The Path to War: Gulf War 2

From Time Magazine

Very insightful, very eye opening. The one you feel the most for is Colin Powell. He was forced into this action by the growing neo-con cabal in the Bush Administration, he was betrayed by the French, and as a result, he is becoming a less and less important figure in world affairs. This crisis may have jeopardized his shot at the White House in the future.

Unless, after the war, he resigns, swiches parties and runs as a democrat in 2004, gets elected and the world is a much better place

o.k. first off the Bush administration is a new-conservative administration, for that matter Powell is a neo-con as well.

growing neo-con cabal

First off how can an administration that is neo-con become ""more"" neo-con. Second you''re using the term as a slur, do you really even know the difference/defining points of an American conservative/Neo-Conservative?? (Yes there is a large difference between American Conservatism and European Conservatism, look at Reagan/Thatcher(really an american conservative) vs John Majors)
)

he was betrayed by the French

And the Russians....

If anything Powell has swung to the Condi Rice/Rumsfield side post French betrayal, he still wanted it done he just wanted the international community to be fully behind us, after France''s actions I think that he realized that having the all of the International community behind us isn''t worth the trouble & even without it we should do what needs to be done.

fang:

Unless, after the war, he resigns, swiches parties and runs as a democrat in 2004, gets elected and the world is a much better place

Never happen, 1 he''s an old-time neo-conservative, no way in hell would he go democratic. Second there is no way he''ll run for president. He knows what happens and the scrutiny/nastiness that occurs during a campaign, he won''t run becuase he doesn''t want to put his family into the whole mess.

Unless, after the war, he resigns, swiches parties and runs as a democrat in 2004, gets elected and the world is a much better place

He''s a Neocon. He''s a Republican. He could have been the Republican nom. in 96 but he didn''t want to.

I bet Powell sticks around.

"dgrey" wrote:

First off how can an administration that is neo-con become ""more"" neo-con. Second you''re using the term as a slur, do you really even know the difference/defining points of an American conservative/Neo-Conservative??

There is one big quality of neo-conservatives that the Time article mentions: America (and ""civilization"" in general) has enemies seeking its destruction and must be confronted. Here are a couple more from the same article that I''ll let speak for themselves:

the U.S. is endowed by Providence with the power to make the world better if it will only take the risks of leadership to do so; if, in the current jargon, it is sufficiently ""forward leaning.""
The U.S., neoconservatives believe, is unique in its power and its principles. It cannot allow its mission to be tied down by international agreements that diminish its freedom of action. At the same time, neoconservatives insist that theirs is a generous and internationalist vision; other nations, other peoples, will willingly support U.S. policies"”which, by definition, are good for them as well as Americans"”if only those policies are clearly articulated and implemented with determination.

Now what does this sound like to you? Benevolent light-bringer? Crusading knight? Spanish inquisitor?

"Ulairi" wrote:

He''s a Neocon. He''s a Republican. He could have been the Republican nom. in 96 but he didn''t want to.

I bet Powell sticks around.

But will he pass the right-wings test? Some view him as ""soft"" for going the diplomatic route.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

He''s a Neocon. He''s a Republican. He could have been the Republican nom. in 96 but he didn''t want to.

I bet Powell sticks around.

But will he pass the right-wings test? Some view him as ""soft"" for going the diplomatic route.

What right-wing test? bush went the Diplomatic route and knew what would happen if he did. What Bush does is this: He does what Rummy wants the Powell way.

Rat Boy... what is this ""right""-wing test you speak of. I''ve never seen any of the questions/study materials for it.

The vast majority on the right have massive respect for Powell, they just see the attempt for a second resolution as an unneeded failure, most I think saw that it was useless due to the French.

America (and ""civilization"" in general) has enemies seeking its destruction and must be confronted.

First off the ""civilization"" that it is speaking of is ""western"" civilization, big difference. Second they''re right. There are people out there that are currently seeking ""America''s"" destruction. I think that they''re belief that it needs to be confronted is also correct, problems don''t go away if you ignore them. Do you honestly believe there are groups/people out there that don''t want to see ALL Americans dead?? Do you think that if we ignore them they''ll just dissapper??

the U.S. is endowed by Providence with the power to make the world better if it will only take the risks of leadership to do so; if, in the current jargon, it is sufficiently ""forward leaning.""

Yep agree with this one as well. Once again the US can improve things if it only gets up off its rear and does something. This does not neccesarily mean militarily/politcally. If the US pushes its weight behind humaitarian/medical aid to the third world this also satisfies the belief, which I might add Powell also seems to follow.

The U.S., neoconservatives believe, is unique in its power and its principles.

