That’s my point, you cannot fill in the blank the US either. A country can’t do anything to anyone if it’s for their own good, and the US doen’t escape this. It’s wrong to think that. The US is in no other way special, is like every other country, the problem is that maybe the special thing is that they think they can do anything (not everyone thinks that, but a large number of people does).
I think I am being unclear.
My point is this: moral relativism does not apply when people’s lives are being threatened by terrorism. Furthermore, your argument that the US has no right to defend itself in a situation where there is a clear and present danger of an attack on Americans or our allies is wrong, and I dare say you are “pissing in the wind,” as they say, and I’d like you to find me another person who supports that view. And I don’t mean Osama bin Laden. Nor Yasir Arafat.
Your Marxist rhetoric, involving power relationships, all states are equal, etc., is unpersuasive. Black is not white just because nine out of ten people say so.
The fact is that he is a clear and present danger to not just the US, but our allies, as well - Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, probably Karzai, probably anyone he could strike if it would redeem his reputation in any way.
No, the US is NOT like every other country just because you say so.
“Special” is not the word to use in this context; more fitting is something like “burdened with a heavy responsibility to respond to threats to American lives and those of our allies.”
quote:
Originally posted by ZooMetropolis
You’re saying that the US can do whatever they want if it’s good for them. That’s wrong. Then you are giving Iraq a reason to attack any other country “because it’s goos for them”.
Originally answered by December
Hello Venezuela! Hallo everyone!
The final answer will be:
Real World = USA (+ Disneyland in France)
The rest of the world = Targets if it is in The Real World interests!
Now we can only listen to the drums and pray.
The Big White Chief will give us a speech again on Monday!
And remember to form Your lips in o-form and fill Your soul with amaze and wonder, when You are listening to Him through Your telescreens!
Later when everyone has InterNet connections it will be just an E-mail every morning “Who will be bombed today, in the interest of The Real World:…”
So let us rejoice for the forthcoming speech, as long as we are given this divine opportunity to be the earthly worms with the right to hear them!!!
anonplz wrote:
(bolding mine)
My answers/questions:
- Who hasn’t? Remember that bin Laden is schooled by CIA. Nobody wants that e.g. Un approves a war because of that.
Who is Atta compared with bin Laden? - I have no knowledge of this. Do You have a site?
- “Saddam urging…” Site?
- Site?
- is proven true
- and 7), where can I find a site?
anonplz wrote:
Please, always write whom You are addressing. (I know it’s not me, but I comment anyhow, if I may?)
Naturally it’s wrong to attack USA and it’s allies.
It is also wrong to attack China, Nigeria, Russia or whoever and it’s allies.
What I am aginst in a war like this is:
-
the fact that after that, any country can begin a war, because it does not like a party in another country and call the war “pre-emptive”.
-
I understand that US has problems with getting UN behind this war, when it can’t even get it’s main allies behind it.
To attack a country, in order to change the ruler and his party, needs a broad international support. Otherwise it is just breeding more terrorists. -
It is different to have a “war against Terrorism” and against a country.
-
If USA will be “The Sheriff of the World”, alone, You have about 20 wars ahead.
That Saddam is crazy, that we can agree on.
There should be a international force that would guarantee that “new Hitlers”, like Saddam, would not come to power, but it seem to me that there is not political willingness for this in the world.
Yet.
Btw., what do You mean by “Marxist rhetoric”?
Yes and welcome to SD! 
Every country is burdened with defending the lives of its people and those of its allies. The U.S. is no different than any other country in this way.
Following from this, the U.S. should follow the same rules as any other country when deciding whether to attack another country. This includes allowing the other country to meet the terms of the peace in a previous war, which is what the U.S. is asking of Iraq.
I have no doubt that Iraq won’t be able to meet those terms. I am therefore completely comfortable with the idea of letting the U.N. have a go at Iraq. When the inevitable failure occurs, we will have the moral authority we need to finish Saddam off without causing irreperable harm to the framework of international law.
