Posted on 03/05/2003 8:51:57 PM PST by WVNan
Again sorry for the poor description.
I get the impression that this guy thinks that some people are genetically unfit for freedom? Where have I heard that before...
Didn't we hear that about black people? And that was used as a justification for maintaining the status quo many generations ago?
We heard how they couldn't fight as well as whites... so shouldn't be in the Army, should be doctors, scientists, etc...
Yet, although there have been difficulties and the Democrats have tried desperately to keep them poor so as to keep them oon the plantation, they have proven people wrong and are just as "American" as anyone.
We heard it about the Irish, and about Catholics too, and Chinese who came here to work the railroads, and Japanese who came here to fish and farm, and so on.
Germans don't/didn't strap bombs to their backs and blow themselves up in the name of God.
Neither do Iraqis- that's why Saddam Hussein has to threaten to get palestinians to do his dirty work and be "martyrs." One look at Saddam Hussein's parades today made it pretty clear they aren't enthusiastic about his regime or the prospect of a fight with us. Contrast the pictures of Iraqis raising guns- probably unloaded ones- to the death parades of Palestininas or the Taliban-style brandishing of weapons in the streets (and at weddings.) The enthusiasm simply isn't there in the case of the Iraqis.
Even among Palestinians, if people were so willing to pblow themselves up the Palestinians would be setting off 20 or 30 human bombs a day. We would see older palestinians doing it- instread we only see younger, misguided youth.
If ther were so many ready to do these things- which are forbidden by mainstream Islam- Saddam hussein would not need to try to pay large bounties to have these people act. Even with his offers and payments, there is no one lining up to do it. The palestinian wackos have to seek out the very young and they do this by observing kids in the markets, where these older men pressure impressionable kids to do their all for Palestine. We don't see 40 or 50 year old suicide bombers- we see 20 and younger- even mere children doing the dirty work, all while Arafat and his cronies pad their pockets.
If the Palestinians or Iraqis or other muslims were all of one mind and fanatical, there would be no need for prisons and secret police in these regimes, no need to use intimidation tactics or torture. Everyone would be thrilled to join the fight, and no coercion would be necessary. t only takes a small number of ruthless people to intimidate millions, and no propaganda would be neceessary- speech could be wholly free because everyone would be for jihad. Clearly not everyone is a nut in these countries. Not even most people are insane suicide bombers. Just a few. The problems is that no one can speak agaisnt them because of fear and because the nutcases control the press and own all the papers. They own these things because they have the guns. Other people are unarmed, just wanting to raise their families in peace; but they are made silent because the state or the thugs control their press and because the thugs have no problem with arresting and torturing people's relatives, even elderly parents or children, in order to scare any dissident into submission.
Hitler was fighting a geo-political war.
Hitler was a fanatical pagan too, who believed in the idea of a superior race and who wanted to construct an empire. Indeed, it is his very philosophiues we see reflected in the Middle East today.
Arabs are fighting a holy war.
A FEW want to fight one, but most have no interest in it, so don't lump them all together. Osama bin Laden wanted to fight a holy war, so he says. Whether he really is religious or not is unknowable- he may only be an American and Israeli-hating powerbroker who is using religion to draw and hold a following of useful idiots. It wouldn't be the first time that ever happened in history! But clearly the rest of the Arsab world is less than enthusiastic. Arabs aren't magical people capable of unified thought merely because of their identity. They are real people with human emotions, human ideas, human fears, and human ambitions. By and large, they just want to put food on their table and raise their kids up safely just like we do.
This is particularly true for Iraqis, who aren't all muslim; some aren't even extremely devout, some not even religious. The Iraqi regime is not Islamocfascist, it is nationalist and socialist and up until recently openly hostile to religious fundamentalism, if not atheistic. The palestinians ladership is an offshoot of old German nazisim. Literally- look up the Grand Msuti of Jerusalem. They are about as religious as HItler was- and Hitler was out worshipping trees and reviving paganism though he labeled a "Christian." Iraqi leaders, palestinian leaders, and most of the terrorist groups out there are not religious so much as pan-Arabic, and are quite compatible wih Castro, head of an athieistic regime. IOW, they have a little fo that old genetic superiority belief in them- they want to see their race and "culture" - of which Islam is but a part, one often at odds with itself- become supreme, but mostly they just don't like our culture and see it as a threat to the rise of an Arabic superstate.
Hitler never proclaimed to have God on his side.
