When is the right time to change sides?

[Sava]

There's a big difference in doing what they tell you, and admitting you're wrong.

[Sirotnikov]

Azazel: My goal is to decrease terror. Not to act chauvinistic and admit that the US shouldn't change some of its policies because it breeds terror. If I see a rabid, junkyard dog walking in an alley, I don't say, "Well I'm going to walk in this alley because I can't let my fear of this dog change the way I do things." It's logical, and perfectly reasonable, to combat terror and to stop doing things that give terrorists reasons to hate.

I'll respond to that

I agree with you.

But usually our statements that "we shouldn't give in to terror" are not meant to prevent us from logical thinking - but rather meant to revert us to logical thinking.

Obviously we should do things carefully as to not increase terror further. However, we shouldn't avoid doing the right thing because we are threatened.

Terror isn't a wild dog whose natural response is to attack us. Terror is a cultivated and intentional action made to blackmail people / governments.

Infact, in my opinion, avoiding doing things we think are right out of fear of terror, gives the terrorists a positive re-enforcement which makes them use that tactic again.

But agreed, we shouldn't automatically think "doing X will make terrorists angry, therefore it MUST BE the right thing to do". That's just as silly as thinking the other way.

[St Leo]

Or should we wait a little bit more?

I am waiting until US establishes democracy in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Until then, this is a daft war.

[Drake Tungsten]

This is the thing, some asses need to be kicked, others not. With you guys its all or nothing, and that's screwed up.

Words of wisdom from Lancer...

[Solly]

i just love the irony, the iraqis are firing at us with the ammunition we sold to them during the iran/iraq war

Making a mistake in the past doesn't excuse making a mistake by not disarming SH now.

[Ramo]

Whoever thinks there'll be any real Iraqi "liberation" are deluding themselves.

In Afghanistan, all we did was replace the Taleban with a bunch of Islamist warlords. Even though, in Afghanistan we had few international concerns with finishing the job, it didn't happen. The US continues to limit its security forces to the area near Kabul, all the promised aid to Karzai's gov't is dropping off, etc., etc.

In Iraq, there are a hell of a lot more exigent circumstances preventing democracy and liberty for the Kurds and Shia, namely problems posed by Turkey and Iran and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia. There's little doubt in my mind that the war will leave the Iraqi people worse off.

As the expression goes, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

[realpolitic]

Tactical Nukes

Originally posted by Azazel
Am I the only one that thinks that the lives of the people of Iraq matter as well? If the current trend of events will go on ( better than what I've expected), They'll live abetter life than the one they lived before.

The impact on the US' politics is negligble in comparison to that, and the impact of that on us is non-existant.

I just read a poll in the San Francisco Chronicle that says 10% favor using tactical nukes. (The margin of error wasn't stated but it's 1/2 of what it is at the 50% level). I'm terrified of the histeria. I can accept when I go to an antiwar rally and someone flips me off or calls me a traitor, but when they scream inches from my face, or race their diesel to blow smoke in my face, or say they want to use nukes when it's obvious the US will win easily it scares the c**p out of me.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Tactical Nukes

Originally posted by realpolitic
or race their diesel to blow smoke in my face,

Don't block traffic if that scares the crap out of you.

[Az]

What does this have to do with what I said? It's not like the US will actually use nukes, and that public opinion has nothing to do with the justness of the war, these are just morons.

[Ted Striker]

I can't speak for other places, but MOST Americans feel like you can speak out and argue and voice dissent all you want to, before any action ever occurs.

But once the shooting starts, it's time to rally around the troops and the President.

I think it's counterproductive and puts more lives at risk to oppose war once it's started.

[Master Zen]

Re: Tactical Nukes

Originally posted by realpolitic

I just read a poll in the San Francisco Chronicle that says 10% favor using tactical nukes. (The margin of error wasn't stated but it's 1/2 of what it is at the 50% level). I'm terrified of the histeria. I can accept when I go to an antiwar rally and someone flips me off or calls me a traitor, but when they scream inches from my face, or race their diesel to blow smoke in my face, or say they want to use nukes when it's obvious the US will win easily it scares the c**p out of me.

yet hardly any other country has so much fear of terrorism. Strange how only the most powerful nation on earth is the one which feels the most insecure. Believe it or not, the terrorists ARE winning.

[Chemical Ollie]

The war will not be over when Saddam is dead. If the coalition stay to occupy Iraq, there will be guerilla raids and suicide bombers to keep the American body bag consumption up as long they stay there, and probably beyond. And if they choose to call it a day and leave post-war Iraq alone, it may turn out an even worse place than it was before. Just imagine an ultra-religious Iraq or a total anarchy.

[chequita guevara]

If, because of this war, the US' ability to intervene in other conflicts around the globe is enhanced, then regardless of the outcome for the Iraqi people, it will be a detriment to the great mass of humanity. Soon we will have our military propping up the murderous government of Columbia to stop the "narco-terrorists" from taking control. We will invade Cuba, to "liberate" it from it's dictatorship and return it to those who ran the country into ground while murdering thousands of their own people. We will wage endless wars around the globe to no one's betterment but our corporations and maybe the Iraqi people.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We will invade Cuba, to "liberate" it from it's dictatorship and return it to those who ran the country into ground while murdering thousands of their own people.

It's been done. If I were Castro, I would have built a monument at the Bay of Pigs site.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If, because of this war, the US' ability to intervene in other conflicts around the globe is enhanced, then regardless of the outcome for the Iraqi people, it will be a detriment to the great mass of humanity. Soon we will have our military propping up the murderous government of Columbia to stop the "narco-terrorists" from taking control. We will invade Cuba, to "liberate" it from it's dictatorship and return it to those who ran the country into ground while murdering thousands of their own people. We will wage endless wars around the globe to no one's betterment but our corporations and maybe the Iraqi people.

I agree, the long term view is expressed in the National Security Policy document which I personally find quite worrying and would continue to do so even if I voted Republican.

My own hope is that the Iraq war is costly, both politically and militarily, such that the United States is forced to moderate its goals regarding a pliant Iraqi regime. My own view is that a continuation of the pre-emptive strikes policy as part of the "war on evil" or whatever it will be called is a mistake that will be a huge drain on the already unstable US economy. In short this "eternal war" is an act of astonishing hubris. Better that it be nipped in the bud before it becomes too economically and politically costly.

Of all the countries to invade, Cuba would be a big mistake. The reality is the the majority of Cubans love Fidel and he would have a great deal more popular support than Hussein is currently getting. And he's an experienced and successful guerilla fighter.