guys

[Jerome Scuggs]

remember how i dropped a can on my toe?

its a wicked bruise now.

Now for something on-topic, is the US government justified in attacking a country if not in self defense--it derives its power from the citizens, and the citizens only have the right to self defense.

[Awesome]

im not american so im not gonna jump into their politics as if i cared or something, but just to answer your extremely general question with a scenario, here i go:

you live in some small country, you and 90% of the population of that country are being held prisioner and your freedoms taken away by the other 10% of that population which is armed and will kill you if you get "out of line", wouldn't you be preying to some god or whatever for someone like the americans to come help you out?

as i said, im not an american and i dont closely follow their politics. all i know is that the americans went into iraq and captured saddam and now the population seems happy with it.

ah well, you can make as many posts on the web as you like about it, the US government isnt gonna care what you think.

[Ephemeral]

Terrorism is a war. Terrorisms is defined as “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.” It also often includes intentionally attacking non-military targets (being a substitute for a lack of a standing army or substantial military force). It also often includes groups that are not represented (rightfully or wrongfully) geographically. In other words, groups have are oppressed and do not have a entire countries resources behind them.

So how does modern society fight a war with terrorism. We can discuss this on a ‘high’ level and say that oppression of all peoples is wrong and if this stopped then there is less a chance of terrorism. Nice idealistic thought, but there is a 2000 year history of oppression. This is a fine objective for mankind, but let’s assume that this isn’t going to happen in our lifetime. So, back to how do we deal with solving the issue of terrorism. Terrorists are using some third party countries for establishing bases of operations. Additionally, there are some countries that can be classified as having ‘state supported’ terrorism.
Can we assume that that terrorism, as a form of fighting oppression, is always wrong? Hmmm, that’s a very hard question to answer. The term terrorism is tossed around in many ways. In the 1770’s many British papers were calling Americans terrorists. This was because the Americans were sniping from behind trees and not fighting in a ‘honorable’ way, that being in formation. Is this the definition of terrorism, not fighting in an honorable way? Or is it about not intentionally targeting non-military targets for the purpose of causing maximum terror in a general population? If this is the case, then Hitler bombing London during WW2 could be classified as terrorism.
Most wars have battlefields. Modern terrorism defines the battlefield as “any where, any time”. So, back to original question, how does the world community address terrorism? Well, the world community has tried (if we can agree that the UN is the ‘world community’). I think it’s safe to say that the UN has failed in this regard. It is also my opinion that the UN has failed to prevent oppression among many of it’s member countries.
So if the world community cannot stop oppression and terrorism, what should individual countries do? Sit back and let non-military targets be intentionally be attacked? Isn’t this the question you are really asking?

[Vantage]

sorry i had to intervene,

The whole motivation for fighting Iraq was not for weapons.

But you have no proof!

On the contrary,

In order to rally enough support to go to war, George Bush needed a better excuse. When he realized this, Saddam Hussein became a threat to you and me. Saddam was accused of harboring terrorists or looking to build weapons of mass destruction that he should not be allowed to have. Is this a legit argument? Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, The United States and Israel all have nuclear arsenals. Iran and North Korea are actively, and publicly, seeking nuclear capabilities, while many other countries are secretly researching them.

What about non-nuclear "weapons of mass destruction?" All countries are prohibited from developing chemical and biological weapons. But right here in Nevada and we are storing, and actively developing and testing, illegal chemical weapons featuring Anthrax, VX gas, and everything else Saddam is accused of harboring.

So, why are we attacking Iraq and seeking diplomacy in North Korea?

Even if Iraq did have nuclear weapons, they would never be able to reach US soil. What happens when Syria, Libya, and Egypt start developing nuclear weapons? Attack them all too? And then those after? That sort of imperialism would surpass the Third Reich's wildest dreams. It would make the Roman Empire look like a militia. That sort of imperialism would equate to world domination, and how long can an empire exist when the entire world is against them?

The irony here is that the United States literally created the enemy. We are the ones who armed Hussein in the first place. Iraqi soldiers are using American weapons to kill American soldiers.

Yes, "Allied forces" created this enemy in the literal sense as well.

If irony was a crime, Texas would execute the preceding sentences.

After the Ottoman Empire fell at the end of World War 1, Britain took over much of the Middle East. They made pacts to sell oil to the west at extremely low prices while denying it to the Soviet Union.

Numerous Iraqi revolts for this "freedom" we've been hearing so much about were crushed by RAF troops and bombers. Finally, in 1958, Colonel Abdul Karim el-Kassem overthrew Iraq's West-friendly tyrannical government and restored Soviet relations. The First World, of course, could not have this.

Eventually, American-friendly Saddam Hussein was able to take over Iraq with the weapons and help of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Known as the Arab Stalin, Hussein ruthlessly ruled Iraq with an iron fist, using oil revenues from Western countries to modernize Iraq and weapons from America to keep the Iraqi people suppressed.

In the late 1970s, When Iran's Islamic government threatened oil domination, the United States and Britain empowered Hussein even more to attack the neighboring country. Empowerment included massive arms shipments and plans for the manufacturing of chemical and biological weapons. When Hussein turned around and used the chemicals on the Kurds, the CIA turned a cold shoulder and even went so far as to increase funding.

