War and America

[enigma]

Re: 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.


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.

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.


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

I'm out.

MAR, you know "I luv ya man", but what you're missing is my point. I don't defend our occupation of those countrys, I defend the honor of the our country for liberating them. If we want to debate the need for a continues military presence in the world outside our borders, fine. Just don't agree to label us as BLACK WIDOWS because we happen to be there. The USofA did not make imperialistic advances into any of those countrys, we went in to defend freedom. That does not make us bad. If we were imperialistic, we would have invaded Mexico long ago, they have vast oil fields and other natural resources, but (excepting Pancho Villa vs BackJack Pershing) we have always respected their border.

BTW, Iraq lost sovereignty when it signed surrender papers after being run out of Kuwait if I remember correctly. The no-fly zones are there to keep Soddam from killing the Kurds and other members of his own coutry. He started the war and we (and our allies) agreed to stop when he surrendered. He agree to all of the terms of surrender. He has choosen to violate the terms of his own surrender. He kicked the weapons inspectors out back when Clinton was still president. That in itself was justification for the victors to negate the cessation of war treaty.

One more BTW, I agree on some form of isolation. I don't buy Chinese stuff and that makes it dang hard to shop anymore, and I would suggest that the death of American industry has more to do with consumers who don't give a rats tail about their own job than it does with a big business conspiricy to export jobs.

As far as us being the worlds police force, I say that we leave the rest of the world to itself, with this one warning. "We have a bunch of H-bombs and don't mind using them. The first attack on Americans will result in the placement of one of those nukes on the Capital of the guilty party."

The world has tried appeasment before, I doesn't work. The only thing that some people understand is force. Sorry, but history proves that to be a valid point. Our choice is to either roll over and play dead, or to counter their agression. Rolling over and playing dead only works for possums and not even for them most of the time.

regards,
8N

 

[ifly4food]

Enigma...

Canadians love freedom, yet I don't see their government starting wars for it. I also don't see terrorists plotting to attack the CN tower. Do you think the two could be related?

My point is that we can work for freedom without starting a war. That's about as hypocratic as the Spanish Inquisition killing people in support of Christianity.

 

[chawbein]

That's because the Canadians hide behind the US and Britain for their freedom and security. If they had to be the front of freedom for the world then God help us.

 

[ifly4food]

I don't see the Brits starting said wars either. They're quick to jump on the American bandwagon, but they rarely speak out against anyone first.
With the exception of N. Ireland (truly a microcasm of the US vs. the world mentality) the UK also see little terrorism

 

[TurboS7]

I think that we should just forget the whole thing and let Sad**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** drop a Scud from H1 right into the middle of Jerusalem full of VX gas. Then we need to back off and let Israel take care of itself.......problem solved. Just don't be downwind of Bagdad........

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

From Enigma
"One more BTW, I agree on some form of isolation. I don't buy Chinese stuff and that makes it dang hard to shop anymore, and I would suggest that the death of American industry has more to do with consumers who don't give a rats tail about their own job than it does with a big business conspiricy to export jobs. "

Know this isn't church but amen to that and keep preaching it!

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Jeez, Some of the fellas here need to review some history and some seem to have it right. The last thing we should be doing is removing ourselves from all the countries already mentioned.

In regards to the middle east, re-read draginass's response. It is exactly the reason we've been involved with Israel for the last 50 years or so.

Pulling out of Japan and S. Korea would only open up the Far East to China. Do you really think the Chinese (most of whom's leaders are easily 60 years old or much older) have forgotten about the millions of chinese the japanese killed in WWII? This stuff doesn't get forgiven. About 100,000 of those were during the search for Doolittle's B-25 bomber crews.

As for Europe, I'd agree that the French are more of a pain in the ass, and certainly don't seem very grateful for all the Americans lying six feet under in their country. However, the Germans, regardless of their being the enemy in WWII are more than capable in Europe. Culturally, they have always been extremely hard and resourceful workers and it was really should have been no surprise they were mainland Europe's economic powerhouse only 15-20 years after their country was destroyed (rightfully so) in 1945.

Believe me Chawbein, the Germans could kick the shi& out of just about any country in the middle east or Europe.

As for Saddam, he obviously needs to be contained and I don't really know how valid the possibility he would use any weapons against us is. I think George W. and his adminstration may have good points about why Saddam needs to be removed but when he says things like "hey, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad" it makes the rest of the world roll their eyes and turn their heads. This after the infamous "yes, we'll do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan". Basically removing 50 years of carefully crafted diplomacy. Definitely the right guy for handling 9/11 but I'm not so sure he and Mr. Oil are the guys who should be developing ourforeign policy. Just because it was his father's strength doesn't mean it's his.

