The Republicans now have full control...

PH01

US Politics - Republicans gain full control of Congress

Republicans have taken control of both houses of Congress in the US. This will boost Dubja's authority to wage war in Iraq, spend more on security and destablise the US economy.

If you thought the last two years were bad wait until you see the next two.
Or am I wrong?
Could this total republican government bring forth a new era of peace and prosperity?

Hobbes

Originally posted by PH01
Or am I wrong?

Well from what I gather it basically gives Bush the ability to sign into law whatever he likes.

If the last year is anything to go by, it will be loads of laws that help all his big business friends get away with murder.

DiscoStu

not to mention let bush get away with murder.

his new policy is if you dont have enough evidence just blow them up.

http://www.iht.com/articles/76077.htm

Cork

At least - he is taking action. If a rogue country had a nuclear bomb - what would you do?
I think we live in a Western Country. We owe alot to the US.
Without US foriegn direct investment - our country would be in pretty bad shape.

I think Mr Bush got a mandate - It is called democracy. Not many countrys have it.

Oh yes - Saddam got 100% of the vote.

Typedef

At least - he is taking action. If a rogue country had a nuclear bomb - what would you do?

What you mean like some despotic maniac, who has access to the world's most powerful military force and is hell bent on annexing oil stocks to further his own and his family's power within his State?
You mean like the sort of 'rouge state' who would actually use Nuclear weapons?

Why, I'd call him, Mr President and let him land his warplanes in my neutral country... that's what.

DiscoStu

Originally posted by Cork
We owe alot to the US.
Without US foriegn direct investment - our country would be in pretty bad shape.

Are we lemmings who blinly follow the leader off a cliff when we know we are going to die? Jerry Springer of all people, the spokesperson of white trash/george bush voters put it as simply as possible a few days ago. "Saddam has to go but doing this will create another generation who hate America"

Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, simple as that. more than likley he does have some reserves of chemical and biological weapons. he has no links with al-queda. he has not threatned any of his neighbours in the last 10 years. his ballistic missile program at the moment would struggle to reach israel. during the first gulf war bush senior told him in no uncertain terms any use of bioloical or chemical weapons would mean a nice smoking radioactive crater where bagdad once was. weaponsinspectors were thrown out in 98 due to the fact its was totally over run by mi5 and cia spies(look up operation teacup). the us actions with the 12000 page weapons programs documentation is just another example of it. the us now have every single piece of intelligence they would ever need to go in and bomb the fup out of them.

dubyas war on iraq is nothing more than a ploy to get his oil buddies hands on iraqi oil and keep the american public in a frenzy of hate to someone. ww2 had the japanese on the west coast and internment, then came mccarthy and the commuinists and now they need a new devil figure. with bin laden missing presumed dead who better than saddam.

Typedef

Well exactly DiscoStu, nothing unites a nation like common adversity. The bonus for Bush is that he is identified as the leader of this great campaign and thus can align himself right in the centre of this great national heave.

Right now in the US, it is considered 'unpatriotic' to criticise George Bush. That means even the American Democrats have to be seen to be fully behind George Bush. Really when you think about it, you have to admire the efficienty of the annexation of power the Republicans have managed to achieve in the US, especially after the Clinton era.

From American chat rooms I've been on, the years of economic prosperity and growth under Clinton seem to never have happened, the economic collapse that has happened under the Republicans has been blamed on 'Clinton' (boggle) and it is the opinon of most Americans I have spoken to that the nation is in the grips of a 'national crisis' that only a firm hand such as Bush's can assuage.

Sometimes I can even find solace living in this quasi-colonial bananna Republic.

DiscoStu

Originally posted by Cork
Oh yes - Saddam got 100% of the vote.

Bush didnt even get 50%

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by Cork
At least - he is taking action. If a rogue country had a nuclear bomb - what would you do?

There is no evidence that Iraq has any nuclear capability. However there is plenty of evidence of such capabilities in real rogue countries such as North Korea, but dubya's not interested . . . why? cos they got no oil man !

Without US foriegn direct investment - our country would be in pretty bad shape.

So it's all about money then? ? ? Do we not have standards of our own?? Should we allow / support Mr Bush to do anything he wants so long as he keeps the cash flowing ? ? Nice principle that . . . I wonder if Saddam has any money that he would like to invest in Ireland . . We could sell our morality to the highest bidder !!

I think Mr Bush got a mandate - It is called democracy. Not many countrys have it.

No questions about the american election then ?? No questions about the Florida result ? ? Doesn't matter that less than 50% of the American public voted for Mr Bush. . . . Democracy maybe, but a special kind of democracy.

I think we live in a Western Country.

I can confirm for you Cork, that we do indeed live in a Western Country !

gandalf

Cork I think you should read "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore in that he clearly shows that Bush stole the US election with help from his relatives and daddys cronies, democracy my ass.

As regards rogue countries with Nuclear Weapons what about Isreal & Pakistan. Oh wait they are US friendly therefore its a different rule for them.

Cork at best your naive at worst, well I'm not going to even write what you are as I will be breaking the charter of this board.

