Modernizing the Middle East

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:02 pm

Continued from Bash's post in the Draft thread I started:

"Birds, I think your view of what's occurring in Iraq is intentionally myopic"

Perhaps in your view I could see you thinking I am myopic, but intentionally myopic incites that I am trying to intentionally keep myself stupid, which makes no sense.

"Whoever is elected (Bush, Kerry, Nader) cannot walk away from the work we've done so far"

I agree. Pulling out now seems worse than completing the job. On principle I won't go and fight a war I was against.

To me, your view about what we're doing in Iraq is shortsighted in the global perspective. There are literally tens of countries in the world in equal if not WORSE states than Iraq. Take your pick in Africa. Why Iraq?

"The cancer that is Islamic extremism has to be removed."

That's quite a bold statement. So you propose invading all countries that house islamic extremism (you said iraq wasn't the first stop)? I think a full out assault on islamic extremism is impossible. Drive them out of one country, they'll move to the next.

To me, I think you got duped somehow by Bush. We didn't find bin laden (He was the one that launched the original big attack, right?) and I think we should have taken the tens of billions of dollars and found *those specific organizations* rather than regime change on dictators that posed no imminent threat (even though the administration claimed it existed).

Just imagine if we had spent those tens of billion of dollars *at home* on strengthening the security of our airports, police and fire department response time, emergency response equipment, the failing intelligence agencies, etc.

Your proposal is to try to fundamentally change their culture. Bash, I think what you are talking about is starting the next world war. The muslim people will unite together if the threat is perceived as against all of them after we into country after country.

As far as I can tell this whole thing started when the Bush administration used Sept 11 as the 'castrophy the size of pearl harbor' he needed (per the PNAC position) to "modernize" Iraq. Over 2000 americans died in Sept 11th, but now we're talking about world wars, plus the troops who have died already...and it just sounds like your plan kills off more than if we had simply focused our efforts on the *people who actually attacked us*.

----

So for the topic in general are you for, as bash is, modernizing the whole middle east and not just Iraq? Are you ready to march to Syria, Iran, etc. ?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:06 pm

Yes, as long as it's not a half hearted effort.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:14 pm

Original post that Birds was responding to:

bash wrote:Birds, I think your view of what's occurring in Iraq is intentionally myopic. Like many anti-war folks, the picture remains small and is often restricted to debates over whether Iraq constituted a threat. That's actaully a much smaller issue to what I see as we're trying to accomplish in Iraq.

I try to see the bigger picture of what Iraq signifies to future American generations. In a nutshell, that area of the world exists in a 12th Century nightmare it hasn't been able to wake itself from. As such, in an effort to hide it's lack of any modern cultural or technological contribution to humanity, it hides it's head in one of the oldest *my dad can beat up your dad* arguments; namely that their God has dictated that they are supposed to remain frozen in the 12th Century and it is our *sin* to have progressed beyond that. And therefore we must be destroyed for raising the bar.

It really is an amazing cultural psychosis that exists that can build such a house of cards and manage to keep it standing. Anyway, the upshot is they are not trying to catch up, they are hatching schemes to tear us down and they educate their children solely from the Koran/Quran in preparation for the *Holy War*. That's not going to go away. It's just going to continue to build and express itself in violence against the West unless we can bypass the dictators/theocrats and provide hope, encouragement and enlightenment to the masses.

The only way to do that is to empower them through democracy in the hope that true leaders will arise. Iraq is certainly only the first stop. The overarching plan, however, is that it will create it's own internal momentum and function as a domino effect. There are many powerless secular groups of intellectuals and students that need our support to build momentum. Whoever is elected (Bush, Kerry, Nader) cannot walk away from the work we've done so far. The cancer that is Islamic extremism has to be removed.

The West--and America in particular--will continue to be threatened (they have declared war on us, in case that has slipped your memory) until the Arabs/Islamics themselves concede that much of the fault for their own cultural arrested development has been fostered by this false dream of an Islamic World based on Sharia Law, and that it needs to be replaced by tolerance and a desire for cooperation with the outside world.

In isolation, you can make a case that Iraq/Saddam was no obvious threat and war was waged on questionable pretense. Personally, I believed enough evidence existed and enough resolutions passed to warrant this first step toward reshaping the future of the Middle East. It's in our interests to stop the despair, humilation and Islamic brainwashing pervasive among the Arabs. They may not like it initially because it will add humiliation, but the farsighted Arab knows that if his culture is to continue to exist it needs to become a vital and contributing component within the new global culture and global economy that is emerging. It will have to modernize and liberalize or it will die. The era of the holy war is over and the world at large will never turn back the clock.

Bottom line is it is ignorant to view this clash of cultures as *Bush's War* and to be short-shighted as to what we're trying to accomplish. This war isn't going away June 30th. It will likely last as long as the Cold War did. It's not going to be an easy task coaxing an entire culture into the 22nd Century. It's going to be very difficult (read: bloody) but it has to be done because modern weaponry dictates that we can no longer ignore Arab fanaticism and leave them to fight among themselves. They can reach us now with devastating modern weapons, and we make an attractive unifying enemy to those that would keep them looking elsewhere for face-saving rationalizations why they are still in the Dark Ages at a time when we're progressively opening new frontiers in space, science, medicine, communications, etc. everyday.

"Perhaps in your view I could see you thinking I am myopic, but intentionally myopic incites that I am trying to intentionally keep myself stupid, which makes no sense."

-Not stupid, but limiting the argument to what is now irrelevant.

