How the USA can Win the war on Terror

To Eng Grez:

The general attitude displayed in your posts, coupled with: "Also, let me add that the U.S. military is the best in the world." (note 'the best') The implication is that you're proud of the US 'Defense' forces.

Does that make it right? 500 000 Saddam murdered is nowhere close to the 6 million + that Hitler murdered. Does that make it ok for Saddam? Of course not. And nor is it ok for the US to murder 10,000 civilians now (whether directly or indirectly).

From this I gather you are a supporter of capital punishment, correct?

There's no conclusive proof. That's the only rational explanation that I can see for going to war, greed. No evidence of WMDs, and as for the human rights excuse, well first of all the hype before the war was about WMDs, not human rights. The fact that human rights was not the reason for the war in Iraq is discussed further later in this post.

(Posted Re: Initial invasion of Iraq was because Saddam supposedly had WMDs)
Memory. Just before the USA invaded Iraq, they were jumping up and down screaming about how Saddam wasn't being honest with the UN weapons inspectors. That's what the war was initially about right? If you disagree, by all means post your theory.

Of course not. I'm sure he was denied at least some basic human rights in whatever prison he's being kept in. And as I said before about the unjustified murder of 10,000 civilians by the US government: Just because someone else did worse doesn't mean that it's ok. The same applies for human rights abuses.

He was evil. He did kill over 500,000 of his own people, he probably would have become a threat to the world if he had WMDs, and he did violate numerous UN resolutions.
I'm sure the US government has killed over 500,000 people, they are a threat to world peace, and they have violated the UN (UDHR1948 + whatever resolution/declaration they went against in invading Iraq), but yes, this does not make Saddam's evils right.
Now you posted that with reference to my question "Why pick Iraq?" If it's because Saddam killed over 500,000 of his own people (over a period of many years), why didn't the US invade earlier, say when Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds in 1988?
Let's look at some other human rights abuses and the USA's response:
I've already mentioned the Holocaust, let's look at that first.
Before the start of WWII Hitler had already begun his Holocaust. Not only did the USA not protest, even in a letter or phone call, but they didn't even get involved in the war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. They didn't go into WWII because their allies couldn't handle it, they went in to retaliate against Japan and its allies.
What happened then? Oh, right. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 103,000 civillians dead within four months, with 67,000 being in the first day. (Source:http://www.uic.com.au/nip29.htm)
Ok, a bit more recent: Why didn't they invade China in 1989? In case you don't know what happened in China in 1989, Tiananmen Square should ring a bell.

http://www.fact-index.com/t/ti/tiananmen_square_protests_of_1989.html
While again this is nowhere near the 500,000 killed by Saddam, this was the calculated slaughter of over 2,000 innocent students. What stopped the USA from invading China?

What about Vietnam? A country invaded Vietnam and used all sorts of chemical weapons that are still having an effect now. An estimated 500,000 have already died, with 650,000 suffering from an array of medical conditions. Why didn't the USA invade them because of their human rights abuses? Oh wait, that was the USA. And I'm sure it wasn't just the Vietnamese who were affected by TCCD (the toxin contained in Agent Orange), how many of the USA's soldiers were exposed to the same stuff? And why if the USA is so interested in correcting human rights (which I think I'm demonstrating quite well that they're not) have they not offered any compensation?
Source for info on Vietnam: http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,923715,00.html

Why didn't the USA invade Panama between 1968 and 1989?
http://hrw.org/press/2002/04/panama0426.htm
Why doesn't the USA invade Sudan?
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/sudan/2004/
What about Nigeria?
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/08/11/nigeri9227.htm
India?
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/29/india9156.htm
Azerbaijan?
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/08/04/azerba9177.htm
If you want more, look them up. They're only a google search away.

No, the USA didn't rape Iraq for humanitarian reasons or because Saddam was evil. Why then did they choose to invade Iraq? Mythical WMDs? No, there weren't any. So what I ask you is the only other option?



To Naomi:
Wow, good thinking. Americans should have generously benevolent international policies. I'm impressed because (a) You posted on what the topic is about and (b) You have a sensible suggestion for how the US can win the war on Terror.
The thing is, I don't think many US citizens would want their country to lose face by admitting that it fucked up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And US citizens would want to lose face by continuing to rally behind Bush?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hehehe good point. A lot wouldn't see it as losing face though, just supporting their president (no matter how much he fucks things up).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually this isn't true. ME oil is a small percentages of our oil imports. We could indeed increase our own production but I suspect that the game plan is to be the last man standing when the other worlds oil supplies run out.

Further we don't even need oil but the power of the oil industry will still control the change to alternative fuels and energy resources for some years to come.

At least until Hailburton figures out how to control these other resources.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You have yet to answer the question, Dee Cee.

(Yeah yeah cckieran, I'll get to it. I'm posting from elsewhere right now.)

 

Who do you want to win? The West or Islamic fundamentalists?

Neither, I think if one dominates, the other will only attack harder. Which means more war, more terrorist attacks, more innocents to add to the "Collaterel damage" list.

