Utter Nonsense

All I seem to read lately on here are posts advocating war mongering on the part of the US. The hawks point to the dictatorial regimes in power and how dangerous they are to our democracy. Anyone who disagrees is immediately some sort of supporter of terrorism or "anti-American". What garbage. What bunk.


Fact is, if these people were so dangerous to begin with, why were we supporting them not too long ago? Saddam and Bin Laden used to RECEIVE support from the US in the 1980's. Nobody said a peep about them then, though they were probably not much nicer back then either. We made a big deal out of Saddam gassing the Kurds around the time of the Persian Gulf War, but not a peep was ever heard about Turkish abuse of Kurdish civil rights (which still persists). Similarly, Bin Laden and the Mujahideen were described as "freedom fighters" in the 80's, but "terrorists" after 9/11. At the same time, little was heard about the independence movement of East Timor, until two years ago, after hundreds of thousands of East Timorese were killed by Indonesian soldiers. I wrote a resolution for a model UN conference back when I was in high school (1992) outlining a independent plebiscite vote to take place in East Timor. It passed in the "model UN" I was at, but the East Timor problem was largely ignored in the real UN because the US was too interested in exploiting Indonesia's natural resources and cheap labor for its own gain.


Such contradictions in foreign policy seem to be lost on many of the people here. But it is not necessarily lost on other people throughout the world. A lot of people worldwide disapprove of inconsistent US foreign policy, corrupt US-supported governments in their own country, and seemingly random and indiscriminate use of force worldwide. This is why eliminating terrorism through violent means alone will ultimately fail. Today, there are way too many ways to acquire either the materials or the actual weapons of mass destruction. True, you can make it harder, but the baddies will still get to them.


What really needs to be done is to support democracies and economic freedom for people in depressed regions that are hotbeds for terrorism. Something similar to the Marshall plan. However, in order for such a thing to be done, the folks in power must realize that such an action would have long term benefits that may outweigh ANY SHORT TERM COSTS. We can not have it both ways. We can not support corrupt leaders or human rights abuses in countries just because we want their oil, or whatever else they have. Those days must come to an end. The question is: will our leaders have the courage to end them?

Dude, don't you realize the NFL season is just around the corner?


natedogg

nate-web@thegrovers.com

hetr0n, you make some points, but what you must realize is that that militant Islam has already declared war upon us. This is the biggest point.


Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.


Ignoring the stark fact that war has been declared against us simply invites greater disasters as militant Islam develops greater and greater offensive weapons capabilities.

'but what you must realize is that that militant Islam has already declared war upon us.'


fact or opinion?

Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. several years ago. Unfortunately, very few people paid attention until 9/11.

>hetr0n, you make some points, but what you must >realize is that that militant Islam has already >declared war upon us. This is the biggest point.


'Militant Islam has already declared war upon us'. This is a comment I would expect from Bush and the crew, but hardly from anyone who has the rational ability to be a good poker or chess player. Such a comment is reminiscent of the cold war days, when the CIA, State, and Defense departments seemingly had carte blanche to do anything and everything, as long as it was against communism. I'm not going to rehash all the egregious abuses that took place as a result, but let's just say they were many and leave it at that for the sake of brevity.


Let's take a look at your statement about militant Islam. The only organization (AFAIK) that has openly declared itself at war with the US is Al Qaeda. I have NEVER seen any bona fide links between Saddam and Al Qaeda published anywhere. But we are going after Saddam. OTOH we have seen plenty of published links between Saudi money and various terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. Yet we much prefer to go after Iraq than the Saudis. Furthermore, Iraq is agreeing to go forward with the UN weapons inspections. So why do we still want to remove Saddam?


I think the reasons are more politically motivated than anything. It is much easier to go after Iraq than Saudi Arabia because the Saudis are our "allies", ie, we have a cozy economic and military situation with them. As someone on this forum once said (I believe it was Tom Haley), our economic practices have made for some strange bedfellows. Strange bedfellows, indeed. OTOH, Iraq is a country where we have no vested economic interest (but where we might have one after Saddam is removed). Saddam is a leader that the younger Bush definitely wants to get rid of, both because it will give his ratings a boost and also to finish off what his father started. In my opinion, attacking Iraq will put the US no closer to weakening Al Qaeda than it would if no invasion took place.

Taking Saddam's latest actions at face value would be foolish given his long history of delay, interference and deception. It is only now that he is convinced the 11th hour is fast approaching that he even has been willing to discuss the possibility of allowing inspectors to return. Did you read the UPI article excerpt in a thread below? Thinking that Saddam is acting in good faith here would be a very poor 'read' of him and the situation.


