Today Is The Day We Go To WAR

“However, I do think that over the years, we have "fueled" the hatred somewhat

Agreed, but this would hold true for the policies of other major Western states, as well.”

“Close, but no cigar.

It's the Americanization of world culture that chaps their a$$es.

Bikinis for burkas?
Not on their watch, by Allah!”

“It's the Americanization of world culture that chaps their a$$es

That's certainly an ethnocentric viewpoint, but I'm sorry - your culture is of little importance to them. They want a super-Islamic nation. Period. They wanted the U.S. to attack multiple countries in the ME simultaneously after 9/11. They wanted a war on Islam. That's why they attacked the U.S. They wanted Arabs to rise up and join together to fight off the West. The Americans were just the best catalyst to get the process in motion.”

“I was in the kitchen while I heard it. Correct?

Bush also was talking to the russians.

I think no matter what; against war, for war...Right now we all need to stick together. The whole world has to become one team. Too bad that it can't be that easy.”

“After last night's speach, I am more or less convinced that a large portion of the rationale behind Bush's move is to appease the Christian Right of which he is a part. He talks about God. He talks about good vs. evil and other Christian dichotomies. He is a well know devout Christian who sides with the Christian Right on many issues. I think he wants to oust the "infidels" and bring Christianity to a Muslim world. I just think this is Bush's personal agenda as he is not intelligent enough to understand all the other nuances involved with the actions he is about to take. He has other people to do his thinking for him. But for him personally, I think it's all about bringing Jesus to the heathens.

I am, by far, far more scared of the leadership of this country than I am of prickboy Saddam.”

“I concur on your last statement.

Bush first said this was a "crusade," he stopped using that word because of the backlash. But "A rose by any other name..."”

“Still stinks.”

“i pray for our troops and the safety of the iraqi civilians.”

“A new "Crusade"?
There ya go - still grasping...

LOL!


Squirm ya little worms!

God Bless America!”

“Roseymonster and stumprider, you two just became ineligible for this discussion due to your sheer blind faith in strawmen.”

“Rosey,
Make up your mind will ya. First it was about his Daddy, then it was about oil, then it was about American Imperialism and now it's about Christianity? Did you ever think that maybe it's about National Security?”

“Rosemonster, with all due respect, I don't know how you can say you're more fearful of Bush then you are of Saddam. This guy tortures and rapes his own people on a regular basis. He's in violation of developing weapons of mass destruction after he agreed not to after the 1991 Gulf War (you may be sick of hearing that, but the bottomline is that it's true).

Saddam is a sick tyrant with ties to terrorism who'd likely be very happy to, if he hasn't already, give his illegal weapons to terrorists to use against us.. or even use them himself.

Again, I mean this with all respect rosey, but I just don't know how you can say that a guy with his human rights violation record is less fearful than Bush.”

“Savage, why would need national Security. It's not like anyone is out to get us is there. I would have thought that just saying that it is American imperialism that has caused people to hate us would be enough for them to love us again.”

“We haven't seen the WMDs yet, but If he pulls them out during this war, we'll know he was lying. God help our boys if he does.”

“I don't know how you can say you're more fearful of Bush then you are of Saddam

Paul Krugman of the NYTimes has an answer to this:

...the Bush administration has made it clear, over and over again, that it doesn't play by the rules. Remember: this administration told Europe to take a hike on global warming, told Russia to take a hike on missile defense, told developing countries to take a hike on trade in lifesaving pharmaceuticals, told Mexico to take a hike on immigration, mortally insulted the Turks and pulled out of the International Criminal Court — all in just two years.

I'd add that Bush has opened the pandora's box of legitimizing pre-emptive war and pre-emptive nuclear strikes as well. Saddam may be an evil man, but Bush has much more capability than Saddam has ever had to inflict pain and suffering on the innocent. And now Bush has fewer restraints on his use of power than any other past president. Let's hope that power does not totally corrupt him.”

“It is about national security, but that is the side issue which has been pushed to the forefront. It is primarily about changing the balance of power in the region as a whole - about securing a free flow of oil (not controlling it and selling it for profit, just ensuring supply so the American economy has a reliable supply at a reasonable price). Once this balance of power is changed then pressure can be brought to bear on the Saudis, Iranians, and all other countries in the region to clamp down on fundamentalism. While people say Russia can supply much more of the oil, that won't be for some time - and America will never be able to lever the same sort of imfluence over Russia that is could to a friendly arab regime in Iraq. By installing democracy you also take the emphasis away from extremists and place it on making money - again it suits america not to have to deal with religious fundamentalists or "royalty", but to deal with a system whose primary goal will be economic stability and success. This war has the aim of changing everything to America's favor - also known as America's strategic interest. As a fringe benefit it also rids the world of an evil dictator - possibly the potential costs are worth the long-term reward.”