I personally believe you are deliberately trolling threads on this board. If you think I am being unfair then please PM me.

Gandalf.

Turnip

Originally posted by gandalf
Cork I think you should read "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore in that he clearly shows that Bush stole the US election with help from his relatives and daddys cronies, democracy my ass.

Michael Moore is an unfunny hypocritical buffoon and that book is full of absurdities and plain old lies. There's an interesting review of it here: How Dumb Is the Left?

Typedef

Wow, there is a book that isn't filled full of logic based on conclusion if I've ever heard of one.

How about the title: How long is a piece of string?

It works for me.

Rolo Tomasi

I agree "Stupid white men" is definately not funny and a lot of the chapters make for painful reading. His rambling style can get get confusing as he jumps from topic to another and back again. But in its defence the chapter on how Bush "stole" the election does make for fascinating reading, how did he get away with it? Now there's a real possibility he'll win the 2004 election legitimately.

Typedef

Well Kudos to him then.

Rolo Tomasi

Whether you like/dislike, respect/disrespect what America stands for or the power it wields, I think the world is better place with Democrats in power. Under Clinton we saw power sharing in N. Ireland and progress was being made in the Middle east.
As soon as Bush came to power he distanced himself from various peace initiatives while at the same time stated his intension to attack Iraq.

Typedef

Oh I agree.

Take the culling of the South Korean sunshine policy towards North/South rapprochament (and unification) under the Bush administration.

The cynic in me says that America would rather have an enemy to fight in North Korea then a united and trouble free Korea.

It was the Bush administration who dubbed North Korea as a 'rouge nation' and angered the South Korean President, who was attempting to build a bridge to the North.

On that front, it will take another Democrat President in the White House before the world sees moves towards North/South unificatin again.

Make no mistake on North Korea. It is in the grips of near famine and South Korea was reaching out to the North, but as soon as George Bush started with his hard line stance to the North, relations between the North and the South cooled immeasurably and rather sadly.

Lets face it, the reason the Bush Administration wants to keep North Korea isolated and 'rouge' is becuase it suits the US to have 'yet another' enemy to fight, yet another reason to spend billions of dollars on the latest military hardware and yet more reasons to have hard line unilateralist foreign policy stances.

In this respect the adage is true.
"Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

dahamsta

If a rogue country had a nuclear bomb

One does. One that's defining international policy unilaterally, supporting war criminals with weapons and cash, and treading all over the civil and human rights of it's own citizens. It's called the United States of America.

adam

lbgilchrist

Just a few comments:

If you only blame Bush and the Republican Senate and House (or even the conservative dominated Supreme Court) for our arrogant foreign policies, you're really letting the USA off too easy. I've come to realize that I and all my liberal Democrat friends are simply out of step with this country. As political clout has shifted to the suburbs, a mean, selfish streak has been revealed in the American people themselves. Why do so many Americans keep electing Republicans who are so transparently corrupt? No one holds a gun to their head ... it because they really think it's in their interest to do. As long as they have their corner of suburban heaven, their SUVs and a promise to cut taxes, the president can go off and nuke Iceland for all they care. Pretending like this is some devious, secret conspiracy just lets us off the hook.

Sure people drive around with flags stuck on their car antennas and fall all over themselves ready to surrender their civil rights in the name of "FIGHTING TERRORISM" but no one's son is going to be drafted, no one's tee time is going to be delayed. It's really far worse than you think.

Obviously I'm an American and the funny thing about us though (and I include myself in this) as much as we dislike some things over here, most of us really like each other ... that may be both our strength and our weakness.

On Michael Moore: I too have been amused by Mr. Moore and his books and movies. But you have to realize he serve the same role for liberals, that the cartoon Dilbert serves for cubicle monkeys. He gives them a feeling that somebody is "finally standing up and sticking it to the man!" Yeah! and then they can get back to working and consuming like good patriots. Everything he talks about is probably true ... it's a big country with lots of people. But Michael Moore is an entertainer who serves to difuse anger not incite it. He builds no organizations, he changes nothing.

By the way ... I'm new around here. Pleased to meet you all. I'm always interested in the different perspective people bring to a discussion and that's what I hope to find here and maybe get to know some interesting folks. My occupation is web editor and I've been a writer (mostly corporate hack work) for ten + years. I live in Minneapolis (seven hours west and north of Chicago). I can still remember trying to explain where I was from to this waiter in an Italian resturant in Rotterdam. He had no idea where Minneapolis was but when I told him it was near Chicago, his eyes lit up and he pointed his fingers and made the machinegun sound. That's us alright! And you got to love us ... no I mean it you really do have to love us.

gandalf

Welcome to boards lbgilchrist.

Yes some of that book by MM is a rant but the chapter on the Florida "election" was very good and informative. The section covering people with criminal records being excluded from voting really opened my eyes (especially the poor sods whose names sounded like people who had criminal records )

As for electing corrupt policos WELCOME TO IRELAND HOME OF THE CORRUPT :rolleyes:

Gandalf

Typedef

IRELAND HOME OF THE CORRUPT

Speak for yourself...
*haha

Cork

WELCOME TO IRELAND HOME OF THE CORRUPT

So everybody is currupt. When did all honesty leave our land?

