[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Using YOUR tortured reasoning there's NOTHING sufficiently valuable that would be worth risking human life.

That's not what he asked, and you know it. Stop dancing around the issue. He asked a very clear and direct question. Stop playing dumb.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

There were several reasons the US invaded Iraq. Oil is the one that makes most sense.

Here are some of the OIL related reasons.

1. To safeguard the millions of barrels a day that goes to the US and OTHER nations, too.
2. To DENY this financial resource to al Qaeda.
3. In helping to rebuild Iraq and provide the people with a new government and a better way of life than they had before Saddam's fall, the oil would help pay for the rebuilding.

See, this is where your inability to answer direct questions creates stopping points. I've pointed out many times that your argument falls apart when you consider that Iraq is not the only source of oil in the world. If the global supply of oil were truly threatened, I'd be right there with you. It's not.

The Iraqi oil supply is more threatened now than ever, life goes on. Without Iraq in the picture, it doesn't mean that there is no oil for the world, it means that demand will overwhelm supply, and therefore prices will increase... If your local Mac store went out of business, would the global supply of Macs be threatened? Not directly comparable, but the same sort of logic you are using.

Prices are already at a high right now because of refineries not being able to keep up with demand. It's not like Iraq's existence is the only variable in the supply/demand picture.

Is the loss of 9,000 lives worth cheaper gas prices? Still waiting for you to answer that question. I'M FLAGGING IT. HERE IT IS.. ANSWER IT! STAY FOCUSED!

[besson3c]

Here are some more flags so that Mojo doesn't miss the question:




See all the thumbs pointing at the question above? Look at all the freakin' thumbs! All pointing at the question in the last post you are supposed to answer!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Here are some more flags so that Mojo doesn't miss the question:




See all the thumbs pointing at the question above? Look at all the freakin' thumbs! All pointing at the question in the last post you are supposed to answer!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

See, this is where your inability to answer direct questions creates stopping points. I've pointed out many times that your argument falls apart when you consider that Iraq is not the only source of oil in the world. If the global supply of oil were truly threatened, I'd be right there with you. It's not.

The Iraqi oil supply is more threatened now than ever, life goes on. Without Iraq in the picture, it doesn't mean that there is no oil for the world, it means that demand will overwhelm supply, and therefore prices will increase... If your local Mac store went out of business, would the global supply of Macs be threatened? Not directly comparable, but the same sort of logic you are using.

Prices are already at a high right now because of refineries not being able to keep up with demand. It's not like Iraq's existence is the only variable in the supply/demand picture.

Is the loss of 9,000 lives worth cheaper gas prices? Still waiting for you to answer that question. I'M FLAGGING IT. HERE IT IS.. ANSWER IT! STAY FOCUSED!

As I've said before the amount of oil that Iraq supplies the world IS significant when you think that there IS NO OIL SURPLUS. All of it gets bought and used pretty quickly. The global demand is growing.

What if you were involved in some very exhausting physical activity and your body was sweating profusely and you got no replenishment of the fluids you needed?

Lets say you fell short of being able to get all the replenished fluids you needed. First you would fall ill. Then you would cease to function as you had. Then your internal parts would suffer shut down. Then you would die.

Death from dehydration can be from losing as little as 1/10 of our normal capacity.

Right now all the oil fields and all the oil producing nations are trying to keep up with demand.

Where would we actually get the oil if Iraq's oil were (in one way or another) diverted?

How much could we afford to lose before we'd suffer economic shut down?

How much do we get from Iraq?

All of those questions HAVE been answered directly via cut & paste or by reading the links.

So, that is all I will do to answer your question.

It is well nigh time you did your homework, little poopster!

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[James L]

mojo,

Why are you scared to answer direct questions?

You do understand that your word carries no weight when everyone who reads these forums knows you will talk about what YOU want to talk about, but will purposely avoid direct questions asked of you when it suits your purpose.

Put another way, every time you dodge a question you lose credibility.

You post song lyrics. You remind us of movie scenes. You make bizarre, long winded attempts at clever analogies.

Yet, when someone asks you simple, direct questions, you coward out.

It would appear I am not the only person to note this.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

As I've said before the amount of oil that Iraq supplies the world IS significant when you think that there IS NO OIL SURPLUS. All of it gets bought and used pretty quickly. The global demand is growing.

Aside from the fact that you haven't answered James' question, I still don't understand this line of thinking. So there is no oil surplus. So demand is growing. That doesn't mean that we'll be without oil. That means that oil will be more expensive.

Again, we return to the original question: is the prospect of saving a few bucks worth the lives lost, the huge costs (financial, emotional, political, etc.), and the instability we have caused the region (which may have made us worse off anyway)?

Frankly, this all sounds like some desperate apologist action. It's okay if you heart Bush and think he is a living God, just don't expect all of us to agree, especially when you cannot defend your arguments.

Please don't respond to this with weird distracting analogies and essays. I'm being extremely candid and straight forward with you, please respond in kind.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Aside from the fact that you haven't answered James' question, I still don't understand this line of thinking. So there is no oil surplus. So demand is growing. That doesn't mean that we'll be without oil. That means that oil will be more expensive.

Again, we return to the original question: is the prospect of saving a few bucks worth the lives lost, the huge costs (financial, emotional, political, etc.), and the instability we have caused the region (which may have made us worse off anyway)?

Frankly, this all sounds like some desperate apologist action. It's okay if you heart Bush and think he is a living God, just don't expect all of us to agree, especially when you cannot defend your arguments.

Please don't respond to this with weird distracting analogies and essays. I'm being extremely candid and straight forward with you, please respond in kind.

How can I tell you in a way that conveys the predicted reality of an oil embargo?

I try to tell you SIMPLY by saying it would cause a chain reaction of events that would sppread near and far and affect all kinds of industries and eventually cause a financial shut down and our financial shutdown would cause a collapse of all the other world's economies and then when you consider the depression of the 1930's you'd have something along those lines or worse.

Or I could try to have you envision the way it would look from YOUR vantage point and how you would experience the collapse or impending collapse.

But neither seems to work for you, so, pretend ol mojo is gone fishin and he left you with these crazy posts to go from. What would you do?

You would maybe look at googled articles about what havoc and turmoil the 1970's oil embargo caused to get an idea.

You could read (like any other seriously concerned person should be) the links I left you.

From now on you should no longer consider me an interactive 2-way source of information as you haven't done your part to prevent my being stopped up and stuck trying to get you to move past this one point.

From here you have all the info and tools to understand.

It is up to you.

Gone fishin.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

How can I tell you in a way that conveys the predicted reality of an oil embargo?

I try to tell you SIMPLY by saying it would cause a chain reaction of events that would sppread near and far and affect all kinds of industries and eventually cause a financial shut down and our financial shutdown would cause a collapse of all the other world's economies and then when you consider the depression of the 1930's you'd have something along those lines or worse.

Your whole theory is based around the idea that if we protect this single supplier of oil, we prevent the world from havoc and a financial shutdown. Even though there are several suppliers of oil, you are saying that if we guarantee the survival of at least one, we (us Americans, not other countries) will be set. Is this about right?

Just what do you envision the terrorists doing that would disrupt all oil supplies in all oily countries? What has our invasion done that will protect the safety of Saudi oil, or the oil in any other country? How does one supplier being disrupted result in global havoc, and not just higher prices? How does a hypothetical financial shutdown that would affect ALL countries warrant an invasion? How is it right to assure our financial safety at the expense of those of other countries? Are you saying that the need for us to be more competitive than other countries warranted this invasion?

There are soooo many unanswered questions here, Mojo, I hardly know where to even begin. Please answer them, and don't just send me a pile of links to read. If you want me to read your links, summarize them, and tell me why I should read them. I simply don't have time to read random articles from random people on the internet sharing what seems like their (your) crazy ideas.

I hope you can see that based on the fact that you have not made clear your answers to these questions that your ideas do come across as far-reaching, and even morally offensive.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Your whole theory is based around the idea that if we protect this single supplier of oil, we prevent the world from havoc and a financial shutdown. Even though there are several suppliers of oil, you are saying that if we guarantee the survival of at least one, we (us Americans, not other countries) will be set. Is this about right?

Just what do you envision the terrorists doing that would disrupt all oil supplies in all oily countries? What has our invasion done that will protect the safety of Saudi oil, or the oil in any other country? How does one supplier being disrupted result in global havoc, and not just higher prices? How does a hypothetical financial shutdown that would affect ALL countries warrant an invasion? How is it right to assure our financial safety at the expense of those of other countries? Are you saying that the need for us to be more competitive than other countries warranted this invasion?

There are soooo many unanswered questions here, Mojo, I hardly know where to even begin. Please answer them, and don't just send me a pile of links to read. If you want me to read your links, summarize them, and tell me why I should read them. I simply don't have time to read random articles from random people on the internet sharing what seems like their (your) crazy ideas.

I hope you can see that based on the fact that you have not made clear your answers to these questions that your ideas do come across as far-reaching, and even morally offensive.

Gone Fishin.

[Hawkeye_a]

In reply to the original post:

For some reason there's this image in my mind, where a person is at a gas station, the fuels available are "Diesel", "Autogas" or "Human Blood" (Iraqi civilian & U.S. servicemen blend), where the latter is the cheapest and therefore the fuel of choice.

Thats not the disturbing part though, the fact that people have to ask whether or not killing of 25000+(!!!!!) human beings is justfied to drive profits, wealth and economies, makes me nauseous.

Justified ? most certainly NOT.

Here's my question to you.... who benefits from the supply and sale of oil ? Is it the suppliers(oil rich countries) ? the buyers(end consumers)? or the people in between(oil companies) ? This war was not faught for freedom or for security or for human rights, it was faught to secure the profits for the oil companies because they stand to gain the most.

If you ask whether or not securing the supply of oil is justification for the deliberate deception and loss of human life......would it be a fair conclusion that American, British, Spanish, Italian and Australian servicemen gave their lives for ensuring profits for big oil , and the flow of oil? Is that what they'd like put on their gravestones ?

Some people kill cause of "religion" others for "resources"....theyre all friggon Nazis to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Gone Fishin.

Wow! You really are a GWB fanboy....

When the going gets rough, take a vacation. Nicely done.

P.S. How many GWB autographs do you have in your GWB-personal encounters scrapbook?

To Mojo2,

You keep on truckin'

- Your friend, George W. Bush

P.S. stop copying me.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

This war was not faught for freedom or for security or for human rights, it was faught to secure the profits for the oil companies because they stand to gain the most.

I have a theory on the underlying cause for this war.

"Because we can."

Well, they thought they could, anyway.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Wow! You really are a GWB fanboy....

When the going gets rough, take a vacation. Nicely done.

P.S. How many GWB autographs do you have in your GWB-personal encounters scrapbook?