"To me, your view about what we're doing in Iraq is shortsighted in the global perspective. There are literally tens of countries in the world in equal if not WORSE states than Iraq. Take your pick in Africa. Why Iraq?"

-Because Iraq is an Arab state and the Middle East is where the threat is concentrated.

"I think a full out assault on islamic extremism is impossible. Drive them out of one country, they'll move to the next."

-The hope is to raise *antibodies* within their own culture that will take care of the cancer internally. Read some Iraqi blogs. There are many very secular and progressive thinkers in the Middle East that need to be promoted as a counterbalance to extremism.

"To me, I think you got duped somehow by Bush. We didn't find bin laden (He was the one that launched the original big attack, right?) and I think we should have taken the tens of billions of dollars and found *those specific organizations* rather than regime change on dictators that posed no imminent threat (even though the administration claimed it existed)."

-Easier said than done. This is a very shadowy opponent that doesn't march in formation or wear uniforms. Terrorist wars are not like conventional wars. But rest assured that we are doing what we can to match shadow with shadow. Much of the claims we hear about the deaths of various Al Qaeda leaders hasn't been from open battles, but through assassination.

"Just imagine if we had spent those tens of billion of dollars *at home* on strengthening the security of our airports, police and fire department response time, emergency response equipment, the failing intelligence agencies, etc."

-That would be treating the symptoms and not the disease. You don't want to put your money in protection, you want to eliminate the threat.

"Your proposal is to try to fundamentally change their culture. Bash, I think what you are talking about is starting the next world war. The muslim people will unite together if the threat is perceived as against all of them after we into country after country."

-I believe a third World War already is underway. It's just not as easy to identify as legions of storm troopers or fleets of battle ships. But it is just as deadly if they smuggle a nuke inside a shipping container into San Francisco or New York harbor, or flood our subways/malls with biological/chemical agents.

"As far as I can tell this whole thing started when the Bush administration used Sept 11 as the 'castrophy the size of pearl harbor' he needed (per the PNAC position) to "modernize" Iraq. Over 2000 americans died in Sept 11th, but now we're talking about world wars, plus the troops who have died already...and it just sounds like your plan kills off more than if we had simply focused our efforts on the *people who actually attacked us*."

-It was more than 3,000 civilians that died in WTC but let's not get caught in a numbers game. Bin Laden is just a poster child, a figurehead. He is unimportant in my mind. It is the organization that he represents (and the terror states that bankroll it) that is the threat. Iraq is simply an open front to take the war to the enemy's neighborhood that enables us to use our strengths as a conventional military. As I stated, the philospohy within the US government is that this is a cultural problem and only when the culture is redirected toward liberalism and modernism can we expect it to go away.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:31 pm

"Because Iraq is an Arab state and the Middle East is where the threat is concentrated."

OK, Please outline just what *threat* we're talking about here, in very clear terms.

You said we aren't in Iraq because they pose an imminent threat, but we ned to go to Iraq because it is an Arab state in the middle east where the threat is concentrated.
Er, care to clarify?

"-The hope is to raise *antibodies* within their own culture that will take care of the cancer internally. Read some Iraqi blogs. There are many very secular and progressive thinkers in the Middle East that need to be promoted as a counterbalance to extremism. "

I think we agree here about raising the antibodies, but not on the methods. I don't see how *war* lowers anti-american sentiment and cures their 'cancer' internally. I think the only solid way the cancer will be removed, is if the society itself decides to rise against it. Perhaps we can help, but I don't see how war is solving things.

"-Easier said than done."
That's pretty much how I feel about your proposal to plant the antibodies.

Your idea: modernize a whole section of the world and a portion of the world's largest religion, who you take the risk of pissing off as a whole.

My idea: Find the people who have actually attacked us or hurt us, or if we have undeniable proof that we are about to be hurt by them.

"That would be treating the symptoms and not the disease. You don't want to put your money in protection, you want to eliminate the threat."

What I meant was spend the money on finding those that have attacked us, then spend money on protecting us at home. You've talked about eliminating the threat, but again you've not proven how Iraq poses a direct threat to us, of course you also say Iraq being a direct threat "isn't really what we're doing there' so I'm pretty much completely confused about your position.

"-I believe a third World War alredy is underway. It's just not as easy to identify as legions of Storm Troopers or fleets of battle ships. But it is just as deadly if they smuggle a nuke inside a shipping container into San Francisco or New York harbor. "

Which is why I'd like to spend many of those tens of billions of dollars *at home* preventing the nukes from being shipped here. You realize Homeland Security is grossly underfunded (at least in my state). I bet if our intelligence had been well enough co-ordinated, Sept 11th could have been stopped and this debate wouldn't even be occuring. We need to focus on our efforts at home, our ability to collect intelligence, and find specific groups that are threats.

"Iraq is simply an open front to take the war to the enemy's neighborhood that enables us to use our stremgths as a conventional military. As I stated, the philospohy within the US government is that this is a cultural problem and only when the culture is redirected toward liberalism can we expect it to go away. "

So what has been done so far in Iraq that makes us safer? Specifics please.
Also, if you could give me a link about the US government's position about this as a cultural problem that should be directed towards liberalism, that would be helpful.

birds

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:57 pm

The threat is the explosive mixture of Arab nationalism coupled to Islamic fundamentalism.

