We Don't Need No Stinkin' Allies

[El Tejon]

Zander, I'm just not concerned with what the Euros think. I think we have to give them their version of history otherwise how could they live with themselves.

They want to play both sides of the fence to continue milking their business dealings in the Persian Gulf. However, when we swoop down to kill Saddam, they will quickly fall in line.

They did the same thing with Hitler. They did they same thing with the CCCP. They want the best of both worlds.

No matter. We'll fix the car and they'll stand to the side with their arms folded and cluck that it's not going fast enough. Oh, well.

 

[2dogs]

"stinkin allies"- yep that about sums them up.

 

[agricola]

el tejon,

sorry, but this:

"They did the same thing with Hitler. They did they same thing with the CCCP. They want the best of both worlds."

is utter nonsense. for a start, despite the shameful appeasement at Munich, we did declare war on Hitler after he invaded Poland and, prior to that, we had been clearly rearming in the expectation that we would have to deal with him. The US, on the other hand, did not declare war to come to the aid of Europe, or to restore democracy and freedom to the Old World. You didnt declare war on Nazi Germany, period - they declared war on you.

Iraq is not, and has never been, a supplier of terrorist arms to the terror groups that you are at war with. Iraq is also one of the (to my mind three) states in the whole Middle East that doesnt actively discriminate against Christians (Tariq Aziz, for instance, is Christian). Saying that Iraq is behind or even supporting the islamofascist terror groups is deeply wrong; pretty much every other country in the region has done more to assist al-Qaeda and yet its Iraq that faces the ire of the West.

The conflict is clearly about the securing for the US of a stable oil-supplier in the Middle East. That would make you the pirates, wouldnt it?

zander,

would you believe someone stole my ID?

 

[El Tejon]

It's the Europeans who have the oil business in Iraq. If we want oil, we'll buy it or just drill in Alaska. We want Saddam dead. Arrrrr, yo ho ho and pieces of Saddam.

Who cares if Saddam is mean to churchie types or not? The other countries in the Middle East will have their turn after we deal with Iraq. I still think there are better ways to kill these people other than sending in the 3d ID, but maybe we are saving those means for our "allies" in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

Europe continued to play both sides during WW2. England did up until September 1, 1939. After Hitler, Europeans did the same thing with the CCCP. The Europeans are doing the same thing in the Middle East. Like I said earlier I think you have to give them this as they have a lot of money at stake. They will quickly fall in line just like the last Gulf War (or after we pike Saddams head on the mainstay--"jolly good show. We were right behind you, old man.")

 

[amprecon]

Agricola,
I don't know why you don't believe Iraq hasn't supported terrorism, because he has. Regardless, we are at war against terrorism, Saddam is himself a terrorist and a regional threat which makes him an enemy.
I'm trying to understand your defending them, are you a sympathizer?

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I'm one of those who was out in the street yesterday, and have the sore feet to show for it. My first response was also to want to make a rude suggestion. I then thought I'd try to make a reasonable argument, but others have already done a better job than I could to show the absurdity of the whole premise that attacking Iraq has anything to do with 9/11.

The bottom line for me is that the administration has not made the case for war. There is no pressing national security threat. There is no credible threat to any ally of ours. There is no evidence Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, Beirut, Somalia, the attack on Pearl Harbor or the sinking of the Lusitania.

The world needs a good way to deal with bad guys. It doesn't need a self-appointed world cop, especially one with a long history of supporting and bankrolling bad guys.

I am really begining to believe 9/11 did more damage to the American psyche than anyone has guessed. To see it being used as a pretext for attacking a sovereign nation that was not remotely involved is disturbing. We are becoming very close to being a society that will believe anything the rulers and their propaganda machine say.

One of the best sign I saw yesterday said, "Bush/Orwell '04".

 

[agricola]

amprecon,

ok, please show me one incident of a terrorist group attacking the US or Western interests that were sponsored by the Iraqis or Iraqi intelligence. I guarantee you, for that one incident there will be five that have links to elements within Saudi Arabia, and ten that are linked to or funded by the Iranians. Even if you include the raising of money for the families of suicide bombers, dont forget that throughout the middle east the collection goes on (indeed Saudi Arabia had a telethon) and of the main groups, almost all are much more heavily supported by Iran or the other Islamic states.

