Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Would you have preferred it if he said "Now Syria, play nice and stop sending military equipment to Iraq or we're going to have to put you in a corner for a time out" If there are convoys moving military equipment from Syria into Iraq then they are valid targets. One of the main problems in Vietnam was we never stopped the equipment and manpower flow from Cambodia into Vietnam. You aid our enemy, then you are our enemy and should expect to be attacked.
No. We are not talking about huge convoys with tons of supplies, we are talking night vision goggles. No lethal weapons have been reported. I think for something that is relatively minor at this point we might be better served to go through the traditional channels and talk directly with the government of these countries instead of having idiot boy call them out in public. We saw how well this tactic did with NK and the Axis of Evil speech.
What part of ammunition and intelligence aren't defined as "LETHAL" when used in a WAR against the United States? Ammunition isn't a lethal weapon? Lemme guess, they just use their guns for pistol whipping, and guns weren't part of the convoys so it's ok, right? Get a f'n clue please.
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Would you have preferred it if he said "Now Syria, play nice and stop sending military equipment to Iraq or we're going to have to put you in a corner for a time out" If there are convoys moving military equipment from Syria into Iraq then they are valid targets. One of the main problems in Vietnam was we never stopped the equipment and manpower flow from Cambodia into Vietnam. You aid our enemy, then you are our enemy and should expect to be attacked.
No. We are not talking about huge convoys with tons of supplies, we are talking night vision goggles. No lethal weapons have been reported. I think for something that is relatively minor at this point we might be better served to go through the traditional channels and talk directly with the government of these countries instead of having idiot boy call them out in public. We saw how well this tactic did with NK and the Axis of Evil speech.
What part of ammunition and intelligence aren't defined as "LETHAL" when used in a WAR against the United States? Ammunition isn't a lethal weapon? Lemme guess, they just use their guns for pistol whipping, and guns weren't part of the convoys so it's ok, right? Get a f'n clue please.
Can I borrow yours? The only reports I have seen are claiming they are supplying night vision goggles only. If this is incorrect, fine. Please read my posts more carefully which should be easy for someone like you who has a "f'in clue" unlike me apparently.
Night vision goggles = military equipment. Supplying our enemy with military equipment is a fast way to get yourself on our sh1t list. Stop the supplies or they will be dealt with in a manner befitting with a military convoy trying to resupply an enemy.Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Would you have preferred it if he said "Now Syria, play nice and stop sending military equipment to Iraq or we're going to have to put you in a corner for a time out" If there are convoys moving military equipment from Syria into Iraq then they are valid targets. One of the main problems in Vietnam was we never stopped the equipment and manpower flow from Cambodia into Vietnam. You aid our enemy, then you are our enemy and should expect to be attacked.
No. We are not talking about huge convoys with tons of supplies, we are talking night vision goggles. No lethal weapons have been reported. I think for something that is relatively minor at this point we might be better served to go through the traditional channels and talk directly with the government of these countries instead of having idiot boy call them out in public. We saw how well this tactic did with NK and the Axis of Evil speech.
What part of ammunition and intelligence aren't defined as "LETHAL" when used in a WAR against the United States? Ammunition isn't a lethal weapon? Lemme guess, they just use their guns for pistol whipping, and guns weren't part of the convoys so it's ok, right? Get a f'n clue please.
Can I borrow yours? The only reports I have seen are claiming they are supplying night vision goggles only. If this is incorrect, fine. Please read my posts more carefully which should be easy for someone like you who has a "f'in clue" unlike me apparently.
We won't invade Syria....all we will do is blow the convoys sky high...Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
It seems that the US is falling into what many Middle Eastern countries said would happen when we invaded Iraq.....not stop there but take, in turn, Syria and Iran. Many of the ME countries said we'd look for an excuse to invade them; looks like Syria is providing the excuse for us.
Originally posted by: shinerburke
We won't invade Syria....all we will do is blow the convoys sky high...Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
It seems that the US is falling into what many Middle Eastern countries said would happen when we invaded Iraq.....not stop there but take, in turn, Syria and Iran. Many of the ME countries said we'd look for an excuse to invade them; looks like Syria is providing the excuse for us.
Should We Invade Syria?
Tom DeLay's case for war with Iraq?and nine other countries.
Should we send troops to Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein? President Bush says we should, but others say it might fracture the coalition against al-Qaida. Now comes Tom DeLay, the de facto Republican leader in Congress, with a speech?reportedly vetted by Bush's national security adviser?laying out the case for war. DeLay says Bush has established a new doctrine: "America must preempt threats before they damage our national interests." Is DeLay right? Should we attack Saddam before he attacks us?
