Play along with war games in Iraq

[John Galt]

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

[CAsterling]

Don't know if it happens every time, but the Brits moved into iraq before the Amnericans when I played it - Jolly Good Show chaps, we'll get the empire back one day

[Airhog]

Hey just like real life, the Middle east crumbles after Iraq got their ass kicked.

[CamEdwards]

John, you aren't one of these people holding up the sign are you?

*Edited to reflect that I'm joking*

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
John, you aren't one of these people holding up the sign are you?

No, while I've done my share of protesting, I support our troops because as fellow humans, I hope they don't die in this foolish mission in Iraq. I also hope that those of us in NYC survive what are sure to be the inevitable attacks here.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by John Galt
I also hope that those of us in NYC survive what are sure to be the inevitable attacks here.

That is a great point on why we should go to Iraq, because these people will attack us whether we do anything or not...

[CamEdwards]

Thanks for pointing that out. I was just about to ask what country we invaded on September 10th, 2001.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by The Afoci
That is a great point on why we should go to Iraq, because these people will attack us whether we do anything or not...

That's an extremely simplistic view of the situation. People attack the citizens of the United States for a variety of reasons, but the one thing that I'm sure of is that this war will increase the number of people and nations who want to do us harm. And this war has almost nothing to do with terrorist training - if that was really our goal, we would be attacking Saudi Arabia (the one country U.S. intelligence has identified as supporting the terrorists from Sept. 11) or Pakistan, not befriending them.

And who the hell are "these people?"

Thanks for pointing that out. I was just about to ask what country we invaded on September 10th, 2001.

I'm sorry I was a little busy that day - did Iraq invade the United States?

Of course, the United States has "invaded" Iraq several times since the first Gulf War with aerial assaults. The U.S. invaded Sudan and destroyed a medicine factory in order to stop Bin Laden from acquiring chemical weapons. Israel invaded Iraq many years ago for the reason reason the U.S. purports to be invading and the United States arms Israel to the teeth. Israel also invades the PNA on a regular basis killing innocent civilians. The U.S. has continued to aid military crackdowns and human rights abuses targetted against Muslims through military assistance in Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, and the Phillipines.

Peace isn't achieved when a war ends; there is just a prelude to the next war caused by the first.

Terrorists bombing NYC bad, US bombing Iraq bad = It isn't about sides, it is about stopping the killing.

[Fritz]

to think all of this could have been avoided if the west had let the Arab League slaughter the jews.

[Maple Leafs]

Interesting (and entertaining) little demo of the worst case scenario. Of course, it's somewhat flawed given that the entire scenario is based on the assumption that Israel will respond to the inevitable missle attacks by nuking Baghdad. But it still takes a more intelligent approach than 99% of the web comentary out there.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
to think all of this could have been avoided if the west had let the Arab League slaughter the jews.

We might have had to let them kill the Palestinians as well, since they hold them in only slightly higher regard.

[The Afoci]

"these people" are the terrorists, not the iraqis or arabs. sorry that wasn't very clear. My point is that we may have increased attacks, but no matter what we do now(as in we may have screwed up in the past, but we can do anything about that now) we are going to be attacked. I am not saying lets not go after saudi arabia or anything other county, but we do need to go after iraq.

[Antonin]

Originally posted by John Galt
That's an extremely simplistic view of the situation. People attack the citizens of the United States for a variety of reasons, but the one thing that I'm sure of is that this war will increase the number of people and nations who want to do us harm. And this war has almost nothing to do with terrorist training ....

And who the hell are "these people?" ...



I'm sorry I was a little busy that day - did Iraq invade the United States? ...


...Israel also invades the PNA on a regular basis killing innocent civilians. The U.S. has continued to aid military crackdowns and human rights abuses targetted against Muslims through military assistance in Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, and the Phillipines.

Peace isn't achieved when a war ends; there is just a prelude to the next war caused by the first.

Terrorists bombing NYC bad, US bombing Iraq bad = It isn't about sides, it is about stopping the killing.

Whoa! An intelligent post about war and peace, justice and injustice...

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by John Galt
Terrorists bombing NYC bad, US bombing Iraq bad = It isn't about sides, it is about stopping the killing.