 

"Who do you want to win? The West or Islamic fundamentalists?"

It's not a game of checkers.

While neither of the two can win world domination, only one is gaining followers. Therefore, the West will inevitably move from "Bring it On" to "Hey!",to "DAMMIT!" and to "Never Mind".

I don't have cliches for the Islamist progression, but Iran has demonstrated the rapid rise and relaxation of revolution to be expected in this context. After the West's crooked and often vicious puppets are defenestrated, it isn't long before that funky world-culture beat comes blaring out the windows again.

 

Surprisingly, Canada's first loss in the peacekeeping of Afghanistan was when a U.S. National Guard pilot bombed a Canadian Patrol, killing four of our soldiers. This seems to contradict your claim of "the best in the world", unless you mean the best at killing (allies included).

 

Yeah, it couldn't possibly mean that even the best screw up sometimes.

 

friendly fire is not exactly a measure of inferiority. I think what he means by the best is that the USA has the most powerful, advanced and most funded military in the world, considering that what the USA spend on its extremely overfunded military is almost equal to what the whole world spends on their militaries combined, most likely makes this not a inaccurate remark.

 

Actually this isn't true. ME oil is a small percentages of our oil imports. We could indeed increase our own production but I suspect that the game plan is to be the last man standing when the other worlds oil supplies run out.

The US can pump everything she has she will never be able to get rid of Middle Eastern oil dependence. The problem is that it is Middle Eastern oil determines the price of oil in the world. American oil production has actually been declining quite dramatically over the past 20 years. I heard that if ANWAR was drilled the effect on the oil price would be a penny.

Pangloss

Yeah, it couldn't possibly mean that even the best screw up sometimes.


It wasn’t a screw up it was reckless there is a difference; the pilot did not even wait for confirmation. The US military agreed with that assessment.

 

There is a simple way for the US to win the 'war' (sic) on terror: stop being terrorists.

Take a look at the history; it's that simple.

He who lives by the sword... etc., etc.

 

I remember. The question is why anyone would take a singular example of failure and claim that it proves failure across the board.

This isn't even remotely true, by the way. Why, it's only the top 25 or 30 GDP nations in the world combined! (grin) Pfft, some people, with their crazy exaggerations!!!!! ;-)

 

I remember. The question is why anyone would take a singular example of failure and claim that it proves failure across the board.


Well it is not proof of mass recklessness by the US military, Abu Gharib sure was. I don’t personally hold the US military with much esteem.

 

Pangloss,

The world spent about ~863 billion dollars on there militaries last year, the USA spend $399 billion, that’s 46% of the world budget. I don't see my statement as an exaggeration
http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world-military-spending.cfm

as for what you decribe of Undecided comment I think what your looking at is a Hasty Generalization fallacy.

 

As I remember, cckieran, we invaded Panama in 1990, was it? Or was it 1989. I can't remember. So there's your invasion.

As I also remember, the Arab League and such nations as Pakistan and China oppose sanctions for the Sudan and also oppose military intervention in Darfur. Their cooperation at the UN would be necessary to make such a venture successful.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3931411.stm

Why not invade Nigeria? I'll get on the phone to the President around 6 o'clock US EST.

Azerbaijan? As we all know, Russia would heavily oppose any kind of foreign intervention in a country so close to the running sore of Chechnya.

You also seem to think that the United States is here, at your beck and call. Your post is sadly amateurish in the extreme, cckieran.

The fact of the matter is that none of those countries save Panama were engaged in policies that had the sole intention of harming the United States and our allies, and we invaded Panama and ousted Manuel Noriega, if you remember your history, poor boys. Which, of course you don't, because you're a collection of ignorant little fools.

Who, exactly, the hell are you to delve into the minds of George Bush and Tony Blair and determine their reasons for war? Do you have ESP? Do you?

No, you don't. From day one the reasons for the Iraq war were clearly enumerated by the leaders of the coalition.

1. Iraq's history of animosity to the West and its expulsion of UN weapons inspectors in 1998 without those inspectors independently confirming that all of Iraq's WMD were destroyed and it's WMD programs ended.
2. Saddam Hussein's human rights record, which runs up into seven figures dead.

You are making a claim that you cannot back up, that being that Bush and Blair and the rest of the Coalition knew there were no WMDs, missiles over range, or WMD programs - wait, there were, we've found all three - and said there were. It has been made plain and clear that to Western intelligence agencies, including those of France, Britain, the United States, Germany, Israel, and the UN, which as you might recall, passed 1441 by a 15-0 margin, believed that Saddam Hussein was still manufacturing WMD - which apparently he wasn't - and was still involved in research into WMD - which he was.

Ignorance. The biggest gun of the Idiot Brigade.

 

Fighting war on terror and fighting sun sets have a lot in common. Futility comes as #1 common thing.

One can eliminate PARTICULAR kind of terrorism by:

1) making mutually acceptable deals with moderate (towards USA side) terrorists and soon to be "freedom fighters". Letting moderate former terrorists to exterminate less moderate current terrorists.

