War and America

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by chawbein
Only the unenlightened say if you're anti-war, your're anti-American.... That sounds like some sort of redneck stereotype. This is nothing more than flame-bait despite your claims.

No, it really isn't. If I'd jumped out and said "I think only white-skinned American-born males should be allowed to be pilots," then that would be flame bait. (No, I don't really think that. Just an example. Calm down.)

I'm just exploring an idea that I think a lot more pilots have than you are willing to admit. I think 46Driver gave me the best clue as to where this alleged link between pacifism and treason comes from: the Vietnam War. (See my earlier post above.)

By the way, "I'm not Fonda Hanoi-Jane" either. As I said previously, I wasn't around to see what went on back then, but I've certainly read about it a lot. I'm not sure what was driving Jane's behavior back then, but it bordered on bizarre. I like to think that today's anti-war celebrities (Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, etc.) wouldn't go to Baghdad to pose with Saddam.

Chawbein, I'm a little disappointed in your shortsighted view of this thread. Despite what you think, the temperature on this thread has stayed very low. I've actually been impressed with the responses I've gotten. Nobody's lashed out, nobody's flamed anybody. But if you think it's flame bait, report it to the moderator.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by rumpletumbler
If I see a black widow in my house then I'm going to kill it if I can. If I see a black widow in my yard then I'm going to kill it if I can. If I'm walking my dog and I see a black widow across the street and he is not heading away from my home I will kill it if I can. I won't wait until one of the kids or my wife or myself have been stung by it to remove the threat.

This analogy has some problems, but consider this:

(1) Most black widows will leave you alone if you don't provoke them.

(2) If you support war--which is completely different from supporting the troops--you're not going to go stomp on that black widow. You're going to send your children and mine to do it. (Good grief, did I really just say that? Maybe I'm becoming more liberal since my kid was born...)

(3) Right now, the United States is the biggest black widow in the yard...and I don't want anybody else trying to step on us.

Yes, that's the problem with this analogy. You forget that every nation with a somewhat modern military is a black widow. If we spend our entire existence trying to step on each other, eventually someone's going to panic and break out the bug bomb...then there won't be any more black widows anywhere.

Now, back to Iraq. Saddam's regime is one provoked black widow, and it needs to be stepped on with extreme prejudice. My problem is that it should have been done a long time ago. Someone pointed out a few weeks back that Bush II was talking about the Iraqi threat during the campaign. Then why didn't he pursue this the moment he got into office? He didn't, did he? He waited until things were looking grim at Enron and people were starting to forget about Osama bin Whats-his-face.

I agree that the President probably knows more about Iraq than any of us. (Makes me nervous when I see he's getting smallpox vaccinations.) I also can't forget that the people giving the President this information are the same ones who (1) completely missed the 9/11 attack, and (2) issued Mohammed Atta a visa after that attack.

 

[Purple Haze]

I agree that the President probably knows more about Iraq than any of us. (Makes me nervous when I see he's getting smallpox vaccinations.)

What a concept: A Commander-In-Chief who leads the troops by example. If memory serves, we didn't see the former president get an anthrax shot. I think he sent the SECDEF to get a shot instead.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by Purple Haze
What a concept: A Commander-In-Chief who leads the troops by example. If memory serves, we didn't see the former president get an anthrax shot.

Nah, you missed my point. It makes me nervous because, unless I'm mistaken, these injections aren't available to everyone yet. It would actually make me less nervous if the President said to the nation, "c'mon, we're all getting smallpox shots, and I'm paying for it."

Of course, I hate shots anyway...

 

[FastCargo]

Hmmm....

Okay, my .02...

There seems to be a lot of 'Why might we going to war with Iraq?' being thrown around...here and elsewhere. My opinion is this: Iraq does present a serious danger to the US, and therefore needs a regime change. Now, why do I think this?

