Who Supports the War(s)

[jaguar]

Cairo if I remember correctly earlier this year there was allot of blather about this admin finishing the work of bush serious, to which bush sir angrily replied that he had done all he had set out to do - the specific reason for not invading all of Iraq and removing Saddam was that backing Saddam into a corner would be very dangerous and his replacement, or the collapse of Iraq as a nation state would be far worse. I really don't see what's changed since then. I mean when you have serious figures in the military opposed to the war and many republican elders questioning the wisdom of such a move, you really have to wonder don’t you?

Except for an admin desperate to create a concept of a perpetual war against an abstract enemy to allow draconian rule and political maneuvering space, the second coming of McCarthyism. Very interesting Washington post article a couple of days ago about the shadow legal system being created to deal with 'terrorists', all sounds kind of familiar...

Saddam ignores fundamental UN Resolutions...

and laws eh? That’s kinda funny. So does the US, at least in diplomatic practice.

[hermit22]

So does Israel. The number of SC Resolutions that Israel violates by controlling the occupied terrritories is more than the 16 that Iraq does, yet we have made no intention of invading Israel to liberate Palestine.

I'm not an Israel-hater, I'm just using it as a point. Many, many countries violate UNSC Resolutions and they do not get threatened with war like Iraq does. (OK, so Israel's been attacked a few times, and part of the justification from Syria, Egypt, et al. was their violation of 42, 61, 242, etc. - but not the US.) Consider that when you're developing your theories about UN's takeover of the world.

And Cairo...the Gulf War did end. Conflict may continue, but, as Jaguar said, it's low level conflict. There is a huge difference between full-scale war (I'm sure you could try to argue that legally there wasn't a war in the first place, so the conflict is the same, but, in modern warfare, the declaration of war is no longer required.) and low-level conflict. So I'll make a quick little ladder, since Jag's off watching Simpsons.

Ok, let's say someone insults you. Do you respond with a full-out nuclear response? No, you insult him or her back, and conflict continues at the same level. Or you turn the other cheek, and it de-escalates. Or you throw a punch, and suddenly, the level has escalated.

Similarly, what we've been doing since the Gulf War (and it wasn't directly after the Gulf War that the no-fly zones were established; they were put in after the Kurds in the North and the Shi'ites in the South couldn't handle Iraq's Republican Guard, despite our claims that we had completely demoralized them. They were established by Britain, France and the US to protect those groups from Hussein's revenge - ie. his destruction of Halabjel after the Iran-Iraq war.) has not been actual conflict by today's standards. We bomb a few buildings here and there, ensure that noone is flying where they're not supposed to - and that's about it. Occasionally, Hussein targets our planes, so we bomb those installations too. Fine. Conflict is kept at a relatively low and consistent level.

In all that, however, there is no indication from Iraq of a direct threat. Besides the attack on former President Bush in 1993 (which, I might add, is 9 years ago) and the withdrawal of inspectors in 1998, there have been no indications of a need to escalate the conflict to the level that the chickenhawks suggest. So, then, it is pre-emption. If conflict is on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being nuclear war and 0 being America and Britain, then pre-emption does not necessarily mean you go from a level of 0 conflict to 8 or 9 overnight. You could go from, say, a 3 or 4 to an 8 - and it's still pre-emption. Also, look at the argument that is being made - that Hussein needs to be stopped before he attacks us - that are all about pre-emption.

It wasn't just Powell that was calling for an end to the Gulf War. Much of the coalition agreed, and many of the military establishment did as well (they, of course, didn't want to go to war in the first place, but that's a different matter).

In addition, I wouldn't call Hussein an idiot. He's outlived an attack and a resulting animosity from the most powerful nation in the world. His positioning inside the country to become President is a case study in totalitarianistic politics. I've seen it compared, on a lesser scale, to Stalin's rise. None of that means he's a good person, it just means that rejoicing in calling him stupid is ignorant in itself. Same goes if you're Canadian or German.

Who's trying to solve problems by dropping nuclear bombs? Oh, right...Saddam is!!!!