Also correct, there never has been a nations in history that has our pwer/principles(what ever you may you really can''t argue that anyone else has/does have not just our principles but the power that we have as well)

It cannot allow its mission to be tied down by international agreements that diminish its freedom of action.

This I''d say is a belief thats become much more pronounced the last several months. Neo-Cons in general have issues with SOME of the international agreements in place today, mainly the UN which they see as so ridduled with corruption to do anything, as well as a historical background of nothing but failure when it does(minus the medical work it does)

At the same time, neoconservatives insist that theirs is a generous and internationalist vision; other nations, other peoples, will willingly support U.S. policies?which, by definition, are good for them as well as Americans?if only those policies are clearly articulated and implemented with determination.

Also can be supported, look at Eastern Europe which welcomes/supports pretty much any action we take. I can just as easily point out the same desires by many African/South American beliefs that the ""US"" steps in and does something to help them out, hell listen to what the Iraqi''s that have been ""freed"" have been saying (what took you so long, are you going to leave us, etc).

The main issue I think is that the ""left"" hates/distrusts the neo-conservatives. The fact that I''ve seen neo-conservatice used as a slur on this forum leads me to believe this to be the case. Many of the ""protesters"" are still angry about the 2000 election, and action that neo-conservatives take past that point just angers them even more.

I think that Rat-Boy you''d perfer that we didn''t do anything to interfere with these other countries, not becuase it won''t help/isn;''t right. But because its the ""neo-conservatives"" doing it. You didn''t see any of these arguements when Clinton did some of the same actions, aka Serbia/Bosnia. You did see some come from the Neo-Conservatives but a lot of that was because they weren''t sure Clinton would go all the way with his actions.

I think many neo-conservatives, and rightly so, rememeber & blame ourselves(""America"" in general) what their stopping did in 1991 to the Iraqi''s, we told them to raise up and we''d be with you and then sat back and watched them be slaughtered. Also I think that a lot of their views of international ""coaltions"" we''re formed by this as well, we stopped becuase the coalition wanted us to stop, we did, and the resulting atrocities can be squarely laid on the fact we went along with it. Thus they have massive issues in:
1.) Doing something half-way
2.) Listening to the ""internationals"" to stop when we''re doing what we see as right.

What worries me the most is the last paragraph in that story. Where do we stop?

If we''re so committed to removing dictators/threats to our security/WMD''s or all of the above where do we stop? And for how long are people doing to stomach various wars and the possible retaliation for what we''re doing.

Living in a country that suffered terorism for 30 years (and still does) I can say that every time the police killed or captured a terrorist it was ALWAYS followed by tit for tat killings and bombings. (not always aimed at combatants)

What we''re doing invites retaliation that is justified to the terrorist and it doesn''t matter how good security is someone always gets through. Look at Israel.

Hopefully this will all go well and the Iraqi people get what they want and our soldiers can return home.

I disagree with cramming ""America"" down the throats of the world. It smacks of Pax Romana; everybody''ll be better off under the banner of Rome. You see people bristling against this all the time. French protestors trashing a McDonalds. Protestors in Seattle destroying a Gap storefront (but not Starbucks for some reason). Palestinian terrorists blowing up a Sbarros (the best fast-food pizza out there).

Maybe this failing of our foreign policy is best illustrated in the article above. No, not the French. Back up a few months to Dick Cheney''s tour of the Middle East. Nobody he visited ranked Iraq as a major priority, the ongoing strife between Israel and Palestine is. Although we have maintained that there should be peace in the region and have gone to great lengths in the past to try to cultivate it, other governments see a different picture of America. They see the same Apache helicopters flying above the Iraqi desert firing Hellfire missles into Palestinian residential areas. Ask the average Muslim-on-the-street in the region and they''ll tell you that 9-11 was staged by Israel and George W. Bush is Jewish. Why is the neo-conservative philosophy of democratizing and confrontation only breeding more oppressive regimes and more threats?

If America and those who run it want to endow American democracy on the world and defeat threats to it, why don''t we start in the Holy Land, the source of the 1000-year war that has repeatedly altered the course of history? Why do we choose to democratize and sanitize a nation that has, by the admission of the Administration, has no credible link to terrorism in America? Why are we attacking Iraq in what is presently churning up a flood of American hatred when we should be fostering peace between Israel and Palestine which would in time end the terrorism? Was Saddam Hussein much of a threat to the continental US when he was hemmed in on all sides? The success of the war so far should be a testament to all that the threat of Saddam was grossly exagerated.