Lets assume for a minute that POTUS is either a) A sincere individual who sees a serious threat to the US or b) A political animal intensely aware of the views of himself, his administration, and his political party. If (A) is true, then we can assume that he is acting in what he considers the nations best interest, regardless of the political consequences, based on his intelligence estimates and advisors. If (B) is true, then we have to ask why the heck is he proceeding along this route, fully aware of the political ramifications both domestic and international. Assuming (B) is true, he would have to know the political devestation an unpopular war would cause for the '04 elections...regardless of the securing oil argument (I'll address that in a minute). My conclusion is that there is compelling evidence of Iraq's collusion in terrorism, past, present, and future...but the evidence cannot be publicly exposed due to compromising intel sources.

My layman's take on all this is that it is a combination of going after the bad guys and controlling the oil - or at least keep the Russians and Chinese in check so they don't control all the oil supply in the area. Perhaps the administration rationalizes that they can knock out a bad guy and control their oil interest at the same time. I admit that oil is crucial for a successful economy and a strong defense.

The oil angle always causes a little chuckle. While we are dependent on the oil from the area, what would be the easiest way to secure oil from Iraq? Answer, lift the sanctions! Come on, if Iraq has really changed it's ways, it would help everybody, right? We get more oil, France and Russia get to do more business, the peaceniks are happy...we all sit around the campfire and sing happy songs. Yeah....riiighht! As far as the Russians needing oil...no, not really. They have plenty, with more that can be exploited...to a nice tidy profit! There are political easier and faster ways to secure that oil. Again, why are we not going about it in those ways?

This turned out to be a lot longer than I expected. Am I naive enough to believe in fully altrustic reasons for war in Iraq? What, are you nuts?!? However, considering how much easier other political options would be, I lean toward there being a VERY good reason for actual conflict, should it become necessary.

Of course, I could have been imbibing too much of a controlled substance...ask me again tommorrow!

Y'all be safe out there...

FastCargo

 

[AlphEcho]

If you are against an Iraq war, that's fine, but please don't wring your hands, shed a tear, and use the excuse that "our military will just be stretched too thin." The armed forces were designed to carry out two major operations simultaneously on opposite sides of the world, and are more than capable of tracking Al-Qaeda and deposing Saddam. You people's lack of faith in America's military ability is disturbing and severely unfounded in fact.

Secondly, I think it's amusing that nearly all the people that are against a war to hold Saddam to UN resolutions are people that advocate the UN as the only means to solving international problems. Do you fail to see that the UN itself will have absolutely no credibility whatsoever if it keeps passing resolutions and watching them get ignored time after time? In many respects, a military operation to hold Iraq accountable is the only chance the United Nations has to avoid becoming what the League of Nations was when it capitulated to Hitler in 1939: essentially useless.

What you people don't want to admit is that the credibility of any UN resolution is only as good as the word of the President of the United States. I doubt that France or Germany, Norway or Russia will take it upon themselves to enforce the will of the UN that they seem to hold so dear.

Please...I'd like to just see you try to say the situation is otherwise.

 

[braidkid]

I think it's as simple as this...
The UN asked Iraq to comply and to reveal it's weapons of mass destruction and they did not.
They are asking for a spanking and they're going to get it.

 

[rumpletumbler]

Typhoon,

I think the reason the President is pursuing it as is is that he is going to do it right and to do it right he wants and should have support. I don't think this one is going to be pretty. To do things that aren't pretty you need to have folks who might say "I don't like what your doing so I'll fling a nuke at you on your side."

RT

 

[310]

I hear that Jane accepted Christ- so she doesn't burn

and Mar--UNPROVOKED!!!!???
I guess we should have waited till Hitler invaded us to fight Germany? The U.N. has to create no fly zones to protect people in Iraq and Iraq fires on US and British planes on a regular basis and you claim their is no provocation? Get real.

 

[enigma]

(3) Right now, the United States is the biggest black widow in the yard...and I don't want anybody else trying to step on us.