Hey, wait a minute. It's KITTIES! KITTIES CATCHIN FISH!

I picked it out special for ya! There's all kinds of 'gone fishin' images but I chose THIS one just cuz I thought you'd appreciate it!

Look, it's actually an embroidering! And they're wearing hats and and landing a fish in a NET for heavens sake! How could you NOT say something about them climbing all over the boat and each other with fishing poles and using a NET?

Aww, ya gotta love this picture!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

In reply to the original post:

For some reason there's this image in my mind, where a person is at a gas station, the fuels available are "Diesel", "Autogas" or "Human Blood" (Iraqi civilian & U.S. servicemen blend), where the latter is the cheapest and therefore the fuel of choice.

Thats not the disturbing part though, the fact that people have to ask whether or not killing of 25000+(!!!!!) human beings is justfied to drive profits, wealth and economies, makes me nauseous.

Justified ? most certainly NOT.

Here's my question to you.... who benefits from the supply and sale of oil ? Is it the suppliers(oil rich countries) ? the buyers(end consumers)? or the people in between(oil companies) ? This war was not faught for freedom or for security or for human rights, it was faught to secure the profits for the oil companies because they stand to gain the most.

If you ask whether or not securing the supply of oil is justification for the deliberate deception and loss of human life......would it be a fair conclusion that American, British, Spanish, Italian and Australian servicemen gave their lives for ensuring profits for big oil , and the flow of oil? Is that what they'd like put on their gravestones ?

Some people kill cause of "religion" others for "resources"....theyre all friggon Nazis to me.

OK. Look around the room where you are sitting.

Of everything you see tell me what YOU produced using Hawkeye_a power. What materials did you use? Show me a plant or animal that didn't grow larger or survive natural pests and problems because of petroleum based fertilizers and pesticieds and medicines. How did those things get to your room? Did they walk there by themselves? Did you show up at the factory and lug everything home on your own back?

Then tell me how many miles you drove today? How many cell phone calls and text messages or TV or Radio shows you enjoyed.

What are you wearing?

Your computer is made from what?

How are you even communicating on the internet?

You are a friggin TWO LEGGED OIL GUZZLING HYPOCRITE.

Now, go sit down and stfu in your oil produced chair.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

I have a theory on the underlying cause for this war.

"Because we can."

Well, they thought they could, anyway.

Ok, tell me this. Who, EXACTLY do you get your products and services from who uses anything other than oil? Hmmm?

Oh and you KNOW you are a hypocrite snidely sniping about oil and the war and all until you give up your vehicle and ride a bike, BICYCLE to and fro. You say you live too far?

Oh well, there goes YOUR argument, huh?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

I have a theory on the underlying cause for this war.

"Because we can."

Well, they thought they could, anyway.

See, it's NOT "THEY" and "THEM," Face Ache...

It's YOU!

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Ok, tell me this. Who, EXACTLY do you get your products and services from who uses anything other than oil? Hmmm?

Oh and you KNOW you are a hypocrite snidely sniping about oil and the war and all until you give up your vehicle and ride a bike, BICYCLE to and fro. You say you live too far?

Oh well, there goes YOUR argument, huh?

I currently pay twice what you pay at the pump. I'd rather do that than kill innocent people, if that's your argument.

When I first moved to Sydney I temporarily lived in a doss house full of (literally) crazy people. My girlfriend and I would amuse ourselves by getting stoned, going to the TV room and starting fights between the nutters by changing the TV channel. It never failed and we thought it was hilarious.

I find MacNN is a lot like that TV room. Please don't think I'm taking you seriously.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

I currently pay twice what you pay at the pump. I'd rather do that than kill innocent people, if that's your argument.

When I first moved to Sydney I temporarily lived in a doss house full of (literally) crazy people. My girlfriend and I would amuse ourselves by getting stoned, going to the TV room and starting fights between the nutters by changing the TV channel. It never failed and we thought it was hilarious.

I find MacNN is a lot like that TV room. Please don't think I'm taking you seriously.

You don't get it, do you?

Try to follow here. Get the gf if necessary.

If al Qaeda diverts the oil leaving for the west or the US and the US price of oil increases there will be certain businesses and industries and people who will be hurt first but that will create unforeseen consequences that will reach out and bring about other unforseen consequences until it begins happening so quickly that no one will be able to adjust quickly enough and the whole thing crumbles and the economic tsunami will hit you there.

Alright here goes.

Al Qaeda manages to deprive the USA of 10 - 20% (who knows exactly how little it will take?) of it's daily requirement of oil.

The price of oil goes up. The price at the pump goes up to $5/gal. to start with. The little guy who drives some distance to work and lives in a modest apartment is immediately going to have to ask for a raise or move closer to work or get another job closer to home.

And this isn't just a few people, this is millions of workers who have to fill their tanks more than once a week and makes $24,000/yr. and pays $700 rent.

Millions of people across America are making tough choices.

But not as tough as the businesses who can only afford to keep a workforce based on economies of scale and a workforce that is paid a certain % of revenues. After a while the squeeze becomes too much and the business has to lay off then when that doesn't work he tries to sell the business and then your goods and services go up because the new owner has to figure out how HE can make a profit and stay in business.

Suddenly YOU can't afford the things you want or need. And so you begin making changes to accommodate the price increases. Everyone will be affected by the changes and at a certain point the whole house of cards will tumble.

Oh and how are you guys able to afford petrol twice the price we pay? You govt. eased you (and themselves) into it to keep your consumption down. Most of the $$ you pay for petrol is state taxes.

If/when the terrorists have their way the increase will be caused by fluctuations in the market as investors drive up the prices to correspond with the perceived level of risk and certainty or UNcertainty of oil futures.

In this way OBL can destroy our economy simply by creating a climate of panic which could send the whole thing tumbling.

AND IN DECEMBER OF 2001 THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE INTENDS TO DO.

You've shown yourself to be rather emotionally calloused so your concern about the troops and innocent deaths may or may not be genuine, but we can certainly recognize a healthy regard for your own comfort and concern.

What if on top of the current high price of gas you had to pay another $3/gallon? And, what your 'nutters' may not have told you is that everything YOU consume exists totally or in large part because of oil and so, to dispel your smug little myopic conception of the danger, all the fun little things you enjoy will be out of your price range.

THEN this little conversation will ring in your head and it won't be so funny.

But til then, sit back. Humor the MacNN nutter and maybe you could put another shrimp on the bar-be.

I'm getting a mental nutter image of Nero, fiddling away while Rome burned.

There are some folks down your way who see things quite differently than you. Hey, I'm just a nutter, what the hell do I know.

Australian Treasury Secretary Fears U.S. Crash

Australia's Treasury Secretary and his closest advisers fear "the U.S. is heading for a devastating financial crash that could ravage Australia's economic growth."

That was the lead story in the respected paper The Australian this weekend.

In a speech last week, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry likened the flood of money pouring into the United States to support its budget and current-account deficits to the stock market's Dot-Com bubble of the late 1990s.

If it were it suddenly to stop, there would be shockwaves felt throughout the world's economies.

Nah, if the US economy went sour there would be no effect on you face ache!

Why don't you look up some people down there who you can share this with and all of you can have a good laugh!

[ebuddy]

It seems the direct question was; "Are lower gas prices worth the cost in lives?" Aside from the fact that this question makes many assumptions, I'll let mojo2 deal with the question regarding his take on why we're there. My answer would look a little like;

Peace cannot be done among humankind. Utopia cannot exist. Why? Imperialism. America is imperialistic. China is imperialistic. Many ME countries are imperialistic. Russia is imperialistic. Euro-member nations are imperialistic. The only hinderance to imperialism is lack of resource. Humankind is imperialistic by nature. If lifting our legs and spraying territory was enough to establish boundaries, this might be less complex unfortunately this is not so. This world will eventually come to a head of ideals and interests. The interests? Generally territory and the resources that come of it. The 'ideals' comprise the various systems of government in action today, including democracy. We share interests with others for the wealth of resources found in the ME, but we also have an interest in the culture of the ME. Was the forming of our democracy here in America worth the cost in lives? Yes. I'm glad the soldiers of that time were aware of the value of the cause.

Does it also include oil in Iraq? Yes, but indirectly. The oil is to be secured for the Iraqi people, not for the US. Evidenced by our higher cost at the pump when we could've easily stamped US on all the spiggots there. This resource will prove invaluable to the Iraqi people in using this capital to thrust a prosperous society under a newly formed democracy. Democracy requires capitalism. Capitalism requires resource. Resource creates prosperity which lends back to society and to the system's ideal. Regardless of what you think of Americans, we're no failure at successfully creating and managing a democracy having become the World's greatest superpower in little more than 200 years. There are societies who've been at this for multitudes of centuries and still have yet to attain the success we've attained. Why? The ideal. In my view, while flawed, democracy is the best ideal in action among humankind.

Democratic nations are more peaceful and prosperous nations. Look at World Economy and the major contributors to it. Look at conflicts throughout the world the last 20 years. Democracy spreads. When it is witnessed, it is wanted. In the early1900's there were only a handful of democracies. In the 1950's there were more than 45 democracies. Now there are more than 130 democracies. Why? Because when democracy is witnessed, it's people will fight for it and eventually attain it for themselves. Why? Because democratic nations are more peaceful and prosperous nations. Will one know what democracy looks like unless they see it in action? No. Once they witness it, they will fight for it. They'll risk their lives for it. Is it worth the cost? Yes.

For years the Clinton Administration warned of the danger Saddam posed. George senior was already aware of this threat prior to liberating Kuwait. It was apparent that Saddam too was imperialistic evidenced by intel regarding Iraq's involvement in an arms race with Iran and the distaste of both toward Israel. (yet another threatened interest of ours) 12 UN Resolutions were drafted to deal with the threat and each in turn were met by Saddam with non-compliance. This over a span of 12 years. The UN, acting on intelligence provided by various International sources claimed Iraq was a more profound threat than we had imagined and Powell came before the International Body to describe the threat in more detail. A 13th UN Resolution was drafted and threatened "severe consequences" for non-compliance. I still remember Kofi's words to that effect. While we had access to many sensitive sites, there were still sites that Saddam was being "less-than-clear" about. We wanted unfettered access to all palaces and wanted openness, honesty, and details. The details were sketchy and uncredible, the evidence suggested points of interest we were not allowed access to time and again. So, is the credibility of an International Body interested in peace, enough for a few thousand lives? I say yes.

Iraq could not be more geographically centered for democracy. By implanting democracy directly at the core of the ME, it's neighbors will see it in action and will want it for themselves. Iraq has a wealth of resource at it's disposal to thrust this new system of government more quickly than perhaps any other area in the region. Democracy will spread throughout the ME like wild-fire. The foundation of the democratized ME needs to be built. This is difficult and will cost lives. How many lives did it cost in bulding the Golden Gate bridge? Imagine the cost of building a democratic nation. When we built cars, did we consider the number of lives that would be lost? When we built airplanes that take us thousands of feet beyond our comfort zone, did we consider the potential loss? Yes and in all cases I'm sure we'd agree it was worth the cost.

