Oh my word we are still dissing him for that slip up. LOL
As usual, Capslock and I will disagree on most issues. *But I find myself somewhat agreeing with him on the Iraq issue. *I believe that we should have secured Afghanistan first, installed a multinational force to keep the peace there and then tried to verify that Saddam Hussiein actually had WMDs. *A few more months would not have made that much of a difference, except of course to the people he was terrorizing. *
Iran and Iraq fought a war that lasted eight years (1980/1988) and cost one million lives. *We actually backed Saddam in that one. *Perhaps the squabbling between the two countries could have worked to our benefit if we would have left him in power. *But then, if either one or both really had WMDs, it could easily gotten way out of hand and brought about a U.S./Russia/China confrontation.
I really feel that it is the responsibility of other Muslim Countries to help broker peace in the region. *But their fractured logic of religious hate seems to prevent this. *It would be in their best interest to have a peaceful Iraq and then we infidels would gladly leave. *
My list of high priority issues is:
-The war on terror
They are really one and the same issue.
Here at home:
The least of my worries…What the rest of the world thinks of us.
The way the rest of the world looks at us is the one thing you SHOULD be conerned about when adressing these issues. The reason these are issues, especally when adressing terrorism, is because of the way the United States is viewed in the rest of the world. We are seen by most countries, especally arab countries, as evil occupiers of countries and the supporter of other countries (especally Isreal) that are evil occupiers in their eyes. In many minds we invaded Iraq and now refuse to leave. The solution to these problems is to improve the world image of the United States. We need to work more with the world community. We need to stop saying screw the world we will do what we want. As a country we often act like a spoiled rich kid who always gets what he wants and throws a huge temper tantrum if we do not.Originally Posted by [b
I guess my point is our world image will directly effect how much of a problem the "war on terror" that we are "waging" will be in the long run.
"We're terrible animals. I think that the Earth's immune system is trying to get rid of us, as well it should." - Kurt Vonnegut
Is there something like "manage thread" or "edit thread"? I vaguely seem to recall it being a possible selection from a button at the bottom of the thread window.Originally Posted by [b
\"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
--J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.
What does that mean?
Would that have prevented 9/11? *What did we do prior to invading Afghanistan and Iraq that got the Arab world so PO'd at us? *Why is there so much hate in that part of the world? *Seperation of church and state would certainly improve the situation.Originally Posted by [b
I suspect that many nations are just plain jealous of our standard of living. *Well, we worked hard to achieve that and maybe if they quit hating each other and tried working together they might achieve something other than killing each other. *There is certainly enough oil wealth in those nations to give everyone there a better standard of living.
Well said Caps but then things are going pretty well for most of us. *I have faith in our Republic.Originally Posted by [b
Well, we did have info on the terrorist plans and NOTHING WAS DONE!
It's like in highschool, the poor kids will hate the rich kids. America is the richest kid.
Jeez, that's the whole basis of this. Our involvement over there has been going on for a long, long time. The whole Islamic Revolution stemmed from our support of an evil (secular) dictator in Iran, the Shah. Our military presense in Saudi Arabia has angered fundamentalists for a long time. And we back the Taliban (against Russia), then hate them. We back Saddam (against Iran) then invade and overthrow him. Heck the entirety of Iraq is an artificial conglomeration of three regions that were subject to Brittish rule until after WWII. (Brittain invaded Iraq in 1941 to secure oil rights lest they fall into Nazi hands.)Originally Posted by [b
But maybe the biggest reason they hate us over there is our unconditional support if Israel. Yes, most of that is religious intolerance, but Israel was just sort of shoved among them without a whole lot of input from the neighbors there. So you have an increasingly strident religious rule in the region, in part due to our imperialistic and capitalistic interference, and partly due to the poverty and lack of education they suffer with.
I can say with a good deal of confidence that they do not hate us for our freedom or standard of living. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were pretty well off. Most were Saudi, aligned with OBL in their criticism of US military presence in their most holy lands in Saudi Arabia. That's where the 9/11 attacks came from. Now, they hate us because we invaded and occupy Iraq for no good reason, killing as many as 600,000 people by some counts. This confirmed their worst fears about American intentions in the region. Honestly, I don't think many were too upset that we toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan (now THEY are the "no fun of any kind" party.)
Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium
My photos are copyright-free and public domain
I understand that and you are correct. I believe we should have just let the whole Middle East “have at it” from day one and waited until the dust cleared.Originally Posted by [b
We backed the Taliban only because Russia was the big bad boogey man at the time and after their defeat, the Taliban seized power and morphed into a horribly repressive regime that formed an alliance with Bin Laden. *I believe we should have stayed out of it and let them duke it out. *If Russia had succeeded, what would they have gained? *I mean, it not as if Afghanistan is a valuable chunk of property. *That said, we had to try to avenge 9/11.
The British put him in power but we were wrong in backing Reza, the Shah of Iran. *However, he did rule a country that had huge oil reserves. *I guess all of our presidents since 1941 thought that he was better than the alternative that we have now.
We backed Saddam in his invasion of Iran because he was the lesser of two evils and even that was a mistake. *The only reason we invaded Iraq the first time was because of their invasion of Kuwait.
As I mentioned in my previous post, if we had left Saddam in power, he and Iraq might still be trying to knock each other off. *The possibility of Russia and China getting involved was simply too great of a risk to take.
I do think the estimate of us causing 600,000 deaths since we invaded Iraq is way off base.
I don't really like the government of isreal ever since they started attacking lebanon relentlessly. Very unproportionate of them (is that a word? lol)