Food Eater Lad

No we didnt go to war cause Saddam lied. We went to war cause Saddam invaded a neihbor and when he was defeated he signed a treaty that said he would provide full documentation to the destruction of WMD that he did have. He would give full support to weapon inspectors.
He did not stick to the treaty he signed, and we went in as per the agreement. He didnt provide us with the documentation that he got rid of what he claimed he had, and what we knew he had, nor did he give full, unfettered support to the inspectors.
12 years and not one shred of proof that he adhered to the treaty, so we forced him out.

And it was the correct thing to do.

onetime2

I won't bother to comment on Moore's opinions since he obviously has his own agenda and nothing Bush does will ever be right in his mind.

Was it about the well being of the Iraqi people? Partially, as a means to an end. By creating a viable democratic economy in Iraq a destabilizing force is created among the governments in the region that repress religious minorities and women. Allowing all ethnic groups and both sexes to participate in the political process is a major goal in the new government. I have little doubt some countries in the region fear the effect that a democratic Iraq will have on their grip of power within their own borders.

Other reasons for the Iraq war include proving to countries who support terrorism that they may just have something to lose in all this if they don't get on our team. If Bush followed up his speech about "you're either with us or against us" with yet more economic sanctions that have little effect on the regimes in power, how much cooperation would we have gotten? The same is true of going into Afghanistan.

Certainly the policies we've tried in the past haven't gotten us anywhere. Our role as the only superpower, our reliance on oil, and our long standing relationship with Israel will continue to draw us into the conflicts in the Middle East. Bush's primary motivations are to disrupt the terrorist networks in the short time by denying them outright help from many of their usual sources. Long term the fight against terrorism comes from eliminating at least some of the terrorists labor pools by giving them much more hope for the future.

Is this the right strategy? WIll it succeed? Only time will tell. I do know that it is a far better strategy than the deafening silence I hear for alternatives. There's a lot of "this is wrong because" and very little "here is what we should be doing to fight terrorism".

eple

maybe a "war on terror" is bs in the first place? Just like the "war on drugs" made sure nobody does drugs in the US anymore, the "war on terror" will surely soon stop any solider not engaged in a national army from attacking his enemies.

The whole concept of terror is stupid anyway. Everybody branding each other terrorists to serve their own agenda. War is bad, mmmkay, and the killing of innocents won't be gone even though we bomb some arabic countries.

Fighting hatred and war is what matters, and I hate to be the pinky commie hippie here, but allow me to quote a famous Norwegian Author: "Evil cannot be killed with an axe". Fighting fire with fire on this issue has proven useless time and time again.

Zeld2.0

/shrug no matter what we do in anyway eple, people will always go in circles

nor will they ever change their mind on subjects

im still wondering why some people continue to post around here when their agenda's are so set and will never ever budge even with a gun and all the evidence they need is in their face - hell we should start making posts where everyone's arguments are all preplanned and you only need to click a button to immediately paste all pre-written arguments in

quick and easy!

Killconey

My appologies to eple for the confusion. My name is Killconey, by the way. Nice to meet you. I know what rhetorical questions are and was probably not clear in the way I phrased my criticism. My point is that I don't give rhetorical questions any validity because they are designed to draw the target into a vulnerable position that he can't defend. If Bush and Moore were posters on the TFP, Moore would be accused of flaming. As they are not, he is an activist.

Now, I don't mean this as a flame or anything but I'm curious as to how eple would recommend fighting evil in the world without the use of war. Many groups have come up with ideas on paper, but I've never heard of any peaceful solutions working in the long run. What would you recommend?

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

matthew330

just to put things in perspective for superbelt: a list of terrorist activities from 1980 to 2000. Notice the increase right around the time Clinton took office. They've dropped again. I was looking for a bar graph i had found at one point that illustrates the amount of terrorist activity to the present day, and it's frightening to see how inept Clinton was. If i run across it i'll repost it. The war on terrorism is working despite the best efforts of Michael Moore to prove otherwise.

http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/convter.htm

eple

I would recommend a strong UN or a similar international forum where countries can work out solutions. Also, fair and free trade would probably decrease the big gap between the rich and the poor. I'm not saying terror and war is based only on poverty, but it might be less fighting if there were more to share. I just can't see how any of the big military interventions made in the wolrd post ww2 has done any good? I'm sure I have missed one or two "good" wars, wether or not Balkan was worth it is still to early to say. But seriously, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq I and II, Afghanistan....what good has these wars done? Iæm not saying we should disarm and write cute poems about peace until everything works out, but in many cases, millitary intervention just makes things worse.

Trade and cooperation is key. Very few of the Industrialized, rich countries in the world have any interest nor gain from going to war with each other. The more trade and cooperation being done in the world, the less need for war.

onetime2

Really, you don't see what good came from Korea and Iraq I and II? Talk to some South Koreans, Kuwaitis, and Iraqis/Kurds about that. Very few Iraqis are disappointed that Hussein is out of power. They're upset about the speed of transition to Iraqi rule, slow return of electricity and jobs, etc but I don't think I've heard anyone say "hand the country back over to Saddam".

Superbelt

Clinton:

-Caught the those who bombed the Trade Center the first time and they are now behind bars.
Catching them stopped an assasination attempt on the Pope and a planned simultaneous destruction of 12 airliners Book

Clinton also "thwarted" attempts on the UN headquaters, FBI building, several tunnels and bridges.

He did this by tripling the counterterrorism budget for the FBI and doubling it overall for the government. He destroyed al Qaeda cells in 20 countries and created Condoleeza's cabinet postion to administer all federal counterterrorism activity

His first two crime bills contained anti terror legislation. And sponsored simulations for local, state, and federal officials to respond better to terrorist strikes.

Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines.

On aditional anti terror funding for Clinton:
"The adimistration would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding."
-Orrin Hatch (R)

Clinton committed to air strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan for terror strikes against our embasies in Kenya and Tanzania.
He also issued a directive authorizing the assasination of Osama.

"The President did exactly the right thing"
-Newt Gingrich (R)

After al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole, Clinton appointed our first national antiterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke. He outlined a comprehensive plan to take out al Qaeda. (Remember this is October - Decmeber, right before Clinton leaves office)
The plan called for breaking up al Qaeda cells, arrest their personell, attack their financial support (fake charities), scale up covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate the camps and get Bin Ladin. Clarke also wanted support for the Northern Alliance and special forces troops on the ground.
Does this look familiar? It should, it is everything the Bush admin did... AFTER 9/11.

Instead of starting a war a month before leaving office and handing it off to GWBush, Clinton handed him the plans and let Bush do with it what he would, which turned out to be sitting on them and ignoring it for almost a year.

debaser

Wow, after reading that worthless drivel I dislike Moore as much as Bush.

__________________

Superbelt

Hmm? Well that wasn't from Moore anyway.

debaser

The original quote was attributed to Moores new book, was it not?

__________________

Superbelt

Ooh, yes, sorry. I thought you were responding to what I said.

debaser

Nope, I pretty much agree with what you said. Unfortunately Moore brings up none of these points, his arguements have all the depth of a 4th grade playground insult fight.

__________________

Food Eater Lad

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm



Of course, Moore leaves out the whole story and trys to shoehorn this to fit his private agenda.