Those questions can't be answered in isolation. The test of any doctrine of military intervention is whether you can stomach its consequences. On what principles can we justify war with Iraq, and where else would those principles apply? Where would the DeLay Doctrine take us? Let's examine his criteria for pre-emptive military action.
1. Sponsorship of terrorism. DeLay calls for "the destruction of every terrorist organization and its sponsors." He interprets this category loosely, saying we shouldn't "require American standards of criminal evidence in making the case against state sponsors of terror." What other sponsors must be destroyed under this principle? According to a State Department report released three months ago, six nations other than Iraq "support or tolerate terrorism." They are Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.
2. Weapons of mass destruction. DeLay warns that "unless America stops him, Saddam will soon have nuclear weapons. Failure would immensely strengthen a vicious predator and would make the costs of overturning his regime far too high. ? Only by taking them out of his hands can we be certain that nuclear, biological or chemical weapons won't wind up in the hands of terrorists." What other potentially dangerous regimes should have their weapons programs taken away under this principle? According to a CIA report issued earlier this year, Pakistan and North Korea already have nuclear weapons. Iran and Syria have chemical or biological weapons and are trying to get nukes. Libya and Sudan are trying to get all three. In addition, the report cites Russia, China, India, and even Western Europe as possible sources of WMD proliferation.
3. Violating WMD agreements. DeLay says we must take Iraq's arsenal by force rather than diplomacy because "Saddam broke every promise" he has made to end his weapons programs. Who else can't be bargained with under this principle? According to a 1998 State Department report, China, Russia, Egypt, Iran, Libya, and Syria violated the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Ukraine, and North Korea violated other weapons agreements.
4. Aggression. DeLay says Saddam must be ousted in part because he "invaded his neighbors." What other governments have recently invaded their neighbors? Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Armenia have certainly done so. If you count all cross-border conflicts, the list of offenders includes Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh; North and South Korea; Israel, Lebanon, and Syria; Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda; Chad and the Central African Republic; Saudi Arabia and Yemen; Myanmar, the Soviet Union, and various parties in the Balkans.
5. Attacking and threatening Israel. DeLay notes that Saddam "attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the Gulf War and threatens Israel with weapons of mass destruction today." Who else has attacked and threatened Israel? In 1967, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan went to war with Israel. They were assisted by Algeria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. More recently, Iran and Syria, both of whom are on the WMD list, have directed violence against Israel.
6. Domestic murder and terror. Saddam "holds power through cunning, cruelty, and constant purges," observes DeLay. "And it's only through continuous murder and terror directed against the Iraqi people that this tyrant keeps power." What other regimes maintain power in this way? The list is too long to count, but the State Department's March 2002 report on human rights indicates that in Africa alone, 18 regimes, including Libya and Sudan, are guilty of such practices.
7. Religious and ethnic persecution. DeLay points out that in addition to his atrocities against Kurds, Saddam "persecutes and murders religious leaders in Southern Iraq. He represses Iraqi minorities in Southern Iraq by razing villages." What other regimes persecute such minorities? The State Department's latest report on religious freedom accuses Afghanistan, China, Cuba, Laos, Myanmar, North Korea, and Vietnam of "totalitarian or authoritarian attempts to control religious belief or practice." The report also charges Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan with "state hostility toward minority or nonapproved religions." There is no such list of ethnic persecutors, but a survey of the State Department's human rights reports indicates that at least 12 African governments, including Sudan, would qualify.
8. Thwarting democracy. "Returning their government to the people of Iraq would signal democratic reformers around the region that the United States is deeply committed to expanding freedom," says DeLay. "It would demonstrate that we stand ready to help any willing country discover the blessings of self-government." What other peoples, under this principle, would we be obliged to assist militarily in discovering such blessings? Of the world's 189 countries, the State Department says 117 are democracies. If we're truly committed to expanding freedom, we've got 72 more to go.
DeLay offers a few other reasons for war. Some apply exclusively to Iraq?Saddam has used chemical weapons against his own people, and he tried to assassinate former President Bush?but these crimes are now a decade old. Other reasons given by DeLay?that Saddam is "ungoverned by reason or morality" and is "evil because of what he intends to do"?could apply to dozens of other tyrants. Sticking with the eight criteria listed above, Ballot Box counts seven that apply to Syria and North Korea, six that apply to Iran, and five that apply to China, Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.