This philosophy of confrontation has bred only more enemies to confront. This philosophy of democratization has bred resentment. Neo-conservatives have a massive superiority complex coupled with rampant paranoia. Suppose their next target isn''t quite as despicable as Saddam Hussein. Suppose their next perceived threat is liked by the global community. Suppose the next country we go after doesn''t want the US to go in and meddle in their affairs. The believe in the divine right to go forth in the world and impose your worldview on others do not breed harmonious societies, they breed empires. And empires have an odd way of collapsing rather dramatically. Or they fade into obscurity, obsolescense, and irrelevancy.

Edit: This isn''t to say that I''m Anti-American nor do I believe that the Iraqi troops aren''t the enemy. But would the Iraqi troops have shot at Americans if we hadn''t invaded?

"kegboy" wrote:

What worries me the most is the last paragraph in that story. Where do we stop?

If we''re so committed to removing dictators/threats to our security/WMD''s or all of the above where do we stop? And for how long are people doing to stomach various wars and the possible retaliation for what we''re doing.

Living in a country that suffered terorism for 30 years (and still does) I can say that every time the police killed or captured a terrorist it was ALWAYS followed by tit for tat killings and bombings. (not always aimed at combatants)

What we''re doing invites retaliation that is justified to the terrorist and it doesn''t matter how good security is someone always gets through. Look at Israel.

Hopefully this will all go well and the Iraqi people get what they want and our soldiers can return home.

It will stop after Iran and North Korea. The problem is that we need to break the monopoly that the extreme Muslim rule has. We can''t stop the hate if the people are being kept down by their own goverments. There are only 25 million people in Iraq from oil alone everyone in Iraq should be a millionare.

It will stop after Iran and North Korea

I honestly don''t know about wether or not Attacking N.Korea would be a good idea. (but from certain points of view it makes lots of sense)

Whoever was fighting would take massive casualties in any Korean conflict and then you have the unknown of China.

What also bothers me is whether Iran or Korea, if they feel they''re next on ""the list"" will they pre-emptivley do something major?

"kegboy" wrote:
It will stop after Iran and North Korea

I honestly don''t know about wether or not Attacking N.Korea would be a good idea. (but from certain points of view it makes lots of sense)

Whoever was fighting would take massive casualties in any Korean conflict and then you have the unknown of China.

What also bothers me is whether Iran or Korea, if they feel they''re next on ""the list"" will they pre-emptivley do something major?

The problem is that Clinton did the wrong thing in retrospect with North Korea. This proves why we can''t just trust inspectors to do a job they were never meant to do. Something is going have to happen with North Korea and it might end being a bloody war. I hope it doesn''t happen.

If I were Iran, I''d be worried that I''m next. The whole region is messed up and containment will just breed more terrorist. We''re in a world war and only a few of us think we are.

"Ulairi" wrote:

It will stop after Iran and North Korea.

Doubtful. Attack Iran and the entire Middle East will become a threat to the US. Attack North Korea and then Russian and China (the two medium-powers of the world) will become a threat to the US. The difference between the Cold War and now is that there doesn''t seem to be a line that the US isn''t willing to cross.

""Doubtful. Attack Iran and the entire Middle East will become a threat to the US. Attack North Korea and then Russian and China (the two medium-powers of the world) will become a threat to the US. The difference between the Cold War and now is that there doesn''t seem to be a line that the US isn''t willing to cross.""

The entire Middle East? Just like what would happen if we went after Afganistan and Iraq? I''m still waiting on this Arab street I keep hearing about.

What would *you* do to solve the problem?

Fix Israel and Palestine. That''s what this entire conflict boils down to, rightly or not. Everything that Israel does is seen as an extension of American policy. Resolve the #1 issue in the Muslim world, and they''ll start to fall in line. It might have worked last time if not for an extremist Israeli''s bullets followed by two weak Israeli leaders and a warmonger.

They see the same Apache helicopters flying above the Iraqi desert firing Hellfire missles into Palestinian residential areas.

WTF?? A apache in Iraq firing into Palestine?? uh take a look at the geography....

Ask the average Muslim-on-the-street in the region and they''ll tell you that 9-11 was staged by Israel and George W. Bush is Jewish.

What street?? Bosnia? Tajikstan? Uzbekistan? Checynia?
You''re making gross generalizations about Islam & Muslims.

Why is the neo-conservative philosophy of democratizing and confrontation only breeding more oppressive regimes and more threats?

And yet after utilizing this philosophy we enjoy more good will from Eastern Europe then we have in over 50 years. The Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Kuwaiti''s are firendly and back us. As for the ""oppressive"" regimes they existed LONG before the neo-conservatist movement in the US.