Yes, that's the problem with this analogy. You forget that He waited until things were looking grim at Enron and people were starting to forget about Osama bin Whats-his-face.

Typhoon,

What makes you have such a poor opinion of your country? The USofA is the biggest black widow of them all? Come On Man, did you really mean that?

I'm going to make a poor attempt to quote an essay I read earlier.

When the German teenagers marched into Europe, the locals trembled.
When the Japanese teenagers marched into the south pacific, the locals trembled.
When the Russian teenagers marched in to Czech, the locals trembled.
When the Chinese teenagers marched into Tieniaman Square, the locals trembled.
When the Iraqi teenagers marched into Kuwait, the locals trembled.
........
When the American teenagers march into a town, the locals cheer and wave American Flags. They come to liberate, not occupy. Rebuild, not rape. Provide opportunity, not oppression. That IS OUR HISTORY.
Even Clinton was trying to help the oppressed peoples in most of his wars of the month.

I'm sure that a dissenter can come up with a small number of occurances when the USofA was imperialistic, but history shows that the vast majority of military actions undertaken by this country have been solely to liberate or protect a people. BTW, did you know that in 11 of the last 12 actions where the US military became involved in a Muslim dispute, that we were on the side of the Muslims? Name me one country that the USofA occupies against the will of its inhabitants.

You and I the American taxpayer and fighting man, supply peace and freedom to the entire freekin world. You should be ashamed.

How dare you call the liberators of: France ,South Korea, the Philipines, Italy, Belgium, Poland, Indo-China, Kuwait, etc, a bunch of black widows. How dare you call Douglas MacArther (sp?)
the man almost totally responsible for rebuilding Japan into a modern, SOVEREIGN, nation (after we kicked their tail in a war they started) a black widow.

BTW, the energy industry deregulation which lead to the rise and fall of ENRON came about under the CLINTON admin. Just because ClintonNewsNetwork made daily attempts to link ENRON to Bush didn't make it true.

Ramblin rant now over, I really can't believe you called us Black widows, I must not be seeing something. Sheesh.

regards,
8N

 

[mar]

What Enigma's not seeing...

Enigma--This is what you're not seeing: Most of the people of the countries you listed (France, South Korea, the Philipines, Italy, Indo-China (Viet Nam), Kuwait...) want us the hell out of their country.

Now I agree, the simple fact that we may have a NATO base established in their country doesn't qualify as "occupation", per se, but the fact remains: There is a ton of bile generated by our military presence in these countries.

The Kuwaitis may have the shortest memory--they actually open fire on Americans.

The South Koreans, Italians, Japanese and Phillipinos are content to just merely protest--but still, they want us out.

Fine, we helped them rebuild *50 years ago*. Ancient freeking history my friend. We need to operate in the here and now. Their college students were only born 20 years ago.

At the risk of repeating myself: How much money could we divert back into our own country if we closed those bases; if we stop supporting Israel; if we refuse to have a long term presence in Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan?

As far as I'm concerned, that's food out of American children's mouths (food, housing, education and health care)...oops...there's the bleeding heart darnit.

Yes. Maybe it is much better to hemmorage that money in some god-forsaken backwards medieval dictatorship--sorry that wasn't very PC but I've never been.

Mr. 310 wrote: "UNPROVOKED!!!!???
I guess we should have waited till Hitler invaded us to fight Germany? The U.N. has to create no fly zones to protect people in Iraq and Iraq fires on US and British planes on a regular basis and you claim their is no provocation? Get real."

I respond: That's right. No provocation.

You seem to miss the small point that Iraq happens to be a sovereign nation. Maybe you forgot that Iraq (one sovereign nation) invaded Kuwait (another sovereign nation--as opposed to a territory of the US). We meddled (or liberated, depending on your view) and installed the no fly zone in their country.

The no fly zone is not in our country.

Iraq has never made any advance on our country. And as I stated earlier the terrorism link is a red herring.

