Food Eater Lad

"Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." --Jean Francois Revel



"There is another term for tolerant inaction in the face of danger: appeasement. Whether they know it or not, the Deans, Clarkes, Kerrys and all the other politicians and pundits who will find any excuse for inaction or retreat, are, functionally, appeasers. That is a rational policy -- if the enemy is appeasable. If Hitler had been content with taking Czechoslovakia, Neville Chamberlain would be seen as a great man by history. And Churchill would have been seen as the mere warmonger he was then called. If, today, the Islamist terrorists are appeasable, then Bush is a fool. If they are not, then we should apply to America, Churchill's warning to England over 70 years ago: 'England's hour of weakness is Europe's hour of danger.' And we should be heartened by George Bush's confident strides in the inevitably bloody march to peace." --Tony Blankley

Mojo_PeiPei

Yeah, well another thing that the Deans and Clarkes don't realize is with all their bitching they are aiding the enemy. Stupid petty political bullshit fuels the flames that our enemies thrive off, when they see cowards like Dean and Sharpton it only makes them push harder.

Very nice quotes, lets see how the Tilted left responds.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

rogue49

I believe that the actual action taken was correct.

But the justification, the international interaction,
and the lack of long-term planning has just fumbled severely.

Shoot from the hip, although romantic, doesn't play well in reality.
We are adults of the 21st century, and we can't afford to be naive or idealists.

The administration if they wanted to take this action (again I though it was correct)
is a sophisticated enough entity that should know how to develop a better overall strategy,
including diplomacy, clear intelligence and logistics.

And they should respect the intelligence of the people and the system
to not bluff their way into getting what they want.
Whether a legit policy or not, it deserves proper planning and communication.

rogue49

HarmlessRabbit

This is a ridiculous argument. Saddam was neither the largest threat to the USA, as we have seen, nor did he have large stockpiles of any sort of weapons, nor was Iraq the worst, most totalitarian nation on earth. North Korea, China, and Liberia, just to name a few countries, all have more serious threats in their own ways to the USA. Most of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. Tell me, what actions has brave Mr. Bush taken against them? He hasn't done anything? Oh my, what a coward.

All your quotes say is that anyone who questions the war in Iraq is some sort of coward or traitor. It's funny how people that are so quick to defend the right to keep and bear arms under any circumstances are quick to put lots of conditions on freedom of speech.

We, the USA, should have built an international coalition of nations to slowly move in and shut down Saddam. In hindsight, any rational person can see that this would have been a better course for the USA, Iraq, and the world.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler is a ridiculous, pathetic joke. Hitler and Mussolini controlled most of Europe. All Iraq controlled was a large amount of oil.

"Any rational person can see that Bush's actions have left the USA weaker, the terrorists stronger, and increased the amount of hatred towards the USA far more than ten Bin Ladens or Husseins could ever have hoped for." - Harmless Rabbit

filtherton

According to you.

Seems accurate, but i'm not sure its relevance.

The ww2 comparison would seem valid if and only if the terrorists start taking over countries. Besides, how is the belief that maybe there is a better way to do this the same thing as appeasement?
This tony blankeley fellow seems like a bush policy appeaser. If bush's policy doesn't turn out all right, he is a fool. Nevermind the prices we are paying, the new enemies we are making, and the new policy of preemptive action that we have set the precedent for. This guy is off base because he thinks the war on terrorism can be won. That at some point, through military action, there will be no people willing to die fighting america. I don't know the right answer, but i'm certain that until you can fight the cause of terrorism, treating the symptoms won't amount to much.

Mojo_PeiPei

Fact of the matter is right now Iraq is the front line on the war on terror, and you would have to be insane to think otherwise. Regardless of the premises that got us in there, we are there, if we duck out now (Like the cowards Sharpton and Dean want to do) we would fuck things up x10 then they are going to be at the current rate.

