Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
You're right, my perceptive friend. As you know, I am tolerant of opposing opinions, but my tolerance of personal attacks has dropped to zero, especially when people accuse me of such things as "being a sunshine patriot" or wishing disaster on the country and success for al Qaida or being willing to sell out the country to the highest bidder, etc. How would you feel if someone accused you of being a communist or another Jonathan Pollard?
I understand where you are coming and what you are feeling about it. I traveled the world for the United States carrying a rifle, went to war, etc and I have a JREF kid crew who daily call me a fraud and a liar about it. You have to keep in mind the environment that you have discussions in. You get logical, intelligent people who will debate you and then you get rabble mixed in with that and you just have to not let that bad things people say about your opinions bother you.
You and I disagree on some issues but I like you Wayne and I don't think that you need to get upset.
Why do I think the US should not invade Iraq? Well, I've been arguing those reasons here for the last several months. In brief, we shouldn't because it isn't necessary and it will only increase our problems. It'll be a huge drain on our treasury, it will compromise our ability to respond to real threats, it will not only divert us from stabilizing Afghanistan and fighting terrorism, it'll strengthen al Qaida and make us more vulnerable to terrorism. It also will put the world on notice that the US is an aggressive tyrant bent on world hegemony rather than being a promoter of peace and respect for international law. Other nations will see us as an untrustworthy bully and will be less likely to cooperate with us and will instead work against our interests.
It has been my global experience and I have traveled a lot (over 24 foreign countries) that countries are going to overtly try to work against our interests anyway. Most of what is happening in the world that weighs against the United States is because we are the lone superpower. If France was the lone superpower, it would be them that would be under overt attack by every other nation that sought to cling to some semblance of power that they had in the Cold War. When the Cold War ended, many nation-states lost power while the Unitd States and some other countries gained power.
Also, the effect of our way of life does more to impact enemies against us than the physical territory of the United States too. When rock and roll music, Hollywood movies, KFC, McDonalds and other westernized ideas penetrate foreign countries there is a alot of jealously and rage at the change to those cultures internally. There is a real resistance to technological and cultural change in countries and many of them resist (Iran and others) and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. There is no reason for those countries to attack our innocent civilians over that, but they will because they are afraid. Their leaders are afraid of the idea of freedom in their populations that accompany our exportation of manufactured goods that impact foreign culture.
To me, it is all about retaining power--the resistance to us and what we stand for--because the foreign governments know that tyrannies, monarchies and dictatorships are antiquated and none of them want to give up power. It is all about the power.
Moving beyond that, let me give you an example of US force projection and why to me there really isn't a valid level of protest against Iraqi invasion by the US that is credible. Keep in mind that my opinion has nothing to do with you personally.
Now, for a good example of what I am talking about, we have to look at some key facts. The first fact is that the United States doesn't and never has gone to war overnight. It takes democracies time to go to war. Democracies are never efficient at going to war. We responded well against the Taliban because in crisis a democracy will take immediate action, but with Iraq it has been a grueling, slow process. People attack President's Bush's dad for not taking out Saddam in the first gulf war--that was not our mission. Our mission was to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Since Saddam created a host of problems after that war it turned into a situation where it became a revised history to attack President Bush's dad. That is the way the game is played on the global stage.
The same can be said for Noriega in Panama. The United States gave Noriega a whole bunch of time to relinquish power--and it didn't happen. The reasons are irrevelant for this discussion, but if you look at that invasion, first there was diplomacy, then as hostilities against US nationals in Panama increased the US implemented Operation NIMROD Dancer, which was a scout mission that was hoped would not lead to war. Noriega stuck around and instability ensued and then the troops from Operation NIMROD Dancer were replaced with the trigger pullers for Operation Just Cause. Noriega had plenty of time (well over a year) to resign. He knew of the force structure changes in Panama prior to the invasion, changes that the US made in August 1989, a full five months before the invasion started. He did not go away. That is how democracies work. There was no rush to judgement and clear warnings.
Now with Saddam, he has been under UN resolutions since the end of the 1st gulf war, 1991. That is over 12 years. His military forces have shot at coalition aircraft daily since they started their waypoint routes over Iraq. He has ignored the ban on weapons of mass destruction, assisted terrorist groups, committed gross human rights violations against his own people, assisted terrorist organizations sponsored by Iran to infiltrate into Syria so they could supply militant groups that attack Israel--it goes on and on.
Now bear in mind that when you include the judgement and information of our intelligence services into this equation, the President of the United States is acting on things I believe that are much, much more dangerous than the information that is acquired through open-source channels. All the information that I have comes from open-source and I remain envious to those who know the real deal.
Now, what happens if Saddam goes away? Well, the most important outcome is that the Iraqi people are freed from a terror government, a human rights issue that we can fix immediately. Then there are strategic issues like the disarmament of Iraq which would radically change the face of the entire middle east.