By implanting a culture of peace and prosperity right smack-dab in the Middle East, we will have affected the culture of the entire region. A culture more friendly to the West, more friendly to each other and more friendly to the World Economy. We will also have given ourselves staging grounds in arguably the most geographically ideal spot imaginable within an increasingly volatile globe. Is it imperialistic? Yes. The painful fact of the matter is that those with resources, will seek more. If need be, they will come for you if not today, then tomorrow. Knowing human kind, knowing that the world will come to a head of ideals-you have a choice to make. You can make decisions today that will sustain your ideal tomorrow, or you can pretend that your ideal will sustain itself with no one behind it giving it thrust. You can remain complacent, isolated and blind, paralyzed by fear of the cost of progress, or you can take steps today that ensure progress tomorrow. There is and has always been strife in the ME. You'll have to pardon the US for taking action as it seemed no one else would. Granted, there were proposals of more economic sanctions against Iraq, but that only served to starve the naton's poor to death. Were economic sanctions worth the cost in lives? No. In fact all they did was serve to starve the Iraqi poor to death while her leader built another palace. Most others were paralyzed by fear and some others were using Iraq's instability to bolster their own pocketbooks. Whether you agree with our actions or not, something needed to be done and the solutions given by the International Community wreaked of personal interests and when considering the numbers of dead people as a result of failed sanctions, it became apparent they weren't interested in any humanitarian goal.

Successfully implanting a democracy; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Witnessing democracy spread throughout a region wrought with strife and ailing government systems; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Lending credibility to an International Body; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Fortifying our own ideals and posture on an increasingly volatile globe; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Instant political gratification for naysayers, the complacent, the naive, the pessimist, and the antagonist; worth the cost in lives. No.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It seems the direct question was; "Are lower gas prices worth the cost in lives?" Aside from the fact that this question makes many assumptions, I'll let mojo2 deal with the question regarding his take on why we're there. My answer would look a little like;

Peace cannot be done among humankind. Utopia cannot exist. Why? Imperialism. America is imperialistic. China is imperialistic. Many ME countries are imperialistic. Russia is imperialistic. Euro-member nations are imperialistic. The only hinderance to imperialism is lack of resource. Humankind is imperialistic by nature. If lifting our legs and spraying territory was enough to establish boundaries, this might be less complex unfortunately this is not so. This world will eventually come to a head of ideals and interests. The interests? Generally territory and the resources that come of it. The 'ideals' comprise the various systems of government in action today, including democracy. We share interests with others for the wealth of resources found in the ME, but we also have an interest in the culture of the ME. Was the forming of our democracy here in America worth the cost in lives? Yes. I'm glad the soldiers of that time were aware of the value of the cause.

Does it also include oil in Iraq? Yes, but indirectly. The oil is to be secured for the Iraqi people, not for the US. Evidenced by our higher cost at the pump when we could've easily stamped US on all the spiggots there. This resource will prove invaluable to the Iraqi people in using this capital to thrust a prosperous society under a newly formed democracy. Democracy requires capitalism. Capitalism requires resource. Resource creates prosperity which lends back to society and to the system's ideal. Regardless of what you think of Americans, we're no failure at successfully creating and managing a democracy having become the World's greatest superpower in little more than 200 years. There are societies who've been at this for multitudes of centuries and still have yet to attain the success we've attained. Why? The ideal. In my view, while flawed, democracy is the best ideal in action among humankind.

Democratic nations are more peaceful and prosperous nations. Look at World Economy and the major contributors to it. Look at conflicts throughout the world the last 20 years. Democracy spreads. When it is witnessed, it is wanted. In the early1900's there were only a handful of democracies. In the 1950's there were more than 45 democracies. Now there are more than 130 democracies. Why? Because when democracy is witnessed, it's people will fight for it and eventually attain it for themselves. Why? Because democratic nations are more peaceful and prosperous nations. Will one know what democracy looks like unless they see it in action? No. Once they witness it, they will fight for it. They'll risk their lives for it. Is it worth the cost? Yes.

For years the Clinton Administration warned of the danger Saddam posed. George senior was already aware of this threat prior to liberating Kuwait. It was apparent that Saddam too was imperialistic evidenced by intel regarding Iraq's involvement in an arms race with Iran and the distaste of both toward Israel. (yet another threatened interest of ours) 12 UN Resolutions were drafted to deal with the threat and each in turn were met by Saddam with non-compliance. This over a span of 12 years. The UN, acting on intelligence provided by various International sources claimed Iraq was a more profound threat than we had imagined and Powell came before the International Body to describe the threat in more detail. A 13th UN Resolution was drafted and threatened "severe consequences" for non-compliance. I still remember Kofi's words to that effect. While we had access to many sensitive sites, there were still sites that Saddam was being "less-than-clear" about. We wanted unfettered access to all palaces and wanted openness, honesty, and details. The details were sketchy and uncredible, the evidence suggested points of interest we were not allowed access to time and again. So, is the credibility of an International Body interested in peace, enough for a few thousand lives? I say yes.

Iraq could not be more geographically centered for democracy. By implanting democracy directly at the core of the ME, it's neighbors will see it in action and will want it for themselves. Iraq has a wealth of resource at it's disposal to thrust this new system of government more quickly than perhaps any other area in the region. Democracy will spread throughout the ME like wild-fire. The foundation of the democratized ME needs to be built. This is difficult and will cost lives. How many lives did it cost in bulding the Golden Gate bridge? Imagine the cost of building a democratic nation. When we built cars, did we consider the number of lives that would be lost? When we built airplanes that take us thousands of feet beyond our comfort zone, did we consider the potential loss? Yes and in all cases I'm sure we'd agree it was worth the cost.

By implanting a culture of peace and prosperity right smack-dab in the Middle East, we will have affected the culture of the entire region. A culture more friendly to the West, more friendly to each other and more friendly to the World Economy. We will also have given ourselves staging grounds in arguably the most geographically ideal spot imaginable within an increasingly volatile globe. Is it imperialistic? Yes. The painful fact of the matter is that those with resources, will seek more. If need be, they will come for you if not today, then tomorrow. Knowing human kind, knowing that the world will come to a head of ideals-you have a choice to make. You can make decisions today that will sustain your ideal tomorrow, or you can pretend that your ideal will sustain itself with no one behind it giving it thrust. You can remain complacent, isolated and blind, paralyzed by fear of the cost of progress, or you can take steps today that ensure progress tomorrow. There is and has always been strife in the ME. You'll have to pardon the US for taking action as it seemed no one else would. Granted, there were proposals of more economic sanctions against Iraq, but that only served to starve the naton's poor to death. Were economic sanctions worth the cost in lives? No. In fact all they did was serve to starve the Iraqi poor to death while her leader built another palace. Most others were paralyzed by fear and some others were using Iraq's instability to bolster their own pocketbooks. Whether you agree with our actions or not, something needed to be done and the solutions given by the International Community wreaked of personal interests and when considering the numbers of dead people as a result of failed sanctions, it became apparent they weren't interested in any humanitarian goal.

Successfully implanting a democracy; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Witnessing democracy spread throughout a region wrought with strife and ailing government systems; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Lending credibility to an International Body; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Fortifying our own ideals and posture on an increasingly volatile globe; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Instant political gratification for naysayers, the complacent, the naive, the pessimist, and the antagonist; worth the cost in lives. No.

I intend to cite your post or link to it when replying to those who have a problem with my take on this matter. However, when doing so I MIGHT include an invitation for those "naysayers, the complacent, the naive, the pessimist, and the antagonists" to "Kiss my ASS."

Very well done, ebuddy! Very well done.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Hi ebuddy. I liked your well-explained thesis. I have a few questions about it, which I'll try to keep as succinct as possible.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Is x worth the cost in human lives? yes.

I would say there is a distinct difference between human lives lost in the course of their own quest for a goal (soldiers, bridge builders, even car drivers), and those lost through no action of their own besides being in the way of industry (Iraqi civilians). But perhaps you would spend innocent lives just as readily as volunteers, so here is a question for you, sir. Do you believe the victims of 9/11 are as expendable as those of the (latest) Iraqi war, in the name of what-have-you? Assuming this war costs Iraq 0.1% of its population (about 25,000), would you feel so confident about moving forward if the cost had instead been 300,000 Americans, most of them civilians who die in their own homes?

In the early1900's there were only a handful of democracies. In the 1950's there were more than 45 democracies. Now there are more than 130 democracies. Why? Because when democracy is witnessed, it's people will fight for it and eventually attain it for themselves.

How do you rule out the effects of the Truman Doctrine? How do you know democracy would have spread had not the world's (arguably) greatest superpower sent its military (both openly and covertly) to every corner of the world in order to make it so?

democratic nations are more peaceful and prosperous nations.

Isn't the world's greatest democracy now also the world's greatest warmonger? What other nation has started as many wars against as many other countries in the past decade as has the USA?

Iraq could not be more geographically centered for democracy. By implanting democracy directly at the core of the ME, it's neighbors will see it in action and will want it for themselves.

That's quite an optimistic foretelling, don't you think? Did it work for S. Korea, or Vietnam? You know all the countries you mention that have been grasping at democracy for over 200 years and still haven't got the hang of it? Well doesn't Iraq seem like it's perfectly placed to become exactly one of those? To me it seems like our attempt to force democracy on people in Iraq will only barely hold out against stubborn indignation (if it does hold out), and will hardly be the shining model of prosperity that inspires emulation. What does it seem to you?

The foundation of the democratized ME needs to be built.

Isn't Israel the foundation of democratized ME? How come that example didn't spread like wildfire?

Successfully implanting a democracy; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Witnessing democracy spread throughout a region wrought with strife and ailing government systems; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Lending credibility to an International Body; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Fortifying our own ideals and posture on an increasingly volatile globe; worth the cost in lives. Yes.

Instant political gratification for naysayers, the complacent, the naive, the pessimist, and the antagonist; worth the cost in lives. No.

So to recap, my two main questions are (1) does "worth the cost in lives" mean the same to you whether those lives are volunteers or civilians, and if not, what is the exchange rate of soldiers for civilians, and (2) will it be worth the same cost in lives if the goals are not met, if democracy does not spread (as it hasn't after Israel's example), if the International Body is not made more credible (how credible is the body if its decrees are ignored by the world's only superpower?)?

Thanks

[James L]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I intend to cite your post or link to it when replying to those who have a problem with my take on this matter. However, when doing so I MIGHT include an invitation for those "naysayers, the complacent, the naive, the pessimist, and the antagonists" to "Kiss my ASS."

Very well done, ebuddy! Very well done.

