A Simple Question

Dispatches From The American Front | January 20, 2003 | James Benton

[Mr. Mojo]

And when the NKs get that reactor going again and produce a dozen or so bombs in just a couple months time, they'll be selling a few of those things to the highest bidder.

[Mr. Mojo]

I'm not counting on China's "good intentions" only upon China pursuing her best interests.

I would expect nothing more of any country on earth. Fortunately, it's in China's best interest to keep both the Islamist and NK nutballs under control.

[CyberCowboy777]

I don't trust China either. I'm not counting on China's "good intentions" only upon China pursuing her best interests.

I agree. And that view lends me to the concept of using circumstances, facts and history vs. promises, statements of intent and feigned concern to maximize security and liberty on the world stage. With China and Russia taking actives roles in the N. Korea situation we can focus on Iraq. It allows us to move forward our agenda of promoting liberty and security while weakening those that push other less desirable agendas. Iran will fall quickly, N. Korea will have provided ample room for a non-military resolution all the while we will continue to work with those in the south pacific to insure those stated agenda's. This leaves China, and Cuba with little room for offensive moves and weakens the strategic hold communism has in the world. It also weakens militant Arab holds in the Middle East allowing much more involvement in liberty and security construction. Simplistic perhaps but simple plans often result in great victories.

[Ga-Mo-Te]

Up to now nobody answered the questions I posed. As I told you, I am trying to work out the details of this war. So I will be grateful if somebody could. On the other hand I posted some questions in a liberal forum and this where the answers:

> Do you think that Saddam should be kicked out from Iraq?

Of course! Saddam is evil. He killed people in millions and used chemical and biological weapons (most of them sold by USA or Allies). But the question is, is a war the best way of throwing Saddam from Iraq? A war will kill civilians in thousands. Wouldn't it be better to give money to the opposition in Iraq? (As we did before in some Latinamerican countries, i.e.: Chile).

> What do you think are the real motivation of a war with Iraq?

It has not been proven that Iraq is a real threat. It has not been found any WMD. NOone. Besides since the closing of economical exits of Iraq, it is a poor country . To make WMD one needs money and materials. Where are they coming from? I really think that there are other countries which have WMD and will be willing to sell them: North Korea, but also China, Pakistan and why not? Israel among others. So why did we choose Iraq? Maybe because is the third productor of oil? I don't really know, but that would be a god guess.

> Do you think against war demonstrators are anti-americans?

Give me a definition of what is anti-american. I care for America. I would like to see a better country with people living in armony and peace, and no son of anybody dying in another country for anothers interest. Usually the term anti-american is applied from people who cannot think of another America than the one they believe in. But America is the a land of many communities of many believes. The true anti-americans are those who cannot discuss ideas different from theirs.


What do you think about this posts? Thank you for all the help and understanding

[DugwayDuke]

First of all I think I answered your questions when I said these demonstraters will only turn the questions around. It's not that they don't won't to resolve these issues but that they have a different way. Their "kumbahya, give peace a chance" won't work. You asked "how many Americans must die before they changed their approach?" They will only ask "How many Americans must die before we recognize that we must (take your pick of any favorite liberal program)?

Now, I'll take a cut at these liberal responses.

1. The first argument that we should fund the opposition misses the point. There would still be a war but it would be a long and bitter civil war and the civilian casualties would be even greater. This is nothing more than "let Harry do it." BTW, Russia was the main supplier of military equipment to Iraq. Remember the SCUDS for example.

2. Any country with the capability of producing nuclear weapons and a history of active support of anti-American terrorist groups is a threat. Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand. There are only three countries that fit that definition. They are those Bush called the Axis of Evil. Having oil is not a criteria for memebership in the Axis of Evil, after all, part of the deal that North Korea reneged upon included shiping tons of oil to North Korea.