I can't believe I'm actually going to say this.

If you believe that the act of terror committed against the United States on 9/11 is equal to us going in and disarming Iraq, then you need serious psychological help.

It isn't about sides????????????? Baloney. It's not about Muslim against Christian, it's not about Caucasian against Arab, it's about terrorists against America.

There are two sides. The president has said it well: You're either with us or your against us.

You might disagree with how we're going about waging the war on terror, and that's fine. That's your right as an American. But when you say you won't take sides, may I politely suggest you find another place to live? I don't say this in a right-wing redneck way. I'm merely suggesting you've already made a decision to renounce your citizenship with your comment. The good news is, there are plenty of countries with your philosophical viewpoint... so you can choose from any number of locales.

I'd better end this now. I've managed to avoid any profanity up to this point, and I'd like to keep that streak intact. I will say, you win the prize for the post that makes me the angriest. Kudos (not Kodos) to you.

[AnalBumCover]

So where does oil fit into all of this?

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by John Galt
Terrorists bombing NYC bad, US bombing Iraq bad = It isn't about sides, it is about stopping the killing.

So if we leave Iraq alone, Saddam will suddenly stop killing his own people? We can't stop all killing and I know your response already.....Israel....but they are also under attack. The kurds have done nothing to Iraq other than happen to be in the wrong place when the borders were drawn up. They aren't going into cities with explosives tied to themselves and blowing innocent people up.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by AnalBumCover
So where does oil fit into all of this?

first you cover John with oil, and then you give Cam a few Mickey's bigmouths and a handfull of viagra. A little mood music (NIN) and the rest is magic.

[CamEdwards]

thank you for turning my frown upside-down.

[Fritz]

Who can take a sunrise
Sprinkle it with dew?
Cover it in chocolate
And a miracle or two
The camyman
The camyman can
The camyman can
Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good

Who can take a rainbow
Wrap it in a sigh?
Soak it in the sun
And make a strawberry pie
The camyman
The camyman can
The camyman can
Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good

The Camyman Can
Cause everything he bakes
Satisfying and delicious
Talk about your childhood wishes
You can even eat the dishes!

Who can take tomorrow
Dip it in a dream?
Separate the sorrows
And collect up all the cream
The camyman
The Camyman can
The camyman can
The camyman can
Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good
And the world tastes good

[CamEdwards]

Fritz,

You had me at "hello".

[Bee]

Cam and Fritz
sitting in a tree
...

[Fritz]

that is one strong tree.

[John Galt]

If you believe that the act of terror committed against the United States on 9/11 is equal to us going in and disarming Iraq, then you need serious psychological help.

First off, I didn't say they were equivalent - I said, Iraq didn't invade the U.S. and this war has little to do with stopping terrorism (see my points about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).

Second, how can you say with certainty that this war won't be WORSE than 9/11? If we kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians, it will be much, much worse in my mind. One atrocity does not justify another.

It isn't about sides????????????? Baloney. It's not about Muslim against Christian, it's not about Caucasian against Arab, it's about terrorists against America.

There are two sides. The president has said it well: You're either with us or your against us.

You know would agree with you? Bin Laden. I, however, think that the path, you, Dubya, and Bin Laden are heading down ensures millions of deaths and possibly WW III. The one I support helps to diminish the killing of all races and religions and isn't garbed in nationalist and racist overtones.

But when you say you won't take sides, may I politely suggest you find another place to live? I don't say this in a right-wing redneck way. I'm merely suggesting you've already made a decision to renounce your citizenship with your comment.

I always enjoy the "Love it or leave it" mentality. God forbid I stay and try to make this place better. I don't love America, but I recognize it has a lot of things going for it. On the other hand, I think the way we conduct foreign policy is largely racist and will ensure the deaths of millions of people. Thanks for the offer - but I'd rather stay and try to change things for the better in America and elsewhere in the world.

I will say, you win the prize for the post that makes me the angriest.

(Insert appropriate Yoda-ism here) - Anger = Hate = Suffering.