As for your Hitler comparison...Why does everything always have to come back to WWII and Hitler?

Can't you find a more original example to make a point?

The truth is: We stayed out of WWII until we were directly attacked in Hawaii.

There are a lot of other Hitlers in the world we have nothing to do with.

I'm tired now. I don't know how else to say it. Things in America would be so much better if we would turn inside our borders and focus there: Stop exporting jobs; Let the world fight their own wars; Spend our taxes on ourselves.

The problem with business in America is that it doesn't invest in America. American business doesn't care about Americans. And since the politicos are bought and sold by American business (not to mention the media) the entire power structure has shifted their narrow little focus over-seas where things are cheaper and they can distract themselves from the serious problems we have in the US.

It's just really pathetic. I'm sad for America.

Democracy and the Constitution sold out for market share.

Jefferson, Franklin and the rest must be crying in their graves.

I'm out.

 

[Draginass]

Sadaam wants to be the undisputed ruler of the mideast. If you don't believe that, you're either a fool or and idiot. The rest of the mideast leaders, especially the Saudi's are cowards and hypocrites that hide behind the US, all the while telling us how bad we are.

In order to satisfy his lust for power in the mideast, Sadaam is just stupid enough to let a NBC weapon loose on Israel in hopes of unifying the virilent jew-hating "arab street" in the region. If that happens, the Israelis will respond with extreme force and the mideast will spiral out of control to the severe detrement of the rest of the world.

Mar's short-sighted isolationist agenda represents small scale thinking on a purely tactical level. It's that kind of thinking that brought the world untold carnage and destruction in the past. Ignoring it doesn't make a threat go away.

Luckily we have leaders like Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Rice that have a long term strategic view of world security. Could I wind up on furlough because of a war in Iraq? Yes. But, that is much preferable to an almost certain NBC exchange in the mideast. If you think putting Sadaam Hussien in the dustbin of history would be costly in blood and treasure, try having him as dictator of the mideast. Once he has nuclear weapons, the entire game changes. When you have someone with a nuclear weapon that doesn't care about the suffering of his country, it's people, it's economy, and it's standing in the world community, then that person becomes very very dangerous.

As far as "justification" for a war, the administration is not stupid enough to show it's cards right now. I'll bet that prior to the start of hostilities that the U.S. will present irrefutable proof of the Iraqi regime's intentions. Any hostilities would probably be fairly quick and result in Sadaam and his sadist son's hanging upside-down and dead from lamposts in Bagdad . . . at the hands of the Iraqi's themselves. This regime consists of vile, evil people that have punished the Iraqi people and threatened the world community enough. No more excuses, no more fuzzy-thinking rationalizations, no more pontificating. Enough talk, time to act.

 

[chawbein]

I agree with mar,

Let's pull out of France, the Phillipines, Germany, Japan, etc....

How about we let those third-world sh!t holes drown in their own filth and decay. We could take that money and build some more bombers, fighters, and tanks that we will surely have to use when the liberal media starts screaming about how these "people" are suffering, and need our help (because we left their sh!t-pile countries).

I think we should let the european p*ssies defend themselfes though. Let's see how long they last without screaming for U.S. help. Then we can tell them to go f*ck themselves and watch and laugh while europe burns to the ground (except Britain of course, they seem to be OK).

Everyone's a critic, but no one is willing to step up and do what is right.

 

[ifly4food]

I for one am not happy about the way this country is going under GW.

Let me begin with a disclaimer: I am not a liberal. I voted for Bush but it was really a vote against the other guy. I am independent but lean to the right.

Now getting back to my rant of the day...