Ratboy... There are far too many underlying causes and forces at work in the Middle East that are leading to the ""hate"" that you see. NONE of which can really be attributed to The neo-conservative views. If you really want to point out the major influence I''d point to the House of Saud''s religous imperilism from the 70''s onward. The regimes in the area by and large have welcomed this becuase they see it as a useful tool, as long as people are see outsiders as the cause for their people''s problems they won''t actually look at the regimes/themselves as the cause of the problems. Yet you are either ignorant of this or perfer to gloss over it becuase such evidence points out flaws in your predetermined beliefs.

I may have a bias towards neo-conservatism but I do know the history of the region and have a grasp on the underlying forces that are at work, becuase of said history.

Suppose their next perceived threat is liked by the global community

What makes you think the current one isn''t? France & Russia have had long ties to Saddam, hell Chirac once called Saddam his ""blood"" brother. You have a naive view of current geo-political politics if you think that Saddam isn''t currently liked by some parts of the international community.

The believe in the divine right to go forth in the world and impose your worldview on others do not breed harmonious societies, they breed empires.

No... the conquering military breeds an empire. Allowing other peoples the ability to make/run their own government IS NOT an EMPIRE. If the US conquered these nations and then absorbed them into the US proper then you could view this as a creation of an empire.

This philosophy of confrontation has bred only more enemies to confront.

And you''re right the philosphy of the status quo/ignoring makes things oh so much better. If change doesn''t come to these people, if the brutal totalitarian regimes aren''t checked or changed then the vast atrocities that occur on a daily basis in much of this world will continue to go on. But from what I understand as long as it happens to those other people we shouldn''t care. Containment doesn''t work, you only contain the horror to 1 group of people, and don''t for a secondnthink they''ll EVER forget that. Apeasement doesn''t work you just encourage the behavior. Democrazation & the classic liberal beliefs in the rights of man do change things. But its never been tried on a large scale. EVER. What the neo-cons are doing is something new and untried, and if they pull it off will make the world a better place, where everyone can be free and enjoy the same rights you and I do. If they don''t then at least they tried and a few more people can live free.

"dgrey" wrote:

WTF?? A apache in Iraq firing into Palestine?? uh take a look at the geography....

The Israeli Defense Force use American-made Apache attack helicopters. In fact, two weeks ago one fired the much talked about of late Hellfire missle into a crowd of Palestinians.

What street?? Bosnia? Tajikstan? Uzbekistan? Checynia?
You''re making gross generalizations about Islam & Muslims.

I am and the two statements I use aren''t shared by all. But the sentiment behind those words are true. Is that a racist thing to say, to say that 80 to 90% of a particular population don''t like American foreign policy?

And yet after utilizing this philosophy we enjoy more good will from Eastern Europe then we have in over 50 years.

Did we bomb them?

The Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Kuwaiti''s are firendly and back us. As for the ""oppressive"" regimes they existed LONG before the neo-conservatist movement in the US.

The Kurds will support America so long as they see it in their best interests to do so. Just this past week people in Afghanistan were protesting the war, the very same Afghans that America liberated from a cruel regime that posed a direct threat to the US.

Ratboy... There are far too many underlying causes and forces at work in the Middle East that are leading to the ""hate"" that you see. NONE of which can really be attributed to The neo-conservative views.

I agree that the past hatreds between West and East go further back than the neo-conservative movement. It goes farther back than American democracy. However, name the steps that the Bush Administration has taken to foster goodwill in the Middle East towards America.

[quotel]If you really want to point out the major influence I''d point to the House of Saud''s religous imperilism from the 70''s onward. The regimes in the area by and large have welcomed this becuase they see it as a useful tool, as long as people are see outsiders as the cause for their people''s problems they won''t actually look at the regimes/themselves as the cause of the problems. Yet you are either ignorant of this or perfer to gloss over it becuase such evidence points out flaws in your predetermined beliefs.[/quote]

I am not glossing over the rise of radical Islam, you are glossing over the environment that fostered it. The UK was a colonial power in the region. The US was friends with oppressive regimes in the region. After the Shah and others like him were driven from power, the natives turned their collective hatred towards the friends of their oppressors. I thought the aim of America was to foster democracy, not to sponsor tyranny.

I may have a bias towards neo-conservatism but I do know the history of the region and have a grasp on the underlying forces that are at work, becuase of said history.

I just happen to see a different history, one where the mistakes of the past are forgotten and supressed in light of present tragedies.

What makes you think the current one isn''t? France & Russia have had long ties to Saddam, hell Chirac once called Saddam his ""blood"" brother. You have a naive view of current geo-political politics if you think that Saddam isn''t currently liked by some parts of the international community.

If I can find that picture of Donald Rumsfeld cordially shaking hands with Saddam back in the 80s, I''ll post a link to it.