He most certainly did believe he had some divine right to do what he did and persuaded others of this. His ideology was spread in terms of tree-worship environmental-mysticism, with very strong religious undercurrents used to justify everything he did. He used the "Jews killed jesus" thing to win support and so on. He sounded very much like bin Laden, and even the nonreligious Hussein has "got religion" now that he needs the most fanatical people possible to repalce all the loyalists he had purged.
Arabs are convinced that God is on their side.
That's like saying that because you saw 20,000 peace protesters in NY, that ALL Americans are against the war. That's simply not a logical assumption. All Arabs are NOT of one mind any more than all Westerners are of one mind. We are in vehement opposition to the French and Germans even though we are all Westerners. As I previously pointed out, if ALL Arabs were of one mind, there wouldn't be both Arab muslims and Arab Christians. There wouldn't be a need for Saddam Hussein to kill 1 1/2 million of his own people, and there would be no dissidents and no need for Hussein to control the press or prevent Iraqi scientists from speaking out. THe palestinians under Arafat owuldn't need to lynch people in public to demonstrate their power and keep palestinian dissidents silent.
It's not the belief that GOd is on your side that is the problem - it is whether or not you believe that God wanted people to be free.
And I've always said, be afraid of the man who *says* he has God on his side.
It's more important to be afraid of people who don't believe God gave man inalienable rights. When they don't believe in God, they are more likely to assume our rights come from government. And what government gives, government can take away.
I'm concerned but not necessarily afraid of Hussein's anthrax and weapons of mass destruction. I don't even think Hussein is stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US.
So who mailed the anthrax? Still believing in the white right wing scientist theory which has no supporting evidence? Still denying that Atta met the Iraqi al Ani even though named Czech officials and tha US says he did? Still believing that the terrorists who killed the Green Beret in a Philippines bomb attack not long ago called up the Iraqi embassy and told them "mission accomplished" just because they were chatty? Still believe that the airliner at one of Salman Pak's many facilities was for "practicing to prevent hijackings?," and even though we have testimony from both inspectors and dissidents which corroborate each other on the nature of the site? Still believe the Iraqi who attended the Malaysia summit meeting with some of the 911 hijackers was just there on a double date? And he was welcomed back to Baghdad though he was under suspicion of terrorism because....? And Abu Nidal, an organization which had tried to assassinate US officials in the US was in Iraq for what reason, again? And the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey was recalled immediately after 911 but it had nothing to do with his association with certain members of al Qaeda? Is that what you believe? and Iraqi officials met with bin Laden himself in africa and in Afghanistan to exchange harmless Valentines?
For if he did, we would be completely and totally justified in taking out the entire country of Iraq.
we don't want to "take out the entire country of Iraq." We want to take out the Baathist in charge and his mery band of professional torturers and terrorists.
Yes, we are justified in removing his regime now. We woiuld have been justified in doing so at any time even prior to 911.
And the whole, wide world, even the Arabs, would understand and be supportive. Remember, we had the Arab world behind us when we defended Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
The Arab world will be on the side of whomever they see as weilding the most power. Their loyalties are very fluid when it comes to saving their own skins. Let's see, who would a weak person prefer to accomodate... a regime which hosts international terrrosists known to decapitate people for fun, or some limp-wristed Americans who are afraid to shed a single drop of blood and who have a long history of running away when someone starts shooting at them?
It's hard to get people to take you seriously if you never back up your words with action.
This time, the colaition is actually larger, all witless news coverage notwithstanding.
That was a justified war.
It's the same war. Iraq never met the cease fire terms, remember? Just because clinton sat on his butt for eight years with an occasional airstrike when he wanted to deflect atention at home, does not mean the war ended.
And there was no disputing that it was justified.
Nonetheless, all the protesting was against the US back then, and no one protested Iraq for waging war on Kuwait.
Likewise, WWII was justified for the same reason. Had we invaded Germany first, everything would have been different. We must be careful to remember that hindsight is always 20/20.
And this is different why?
Could Hussein attack us if we don't take out his weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would he attack us? Maybe. But you have to accept that there's at least the possiblity that he wouldn't.
"Could Hitler attack us if we ... " You say WW2 was justified now but using your own approach it seems probably you would have opposed WW2 had you been around back then. we didn't need to ask for a coalition back then to justify our actions and we didn't. A Coalition formed of the willing, just as today. Hussein has used his chemical weapons on both his enemies and on his own people. And we know this now- in time to do something about it and prevent him from doing it again, but not in time to save those he has already killed.
