In regards to Kon-Tiki's previous comment...
The most common misconception is that Iraq, among other middle eastern countries, wants peace. Israel has always been a slap in the face of the countries around it, and it has been more than generous to compensate. When Israel was formed from Palestine, treaties were formed so that only the upper part would belong to Israel and the lower part to the Palestinians--but they rejected, and instead, the government turned into radical groups that constantly bombard Israel. These groups are located in the countries nearby--Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and, of course, Iraq. And they have power in the governments. So when you ask what has America done, it's strong ties with Israel must be factored in.
Should USA attack to Iraq?
-
ark
Re:Should USA attack to Iraq?
What I'm trying to get you to understand is that it doesn't matter whether such attacks would actually constitute bullying. All that matters is whether others perceive the actions of the U.S. as bullying weaker countries.
As to my example, the point really wasn't whether the U.S. gov't could have found the terrorists if they wanted to (even though there are organizational schemes that could make that difficult even with FBI sweeps) -- the point is how you would feel about the excuse for bombing you and your friends and your family. Yes, there is a difference in the fact that the Afghanistan people are not in the U.S. in that the U.S. has more options within in its own boundaries. As far as the perceptions of the people of Afghanistan are concerned, however, it makes little difference. It is still a powerful force coming in and making their lives miserable and not the terrorists.
As to my example, the point really wasn't whether the U.S. gov't could have found the terrorists if they wanted to (even though there are organizational schemes that could make that difficult even with FBI sweeps) -- the point is how you would feel about the excuse for bombing you and your friends and your family. Yes, there is a difference in the fact that the Afghanistan people are not in the U.S. in that the U.S. has more options within in its own boundaries. As far as the perceptions of the people of Afghanistan are concerned, however, it makes little difference. It is still a powerful force coming in and making their lives miserable and not the terrorists.
-
gpm
Re:Should USA attack to Iraq?
I have to admit I hold a fairly critical viewpoint when it comes to the WTC tragedy and the war on terrorism... I think that any hijacked plane should have been tracked on radar, intercepted by fighters, and shot down if necessary (which it was last year). The fact that the fighters never left the airbase until it was too late showed that the emergency response was obviously too slow. It was possible to prevent the crashings. I blame the lack of response on the government administration (Bush) for not properly preparing the country. The whole spiel they gave about "there was no way we could have known they would use civilian airliners as weapons of mass destruction" was an absolute joke.. I honestly fear for the stability of the US under Bush. He just doesn't inspire any confidence in him from me. Especially after the USA PATRIOT Act was passed (an unconstitutional, illegal, and dangerous invasion of Americans' civil rights if you ask me) and the constant warnings of potential terrorist attacks, I feel the limitations on civil rights may become permanent because terrorism is an extremely nebulous and complex enemy and will likely never be completely rooted out (much like the war on drugs and the war on crime) - because the potential for terrorism is within every human being.
Don't get me wrong though. The war on terrorism is necessary, to eliminate safe havens for people who pose a serious threat to civilization itself. It's the way that Bush goes about it which is the trouble. I honestly do not believe that Iraq is sheltering al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein is a threat, no doubt, but there's been no conclusive proof that Iraq is a safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists. It seems to me, though, that Bush just wants to finish the job that his father should have finished 11 years ago. And, in his zeal to commit the US (and the world) to support his little crusade, he speaks so often about toppling Saddam Hussein that the whole Arab world is in an uproar over it. Now, if he really wants Saddam, he's going to have to go through a firestorm to get him. And I really don't want to have to go to war with an enemy we shouldn't be fighting because my leader does not know when to keep his fat mouth shut and stick to the original objective.
Don't get me wrong though. The war on terrorism is necessary, to eliminate safe havens for people who pose a serious threat to civilization itself. It's the way that Bush goes about it which is the trouble. I honestly do not believe that Iraq is sheltering al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein is a threat, no doubt, but there's been no conclusive proof that Iraq is a safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists. It seems to me, though, that Bush just wants to finish the job that his father should have finished 11 years ago. And, in his zeal to commit the US (and the world) to support his little crusade, he speaks so often about toppling Saddam Hussein that the whole Arab world is in an uproar over it. Now, if he really wants Saddam, he's going to have to go through a firestorm to get him. And I really don't want to have to go to war with an enemy we shouldn't be fighting because my leader does not know when to keep his fat mouth shut and stick to the original objective.
-
sonneveld
Re:Should USA attack to Iraq?
hey, I wouldn't want to shoot down civilian planes unless I was absolutely sure what they were doing. Just like how the passengers apparently didn't try and overcome the hijackers on the other plane until they heard what happened to the other planes.
- Nick
- Nick
-
rwfromxenon
Re:Should USA attack to Iraq?