And if France is such a friend of Iraq, why haven''t they tried to stop our ground troops from invading their ally?

No... the conquering military breeds an empire. Allowing other peoples the ability to make/run their own government IS NOT an EMPIRE. If the US conquered these nations and then absorbed them into the US proper then you could view this as a creation of an empire.

We''ll continue this when and if the Iraqi government is reconstituted. I''m willing to be dollars to doughnuts that the new regime will be American-friendly.

And you''re right the philosphy of the status quo/ignoring makes things oh so much better.

Did I say ignore it? I''m saying it is economically, militarily, and diplomatically impossible to swat every fly buzzing about.

If change doesn''t come to these people, if the brutal totalitarian regimes aren''t checked or changed then the vast atrocities that occur on a daily basis in much of this world will continue to go on.

If the goal was to liberate these people, why didn''t we do this back in the 80s? Why did we aid Saddam Hussein''s war against Iran which gave him a green-light to perform these atrocities that have only recently been denounced? Just for once, I''d like to see a member of the Administration admit, ""Yes, we made a mistake in supporting Saddam back in the 80s."" Come on, admit you made a mistake and that you''re trying to rectify it.

But from what I understand as long as it happens to those other people we shouldn''t care.

Tell that to Chile. We deposed a Stalin and replaced him with a Hitler.

Containment doesn''t work, you only contain the horror to 1 group of people, and don''t for a secondnthink they''ll EVER forget that.

Then why don''t we try to invade Cuba? Why didn''t we try to stop the slaughter in Rwanda?

Apeasement doesn''t work you just encourage the behavior.

Only if your opponent believes you won''t act.

Democrazation & the classic liberal beliefs in the rights of man do change things. But its never been tried on a large scale. EVER.

A neo-conservative praising liberal beliefs of any kind? Somebody pinch me!

And isn''t the UN a global organization devoted to global democracy and the rights of humanity?

What the neo-cons are doing is something new and untried

It''s been tried, it''s just that there was this little thing called the Soviet Union and Communism standing in the way.

, and if they pull it off will make the world a better place, where everyone can be free and enjoy the same rights you and I do. If they don''t then at least they tried and a few more people can live free.

As I said before, this is at a fundamental level utterly arrogant. ""Our way is the best way and you''d better live like us."" Now, the real question is, what is ""our"" way? Would neo-conservatives go along with global bans on the death penalty and the global legalization of abortion? Would they go along with global arms reduction and an outright ban on nuclear weapons and power plants? Is the true goal of Pax Americana the promotion of all the beliefs of America, or just the ones of the neo-conservatives?

Is the true goal of Pax Americana the promotion of all the beliefs of America, or just the ones of the neo-conservatives?

Unfortunately, I dont think most of the world distinguishes between the two.

I also think that question is the core focus of the ""leftist"" ""peace movement"".

I think most Americans except the neo-conservatives have concerns about the answer to that question.

The Israeli Defense Force use American-made Apache attack helicopters. In fact, two weeks ago one fired the much talked about of late Hellfire missle into a crowd of Palestinians.

This is true but THIS ISN""T WHAT YOU SAID. You said they we''re in IRAQ. If you''re going to critcize me for responding to you at least get it right.

A neo-conservative praising liberal beliefs of any kind? Somebody pinch me

Modern leftisits don''t give a crap about classical liberalism. All those rights and privliges get in the way of the ""glorious"" ideaology.
You''ve left classical liberalism in the dust, you know all of those rights/liberties that you use but don''t want others to have.

And isn''t the UN a global organization devoted to global democracy and the rights of humanity?

This is the same UN that has Libya heading the Human Rights committee. This is the Same UN where we have 1 totalitarian nen-democracatic regime with a Veto in the Security council. If you think the UN is a organization that gives a crapabout democracy/human rights than you''re deluded.

It''s been tried, it''s just that there was this little thing called the Soviet Union and Communism standing in the way.

You''re right I''m sure glad that the Soviet Union is still around protecting all of its people from the evils of democracy/human rights.

Then why don''t we try to invade Cuba? Why didn''t we try to stop the slaughter in Rwanda?

Why shouldn''t we invade Cuba? As to the slaughter in Rwanda the UN was there... and the neo-cons weren''t in politcal power in this country.

Only if your opponent believes you won''t act.

Appeasement is fundamentally flawed. If you pay a bully to stop threating whats to stop him from realizing they hey all I need to do is continue and they''ll keep paying me off. APEASEMENT HAS NEVER WORKED.

Tell that to Chile. We deposed a Stalin and replaced him with a Hitler.

First off what sort of a response to this... this is a non-arguement. Second this wasn''t the Neo-Cons. Shall I point out Clinton''s support of the Sandinstas and accuse him of being a Neo-Con?

