T
The Real McCoy
What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
Ask them nicely to stop with flowers and candy...The Real McCoy said:What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
The Real McCoy said:What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
Some?Binary_Digit said:Some of these are unrealistic, but...
1- The Israel claim to their land is at least as legitimate as the Palestinian claim. Why move the Israelis? Why not move the Palestinians back to the countries they came from?1. Let Palestine have Israel, give the Jews U.S. citizenship, and help the Palestinians establish a democratic state.
Because protecting US interests, even if doing so pisses some people off, isnt worth doing?2. Slowly withdraw all U.S. troops from the entire Middle East region, staying or returning only if necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis, and then only as long as necessary.
~75% of our oil does NOT come from the mid east.3. Completely convert to any of a dozen cleaner, more abundant fuels, and end our dependency (and thus interests) on Middle East oil.
If you stop sanctioning countries, the UN will have even fewer teeth than it has now.4. Get rid of U.S.-led sanctions and embargos that largely contribute to poverty and starvation for the civilians.
You;re a terrorist. You find out that the US will do nothing to violate your humans rights. Do you:5. Establish trust and set a good example in the world by practicing the human rights standards that we preach, even for non-citizens.
Isnt it fairly clear that when GWB descibed Iran and NK as 'evil', he was on the money? Same with RWR and the USSR?6. Condemn specific actions by states, but avoid calling them "evil" and driving their military ambitions forward instead of backward.
Proportional responses are what led to the debacle in Vietnam. When you attack, you do so with overwhelming force and keep attacking until you dont need to attack any longer. Restraining yourself to "just enough" invites disaster.7. Measured and appropriate retaliation for specific attacks, not preemptive strikes based on a biased interpretation of intelligence.
The Real McCoy said:What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
Red_Dave said:Thats a meaningless question in my view as there is no link between the iraq war and the attacks on the world trade center or what have you. Those involved in 9/11 [if bush is to be belived] where from saudi arabia and saddam played no role in those attacks. Invading iraq to deal with the perpetrators of 9/11 makes as much sence to me as invading switiland to deal with the I.R.A.
Because partitioning Palestine was the wrong thing to do. How would you like it if China divided up Texas and moved all the Native Americans there? The Jews had been without a "nation" for 2000 years before 1948, the only "claim" they had to that land came from ancient history.M14 Shooter said:1- The Israel claim to their land is at least as legitimate as the Palestinian claim. Why move the Israelis? Why not move the Palestinians back to the countries they came from?
There has been a strong democratic movement in the Middle East, for quite some time now. Gunny tells us that about 70% of Iran's population are dissatisfied with their theocracy and prefer a democratic state. The elections in Iraq are also a testament. I believe the yearning for freedom and self-determination burns within all people.M14 Shooter said:2- A "democratic state" is not a panacea. Unless the people in that state have embraced the tenets of the Enlightenement, democracy means nothing. Witness the elections in Palestine, where Hamas (the sworn enemy of Israel) won big.
That depends. I think U.S. "interests" in the region should be limited to humanitarian efforts, and if that pisses anyone off then they're likely part of the problem. But besides protecting Israel, what other "interests" do we have in that region?M14 Shooter said:Because protecting US interests, even if doing so pisses some people off, isnt worth doing?
25% is enough to be a dependance. Even Bush admits we're too dependant on ME oil, that's why he suggested drilling in the ANWR. Saudi Arabia is our number 2 importer of crude oil, and number 3 for petrolium.M14 Shooter said:~75% of our oil does NOT come from the mid east.
How are we 'dependent' on ME oil?
No, the terrorists will have fewer teeth because sanctions that starve civilians to death is a main talking point in convincing people that killing our civilians is equally justified. The UN needs to grow a spine, but there are plenty of other ways to achieve those goals without sanctions.M14 Shooter said:If you stop sanctioning countries, the UN will have even fewer teeth than it has now.
Are you really saying we have to violate basic human rights in order to win the war on terrorism?M14 Shooter said:You;re a terrorist. You find out that the US will do nothing to violate your humans rights. Do you:
-Embrace the US and thank them for finalling living up to its own standards:
-Smile, knowing that you;re winning.