So if we leave Iraq alone, Saddam will suddenly stop killing his own people? We can't stop all killing and I know your response already.....Israel....but they are also under attack. The kurds have done nothing to Iraq other than happen to be in the wrong place when the borders were drawn up. They aren't going into cities with explosives tied to themselves and blowing innocent people up.

There are more options than "kill" or "do nothing." And this war has nothing to do with the Kurds (do I need to point out the countries with minorities that are abused by allied nations). And don't you ever wonder why people blow themselves up? Or is it easy to just say those thousands of people are "crazy."

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I don't love America, but I recognize it has a lot of things going for it.

Good to know your citizenship is a marriage of convenience.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
Good to know your citizenship is a marriage of convenience.

I don't think blind loyalty or love is a duty of any citizen. Often those that do things for the country without question (and not for their priniciples without question) orchestrate all sorts of evil (My Lai, Watergate, Nazi Germany, U.S. execution of nuns in El Salvador, McCarthyism, etc.). I think it is the duty of every citizen to think critically and not to accept the status quo.

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by John Galt
I don't think blind loyalty or love is a duty of any citizen. Often those that do things for the country without question (and not for their priniciples without question) orchestrate all sorts of evil (My Lai, Watergate, Nazi Germany, U.S. execution of nuns in El Salvador, McCarthyism, etc.). I think it is the duty of every citizen to think critically and not to accept the status quo.

Whilst I may not agree with your opinion on a variety of subjects (although I could probably say that to everybody), if you changed the last line of the above text i quoted above to:
I think it is the right of every citizen to think critically and not to accept the status quo.
You can have my complete support.

Oposing views and questioning the decisions of your elected representatives is what America is all about. Acceptance without questioning, is never a good idea in any democracy.

[Antonin]

Originally posted by CAsterling
Oposing views and questioning the decisions of your elected representatives is what America is all about. Acceptance without questioning, is never a good idea in any democracy.

Of course, the "love it or leave it" slogan of the extreme right is a demand for...acceptance without questioning.

I'm amazed at the Republican view that the nation should rally around their pretend president and his illegal regime. If a Democrat were in office, the Republicans would of course say that he is launching this war to divert attention from the wrecked economy.

[CamEdwards]

I can't believe I let this drop to Page 2...

First off, I didn't say they were equivalent - I said, Iraq didn't invade the U.S. and this war has little to do with stopping terrorism (see my points about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).

What you said was Terrorists bombing NYC bad, US bombing Iraq bad.

Sounds like you put it on an equal footing to me.

One atrocity does not justify another.

Does one atrocity make up for the stopping of thousands of other atrocities? I'm not even going to argue the philosophical point of whether this war is an atrocity... but I'll point out that there are thousands of Iraqi-Americans who have relatives still in Iraq who say this war is needed to stop the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein.

I, however, think that the path, you, Dubya, and Bin Laden are heading down ensures millions of deaths and possibly WW III. The one I support helps to diminish the killing of all races and religions and isn't garbed in nationalist and racist overtones.

What path is that? The path of least resistance? The path of letting terrorists bomb the Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia, the US Embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, all without fear of recrimination? Yep... letting those terrorists just "get it out of their system" sure worked. It led to 9/11. I guess if we just back off now we won't have to pay for turning Manhattan into a glass parking lot.

I always enjoy the "Love it or leave it" mentality. God forbid I stay and try to make this place better. I don't love America, but I recognize it has a lot of things going for it. On the other hand, I think the way we conduct foreign policy is largely racist and will ensure the deaths of millions of people. Thanks for the offer - but I'd rather stay and try to change things for the better in America and elsewhere in the world.

I never said "Love it or leave it". What I said is if you refuse to choose a side in the war on terror (a war declared on us) then you need to think about leaving. Quite frankly, I don't want my tax dollars going to a military honor bound to defend you from the terrorists you refuse to condemn. It's not about patriotism.. it's simple economics.

Debating you is like trying to convince the guy in the straightjacket that he really isn't Napoleon.

The sad thing is, I really do want to understand where you're coming from. I'm beginning to think that's not possible, however.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Antonin
Of course, the "love it or leave it" slogan of the extreme right is a demand for...acceptance without questioning.

