Sure glad we took out the "REAL" threat. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

whocarz · 06-21-2004, 03:41 AM

Regardless, I don't see how this has anny relevance to the issue.

Superbelt · 06-21-2004, 03:55 AM

Relevance is, and said in my roundabout sarcastic manner, Iraq was no threat and was actually very far off from being a theat even if it wanted to. And sanctions were keeping them there.
N Korea already was a worldwide threat, being one of the largest militaries in the world, and SINCE the day we started war with Iraq they not only successfully test fired a Nuclear missile but they tested a rocket that brings us within range of the fiery death of their nukes.

Rather than spend the past year and a half engaged with Iraq, what could have been had we extended the same pressure and determination against North Korea?
We wasted time as the world became a more dangerous place.
Preventing that is what a President is elected for and trusted with, when you get down to it.

cthulu23 · 06-21-2004, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Sure I know there are tons (90+%) of moderate Muslims who aren't advocating terrorism, but those people aren't going to become extremists every time we say bad words like "crusade" or something. It's the people that are extremists already that tend to care, and I for one don't give a rat's arse about some extremists' feelings.

It only takes one bomb to turn a moderate into an extremist. When you are invading a nation, you should be careful not to use the sort of language that is guaranteed to inflame anger and smear your purpose there. It is both detrimental to our strategic goals and dangerous for our troops on the ground.

More than that, what sort of nation do we want to be? As satisfying as it might be to fly in the face of global opinion, it hasn't helped our worldwide esteem.

whocarz · 06-21-2004, 04:33 AM

You are right on certain points. Iraq wasn't a threat, compared to North Korea. However, it was a threat to the middle east, and acted to distabilize the whole region. North Korea, as you said, already was a threat. It's a massive threat. However, Iraq, unlike North Korea, has proven in the not so distant past, that it is an aggressor nation. It invaded both Iran and Kuwait, before the US finally stepped in and put an end to that.

North Korea, on the other hand, can't afford to be an aggressor. China to the north and west, South Korea with US troops to the south, and Japan to the east. It's surrounded on all sides, so it is in it's best interest to be passive. What we are seeing is what we have been seeing for decades. It is posturing, saying "Hey, look at me, I'm important too!". North Korea is basically trying to keep it's soverignty, by showing that it can be a force to be reckoned with. It also has come to learn that if it does something that we don't approve of, then stops that behaviour, then it gets rewarded.

Whether you agree with the invasion of Iraq or not (you don't, and I'm indifferent to it), it has happened, cannot be reversed, so it behooves us to act cohesively. All the screaming and pointing fingers won't change that fact, and we have a commitment to stay in for the long haul and fix things now that we are there. However, as I said before, North Korea is completely different. A war with them would have the effect of destablizing the entire region for years, maybe decades, and might put us at war with China.

The one thing I have never understood about the anti-Iraq war movement has been the claim that thousands of innocent Iraqis died because of it. But I never heard people out there crusading for the Iraqi people before the war, when thousands of innocent Iraqis were being killed. Maybe I'm being overly opptimistic, but I think that the war will save more people than it kills in the long run. A war with North Korea will kill more people than it saves, atleast, that's my view of it.

cthulu23 · 06-21-2004, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by whocarz
The one thing I have never understood about the anti-Iraq war movement has been the claim that thousands of innocent Iraqis died because of it. But I never heard people out there crusading for the Iraqi people before the war, when thousands of innocent Iraqis were being killed.

Actually, many groups such as Voices in the Wilderness have been working for Iraqi justice since the end of the first Gulf War. I can tell you from personal experience that the American media rarely shows any interest in the actions of peace and justice groups when there isn't a war on.

whocarz · 06-21-2004, 08:56 AM

Ok, but what effect did this group have on stopping the human rights abuses of the Saddam regime?

Zeld2.0 · 06-21-2004, 11:15 AM

So suddenly this is a war of human rights?

Look, the last time Iraq tried to destabilize the region, they were soundly kicked in the ass by the coalition - and before that, when they tried to 'destabilize' the region, they were aided by us to kick Iran's ass

If they wanted to go out and fight their neighbors, fine, they'd get their ass handed to them by the rest of the world - but as we saw in the fighting early in the war, they're really in no position to do anything military wise without the threat of getting their own country absolutely messed up.

