PDA

View Full Version : What is this war all about ??



Emg
07-07-2006, 7:37 AM
Here is a very well thought out essay on this war against terrorism, why we are fighting it and why we HAVE to win......it's a bit of a long read, I hope you can make it through it and really considered what is being said here.

If someone can put together or find an opposing viewpoint that is just as well thought out...without any political bashing because that's really not what this is all about........by all means please post it. Folks can read and make up thier own minds......but we really really need to get together on this or we're finished !



This WAR is for REAL! by Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; * Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; * Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001; * Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide) .

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (Including 7,000 Polish priests). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the :six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anythingother than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?
The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

DansMarineTank
07-07-2006, 8:55 AM
[QUOTE=Emg]2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
[QUOTE]

I really do think it has more to do with the US's foreign policy and stance over Isreal / Palestine than it does envy and success,

"you're really great i'm going to blow you up" i think not. The whole article reminds me of Team America World Police.

I really dont think the war is win-abe, our societies are now very integrated and diluted, i happen to think that deversion is a good thing, but it does mean the threat is within and that there are no real borders or battle grounds to fight this war over.

Ms.Bubbles
07-07-2006, 11:47 AM
I agree with DansMarineTank's post. Many of the people involved in terrorist attacks and plots on the US (and Canada) are/were north american citizens. Why would they "envy" success and freedom they already have?

The situation runs much deeper, based on a history of American interference in middle eastern policy. Religion is being used to incite anger and co-opt politically naive people into joining a war with an "evil" enemy that must be destroyed.

jennypenny
07-07-2006, 12:21 PM
I am not disagreeing that the terrorist that have attacked the US and our allies are Muslim, but let us be clear on just who they are. They are not 25% of the world’s population. Instead they are a minority of Muslims who have embraced an extreme view of their religion. A desire to be a more powerful force world force may very well be a motivating force for many of these people, but the history of the middle east, and of western/eastern interaction are also an important motivator to these radicals.

A resent report from NPR gives an interesting over view of expert thoughts on the War on Terror.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5538494

I won’t go into detail, because you can listen to report after clicking o the link. I will mention a few of the many points.

Foreign Policy magazine ran the survey.

They experts are all American, and they are experts on terrorism, diplomacy, intelligence, and related fields. None of the 100 experts surveyed are currently working for the government. All of there names have been made public.

Most of the experts believe we are loosing the WOT.

They see a possible win as the international rejection of radical Islam.

While military force is seen as important, many of the experts believe it is being over used.

Most of the experts believe we need more diplomatic solutions.

May believe we should have gone into Afghanistan, but Iraq was a bad idea (unnecessary).

I am paraphrasing here so feel free to double check by listening to the report.

jennypenny
07-07-2006, 12:25 PM
I wanted to add that I agree with Ms. Bubbles, but that other western countries (not only the US) are intertwined with this conflict. After all this is 7-7 the anniversary of horrific attacks on London. Attacks carried out by home grown terrorists.


I also want to agree with EMG that this is an important fight we have to win. I just might differ on what I think the best way to win is.

jennypenny
07-07-2006, 12:39 PM
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
.


I understand his point (and do not completely disagree), but Indonesia (the largest Muslim nation) has many growing opportunities for women. More and more Indonesia women and receiving college and post graduate educations and using their degrees to go into any profession they choose. That said Indonesia still has many problems, but is a large, diverse, and changing nation.


Sorry for three post, I just kept thinking of different things. I'll let someone else talk now.

125gJoe
07-07-2006, 2:02 PM
Emg --- Thanks so much for posting this so now some will "try" and undertand what is going on in these times. It is a shame that a Hollywood spoof movie can be mentioned in this same post when there are ruthless, sick people that will greatfully cut the heads off of human beings and be proud of that barbaric action. They even put their wives and children in suicide attacks, and use the same to hide behind. No one can say this is not true.

Thanks again Emg -- great post and I hope everyone reads and really takes time to understand it.


_______

Ms.Bubbles
07-07-2006, 2:04 PM
Jenny-- in citing the example of terrorists being north american I didn't mean to imply that the attackers were only north american, but that "envy" of the U.S and it's freedoms/success could not have been the basis for the attacks.

momar
07-07-2006, 2:25 PM
Some little points about the Major General's 'speech':
(I say 'little'...)

1) Hitler was not 'Christian'

2) You cannot compare his killing of Christians to his killing of Jews - the Nazis defined Jewry racially. Most of the Christians were not killed because they were Christian.

