Never question my Simpsons knowledge again (or my movie knowledge)! I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger if you ever do.
Two points Cohen... 1) You should look up Christopher Hitchens' article on this very subject. He is as chicken-hawk as they come.... but he writes a fair article touching highlighting your point. 2) I disagree with Hitchens as I do you. There are plenty of reasons to go to war, but the notion that Sadaam might 'one day give terrorists tools' doesn't seem to be one of them. Hell, one day you may try to kill me, but I can't invoke self defense right now. We play by poopy rules, but imo, we'll only give meat to terrorists by breaking and/or bullying international law. ps, I'm still amazed that so many of you guys lap it up that Sadaam is some threat to our interests (unless Israel is 'our interests'). Did any of you play connect the dots when you were kids? We're trying to ride a freebie b/c of 9/11 and establish a democratic Muslim country between Turkey/Iran and Saudia Arabia. A democratic Iraq might calm, or hell, might aggravate Iranians and Saudis... but those are the ****ing countries to be wary of... not piddly-winks ****ing Iraq. If we're going to do it, fine, but don't exaggerate the reasons why we're doing this. The imagery of Sadaam's 'WMD' and his willingness or ability to use them against NA is, imo, as jejune as the notion that we are only fighting Iraq b/c of Oil.
agreed...the stereotype does not fit...i go to church with more than a few people who would attend this kind of rally. didn't mean to be offensive in that way. your examples of noteworthy figures are illustrative of that. however...i do think there is a sect of society who protests just to protest. and i do think these guys lose a lot of credibility by protesting the US, but never protesting the jackasses who terrorize their own civilian countrymen. at some point, you do society and the world much better by using force. interestingly enough, as i've been saying for a while now, i still don't think we'll have to go to war. talking tough and building up the forces of an "imminent attack" may get the job done without firing a bullet. and then what of the peace demonstrations? what of the demonizing of the administration as hell-bent, blood-thirsty men? will bush still be villified for talking tough and building up forces in the mideast?? or will he be credited??
Achebe, I am surprised that someone with your intelligence can so readily dismiss the threat that Saddam poses to us. You say he's piddly, but until the world community slapped him down he had one of the very largest armies in the world...had also spent $8 billion to acquire nuclear weapons, and has the world's second largest reserve of oil. If we totally stepped away...since he's 'piddly'...he would rebuild his army in a flash. What is your recommendation? Continue containment and the embargo? End the embargo and let him rebuild his armed forces? End containment and let him destabilize the middle east? War is not a great solution, but what's yours? Saddam's willingness to use WMD is jejune? In 1990, would you have labeled a terrorist threat of Jets flying into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon as jejune? I think only omniscience would allow you to rightly make your statement. One thing you're right about, is that I am concerned about his intentions for Israel, but not for the same reasons that you appear to assume (since you and glynch seem to bring up Israel often in discussions with me...do you have a problem with my name, Achebe?). Having 2 nuclear competing states, one with a wacko leader, and in the middle east, may just be the beginning of the end.
Any else notice the irony of a 'Down With the Peace Movement' thread at the top of the board on MLK Day?
What Jeff said...and Bob. Come you masters of war You that build all the guns You that build the death planes You that build the big bombs You that hide behind walls You that hide behind desks I just want you to know I can see through your masks You that never done nothin' But build to destroy You play with my world Like it's your little toy You put a gun in my hand And you hide from my eyes And you turn and run farther When the fast bullets fly Like Judas of old You lie and deceive A world war can be won You want me to believe But I see through your eyes And I see through your brain Like I see through the water That runs down my drain You fasten the triggers For the others to fire Then you set back and watch When the death count gets higher You hide in your mansion As young people's blood Flows out of their bodies And is buried in the mud You've thrown the worst fear That can ever be hurled Fear to bring children Into the world For threatening my baby Unborn and unnamed You ain't worth the blood That runs in your veins How much do I know To talk out of turn You might say that I'm young You might say I'm unlearned But there's one thing I know Though I'm younger than you Even Jesus would never Forgive what you do Let me ask you one question Is your money that good Will it buy you forgiveness Do you think that it could I think you will find When your death takes its toll All the money you made Will never buy back your soul And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand o'er your grave 'Til I'm sure that you're dead Copyright © 1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music
Rashmon, Dylan's heart is in the right place, but his lyrics would fail to make a distinction between Hitler and Churchill.