What on God's green earth are you talking about? Even the harshest armchair generals can't admit to Hussein currently having nuclear weapons. Instead, they usually just incorrectly quote a report about his capabilities before the Gulf War and ascribe it to the present day.

irst of all, the Gulf war isn't over! And second, Saudi Arabia won't let our troops leave, seems they are afraid of being overthrown by bin Laden's terrorist network, and the Royals begged the UN to install US there in the first place!(Learn a little History, dude.)

You go learn a little history. SA is none too pleased with the American presence in their country, esp. lately. The reason they let Americans in in the first place was because they thought they were next on Hussein's list. One of the most contentious issues in Saudi Arabia today is the presence of troops.

In wartime, we don't need to P-foot around with Diplomacy, no need to ask permission to defend our Country in a 10+ year ongoing war, no need for a "smoking gun"...the "smoking gun" is the fact that the Gulf war has no ending!

It's a good thing you don't run the country. We are not an empire. Get that through your head. We may be economically and militarily superior to every other nation in the world, but that does not give us the right to act that way - especially when it's not in our interests to do so. You don't want to invade a country that has successfully painted us as the bad guy on the world scene (ie. sanctions) and use the "oh, I thought they were going to attack us" line. It doesn't fly in international relations. It a) infuriates the surrounding countries, some of which act scared, others of which become havens for terrorists, and b) tells other countries that it's OK to invade another country for no reason.

Look up the idea of a nations sovereignty, and their right to it. We constantly argue that we can not sign any human rights treaties because the transparency inherent in them makes them a violation of our sovereignty, yet we completely flubb that rule when it comes to Iraq.

Ok, I may have wandered a bit. But the point is that you can't view two nations in a vacuum. You need to understand their relations with the rest of the world in order to act coherently on the international scene.

If you want me to list the other reasons why we need UN support to invade Iraq, just ask. I'll do so in another thread.

[Undertoad]

So does Israel. The number of SC Resolutions that Israel violates by controlling the occupied terrritories is more than the 16 that Iraq does, yet we have made no intention of invading Israel to liberate Palestine.

If they did that on Tuesday, by Thursday Palestinians would make a pre-emptive strike on Israeli territory, justifying their re-occupation -- except this time with no UN oversight or involvement at all.

What on God's green earth are you talking about? Even the harshest armchair generals can't admit to Hussein currently having nuclear weapons.

Where are the aluminum tubes you bought?
- What aluminum tubes, we don't have any aluminum tubes.
The aluminum tubes on this invoice.
- Oh, yes, we did buy aluminum tubes, but not for making nukes. Those aluminum tubes were for making baby milk.

[Cairo]

jaguar,
You say,"I really don't see what has changed since then."
Well then, it seems that you and the Afghani's are the only ones in the World who didn't!
The difference is, the Afghani's have a reason...
they were oppressed!

Socialists always whine and cry,"McCarthy" when they see their Communism being choked out, not even close, Bud.

Most of us heard and responded to the wake up call of 9/11...others are intent on hitting the snooze button until the mushroom cloud hits their bed.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Undertoad

If they did that on Tuesday, by Thursday Palestinians would make a pre-emptive strike on Israeli territory, justifying their re-occupation -- except this time with no UN oversight or involvement at all.

But that wouldn't be pre-emption now would it? It would be retaliation.

Don't get me wrong, the whole Israel/Palestine conflict is a mess, and neither side is any more or less justified. And I don't want to get into a discussion about that right now.

Where are the aluminum tubes you bought?
- What aluminum tubes, we don't have any aluminum tubes.
The aluminum tubes on this invoice.
- Oh, yes, we did buy aluminum tubes, but not for making nukes. Those aluminum tubes were for making baby milk.

Cairo said that Hussein was exploding nuclear weapons, which is absolutely not the truth. He may be trying to develop them (and yes, most of the items on the sanction list are used in hospitals as well as weapon making, thus the outcry against the sanctions), but he has not tested any yet. I was pointing out incoherency in Cairo's post. Here's another batch of it:

You say,"I really don't see what has changed since then."
Well then, it seems that you and the Afghani's are the only ones in the World who didn't!
The difference is, the Afghani's have a reason...
they were oppressed!

where he somehow tries to tie in Afghanistan's oppression under the Taliban with jaguar's opinion that ousting of Hussein is just as bad of an idea now as it was in 1991. Unfortunately, Cairo doesn't seem to realize that a good portion of the world shares jaguar's opinion. His broad generalization is, in fact, useless. I'll get more into that in the next post.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Cairo

Socialists always whine and cry,"McCarthy" when they see their Communism being choked out, not even close, Bud.

