PDA

View Full Version : Another perspective on the war in Iraq.



punchingdummy
29th March 04, 12:31 PM
The piece below came across by desk at work and I thought I'd share it. While there is plenty of imprecision to provide fodder for liberal-minded responses, there's enough here to provide a more conservative perspective.

****************************
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S history.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

> > >
> FDR led us into World War II.
> Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
> From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
> an average of 112,500 per year.
>
> Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
> North Korea never attacked us.
> From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
> an average of 18,333 per year.
>
> John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
> Vietnam never attacked us.
> Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
> From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
> an average of 5,800 per year.
>
> Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.
> He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
> Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.
> > >
> In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
> President Bush has liberated two countries, >
> crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
> put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
> captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
> We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.
> Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
>
> Worst president in history? Come on!
> >
> The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
>

Shadow_Dragon_X
29th March 04, 12:41 PM
Well, I suppose that is one way of looking at things.

coner400
29th March 04, 06:57 PM
i agree, it is a different way of looking at things. i also agree that there have been lots of uncalled-for attacks on countries in the past. however, iraq never attacked us. so what makes bush different from all the other presidents? also, germany did attack us - their submarines sunk some of our freighters in the atlantic (im not trying to defend america, just roosevelt.) and, hopefully you only forgot about the telegram that germany sent to mexico asking them to attack us. i think bush is the worst thing to happen to america. he borrowed trillions of dollars from countries that will have to be payed back someday and by someone. he spent 87 billion of those dollars and six hundred lives (and thats only counting americans) on a war based on false information. after winning the war he stole (and is probably still stealing) thousands of drums worth of oil from iraq. The worst president america has ever had? Definitely.

DJeter1234
29th March 04, 07:27 PM
um, yeah, that was WW I.

punchingdummy
29th March 04, 07:35 PM
Embedded within the original message above is a glimpse of what I believe the war in Iraq is really about. That is, a greater war on terrorism and a new US policy in the middle east. This is just speculation on my part and not based on any particular information I have. I'm not even sure I agree with it, but I do think this it is plausible....

1. If you believe that using the same political tactics which have been used in the past will generate the same results as we have seen in the past, then a new approach to the middle east should be entertained. Maybe an approach which conflicted with the counsel of Mr. Clarke, whos guidance was perhaps less than effective, was warranted. The Bushies saw an opportunity and ceased it.

2. The war in Iraq IS about WMD. Probably not in the sense that the media has hyped it, and that liberals frame it, but it is the focus. What concerns the US more than Al Queda's attacks is that 9-11 showed the world we are succeptable to attack. A terrorist state with WMD is of much greater concern. The message the US is trying to send to adversarial states is that if you have WMD, or even foster the illusion that you have them, you may be a target. In addition, stalling and playing the UN as a means to buy time to develop WMD may not be as simple as it was before the Iraq war.

3. The war in Iraq IS about terrorism. The view that Iraq was not part of the 9-11 attacks and therefore a diversion from the war on terrorism is narrow-minded and short-sighted. In contrast, placing US and coalition troops on the border of the likes of Syria and Iran is a strong message. It is an attempt to pressure such terrorist states to rethink certain policies. <Especially if you take the position, like I believe many in the BUsh administration do, that there is no hope for real progress on the Palestinian state as long as the likes of Syria is allowed to sabatoge peace attempts>

4. By establishing a footprint in Iraq, the US military can more easily abandon bases in Saudi Arabia and can more constructively deal with the duplicity of that country. Troops in Babylon, while upsetting to many Muslims, is also less inflamatory than the US near Mecca.

5. Saddam is a bad guy. He was shooting at US aircraft on a regular basis. Iraq breached agreements for which the end of Gulf I were based. Saddam did not comply with UN numerous resolutions. It was reasonable to believe a strong likelihood he had some WMD capabilities. In short, war with Iraq was justifiable on many grounds.

So...we now have a bad guy out of power, US power projected close to Syria and Iran, an incredible turn of events in Libya, renewed inspection discussions with Iran and North Korea, and all while making progress on the Al Queda front.

Yes, there are many problems and risks with this appraoch. There are just as many problems with the way the Bushies have approached this. What I wonder is whether or not this is along the lines of what they are thinking. If so, why haven't there been more discussions about it? Of course, I'm speculating. But if there is any validity to this, it is the kind of thing that should be debated in public as we approach elections (and not the "irrational partisan" crap that the media is addicted to).