I'm amazed at the Republican view that the nation should rally around their pretend president and his illegal regime. If a Democrat were in office, the Republicans would of course say that he is launching this war to divert attention from the wrecked economy.

Dola,

As far as I'm concerned, "love it or leave it" has nothing to do with acceptance without questioning. It has everything to do with people like this:



and this:



and this:



Unquestioning faith in our government... no, that's too much to ask for. But is it too much to ask that the people who live in this country not carry signs promoting the killing of our officers in the military?

[John Galt]

What you said was Terrorists bombing NYC bad, US bombing Iraq bad.

Sounds like you put it on an equal footing to me.

Because two things are bad, it doesn't mean one isn't worse than the other. It remains to be seen how bad this war with Iraq will be. And I was also talking about the long term effects of the war on the US. I believe many more lives will be lost in America because of the foolish venture.

What path is that? The path of least resistance? The path of letting terrorists bomb the Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia, the US Embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, all without fear of recrimination? Yep... letting those terrorists just "get it out of their system" sure worked. It led to 9/11. I guess if we just back off now we won't have to pay for turning Manhattan into a glass parking lot.

And so far reprisals have accomplished what. US bombing in Iraq throughout the 90's? Bombing Sudan? Invading Somalia? Bombing Afghanistan? All the while we befriend the only nation that has been definitively linked to 9/11 by US intelligence (Saudi Arabia).

What do I think we should do? Stop bombing countries, lift sanctions (allowing free trade to do its wonders), and engage in negotitations with Bin Laden just as we would other enemy nations. Going off half-cocked toward Iraq only ensures more hatred and violence in the future.

Unquestioning faith in our government... no, that's too much to ask for. But is it too much to ask that the people who live in this country not carry signs promoting the killing of our officers in the military?

Similar protests were how our country was found. Divergent voices, even the most radical, are needed for a functioning democracy.

You want to know where I'm coming from? I'm coming from a place that knows how Israel has failed in its efforts to combat terrorism through retaliation. I'm coming from a city that knows what it is like to feel hate from someone who you feel no animosity toward. I'm coming from a belief that war is not inevitable and it is only our belief in rigid, binary "sides" that prevents us from coming to terms with people throughout the world.

Don't hate the "other." Try to understand them.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
Similar protests were how our country was found. Divergent voices, even the most radical, are needed for a functioning democracy.

All that yapping wasn't worth squat until someone was willing to kill and die.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by John Galt
... engage in negotitations with Bin Laden ...

Please tell me this is more of your clever satire ...

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
All that yapping wasn't worth squat until someone was willing to kill and die.

I thought you were done talking to me.

And I'm not opposed to war per se, but I'm definitively opposed to this crazy war.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I thought you were done talking to me.

I slipped

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Please tell me this is more of your clever satire ...

I knew this would get a reaction, but I really don't understand why people don't consider discussions with terrorists. They may not accomplish a thing, but they are no different than diplomacy with other enemy nations. The U.S. negotiated with Stalin, Hitler, Ho Chi Mihn, Mao, and befriended countless dictators. The fact that Bin Laden has no "state" seems like a silly reason not to talk to the man. I think the gap is probably too large to reach any agreement, but why not try?

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by John Galt
Because two things are bad, it doesn't mean one isn't worse than the other. It remains to be seen how bad this war with Iraq will be. And I was also talking about the long term effects of the war on the US. I believe many more lives will be lost in America because of the foolish venture.



And so far reprisals have accomplished what. US bombing in Iraq throughout the 90's? Bombing Sudan? Invading Somalia? Bombing Afghanistan? All the while we befriend the only nation that has been definitively linked to 9/11 by US intelligence (Saudi Arabia).

What do I think we should do? Stop bombing countries, lift sanctions (allowing free trade to do its wonders), and engage in negotitations with Bin Laden just as we would other enemy nations. Going off half-cocked toward Iraq only ensures more hatred and violence in the future.



Similar protests were how our country was found. Divergent voices, even the most radical, are needed for a functioning democracy.