A lot of libertarians think McCarthyism was a dark period in American history. I'd say that anytime the government engages in a witch hunt, things are awry. Funny how you have no problem with this kind of a witch hunt, but a huge one if your 'right' to own an assault rifle is infringed upon. (Right is in quotations because there is disagreement as to whether or not that is a right. I do not choose to endorse it as such.)

And by the way, socialism != communism. They are two different ways of approaching the same problem. Don't equate the two.

Most of us heard and responded to the wake up call of 9/11...others are intent on hitting the snooze button until the mushroom cloud hits their bed.

What? Repond by not capturing bin Laden? How about not being able to deal with asymmetrical warfare, instead continuing to endorse ideas like national missile defense, as if it could do something against a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon. Or how about continuing to misunderstand the emerging nature of conflict inherent in the very real threat from al Qaeda, and, instead, focusing on a supposed threat (and, as yet, unsubstantiated - when was the last time Iraq attacked the US?) from another nation?

[tw]

Just like McCarthy - Cairo will go to any length, rewrite any history to prove his extremist position - the world and facts be damned.

Originally posted by Cairo
Wrong again! And the lengths to which you will stoop to enable Saddam are frightening, BTW!!!!

First attack the messenger. OK. He's done that. Then reinvent history.

We said we would leave the Gulf after the war was over??? First of all, the Gulf war isn't over! And second, Saudi Arabia won't let our troops leave, seems they are afraid of being overthrown by bin Laden's terrorist network, and the Royals begged the UN to install US there in the first place!(Learn a little History, dude.) So "your truth" is false, the fact is, Saddam said he surrendered...HE LIED!

If the Gulf war is not over, then what was that surrender as signed. What are all those Iraqi weapons that were destroyed. Where are the onslaught attacks of Iraqi armored columns? I don't even see a guerilla war. Just some foolish anti-aircraft guns firing and getting immediately destroyed. Even the DMZ in Korea remained just as hot long after the Korean war completely ended. Or have you not rewritten the history book on Korea yet?

Saudis only permit a small US force remain to meet conditions of the no-fly-zone and to defend military stores. The US is most definitely not there to defend against bin Laden! Are you obtuse? When did you rewrite history? Bin Laden was not even relevent until over 5 years after the Gulf war - ended.

The Royals said nothing to the UN nor begged anyone to build bases. The Saudis contracted and constructed military bases for decades before the Gulf war in case they required military support. One base that made Israel angry was built in the NW corner - long before Saddam of the UN was involved in the region. You just made that UN base nonsense up, right? Yes. Its 'Cairo fiction'.

In short, one paragraph intended to insult me as being ignorant of history instead cannot be correct due to chronological errors. More 'Cairo fiction'. Cairo invents history as he needs it to justify his extremist ideas. Cairo invents history to justify his hyperbolic politics.

Nothing in his post has credibility. However hermit22 probably says it best. This is quoted because of its accuracy:

It's a good thing you don't run the country. We are not an empire. Get that through your head. We may be economically and militarily superior to every other nation in the world, but that does not give us the right to act that way - especially when it's not in our interests to do so. You don't want to invade a country that has successfully painted us as the bad guy on the world scene (ie. sanctions) and use the "oh, I thought they were going to attack us" line. It doesn't fly in international relations. It a) infuriates the surrounding countries, some of which act scared, others of which become havens for terrorists, and b) tells other countries that it's OK to invade another country for no reason.

Unfortately Cairo is too young to look in a mirror and see McCarthy. Both used same reasoning to justify their extremism. Cairo even promotes this long since denigrated McCarthyism: socialism = communism. This is the guy that's going to teach me history? First get a history education outside of the "Radicals are Us Institute". Fiction is not history. For the long list of your historical errors, start with hermit22's posts. I can't be bothered with how you think history should be written.

[Cairo]

Well hermit22,
Since you insist on mistakenly accusing me on History because you're either too lazy to look it up yourself, or afraid to find out I'm correct. I thought you deserved answers from a real Right Wing Republican who happens to teach History,
Allow me to introduce my husband, INDEPENDENCE01,
He thinks your "points" are nubbed.

