Greg said:
:lol: Seriously, a day makes some difference. I keep telling my boss that the best way to grow a business is to allow constructive confrontation.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
This time it's London...
- Thread starter JimG.
- Start date
:lol: Seriously, a day makes some difference. I keep telling my boss that the best way to grow a business is to allow constructive confrontation.
SkiDog
New member
dmc said:
I guess we shouldve just let saddam stay in power and wait until he actually "attacked" us right? Lets not try to avoid that by getting there first or anything.?
Seems like thats what you want, please tell me i'm wrong?
M
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
SkiDog said:
Your wrong...
And actually I'm appalled that you say such a thing to prove a point against me..
I can't even begin to defend myself I'm so pissed at your comment....
SkiDog
New member
dmc said:
Im just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from...while I agree that the "motives" may have been less than admirable the problem DID exist and needed to be dealt with..
thats just how I see it...I wasn't trying to make you angry..again...no offense meant...
M
SkiDog
New member
some humor for those who disagree with the iraq war..
http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/un_proof/
M
http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/un_proof/
M
ctenidae
Active member
First off, just because Saddam played games with the UN doesn't make it okay for us to do so, as well, unless we're of the same moral and ethical quality? I think the US is better than that. Sorry to say, but it's sort of a Republican theme lately- "What we did isn't so bad- just look at what Clinton did!"
Second, I find it extremely unlikely (as does the rest of the Middle East, Israel included) that Saddam could ever have attacked the US or directly threatened our interests. There is no evidence he had any WMD since what, 1995? or that he had any capability to strike the US, or that he had any terrorist networks, or that any relationship other than mutual disgust and hatred existed between him and bin Laden. Does that mean we should have left him there? No, but as was said before, the UN would have authorized force "within six months, anyway". Why did we have to jump the gun and go it cowboy-style?
So, yeah, SkiDog, you're wrong.
Second, I find it extremely unlikely (as does the rest of the Middle East, Israel included) that Saddam could ever have attacked the US or directly threatened our interests. There is no evidence he had any WMD since what, 1995? or that he had any capability to strike the US, or that he had any terrorist networks, or that any relationship other than mutual disgust and hatred existed between him and bin Laden. Does that mean we should have left him there? No, but as was said before, the UN would have authorized force "within six months, anyway". Why did we have to jump the gun and go it cowboy-style?
So, yeah, SkiDog, you're wrong.
SkiDog
New member
dmc said:
I mean what "motives" would have made this extraction of Saddam "ok"?
M
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
SkiDog said:
Apparently I let everyone know where I'm coming from in another thread...
But I'll quote myslef from this thread - apologies to the moderators - I tried to link to it but couldnt figure out how..
SkiDog
New member
ctenidae said:
I wsnt trying to be "right" just posing more questions...and I see yer point...gung ho might not have been the way to go...but I think you agree that there was a problem with Saddam one way or the other?
M
dmc said:
(Ignore mom's advice to stay out of fights)
This is what partisan politics does to us; it makes us blind to our similarities in the name of a political party.
SkiDog: Saddam was a bad man and he was up to something even if we can't prove it. He was a threat to us and we're better off without him.
dmc: Yeah, he was a bad man, but our biggest threat was bin Laden and his gang. We had them trapped in Afghanistan but we dropped the ball to go Saddam hunting. Now those terrorists we let off the hook are using our troops as target practice so they can go bomb some more cities. We've created a self-fulfilled prophesy.
Well, you're both right. Doesn't matter because the mess is there, whoever created it for whatever reason.
Let's fix it.
SkiDog
New member
dmc said:
Again I apologize..no offense was meant...I see where your coming from just dont fully agree..
M
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
SkiDog said:
Who's motives?
If he had WMD's I would STILL be suporting this war..
Cause there's a direct threat to us and our allies...
If the DID help in 911 I would STILL be suporting this war..
I feel terrible for the civilians that died under his rule.. But we had the Kurds protected..And there's other murderors around the world - and I'm uncomfortable with the US going in and rotecting EVERY person in the world thats being oppressed..
Fact is... Civilians are dying every day in Iraq in the crossfire between the US and the insurgents..
And that makes me sad...
I know good stuff is happening over there but the deaths of innocents is something I just can't get over..
SkiDog
New member
dmc said:
Deaths of innocents are always hard I agree...I also STRONGLY agree that we shouldn't feel (the US) that we need to "police" the world..
We do agree on some points, just not all...I guess thats what debate is about..
No harm meant...to me this is compelling conversation and has in some ways opened my eyes and some valid points have been brought up in this thread by many individuals, yourself included..
Please keep them coming..
M
dmc said:
And these are the people who matter most. Their lives were hell under Saddam, and their lives are still hell now. They can't even go outside without the fear of being killed.
Nothing has really changed for them. In that light, why should they support us (I say this knowing that many do support us)?
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
SkiDog said:
Without WMDs and the 911 conspiracy the only thing left is us policing Iraq...
At the cost of thousands of lives, billions of dollars, lower popularity and cooperation amongst the world, a divide homefront and the maiming of thousands of our great soldiers....
