5/3 So what's happening to the oil in Iraq? Are we getting it all for
free? Why no news coverage on it? Does the average American not want
to hear about it? Guess the media is only interested in reporting the
robbers getting shot at while leaving the bank. This reminds me of a
quote "It's always easier to rob than to make your own".
\_ No, we didn't go there to rob the oil. We went there to
find WMD! Oh wait, we went there to liberate Iraq!! Oh
wait, we went there to, to, to, well, the truth is, we do
whatever we want because we can and there ain't nothing you
can do about it!!
\_ Sure there is. Terrorism is the answer to oppression
from superpower. You think you can just bomb us because you
feel like it? You treat us like dirt, we will strike you
\_ I didn't know there were any Iraqis posting to the motd.
where it hurts.
\_ Yeah like how Spain and the Philipines are both super powers.
Here's the ob ad hominen: you're an idiot.
\_ I didn't know there were any Iraqis posting to the motd.
\_ Dubya went in there because Saddam was a bad man, who even
if he didn't have WMD, would use them against the U.S. (by
giving them to terrorists) some day. Dubya also wants to make
sure post-Saddam Iraq doesn't become a threat to the U.S.
I think most Republicans, and some Democrats, understand this.
The counter-argument is that Saddam had already been contained.
I think some Democrats and some Republicans understand this.
\_ Containment is never perfect and is subject to political winds
and whims. Containment can only slow the inevitable. In this
case, several of the countries that were supposed to be
helping contain were cashing in behind everyone's backs.
\_ Have you considered containment until you get a smoking
gun on WMD?
\_ The smoking gun might by a crater in a Western city. I
am not prepared to wait for that.
\_ Isn't that what Homeland Security is for? Also,
I don't think even the Bush administration thought
Iraq had any nuclear capability to give. I believe
the best they could come up with, after the war,
was a scientist digging up centrifuge parts, saying
that they were stored until Saddam wanted to restart
the program.
\_ True but I have no problem with a better safe than
sorry policy. And no, the HS department doesn't
stand a chance of keeping us 100% not-blown up
in a terrorist act. It just isn't possible. We
must do our best at home regarding security such
as better trained people, better equipment and
real world improvements like hardened cock pit
doors but that's all hindsight. There will
always be some weakness that can be exploited to
create death and havoc. Thus, we also need an
active foreign policy to find and crush our
enemies before they can create the capabilities.
Note that we're not discussing the *IF* nature of
what a Hussein or Al Qaeda group's goals and
plans. No one questions that they'd nuke a major
Western city if they could. We're only discussing
their current capability. At some point in the
future they *will* have the capability so we need
to stop them now. I won't go into the historical
"the west has been at war with islam since near
the birth of islam" bits.
\_ So, contain until you get a smoking gun. With
a smoking gun, you stand a chance of being
like Bush Sr. and getting an international
coalition.
\_ And some of us knew that Saddam Hussein was no friend to
Al Qaeda, so the idea that he would give them WMD was
laughable. Bush's Crusade diverted America from far more
serious threats to our security.
\_ You knew? Really? The American intelligence establish-
ment still isn't certain. And he doesn't have to give
Al Q. anything. He had plenty of his own agents who were
perfectly capable of putting a nuke or some nasty bug in
a shipping container to the US. He didn't need anyone
else. Kaddafi managed a-OK to blow up a plane without
anyone else's help. You think Hussein really needed
anyone else? No, he just needed a nuke or a bug.
\_ There are only two real solutions to the problem, which
have worked throughout history. We kill all of them, like
we did to the Native Americans (you don't hear about them
wanting to take back the US do you, hehe), or, we treat
them properly. We want to do the first, but the world it is
today, it's no longer an option. We don't want to go with
the 2nd option either, simply because "Why should we?".
Capitalism is all about taking advantage of the other guy
as much as possible. It will be against our nature to treat
them properly, because we don't have to. This goes in the
same way as people usually do the maximum that the law
allows them to do without being considered a crime.
Unfortunately there are no check and balance in the
international world right now. We do a lot more than what
the 'law' would allow us to do. So the other side has no
choice but to engage in terrorism, as they also have no
choice. Direct confrontation with us is not an option,
because if they are that strong, we wouldn't have been able
to take advantage of them in the first place. Unless we
fundamentally change the way we deal with the rest of the
world, especially the weak ones, terrorism will never end.
\_ You should say there are three real solutions to the problem.
\_ Capitalism is not about fucking the other guy. It is about
maximising profit for least effort. A capitalist would not kill
his best customer and take their wallet because then he would
lose that customer's future business which is certain to exceed
one wallet's value. (This is aside from the moral and legal
context of murder in our society).
\_ So you think terrorism will end when we give them everything they
want? Do you understand that the core issue Islamic terrorists
have with the West is that we exist? Go look up the word "Wakf".
Since you won't I'll give you the executive summary: all lands
that were ever under Islamic control at any time in history are
Muslim lands no matter how briefly, how long ago or what has
happened since. Spain getting bombed wasn't a random soft
target. Half of Spain was once under Muslim rule and hence is
wakf land. As for the rest of the world, that falls under the
part about spreading Islam by the sword which is how Spain
ended up in Muslim hands in the first place. Know thy enemy.
\_ Spain was bombed to affect the election, and to embarrass and
to put pressure on the U.S. with the resulting pullout of
Spanish troops. The former head of Spain was all-Bush,
and the majority of Spanish people were against the war,
before and after the bombing. I think you need to find a
better example.
\_ Yes, that's what the western press says. Go read the Arab
press. |
http://csua.com/feed/