Questions still waiting to be given straight answers.

And waiting.

And waiting.

....

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

Questions still waiting to be given straight answers.

And waiting.

And waiting.

....

What I always marvel at is that some people here would try to DISGUISE liberty as a weight that is a burden on people.

Liberty is like OPENING the door of a cage, taking OFF the shackles and LIFTING the weight of oppression off the backs of people.

Anyone you hear or read talking about IMPOSING DEMOCRACY on people are those who work for the people who want to impose a mandatory radical religion on people.

Like ebuddy says, "Democracy spreads. When it is witnessed, it is wanted."

In this struggle there is only one side that must IMPOSE adherence to it's philosophy.

Anyone who wants to deny the Iraqis or any people an opportunity to be free is no better than a slave master.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Bailey...ve_master.html

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

mojo,

Why are you scared to answer direct questions?

You do understand that your word carries no weight when everyone who reads these forums knows you will talk about what YOU want to talk about, but will purposely avoid direct questions asked of you when it suits your purpose.

Put another way, every time you dodge a question you lose credibility.

You post song lyrics. You remind us of movie scenes. You make bizarre, long winded attempts at clever analogies.

Yet, when someone asks you simple, direct questions, you coward out.

It would appear I am not the only person to note this.

According to The Archives of Internal Medicine, pharmaceutical companies market a drug that kills some 7,000 Americans annually. These people don’t die instantly, but instead expire after slowly suffering gastrointestinal bleeding. Oddly enough, TV-news producers are ho-hum about this deadly medicine. The Food and Drug Administration has yet to prohibit it. Personal-injury attorneys aim their crosshairs elsewhere. No one seems much concerned about a lethal substance called aspirin.

That’s right. Aspirin — a drug so trusted that moms give the St. Joseph’s strain to their children — kills more than 580 Americans each month. And nobody cares.

Bastards!

How can they KILL SO MANY PEOPLE EVERY YEAR???!!!

Americans judge aspirin’s risks (widespread deaths) against its benefits (pain relief, improved cardiovascular health). Our verdict: We love it!

Can we PLEASE get a little bit of outrage over here, James L?

Or don't THESE lives mean anything to you?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Hi ebuddy. I liked your well-explained thesis. I have a few questions about it, which I'll try to keep as succinct as possible.

Pleased.

I would say there is a distinct difference between human lives lost in the course of their own quest for a goal (soldiers, bridge builders, even car drivers), and those lost through no action of their own besides being in the way of industry (Iraqi civilians). But perhaps you would spend innocent lives just as readily as volunteers, so here is a question for you, sir. Do you believe the victims of 9/11 are as expendable as those of the (latest) Iraqi war, in the name of what-have-you?

This question is antagonistic in it's intent and wreaks of complacency. It'd be easy to simply say; "refer to initial post". The intent and strict designation of 9/11 was to target and kill innocent people. Technically, there is no comparison here, but you already knew that. Antagonists generally know exactly what they're doing. Spending innocent lives and targeting innocent civilians are two different things. People have also gotten killed in car accidents on the Golden Gate Bridge, this is not necessarily the fault of the builders. The direct answer to your question is; "yes". It is worth the cost of lives in the unfortunate circumstance of collateral damage. While collateral damage is a travesty, the US is the most technically capable of surgical strikes. If strikes are required, you'd be more apt to employ the US in conducting them. We do not target innocents. It is an unfortunate bi-product of living. Innocent people die driving, is it always because they are driving aggressively? Progress comes at a cost. The complacent, the afraid, the pessimist, and the antagonist will be last to jump on board and only when "what's in it for me" is answered.

The intent Assuming this war costs Iraq 0.1% of its population (about 25,000), would you feel so confident about moving forward if the cost had instead been 300,000 Americans, most of them civilians who die in their own homes?

This is a hypothetical founded in pessimism. The Iraqi was already dying at the hands of a ruthless dictator and his sons, the Iraqi was already dying at the hands of failing economic sanctions serving only to starve the Iraqi poor to death. People are already dying. People were already dying because of a failed government faction in non-distribution of wealth and opportunity. No one would enter a cause knowing it would destroy 300,000 Americans. Trust me.

How do you rule out the effects of the Truman Doctrine? How do you know democracy would have spread had not the world's (arguably) greatest superpower sent its military (both openly and covertly) to every corner of the world in order to make it so?

Your argument fails unless you can provide over 135 instances of US military might used in coercing democratic governments. In fact, if you can cite 20 I'll concede in part. No? Thought not. The statement was rooted in nay-saying with no factual foundation. Democracy spreads generally on it's own from within. The Iraqi wanted democracy. They still want it now. Continue to watch the voting en masse on leadership and constitutions and establish for me that they don't. They want democracy, but were weakened from the top-down by a dictatorial regime. That regime is gone now thanx to us and the difficult task of building a democracy is at hand and underway.

Isn't the world's greatest democracy now also the world's greatest warmonger? What other nation has started as many wars against as many other countries in the past decade as has the USA?

War-mongering??? It's imperialist yes. It's called survival. Now name for me a nation with resources that is not. To answer your question, just about every Muslim nation. Fair enough?

That's quite an optimistic foretelling, don't you think?

Well, if I'm optimistic, you know what that makes you.

Did it work for S. Korea, or Vietnam?

As a matter of fact it did. As well as Turkey and Israel.

You know all the countries you mention that have been grasping at democracy for over 200 years and still haven't got the hang of it? Well doesn't Iraq seem like it's perfectly placed to become exactly one of those? To me it seems like our attempt to force democracy on people in Iraq will only barely hold out against stubborn indignation (if it does hold out), and will hardly be the shining model of prosperity that inspires emulation. What does it seem to you?

Like you're a pessimist, a nay-sayer, an antagonist, and complacent as evidenced by just about everything you say. It's also lacking the usual fruits of a good argument such as substantive data and appropriate separation from vitriol in seeing a bigger picture beyond the deck in your own backyard.

Isn't Israel the foundation of democratized ME? How come that example didn't spread like wildfire?

Primarily? Because they are Jews and have found that isolationism is the most effective policy for their well-being.

So to recap, my two main questions are (1) does "worth the cost in lives" mean the same to you whether those lives are volunteers or civilians, and if not, what is the exchange rate of soldiers for civilians, and (2) will it be worth the same cost in lives if the goals are not met, if democracy does not spread (as it hasn't after Israel's example), if the International Body is not made more credible (how credible is the body if its decrees are ignored by the world's only superpower?)?

How many questions is that again? I recommend thinking out a question before you begin typing. The Iraqi's have voted on leadership. The Iraqi leadership has asked that we stay until their own civil defense is sufficiently prepared against those who are not interested in the same things as you; voting, representation, an opportunity at prosperity and a government that facilitates that environment. It's good that you have these things and they deserve these things as well. They want them, they've shown that they want them and in my best estimation until the leadership the Iraqi people voted into office ask us to leave, we should remain.

Thanks

No. Thank you.

[mojo2]

(L.A.)Times Staff Writer Sat Oct 1, 7:55 AM ET

"There's a line between what constitutes casual dependence and what constitutes not being ready to fight," he said. "For the most part, [Iraqi troops] are not ready to do the job. And stepping back is just going to leave them vulnerable to a battle-tested army of insurgents."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20...presenceiniraq

[James L]

Originally Posted by mojo2

What I always marvel at is that some people here would try to DISGUISE liberty as a weight that is a burden on people.

Liberty is like OPENING the door of a cage, taking OFF the shackles and LIFTING the weight of oppression off the backs of people.

Anyone you hear or read talking about IMPOSING DEMOCRACY on people are those who work for the people who want to impose a mandatory radical religion on people.

Like ebuddy says, "Democracy spreads. When it is witnessed, it is wanted."

In this struggle there is only one side that must IMPOSE adherence to it's philosophy.

Anyone who wants to deny the Iraqis or any people an opportunity to be free is no better than a slave master.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Bailey...ve_master.html

Still no answers.

[James L]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Bastards!

How can they KILL SO MANY PEOPLE EVERY YEAR???!!!



Can we PLEASE get a little bit of outrage over here, James L?

Or don't THESE lives mean anything to you?

Still no answers again....

[besson3c]

Hey James,

A good suggestion for flagging questions you want Mojo to answer might be to include little pictures of his hero GWB giving the thumbs up, maybe while sitting on a drum of oil?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Hey James,

A good suggestion for flagging questions you want Mojo to answer might be to include little pictures of his hero GWB giving the thumbs up, maybe while sitting on a drum of oil?

All I can say is that the mere MENTION of such an image has me salivating Pavlov-doggie-style here to answer besson3c's post!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I would say there is a distinct difference between human lives lost in the course of their own quest for a goal (soldiers, bridge builders, even car drivers), and those lost through no action of their own besides being in the way of industry (Iraqi civilians). But perhaps you would spend innocent lives just as readily as volunteers, so here is a question for you, sir. Do you believe the victims of 9/11 are as expendable as those of the (latest) Iraqi war, in the name of what-have-you?

This question is antagonistic

I'm sorry, I really didn't mean it that way. I was about to write something like "would you be so cavalier if it was the lost American lives that were innocent civilians and the other side was only losing combatants who singed up for such a hazardous job?" and then I tried to think of an example son of a gun if there wasn't a perfect one right there. I'm as tired as the next guy of those who take advantage of 9/11 to make themselves sound right, so I withdraw that analogy.

But my point remains. You use examples that are not apt. To-whit:

People have also gotten killed in car accidents on the Golden Gate Bridge, this is not necessarily the fault of the builders.

That would be the fault of the motorists. When you operate a car you agree to take on certain risks. What risks did the innocent Iraqi dead take on when they decided to live?

While collateral damage is a travesty, the US is the most technically capable of surgical strikes.

Then why is there such a high level of collateral damage?

We do not target innocents.

True there's a difference between targetting innocents and targetting combatants. There's just as big a difference though between not-targetting innocents and not-caring when you hit them anyway. I don't know what the military equivalent of "reckless endangerment" is, but that's the idea. The US military has done a distinctly lackluster job of minimizing collateral damage in this conflict.

Progress comes at a cost. The complacent, the afraid, the pessimist, and the antagonist will be last to jump on board and only when "what's in it for me" is answered.

It's funny you should say that, since it's those that want "progress" at the expense of other people's lives and property that are the ones most interested in "what's in it for me."

Assuming this war costs Iraq 0.1% of its population (about 25,000), would you feel so confident about moving forward if the cost had instead been 300,000 Americans, most of them civilians who die in their own homes?

This is a hypothetical founded in pessimism. The Iraqi was already dying at the hands of a ruthless dictator and his sons, the Iraqi was already dying at the hands of failing economic sanctions serving only to starve the Iraqi poor to death. People are already dying. People were already dying because of a failed government faction in non-distribution of wealth and opportunity. No one would enter a cause knowing it would destroy 300,000 Americans. Trust me.