Did I say ignore it? I''m saying it is economically, militarily, and diplomatically impossible to swat every fly buzzing about.

So because we can''t get them all we shouldn''t bother getting a single one. Yep thats what I''d call ignoring it.

As for admitting to mistakes I''ve done this constantly, our pullout in 91. With the Iran/Iraq war there was no side that was clean. Iran at least of the two was actively attacking/killing Americans. Does this mean I condone our support of Saddam no... But at least we''re cleaning the mess up as opposed to ignoring a mess is even there. Besides which Saddam was already in power, supported by the French/Russians to get there. We didn''t set him up. They did, we we''re just stupid enough to think he could be controlled.

On American beliefs you honestly believe that All Forms of Abortion are supported by the majority of the American people? WTF??
You know nothing about nuclear power, its not only the cleanest but also the massively safe, why do you think the French depend on it so much. As for the ban of nuclear weapons & reduction of arms to do so before all of these ""flies"" are cleaned up would be outright stupid and an sign of weakness(which to those ""radical"" islamic terrorsts would see as an invitation to attack)

We''ll continue this when and if the Iraqi government is reconstituted. I''m willing to be dollars to doughnuts that the new regime will be American-friendly.

You''re right the iraqi people once they''ve been freed from Saddam should show no thanks/friendliness towards the US/Britain for doing so.

And if France is such a friend of Iraq, why haven''t they tried to stop our ground troops from invading their ally?

WTF do you think they''ve been doing at the UN?? Have you been paying attenetion at all to what''s been happening in international diplomatic circles for the last few months? What could they have done more besides send troops to fight back against our(British/American/Australians). I''d love to see France have done that... start a third wolrd war to support the likes of Saddam.

[quote]I am not glossing over the rise of radical Islam, you are glossing over the environment that fostered it. The UK was a colonial power in the region. The US was friends with oppressive regimes in the region. After the Shah and others like him were driven from power, the natives turned their collective hatred towards the friends of their oppressors. I thought the aim of America was to foster democracy, not to sponsor tyranny. [/quote
Have you paid any attention to whats been going on in Iran lately? ANY? The vast majority of the population hate their regime and protest against it constantly. The Iranian secret police have stopped going after the youths. The clerical regime has had to resort to importing thugs from Palistine. You also seem to conviently ignore the fact that the rise of Wahabist Islam has more to do with the tyrannical practices and the horrible living standards that exist under regimes like Saudi Arabia, who has supported it so becuase the followers of it focus at the US/Isreal as the source of all evil NOT their own government as bearing the resposbility of the problems their policies have created.

However, name the steps that the Bush Administration has taken to foster goodwill in the Middle East towards America.

hmmm how about what I already spoke about the Kurds in the North and the Shiite''s that are protected in the south. Or the Kuwaiti''s. I mean all those parties they we''re throwing at the start of this war, seeing that Saddam would be gone, yep no good will there.

At this point I see no further use for this discussion you under no cirumstances will change your mind, you''ve decided long ago about neo-cons & Bush and couldn''t give the slightest regards to any evidence that is goes against your preconceived notions.

As for your utter belief that these ""Muslims"" don''t want democracy/rights what basis do you have for this besides the fact that they believe in Islam or that they''re Arabs. I''ve heard NO point from you besides this. I''m glad that you have such an open view about the capabilities of the Arab people & those that put their faith in Islam.

Fix Israel and Palestine. That''s what this entire conflict boils down to, rightly or not. Everything that Israel does is seen as an extension of American policy. Resolve the #1 issue in the Muslim world, and they''ll start to fall in line. It might have worked last time if not for an extremist Israeli''s bullets followed by two weak Israeli leaders and a warmonger.

The Israel/Palestine conflict will never be solved until the states that sponser Palestine Terrorist groups stop or are removed.

"dgrey" wrote:

This is true but THIS ISN""T WHAT YOU SAID. You said they we''re in IRAQ. If you''re going to critcize me for responding to you at least get it right.

I either mispoke or you misread it.

Modern leftisits don''t give a crap about classical liberalism. All those rights and privliges get in the way of the ""glorious"" ideaology.

Explain.

You''ve left classical liberalism in the dust, you know all of those rights/liberties that you use but don''t want others to have.

Who said I was a liberal? Maybe I''m a conservative who believes that we''ve messed around too much in the world and now it''s biting us in the ass. And what''s the neo-conservative''s response to it? More meddling.

This is the same UN that has Libya heading the Human Rights committee.

The UN is a democracy. If you had your druthers, you''d kick the Democrats out of America all together.