You want to know where I'm coming from? I'm coming from a place that knows how Israel has failed in its efforts to combat terrorism through retaliation. I'm coming from a city that knows what it is like to feel hate from someone who you feel no animosity toward. I'm coming from a belief that war is not inevitable and it is only our belief in rigid, binary "sides" that prevents us from coming to terms with people throughout the world.

Don't hate the "other." Try to understand them.

Oh believe me, I'm trying to understand you. That's why I said, and I stand by my comment that talking to you is like talking to the guy who believes he's Napoleon. I don't hate him either, but it sure is hard to understand why he believes what he believes.

You say you know what it is like to feel hate from someone who you feel no animosity towards. I'm assuming you feel no animosity towards me. So let's negotiate.

I might break into your house, kill your loved ones, set your home on fire, and kick you square in the nuts.

What are you going to give me in order for me not to do this?

There are other questions to be asked... but let's deal with this one first.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I knew this would get a reaction, but I really don't understand why people don't consider discussions with terrorists. They may not accomplish a thing, but they are no different than diplomacy with other enemy nations. The U.S. negotiated with Stalin, Hitler, Ho Chi Mihn, Mao, and befriended countless dictators. The fact that Bin Laden has no "state" seems like a silly reason not to talk to the man. I think the gap is probably too large to reach any agreement, but why not try?

slipping again:

John, if you negotiate with non-state actors like Bin-Laden you invite violence from the next guy that want to be heard.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by John Galt
I knew this would get a reaction, but I really don't understand why people don't consider discussions with terrorists. They may not accomplish a thing, but they are no different than diplomacy with other enemy nations. The U.S. negotiated with Stalin, Hitler, Ho Chi Mihn, Mao, and befriended countless dictators. The fact that Bin Laden has no "state" seems like a silly reason not to talk to the man. I think the gap is probably too large to reach any agreement, but why not try?

Because you'd be guaranteeing future terrorist attacks.

You don't negotiate with terrorists, because if you do, you demonstrate the terrorism works. You might be able to reach some sort of agreement with Bin Laden; it's unlikely, but let say it happens. You make some concessions, he calls off future attacks.

What do you think the next group out there that wants concessions from the US is going to do?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards


I might break into your house, kill your loved ones, set your home on fire, and kick you square in the nuts.

What are you going to give me in order for me not to do this?

There are other questions to be asked... but let's deal with this one first.

If you were seriously making that threat, I'd ask you not to and if you still insisted, I'd call the cops. I assume you want me to not include the cops in the equation, so if worse came to worse, I'd guard my house and kill you if you threatened it.

I think your analogy is poor - if you want to understand where I'm coming from, then you may want to make more elaborate analogies. I think you will find some of differences come from questions of "fact" (i.e. I don't believe Iraq is that important of a country in regards to promoting terrorism - I believe Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, and Pakistan are).

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by John Galt
If you were seriously making that threat, I'd ask you not to and if you still insisted, I'd call the cops. I assume you want me to not include the cops in the equation, so if worse came to worse, I'd guard my house and kill you if you threatened it.

I think your analogy is poor - if you want to understand where I'm coming from, then you may want to make more elaborate analogies. I think you will find some of differences come from questions of "fact" (i.e. I don't believe Iraq is that important of a country in regards to promoting terrorism - I believe Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, and Pakistan are).

You'd ask me not to.

I'd say "nope, I'm going to do this."

You'd call the cops.

The cops sit around discussing the situation for the next four months, trying to decide if they should give me more time to say I won't burn down your house, kill your family, and kick you square in the nuts. One officer, Sgt. French, says that no matter what, he's not going to let the police come after me because there's still a chance that I won't come to your house, burn it, kill your family and kick you square in the nuts.

Meanwhile, one night, when you're asleep (you have to sleep sometime) I creep into your house and do exactly what I said I would do.

At what point do negotiations enter the picture, and when exactly do you get the chance to kill me?

Are there other nations we should be looking at? Yep. But again, John, as you've pointed out: the world is not black and white. Different countries demand different approaches. What works for one might not work for another.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Because you'd be guaranteeing future terrorist attacks.

You don't negotiate with terrorists, because if you do, you demonstrate the terrorism works. You might be able to reach some sort of agreement with Bin Laden; it's unlikely, but let say it happens. You make some concessions, he calls off future attacks.

