Originally posted by StarValleyWyUm, were these bullies somehow non-human? Less than human?
Stan. Trust me. You are closer to the Islamofacists in indonesia and the muslim crecent than you are to the US. Why would we want to destroy good people who are fighting these 8th century barbarians at our side? Now if you were french.... <grin>... A case could be made for killing you. But no. Get real. We are in a war against evil. I am not evil. This I know. Because? I HAVE NEVER HURT ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. I HAVE HURT A FEW BULLIES IN MY TIME.
Originally posted by STANGSigh. I walked into that one, didn't I?
One of the reasons that USA can do the revolting things they do is that they see their targets as somehow less than them.
You know, I think you're right on one level. It doesn't always help that USA sees itself as the hero, the defender of democracy. It makes for a very patronising attitude.
But I also do not think you can so easily flip the statement around like that. For all the mistakes that America makes, it does NOT as a rule go into situations with the express *intent* of causing mayhem. Whereas there are at least some terrorist groups whose only intent is to cause mayhem.
You, Stang, might respond that the intent is the only difference (or you might deny there is a difference!), but to me the question of intent is important.
Originally posted by orfeo
The place where your argument potentially falls apart is the implication that Iraq was not co-operating with weapon inspectors at the time that we decided to muscle in.
Thank you for your post. Iraq was by no means cooperating with the UN inspectors, or with anyone else for that matter, prior to the start of hostilities. Iraq was, however, permitting the inspectors to view sites that had been inspected several times previously. Iraq was pretending to cooperate, hoping no doubt to forestall the impending US attack. And your term "muscle in" implies some sort of organized crime operation, a concept utterly foreign to the unfolding of events in Iraq. Fifteen UN Resolutions should have made it very clear to Iraq that the world wanted answers regarding its WMD.
I'd also point out that the US is the only country that not only has undoubtedly had nuclear weapons, but has used them. By your own argument, how long can every OTHER country eye the US as an Asian-hating menace?
In 1941 Imperial Japan launched a premeditated surprise attack against American naval warships peacefully berthed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. In 1945 the United States dropped two atomic weapons to dramatically and quite effectively end Japan's continuing hostilities against the USA. The fact that the United States then poured absolutely stunning amounts of aid and other resources into Japan to rebuild that country should have long ago put to rest any questions about our "Asian-hating" inclinations.
The point being there has to be a time limit and an allowance for change to occur. Most of the evidence suggests to me that change WAS occurring in Iraq.
From start to finish the Second World War in the Pacific Theater lasted less than four years. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, effectively ignored the United Nations' Resolutions regarding WMD in Iraq for nearly 12 years (November 29, 1990 - November 08, 2002). How much time would you consider sufficient, particularly in light of 9/11?
Even if Iraq still had WMDs and we just haven't found them, is there any credible evidence of a threat to America? A threat to middle Eastern neighbours, sure, but as far as I understand Iraq never had the capacity to launch a missile at New York, or even as far as Europe. So exactly what kind of threat are we discussing?
The immense threat Iraq posed had nothing whatsoever with direct attacks against the United States from the Middle East. Instead, Iraq was seen as a potential WMD supermarket for terrorists. These terrorists had already demonstrated their willingness and ability to penetrate American defenses and destroy American lives and property, September 11 being just the latest episode. The thought that these terrorists might acquire WMD and use them inside the United States was intolerable. Mr. Bush acted prudently to prevent that from happening.
There is no basis to mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence except in the most general of terms!
Saddam Hussein's government was secular, and was hated by religious extremists of the type that carried out the 9/11 attacks. From what I've heard, they hate each other MORE than they hate us. I seriously doubt they would ever do business with each other.
This is precisely why the whole western world supported the US in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq - the reason for going into Afghanistan was clearly linked to the 9/11 attacks. There was a basis for action.
The only basis for linking religious terrorists with Iraq, on the other hand, is a paranoid thought that they MIGHT do it. Yes, and American companies MIGHT sell missiles to Libya, one day. But how likely is it?
Originally posted by orfeoAre you saying that terrorists would not purchase chemical weapons with which to murder Americans because their source of supply would be a secular government?
There is no basis to mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence except in the most general of terms!
Saddam Hussein's government was secular, and was hated by religious extremists of the type that carried out the 9/11 attacks. From what ...[text shortened]... nies MIGHT sell missiles to Libya, one day. But how likely is it?
You are very naive.