DeLay says critics who shrink from confronting Iraq lack "moral clarity." But he, too, must supply moral clarity. Which of the nine other regimes that meet five or more of his criteria does he think we should attack? If he won't attack those regimes, exactly which of his criteria does he deem sufficient to justify war? Not one of the eight reasons applies to Iraq alone.
This isn't a trick question. It's a fundamental task of foreign policy. Maybe Bush or DeLay can convince us to go to war in Iraq. Maybe their critics can convince us not to. But each side must spell out its doctrine of military intervention and where else we'll have to fight, or not fight, if we accept that doctrine. Let the explanations begin.
Originally posted by: Insane3D
So you think we should go after them too? How many countries will we attack in the name of diminishing a percieved threat?Originally posted by: Tabb
Syria has huge problems they are no better than Iraq or North Korea or Kosovo.
Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
Why would a costly and deadly war?a war not supported by most of our allies?do anything but impoverish both the region and ourselves? Why would it do anything but tarnish the appeal of capitalism and democracy around the world? Even if we could successfully bring about total regime-change in Iraq, who's to say that the bourgeois semi-democracy of our dreams would replace the status quo? History suggests quite the opposite: a return to feuding clans or the ascendancy of an even crazier dictator. And all this delicious post-Saddam democracy assumes a Bush administration with a taste for (or even a mild interest in) the sort of costly and time-consuming nation-building necessary to establish even a non-Jeffersonian democracy in the region. I've not seen even a micron of evidence that the Bush administration is inclined in that direction.
So. Even if we beat the outrageous odds, manage to oust Saddam, and replace him with a Jordanian or Egyptian "I-can't-believe-it's-not-a-democracy," we'd still have not only further polarized and radicalized the Muslim youth we seek to appease, but we'd have lost any Muslim allies we may have had in the region. To make matters even more combustible, we'd follow up with other wildly unsuccessful trappings of pseudo-capitalist democracies?such as Western-style universities?where affluent, well-educated former capitalists currently go to major in becoming a better terrorist ?
Foisting the institutions of democracy onto Arab nations that hate us has fostered only bitterness and resentment, even when we did so passively and peacefully. Why, then, would we possibly win their hearts by doing so with carnage?
I stopped reading after "Why would a costly and deadly war?a war not supported by most of our allies" because you clearly don't understand that only two of what could be considered our long term allies don't support the war. Those two countries are France and Germany.Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
Why would a costly and deadly war?a war not supported by most of our allies?do anything but impoverish both the region and ourselves? Why would it do anything but tarnish the appeal of capitalism and democracy around the world? Even if we could successfully bring about total regime-change in Iraq, who's to say that the bourgeois semi-democracy of our dreams would replace the status quo? History suggests quite the opposite: a return to feuding clans or the ascendancy of an even crazier dictator. And all this delicious post-Saddam democracy assumes a Bush administration with a taste for (or even a mild interest in) the sort of costly and time-consuming nation-building necessary to establish even a non-Jeffersonian democracy in the region. I've not seen even a micron of evidence that the Bush administration is inclined in that direction.
So. Even if we beat the outrageous odds, manage to oust Saddam, and replace him with a Jordanian or Egyptian "I-can't-believe-it's-not-a-democracy," we'd still have not only further polarized and radicalized the Muslim youth we seek to appease, but we'd have lost any Muslim allies we may have had in the region. To make matters even more combustible, we'd follow up with other wildly unsuccessful trappings of pseudo-capitalist democracies?such as Western-style universities?where affluent, well-educated former capitalists currently go to major in becoming a better terrorist ?
Foisting the institutions of democracy onto Arab nations that hate us has fostered only bitterness and resentment, even when we did so passively and peacefully. Why, then, would we possibly win their hearts by doing so with carnage?
Well said.
Maybe C'DaleRider's real name is Joseph "Four Score and Seven Years Ago" Biden.Originally posted by: Corn
Well said.
That's because he didn't say it.
As is usual, C'DaleRider posts complete or partial editorials written by someone else without giving credit to the real author, thus giving you the implication that he wrote them. Pathetic, but completely expected.
Funny how he hasn't been back here since he got totally owned.Originally posted by: Corn
Well said.
That's because he didn't say it.
As is usual, C'DaleRider posts complete or partial editorials written by someone else without giving credit to the real author, thus giving you the implication that he wrote them. Pathetic, but completely expected.