As far as what have we done in Iraq to make us safe, ask me that when the war is over. If successful, we will have planted the first democracy within the Middle East (excepting Israel). That deserves our unwavering support. Iraq is our best opportunity to get a democracy rooted simply because we control the entire country temporarily. Some folks say democracy won't work in the Middle East but I consider that *the soft bigotry of low expectations*. Truth is we don't really know how a democracy will help in battling Islamic fundamentalism but in my mind it's the best option we have at the moment to get the power away from demagogues, dictators and uneducated clerics and empower the people to decide for themselves who their leaders should be.

As far as the US position, there is much written about it and I would suggest you locate your own sources. It is called The Greater Middle Eastern Initiative (GMEI). As I said, there's plenty to find. Most Middle Eastern governments (not surprisingly headed by dictators, theocrats and monarchs) are telling us to mind our own business.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:02 pm

You've failed to demonstrate how Iraq was a threat without us converting them to a democracy.

Phoenix Red · Post by **Phoenix Red** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:25 pm

Birds, I understand your position, but you don't understand that not all info on the US's descision to attack iraq was made public. If the documents in question are not edited out of existance by the time the Freedom of Information Act opens them up (which is doubtful) maybe then you will get off your soapbox.

But believe me it needed to be done.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:25 pm

There are literally tens of countries in the world in equal if not WORSE states than Iraq. Take your pick in Africa. Why Iraq?

Even if there are dozens of worse states out there, that doesn't really change the ethics of the situation per se. To answer your question-- Afghanistan and Iraq's governments encouraged and bred terrorism. There's no way to hold anyone directly responsible with irrefutable proof, which you seem to advocate. Were any of Afghanistan or Iraq's executives directly responsible for U.S. terrorism? Maybe, maybe not (obviously there isn't irrefutable proof regardless). But they supported it and fostered it, and they are indirectly responsible. Why? If nothing else, for failing to do good, for negligence, for failing to stop terrorism training that they were fully aware of taking place in their own borders-- at the very least! You can't be aware of crimes against humanity progressing in your own nation, and say that your hands are clean, that it's a matter of culture and religion or something else we are incapable of understanding. You can whipe out terrorist after terrorist, but as long as there are governments equivalent to anti-American terrorist breeding grounds willing to replace them as soon as they are removed, there won't be an end to the problem.

So what has been done so far in Iraq that makes us safer? Specifics please.

The government is no longer capable of developing weapons of mass destruction to be used against the U.S. nor is it capable of fostering terrorism directed towards the U.S.

Other than that, one can't be much more specific. I can't say that a biological terrorist act was avoided May 5, 2006, because it's impossible to speculate.

It's like buying a smoke detector. You can't expect immediate results. And even if there is a fire, it's impossible to speculate whether or not you'd realize it of your own senses or not. But neither detracts from the fact that smoke detectors are an essential part of home safety.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:29 pm

Birds, you've failed to understand the bigger picture. Iraq is a beachhead in a larger war. We never needed to prove that it was a threat to homeland USA. We had the UN mandate to enter Iraq and as such we have broadened the goals substantially beyond looking for whatever threat Hussein may or may not have posed and are now using Iraq as a springboard to tackle the larger danger of Islamic terrorism. As I said earlier, you're completely myopic regarding how we got there in some crusade to blame Bush. History has moved far beyond that at this point. There's a new reality on the ground now, a larger victory we're pursuing and a great opportunity to transform an area of the world that is being used as a breeding ground for terrorists to strike the West.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:37 pm

I find the situation kinda similar to Germany after World War I...after WWI, the German government toppled and in its place the Treaty of Versailles setup the Weimar Republic. The German people had never had a republican form of government before: they'd been used to strong totalitarian regimes. The Weimar Republic sputtered and failed because the Germans couldn't accept this totally radical (to them) new form of government. After WWII, the West Germans were faced with a similar problem as West Germany became a democracy. They solved that problem by showing the people of West Germany the benefits of democracy; the freedoms it brought, the improvements in life it meant. The Iraqis have not had a democratic government before; they have always had a leader that brainwashed them into their beliefs, much like Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini did in their regimes. (Hussein was noted to having said that Stalin was a hero of his...creepy thought) in any case, I believe that if the United States means to follow through with this, they should go about it in a sense of showing the Iraqi people the benefits of a democratic way of life, show them the freedoms that they could enjoy that they'd never had before.

I also believe that if this democracy in Iraq is successful and begins to ease the tensions, the idea that "democracy is good" may spread to other neighboring states. It really is a shot in the dark no matter which way you slice it, but if we just go in, set up a makeshift president and a congress, pat em on the ass, and say "good luck," it'll collapse and some new Hussein will be in power in weeks.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:53 pm

"To answer your question-- Afghanistan and Iraq's governments encouraged and bred terrorism."

As do many non-arab countries around the world.

"The government is no longer capable of developing weapons of mass destruction to be used against the U.S. nor is it capable of fostering terrorism directed towards the U.S. "

Yeah, you know all those weapons Saddam used against us

He was so scary, such a huge threat

It's intersting that you focus on me as a 'bush basher' when I bash both parties, including Kerry for supporting the war. You're reaching.

I guess the big difference between you guys and me is that:

You want to start wwIII

I'd rather protect the states at home, and go after specific targets.

Do you believe that by starting this modernization crusade you'll end up saving more lives in total? I mean I guess that's really what we're arguing about. You think more lives will be saved by starting wars.

A lot really is riding on the outcome of Iraq. I suppose it's a bit like the coach in the 4th quarter who calls for going for 2 to win it rather than to go for the tie. If he's right, he wins and he's a hero. If he is wrong, we lose the game big time.