3. You want a definition of anti-American? Reveiw the tapes of the "peace" demonstration of last Sunday. The speakers weren't just calling for "peace", they were calling for a revolution in the United States. Any one who listened to those speeches cannot deny that the speakers were anti-American. That does not mean that anyone who opposes war is anti-American. It does mean that the leaders of this "peace" movement are. There are a number of anti-war people who are refusing to have anything to do with these protests because of the anti-American tone. BTW, there are some excellent threads on FreeRepublic that provide information on those behind these rallys.

[Ga-Mo-Te]

Thanks a lot for your answers, DugwayDuke. Your explanations seem quite reasonable and sorry for having missed your first post. I think I now get your point. Up to now there are three countries that present a threaten to the USA and these are the countries that must be neutralize. As I read from another post I think that America chose Iraq first because it was the weakest and easiest target. Of course, as a newby I can stop wondering a few things, and if you don´t mind a little bit of discussion I will ask them:

1- Even if one can change from a "two-countries" war and a civil war, wouldn´t it better for America the civil one? First of all it doesn´t look like an "invasion" for international oppositors (Russia, China, Arab countries...). Secondly and maybe more important, no American blood would be spilled. And there would be no "covering" peace demonstrations. If any, they would be genuinelly "anti-capitalist" ones. Why then not trigger this civil war instead?

2- The second point was really well answered. My only concern is, are the proofs about this three countries publicly available? I mean, how is that such big controversy about if Iraq has or not nuclear weapons. If this point is unclear, is not much unclearer wether a country can sell them to terrorists? (I am really scared about Pakistan)

3- That´s the most difficult part for me to understand. In Europe we don´t have such a feeling about "anti-European", and all the "anti-americanism" reminds me about "witch-hunting" movies. Even if these people are truly against the conception of America, if they hold the majory of votes, do yaou thing that they should aceed the congress and lead the country?

[error99]

For every simple question, there are a myriad of complex answers.

[DugwayDuke]

Opposition forces. My answer was stated to address the issues raised. The use of opposition forces will only protract the war meaning that civilians will suffer more. A short war means fewer casualties. US forces will be far more concerned about minimizing civilian casualties as well. Civil wars are notorious for maximizing civilian casualties. US casualties are also likely to be minimal. Remember the Gulf War of 91? All in all, using opposition forces only makes the war worse.

No peace protests? Of course these would continue. Examine the groups behind this last weekend's peace protests. There were numerous Iraqi front organizations. This was much more a pro-Iraqi demonstration than an anti-war demonstration.

Public proofs. Irrelevent. The US must act regardless of the proofs made public since the consequences of a nuclear terrorist strike far outweight any other consideration. The US simply cannot take the risk of losing three or four hundred thousand dead. In a representative republic such as the US, we elect persons to represent us. One advantage is that these representatives may act in our behalf on information that cannot be made public. Our government, and all other governments, sometimes keeps information private in order to protect "sources and methods". Consider that revealing this information would cause a "souce", say a typical Iraqi scientist, to lose his life.

Pakistan does not have a history of supporting terrorism against the US. They do support some terrorist activities in India, but it is very unlikely they would give a nuclear weapon to any terrorist organization.

Majority of votes. They do not hold the majority of votes. The only thing their protests accomplish is the providing of support and comfort to the enemy. In fact, these protests may only increase the likelyhood of war since these protests may cause Sadaam to think that if he waits long enough, then these protesters may influence the US to change it's policy.

Witch hunts. There are several threads on FreeRepublic providing information about the background of the groups supporting these protests. Many of these groups are funded by the Iraqi government. How would a European feel about protests within Europe about European policies funded by governments outside of Europe?

[HighWheeler]

I didn't mean to equate you with anti-Americans, sorry about that.

I haven't seen anyone trying to equate or tie saddam to the event of 9/11.

The justification for ousting saddam is that he is a threat to the USA and our allies. He is even a threat to his own people. He is a nut-job with no other goal than to dominate the world by dominating the ME oil reserves. He will kill anyone to get there and protect his goal.

Bush is doing an excellent job of witholding direct intervention, but that will only delay the inevitable.

I trust Bush to do what is right.

Anti-war people trust saddam more than they trust Bush in order to take their stand. Bush is seeking peace through strength, saddam is seeking domination by intimidation even if that requires nukes to do the job.