“Nice, ynamiynami. But you forgot the Chinese.”

“Which Chinese? The free market ones or the communists? Or Both?”

“The commies. They've been yearning for influence in the ME for some time now. They've been caught selling naughty things to Iran and Iraq.”

“The Chinese would never do anything to harm their economy, would they?”

“The thing is this. What Saddam does in his own borders is his business. Since when did the USA set the standard for moral clarity? What? There are dozens of nations with human rights violations, including our own. You don't think drugging mental patients so they can be executed is a problem??

Wake up and smell the contradiction, people. As the point has been made time and time again, we buy oil from countries that support terrorism. You want to stop terrorism? Stop the cash flow.

Yes Savage, it is all of those things, national security included. But nearly half of this country and about 98 percent of the rest of the world think invading Iraq will really do little to improve US national sercurity. I am inclined to agree.

This is about bringing about global conquest by the U.S. Call it the "War on Terrorism" or whatever you like. That's a facade. It's really about trying to reshape countries, peoples, cultures and as I indicated in my post above, I think erradicate a religion.

I really can't agree with that.”

“The Chinese would never do anything to harm their economy, would they?

They need oil for their industry. More cheap oil = stronger economy.”

“Call it the "War on Terrorism" or whatever you like. That's a facade.

Before you can assert that, you have to refute this argument (nicely written by ynaminmany):

Once this balance of power is changed then pressure can be brought to bear on the Saudis, Iranians, and all other countries in the region to clamp down on fundamentalism

I've argued time and time again, attacking Iraq quite clearly allows the U.S. more leverage in fighting terrorism. So while the motivation for war may encompass other factors (ones you don't like), I haven't seen that you've refuted the fact that victory could help fight terrorism.”

“"The thing is this. What Saddam does in his own borders is his business. Since when did the USA set the standard for moral clarity?
Yes, but you fail to point out Serbia and Milosevic, but apparently that was okay.

You don't think drugging mental patients so they can be executed is a problem??
No

You want to stop terrorism? Stop the cash flow.
No, we can keep buying oil, just get rid of the Governments/people that support terrorism.

But nearly half of this country and about 98 percent of the rest of the world think invading Iraq will really do little to improve US national sercurity.
What are your sources for this information? Since when did world opinion shape America's national interests and foreign policy?

This is about bringing about global conquest by the U.S. Call it the "War on Terrorism" or whatever you like.

Couldn't we have already accomplished global conquest by now if we really wanted to? America is the most magnanomous power the world has ever seen. If we really wanted to erradicate a religion, why start overseas? Why not start here at home?”

“You're going on the assertion that those countries will cave. The US has been putting the pressure via Israel on terrorism in Palestine for years and it has done nothing to resolve the problem.

So what you are asking is for these countries to:
a) internally clamp down on terrorism and risk a revolt by their people;

or

b) have the US supply the funding, weaponry and possibly, personnel to do so.

I think the U.S. is going to run into resistance from the billion Muslims around the world who view this as an action to wipe them out. A 200 year old culture vs. a 2,000 year old culture? You tell me which has been through more and survived.”

“"They need oil for their industry. More cheap oil = stronger economy."

Just exactly how is it the Chinese would get this cheap oil?”

“The more roseymonster posts the more I think he is a rightwinger. Again, I find myself agreeing with him. We should end our dependence on ME oil. Open up Alaska for oil production and relax some of the restraints on producing oil in the lower 48 states. I commend you, roseymonster, for your position on this matter.”

“You're right to say that levering control over Iraq does help in the long-term competition with China - but I think that's also another of the value added benefits, if you like.”

“The US has been putting the pressure via Israel on terrorism in Palestine for years and it has done nothing to resolve the problem

Huh? The U.S. has only hindered Israel in its fight against terrorism. The U.S. has pressured Israel not to do what is necessary to eradicate it.

I think the U.S. is going to run into resistance from the billion Muslims around the world who view this as an action to wipe them out.

Maybe. But effective resistance? The U.S. needs to pressure governments - not the "Arab Street". The problem is, for example, Saudi Arabia has done *nothing* to crack down on terrorism or funding. Saudi Arabia has been depending on the U.S. for protection since Gulf War I. But with the U.S. army on its borders and a crazy president in office, the House of Saud will probably have to take drastic action against terrorism.

And even if the pressure fails, the U.S. would be in a much better position to gather intelligence and engage in covert operations against terrorists in those countries.”

“Savage said...

"Yes, but you fail to point out Serbia and Milosevic, but apparently that was okay."
I'm not condoning this but it was a NATO action and sanctioned by the UN.

"No."
Sounds like Nazism to me...

"No, we can keep buying oil, just get rid of the Governments/people that support terrorism."
And what is the definition of terrorism? Because all I know is that our govt. has never defined that for us. I think, very quickly, our government could link "terrorism" with dissent from US foreign policy. Remember the whole "you're with us or against us" speach?