I'd personally go for the more conservative approach.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:01 pm

I believe the only way to avert a full-scale world war is to address the root cause, which is Islamic fundamentalism, no ifs, ands or buts about it. From Syria, to Iran, to Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, these countries have either actively promoted a stealth war against the *infidels* of the West or openly supported it (as did the Taliban). They brought the battle to us first. I can't stress enough that that fanaticism is not going to go away on its own. It gets stronger and more lethal everyday. But its goal never changes; the destruction of the West and it's replacement by Islam, arguably one of the most repressive and fascist religious/political structures known to man. That is a low-level world war and it's best to fight it now by whatever means necessary than to try to appease it or ignore it in the hope it simply goes away. Only one side can win; either the progressive pluralistic democracies of the West or the regressive theocracy of Islam.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:05 pm

I think we are kidding ourselves to believe that a democratic Iraq will survive as a pro-American beacon of light in the middle east. Call me negative, but the odds of that happening are slim to none. There are many more peaceful ways to encourage democracy and modernity in the Middle East and to secure ourselves from catastrophic attack then to command it with military force.

Jeff mentions the soft bigotry of low expectations, which is a valid point, but does not make up for the fact that there is a noticable absense of credible pro-America, pro-democracy movements in the Middle East. The thought that we, as a foreign occupying power, can install such a movement without breeding even more resentment beyond me.

Jeff sees a full-scale islam vs west war coming on. And who knows, he may be right. But that doesn't make it farsighted and wise to take steps likely to instigate such a war in the hopes that it might prevent it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:10 pm

I used this reply in the draft thread but it may be more appropriate here:

"Couver I have great respect for you but this thread asked a different question - Would you go to Iraq? I don't think my country truly needs me. I don't think my country was even threatened at all in this war we wage, no more than many other countries with dictators." Birdseye

Birdy, we are in a new kind of World War. From both conservative and liberal news sources there seems to be one underlying premis...Islamic fundamentalist want to kill us. All of us. Even fellow muslims that may just be in the way. Jordan is a prime example. The terrorist would have killed 80,000 muslim just to knock out one of our embassy's. The leader of the band of merry murderer's was trained where? Iraq.
80,000...roll that number around your head. Kinda like the number of jews that went into some of the ovens way back when.
As Bash said, don't view this war thru 60 year old bi-focals. There is a well organised, well funded group of people that want you dead. Problem is they are not standing out in plain sight. Their army has no uniform. They are masters of the predatory ambush and have patience in abundance. Their life is filled with one goal...to kill you and everyone who posts on this board. They want to kill women and children and even your pet dog if it will further their goals. And Iraq was part of that. Oh, you may not find piles of evidence, but listen close and you will see bits and pieces of how Iraq was part of the plan. Jordan showed us a piece of the puzzle.

So Bird, when you talk about dictators in general you are right. Just be able to winnow out the dangerous one from the crackpots. With Afganistan out of the way, Irag was the next terrorist stronghold. Don't let your pacifist beliefs cloud your vision.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:14 pm

"To answer your question-- Afghanistan and Iraq's governments encouraged and bred terrorism."

As do many non-arab countries around the world.

Whoop-de-do. Once again, the fact that other nations breed terrorists has no bearing in invading Iraq. Since we didn't (or haven't) invaded X nation yet, invading Y nation is wrong. Well, for one thing, you have to start somewhere. Another, it's complete nonsense reasoning. I.e., there are criteria far beyond the scope of the fact that they are breeding terrorists per se, i.e. who are the terrorists? Do they have a will to harm the U.S.? Do they have the means to harm the U.S.?

Afghanistan and Iraq are special in that those terrorists have impacted the U.S. in a large way (if you haven't noticed) and that they continue to threaten the U.S.

"The government is no longer capable of developing weapons of mass destruction to be used against the U.S. nor is it capable of fostering terrorism directed towards the U.S. "

Yeah, you know all those weapons Saddam used against us He was so scary, such a huge threat

He used them against others. It's ignorant to think that, while, for the interim, although he didn't have the means to, that he never would deliver them against us.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:23 pm

Jeff250, I'm not really following your logic, and if you want the biggest sponsor and originator of the Sept. 11th attack, I believe it is Saudi Arabia.

Do you think we should overthrow ourselves? You know Saddam hussain, the guy we gave weapons? I mean, we've made mistakes, so other countries aren't entitled to them, and deserve a direct invasion?

I also agree with Vander in that the Bash's of the world are banking on a huge premise--that our democracy will be embraced and thrive.

How is that democracy in Afghanistan going? I haven't heard much in a long time, but it wasn't positive. Hopefully some new positive things are happening.

I hope that you at least agree that before you go spreading your democracy and capitalism everywhere, that you make sure it works in the first 2 arab countries invaded. Nothing would be worse than to try to control the whole region and watch it collapse on us.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:23 pm

Jeff sees a full-scale islam vs west war coming on. And who knows, he may be right. But that doesn't make it farsighted and wise to take steps likely to instigate such a war in the hopes that it might prevent it.

It's a fallacy to equate Islam with the political manipulation of it in the Middle East, just like it is a fallacy to equate Christianity with the political manipulation of it in medieval Europe. It's a very select few unjustly speaking for the majority in each circumstance.

You (like Beowulf) do bring up a valid point, though, that the common Islamic worldview sometimes isn't compatible with the ideals of democracy, but as Beowulf pointed out, all you can do is show them the benefits of democracy, carry a big stick, and hope for the best. Obviously, we're not going to shove democracy down their throats at all costs. But, given a chance, the idea might catch on, as history as demonstrated before.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:24 pm

"Obviously, we're not going to shove democracy down their throats at all costs."

