Is Bush doing the right thing?

[Skeptical]

While most of us agree that Iraq needs to be delt with and world terrorism needs to be addressed, I think Bush is going overboard with his rhetoric and is aggravating the world community with his speeches. I fear Bush is not only pissing off the Sadam Hussein, but the world community at large (and possibly future potential terrorists) with his "U.S.A. can do whatever we damn well please" attitude. If things continue I think more terrorists might end up targeting this country for future attacks.

What are your thoughts?

[filburt1]

Things were a lot better off when the US was noninterventionist (sp? long week...).

[someuser190826]

He is indeed

[heretic]

Originally posted by filburt1
Things were a lot better off when the US was noninterventionist (sp? long week...).

you mean back in WWII where we waited to be attacked?

[bigmattyh]

Re: Is Bush doing the right thing?

Originally posted by Skeptical
While most of us agree that Iraq needs to be delt with and world terrorism needs to be addressed, I think Bush is going overboard with his rhetoric and is aggravating the world community with his speeches.

So what exactly is it that Bush has said that has crossed the line? You agree that Iraq needs to be dealt with, but you make no further explanation of what you mean by "dealt with". Bush has made his position clear -- that Saddam is a loose cannon, a tyrant who has possibly gassed 100,000 of his own citizens, invaded Iran and Kuwait, has launched missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel, and threatened the US. Of course you are free to agree or disagree with the president, but the question remains: If you believe that Iraq must be "dealt with", but that Bush is going too far, then what would you propose instead?

I fear Bush is not only pissing off the Sadam Hussein, but the world community at large (and possibly future potential terrorists) with his "U.S.A. can do whatever we damn well please" attitude.

Qould you rather he kowtowed to the cowards that run the U.N.? Having popular opinion on your side has nothing to do with whether your position is right or wrong. France in particular is reluctant to take a stance on Saddam only because it potentially has billions of dollars in oil to lose -- not because it is taking some moral high road and that it sincerely wishes to "give peace a chance". I'm sure the appeasers in the late 1930's congratulated themselves for their cool-headedness in response to the rise of Adolf Hitler, by not opting for the military solution.

Speaking of Europe, I find it exceedingly frustrating that the chief beneficiaries of American military power throughout the last 60 years are now the most vocal opponents of it today. Western Europe disarmed after WWII, and were happy to put their protection in the hands of the US against the advancing armies of the Soviet Bloc. They didn't complain when we stopped the war in Yugoslavia even after the Iron Curtain fell. Now they spite the US for not getting their approval when we decide to put an end to a decades-long menace that has survived for too long, in the name of "consensus" and "world opinion".

The truth is that they are still appeasers at heart, and do not have the fortitude to stand up to the tyrants of our time, nor do they have the ability to do so, even if they wanted to. They wonder why the world hasn't achieved their learned levels of enlightenment and abandoned war, as they did 60 years ago. The US's message to Europe: Wake up. The world is not a safe place. Even though we'd love to "dialogue" our way to peace for all of humankind, the world is still not rid of its irrational dictators and theocrats who do not listen to reason, and who place the advancement of their own power above all else. Peace still only comes through superior military might -- and it is a testament to the moral superiority of the American democratic way that the US has not been bent on empire, and that America has sought to persuade the world by reason, instead of by force.

Keep in mind that the last time the United States acquired land was 100 years ago. As victors in WWI and WWII, by way of the longstanding rules of war, we had every right to annex Germany and Japan and Italy, and all their colonies in Africa and elsewhere, had we been a people that seeks to conquer and control its enemies. This is not, however, the character of America, and has not been for generations. In Afghanistan, the goal was simple and clear: to topple the regime that facilitated bin Laden and made the attacks on the WTC possible.

Furthermore, the US has never in its modern history made a deliberate target of people who are not combatants on the battlefield. What other nation takes such precautions and beats up on itself to ensure that the fewest amount of collateral damage is caused? In fact, one of the reasons we did not pursue Saddam further in the Gulf War was specifically because we did not want to hurt the hundreds of civilians he was using as human shields in his palaces. That decision may have been a long-term strategic blunder, but it is one Americans are willing to live with because the idea of killing innocent civilians is one that is abhorrent to us.