Population pressures inside Turkey could be relieved and Iraq could be divided into stable states with UN protection. Also the overflows from our actions in Iraq could cause Iran to democratize, sealing change there. But is it a gamble? You bet. Every war is a gamble. But you know what 9/11 proved? 9/11 proved that the United States can't sit back anymore. We can't. Hard decisions are being made and with Iraq isolated and restructured, we will be making peace with more people there than making enemies. I simply cannot agree with anyone that says by freeing people they will hate you. In my military experiences, people cheered in the streets when we freed them. There is this attitude in the leftist media that we are going to be "hated" for freeing people. The communists may think that because it is not under the auspices of their version of social justice, but when people are free they do not think about killing you. They think of how to spend the time they have in their freedom--spend time in their days.
If we do not attack Iraq, Bin Ladin would attack us anyway. Iraq has nothing to do with the Al Qaeda agenda. Radical Islamists want to remake the world global Islam. Again, Iraqi action will only benefit us.
There is always a reluctance to go to war. European reluctance, in my opinion, has more to do with keeping the status quo in the middle east than any other political agenda. Also, European states want to see the liquidation of the state of Irsael which they consider to be unnatural. Believe it. That is what they are thinking about.
Our national security cannot afford to be governed by the status quo anylonger.
Here's something ironic, if you consider why NATO was formed. I see the possibility that the US will break away from NATO and Europe will form a defense alliance that includes Russia!
It could happen and I warned of this years ago. That political upheaval is the result of the US being the lone superpower and the European states shifting from traditional free societies to neo-socialist states. Also, countries like France have $billions invested in Iran and other areas in the region and do not want that stability in fuel resources disrupted. They are willing to overlook human rights and true social justice (capitalist freedom) just to keep the fuel flowing.
Take a look at how they dealt with Southern Europe. They sealed their borders during the war in the former Yugoslavia instead of allowing women and children the opportunity to escape the ravages of war. I always question European loyalty to human rights because I can look at history, and yet Europe will claim an invisible moral highground against the United States when it wants to use human rights politics against our foreign policy decisions...
Edited to add: Jedi, have you seen this magazine yet? You might like it. I have heard about it, but haven't picked up an issue yet.
Yes, that is Pat Buchanan's new magazine.
JK
You're right, my perceptive friend. As you know, I am tolerant of opposing opinions, but my tolerance of personal attacks has dropped to zero, especially when people accuse me of such things as "being a sunshine patriot" or wishing disaster on the country and success for al Qaida or being willing to sell out the country to the highest bidder, etc. How would you feel if someone accused you of being a communist or another Jonathan Pollard?
I understand where you are coming and what you are feeling about it. I traveled the world for the United States carrying a rifle, went to war, etc and I have a JREF kid crew who daily call me a fraud and a liar about it. You have to keep in mind the environment that you have discussions in. You get logical, intelligent people who will debate you and then you get rabble mixed in with that and you just have to not let that bad things people say about your opinions bother you.
You and I disagree on some issues but I like you Wayne and I don't think that you need to get upset.
Why do I think the US should not invade Iraq? Well, I've been arguing those reasons here for the last several months. In brief, we shouldn't because it isn't necessary and it will only increase our problems. It'll be a huge drain on our treasury, it will compromise our ability to respond to real threats, it will not only divert us from stabilizing Afghanistan and fighting terrorism, it'll strengthen al Qaida and make us more vulnerable to terrorism. It also will put the world on notice that the US is an aggressive tyrant bent on world hegemony rather than being a promoter of peace and respect for international law. Other nations will see us as an untrustworthy bully and will be less likely to cooperate with us and will instead work against our interests.
It has been my global experience and I have traveled a lot (over 24 foreign countries) that countries are going to overtly try to work against our interests anyway. Most of what is happening in the world that weighs against the United States is because we are the lone superpower. If France was the lone superpower, it would be them that would be under overt attack by every other nation that sought to cling to some semblance of power that they had in the Cold War. When the Cold War ended, many nation-states lost power while the Unitd States and some other countries gained power.
Also, the effect of our way of life does more to impact enemies against us than the physical territory of the United States too. When rock and roll music, Hollywood movies, KFC, McDonalds and other westernized ideas penetrate foreign countries there is a alot of jealously and rage at the change to those cultures internally. There is a real resistance to technological and cultural change in countries and many of them resist (Iran and others) and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. There is no reason for those countries to attack our innocent civilians over that, but they will because they are afraid. Their leaders are afraid of the idea of freedom in their populations that accompany our exportation of manufactured goods that impact foreign culture.