What do you think the next group out there that wants concessions from the US is going to do?

Both you and Fritz raise a good point, but one that isn't proven by empirical evidence. Let me offer you my take on why the "embolden" terrorists theory isn't quite right.

First, the policy of deterrence when it comes to suicidal terrorists is ineffective. You can't deter those who are willing to die and you can't kill them all, because each death creates new enemies who are willing to die. Further, the evidence is pretty strong that Israel has proven this strategy to be a total failure. Yes, Israeli planes are safe, but the level of terrorism has continued to rise in almost perfect proportion to their increase in counter-measures.

Second, diplomacy has worked with a series of "state" actors, so there is reason to believe it can work in non-state settings. The U.S. eventually reached peace with the Soviet Union after a Cold War (and several small hot wars) that many thought would never end. We did this without ever waging a war on the Soviets. Violence was the last alternative. We invade Iraq now, because we CAN, but the long term effects I think could be equivalent to an attack on the old Soviets.

Third, while the analogy isn't perfect, look at studies of deterrence in relation to the death penalty. After years and years of study, no conclusive evidence has shown that the death penalty deters crime despite the fact that your common sense "embolden criminal" argument applies.

Lastly, let me say that I'm not talking about giving and taking concessions. I'm talking about opening a dialogue (what foreign policy experts term "Confidence-Building Measures"). Such measures went a long way in resolving the long-standing conflict between Israel and Egypt. Understanding and acknowledging the "other" goes a long way toward bringing peace.

[astralhaze]

When did Iraq threaten to kick us in the collective nuts?

[John Galt]

At what point do negotiations enter the picture, and when exactly do you get the chance to kill me?

I understood your original question to be one where the threat was imminent. Re-reading it, I'm not sure that was your intention. Assuming you will give me time to talk, I would. I don't expect I'd make any concessions (I'd leave it up to family members to see if they would do the same). I'd protect my home the best I could, but if you were going to kill me and I couldn't convince you not to, then of course I would kill you.

Are there other nations we should be looking at? Yep. But again, John, as you've pointed out: the world is not black and white. Different countries demand different approaches.

And why haven't we tried engagement with Iraq? Lift the sanctions, feed the people, and promote capitalism and American culture. It is working in China and elsewhere around the world. Diplomacy with sanctions just doesn't work.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by astralhaze
When did Iraq threaten to kick us in the collective nuts?

I think that was when they were building chemical weapons and trying to get nuclear ones...of course those are only for the kurds...so i guess we're okay

[John Galt]

Originally posted by The Afoci
I think that was when they were building chemical weapons and trying to get nuclear ones...of course those are only for the kurds...so i guess we're okay

Oh, you mean like Pakistan, India, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt, North Korea, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Iran, and Israel? Wow, our nuts must really hurt by now.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by John Galt
Lastly, let me say that I'm not talking about giving and taking concessions. I'm talking about opening a dialogue (what foreign policy experts term "Confidence-Building Measures"). Such measures went a long way in resolving the long-standing conflict between Israel and Egypt. Understanding and acknowledging the "other" goes a long way toward bringing peace.

I'd argue for exactly the opposite approach. Be willing to open a dialog with those that disagree with you, listen to what others have to say, value an open perspective. But be very clear that if and when they resort to violence, the dialog ends. Make it clear that the last thing anyone would want is to attack your people, because that will be the end of any hope of an open dialog.

If you engage Bin Laden in a discussion now, you send a clear message to the world that the best way to get America's attention is to kill thousands of its citizens. I can't imagine how that could be considered a wise or even peaceful policy.

[CamEdwards]

Holy crap... I just figured it out.

JohnGalt is Oprah!!

