Congratulations, Jimmy Carter

[Arvedui]

Just a few minutes ago, the Nobel Peace Prize committee announced that this year's Peace Prize is awarded to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. My congratulations, an exelent choice!
But not all might agree with me. What is your opinion on choosing Jimmy Carter?

[Niniel]

I think it's a very political choice. The Nobel committee member made it very clear (if his stuttering English was clear at all, that is) that they chose him partly as a reminder to the current US government that war isn't always working and that they should rather trust mediation. Which I think is exactly right, but I have no illusions that Mr Bush will take the hint. (Sorry to any Americans who support Mr Bush' view, I don't mean to offend you, but this is my opinion).

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by Niniel
I think it's a very political choice. The Nobel committee member made it very clear (if his stuttering English was clear at all, that is) that they chose him partly as a reminder to the current US government that war isn't always working and that they should rather trust mediation. Which I think is exactly right, but I have no illusions that Mr Bush will take the hint. (Sorry to any Americans who support Mr Bush' view, I don't mean to offend you, but this is my opinion).

I Support Bush All The Way!!!!!! WAR!!!!!!!! I think we need ,no, have to go to war!!! I am willing to go, all they have to do is give me the wepon and the training!!!!!!!!!!!! :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by STrider(Aragorn
I Support Bush All The Way!!!!!! WAR!!!!!!!! I think we need ,no, have to go to war!!! I am willing to go, all they have to do is give me the wepon and the training!!!!!!!!!!!! :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

You might find that people here in Europe think quite differently. I am disgusted and saddened by such thinking.No offense.:(

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by ithrynluin
You might find that people here in Europe think quite differently. I am disgusted and saddened by such thinking.No offense.:(

I thought the Europeans supported us ( or me)!!!

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I agree with the Europeans like ithrynluin . Yeah for Mr. Carter! I wish there were more people like him and less paranoid ethnocentric control- freak bully's like Bush. Bush is leading this country of sheep right straight into a shameful war (as I think history will look back on it.)

[Galdor]

Support Bush All The Way!!!!!! WAR!!!!!!!! I think we need ,no, have to go to war!!! I am willing to go, all they have to do is give me the weapon and the training!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm totally with you man! But I think that we should have been going to war a quite a while ago.

Bush is leading this country of sheep right straight into a shameful war

This country is a bunch of sheep because of Clinton and other democrats who formally controlled the Government, and it's people like Bush that can change us from sheep back into men! At least imo.

[Eliot]

That's right Galdor! Clinton's the crazy one! Bush is just finishing what his father should have finished. The coalition of '91 should have gone all the way to Baghdad. There's nothing wrong with Bush. If you want to find some crazed people, go to Clinton's house and the UN headquarters.

[Elu Thingol]

First off Jimmy Carter is an idiot. He policy of passivity left American citizens in the hands of Iranian terrorists for years. Again an idiot. Why do you think Reagan was elected instead of Carter, it's obvious, America needed a real president. Next, Bush is doing the right thing. The reason Europeans don't want to go to war is because their cowards. They are used to the US babying them all the time. GROW UP!!!! PLEASE!!!!! To make this world a better place we are going to have to unite, you guys can't expect us to do everything for you. A dictator has nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. What in the heck are you thinking???? We need to go in right now blast the heck out of the Iraqi military, oh wait that no longer exists heheheh. And blow up all of their sites which hold weapons of mass destruction.

[Beorn]

Originally posted by STrider(Aragorn
I Support Bush All The Way!!!!!! WAR!!!!!!!! I think we need ,no, have to go to war!!! I am willing to go, all they have to do is give me the wepon and the training!!!!!!!!!!!! :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

But, it's amazing how many people don't want war. In England, there was a protest of 250,000 or 500,000 people against Britain going to war.

Bush made a comment at a previous time like, 'don't worry, we know what we're doing.' However, it is his duty to protect us and also to obey what we as a people want. The majority of the people do not want a war, yet he is still pushing for it. Unless there's something he can't tell us, i.e. confidential information, I believe that he should not commit our nation, our brothers, sisters, kids and parents to war, and likely death to some.

Part of the reason why most people don't want to go to war is because they're more concerned with the economy. Going to war now will not better the economy like it did in WWII, it will scare the people. There will be no war effort because we already have the tools of mass destruction we need. Planes, tanks, bombs...everything. We even have 1.3 million men and women available.

This may even become another Viet Nam...

[Dr. Ransom]

Ok All, imagine this head line:

"Yesterday the largest terrorist attack since 9/11/ struck the world. In one day, both the city of Jerusalem and Washington DC were completely wiped out! ...

How could President Bush have let this happen? How could he have possibly missed the hundreds of warning signs that this was coming! Never before has the Government so completely failed to protect civilization from the crazed radical following of a crazy camel driver."

Ok, given that this is an extreme example, but how many people foresaw 9/11? Bush would be wasted by the same EU that refuses to back up the fight of Gondor vs. evil of Morder (couldn't resist the allegory, obviously right vs. wrong, no matter how you twist it.) Everybody would blame Bush for not taking out Iraq when he had the chance. Iraq could be a free country like Turkey by next spring! Now is the time to act, not before another wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians.

[Arvedui]

P.J O'Rourke once wrote in his book "Parliament of whores":
Whatever it is that the government does, sensible Americans would prefer that the government do it to somebody else. This is the idea behind foreign policy.
After what I have seen and heard of U.S. foreign policy for the last couple of decades, I have only one comment on this: BULLSEYE!

I believe a lot of those who have posted in this thread kind of proves me right:D

By the way: The comment from the Chairman of the Peace Prize Comittee is something he said by himself. No other members of the committee supports his view on this matter. Some interresting debates going on in Norwegian media yesterday, he-he.

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by Galdor
I'm totally with you man! But I think that we should have been going to war a quite a while ago.



This country is a bunch of sheep because of Clinton and other democrats who formally controlled the Government, and it's people like Bush that can change us from sheep back into men! At least imo.

I am with you all the way man.!!!!!!!!!!! Go BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by Elu Thingol
First off Jimmy Carter is an idiot. He policy of passivity left American citizens in the hands of Iranian terrorists for years. Again an idiot. Why do you think Reagan was elected instead of Carter, it's obvious, America needed a real president. Next, Bush is doing the right thing. The reason Europeans don't want to go to war is because their cowards. They are used to the US babying them all the time. GROW UP!!!! PLEASE!!!!! To make this world a better place we are going to have to unite, you guys can't expect us to do everything for you. A dictator has nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. What in the heck are you thinking???? We need to go in right now blast the heck out of the Iraqi military, oh wait that no longer exists heheheh. And blow up all of their sites which hold weapons of mass destruction.

If someone has weapons of mass destruction i'm not going to wait around and let him us them to wipe us out, before we go to war. If we don't go to war ther won't be any economy to worry about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ancalagon]

But, it's amazing how many people don't want war. In England, there was a protest of 250,000 or 500,000 people against Britain going to war.

I suppose it is understandable, since more British Troops were killed by 'friendly fire' than by the enemy last time we had our joint jaunt into Kuwait!!

[FREEDOM!]

Another person we just need to get rid of is Fidel Castro, my friends uncle at dinner with castro a couple of weeks ago, we were all like u should have taken a gun and kille him.

[Ancalagon]

God is awesome, he is my rock......let's shoot Castro, bomb the Iraqi's.......hell, let's nuke Russia! Gung-ho didn't work in Veitnam, nor will it work here!

[Snaga]

Strider, you make your country seem bad every time you post. I'm glad there are some guys like Beorn around to remind us you Americans dont all want to shoot first and think later.

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
God is awesome, he is my rock......let's shoot Castro, bomb the Iraqi's.......hell, let's nuke Russia! Gung-ho didn't work in Veitnam, nor will it work here!

well i guess i am being a little hypacritical, and lets not nuke anybody (russia's cool). But we do need to protect ourselves so we don't get nuked.

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by snaga1
Strider, you make your country seem bad every time you post. I'm glad there are some guys like Beorn around to remind us you Americans dont all want to shoot first and think later.

I am thinking first, i'm thinking before i shoot, or get shot. and i'm also guessing your not American snagal. cause if september 11th had happened to you you'd know how i feel.

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by STrider(Aragorn
I am thinking first, i'm thinking before i shoot, or get shot. and i'm also guessing your not American snagal. cause if september 11th had happened to you you'd know how i feel.

Get off the supercilious pedestal.There are tragedies happening in the world that are much greater than 9/11 and I bet you haven't even heard about half of them. Don't get me wrong - I was grieved because people died, but not because your American pride got hurt.

[Galdor]

Most of you Europeans are a bunch of hypocrites. You complain to America that we didn't enter WW1 and WW2 faster and save your butts sooner like we should have. But now when we try to go to war with Iraq to save our own butts and the rest of the worlds from a sadistic dictator with weapons of mass destruction, you complain that we're going to war. Would you rather us wait until Iraq nukes everyone before we do anything, so that you can come and complain to us that we didn't take Iraq out when we had the chance?


There are tragedies happening in the world that are much greater than 9/11 and I bet you haven't even heard about half of them.
Why do you think we're going to war?? Could it be that we're going to war to stop tragedies like 9/11 and others from happening?


Also, you claim we have no legitimate right to replace that sadistic dictator? 1# -We kicked his butt 10 years ago.
2# -He begged us to stop kicking his butt.
3# -We proposed a treaty with him, so we didn't have to keep kicking his butt.
4# -He agreed to the treaty.
5# -He completely broke the treaty for 10 years.
(ok, pop quiz for the Euros. What does a conquering country do to a foreign leader that doesn't keep international treaties?!?) 6# -to put it politely...we give the great country of Iraq a new leader!!!!
7# - The world is now a safer, because other sadistic dictators might actually consider keeping their treaties in the future. (complements to Dr. Ransom)

[Elu Thingol]

Posted by Ancalagon
Gung-ho didn't work in Veitnam, nor will it work here

Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is impossible. First, in Vietnam we were fighting against an army that had major support from its people, heck the army was the people. In Iraq the situation is very different, only 1% of the people actually support Saddam. Second, the majority of the American people disagreed with President Johnson's action. The majority of the people are behind Bush. A little while ago he had the highest approval ratings a president has ever had.

Next, Why are Europeans being so critical. I can't comprehend you. What would you rather us do? Go on with weapons inspections which won't find a single thing. The rise in European passivity is alarming. Have you forgotten the Marshall Plan so soon? When your countries had no money and were starving, we gave you the money you needed, we saved your lives. Now you turn your backs, I don't understand....