We can take the offense to militant Islam or we can wait for their next attacks. We can let militant Islam continue to gain in strength, popularity and military capablities or we can act now. Regardless of what you might think, militant Islam will attack again. Let's hope we can successfully intervene before we get attacked with a few nukes or something similar. Militant Islam makes no secret of their hatred of the Western free world, nor of their commitment to 'jihad' against us. Read more newspapers, do more searches on Google to find articles reporting on militant Islamic teachings and goals, and how widespread Islamic militancy has become, if you wish. When 6,000 out of Pakistans 40-45,000 madrassas (religious schools) teach outright hatred of the West, and 1/3 of the standard Saudi school child's curriculum is Wahhabism which teaches virulent anti-Westernism, that is a pretty strong indication of the breadth of the ideology we are up against--the ideology that backs the calls for jihad against the West by the many imams, muftis and mullahs in the mosques. Terrorists have shown they will indeed attack us given the opportunity. It is our imperative to curtail their opportunities as quickly as possible before things get even further out of hand.


Believe it or not, WWIII has already started and the future of Western civilization and the free world hang in the balance. Sure you can doubt this, but would you still doubt it say 5 years from now when and if nuclear explosions take out several major US cities all on the same day? This is exactly what militant Islam is striving for, and more, and is what we must prevent. Worse still, ten years from now it could potentially be far worse.

We should engage in the positive steps hetr0n mentions--along with fighting the enemies of the Western free world. One without the other will almost surely fail...and that works both ways. We cannot not fight against militant Islam, and we cannot fail to build nations too.


Seeking ONLY to build nations will fail when we get nuked out of our sweet dreams by the militants a handful of years from now.


What many don't realize is that the militants are so fanatic that they will hate us no matter what. It would be nice if they might change their minds or creeds, but they won't. And that's what we must deal with, while being willing too to help nations along the path to cannot just sit still and let the the militants attack and build for more attacks.

Perhaps you should invetigate the positions, and associations, of people that advocate violence against both the USA and Israel. The victims

of 9-11, and any suicide bombing would call you a fool.


They would be correct.

corrected last paragraph:


"What many don't realize is that the militants are so fanatic that they will hate us no matter what. It would be nice if they might change their minds or creeds, but they won't.

And that's what we must deal with, while being willing too to help nations along the path to freedom, democracy and prosperity. We cannot just sit still and let the militants attack and build for more attacks."

The fact remains that terrorists exist. I suppose that you feel the USA should have avoided war with Japan after Pearl Harbor.Justt offering them a rose and a flock of doves would have appeased them for the death of 2700 US military personnel.

What bunk.


You are an apologist for terrorism. Assuming that you don't have a terrorist agenda, one can only assume that you are either extremely naive, or just stupid.


I'll vote for both.

Boy, am I posting in the wrong place.

hetr0n's points that fighting terrorism through military means alone will ultimately fail may be correct. However that is not what Kasparov is advocating. He advocates nation-building along with decisive military action.


Fighting terrorism through kindness and nation-building alone won't work either. Only a dual approach has a really good chance of success. And since militant Islam has already taken the war to us, we have to respond with military action, quickly and decisively. Then there will be time for nation-building--and let's hope we don't neglect this very important step.

Where did hetr0n say that terrorists don't exist? In fact he said that "fighting terrorism through violent means alone will ultimately fail."


I understand that there is some disagreement within the Bush administration on how to dislodge the ruler of Iraq: some advocate a certain approach, others a different approach, some apparently are against a military confrontation altogether. Are some of these people apologists for terrorism? Do they have a terrorist agenda themselves?


hetr0n pointed out that "anyone who disagrees is immediately some sort of supporter of terrorism or 'anti-American'." Your vote confirms the point.

Kasparov advocates launching a "clear offensive" beginning with air and ground war against Iraq and spreading to at least Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and presumably all "the nations ravaged by Islamic fundamentalism" which almost by definition would include Sudan, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Algeria and Pakistan, among others. (Perhaps more nations still, as Iraq has hardly a trace of organized Islamic fundamentalism). He favors total war with "a total unwillingness to appease our enemies" until we destroy even the "foothold" of "militant Islam," whatever that is, specifically including its "access to cash, training and propaganda." We should then rebuild each of these countries (out of what?) along unspecified lines, but presumably retaining the U.S. as the exclusive source of "cash" and "propaganda." We should ignore all European countries in this process because of their penchants for "multilateralism," "multiculturalism," and the (apparently related) evil of "anti-Semitism." Instead, we should consider teaming up with Russia (which has shown no interest in fighting Iraq) on the grounds that Vladimir Putin is "way ahead" on the human rights field compared to Stalin.