So answer these:

Do you trust saddam and his allies more than Bush?

do you think Bush's present (and future) motives are genuine, trustwothy, and substantiated, even if he can't disclose to you all the details you would want to know?

[The Duke]

So answer these:

Do you trust saddam and his allies more than Bush?

do you think Bush's present (and future) motives are genuine, trustwothy, and substantiated, even if he can't disclose to you all the details you would want to know?

I really must admit that my trust of all politicians and tyrants is at or near zero - thanks to the Clinton administration.

For example, I believe that TWA flight 800 was the result of a missile strike. However, since Bush came into office there has not been one peep about what I believe to be a Clinton coverup of earthshaking proportions.

Ditto for the attack on the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma.

Then, I see Bush looking and acting the part of the ideal conservative - yet his actions and policies not backing up that image.

I don't trust any of 'em!

[Ga-Mo-Te]

As I told you all, I am not american, although I lived there for some months, collaborating with the Univ. of Arizona. In anyway, if you think that my opinions or behaviour does not correspond whith what is expected in this forum, let me know.

> US forces will be far more concerned about minimizing civilian casualties as well. Civil wars are notorious for maximizing civilian casualties. US casualties are also likely to be minimal.

I think that US has to think about how you want to be seen from the rest of the world. If you want to be seen as an "international police", well... if there is one country that can do it is yours... but then, maybe you have to consider if this is not the situation that lead to 9/11, and if so then one has to be prepared for other similar situations. MAybe that´s what you are doing, preparing yourselves for possible terrorist attacks.

> No peace protests? Of course these would continue

If there is no war, there could not be peace protests... in any case, protests against America's international policy or capitalism or whatever... What I mean is that I can see myself in a demonstration for the peace, as I think that war is the ultimate resource. But I won't be in a demonstration supporting anarchy or communism.


> Public proofs. Irrelevent. The US must act regardless of the proofs made public since the consequences of a nuclear terrorist strike far outweight any other consideration

As TheDuke (cute nick btw) already said: I don't trust politicians. Power corrupts and enormous power corrupts enormously. It is in the sake of a healthful democracy, that the press and the public has enough information to know if a political action is correct or not. It is too easy to say, we have the proofs, but we cannot tell you. If you now a "source" make your intelligece services to provide the means to make this "source" to provide the proofs. For example, to give the location of the nuclear heads and give them to the inspectors or whoever has to investigate next.

> Pakistan does not have a history of supporting terrorism against the US. They do support some terrorist activities in India

Today is India, tomorrow could be terrorism activity in China, the day after in Hong Kong... Supporting the terrorism in anyway in any country is something that makes me feel insecure. Even if they are "not likely" to sell them to a third party (I wouldn't be very sure about this point), they seem to be very eager to use them against India, for example, which makes me think also...

> Majority of votes.

That was not my question. What I tried to point out is... if a policy you are completely against, and you think is anti-american, is supported by the majority of the people in your country, would you let it be? In my opinion, any idea belonging to a certain group of americans is an american idea. It may be wrong, but that does not mean that they have the right to think differently. The same goes with Europa. If anybody here demonstrates against a certain policy, I can discuss it with them, and I can be against them, but I think thy have the right to support their ideals. Only exception: when their ideals means to impose violently their beliefs over mine.

Thanks for the discussion!!!

[DugwayDuke]

This forum values many different opinions within wide boundaries. There are rules posted on the entry portal. Posters, even from a liberal perspective, usually get along well as long as they are interested in real discussions of issues. By the way, my wife is German.

The US has no desire to be the world's policeman. However, the US will protect itself. The US has been the premier world power since the end of WWII. No major power has been as circumspect in the use of it's power. But, as Japan and Germany learned in WWII, the US is usually a sleeping giant and it is not wise to interupt that slumber. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 disturbed that giant. He will not sleep again as long as the risk of a nuclear terrorist attack exists. The US is not out to unilaterally police the world or to end terrorism alone. The US will act in those areas with it's friends and it's allies, even working through the UN. However, the US will act unilaterally, if necessary, to prevent a nuclear attack on it's soil. So would any other country in the world.