BTW Hitler and Saddam aren't a bad comparison. Both violated international multiple times (Hitler had something like 32 violations, Saddam had a "low" 17) with out action being taken against them. Hitler was #2 are far as brutal murders go, Saddam is behind in a 4-5 spot. Again the Oil arguement is weak and moot, we get 15-20% of our oil from the Saudi's otherwise its from Russia, Canada, or S. America. Talk to Germany or France and see who had more to gain with Saddam in power. Saddam did have links to terrorism, whether or not it was Al Queda, everyone knew he did so you'd have to be an idiot to argue otherwise.

And HR how are we weaker and the Terrorists stronger through all this? You think that us killing them anywhere but here in America would be a good thing. Perhaps the fact that there have been several high level arrests and 0 terrorist attacks on American soil mean anything? Bush must be doing something right. Not to mention us being in Iraq rattles the Mideast which is a thorn in the side of the world. Furthermore who gives a fuck if more people hate us for this. As it goes they are either Arab and/or Muslims that are a problem in their own, or bitchy ass Europeans that already felt that way towards us. I don't see how we are any worse off then before all this bullshit went down. All this did was reveal their true feelings.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

HarmlessRabbit

I would love to see your source for these two facts. Especially a comparison of Hitler and the holocaust to any and all actions of Saddam.

My statement was in quotes, you're not allowed to question it, right?

Repeat after me: Saddam, nor any Iraqi, was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Saddam has never been responsible for a terrorist attack on USA soil.

Now, repeat it again.

Ustwo

Just a word of warning Mojo_PeiPei, I once used the word 'Nitwit' in a general way (not aimed at anyone directly) and it got a mod edit and I got a warning. You might want to tone down the name calling, no matter how justified you may think it is

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mojo_PeiPei

I know Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, but he does have ties to terrorist organizations such as the PLO, ANO, Hamas, and Ansar Al-Islam. And look at the current situation, Saddam is gone, and Al-Queda is in Iraq operating against U.S. forces.

As far as Saddam/Hitler go:
#1 Stalin 50+/- Million
#2 Hitler 4-5 Million killed in concentration camps, and if you are feeling generous 55+/- Million from WWII
#3 Mao ?
#4 Milosevic?
#5 Saddam 1 Million Iran/Iraq war, unknown HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS in state sponsored killings, HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS from squandering oil-for-food money.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Mojo_PeiPei

TY. For the record I wasn't attacking anyone here, if they got beef with what I said they can let me know.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Food Eater Lad

Who said they were involved with 9 11? Not I? I still say, Harmless Rabbit, that Saddam failed to comply with a treaty he signed when he failed to take over a neibhoring nation. He played games with inspectors for years. Do you have proof that he was in compliance? Second time I asked you and no reply.

Saddam would have played games untill he was ready to wage war on his terms. With Europes willingness to trade him for his oil supply it was only a matter of time. That, plus the fact that he killed on average of 100,000 people per year tells me that we did the right thing. Again, Harmless Rabbit, why is the death toll in Iraq the lowest the year the Evil Americans waged war?

Second, America interveined in Liberia, and Taylor is out. So their goes your fuel for that argument.

Third, we are engaged in dipolmacy with North Korea, clearly that is better than war, correct? Or do you scream that since we went to War with Iraq ( after 12 years of FAILED talks) that war is the answer to all solutions. Why do you bring up the fact that we have not attacked Korea as proof that we are war mongers? Surely a liberal lover of life would be happy that Bush is talking first? Why the double standard?

Saddam did support terrorism, or did you forget about the 25 thousand dollar checks he gave to families of suicide bombers? Or is that terrorism ok with you? Politicians, dems and reps, all sword after 9 11 to eradicate terrorism in any way shape or form, and as Hilary Clinton said on 9 14, "any nation that harbors or supporst terrorists is our enemy". Saddam harbored, and financed terrorists.