This is the Same UN where we have 1 totalitarian nen-democracatic regime with a Veto in the Security council.

Who? Last time I checked, the US, UK, France, Russia, and China were the only ones with veto power.

And before you say that China is the totalitarian regime, let me remind you that when the UN was formed, China wasn''t communist. As I said, the UN is a democracy, and therefore should have representation from all. Isn''t that what neo-conservatives are trying to promote around the world?

If you think the UN is a organization that gives a crapabout democracy/human rights than you''re deluded.

No more so if I thought the US has never done wrong in the history of the world. Has the UN done wrong? Yes. But let''s not forget that the UN only goes where it''s members tell it to go.

And by the way, the US was the one who opposed taking the necessary action in Rwanda. Yes, Clinton was president, but he knew he''d never convince a Republican-run Congress that the nation should comit its men and women to Africa of all places.

You''re right I''m sure glad that the Soviet Union is still around protecting all of its people from the evils of democracy/human rights.

Did I say I favored the USSR? You certainly are crazy if you think accusing somebody of being a communist carried as much weight as it once did.

Why shouldn''t we invade Cuba?

Ah yes, lets turn Latin America against the US as well.

As to the slaughter in Rwanda the UN was there... and the neo-cons weren''t in politcal power in this country.

See my above answer. The Republicans controlled Congress and wouldn''t commit to another African civil war after Somalia. Besides, they never fully supported any military action carried out by Clinton, despite the fact that the last military action liberated a people from an oppressive regime and ended ethnic genocide. Isn''t that what the neo-cons say they are doing in Iraq?

Appeasement is fundamentally flawed.

Anymoreso than war?

If you pay a bully to stop threating whats to stop him from realizing they hey all I need to do is continue and they''ll keep paying me off.

Then don''t pay them. Point the gun to their head and repeatedly demand their surrender. Neo-cons say that Saddam is a criminal, why don''t they behave like the police?

APEASEMENT HAS NEVER WORKED.

No it hasn''t. And it hasn''t been advocated in this instance.

First off what sort of a response to this... this is a non-arguement. Second this wasn''t the Neo-Cons.

No, but Rumsfeld was. And so was Saint Kissinger the Wise.

Shall I point out Clinton''s support of the Sandinstas and accuse him of being a Neo-Con?

Shall I point out Iran-Contra?

Shall I point out the support of the Nigerian government?

So because we can''t get them all we shouldn''t bother getting a single one. Yep thats what I''d call ignoring it.

First rule of empire-building: start with the weak and move your way up.

And please show me where it says the opposition to the Bush Administration said that we should just pull back all the sanctions and leave Saddam completely alone? I''d really like to see that.

As for admitting to mistakes I''ve done this constantly, our pullout in 91. With the Iran/Iraq war there was no side that was clean.

Then why get involved?

Iran at least of the two was actively attacking/killing Americans.

Then why give support to either? To look at this from a neo-con view, wouldn''t have been better to let the two threats to the US destroy each other?

Does this mean I condone our support of Saddam no...

Then there''s hope yet.

But at least we''re cleaning the mess up as opposed to ignoring a mess is even there.

It remains to be seen if the mess will be cleaned, or if we aren''t replacing one mess with another.

Besides which Saddam was already in power, supported by the French/Russians to get there. We didn''t set him up. They did, we we''re just stupid enough to think he could be controlled.

The blood of Iraqis and Iranians are on the America''s hands as much as the French and the Russians. It really doesn''t matter when we joined the party.

On American beliefs you honestly believe that All Forms of Abortion are supported by the majority of the American people? WTF??

No, and this is where your belief about democratizing the world will fail: when you run up against somebody whose beliefs run up against yours. President Bush has fully endorsed ending the practice of abortions despite a 50-50 split in American opinion on the concept in general. The president has also taken measures to withdraw support from international organizations that advocate it or even premarital sex. That whole AIDS money bit from the State of the Disunion was just to create organizations in Africa that promoted abstinence as opposed to protected sex.

You know nothing about nuclear power, its not only the cleanest but also the massively safe, why do you think the French depend on it so much.

So now the French know what they''re doing? Not everybody agrees with you as to the safety of nuclear power. Again, not everybody agrees with you. It''s a democracy; they should have an equal voice in the matter.

As for the ban of nuclear weapons & reduction of arms to do so before all of these ""flies"" are cleaned up would be outright stupid and an sign of weakness(which to those ""radical"" islamic terrorsts would see as an invitation to attack)

Not everybody agrees with you. If you''re so bent on democratizing the world, get used to it.

You''re right the iraqi people once they''ve been freed from Saddam should show no thanks/friendliness towards the US/Britain for doing so.