Israel has always submitted to UN resolutions that carried the threat of force. In 1956 it was UN resolutions issued under article 7 that kept the Arab Confederacy from being completely destroyed.
The only UN resolutions that have been issued under article 7 were largely to get the arabs asses out of a sling.
Point of fact is that if the UN had kept out of the War for Independence, Israel would have fought a decisive victory against those who would bring her harm. The subsequent Nasser inspired follies of 1956 and 1972-74 would never have happened.
During the Battle of the Bulge, do you think the US should have followed a directive by the League of Nations to cease fire were it to have been issued? After all, Germany hadn't directly attacked any US territory, and our Normandy invasion was clearly an act of aggression against soverign German territory.

Israel has fought only defensive wars.
1948-49: Wars for Independence
1956: Sinai Campaign
1967: The Six Day War
1968-73: The War of Attrition
1973: The Yom Kippur War
1976: Entebbe the beginning of the War Against Terrorism
1981: Operation 'Peace For Galilee'
Try reading Chaim Herzog's THE ARAB ISRAELI WARS, a definitive read by someone who was there.
The subsequent UN Resolutions since Security Council Resolution No. 338(imposed cease fire on the IDF's 1973-74 push into Egypt), have all been issued under the auspices of Article 6 of the UN charter. Article 6 resolutions, no matter how eloquently worded or long winded, carry no weight of force. They are in effect, official suggestions; nothing more. SCR-338 carried the threat of UN 'peace' keepers in the form of arab allied soviet forces getting involved on the arab side. These current resolutions of which Israel is supposedly in 'violation' have no weight of force.
You see, it helps if you stayed awake during World Government back in high school.
The only way the UN Security Council can issue Article 7 resolutions is unanimously. The US, and usually the UK, for all purposes almost never support an Article 7 issuance against Israel. Since all it takes is one vote to kill a Resolution, Art 7's are rarely issued against Israel.
The only time the US supported Article 7's is when it looked like the russkies were about ready to walk out of the UN and wage war by themselves: 1956, 1967, 1973-74; all resolutions imposing a cease fire were initiated by russia.

If you are bemoaning western interference with the jordainian/syrian/palestinians situation.
Consider that the West is responsible for this in the first place. Not Britain or the US for creating Israel, but Rome for destroying Israel in 72 AD.
In 72 AD, western invaders(the Romans) destroyed all of Israel, and enslaved the citizens of Israel.
The population of Israel was scattered throughout the farthest regions of the Roman Empire.
Israel ceased to exist as a nation.
But,
the people through their faith endured and survived. Their religion endured.
Now the arab squatters and merchants were not the targets of Rome's wrath. Do you really think that they were going to just leave Israel uninhabited until they finally came back? Consider that no other people have ever survived such a scattering of their culture. And yet some would say miraculously, Israel endured to arise once more.
In 1948, the children of Israel returned to their ancestral home to find it inhabited with all sorts of vermin.

There are no palestinians mentioned in the Bible. If anything contemporary interpretations of the time viewed palestinian and Israeli as one in the same. Since palestine was part of Israel, it could mean nothing else to a first century writer.
Perhaps you are thinking of the PHILISTINES who inhabited the area at one time. Before they were exterminated by the Israelites.

I would give you that in that form there would be a philistine/palestine similarity as Israel will exterminate the jordanian outcasts who currently claim the name 'palestinians'.

...As a matter of fact I do own the road.

No we aren't an empire, I never said we were.
But we have a position of strength that must support our voice of authority. History is littered with the ghosts of nation/states that talked a big talk but grew loathe to use their armies. A weapon unused, becomes a useless weapon.

Our interest in Iraq can be rooted firmly in their violations of the 1992 terms of surrender. It's as simple as that. The terms didn't stipulate that additional SCR's would be needed. It was the completion of an executed Article 7 directive, the surrender fell under the force provisions of that section of the UN charter. All this foot dragging by the EU is typical for that cowardly bunch who don't seem to be good at killing anybody but their own citizens. It is the demsocs here in the US that have bought Iraq over 8 years of developmental time.
Hmmmph clinton's peace dividend consisted of pakistan, n korea, and to a lesser extent iran and iraq, in joining the nuclear club.
China got ICBM technology in exchange for campaign contributions.
Carter got a Nobel for aiding in nonproliferation in N Korea.
Arafat got one for Middle East Peace .
I think Pol Pot is overdue one for population growth.