Yet - I am sure that the great & the good are entitled to make such sweeping statements.

It is only for the US foreign policy that Europe is free & we are not going around speaking German.

But eaten bread is soon forgotten.

Why don't people go on about scandals out in Germany or France.

Some far eastern countries blame the US for everything. They can live in their palaces but everything can be blamed on the US.

Some raving pinko socialists are anti american anyway.

I think other people hit our at the US for other reasons.

Then they are others who voice genuine concern.

WELCOME TO IRELAND HOME OF THE CORRUPT

I think we should start a list of Irelands Great & good.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
It is only for the US foreign policy that Europe is free & we are not going around speaking German.

But eaten bread is soon forgotten.

Yes, you're right. And its only British foreign policy that had us suppressed in thrall for centuries, and here we are today with them as one of our largest business partners and generally we get on great with them.

Guess even rotten bread is soon forgotten too.

What was your point?

Why don't people go on about scandals out in Germany or France.

a) They dont speak the same language - its not as interesting when everything is translated and voiced-over.

b) They're not as important as Ireland, the UK or the USA to our local culture.

c) There are more Irish in the english-speaking nations than in the non-english speaking nations. Culturally, these are the nations we have been closer to in the past century or so because of the massive emigration that underwent there

d) Germans are boring and have no sense of humour, and French are...well...garlic-eating sissies who let the Germans walk all over them in the last war.

Three of those four are intelligent answers. I'm sure even you can figure out which ones, Cork.

What was your point again?

Some far eastern countries blame the US for everything. They can live in their palaces but everything can be blamed on the US.

Some raving pinko socialists are anti american anyway.

I think other people hit our at the US for other reasons.

Then they are others who voice genuine concern.

OUTSTANDING.

What you're saying is that some people complain about America cause they dont like America, and other people complain about America because they have genuine concerns.

I take it all back Cork. I had you misjudged. That was the most brilliant piece of deductive logic imaginable. Just when I thought that you either had no clue, or were deliberately posting drivel for some bizarre entertainment fetish you have, you prove me wrong and come up with this gem of reasoning.

Truly stunning. I'm gobsmacked.

And yes, I'm being sarcastic.

I think we should start a list of Irelands Great & good.

Well sod off to Humanities or somewhere like that and try it there. Its not a Politics topic, and its not relevant to this thread.

Bet you cant get them to accept Charlie on the list either.

jc

Cork

The point that I was making that criticism of the US maybe reasoned such as Jimmy Carter but It may be motivated by a number of other factors such as a hatred of America or a pinko left post communist type of attitude.

Some countries cannot take responsibility to their own economic mess, so the decide to blame the US. These countries invest in palaces and armies at the expense of infrastructure. They whip anti Americanisms up in their countries to divert attention away from this.

pickarooney

And some other countries can't take the blame for their own economic mess and decide to blame "the Arabs", whipping up anti-Islamic fervour to divert attention away from their own governmental failures.

Cork

whipping up anti-Islamic fervour

Who was it that attacked the twin towers on September 11?
Who was it that invaded Kuwait?

Do you expect the US to do nothing?

I think international terrorisim has got to be defeated. How do you think it should be defeated?

I know that the US is casting the net widely - but terrorisim organisations do not respect national borders.

DiscoStu

Who was it that attacked the twin towers on September 11?

Why was the world trade centre destoryed would be a better question.
Could it be the exploitionist policies of succesive american administrations, the support for brutal despots and theocracies, hypocritical morals standards and support for israeli expansionisim?

After 9/11 the United States had the oportunity to look at itself and try understand why the majority of the Muslim world hates them so much and what would actually drive them to do such acts. Did they do that?

Now we have "Bombs for Peace" and everything that Muslims have claimed the US was doing for years being played out for the whole world to see.

Cork

Why was the world trade centre destoryed would be a better question.

It was a terrorist Act.

After 9/11 the United States had the oportunity to look at itself and try understand why the majority of the Muslim world hates them so much and what would actually drive them to do such acts. Did they do that?

No - They are night to target countries that support such terrorist acts.

Now we have "Bombs for Peace" and everything that Muslims have claimed the US was doing for years being played out for the whole world to see.

I think that the US is right to stand up to terrorists. I think that a "torchy Feely" attidude while admirable does nothing to bring terrorists to justice or make the western world safer from barbaric acts.

DiscoStu

I think that a "torchy Feely" attidude while admirable does nothing to bring terrorists to justice or make the western world safer from barbaric acts.

Does blowing up people homes instill a feeling "democratic spirit" in the people who now dont have a roof over their head or would it fill them with anger and hate?

"If we practice and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the whole world
will be blind and toothless." - Mahatma Ghandi

America being the "democratic", "peaceful" and "progressive" country it advertises itself as should be the one who takes the step back and practises restraint. has demolishing homes in jenine and ramallah(sp?) stopped any suicide bombings in israel? did 30 years of bombings and shootings in northern ireland get people anywhere? did the tamil tigers in sri lanka get their peace deal throu killing the opposition leaders? has banning the political wing of ETA helped the situation in the basque region of spain?

