Gulf War II (now with animation!) - could this happen?

Great Debates
21

Well, if you’re saying that the US shouldn’t attack an openly hostile and terror-network supporting country out of fear that the big bad Arab muslims will threaten to hijack some more planes, I’d say that isn’t a realistic position. In fact, I’d say its downright cowardly.

Churchill though Africa was a good place for America & Britain to start fighting WWII. Why? Because that’s where the enemy was. We had no strategic need for north African territory or resources.

Personally, I don’t think there will be a war with Iraq only because Hussein isn’t suicidal, and he knows that would be the result of fighting us again.

As President Bush said, its any country that does not come forward and declare its support for the war against terrorism. 9/11 was an attack on sovereign US soil worse than Pearl Harbor, both from a political and body-count point of view. It was as good as a formal declaration of war.

No, every Arab muslim is not a terrorist. But every terrorist has been an arab muslim. At some point it stops being ‘racial profiling’ and becomes a ‘desciption of the suspects’.

Besides, where is this dreaded American backlash against muslims? So far 3 guys were detained in Florida. That’s it. 3000 innocent Americans were butchered by arab muslims for no other reason than because they hate all Americans. And then arab countries are screaming when we dare try to more closely review visa applicants from predominantly arab muslim countries?

22

Damn straight. Let them hijack all the planes they want – we’ll just go bomb more civilians! :rolleyes:

Let me repeat: this is not WWII. Iraqi soldiers didn’t hijack those planes.

Ah yes, everybody knows that the US has only to glance sternly in his direction and he’ll cave in. Just like the VC did. What usually seems to happen is that the best thing many Third World dictators can have happen to them (from their point of view) is to have the West oppose them; it gives them justification to consolidate their power base. Actually, a certain President who recently inflamed xenophobia to influence an election comes to mind…*

Ah, the “you’re either for us or against us” approach. See my previous comments about “black-and-white” thinking.

Not every young black male is a mugger…

I’m listening to it.

There was a strong anti-Muslim backlash within the US following 9/11, and we still have people (naming no names) whose views of Muslims have not exactly risen. Plus that small matter of Afghanistan.

“Closely review”? Try “outright refuse”. I know an 18-year-old girl who wasn’t allowed to take up her place at Juilliard because she’s Jordanian. Are we at war with Jordan? Were any of the 9/11 terrorists from Jordan? Is there a fear that she might hijack an orchestra? The US is tarring with a pretty wide brush these days. And you want to know where the backlash is?

*Robert Mugabe. Who did you think I meant?

23

You do know that Iraq, though a horrible, repressive regime, is secular? That Tariq Aziz, the most prominent Iraqi politician after Saddam, is a Catholic? The issues may or may not favour war, but please don’t try to palm the Iraq situation off as part of a religious conflict.

24

Yes, John Asshole is my personal nickname for him. Have I mentioned Janet Waco?

25

Jeez, again this ‘Oh, why were we attacked, we are such nice guys.’
Bin Laden declared war against the US, back in may 1998.

Hail, what you and those ‘extreme pro war’ people don’t seem to get is that violence begets violence.
And, more importantly, that the US has been commiting violent acts against for decades. Why are you in denial about this?
You know about all the regime changes, the boycots, the bombings and assassinations.

‘Hey, but that was over 5/6/7 years ago’ seems to be the typical response to ‘America had it coming.’
Well some peoples have an attention span that lasts a bit longer than a week or a month.

You seem to think that the US can reign with impunity.
‘There, we bombed the crap out of them. That will teach them!, now switch back to the football game’
Then you are extremely amazed by the fact that this seems to have pissed off some people. Even if there isn’t any ‘collateral damage’. (and how on earth can anyone be pissed off by collateral damage, anyway? Mistery to me too. Such a nice word.)
‘Ah well they’re all at a safe distance from Swampville, Florida. So why bother?’ ‘OOOOH nice touchdown!!’