No, this is *exactly* what Bash proposes, and what the PNAC proposes (Wolfowitz, Pearle) and what this thread is ALL about.

"Jeff sees a full-scale islam vs west war coming on. And who knows, he may be right. But that doesn't make it farsighted and wise to take steps likely to instigate such a war in the hopes that it might prevent it. "

This is a wonderful point. If we continue to start wars without solid proof of attack on us, we're likely to start more wars than would have actually happened!

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:40 pm

"It's a fallacy to equate Islam with the political manipulation of it in the Middle East"

I agree. I was just characterizing a characterization. Perhaps badly.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:47 pm

Jeff250, I'm not really following your logic, and if you want the biggest sponsor and originator of the Sept. 11th attack, I believe it is Saudi Arabia.

No, I've never mentioned that. You keep pointing out specific issues and saying that X country would be a better candidate than country Y. Even so, the simple fact of the matter is that you can't look at each issue independently. You have to look at the bigger picture.

Afghanistan and Iraq had terrorists? Well so do other countries.
Afghanistan and/or Iraq have played roles in terrorism in the U.S.? Well so has Saudi Arabia.
Afghanistan and Iraq had oppressive regimes? Well so do many African countries.
Afghanistan and Iraq continued to foster and support terrorism against the U.S.? Well so does X country.

Good, now that we've got that out of the way, let's look at the larger picture. Afghanistan and Iraq had terrorists, played roles in terrorism in the U.S., were under the influence of oppressive regimes, and continued to foster and support terrorism against the U.S.

Even so, even if there was some badder arse of a country out there that deserved invasion more, it doesn't affect the justification of invading Iraq. What if the political climate especially didn't allow it? What if invading the other country would result in massive (on the grandest scale) of U.S. fatalities? This is pertinent because war (idealistically) is the lesser of evils, not something anyone ever thinks is intrinsically good.

Do you think we should overthrow ourselves? You know Saddam hussain, the guy we gave weapons? I mean, we've made mistakes, so other countries aren't entitled to them, and deserve a direct invasion?

A mistake is something you've done in the past and are finished with.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:49 pm

OK, Please outline just what *threat* we're talking about here, in very clear terms.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead.

Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shi'ite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men, two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000

Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole was heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors were killed in a deliberate terrorist attack. Osama bin Laden, or members of his al-Qaeda terrorist network suspected.
2001

Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed two commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; two more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9951: 2,752 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
2003

May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

I dunno, at what point do you say that a change has to take place in the places that breed this stuff? Chasing down those specifically responsible may sound logical, but it quickly becomes a fools game when the perpetrators are celebrated and protected in countries where we have little access and no legal authority.

Do you think we should overthrow ourselves? You know Saddam hussain, the guy we gave weapons? I mean, we've made mistakes, so other countries aren't entitled to them, and deserve a direct invasion?

For one, our contributions to Iraq's military were minute compared to the Russians, Chinese, and French. Secondly, if dropping mustard gas and nerve agent on people, executing people arbitrarily in large numbers, using torture as systematic tool, and trying to annex neighboring countries qualifies as nothing more than a "mistake", then that's one hell of a rationalization.

I'd rather protect the states at home, and go after specific targets.

Notice any attacks since 9-11? See any specific targets being hit? Seems your reality is reality. I'd compile a list of all the terrorist who have been captured or killed, all the terrorist plots that have been foiled, and all of the changes in "tune" coming out of the Middle East, but that would be a lot of work and you should be aware of it in the first place.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:54 pm

"if dropping mustard gas and nerve agent on people, executing people arbitrarily in large numbers, using torture as systematic tool, and trying to annex neighboring countries qualifies as nothing more than a "mistake", then that's one hell of a rationalization. "

You're saying we haven't done these things?

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:10 pm

You're saying we haven't done these things?

Oh, c'mon. Are you going to cite 19th century Indian Wars and 18th century slave trade practices now? You know what I meant. When our government drops VX nerve agent on Seattle, starts "disappearing" protestors into torture chambers, conducts public hangings with no trial, and rolls tanks into Mexico because we want it ... in the 21st century ... then you might have a point.

edit: on second thought, calling slavery a mere "mistake" is actually is a fairly decent analogy, but I digress.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:12 pm

Heh...Middle-eastern terrorists are not created, they are born. They're taught from -birth- to hate anyone who is not of their Islamic faith. Anyone else but them are infidels...the Jews, the Americans, the Europeans...The parents teach their children this because the parents are influenced by the government which is strongly influenced by the Islamic fundamentalists (AKA wackos)

That being said, why didn't we go after the Saudis? The terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi, Al Quada is made up of mostly Saudis...why the double standards?

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:21 pm

why didn't we go after the Saudis?

Military size and track record?

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:48 pm

I think we are kidding ourselves to believe that a democratic Iraq will survive as a pro-American beacon of light in the middle east.