The US is the de facto keeper of this motley planet. If we won't do it, then nobody will.
The moon has been around as long as we can remember.
But the US wasn't even 200 years old before we went and stuck our flag in it(forget that "all mankind"
PR crapola). It was 1969, we could have just as easily planted a UN flag. But traditional rules of right of claim require we mark our claim with a marker or flag with our symbol on it.

We feed, clothe, shelter, educate, employ, provide welfare and common defense for millions of people besides our own citizens. That's how blessed we truly are.
I'm able to hammer out a pin head online with a Mac with a DSL connection while savoring any luxury I wish.
It beats eating bugs with a dirty floor staring at a dung fueled fire.

It's too bad we can't help everyone, but why should we stick our necks out that far? NOBODY antes more cash to the needy than WE do. Does that get US respect?
Flood, famine, hurricane, earthquake, friggin volcanoes; if they hurt anyone POOF we're there helping anyone who needs it. Any appreciation? Hell no, those nations are so destitute they can't even afford that.
As I said it's too bad we can't help everyone, but as you interjected, we are no empire. We help who we can when we can, rarely asking for anything other than friendship in return.
It's unrealistic to even think you could everyone. As the Christian prophet Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you.". The aramaic word for always pretty much means always, so I think any person with a mote of intelligence knows you can't help everyone.

As for the maligned Senator Joe McCarthy, as bad a rap as he got, he was right about his general assertion just off target on his "list".
Communism had indeed infected significant portions of the US political body. Since we were at a cold war with the russkies(whom were mislabeled commies for some odd reason, considering they were in practice hard line fundamentalist socialists of the highest order) the leftists here had to call themselves socialists then liberals(to greenies and now "centrists") in order to practice their political philosophy without being run out of town on a rail.
McCarthy was used to give the very idea of rooting out socialists a bad name. It's become unamerican to hunt down unamericans in effect.
I grant that McCarthy could have done a better job, but he wasn't that bright a character and I genuinely believed he was completely overwhelmed by the purported evidence that was undoubtably shown to him in private. Just who was able to influence him will always be a mystery, as it is no doubt some insider demsoc rat, but he must have carried some authority in the eyes of old Joe.

I for one pity the poor guy, he got a raw deal and I'm sure he came to realize that his action led to the commie socialists being able to act without restraint in this country. If he was a true Patriot, no doubt that broke his heart.

He allowed the wolves to roam free.

In the end McCarthy was a fine american.....and my favorite Beatle.

[Cairo]

O.K....*bumps hubby off* My turn now....
Hermit22,
So, you're not an Israel hater, you just love to spread lies and propaganda about them? Hmmmmmm...

Listen up this time, I never disputed the high/low conflicts, so your rant is irrelevant. I said...
Saddam broke the terms of surrender, which puts us back into pre-surrender status of war.
Example: Let's say someone says "Uncle" or I give up, I give up!, then as you walk away they say, No I take it back, I don't give up...In his eyes, he didn't lose, and he will jump on your back! See?

I wasn't calling Saddam an idiot, I was calling tw an idiot...idiot!

Do you have COMPREHENSION problems? I said "trying to"...there is a big difference between trying and doing. Do you deny he is trying to obtain uranium?

You are the slacker who is in need of comprehension and history classes, pronto!

Socialism is the bridge to Communism, the Gateway if you will. Look it up! Stalin was in the Socialist Party but admired and read Karl Marx.
He took the Country towards the ideals of Marx after he murdered Lenin. Look it up!

Fortunately hermit22, you do not determine if or when American Rights are violated...the Courts do!
So you can advocate and defend the Rights of terrorists under the guise of Our Rights all day long, but just know that you are, in effect, infringing on MY RIGHT TO LIFE!
Bin Laden is dead....Dead, Dead, DEAD!
And I know you are not implying that The terrorist network is as organized and funded the same as pre-9/11...that would negate your credibility in of itself! You need to remember that this Administration is capable of doing more than one thing at the same time. You seem to be confusing(having flashbacks?) Clinton's inability to talk and get a blow job at the same time!