The U.S. has already overthrown regimes by force pre-emptively. Remember Panama? Noriega is in a U.S. jail now instead of running a dictatorship. How about Slobodan Milosevic?
Saddam poses a much greater threat to both the U.S. and the world than those two ever did.
zen 101:
*Yeah, well your argument is pretty incoherent, i.e., ”we have the right to do wrong things, illegal things, or any number of other things, as long as it’s good for us.” In fact, it isn’t really an argument; it’s just an opinion. Even as an opinion, however, it’s arrogant, morally repulsive, short-sighted, and self-defeating.
On the other hand, I fear it is a concise summation of the opinions held by most US leaders: utter contempt for the UN, for the standards of international law, and for the rights or needs of anyone outside the borders of the US. We should do it, as long as it is good for US, and FUCK YOU IF YOU STAND IN OUR WAY.
anonplz:
First off, welcome to the SDMB!
Second, regarding this:
*Don’t sell yerself short here, dude (or dudette, as the case maybe); I ain’t exactly a rocket scientist myself.
Well…
-
Good point. However, in contrary to the Iraqi regime, the US covertly supports terrorism as a means of achieving political ends, while simultaneously condemning it ”officially.” When apologists for US policies are confronted with these facts, they usually try to defend US actions as a ”mistake,” or as a necessary evil. Why the evils committed by the US government are ”necessary,” while those committed by official enemies are merely ”evils,” is a question that appears to extend beyond the limit of their moral sensibilities.
-
The 9/11 attacks were ”a direct result of US policy in the Middle East,” so I don’t understand your point here. Clearly, one can have different opinions as to whether or not those policies were ”correct,” but Osama didn’t just pick the US our of a hat.
-
We have no idea what might happen after we take Saddam ”out of the picture,” but there is at least an equally good chance that we will provoke other states in the region, or populations, leading to more instability and protests, more anti-American extremism, and more anti-American terrorism.
Most of the evidence you refer to has been disputed, and to be honest, given the spin that the White House continually puts on all the info it leaks, I simply no longer believe anything that comes out of that office. pantom has already posted a cite that casts doubt on one of the pieces of evidence you present. We’ve heard Bush lie outright concerning the real threat of the Iraqi weapons program. And in a Washington Post article I read a few weeks ago (but which, unfortunately, I can’t locate at the moment), it was reported that despite hundreds of man-hours spent reviewing case files, the CIA had been unable to locate a shred of evidence credibly linking al-Qaida with the Iraqi government. The article stated that due to this failure, the administration had decided to quietly drop the al-Qaida-Iraq connection from its justifications for attacking Saddam. This fact did not, however, dampen the administration’s enthusiasm for attacking Saddam.
The propaganda strategy employed by the White House seems quite clear to me. On the one hand, the administration strives to create in the mind of the American public a perception of Saddam as an immediate threat to the US. This effort involves misdirection, false accusations, and exaggeration. On the other, Bush and Co. strive to imply the existence of a connection between 9/11 and the Iraqi regime – a connection that, in the real world, simply doesn’t exist, as far as we can tell. Aware of that fact, the government cannot just come out and say, “Iraq is also responsible for the attack.” It must insinuate instead, and hope the public fills in the dots in a correct manner, by means of association. After all, as you write yourself:
Very good. The US intelligence community has fabricated, out of thin air, an accusation that you continue to believe, despite evidence to the contrary. You see? The propaganda works.
*That’s one interpretation. Mine is this: abiding by the Charter would show, for once, that the US actually respects its international commitments. If Saddam is as dangerous as the US claims, then the US executive should have no trouble convincing the world community to act against him. After all, the US led a coalition to drive him out of Kuwait, and has since led the UN Security Council in keeping the pressure on him.
But the main reason the US should continue working in an international context like the UN is that it is good for US security. Other nations respect the US if it upholds its UN commitments; they disrespect the US if it does not. And they say: if the US doesn’t live up to its agreements, then why should we? If the US supports states that violate Security Resolutions (like Israel) when it is in its own interest, then what does that say about its condemnation of states that break resolutions, when such actions do not lie in its interests?