You say pessimism, I say realism. We won't know until the US finally does pull out (if ever). In the mean time, do you agree that this experiment in "progress" is not guaranteed of success? Our government's track record hasn't been too great lately, in the git 'er done department. After all, what ever happened to that whole Osama Bin Laden thing, are we even still trying to find that guy?

As for Iraqis dying already: for one thing, if you want to kill a large portion of your neighbor's population, all you have to do is ease into it with policies that kill larger and larger numbers of them, so when you finally step over the line it doesn't look as bad by comparison? Secondly, Americans die too, from violent crime and from drug use and from unhealthy habits. Is that an excuse for a fascist regime to conquer us and enforce healthier lifesytles and crack down on freedoms that permit drug users and criminals to sneak by?

The statement was rooted in nay-saying with no factual foundation.

I was just pointing out the same about your statement. You presented it as fact, and it was nothing but opinion. It may turn out to be true, but you really can't use cold-war history as concrete evidence for post cold-war predictions.

Democracy spreads generally on it's own from within. The Iraqi wanted democracy. They still want it now.

That's probably true, but we can't say for sure. What I'm denying is that our actions in conquering the country are going to result in democracy. Meanwhile, we've blown a fortune and 1000 lives of ours, and many many times that of theirs. If it works the way Bush thought it would, I'll grumble and accept it. But so far it hasn't worked that way at all (he said we would be out when, like 2 years ago? and that it would pay for itself?), and if it turns out to be all for nothing I think I have a right to object.

War-mongering??? It's imperialist yes. It's called survival.

How is it survival? Are you endorsing mojo2's "if we don't have Iraqi oil we die" theory?

Here's something I honestly don't know and would like your opinion on (although I guess if you're not into the oil conspiracy theory you won't care). Weren't we already going without Iraqi oil because of the embargo?

Now name for me a nation with resources that is not.

You just told me there are 135 countries with our system of government. Assuming 10% of them have resources (a low estimate I think, right?), where are the 13.5 wars right now? What was the last war of conquest that Sweden fought in? Switzerland? Brazil? They have resources don't they? Do these countries go overseas to start wars? (really, how many countries would you say have resources? I don't even know how to look that up).

As a matter of fact it did.

Vietnam? Aren't they still communist? I'm just trying to be educated here, I really don't know.

How many questions is that again?

Sorry, I'm used to talking to people who insist on misunderstanding. I'm trying to keep it more condensed for you

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I'm sorry, I really didn't mean it that way. I was about to write something like "would you be so cavalier if it was the lost American lives that were innocent civilians and the other side was only losing combatants who singed up for such a hazardous job?" and then I tried to think of an example son of a gun if there wasn't a perfect one right there. I'm as tired as the next guy of those who take advantage of 9/11 to make themselves sound right, so I withdraw that analogy.

But my point remains. You use examples that are not apt. To-whit:



That would be the fault of the motorists. When you operate a car you agree to take on certain risks. What risks did the innocent Iraqi dead take on when they decided to live?

Fair enough, what to do, bail out on cars???

Then why is there such a high level of collateral damage?

How high is it? You're not going to include suicide bombings are you?

True there's a difference between targetting innocents and targetting combatants. There's just as big a difference though between not-targetting innocents and not-caring when you hit them anyway.

See, this is what I'm talking about. If you insist the US doesn't care about bombing innocent civilians or minimizing collateral damage in general, there's nothing for us to talk about. You're so convinced the US military is that evil, there's absolutely nothing I could say that would resolve this for you. I'm glad you made yourself clear before I wasted too much more time. It's funny you should say that, since it's those that want "progress" at the expense of other people's lives and property that are the ones most interested in "what's in it for me."

You say pessimism, I say realism. We won't know until the US finally does pull out (if ever). In the mean time, do you agree that this experiment in "progress" is not guaranteed of success? Our government's track record hasn't been too great lately, in the git 'er done department. After all, what ever happened to that whole Osama Bin Laden thing, are we even still trying to find that guy?

I'd say he's been rendered pretty ineffectual my friend. Seen any footage of him lately? Heard any tapes?

There's really nothing more to say. The Iraqi people voted and selected their leadership. That leadership has asked us to stay. The Iraqi has decided that it's worth risking their lives to vote on leaders and on constitutions and they'll no doubt show resolve in voting many more times. You've decided for them that the cost is too great, yet ironically they've asked us to stay.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Primarily? Because they are Jews and have found that isolationism is the most effective policy for their well-being.

You said "Democracy spreads. When it is witnessed, it is wanted." How have the Arab nations not witnessed Israel?

Fair enough, what to do, bail out on cars???

We already don't force people to participate in a dangerous activity like driving, if they don't want to. I'm just suggesting people deserve the same freedom to abstain from warfare in their own homes, if they want.

You're not going to include suicide bombings are you?

Why not? We went over there to start a war, while we were still engaged in the last war, and we couldn't afford to finish the job. Why shouldn't we feel responsible for something as easily predictable as resistance?

I'd say he's been rendered pretty ineffectual my friend. Seen any footage of him lately? Heard any tapes?

That's stupid. You would have said the same thing on September 10, 2001.

He's the one target in the world we have most reason to target, and he's a far greater threat to our actual survival* as you put it than anything in Iraq was. Meanwhile we dump our resources into making Iraq into a terrorist factory. Are you going to address the possibility that we may be no more successful at spreading democracy than we were at capturing Bin Laden?

*I'd still like to know specifically what you meant by "It's called survival." Do you think Saddam would have invaded the US if he had actually had WMDs?

Thanks

[mojo2]

For those who think that invading Iraq was a distraction, the question they have to answer is whether – with the exception of the progress made in Afghanistan – the record outlined above would have been conceivable absent removing Saddam and his henchmen from power. How power is used matters perhaps more in the Middle East than in any other region of the world. Toppling Saddam wiped out a decade's worth of pan-Muslim hubris about America's weakness after the retreat from Somalia and, conversely, helped set the table for the progress that's been made so far.
(...)
Iraq was not some sideshow when it comes to the broader war on terror. The fact that no WMD stockpiles were found – and the occupation poorly executed at times – does not mean that it was the wrong war at the wrong time. As both David Kay and Charles Duelfer, the heads of the post-war inspection team concluded, Saddam Hussein was still committed to acquiring those weapons.

He had had them in the past and the evidence indicates he wanted them again.
Complicating matters further was the judgment that, as Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, stated, a policy of containing Iraq was not "sustainable over the long run." Given Saddam's own ambitions, his history of creating confrontations and the fact that the international consensus supporting the tough sanctions regime against Iraq was crumbling, the real issue is not whether we should have gone to war with Iraq but rather at whose time of choosing would we do so – Saddam's or ours.

Nor was removing Saddam from power tangential to the war on terror more narrowly defined. Of course, Saddam's Iraq had always been a home for and supporter of various terrorists, including a key participant in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. But what the mainstream media have largely ignored is the evidence of contacts and an evolving relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam in the 1990s.

Focused on the narrow question of whether Saddam had any hand in the attacks of 9-11, they have ignored the reports coming from prisoner debriefs, uncovered internal Iraqi intelligence documents and, for that matter, declassified Clinton-era National Security Council memos pointing toward a budding "marriage of convenience" between Saddam and bin Laden. As Thomas Kean, the co-chairman of the 9-11 Commission, put it: "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

Indeed, given those growing ties, it's no surprise that the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were free to travel to Iraq and set up shop there in the wake of al-Qaeda's expulsion from Afghanistan.

And it is in Iraq – and not the U.S. – that the terrorists are now doing battle with us. If Iraq was a diversion, someone forgot to tell the jihadists whom we have killed or captured by the thousands there.

Gary Schmitt - Dallas Morning News
9/11/05

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You said "Democracy spreads. When it is witnessed, it is wanted." How have the Arab nations not witnessed Israel?

They've witnessed Israel and unfortunately are often more interested in destroying it from the inside-out. This ol' world is relatively young my friend. Still plenty of time to get things going over there. I don't know what it was you expected, but democratizing a region is not like putting that Healthy Choice meal in the microwave. You cannot order democracy "to go". You have to stay until it's ready. The Iraqi leadership has decided that it is worth the cost in lives to have us stay. You've decided for them that it is not worth it. Again, this is self-centered. The Iraqi was voted into office by the Iraqi who risked life and limb to make that decision. The foreign minister who was voted in by those risking life and limb is representing them in saying that we should stay. He made this clear to the UN and the UN agreed that the US-led coalition forces should stay until the Iraqi civil defense is emboldened to handle that task on their own. In spite of the Iraqi willingness to risk their lives in a voter turnout putting the US' voter turn-out to shame (again, in spite of naysaying by you and others claiming it would be an absolute quagmire and blood-bath), it is apparent to me that not only the Iraqi people, but the Iraqi-elected leadership has determined the importance of our presence there until they are ready. You continue to say what you want, but you'll have jump leaps and bounds over facts in saying it. They've decided it's worth it, you've decided it's not. Like I said in my initial post; How much do we care? You've shown how much you care and while I appreciate that, I happen to disagree with not only your stance, but the points you make in attempting to bolster that stance. I sometimes wonder if failure in Iraq excites you. How low are you willing to go to prove your point?

We already don't force people to participate in a dangerous activity like driving, if they don't want to. I'm just suggesting people deserve the same freedom to abstain from warfare in their own homes, if they want.

They voted. They risked their lives to vote. You can choose to continue ignorance on this point, but you'll have to jump over many a factual obstacle in so doing. The vote is the choice. They voted on leadership that is now representing them in requesting our continued presence there. It makes perfect sense. When you eradicate cock-roaches, do you not take steps to ensure you're not leaving crumbs strewn around the floor, so they won't return? I'm trying to understand your argument here. If it's simply; "people are dying therefore it's wrong", you'll have to try and explain how this reasoning works. Your argument simply does not hold up to the various arguments and examples that have been lodged against it. Be honest with yourself and others by saying you simply disagree with the current Administration's foreign policy. It has nothing to do with cost in lives. It's pure politics plain and simple as evidenced by every predictable argument you make.

Why not? We went over there to start a war,

'Nuff said. there are simply people who cannot be reasoned with. You're welcome to reply Uncle Skeleton, but I've realized that it's entirely futile with you. We didn't go over there to 'start a war', that's just ridiculous. If you insist our Administration is this evil, I'll have to concede that you are a kneejerk liberal who has tromped on a bumper-sticker leftist mentality run amuck. You'll continue to watch your party of "opposition" fail at the polls and still wonder why. It's this type of vitriol that has gotten your man into office. What man? The Republican man. Nicely done.

That's stupid. You would have said the same thing on September 10, 2001.