[Beorn]

Originally posted by STrider(Aragorn
I am thinking first, i'm thinking before i shoot, or get shot. and i'm also guessing your not American snagal. cause if september 11th had happened to you you'd know how i feel.

That's pretty gutsy considering you live in neither New York nor DC. Going to war will only prompt future attacks, and to tell you the truth I think they'd go for LA and Philly, in addition to NYC and DC....

LA is the American portal to Asia. Philly is the one of the biggest ports on the East Coast. NYC is the financial center of the world. DC is the center of the most powerful country in the world.

Last I checked, I don't think the city in which you live would be high up on the list of places to attack, so you're safe where you are. Would you do me, and others, a favor and be a bit concerned for the other people in the world? If we go to war, there will be future attacks on the US. I don't think where you live will be one of the prime targets...

Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree

[Galdor]

Originally posted by Beorn
If we go to war, there will be future attacks on the US.

If you recall we weren't at war during 9/11. What did we do to prompt those attacks? Are you saying that they were just and provoked?!?Whether we go to war or not there will still be future attacks on the US, but going to war will help minimize the attacks.

Last I checked, I don't think the city in which you live would be high up on the list of places to attack, so you're safe where you are.

That's pretty gutsy considering you live in neither New York nor DC.

Are you saying that he shouldn't care about 9/11 just because he doesn't live in D.C. or NY? You should be glad that there are people like STrider(Aragorn who are concerned with the whole country and world and not just the town he lives in.

[Dr. Ransom]

Oh Foul Wormtongue! Why do you whisper words of false peace, even after thousands have died? How could anyone hate America more than to give their own life to kill innocent civilians? War is upon us, whether we wish for it or not. We did not start this war. We did not provoke it. And we are not shooting before thinking! People said the exact same things you are now saying before WWII. Oh, Churchill is crazy. Germany will never attack England. Churhill is just way to extreme. Hitler is just misunderstood. No, we shouldn't replace him, he'll never do anything major.

Sorry, got to run, I'll carry this on later.

(Beorn, I am not attacking you personally, but you [and all of us!] must awaken from the sleep that pervasive liberalism has put you into.)

[Ancalagon]

My issue is this; who exactly is the enemy?

Now, for all you who think it is purposeful to jump in 'feet first' to a full scale conflict in the Mid-East, where there is no support within the immediate region, let alone the World at large, where is the line in the sand? While we bomb targets that are highly unlikely to house any weapons, never mind weapons of mass-destruction, what do you imagine the long-term effects to be both upon the region and eventually allied soil in decades to come? Simply emptying fire-power upon a land is self-defeating as in truth the innocent suffer. 1% support the regime, yet the 99% will pay the price.

Support for war within the US is waning fast, because it seems the sins of the father have truly been visited upon the Son. September 11th was a disaster beyond comprehension, yet in truth it brought a realisation the US cannot defend itself against incursions by an unseen enemy. This is not an all out war, face to face with a frontline. Trying to put a face to it to justify war is non-sensical, in particular in relation to attacking Iraq. Weapons inspectors had more success in the period they were there that the whole of Desert Storm in removing weapons, which is the reason why they must be allowed to return and carry out their role. Do not forget either that the US and to a large extent GB were responsible for selling him the chemicals, tools of warfare and ammunition he tested on the Kurds, used in his war with Iran and attacked Kuwait with. They continued selling arms even after the attack on Kuwait, justify that!

War is not the first option, nor should the role of the UN and its support for any type of action be overlooked.

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Galdor
If you recall we weren't at war during 9/11. What did we do to prompt those attacks?
We have been in the Middle-east for years upon years, that's why they hate us. We stuck our noses in their business when we shouldn't have.

Are you saying that they were just and provoked?!?
That is twisting my words. I'm saying that it is partially our fault for them hating us so much. No, it certainly isn't just!

Whether we go to war or not there will still be future attacks on the US, but going to war will help minimize the attacks.
That's like saying, "We'll get wet, unless we put up a tarp full of holes". Going to war will only make more people hate the US.

Are you saying that he shouldn't care about 9/11 just because he doesn't live in D.C. or NY?
That's absolutely untrue! I was saying that STrider(Aragorn made me feel like she was using September 11th as a defence against others, like saying 'pity me!' Basically what she said I interpreted as an abuse of the horrors of September 11th to defend her views on what we should do in the Middle-east.

You should be glad that there are people like STrider(Aragorn who are concerned with the whole country and world and not just the town he lives in.
Did you read my post?

First off, I said that if we went to war, there would be more attacks, on my home, and not probably not on hers. Basically, it would be hurting tons of other people outside of where, while leaving her untouched. That is being 'concerned with...the town she lives in.'
Second, I said, "Would you do me, and others, a favor and be a bit concerned for the other people in the world?"
Both my first and second points are a complete contradiction to your statement!

[Elu Thingol]

By Sgt. 1st Class Kathleen T. Rhem, USA
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 15, 2002 -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed doubts today that weapons inspectors in Iraq could find solid evidence that Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction.

"I can't quite picture how intrusive something would have to be," he said at his noontime briefing, musing about how much more easily and skillfully Iraq could deny and deceive inspectors now with the passage of time since inspectors were last there
Iraq allowed U.N. inspectors into the country to verify that it was not producing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons as a condition of the cease-fire agreement that ended the Gulf War in 1991. Hussein reneged on the deal and expelled the inspectors in 1998.

The inspectors only ever had limited access and success. Since the inspectors' expulsion, various experts have suggested Iraq has resumed developing weapons of mass destruction.

Rumsfeld today said he believes Iraq has used those years without international supervision to capitalize on dual-use technologies to develop a robust weapons program. Dual-use technology works for military and civilian purposes. That way, rogue governments can more easily justify importing such items.

The U.N. inspectors in post-Gulf War Iraq typically only found information of importance when an Iraqi defector tipped the team off about where to look, Rumsfeld explained.

Such an effort today would have to be enormously intrusive before any reasonable person would be confident to "find, locate and identify … Iraq's very aggressive weapons-of- mass-destruction program," he said.

Rumsfeld said the world needs an inspection regime in Iraq that would provide reasonable confidence that Saddam Hussein isn't trying to develop nuclear capability or to continue enhancing his other weapons of mass destruction, meaning biological and chemical weapons.

[Ancalagon]

ARMING SADDAM

The United States and its European allies have laws and policies designed to prevent arms and military technology from getting into the hands of developing countries, especially where there is a likelihood of their reckless deployment. If these controls were aimed at anyone, certainly they were aimed at the highly repressive, swaggering Iraqi regime, with its history of threatening both its neighbors and its citizens.

Still, when Saddam went to war against Iran, becoming the world's chief practitioner of chemical warfare, U.S. realpolitikers dubbed him the lesser of two evils, and the one less likely to disrupt the oil flow. The essence of Iraqgate is that secret efforts to support him became the order of the day, both during his long war with Iran and afterward.

Much of what Saddam received from the West was not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology -- ultra sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. We've learned by now that a vast network of companies, based in the U.S. and abroad, eagerly fed the Iraqi war machine right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

And we've learned that the obscure Atlanta branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $ 5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Some government-backed loans were supposed to be for agricultural purposes, but were used to facilitate the purchase of stronger stuff than wheat. Federal Reserve and Agriculture department memos warned of suspected abuses by Iraq, which apparently took advantage of the loans to free up funds for munitions. U.S. taxpayers have been left holding the bag for what looks like $ 2 billion in defaulted loans to Iraq.

All of this was not yet clear in August 1989, when FBI agents raided U.S. branches of BNL, hitting the jackpot in Atlanta. The branch manager in that city, Christopher Drogoul, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq -- some of which, according to the indictment, were used to purchase arms and weapons technology. Yet three months after the raid, White House officials went right on backing Saddam, approving $ 1 billion more in U.S. government loan guarantees for farm exports to Iraq, even though it was becoming clear that the country was beating plowshares into swords.

At the time, inquiring minds wondered whether Drogoul could possibly have acted alone in such a mammoth operation, as the U.S. government alleged. Was there a formal, secret plan to arm Iraq? And did the U.S. government engage in a massive coverup when evidence of such a plan began to emerge?

In fact, we now know that in February 1990, then Attorney General **** Thornburgh blocked U.S. investigators from traveling to Rome and Istanbul to pursue the case. And that the lead investigator lacked the basic financial know-how to handle such an investigation, and made an extraordinarily feeble effort to get to the bottom of things. More damningly, we know know that mid-level staffers at the commerce department altered Iraqi export licenses to obscure the exported materials' military function -- before sending the documents on to Congress, which was investigating the affair.

Eventually, it would turn out that elements of the U.S. government almost certainly knew that Drogoul was funneling U.S.-backed loans -- intended for the purchase of agricultural products, machinery, trucks, and other U.S. goods -- into dual-use technology and outright military technology. And that the British government was fully aware of the operations of Matrix Churchill, a British firm with an Ohio branch, which was not only at the center of the Iraqi procurement network but was also funded by BNL Atlanta. (Precision equipment supplied by Matrix Churchill was reportedly a target this January when the Western allies renewed their attack on Iraq).

It would later be alleged by bank executives that the Italian government, long a close U.S. ally as well as BNL's ultimate owner, had knowledge of BNL's loan diversions. It looked to some like an international coalition. As New York Times columnist William Safire argued last December 7, "Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator."

Safire had been on the case since 1989, turning out slashing op-ed pieces. But readers of the Times's news pages must have wondered where Safire's body-blows were coming from, since the news columns contained almost nothing about Iraqgate for the longest time.
by Russ W. Baker
Baker, a member of the adjunct faculty at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, is a free-lance writer who regularly contributes to The Village Voice. Research assistance was provided by Julie Asher in Washington and Daniel Eisenberg in New York.


Neither the US or the British has clean hands in this affair.

[FREEDOM!]

Hey Beorn, just for your info im a guy. and how do you know where i live?????????

[Elbereth]

As an American and a New Yorker, who witnessed first hand and lived through the horrific day of 9/11/01, I can understand why so many Americans push for war so strongly.

However, I do not believe that forceful military action is the answer. Our enemy is not only a few targeted individuals. It is with an entire population of people who hate the American way of life. I fear that agressive military action will only confirm our enemies convictions against us, as well as prompt our enemies to commit more violence and terrorism against the US.

