Sik, you obviously aren't an idiot, but I really doubt that you've thought through the positions you are presenting below.
SikMonkey wrote:I'll put it this way. I would rather burn up ALL of our fossil fuel and congest ALL of our air and have the effects felt 50, 100, 200, 300 years later than have some terrorist repeat 9-11 or worse TOMORROW. We are all going to die, I just prefer it to be later than sooner.
First of all, "50, 100, 200, 300 years later" is actually right now. The industrial revolution began about 150 years ago, and we are feeling very real effects on 'the environment' right now. More importantly, it's unacceptably irresponsible to knowingly create a disaster for the future so we can be fat, dumb and happy now. Think about what you're saying in regards to Sept. 11, 2001. About 3,000 people died in those attacks - it's totally unacceptable and an infinte tragedy for their families and friends, but it wasn't that bad in the big picture. As an example of really, really bad, the siege of Stalingrad killed about 1,000,000 people over the course of a few years of non-stop bombardment and starvation. How many people in the US alone die prematurely due to air pollution? It's at least 3.000 a year.
So what point are you making? Wars for oil are OK? If that's what you believe, you should say so and expain why. I think that many people on 'the right' are unwilling to come out and say that, in part because of the obvious moral flaws with the position (how many barrels of oil is your child's life worth?), but also because of the logical problems with it. It's obvious that reducing consumption of petrolium is a clear and simple way to de-fund Islamic militants. Personally, I would rather make some compromises at home, than send guys like you to get killed occuping a country primarily for it's oil.
SikMonkey wrote:As for being against war, that's one thing. But when the president makes a decision to attempt to rid this world of a piece of shit like Saddam, we as Americans should stop and say "Hey, the President might just be trying to protect our ass so we should do what we can to support him and the troops", instead of all this "America is so bad. We do terrible things. We are so greedy. We should just say screw ourselves. Let the terrorists do what they want. We shouldn't focus on protecting this country, we should just make sure that endangered tribe of long toenailed pigmies has enough resources to build their own McDonald's " liberal bullshit.
OK - there's a lot going on here.
1) Ridding the world of Saddam - We all agree that violent dictators are bad. I think that the developed, democratic world should do a lot more than we do to get rid of them. Deposing a dictator was only a side-effect of this war from the viewpoint of the people who planned it. If you actually think that freeing people was the primary motivation for this war, and you think that that is enough basis for a war, then do you want the US to invade and liberate Burma?
The administration did have W talk about ridding the world of Saddam. The big problem here is that they couldn't care less about ridding the world of dictators. Because Uzbekistan provided northern access to Afghanistan, the US is cozying up to it's crazed dictator, Karimov. At the same time that we were 'ridding the world of a dictator' we are supporting a wannabe-Saddam there. Speaking of Saddam, there's a charming little photo of current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfled grinning ear to ear and shaking Saddam Husein's hand back in the mid-80's. Rumsfeld knew at the time that Husein had used chemical weapons on civilians and that he was a cruel dictator. Rumsfeld had been sent to negotiate a deal to run an oil pipeline to the gulf through Iraq. The deal fell through, and surprisingly, a few years later the US government started to recognize that Saddam was a bad guy.
My objection is that this administration has cynically used the idea of freeing the people of Iraq from a dictator only as cover for thier invasion when they, themselves don't care that thousands of people are being tortured and killed all the time by other dictators.
2) "President might just be trying to protect our ass" Do you really feel safer now than before the invasion? (more on the major weapons proliferators below) Look at the 'axis of evil' line from that State of the Union address - it was originally written as 'axis of hatred'. What they had W say is that there is a conspiracy of fundamentally evil countries out there in the world. What the line 'axis of hatred' refers to is the idea that there exists a set of countries (and groups) whose 'leadership' use hatred of America as a tool to control their populations. It's a totally different idea. The 'axis of evil' line is crap, but the 'axis of hatred' idea is critical to understanding what's going on. Osama bin Laden couldn't care less about the US, his issue is at home in Saudi Arabia. He really cares about making Saudi Arabia into an even more fundamentalistic religious-wacko place. In order to do that, he has built up a cult of followers. But the US makes for a great enemy - and you need an enemy to control people. This factor is critical in North Korea, and it sure helps Castro to keep power when he can point to US interference and blame it for all Cuba's problems. By unilaterally invading Iraq, we handed big cans of gas and a crate of zippos to the 'haters' all around the world. We will be reaping the fruit of this stimulation of hatred over the next decade.