To me, it is all about retaining power--the resistance to us and what we stand for--because the foreign governments know that tyrannies, monarchies and dictatorships are antiquated and none of them want to give up power. It is all about the power.
Moving beyond that, let me give you an example of US force projection and why to me there really isn't a valid level of protest against Iraqi invasion by the US that is credible. Keep in mind that my opinion has nothing to do with you personally.
Now, for a good example of what I am talking about, we have to look at some key facts. The first fact is that the United States doesn't and never has gone to war overnight. It takes democracies time to go to war. Democracies are never efficient at going to war. We responded well against the Taliban because in crisis a democracy will take immediate action, but with Iraq it has been a grueling, slow process. People attack President's Bush's dad for not taking out Saddam in the first gulf war--that was not our mission. Our mission was to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Since Saddam created a host of problems after that war it turned into a situation where it became a revised history to attack President Bush's dad. That is the way the game is played on the global stage.
The same can be said for Noriega in Panama. The United States gave Noriega a whole bunch of time to relinquish power--and it didn't happen. The reasons are irrevelant for this discussion, but if you look at that invasion, first there was diplomacy, then as hostilities against US nationals in Panama increased the US implemented Operation NIMROD Dancer, which was a scout mission that was hoped would not lead to war. Noriega stuck around and instability ensued and then the troops from Operation NIMROD Dancer were replaced with the trigger pullers for Operation Just Cause. Noriega had plenty of time (well over a year) to resign. He knew of the force structure changes in Panama prior to the invasion, changes that the US made in August 1989, a full five months before the invasion started. He did not go away. That is how democracies work. There was no rush to judgement and clear warnings.
Now with Saddam, he has been under UN resolutions since the end of the 1st gulf war, 1991. That is over 12 years. His military forces have shot at coalition aircraft daily since they started their waypoint routes over Iraq. He has ignored the ban on weapons of mass destruction, assisted terrorist groups, committed gross human rights violations against his own people, assisted terrorist organizations sponsored by Iran to infiltrate into Syria so they could supply militant groups that attack Israel--it goes on and on.
Now bear in mind that when you include the judgement and information of our intelligence services into this equation, the President of the United States is acting on things I believe that are much, much more dangerous than the information that is acquired through open-source channels. All the information that I have comes from open-source and I remain envious to those who know the real deal.
Now, what happens if Saddam goes away? Well, the most important outcome is that the Iraqi people are freed from a terror government, a human rights issue that we can fix immediately. Then there are strategic issues like the disarmament of Iraq which would radically change the face of the entire middle east.
Population pressures inside Turkey could be relieved and Iraq could be divided into stable states with UN protection. Also the overflows from our actions in Iraq could cause Iran to democratize, sealing change there. But is it a gamble? You bet. Every war is a gamble. But you know what 9/11 proved? 9/11 proved that the United States can't sit back anymore. We can't. Hard decisions are being made and with Iraq isolated and restructured, we will be making peace with more people there than making enemies. I simply cannot agree with anyone that says by freeing people they will hate you. In my military experiences, people cheered in the streets when we freed them. There is this attitude in the leftist media that we are going to be "hated" for freeing people. The communists may think that because it is not under the auspices of their version of social justice, but when people are free they do not think about killing you. They think of how to spend the time they have in their freedom--spend time in their days.
If we do not attack Iraq, Bin Ladin would attack us anyway. Iraq has nothing to do with the Al Qaeda agenda. Radical Islamists want to remake the world global Islam. Again, Iraqi action will only benefit us.
There is always a reluctance to go to war. European reluctance, in my opinion, has more to do with keeping the status quo in the middle east than any other political agenda. Also, European states want to see the liquidation of the state of Irsael which they consider to be unnatural. Believe it. That is what they are thinking about.
Our national security cannot afford to be governed by the status quo anylonger.
Here's something ironic, if you consider why NATO was formed. I see the possibility that the US will break away from NATO and Europe will form a defense alliance that includes Russia!
It could happen and I warned of this years ago. That political upheaval is the result of the US being the lone superpower and the European states shifting from traditional free societies to neo-socialist states. Also, countries like France have $billions invested in Iran and other areas in the region and do not want that stability in fuel resources disrupted. They are willing to overlook human rights and true social justice (capitalist freedom) just to keep the fuel flowing.
Take a look at how they dealt with Southern Europe. They sealed their borders during the war in the former Yugoslavia instead of allowing women and children the opportunity to escape the ravages of war. I always question European loyalty to human rights because I can look at history, and yet Europe will claim an invisible moral highground against the United States when it wants to use human rights politics against our foreign policy decisions...
Edited to add: Jedi, have you seen this magazine yet? You might like it. I have heard about it, but haven't picked up an issue yet.
Yes, that is Pat Buchanan's new magazine.
JK
References to Clinton are completely irrelevant.
. I am human, after all.