No war, no protests. In that you are mistaken. If the US dropped all demands and turned it's attention to North Korea, many of these groups would protest that. Some would even claim the US should be going after Iraq. Some of these groups are fundamentally against capitalism and would be protesting US economic policy as they did in Seattle and in Italy. It is not just the US policy in Iraq, these groups oppose pretty much everything about the US and they will protest regardless of what the US does.

Sources. Only in the most extreme circumstances can a country expose it's sources and methods. Not only would that lead to the death of the source but it would tell all future sources that the country could not be trusted. Intelligence would dry up. An example. A politician went on TV and mentioned that we were listening into Osama Bin Laden when he used his satellite telephone. Well, he watches CNN too and this source of intelligence dried up.

As I said earlier, in our form of government we elect representatives to deal with problems like this for us.

But, more importantly, those who argue that we should release this information or that we should give the inspectors "time to do their job" are making a fundamental error. The US has no obligation to prove Sadaam possesses prohibited weapons. The UN resolutions and the agreements made by Iraq are quite clear. It is the obligation of the govenment of Iraq to prove they have no prohibited weapons. They are in grave violation of this obligation. Besides, if the inspectors were to find a functional weapon, then those who make this argument would say that the inspectors have worked and there is no need for further action. Sadaam would begin to build a new weapon that day. Oh, and the protesters would be on the street claiming that the sanctions should cease, etc.

Pakistan. The possession of nuclear weapons is not, per se, enough to be a threat to the US. North Korea, Iraq, and Iran have proven, over time, their animosity towards the US and their willingness to sell prohibited weapons. This makes the risks to high. One could say that France might sell a nuclear weapon, but the risks of this are too low to count. If Pakistan were to give us cause to think that they might do so, then there is room for more members of the Axis of Evil.

Majority of votes. There are limits on majority rule in the US. As you're aware we have a Constitution that prohibits certain things. As long as the protesters do not advocate violating these prohibitions, then that very Constitution protects their right to protest. I've not said that these groups have no right to make their beliefs known. What I have pointed out is that there "beliefs" run well beyond the current problems with Iraq.

Worldnetdaily, a site I strongly recommend, has a column today by their leftist contributor. I do not support her beliefs but it includes some excellent links to some of the more mainstream protest groups. Perhaps you might wish to follow these links to find out about some of their other agenda items. Understand, these are the mainstream groups. There are other groups behind these protests that are more radical. Here is the link to the column.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30612

[kaydeecasa]

One can sense that all those who are in favor of this war are really chomping at the bit to equate Saddam with 9/11, and yet can't. The result is that the war must be promoted based on circuitous logic that simply does not convice everybody - myself included.

First of all, all those who favor war are NOT chomping at the bit to equate Saddam with 9/11. Did you watch President Bush's State of the Union speech?? There are terrorists with direct links to al Quaida and Saddam. Do you honestly think that the terrorists have just decided to give up attacking the United States? Where do you think they will attain weapons? All of the "peace protesters" as you call them will be wandering in the streets crying because their families are dying of respiratory failure because of the biological weapon that could be dropped on the United States. You are ignorant if you ignore the possibility and likelihood of another attack and this time with a biological weapon. Why do you think the sale of gas masks over tripled after the 9/11 attacks.

No one is chomping at the bit, President Bush even said that we are reluctant to go to war, but we will not allow terrorists or evil to threaten the United States. You have to trust your leaders, why do you think he is in that position right now?? It's not a fluke, there is a reason. 9/11 was the perfect example of acting too late. By not eliminating the threat of Saddam Hussein now, we may face the possible nuclear attack on our homeland. We must not question it, don't you think President Bush has a reason which he will present to the U.N. on 2/5/03?? Trust in the core of what started this country, the leaders of America. Support your troops, they are putting their lives on the line because they believe in the cause of America. Show them your gratitude and support the Commander in Chief. It is the least you can do.