Until 9/11 it was all just flimsy news items, in far off countries. Now the consequences of your governments past actions are in your backyard. Scary, innit?

What 9/11 should have shown you, is that you are not at a safe distance from backlashes of your government’s decisions. But instead of starting to think you actions through, you seem to be intent on pissing even more people off.

Let’s see if I can think up a ‘man with a gun’ analogy.

Up to now, the US was the only one with a gun. They could shoot or bully anyone, ‘cause everyone was scared shitless of them. For the US that was a comfortable situation and they were only shooting bad guys, right?’
Now there seem to be other people that have guns too. That means you should be more careful.
‘In a society where everybody carries a gun…’ Get it?

Welcome to the world.

26

Latro, clear something up for me. Do you think America “had it coming”?

I ask this because you seem to think that way. There is a difference between not being surprised that some major terrorism attack occurred and the you had it coming way of thinking.

Oh and I’d baton down the hatches if I were you as I can see some arguments coming your way pretty soon :wink:

27

[periscope up]

Well, yes, I mean it more in the sense of ‘no surprise’ than ‘serves you right’. Sometimes though, when all this patriotic war mongering crops up, it tends to shift to somewhere in between the two.

[periscope down]

28

Dude, I think you’d better dive.

29

And remember who makes the most advanced depth charges…

30

I agree.

Were America’s previous actions a major inciting factor (among many inciting factors) of the 9/11 events? Yes.

Should the US be surprised that there are many people in the world that don’t like the US, and with good reason? No.

Did the US “deserve” the attacks? Of course not, especially as those who were killed, injured or otherwise affected by the tragedies most had no direct or indirect responsibility for those events which had pissed off the terrorists in the first place. But this is the problem of war – that a lot of people who are trying to quietly live their lives get caught between the instigators of violence on both sides.

So: yes, the US is right to be angry at the attacks and to want to punish the guilty parties. But it MIGHT want to consider doing so in a manner that won’t provoke further violence in the future. It’s a lesson Israel/Palestine shows all too clearly.

31

Um, I trust I’m correct in interpreting this as extreme sarcasm, yes?

Because if not, then, um, you’re actually the one who comes off sounding like a lucking funatic frothing-at-the-mouth “nuke 'em back to the Stone Age” warmonger.

Just asking.

32

If you cannot tell that the makers of that flash animation are way out on the extreme anti-war left within about 30 seconds of that movie playing then you should have your eyes and hearing checked immediately. And yes, the “defeatest left”. It’s a tactic that I have seen over and over. When all else fails as far as arguments against the war goes, just start claiming that its’ too complicated. We can’t win. Another vietnam, blah, blah. I have a valid point that the same thing was claimed about Afghanistan. Remember “the russians couldn’t win in 10 years” so we can’t either. :rolleyes:
**

So, US foreign policy should be decided by a mob in Pakistan. Sheesh.

**

Well, now you are being defeatest. How exactly could the situation in Afhanistan be more “stable”. Everything about our action there from the beginning until now went just about perfectly. We removed the taliban from power with minimal US casualties. There is now a friendly regime that doesn’t harbor terrorists. What more do you want?

**

I used the term “these people” to refer to the “A certain percentage of the people in the US will always be against war regardless of the circumstances.” sentance right before it. I guess I could have just typed “pacifists”. What’s wrong with that? WTF does “these people” and “bleeding heart” have in common?

**

Sure, how about this: Anybody would be better than Saddam.

33

Oh, and as far as the America bashing in this thread (I’m looking at you Jr8 and Latro).

I am not even going to respond to you idiotic hateful anti-US rants. Except to call you out on them:

These rants have nothing to back it up. This isn’t going to cut it folks. You need to make a case for why America had it coming. Until you do this, there is nothing to debate.

