0
alpha

Patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush

Recommended Posts

>, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I think that holds true today as
> the United States . . .

Careful there; Bin Laden just released a tape calling Hussein and his government "infidels." I think giving him more money to kill Hussein would be a very, very bad idea, even if he is our friend by that definition. There's a lot more to 'friend' than who you hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

> But the people that brought it on us were in past funded by us. We
> poured billions into their cause for our national interest in 80's.

>Better get your facts straight...

We poured billions into the Mujahideen in the 80's so they would kill off USSR soldiers. Al Quaeda was a faction of the Mujahideen, and they (most likely) pulled off 9/11. Sounds pretty straight to me. That doesn't make us evil or anything, but we should perhaps think twice about doing that in the future.



The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Say what you will, but that's world politics. We can argue all day, but it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I think that holds true today as
> the United States . . .

Careful there; Bin Laden just released a tape calling Hussein and his government "infidels." I think giving him more money to kill Hussein would be a very, very bad idea, even if he is our friend by that definition. There's a lot more to 'friend' than who you hate.



Sounds like you believe him word for word. You seem to question our government, why not question a terrorist? Or maybe it's not possible for disinformation?

I'm done.... I'm going skydiving!!!! Reply if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> You seem to question our government, why not question a terrorist?

I question both. Don't forget, we have a new government program (the total information awareness program) led by someone who was convicted of lying to congress; we proposed an agency to generate false news reports to throw terrorists off the trail. We have a history of lying to achieve our ends.

Also, we seemed to believe the Mujahideen in the 80's, so apparently we do sometimes take the word of terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have not seen any evidence presented (or claimed to be presented) that Iraq intends to make an unprovoked attack the US with VX nerve gas. Maybe I missed it, if so, please direct me to a credible source.



You also didn't see any evidence presented that UBL intended to fly two aircraft into the twin towers in New York and another into the Pentagon. Are you not going to believe that Iraq is a threat until a large number of people die from terrorists supported by him? Maybe the US government should let another attack happen regularly just to remind the American public what happened on 911. That way you can get your evidence on a regular basis.

It seems that actually stopping the attacks before they happen might not be the best solution.


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It seems that actually stopping the attacks before they happen might not be the best solution.


Stopping bad things before they happen is generally a good and noble idea. Starting a war with another country- not replying to its direct acts of aggresion, but actually starting a war- now that is what defines you as the bad guy in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Are you not going to believe that Iraq is a threat until a large
> number of people die from terrorists supported by him?

I believe he is a threat, I just don't believe he is the biggest threat out there. As an example, are you more worried about North Korea or Iraq selling a nuclear weapon to a terrorist? Are you more worried about Pakistan or Iraq selling ICBM parts to countries with nuclear weapons? How about China vs Iraq selling ICBM technology to "axis of evil" countries? And if a country, or even a terrorist group, obtains components that they need desperately (say Stinger seeker heads) will the parts more likely be labeled Made in Iraq or Made in USA?

I worry that our attention to Iraq is leading us to overlook far more serious problems in other countries. North Korea is well on their way to having nuclear weapons and ICBM's, and they are threatening attacks on the US; whatever we do with Iraq, I hope we spare them some attention before we see a Missile Crisis II to go along with Gulf War II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Stopping bad things before they happen is generally a good and noble idea. Starting a war with another country- not replying to its direct acts of aggresion, but actually starting a war- now that is what defines you as the bad guy in my book.



So you are basically saying that we have to let Iraq attack us before we can respond. A direct act of aggression is an attack. I'm willing to be the bad guy if that is how you define it.


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I just don't believe he is the biggest threat out there.



Maybe not, but he is the biggest threat that we are going to be able to deal with in a timely manner.

Quote

Are you more worried about Pakistan or Iraq selling ICBM parts to countries with nuclear weapons



As a government, Iraq by far. Rogue elements of Pakistan might do it but not supported by the government.


Quote

How about China vs Iraq selling ICBM technology to "axis of evil" countries?



Definitely Iraq again. China does not have a history of proliferation.

Quote

will the parts more likely be labeled Made in Iraq or Made in USA?



Since Iraq produces very little military equipment in Iraq I would say "Made in USA". That does not mean that Iraq didn't provide the money or conduits to purchase the weapons. Iraq is more likely to provide intelligence, cover, fake documents, and logistical support to terrorists rather than direct weapons sales. It is harder to trace that type of support back to the government of Iraq.


Quote

I worry that our attention to Iraq is leading us to overlook far more serious problems in other countries. ***

There is always that danger. We can't address everything at once. No one really truly knows who or what is the most dangerous. The ones analyzing the actual intelligence know better than anyone but it is not an exact science.