Like the rest of the country I was sitting around on the couch singing Kumbaya thinking about which Jeep to buy and which fast-food joint to check out for dinner. I was thinking about myself and how easy life was. Now, I've decided my ol' 97 Sebring will have to do. How grand it was to think that isolationism is the ticket. Yeah, life sucks for those people overseas, but hey as long as it's not in my backyard. Some things changed for many of us on 9/11. It seems you've not yet got off the couch. Instead, you'd rather add up the dead bodies due to suicide bombers seeking to thwart the cause of freedom for the Iraqi (those people not in your back yard) and point the finger of blame at the man you believe stole the election from Al Gore.

He's the one target in the world we have most reason to target, and he's a far greater threat to our actual survival* as you put it than anything in Iraq was.

by all means, if you know where he is and we have legal reason to be there and if the democracy in question would vote to have us there to catch him, you let us know okay? We'll go get him. Otherwise, you'll have to reman ignorant in not knowing that he's hiding in a place we cannot just storm with troops. I swear this sounds like a broken record and for the life of me wonder why the Alzheimer's epidemic is not getting more news coverage.

Meanwhile we dump our resources into making Iraq into a terrorist factory. Are you going to address the possibility that we may be no more successful at spreading democracy than we were at capturing Bin Laden?

I'm not worried about Bin Laden. There's been no communication between Bin Laden and his cronies, this is apparent. In fact, most believe he's either dead or dying anyway. As long as he's held himself prisoner or dead in some mountain cave on the border of Pakistan, that's good enough for me. Though, I realize this is a convenient, but disingenuous argument for you. We've been successful in shutting him down. Let me ask you this; if we were to successfully capture Bin Laden would you drop all naysaying in support of the Administration that successfully completed this mission? Let me answer for you. No. You'd say the war on terror is now over and we should go back home. For all I know we've got him in captivity now just to keep people like you from making this claim. So yes, I believe it's entirely possible that we will spread democracy as effectively as we've squelched Bin Laden.

Were there those who opposed our claim of Liberty from Britain? Did they not seek to kill us and coerce us into submission militarily? Would we be who and where we are today if they had the resolve you illustrate here? If we had remained isolationist while Hitler's regime stormed throughout Europe, would our world look like it does today? These were all difficult and costly decisions no doubt. I'm glad our forces and the Iraqi people themselves illustrated more resolve than you, but I know it's tough to watch the news and count the dead bodies. I just hope you don't slobber on yourself in excitement over suicide bombings. It would be shameful to find out that your opposition to one man would have you hope for death and failure for nothing more than to say, "see I told you so." With statements like, "no concern over collateral damage", "go over there to start a war", it's apparent to me that you're not as concerned over the body count as you'd like to have me believe. Instead of pointing to this behavior as something that has gone on since the dawn of the IMD (much earlier than Bush's inaugural address) in trying to thwart freedoms in the ME and influence legislation through fear, you point a finger at an Administration trying to do something to bolster our posture on an increasingly volatile globe.

*I'd still like to know specifically what you meant by "It's called survival." Do you think Saddam would have invaded the US if he had actually had WMDs?

Ahh, the tired WMD's argument rears it's ugly head. When Clinton warned of the threat Saddam posed, did you think it was note-worthy? When the entire International body agreed that Saddam was a threat that needed addressed, did you not take note? Over twelve years of failed and idle threats and 13 UN resolutions drafted to address this threat, did you take note? Did you not wonder when enough was going to be enough? When yet another failed economic sanction only served to starve the Iraqi poor to death, were you counting dead bodies? I've heard some 400+ thousand have died as a result of this dictatorial regime's failed policies in allowing their country to be handicapped by economic sanctions for nothing more than to thumb their nose at the International Community. Were you paying attention then or is it only since 9/11 that you've become interested?

More broken records... With Russia and China actively involved in tactical military strategizing and China bolstering it's military forces while lying to the International Community about it's might. With Iraq busily involved in an arm's race with Iran and our interests threatened including not only the resources of oil in the ME, but also Israel and our interests of fortifying that small democracy. It becomes apparent that we exist on an increasingly volatile globe. If you're not growing, you're dying. Iraq knew this. Iran knows this. N. Korea knows this. Russia knows this. China knows this, but Uncle Skeleton is still singing Kumbaya on the LaZ-Boy recliner. It's time to wake up brother. This world is going to come to a head of ideals no matter how peaceful and naive you'd like to remain. We need to fortify allies in the ME. The only way to do this is to try to democratize it. Democracies are more peaceful and prosperous, they're more agreeable, they are more friendly with one another in allowing staging grounds and in helping us posture ourselves in prime territory for defense of the ideal. It may fail, but then it may not matter anyway. We are in a position of necessity in trying. You can ignore this, but I'm not with you in ignorance.

Thanks

No, thank you sir.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

democratizing a region is not like putting that Healthy Choice meal in the microwave. You cannot order democracy "to go".

Ah, ok. So when you said
"Democracy spreads. When it is witnessed, it is wanted"
and
"Democracy will spread throughout the ME like wild-fire. The foundation of the democratized ME needs to be built"
you didn't mean that turning Iraq into a democracy would start a chain reaction that would turn other Arab nations as well (that's what I had thought you were saying). It seems instead that what you're saying is that turning Iraq into a democracy will signal the first in a long line of struggles for the West to painstakingly rebuild every ME nation one by one? I know from past experience talking to you that I still don't have your jist, so if you could, please use similar language to mine (rather than freezer aisle analogies) to explain what you're trying to say.

The foreign minister is representing them in saying that we should stay ... (again, in spite of naysaying by you and others claiming it would be an absolute quagmire and blood-bath)

Your statement is contradictory. Forcing us to stay to fight other peoples' battles with no particular end in sight is exactly the quagmire we naysaying peace-niks were afraid of. By your statement we were exactly right to object before all this started.

They voted.

You had said the cost in lives was worth it. I asked you if the same was true if those lives were non-combatants. Are you saying the fact that they voted after the fact makes them party to the invasion? What would you expect them to do if they were opposed to the invasion (which already happened)? Stay home and sulk on election day? I'm sorry but I just don't follow how this proves anything.

Be honest with yourself and others by saying you simply disagree with the current Administration's foreign policy. It has nothing to do with cost in lives.

I don't care about politics. That's why I only notice them when they lead to something stupid like a colossal waste of lives and money. Why don't you be honest with yourself by saying you like being able to vicariously shoot brown people in the name of democracy and you miss the wild west days of Manifest Destiny when you didn't have to pretend to care about brown people? What's that? That's not your motivation? Well ok, why don't we focus on the topic instead of trying to belittle each other with psychological profiles that aren't accurate.

We didn't go over there to 'start a war', that's just ridiculous.

I'm sorry, I was misinformed. How did we get into this war?

by all means, if you know where he is and we have legal reason to be there and if the democracy in question would vote to have us there to catch him, you let us know okay? We'll go get him. Otherwise, you'll have to reman ignorant in not knowing that he's hiding in a place we cannot just storm with troops.

So then you agree that we failed to get him? That's all I said. He was our top priority and we couldn't get him, despite us being the best at everything ever. That, and maybe it's a sign that we might also fail to light the fires of democracy in Iraq that will spread over the whole region, and might not even save it from warlords and dictators after we leave (if ever).

If we had remained isolationist while Hitler's regime stormed throughout Europe, would our world look like it does today?

If you want out of this thread, just say so. I was polite enough to rescind my (perfectly apt) analogy about 9/11 because it was inflamatory, and now you're going to trot out Hitler? Hitler was invading countries left and right, and even so we still didn't make a move until US soil was attacked. Iraq wasn't a threat to other countries, only its own people. You're being silly here.

it's apparent to me that you're not as concerned over the body count as you'd like to have me believe.

You're projecting. I'll let you in on a secret: I don't care who's president. Yes, I voted for Gore, mostly because of the mild environmental focus, but I didn't care a lick when he lost because at that time it was caretaker president time, and it didn't matter in the big picture anything he did. The only time I care is when who the president is determines the body count. So if you detect any us-vs-them team mentality in this thread, I suggest you look inward to find the source of it.

the dawn of the IMD

What's IMD?

Ahh, the tired WMD's argument rears it's ugly head.

So you're saying there actually were WMDs? Or are you saying that's not the reason Bush gave for going to war?

This world is going to come to a head of ideals no matter how peaceful and naive you'd like to remain. We need to fortify allies in the ME.

Is this finally the answer to what "it's called survival" means? What head of ideals is this? The world has had ideals for a long time now, why would they come to such a head now? What's different about now? I'll tell you what I think is different and then you tell me what you think. I think the difference is that the US military no longer has a raison d'être and has become increasingly aggressive with nothing else to do. If this is true, all we have to do is stop pissing people off and then we won't be "in a position of necessity in trying." What do you think has changed recently to make ideals such an emergency?

Thanks

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Ah, ok. So when you said

If you want out of this thread, just say so. I was polite enough to rescind my (perfectly apt) analogy about 9/11 because it was inflamatory, and now you're going to trot out Hitler? Hitler was invading countries left and right, and even so we still didn't make a move until US soil was attacked. Iraq wasn't a threat to other countries, only its own people. You're being silly here.

George Bush said Saddam was a danger to his neighbors, the Middle East and the World. But here President Bill Clinton said the same thing and FINALLY I found it. Both Presidents Bush said it. President Clinton said it. IRAQ WAS A THREAT.

YOUR SIDE here on MacNN are the only ones who don't yet realize that Saddam and Iraq WAS a threat.

So who's really looking silly now?

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its ...

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/.../clinton.iraq/

Bill Clinton 2/17/98

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Ah, ok. So when you said
"Democracy spreads. When it is witnessed, it is wanted"
and
"Democracy will spread throughout the ME like wild-fire. The foundation of the democratized ME needs to be built"
you didn't mean that turning Iraq into a democracy would start a chain reaction that would turn other Arab nations as well (that's what I had thought you were saying).

no, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm speaking the English language. If you have a problem with that perhaps there's an adult education in order for you. Your child's teacher can tell you where to get help.

It seems instead that what you're saying is that turning Iraq into a democracy will signal the first in a long line of struggles for the West to painstakingly rebuild every ME nation one by one?

For someone who claims distaste for projection you sure seem to do an awful lot of this. Care to copy-paste where I said any of the above? No?

I know from past experience talking to you that I still don't have your jist, so if you could, please use similar language to mine

Aside from the fact that the above makes absolutely no sense to me at all, why don't we start at step 1. I speak English. You speak pessimist, antagonist, naysayer, and complacency. I don't speak any of those. Now onto your statement. You want me to speak a similar language to yours? Now you're asking me how to write? I'm going to require some credentials my friend, I'm not entirely sure you're qualified to make that request. I've made my points as clear and succinct as you're going to see them. If you still have a problem with comprehension. See above.