We have every right to defend ourselves. I'm no dummy. But spin it any way you like, taking the offensive is not being defensive. It's a plain contradiction. And in matters of war, it makes all the difference.
You're the one who contradicts himself; you deny Iraq has attacked us or been involved merely because you don't see Iraqis in uniform fighting in our streets. Iraq has the sense to use terrorists as its mercenaries, we know they use terrorists as mercenaries, we know they are assiociated with terrorists and they openly admint funding them, yet we have people like you who simply can't recognize your enemies because they are terrorists dressed as civilians. You say we were justified in part one of the Gulf War, and in WW2, but you can't explain why that was justified then but it's not justified now logically. You see this as a new war when the Gulf War end was dependent on Iraqi compliance, compliance which we never recieved, and now you think we should let them get away with this, and do what, exactly? Just walk away? Have you read bin Laden's reasons for attacking the US? It's our history of running away that gave him enough confidence to strike. Do you want to let sanctions "work" and keep taking a beating for how the sanctions make Iraqis suffer for unlimited time, gor generations because of the sins of the ir leaders? We were getting blamed because Hussein was building palaces instead of feeding his people. We have lost so much credibility over the last decade and had earned such a rep;utation of cowardice that we were begging to be attacked. You want this to continue indefinitely? Do you even know what you would do in this situation? It doesn't look like it- you suggest no alternatives. You're a back seat driver in a new town and without a roadmap, but you still want to critique the driver.
I'm concerned about Hussein as every right thinking human being ought to be. But what I'm *afraid* of are psychotic Arabs, enraged at the Great Satan's pre-emptive invasion of sacred Arab territory who might feel it is their holy duty to board an airplane with a plane ticket and a carpet knife.
All the fanaitcal muslims (not all arabs are Muslims)in the world cannot hijack one more airplane UNLESS Americans go back to the "wait for the authorities to do something" mode wa shad prior to 911. If we fight them at the first sign of trouble, no matter the cost, instead of tamely sitting in our seats, we win and deny them theoir glory. Suddenly hijacking isn't such a cool idea. Shesh, if everyone on the plane was armed, there would never be another hijacking. There might be an occasional domestic nutcase, though, but most of them are just looking for someone else to put them out of their misery.
As for the hijackers and your imaginary 100% suicidal muslims, note that on bin Laden's tape after 911 he made a crack about how not all of the hijackers knew it was a suicide mission- just the leaders. Now why do you think that was? Well, it isn't as easy to find suicidal muslims as they would like you to believe. So Atta of the Islamic Jihad (an Egyptian palestinian group) didn't tell them the whole plan.
What I'm afraid of os the deluded Muslim who might jump on a subway car with a gallon of gas and light it on fire.
They might do that anyway. They did 911 anyway- it was NOT to get us out of the region, as al qaeda was created years before the Gulf War and not in response to it. Do you seriously think they wouldn't, even though history makes it very clear that they do NOT need to be "provoked" by some action on our part. Some muslim fanatics and socialists are like communists before them- they kill people because of what they are- not becuase of what they have done. They cannot stand the sight of other muslims wearing American clothes or listening to American music or dreaming of going to america or speaking American English instead of Arabic. They hate the idea of other muslims being able to CHOOSE. Even more, they hate the ideo that other Muslims might be "led astray" by American Christians, or Hindus, or some other theology or culture. The fanatics are afraid of change, afraid of freedom becuase it brings change, and afraid of us because we bring ideas like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and we also bring some nasty crap which they find disgusting or perverted, our music and our movies which these days are vile and disgusting, and not high art under any culture's standards. If everyone changes and modernizes around them, these fanatics will be even more isolated than they are now and that terrifies them. If people start behaving like Hollywood actors, the rest see their culture as being struck right in the heart.
Am I right in being afraid of this? I don't know. I guess we could ask the Israelis and see what they think ...
Do you want to fight terrorism here? I can guarantee you will fight it here if we do not seek out and destroy it and its backers abroad, on THEIR soil. There already have been assassinations, car bombings, and numerous other attacks right here in america long before we ever took an interest in Iraq. Americans just don't pay much attention. We ignore too much of what is going on even inside our own country.
I just don't see how invading Iran is going to reduce my fear of these things at all
IRAQ, not IRAN. There is a difference. The average Iranian is not an Arab. If you don't know the difference, you need to do more reading. It's true that Iranian-backed terrorist, Imad Mugniyah, is probably far worse than bin laden ever was, but many Iranians are very pro-American. So it is wrong to think of them all as being terrorists or even supporters of terrorism.
