quote:Originally posted by First of Two: These, of course, are too silly for words.
Yet you persist in replying with equally silly words.
quote:It also makes it sound as though you believe that a person who kills SOME members of a huge, diverse group, can't ally himselves with OTHER members of that group.
OK, so there's no reason he can't - but that's not the same as saying he HAS. And just because he, in fact, HAS (ooh, look I can capitalise words too!) it doesn't follow that he's therefore responsible for the actions of ALL Islamic terrorist groups. Or that said groups should instantly support him just because OTHER groups have.
quote:You make it sound as though you believe Al-Qaeda is the ONLY Muslim Fundie group out there, and/or that Saddam hasn't been linked to any other terrorist organization, muslim fundie or otherwise.
Last I heard, it was members of Al Qaeda who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Which, also last I heard, seems to be the events we want to avenge.
Now if you want to carry on a global anti-terror campaign, not something that Mr. Bush seems bent on doing, you have to address Pakistan and Saudi Arabia before Iraq because the 9/11 terrorists came from, and were trained in religious schools, in those locations. The current "terror" problem lies not with secular Iraq, but with ultra-fundamentalist Islam.
quote:2) Combating Terrorism
The administration has argued at great length that a U.S. invasion and "regime change" in Iraq would mark the greatest success in the war against terrorism so far. Why this is so has never been made entirely clear. It is said that Saddam's hostility toward the United States somehow sustains and invigorates the terrorist threat to America. Saddam's elimination would thus greatly weaken international terrorism and its capacity to attack the United States.
There simply is no evidence that this is the case. If anything, the opposite is true. From what we know of al Qaeda and other such organizations, the objective of Islamic extremists is to overthrow any government in the Islamic world that does not adhere to a fundamentalist version of Islam. The Baathist regime in Iraq does not qualify; thus, under al Qaeda doctrine, it must be swept away, along with the equally deficient governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
It follows that a U.S. effort to oust Saddam Hussein and replace his regime with another secular government � this one kept in place by American military power � will not diminish the wrath of Islamic extremists, but rather fuel it.
Attacking Iraq does nothing to combat terrorism or to bring to justice the people who were behind the attacks on New York and Washington. It will neither address the root causes of terrorism eminating from ultra-fundamentalist Islam, nor will it address the practical causes of terrorism such as disaffected Muslim youth turning to violence and seeing the United States as the cause of all evils in the world. Even more practical and immediate, it will not address the conflict in Isreal which is a motivating factor for some of the anti-American terror.
Instead it will incite more anti-American feeling in the overall pan-Islam world and drive moderates into the fundemental camp.
Brought to you by George W. Bush.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Now if you want to carry on a global anti-terror campaign, not something that Mr. Bush seems bent on doing, you have to address Pakistan and Saudi Arabia before Iraq
No, you don't.
Listen, the ONLY reason we, or anybody, are nice to Saudi Arabia is by virtue of the fact that they're sitting on the largest oil deposits in the world, and thereby have much influence over oil prices. Oil, like it or not, is the driving force behind the world economy, and thusly stability of its price is necessary.
Now suppose that, all of a sudden, the country with the SECOND largest oil reserves in the world were under the influence of the US.
What would that mean to Saudi Arabia?
It would shake their control over the oil prices. It would mean that we (all of us) wouldn't have to cozy up to them any more. It would mean that we would have a huge amount of economic leverage (not to mention a newfound political and military advantage, since we wouldn't need Saudi Arabian bases any more) to throw around in order to pressure Saudi Arabia (and other nearby nations) to clean up their acts.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So basically imperialism is bad, except when there's a subsume-one, subsume-a-second-free deal going?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Face it, if it were about Empire-building, it would have happened already.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm sure you said US, not UN in your previous post. But that's no doubt my crazy biased eyes again.
Anyway, the point remains that you are essentially saying that:
"This war is all about oil".
So everyone was right then?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
That's a great argment there Rob. And here I thought the war was about terror. Thanks for the correction.
[ February 04, 2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And of course, Jay, there's only ONE WAY to fight terror.
Except that there isn't. Different situations require different solutions, something you folks seem to have a lot of time understanding with your panacea proclamations. (alliteration!
Some battles must be fought in the military arena. Some can be fought in the political and/or economic arena.
The battle in Iraq has been being fought in the political and economic arena for over a decade now, with little, if any, change. So the military arena is called for.
The battle in the other middle Eastern countries have not been fought yet, but holding a strong position in Iraq makes it easier to fight a better fight in the political and economic arena, thereby reducing the probability of having to re-enter the military one.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So again, just so I've got your argument, you say that we should go for the "smack down" approach. Any bully that shows up and does something that we don't like gets smacked down.
Question is, how does this address the root cause of the bullies in the first place? It seems to be to be a great way to create more bullies from the disaffected populations that created the bullies to begin with.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Nope, you still don't have it, because you're still insisting on saying "any" and "all." Gawd, it's like talking to Omega!
Try re-reading the first half of my post.
I'm saying "this" In THIS instance, force is needed, and that IMNSHO, use of force in THIS instance will begin to set up conditions in which the rest of the area can be changed, WITHOUT the need to resort to force.
And there is clearly a need for regionwide change, because as I've noted before, saying "Iraq has the best human rights record in the Middle East" is basically saying "This is the least foul pile of dung and vomit."
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes I keep saying "any" because this alleged war we are already in is about terror and not about Iraq. If you want to make the war on Iraq about terror then you have much more than a long way to go.
I doubt had 9/11 not happened, even though Mr. Bush might have wanted to attack Iraq in his little heart, he would not have been able to because the public would be even less on his side than they are now. The issue since September has been terrorism.
Fine.
United States policy about an all inclusive topic like terror should not be put togehter in such a piecemeal manner as you advocate. Mr. Bush's own black and white rhetoric eschews your advocation to attack this terrorist while leaving that terrorist alone.
I say again that there needs to be created a policy that deals with the root causes of terrorism. Iraq is not a root cause of terrorism, and attacking that country will do next to nothing to address the issue of terrorism.
There is one very simple question you seem not to have answered yet Rob and that is what is this "war" all about.
The issue can not, after September, be solely about Iraq.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
1st War: War on terrorists and their backers. Iraq backs terrorists, possibly including Al-qaeda, and is therefore a targit, albeit a minor player. It is also a "baby step."
2nd War: War against Iraq, for violating, repeatedly, UN resolutions which state very clearly that Iraq MUST do certain things, or face harsh reprisals. Iraq having not done these things to anyone's satisfaction.
Have you studied Venn diagrams? This is a case of intersecting sets.
Therefore the war can be about BOTH these things.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
At this juncture, it might be interesting to note that Israel isn't to great either when it comes to following UN resolutions and the US hasn't exactly been keeping up with its UN bills...
I submit that the US *should* invade Iraq to enforce UN resolutions, and shortly afterward, invade Israel and itself to keep things fair
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
One can't help but wonder how many UN resolutions Iraq would have broken if it had a Security Council veto. Call me crazy, but I have this hunch that'd it be marginally lower.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