Vander, I don't think anyone cares if they are pro-American or not (although it would be nice). This war isn't necessarily about making friends, but it is about making Arabs more realistic, even if it's as enemies. The peoples of the Middle East need to face the harsh reality that it is they that need to update and become competitive with the West. At is stands now, the two dominant schools of thought among Arab Muslims are 1) destroy the West to erase the shame we have to face everyday at being so back-azzwards and impotent by comparision or 2) accept their technology so we aren't as impotent but not accept them. The third school of thought--and what I would consider the obvious, Western-style one--is elect leaders with national vision to educate and enlighten our peoples so we can compete on the world stage. Why is it you never hear that third one? I'm telling you this is all about Arab emasculation and shame. However they are looking for the easy way out with all this nonsense about jihad. The sooner the Arab masses realize we are more than happy to provide the education to bring them out of the Dark Ages the better, but they also need to accept that we are part of the package deal (all of us, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Athiests, etc) and so is respecting and accepting our culture of progressive social and political foundations.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:49 pm

I'm saying that we have carried out atrocities either by ourselves or by our proxies that could be said to rival those of the Hussein regime, and within the same time period.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:06 pm

Here's my take on "Why not Saudi Arabia?"

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:08 pm

Index,

I appreciate your attempt, but where did *Iraq* appear in your headlines? As far as I can tell you added to my case that Iraq war isn't really solving our problems!

"The peoples of the Middle East need to face the harsh reality that it is they that need to update and become competitive with the West."

"Update" is a slithery word for "Become like us." I am not entirely sure democracy is the right thing for the whole world. Tibet's lamas typically had sway in all aspects of government but their society is fine. Are you waging a war on all theocricies? Maybe arab people would prefer religion to be tied to their government. I like democracy and capitalism, but I don't think it's necessarily what everyone wants, and I don't think it should be pushed on anyone.

"conducts public hangings with no trial"

Well, we're doing close to this with the terrorist detainees. These people are being detained with absolutely no rights or fair trial. That's pretty messed up if you ask me. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one person in there is 100% innocent.

"A mistake is something you've done in the past and are finished with. "

Perhaps we should extend this olive branch to some of our friends abroad.

" You have to look at the bigger picture. "

That's what I'm doing, and in your modernization view, to really have an impact you'd have to cover most of the major muslim countries, such as saudi arabia, which apparently isn't going to happen.

I guess what you guys are *really* alluding to is that if we run in and and take over one country, we'll strike fear in the others.

"Notice any attacks since 9-11? See any specific targets being hit? Seems your reality is reality."

Well, look at your own list. There are several years between most attacks. Who knows if the next one is around the corner? All the more, IMO, in beefing up security at home to catch the guy in progress.

The war on terrorism *is* a rough one because we're going after shadowy individuals. That's why i think ignoring security at home is a really bad idea, and that's what we are doing! It would be interesting to see the ratio of war in iraq spending to revisions in security at home.

"Secondly, if dropping mustard gas and nerve agent on people, executing people arbitrarily in large numbers, using torture as systematic tool, and trying to annex neighboring countries qualifies as nothing more than a "mistake", then that's one hell of a rationalization."

I'd have to agree with Vander that we've been guilty of many equivelent things. Ever heard of Hawaii? That wasn't a wholly peaceful takeover at the time.
"The cause of Hawaii and independence is larger and dearer than the life of any man connected with it. Love of country is deep-seated in the breast of every Hawaiian, whatever his station."
- Lili`uokalani, Hawaii's last Queen

Keep in mind we're the only country ever to drop a nuclear bomb (2, count 'em) and on *civilian* targets no less. Plus telling the Iraqi citizens in Gulf war1 to rise up against the dictator, and then not supporting them was as good as an execution for thousands. Oh, and I'm pretty sure every country uses torture to get what they want from certain people. Not to mention that we supported saddam. You rationalized this by saying 'oh other people did it more than we did' as if this somehow wipes our hands clean.

I also think that we're neglecting to realize that at *some point* everyone is going to be able to go nuclear. We're going to have to learn to *get along* or we're going to blow each other up. It's only a matter of time.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 1:26 am

I appreciate your attempt, but where did *Iraq* appear in your headlines?

The purpose of the list wasn't to identify countries responsible for those attacks (since none were officially sponsored by any country). Rather it was to show the threat of radical Islam and its global implications. Why Iraq? Because it had the 4th largest army in the world, had done the most damage in the region, and was the most likely nation to destabilize the entire Middle East and beyond. It's methods were that of an angry drunk, swinging wildly without conscience or wisdom. Hussein was the biggest bully on the block and revelled in proving it. By contrast, Saudi Arabia, while big on psychotic rhetoric, just doesn't have a history of producing wars, WMDs, or internal carnage. It's a nation in dire need of change, but the "probable cause" for attacking Saudi Arabia (and other Arab countries) just isn't there (yet). The Iraqi Ba'athists, however, were up to their ears in probable cause. Genocide, Invasion, WMD coverups, and banning U.N. inspectors were all pretty compelling reasons for the world to step in and say "enough". I think 9-11 was the impetus to make that statement loudly, and it was overdue. Personally, I think the world should get in the habit of doing so more often. A lot of people bring up what happened in Rawanda, and rightly so. There's a certain breed of tyrant and militant that simply will not respond to diplomacy. Either you face up to them or sit back and shake your head at the damage they inflict. Sure, there's sanctions, but this whole UNscam thing is illustrating the pitfalls of that strategy.

Well, we're doing close to this with the terrorist detainees.

No. Holding enemy combatants for military tribunal proceedings isn't anything at all like hanging people without a trial. Big leap there. Gratuitous propoganda: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/st ... 35,00.html

Keep in mind we're the only country ever to drop a nuclear bomb

Apples and oranges. That was a world war and Japan decided its own future. Perhaps Hawaii is a reasonable example, but I'm not very well versed in their transition to statehood. I read that in 1900 (when Hawaii became a territory) their indigenous population was around 40,000 out of 154,000 total. Seems immigration was working against them, sort of like Mexifornia.