I'm not a sympathiser of Saddam (but spoken in the true doublethink style!), he needs to face justice for his many crimes against his people; this however is not about that (because up until 1990, when the vast majority of those crimes occured, he was our man in Baghdad), its about something else. My bet is, like many, on oil; however they may be out to set a precedent, an example for the rest of the world to show who is in charge; you may think that a grand idea, but whatever the US means to people, about it being the land of the free, the last good place on earth, will die forever that day. You'll be no different from any of the other hegemon that have come before you, us, the Romans and all the others. Is it worth it?

Malone is right, just because you were attacked, those in power are using that as an excuse to (or a shade for) their own aims. Iraq did not attack you on 9/11, nor did the North Koreans. Why is the US going after these people while, of the real culprits, only one has been detained?

It comes down to one question - is Iraq a threat to the United States?

 

[amprecon]

As I have said before, we are at war against terrorism. Terrorism threatens peace, security and free trade. Without peace, security and the freedom to trade we regress. We retreat to within our own borders and other countries, whose very existence relies on trade, will shrivel up and die on the vine.

Unstable governments which possess, or are in the process of acquiring, weapons of mass destruction, constitute a clear and present danger to the peace and security and freedom to trade. This does not only threaten the United States, but every member of the entire global economy.

Iraq and North Korea, among others, represent this type of threat. Bush is merely refusing to allow these unstable entities from acquiring the means to hold the economy hostage. Now how in the h*ll can that be wrong?

Is it about oil? YES. Is it about money? YES. Is it about the rich getting richer? YES. But let me say this, money is what makes the world go 'round. We all need it, we all prosper when we acquire more of it than what it costs to live comfortably.

If the rich did not get richer, do you think they would invest any of that money? NO. Do you think they would expand the business which made them prosper? NO. When they refuse to further invest in your area because of the risks involved where will you go to work? You won't.

Lives become easier, better and more confortable. Technology is achieved through money spent, through investments in companies that have expertise in their particular fields. Some of those companies are trying to find cures for cancer, aids and other chronic and debilitating diseases.

In all your anti-war propoganda, you would rather see them not find a cure for cancer?

 

[agricola]

youve avoided the point:

i) what proof is there that Iraq has carried out or assisted in the carrying out of terrorist acts against the West;

ii) is that evidence such that it shows that Iraq is particularly bad when it comes to a comparison with the likes of Iran, Syria, Libya or even Saudi Arabia?

iii) what evidence is there that Iraq was planning or had the capability, or even had the will, to conduct a strike against a Western target?

at the end of your post, i think you see whats going on. i can appreciate that people join the military from a feeling of acting to defend their country from aggressors, to protect their homes and from a patriotic sentiment; but would you as a veteran feel fine about risking your life, and your comrades lives, in order to make someone else richer?

 

[Wildalaska]

War solely for the purpose of enriching our nation is beneath us..

WildwarsucksAlaska

 

[eotp]

The Bottom Line

The bottom line for me is that the administration has not made the case for war. There is no pressing national security threat. There is no credible threat to any ally of ours. There is no evidence Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, Beirut, Somalia, the attack on Pearl Harbor or the sinking of the Lusitania.

I agree. We started out going after guys in Afghanistan responsible for 9/11, and the next thing we know is Jr. wants to take care of his dad's former nemesis.

The case supporting a war with Iraq hasn't been made. This war is a waste of billions of dollars and no telling how many young American lives.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

As I have said before, we are at war against terrorism.

It was a ridiculous thing to say then, it still is. Even if you accept the absurd notion that one can wage war against a tactic, then you should be waging war against those who promote or commit acts of terrorism. Not some tinhorn, backwater dictator that spit in your daddy's eye. Your continued harping on the terror issue is more evidence for my hypothesis. 9/11 damaged us bad.

In some cases, it seems to have done brain damage...