The War on Terror is like an octopus, if you keep cutting off the tenticles, they just grow back.
You need to find the body and kill it, then all the tenicles die off for lack of support. Saddam is the octopus body.

[jaguar]

You seem to be confusing(having flashbacks?) Clinton's inability to talk and get a blow job at the same time!

Such wit! i'm convinced, ill be hanging this in my window in the morning.

Sorry if i ever stop laughing i might reply properly.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Cairo (or apparently her husband)
In 1948, the children of Israel returned to their ancestral home to find it inhabited with all sorts of vermin.

Now, when you say vermin, are we talking about giant locusts and the like?

Our interest in Iraq can be rooted firmly in their violations of the 1992 terms of surrender.

1992?

Cairo, in your own post, you referred to Bin Laden as "dead." Now, do you mean he is already dead...or that he is going to be dead?

[hermit22]

This is to Cairo's husband, the self-proclaimed right-wing Republican history teacher. Seems like her description casts a shadow on his analysis, which, unfortunately, he helps perpetuate.

I refuse to get suckered into a discussion about Israel/Palestine. It's a big mess that would take days to completely debate, and I have finals this week. However, I wish I had your husband as a teacher so I could point out his normative analysis in the middle of class. If this is supposed to be a history discussion, be objective for crying out loud. Don't begin with failings in the inadequacy of your descriptive analysis. My final note on the discussion of Israel: please realize that you completely missed the point - that Israel's violation of SC Resolutions has never garnered talk of a US invasion force. And that qualifier you used about "the threat of force" is ingenius, since, technically, the UN has no right to use force and, as a result, most resolutions do not suggest a threat. Ingenius, two-faced, and misrepresentative of the truth.

I would like to add, though, that it appears you are Jewish. Understand that I completely believe in Israel's right to statehood - I just also believe in Palestine's right as well. I think both sides have lost credibility on the issue. And that's all I'll say.

But the rest of it isn't about history. It is a badly misrepresentative ramble, propaganda so to speak. Saying that socialism, communism, centrism, greenism, etc. are all one and the same is like saying that Christian Identity represents the views of all conservatives. You absolutely cannot claim that the extremists of any group are indicative of the entire group. It's an intellectual fallacy; a debate trick that's used to woo the lesser intellects in the audience. If you associate your enemy with what is percieved as the worst elements of society - even if they have little in common - you have villified and thus discredited them. And if you want to support a witchhunt like McCarthy's that suppresses free speech, then go start your own fucking country. That's about the farthest thing from American patriotism that there is.

But your post is more than that. It's devoid of any understanding of IR theory or the practical application of it - instead, it tries to base its reasonings on a myopic view of the world. You do not realize that there are other nations besides the United States and the enemy du jour. Refer back to my last post, which tw also pointed out for you. And if you want to claim that the best reason is that Iraq broke the terms of surrender, then historical precedent makes that completely irrelevent.

If you want to blame 'demsocs' for Iraq, then you choose to not remember who was president at the time. Was it a 'demsoc' president? No, it was a Republican. And who joined in on criticism of current invasion plans? Most Democrats (with a capital D) were too scared to do so. Several liberal commentators outside of politics did. And, interestingly, former President Bush did as well. So did his National Security Advisor, and some top brass in the military. 'Demsocs,' indeed. And are you unaware of the fact that the current round of bombing was started under a Democratic President?

You also ignore the idea of a nation's sovereignty. It could be easily argued that the United States is, in fact, in violation of the terms of surrender, since we established separatist enclaves inside Iraq's sovereign territory after the war.

Most Scandinavian countries provide more of their GNP in foreign aid than the United States does. Look up the UN Official Development Assistance table. It will show how woefully inadequate the United States' foreign aid is when compared to, say, Denmark. You can't look at straight numbers. The only way to really measure such a phenomenon is through percentage of GNP. You lose a whole lot of credibility when you ignore the facts and claim that the rest of the world is too destitute to help anyone else, let alone themselves.

The point of civilization, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition (the Islamic as well, but we are not a predominantly Muslim nation) is to provide humanitarian support for your fellow man. It is the decent thing to do - to transcend the guilt our morals instill in us for having a better life than anyone around us. But it makes sense in the political realm as well. Poverty breeds resentment, violence, disease. Each one of these affects our foreign policy. The poverty of most of the world has bred anti-Americanism and, in some cases, contributed to terrorism. AIDS is as much a concern to us in America as it is to a starving Bushman. It is in our interest to protect ourselves. One of the ways of protecting ourselves is prevention - simple steps that will ease the threat each of these faces. Invading Iraq is a different type of 'prevention' - the presupposition that one man's behaviour (as opposed to broad social trends that are more reliable) will eventually result in collusion with some of his enemies against us.

You claim that a weapon unused is useless. That's a nice argument for non-proliferation - that the obvious desire to not use nuclear weapons means means that we shouldn't have them in the first place. However, your argument that not using military force has been the downfall of many empires throughout history shows a great ignorance of the many social and economic issues that have plagued these same empires. Often, when an empire is on its last leg, it turns to aggression to take its population's mind off of its own suffering. That's in history too.

Finally, you're right in saying that you can't help everyone. But that does not mean you shouldn't try.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Cairo
O.K....*bumps hubby off* My turn now....
Hermit22,
So, you're not an Israel hater, you just love to spread lies and propaganda about them? Hmmmmmm...

nope. I've researched the topic pretty extensively. My thesis might be on it. I'm not spreading lies or propaganda - just the truth. You can not base any argument against what I've said about the Israeli situation on an objective analysis of the facts. I have an advantage in that I'm not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, so I'm not tied up in the subjectivity of religion. It's unfortunate that people do so, but we're all human. It's in our nature.

Listen up this time, I never disputed the high/low conflicts, so your rant is irrelevant. I said...
Saddam broke the terms of surrender, which puts us back into pre-surrender status of war.
Example: Let's say someone says "Uncle" or I give up, I give up!, then as you walk away they say, No I take it back, I don't give up...In his eyes, he didn't lose, and he will jump on your back! See?

You may not have disputed them, but you seemed completely unaware of them. You still are. The world does not exist in black and white. There isn't pre-war state and post-war state, especially in this conflict. Refer to my earlier comment to your husband at our efforts to establish Kurdistan.
And, no, your example actually makes negative sense. I've lost brain cells just trying to figure out which pronouns you ascribe to whom.

I wasn't calling Saddam an idiot, I was calling tw an idiot...idiot!

You have to give me some slack. Most of your posts are pretty incomprehensible, filled with unsubstantiated and irrelevent claims and random images.

Do you have COMPREHENSION problems? I said "trying to"...there is a big difference between trying and doing. Do you deny he is trying to obtain uranium?

You are the slacker who is in need of comprehension and history classes, pronto!

Slacker, eh? I probably have more years of school than you do. I obviously have more of a propensity to do my own research and not rely on what others tell me. That's a slacker alright.
Of course, I'm Gen X, so we're all slackers, right? How 1991.
Go back and look at my post. When did I say anything about uranium? You're the history-unconscious person that claimed Hussein had dropped a nuclear bomb under the assumption that that would solve a problem. You did not say developing nuclear bombs, and the trying was used to qualify the problem solving. If you weren't claiming the historically inaccurate, then try not to appear to do so.

Socialism is the bridge to Communism, the Gateway if you will. Look it up! Stalin was in the Socialist Party but admired and read Karl Marx.
He took the Country towards the ideals of Marx after he murdered Lenin. Look it up!

So...are you trying to imply that Lenin wasn't Marxist? Or that he wasn't trying to take "the country towards the ideals of Marx?" Because that would be pretty funny. About as funny as the claim that Lenin was assassinated, and didn't die of a stroke - the 3rd or 4th one in the final 2 years of his life.
Anything is a bridge to something else. The argument that links conservatism to fascism is incredibly simple. But that doesn't mean conservatism is fascism. It just means that someone who takes it to the extreme could end up in totalitarianistic ideology. The argument that they are one and the same does not hold water.

Fortunately hermit22, you do not determine if or when American Rights are violated...the Courts do!
So you can advocate and defend the Rights of terrorists under the guise of Our Rights all day long, but just know that you are, in effect, infringing on MY RIGHT TO LIFE!

And when did I do this?

Bin Laden is dead....Dead, Dead, DEAD!

So you skip curent events as well? It was just two weeks ago that the US gov't admitted that he was not dead. From where do you gain the insight on his status?

And I know you are not implying that The terrorist network is as organized and funded the same as pre-9/11...that would negate your credibility in of itself! You need to remember that this Administration is capable of doing more than one thing at the same time. You seem to be confusing(having flashbacks?) Clinton's inability to talk and get a blow job at the same time!

The War on Terror is like an octopus, if you keep cutting off the tenticles, they just grow back.
You need to find the body and kill it, then all the tenicles die off for lack of support. Saddam is the octopus body.

That really is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. Even Bush & co. don't try to claim the al-Qaeda/Hussein link anymore - because it really doesn't exist. Hussein is the mastermind of all terrorists, huh? Go study terrorism a bit. Even Khadafi and Khoumeini couldn't claim that.

This is another example of the incomprehensibility of your posts. What the hell are you talking about? How is my credibility linked to terrorist networking and funding? Please explain. Keep in mind, though, that the FBI is warning that the level of detected terrorist activity is the same as it was the summer before 9/11. And don't forget the attacks in Kenya last week, and this weekend's warning to Israeli citizens to stay out of Southern Africa or the US warning to American citizens to avoid Yemen.

And my last comment is also on a part of your post that had me on the floor - the claim that Clinton was single-minded in his quest for blowjobs. You're talking to someone who has no problem with the president having sex, just a problem with people trying to claim some sense of puritanical injustice about the whole thing. Meanwhile, Clinton was one of the most eloquent speakers we've had for a President in a while. You can't say the same for Bush, who half the time seems like he can't even talk.

[tw]

Cliff Notes for the latest chapter of Cairo's book on "Corrective History":
The League of Nations (which no longer existed) orders the US to a ceasefire during the Battle of the Bulge?

The US was the aggressor against Germany even though Germany declared war on the US and attacked US property before even declaring war.

The 1981 invasion of Lebanon in conquering part of that nation in direct violation of the Prime Minister's direct orders was a defensive war? Only if you are the innocent Ariel Sharon who defied all orders and was not court marshalled - just a footnote that slipped through the rewrite.

All UN resolutions that do not carry military enforcement should be ignored?

72 AD Rome is responsible for all Arab-Israeli conflicts?

Israelis who occupied some of the least time in that part of the Middle East have more rights to the land than anyone else?

The EU is a cowardly bunch who are only good at killing their own citizens?

Iran, Iraq, and N Korea now all have operational nuclear weapons?

China got ICBM technology by making campaign contributions to US politicians - ignoring Chinese rockets launched a decade and more previously?

The Nobel peace prize committee does not know what it is doing.

The US is god's chosen people as keeper of the earth.

The US conquered and owns the moon.

NOBODY antes more cash to the needy than the US even though most every Europe country and Japan do more per capita. 90% of US foreign aid is concentrated on Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, and Taiwan(?). The US is very stingy with foreign aid among the G-7. Those poor suffering Israels are clearly so downtrodded as to deserve the largest share of US foreign aid.

The maligned Senator Joe McCarthy got a bad rap? Pity the poor guy because he got a raw deal? Just forget that he tried to destroy more American lives when he tried to do same to the US Army. Left to go on, McCarthy intended to declared the US Army as communist sympathizers. Apparently that chapter was already written out of history.

McCarthy was a fine american? One wasn't fine and the other was not American.

The massacre at Sbrenica was by UN troops so that Milosevick, Mladik, and the Serbians would be blamed. Or are those people still alive?

Clearly the Holocost never happened.

The USS Maine was sunk by aliens.

Magellan was a communist who aspired to be a socialist.

Joe McCarthy was not permitted to tell everything he knew about communists in the American government (because it takes time to write fiction).

Richard Nixon was framed with Watergate by socialists from the Democratic party (or was it those godless Libertarians?).

Cairo fiction is the long overdue rewriting of history. Reality. Where does it go when having so much fun with history?

[jaguar]

*patiently waits for Cairo to realise the Nazis were the Nationalist Sociality party and decry us all as anti-semitic communist hitler lovers.*

*claps hermit22* I admire your tenacity even if it is like trying to fill a bucket with a bloody great hole in the bottom.

I was trying to match Ciaro's creativity on Iraq - this was the best i could do: this gem of sanity