3) The 'threat' has existed to the USA since 1945, or even 1921. And not necessarily from Muslim fundamentalists. The USA is the most powerful nation in the world, and as long as it is people will want to destroy it.

4) The Muslim extremists do not envy the power of the USA, or its freedom. If they did, they wouldn't wish to destroy it. They don't hate the fact that the USA is the most powerful nation on earth in itself; they hate the fact that it is the most powerful nation and DOES NOT conform to their ideology. As far as they are concerned, the USA embodies the Satan. The 'freedom' of the USA is a scourge on the face of some of the teachings of the Qu'ran (depending on how they are interpreted). Muslim fundamentalsim and US democracy represent 2 diametrically opposed political ideologies, much like cpitalism and communism, only the focus is on social order rather than economics.

5) Quite frankly, if the USA goes around securing its own interests in a region in which culture and practice are totally different, people in that region and of their world view are going to seek revenge. This has always been the case. When Britain ruled the world, there were always rebellions somewhere, wishing to throw off the imperialist oppressors. But then you might say, Britain controlled 20% of the world's land surface and 25% of its population. But then the USA has its 'unnofficial empire'. Its influence is all pervasive in a way only matched in history by that of the Roman Empire (if you restrict your view to Europe only in the Roman's case). And then, you may argue that Britain was never attacked on its own soil when it was Great Power number 1. But that was because there weren't such things as international airlines and miniaturisation technology.

6) If the Middle East were the most powerful 'nation' on earth, and if it were controlled by Muslim fundamentalists, then extremist pro-democracy groups in the USA would probably go around trying to blow them up.

7) The USA cannot feasibly lose the 'war'. But it could very well be changed irreversibly by it.

8) It's all very well saying the USA is in the right in overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But is it really right to then impose a totally alien culture on a region with a tradition of social order dating back thousands of years, with no regard for what this will do for the region? Democracy is not always the right way to do things. You only think it is because you are brought up in a democratic society. (BTW I think democracy's alright)

NB any references in this post refer only to Muslim fundamentalists/extremists, certainly not to Muslims in general.

momar
07-07-2006, 2:27 PM
BTW Emg, great thread and very interesting.

125gJoe
07-07-2006, 2:48 PM
BTW Emg, great thread and very interesting.It really IS one of the Greatest Threads (Topics) here, and with these times, the Most Important Thread of All Time.

Momar, on your number 6 --

6) If the Middle East were the most powerful 'nation' on earth, and if it were controlled by Muslim fundamentalists, then extremist pro-democracy groups in the USA would probably go around trying to blow them up.

As you well know, we have the "right" to bear arms. The UK is different in that respect.

--------

I encourage other FREEDOM LOVING people to copy and print out Emg's Post just like I did and distribute them as Freely as your country will allow!!!

Remember, there are countries that will Not let this happen...


Think.




_______

125gJoe
07-07-2006, 3:02 PM
8) It's all very well saying the USA is in the right in overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But is it really right to then impose a totally alien culture on a region with a tradition of social order dating back thousands of years, with no regard for what this will do for the region? Democracy is not always the right way to do things. You only think it is because you are brought up in a democratic society. (BTW I think democracy's alright)


Did you even see the way Saddam took out his own people in that video when he was first in 'charge'? They went to their deaths because they did not agree with his ideals. ....You never saw that auditorium when they were pulled out to their deaths? You never saw the "human torture shredding machines"?

And, it seems there's a lot of folks that don't understand that we (UK too)enforced the United Nations RESOLUTIONS against Iraq. It's just that simple. Facts are facts.

500 WMD's (7/2006) should have meaning to people that can see the facts.



________

fishcatch22
07-07-2006, 3:13 PM
america is like me... just because i'm really smart people dislike me for completely arbitrary reasons, just like those extremeists hate america just because we don't confrom to their religious ideals... and the koran does not sponsor bloodshed or killing infedels, it sponsors peace and love, and teaching your fellow man about the love of allah, not killing. these extremeists are just a bunch of nutbags who don't represent the muslim majority.

Ms.Bubbles
07-07-2006, 3:23 PM
3) Quite frankly, if the USA goes around securing its own interests in a region in which culture and practice are totally different, people in that region and of their world view are going to seek revenge.