But most ironic of all, I think, is the claim that because Iraq does not comply with the UN, it thus becomes incumbent upon the US to not comply with the UN.
*This is a false dilemma. I, and many others, contend the idea that Iraq really poses a serious threat to American lives. It’s a miserable little Third-world nation with your standard despot, existing under constant military threat from the world’s remain superpower, heavily sanctioned and minutely scrutinized by the international community. The Iraqi army is currently 20% the size it was during the Gulf War, when US coalition forces handily defeated it without serious loss of American lives. Most importantly, all accusations aside, Iraq has never committed a single act of aggression against the US. Period. It might also be worth noting in this context that when Iraq committed acts of aggression that were deemed to be in the best interest of the US (like its war against Iran), the US gov’t. supported it. Apparently, such aggression is okay, and merits the support of the US, when it serves US interests. So why all the hoopla against Saddam now?
Regarding this:
*Of course, the US, like any other state, not only has the right, but the duty, to defend itself when attacked. But the US has not been attacked. And it does not have the right to attack other, relatively defenseless states, unilaterally, while justifying such aggression under the guise that it is “defending” itself, which is what the Bush administration seems to be trying to do at the moment.
It’s really that simple.
Sam:
*That’s so fucked up in so many ways……
Gee, Sam… ever hear of the Panama Canal? Does the fact that the US government trained Noriega, supported his regime despite knowledge of extensive voter-fraud in the elections, fully aware of his violation of human rights, not to mention being well cognizant his penchant for nose-candy…but chose to invade when he balked at the Panama Canal Treaty negotiations…like, does that mean anything to you? Or the fact that the US was roundly condemned by the rest of the world for invading a small, relatively defenseless country, without provocation, much in the same way that Iraq invaded Kuwait?
anonplz!
I second every word that Mr. Svinlesha wrote above.
He says it so clearly and logical. And he is much politer than me.
But I will also learn to write in a polite way, in a century or so.
Btw. Straight Dope is giving many new views, I think to everyone, and here are many views represented.
So even if e.g. I do not agree with You, it does not mean that I do not appriciate the opportunity to read what You and other guys writes.
I do not know how to put it, so I just say once more “Welcome!”
P.S. Mr. Svinlesha is in reality a “rocket ingeneer”, from my point of view anyhow.
I agree. Hat off, Mr. Svinlesha.
Very commendable how you keep so reasonable and eloquent with people who can’t grasp simple concepts like: defend, attack, agression, threat or propaganda.
People that are quite happy to see thousands of people killed and mutilated, happy to start a war of agression without any real reason at all and without any clear end-scenario at all.
It seems that for every silly propaganda line that is refuted in these threads another warmongerer jumps in and spouts the same ‘U.S.A ueber alles’ crap all over again.
It is indeed like pissing against the wind.
Henry B! I did not take offense of any sort from your response… I happen to enjoy the obviously thoughtful, and challenging, response you gave. I also think Mr. Svinlesha is quite brilliant, though I don’t agree with his position.
Tragically, it seems that last night after spending an hour and a half or so constructing a response to YOUR response, with quotes from Fox News, the Center for Defense Information, the Telegraph.co.uk, etc., I accidentally lost EVERYTHING!! (Has that ever happened to you?) I will try to reconstruct it later, since it was PROOF POSITIVE that I am actually right, righter than rain.
Thanks for the warm welcome.
Iraq agreed to certain terms as conditions for ending hostilities. He has repeatedly violated them, of especially note, unfettered and unlimited inspections to ensure the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, the hostilities should not end, as the conditions for ending them have not been met. Israel did not agree to any term as conditions for ending any hostility with the UN.
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. There has been ample evidence, other than the fact that he has used them before. It is working on nuclear capability. Although it is a 3d-rank state, it does have ties with al-Qaida. Prof. Fuenth and Mr. Perle stated that they have seen the evidence on Meet the Press. William Safire in a recent column pointed to a website in which Scowcroft affirms as much. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/07/opinion/07SAFI.html Unfortunately, I was not able to access the link he furnished.