And let's be honest - before this war, how many of you even CARED about human rights under Saddam?

Probably none until it became a convenient card for supporting the war. I mean, some of these people are the same who say "fuck it and nuke em all." Certainly not on this board, but there is that sentiment out there that they don't really matter.

I just hate it when people are suddenly concerned about human rights under the regime when a few years ago before everything, no one cared - just as no one really cares about human rights issues in other nations such as China, N. Korea, or countries in Africa, until there is of cours a reason given to us to.

Going to the beach or doing our daily routine, this certainly doesn't matter

Dragonlich · 06-21-2004, 11:41 AM

Zeld2.0, you seem to make the mistake of assuming that pro-war people didn't care about the human rights of Iraqi civilians. Well, FYI, I did care. I was pretty damn angry when I learned that Saddam had gassed his own people (I was too young to care when it happened), and was angry again when he murdered them after their uprising after the gulf war.

This war isn't "suddenly" about human rights, it has always been about human rights. It's just that some people seem to have a selective memory, and can only remember one reason at a time.

whocarz · 06-21-2004, 12:06 PM

Well put Dragonlich. I had taken some time out of my life to educate myself about the Saddam regime long before even 9/11. Zeld, you are making too many assumptions.

And the did not "kick Iran's ass" nor did we aid them. We sold both sides weapons, but so did just about everyone else. The Iran-Iraq conflict was long and bloody, an estimated million people died. And they did destablize the region. If you are so naive to believe that an eight year long war wouldn't have that effect, then you are seriously deluded.

I've been screaming this from the first time I posted, but I'll post it again, since you learn thru repetition: My point is that THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. YOU CAN NOT HANDLE THEM IN THE SAME WAY. I can't say I care for the glib attitude of "Oh well, you invaded Iraq, why don't you invade North Korea too, since that's what you like." Dubya might not be the brightest bulb, but he isn't that dim. I've listed numerous reasons why war with North Korea would be bad. However, no one seems to address the points I made, and keep going back to the Iraq issue, even thou it has NOTHING to do with North Korea, outside of the fact that we are already over-extended into Iraq and Afghanistan and cannot pursue another war in a seperate part of the globe.

But since all people like to do is gripe and bitch about things that are irreversible and scream "I TOLD YOU SO," there won't be a rational disscusion about the North Korea problem.

Zeld2.0 · 06-21-2004, 12:27 PM

It's an assumption for sure, and like I said, many did care, but there are a ton who only say so when its convenient - a lot of people love to generally say "well fuck the Iraqi's" - not very productive.

It's not easy when people are saying "screw the muslim's" etc. and yes that does happen on this board - then they turn around and say "well i want to make sure they're not gased by Saddam." Uh, make up your mind there

And duh, NKorea and Iraq are 2 different situations, but my beef is that we couldve handled N Korea first rather than Iraq which as has turned out, is a far lesser threat despite the fact that people were screaming about NKorea before even Iraq was around - thats what pisses me off.

whocarz · 06-21-2004, 12:30 PM

How would you propose we handle North Korea?

Zeld2.0 · 06-21-2004, 12:41 PM

As to North Korea...

Well I was actually in S Korea just a year ago on a trip through Asia and visited the area near the border... but anyways here we go:

N. Korea isn't an easy military situation. But diplomatic wise, you have to keep its neighbors on our side (as they are - namely S. Korea and Japan) and most important of all, to keep China on our side.

If any country they're going to listen to, its going to be China (and Russia will have to be on our side as well).

If you can keep them contained by nations without making them feel threatened, the chance they'll do something crazy is far less likely.

In a way it also hearkens back to containment by Kennan - the system itself in there will slowly fail and deteriorate namely due to the fact that its conditions will only go down now that they're isolated with less supplies.

For their threatening overtures, however, one should be willing to use force to prevent nuclear launches anywhere - be it on china, s.korea, japan, or even the U.S.

TBH unless the country is bent on full scale invasion of N. Korea, its really sit-and-wait and handle each situation as they come because they are unpredictable.

cthulu23 · 06-21-2004, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whocarz
Ok, but what effect did this group have on stopping the human rights abuses of the Saddam regime?

