deva wrote:robtronik wrote:until one realizes that he was directly speaking to the idea that in a post 9/11 we cannot let rulers like Saddam, who are sworn and motivated enemies of the U.S., be allowed to run amok with regard to U.N. resolutions and the ability to harbor and create WMD's.
Saddam was not a sworn enemy of the U.S. He was a US ally/vassal for many years. He did not turn against the U.S. The U.S. turned against him when it became politically expedient. Saddam was an enemy of the Islamic fundamentalism you so despise. He was no threat to the U.S.
robtronik wrote:I don't consider that manipulation, I consider it a clear statement on our new policy with regard to enemy states who have motivation to support, utlize, and harbor WMDs with the intent of using them.
Yes, our new policy is fabricate evidence of why a country is a threat and then attack it for our own aims. Germany claimed self defense when it invaded Poland. Poland was a terrible threat to Germany.
robtronik wrote:Add terrorism to that mix and you've got the reason why he was removed.
Terrorism? The U.S. defines terrorism as any act by someone that resists US dominance. That would be every country in the world that is not our vassal.
robtronik wrote:Obviously if 9/11 hadn't occured, Saddam would probably still be in office, but that day changed everything with regard to our strategy towards countries and guys like him. Exit Taliban for the same reason.
Well the Taliban is again arising in Afghanistan. And the country was better off then, than the chaotic warlordism present now. One of the big reasons the Taliban had to be gotten rid of is because they stopped the growing and producing of heroin. Now Afghansitan is once again producing 50% of world supply. Hey, isn't commerce good!
robtronik wrote:If Iran isn't smart, it may find itself in the same delimma with its nuclear ambitions as well as it support of Hez and other terrorist organizations. Already the U.N. security council has recommended sanctions unanimously if Iran doesn't comply. It only goes down hill for them if they don't change their strategy...
Pretty clear to me.
rob.
The U.S. has demonstrated 0 evidence of Iranian nuclear capability. It does not matter. Iran knows that it does not matter if the agree or disagree. The U.S. has already decided to attack, just like it did with Iraq.
As for Hezbollah. It is a political party, and according to international law, a legitimate resistance organization. We only call it a terrorist organization because it stands in opposition to U.S. wishes. Same with Hamas.
Want to talk about terrorism?
The U.S. has as rich a history of supporting dictators and squashing democratic tendencies. Another September 11th in 1973 comes to mind when the U.S. backed the brutal dictator Pinochet to overthrow Allende. It took the people of Chile 17 years to get rid of the guy. And of course Saddam was our buddy during the time he used the mustard gas we so decry now. The U.S. do not make a peep at the time, though it was known.
Suharto, Somoza, Noriega, Duvalier, Marcos, Batista, and a long long list of others. Many installed with US backing. Many trained at the US School of the Americas in techniques of terror, torture and counterinsurgency. In the past 5 years, the US has twice supported the attempted overthrow of the democratically elected President of Venezuela.
South America is just getting itself free of the clutches of the U.S. The U.S. is doing its best to put down the inspiring uprising of participatory democracy that is sweeping the continent.
The United States is the greatest threat currently existing to long term human civilization.
I can't help but respond:
1) Saddam: The past 30 years of Iraq evolving into an enemy of the U.S. is well documented. Go research it. You do yourself a big disservice to your arguments by making arguments that aren't grounded in fact and current realities.
2) Fabricate evidence? You mean the intelligence reports that were widely distributed and reviewed by many western nations and agreed upon as valid? Quite the conspiracy there. Again, it is completely valid to say the administration became overly aggressive trying to prove their case why Saddam was a threat with WMD's in the immediate sense, but that still doesn't remove his violations of U.N. security council resolutions, and the fact that he had them and used them already. He also had the opportunity to produce proof that he had rid his country of them as required by the U.N. Security council and he did not. What happened to Saddam lays securely on his shoulders.
Lie? No. Mistaken at this point, yes. Two entirely different things and reveal very different motivations. But it is apparent that you have one lense you are seeing this through, so I certainly don't expect you to agree.
BTW- you are dangerously close to invalidating the entire discussion by invoking the comparison of Nazi Germany to the U.S. LOL.
3) I like how you think it is more important to have stability and maintenance of the status quo than it is to struggle for freedom and representative government. Hey, just leave that fascist, terrorist supporting regime in place because it keeps HEROIN production at bay! Wow, that's quite the principled approach.
In fact, it is dangerously close to the mindset that got us in trouble supporting regimes during the last 100 years that supplied us with Oil. Don't rock the boat! The oil is flowing in our direction, you know!
I'm not sure what idealistic vision you have where creating a democracy is without penalty, sacrifice, and hardship. But which is worse? A self determined hardship or one that is imposed, without choice, by a dictator?
I'm curious as to why you would even stick up for the Taliban? What principles of government, protection of the people's rights, women's suffrage, civil rights, freedom of religion, and right to protest do you think was outstanding versus the rest of the world?
This is the problem with moral relativism at its extreme, btw. It clouds your judgement for determining what principles are right and wrong.
Terrorism? The U.S. defines terrorism as any act by someone that resists US dominance. That would be every country in the world that is not our vassal.
this is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to start. We have disagreements with Venezeala, Castro's Cuba, France, Germany, Turkey, hell even the main $$$ sponsor of terrorism, Saudi Arabia and do we label these countries or their leaders as terrorists? NO.
And, secondly, I'd be curious as to why you would not want to label those who have killed citizens as a matter of
policy rather than targeting military or infrastructure targets in a fight as terrorists? That's what Hamas and Hez and Al Q. DO. They kill citizens as a matter of policy in their fight. That's terrorism.
With regard to Iran: There is a big thread here on Iran that I started a few weeks back. Go read it by searching. Then go read the recent statements by Iranians President and think about what he is saying directly.
I don't need to bring up any more proof than what the President of Iran is saying today about their nuclear capability. The words "it will be too late" come to mind when Iran's president remarks about Western countries need to capitulate to their demands in light of the Nuclear efforts going to sanctions... Yes, sounds very benign to me.
And again, no one has decided to attack. We can beat Iran by sanctions and letting them pull their own trigger. It will happen. Watch. Besides, Iran is no Iraq. The strategy for not allowing them nuclear capability is going to be executed much differently than how Saddam was removed....
Watch.
With regard to the U.S. Supporting Terrorism groups as a matter of policy in South America etc. in past administrations: YES. This is why I support Bush in this regard. He's stopped that line of demarcation and has decidely changed our policy to not support these groups, talks and acts in ways that support the growth of democracies, and is committed to the idea that people should be supported in their quest to be free.
Yes, and you will bring up Guantanamo, etc. as though that invalidates our current foreign policy. I will respectfully disagree, and so on, and so on...
.02 and all that,
rob.
