after all the talk about how we are going to free Iraq & get out, about how we were ONLY there to liberate & then we're gone, we're going to stay & build an even stronger military presence in the middle east. It's all a bunch of bullshit.

And, of course, the supporters on the boards have changed their tunes just as quickly as the administration.

There aren't any Muslim holy places of the caliber of Saudi Arabia's Mecca in Iraq.

The justification to lying about leaving is made okay by the fact that Iraq isn't as holy?

I understand that's one of the reasons bin Laden got pissed off, and he's not going to stop anyways. But kids living in Iraq now are going to grow up knowing that America has military control in THEIR country. You don't think some of the same feelings will arise.

I thought we were trying to fight terrorism, not give new reasons for people to hate us more.

Seems irrelevant when all of the Shiites of Iraq and Iran are conspiring to make us leave, to continue to hate us, and to take control of Iraq, which they should be able to do rather easily being that they comprise the majority of Iraqis.

By both of your(s) (GFC, Mikah) logic, every time McDonalds opens another franchise in a foreign country, eight new terrorists are born. Every time an American farts, thirteen fanatics declare jihad.

People who want to hate will do so regardless of provocation. I'm not saying America hasn't done provacative things in the past, but basically condemning any American action by saying "we'll create more terrorists by doing this" is a little far-fetched.

Great idea! Of course, you create the following problems:

1) The utter erosion of any international peace accords or pacts as we spit in the face of the world by having lied about NOT wanting to take over.

2) The fact that the majority of the people living there want us to leave, and would resort to violent, terrorist tactics to compel us to do so.

3) The fact that the some of these violent means would probably include the destruction of some of this oil we covet so.

4) The unification of the entire Muslim world against the US, once and for all.

5) Justification for multiple pre-emptive terrorist actions against the US.

6) A guarantee that we'll be initiating military action in that region for perpetuity, thereby killing any chance for peace between ISrael and Palestine.

Good call, Burke.

McDonalds = Military Base.

They're the same, right?

Besides, as I was saying before, I thought the talk was all about how we were going to leave Iraq alone after the liberation. What the fuck is this, then?

American cultural imperialism is just as offensive to people as American military imperialism. I mean, I can't imagine a right wing conservative religious group ever getting worked up about CULTURAL issues, right?

How do people take this psycho seriously?

First off, I'm not condemning "any" American action over there.

Second, my logic is a simple observation of current events.

A = Shiite Muslims account for 60 percent of the Iraqi population.
B = They are all united now and marching through the streets of Iraq saying "Yes to Islam, No to America. Leave the country!"
C = Iran also has a significant Shiite population, and has dispatched agents to help organize Iraq's Shiites and to focus their pro Islam, anti-US ideology.
D = If "the people of Iraq" are to select a government, and the vast majority of them are Shiites who want a theocracy, what sort of system do you think they'll adopt?
E = Undoubtedly, this group will clash with the pro-US Kurds of the independent Iraqi population of Kurdistan unless our military remains there in perpetuity to keep the entire country locked down, fostering even more hatred.

Start adding these up, and tell me I'm overreacting. I guess the State Department - who pretty much observes the same thing - is overreacting as well. Even our military leaders are beginning to admit they don't know how to circumvent these circumstances.

Either way, Iraq becomes an anti-US theocracy within mere years, whether we occupy it from hereonout or not.

And what do anti-US Middle Eastern governments with rich resources contribute to?

ANTI-US TERRORISTS.

9/11 - the sequel - occurs, and we're back to square one.

How do you stop yourself from laughing until you pee your pants long enough to type this stuff?

In response to Mikah,

Saddam gives chems to terrorists - terrorists bomb America.

Possibly shiite America haters take over Iraq, become terrorists - terrorists bomb America.

It's a dangerous world. It was and has always been dangerous. Why should tomorrow be any different? The fact that there's only been one 9-11, the fact that basically America has never fought a World War on her soil is nothing short of a minor miracle. We have experienced less devastation than most comparable countries; doesn't mean the violence isn't always around the corner.

Yes, this is obvious.

But who would actively COURT more violence?

We're actually the catalyst and engineers of the second scenario, because no one bothered to do some number crunching on what percentage of Iraq was anti-US even if we took out Saddam.

The first scenario is preventable with focusing our resources where they can make a difference:

Intelligence and our borders. Both are in a state of porous disarray, and as long as they are, we'll forever remain vulnerable to any terrorist with a BOX-CUTTER, not chemical weapons.

We have Homeland Security intiiatives for every state, but few can afford them right now as now only a smattering of federal funds are available.

If you were facing a series of foes that could never even get close to beating you on a head-on fight, but could quietly stab you from behind with enough planning, wouldn't it make sense to start looking behind you, rather than rushing forward, seeking them out and beating them in one-sided thrashings that solve nothing?

The foes will always still be there, but as long as you leave your back unprotected, you'll always be very vulnerable.

So, the more Saddam oppressed his own people, (natural fanatics every last one of them) by starving them, gassing them, and looting his own country, he was actually indirectly helping the USA by preventing the mostly militant people from becoming suicidal terrorists hungry for the blood of Americans.



Looking for perfection in an imperfect world and impatience are a bad combination for one's psychological well-being.

...

We can never satisfy the Muslim extremists because we will never convert to Islam. That will always stick in their craw no matter what we do or don't do. Obeisiance, imperialism, capitulation, aggression... if we aren't following the Koran then we're nothing, and our lives are worth nothing.

</strong>

That's an absurd reduction. The Kurds were gassed. The Shiites repressed. None of them liked him, but the minority group was pro-US, and the majority group was pro-US-getting-rid-of-Saddam, then anti-US.

Now, we underestimated group B's solidarity, and it's throwing things into a tizzy.

Saddam was neither helping nor hurting the United States because we should have nothing to do with any of these people beyond basic commerce and actively defending America from any threat they may pose to us (which obviously is non-existent).

So if you have an entity you can never please, why would you try to intervene in their affairs as much as is humanly possible?

If there is a game you can't win, then DO NOT PLAY IT. How simple a solution is that? We most certainly have the choice to do so, but we choose to try and control politics in that region, and thus we continue to pay the price. Then, our brilliant solution is to stop further 9/11 attacks by recreating and intensifying the conditions which led to the first one.

Isolationism has never been an effective strategy and in a world that has is becoming more and more interconnected isolationism is virtual suicide.

Whether we isolate or meddle, the fanatics will still hate us for the reasons stated above. At least in Iraq, the US has given them a chance to rebuild in a positive way. It's up to them now, and if we're disappointed then so be it. They have a chance to be a jewel, to rebuild like Germany or Japan, to build their country architecurally like their neighbor Saudi Arabia.

Will they? Neither you or I know. But at least they have the chance now, and they didn't have that chance barely a month ago.

So we aren't going to meddle in their politics?

Say we don't, though & an extremeist gov is set in place less than a year from now. Are you still willing to say it was worth it? The losses of life, the tax dollars spent, etc. Were the lives of American soldiers worth it? Worth giving for a war that would essentially be accomplishing nothing, say for allowing one form of an oppressive government for another?

</strong>

Who's being isolationist? I've already said that we buy some of their exports and they buy some of our exports. That should be the extent of our relationship, as it is with us and most other countries in the world.

</strong>

Let's be real. We're "giving them an opportunity" to build in a "positive" way - i.e. a way in which we approve of. As soon as an anti-US regime takes over and starts arming itself, our "opportunity giving" days are over and the "shock and awe" days resume.

They had the chance a decade ago and we left them twisting. We did it ourselves this time so that we could control the country and its economy afterward, as we're doing now.

There's hate, and then there's hate put into violent action.

A good number of French people hate us and are overreacting by deleting English/American cultural hallmarks just as idiotically as many Americans have been.

But will we see anti-US French terrorists attacking us? No. Because we're not meddling in THEIR affairs.

I think I'm getting it now.

People will always hate us, no matter what we do. So we should go to war with them, get thousands of people killed, just so they can still hate us.

Brilliant.

We're giving them a chance to step beyond their hate 9for America, for Israel, for "others"). That's a pretty fair shake in my book. And if they don't take it, then they have lost a golden opportunity to their own silly pettiness.

That is interaction and meddling to the irrational mind. How many Iraqis are irrational? We buy and sell goods to Israel as well. Israel has never been in a formal conflict with Iraq. Yet we are the Great Satan because Israel is our ally. Why don't we just bare our necks and get it over with?

Agree on the first part, disagree on the second part. It's not like the world isn't watching us.

</strong>

So why whould that worsen if our only interaction with Iraq was commerce? We already have that strike against, but it only worsens when we try to meddle in the affairs of that country. Al-Queda didn't form because we are an ally of Israel. They formed because of specific meddling in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan.

What difference does that make? We've been against world opinion for months now. Why would we suddenly start caring about rampant disapproval NOW?

[quote]mikah912:
</strong>

Now we need to go back and let Saddam murder all the Kuwaitis just so 9-11 won't happen. Super.

Did Al-Quaeda form because the UN coalition prevented Iraq from conquering the sovereign nation of Kuwait? Hmmmm. Did Al-Queda form because the US abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets retreated? Hmmmm.

Al-Quaeda may not have formed because they hate Israel, though they do, but they use Israel every chance they get as a justification for their holy war... and their supporters accept that justification.

Your responses (to the question of commerce=meddling) assume that Muslim fanatics will start acting rationally. That would be a first.

No. There will always be extremists. There will always be terrorists. And Americans will die at their hands this year and many years to come.

BUT, the our meddling ONLY exacerbates it, and never ends up SAVING lives. Did we delete Saddam's regime when he gassed the Kurds to stop him? No. Did we delete his regime when he was brutally murdering opposition rebels after the Gulf War? No.

When did we delete it? When it threatened no one, had no navy or air forces whatsoever, and could barely muster enough resistance for a few weeks of skirmishes.