The only way to stop terrorisim is through negotiations or removing the root cause of the terrorisim itself. every terorist killed becomes a martyr and 2 more spring up to replace the dead one.

---

Why was the world trade centre destoryed would be a better question.

---

It was a terrorist Act.

how does that address my point on US foreign policy?

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
It was a terrorist Act.

God Cork....please please PLEASE start engaging your brain before posting here. Its gone from funny to embarrassing.

Youre not answering the question of why. You're not even addressing it. You really should be a politician - but here's a tip. They use those tactics in interviews where the interviewer isnt going to fight back. That aint gonna happen here, and you'll opnly make yourself look stupider.

Did these people just wake up one day, sit bolt-upright in bed and say "oh gosh - I've just realised I'm a terrorist - what now? Oh - I know - I'll magically find all the other people who've made the same discovery, and then we'll go and hijack a plane and go fly it into the WTC?

No, I didnt think so. So why dont you read the question next time. If you're not going to answer it, then quit posting contentless soundbite drivel.

You can try stomping these people out, but history teaches us that this is rarely successful. Attacking the root cause is whats needed, which includes figuring out why these people did what they did.

Did it ever occur to you, for example, that despite all this crap about the entire western world being threatened, or that any of us could be next, that only the US has been specifically targetted by groups working outside their own borders?

No - They are night to target countries that support such terrorist acts.

Saddam and bin Laden (and Al Qaeda by extension) are so far apart in terms of idealogy that it is laughable to link them together. As far as I know, no-one has shown any sort of links between Saddam and international terrorism, unless you count his "payments to martyrs" in Palestine....but even then I dont see the US actually being concerned about these suicide bombers, so its a bit cynical to even suggest that this is the reason Saddam must go.

Invading Kuwait was also not an act of terrorism, it was an act of war.

You appear to be sitting squarely amongst the blinkered camp who havent stopped to question any of the US propaganda. I suppose you were ok with the Russians killing so many of their civilians by using a potentially lethal gas against those rebels and not bothering to have the antidote on hand for anyone (civilian or rebel) who survived. I mean - Dubya said it was fine because it was an action taken in the war on terror - so you're probably a-ok with that.

I find it funny. Governments can gas terrorists and its ok if civilians get killed along the way. If terrorists plan to poison/gas a government institution, or target politicians, police, army, or anything like that....its an act of terrorism.

Think about that for a second. A missile attack on the US Cole was an act of terrorism, but a gas attack on some rebels resulting in significant civilian loss of life was a legitimate act of defence.

This is your war on terrorism Cork. This is its nobility, and what your blind acceptance of "we must stamp them out" gives us. I hope you're proud of that.

jc

Cork

Attacking the root cause is whats needed

I agree with you Bonkey.

Saddam and bin Laden (and Al Qaeda by extension) are so far apart in terms of idealogy that it is laughable to link them together.

But Bin Laden has stated that the sactions on iraq is a factor & both of these 2 think the situation regarding the Palastinians is a factor. There is even mention of funding going to the families of Palastinian suicide bombers.

I agree that the lot of these counties needs improvement - but Bin Ladden & Saddam have not been treating their own people very well.

Before blaming the United States - they should look in the mirror.

DeVore

Why was the world trade centre destoryed would be a better question.
Could it be the exploitionist policies of succesive american administrations, the support for brutal despots and theocracies, hypocritical morals standards and support for israeli expansionisim?

Sorry to jump into your ongoing thread but this struck me as an odd thing to say....

If the US congress and House of Reps had been surruptiously feeding heroin to all arab children and simultaneously sexually abusing them... would that justify 9/11 ?

The people in those towers werent soldiers, werent spies, werent involved. Did they deserve to die even if their country leaders were evil fvcks?

I know the point you are getting at DiscoStu and its probably right, those are probably the reasons the twin towers were attacked. Doesnt justify it one iota.

DeV.

mike65

Reading the comments by DiscoStu and Typo in this thread
has me starting to think the policies of Bush and the Republicans are correct, which is'nt right!

As for Michael Moore he can make some exellent points but is too often self-satisfied - in awe of his own subversivness . Typical US lefty in other words!

Mike.

Cork

The people in those towers werent soldiers, werent spies, werent involved. Did they deserve to die even if their country leaders were evil fvcks?

There is absolutely no justification to September 11.

Just as there was no justification to Omagh. I know they there were causes that motivated these people - But really how has their cause being advanced? The bombing of the night club in Balli was another act. These people were enjoying themselves at a nightclub - what was their crime?

These people were sent out to kill innocent people. They planned it & they knew what they were doing.

How many Irish were killed on September 11th?

Yet - they are people who bemoan the fact that Shannon is opened up to US military personnel. I think it is the least we can do.