I agree that those who are responsible for those terrible acts must be held accountable and be put to justice. But military warfare is not the answer.

[dapence]

Look, let's not let this thread (or any thread for that matter) get out of hand. Remember to keep replies civil. If you feel the need to vent, step away from the site for a bit, and return to the issue when you've calmed down.

Just a reminder from your friendly neighborhood Webmaster.

[Rangerdave]

First and foremost, I would like to congraulate President Carter on winning the Nobel Peace Prize. His accomplishements with the peaceful resoulution to the Egyptan Israeli conflict was truely inspired.

A few other reasons why I like the man.
1. He was instumental in the development of the Navy's nuclear submarine program.
2. His pardoning of the protesters that fled to Canada to avoid the draft.
3. His decission to focus on internal matters such as the economy.
and most importantly...
4. He is the first ex-president to do anything of any productive value whatsoever after leaving office. Don't see George Sr. swinging a hammer to help build low income housing do ya.

Now, to dicuss what this thread has devolved into.

Does anyone truly believe that GW wants to invade Iraq to combat terrorism? And for that matter, why Iraq? Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the most active terrorist training camps have been in North Korea, the Sudan, and Lybia. Why not attack these nations to defend democracy? Simple...No Oil! Hell, if GW wanted to find terrorists, there's plenty to be found at home. The KKK, the the Republican Army of Texas, the Montana Militia. et cetera et cetera et cetera. Or why not stop all the fund raising the IRA does in Boston?

If Bush would simply just come out and admit that the reasons for this action have more to do with securing the oild rights in the Caspian Sea than terrorism, I would probably support him. But I won't hold my breath.

Also, as a last note, the question of Iraq being able to hide weapons of mass destruction from inspectors is moot. Whether they exist or not, our people will find them. I think the police refer to this as planting evidence.

Enjoy
RD

[Dr. Ransom]

Sorry Webmaster if I participated in getting a little excited :-),

If you, and everybody else really knew me though, you'd know that not only am I really a nice guy (I really try to hide it) but many of my best friends have different political views than I. I just really love having a good old fashion political debate. And thanks for obliging me guys... lol. Like I always say; "this is America, you're free be wrong." (which usually, no always is everybody beside me...)

For those with an underdeveloped sense of humor, I am VERY sarcastic and satirical in real life. I'll try to keep it down in though, since it doesn't always carry well in writing.

P.S. Maybe not as slightly out of sync as you think Dave, maybe greatly. :-)

Hold on Dave, had to add this after I posted. The Israeli Egyptian conflict was resolved because Israel kicked the snot out of the much larger and more powerful Egyptian army. Or are you not refering to the 6 days war?

P.S.S I agree that those who are responsible for those terrible acts must be held accountable and be put to justice. But military warfare is not the answer.

Sounds good in writing Elbereth, but how could this be accomplished?

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
Hold on Dave, had to add this after I posted. The Israeli Egyptian conflict was resolved because Israel kicked the snot out of the much larger and more powerful Egyptian army. Or are you not refering to the 6 days war?

No, I was referring to the Camp David accords at which Egypt agreed to officially recognize Israel as a Legitimate and sovereign nation. Something the majority of Arab nations have refused to do.

It may not seem much, but it is an important first step. And Carter acted only as a mediator. The threat of sanctions, military action or financial matters never played a significant role.

Hope that clears things up a bit

RD

[Legolam]

One quick comment - maybe this would be better off in the Guild of Politics?

OK, my views:

I understand that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man. He has murdered countless numbers of his own people, and it is almost certain that he has some weapons of mass destruction, or at least the means of getting them.

However, I would never agree with this gung-ho attitude that Bush and many of the American public (as witnessed right here on this thread) seem to have. You cannot draw comparisons between America's participation in WW2 with the reluctance of Britain and Europe to get involved in this "conflict". I do not blame America for waiting until it was obvious that Europe needed help, and waiting until they themselves were attacked. Iraq is not the same as this. There is NO conflict right now, and there is still a hope that it can be resolved diplomatically.

As someone said, despite the fact that (supposedly) 1% of Iraq's support Hussein, no-one likes Americanisation being forced on them and I would bet that they would be prepared to fight it. If it's regime change that you want, it's better to let the people do it for themselves.

Originally posted by Galdor
If you recall we weren't at war during 9/11. What did we do to prompt those attacks?
We have been in the Middle-east for years upon years, that's why they hate us. We stuck our noses in their business when we shouldn't have.
I was going to bring up this exact point, so thank you Beorn.

Bush and his cronies are refering to this as a "pre-emptive strike". To my mind, that's just a very good way of saying that they will be the antagonists in a war. War should always be the final option, and I don't think any self-styled "civilised" society like America and Europe should be the antagonists. I can't help thinking that there are ulterior motives for those in power in this issue eg oil

[Arvedui]

I agree with you totally, Legolam. This thread should perhaps be posted in the Guild of Politics. However, I'm not a member of that honorable Guild, so that is why I put it here.
Neither did I intend this to be a debate whether or not Iraq should be attacked.
One thing that goes for all of you patriotic Americans who keep reminding us Europeans about how you came to our aid in WW2: Yes, you did. And yes, we are greatful. We are also greatfull for the aid given to us after the war. But the descision to enter the war was not yours to make. First, you were attacked by Japan. That of course put you at war with the japanese. But USA did not declare war on any European country. It was Germany that declared war on US of A. The opinion in the US at the time was such that pres. Roosevelt did not dare to declare war on Germany. In one of his major mistakes, Hitler made it possible for Roosevelt to help the Europeans.

[Dr. Ransom]

Ummm, If Saddam shooting at our planes in the no fly zone, braking every treaty he made with us, pre-emptively attacking Israel in the Gulf war, and funding every possible bit of terroism he can get his hands on (such as a mass killing of thousands of his own people) doesn't qualifiy as being "provoked" than I'm not sure what does.

[Maedhros]

Jimmy Carter, the best president the US ever had. We love you Jimmy!:) Award Long Overdue.

[Legolam]

Arvedui - just to say that you don't have to be a member of the GOP to post stuff there. It's an open guild (as far as I'm aware).

pre-emptively attacking Israel in the Gulf war
How can you "pre-emptively" strike someone. Either you strike them or you don't. If you do it without being provoked, please call it unprovoked or antagonistic, not pre-emptive. The Americans are little better than Hussein in this respect. What gives you the right to start a war, or force regime change?

On the point of the actual thread, can someone fill me in about what Jimmy Carter actually did, because I'm a bit sketchy on the facts here?

[Dr. Ransom]

Ummm, I think I addressed this already. Iraq broke every treaty we made with them. That is what a treaty is, an agreement to do something our way so we don't have to keep fighting. By breaking the treaty, they are essentially are declaring war on us.

[Maedhros]

Iraq broke every treaty we made with them.
You mean like the Anti Ballistic Treaty with Russia (Former Soviet Union) that the US broke. (or is in the process of breaking it by the George W. Bush administration.)

[Dr. Ransom]

Yeah, you're right. The US just really is just like Iraq... I can't believe you used that example. Heeelloooooo, lets coun't all that ways that the two are simular!

1# The US was at war with Iraq. Opps can't use that one...
2# The US Made the treaty with the intention of keeping it. Well, look at that, we can't use that one either!
3# The US broke it within 5 years. My gosh, could it be?
4# The US still has the same leader. Oh, you mean Iraq has an evil dictator?
5# The World situation is exactly the same. Yeah, we didn't win the Cold War either.
6# The USSR is still around too huh? (how can we have a treaty with a country and no longer exist?) :confused:

Dude!! THINK ABOUT IT!!! There obviously is a place and time to change the direction that a country is headed. I wasn't even born yet when that treaty was made!! And as a US voting Citizen, I'm glad Bush had the manhood to recognize how ancient and pointless this treaty was, and that it wasn't serving to defend America and the World. Where do you live? England? Ok, does England still discuss the Treaty of Paris in the parliment? Read a little history for yourself sometime man! :-) Ahh, I'm listening to the Braveheart soundtrack right now! Does England still recognize Scottland as a free and soverign nation?

I don't mean to get to excited man, but you obviously know the difference yourself, or you wouldn't have posted just a small thread. You were baiting me, and it worked! :-) Have a good day,
Ransom

[Grond]

Anc, I am absolutely amazed that you would cite such a blatant example of liberally, unsupported rubbish as you quoted by Russ W. Baker and pawn it off as serious journalism. The entire article doesn't offer any real evidence of what went on with whom; instead, Mr. Baker makes use of the platform to level unsubstantiated charge after unsubstantiated charge while offering not one whit of evidence to support his conclusions. He also uses the typical journalistic lingo that a seriouos politico uses when attempting to write blatant propoganda while posing as a journalist. My favorite of these terms is, "almost certainly" when used to describe something for which they have absolutely no information.

I do not propose that we Americans blindly march off to war against a foreign country... but, how quickly the world forgets that it was Mr. Hussein who broke the treaty which would have assured he was no longer capable of making weapons of mass destruction. It was Mr. Hussein who would not allow the weapon inspectors access to many of the key laboratories (which are located in his palace complexes). It was Mr. Hussein whose agent was linked to Mr. Atta in Czechoslovakia. Could Mr. Hussein have delivered the Anthrax that terrorized our nation after 09/11? I think he could have and I think he represents a serious threat to world security.

Beorn, most of the polls I've seen show the American people are split, but leaning towards a military option. Maybe you have updated polls you would like to point out for me.

Rather than seeing a situation of the USA vs Iraq, I would much prefer to see a unified world vs Iraq. If the world was united in removing this man from power, no military action would be necessary. But... as is usual, the world cannot agree and the good old USA is left to make the tough choices and then suffer the world's scorn as a result.

[Eliot]

Yeah! Go Dr. Ransom! Well said! Now you're forever my friend and ally!

[Tyaronumen]

Bottom line? The current administration is ignoring the CIA, which just recently said that invading Iraq would make America LESS safe, NOT more.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Tyaronumen
Bottom line? The current administration is ignoring the CIA, which just recently said that invading Iraq would make America LESS safe, NOT more. Given the CIA's track record over the last two years, I would say ignoring their recommendation probably bodes well for any proposed invasion plan. ;)

[LadyGaladriel]

Most of you Europeans are a bunch of hypocrites. You complain to America that we didn't enter WW1 and WW2 faster and save your butts sooner like we should have.