Ka-Bar
29th March 04, 07:55 PM
<<Germany never attacked us: Japan did.>>

We declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, as a result, Germany declared war on The U.S.

<<North Korea never attacked us.>>

North Korea invaded South Korea unprovoked, we intervened as part of a United Nations joint command.

<<John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.>>

China and North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam at Russia's urging. Kennedy supplied Green Berets to train S. Vietnamese counter-insurgency forces per U.S. Cold War policy. Kennedy later expands military presence "to prevent a Communist takeover of Vietnam which is in accordance with a policy our government has followed since 1954." The number of military advisors sent by Kennedy will eventually surpass 16,000.

<<Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.>>
U.S. peacekeepers sent by Clinton were attempting to enforce a cease-fire agreement as part of a NATO coalition.

<<He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.>>

Another lie. Clinton was offered bin Laden by an unkown middle man who claimed to have Sundanese connections, while neither Sudan nor the U.S. had no ties with him.

<<In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.>>

Crushed the Taliban? Then why are they still killing Afghani troops?
http://rds.yahoo.com/search/news/S=53720272/K=taliban/v=2/SID=w/l=NSR/R=1/SIG=11kiq6l8r/*-http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=59939

Crippled al-Qaida? Did you forget about the train bombing in Spain?

<<Worst president in history? Come on!>>

Yup. Easily.

Typical conservative rant...long on rhetoric and rants, short on actual facts.

coner400
29th March 04, 08:25 PM
very well written, punchingdummy. (that is assuming you wrote it yourself.) you sound like an intelligent version of john ashcroft. but id like to add a few things. why is america, with the exception of a few other countries, the only country allowed to have WMD's? do we think we're better than every other country? also, we need a president that will apologize to the middle east and remove all american troops. This includes the cease of support for israel. I think that upon doing this, we will no longer be targeted by terrorists. The middle-eastern terrorists are only terrorizing in retalliation to our messing with them.

punchingdummy
29th March 04, 10:12 PM
The second post was written by me, not the first (not sure which you are referring to).

I'm also not nearly as conservative as John Ashcroft. What's written is just my belief of what the real motivations are in Iraq - neither support for or condemnation of them. I just don't think there is an honest discussion of our intentions in the media, on the campaign trail, and among people in general.

To answer your first question, we are not the only country with WMDs. The objective is to stop prolifieration. Yes, the US is in the hypocritical position of possessing them AND acting against others who are looking to do the same.

The complete withdrawal of US troops from the middle east and withdrawal of support from Isreal will NOT stop the US from being targeted by terrorists. It will empower only empower terrorists to take addtional action against us (as us walking away from the Beruit barracks bombing and running away from Somolia have demonstrated). What they are really in conflict with is our value system.

coner400
30th March 04, 10:10 PM
no one REALLY knows what the terrorists' REAL motivation is (value system, israeli support, etc.)
and you feel the same way most americans do. i find it hard to believe that while we share a value system with many countries including canada, england, germany, and japan, we are the only ones being attacked. however, these countries are generally peaceful, especially in the middle east (as far as i know; correct me if im wrong) the u.s., on the other hand, has military distributed all around the world, particularily in the mid east. Therefore, i believe that if we remove military personnel from the mid east and discontinue our support for israel, we will become obselete in the terrorists' minds.

DJeter1234
30th March 04, 11:30 PM
of course we will. And when they attack Israel and nuclear fallout insues, no one would possibly think to blame us, because obviously we weren't interfeering. Hell, there's even precedent. Look at what happened to Africa when Europe pulled out all at once but kept their economic interests. Simplistic solutions RULE!!

Phoenix
31st March 04, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
The complete withdrawal of US troops from the middle east and withdrawal of support from Isreal will NOT stop the US from being targeted by terrorists. It will empower only empower terrorists to take addtional action against us (as us walking away from the Beruit barracks bombing and running away from Somolia have demonstrated). What they are really in conflict with is our value system.

Bullshit.

One of the main motives behind terrorist attacks on the United States is because they (the US) still believes that the right is reserved to them to police the world.