I'm tired of the USA feeling like it needs to be the world's police force. We said things like "Why do they hate us?" after 9/11/01, but fail to realize why. THIS IS WHY!!! We cannot continue sticking our noses in other peoples' business just because we feel we are "the worlds last superpower". It's to satisf our nation's own ego, not the humanitarian facade we call it. They don't want us there. They don't want us imposing our will upon them. They don't trust us. They dragged the bodies of our dead sons down the streets in Somalia. They bombed the towers where our sons lived in Saudi Arabia. They bombed a docked ship in Yemen. The only recourse they have is a guerrila war cagainst the USA called terrorism. Even our "friend", S. Korea has had enough and wants us out.

I feel the problem is our cowboy ways. It's no secret that the world views Americans as a bunch of cowboys. This image isn't helped by Dubya going on TV nightly and making idle threats against countries whith little or no evidence to back him up. Look at the mess his "Axis of Evil" speech stirred up... N. Korea has fallen of the wagon by thumbing its nose at us and getting back into the nuclear weapons development and missile exportation business.
We must call on our fearless leader to stop bullying the rest of the world because we suffered a terrorist attack. Though such an attack was new to US soil, the rest of the world has faced this threat for over 30 years, yet we haven't seen wars over it. They don't share or support our need for revenge. Imagine if Israel declared a "war on terrorism", and attacked their neighbors every time a suicide bomb went off.
It's this need for vengence that concerns me. We are sending a very bad message to the world when we call on Israel to refrain, yet then campaign against any nation that we feel may someday threaten us.

Our image in the worls sucks right now and it's because of our cowboy president bullying the world. Such a campaign will only heighten hatred of the US and make for future terrorist attacks. In our arrogance, our leaders believe we can wipe out terrorism through this series of wars. Of course this isn't possible. Terrorism will exist as long as there are people in the world who feel opressed by the USA and are willing to die for the cause. They see it as a fight for freedom and future terrorists continue to be born every day in every part of the world.

It's not their religion, culture or leaders that drive them to terrorism. If so, then why aren't countries like Canada being attacked? It's in fact because the US imposes itself upon the world and makes these people feel as though they are being oppressed.
If we really want to stop terrorism we should take a lesson from our neighbor to the north and stop bullying the world. Canada participates in the UN and world affairs, but it doesn't bully other nations to impose its beliefs. They give terrorists no reason to attack.

We are setting a bad example for the world. If we truly want to be the leader of the world we should stop the hypocracy and give an image of strong defence of the homeland, yet forgiveness and diplomatic peace, not if you f___with us we'll get you as our President has been promoting. This is what we have been asking other nations to do for years.

It's sad that we suffer one attack and suddenly we get to drop that and attack anyone we feel could harm us in the future. I'm glad Israel didn't take such an attitude 20 years ago or we may have already seen nuclear war in the Middle East. Is that what we're headed for?

 

[ifly4food]

I agree with mar,

Let's pull out of France, the Phillipines, Germany, Japan, etc....

How about we let those third-world sh!t holes drown in their own filth and decay. We could take that money and build some more bombers, fighters, and tanks that we will surely have to use when the liberal media starts screaming about how these "people" are suffering, and need our help (because we left their sh!t-pile countries).

I think we should let the european p*ssies defend themselfes though. Let's see how long they last without screaming for U.S. help. Then we can tell them to go f*ck themselves and watch and laugh while europe burns to the ground (except Britain of course, they seem to be OK).

Everyone's a critic, but no one is willing to step up and do what is right.

There's a lot of truth to this. We could stand back and let these cesspools of the world work their own problems out with little direct effect to our country. Insread, we choose to sway things to our ideals and get drug into yet another war. Personally, I couldn't care less if every nation in the mideast leveled each other. If this wasn't about oil, our government wouldn't care either. We have enough oil hidden under the arctic and in Siberia to supply the world for decades, yet continue to rely on the mideast because it's cheaper and "politically incorrect" to relocate come caribou. This increases our presence over there and thus their hatred. It's time we pull back and find other means to support ourselves. Let these nations that have fought for millenia duke it out without getting drug into their battles. We can use diplomacy through the UN instead of direct force to work for peace.
We will be a stronger and happier nation if we do.