Hypocrites? It you with your American pride, arrogance and ignorance that has cause the problems . Dont get me wrong I have american friends but my.
Shall I tell you who won the war? The allies.
Who put up with Blitz and destrution? The allies
You americans cam into the war at the end so you could take the credit!
You didn't save our butts. we would have won just the same!
Now take some consideration to those which the world wars affected (now Im not saying the americans weren't affected but still the same) Many peoples grandads ect died in those wars . Giving up their lives for england or *country of choice*


Now concerning the IRAQ. why should USA get involved apart from so that Bushstays in office next time because of the astounding victory on Terrorism. Im against my country getting involved because who are we to nose around when it has sweet nothing to do with us? shall I tell you why? because the pompous idoit who is in charge is so best friends with Bush then if bush said Jump he would say "How high?" so thus my country gest taken for a ride.
The march demonstrated that people dont want this war!!!!! This is supossed to be a democratic country therefore the people dont want a war , they dont get one. NOT THE CASE


In the vietnam war the americans decided to surport the Kamerooo(sp) because the american pride was hurt because of their defeat towards the Vietcon . the Kamerooo were the baddies as such. My country sidled up agreeing with the usa then the Usa decided "No we were wrong , the Kameroo are evil we are surporting the Vietcon" next day My country had changed their opoion too.

[Ithrynluin]

Bush is a hypocrite and an idiot, and in more than one way.
Very well said Lady G!

[Ancalagon]

Originally posted by Grond
Anc, I am absolutely amazed that you would cite such a blatant example of liberally, unsupported rubbish as you quoted by Russ W. Baker and pawn it off as serious journalism. The entire article doesn't offer any real evidence of what went on with whom; instead, Mr. Baker makes use of the platform to level unsubstantiated charge after unsubstantiated charge while offering not one whit of evidence to support his conclusions. He also uses the typical journalistic lingo that a seriouos politico uses when attempting to write blatant propoganda while posing as a journalist. My favorite of these terms is, "almost certainly" when used to describe something for which they have absolutely no information.

Wednesday 2 October 2002
Speech by Bill Clinton, former US President, Labour Party conference, Winter Gardens, Blackpool

The West has a lot to answer for in Iraq. Before the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and the Iranians there was hardly a peep in the West because he was in Iran. Evidence has now come to light that in the early 1980s the United States may have even supplied him with the materials necessary to start the bio-weapons programme. And in the Gulf War the Shi'ites in the South East of Iraq were urged to rise up and then were cruelly abandoned to their fate as he came in and killed large numbers of them, drained the Marshes and largely destroyed their culture and way of life. We cannot walk away from them or the proved evidence that they are capable of self-government and entitled to a decent life. We do not necessarily have to go to war to give it to them, but we cannot forget that we are not blameless in the misery under which they suffer and we must continue to support them.



If Bill Clinton is prepared to make a small admission, then there is more than a grain of truth in the article I posted.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Grond
Given the CIA's track record over the last two years, I would say ignoring their recommendation probably bodes well for any proposed invasion plan. ;)

Hmmmmmm -- I would say that the CIA hasn't been the problem, it's the guys who are supposed to be doing something about what the CIA discovers...!

:)

[Grond]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
If Bill Clinton is prepared to make a small admission, then there is more than a grain of truth in the article I posted. You forget that this is the very same president who swore under oath, "I never had sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky!" You choose a poor person to base a statement of fact. :(

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Grond
You forget that this is the very same president who swore under oath, "I never had sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky!" You choose a poor person to base a statement of fact. :(

*LOL* Well, our current leadership has also told many, many lies. Of course these are along the lines of having taken corporate kick-backs, being involved in shady energy business dealings, and little things like that -- nothing so important as who had sex with whom, of course. :D

[Parrot]

Yeah, and Clinton never did any of that kind of stuff too….:rolleyes:
originally posted by Grond
If the world was united in removing this man from power, no military action would be necessary.
Grond has hit on maybe the most important point in this whole debate and one that is, seemingly, lost on most. Let me be clear, I don’t want the U.S. to go to war with Iraq, full stop, but there is a big difference between demonstrating the authority and capability to go to war and actually going to war. Call it war-mongering if you must, but it is merely diplomacy, unfortunately, the only kind of diplomacy that Saddam truly understands: the “do what we say or we will kick your ass, again, sincerely” brand. The U.N. can pass resolutions like a bong at a Dead concert, but until someone shows the backbone to enforce the resolutions it is all a game to a guy like Saddam.

The concept is simple; demonstrate, unequivocally and unmistakably, that we (the world talking here) are fully prepared to go to war over this and war will not be necessary. If caught between the rock that is the U.S. military, and the hard-spot that is the U.N. sanctions, with no other wiggle-room available, he will almost certainly roll over like a dog in-heat for the U.N. Saddam knows better than anyone that the U.S. military ain’t no paper tiger and I doubt he really wants to grab that particular tail a second time. How’d that whole "Mother of all Battles” thing pan out anyway? Planning to dig those tanks in again Rommell?

Did we learn nothing about the power of “a unified front” in Afghanistan? As Bush pointed out in his speech last week, Saddam still has an easy out if he chooses to take it; comply completely with the valid U.N. resolutions pending against him and all this can go away. On the flip side, as long as he senses division, or even vacillation, among the opposition, he will continue to play his game to the ever more bitter end.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Tyaronumen
*LOL* Well, our current leadership has also told many, many lies. Of course these are along the lines of having taken corporate kick-backs, being involved in shady energy business dealings, and little things like that -- nothing so important as who had sex with whom, of course. :D Call me old fashioned but to me "under oath" means "under oath". And it is the same whether you're talking about who and when you had sex or who you sold weapons to. If someone is caught lying under oath, whether they be Clinton, Bush or George Washington, they should be impeached and run from office on a rail.

But, of course, I am one of the few who still regard telling the truth as a paramount principle for a civilized society. I guess that is why our society is going to Hell in a handbasket. :(

[Maedhros]

2# The US Made the treaty with the intention of keeping it. Well, look at that, we can't use that one either!
When it's convenient.
The US broke it within 5 years. My gosh, could it be?
If I'm not mistaken it was signed in the Regan administration. Regan 8 years, Bush Sr. 4, Clinton 8, Bush Jr.
The USSR is still around too huh? (how can we have a treaty with a country and no longer exist?)
Russia exists.
Read a little history for yourself sometime man!
I suggest you do the same.
I don't mean to get to excited man, but you obviously know the difference yourself, or you wouldn't have posted just a small thread.
The difference is convenience. Let's see, we have a president who lost the popular vote, a country who's economy is in decline, and then Sept 11 happened. (Horrible and totally uncalled for). The administration is smart and would use that to their advantage, by creating an enemy which can take the "problems away" from the american public. The perpetrators of these heinous acts are religious fanatics, I doubt that Hussein is one. (I don't see Bin Laden dressed with a suit), and his vice president Mr. Tariq is a christian. Why would the US want to invade Iraq? Is it convenient to them to do so? Yes, why, because of the Oil, plain and simple. Pretext, weapons of mass destruction.
Why not go after North Korea, who has actually nuclear weapons and it's improving it's ballistic missile system. Because, they have no important natural resources like oil.

[FREEDOM!]

We do need to protect ourselves even (especially) if this meens going to war. Thank You british fo the help u gave us, (and your welcome for what help we gave u.) But i think we must protect ourselves and defeat the enemies. and the vietcong were the bad guys in the vietnam war.

And Sudaam was the one who broke the tereaties, and Bush didn't lie, but right now that doesn't matter what matters is the security and safety of the world. and to acheive this we must take out the one who is threatining us.

And there is no alterior motive ( and if there is it's not oil). So we MUST PROTECT OURSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Grond]

There have been several reported posts in this thread that did not warrant being reported. Please remember that a post is in violation only if it is a personal attack on someone. A verbal lashing of a country's leader may not be in good taste but is, nonetheless, an allowable post. Referring to Americans as "war-mongerers" is acceptable as well.

Having said all that, I would hope we will try to keep it a little more civil. Referring to Americans as "war-mongerers" does a grave injustice to much of the U. S. populace who are against military intervention. Referring to George W. Bush as an idiot also boxes you into a corner to explain how he got elected President in the first place. Believe it or not, 49% of the American people are not idiots. Equating George W. to an idiot casts all who voted for him in the same light... and that just isn't so.

[Rangerdave]

There seems to be an idea floating around in American public opinion that Hussein is just going to waltz one of his agents into downtown America wearing a nuclear backpack.

This seems to be a highly unlikely scenario to me. Allow me to explain why.

1. Hussein is not a terrorist: he is a dictator. This means he is more concerned with thoughts of Empire than of Ideology. The less than human Al-Qaida (sp?) operatives actions on September 11th 2001 were designed to send a message rather than actually accomplish any discernable tactical gains. Any action that Iraq would undertake would be aimed at the US Government rather than the American people as a whole.

2. Attacking the American home soil directly is a waste of resources and material. Even if an Iraqi agent was able to smuggle a low wield nuclear device into the US, all this would accomplish is the death of countless civilians. Although tragic, this would not directly diminish the US Military’s ability to retaliate. (Which would most assuredly be overwhelming).

3. Why waste a valuable nuke on New York or Washington, when all he would have to do is park a few guys off the Straits of Hormuz with three or four portable rocket launchers. Cheaper and Easier, with a much greater impact on the Government. Imagine this. Iraqi soldiers sitting on the beach in Yemen or the UAE, fire on and sink one oil tanker in the Arabian Gulf. A few days later, they repeat this action. What would happen?
Well, the first thing that would happen is that Lloyds of London and other maritime insurer’s would freak. The cost of maritime insurance would shoot through the roof. Boom, next thing you know gasoline is five to ten dollars a gallon. If you think the American people got mad that the government did not prevent Sept 11? Imagine what the result of not being able to drive big wasteful SUV’s would cause.

My point is that Iraq could dramatically harm the oil driven capitalist American government quite easily, but has not.