Have you ever heard the phrase that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

I do NOT condone what Al Qaida, the IRA, the FLQ or any other terrorist organization does, because it merely creates more bloodshed.

But you have to consider the fact that these people are pissed off for a reason. And given Bush's track record, that reason isn't too hard to see.

Jolly_Roger
31st March 04, 12:44 AM
Amen to that

DJeter1234
31st March 04, 01:06 AM
ok, let me say this. I consider myself a liberal. However, I HAVE A FUCKING PROBLEM WITH THE SYSTEM OF VALUES THAT CONTROLLS MOST OF THE MIDDLE EAST. I do thouroughly believe that a system that incorperates human rights and self-determination is superior to a system that doesn't. Leaving the middle east alone, especially after fucking it up, is stupid. It will not magically resolve itself. Even if the non-Isreali world does some hoe magically wipe out Israel w/o causing a world war or other disaster, your "best-case" scenario is that the closest thing to a democracy has been wiped out and your left with a bunch of states that cut off a wemon's clit and imprison anyone who wants democratic change. This is not a good thing. We CANNOT be isolationists because what happens elsewhere in the world affects us. But we do have to go about it in a better way.

KC Elbows
31st March 04, 01:59 AM
I think the other problem we have is that our administration seems to work under the assumption that because a lot of our shenanigans in the middle east were in order to deal with the cold war, that the middle east will have just forgotten. I just don't picture the Iraqis saying "Oh, you mean my mother was raped repeatedly by bastards you gave the opportunity for power to fight the soviets? Oh, well, forget MY anger, those soviets were real bastards. My mother was lucky. It could've been communist cock, after all."

Fortunately, we've got half the principles of Iran-Contra to help us along the way. Bush needs to break Eugene Hasenfus out of mothballs and get him running guns and drugs again. At least it'd keep that guy from masturbating in WalMart parking lots for a while.

J-kid
31st March 04, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by coner400
no one REALLY knows what the terrorists' REAL motivation is (value system, israeli support, etc.)
and you feel the same way most americans do. i find it hard to believe that while we share a value system with many countries including canada, england, germany, and japan, we are the only ones being attacked. however, these countries are generally peaceful, especially in the middle east (as far as i know; correct me if im wrong) the u.s., on the other hand, has military distributed all around the world, particularily in the mid east. Therefore, i believe that if we remove military personnel from the mid east and discontinue our support for israel, we will become obselete in the terrorists' minds.

Thats a dumb train of logic, your thinking if we leave them alone they will leave us alone and its just not true, they have been brought up to hate us and our way of life and the terriost groups have one thing on there mind to kill and to kill as many as they can. We need to hunt down and eliminate the thread before they can eliminate us. You see you think they think the same as us which is just not true.

They want to cause as much damage and kill as many as possible, Spain having stupid leadership thinks if they pull out of iraq that they will be spared. Its just not true....

its a kill or be killed world and if your not the one killing your the one being killed.

punchingdummy
31st March 04, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Rising Phoenix
Bullshit.

One of the main motives behind terrorist attacks on the United States is because they (the US) still believes that the right is reserved to them to police the world.

Have you ever heard the phrase that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

I do NOT condone what Al Qaida, the IRA, the FLQ or any other terrorist organization does, because it merely creates more bloodshed.

But you have to consider the fact that these people are pissed off for a reason. And given Bush's track record, that reason isn't too hard to see.

I agree with your first statement...including the part that it is"one" of the motivations. They ARE pissed off for many reasons...but most of them boil down to poverty and western values. If you believe that the islamic hatred for the US is based upon Bush policies then you have about fifty years of history to catch up on. You may also want to keep an eye on current events and observe how this is not simply a US issue. I'm sure the good people in Chechnya, Russia, Uzbejkistan, Spain, Pakistan, Bali, Turkey, etc. etc. would disagree with your perspective.

coner400
31st March 04, 04:41 PM
well, we won't know if thats true until we stop what we're doing (which will probably never happen).
Also, the terrorists were brought up to hate us because of what we're doing right now. If we were just isolationists, and remained isolationists, they wouldn't be attacking us.

coner400
31st March 04, 04:43 PM
(that statement was in reply to j-kid's)

coner400
31st March 04, 04:44 PM
i agree with rising phoenix.