I wonder what Al Gore would do... After all, even though Bush is in office, he didn't legally win election.
-
ark
Re:Should USA attack to Iraq?
It's not necessarily a matter of what the people of Afghanistan themselves would do, although they would be more likely to support the terrorist organizations and possibly join them. When it comes to matters like this, the effects of attacking a more or less helpless people to coerce them to your bidding can have serious repercussions in all international relations and can inspire further terrorist attacks against the U.S. I'll put my example forth again...what would those angry state citizens do? I don't know for sure what they would do, but I do know they wouldn't do nothing.
I should also point out that terrorism is anything but a threat to civilization -- civilization is what produces these things. Whatever happens to the U.S., terrorism poses no threat to civilization, which is perfectly comfortable with political murder of every kind. Terrorism doesn't seek to depose civilization, only to bend it to the terrorist group's will.
I should also point out that terrorism is anything but a threat to civilization -- civilization is what produces these things. Whatever happens to the U.S., terrorism poses no threat to civilization, which is perfectly comfortable with political murder of every kind. Terrorism doesn't seek to depose civilization, only to bend it to the terrorist group's will.
-
gpm
Re:Should USA attack to Iraq?
In response to Nick:
Of course it was possible in the eyes of the emergency response people that the hijackers wanted somebody released from prison, but wouldn't you, for safety purposes, dispatch a fighter escort to make sure the hijackers don't do something stupid, like crash into a skyscraper?
In response to Joel:
This group seeks to destroy the way our civilization functions, and replace it with their own barbaric view of how the world should be. So, in a sense, no it doesn't threaten civilization itself, but it threatens our particular "flavor" of civilization.
Neither would I. But don't you find it strange that the planes were hijacked over the continental U.S. with no haven they could fly to? Such as when an Indian flight was hijacked and flown to Kandahar..hey, I wouldn't want to shoot down civilian planes unless I was absolutely sure what they were doing. Just like how the passengers apparently didn't try and overcome the hijackers on the other plane until they heard what happened to the other planes.
Of course it was possible in the eyes of the emergency response people that the hijackers wanted somebody released from prison, but wouldn't you, for safety purposes, dispatch a fighter escort to make sure the hijackers don't do something stupid, like crash into a skyscraper?
In response to Joel:
al-Qaeda is a unique terrorist group because its goals are far more ambitious than a typical terrorist organization seeking to institute some sort of political change (the IRA, PLO for instance terrorize for their goals of autonomy, al-Qaeda seeks to replace every non-Islamic-fundamentalist government in the world with an Islamic fundamentalist state).I should also point out that terrorism is anything but a threat to civilization -- civilization is what produces these things. Whatever happens to the U.S., terrorism poses no threat to civilization, which is perfectly comfortable with political murder of every kind. Terrorism doesn't seek to depose civilization, only to bend it to the terrorist group's will.
This group seeks to destroy the way our civilization functions, and replace it with their own barbaric view of how the world should be. So, in a sense, no it doesn't threaten civilization itself, but it threatens our particular "flavor" of civilization.
-
Sami_Tervo
Re:Should USA attack to Iraq?
Interesting... I didn't thought this issue too much to make better questions... It's never too late. I changed 'Yaaa banzai' to 'If Iraq ain't gonna cooperate with UN then yes'
-
Grover
Re:Should USA attack to Iraq?
I think it's interesting how people have completely disregarded the fact that we have a system of electoral votes to decide who will win the election. It was (partly) created so that highly populated states don't have complete power over an election. It wasn't intended to have effect on landslide votes, but rather close ones, such as this one. Bush had 271 votes, whereas Gore had 266. If we were to go by the popular vote, Gore would have won--unconstitutionally.Allyb wrote: After all, even though Bush is in office, he didn't legally win election.
Though the electoral college is somewhat biased against third parties--the green party got 2.7% of the national vote, good for zero electoral votes. It doesn't really count for anything unless a whole state votes in favor of that party, and very few third parties are beneficial for an entire state. Though I suppose it doesn't much matter--if a third party was to be elected in office, it would have to have been recieving at least some electoral votes for a long time.
Pahh--Vote Libertarian
-
Sami_Tervo
Re:Should USA attack to Iraq?
I saw on telly yesterday that Iraq might let in the UN weaponexaminers in...Hoax perhaps?
Anyway, when US and pals are going to kill them, they have to see some trouble; Iraq is going to pull US troops to the deadly street fights in cities. There US can't use their superiority as well than during the Gulfwar.
Anyway, when US and pals are going to kill them, they have to see some trouble; Iraq is going to pull US troops to the deadly street fights in cities. There US can't use their superiority as well than during the Gulfwar.
-
mr-t
Re:Should USA attack to Iraq?
The "co-operate with UN" question is flawed, because the UN haven't come to a resolution yet.