Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct

[canis582]

"Al-Queda's main base in Afghanistan, but also to Iraq"

Al-Queda had a base in Iraq before the war? Saddam Hussien was Bin Laden's most hated leader in the mideast. This is a false assertion that has been debunked numerous times. If anything the war in Iraq is going to destablize the region creating more terrorism.

[BluffTHIS!]

I didn't say they did. Saddam definitely didn't care about religion until his capture. But Saddam's dictorship and his willingness to develop and use WMD's and use them against his own people is the same as terrorism. If you don't think so then ask the Kurds and the Shi'a. And Al-Quaeda is there now which means we have to be since they are our enemies. And they have indeed overplayed their hand as I said above.

And we sure would hate to destabilize the middle east, island of stability that it has been the past 50 years.

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say they did. Saddam definitely didn't care about religion until his capture. But Saddam's dictorship and his willingness to develop and use WMD's and use them against his own people is the same as terrorism. If you don't think so then ask the Kurds and the Shi'a. And Al-Quaeda is there now which means we have to be since they are our enemies. And they have indeed overplayed their hand as I said above.

And we sure would hate to destabilize the middle east, island of stability that it has been the past 50 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we have the mandate to attack any country that uses force to stop rebellions?

[nicky g]

"
I didn't say they did. Saddam definitely didn't care about religion until his capture. But Saddam's dictorship and his willingness to develop and use WMD's and use them against his own people is the same as terrorism."


Another instance of broadening the definition of terrorism well past the point of meaninglessness.

[jt1]

BluffThis!, first off your arguments are coherent. You are making much more sense than your detractors in this thread. But you don't give me the credit that I deserve. I will try again.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nor do I believe that the War on Terror is in our best interest


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yea. Forget about 9/11. Let the terrorists have safe havens from which to launch more attacks. Makes sense.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom and Capitalism don't need us. They will win, in the end, on their own merit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yea, the exact reason we should have stayed out of the european side of WWII. Freedom would have won out by itself. And dictatorships left alone never threaten their neighbors or abuse their own populace.

Great analysis.


[/ QUOTE ]

9/11 was a barbaric and adolescent act against the worlds most powerful empire. (Don't let the word empire get your panties in a way -- it's just a word) The Islamists resent our interference so they bombed us. Our national pride was threatened so we responded in kind. And now the score is in our favor. Good for us.

9/11 as well as any potential war with China (over Taiwan), North Korea, and past wars against North Vietnam and North Korea and the near nuclear winter the world barely avoided are all the result of American intereference.

Israel doesn't need our help nor did they deserve it. There is nor was any reason, selfish or selfless, for us to side with Israel. Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea can all fend for themselves especially if they sign their protection pacts with each other and perhaps the Phillipines and Indonesia and Australia. They don't need us and our involvement only puts you and I at risk. South Vietnam did not deserve our protection nor did it do them much good. The domino effect proved to be another paranoid nationalists delusion. And the Korean war did nothing but kill thousands of people.

You can argue that the Cold War saved Western Europe and in turn helped solidify Democracy. But that is only until about the very early 60's when France and England developed their own Nukes and were completely rebuilt. After that time the Cold War was senseless nationalists paranoia that almost destroyed civilization as we know it.

I'm now going to lump the first 15 years of the Cold War with World War II. The war against the NAZI's is one of the very few examples in world history of Freedom vs Tyranny. Usually it's Tyranny vs less tyranny, or Tyrany vs Tyrany. (See the history of the Pacific before Japanese Imperialism. -- See the various third world struggles during the Cold War --See all Roman wars in the West and all Chineese wars in the East)

My point is that WWII and the first 15 years of the Cold War is an abnormality. However, even if we had stayed neutruel, Russia would have forced the Nazi's to retreat on the Eastern front and Hitler, himself, had all but given up on conquering England. Had the 3'rd reich lost WWII but remained intact, there would have been no cold war and eventually (after several decades if not centuries) the 3'rd reich would have collapsed (probably). My point is even using the most righteous war and arguably the only righteous war in history, American univolvement would not have been disastorous.

Please do respond. Force me to do my resarch as this off the top of my head and i didn't add a few relevant but unessential points. I'm welcome to changing my point of view if your facts and conclusions are valid. I'll let you know if they aren't.

[BluffTHIS!]

We have the right to determine who our friends are, including Israel. And it is reprehensible to justify 9/11 as a proper response by terrorists who now have started bombing moslems and who now have shown the Islamic world that terrorism is a danger to all.

And in WWII, although Germany might not have easily been able to defeat Russia even without fighting a second front, it's a sure thing Russia wouldn't have been able to invade Germany. Which means Germany would have developed nuclear weapons unhampered by us. Then they would have dealt with Russia and resumed their attack on Britain.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
And it is reprehensible to justify 9/11 as a proper response by terrorists who now have started bombing moslems and who now have shown the Islamic world that terrorism is a danger to all.


[/ QUOTE ]

I quote myself, "9/11 was a barbaric and adolescent act." In what way did I justify it?

[ QUOTE ]
Your claim about Germany and Russia and the bomb -- scroll up --


[/ QUOTE ]

The Manhattan project began after the letter from Einstein. Before Pearl Harbor, I don't think, we were even considering nuclear weapons. (i'm not sure about that) But if we were, certainly defeating Germany to prevent them from getting the bomb before us would have been the only smart thing to do. However, they had concluded that the bomb was impossible and (i think) we didn't start considering the possibility until after we had already declared war on Germany. My point is we could have pursued the bomb without fighting germany. Had the 3rd reich been left intact after loosing to Russia on the Eastern front, we would have had the bomb and could have protected England and ourselves with it. But I'm not debating our decision to enter the war against Germany. I'm simply saying that even if we distanced ourselves from the most righteous conflict in world history, the results would not have been disastorous for us -- let alone distancing ourselves from conflicts which aren't as righteous.

[ QUOTE ]
We have the right to determine who our friends are, including Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

We also have the right to stay away from nations who will only ensnare us into further troulbe

Your response was inadequate. Try again, please.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea can all fend for themselves especially if they sign their protection pacts with each other and perhaps the Phillipines and Indonesia and Australia.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. Taiwan might have some chance given that their armed forces are pretty much exclusively US-equipped, but it's a long-shot. You're probably right about Korea. Japan doesn't have much in the way of armed forces because we wrote their constitution so they couldn't. I'd say we have a bit of a moral obligation to help defend them.

[ QUOTE ]

And the Korean war did nothing but kill thousands of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

And keep S. Korea from falling under the power of a series of mad Communist dictators...

[jt1]

Bobman, you make good points. I'd be happy to debate you via PM or another thread. But I don't want to hijack this thread.

[nicky g]

So the strategy is create a situation that will spread terror throughout the Middle East and get lots of Middle Easterners killed in order to get them onside? How humane. I'd love to hear Bush justfy it in those terms. Maybe you should become his speechwriter.