The W administration used a whole bunch of 'false dichotomies' in presenting the war to the US public. A false dichotomy is a situation where you say "we can either do X or Y and nothing else" when there are actually options in the middle and totally different options. The administration said that we could either do nothing or invade. That's crap. By describing Hussein and Iraq as 'evil', they tried to create the impression that the only thing that could be done is to destroy him. You say below that "there is no negotiating with dictators and terrorists." That is obviously wrong because we do it every day. (See above regarding the stationing of US troops in Karimov's Usbekistan - a negotiated arrangement. Also, we certainly negotiated directly with (and even supplied and trained) Osama bin Laden and his type when it suited us during the post Soviet period in Afghanistan.)
The administration claimed that the course of action being pursued by the UN (sanctions and intrusive weapons inspections) wasn't doing anything to stop Hussein's ongoing production of chemical, biological and nucelar weapons. The administration claimed that Iraq had "hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons" and the Blair government claimed that the weapons could be launched "in less than 45 minutes." These are direct quotes. They made the agrument that the inspectors were being totally fooled and because of that, the only way to stop Hussein and his huge stockpile of weapons was to invade. It appears today that while there may or may not have been an active WMD program in 2002, there were no stockpiles of weapons. In fact, it seems, the combination of the threat of invasion and the ongoing inspection program was effective at suppressing the WMD program. Thus, the invasion did not make us safer, because there weren't WMDs in the first place.
3) I hope that you are hearing what I'm saying here. If you think that what I'm saying is "America is so bad," then you aren't paying attention. I am saying that the current executive administration is pretty bad (we can talk about Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz separately), particularly given how they gained power. The US is a great country and has done great things, but there's huge room for improvement.
SikMonkey wrote:If you hate what's going on here and the way things are being run so bad then take your hippie liberal ass and LEAVE. We sure as hell don't want you. As an American, you have that choice.
I don't 'hate' what's going on here - I'm just dissapointed and worried. I believe passionately in the potential that we have here in the US. Our democratic system, the Bill of Rights and a criminal justice system that is based on open trials by jury in which the accused is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty are some of the greatest achievements of humanity. When we live up to that potential, we lift the standards for the whole of humanity. But when fail, we drag things down for everyone. (Hey, it's tough being a global role model.) Remember, it was a bunch of 'hippie liberals' who dared rebel against their royal lords, to establish a democratic government of equal citizens, to separate church and state, and to recognize the inherent human rights of all people. These were all 'wacko liberal' ideas in the 18th century. Are you sure YOU want to stay in a country like that?
SikMonkey wrote:I'll tell you one thing, there is no negotiating with dictators and terrorists. They understand ONE thing and ONE thing only and that is the use of military force to rule by fear and they will use it to no end, and if GW wants to go into Iraq to get rid of Saddam because he called GW's mom a whore, then I say give it hell.
It's interesting that you felt it necessary to add this in. Again you are presenting the false dichotomy that you can either do nothing about these groups or you can obliterate them. Sadly, there will always be new fanatics to take the place any one that is killed, if that is the course of action taken. The language that you used above is exactly the kind of language that is used in all the endless conflicts around the world (Israel vs. Palestine, Pakistan vs. India, etc, etc) Here's an idea - a 'terrorist' is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone calls their enemy a 'terrorist' - it isn't useful. When the English and Irish stopped yelling 'terrorist' at each other, they started making progress.
SikMonkey wrote:That will be one more night that I can sleep without fear of someone dropping a nuke into the bed next to me, and if you don't think it can happen then I guess the memorial anniversary we will be remembering here in a couple of months shouldn't take place either.
Mj
Reread what you wrote there. You talk about reducing the chance of a nuclear attack against the US vis a vis the Sept. 11th attacks. Even if the administration's 'intelligence' had been correct about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, they still wouldn't have been a major probable source of a weapon to be used against the US. Former Soviet weapons and new weapons from countries like Pakistan and North Korea are the most dangerous sources. The invasion of Iraq has not reduced the likely sources of weapons for anti-US militants, but has emboldened them and given them great marketing material for recruiting and fund raising. Sadly, we are less safe today than 6 months ago.
And, so, that's why it's a terrible thing to pay money to shoot naked women with paint balls!
....anyway, allow me to start this with a joke: