Necessary Evil

[Japher]

Thanks for clarification Spiff...

[Dis]

well we will find out soon if they have any nuclear program. I have no doubt they have the scientists. And I'm sure France gave them the technical papers needed to build a nuke. But I doubt they have the uranium refining and uranium reactors needed to build a bomb. I wonder if they even have any urnanium. I suppose they could build a dirty bomb, but that's just not the same.

[HershOstropoler]

"And I'm sure France gave them the technical papers needed to build a nuke."

That's always an odd point. First what interest does France have in an Iraqi nuclear arsenal? Second, what "papers" needed aren't in the public domain? Very little, the problems are, as you state, mostly technical, are they not?

[Dis]

well it doesn't have to be France. France would have made money by selling them of course. But really anyone could have sold them. Even the U.S.

[Ellestar]

Well that was to show that war is not right. But that doesn't mean I don't support it. I do support war. The rest of that post shows why. It is to ensure the U.S. remains strong as a nation and does not get conquered. Don't laugh it could happen in 50 years or so.

Well, i think it's inefficient. Force is used by one who feels he's weak and want to prove someone what he is strong. Really strong don't need force to show that he is strong. I mean that economic advantage is more important than military advantage, and military advantage don't give you anything at all on the long run. So, only large-scale war can give you some avantage.

Also, it's more efficient to not to spend much on military - see at Japan.

Btw there is one old joke in Russia (not well known and almost forgotten).

Chinese leaders made genious plan how to conquer Russia. We'll send in Russia first 1 tank and then 100 armies with 1.000.000 soldiers each. Russians destroy tank, and our armies surrenders. And Russia is ours!

[Dis]

Japan has been in a recession for many years.

I agree we don't really need to show force. But we can't allow other countries to show how weak we are. ie Iraq.

As for economics. Well that depends if he blows up the oil wells or not.

[Ned]

The major problem I have with Dissidents thesis is its Darwinistic approach to foreign-policy. It suggests that US foreign-policy should be based upon survival of the fittest. It states that if we do not exercise our power to dominate our enemies,. we will lose that power.

It seems to me that Darwinism was central to Nazi thought. The Nazis believe in the dominance of the Aryan race. The German people were allegedly pure Aryan. The Nazis viewed world politics as survival of the fittest. And because they were thus super race, they had not only the right, but the obligation to, conquer and dominate the world - and to exterminate sub humans.

I consider this type of thinking dangerous. This is not why we are concerned about Iraq. I believe we are more concerned about international security, and secondarily concerned about human rights and democracy. Iraq has nothing to do with America extending or preserving its superpower status.

[South killer]

This war is a necessary evil if we are to remain a superpower and not an impotent nation with a military we cannot use. Having a miltary is worthless if you cannot use it. When you are #1, people will continue to push you off the top. We have to be able to prevent that.

I can't believe somebody can really think in this way. The people that are going to die in this war aren't just a number in a chart; They are REAL people, like you or me. Would you like, dissident, and enemy army entering your city and killing people? Would you like to see the corpse of your neighbour or the corpse of your brother rottening in the street? Would you like to be killed? Would you like USA to be conquered by other country?
You are a nazi and a cynnical murderer.
-USA isn't going to ''free'' Irak. They are just going to install a puppet government that gives them all the oil and say is democratical-

The fact another human being (if i can call you this way) thinks like you just makes me ashamed of being a human being.
Please answer me this time and not ignore me just because you know that i'm right and that you are a nazi.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Iraq has nothing to do with America extending or preserving its superpower status.

I don't think it was a primary concern at the very beginning, but the superpower status of the US is now one of the primary concerns in the Gulf War II. The diplomatic crisis has shown the US hadn't a clear domination on the world, as the powers of the upcoming multipolar world are showing (clear opposition from Russia, mild opposition from China, a failed attempt to show a clear opposition from the EU).

The Hawks have developed a new doctrine of American foreign policy after Sept 11, which is to show strength and use force whenever the US-led new world order is threatened. The very aim fo this doctrine is to perpetrate the unipolar New World Order. That's a reason why the military had such a boosted budget (along with the attempt to help the economy), because America must expect not to be helped like before by its partners / rivals, and must be prepared to act all alone in keeping a new world order that becomes increasingly problematic for the others.
Saddam is an ideal target for this : he is a brutal dictator, and one can expect to have much support attacking him, both within or without Iraq. He is mostly harmless except to his people. He dared disobey the US.

[Japher]

America must expect not to be helped like before by its partners / rivals, and must be prepared to act all alone in keeping a new world order that becomes increasingly problematic for the others.

And there's the rub.

Lately, last 60-80 years or so, it seems that when ever there is a "UN" issue or "foreign policy" issue that not only concerns the US, the only people that are willing to do anything about it, besides whine, is US. In the end everyone gets what they want, except the poor creatan the whole world decided to "liberate", and everyone blames the US for any wrong doings that occured in the "war". No duh! No one else is even willing to try, but everyone is willing to point the finger when a mistake is made! Sure.

You really underestimate, or else you just don't understand, the lengths that the US will go to in order to remain the BEACON OF FREEDOM in this otherwise uncivilized, childish, demeaning world. The only reason oppresion is not a form of government is because of the US. The only reason the world is not speaking German, or is ashes, or is being ran by an over bearing bully, or is constant war in every single corner of the world is because of the US and are willing to fight what we deem to be right. In the name of freedom, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Yes, we hold those truths to be self evident, and because of which we are this superpower, and because the rest of the world wants "American idealism to be forced on them" we have become a hyperpower.

So, please.

Saddam is an ideal target for this : he is a brutal dictator, and one can expect to have much support attacking him, both within or without Iraq. He is mostly harmless except to his people. He dared disobey the US.

I love how you brush his people under the rug with a jest and an oh, well... I thought only Americans were suppose to do that. Also, harmless? Man, it's not like he's a bunny or someone. He is a man with grudges, and because of the world those grudges are aimed at the US. His ability to acquire WOMD are evident due to the large amounts of money the rest of that world gives him. Hmmmm, I wonder what he's going to do. Doesn't take a genious to figure it out (though it might in France). So mostly harmless really makes me puke when said about Saddam. Why don't we wait until he is harmful? Why? Because we will se Isreal and surrounding countries perish under this madman.


I can't go on.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor


I don't think it was a primary concern at the very beginning, but the superpower status of the US is now one of the primary concerns in the Gulf War II.

The Hawks have developed a new doctrine of American foreign policy after Sept 11, which is to show strength and use force whenever the US-led new world order is threatened. The very aim fo this doctrine is to perpetrate the unipolar New World Order.

Iraq has nothing to do with a so-called "new world order." The Al Qaeda attack on America showed us that we are vulnerable to terrorism, terrorism on a major scale. Our security depends upon preventing hostile, terrorist-supporting régimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction that might be given to terrorists to be used against America. As George Bush said, a terrorist with a nuclear weapon can sail that weapon into New York Harbor on a freighter. We are vulnerable, and we know it.

While two presidents before him, and even George Bush himself, dithered and delayed on Iraq, never solving the riddle of Saddam, 9/11 certainly changed that. The urgency of disarming Saddam became paramount. Solving the weapons of mass destruction problem of Iraq became primary importance in America's effort to be secure from terrorist attack. What we doing in Iraq has nothing, nothing at all to do with any so-called "New World order." I somewhat believe that this is a fiction created by the left. Certainly, citing pre--9/11 think pieces are substantially irrelevant in the post-9/11 environment.

[Spiffor]

Japher : many things I didn't understand here...

Originally posted by Japher
And there's the rub.

Lately, last 60-80 years or so, it seems that when ever there is a "UN" issue or "foreign policy" issue that not only concerns the US, the only people that are willing to do anything about it, besides whine, is US.

What I understand is that other countries have done nothing in the world except whining since the Versailles treaty. I'm sure the USSR would have loved such a description. Obviously, the former great Europeans powers have also done nothing during the decolonization

In the end everyone gets what they want, except the poor creatan the whole world decided to "liberate", and everyone blames the US for any wrong doings that occured in the "war". No duh! No one else is even willing to try, but everyone is willing to point the finger when a mistake is made! Sure.

Maybe I'm too tired, but I didn't understand anything here. Is the "creatan" liberated or not ? By the US otr by the whining bystanders ? Who gets what he wants ?

You really underestimate, or else you just don't understand, the lengths that the US will go to in order to remain the BEACON OF FREEDOM in this otherwise uncivilized, childish, demeaning world.

Edit : Stalin pretended the USSR was the Beacon of freedom too
And it begins. All very powerful countries so far had believed in their more-or-less holy mission to civilize the world, according to their values of course. It isn't different with the latinization of Europe or the mass conversions to catholicism in European colonies. The powerful really thought they were right, they were a beacon of ciivlization. The Spaniards pretended to believe the mass-conversions were made to save souls. Kind-hearted conquistadors

The only reason oppresion is not a form of government is because of the US. The only reason the world is not speaking German, or is ashes, or is being ran by an over bearing bully, or is constant war in every single corner of the world is because of the US and are willing to fight what we deem to be right.

Help. I don't want to discuss to what extent the USSR / Britain helped winning against Germany, but saying the US is the only reason the world isn't speaking German is utterly laughable. I hope you're aware of it. I admit however, the US is probably the "least bad" hyperpowerful bully the world ever had. Unfortunately, the unability of a retard administration to hold such a power might end up making the US as bad as any other hyperpowerful bully.

In the name of freedom, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Yes, we hold those truths to be self evident, and because of which we are this superpower

I don't like to cut sentences when I'm quoting, but your post was too intense in flag waving... What is the relation between American ideals and American hyperpower ? Current American power has to do with the collapse of European powers after WW1&2 and the recent collapse of the USSR, with China right now not being the superpower it will be. The only president you had that truly attempted to have a moralistic presidency, Jimmy Carter, earned terrible results on the international level.

, and because the rest of the world wants "American idealism to be forced on them" we have become a hyperpower.

Who wants to have American idealism forced on him ? Do you think others happily lay low when you're forcing your idealism ?

I love how you brush his people under the rug with a jest and an oh, well... I thought only Americans were suppose to do that.

I'm explaining why he is an ideal target to the chickenhawks, who are cynical strategists. I don't believe these people will risk American lives and billions of dollars just for the sake of saving people. They'd have already done so in Zimbabwe otherwise, or in other Easern African places (htose which aren't under French influence, because France would make things more difficult).

Also, harmless? Man, it's not like he's a bunny or someone. He is a man with grudges, and because of the world those grudges are aimed at the US. His ability to acquire WOMD are evident due to the large amounts of money the rest of that world gives him.

Harmless : his army is in shambles, the US bombs his country for years without any loss, he has nearly no support in the population and we can hope he'll be betrayed by his army.
His weapons plans are that : plans. He sure would like to acquire WoMD, but he doesn't have the financial ability to build them AND to deliver them.
BTW, I fail to see which countries founded him since the end of the Iran Iraq war, and I fail to see which country have sold him any nuclear material since he has become officially persona non grata in the UN (mostly because there is nearly no money left in Iraq)

Hmmmm, I wonder what he's going to do. Doesn't take a genious to figure it out (though it might in France).

If he ever got WoMD in his lifespan, which is very questionable, it is obvious he'd use them to raise his bargaining power in the region, and become one of the ME's topdog. He may even conquer Kuwait again without retaliaton, pretty possible.

So mostly harmless really makes me puke when said about Saddam. Why don't we wait until he is harmful? Why? Because we will se Isreal and surrounding countries perish under this madman.

Now the madman bit. Boy, your post really had all the cliches about the American cowboys without a clue. Saddam is a murderous dictator, an ******* and a megalomaniac liar, but he is by no ways a madman. He used terror on his people to maintain his hold on power, not for the heck of it. He ridiculed the US on the diplomatic level with skill. His biggest mistake was to underestimate the US' reaction after the conquest of Kuwait. I see a miscaculation rather than madness there.
But obviously, this "madman" just loves to genocide for sport, and would insure the end of his country and his reign by nuking Israel as soon as he has nukes, for laughs

[Japher]

Wow! I thought ppl would just see what I put there say "Japher, your an idiot," and be done with it.

Thanks.

Even though I don't agree with all of your response, my post was merely a rant. I could rebutt here, but I am really tired of arguing with and by the same old cliche's that are just too prolific on both sides of the issue.

One thing I will say is that I will consider the histories of other countries and what they thought they were accomplishing through their exploits, and will also never undermine the other ally forces of WWII.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ned:

Are you kidding, Christians, at least some Christians, doubt whether World War II was justified?

Not all Christians subscribe to a just-war theory.

Mennonites are one of these in that they do not advocate members' military service in times of conscription.

I for one, am trying to see how one could resolve WW2 peacefully, to free the Jews without fighting Hitler.

It all comes down to this. In the case of mass genocide, is it right to kill civilians in order to free those in the process of extermination?

"Even Christians don't agree on this point."

What also I tried to express was irony, exposing the preconception that Christians are a homogenous bunch.

[Dis]

Originally posted by South killer

I can't believe somebody can really think in this way. The people that are going to die in this war aren't just a number in a chart; They are REAL people, like you or me. Would you like, dissident, and enemy army entering your city and killing people? Would you like to see the corpse of your neighbour or the corpse of your brother rottening in the street? Would you like to be killed? Would you like USA to be conquered by other country?
You are a nazi and a cynnical murderer.
-USA isn't going to ''free'' Irak. They are just going to install a puppet government that gives them all the oil and say is democratical-

The fact another human being (if i can call you this way) thinks like you just makes me ashamed of being a human being.
Please answer me this time and not ignore me just because you know that i'm right and that you are a nazi.

I've decided I'm going to ignore you

in any case it doesn't take much thought to see what is wrong with that post. It doesn't even warrant responding to.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Japher
Lately, last 60-80 years or so, it seems that when ever there is a "UN" issue or "foreign policy" issue that not only concerns the US, the only people that are willing to do anything about it, besides whine, is US.

The UN hasn't been in existence for 60 years. You could count the League of Nations, but the US wasn't in it. So that doesn't help.

At any rate, there seems to be quite a bit of selective memory in there somewhere. IIRC, the US has sent troops only once on UN peacekeeping missions, dragging its feet in paying UN deals, and now it wants other countries to listen to it?

[Worthingtons]

I am glad you have the sense to ignore these people Dissident. How can you call dissident a Nazi?? , where has he said that all muslims should be eradicated? or that America should take over the entire world??

How typical of the left is it to use nonsense arguments based upon emotion rather than sound logic. Wernazuma has confirmed my views on him which were formed in the 'Reasons for the Underdevelpment of Africa' thread - which are they he completely lacks the ability to reason with logic from the other side.

[Dis]

Just for the record I do not support other wars in the middle east. Iraq is a special case because of what Iraq has done to Iraqi citizens, the entire middle east and Israel, the U.N., and finally the U.S.

I do not advocate invading Iran for obvious reasons. I do hope we can somehow put more pressure on countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia to crack down on terrorists.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Rothy
I am glad you have the sense to ignore these people Dissident. How can you call dissident a Nazi?? , where has he said that all muslims should be eradicated? or that America should take over the entire world??

How typical of the left

Please. This guy is completely isolated and I've never seen anyone calling Dissident a nazi before, despite the high numbers of lefties here. Calling names, especially the N-word, is typical of any poor troll, whatever the political origin. But maybe the left has dubbed feminists "fem-nazis" ? This is the work of stupidity, not the work of a particular political faction.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Rothy
Wernazuma has confirmed my views on him which were formed in the 'Reasons for the Underdevelpment of Africa' thread - which are they he completely lacks the ability to reason with logic from the other side.

Oh my, not that I really care about Rothy's opinion, but am I really that alone in my thinking and backed only by someone who seemingly hates America more than anything?
I still think my opinion is neither childish and even less unlogical.
Btw., Rothy, "they" should be "that" in your post, right?

dissident thinks Iraq is no direct threat to the US, he says, that ALL of those official reasons are not correct and yet the US should attack to defend their dominance and wealth. This is, at best, a lack of empathy, but more likely cynism if you imagine the dying people in Iraq. But thinking about them is probably "typically left", childish or sentimental bullshit...

Contrary, Ned or Japher, for example, think all this suffering is possible for the betterment of the region and to counter a direct threat for the US (preventive strike) etc. and though I love to disagree heavily with both parts, I'm fine with it, their motivations are not diametral from mine, just their evaluation of the situation is. Actually I think that the discussion between Japher and Spiffor for example doesn't really belong here in this thread. It's not about pro-war or anti-war, it's about the motivations behind it. (and, to repeat it, in the motivations Chirac and Bush are closer to each other than Chirac and most anti-war protestors).

While heavy name calling, like (complice of) murder and criminal, may be drastic expressions, I stick to them as long as dissident can't convincigly say that he favors war for some "good" reason but only for egoistic national interests.

I can't believe I'm so alone in this evaluation. And please, someone, tell me where my opinion is logically flawed?

[Dis]

Iraq does pose an indirect threat to the U.S. though. I explained it throughout this thread. First of all they have severely weakened U.S. power and undermined the U.N. Future dictators will be able to get way with much more because of it. And further down the line eventually those chemical/biological weapons could get into the wrong hands. I just don't see that happening today.

And I don't think your opinion is flawed. It looks well thought out. Esp. the part about Bush and Chirac. You are probably a more moral person than I. I admit my morals are not as good as they should be. I just don't think Iraq should be allowed to get away with all they have. They have made a mockery out of the U.N. and seriously dissed the U.S. Not to mention what he was responsible for in the 80's and 90's...

[Dis]

I'm not sure what to feel. That people actually believe I'm that cold hearted and didn't call me a troll, or that I was clever enough to disguise this as a serious viewpoint.

In either case, this whole thread was a troll. well most of it...

I'm actually anti-war

[Ming]

And as requested by Dissident

Case closed...