I'm just not down with the whole deal anymore..
And frankly - I'm really mad...
You support Colin Powell?? Check out the Powell docterine:
"military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged. "
SkiDog
New member
JimG. said:
Maybe because they know it usually gets worse before it gets better, but it DOES get better...like I mentioned earlier the NORTH of Iraq is beginning to THRIVE..
Give it some time.
M
ChileMass
Active member
dmc said:
OK - here we go. But before I get into this, I just want to say that I enjoy reading posts from ctenidae and dmc very much on all topics, especially the ski/hiking topics......
But - you guys have it all wrong. You are dealing with symptoms of the problem and tactical solutions to a much bigger problem. The question is - when are we justified in standing up for democracy? At what point do we take the lead in defending the most successful type of government in history? Everyone want freedom and democracy, and this isn't just a re-hash of the old line "inside every gook is an American trying to get out". Ask the Russians or the Chileans or the Afghans if they were better off under dictator rule.
This is a values question, not a political one. So what if W went in 6 months prior to the UN actually giving him the green light? Don't you believe that the elected government - yes those awful guys Cheney and Rumsfeld - know what they were doing in going ahead before the UN formally approved it? They knew the UN would approve it, they knew a number of our historic allies could not support it (France has an Islamic population six times greater than ours in a country of 2/3 fewer people), and they knew we would largely wind up fighting it by ourselves anyway. As we saw yesterday and in Madrid, Europe is amuch easier target to hit than the US. The Euro politicians should thank us for fighting their battle and saving their political skins, but instead they bitch us out - ridiculous. The US went into Iraq when it was militarily most advantageous to do it. The US and Britain prove once again that we are willing to stand up to bullies and terrorists when others shrink from it.
As far as sealing off the Iraqi border - its impossible. Not only is the country larger than California and some of the harshest desert in the world, but Iraq shares a border with Iran and Syria, who would never have allowed US or even Allied troops to assemble along their borders. There would have been another shooting war for sure, especially with Iran. Plus - you think we have too many troops there now, if we tried to seal off the Iraqi border it would take 4 times as many troops, all of whom would be in harm's way.
There's a lot to consider in the US' unilateral decision to attack: does the US wait for the UN's approval before we take action, not only on this war but in any situation? There a whole bunch of countries out there who would like nothing more than to see the US become cowed by the UN and wait for its approval before we do anything on any issue. Is this what we want? To have the US interests held up because Peru or Andorra or North Korea hsa a problem with something vital to us? To diminish the prestige and power of the US is to increase the power and prestige of the Europeans, the Russinas, the Chinese, etc. Do we hesitate and wait for the approval and cooperation from the French and Germans? W and his boys know who they can count on and who they cannot before they take action. These guys are professionals. I voted for them. I trust their judgement to carry out the necessary work of defending the interests of my country and my family, because they are all inter-related.
When 9/11 happened, a lot of people lost their jobs (including me - 11 months, thanks) because the international economy is dependent on stability. We are still recovering economically from it, and I don't want to go through that again. If a bomb goes off on Wall Street, my kids are going to have a harder time going to college because it's tough for Dad to pay for college when he's been out of work or had a lower-paying job since the economy went into the crapper. Is that bringing the war close enough to home? You betcha, and it scares the shit out of me when I see those bombs going off in London. W and his cabinet may have rushed to war - I can't disagree there's probably some evidence to support your position. But you are requiring then to be perfect whereas war always makes a mess and people get killed. Let's do the job, kill every single one of those reactionary fanatical Islamic terrorist bastards that would undermine our wonderful society and get back to peace and prosperity, which is what we all want.
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
JimG. said:
I hate to say this... But with Sadam at least they had water, electricity and transportation... For some people - thats all they need to raise their kids and live their lives..
ctenidae
Active member
I agree with you, Jim, but the problem is, who gets to make the plan for fixing the problem? We can't even agree on what the problem is, much less how to fix it. I think teh current administration helped to, if not create, certainly exacerbate the problem, and has no clue what to do next. I further believe the steps they've taken so far have been utterly wrong, and, not to put too fine a point on it, disgraceful.
So, my suggestions for fizxing the terrorist problem: Stop bullying countries (calling the French, Spanish, Germans and Russians names doesn't help things much), work towards better mutual respect and understanding with the countries that are the breeding grounds for terrorists, prosecute individual terrorist groups with the long end of a large gun (with the cooperation of the host country), and strike a abalance between domestic security and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (leaning towards the freedoms).
So, my suggestions for fizxing the terrorist problem: Stop bullying countries (calling the French, Spanish, Germans and Russians names doesn't help things much), work towards better mutual respect and understanding with the countries that are the breeding grounds for terrorists, prosecute individual terrorist groups with the long end of a large gun (with the cooperation of the host country), and strike a abalance between domestic security and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (leaning towards the freedoms).
SkiDog
New member
dmc said:
Im not totally happy about our "boys" being over there dying either, but still think we NEED to be there.
I just dont want you to be "mad" at me...it was never my intention..
M
Similar threads