Bingo. Do a little research on U.S/ Middle East relations and you'll see a long history in which the US becomes involved in middle eastern affairs almost exclusively for the purposes of their own financial/power gain. In fact, the United States was responsible for TRAINING Osama Bin Laden and his army, back in the days when Osama could be an advantage to the US in fighting some other "evil enemy". This ruse about the US wanting "fairness and democracy" for foreign countries is bunk. They are interested in maintaining their own interests, and are using the concept of democracy as a political smokescreen for their real intentions.

jennypenny
07-07-2006, 3:35 PM
I think most people would agree that Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator, and that he deserves (at the very least) to be tried and imprisoned. I hope that Iraq does succeed in becoming a stable and free society. I also feel that we and the other countries (mostly the UK) which joined us in the initial invasion should continue to offer assistance to the country.

However, the argument over weather we should have invaded the country (and how we should continue supporting it) has more to do with our ability to succeed, versus would it be great to have a democratic Iraq (or at least more democratic). Nation building is historically a difficult thing to do. I question weather or not we made a worth-while investment of money, resources, and soldiers by invading Iraq.

Afghanistan is still a dangerous and unstable place. I wish would have concentrated resources there until we could be sure of that countries future. I also question weather Iraq was the country or region that was the most immediate treat to the US.

I do not think we have done all bad. Our humanitarian response in Indonesia after the tidal wave, and other aid (including after earthquakes and other disasters) has done a lot for Islamic people, and in turn for our image.

I also think some other countries can be found at fault. We have seen riots in France and Sweden (Sweden being a country with an especially high standard of living) because of mismanaged Arabic immigration. The immigrants and the European countries both need to work together. Some of these Muslim slums are breeding terrorist.

I do not agree with the statement that this war is all about oil. However, reducing our dependence on the black gold could also be helpful in preventing further conflict.

These are just some of my thoughts. I am not saying that military action is always wrong. I am saying that perhaps the U.S.’s approach to curbing radical Islam is off balance.

125gJoe
07-07-2006, 7:06 PM
.. They are interested in maintaining their own interests, and are using the concept of democracy as a political smokescreen for their real intentions.
OK...
So, you do believe in the Illuminati.


_______

Penfan66
07-07-2006, 7:08 PM
Bingo. Do a little research on U.S/ Middle East relations and you'll see a long history in which the US becomes involved in middle eastern affairs almost exclusively for the purposes of their own financial/power gain. In fact, the United States was responsible for TRAINING Osama Bin Laden and his army, back in the days when Osama could be an advantage to the US in fighting some other "evil enemy". This ruse about the US wanting "fairness and democracy" for foreign countries is bunk. They are interested in maintaining their own interests, and are using the concept of democracy as a political smokescreen for their real intentions.

Ahem, it was not the US only that created the mess that the Middle East is today. Do some research on the beginings of Israel or the running of Iran in the early 20th century. Some of our friends from the other side o the pond started many of the problems they have today.To blame the US for the state of affairs over there is to miss 100's of years of history and completely short sighted.

DansMarineTank
07-08-2006, 10:52 AM
Emg --- Thanks so much for posting this so now some will "try" and undertand what is going on in these times. It is a shame that a Hollywood spoof movie can be mentioned in this same post when there are ruthless, sick people that will greatfully cut the heads off of human beings and be proud of that barbaric action. They even put their wives and children in suicide attacks, and use the same to hide behind. No one can say this is not true.

Thanks again Emg -- great post and I hope everyone reads and really takes time to understand it.


_______

Jo, my point regarding team america was the way the article was written. its incredibly nieve to believe that these terrorist strike because they envy the way of life and freedom, and thats the kind of simple minded oppions that came accross in that spoof film! the whole article strikes me as propaganda!

DansMarineTank
07-08-2006, 10:55 AM
america is like me... just because i'm really smart people dislike me for completely arbitrary reasons, just like those extremeists hate america just because we don't confrom to their religious ideals... and the koran does not sponsor bloodshed or killing infedels, it sponsors peace and love, and teaching your fellow man about the love of allah, not killing. these extremeists are just a bunch of nutbags who don't represent the muslim majority.

Again, it really has very little to do with the nations success its her foreign policy specifically in the middle east. Not meaning to put you down but that post really does not portray you as "really smart".

DansMarineTank
07-08-2006, 10:59 AM
Ahem, it was not the US only that created the mess that the Middle East is today. Do some research on the beginings of Israel or the running of Iran in the early 20th century. Some of our friends from the other side o the pond started many of the problems they have today.To blame the US for the state of affairs over there is to miss 100's of years of history and completely short sighted.