North Korea is well on their way to having nuclear weapons and ICBM's, and they are threatening attacks on the US***

But are the threats real or just rhetoric aimed at making some type of gain? We have to trust the people analyzing the intelligence for a living to make that determination. We (you and I) don't know even a small percentage of what is actually going on in that country.


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I told you not to take my word for it, but to read it yourself. ...sigh
Russ


So I followed your suggestion and didn't take your word. I had to look through a copy of Koran. It took a while but I learned a couple things. Here is what chapter 5 basically talks about:
- What animal is edible as wild game and how it should be cut besides other details
- The story of Kane and Able
- How to be nice to other people in society and how christians and jews are "people of the book" and are closest (i.e. in that you can marry one or eat their kosher food)
- Some details of Moses and his 40 year journey
- Some details about religious pilgrimage... (hajj?)
- Vice of gambling

Now who "paraphrased" all this as "KILL THE INFIDELS".... National Enquirer!?!?

It seems paranoia is setting in this society fueled by media. And now this gvt has legitimized it in form of some useless alert mechanism that they cannot seem to agree on. We go about attacking countries preemptively out of this false sense of righteousness and all this will probably become a self fulfilling prophecy.
--signoff--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Maybe not, but he is the biggest threat that we are going to be able
> to deal with in a timely manner.

That sounds like the old "Well, I lost my wallet on the other street, but I'm looking here because the light is better." Take the time we need to deal with the threats. We have the strongest military on the planet; we should have the best diplomats to go with it, and enough of them to deal with problems before they become wars. Using the military because we don't have enough diplomats is like shooting suspected criminals because we don't have enough judges.

>As a government, Iraq by far. Rogue elements of Pakistan might do
> it but not supported by the government.

Not historically:

"Reliable intelligence indicates the Pakistani regime is, in fact, struggling to develop its missile program. North Korea continues to assist other nations - most notably Iran, Pakistan and Syria - by sharing propulsion and staging technology that can add range to these nations' missiles; in exchange, Pyongyang receives hard currency and access to certain technology."

>Definitely Iraq again. China does not have a history of proliferation.

But then again, Iraq has no ICBM's. I worry about being shot more by a madman with a gun than by a madman with no gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the spirit of lightheartedness....lol. A friend e-mailed this to me....heh...

If You're Happy And You Know It Bomb Iraq
> by John Robbins
>
> If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
> If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
> If the terrorists are frisky,
> Pakistan is looking shifty,
> North Korea is too risky, bomb Iraq.
>
> If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
> If we think that someone's pissed us, bomb Iraq.
> So to hell with the inspections,
> Let's look tough for the elections,
> Close your mind and take directions, bomb Iraq.
>
> It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq.
> To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
> They've got weapons we can't see,
> And that's all the proof we need,
> If they're not there, they must be there, bomb Iraq.
>
> If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
> If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
> If you think Saddam's gone mad,
> With the weapons that he had,
> And he tried to kill your dad, bomb Iraq.
>
> If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
> If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
> If your politics are sleazy,
> And hiding that ain't easy,
> Bomb Iraq.
>
> Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
> For our might knows not our borders, Bomb Iraq.
> Disagree? We'll call it treason,
> Let's make war not love this season,
> Even if we have no reason, bomb Iraq.
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I have not seen any evidence presented (or claimed to be presented) that Iraq intends to make an unprovoked attack the US with VX nerve gas. Maybe I missed it, if so, please direct me to a credible source.



You also didn't see any evidence presented that UBL intended to fly two aircraft into the twin towers in New York and another into the Pentagon. Are you not going to believe that Iraq is a threat until a large number of people die from terrorists supported by him? Maybe the US government should let another attack happen regularly just to remind the American public what happened on 911. That way you can get your evidence on a regular basis.

It seems that actually stopping the attacks before they happen might not be the best solution.



Did Iraq attack the WTC? I didn't see that evidence either. I though the terrorists were all our allies, the Saudis. Can you tell me where to find that evidence that Iraq was responsible?

There's no evidence that Canada intends to attack the US, so following your logic, we should attack Canada too, before it might happen.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>So you are basically saying that we have to let Iraq attack us before
> we can respond.

I don't think anyone's saying that. What a lot of people are saying is that there are more ways to respond than killing 100,000 people and then missing the person you were going for in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It seems that actually stopping the attacks before they happen might not be the best solution.


Stopping bad things before they happen is generally a good and noble idea. Starting a war with another country- not replying to its direct acts of aggresion, but actually starting a war- now that is what defines you as the bad guy in my book.



Then was Grenada, the Balkans, Panama and Kuwait a bad idea? Who was the bad guy then?
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0