Why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia? Cause the hijackers did not attack in the name of Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia is making temendous efforst to assist us. They have declared Wasabi ( Sp I know) Teachings to be a root cause of terrorism, they have rounded up known terrorists, they have given information, and for this they are now Subjected to terrorism. Should we blame the whole nation cause Bin LAden is a Saudi? I thought Liberals didnt like the idea of guilt by association. Bin Laden handpicked the hijackers cause he is a clever man. He knows of the US Saudi Relationship so he choose Saudis to carry out the plan. He did this so guys like YOU would go nuts. Guess what, it worked. Had we had closer ties to Pakistan at the time, and Pakistan was willing to work with the US like Saudi Did, I am sure Laden would have choosen Pakistanis to be the hijackers.
Dont allow yourself to be manipulated by this man, as you clearly are. By pickeing Saudis as Hijackers, Bin Laden is dividing Americans. THe truth is Bin Laden knew this would harm BOTH Saudi arabia, whom he sees as a traitor to ISlam, and the US.
DOnt fall for it.

XenuHubbard

Sorry Mojo, this is off the mark.

Milosevic and Saddam doesn't have anything to do on that list.
Chiang Kai-Shek is number five, and he had 3 - 4 million slaughtered people under his belt. And Mao is above Hitler.
I think Pol Pot was number four. And since the list concerns actual murders, Saddam's money-squandering has nothing to do with it.

__________________
The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me.

"What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

Food Eater Lad

YOu are right, Since Saddam is pushed down a few numbers we should have let him get a higher score before we stopped him. How very European of you.

Mojo_PeiPei

I'll concede the numbers being off, my bad he is top 10 worse killers of all time... please forgive. BTW his money squandering has everything to do with it because 1 million people died as a result.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

2wolves

Hardly. In point of fact not even close. bin Laden is still running around the uncontrolled lands of the Pak/'stan border and his money is still flowing.

Unless of course you adhere to the 'flypaper' fallacy so popular by current administration apoligists.

2Wolves

Macheath

You talk about the straw man of appeasing fanatical terrorists and I don't see it this way in the least. The real battle is winning the support of those who would otherwise tolerate them. If you "appease" the voices of potential moderation and conciliation in the middle east, you deny the fanatics their support base. They become just anouther bunch of nutcases on street corners.

The sanctions that crippled Iraq through the '90s allowed Saddam total control of a poverty stricken society. Bad leaders in the middle east are free to blame the west for their own society's problems because the west seems to put no effort into proving them wrong and winning "hearts and minds". The west would rather lock up Mooslims who look shifty.

And while we're bringing up Hitler - would he have had the chance to seize power in a stricken German society if the allies had not imposed harsh reparations and sanctions on Germany?

Churchill NEVER landed on an aircraft carrier with a "mission accomplished" banner in 1942 and then spent the rest of the war trying to sell Nazi Germany to British industry.
He handed the reins over to foreigners and then left post war rebuilding to General Marshall, a man with (shock, horror) an actual PLAN that involved more than pumping domestic stock portfolios.

Why aren't they allowed to learn about Japanese horseradish?

XenuHubbard

I only commented on the facts Mojo presented. Please refrain from knee-jerk reactions, they're not exactly making your arguments stronger. Where did I write that Saddam was a good guy?

Yes, I was born in Europe. And your point is?

We should have / We shouldn't have - discussions are pretty useless right now. I could easily reply with "you shouldn't have supported Saddam in the first place". But this would lead to a discussion regarding who supported Saddam more - the US or France - and I'm not interested in that either.

Trolling does not make a discussion any more enlightening. It just leads to people ignoring later posts that could actually contain something useful.

__________________
The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me.

"What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

Food Eater Lad

Right Bin Laden is still running around so we should stop talking to North Korea, and stop fighting the fires in California.

onetime2

And how would you have responded directly to Saudi Arabia? The Saudis have far more world influence than Iraq ever had and there's no way we could have built an international coalition to sanction them let alone invade them.

eple

So your point is that the US won't fight terror if they have to pick a real enemy? Good thing we have some poor dictatorships to kick around then.

Ustwo

If the Saudi govt was involved directly with 9/11, we would have troops in mecca right now (heh that would be amusing). The fact that Saudi Arabian citizens were involved only shows the level of hate they have been preaching there. By the logic that 'they were Saudi Arabians we should have invaded them', I could go blow something up in England tomorrow and then the UK should attack the US for it.