So, although Hussein may not be able to attack us with his weapons of mass destruction, most assuredly al-Qaida can, and there is no doubt that he has had contacts with them.
However, the agreement was with the UN. However wussy you may believe the UN to be, it is still up to them to determine the extent of violations, the importance of such violations, and the needed response. Clearly, it is not the purview of Upper Volta or Belgium to make that determination on thier own, and use UN decisions for thier basis.
Who doesn’t? WMD as outlined are potential weapons of terror, certainly. As strategic weapons they are worse than useless, as long as the US retains the ability to nukify Iraq at any time that it chooses. Now, if as we have been relentlessly “informed”, Saddam bin Laden is an utter madman with nothing on his mind but lashing out at the US, regardless of consequences, why hasn’t he done so? Is he shy? Or is it simply that he is sanely aware of the consequences.
However…if the US proceeds with its “all or nothing” insistence, if he becomes convinced that it’s curtains, his motivation to restrain from using such weapons vanishes: he’s toast either way. And if we have troops massed in Iraq, what better target might there be.
As to contacts to Al Queda: who the hell is Al Queda? Do we have membership lists? Are they 100? 1,000? 10,000? Perhaps they have been effectively eliminated as a power. We haven’t the slightest idea. Not the slightest.
But it seems to me that for a rabidly belligerent terrorist outfit, they’ve been rather quiet since about a year ago. Why?
Why? What does Al-Queda have that Saddam bin Laden does not have? A special terrorism discount with Fed Ex?
They have countless (numbers unknown) of persons willing to die. There are few, if any, Iraqis who would willingly give their own life to harm us. Al-Quaida has shown otherwise. All it takes is a few (even one) with a nuclear device to crash a plane into our land. Bin Laden has threatened to perform an act or acts that would make 9-11 look like child’s play.
We know they have not been eliminated. We are still fighting them in Afghan, Pakistan, the Philippines, and elsewhere. We wish we did have their membership lists. We don’t know who they all are or their numbers, and that itself is frightening.
I don’t know about their purviews, but they certainly lack the power and means to do so. If the UN is feckless, should we be feckless as well?
Then where are they? Where are the thousands of relentless attacks raining down on us? For all we really know, Al Queda no longer exists, any more than we know where OBL is. You are satisfied that they continue to be a threat. On what information do you base this? Mind you, I am not stating the opposite: I have no more information than you do. I am simply not stating a conjecture as a fact, you have no such restraints.
If the UN is impotent, it is, at least to some degree, our responsibility. We bully them if it suits us (as demonstrated by Feckless Leader’s speech), we ignore them if that suits us, and we don the mantle of UN mandate and legitimacy if that suits us.
If we attack another country on the presumption that they intend to attack us, that is aggressive war, according to the pacts and charters we have signed. It is foreign policy by clairovoyance, and is no better if practiced by Donald Rumsfled or Ms. Cleo.
If our word means nothing more than expediency, why bother to sign? No one will believe us anyway.
Who, then, is the “rogue state”, the outlaw?
For one thing, our continual diligence has prevented such attacks. Al-qaida captives (including John Walker) have told of such attacks, but they have not materialized. Obviously, they cannot have “thousands of relentless attacks,” but all it takes is one or two to cause more catastrophes. The Qatar news source has aired what it says is a genuine bin Laden speech just the other day. On what basis? Just open your eyes and your ears.
The UN Charter provides that a state can make a preemptive attack if there is imminent danger. The argument has been that we are not in “imminent” danger. The counter argument is that if we wait until then, it will be too late. My basis does not rest upon that section, but upon Iraq’s agreements that “ended” the Gulf War. If it refuses to abide by those agreements, a state of war still exists between Iraq and the UN, and if the other countries do not wish to join us, we’ll have to do it alone, if those agreements mean anything. What you are saying is that they don’t.
You’re kidding, right? Well, 'tis a marvelous argument you have there. If there is an attack, that proves you right. Lack of an attack means we have prevented it, and that proves you right.