Plus telling the Iraqi citizens in Gulf war1 to rise up against the dictator, and then not supporting them was as good as an execution for thousands.

You're right, we should have overthrown Hussein at that time. That was a blunder, regardless of what Arab coalition members had to say about it.

You rationalized this by saying 'oh other people did it more than we did' as if this somehow wipes our hands clean.

It doesn't wipe our hands clean, but times do change and certain events had to take place before the extent of Hussein's brutality and plans became apparent. It's easy to judge in hindsight, but all the more reason to do the right thing now and stick with it.

I also think that we're neglecting to realize that at *some point* everyone is going to be able to go nuclear. We're going to have to learn to *get along* or we're going to blow each other up. It's only a matter of time.

I hope you're wrong on the first count, and agree completely on the second part. Though it's difficult to "get along" with a culture that indulges in dreams of world domination and erasing all other cultures. Therein lies the crux of the problem regarding Islam and the west. We can and have accepted Islam (and other religions/cultures) in the west, but that tolerance has not been reciprocated in much of the Islamic world. You won't find a single church, temple or synagogue in Saudi Arabia because it's illegal. Speaks volumes about who doesn't play well with others to me.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:41 am

" Rather it was to show the threat of radical Islam and its global implications. "

Well, no ★■◆●. I still don't see how invading Iraq dissuades the terrorists like Osama (The guy who started this big mess on Sept 11th). They may find it harder to find countries to harbor them because of fear, but they were smart enough to infiltrate our system and crash a plane into the pentagon--I take them as smart enough to be able to survive even if we instill some fear in the middle east.

"The Iraqi Ba'athists, however, were up to their ears in probable cause. Genocide, Invasion, WMD coverups, and banning U.N. inspectors were all pretty compelling reasons for the world to step in and say "enough"

Well, for me the genocide of the tutsis in 1972 and 1994 was much greater. I feel like we have watched other holocausts go by without care. So you can't convince me with genocide as a reason for us to go in, because it's happening elsewhere and we don't care.

"No. Holding enemy combatants for military tribunal proceedings isn't anything at all like hanging people without a trial. Big leap there. Gratuitous propoganda"

Were you linking to the gratuitous propoganda or what? Sure, some kid may have enjoyed hanging out with the americans. But if you had a wife and children back home, you'd be livid.

"Apples and oranges. That was a world war and Japan decided its own future."

This is a whole debate in itself, but I find dropping 2 nuclear bombs on civilian targets to be reprehensible.

"I read that in 1900 (when Hawaii became a territory) their indigenous population was around 40,000 out of 154,000 total. Seems immigration was working against them, sort of like Mexifornia. "

It would be interesting to find out the population in 1893, when they were actually taken over by us.

"I hope you're wrong on the first count, and agree completely on the second part. Though it's difficult to "get along" with a culture that indulges in dreams of world domination and erasing all other cultures. Therein lies the crux of the problem regarding Islam and the west. We can and have accepted Islam (and other religions/cultures) in the west, but that tolerance has not been reciprocated in much of the Islamic world. You won't find a single church, temple or synagogue in Saudi Arabia because it's illegal. Speaks volumes about who doesn't play well with others to me. "

I hope I am too. I just feel like I'm one step ahead of you guys--Yeah the conflicts are global, but eventually everyone is going to be nuclear. It may not be today, it may not be in 10 years or even 40. But it will happen. There will be a day when we will have to learn to get along.

I think what you are describing about getting along with another culture is less about islam and more about fundamental human selfish issues. The USA wants world domination just as anyone else. Look at how often americans on this board are smug about the power. We like it, and so would they. And essentially what you guys are proposing is erasing other cultures! You want to spread democracy and capitalism to every corner of the globe.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:14 am

And essentially what you guys are proposing is erasing other cultures!

Oh, I don't think so. If you can't make a distinction between a culture that says "believe what you want" and a culture that says "believe this or else" then I don't know what to say to you. Maybe you just haven't read what eminates from the pulpit and papers in the Middle East.

I guess Iraq gets a pass because you don't have a picture of Bin Laden and Hussein walking arm-in-arm. Fine, believe that the world was a better place with Hussein in it then, that he never had WMDs, or tried to hide them, or showed his capacity to use them. It seems like a pretty obvious pattern was developing to me.

If we had intervened in Rwanda to stop the carnage there, btw, you'd probably be saying the same thing, so your argument seems a little disingenuous to me. If it would have been the right thing to do there, why was it the wrong thing to do in Iraq? We certainly had less motivation and historical conflict with Rwanda. I agree that the world has failed in Africa, but the price of success is sending troops and risking lives, like we're doing in Iraq. Tell it to the Europeans, Russians, and Asians. Tell it to this group of beaurocratic clowns: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/568566.stm

Where was every other country in the world? Waiting for the U.S. to go in so they could describe us as immoral, imperialistic aggressors, sticking our nose where it doesn't belong? Rwanda wasn't a threat to us afterall, right?

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:28 am

Um, whoa. Okay, where to dive in?

Birdseye wrote:Well, we're doing close to this with the terrorist detainees. These people are being detained with absolutely no rights or fair trial. That's pretty messed up if you ask me. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one person in there is 100% innocent.

The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are hardly public hangings. It is perfectly reasonable to keep prisoners of war, and when we do, we have this nagging goodwill in us to keep them alive and healthy, unlike what Islamic militants are doing to our people in Iraq ("Retreat or we'll blow their heads off"). Let's remember who the terrorists are, m'kay?

index_html wrote:You're right, we should have overthrown Hussein at that time. That was a blunder, regardless of what Arab coalition members had to say about it.