DiscoStu

I know the point you are getting at DiscoStu and its probably right, those are probably the reasons the twin towers were attacked. Doesnt justify it one iota.

dont get me wrong here 9/11 was unjustifiable in any rational kind of way. but when dubya goes around spewing out sounbites like "they hate freedom" to deliberatly mislead the american public and hide the reality of what was actually leading up to the attacks i kinda lose my patience. I dont support suicide bombers, i dont belive money should be given to the families of them but i also dont think any war against iraq is going to make the world a safer place. it will create more terrorists which in turn will justify the increases in military spending, might i add at the expencs of everyone else. Teachers and other public service workers in the states did not receive a pay increase this year due to the massive increases in military spending. Dont you just love specious reasoning.

I boil this down to, where I'd like to live and the lifestyle I'd choose really.
The western one wins hands down for me.
Remember Bin Laden might hate the U.S but he and his ilk want a holy war, one not just between the west and Islam , but between Islam and Christianity.
I will not have anyone telling me to live my life as a muslim, thats a life for those that want it and good luck to them.
And I certainly won't have people blowing thousands of innocent people asunder, whether it be in a nite club or an office block to get me out of fear to change my mind.

mm

gandalf

A couple of things here. Everyone agrees that the World Trade Centre attacks were Evil of the worst kind. However what everyone is ignoring is that attacking Iraq will result in a even higher death toll. If the US want Saddam out they should take him out by assassination, they are suppost to have the best Intelligence network in the world, it should be well within their abilities.

Personally I believe there is a bloodlust coming from the American Government to get revenge for the WTC attacks that has not been satisfied by Afganistan. We are entering a very dangerous period in world events at the moment and I feel that I need to worry more about what the US is up to than a group of Islamic Extremist Terrorist and a Washed up Dictator in a ruined country.

Regarding the Muslim comments Man, there are also groups on the Christian Side that would like to convert/remove all the Muslims but they like Bin Laden and his ilk are in the minority. I have been lucky to work and live with Muslims and they are exactly like us with similar aspirations and hopes. I feel sickened by the stereotypical depictions in the media of Muslims.

Getting back to topic now that George W has full control of the American legislature I think the next two years will be very rough indeed. Look at Korea, before Bush cam to power the relationship between the North & South was improving quite dramitically, since George W came to power it has detoriated to such a extent that North Korea has restarted the nuclear program they suspended in the mid 1990's. But I suppose they will be the next target on the George & Dick World Tour.

Gandalf.

Originally posted by gandalf
Regarding the Muslim comments Man, there are also groups on the Christian Side that would like to convert/remove all the Muslims but they like Bin Laden and his ilk are in the minority. I have been lucky to work and live with Muslims and they are exactly like us with similar aspirations and hopes. I feel sickened by the stereotypical depictions in the media of Muslims.
Gandalf.

Oooops, my comments were an attack on extreme islamic fundamentalists.
I have no problems with peacefull reasoned conversions, whether they are christian to muslim or vice versa.

Getting back to topic now that George W has full control of the American legislature I think the next two years will be very rough indeed. Look at Korea, before Bush cam to power the relationship between the North & South was improving quite dramitically, since George W came to power it has detoriated to such a extent that North Korea has restarted the nuclear program they suspended in the mid 1990's. But I suppose they will be the next target on the George & Dick World Tour.

I tend to agree with your analysis, middle America, will probably not be satisfied untill theres a big "shoot em up" suffecient to avenge 9/11.
Bill Clinton spent a lot of time on the middle East with a good heart
Sad to say though, George W, will reap what he sows, what ever that may be.
mm

DiscoStu

Originally posted by DeVore
If the US congress and House of Reps had been surruptiously feeding heroin to all arab children and simultaneously sexually abusing them... would that justify 9/11 ?

Sorry to move away from the topic again but is that not the same reasoning being used buy bush/blair to justify their dreams of war against iraq?

BattleBoar

Sorry, this one I just had to respond to. A couple of points:

DiscoStu: when dubya goes around spewing out sounbites like "they hate freedom" ...

Well, I'd have a hard time arguing that they don't given the type of government they hold up as the ideal. Maybe I'm wrong.

DiscoStu: Why was the world trade centre destoryed would be a better question. Could it be the exploitionist policies of succesive american administrations, the support for brutal despots and theocracies, hypocritical morals standards and support for israeli expansionisim?

The reason the world trade center (techincally, the world trade centre is in UAE even though we all knew what you meant, I just felt like picking. Sorry ) was attacked is because a group of muslims thought that that is would be a good way to kill the most americans most effectively while at the same time sending some message that they thought needed to be sent. That's the fact. Your answer is speculation. Did american policies of the past or present or both have anything to do with it? Almost certainly. Its unlikely a group of people would randomly decide to do that. Something made them think it would be worth their while. But you just used the question as a method of atacking american politics rather than actually intending to answer your question. Anyway...

"If we practice and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the whole world

The only way to stop terrorisim is through negotiations or removing the root cause of the terrorisim itself. every terorist killed becomes a martyr and 2 more spring up to replace the dead one.

Well, not if you make it costly enough that the weaker civ loses their will to continue the fight or if there is none of the weaker civ left to fight.