Freddy
31st March 04, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by coner400
well, we won't know if thats true until we stop what we're doing (which will probably never happen).
Also, the terrorists were brought up to hate us because of what we're doing right now. If we were just isolationists, and remained isolationists, they wouldn't be attacking us.

I agree. An isolationist policy isnt that bad an idea. Terrorist in general arnt attacking Japan or Sweden etc. They just do their own thing and keep to themselves.

Dochter
31st March 04, 06:42 PM
An isolationist policy is assinine.

Dochter
31st March 04, 06:43 PM
The simple fact is that the US cannot exist econimically as it is or even at a reduced standard of living according to isolationist policies. Too much of our economy is tied to foreign factors and to ignore foreign issues and stick our heads in the sand is a good way to bring about disaster.

kismasher
31st March 04, 06:45 PM
psshhaaww, like that would ever happen...

Dochter
31st March 04, 06:56 PM
Oh yeah and if we went all isolationist the evil hordes would try and invade to take our women.

Just like aliens.

JohnnyS
31st March 04, 07:08 PM
Didn't OBL say that the attack on Spain was because of something that happened in the 15th century?

Dochter
31st March 04, 07:15 PM
I think that was John Stewart.

coner400
31st March 04, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
I agree. An isolationist policy isnt that bad an idea. Terrorist in general arnt attacking Japan or Sweden etc. They just do their own thing and keep to themselves. lol? sarcasm?

coner400
31st March 04, 09:16 PM
america in its current economic state couldn't live as isolationists in an economic respect. This is true. however, in a militaristic respect, any country could be an isolationist, including america.

punchingdummy
1st April 04, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Dochter
The simple fact is that the US cannot exist econimically as it is or even at a reduced standard of living according to isolationist policies. Too much of our economy is tied to foreign factors and to ignore foreign issues and stick our heads in the sand is a good way to bring about disaster.

The Dochtor is correct. With regards to the middle east it bolds down to three words: OIL OIL OIL.

We could also get into a debate about the laws of comparative economic advantage and the reletive befinit to poor countries of trade (over world loans). The bottom line is that in the end, isolationist policy would be economic disaster for many countries.

punchingdummy
1st April 04, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by coner400
america in its current economic state couldn't live as isolationists in an economic respect. This is true. however, in a militaristic respect, any country could be an isolationist, including america.

The US cannot manitain its economic interests in an isolationist state. Specifically, access to OIL OIL OIL.

DJeter1234
1st April 04, 07:06 PM
J-kid, if this was a kill or be killed world there would only be one person left. Obviously, people can learn to live together and I'd rather focus on that. Most of the time, violence begets more violence. A lot of the times violence is necesary, but if we ever want it to stop, we have to keep alternetives in mind.

corner, no. just no. Right now, it is possible that they wouldn't attack us if somehow we compeltely pulled out. Maybe. But Crusades weren't the only armed conflicts between Christains and Islam. It went the other way, 2. And saying "we'll never know unless we try" to a theory that a) has very little to support it but an assumption that they wouldn't do what we woudl do (aka their culture is somehow more peacefull than ours) and b) would completely screw up the world if it fails is like saying that we will never know if elves pulling downwards at the rate of 9.81 m/s^2 are teh cause of gravity, so maybe if we refrain eat enoguh keebler cookies before jumping off a building we won't die.

Freddy
1st April 04, 07:12 PM
Economic cooperation would be better.

coner400
2nd April 04, 07:22 PM
how old are you djeter?

DJeter1234
2nd April 04, 11:38 PM
I'm 19. And if your going to tell me that the reason my views are more conservetive than yours is because I'm still young I'm going to laugh.

coner400
3rd April 04, 10:40 PM
lol. dude, im thirteen. so you don't have to worry about that.

coner400
3rd April 04, 10:41 PM
however younger people are usually more liberal. its the older ones that tend to be conservative.

coner400
3rd April 04, 10:42 PM
correction, ill be fourteen in three days

DJeter1234
4th April 04, 12:04 AM
yeah, that's why i would laugh. btw, if you want some actual ammo for the pacifist/love angle, i recomend "A People's Histor of the United State" by Zinn

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060528370/ref=lpr_g_2/102-4946707-1664915?v=glance&s=books

and "A Force More Powerfull"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312240503/102-4946707-1664915?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=IC0KSFGF61NI3&colid=31KCWUYC3KHJE

coner400
5th April 04, 04:03 PM
thanks for the reccomendations. for you, i reccomend rogue state bye william blum.