On the contrary, as much as we wish it weren't so, there are Saddams out there, and were it not for the good guys holding them back, they would rape and pillage as much as they had the power to do so. That is why it is so important that Saddam does not acquire nukes, that he cannot hold anyone hostage to the demands that he would most certainly make. Who would stop him from invading Kuwait again, if he declared that New York would be toast, if the US tried to intervene?

Is it our business? Probably not. We stand to lose a lot if we intervene, sometimes. But ask the people of Afghanistan if they are thankful for the US's "imperialistic" actions. I have a European friend who has done medical outreach work in Iraq, and the local Iraqis often confided to him that they await the day that the Americans come to liberate them from Saddam. They know it -- we know it -- but somehow, unless we get "world consensus", our actions are not just or proper. That argument is naive to the nature of Saddam and the yearning for freedom that these people have.

Yes, we are left open to future attacks. But every stand that one takes leaves that possibility open, and one cannot be deterred from acting on a morally superior position merely because there may be detractors. I find it repulsive the argument that we should not act for fear of what the fanatics might do to us. Did the fear of retribution stop Gandhi or Martin Luther King from acting, in fighting the injustices they faced? They knew exactly what the dangers were, and so do we. I think the fear you're feeling is natural, but when you know what you're doing is the right thing, the fear is much easier to deal with.

[ccd1]

Okay, place your bets, how long will this thread last before the pinching and eye-poking begins?

[Dave#]

While most of us agree that Iraq needs to be delt with

Shouldn't that be most Americans?


The rest of the world is more sane - thank god

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Dave#
Shouldn't that be most Americans?

Actually, neighboring Arab countries aren't too happy about him either, but they say it's their problem and that the US shouldn't get in their business.

[Dave#]

Originally posted by baragon0
Actually, neighboring Arab countries aren't too happy about him either, but they say it's their problem and that the US shouldn't get in their business.

Thats why I said rest of the world RTFP

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Dave#
Thats why I said rest of the world RTFP

You said they're more sane, when they're about to do the same thing as the US.

RTFP.

Oh, by the way, I bet $1 million that it starts around the second page.

[MarkB]

*pokes Baragon in the eye*

Gimme money now.

[Dave#]

Originally posted by baragon0
You said they're more sane, when they're about to do the same thing as the US.

RTFP.

Oh, by the way, I bet $1 million that it starts around the second page.

The rest of the world [UN/EU] are opposed to genocide in Iraq - I don't want to flame but you are a moron.

Have a great day.

[orca]

Well, it's a very bad idea to have a war against Iraq. Doesn't fix the problems in a technical manner said.
So does he actually have plans what will be afterwards? What if the Iraqi government is gone? Has he plans on what to do then? You can't just "blow" people away and then leave the country alone. If he goes there, he needs to have plans for what will happen afterwards and he needs to prove the people there that they will have it better. And that should be very fast. I don't think they will believe promises that it will be better after a few years. If he fails to do that, everything will get to the same again...
It's sure that the situation is bad there. But a war won't help. I think rather if Bush attacks Iraq, the terrorists have again some reasons to fight against USA...
I don't want to protect Hussein. He is a problem. But just using military actions won't solve it.
Oh, and btw, didn't the US help Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war?....

[thomas1]

Sure, Saddam has been supported, if not created, by the US, as has been Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. If you ask me, it's about access to natural resources:

- Gulf War: US established permanent military presence in Saudi-Arabia, oil.
- Afghanistan: same thing, plus control of natural gas from Central Asia
- Iraq: oil, oil, oil.

War against terrorism? War for resources. Who will be the next? My guess: the evil colonel in Libya.

[SkuZZy]

Originally posted by baragon0
Okay, place your bets, how long will this thread last before the pinching and eye-poking begins?

If it's anything like the religion threads that get started around here, it will be locked before it reaches that point