One very interesting fact here, is that this sounds like the good old USA against the rest of the world. Forget terrorism for a minute, if anybody jumps up and calls the USA a bad name, you can bet your bottom dollar someone over there will get pissed at it, and start a campaign to rid the world of little old you. Whether your a terrorist, or a simple anarchist.
Why do the American's think they own the world? Why do they think they can dictate law to other countries? Simple answer, they got the cash, and some very BIG guns...
So dont piss em off..... just remember folks, it was good old US of A that dropped the first WMD on Japan! and I bet you they would not think twice of doing it again.
Originally posted by TheTechy
...this sounds like the good old USA against the rest of the world. Forget terrorism for a minute, if anybody jumps up and calls the USA a bad name, you can bet your bottom dollar someone over there will get pissed at it, and start a campaign to rid the world of little old you. Whether your a terrorist, or a simple anarchist.
Perhaps TheTechy, while wallowing in some drug-induced dream state, has forgotten the commercial airliners filled with innocent civilians slamming into skyscrapers, military installations and fields. If he or she lives somewhere other than the United States, it was no doubt some well-produced video game s/he watched on TV and then promptly erased from memory. Meanwhile, the grownups here in the United States have not forgotten, and are determined to never, ever let it happen again, particularly with WMD.
Why do the American's think they own the world? Why do they think they can dictate law to other countries? Simple answer, they got the cash, and some very BIG guns...
No country in history has even begun to approach the aid, comfort and support the United States has provided to the rest of the world when the need arose. We've no doubt sent aid to your country too, whatever it is, and whether or not we thought we'd even be thanked for it. Take your whining somewhere else.
So dont piss em off..... just remember folks, it was good old US of A that dropped the first WMD on Japan! and I bet you they would not think twice of doing it again.
Yes, we dropped two atomic weapons on Japan in order to decisively end the Pacific War in 1945. If you knew anything about history, you'd know that this saved tens, if not hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.
And here's something else that gets lost in all this America-bashing: none of you USA-haters ever acknowledges the American blood and treasure we spilled to defend and save Islamic lives in Bosnia. The thanks we get is 9/11. Then we turn around and spend billions to help the predominantly Muslim countries devastated by last year's tsunami.
That's OK, though. The next time anybody anywhere in the world gets in trouble they'll be screaming for American help and we'll rush to do whatever it takes to get them out of trouble and back on their feet.
The world has the memory of a gnat and only knows one question to ask the United States of America:
"Yeah, but what have you done for us lately?"
Originally posted by orfeo1. Exactly which terrorist groups only intend to cause mayhem ?
Whereas there are at least some terrorist groups whose only intent is to cause mayhem.
You, Stang, might respond that the intent is the only difference (or you might deny there is a difference!), but to me the question of intent is important.
2. Why did USA pursue mayhem when there were other options ?
3. Why does USA disempower rather than bolster the UN to help avoid or resolve future mayhem ?
Originally posted by STANG
1. Exactly which terrorist groups only intend to cause mayhem?
All of them. By definition, terrorist groups exist to cause mayhem.
2. Why did USA pursue mayhem when there were other options?
The Islamofascist terrorists thrust mayhem upon us. When one finds oneself the object of mayhem, it is prudent to respond with the greatest possible amount of focused mayhem in return. This is why the United States military exists. Blow-for-blow, we are the baddest mayhem-producing armed force in history. Be very circumspect when contemplating directing mayhem against us.
3. Why does USA disempower rather than bolster the UN to help avoid or resolve future mayhem?
I can only assume you haven't read my post listing the 15 UN Resolutions addressing Iraq's refusal to allow inspectors to verify its WMD status. I'll make it easy for you...
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
The United States has historically bent over backwards to accomodate the UN. In return, the UN has done everything in its power to thwart its biggest benefactor. If I had my way, we'd deport the cockroaches who work there immediately if not sooner and turn the UN building into a parking lot. New York City could probably use the space.
Best wishes for a terrorist-free world.
Originally posted by gpb0216Gets my rec, gpb. Excellent posts.
Originally posted by STANG
[b]1. Exactly which terrorist groups only intend to cause mayhem?
All of them. By definition, terrorist groups exist to cause mayhem.
2. Why did USA pursue mayhem when there were other options?
The Islamofascist terrorists thrust mayhem upon us. When one finds oneself the object of mayhem, it is prudent to r ...[text shortened]... t. New York City could probably use the space.
Best wishes for a terrorist-free world.
[/b]