DJeter1234
5th April 04, 04:55 PM
I'm from near Bethesda, MD and i go to Brown. Trust me, I've seen enough arguements on the liberal side

Hannibal
6th April 04, 07:43 AM
Here are my thoughts:

Despite what many people say in my country I believe the Jews are not the enemy. But I believe the Arabs are a race that cannot co exist in harmany with themselves let alone others. Just look at their histiry over the coarse of the last 30 years any excuse to go to war. Just look at all the nations worldwide which have Islam as their domiant religion. These are countries where human and animal rights are oppressed,these countires are rife with violence and freedom of speech opinion is highly limited.These countires are ruled by fear and intimidation.

A western chrisitan country or a Jewish regime is far more benefical to live within and anyone who says otherwise obviously hasn't experianced a Muslim culture up close and personal.

Freddy
6th April 04, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Hannibal
Here are my thoughts:

Despite what many people say in my country I believe the Jews are not the enemy. But I believe the Arabs are a race that cannot co exist in harmany with themselves let alone others. Just look at their histiry over the coarse of the last 30 years any excuse to go to war. Just look at all the nations worldwide which have Islam as their domiant religion. These are countries where human and animal rights are oppressed,these countires are rife with violence and freedom of speech opinion is highly limited.These countires are ruled by fear and intimidation.

A western chrisitan country or a Jewish regime is far more benefical to live within and anyone who says otherwise obviously hasn't experianced a Muslim culture up close and personal.

cryptic racist remark

DJeter1234
6th April 04, 05:13 PM
Hanny, r u acusing the people or the culture?

Freddy
6th April 04, 05:16 PM
"...the Arabs are a RACE..."

DJeter1234 I think the above qoute would answer your question.

DJeter1234
6th April 04, 05:18 PM
ah. o well, it is hannabil.

coner400
7th April 04, 08:04 PM
despite your nazi characteristics, hannibal, you've got a point. most islamic states have totaltarian governments. but like djeter said, thats islamic culture and obviously your morals differ from theirs. i think the best solution for this problem would be a worldwide abolition of religion. when you think about it, in the past religion has done more bad than it has good. The islam-judaism wars, the crusades, the holocaust, these are all examples of mass murders due to one's religion.

Southpaw
7th April 04, 08:23 PM
People fight over religion because it's hard to justify war over money and power.


And the Muslims I know are among the most peaceful people I've ever met. Perhaps they'd be angrier if they were poor and subjugated?

Phoenix
7th April 04, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Hannibal
A western chrisitan country or a Jewish regime is far more benefical to live within and anyone who says otherwise obviously hasn't experianced a Muslim culture up close and personal.


So, Hannibal, are you telling us here that YOU have experienced a Muslim culture up close and personal?

If so, please elaborate.

DJeter1234
7th April 04, 11:18 PM
yeah, banning religion would work, cause all the whako's go away when you persecute a religion. corner, you need to get out of boolean mode

Southpaw
8th April 04, 11:48 PM
I don't think Religion needs to be banned. But perhaps religious people should start following the fundemental teachings instead of using them to alienate the population with different beliefs?

Phoenix
8th April 04, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Amp
I don't think Religion needs to be banned. But perhaps religious people should start following the fundemental teachings instead of using them to alienate the population with different beliefs?


Just to add on to that...

Religion is also one of the biggest forms of propaganda and control.

That's alot of the problem right there.

coner400
9th April 04, 09:13 AM
yes you've all got good points. except for you djeter. and please define boolean for me. also, i know what you're saying and you're definitely right. religion is never going to be banned in this country. america isn't ready for it. the same goes for anarchy. but if somehow we could go back in time and completely erase it from everything and everyone's memory, you know you would agree with me.

DJeter1234
9th April 04, 09:46 AM
you don't like my point? When religion is threatened or surpressed, that's when the the zealots get controll. See the chanuka story or many other groups under Hellenistic rule. And Boolean means in only one of two states, like 0 or 1 in computer code.