In short, we should savage, conquer and colonize perhaps one hundred million people because of two dozen of their co-religionists, and in this way "fight terror" and its insidious tendency toward indiscriminate killing to vindicate fuzzy notions of national and religious superiority.


Next issue: David Copperfield on the imperative of conquering Australia.

9/11/2001 changed everything.


"We can not support corrupt leaders or human rights abuses in countries just because we want their oil, or whatever else they have. Those days must come to an end."


what should we do about saudi arabia? saudi values have little in common with ours. many aspects of their way of life are disgusting to us. should we go over there and take over the oil fields and impose a democracy and a constitution? dont think thats a good move and it has little to do with their oil.


"The question is: will our leaders have the courage to end them?"


to end the regimes we dont like or our support for countries that dont share our values or both? aligning diplomatically only with countries who are like us is absurd. cultural changes in societies take time lots of it. is the world a better place now than in 1980? i think so.

was this before or after bin laden's CIA involvement.


brad

>>


I think you are correct. the issue is how do you depose the leaders that oppose democracy. sometimes war is the only option.so if you think that war isnot justified then i think you are not fully thinking about the problem. if you think that war is just one aspect of the goal then i think you are pretty much on target.


Pat

They will say it wasn't an attack or act of war. They will say it was an offer of peace.

What do you care about weakening Al Queda?


Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and internet gambling financially support Al Queda.

I agree with Kasparov that once ground troops are in Iraq, the message should go out to all those who sponsor terror that this game is up. From that point on, only the details should remain to be seen. What that will entail, specifically, may in large part depend on the degree of cooperation the regional countries themselves are willing and able to provide. If necessary perhaps other regime changes will need to take place.


It isn't just al-Qaeda that is waging war on the free Western world, Chris: it is many other terrorist organizations with the support of fundamentalist/militant Islam itself. We need to wipe out these organizations and remove the support for them.

if you have an elementary (school) worldview you cant expect to do anything but be victimized by propaganda, some quite subtle.


brad

Obviously, world politics is not a black and white affair. There is a lot of gray involved.


I'm not suggesting that the US go around toppling dictatorships. However, it should encourage democratically elected regimes and should also discourage human rights abuses. The only reason human rights is brought up repeatedly with regards to China is because of the Tiannamen Square massacre and the rather recent films about Tibet made the situation unignorable. I don't think I have ever heard any US politician bring up the deplorable human rights records of other major US trading and defense partners. If it's a good idea to bring up human rights with China, why is it not a good idea to bring up humans rights when talking arms or trade with other nations?


Why was promoting religious and cultural freedom a good idea in the Eastern bloc countries, but not a good idea when dealing with Turkey?


As for Saudi Arabia, a recent report presented by an independent think tank to the Pentagon's defense policy board identified the Saudis as an enemy. According to this analyst group, "The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader."

The report was quickly hushed by the Defense department, and efforts were immediately made to "smooth over" things with the Saudis.


I'm not saying you have to go topple the Saudi government, but if there is ANY truth to what the think tank came up with, maybe it's time we DID have a policy shift in regard to Saudi Arabia. Don't you think that makes sense?

My sister was supposed to be in the WTC for a meeting on 9/11. Luckily, the meeting was canceled. Both of us still have similar reviews regarding US foreign policy. In fact, she is probably a bigger critic than I am.


Put that in your pipe and smoke it, my friend from Colorado...

Saudi Arabia will have to be dealt with sooner or later. They are the largest financiers of terrorism, and are the greatest wellspring of anti-Western hatred (due to their embrace of, and teaching of, Wahhabism).

"I'm not saying you have to go topple the Saudi government, but if there is ANY truth to what the think tank came up with, maybe it's time we DID have a policy shift in regard to Saudi Arabia. Don't you think that makes sense?"


yes i do. your points are good and im glad you took the time to elaborate. if they are supporting terrorism to the extent that is reported maybe going over there, taking over the oil fields, and imposing our will isnt such a bad idea after all. one thing to consider is that mecca is located in saudi arabia and i would guess that complicates things a little.

All that confirms is that you are insane and that your sister is a potential suicide bomber. You are not a friend of mine. I don't smoke. I'm not from Colorado.

You are completely off your rocker. Before you accuse people of being insane and potential suicide bombers, I suggest you get a clue.

"The question is: will our leaders have the courage ... ?"


The answer is : George W. Bush Jr.


Okay?

I don't no anyone that spells their name hetrOn.

I don't know what our talking about.


Your ideas are still worthless dribble.