2) complete or near complete genocide and assimilation.

USA has chosen to float somewhere in between #1 and #2. Let's not forget that USA have used/encouraged the use of terror itself. I am sure that the country whose slogan is "God bless America"="Deutschland Uber Alles", will use terror many times in the future to reach its real and imaginary goals. Hate hypocrisy.

 

Who do you want to win? The West or Islamic fundamentalists?

You have yet to answer the question, Dee Cee.

Neither.

Happy now?
Dee Cee

 

Reasons for war according to Eng

1. Iraq's history of animosity to the West and its expulsion of UN weapons inspectors in 1998 without those inspectors independently confirming that all of Iraq's WMD were destroyed and it's WMD programs ended.

1. Iraq's history of animosity to the West and its expulsion of UN weapons inspectors in 1998 without those inspectors independently confirming that all of Iraq's WMD were destroyed and it's WMD programs ended.
2. Saddam Hussein's human rights record, which runs up into seven figures dead.


What george said at the time.

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
​

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002
​

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
​

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
​

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003​

The first reason you posted seems to be supported by the chimps ramblings but err... Where are the weapons?
I see no mention of your second 'reason'. Can you find me a pre-war GW quote to indicate otherwise? You did suggest that both reasons were 'clearly enumerated' sic remember.

As far as I knew we went to war looking for weapons that don't exist. Suffice to say we didn't find them. Nobody mentioned regime change, not in public at any rate.

It has been made plain and clear that to Western intelligence agencies, including those of France, Britain, the United States, Germany, Israel, and the UN, which as you might recall, passed 1441 by a 15-0 margin, believed that Saddam Hussein was still manufacturing WMD - which apparently he wasn't - and was still involved in research into WMD - which he was.

Thank you for acknowleging that the weapons that were supposed to exist didn't. Thats something at least.

BTW why have you got such a downer on Saddam?
If he was that bad the CIA would never have helped him into power or supplied him with a house in Bagdad so he and his mates could plot the best way to assasinate General Quassim. If he was an evil man the US would never have given him a list of 800 Iraqi communist party members (now all sadly departed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).
Saddam was ok! What was it that US Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie told him a week before he Invaded Kuwait?

We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

Seems clear enough.

If Saddam was a bad man we would never have put him in power, given him chemical and biological weapons and shown him the green light to invade kuwait.

Looks like your second reason is on dodgy ground.
Dee Cee

 

You missed the point of that. It was to show that the USA hasn't got Human rights set very highly on its adgenda.

Alright, I admend my question. Why didn't the USA invade Panama between 1968 and December 16 1989?
The invasion came as retaliation against the killing of a US marine, not for any human rights protection.

Why didn't the USA just invade without UN approval like it did with Iraq? They have no motivation to protect human rights in other countries.

[/QUOTE=Eng Grez]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3931411.stm[/QUOTE]
You can't see that this URL agrees with my argument?!? It's an example of the USA treading lightly around human rights abuses, wherein oil-plentiful Iraq they invaded.

Not why not invade Nigeria. Why hasn't it already been done.

The UN opposed the invasion of Iraq.

My post wasn't that the USA was at the world's beck and call, my post was, as previously stated, that the USA doesn't have a very large interest in protecting human rights.
I'll give you a little hint for not sounding like you just did:
1) Read.
2)Think.
3)Post.
It's very important to do step 2). I think that's what you missed out on.

You're right, I don't recall United States history very well. I have no motivation to learn it. But then, you don't seem to recall as far back as 2002 [reference to DeeCee's post], so I think we're on the level here.
Iraq was not engaged in policies that had the sole intention of harming the USA or its allies.

Stop being silly.

How do you know that? EH? EHHH!!!???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I've explained that the conclusion I came to by thinking independently is supported by the USA's apparent lack of Human Rights interest.

No, I never made that claim. I made the claim that Bush used it as an excuse to invade Iraq to get cheap oil trade deals. And of course there isn't going to be any evidence, no-one is that stupid that they're going to jump into something like that without someone to clean up after them.

Where did you find the WMDs? If you come up with conclusive proof, let me know. Actually Let GWB know. I'm sure he'd fall in love with you for saving his arse a lot of embarrassment.

I also remember the UN voting against the USA invading Iraq. Do you remember that one Eng Grez? It was just before... you know... the USA invaded iraq.

Now you acknowledge that there weren't any WMD's found. [sarcasm] Full marks for consistency there Eng Grez [/sarcasm].

The CIA. Real independent source there.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
A law website. This, I think we can agree is far more impartial than the CIA's website. The particular article is written by a United States judge. Law in the USA is based on a system of an impartial judge. Now of course we all know that you think the USA is far better than any other country, so I don't think I have to look for more evidence of his impartiality.

Let's look at a quote shall we?

None were found.


I see you've moved the topic of discussion away from the 10,000+ murders the United States has already committed in Iraq, and Abu Ghraib. Almost skillful, but not unnoticed.

Independent thought. The biggest gun against the American President.