From the Drudge Report:

"The Queen of TV Talk Oprah Winfrey on Tuesday tilted anti-war in a stunning hour-long broadcast "Why Do So Many Hate the U.S.?" Oprah outlined 'double standards' in American foreign policy and the huge disconnect between what America says and what America does... Oprah warned how United States is going have a bad reputation throughout Europe; she repeatedly used the word 'cowboy' to describe President Bush"

Okay, now back to the serious discussion. When has Saddam Hussein threatened to kick America in the nuts? That's a difficult question. Was it when we forced his removal from Kuwait? Was it when we signed a cease-fire to stop the Gulf War? Was it a daily kick in the nuts when he refused to disarm as he was supposed to under the cease-fire agreements and the 18 UN resolutions? I would argue that those instances, coupled with the fact that he harbors terrorists, trains terrorists, applauds terrorists, has lied to inspectors, has deceived the world, etc. constitutes a fairly large kick in the nuts.

To refer back to the analogy (and yes, the analogy is a combination of Saddam and Osama. Sort of a Sasama type character if you will), it would appear that you would try to negotiate with me only if your family wanted you to do so. What about your duty as a husband and father. Good golly, if your four year old has as much say about your family as you do then we really do have vast philosophical differences.

You say lift the sanctions. Who exactly put those sanctions in place and what exactly has Iraq done to prove itself worthy of lifting the sanctions?

The sanctions haven't worked. 12 years of diplomacy haven't worked. There's no reason to think diplomacy without sanctions would work. You tout China as an example of the success of your philosophy. You know what China is? Billions of anti-American communists who love Big Macs. Yeah, you want to see how well your philosophy has worked in China... why don't you go to Beijing and try and talk to a member of Falun Gong.

[John Galt]

If you engage Bin Laden in a discussion now, you send a clear message to the world that the best way to get America's attention is to kill thousands of its citizens. I can't imagine how that could be considered a wise or even peaceful policy.

Of course, we could just "pay attention" to people's problems in the first place. Also, you didn't really answer any of my arguments which address this.

JohnGalt is Oprah!!

Uh . . no.

What about your duty as a husband and father. Good golly, if your four year old has as much say about your family as you do then we really do have vast philosophical differences.

I have no children or wife. I presume that I would speak for the child if I had one, but I would never presume to speak for my wife or partner.

You say lift the sanctions. Who exactly put those sanctions in place and what exactly has Iraq done to prove itself worthy of lifting the sanctions?

As much as seem to think Iraq is responsible for everything the U.S. does, the U.S. is DEFINITELY responsible for applying sanctions (the U.N. is also responsible for their sanctions). The U.S. made a policy choice - sanctions are not required for a war torn country that we invaded. In fact, Iraq is the only instance I can think of where we isolated a country after we invaded. Normally, we engage, aid, and open trade. And it isn't a question of "worthiness." The shunning and sanctions strategy (which used to be the liberal, democrat solution - strange how things change) has never worked - it just increase animosity and doesn't develop the institutions needed for democracy to work.

The sanctions haven't worked. 12 years of diplomacy haven't worked. There's no reason to think diplomacy without sanctions would work. You tout China as an example of the success of your philosophy. You know what China is? Billions of anti-American communists who love Big Macs. Yeah, you want to see how well your philosophy has worked in China... why don't you go to Beijing and try and talk to a member of Falun Gong.

I used China as an example, but ummmm. . . I don't know how to put this, without giving "out-able" information . . .

You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to China. As someone who is more than knowledgable about what is happening there, most of the countryside and cities have embraced capitalism - it is only the government filled with stogy technocrats who have tried to slow things down - but they can't. And China (or the "New Yellow Menace" as we used to call them) managed to acquire nuclear weapons without hurting anyone. And you REALLY have no idea what you are talking about when you mention Falun Gong.

If you believe in democracy and capitalism, then let be free - open trade and dialogue - the gun isn't the solution to the world's problems.

[Bee]

In fact, Iraq is the only instance I can think of where we isolated a country after we invaded.

We didn't invade Iraq. They invaded Kuwait and we liberated Kuwait. If we had invaded Iraq, we wouldn't be having these discussions today.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by John Galt
Of course, we could just "pay attention" to people's problems in the first place. Also, you didn't really answer any of my arguments which address this.

To be honest, I didn't think your arguments did address it. We were discussing whether negotiations with terrorists who have already attacked were productive. You were arguing that deterence doesn't work, which isn't the same thing at all. In fact, if there's no way to deter someone, then this entire discussion is kind of pointless.