Treeman you previously said: Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Algeria will all be given a choice: either dismantle your terrorism support apparatus and gain our good graces, or we will dismantle it ourselves It is your constant statements like this from the beginning that I'm reacting to. Now you say just (1) bin Laden, (I agree). (2)the taliban (I agree certainly to the extent necessary to get bin Laden and probably any way, though I don't think it will be that hard if Pakistan has tired of them. if we clean up the real collateral damage done , no pr nor cheapness nor wishful thinking. Sadam Hussein: In retrospect it would have been better to have deposed him than to have killed half a million kids and civilians after the war. (My preliminary research show that from 1991 through 1995 virtually no oil was exported from Iraq-- most of the children died then. As you say almost correctly last year's production was almost up to the year before the war.) A problem with Iraq is that Russia and I believe most of the Arab members of the get bin Laden coalition don't support this. As far as weapons of mass destruction, you need to be careful with falling for proapganda, this is completely overblown. Of course he has weapons of mass destruction. Of course he is working on more. Vitually every nation on earth with the capacity is. We gave him biological and chemical weapons to use against the Kurds and Iranians when he was our staunch anti-Communist ally. (He is modifying and trying to make them worse). He has far less WMD than: the US, Russia, the Ukraine etc., China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea? and some other countries. Is Sadam worse than Stalin? or Mao?, the current leader of North Korea? I doubt it. So why the obsession with removing him? The reason is simply because we (1) we can do it at less cost than a prior war with the Soviet Union or China and (2) we don't want to have to negotiate in the foreign policy area with him. (3) He is an Arab that doesn't support Israel We want to simply give him ultimatums. Is he totally insane? Apparently not,or he would have used his capabilities during the Gulf War. He doesn't want to be nuked. You also said:In addition to selective military action, we need to go after them politically and economically, to echo the mantra of our leaders. Cut off their money supply bu freezing any assets you can; we've already done that. Cut off the money supply to the nations that support them - we must do that soon. This includes political as well as economic action; sanctions and embargos would be appropriate. This was in response to a claim that you only believed in a military approach. I agree with these approaches. Again, this is getting closer to a comprehensive approach to combatting terrorism, but this is still just an all stick and no carrot approach. As others in the board have suggested think Marshal Plan to the Arab World. From your perspective this might look like rewarding terrorism, but we need to forget about simplistic notions like this and look to historical examples like Germany, and Japan. It is time to do what is right and what should have been doing previously even if there was 9/11/01.
Evil is Evil, and Good is Good Maybe I simplify things too much, but heinous acts such as the WTC Attack and the Slaughter of Palestinians in Lebannon are both horrendous acts in which the culprits should be punished. I don't care whether an act was done by an individual or a government; acts of terrorism are acts of terror against innocents usually caught in a crossfire of politics they have little to do with. Milosevic Committed Wrongful Acts against Innocents Bin Laden Committed Wrongful Acts against Innocents Shimon Peres Committed Wrongful Acts against Innocents Hitler Committed Wrongful Acts against Innocents Stalin Committed Wrongful Acts against Innocents The Taliban is Committing Wrongful Acts against Innocents We Have Holocaust Museums All over the Nation, and we constantly remorse over regims such as that of Pol Pot and Pinochet. Yet we see that same face of evil in front of us and we act on it based on political alliances?? Look at our track record in the last decade with the middle east. We supported groups such as Iraq, in the Iran-Iraq battle and then they fired our own weapons back at us. Afghanistan is now firing our weapons back at us. We gave a group of religious extremists within Afghanistan the weapons and training to rule by extreme force their own malcontent people. Yet now in the face of our goal of demonizing the Afghanis and the Taliban, we constantly gripe about their human rights, when it was a non-issue before hand. Treeman, Don't Fool yourself into thinking that the US did not help to create the taliban and Bin Laden. Bin Laden and his flock have admitted to CIA training in terrorism and espionage. And Musharraf?? Creating the Taliban? I hate to tell you this but Musharraf just came to power recently after the deposed Nawaz Sharif and his position before as head of the military did not give him the power to support an outside government that came to power in 1996. The Point I'm trying to make is wrong is wrong, and evil is evil. Evil has no color, no race and no religion and anyone can fall prey to it. We must strive to be better as a world, and not let evil pass freely in front of us because of strategic global positioning. If we as the US carry ourselves at a higher level of justice, the world will respect the US and we can spread the message of peace and democracy. Therefore we must punish those such as Osama Bin Laden, The Taliban as well as Ariel Sharon for atrocities committed against innocents.