The White House next tried to tie Hussein to the real threat to America, Al Qaeda. George Bush Junior began telling us that Saddam Hussein is supporting and arming terrorists and we need to get him before its too late. Any opposition is "supporting the terrorists," and what American would want to do that?

It sounds scary, but it's a flat out lie. A senior CIA official stated publicly that "Saddam Hussein initiating an attack in the foreseeable future is…low" (10/02). Shortly thereafter, George Tenet, the head of the CIA, the source of all of this country's military intelligence, said on November 7th, 2002 that Iraq "appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical weapons against us." Both of these statements were made after 9/11.

www.theboywhocriediraq.com

[Troll King]

The other day I saw the film Deterrence, starring Kevin Pollack. It's about an American president in 2008 (actually, the vice president; the president just died in office) during the election. During this politically open period, Uday Hussein (yes, that one) invades Kuwait. This was filmed in 1999, so 9/11 hadn't happened yet. Recent events make this film very interesting viewing. WMD don't play as big a role in the film but nuclear weapons do, so this film resembles the film Fail Safe (a cold war nuke film that was remade live on TV a couple of years ago by George Clooney) on many levels. While the focus on nuclear weapons changes the scenario quite a bit from what has been happening in real life, a lot of the politics and issues of morality discussed are very relevent today.

[Bioture]

omgz we are about to win the war on terrorism. we won the war against drugs and you know how we can't buy drugs anymore!

[ZeUs!!]

[Ephemeral]

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that I didn't offer an opinion about the Iraq war or on the issue of whether or not the US was justified in it's actions.
What I did do was raise several questions about the issue of terrorism.

Anyone can throw criticisms around, it is very easy. It is somewhat harder to address issues in an unbiased way. And it is even harder again to come up with solutions.

If someone out there has some creative ways to end terrorism, or unbiased ways to address the issue, I would love to hear their opinions. If folks want to take the easy way, not bother to try understand both sides of the issue, and intelligently discuss possible solutions to the terrorism problem facing the world today, then go ahead and move this thread into Trash Talk now.

BTW, I see no value in taking this discussion into the political realm. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, or even an American issue. But I feel many people are trying to make this out like it's some personal agenda that Bush had. I recommend that if some folks feel that way, they should go back and do some research about the previous administration and the Iraq Bill that was passed under the Clinton administration.

On November 11,1998 Veterans Day, the President Clinton offer some remarks while speaking at the Arlington National Cemetery...
"Nowhere is our vigilance more urgent than in the Persian Gulf, where Saddam Hussein's regime threatens the stability of one of the most vital regions of the world. Following the Gulf War, as a condition for the cease-fire, the United Nations demanded, and Iraq agreed, to disclose and destroy its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities.

"For seven years now Iraq has had within its power the ability to put itself on the path to ending the sanctions and its isolation simply by complying with obligations it agreed to undertake. Instead it has worked to shirk those obligations, withholding evidence about its weapons capabilities, threatening, harassing, blocking the inspectors, massing troops on the Kuwaiti border in the south and attacking the Kurds in the north. All of us agree that we prefer to resolve this crisis peacefully for two reasons. First, because accomplishing goals through diplomacy is always preferable to using force.

"Second, because reversing Iraq's decision and getting UNSCOM back on the job remains the most effective way to uncover, destroy, and prevent Iraq from reconstituting weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them, but, and here it gets interesting, if the inspectors are not permitted to visit suspect sites or monitor compliance at known production facilities, they may as well be in Baltimore, not Baghdad. That would open a window of opportunity for Iraq to build its arsenal of weapons and delivery system in months, I say again in months, not years."

This is no different then what Bush has said. In fact, if I had posted this without telling who it was from, I'm sure many people would have assumed that it was a quote from Bush.
This thread will be better served if we avoid declaring it Republican or Democrat issue and getting it confused with our own personal political agendas.

[Jerome Scuggs]

the war on drugs has shot drug prices skyhigh. I used to get 5 dimes for $50, now i get 3 for $75.

I hate you, america

[Ephemeral]

Ok, lets sort this out.
War of drugs....poor solution to a problem. Correct solution is solve the question, "why do people want to get high?".
War on terrorism, poor solution to a problem. Correct solution is to solve the oppression of peoples world-wide.

Anyone have any answers on this level?


BTW, Jerome...no one has paid out more money than me for drugs. I have smoked so much dope that the ZigZag man has a tattoo of ME on HIS arm.

[Mr. Peanuts]

i dont think you can solve oppression, you can only hold back those who are doing it.

[Jerome Scuggs]

lmaooooooo

[MusLimStuDiO1]

..

Listens very carefully..

[uranium]

Re: guys

Originally posted by Jerome Scuggs
remember how i dropped a can on my toe?

its a wicked bruise now.

pussy

[genocidal]

Originally posted by Jerome Scuggs
the war on drugs has shot drug prices skyhigh. I used to get 5 dimes for $50, now i get 3 for $75.

I hate you, america

depends on where you live...prices have always fluctuated. where i live you can still get a dime of shwag for 10.