Their actions are evil, we should concentrate on that only. Whether or not they are truly "evil" is irrelavent. That can be proven by pointing to specific actions. It would accomplish the same thing, calling a spade a spade, but it would be more diplomatic. And diplomacy is absolutely paramount in the nuclear anti-proliferation struggle.M14 Shooter said:Isnt it fairly clear that when GWB descibed Iran and NK as 'evil', he was on the money? Same with RWR and the USSR?
Does it bother you that people have the balls to call a spade a spade?
I agree with your last sentence, but in the case of Iraq, concerning an iminent attack, it's pretty evident that there was really nothing there to stop. For the record, I don't believe that a few cruise missiles in response to the USS Cole bombing was proportional. We should have taken out bin Laden and the Taliban then. By proportional, I mean adequately addressing the actual threat, which includes the right combination of military might and diplomatic understanding, but does not include invading entire nations to thwart a hypothetical worst-case scenario.M14 Shooter said:Proportional responses are what led to the debacle in Vietnam. When you attack, you do so with overwhelming force and keep attacking until you dont need to attack any longer. Restraining yourself to "just enough" invites disaster.
And only a fool discounts the validity of the pre-emptive strike. If you can stop it, there's no reason to let the other guy hit first.
There are Congressmen complaining that Bush didn't share all the information, specifically the caveats in certain intelligence reports that came from the Office of Special Planning and the Presidential Daily Briefs. We'll have to wait for phase two of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation to see who'se telling the truth.M14 Shooter said:"Biased interpretation" of intel?
What "bias" did Hillary, Al, John, John, Ted, etc, have that would lead them to the same conclusions and GWB, Cheney, etc?
M14 Shooter said:You;re proceeding from fals premises:
-No one ever claimed that Iraq was connected with 9/11-That Iraq was not connected to 9/11 does not mean that Iraq was not a legitimate target in the war on terror
M14 Shooter said:You;re proceeding from fals premises:
-No one ever claimed that Iraq was connected with 9/11
-That Iraq was not connected to 9/11 does not mean that Iraq was not a legitimate target in the war on terror
Binary_Digit said:"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." - George W. Bush
.
Binary_Digit said:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." - George W. Bush
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." - George W. Bush
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
I won't argue that there is no crafty politics involved in the "coincidence" that 70% of Americans believed Hussein was personally involved in 9/11, considering how often Iraq and 9/11 are mentioned in the same sentence.
Red_Dave said:But surely "war on terror" was a responce to 9/11? What other terroism would the u.s be fighting by invadeing a seamingly random country?
Red_Dave said:But surely "war on terror" was a responce to 9/11? What other terroism would the u.s be fighting by invadeing a seamingly random country?
M14 Shooter said:Yes. The war on terror was a response to 9/11.
Iraq supported terrorism.
Whats the problem?
Red_Dave said:So what terroism did iraq suporrt that was linked to 9/11?
The Real McCoy said:Saddam funded Palestinian terrorists among others.
9/11 was an act of terrorism.
Terror is terror.
The Real McCoy said:What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
Red_Dave said:Is there any evidence of that? next you will be saying iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If after terroists wouldnt it have been better to have invaded iran or saudi-arabia?
Employee_of_the_Month said:There never was much of a terrorism problem before they accidentally allowed hte plains to hit the trade towers.
Employee_of_the_Month said:As long as there are places in the world where people have nothing to live for but going to heaven, and kids have no family but a gang, and there is the contrast of nations that can go to the moon while others can't even feed their people when their people are working then you can bet your ass that there is something to worry about because it is a mathematical fact that contradictions clash.
And thats what terrorism often is the result of.
The solution is a better and more promising life for the people; and that wont happen over night especially when we have people who dont even care about the American people responsible for the well being of people in other countries.
Employee_of_the_Month said:The war on Iraq is just an excuse to excorcise power in the middle east because that is the only place in the world that still rejects American manipulation.
tecoyah said:1) Correct energy policy to remove dependence on oil
tecoyah said:2) Get the Hell out of the Middle east for at least fifty years
tecoyah said:3)Sit back and watch them kill each other on TV, warm in our snuggly beds
tecoyah said:4) Destroy with extreme prejudice...ANYONE who attacks us. As in Dead, not hiding, not running.....DEAD.
The Real McCoy said:There's a wealth of evidence supporting that.
Invading Iran would be a much worse idea and invading Saudi Arabia would be suicide.
Red_Dave said:invadeing and ocuping iraq was/is hardly a pice of cake but america still managed