I see you kept using Arab when the word Muslim would hae been the correct choice, and this confusion makes for difficualt reading. You also have a very naive view that groups of people with the same label are automated lemmings who can't think independently, and because there is one loonie with a suicidal streak that somehow they are all like that.
How would you like it if some Msulim assumed we all acted like Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton? That's what they see of us, after all.
All I know is that Germans aren't Arabs. Eurpoeans aren't Muslims. And 2003 isn't 1941. Germans don't/didn't strap bombs to their backs and blow themselves up in the name of God.
No, the suicide attacks were carried out by the Kamikazes of Imperialist Japan. As for Europeans not being Muslims, a great many are. And as for Germans not being Arabs, that's a strawman argument.
Hitler was fighting a geo-political war.
No, Hitler was fighting a war of global domination. He, like today's terrorists, was doing his best to export his own brand of ruthless dictatorship that would ultimately answer to his authority.
Arabs are fighting a holy war. Hitler never proclaimed to have God on his side.
I seem to recall many an instance in which Hitler invoked the Almighty as being on the side of Nazi Germany. Even so, there is no difference between the Islamic Holy Warrior and the Nazi thug. Both are bent on demonizing and killing Jews. Both are bent on global domination. And both are completely intolerant of those whose lifestyle and views differ from their own. In short, Nazis and Islamists may be dyed a different color, but they are both cut from the same cloth.
Arabs are convinced that God is on their side. And I've always said, be afraid of the man who *says* he has God on his side.
I will be wary of such a man, but I refuse to fear him. Fear is a prison wrought of doubt. And doubt is the chastity of the mind and soul. Those who succumb to fear can never know freedom.
I'm concerned but not necessarily afraid of Hussein's anthrax and weapons of mass destruction. I don't even think Hussein is stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US.
Considering that Saddam has already used his chemical weapons against his own people, there is absolutely no logic in the belief that he won't use them again...against us.
For if he did, we would be completely and totally justified in taking out the entire country of Iraq.
Considering the inaction of the world via the United Nations, that optimism is unfounded. Indeed, the U.N.'s sanctions and resolutions have been proven only to have meaning when backed up by the military might of the United States.
And the whole, wide world, even the Arabs, would understand and be supportive.
This is perhaps the most foolish statement I've read thus far. Consider for the moment how the Arab world reacted to 9/11. We had Palestinians cheering and passing out candy. We had Egyptians screaming "Bullseye" as they watched the planes filled with men, women and children slam into the WTC towers. We had Saudis cheering and praising the name of bin Laden.
And yet we're supposed to believe they wouldn't react in an identical fashion when the NEXT 9/11 happens? Give me a BREAK.
Remember, we had the Arab world behind us when we defended Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
I'm afraid that's inaccurate. If memory serves, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria did not support our liberation of Kuwait. Hell, even a number of Kuwaitis today bear animosity toward us even after we liberated their nation from Saddam's rule.
That was a justified war. And there was no disputing that it was justified. Likewise, WWII was justified for the same reason. Had we invaded Germany first, everything would have been different. We must be careful to remember that hindsight is always 20/20.
Had we stopped Hitler in 1939, nearly 12 million people would NOT have been killed, and half of Europe would not have been left open for Soviet domination. You're trying to make a case against pre-emptive action, but you're only serving to bolster the case for war now.
Could Hussein attack us if we don't take out his weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would he attack us? Maybe. But you have to accept that there's at least the possiblity that he wouldn't.
When the weatherman states that there's a 90% chance of rain in tomorrow's forecast, one naturally accepts that there's a 10% chance that it won't rain...but one would still be a fool not to take an umbrella with them when they go out.
We have every right to defend ourselves. I'm no dummy. But spin it any way you like, taking the offensive is not being defensive. It's a plain contradiction. And in matters of war, it makes all the difference.
The war on terror is not won on the defensive. If we wait until they bring the fight to us, then it will be too late. We do not have the luxury of sitting back and letting the terrorists and terrorist nations consolidate their fanatics and weaponry to strike at us again. You may be content to let that happen, but -- thankfully -- the majority of Americans are not.
I'm concerned about Hussein as every right thinking human being ought to be. But what I'm *afraid* of are psychotic Arabs, enraged at the Great Satan's pre-emptive invasion of sacred Arab territory who might feel it is their holy duty to board an airplane with a plane ticket and a carpet knife.