Nothing in her post suggested anything to the contrary.

Ms.Bubbles
07-08-2006, 12:20 PM
To blame the US for the state of affairs over there is to miss 100's of years of history and completely short sighted.

Please re-read my post. I didn't blame the US for all problems in the middle east. I blamed US interference in middle eastern problems for the war between the US and the middle east. The attack on New York (9/11) didn't just come out of nowhere.

Joe, regarding the illuminati--I don't follow conspiracy theories, but the US's recent use of (admittedly) phony "intelligence reports" about finding weapons of mass destruction to take down Hussein demonstrates that they will use lies and smokescreens to further their own interests.

momar
07-08-2006, 2:02 PM
Originally posted by 125gJoe:
As you well know, we have the "right" to bear arms. The UK is different in that respect.

I really want to reply to this but I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Are you saying that such militant action would be ok because the Constitution says you can carry guns? :huh:


originally posted by 125gJoe:
Did you even see the way Saddam took out his own people in that video when he was first in 'charge'? They went to their deaths because they did not agree with his ideals. ....You never saw that auditorium when they were pulled out to their deaths? You never saw the "human torture shredding machines"?

And, it seems there's a lot of folks that don't understand that we (UK too)enforced the United Nations RESOLUTIONS against Iraq. It's just that simple. Facts are facts.

I wasn't defending Saddam. I was talking about the Middle East in general. I think Saddam should be shot.You say he sent people to death for not agreeing with his ideals. Your country (and mine) invades other countries, involving the deaths of thousands of civilians, because those governments don't agree with its ideals.

Yes, we enforced resolutions. When it suited us. Before that we funded Saddam. The USA works in its own interests. And why not? But that will always cause inconsitency. You invade Iraq in the name of freedom. But when he was President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mobutu was, in Washington terminology, a friendly tyrant. He was, as I think Reagan said, 'our dictator'. It suited the USA to support his totalitarian regime to defend against Soviet threats in Africa. Nothing gets done about Mugabe, who to my mind is worse than Saddam.

To go on a bit of a rant, look at American history. It has always been ideologically inconsistent. The USA was founded on the basis that 'all men are created equal', yet allowed slavery for 80 years. There was no universal suffrage for quite a while, either. What about the native Americans? The KKK? The millions below the poverty line? And its all very well saying you crusade for the little guy, but lots of Americans can't locate Iraq on a map. That's not their fault. Its the outlook that US hegemony promotes.

(this is not directed against anyone, just some more points) :)

OrionGirl
07-08-2006, 8:31 PM
Check Snopes...

Emg
07-10-2006, 5:54 PM
OG.....Now, I made a comment here concerning the info at snopes about that essay, I even posted a copy of what snopes had to say about it here......I posted that after you commented about it being "hooyey" because it was a mass emailing thing. How come that comment is no longer here ?

Am I mistaken ? Where those two posts made someplace else ? :huh:

OrionGirl
07-10-2006, 11:52 PM
Ummm, yeah--at another forum.... :P :D

125gJoe
07-11-2006, 2:33 AM
.

Yes, we enforced resolutions. ...
To go on a bit of a rant, look at American history. It has always been ideologically inconsistent. The USA was founded on the basis that 'all men are created equal', yet allowed slavery for 80 years. There was no universal suffrage for quite a while, either. What about the native Americans? The KKK?...

I see your points, but those are not the topics of this thread.
Saddam would not keep promises on the resolutions he agreed on.


_______

momar
07-11-2006, 5:34 AM
Saddam would not keep promises. The USA would not keep to international law (at least potentially).


Originally posted by 125gJoe:
Did you even see the way Saddam took out his own people in that video when he was first in 'charge'?

No, but when he was fisrt in charge he was supported by Western governments.


Originally posetd by Ms.Bubbles:
This ruse about the US wanting "fairness and democracy" for foreign countries is bunk. They are interested in maintaining their own interests, and are using the concept of democracy as a political smokescreen for their real intentions.

I think this is only true up to a point. I do believe that the USA has a genuine interest in promoting democracy and its version of freedom (of course, on the condition that democracy results in a pro-Western government). However, this is overridden by the nation's own interests; that's why Iraq gets invaded but Zimbabwe doesn't. I don't think the USA would ever invade a democratic nation. The USA also makes the somewhat foolish assumption that democracy will always work and everywhere can be a mini-USA capitalist utopia. It took democracy hundreds of years to evolve in Europe (and by extension America). But the USA tries to impose it overnight on countries which have no experience of it, and then they expect it to work. Democracy isn't always right.