Ifly......... By the way, we don't really rely on the middle east for much oil. Only about 10%. The middle east's strength is that they hold about 90% of the world's reserves of oil. So when they want to raise the price, we can only keep it suppressed for so long.

Believe it or not, Peace!


Mr. I.

 

[Typhoon1244]

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?

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan's speechwriter, "there you go again." Enigma, have you read any posts in this thread prior to that one? Any at all?

Here, I'll try and explain it to you. Rumpletumbler drew an analogy, comparing an antoganistic nation with a developed military to a black widow spider. The point I was trying to make is that most of the nations that we see in that light see us the same way. When most Iraqi or North Korean citizens think of the United States, do they picture a knight in shining armor? Or John Wayne on horseback? I suspect an awful lot of them see us as one big scary camouflaged monster with bundles of Tomahawk missiles under its arms.

No, I don't have a low opinion of our country. The United States is still the greatest nation on this planet...but it has flaws. Yes, believe it or not, I can love something even though it's not perfect. Does being able to acknowledge this nation's shortcomings qualify me as a traitor? Being an American does not mean beaing a blind follower.

Enigma, one of your fellow conservatives said previously that "only the unenlightened say if you're anti-war, your're anti-American...that sounds like some sort of redneck stereotype."

Thank you for the example.

 

[enigma]

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan's speechwriter, "there you go again." Enigma, have you read any posts in this thread prior to that one? Any at all?

Sure, I read em all. Including the one where you claimed to not want to start a flame war. Then when RT used the blackwidow comment, you decided to call us black widows in an attempt to justify your postion. If you want to debate our role in the world, fine, just don't expect to get by with dishonoring the reasons we are the worlds leader.

In a lot of ways, I agree with you. I think that are far too involved in defending parts of the world that hate us. I think that we would be better off if we didn't think that we could make everything all right. I'm more for sitting back and saying to the rest of the world." We'll leave you along, just don't dare attack a US citizen or US soil, or our US neighbors. If you do, we will retaliate with overwhelming force. Have a good life."

But since we do have a moral obligation to our fellow man, we will continue to attempt to protect human life and freedom.

BTW, the reason that Canada and the rest of our hemishpere have been able to remain at peace is almost solely due to the President James Monroe decreeing that the western hemishpere would be protected against agression from the rest of the world. He realized way back in the early 1800's that by protecting our neighbors we protect ourself.

regards,
8N

 

[chawbein]

You missed the point of that part of my post. I'm sure the EU can take care of itself in regards to the middle east (even though they have almost no way to project power) or within europe for a limited amount of time. My point is that the same people who tell us to stay out of everybody's business are the same ones who will be screaming for help when the sh!t hits the fan. Heck, who knows, if the US pulls out of europe, the Russians might just roll on in and establish democracy in those countries.

The whole point for keeping our fingers in all of those pies is to keep a whole bunch of little problems and tensions from developing into an ENORMOUS problem with dimensions on the scale of WWII, but with WMD. That is why we do it. That is why it is right and moral to do such things. Those who whine about our overseas policies only do so because they want to get their fingers in those pies to use them to their advantage (create their own influence).

What's wrong with being a cowboy? A cowboy is the one who goes in and saves the day when bad things happen. I'm proud of that, and I'm proud that someone has the cajones to go up against the bad people of the world without our "so-called" allies and enemies having to be involved.

 

[TDTURBO]

TurboS7,
You took the words right out of my mouth!

It is clear you can't protect against terrorism. It is also clear that we are in this mess due to our inept foreign policy with regards to Isreal. Let Isreal fight it out without our support, as I stated earlier, there would be allot of happy people on earth if this was done. Isreals influence in this country is a cancer that needs to be cut out. It's time people realize it!

 

[Timebuilder]

The key phrase in your post is "if there is a threat." Almost everyone outside the White House agrees that Iraq is not a threat at the moment. I agree Iraq is scary and will probably have to be dealt with in the future...but for the love of Pete, even some of the weapons inspectors are saying that war is unnecessary!

Well, let's try and stay on target here.

Not everyone outside of the White House agrees that Iraq is not a threat at the moment. An LA TIMES POLL? You're kidding, aren't you. Might as well have been a NY TIMES poll. Why not a Quaker poll, or a Unitarian poll? Neither the LA or NY times would ever publish a poll that shows support for a republican president's position on anything.