glynch: I'm glad to hear you're actually doing research on Saddam, sanctions, the Gulf War, etc. Keep going and you'll find that the oil-for-food deal was first offered to him in early 1992, but for over three years he refused it. Without dying children he doesn't have much of a propaganda machine. The other members of the "coalition" (including Russia, France, and China to namo those that actually matter) want his oil. They want him to have an open market. They don't care about the threat he represents as long as they can make some $ off of him. And he has never been an anti-Communist, since there's no real need to be one in his region. There's also a myth that we supplied him large numbers of weapons which he turned on us in the Gulf War. His weapons are all Russian and French (lately Chinese); we simply gave him intelligence to fight the Iranians (mostly satintel). As for his WMD, we did not just give them to him. Before 1995 anyone with university letterhead could order a batch of anthrax for research purposes, and that is exactly what the Iraqis did (can't do that anymore). The rest of his biological arsenal came from either Russia or were collected in the various areas where they typically reside. And the threat is not overblown. The threat of your average bin Laden conducting a bioattack by his lonesome is overblown, but Saddam has the two main ingredients to make it work and make it work big: lotsa cash, and Russian scientists who used to work for Biopreparat. We know that a number of ex-biopreparat employs are in Iraq now, and these are the guys who actually know how to disperse the sh*t. It is definitely something to be nervous about. As for whether Saddam is insane, there are actually quite a few psychologists who believe that he actually is a paranoid schizophrenic. Not making that up... I actually have no problem with a "Marshall Plan" to the Arab world as long as it is done right. I have no desire to see the Arab world be destroyed, as you seem to think. There are some problems you can solve with the carrot, and some require the stick. A long term solution will have to include both. Actually, when I said earlier "dismantle your terrorism support apparatus and get in our good graces" that's what I meant. That's using both the carrot and the stick simultaneously, which is the way the approach is intended. If they cooperate we can give them some sort of economic or political benefit, but if they don't then we put the carrot away and use the stick. F.D. Khan: Osama says he was trained by the CIA? Well then he must have been trained by the CIA. Hey! So was I! The CIA says they didn't train him. So I guess this is a he-said, she-said situation... As for the Taliban, Colonel Musharaf came up with the idea in 1995 and got it moving. Or he came up with the idea earlier and got it moving then. It was done before he launched the coup, which would make sense since they're 6 years old... I agree with your other points, though. We shouldn't discriminate when we're rounding people up for war crimes. Sharon has definitely earned a spot at the Hague, I just want to make sure that Arafat is seated right next to him, because until 1993 he was a bloodthirsty terrorist too.
The Point I'm trying to make is wrong is wrong, and evil is evil. Evil has no color, no race and no religion and anyone can fall prey to it. We must strive to be better as a world, and not let evil pass freely in front of us because of strategic global positioning. Written by F.D. Khan. I agree. What is often called foreign policy can be just as bad as the work of individual terrorists. When the US or another country has policies that needlessly kills people it is evil also. One should not defend these policies just because they are a Republican or a Democrat or they like living in the US. That is what Amnesty International is all about and why they occasionally criticize the US, too. What a great statement by Khan. I was just thinking about how the defenders of America's foreign policy seldom try to defend it on moral grounds --except to view it as defending the policies of the political party they generally support. Paradoxically if we do what is moral (right) in the Middle East and in other areas our foreign policy will actually be more effective for us. I guess it comes down to "If you want peace, work for justice."
Treeman, I'm glad that you appear open to factual argument. Despite a claim that you are cynical of politicians you appear remarkably trusting of US foreign policy. Now you surprisingly admit that Sharon should be at the Hague. I'll agree that Arafat should probably be there, (don't know the facts, but it is certainly repeated often enough and I'm sure it could be true). Now could you think of one US Republican politician or advisor in this century that should be at the Hague, too. (Or to make it easier one Democratic politician. If so, explain why. Or do you always think we are very close to as pure as possible? Perhaps you take the position that I have seen Israelis take that they won't comment on this because it gives aid to the enemy. Perhaps you take the position if the other side commits war crimes, we have to also.
I completely agree Arafat should be at the Hague too. However don't forget Henry Kissinger. It's a FACT that the Ba'ath party was put in power with the help of the CIA just like Qaddafi was. Why do I need to bring numerous crimes Saddam committed? He tested bio/chem weapons against the Kurds. When he got in power he 'purified' numerous people in the government...im sure most of us have watched that footage and anyone who doesn't get chills watching that isn't human. and i have no doubts there are numerous others crimes of war that he could and rightfully should be tried for. you can add the algerian dictator boutaflika on there too along with qaddafi. i know people who have lost close family members due to qaddafi death squads. they are ALL EVIL. so please just because i don't believe the people in those countries should suffer MORE doesn't mean i support the government at all. heck please add hosni mubarak to that list. and how come i never hear about the numerous times israel actually killed americans and had plots to blow up american embassies in some arab countries so they could blame those countries? its well documented you don't have to believe me just search some un-biased sites. and oh yeah the taliban. i don't support them but i don't deny that they have done some things much better then the northern alliance. i hate the fact that pakistan can dictate a government over another country infact. however don't tell me 500,000 kids didn't die. this was asked by leslie starh (spelling?) of cbs to albright and she said its worth the price. she didn't deny that this was the amount of kids who died she said she believed it was worth it.
glynch: Open to factual argument? So you've been assuming I'm lying? Hell, just check out yourself anything I say if it sounds fishy - I would hope that you would do that, because I can lie just as easy as anyone else can. Never trust anything that doesn't sound right. As for a US politician for war crimes, lemme see... Off the top of my head, no one (and no, I don't think that FDR, Truman, or Nixon were war criminals, despite what they did). Perhaps a very few military commanders who have had less-than-stellar judgment, but those incidents are pretty rare in our military. I can think of two incidents in the past fifty years, which is pretty good considering most armies have two or more a day... If the other side commits a war crime, then we blow him away. If any US soldier or politician had a hand in a war crime, then I say send him off to the Hague and let foreigners (preferably those the crime was committed against) decide his fate. Now you're reduced to implying that I might actually sanction a war crime, glynch? C'mon, you can do better than that. Oh, this might surprise a few posters who were around when that whole 'clique' thing was going on, but I've got an ignore list now. Guess who the single poster on my ignore list is? It's actually quite pleasant. I don't feel like an elitist at all...