[The Duke]

Did you watch President Bush's State of the Union speech??

No, I don't trust his words enough to make it worth listening. I mean we are talking about a President who was elected promising to reduce government who then proceeded to preside over the unprecedented expansion of government - creating a ready-made police state for the next Janet Reno, aren't we?

He's not my man - I guess if my name was Vincinte' Fox I would have a different perspective.

[kaydeecasa]

You really should have watched his speech, it was well worth listening to. The President is not out to deceive the American people, why wouldn't you trust him? He is keeping us safe, and if his measures seem extreme, how far would you go to protect something or someone you love? Not everyone will agree with him, but when it comes down to war, don't you agree a country that is united and supportive of their leader has an advantage over a country who is divided among their own? I guess I don't follow you when you said that we are talking about a President who was elected promising to reduce government who then proceeded to preside over the unprecedented expansion of government - creating a ready-made police state for the next Janet Reno, aren't we? When 9/11 happened, it changed the government forever. When he was elected, how was he to know that such a catastrophe would happen? He is trying to prevent another tragedy like 9/11, and if that means more government, then so be it. I'd much rather be safe than sorry, literally.

[The Duke]

The President is not out to deceive the American people, why wouldn't you trust him?

Because his actions do not match his words.

He is keeping us safe, and if his measures seem extreme, how far would you go to protect something or someone you love?

I would go so far as to tighten down our southern border, which are all but a superhighway for Al-Queda.

When he was elected, how was he to know that such a catastrophe would happen? He is trying to prevent another tragedy like 9/11, and if that means more government, then so be it.

Our government is reactive, not proactive, which means the tax money they spend on "security" is in response to yesterday's threat, not tomorrow's. Did you notice how surprised our government was at the thought of shoulder-fired missiles being directed at airline traffic? All the welfare queens cum security guards in the world won't protect you from that.

I'd much rather be safe than sorry, literally.

A quote is in order:

"He who trades liberty for security, deserves neither and will loose both." - Thomas Jefferson

[kaydeecasa]

"His actions do not match his words."
How ironic a reply, for how exactly would you explain Saddam's "compliance?" The very reason anti-war protesters have the right to voice their opinion is because of war. So we should just sit back, relax, and expect that because Saddam said he is telling the truth, believe him to "protect" our liberty. That would be nice, however it is outrageous. If Powell's speech wasn't convincing enough, think about all of the evidence that wasn't produced today. If you honestly think no threats have been made against the U.S. by Saddam, you are living in a dream world. How many chances does he get to lie? Twelve years isn't enough, why not one more week? In the words of Powell, Enough.

[kaydeecasa]

I sincerely hope you watched Powell's speech today to the U.N. If you think all of the evidence has been presented, think again. Twelve years to lie is enough. What is one more week going to prove? When is the right time, when another attack happens? And make no mistake, it will happen if we sit back and do nothing. How funny it is, that on September 12, 2001 most Americans demanded justice. Peace was not an issue then, so why is it now? The women and children of Iraq hate us just as much as Saddam and Osama bin Laden, and want to see us dead, yet we feel we need to protect them. Let's protect ourselves, our families, OUR children.

[kaydeecasa]

"The true anti-americans are those who cannot discuss ideas different from theirs."

The true anti-Americans are the ones who don't realize that their very freedom of speech came from war. It's funny how many veterans of war are peace protesters. I don't think I've met one yet. Wonder why... Yes, we all want peace. On September 12, 2001, where was America's peace rallies?

[The Duke]

If you honestly think no threats have been made against the U.S. by Saddam, you are living in a dream world.

Tell tell you the truth, I watch the news a lot and I've never heard of Saddam making a threat against the US. Perhaps you're assuming he would threaten the US because we've been bombing him for ten years?

And, with regard to Saddam "threatening our liberty", I don't get that, either? Anecdotal evidence suggests that we Americans like to pay lip service to Liberty, but we don't want to actually *pay* for it by doing radical things like turning out at the polls once every couple of years.