My sincerest hope is that both side can stop rattling the saber for a few days and start listening to each other.
but I'm not going to hold my breath

RD

[Elu Thingol]

Ok lets analyze why Saddam would want nuclear weapons. To use them? Possibly but only under extreme conditions. The real reason he wants them is power. There is a nuclear club among the countries of today, if you are a nuclear power you get to join the club. Once your in the club you receive the respect of other nations and have much more political influence. This is what Saddam is after, he is tired of having American fighter planes flying over him, and America looking down his back. He thinks that once he is a nuclear power he will have more political influence, and be able to tell the US to back off. So the question is, do we want him to have this kind of power? War may not be an answer everyone likes to hear but it just may be our only option. Weapons Inspectors may be a good idea and they may even be able to find his nuclear biological arsenal, however, Sadaam is not a quitter he is willing to take the risks. I truly believe that he will pursue nuclear weapons until he has long-range ballistic missiles. Honestly, he doesn't want to damage the US he just wants political clout. So the only way to stop him from pursuing his goals would be to stop him permanently. A way that is probably better than war, would be to send in a special forces team to assassinate him. Would it work, I've no idea, and if he was killed what would happen? again no idea. So when Bush says he plans to invade Iraq I believe he is using one of the many solutions to this problem. There are pros and cons to each solution, and the question of wether war will work or not is for sure. If we go to war Sadaam will fall. There are many percievable consequences to this action: increased terrorist attacks, a possible biological missile strike on Israel(highly doubtful), increase in Middle Eastern hate(there's already so much of it who really cares), it gives the terrorists an excuse to attack (they already have plenty of excuses who cares if we give them another one). There are consequences like this to every forseeable plan of action. I would list them but don't have the time. I believe the president has weighed each plan and picked the solution he feels would be the most effective. And I will back him up, as I too have also weighed the consequences of these actions. One might say if Sadaam wants the political clout who cares? Lets just give it to him and keep the peace. This is the one option that is not possible, for if we have learned anything from WWII it is this "If you give a mouse a cookie he'll want a glass of milk" ok by this time you probably think I'm rambling but just think about what I said. If President Bush is going to invade, it is because he believe it is in the best interests of the United States, oil is not an issue and don't try to make it one.

Also, my earlier statements about Europeans are to be disregarded as they were an extreme reaction to anti-war posting. I was venting and I'm sorry. Europe ows us nothing, for one does not give a gift expecting something in return. If Europe wants to stay out of the war it is fine with me. I don't believe they are cowards, they are just cautious, they have lost too much in the past to take a risk now. However, the US can risk, and we shall for what I believe is the good of all. If anyone should be worried about the consequences it should be Israel most of all, and they will support us. So let's take a plan of action, for if we sit on the sidelines, we may not have to time to stop Sadaam.

This is my honest and truthful opinon on the matter

[Dr. Ransom]

I am absolutely shocked; I never thought anyone could be so misinformed.
Hypocrites? It you with your American pride, arrogance and ignorance that has cause the problems . Dont get me wrong I have american friends but my.
Shall I tell you who won the war? The allies.
Who put up with Blitz and destrution? The allies
You americans cam into the war at the end so you could take the credit!
You didn't save our butts. we would have won just the same!
Now take some consideration to those which the world wars affected (now Im not saying the americans weren't affected but still the same) Many peoples grandads ect died in those wars . Giving up their lives for england or *country of choice*


Someone PLEASE help me on this one, I have no idea where to start.
1# Who won the War?--- The allies, correct.
2# Who put up with Blitz and destruction?---The allies, correct.
3# Americans came into the war to take credit?!? I can't believe I'm hearing this. America, just like every other nation was fighting for her very survival. You also seem to forget that America was the only country fighting two fronts. Japan alone could have easily taken out the US with a little more "luck." If you honestly think that thousands of Americans died for "credit" than you are smoking something.
4# We would have won just the same! ----smoking crack again.
I do, by the way, applaud Europe, especially England for fighting as valiantly as they did. In fact, some of my favorite heroes are the young English pilots who died in the Battle of Brittan. But, every major battle after that had massive American involvement (all that I can think of anyway, any history buffs here?) Even before that, America was sending massive amounts of supplies to Europe to help fight the Germans. The German U-Boats alone almost ended the war by cutting off those supplies! England came within a threadwidth of losing. Even America wouldn't have been able to win if England had fallen. Not to mention that you probably wouldn't be here right now if America hadn't rebuilt Europe out of our back pockets! Millions would have died of starvation.

Grond, I applaud you. You wrote very well. I agree with you that we shouldn't run to war, and that it should be a last resort, but that it is sometimes the last resort. And I do hope that we do not go to war with Iraq, but I just don't see any reason to think that Saddam will be willing to rule peacefully, and abide by international treaty. You said this very eloquently.

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by Grond
Referring to George W. Bush as an idiot also boxes you into a corner to explain how he got elected President in the first place. Believe it or not, 49% of the American people are not idiots. Equating George W. to an idiot casts all who voted for him in the same light... and that just isn't so.

Sorry Grond,but I neither said nor meant that because Bush is an idiot those people who voted for him are idiots themselves. To make such an equation would be pretty ignorant and unfair. But there is a HUGE difference betw. how a person presents himself/herself prior to the elections and what he/she actually DOES after they are elected. Bush's actions as a president have convinced me that he just isn't too bright.

[Arvedui]

My oh my! Ask for an opinion and one sure gets them. This thread turns in several interesting directions. If someone feels it should be moved to Guild of Politics, feel free. I don't know enough about Internet to do that.
Now, a few replies to something I don't agree with:
First of all, RD. You come with a lot of reasonable points. The only problem is that reason only works on people who is reasonable. I, for one, don't count Saddam among those.
So, Ransom:
3# Americans came into the war to take credit?!? I can't believe I'm hearing this. America, just like every other nation was fighting for her very survival. You also seem to forget that America was the only country fighting two fronts. Japan alone could have easily taken out the US with a little more "luck." If you honestly think that thousands of Americans died for "credit" than you are smoking something.
Step back and think for a while: Germany fought in at least two fronts, so did Japan, Soviet, UK. And I don't think Japan would have taken out the US with a little more luck. I think it was Admiral Yamamoto himself who told his wife that he (as Japanese military head-honco) would be able to give USA a hard blow in the beginning, but from there, he would not be able to stand against the military might of USA. This he said before december 7, 1941. I give you one right though. You did not enter in the end, but joined the WW2 for the last 3,5 years.
Again, it strikes me that Americans are a little more eager to attack Iraq, than the rest of us. Does this seem familiar to you:
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidity, scarcely paralelled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilzed Nation. ?
It is from the same document as this quote:We hold these Thruths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness...
All Men. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

I still give my congratulations to Jimmy Carter (just to keep to the thread):D

[Grond]

from the Declaration of Independence
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidity, scarcely paralelled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilzed Nation.I find it laughable that you would compare the military action being considered by America to the tyrannical conditions sufferred by the colonies of England which led to our Revolutionary War. Talk about comparing apples and oranges. America was an untapped resource to King George and he exploited it to the max. The Colonies were a part of the British Empire but were offerred no representation. America revolted.

The situation today has the most tyrannical dictator in the world oppressing his people and diverting millions of dollars from food programs to rebuild his multi-billion dollar palaces and restart all of his weapons programs. I only hope everyone has the opportunity to watch the biography of Saddam Hussein which was presented on the Biography Channel. You will see first hand what type of a leader and person he really is. His Bath Party returned him to power after a self-exile to Egypt (to protect his life) and his first act as leader was to read off the names of every member of his parliament who might pose a threat. He immediately had each and every one of them put to death. Not a few, not some, but each and every one... murdered.

In 1991 Kuwait was invaded and countless hundreds, if not thousands of her citizens were raped and murdered. The entire stability of a region was threatened and the entire world jumped to action. The tyrant was thwarted and his military might was reduced.

Now it is 2002 and the same dictator is rebuilding his army. He is spending billions of dollars on equipment and men and weapons projects... all this while his people starve and he blames the U. N. Sanctions. What is worse is that many actually believe him. They believe that the sanctions are the reason the people of Iraq hunger.

The reason the people of Iraq are sick and hungry and living in the depths of poverty is because of the leader, Saddam Hussein and no one else. I am proud that America has a President who is willing to stand up to this tyranny. Some may think he's stupid, some may think he is inept... I personally think he is taking the right tact. Many times the mere threat of military action is enough to sway a government. I hope that this is one of those times.

[Arvedui]

Grond. Try to read the quote the other way around. I would NEVER accuse USA of using mercenaries, for one. Au contraire. I live in a country that have benefitted from the help and support from across the Atlantic for the last 60 years. That is one thing not so easy forgotten.
But, I suppose the ending I wrote screwed it up. My fault. I see that now. Sorry.
My point was that this was written more than 200 years ago, and seems to be valid still.
Just to make things clear: I am not some sort of pro-Saddam or anti-war. I just want the purpose of any such operation to be clear. That is why I see no reason for going to war with Iraq itself. But I totally support an operation against Saddam Hussein! And not only him. IMO what Iraq needs is to get rid of all of those that lead the poor country now. So if there should be a war, call it what it should be. Not a war against terrorism, not an operation to secure oil, but a military operation in the name of humanity. First of all for all those Iraqi people who have suffered under the present rule for decades.

One interesting thing though: In the last "elections", Saddam was elected with 99,9% of the votes. Today, the Iraqi's are holding presidential elections again. Anyone who believes he will reach 100% this time. Specially considering the fact that there is a death penalty for those who don't vote for the man.

[Snaga]

I've sat and watched debates on this for a long time, and mostly sat on my hands because actually I dont come to forums to debate this kind of stuff. Also I have a lot of friends here, and I guess I might be about to offend some of them. So be it. Its time to pitch in.

Its time to pitch in because there is some kind of unspoken assumption that the US / other powerful countries have a right to meddle in the affairs of other countries. That is the doctrine of the powerful over the powerless, and its just plain wrong whatever language or justification you wrap it up in.

But its worth considering where we got to where we are.

Surely it is unsatisfactory that almost the entire arab world and Islamic world is hostile to the West? Even where there are relatively friendly governments, such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia, the populations do not share the sentiment, and Islamic Fundamentalism is on the rise. Furthermore, the lack of democracy and human rights is appalling right across the region. Therefore to start from considering one country or even one man as the problem is narrow-minded for one thing; more importantly it completely misses the point.

The middle-east is a patchwork of largely artificial states, created precisely by the Great Powers ruling via colonial mandates. Where did those mandates come from? The League of Nations; precursor to the UN. Effectively the whole region was carved up for oil rights, setting a pattern that continues to this day. It is an imposition that has been resisted from the start, and let it not be forgotten that it was the British RAF who first used mustard gas against Iraqis in the 1920s. Each region was set up with a puppet regime to nominally rule... local handpicked tame leaders.