And surprise of all surprises, the terrorists did just that BEFORE we ever made a move to take Hussein out. Do you think that by being meek and mild that they will NOT attack us again? I've got news for you: the terrorists are like any other bully: they thrive on people who cower in fear and won't stand up to them. And like the bully, they promise dire consequences to anyone who thinks about standing up to them. But when one lone brave soul does stand up to them and lands a square punch on the bully's jaw, the bully caves and runs whimpering home.
What I'm afraid of os the deluded Muslim who might jump on a subway car with a gallon of gas and light it on fire. Surprise, they're already doing that.
Am I right in being afraid of this? I don't know. I guess we could ask the Israelis and see what they think ...
They'll tell you the same thing I'm telling you now: you don't wait for the fox to enter your chicken house before you get your gun.
I just don't see how invading Iran is going to reduce my fear of these things at all
The only person who can help you with your fear is you. But I'll tell you this: free men do NOT live in fear. Ponder that.
-Jay
For one, we're not "going on the offense" without having been provoked. We've BEEN provoked, over and over again. This is called a RESPONSE. In other words, it is defensive as our intent is not to ATTACK AND ANNEX, as Hussein did to Kuwait, but to PREVENT BEING ATTACKED OR BLACKMAILED, by a regime which has already amply demonstrated its intentions to do BOTH.
But - If we had gone on the "offense" when bin Laden declared war on us in 1997/98, the attacks of September 11, 2001 would never have occured. (And we had good reason to kill bin Laden long before he even declared war, as he was already attacking us even before.)
"The best defense is a good offense."
It is reasonable to assume that if someone uses chemical weapons on his own people, that he has absolutely no scruples and has absolutely no reason to go on living. Do you want to take a chance in an age when playing "defense" means you have to wait until the bad guy sets off a nuke in your city, or until the water supply is poisoned, or until a genetically engineered disease is spread, or...?
We're not asking to bomb England, Tahiti or Ethiopia, for Pete's sake- we going after a regime whose own citizens desperately want their leader dead. A regime which has shown a desire to ANNEX other people's countries, a regime which has stated its desire to destroy another country entirely, a regime which has thought it good to set alight oil fires to estroy the precious resources of another nation and a regime which has tried to poison the water of other nations by pumping oil into the sea and endangering their desalinization plants, a regime which launched scud missiles on the civilians of a neutral country, a regime which carries out routine assassinations of its dissidents overseas, a regime which assassinates its own scientists to prevent them from talking, a regime which harbors and protects as well as uses known terrorist groups, a regime which is actively seeking nuclear capability so as to invade other nations and then blackmail others with the threatr of using those same weapons so as to be left alone to absorb its vlctim.
We really do not want to see Hussein become another North Korea... we really do not want to fight this guy again on his terms a few years from now when he finally has an arsenal of nukes. It is better to fight him on our terms and be rid of him, so Iraqis and Americans and al those whom Iraq has been threatening and bullying can get back to work and enjoy life.
All I know is that Germans aren't Arabs. Eurpoeans aren't Muslims. And 2003 isn't 1941. Germans don't/didn't strap bombs to their backs and blow themselves up in the name of God.
And this makes Arabs less dangerous?
Hitler was fighting a geo-political war. Arabs are fighting a holy war.
Hitler's military ambitions were at least quasi-religous. Saddam would very much enjoy having his finger on the oil jugular of the world.
I'm concerned but not necessarily afraid of Hussein's anthrax and weapons of mass destruction. I don't even think Hussein is stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US. For if he did, we would be completely and totally justified in taking out the entire country of Iraq. And the whole, wide world, even the Arabs, would understand and be supportive. Remember, we had the Arab world behind us when we defended Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
We had most of the governemnts of the Arab world behind us, but the Arab street was quite opposed to it. Follow 9/11 there was a wave of triumphantalism throughout the Arab world. Remember all those people waving posters of Bin Laden?
In Afghanistan we took great care not to harm civilians, going so far as to make food drops. And still there weremore than a few people who were squemish about that war. I have my doubts that we would launch a large scale nuclear attack in response.
Could Hussein attack us if we don't take out his weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would he attack us? Maybe. But you have to accept that there's at least the possiblity that he wouldn't.
Directly attack us? Most likely not. Hand over his stash to Al Queada? Maybe. I think the bigger issue would be his ability to threaten and gain deference from his neighbors and his ability to shield terrorists. Would we have risked tens of thousands of troops to capture Kahlid Mohamed? Would Arab states cooperate with us if Saddam was threatening to gas them? It is absolutely vital that we head off any future domination of the region by Saddam.
Yeah, and Bill was disengaging interns from his peepee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.