Anyway, here's what I really wanted to say. History shows it doesn't really matter who is right and who is wrong. Right and wrong are usually far less important than winning in the eyes of history. According to polls, the majority of muslims think that bin Laden was, at least in part, justified in attacking the US. Now, whether US policy is tripe and to blame or not, if the terrorist acts continue against the US or other west, people will start to believe the only way for it to end is if: "its either going to be us or them." I know you say that the US should attack the root cause of terrorism, but when an attitude like this is so pervasive in a culture, the easiest thing to do is just to wipe it out. That's the way history works. Action reaction. Push-Pull. Weaker culture attacks stronger culture or stronger culture decides it wants to conquer or somehow views weaker culture as a theat means the weaker culture is exterminated more often than not. Is it right? Is it wrong? Its almost irrelevant to ask the question. It just is.

The most likely outcome from continued, escalated terrorist attacks against the US or other western countries is definitely NOT, the US and the West try harder to understand why they are hated, even if it is justified (which, apparently in most muslim minds, it is). The result will either be that enough of Islamic culture is crushed that the rest lose their will to fight and capitulate, or they fight to the last and the culture is more or less exterminated. Is it right? Is it wrong? It just is. Its happened countless times thoughout history and it would be naive to think that just because we live in a new "PC" world, that human nature is not still the same human nature that has existed for millenia. Self-preservation is still the most dominant instinct, if not for the individual than for the society that individual chooses. Human history shows, when a threat is markedly weaker technologically (as the islamic culture is), and they pose a significant threat to a more powerful culture, the opposition is eliminated until you can assimilate the rest or relegate them to irrelevance.

Now, what do I personally think? Yes the US has gotten in other countries business far too much. Did it justify Sept11? Definitely not. Should the US capitulate and change its policy as a result of Sept11? Not unless they want every other radical group with a cause to use more terrorism as a means to exploit it. Sorry, I guess it is backwards logic and unfortunate, but now that the proverbial die has been cast, there can be no capitulation, only reciprocity, unless you only want to encourage more of that behavior. That's the way human nature works, and as much as we want it to change and think we can change it to something more benevolant, I've come to the conclusion that the underlying violence in man is far too great for us to overcome.

Think about it; when was the last time the world went more than 100 years without a major war? To the best of my knowledge, it was in the Roman world. Why? Because the other cultures knew they would be anhilliated for opposing them. In other words, peace through strength. Does it suck? Yep. Is that the way it is? Yep. Is that the way it will always be? Probably...at least as long as religion exists, or at least as long as more than one religion exists anyway. Why? Cause religion drives deep philosophical differences that many people are willing to fight and die for. But is religion solely to blame? Of course not. Those philosophical differences might just as well exist without deep religious differences (ie. WWII Nazis). Anyway, its all too confusing to be able to make accurate conclusions on the morality of the situation, especially when morality is a culturally and religiously defined manmade concept anyway. Its far easier to just go by history and accurately predict the eventual outcome.

Anyway, that's my 2 pence/cents whatever unit of currency you use. I didn't proofread anything and its really late so forgive the errors that are prolly in it.

bonkey

Originally posted by BattleBoar
The reason the world trade center (techincally, the world trade centre is in UAE even though we all knew what you meant, I just felt like picking. Sorry ) was attacked is because a group of muslims thought that that is would be a good way to kill the most americans most effectively while at the same time sending some message that they thought needed to be sent. That's the fact. Your answer is speculation.

AS is yours, unless you actually have a direct line of contact to those who chose the targets in the first place. You can argue that it is more probable, but then you would have to explain the purpose of the attack on the Pentagon. That surely wasnt intended to maximise life-loss.

An equally probable possibility is that it was a strike at symbolic hearts of capitalism. military might, and who-knows-what-else had the third plane not crashed.

Well, not if you make it costly enough that the weaker civ loses their will to continue the fight or if there is none of the weaker civ left to fight.

I sincerely you're not even remotely suggesting that genocide is a reasonable solution to a problem?

I know you say that the US should attack the root cause of terrorism, but when an attitude like this is so pervasive in a culture, the easiest thing to do is just to wipe it out. That's the way history works. Action reaction. Push-Pull. Weaker culture attacks stronger culture or stronger culture decides it wants to conquer or somehow views weaker culture as a theat means the weaker culture is exterminated more often than not. Is it right? Is it wrong? Its almost irrelevant to ask the question. It just is.

I see. Because history is a litany of violence, you believe our future must also be doomed to be a litany of violence. Just as well we dont have weapons that are orders of magnitude larger than what our ancestors had. Weapons enough to wipe out life as we know it. I mean - history shows us that powerful civilisations have never held back - never had weapons they refused to use. Guess the inescapable conclusion is that we're all just dead men walking, then, isnt it. I mean, its not bad, its not wrong....it just is.

Or maybe some people have already figured out this inevitable end and decided that its only inevitable if you accept it to be so. It is possible to learn from history. It is possible for man to finally discover what the word "civilisation" really means. Quite frankly, I reject the concept of the inevitability of history repeating itself throughout our future. Technology has changed the rules - its no longer a wheel. We can spiral to destruction following old paths, or we can try to avoid that.

Human history shows, when a threat is markedly weaker technologically (as the islamic culture is), and they pose a significant threat to a more powerful culture, the opposition is eliminated until you can assimilate the rest or relegate them to irrelevance.

Can you show one case in history where this has happened? Where there has been a lower level of development coupled with an actual threat to the more developed civilisation? I seriously doubt it. History is littered, however, with examples of the more developed deliberately setting out to subjugate, conquer or destroy those weaker than them.

Its far easier to just go by history and accurately predict the eventual outcome.

Really? Well then, define a single religion which has been quashed by the empires you've named?

Alternately, choose an empire which subjugated a religion, only to end up having said religion becoming so significant in the culture that the head of that religion is now in the same city which was once the head of the empire?

jc

DiscoStu

Well, not if you make it costly enough that the weaker civ loses their will to continue the fight or if there is none of the weaker civ left to fight.

&

I know you say that the US should attack the root cause of terrorism, but when an attitude like this is so pervasive in a culture, the easiest thing to do is just to wipe it out.

Smells like GENOCIDE to me.

Did it justify Sept11?

There is a very large gulf between condoning and understanding. something a lot of people seem to have a hard time swallowing. This "your with us or your a terrorist" attitude disguists me. Why has it been allowed to become taboo to question the word of Bush almighty?

Cork

There is a very large gulf between condoning and understanding. something a lot of people seem to have a hard time swallowing. This "your with us or your a terrorist" attitude disguists me. Why has it been allowed to become taboo to question the word of Bush almighty?

There is a big cultural gap bewtwwn the West & the muslims. I accept that.

I think that this gap will not be bridged - even with understanding on both sides.

BattleBoar

Good call Bonkey! I guess the Pentagon comes under "sending a message"

As for the rest, sure, genocide is a possible solution (see Aztecs, Carthage, Native Americans, Cambodia, etc.), I'm just not saying its a good one or a desirable one....it would almost certainly create bigger problems than the one it solves.

As for the last quote, I think you misunderstood me. My meaning was to say that religion, in many cases, fuels the fires that drive men to fight with conviction, but if you notice, I stated a caveat that this is not always the case.

As for technology changing things, you are right! If this same event had happened with the values that governments subscibed to in ancient times, the middle east would certainly contain a much smaller percentage of the world's population than it currently does, problems created be damned. I'm not saying that technology hasn't changed the rules, but I am saying that the underlying insticts are still the same, and at a certain threshold, so will be the resultant actions taken - at least to a degree.

I think my real point was lost, which was simply that continued attacks will not be met with the reaction of trying to understand the motivations of the terrorists, they will be met with efforts to exterminate more of the terrorists as well as innocent people that happen to be unfortunate enough to be standing around at the time or mistaken for said terrorists until it stops.

And of course, its all my opinion, but then so is pretty much everything else on these boards. I just thought I'd throw mine in the hat.

EDIT:

This "your with us or your a terrorist" attitude disguists me. Why has it been allowed to become taboo to question the word of Bush almighty?

Sardonic tone aside, I wasn't aware that it was taboo. In fact, you're doing it right now

growler

the argument that bombs aren't going to solve the terrorism problem and that only understanding and subsequently addressing the root causes of terrorism will bring about a "secure" world is fine in theory but impossible in reality.

Bin Laden doesn't have any aims that are worth negotiating, he aspires to die a martyr for his view od islam (shame e's proving adept at avoiding this fate so well)

Israel is a permanent thorn in the side of any politically active muslim, and the palestinian cause does resonate with me as a nationalist, but Israel can't cease to exist without WW3 and the complete destruction of the country and its' people. Britian probably couldn't have envisaged the difficulties the state of israel would cause in their rush to redivide the planet post WW2. The two sides are so far apart that I can't see a political solution in my lifetime for the mid east unless israel goes back to the original borders and eats humble pie.

Fuundamentally the west thinks that its' / our way of life is the best ..cola, cars, fries and beer for all !!(yippee) , those of the islamic persuasion with the time and resources to dwell on such lofty matters think a nice islamic world is the best for the planet. And the poor of South America and Africa have a hard enough time jsut staying alive to be too bothered by global politics.
The west has abandoned spirituality in favour of cash and craic, where's the middle ground ?
IMHO of course

bonkey

Originally posted by growler
the argument that bombs aren't going to solve the terrorism problem and that only understanding and subsequently addressing the root causes of terrorism will bring about a "secure" world is fine in theory but impossible in reality.

Actually, thats looking at it from the wrong point of view.

In reality, we can see that violence, short of genocide, begets violence. Thus, if you wish to break the cycle, you have two options : dust off and nuke the site from orbit (its the only way to be sure) or start looking for another solution.

I've been wracking my brains in the last week, trying to find a single cause which was supported by terrorism was defeated through repression of the terrorist organisation.

I can't find a single one. I'm not saying there isnt one, but I can't think of any.

The scary implication of this is that terrorism is a frighteningly effective tool. However, we can take a second implication as well - suppression of the terrorists will not solve the issue. You might buy some time, but thats about it.