So, we get none of the benefits of having saved those lives, but ALL of the detriment of having meddled ONCE AGAIN, killing untold numbers of civilians even in that brief period, and now hemming and hawing over whether they can really and truly be free to do what they want.

Rumsfeld says that "Free people should free to make mistakes and commit crimes" when they were tearing the city apart, but now that a new anti-US theocracy government appears likely according to the will of the majority of the Iraqi people, he poos-poos it, saying that a theocracy wouldn't be very free.

SO what has our meddling gained us?

- The fiscal and social responsibility for taking care of Iraq for years to come
- The military obligation to be that nation's military in the interim.
- Increasingly strained relations with longtime allies and the UN.
- The responsibility of trying to allow freedom in Iraq, when all they want to do with it is live in a way we wholly disapprove of and fear.
- No measurable amount of increased anti-US sentiment in the Shiite community.
- The very distinct possibility that we'll be doing this all again a couple of decades down the line.

Benefits?

- Oil.
- Domestic political clout.
- ..........

And it happens the same way every time. We meddled with The Shah. The Ayatollah. Afghanistan. Iraq. Iran. And they keep blowing up in our face. Over and over.

WHEN will we learn?

I honestly don't see the problem you have with Afghanistan. We helped their country repel an invasion by a rogue superpower. Boo us. Iran was probably a mistake; we paid for it in the late 70s.

Here's what not meddling gets you: Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust (Roosevelt knew, did nothing), massive slaughters in Rwanda, Eastern Europe, etc.
Sometimes meddling is justified, but honestly it is pretty darn easy to look back with hindsight and say "Why did the US do some of the things it did" when we have the benefit of all the information and the consequences and the people that made those decisions did not.

Maybe you're right. Maybe your extensive list of possibilities will come true and we'll have to go in there again. However, right now the people of Iraq have more freedom then they have had in twenty years. They now have the ability to say, without reprisal, "bugger off" and they're using it. I don't begrudge them that. If they want an Islamic theocracy, it's their funeral. But at least they have the chance to do better than that.

Your view is certainly possible, but I don't think its more likely than something positive being made of that country. The Iraqi people have a fresh start; will they make the most of it?

</strong>

Look in on Afghanistan now as they've slipped right back into religious intolerance, government oppression, and almost-as-confining lifestyle codes for women. The main difference is now warlords have carved the country up, and they rule to their individual whims. Which is why we're STILL fighting and American soldiers are STILL getting killed over there.

</strong>

And meddling has produced as many atrocities. especially in the countless lives lost in Middle East conflicts between leaders we've propped up. But what I said was that we don't need to meddle in MIDDLE EASTERN affairs. They're particularly of a lose-lose nature, and beyond humanitarian aid, there's no good we can do in the region, as we're learning now. Tens of billions of dollars spent....just to spend tens of billions of dollars more just to watch as...

The UN will eventually take over most of the humanitarian functions, and as such, the country itself. Iraq will lapse into a religious theocracy, either officially or unofficially (as it is now). And a prominent Islamic fundamentalist "cleric" with anti-US tendencies will be a thorn in our side in that region for many years to come.

It's pointless.

</strong>

It's funny you say that because there've already been murders and mob justice in that country based on people saying what they believe, and there most certainly has been violent, even fatal reprisal. Remember that we sat back and let these "free" mobs do whatever it is that they wanted...in the interest of "freedom."

You act as if we've given them a chance they didn't have before. And that's not accurate at all. There were a number of anti-Saddam Shiite groups openly operating before the US ever arrived. They were targets for the state, but they said what they believed and acted against the Baath regime as much as they possibly could. The Kurds sure openly opposed him in Kurdistan. How much more open can you get than taking a slice of his country and claiming it as your own?

Were there reprisal from Saddam...violent ones? Constantly. And once whatever new religious sect gains power, there will be more. But rest assured, there was always and there will always be opposition sentiment in Iraq, and it always has and will always go hand-in-hand with armed conflicts and violent death.

Nothing's changed, except that there's no one central government to do the oppressing...right now. Only a matter of time there...

We'll agree to disagree then because I don't even think they've received this "fresh start" you talk about. It's more like a cease-fire temporary window accompanied by more sickness, starvation, and poverty than before. The only way those issues will be controlled is if a new government takes hold, and then...

back to square one. Just look at Afghanistan. We gave them a "fresh start" from The Taliban, only to see the country lapse back into warlord control, religious persecution, and terrorist violence against US military.

People change when they're ready to change, and no amount of US military meddling can accelerate that.

Just a question: How many Kuwaitis are you claiming Saddam "murdered"? I'm not defending his decision to invade, just curious about your expression.

On another point, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Saudi terrorists also opposed to the Saudi regime? Isn't part of their "rationale" for hating us that they see us as propping up a corrupt leadership in their country?

I certainly agree with that.

I think we've both made our points, and now we'll both have to see what happens next.

Was opining about a world where the UN allowed Saddam to keep Kuwait and what would have happened over the preceding years.

Yes, and the terrorists are certainly right in that regard which is why I am for disassociating the US from them as soon as possible.

Thanks for the rewarding and civil debate/discussion.