(rather than freezer aisle analogies) to explain what you're trying to say.

"freezer aisle analogies"??? What the heck are those? Is this a skeletonism? You're speaking in code again. What analogy have I offered in the prior two posts please?

Your statement is contradictory.

You haven't sufficiently established that you're actually reading my posts. Judging from the amount of repeating I have to do, I'm starting to wonder if retention is possible. "Uncle"

Forcing us to stay to fight other peoples' battles with no particular end in sight is exactly the quagmire we naysaying peace-niks were afraid of.

You want a date for withdrawal? Not going to get it. You'll know when we're leaving Iraq because the media will announce it. What will confound you is that our military presence will remain in some capacity in Iraq. You'd want no less for your money, trust me. You seem to be concerned about money so I thought I'd throw that in. You'd also do your pocketbook some good to know that we have a newly developed allie in the region with many a resources for us to agree upon. If you're honest, you'd admit this as well. Even the peace-niks drive gas guzzling VW micro busses. Spewing blue plumes of smoke into the air, they illustrate not only the decay of a vehicle, but the decay of common sense along with the engine in leaking drops of oil. The very oil you and your peace-nik friends were hoping Al Gore could clean up. You peace-niks claimed we were not going to capture Saddam. He's captured. You nay-sayers claimed it would be a blood bath at the polls. You were wrong. You didn't believe a parliament would be formed. You were wrong. You didn't believe a Constitution would be drafted. You were wrong.

By your statement we were exactly right.

About which; that war would lead to death or that war would lead to collateral damage?

No cookie for that demonstration of intellectual prowess.

You had said the cost in lives was worth it.

Right and that's where you said it wasn't.

I asked you if the same was true if those lives were non-combatants.

To which I said, non-combatants are already dying. You'd rather they starve to death under a dictatorial regime bent on using their resources for nothing more than to compete with Iran. I'd rather they fight for freedom and prosperity. My answer was and is unequivocally "yes" to your question.

Are you saying the fact that they voted after the fact makes them party to the invasion?

The above question is pretty twisted my friend. I feel like I'm being called by a poll-taker from CNN. I'll play. The answer is Yes. I am saying that the Iraqi made it quite clear how they felt about Bush Sr. having left prematurely. We learned from that experience that the Iraqi was hoping for real change. They knew they couldn't get it from Saddam, they wanted help. They also voted with their feet. When we came through, we came through like a hot butter knife. Do you realize how many people exist in Iraq? Truth be told, if you were correct the entire nation of people should have imploded on us from every corner. Not so. BTW; you were wrong about that one too. The ones fighting us are not Saddam loyalists. I hope this isn't new to you.

What would you expect them to do if they were opposed to the invasion (which already happened)?

The US is not invading Iraq. We're emboldening the Iraqi to defend itself against invaders like those who would rape their wives, steal their belongings, seize control of their government, wreak fear and havoc leaving nothing, but fascism in their wake. I'd think you'd be opposed to fascism.

Stay home and sulk on election day? I'm sorry but I just don't follow how this proves anything.

Your problem is you don't strike me as a leader and you're unwilling to follow. Why would you risk your life to go to the polls? Because someone came in and fought and died for your right to do so. In your heart-of-hearts regardless of what you've heard, those Americans aren't so bad afterall. How do we know? The Americans aren't fighting Iraqis. They're fighting those who wish to influence legislation through fear by blowing innocent Iraqis up.

You see our actions as having created more terrorists and I say the terrorists created more Americans. We'll simply never see eye to eye on this.

I don't care about politics. That's why I only notice them when they lead to something stupid like a colossal waste of lives and money.

Think 12 years of bags of grain and rice with USA printed on them are cheap? Think getting them there is cheap? Then, when we cut resources off to the Iraqi due to failed economic sanctions, do you think that was cheap in loss of Iraqi lives?

Why don't you be honest with yourself by saying you like being able to vicariously shoot brown people in the name of democracy

No. I believe brown people should have the same rights white people have. Check yourself brother.

and you miss the wild west days of Manifest Destiny when you didn't have to pretend to care about brown people? What's that? That's not your motivation? Well ok, why don't we focus on the topic instead of trying to belittle each other with psychological profiles that aren't accurate.

Now that you've somehow slobbered on yourself in the interest of trying to illustrate absurdity, I appreciate the glimpse into your mind and I appreciate your honesty in just letting go with it. You should search yourself for a reason why skin-color is pertinent here, I mean in the interest of staying on topic.

I'm sorry, I was misinformed. How did we get into this war?

Another cry for help to get that featured article on the Alzheimer's epidemic. I beg someone from the media to please visit this topic with the urgency it richly deserves.

So then you agree that we failed to get him?

No. I believe it's entirely possible we've already got him. Either we've got him in captivity, we killed him, or fear has him in captivity and/or illness and isolation killed him.

That's all I said.

That's not all I said, but since you haven't been paying attention anyway...

He was our top priority and we couldn't get him, despite us being the best at everything ever.

Are you 14 years old? Seriously man I gotta know what I'm dealing with here.

That, and maybe it's a sign that we might also fail to light the fires of democracy in Iraq that will spread over the whole region, and might not even save it from warlords and dictators after we leave (if ever).

Let me try to put this in terms you'll understand. You have a Tonka truck. In fact, you've got a whole lot of Tonka trucks and people are saying they were all given to you by the Devil...

If you want out of this thread, just say so.

I would say so by not replying. Do you think this is some sort of boxing ring? Better tend to those black eyes.

I was polite enough to rescind my (perfectly apt) analogy about 9/11 because it was inflamatory, and now you're going to trot out Hitler?

I certainly didn't use Hitler in the same context in which you referred to 9/11. I'm not rescinding a word. You've received the same level of respect you've given. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hitler was invading countries left and right, and even so we still didn't make a move until US soil was attacked. Iraq wasn't a threat to other countries, only its own people. You're being silly here.

Isolationists, naysayers, pessimists, and the complacent had a large voice. Thankfully, they were wrong. Unfortunately it almost took them too long to realize it. You're wrong and hopefully it won't take you too long to realize it.

You're projecting. I'll let you in on a secret: I don't care who's president. Yes, I voted for Gore, mostly because of the mild environmental focus, but I didn't care a lick when he lost because at that time it was caretaker president time, and it didn't matter in the big picture anything he did.

Caretaker Presidency? The very fact that you'd say such a thing in light of the events that have occurred during this Administration's service proves how woefully ignorant you really are.

The only time I care is when who the president is determines the body count. So if you detect any us-vs-them team mentality in this thread, I suggest you look inward to find the source of it.

You'll have to pardon my curiosity in wanting to know whether or not you were anywhere near this vocal during Kosovo.

What's IMD?

That's IED. Sorry.

So you're saying there actually were WMDs? Or are you saying that's not the reason Bush gave for going to war?

Bush as well as well as Clinton prior, most International intelligence, and finally the UN gave many reasons for war. Finally, within the 13th UN Resolution, you find the words "serious consequences". That to me means more than failed economic sanctions. As a "humanitarian", I'd fully expect you to understand the urgency involved or am I guilty of projecting again?

Is this finally the answer to what "it's called survival" means? What head of ideals is this? The world has had ideals for a long time now, why would they come to such a head now? What's different about now? I'll tell you what I think is different and then you tell me what you think. I think the difference is that the US military no longer has a raison d'être and has become increasingly aggressive with nothing else to do.

This is why you cannot be reasoned with.

If this is true, all we have to do is stop pissing people off and then we won't be "in a position of necessity in trying."

Now I'm convinced you've not left Jr. Highschool. Answer this young padiwan; "how do we please everyone again?" Remember while your grasping for a reply; if you're not pleasing someone, you're pissing someone else off.

What do you think has changed recently to make ideals such an emergency?

I'm not sure you'd understand until you're older. We'll see how you respond and I'll let you know if you're ready.

- good luck.

[James L]

Originally Posted by mojo2

George Bush said Saddam was a danger to his neighbors, the Middle East and the World. But here President Bill Clinton said the same thing and FINALLY I found it. Both Presidents Bush said it. President Clinton said it. IRAQ WAS A THREAT.

YOUR SIDE here on MacNN are the only ones who don't yet realize that Saddam and Iraq WAS a threat.

So who's really looking silly now?

Quick, someone give him a mirror!

[Hawkeye_a]

i guess eliminating the threat to mojo involves killing 25,000+ civilians, securing oil fields and giving Saddam a fair trial.

Mission unaccomplished.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

The US military has done a distinctly lackluster job of minimizing collateral damage in this conflict.

Evidence, please? Show that steps have not been taken to minimize collateral damage. It would be grim indeed if these civilian-casualty estimates were in fact as low as they could possibly be, but this possibility has not yet been disproven.

Of course, it doesn't help when the insurgents kill more civilians than they do American troops, but the deaths are blamed on the Americans anyway. How exactly do you control who The Other Side kills?

[besson3c]

I think the more important question here is not whether Sadaam should have been removed. There are some who might say he should have been isolated, kept at arm's length, etc. A reasonable case can be made for this position.

However, it is water under the bridge now, he is out of the picture for better or for worse. The important question now is about the processes past, present, and future.

Arguing about Sadaam can be done until we are all blue in the face, but looking into the future, is this administration being forthright? Are we handling things smartly? What is the plan? Are our leaders connected with the reality of the situation? How important is the Iraqi constitution, and how will it change the situation and lifestyles of Iraqi civilians? What is the cost? When do the costs not outweigh the benefits? When do we start to see parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, if not already? When is it appropriate to make these comparisons?

These are the sorts of conversations I think we should be focussing our efforts on.

One of my biggest grievances with the administration is with their lack of accountability and poorly planned operations. There are things they seem disinterested in hearing or talking about, and things (e.g. social and economic issues) which they seem dangerously ideological about. I don't have great reason to trust them.

My goals in this forum are to get people DEMANDING that the administration tackle these issues. At this point, it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican, the importance of these issues far outweigh petty politics. Politicians are in it for themselves, they provide no real reason why you should be unconditionally loyal to them. Don't think Democrat or Republican in your own thinking, think like an individual. That is all I ask. A tall order, I know. I would do just about anything to have these conversations in here without everything boiling down to the Republicans vs. Democrat way.

[Uncle Skeleton]

So I guess vitriol is ok after all? Or is it one of those things that's only ok when it's on Team America's side?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

no, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I'm sorry, I need a review of what's happened. In parens I'll put how I interpreted things, and please tell me how I should have interpreted them instead.

you: Democracy spreads. When it is witnessed, it is wanted. (all we have to do is set up a democracy in the ME and then most other countries will follow the example)
me: But it didn't spread from Israel, did they not witness it?
you: They've witnessed it, but they want to destroy it instead of emulate it. I don't know what you expected, but these things take time. You have to stay until it's ready. (What I expected? I'm just going by what you said. Anyway, stay until it's ready: either we just have to wait another 60 years for them to follow Israel's example, or we just have to stay and start more democracies. I know it's not the first one, so: )
me: So you didn't mean this would be an automatic process?
you: No, I did.

me (now): So which is it? Is this a process that will work on its own, or do we have guide it through each country?