The carve up of the Middle East was of course a competitive thing, with war time driving competition into armed conflict. Into this space comes the British promise to both the Palestinians and to the Jews that they could have Palestine. This developed into escalating violence between the wars, as the British allowed unfettered Jewish immigration and failed to stop the growth of Zionist Terrorist groups. Then those guns were turned on the British. At the end of WW2 the British just walked out on the problem, leaving a power vacuum. The superior fire-power of the Israelis won out. The ethnic cleansing of large swathes of Palestine followed, and the newly (semi-) independent arab states were unable (and frankly not committed enough) to do anything about it.

Since then, Israels intransigence in the face of international law, and denial of rights to Palestinians has been a running sore in the region. And through the entire post-war period Israel has enjoyed unconditional support from the US. In reality, Israel is an enormous military fortress, ready to strike at any of it neighbours, funded from Washington. Its entire existence relies on US aid, and its ability to illegally occupy the territory of its neighbours and to mistreat the Palestinians is therefore also the responsibility of the US.

In the aftermath of WW2, and 1948 the willingness of the West to directly intervene was massively reduced. (Except via Israel.) This in turn led to the space for arab nationalism to surface: secular regimes seeking economic advancement and education and health reforms based on local control of oil (and the Suez canal). Western hostility was from the outset hostile to these aim, and these leaders were subjected to CIA back coups, military strikes, and economic sanctions.

It is also the case that these leaders were not committed to democracy. But the Wests attempts to prop up conservative royal families has continued unabated: it has no commitment to democracy either. The reason? Because free elections would undoubted return anti-Israeli and nationalistic governments; or in the case of Algeria Islamic Fundamentalists. The existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has, incidentally, acted as a buffer between corrupt regimes and their own people. Every regime when faced with disatisfaction from its own people have waved the Palestinian flag (and then done little more).

There have historically been two approaches to solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem. The arab world has generally held the view that a comprehensive settlement is required. By contrast, the Israeli (and US) view has been to attempt to make peace with its neighbours one at a time, in order to divide and conquer. The Camp David Accord (you see... I'm getting to the question;)) brokered by Carter was the main victory for this approach. Egypt, led by Sadat, got the advantage of moving first... winning the return of the Sinai for comparitively little. But the political impact of this was to break the Arab consensus. This was viewed right across the Middle East as a betrayal of the Palestinians, and Sadat's assassination followed. And yes: the Palestinians got... nothing from this deal. It was a bad peace.

The other ramification of this was that Egypt lost its leadership of the Arab world. In the 80s, therefore the other regimes in the region effectively competed for leadership. And to all intents and purposes Iraq took the mantle. How?

Firstly, the Iranian revolution should be mentioned. It is rarely mentioned that the Islamic regime can to power, because the US backed dictator, the Shah, was so hated by his people that they ousted him in a mass uprising. Because of the political repression the Shah had indulged in, secular political parties were too weak to fill the power vacuum. The Ayatollahs stepped in... co-opting an uprising that was not Islamic in origin or instigation. The alarm in the West was enormous: Iran was a major oil producer, previously a key ally, and could potentially control the Gulf. The arab leaders were also alarmed: fundamentalism would threaten them too.

With a nod and a wink from the international community, Iraq attacked Iran. And during the next 10 years, the West (and the USSR) armed both sides, in order to prolongue a conflict that claimed 2 million dead. Iraq indulged in the use of chemical weapons, a matter than could hardly escape the notice of the CIA men on the ground helping him. Iran helped the Kurds to rebel as part of their war strategy. The Kurds, having no reason to like Saddam, obliged and were gassed for their pains. The West continued to supply arms, and when Iran looked like winning, the US shot down a civilian aeroplane and sent the navy to the Gulf to ensure this did not happen. The war ended in 1988.

The war left Iraq impoverished. Grateful OPEC countries agreed to keep the price of oil high, to help Iraq recover. Kuwait did not comply and indeed took an hostile attitude to a dispute over oilfields. Saddam invade in 1990, as we know. Again, he carefully got a nod and a wink from the US before doing so. In coded language the US ambassador told Saddam the US would not intervene.... conspiracy or cock-up? Probably the latter, but its beside the point.

Lets bring the sorry tale to an end. Iraq, an war-ravished, impoverished economic minnow, vs. the West. No contest. But lets just look at some of the interesting things that happened.

Firstly, the arab countries in 1990 were convinced that an arab solution could be found. The US response was to torpedo that at the first opportunity. They had a strategic objective: to get troops on Saudi soil. This was a long term objective in order to safeguard oil in the region, and the key was to talk up the threat of Saddam continuing to march south. There was no evidence that he intended to do so, but twisting Saudi arms won the day. You can date the rise of Saudi Islamic fundamentalism from that moment.

Secondly, the ending of the war. There has been so much talk about why the US did not continue to Baghdad in 1991 and topple the government. The answer is simple: stability. Bush Snr recognised that dismembering the Iraqi regime would have torn Iraq apart. Instability threatens oil supplies: it was the last thing they wanted. The Kurds in the north wanted independence (which was unacceptable to Turkey) and the Shiites in the south would align to Iran. So the US stood by, while the uprisings in the south were put down by the Republican Guard. The only alternative would be that foreign troops would be forced to be to keep the peace for years after. There was no commitment to democracy or human rights strong enough to warrant that sort of effort. And such a regime would not be welcomed by allies like the Royal Families of the Gulf States.

What's different today? Bush Jnr seems more willing to project power, and the hell with the consequences. After 'taking out' the Taliban, Afghanistan is being left to rot. Is this the template for Iraq? The lack of openness about the future is marked. The prognosis is for a conflict unsupported by the international community, with no clear endgame that will further undermine stability in the region, and provoke more anger and reaction from Islamic countries. The lack of support from particular France and the USSR is notable. How is the US overcoming this? By using rights to Iraqis nationalised oil industry as bait.

A war on Iraq will be the best recruiting tool the Islamic Fundamentalists could wish for. The whole history of the region is one that illustrates that the meddling of Great Powers in the Middle East is the source of conflict, not the solution. The issue of weapons of mass destruction is a pretext for another oil grab. It is completely wrong and immoral.

THE END!

[Dr. Ransom]

Arvedui
Just to clarify, I was actually speaking of only allied countries since that was what Lady G was talking about. Obviously Germany was even more beset on two sides than America. And as for Japan, they did, believe it or not, comlete a biological weapns program and the airplanes to deliver them. Historian are unsure why the airplanes and bombs didn't go into production. These bomb would have had near the killing power of our nuke, and all of the west cost would have been in striking range. Things can change very fast in a war.

Ransom

[Legolam]

Snaga - you are a gem. That was so well put. Things have certainly moved on a bit since I was last in this thread (just yesterday!).

All that certainly goes a long way to explaining the West's participation in this whole sorry saga. However, it doesn't really give a good solution as to how we can deal with it, or even if we should.

I guess the bottom line in my thinking is that I find it completely unethical and immoral to be the antagonist in a war, and to interfere in a country that we know nothing about. Diplomacy is the solution to the first point, and the people have to be the instigators of change in the second. Does that make sense?

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Grond
Call me old fashioned but to me "under oath" means "under oath". And it is the same whether you're talking about who and when you had sex or who you sold weapons to. If someone is caught lying under oath, whether they be Clinton, Bush or George Washington, they should be impeached and run from office on a rail.

But, of course, I am one of the few who still regard telling the truth as a paramount principle for a civilized society. I guess that is why our society is going to Hell in a handbasket. :(

If telling the truth is so important, why does it matter whether they're under oath or not when they're lying?

A careful analysis of our history reveals that there wasn't a president among them who didn't publically, knowingly lie when in situations where it was advantageous either to themselves, or to this nation.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Grond
I find it laughable that you would compare the military action being considered by America to the tyrannical conditions sufferred by the colonies of England which led to our Revolutionary War. Talk about comparing apples and oranges. America was an untapped resource to King George and he exploited it to the max. The Colonies were a part of the British Empire but were offerred no representation. America revolted.

Ehhrmmm - Grond, which alternate history are you referring to in which the North American colonies were subjected to tyrannical conditions?

From an international, more objective perspective, the American colonies were the best treated colonies in history, ever.

The American colonists started to get fed up with the English because regulations were *extremely* loose in the American colonies for most of their history . . . after Queen Anne's War, the English began to feel that the American colonies should have to at least foot as much tax burden as English citizens -- which is why they began imposing taxes, tariffs, etc.

I am an American, but I do think it does grave injustice to history to refer to English rule in the colonies as 'tyrannical', in light of the far harsher treatment that England meted out in Ireland, India, etc. "The Patriot" wasn't exactly a realistic image of British rule in the Americas...

[Grond]

As with anything that is political and historical, perspectives are different and the very same facts can be looked at and different conclusions can be reached. I respect each and everyone of our member's opinions and as a moderator, it is probably an error for me to participate in something that is so controversial. I will, therefore, remove myself from the discussion. I would like to compliment Snaga1 and Ty on their most recent posts and I would like to rebutt, but I shan't. :)

[Dr. Ransom]

Ohh, come on Grond, we know the difference between different perspectives and absolute truth. I actually have greater respect for people that dissagree with me as long as they can back up their argument, like Arvedui, instead of just spewing disinformation, like Lady G (Lady G. I have read some stuff that you've posted in other threads that is very good, but I doubt you will find ANY historian [European or otherwise] that would agree with you about WWII). Besides, it seems my list of allies grows thin :-)

Anyway, I respect your discision either way.

Ransom

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
Ohh, come on Grond, we know the difference between different perspectives and absolute truth. I actually have greater respect for people that dissagree with me as long as they can back up their argument, like Arvedui, instead of just spewing balony, like Lady G. Besides, it seems my list of allies grows thin :-)

Anyway, I respect your discision either way.

Ransom ]
* Talks the wise web masters counsel and walks away from Comp and then turbns and runs back fuming*
Hey Dr Ranson or whatever your name is, back off.
Just because you may be squared viewed that America is everything good in this world doest mean the rest of us have to.
as to your earlier post concerning my orignal reply ,
r u so misinformed that you didn't know that America orignally negotiated with Germany so they didn't get involved? very valient.
We are also still paying debt towards the "help" the Americans gave us.
The only reason the Americans got involved was because they got annoyed that Japan Bombed pearl Harbour and wanted us to go into war against Japan into the heart of the Territory .