Again, look to the Afghans. Or the French. And don''t be suprised if the Sunnis in and around Baghdad aren''t all that happy to see an army blast its way to the center of town.

WTF do you think they''ve been doing at the UN??

Opposing a resolution that would''ve given blanket consent to war against another country, a war they didn''t want to be a part of. Aren''t they entitled to oppose something on morals? By this logic, the Pope must be a friend of Saddam Hussein.

Have you been paying attenetion at all to what''s been happening in international diplomatic circles for the last few months?

Obviously more closely than the Bush Administration. Otherwise, the US wouldn''t be in this war without many of its allies from Desert Storm. And if this war is so righteous, why are some countries afraid to admit they''re contributing to the effort?

[quoteWhat could they have done more besides send troops to fight back against our(British/American/Australians). I''d love to see France have done that... start a third wolrd war to support the likes of Saddam.[/quote]

Maybe, just maybe, they want peace. Oh, that''s right, you want everybody to be like you!

Have you paid any attention to whats been going on in Iran lately? ANY? The vast majority of the population hate their regime and protest against it constantly. The Iranian secret police have stopped going after the youths. The clerical regime has had to resort to importing thugs from Palistine.

How''d they get into power in the first place? Maybe instead of lumping Iran in with Iraq and quietly threatening to wage war on them, maybe we should try fostering this growing movement. It worked in Eastern Europe.

You also seem to conviently ignore the fact that the rise of Wahabist Islam has more to do with the tyrannical practices and the horrible living standards that exist under regimes like Saudi Arabia,

The same Saudi Arabia that''s been supported by the US?

who has supported it so becuase the followers of it focus at the US/Isreal as the source of all evil NOT their own government as bearing the resposbility of the problems their policies have created.

And why is the US government supporting this government?

hmmm how about what I already spoke about the Kurds in the North and the Shiite''s that are protected in the south. Or the Kuwaiti''s. I mean all those parties they we''re throwing at the start of this war, seeing that Saddam would be gone, yep no good will there.

Who is to say that they''ll like us when we move on to Iran? The Afghans sure stopped liking us after we went to perform the same benevolent service to Iraq.

At this point I see no further use for this discussion you under no cirumstances will change your mind,

Get used to it. You''ll find a lot of people who don''t agree with you on the road to Pax Americana.

you''ve decided long ago about neo-cons & Bush and couldn''t give the slightest regards to any evidence that is goes against your preconceived notions.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt up to a point. Show me clear and concrete proof that they mean what they say.

As for your utter belief that these ""Muslims"" don''t want democracy/rights what basis do you have for this besides the fact that they believe in Islam or that they''re Arabs.

Again, you assume that because I oppose your views means that I''m some Stalinst apologizer for Saddam. Of course everybody wants freedom. You should be prepared to accept the fact that people will exercise the freedom to not choose you.

I''ve heard NO point from you besides this.

If you take your fingers out of your ears...

I''m glad that you have such an open view about the capabilities of the Arab people & those that put their faith in Islam.

Isn''t it ironic that you, the neo-conservative, has to stoop to calling someone a racist and a bigot to defend a point?

"Ulairi" wrote:

The Israel/Palestine conflict will never be solved until the states that sponser Palestine Terrorist groups stop or are removed.

I guess this means that Israel has to go, too, since it was an Israeli who killed Yitzak Rabin.

Deep breaths, guys. Deep breaths.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

The Israel/Palestine conflict will never be solved until the states that sponser Palestine Terrorist groups stop or are removed.

I guess this means that Israel has to go, too, since it was an Israeli who killed Yitzak Rabin.

Strawman.

The UN is a democracy. If you had your druthers, you''d kick the Democrats out of America all together.

The UN is not a democracy.

"Ulairi" wrote:

The UN is not a democracy.

How so? People vote, the majority rules, outside of the veto (electoral college) what''s so undemocratic about it?

Edit: Well, I''d better back off. You''re the Office Linebacker, after all.

Wow that was spirited.

Sorry, this was the first thing I thought of.

the U.S. is endowed by Providence with the power to make the world better if it will only take the risks of leadership to do so; if, in the current jargon, it is sufficiently ""forward leaning.""

Yep agree with this one as well. Once again the US can improve things if it only gets up off its rear and does something. This does not neccesarily mean militarily/politcally. If the US pushes its weight behind humaitarian/medical aid to the third world this also satisfies the belief, which I might add Powell also seems to follow.

""You are not special. You are not a
beautiful or unique snowflake. You are
the same decaying organic matter as
everything else.""
~Tyler~

Because I''m smart enough, I''m good enough, and dawg gone it, people like me.