Also, why wouldn't Afghanistan spread democracy? Didn't we already have a staging ground for democracy on hand before invading Iraq?

I'm speaking the English language. If you have a problem with that...

Jeez, take a deep breath. You have presented an idea that doesn't make sense to me. Rather than flaming you for it like most people here probably would, I'm trying to understand it.

In case you're not just being coy:
Language: 2 a : form or manner of verbal expression; specifically : style

And while we're quibbling about language, the plural of Iraqi is Iraqis (by every reference I've found). Why do you keep dropping the s? It's very distracting, and if you could produce a reference that it's an accepted form, it would help me get past it.

It seems instead that what you're saying

For someone who claims distaste for projection you sure seem to do an awful lot of this. Care to copy-paste where I said any of the above? No?

That's why I asked if that's what you meant. I was just trying to articulate an alternate interpretation of your statement that "Democracy spreads," since the literal interpretation didn't seem to fit your later statements.

"freezer aisle analogies"??? What the heck are those? Is this a skeletonism? You're speaking in code again. What analogy have I offered in the prior two posts please?

Healthy Choice meal. Anyway, you see exactly my problem (unless you were being disingenuous here). Some things I say don't make sense to you, because you're used to hearing something else. The same is true of me when you speak. I'm trying to be patient and rephrase things that fall under that category, and I ask that you do the same when I ask for clarification.

I'm starting to wonder if retention is possible.

It's not retention, it's translation. When you (each of us I guess) say certain things, they make sense to the speaker but not to the reader. If you're not willing to explain yourself in another way on occasions when I (or anyone else) doesn't understand them in your style of speech, I suggest maybe your point only makes sense when obfuscated through language style.

You want a date for withdrawal?

How about progress on a plan? So far all I've hear is "when the Iraqis are ready," and "none of the Iraqis are ready." But perhaps I'm out of date; what progress has been made at this point to produce fully functional Iraqi military that can replace the US military?

About which; that war would lead to death or that war would lead to collateral damage?

quagmire

Right and that's where you said it wasn't.

Now who's not reading who? I didn't.

The above question is pretty twisted my friend.

You're the one who brought it up by saying answering how they took on the risk of the Invasion with "they voted."

BTW; you were wrong about that one too. The ones fighting us are not Saddam loyalists. I hope this isn't new to you.

I don't remember saying this. I certainly never thought it. Can you remind me?

The US is not invading Iraq.

Oh please. It's called "the Invasion of Iraq" everywhere, even Fox News. Now you're the one telling me how to write. What do you call it if not invasion?

We're emboldening the Iraqi to defend itself against invaders like those who would steal their belongings, seize control of their government, wreak fear and havoc leaving nothing, but fascism in their wake. I'd think you'd be opposed to fascism.

That's just what they're doing by fighting us

Your problem is you don't strike me as a leader

No, I'm not, and you don't have to be one to dissent. Dissent is patriotic. Everyone should be able to dissent, that's what it means to be American. Freedom of thought. It's one of the only reasons I'm still proud to be an American these days. Certainly not by our behavior.

Why would you risk your life to go to the polls? Because someone came in and fought and died for your right to do so.

That's not the only reason. It's certainly not why I go to the polls here.

The Americans aren't fighting Iraqis. They're fighting those who wish to influence legislation

Those are Iraqis.

You see our actions as having created more terrorists and I say the terrorists created more Americans. We'll simply never see eye to eye on this.

Those statements are not mutually exclusive. If your goal is to send more Americans to Iraq, and you don't care that it escalates terrorism in the process, then I guess we won't see eye to eye on it afterall. Is that your position? Because I'm not here to convince you, I'm just trying to understand your position by asking about parts of it that don't make sense to me yet.

Think 12 years of bags of grain and rice with USA printed on them are cheap?

I don't know. Do you have the numbers? Was it 200 billion dollars, with no end in sight?

Another cry for help to get that featured article on the Alzheimer's epidemic. I beg someone from the media to please visit this topic with the urgency it richly deserves.

A straight answer would be refreshing. I honestly don't know what's so absurd about saying the US went to Iraq to wage war.

No. I believe it's entirely possible we've already got him. Either we've got him in captivity, we killed him, or fear has him in captivity and/or illness and isolation killed him.

You've got to be kidding. There is not the slightest chance this administration would neglect to capitalize on any evidence of their success. If there's one thing they're not, it's modest.

I would say so by not replying. Do you think this is some sort of boxing ring?

Usually when people make inappropriate analogies to Hitler on the internet it means they're trying to end the discussion by flinging it into absurdity and name calling (hey, that actually explains your use of name calling too).

I certainly didn't use Hitler in the same context in which you referred to 9/11.

Of course you didn't. My reference was apt and yours wasn't.

You've received the same level of respect you've given.

So it's disrespectful to have a difference of opinion?

Isolationists, naysayers, pessimists, and the complacent had a large voice. Thankfully, they were wrong. Unfortunately it almost took them too long to realize it.

You're stretching this farther than it will reach. You used WWII as an example of things we did right, that we were right to fight Germany and Japan. If that is so, then we would be right to fight Saddam by the same criteria, namely that he invades neighboring nations, and technically that US soil was attacked. Given that Saddam was not invading any other nations, the WWII analogy in no way applies to the invasion of Iraq.

Caretaker Presidency?

In 2000 it was.

I shouldn't have to say this, but it seems like I have to and this is the best place. I don't mind when you fail to read my posts completely, I simply correct you when it happens. Please don't get in a huff when the reverse happens. This is how communication works, with error correction.

You'll have to pardon my curiosity in wanting to know whether or not you were anywhere near this vocal during Kosovo.

If you must know, I didn't discuss things on the internet at that time. Once again, you don't need credentials to dissent in this country. If you can't accept dissent, maybe this country isn't for you.

Bush as well as well as Clinton prior, most International intelligence, and finally the UN gave many reasons for war. Finally, within the 13th UN Resolution, you find the words "serious consequences". That to me means more than failed economic sanctions. As a "humanitarian", I'd fully expect you to understand the urgency involved or am I guilty of projecting again?

What does humanitarianism or UN resolutions have to do with "it's called survival." Remember, the question was if you believed Saddam was going to invade America?

This is why you cannot be reasoned with.

Ok. I'm sorry for giving my opinion, that was out of line. Please tell me why you think now is a time in history when there will be ideals coming to a head such that we must strike first against other ideals than ours.

"how do we please everyone again?"

"live and let live"

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think the more important question here is not whether Sadaam should have been removed. There are some who might say he should have been isolated, kept at arm's length, etc. A reasonable case can be made for this position.

However, it is water under the bridge now, he is out of the picture for better or for worse. The important question now is about the processes past, present, and future.

Arguing about Sadaam can be done until we are all blue in the face, but looking into the future, is this administration being forthright? Are we handling things smartly? What is the plan? Are our leaders connected with the reality of the situation? How important is the Iraqi constitution, and how will it change the situation and lifestyles of Iraqi civilians? What is the cost? When do the costs not outweigh the benefits? When do we start to see parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, if not already? When is it appropriate to make these comparisons?

These are the sorts of conversations I think we should be focussing our efforts on.

One of my biggest grievances with the administration is with their lack of accountability and poorly planned operations. There are things they seem disinterested in hearing or talking about, and things (e.g. social and economic issues) which they seem dangerously ideological about. I don't have great reason to trust them.

My goals in this forum are to get people DEMANDING that the administration tackle these issues. At this point, it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican, the importance of these issues far outweigh petty politics. Politicians are in it for themselves, they provide no real reason why you should be unconditionally loyal to them. Don't think Democrat or Republican in your own thinking, think like an individual. That is all I ask. A tall order, I know. I would do just about anything to have these conversations in here without everything boiling down to the Republicans vs. Democrat way.

I agree. But I do so with one eye focused on the current course of action and how a hypothetical yesterday or last week's changes just might be an indication the administration has tweaked the dial to get things tuned in just right.

Not talking about last year or six months ago, but in the past 30 days. If the handling of the war DOES improve you may throw the baby out with the bath water if you abandon all belief in the possibility that progress we all want may have been initiated, only yesterday, for instance.

If you are going on a journey you get a map and determine where to go and how to get there but just as important is knowing exactly where you are.

We should all be looking for realistic and objective assessments from the field. What is working and what is not? Who is saying so? What is their axe to grind?

Lets begin seeing the war as best we can as though we are running it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

So I guess vitriol is ok after all? Or is it one of those things that's only ok when it's on Team America's side?

I'm sorry, I need a review of what's happened. In parens I'll put how I interpreted things, and please tell me how I should have interpreted them instead.

you: Democracy spreads. When it is witnessed, it is wanted. (all we have to do is set up a democracy in the ME and then most other countries will follow the example)
me: But it didn't spread from Israel, did they not witness it?
you: They've witnessed it, but they want to destroy it instead of emulate it. I don't know what you expected, but these things take time. You have to stay until it's ready. (What I expected? I'm just going by what you said. Anyway, stay until it's ready: either we just have to wait another 60 years for them to follow Israel's example, or we just have to stay and start more democracies. I know it's not the first one, so: )
me: So you didn't mean this would be an automatic process?
you: No, I did.

me (now): So which is it? Is this a process that will work on its own, or do we have guide it through each country?

Also, why wouldn't Afghanistan spread democracy? Didn't we already have a staging ground for democracy on hand before invading Iraq?

May others join in?

I couldn't help but spill my drink when reading your disingenuous exchange with the ebuddy and I immediately stopped here before even finishing because I wanted to call "FOUL" at your offensive ploy.

An obvious condition for the spread of democracy is that there be a lack of generations of religious animosity and blood hatred between the two nations. The phrase, 'I hate you and everything about you,' springs to mind, here. No, one can't expect that Israel would be the model their hated enemy would use to emulate.

And yet, the Palestinians did hold a free and fair election and the Palestinian Authority is trying to establish their own government, just as the Iraqis are trying to establish their government, in the face of serious obstacles.

So, now that your little game is up, I'll let you get back to the rest of it until or unless I can't stand it any more.
[/QUOTE]

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden

at your offensive ploy.

An obvious condition for the spread of democracy is that there be a lack of generations of religious animosity and blood hatred between the two nations.

It wasn't a ploy, and that's not obvious. Didn't Russia become a democracy after generations of hatred against all the NATO democracies?

Anyway, supposing we gave up on Israel, then what was wrong with Afghanistan? I'm just not getting the "we needed a place to seed democracy so we had to invade Iraq" logic.