Not much since they enjoyed little popular support. As I said before, the American public doesn't pay much attention to peace and justice groups. You could blame that on the media or "compassion fatigue" or a thousand other reasons, but it is the truth.

cthulu23 · 06-21-2004, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Zeld2.0, you seem to make the mistake of assuming that pro-war people didn't care about the human rights of Iraqi civilians. Well, FYI, I did care. I was pretty damn angry when I learned that Saddam had gassed his own people (I was too young to care when it happened), and was angry again when he murdered them after their uprising after the gulf war.

This war isn't "suddenly" about human rights, it has always been about human rights. It's just that some people seem to have a selective memory, and can only remember one reason at a time.

Human rights rarely play more than a tangential role in American foriegn policy. Our leaders at the time (including Mr Rumsfeld) knew about Saddam's gassing of his own people, yet supported him anyway. The murderous regimes in Indonesia, Guatamala, Haiti, South Africa, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and many other countries have all enjoyed support by the US government. Our leaders rarely mention human rights unless there is another reason that they are interested in a country. Like I've said in other posts, the American public is just not that concerned. The primary reasons given for the war in Iraq were WMDs and the threat of Saddam. Human rights abuses were only peripherially mentioned until the other justifications fell apart. Do you think that the American public would have okayed a war if our interests weren't involved in some way? In fact, Bush campaigned as someone who would not be involved in Clinton-esque "nation building" and humanitarian interventions.

whocarz · 06-21-2004, 01:39 PM

Zeld, I share the exact same sentiments with you on this issue.

06-21-2004, 03:41 AM	#41 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	Regardless, I don't see how this has anny relevance to the issue. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

06-21-2004, 04:33 AM	#44 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	You are right on certain points. Iraq wasn't a threat, compared to North Korea. However, it was a threat to the middle east, and acted to distabilize the whole region. North Korea, as you said, already was a threat. It's a massive threat. However, Iraq, unlike North Korea, has proven in the not so distant past, that it is an aggressor nation. It invaded both Iran and Kuwait, before the US finally stepped in and put an end to that. North Korea, on the other hand, can't afford to be an aggressor. China to the north and west, South Korea with US troops to the south, and Japan to the east. It's surrounded on all sides, so it is in it's best interest to be passive. What we are seeing is what we have been seeing for decades. It is posturing, saying "Hey, look at me, I'm important too!". North Korea is basically trying to keep it's soverignty, by showing that it can be a force to be reckoned with. It also has come to learn that if it does something that we don't approve of, then stops that behaviour, then it gets rewarded. Whether you agree with the invasion of Iraq or not (you don't, and I'm indifferent to it), it has happened, cannot be reversed, so it behooves us to act cohesively. All the screaming and pointing fingers won't change that fact, and we have a commitment to stay in for the long haul and fix things now that we are there. However, as I said before, North Korea is completely different. A war with them would have the effect of destablizing the entire region for years, maybe decades, and might put us at war with China. The one thing I have never understood about the anti-Iraq war movement has been the claim that thousands of innocent Iraqis died because of it. But I never heard people out there crusading for the Iraqi people before the war, when thousands of innocent Iraqis were being killed. Maybe I'm being overly opptimistic, but I think that the war will save more people than it kills in the long run. A war with North Korea will kill more people than it saves, atleast, that's my view of it. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

06-21-2004, 08:56 AM	#46 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	Ok, but what effect did this group have on stopping the human rights abuses of the Saddam regime? __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

06-21-2004, 12:06 PM	#49 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	Well put Dragonlich. I had taken some time out of my life to educate myself about the Saddam regime long before even 9/11. Zeld, you are making too many assumptions. And the did not "kick Iran's ass" nor did we aid them. We sold both sides weapons, but so did just about everyone else. The Iran-Iraq conflict was long and bloody, an estimated million people died. And they did destablize the region. If you are so naive to believe that an eight year long war wouldn't have that effect, then you are seriously deluded. I've been screaming this from the first time I posted, but I'll post it again, since you learn thru repetition: My point is that THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. YOU CAN NOT HANDLE THEM IN THE SAME WAY. I can't say I care for the glib attitude of "Oh well, you invaded Iraq, why don't you invade North Korea too, since that's what you like." Dubya might not be the brightest bulb, but he isn't that dim. I've listed numerous reasons why war with North Korea would be bad. However, no one seems to address the points I made, and keep going back to the Iraq issue, even thou it has NOTHING to do with North Korea, outside of the fact that we are already over-extended into Iraq and Afghanistan and cannot pursue another war in a seperate part of the globe. But since all people like to do is gripe and bitch about things that are irreversible and scream "I TOLD YOU SO," there won't be a rational disscusion about the North Korea problem. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

