Batz wrote:
Wrong Santa
The US are using the fact that Saddam may get access to wmd and then because hes mean he may give them to terrorists who are even meaner. Th US uses a LOT of arguments. The one I quoted is one of them. I can probably dig up a news article if you want to. It'd means searching etc and would be a bother, but if I need it to prove I am not a liar, I will. Think you'll find that in my preevious posts I put references when there's somethign that people will not take at face value. This argument however has been used extensively and is well known, which is why I dinnae bother.
The fact that hes mean isnt why the US is entertaining invading Iraq. Thats a pure BS Euro arguement. If you won't put words in my mouth, I won't put words in yours. Never said what you infer. I said:
What I think they are trying to convey is the hypocricy of the US stance - Iraq supports terrorism and is an opressive regime, therefore it must go. Saudi Arabia and other nations also have opressive regimes, but they get support.
If you're referring to some to me unrelated Euro argument, I apologize for being a wee bit suspicious
. And I appreciate that you call the argument, rather than me, BS. People tend to attack the person not the argument on this board, heh.
To show how mean he is the US points to his record not just against his own people but folks in the region. But tjhis is not the arguement for invasion. I think the US is doing what every prosecutor is - bringing up circumstancial evidence and special conditions/past history. in Swedish we say 'många bäckar små bildar snart en stor å' which roughly translated means that many a few streams connect and form up to a big river. The official US positions has always been that an invasion would be to rid the world of a Saddam WMD threat. But then there are lots of small streams to add to the case.
No one said Saddam sent the planes into the wtc. What the wtc showed is that there are some terrrorists who will go to any extreme to kill americans. The fear is that Suddam, who gives money to other terrorists organizations and pays families of suicide bombers may provide others with more then money. He has also used chemical agents againts Iran and his own people. As I mentioned, he has had ample opportunity to do so. There is also the possibility that Saddam, being an intelligent man, has decided against using WMDs against the US, knowing that he'd have the full wrath of the American people and state if he did. He's studied history and knows that when faced against the anger and determination of the US, no enemy can survive.
Now, if he is losing the war and knows he'll die anyway, or be captured, he will have no reason to show restraint. So the very act of trying to protect yourselves may provoke exactly what you want to protect yourselves from. Then again, it has never been in the American national psyche to sit and wait - Americans believe in action. However while this is admirable, there are situations where waiting and uncertainty is better than taking action with a sure negative result. But that is hard to accept for someone powerful.
Another BS euro arguement. First our government is not a homogenous continous entity. It changes with each administration. It is in fact a "new" government. But even so, we give lotsa military aid to our friends and potential allies. America corps and finicial institutions did buisness with Hitler before ww2. Should we have said" we cant fight Hitler we gave him technology". We gave weapons technology to most of europe and Isreal. The problem isnt just the Iraqis have weapons but the real threat that may use them. So you disagree with me when I say the US gave him bacteria and germs etc in the 80's? I posted in another thread four or five links showing this to be the case - can dig it up again. The US actions were driven by a fear of Iran, with its new 'government'. And the intervention was succesful, if costly.
Regardless of whether you switch administrations, the administrations represent the US. And they are chosen by YOU. So there's no getting away from the fact that US officials did this or that - even if you voted for the other guy. The American people are represented by their administrations and the actions of the administration, good or bad, reflect the American people through representative democracy.
Theres plenty of nations with bad weapons who dont like the US. We wont invade all of them. We wont invade every Nation who is ruled by a thug either. I know. I am intelligent enough to understand how politics work. I'm a realist. I don't even expect the US to be consistent on their policies - no nation is. I am however a little annoyed by obvious hypocricy so I point it out - not to insult Americans, but just to show that it exists. Most intelligent people are capable of seeing it if they put emotions and patriotism on a lower priority than objective thinking.
You act as if the US cares whether the rest of the world consults the UN either. We dont intefere with Isreals flaunting of the UN or the Russians in their dealings with the Chechens and in many other instances. A portion of the US in the UN dont really care what the UN thinks. However, our country is willing to work with the UN but wont defer to the descision of the UN when we feel they are against our interests. Every other guy I talk to in the US will tell you "diddly the UN". Ofcourse theres the left over "internationale" liberals but no one takes them seriously. Aye, I am very aware of US antipathy towards the UN. I feel it stems from the limiting choice of action that comes with it - military and economically you guys can roll over anything, anywhere, at any time. The UN is a conglomerate of antions and interests, some that goes against very important UN ones. OTOH, if we are to have a fair world where there isn't a big country bullying the rest we need a forum to resolve issues.
Even assuming the US goes it alone, it still has an important role to play. Americans see themselves as guardians of freedom (and has many reasons to do so) and are extremely influential. Let's take some issue that isn't directly related to US interests. Say the issues with the white farmers being killed or beaten in Africa (was it Congo?). The US can put so much leverage behind their words and force seriuous consequences for wrongful behaviour. You can do this even if you have no credibility because you consult with the UN but still do whatever the hell you want.
However, you wish to fight terrorism. Best thing to do; remove the fuel. If the US is seen as a bully that doesn't respect the laws it tries to enforce on others, there'll be lots of potential terrorists. If the US is seen as a conscient nations dedicated to the Rule of Law with the backing of other countries, less fuel. And the UN is that body. It is needed, unless the US wants to play police in every part of the world to a much larger degree than now.
But claiming the US position on Iraq is hypocritical is wrong and shows you dont really understand the US position. The realopolitik position I can understand and relate to. Yet if they treat one nation in one way and very similar regimes in the complete opposite way due to national interest yet still claim to be consistent, I call it roadkill. It'd be much more honest to say 'he s opressive and against our national interests, while his neighbor might be a dictatorship, but coincides with our interests'.
Of course soccer moms and other idiots will be appaled and vote for the guy who says 'we need to free the Iraqi people from this opressive man, and our good friends the Saudis will help us'.
Its not about oil, or Suddam being mean. Never claimed it was. See quote above. I think we're sort of mixing in several different topics and getting a bit confused. My comments where on the official statements that sometimes come out of Washington.
Its about turning on the tv one Sunday morning and reading how 300,000 Americans have killed by a wmd. After the wtc attacks the US under Bush has decided that we arent willing to wait for that to happen. They looked at what they could do and there sits Iraq. Of all the bad guys in the world he is the most likely to be the guy.This is where I disagree. NK is a far more dangerous regime - cash strapped, technologically more advanced than many Arab nations, will have or already has nukes - and are willing to sell knowledge and hardware for money. Iraq hasn't threatened the US with a 'sea of fire' - the DPRK has. Saddam hasn't directly threatened the US in that manner. He used to be your ally, until he made the fatal miscalculation of thinking the US wouldn't mind him invading Kuwait. The man wants to be alive more than anything else and he is far from a maniac. Mentally he has issues like narcissism, paranoia and the like, but he's quite intelligent. And intelligent people know not to mess with the US. However, since he is paranoid, he will have contingency plans if the US goes after him personally. So you might turn on the TV and find 1 million Americans dead and the suicide letters of Iraqi terrorists saying 'in Saddam's name'.