AND AS TO THE PM YOU SENT ME, NO I WASN'T DIDN'T POST IT TO GET THE AMERICANS BACKS UP BUT SIMPLY TO GIVE AND OPION

p.s Most Amercians dont even know what the Blitz was. Misinformed eh?

[Dr. Ransom]

Everything you said historically in THIS thread is exactly on Lady G. And I'm down right ashamed at how America let the holocost happen without getting involved. I also do not think that Europe owes us anything, except possibly the kind of respect that people like Arvedui already give. But do not let emotion tamper with history, if ANY of the allies had not been there, the war would probably have been lost. That includes England, France, Russia, America and just about anyone else. As to my PM, I was really not sure if you were serious or playing devils advocate, so sorry it you took it personally. Wow, it's amazing how off topic we can get :-) Ohh, tell you what, please find just 1 written historical source about Europe winning WWII without any American involvement, and I'll recant about calling your post "disinformation."
ttyl,
Ransom

[Ancalagon]

Both of you cool down, count to 10 and shake hands;)

[Dr. Ransom]

Ahh, Don't worry, not only am I cool, but I feel completely drugged :) I just woke up from a 2 hour afternoon nap. Anyway, Lady G., as I was saying, I have every much enjoyed some of your points, and I'm not attacking you personally. So please don't take it as such. Remember how Ulari and EluThingol became friends? By having opposing viewpoints on something, but being able to have fun with it. Anyway, I plan to be able to do the same. Have a good one, and you're still wrong!

Ransom

[FREEDOM!]

You know what guys? Debating this isn't gonna change a thing in reallity.
But maybe we should take these things up outside of this forum.

[Dr. Ransom]

What do you mean "outside" the forum? I don't know hardly any of you outside the forum.

[Eliot]

Back to the Iraq subject...

I believe that the U.S. need's to -right now- take out Hussein before he takes out us. Iraq has been -for a long time- an enemy. Believe it or not, Iraq was on Hitlers side in WWII. And then the British -for which I give them much respect- came and kept Iraq from joining the war. If the U.K. did not go in North Africa and the Mideast and risk there lives for all mankind alike, then I don't think that the allies would have won the war. Though the U.S. and U.K. have some things against each other, I totally respect Britain as an ally and a good friend.

God bless America
God save the Queen

[Arvedui]

Just heard the news that Saddam has been re-elected with 100% of the votes. The admittance in the elections was also 100%. That's quite a victory, isn't it?

No need to mention that he was the only candidate, that there was only an option to vote "Yes" (there were no "No" ballots available), that all persons above are required by law to vote or the fact that it is a death penalty not to vote for the man. Now, this is true democracy!

Irony!

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
Ahh, Don't worry, not only am I cool, but I feel completely drugged :) I just woke up from a 2 hour afternoon nap. Anyway, Lady G., as I was saying, I have every much enjoyed some of your points, and I'm not attacking you personally. So please don't take it as such. Remember how Ulari and EluThingol became friends? By having opposing viewpoints on something, but being able to have fun with it. Anyway, I plan to be able to do the same. Have a good one, and you're still wrong!

Ransom


Ransom, I do actually quite like you because the world would be boring if everyon had the same veiws on everything its just yours are wrong ;)

I just dont llike people showing direspect to my opions.

[Rangerdave]

You know, the whole Hussein problem could be taken care of quickly if President Bush would eliminate Executive Orders 11905 and 12333.
Gerald Ford issued 11905, Ronald Reagan issued 12333.
11905: No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.
12333: No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.


That would give us a bit of maneuvering room, with out needing to send in the entire 2nd Armor Division.

Just a thought
RD

Oh, and just for the record, the Iraqi news service reported that Hussein only recieved 98% of the vote.
with a 2% margin of error. Now thats clever.

[Snaga]

Originally posted by Eliot
Back to the Iraq subject...

I believe that the U.S. need's to -right now- take out Hussein before he takes out us. Iraq has been -for a long time- an enemy. Believe it or not, Iraq was on Hitlers side in WWII. And then the British -for which I give them much respect- came and kept Iraq from joining the war. If the U.K. did not go in North Africa and the Mideast and risk there lives for all mankind alike, then I don't think that the allies would have won the war. Though the U.S. and U.K. have some things against each other, I totally respect Britain as an ally and a good friend.

God bless America
God save the Queen Oh please! Iraq wasn't an independent state in WWII. Its people rebelled against colonial oppression by the British, who were happy to use any barbaric means to put them down. Britain fought Germany more vigourously in the Middle East for years to keep hold of their empire because frankly that was more important than free Europe and stopping the Holocaust, which they turned a blind eye to. Similarly, keeping hold of the colonies in the Far East was a higher priority. To now justify continued domination of the Middle East by the US, on the basis that many Arabs sided with Germany against their colonial oppressors is the most facile argument yet.

You have NO evidence that Iraq has ANY plan to 'take you out', or has EVER attacked the US directly and ALL the evidence is that he lacks the means to meaningfully attack on the US. Moreover, any examination of how Saddam conducts himself is that he WOULD NOT wish to do so. However there is AMPLE evidence that the US plans to attack Iraq, and has a track record of doing so. Given the US Foreign Policy doctrine is now one that approves of pre-emptive strikes against supposed threats, logically Iraq has EVERY RIGHT to pre-emptively attack the US.

Of course I'm not saying they should. But your logic says they can. Luckily for you, Iraq seems less of a threat to world peace than the Bush!

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by snaga1
Oh please! Iraq wasn't an independent state in WWII. Its people rebelled against colonial oppression by the British, who were happy to use any barbaric means to put them down. Britain fought Germany more vigourously in the Middle East for years to keep hold of their empire because frankly that was more important than free Europe and stopping the Holocaust, which they turned a blind eye to. Similarly, keeping hold of the colonies in the Far East was a higher priority. To now justify continued domination of the Middle East by the US, on the basis that many Arabs sided with Germany against their colonial oppressors is the most facile argument yet.

You have NO evidence that Iraq has ANY plan to 'take you out', or has EVER attacked the US directly and ALL the evidence is that he lacks the means to meaningfully attack on the US. Moreover, any examination of how Saddam conducts himself is that he WOULD NOT wish to do so. However there is AMPLE evidence that the US plans to attack Iraq, and has a track record of doing so. Given the US Foreign Policy doctrine is now one that approves of pre-emptive strikes against supposed threats, logically Iraq has EVERY RIGHT to pre-emptively attack the US.

Of course I'm not saying they should. But your logic says they can. Luckily for you, Iraq seems less of a threat to world peace than the Bush!




Snaga I couldn't agree more .

I once saw a newspaper aticle that was arguing (or debatin) wheter Bush or Saddam was worse and the most threat to the peace. I know who I think

[Aslan]

Wow!!! What a debate this has all started.
First-I too would like to congratulate President Carter on the Nobel Peace Prize. I feel that he has given his best in promoting peace in the world and well deserves the Nobel Peace Prize...I just think he was a rotten president.(My opinion)
Second-I believe that if something is not done about Iraq, (Saddam Hussein) countless people will die because of this man. Why should the world wait for him to become a superpower and wield his power anyway he chooses. He has already shown that he has no respect for human life (except his own). He has defied treaties, and made a mockery of the U.N. and the U.S. of A.. As far as those who say America should not go to war against Iraq, please explain why not. America has been provoked by Iraq-through terrorism, breaking of treaties and sanctions. I do not want war with anyone. But, the line in the sand has been crossed and America needs to protect itself-even from certain future threats.

[Legolam]

As far as those who say America should not go to war against Iraq, please explain why not. America has been provoked by Iraq-through terrorism, breaking of treaties and sanctionsTerrorism - where's the proof?

Breaking of treaties - I'm sure that many other countries break treaties and haven't been annihilated by the West. It doesn't seem like a good enough reason to invade another country, with all the repercussions in the Middle East that will entail.

the line in the sand has been crossed I don't think the line should be quite so close to us as the Americans seem to think it is.

On the subject of Saddam's "election" win. Do you think that the numbers would have been quite so high as they were if this whole thing hadn't been going on? Or, putting it another way, don't you think that this is all turning the Iraqi people further into the hands of Saddam? Surely there are better ways of instigating regime change that will result in a more stable Iraq, not a puppet of the West hated by the people. You have to remember that we really don't know that much about this part of the world, that has been proved by our interventions in Israel and Palestine.

[Ciryaher]

Hussein has been supporting terrorism in Israel in the form of rewards for the families of suicide bombers.

I am against going to war with Iraq until we actually find weapons of mass destruction or the materials for them. At least there will be irrefutable proof of the need to take decisive action against Iraq. I also think we shouldn't limit our actions to Iraq and Afghanistan. There are many terrorist-harboring nations in the world. In addition, I think that America should wage a war of sorts on domestic terrorists/threats such as the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, the Black Panthers, and other groups with the same violent and hateful nature.

And a congratulations to Former President Jimmy Carter on his achievement! Hooray for former peanut farmers! ;)

[Ancalagon]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
I think that America should wage a war of sorts on domestic terrorists/threats such as the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, the Black Panthers, and other groups with the same violent and hateful nature.

I couldnt agree more; especially those Irish-American politicians who have continually supported the IRA( even after 9/11), by financing their terrorist activities both in Northern Ireland and Britain. Especially now, that it has evolved that the IRA are training FARC Rebels in Columbia in bomb-making and terrorist activites directed back at America. Well, that and of course paying for the trade in Cocaine through Ireland and into Europe.

[Parrot]

Let's not forget groups like E.L.F. (yes, some irony there) if we are listing American domestic threats.

[Dr. Ransom]

Yes, exactly right. That group is a terrible representation of being good stewards.

Oh, I also agree with RD on his last post. Why fight a whole army when one psycopath is the problem? Would it have been ethical to take out Hitler once we realized that the Holocost was really happening?
Let me know what you think, I say yes.

[LadyGaladriel]

I think that America should wage a war of sorts on domestic terrorists/threats such as the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, the Black Panthers, and other groups with the same violent and hateful nature.


Cir you have gone up in my books.

Im so glad you mentioned the black panthers . Many people seem to think Racism happeneds to just Black people when it also happened to chinese , indian , white ect . Its happens everywhere.

I thought I would mention this because recently I was reading a Magazine and it was holding a competion to find the cutest mixed race in my country. the same magazine promoting the idea "That race doesn't matter"

[Dr. Ransom]

Exactly right Galadriel, racism usally happens everywhere. Not just from one group to another. Good point.

[Gloer]

Jimmy is a cool guy.

[Arvedui]

Quote from RD:
You know, the whole Hussein problem could be taken care of quickly if President Bush would eliminate Executive Orders 11905 and 12333.
I thought he did this last year, around the time they started bombing in Afghanistan? At least E.O. 11905. I remember hearing something to that extent in the news. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry I misled you on the Iraqi vote figures. The Norwegian news services must be unreliable. I'll sue them for that. Grrrr...

Good point Cir! And I guess that is not something just for the US, but for a lot of other countries as well. I know my country has enough problems domestically, to keep the police occupied: rivalry between Hells Angels and other MC-gangs, organized crime and neo-nazis.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
In addition, I think that America should wage a war of sorts on domestic terrorists/threats such as the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, the Black Panthers, and other groups with the same violent and hateful nature.


Hmmm -- putting the original Black Panther Party in the same group with the Ku Klux Klan and the White Aryan Resistance is absolutely ridiculous.

While the Ku Klux Klan and the White Aryan Resistance have been responsible for terrorizing communities, murdering individuals, and committing numerous crimes, the original Black Panther Party was devoted to defending inner city neighborhoods from criminal elements that the police were doing absolutely nothing to stop.

It is better to rely on primary sources when studying subjects such as the Black Panther Party, because secondary sources almost always add an extra layer of spin (such as savior of the black community :rolleyes:, or conversely, a "terrorist organization" :rolleyes: )...

In short, the Black Panther Party never institutionalized terror in the way that the Ku Klux Klan did, and never went on lynching raids, or killed white people for fraternizing with black people... They did not go from black neighborhoods to terrorize, rape, and murder white people in the manner that the Ku Klux Klan went to black neighborhoods to terrorize, rape, and murder black people.

It's just not the same thing.

Other than that, your point is well taken. And if you were referring to the "New Black Panther Party" -- which has had a racist agenda since it's inception in the mid-'90s, but also has no real link to the original (defunct) organization -- then you would be quite correct about them..

However, the original Black Panther Party was a lot more like a somewhat militant version of the Guardian Angels organization than they were like the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation, etc.

It's not that *some members* of the Black Panther Party didn't commit crimes, etc... but the *organization* and most of it's members were NOT criminal in nature...

Essentially, calling the Black Panther Party a terrorist organization because of the actions of some of it's members (which were fairly "mundane" in the realm of criminal actions) is similar to calling the Christian religion a terrorist religion because of the actions of the Klan (which was traditionally, quite strongly Christian)

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Arvedui
Quote from RD:

I thought he did this last year, around the time they started bombing in Afghanistan? At least E.O. 11905. I remember hearing something to that extent in the news. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry I misled you on the Iraqi vote figures. The Norwegian news services must be unreliable. I'll sue them for that. Grrrr...

Good point Cir! And I guess that is not something just for the US, but for a lot of other countries as well. I know my country has enough problems domestically, to keep the police occupied: rivalry between Hells Angels and other MC-gangs, organized crime and neo-nazis.

I think that it is important to distinguish between a terrorist organization (Al-Qaeda), a criminal organization (Greek Mafia -- big in my home town), and an organization that has criminal elements within it (the Hells Angels)...

To lump the Hells Angels in with the Al-Qaeda, or even a mob organization, is quite a stretch... As a sport-biker, I've run into the Hells Angels before, and they're not all hooligan scumbags (and for a sport-biker to have a positive encounter with THE Harley riding organization of this country IS a big deal -- believe me!)... they're not all criminals... in fact, there was a big gathering of Hells' Angels here in Colorado, and it went quite peacefully and well, even though the police over-reacted and had millions and millions of under-cover cops all around trying to dig up dirt, etc.

Ah well. :)

[Parrot]

Hey, me and Gloer agree on something! Jimmy is a cool guy.

[Arvedui]

From Tyaronumen:
To lump the Hells Angels in with the Al-Qaeda, or even a mob organization, is quite a stretch...
Five years ago there was a "Biker-war" in the Scandinavian countries, where members of the local branches of Hells Angels and Bandidos were shooting at eachother, firing anti-tank rockets at eachothers houses, and setting off homemade bombs. Some of those incidents ended up hurting and killing innocent civilians, and destroying nearby houses and factories.
I don't believe that to be quite a stretch! It is only a lower number of casualties.

Fortunately, they seem to have chilled down somewhat. But I find it very hard to trust them to keep their self-inflicted "peace."

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Parrot
Hey, me and Gloer agree on something! Jimmy is a cool guy.

He has guts to go and visit Cuba for example. castro is basically begging americans to do business with cuba and Carter knows how to put salt on that wound.

Just hitting Castro with the stick won't help - he need some room to manouver. He is ripe to take any carrot if offered. But no, Bush is still counting his votes from Floridan cuban emmigrants.

[Gloer]

whereas George W. Bush is very hard to see as anything else than a calculating politician whose ultimate goal is to manipulate more power for himself.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Arvedui
From Tyaronumen:

Five years ago there was a "Biker-war" in the Scandinavian countries, where members of the local branches of Hells Angels and Bandidos were shooting at eachother, firing anti-tank rockets at eachothers houses, and setting off homemade bombs. Some of those incidents ended up hurting and killing innocent civilians, and destroying nearby houses and factories.
I don't believe that to be quite a stretch! It is only a lower number of casualties.

Fortunately, they seem to have chilled down somewhat. But I find it very hard to trust them to keep their self-inflicted "peace."

Again -- the Hells Angels as an organization is *not* criminal. 10,000 of them descended upon a small town (Gunnison? Georgetown? I can't remember specifically which one) in Colorado without incident this summer for a big giant party with tons and tons (literally) of alcohol served and consumed.

As I said, there are certainly criminal *elements* of the organization -- the branches in Scandanavia sound like they are a bit more hard core than a lot of the ones out here... (a Colorado Springs cell of the Hells Angels was busted a year or two ago for dealing cocaine and stuff like that, but again -- that's just a single cell...)

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Gloer
whereas George W. Bush is very hard to see as anything else than a calculating politician whose ultimate goal is to manipulate more power for himself.

LOL -- maybe if Vice-President Quasimodo weren't so transparent in terms of his allegiance to the Dark Side of the Force :D, the Prez wouldn't seem quite so manipulative himself... :)

[Arvedui]

Originally posted by Tyaronumen
Again -- the Hells Angels as an organization is *not* criminal. 10,000 of them descended upon a small town (Gunnison? Georgetown? I can't remember specifically which one) in Colorado without incident this summer for a big giant party with tons and tons (literally) of alcohol served and consumed.

As I said, there are certainly criminal *elements* of the organization -- the branches in Scandanavia sound like they are a bit more hard core than a lot of the ones out here... (a Colorado Springs cell of the Hells Angels was busted a year or two ago for dealing cocaine and stuff like that, but again -- that's just a single cell...)

Definately! I agree with you totally. But here, some of those elemenst managed to brand their organization as some sort of enemies of the state. IMO the blame for that is at least 50% yhanks to our "brilliant" politicians.

[Dr. Ransom]

Well, I guess I got involved with the upcoming war and didn't actually react to the point of this thread, Carter.

Here is a article that I ask all of you involved in the Carter debate to read. I know it's long, but he's at least as funny as Ranger Dave :D And if you must know, I agree with this guy about Carter. It's not good, as you can imagine.

Actually Ranger Dave, I'd like to hear your rebuttal the most, as I feel you are the most knowledgeable of my opponents :)

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-nordlinger101102.asp

[Elu Thingol]

Great article! I couldn't agree with the author more.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Here is one with less "Limbaugh-ish" vitriolic contempt.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/essays/carter.html

[Dr. Ransom]

You know Mindy? Really, how bright is it to discredit an obviously very knowledgeable and talented writer by comparing him in one sentence with someone else you don't like. This guy obviously knows more about Carter than any of us, and you don't even give him the credit of pointing out where he's wrong. I cast doubt on your intellectual honesty in this argument...

Besides, what are you trying to imply by "Limbaughish"? Just so you know, I don't completely agree with him either, but I certainly will give him (Limbaugh) credit where credit is due. Not only is he very honest with his beliefs, but he have single-handedly built the largest radio empire ever, despite what everyone told him. Limbaugh also is extremely knowledgeable, which is why he's hard to argue with. I consider this personal attack on his integrity un-provoked.

Now.. I still have to read the article you posted :D

[Dr. Ransom]

Though Carter didn't have a political ideology, he did have what I would call a moral ideology--and on this he was faultless. He knew the difference between right and wrong. This may sound like faint praise--after all, doesn't everybody know the difference between right and wrong?--but it isn't. It is very high praise.....
-From the article you posted.

This must be why he conciders Arifat such a nice guy. Arifat's promotion of bombing innicent Israelies, and supporting other terrorism must be Carter's great "moral ideology" acting up again. Carter was good friends with a terrorist like Bin Laden (remember his people dancing on the streets?). Granted, Arifat may have changed some since Carter knew him, but history proves otherwise.

In The Unfinished Presidency, Brinkley writes, “There was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasir Arafat.” The former president “felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition with unremitting sixteen-hour days, seven days a week, decade after decade.” Neat, huh?

Mary King was Carter’s key aide and emissary. She once took a flight with Arafat, and “Arafat noticed that I was tired and insisted that I take his customary seat on his plane because it reclined in a certain way, so that I could sleep. I used my handbag as a pillow. After some time had passed, I noticed that a pillow was being ever so gently substituted for the handbag. Arafat himself was trying to place the pillow under my head without waking me. This reflected a caring side to his character which has rarely been evident to the international public as a whole.” Here, folks, we are in Amb. Joseph Davies territory. Remember him? “He gives the impression of a strong mind which is composed and wise. His brown eye is exceedingly kindly and gentle. A child would like to sit in his lap, and a dog would sidle up to him.” Davies spoke these words about Stalin.
-From the article I posted.

This is a start,
-Ransom

[Elu Thingol]

When someone says that they have seen a UFO, such as, Jimmy Carter. You really can't deny the facts: either their mind is shot or their a nutcase. Unless you believe in UFO's, in which case I feel sorry for you.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

So this is Xmas
And what have you done
Another year over
And a new one just begun

A very merry Xmas
And a happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear

And so this is Xmas
For weak and for strong
For rich and the poor ones
The w