06-21-2004, 12:30 PM	#51 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	How would you propose we handle North Korea? __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

06-21-2004, 03:55 AM	#42 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Relevance is, and said in my roundabout sarcastic manner, Iraq was no threat and was actually very far off from being a theat even if it wanted to. And sanctions were keeping them there. N Korea already was a worldwide threat, being one of the largest militaries in the world, and SINCE the day we started war with Iraq they not only successfully test fired a Nuclear missile but they tested a rocket that brings us within range of the fiery death of their nukes. Rather than spend the past year and a half engaged with Iraq, what could have been had we extended the same pressure and determination against North Korea? We wasted time as the world became a more dangerous place. Preventing that is what a President is elected for and trusted with, when you get down to it.

06-21-2004, 11:15 AM	#47 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	So suddenly this is a war of human rights? Look, the last time Iraq tried to destabilize the region, they were soundly kicked in the ass by the coalition - and before that, when they tried to 'destabilize' the region, they were aided by us to kick Iran's ass If they wanted to go out and fight their neighbors, fine, they'd get their ass handed to them by the rest of the world - but as we saw in the fighting early in the war, they're really in no position to do anything military wise without the threat of getting their own country absolutely messed up. And let's be honest - before this war, how many of you even CARED about human rights under Saddam? Probably none until it became a convenient card for supporting the war. I mean, some of these people are the same who say "fuck it and nuke em all." Certainly not on this board, but there is that sentiment out there that they don't really matter. I just hate it when people are suddenly concerned about human rights under the regime when a few years ago before everything, no one cared - just as no one really cares about human rights issues in other nations such as China, N. Korea, or countries in Africa, until there is of cours a reason given to us to. Going to the beach or doing our daily routine, this certainly doesn't matter

06-21-2004, 11:41 AM	#48 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Zeld2.0, you seem to make the mistake of assuming that pro-war people didn't care about the human rights of Iraqi civilians. Well, FYI, I did care. I was pretty damn angry when I learned that Saddam had gassed his own people (I was too young to care when it happened), and was angry again when he murdered them after their uprising after the gulf war. This war isn't "suddenly" about human rights, it has always been about human rights. It's just that some people seem to have a selective memory, and can only remember one reason at a time.

06-21-2004, 12:27 PM	#50 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	It's an assumption for sure, and like I said, many did care, but there are a ton who only say so when its convenient - a lot of people love to generally say "well fuck the Iraqi's" - not very productive. It's not easy when people are saying "screw the muslim's" etc. and yes that does happen on this board - then they turn around and say "well i want to make sure they're not gased by Saddam." Uh, make up your mind there And duh, NKorea and Iraq are 2 different situations, but my beef is that we couldve handled N Korea first rather than Iraq which as has turned out, is a far lesser threat despite the fact that people were screaming about NKorea before even Iraq was around - thats what pisses me off.

06-21-2004, 12:41 PM	#52 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	As to North Korea... Well I was actually in S Korea just a year ago on a trip through Asia and visited the area near the border... but anyways here we go: N. Korea isn't an easy military situation. But diplomatic wise, you have to keep its neighbors on our side (as they are - namely S. Korea and Japan) and most important of all, to keep China on our side. If any country they're going to listen to, its going to be China (and Russia will have to be on our side as well). If you can keep them contained by nations without making them feel threatened, the chance they'll do something crazy is far less likely. In a way it also hearkens back to containment by Kennan - the system itself in there will slowly fail and deteriorate namely due to the fact that its conditions will only go down now that they're isolated with less supplies. For their threatening overtures, however, one should be willing to use force to prevent nuclear launches anywhere - be it on china, s.korea, japan, or even the U.S. TBH unless the country is bent on full scale invasion of N. Korea, its really sit-and-wait and handle each situation as they come because they are unpredictable.

06-21-2004, 01:39 PM	#55 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	Zeld, I share the exact same sentiments with you on this issue. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly