MDLarson: "Indeed, peace is preferred"
Preferred ? Is it a question of
preference ? Well, you know, those Iraqi civilians would
prefer staying alive in that case ! Come on, peace is not preferrable, it's the only rational choice hanging around.
"when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life)"
Those words in brackets don't mean anything. People with scruples will tell you the number of lives does not count. People without scruples will tell you 'approx. 3000' killed is nothing compared to the average US military attack. For my own, I opt for the first answer.
And searching for peace is
not idleness. It's far more complicated to disarm Iraq peacefully than to send three B52s around and tell them to press the red button when George Walter feels it's time to rule the world again.
RacerX:
If the Bush doctrine actually holds water, then why Iraq and not North Korea?
No oil. No geostrategic importance.
not bad toast. this was the only part i felt needing editing out. -edX
very fine. -toast
MDLarson:
"I look at it this way; "The West" (for lack of a better term) has a certain lifestyle. Bush calls it Freedom. Al Qaeda has made it clear with the Sept 11 attacks that they don't like something in the U.S.A. They have and will attack again."
Don't you feel you're making this a bit too much ideologic ? Do you really think Osama Bin Laden founded a planetary terrorist organization and planned the biggest terrorist attack the 20th century has known just because he doesn't like smell of hamburgers and self-made man mythology ?
Please do not forget that 'Liberty' has vanished from the US/Arabic world equation a long time ago. Oil, economic interests, OPEC, puppet regimes, post-Cold War relationships, pressure groups, state terrorism - food for thought. Please make this equation a *bit* more complex.
"What are we to do? They have attacked first. Either they attack more innocent "infidels" or we put a stop to it"
You missed it all.
1) They have NOT attacked you first. Before Al Qaeda threw two planes on the US, the US had sent (or sold) thousand of missiles over Afghanistan, over Iraq, over Middle East in general ! I repeat, history does not start on 9/11.
Check any history book, for G*d's sake ! WHO sold Saddam the gas he used against Kurds ? I know who. My own country. Yours too. Please, think with those arguments in mind. Stop referring at 9/11 as the first geopolitcal event of the 20th century.
2) You won't put a stop at terrorism by bombing a country. First of all, this country is one of the very few who does not support state terrorism. Moreover, fighting against terrorism and bombing a delimited piece of territory do not go together. On top of that, bombs add fuel to terrorism.
"How will your opinion change if you or your country are being attacked for no reason by a bloodthirsty dictator / leader? What if they showed no signs of letting up or no willingness to participate in diplomacy? What if they wanted to dominate the world? Would you support war then?"
MD,
why don't you just apply this sentence to the USA instead of Iraq ?!
- You have the bloodthirsty Bush administration, made of hawks and former Gulf generals.
- You show no sign to participate to world diplomacy, as you're yelling on all TVs you'll go to war with or without UN.
- You want to dominate the world.
- So, should I support war over the US ? I don't, am I wrong ?
"George Bush does not kill his own people."
Yes he does. That's just not the same Bush we're talking about: Bush Snr sent thousands of soldiers to Gulf War who came back home with Gulf War syndromes (backlash effects of gas, equivalent to cancer in terms of secondary effects).
"I've even heard the Iraqi regime has a professional rapist who is sent to prey on the families of those who dissent Saddam."
I thought that was a red two-necked dragon who came and spit fire over their houses. Hilarious.
"I am not as informed as I should be about this point, but I trust Bush and his administration's discretion."
You do have the right to trust your country's administration. But you should learn a bit more about some of its members, esp. Rumsfeld and Powell, as well as on your President too. But I have no lessons to give.
I believe U.S. intelligence has more evidence than is public knowledge.
I believe Hans Blix knows far more than the US and that his report is not as biased as the American ones. I won't even evoke the British report, I'd be banned for flaming Great-Britain.
Last points (copied on yours):
1) GWB and his administration are a threat to the Middle-East (and primarily to world peace).
2) The UN has issued a demand for the disarmament of Iraq, which it has failed to do in a first time, but has now changed and begins to cooperate, according to UN inspectors. Yesterday, UN's 3rd report claimed Iraq was cooperating fairly well.
3) War has not worked so far and action is to be avoided to back up the UN resolution and general role in internation relations. Bomb = solution has never been a correct equation nor a long-term solution.
*EDIT* Smaller points (disclaimer
):
4) I don't think Bush is a madman. Most madmen are inoffensive.
5) If you feel I've offensed you personnally at any point in this post, tell me, I'll ask a mod to cut it whatever it is. I'm making it very clear I am not anti-American nor anti-MDLarson, I hope you all get the message. And I play StarCraft too.
6) That's the first time in my life I agree with my President.