I am assuming that you agree that it was the Al Queda terrorist network responisble for the 9/11 attacks. They have an agenda that is well documented. I would start by showing what US policies are in violation of the Al Queda agenda. Why we have to listen to the wishes of an international terrorist ring in the first place. And how our violations of their agenda made those people working in the WTC deserving a death sentence.

If you guys just keep talking I am sure it will prove how ignorant and ridiculous your views are much better than me arguing with you.

34

If you don’t want any airplanes flying into your second-tallest building and have to wail ‘Why oh why’ again, yes.
You will have to take other nations’ feelings into consideration, when forming your foreign policies. Is that so strange a concept?
And, yes there are a lot of different feelings, views and religions.
That is why foreign policy is complicated.

War isn’t nice, it should be the last resort. But you seem to think it necessary to have a war every time a new president needs to assert himself. The US has been pretty safe from attack, up to now, due to you geographical situation. Apparently the world has changed and you are not invulnerable.
Other nations have already learned the devestation of modern wars. That’s why you don’t see too many other nations stomping all over other nations, these days. And when it is done it is considered a crime.

Again.
‘There, we’re done, what’s on the other channel.’
Weren’t you going after Osama in that one? Got him yet?
There will be long-term consequences. But then you probably won’t understand why people are still upset about that old cow.

Agreed, it is pretty stable, now and I like the removal of the Taliban but don’t think that’s the end of it.
Apart from the difficulty for your client king to remain in power and any future elections.

35

How about addressing the heart of the issue: What did America do to deserve the attacks?

36

UBL and Al Queda want complete removal of all US military forces from the middle east. Specifically from the holy land of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s don’t want us to go. A terrorist organization does.

If the IRA demanded that all US troops leave Europe, should we comply or deserve to be attacked by them?

37

Uhm, what does this have to do with attacking Iraq?

38

I would like to distance myself from any “had it coming” or “deserved” comments, becuase I think these are incorrect and deeply insulting.

But Debaser, were you surprised that something horrendous happened to innocent civilians at the hands of some terrorists? I was horrified and shocked by the attacks and their scale, but I am afraid I wasn’t surprised that something happened. The CIA even have a word for it: “blowback”.

Taking your IRA parallel:[ul][li]British policy with relation to Ireland is at the root of the existence of the Provisional IRA.[/li][li]If the PIRA didn’t exist, another, similar terrorist group would exist with the same aims.[/li][li]Given the bad management and arrogant policy of the UK government in Ireland in the past, it is unsurprising that the IRA attacked innocent British people.[/li][li]The innocent people maimed and killed by the IRA did not deserve what happened to them.[/li][li]The fact that the IRA share similar political goals to the vast majority of peaceful Northern Irish Nationalists should not preclude the peaceful people from pursuing their political goals.[/ul]Do you disagree with any of these statements?[/li]
Do you think the US’s involvement in the Middle East is/has been exemplary? The propping up of the Shah of Iran [blowback]? The overthrow of the Iraqi government in 1963 [blowback]? The arming of Iraq against Iran [blowback]? The arming of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan against the Soviets [blowback]? The propping up of the House of Saud [not yet]? The betrayal of the Kurds [not yet]?

Can you set all the dogs in the pound against each other without one of them coming back and biting you in the ass?

39

WTF? You can’t weasle out of this by crying hijack.

Your “Welcome to the world.” post halfway down this thread doesn’t mention Iraq at all. You make a bunch of way off base claims that blame America. I ask you to just back up these simple statements:

quote:

by Latro
the US has been commiting violent acts against for decades.

You know about all the regime changes, the boycots, the bombings and assassinations.

And you refuse to answer. Now, you want to talk about Iraq? Put up or shut up.

40

I was writing something along those lines, but you said it much better, jjimm

I would just like to add one bit.
You have soldiers stationed there. To you that doesn’t mean much. You have soldiers stationed all over the world, right? Big deal.
To them that’s the whole point. Apart from the notion that it is Holy Land, foreign soldiers are occupying their country. Yes big deal.