I don't know how shrewd that really would have been. Back in the Gulf War, we had a half-million people in Iraq - more than we've ever had in this current conflict. But Bush Sr. proposed, straight from the outset, that it would be a defensive mission. Why was that? In my opinion, I happen to think that Bush Sr. was smart. A veteran of war, he might have foreseen the strife we have right now against religious insurgents, the Sunnis, and the Shiite uprisings. In a weird sense, he may have seen Hussein as integral to actually keeping a tense sort of "peace" in his own country, even if it was morally and ethically corrupt.

But I don't really know the answer. And knowing what we know now, I'd be fascinated to hear what Bush Sr.'s response would have been. If he would have captured or killed Hussein, knowing about 9/11, or if he would argue his case why he didn't.

Birdseye wrote:This is a whole debate in itself, but I find dropping 2 nuclear bombs on civilian targets to be reprehensible.

As do I. I can live with the fact that the first nuclear bomb rattled Japan so greatly that it was forced to stop and rethink what it was up against (thus ending WWII on this front). Who knows how many would have died if the bomb weren't dropped and the fighting, invariably, persisted? But the second bomb was just gratuitous, an arrogant "rubbing your face in the dirt" that was completely unnecessary.

And realistically speaking, if Saddam had WMD, why is it that he never used them? Look, even if you accept the theory that he moved them into Libya or some other country, the fact remains that his country was being invaded, and his butt was on the line. If I were a tyrannical despot, isn't it here - when everything corrupt I stand for is threatened - that I'd unleash the nuclear dogs? Why would I move them to another country? To appease the UN, who I am already consciously defying? To tell Mr. Bush "I told you so," even as he carts me off to prison for my war crimes? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

But no one ever said Hussein had sense...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:21 am

Kyouryuu wrote:...And knowing what we know now, I'd be fascinated to hear what Bush Sr.'s response would have been. If he would have captured or killed Hussein, knowing about 9/11, or if he would argue his case why he didn't....

That's easy, sometime after Sept 11th 2001 Bush Sr. gave an interview stating he thought Saddam would be overthrown after surrendering to the U.S. and if he'd known then that Saddam would survive and maintain control of Iraq he would have finished him off in Desert Storm.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:13 am

"Oh, I don't think so. If you can't make a distinction between a culture that says "believe what you want" and a culture that says "believe this or else" then I don't know what to say to you. Maybe you just haven't read what eminates from the pulpit and papers in the Middle East."

Oh, I certainly agree that a culture that says 'believe this or else' has proclaimed its own death wish. I didn't know that was the case in Iraq, but I think it was with the Taliban.

"Fine, believe that the world was a better place with Hussein in it then, that he never had WMDs, or tried to hide them, or showed his capacity to use them. It seems like a pretty obvious pattern was developing to me."

I don't necessarily think the world was a better place with hussain, but questions like *who and what* are replacing him still loomed and may not be answered for up to a decade. Going in and trying to overhaul their country is a large risk. I agree that if it is all pulled off as planned, it could be of great benefit, but we had Saddam at bay. What capacity to use the WMDs, anyway? It's funny, the US painted Saddam as this psychotic egomaniac, but when we went in to kick him out of power, he didn't fire any of his "WMDs". Strange. I just feel that if Saddam had them, he would have used them against us. If he was the selfish egomaniac we should have been so fearful of, do you really think he would have had the restraint suddenly to NOT use his own weapons and move them elsewhere? It just doesn't add up.

I'm simply mentioning Rwanda as a poo-poo on the reasoning that we went there to *save the Iraqis!*

"The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are hardly public hangings. It is perfectly reasonable to keep prisoners of war, "

I of course agree we aren't conducting public hangings. We are however, holding these people without trial or any real charges. It just doesn't seem right to me, I feel as if there is at least one person in there who is innocent and getting their life royally fucked.

Oh, and the public hangings are equal to what Bush did when he told the people to rise against saddam and did not support him. Outright, cold execution by Mr. George Bush Sr.

"I don't know how shrewd that really would have been. Back in the Gulf War, we had a half-million people in Iraq - more than we've ever had in this current conflict."

It would seem to make more sense to have done it then with the troops already there, and with political groups to help us (that we essentially sent to their deaths).

"But the second bomb was just gratuitous, an arrogant "rubbing your face in the dirt" that was completely unnecessary. "

That's putting it mildly. It was sick, disgusting, insensitive, and murderous. A tragedy magnitudes worse than Sept 11th. But hey, you know, it was japs that died, not americans.

The bombs should have been dropped on military targets, not civilian.

"If I were a tyrannical despot, isn't it here - when everything corrupt I stand for is threatened - that I'd unleash the nuclear dogs? Why would I move them to another country? To appease the UN, who I am already consciously defying? To tell Mr. Bush "I told you so," even as he carts me off to prison for my war crimes? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

Exactly. I don't understand it either. On one hand, Bush said he didn't want to have to rely on the restraint of saddam hussain, then now we're saying he was capable of showing restraint and moved all his weapons in an altruistic move. Yeah, right.

"That's easy, sometime after Sept 11th 2001 Bush Sr. gave an interview stating he thought Saddam would be overthrown after surrendering to the U.S. and if he'd known then that Saddam would survive and maintain control of Iraq he would have finished him off in Desert Storm."

Sounds like hindsight damage control to me.