These arguments are beneath you Cohen. We did go to war with Sadaam. He is contained. Of course Sadaam doesn't deserve the rights of an American citizen, yadda yadda... but the UN et al will expect Iraq's rights as a sovereign state to be respected. Legitimize the war, Cohen. The logic for the war has been twisted quite a bit by the administration, but I just ask what your requirements are. We have been trying to find a legitimate reason since 09/11. The administration lied and said that the Iraqi govt was behind 09/11. They weren't. Legitimize the war, Cohen. A postulated war?? A postulated attack by Iraq? Attacks might come from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, N. Korea, China, hell the UK. Who should we go to war with Cohen? Ten years from now we might pass in the night, and after a few, you might veer into my lane and kill my wife and kids. Do I get to take you out now? Should we kill them all Cuckooen? There are reasons to go to war w/ Iraq, but you're not there yet. I like how you blur the two Cohen.... a group of terrorists of a given religion and a nation that happens to be in the same region. ps, unfortunately I'm not omniscient, but the opposite argument is ridiculous. "He might... attack us". Who is the 2nd nuclear competing state? Are you talking about the Russians selling nuclear technology to the Iranians? Are you talking about the possibility of N. Korea selling nuclear warheads to Yemen? Those are all valid points. What's this about Iraq though?
Since you brought up my name. No I don't have a problem with your name. I do have problem with posters who improperly play the anti-semitic card, when arguing policy positions. I also disagree with your passive support for current Israeli policies and Gulf War II. As you know, there are Jews who hold a position on the Middle East that I have no problems with, see nimn.org or tikkun.org When discussing the Middle East and terrorism it is always important and proper to bring up the Palestinian/Israel issue as there will be little peace from terrorism for us or Israel till it is resolved. I think that even Rumsfeld, Perle, Wofowitz sp? and the other neocons around Bush would abscribe to this. You yourself argue now that a main reason for the war is the security of Israel, as well as the US. So why is it not proper to mention Israel?
Indeed. Good call. Let me address the idea that nobody can prove that Saddam is not a threat issue. There are two main issues for me at this point, and they conflict. 1. It would be almost impossible to prove that any old nation X won't be a threat. The initial argument (that has largely been forgotten, sad to say) is that pre-emptive action is a whole new level of international activity for the US. It is simply very difficult to maintain a moral high road if we take unilateral pre-emptive action. So Iraq poses more of a threat than some, but so many examples exist, and again, my worry is the list of worrisome nations will grow if we play world bully/cowboy. 2. We have a self-fulfilling prophecy at work. If I'm Saddam, and I've heard the constant stream of war-talk over the last couple of years, then you bet I'll be a deeply sworn enemy of the US. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he liked us at all (well, every since we quit funding his ass). But he may have been in a "if they'll leave me the hell alone, I'll leave them alone" position. Not now.
I didn't say oil was the only reason, wars can make good politics too. Also, not saying oil and politics are enough to start a war today (again I don’t think many liberal or moderates think highly of Saddam), but they might make the difference in a close call of whether to intervene in a foreign situation. Also, if you don't think oil in Iraq and nearby countries is a factor, then I guess you would say we still would have had the gulf war even if there had never been a drop of oil ever found in the ME. Also, what if in replace of Saddam and his regime we get a Osama clone leading Iraq whose now single-minded, perceived divinely inspired, mission is to hurt to the greatest degree possible the 1 nation and peoples who targeted and killed its former citizens against the consensus of the other world powers. Saddam isn't a pure fanatic, he has some self-preservation and political sensibilities, I think it is very naive to believe there could not be a regime more threatening to us than the current Iraq one.
Originally posted by glynch Since you brought up my name. No I don't have a problem with your name. I do have problem with posters who improperly play the anti-semitic card, when arguing policy positions. When? Which topic? Or could this just be more proof that you placing me in your simple little bucket of 'Jewish supporters of Israel' with their proscribed tendencies. I also disagree with your passive support for current Israeli policies and Gulf War II. I'm not sure what consititutes 'passive support for current Israeli policies', care to elaborate? As for 'Gulf War II', I question what's occuring, but I haven't excluded either full support or full disagreement with the War because I am still unsure about the reality of the situation. Unlike anti-war activists, who are apparently in possession of much more information than I. As you know, there are Jews who hold a position on the Middle East that I have no problems with, see nimn.org or tikkun.org You coninue to affix opinions to me that I have never articulated. Whether you agree with some websites is irrelevant when your action are quite clear. When discussing the Middle East and terrorism it is always important and proper to bring up the Palestinian/Israel issue as there will be little peace from terrorism for us or Israel till it is resolved. Probably not, but you should probably also mention that al qaeda's only consistent beef is our forces in saudi arabia. I think that even Rumsfeld, Perle, Wofowitz sp? and the other neocons around Bush would abscribe to this. You yourself argue now that a main reason for the war is the security of Israel, as well as the US. So why is it not proper to mention Israel? Who are you talking to? I did not argue about it being a war for Israeli security.
Won't argue with that at all. Many of those who protest would never find anything good about what Bush does. That's just reality just as it is reality that there were those who thought Clinton was the anti-Christ and he could do nothing right either. The extremes who placed "Impeach Clinton" bumper stickers on their cars within a week of his first election mirror the extremes on the other side who wouldn't give the administration credit if they created Utopia. However, if Bush is able to accomplish the basic agenda set out without going to war, I think he will receive credit for it from most Americans.
I am perfectly comfortable with my arguments, thank you. Again, I think that war could be the right course because the threat of Saddam cannot be summarily dismissed. You, instead, go to extremes, comparing the threat of Saddam to the likelihood of me hitting you with my car. Are you proud when using logic like that? Event A: Uncertain to occur, but likelihood = 80% Event B: Uncertain to occur, but likelihood = .00000001% Is that argument worthy of you, Achebe? What we're discussing is the likelihood of event A, and either 1) what your threshold for action is or 2) YOUR, non-war solution. ...but the UN et al will expect Iraq's rights as a sovereign state to be respected. Not under ALL circumstances. Again, the question is: threshold. Also, unfortunately, the UN is not always 'right'. The UN condemned Israel for bombing Iraq's nuclear facility. The condemnation was correct under international law. Where would we be now if they had not? Legitimize the war, Cohen. The logic for the war has been twisted quite a bit by the administration, but I just ask what your requirements are. There are many unknowns and the ramifications of action/inaction are both potentially severe. I find it very difficult to define my exact threshold. That said, I would certainly like more information on Saddam's WMD from the UN. I want details on how the search was derailed by Iraqi intransigence. We have been trying to find a legitimate reason since 09/11. The administration lied and said that the Iraqi govt was behind 09/11. They weren't. ... I don't believe they were, but I think they wouldn't hesitate to be behind 9-11 version 2. You mention the administration a lot. I don't care what they say. a postulated war?? A postulated attack by Iraq? Attacks might come from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, N. Korea, China, hell the UK. Who should we go to war with Cohen? Gee, Achebe, I would think that you could understand the difference between terrorist groups being based out of a country and State-sponsored terrorism. That's like saying we should arrest Louisiana because one of their citizens robbed a bank in Texas. You must admit, you're getting ridiculous. Ten years from now we might pass in the night, and after a few, you might veer into my lane and kill my wife and kids. Do I get to take you out now? Intent? Likelihood? Weak. ... There are reasons to go to war w/ Iraq, but you're not there yet. Maybe not, but I am not willing to dismiss the reasons outright, and I'm certainly not willing to join an anti-war movement until I have more information. I like how you blur the two Cohen.... a group of terrorists of a given religion and a nation that happens to be in the same region. Who's guilty of blurring? It does not take an immense leap of logic to see how Saddam would benefit by allying himself with terrorists against his sworn enemy. It is a debatable point, but an attempt to obfuscate? No. I would say that comparing the potential of an intentional threat from Iraq to your family...to me driving down the road in 10 years..is blurring. Or whether we should hold countrys responsible for all the actions of their citizens...is another good example of blurring. ps, unfortunately I'm not omniscient, but the opposite argument is ridiculous. "He might... attack us". The likelihood of it is certainly up for discussion. Dismissing it is ridiculous. Referring to Iraq's potential as 'piddly' is ridiculous (which, I notice, you did not redress), and certainly shows your bias. Who is the 2nd nuclear competing state? Are you talking about the Russians selling nuclear technology to the Iranians? Are you talking about the possibility of N. Korea selling nuclear warheads to Yemen? Those are all valid points. What's this about Iraq though? The second state is Israel. I am concerned that Saddam would use a nuke on either us or Israel to enhance his status in the Arab world. We might not ever be able to prove where such a bomb on our soil came from, but Israel would make presumptions and would not hesitate to retaliate.
I, for one, would applaud loudly, if by "basic agenda" we mean completely reforming the Iraqi leadership. What worries me: have we ever gathered troops overseas like this and not gone into combat? Perhaps many cold war examples would put my mind at ease.