DeputyChiefJR
07-11-2006, 9:42 AM
Can our government make wrong decisions regarding things to do in the Middle East?
Well we did put both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein into power....

125gJoe
07-11-2006, 1:25 PM
... But the USA tries to impose it overnight on countries which have no experience of it, and then they expect it to work. Democracy isn't always right.
That's part of the main problem. Many think, "OK - they (Iraqi's) voted, now cut and run.."

Since Democracy is not always right, what is better?


_______

Ms.Bubbles
07-11-2006, 1:41 PM
That's part of the main problem. Many think, "OK - they voted, now cut and run.."

Since Democracy is not always right, what is better?

It isn't that democracy isn't "right", it's that it is forced suddenly upon countries from an external source (ie. the U.S). These countries have no experience with this kind of political freedom and no government that is capable of operating the country democratically from within. Without a stable long-term democratic government to move into place, the country ends up falling into chaos, and extremist groups end up taking over again.

jennypenny
07-11-2006, 1:53 PM
I do think that countries can work without democracy, and obviously there are many styles of republics and democracies. However, I do not think democracy is the problem itself.

The problem is that successful democratic revolutions needs two things (I am sure there are others too), There needs to be certain amount of public support, and there need to be strong responsible leaders.

It is difficult to know if a foreign country has enough popular support for revolution. Enough individuals have to be willing to put their life styles, families, and lives on the line. Even with the insurgency I am not sure this is a problem in Iraq.

Now the second part, responsible, charismatic leaders are impossible to predict. During and after our own (American) revolution we had leaders, particularly Washington, who were able to put personal power aside in order to secure the countries future. We simply cannot know if the proper people will step up to the plate in Iraq. Unfortunately it is much more common for a dictator to rise to power, than it is for a George Washington ( a man who refused to keep power after two terms as president).

If Iraq is lucky enough to develop good leadership it will still be a long road to a stable country. It is possible that the new government will fulfill this roll. However the risk we took going into Iraq was a great one. To make the war worth while the reward will have to be equally great.

I hope the country stabilizes and that it dose become a beacon of democracy, but even if it does it may not encourage Muslims to reject the radical Islamic ideas that spawn terrorism. For that we may have to take some non-military approaches.

DansMarineTank
07-12-2006, 4:04 AM
Many people believed before the war that Sadaam husain was a necessary evil, the only man who could control such a volitile population in a large country. I'm not sure i agree given his track record, but i have given it some thought.

125gJoe
07-12-2006, 4:21 AM
Many people believed before the war that Sadaam husain was a necessary evil, the only man who could control such a volitile population in a large country. I'm not sure i agree given his track record, but i have given it some thought.I guess that's saying a dictator that gasses his own people, actually used 'human shredding machines', executed those that opposed his views, etc., attacked every bordering country, is needed with that kind of population.

I'm a bit confused on that outlook - or is that really how 'they' want to live?
I'll guess that's not how the majority would choose to live their lives.


______

DansMarineTank
07-12-2006, 9:36 AM
I think it was an article written in our daily times over here. Can't remeber too much about it though. What i can say is that it cetainly appears the gulf is less stable with him gone, take from that what you will

I certainly dont condone his actions, just commented it was fuel for thought

jennypenny
07-12-2006, 9:40 AM
Saddam was/is a bad guy, but unfortunately we cannot guarantee that Iraq will become a safe country. Foreign actions could make the world a better place, but they could also do more harm than good.

momar
07-12-2006, 1:37 PM
Look at Russia. It's democratic now, but millions of Russians say things were better under Stalin. He was probably the worst dictator ever. If that's not a reflection of how bad imposing democracy on an unprepared poulation can be, I don't know what is.

jennypenny
07-18-2006, 11:06 AM
The first hour of the Diane Rehm show had a interesting discussion about what we should do in Iraq. She had guest with different perspectives. One guest advocates pulling out and another advocates bring in more troops. If anyone is interested they should check it out.

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

rwspear76
07-18-2006, 11:34 AM
I don't like this thread much. I am in the military and my fish and forums like this are one of my only refuges from all of this.

Emg
07-18-2006, 1:20 PM
RW, thank you for serving our country ! You are a hero in my book ! :thm: