Quote from daniel_m:
one more thing, the modern world wasn't created by everyone holding hands and singing "we are the world". people had to fight for it. such is the example that history has given us time and time and time again.
i see no reason to think that we are so 'evolved' and 'mature' that such a basic thing as resolving differences through war is just gonna disappear. it's a harsh reality, aint it...
I agree completely. Thing is, having read a LOT of both your (Dan) and Candle's thoughts, the reality is the two of you really are not looking for different objectives. Candle has, as he readily admits, made a 180 degree swing in his outlook. The bounce-back is due soon! (witness the Dow now relative to this am).
And you, Dan, yeah, war is a necessary element (so far) of preserving freedom (or any other ideology). But right now, I gotta go with the obvious fact that any war the US would provoke right now would be counter productive. For all the reasons stated throughout this debate. Including, but not limited to the scenarios of the possibilities brought up in the "poll" in this thread.
Right now, Iraq is a possible future threat. Not a "clear and present danger" as is required by our constitution. So much has been said about this. North Korea is most likely in possession of "the bomb" already. But Bush isn't too interested (seemingly) in engaging Korea in a conflict now. This oil element truly does stink. If we did not have an oilman in the Whitehouse, with an oilman vice president to boot, maybe it would be easier to view things more objectively. My man, I love America, and I would fight gladly to retain our freedoms and way of life. But this really does reek of a "business deal".
Truly, Saddam has to go. But there HAS to be a better way than going to war with a nation. Especially if it will raise more anti-American sentiment, which it surely will. This is NOT to say that if Iraq posed a real threat I wouldn't back a real acton. But to fight a preemptive war "on the come"?
We have real enemies. Maybe it is a matter of frustration for the current administration that they can't seem to nail down the enemies that have struck at us directly (Al Qaeda). Maybe it is about the frustration that our economy sucks which isn't supposed to happen with a Republican administration. Maybe it's a personal feud because Saddam and Daddy Bush had their little dance in '91. Whatever, it seems that we have bigger concerns than Iraq's craving for weapons of mass destruction. Everyone wants "big guns" .... remember the debate about handguns that went on here not long ago? The bigger the better? To keep under a pillow to protect against the most unlikely of all scenarios? (Home robbery).
Hey, Israel didn't like what was going on in Iraq's nuclear research program, so they just went in and bombed their facility. And did Iraq even retaliate? No, because they are an insignificant power really. Lots of oil. Lots of soldiers. Lots of insanity. But lots of threat? Seems not. Besides, weapons inspectors are there as we speak. Why won't Bush accept their findings after making such a stink about getting them in in the first place?
Seems to make sense to try and avoid a war if possible. If it isn't possible, then that is another story. But a "preemptive" war? Come on! Israel made a "preemptive" strike. Seemed adequate. And with todays technology, why risk American lives for what can be done with drones and whatever weapons we have that you and I have no idea about? Whatever we do know about, most assuredly is old news and fading technology at best. The "good stuff" is kept under wraps. And will be until deployed. Which is how it should be. Hell, we pay so much in taxes for military spending, we should be getting our money's worth.
Get Saddam. Get Bin Laden. Cut off the head of the snake, etc. The people of Iraq are not our enemies. And it seems more than a bit hypocritical that we put up with the Saudi regime.....all about business.
Now on the other side of the coin....yeah Daniel, I agree; Islamic teachings allow these maniacs to rule. So yep, there is a fundamental flaw in the beliefs of the poor souls subjected to these demented leaders. But tell me how we can possibly deter this from continuing? That is a "solution" that would get you a Nobel for sure. So far, we come up empty. Look at TF....change his background, and you would have a reasonable guy. But he is what his history made him. Not his fault. You rejected Christianity. It was easy for you. But try living in North Africa or the Middle East and denouncing the beliefs of your family and culture there, as opposed to what you were able to face and deal with. Doesn't fly. These beliefs are so ingrained, so strongly held that we see where it leads. Suicide bombers and all the rest. So yeah, I agree...Islam is not going to "live and let live". Unless we can re-educate the followers and replace the leaders.
Not an easy task. No easy answers. When the adherents figure that an afterlife is better than the present one, it's gonna be hard to dissuade them from their willingness to go out as martyrs. (and in so many cases, anything would be an improvement over LIFE). But just maybe we can luck out. Just maybe the cowardice of the "true believers" that are in charge will wake up the general populace. It seems like that is what is the natural course that should eventually succeed in helping to stop the madness. When Saddam stands up and stops hiding. When Bin Laden does it, well then they would rally more support. But this is not what they are about. This will never happen. They are about power and sacrificing their own children. And living in luxury while their "constituents" subsist on virtually nothing. Which serves our purposes ultimately.
Remember Gamal Abdul Nasser? (or however his name was spelled). I am sure you don't first hand, but you are a well read guy. Look what a coward he showed himself to be. And now, sure enough, Egypt has come around. Hopefully the rest will follow. Right now we have Bin Laden hiding, Saddam hiding, and Arafat hiding (in plain sight). Interestingly Arafat is probably the best example of demonstrating weakness, cowardice and selfishness. Why doesn't Israel rid the planet of this guy who wants no part of peace? Could it be because he is such a shining example to his own people that they are led by a loser and a totally ineffective and useless head of "state"? Maybe he serves the purposes of Isreal better than the purposes of the Palestinians. Which is exactly the case (IMHO). A time consuming and sad situation. But hey, after a few thousand years, what's another few years if it accomplishes a final throwing in the towel (pardon the expression) by the sadly led and poorly fed followers of the PA?
Sorry for the length and degree of rambling here, but it is tough to be concise and trade at the same time (I seldom do trade at this hour, but am stuck in positions).
Peace,

rs7