Let's talk about the "weapons inspectors" a little. Hans Blix, a pacifist and Swede. Sweden is a "neutral country" with a "one world" view. Hans doesn't want to go home to Sweden as the "man that started a new Gulf war" because he found things that even the UN would have to agree are "material breeches". To Sweden, and many other European countries, the UN is the beginning of a New World Government, and the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong on Earth. The reason that they are free to have this view is because of what the US did in the 1940's that kept them from falling under Nazi control, which surely would have happened without our help. Ungrateful friends are one of the many burdens that we bear as Americans.

I found Deftone's post to be very refreshing, since he is no doubt far younger than those of my generation, who can recall actually hearing the words of JFK. "...the price of freedom IS eternal vigilance".

Now, we can ignore what our intelligence reports say, rely on what Hans and company tells us, abide by the sovereign opinion of this New World Government, and wait until this lunatic decides that all of this fervor has died down, and does something that seems immediate, terrible, deadly, and which unites the world against him.

At that time, it will be too late to stop him, and we will then struggle to arrest his activity and deal with what has happened.

I think that such a wait-and-see, reactionary plan is foolish. As far as the original point of the first post, I have this opinion. Free civil discourse happens before we take action. After that, our elected President, along with the agreement provided by the Congress, deserves our support. Standing shoulder to shoulder as Americans is the very essence of patriotism. It is the support for our values and decisions as a country. If you disagree with our course, speak up now. After the decision to act has been made, I expect you to see that you have argued you opinion and lost.

Then, like an attorney leaving the courthose, I expect a handshake and your unequivocal support of the actions of the United States.

 

[TXCAP4228]

...It is clear you can't protect against terrorism. It is also clear that we are in this mess due to our inept foreign policy with regards to Isreal. Let Isreal fight it out without our support, as I stated earlier, there would be allot of happy people on earth if this was done. Isreals influence in this country is a cancer that needs to be cut out. It's time people realize it!

TDTURBO, you are making a serious mistake at your, and OUR, peril.

We help Israel for several reasons.

1) First, I side with them on moral rightness. Terrorists blow up school busses over there killing Israeli children but for some reason I'm told I need to consider the "other side".

Sometimes when oppressors kill and maim the innocent for politcal ends, good people should step up and say "THIS HAS TO STOP. WE SUPPORT ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST."

TDTURBO, I will let you decide for yourself where you stand.

2) We support Israel for realistic reasons. Israel has committed themselves to their defense. If we do not assist, Israel will use nuclear weapons as a final defensive measure. It is in our interest both to be Israel's partner and to foment peace in that region. This goal is achiveable with the right players (the PLO and its current leadership are the wrong players.... but this is another topic).

======================

Typhoon,

For me the issue comes down to trust. More on this in a minute.

Sadam has demostrated cruelty to his neighbors and cruelty to his own citizens. Not less than 14 UN Security Council resolutions have been disregarded repeatedly by his government. Given his history and based on the force of International Law, we are not obligated to treat him as we would treat any other nation. In other words, we do not need a provocation of violence from him in order to act against his regime.

Secondly, For me to support military action against him I would need to be satisfied with evidence of one of three things:
1) That Sadam has continued to produce or stockpile weapons prohibited by UN sanction.
2) That his regime has aided terrorist groups with these weapons or otherwise.
3) That his regime poses a clear threat to us in some way through contemplated action that is occuring or will occur.

Now to get to the trust issue I started with:
I trust the W. has the information to satisfy one or all of the reasons I just listed. I want to see it for myself, and I think that the case needs to be made and that open debate should occur. This debate is one of the fundamental differences between America and Iraq. However, based on preparations for war, I trust this President while I did NOT trust the previous one.

Finally. I have not seen the "if you don't support the war you're unAmerican" sentiment that you say you have seen. A number of my more liberal friends complain to me that this attitude is pervasive - but I just don't see it. In fact, quite the opposite, I see most people having a reasonable discussion just like this.

I should check this board more often! Good thread.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

From TDTURBO:
"Isreals influence in this country is a cancer that needs to be cut out. It's time people realize it! [/B][/QUOTE]

Can you explain further? I'm not Jewish but I would like to know what you mean. I hear this stuff about the Israel and/or Jews being a problem and guess I just don't understand.
Personally, I think this country has been blessed by our friendship with Israel but I'm just a simpleton.

 

[tcoll777]

I saw we drop the nukes, pave over the mideast, and turn the entire region into a supersized gas station........problem solved...