"What are your sources for this information?"
Try picking up a paper. The "coalition" and "allies" that your boy George keeps referring to consists of the UK, Spain and the U.S. Last time I counted there were 192 countries in the world. You do the math.

"Since when did world opinion shape America's national interests and foreign policy?"
Well, I think always until this point. It's called diplomacy.

"Couldn't we have already accomplished global conquest by now if we really wanted to?"
Sure, but the world would be a horrible place to live.

"If we really wanted to erradicate a religion, why start overseas? Why not start here at home?"

Some would argue we already are...”

“Hyway, those moves do little to help the problem. The supplies are just not enough. On that one the costs far far outweigh the benefits.”

“Mutt said:

"Maybe. But effective resistance?"

I'd say 9-11 was pretty effective.”

“Just exactly how is it the Chinese would get this cheap oil?"

Okay, now I know where I remember you from. You had that crazy notion that if the U.S. pulls its forces out of South Korea, then the Chinese will automatically invade Taiwan, because forcible invasion is their biggest priority. LOL!

What are you trying to get at with your question. How about making an argument, and then I'll respond to that.”

“Huh? The U.S. has only hindered Israel in its fight against terrorism. The U.S. has pressured Israel not to do what is necessary to eradicate it.

We need to send them more bulldozers, apparently... and more missiles to fire into residential neighborhoods.”

“Mutt - Isreal's battle against terrorism should shine as an example of how not to handle things!”

“Way to dodge the question Mutt.

At no time did I say that if U.S. forces left Korea, China would automatically attack Taiwan. You like to put words in people's mouths.”

“The "coalition" and "allies" that your boy George keeps referring to consists of the UK, Spain and the U.S. Last time I counted there were 192 countries in the world. You do the math

The mistake you're making is assuming the European opposition to the war is widespread.

The following countries support the U.S.: The United
Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Portugal, Bosnia/Montenegro. We're hardly going it alone.

I'd say 9-11 was pretty effective

Now don't go confusing the issue: The Arab Street is not the same as the terrorists. The terrorists will be a threat regardless of what the U.S. does.”

“What about Estonia?

Don't forget a power house like that!”

“Right. And where do these terrorists come from? I'm assuming the "Arab Street" as you put it. See, we're just starting a viscious cycle of U.S. hatred.”

“Rosey, I would agree that 9-11 was destructive, but it wasn't effective. Prior to 9-11 the fundametal extremist operated freely all over the world and had effective control over an entire country (Afganistan). Since 9-11, One friendly government )(Afganistan) has been toppled and another is just days/weeks away from being toppled. The top leaders of the extremeist groups are either on the run or under arrest. Of those that are still free to operate, must be finding it more difficult to operate. They have lost command structure, their money trail has to be further buried, they have to be suspect of every single new recruit they bring in.

On top of that, their number one goal, to unite the Arab world against this West is not happening. Who are the most vocal opponents of forcibly ousting Hussein. It isn't the Arab World. They are giving us fly-over rights and use of their bases to marshall our forces.

So, 9-11 was destructive, but not effective.”

“Hussein is an infidel.

He's devoted to power and money, not allah.”

“thats true. thats why we are more likely to encourage a more western style government there than anywhere else in the mideast”

“As long as you’re making comparisons to Serbia and Milosevic, you might want to read Slate’s comparison of the Bush junta’s half-hearted excuse for diplomacy in this case and the diplomacy preceding the first Gulf War and Kosovo: Turkey Shoot - How Bush made enemies of our allies.

While we may be able to bully others around in the short term, history shows that hegemons always give rise to alliances to counter their power. The swaggering fools in Washington have done more in two years to cement that counter-alliance than I would have thought possible. Like Clinton said the other day – we should be working to create the kind of world we’d like to live in once we’re no longer top dog.”

“"Arf", she said!

Well, come on, Clinton's a smart guy.

Did you really expect anything intelligent from the Bu#&%!$es?”

“"...we should be working to create the kind of world we’d like to live in once we’re no longer top dog."


I've often thought that the same holds true for race relations.”

“We should be working towards remaining top dog.......”

“Right. And where do these terrorists come from? I'm assuming the "Arab Street" as you put it. See, we're just starting a viscious cycle of U.S. hatred

Now I see you're still making the mistake of attributing the motives of the terrorists to personal hatred of the U.S. They may hate the U.S. but their motivation for terrorism right now is to create a super-Islamic state.”

“At no time did I say that if U.S. forces left Korea, China would automatically attack Taiwan. You like to put words in people's mouths

Yawn. Try again when you have something substantive to say.”

“What exactly would this "super-Islamic state consist of and how would it survive economically?”

“Top Dog???

At what cost?

Economic security?

Domestic tranquility?

Peace?”