I DO think Saudi Arabia is a problem, but lets not be silly with it. Saudi Arabia wasn't in violation of UN resolutions, nor were they firing on US/UK aircraft in the UN no fly zones.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

onetime2

A real enemy? Funny I thought in the liberal mind we were embroiled in another Vietnam in Iraq. That means it's not a real enemy?

But anyway, NO your distorted analysis of my post is far from what I said. My well defined point was that sanctions and invasion (the two options used in Iraq) were not viable with regard to Saudi Arabia. My question was: What strategy would those that argue for targeting Saudi Arabia use to protect the US from Saudi involved terrorist action?

eple

Uh, I don't really see what relevance liberal analysis have to do with this. I do not consider myself "liberal" or "conservative", I speak from my own point of view. For your information, I have not voiced any such opinions. Iraq was virtually defenseless after the sanctions.

eple

So where is the proof that links Saddam directly to the attacks then?

Ustwo

Who cares? We invaded Afganistan due to 9/11, we invaded Iraq due to 12 years of violations.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

onetime2

Defenseless? I suppose the missiles, RPGs, artillery, etc were of the plastic toy variety.

As far as the liberal/conservative argument you are right, I shouldn't have labeled you as such. I'm sorry.

The point I was making was simply that, here in the US, we have the same people arguing that Saudi Arabia was a far more compelling target of attack than Iraq and on the other hand spouting off that war in general is not an answer. They can't have it both ways. Again, I apologize for grouping you into that category, but your arguments on this subject have tended to closely resemble those coming from those trying to have it both ways.

eple

Well they certainly gave you quite a hard time invading. Must have taken you weeks that invation.

Talking about similar, equally justified targets instead of Iraq might primarily be a way of pointing out the flaws of the rethoric of war,not neccecarily advocating real attacks on other countries. I do believe you understand that, so don't dumb yourself down for the sake of the arguement.

Food Eater Lad

What targets are you suggesting that we are ignoring? Last I checked, we are trying to solve the N Korea problem peacefull, and that Liberals are screaming that we are doing it wrong. I love how they are saying that talks with N Korea prove we are warmongers.

Iran we are supporting the pro democracy movement.

Liberia we helped, and Taylor is out.

So please explain your remark to me with some actual details, ok?

onetime2

I fully understand the rhetoric but some of these people actually buy into it. They buy into anything "their side" shells out.

It's for those people that I point out that Saudi Arabia is nowhere near similar and far from an equally justified target. It's just a pointless argument made by Bush opponents trying to litter the discussion with sound bites. Alternative proposals are non-existent so criticism is their only option.

eple

Well I am sure the uninformed masses are cheering, but judging from the ridicolous IQ scores posted at the IQ/political views thread, I assumed most people would catch my drift.

Anyway, I just don't by this war one bit, and I believe the same rethoric used to defent it could be used to attack any country in the world. Hell, you could probably justify an attack on Norway using the same rethoric.

Food Eater Lad

Did Norway attack Sweden and when it was clear Norway was going to loose, destroy Sweden main source of income on the way out? Did Norway harbor terrorists? Did Norway kill on average of 100,000 people a year? Did Norway sign a treaty that says it would provide proof that it destroyed its weapons? Did Norway subvert said treaty? Did Norway attack UN and USA planes trying to enforce said treaty? Did Norway do any of these things?


I think Norway is safe from the Evil Americans.

onetime2

Well, if Norway decides to dole out monies to the families of suicide bombers, allow terrorist training camps to function on their soil, ignore a dozen years of UN sanctions, continually fire missiles at US planes in the no fly zone agreed upon by treaty, retain weapons that they agreed to destroy, and make statements encouraging the killing of American (and other) civilians then yeah I guess the case could be made against it.

eple

Damn, they are onto us.

onetime2

Aha! I knew it. Sneaky Norwegians.