Is this seriously the extent of your argument? Some people can argue from scant evidence, difficult, not impossible. You have taken that rhetorical skill into previously unknown realms: no evidence to support your contention proves your contention. Wow.
Your second argument does for disingenuous what Stonehenge does for rocks. You base the legitimacy of an attack on UN legitimacy: a deal was made, and not kept. Therefore, the previous state of war never ceased and an attack is therefore legal. But that state of war, based on however tenuous your premise, is between the UN and Iraq, not between Iraq and any given member who decides to usurp the collective will for individual purpose. Has the UN pinned a badge on the US and appointed us Sheriff? Not to my knowledge.
It didn’t take thousands of terrorists to kill thousands of us. Just 19. We know they are planning more attacks. Seven US citizens were recently arrested, charged with planning to help al-qaida. Then there is the shoe bomber, etc. Bin Laden has threatened us with cataclysmic attacks that will make us forget 9-11, and if he gets his hands on weapons of mass destruction, he most assuredly will try.
No one wants war. No one wanted war in the 30’s either. The League of Nations did nothing. No nation did anything until it was too late. Hopefully, we will have learned from History. But History repeats itself because we fail to learn.
I’m not interested in debating this issue any more. You are set to wave the peace flag, believing this will save lives. Chamberlain felt the same way. Forget about broken conditions for peace, as the world did when Hitler first attained power. Forget everything, but remember, “Peace in our time.”
I’m going to play some chess and not waste my time on this thread anymore.
Mr. Svinlesha:
I have a personal policy of not allowing garbage like this to go unchallenged.
Given that we were on the side of the Afghans vs the Russians, and that we went to war against Serbia in favor of the Bosnian Muslim population, and that the U.S. has been allied with Pakistan as opposed to India for years, the only place that OBL got his justification for his massacre of U.S. citizens WAS out of his hat, or more accurately, out of his turban.
There has not been and will not be a justification for those attacks. Next time you get a stupid thought like this, stick it where the moon don’t shine.
I very much doubt that estimable Mr Svin is suggesting that the attack of 9/11 was “justifiable”. I further doubt that you don’t know that, since you clearly have enough good sense to be trusted to make your own oatmeal.
bin Laden original raisson du piss-off was American (infidel) troops stationed in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. Of course, that’s nuts. So what? He believed it and so do thousands of others. But most of the Muslim world did not, because, well, thats nuts, after all.
After we attack Iraq, the deaths of innocent civilians will be held to be our fault, that we have willingly sacrificed the lives of others in order to gain some indefinite “security”. They will feel that we regard our civilians as holy, thiers, as wholly expendable.
That’s not quite so nuts.
Its bad enough people hate us 'cause they’re crazy. Soon, many more will hate us for perfectly good reasons. With a cold and deadly sanity, the clarity of hatred.
And as our victory parades pass by, and Our Churchill basks in his approval ratings…
They will begin to plot.
anonplz wrote:
Whenever You mention “Fox News” the hamsters eat Your post! 
Do like I do: Write in a text program. Save eveything. I have made so with another site for two years and it’s fun to look at the topics later.
or use “copy” before sending. If the hamsters eat Your post, just paste again.
barbitu8 wrote about Al-Queda:
(Bolding mine).
Exactly! Finally we agree on something!
So why is the lonesome ranger, Baby-Bush, not continue the war on terrorism? Why does he want to attack a country with a crazy dictator? There is a crazy dictator popping up from the box every second year or so…
I admit that all the dictators does not “try to kill my Daddy”, or have oil, or are so easy to show in the internal politics as The Mean Guy.
elucidator
I agree.
And the only one that should stop the crazy dictators is the international community.
With war if the international community decides so!
If UN is undermined all the time, it simply can’t.
Let’s make a strong international army and put it where there is a crisis. And the crisis will be strangled in its cradle.
Now it always smells like this or that country is just going in and secure its interests. Who need these “privately acting” armies anyhow for other reasons than to secure the borders of their country?