So I find myself asking....why do tens, hundreds, or thousands have to die before people realise that their uncompromising stance will not work, and that compromise will be necessary. Is it so hard to grasp this concept that generations have to die before people realise that the solution is what it always was - pracefully negotiated compromise.

Bin Laden doesn't have any aims that are worth negotiating

Right...so we kill bin Laden, all his army, let thousands on both sides die, and sooner or later come to the realisation that we will have to negotiate or compromise anyway.

I can think of several areas where compromise could be reached. They may not be ideal solutions, but I would at least say they should be considered before either genocide or a continuation of hostilities.

jc

Cork

Bin Laden doesn't have any aims that are worth negotiating

Bin Laden needs to be brought to justice.

Iraq on the hand is another story. Sanctions really have not worked.

Do prople believe that Saddam has no chemical weapons?


I think it is countrys like Israel are potential targets for Saddam. If we were a western sytle democracy next store to Iraq - Would we not be a little concerned about our neighbour?

Would you trust Saddam?

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by bonkey

So I find myself asking....why do tens, hundreds, or thousands have to die before people realise that their uncompromising stance will not work, and that compromise will be necessary. Is it so hard to grasp this concept that generations have to die before people realise that the solution is what it always was - pracefully negotiated compromise.
jc

I totally agree with you here which is nice for a change so I thought I'd air it:)

Cork, This isnt simply about him having weapons. The chief weapon inspector was on tv last nite saying that he wishes that the US and Britain would give them the where-abouts of the chemical weapon factories so they could investigate them. How important is it for them to get rid of the weapons in a diplomatic way?? The weapon inspectors are compiling their report for the end of Jan and already theres talk of war by Feb. Some people say this is all about oil and I dont know about that, but it certainly looks like the US & Britain are looking to topple Saddam from power. I wonder will there ever be a UN resolution stating "Iraq needs a new leader, lets replace Saddam"...hmmmm
On the other side he is a man who has done terrible things and I do think action should be taken against him. just not military action......... lets remember who encouraged him to start a war in the 80's......hmmm........ war generally works....... but at a massive price

seán

Cork

This isnt simply about him having weapons

I agree that the US have an agenda and I think war has to be the last resort.

I think that we will have to await the final report of the weapons inspectors.

US & Britain are looking to topple Saddam from power

I also 100% agree. I think that they want an allie in Iraq.

On the other side he is a man who has done terrible things and I do think action should be taken against him.

I agree here also.

There does not seem to be an obvious solution.

I think we should be patient.

But should we ignore Us intelligence reports?

Should we think about are the US or Iraq spinning stories?

I don't know.

It is about 2.15am and I'll ponder upon it.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
I think that they want an allie in Iraq.

No they don't - they couldn't give a damn about the political or religious affiliations of the people in Iraq or the government in Baghdad. What they want is a guaranteed supply of relatively cheap oil.

The same desire caused the alarm after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the US marched in to liberate Kuwait, they weren't protecting the rights of people living in a democratic country. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was one country (ruled by a dictatator) invading another country (ruled by a dictator). I don't believe the Iraqi invasion was correct; however Iraq has a reasonable amount of claim on the area based on relatively recent history up to just over 130 years ago.

The sheik in Al-Kuwat is propped up as an unelected dictator by the US government because it suits them to prop the guy up. Kuwait is less of a country and more a Texaco division that happens to have a UN seat.

I'd honestly like to see a firm connection established by the US government between Saddam Hussein and al-Quaeda or any other international terrorist group before they walk in and run a war in time for the next presidential primaries. Dubya's daddy tried the same thing - he just started the war too early for it to make a difference in the election.

Examining the fairly established links between senior members of the Saudi royal family and Al-Quaeda might be more prudent IMHO.

BattleBoar

Examining the fairly established links between senior members of the Saudi royal family and Al-Quaeda might be more prudent IMHO.

I concur completely. I believe the Saudis, with their unchecked funding and promotion of violent and radical wahhabism islam and financial support for Al Queda pose far more of a threat to the west than does Saddam.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Cork
Bin Laden needs to be brought to justice.

Unlikely outcome of a difficult logistical quandary. Probability is he'll either be assasinated or ruthlessly interrogated. To actually bring him to justice and risk making his trial a terrorist target, or worse having to expose intelligence assets to secure a conviction...no, I think the Western intelligence agencies would be a good deal happier with a 9mm round in the base of his skull.

Iraq on the hand is another story. Sanctions really have not worked.

Sanctions haven't worked...so our next option is regime change? I vote for governments that believe in due process...sanctions and war do not in my opinion constitute this.

Do prople believe that Saddam has no chemical weapons?

Doesn't matter what they believe- it only matters whether it can be proved or not. Given that Iraq is the size of France, and there are perhaps 40 active inspectors searching for a kit that could be hidden in the back of a minibus- there probably won't be conclusive evidence of a material breach. There are intelligence assets at stake here too- so I'm almost certain that if these assets are at risk in revealing proof or lack of proof to the public, governments won't take the risk.

I think it is countrys like Israel are potential targets for Saddam. If we were a western sytle democracy next store to Iraq - Would we not be a little concerned about our neighbour?

Except that from the point of view of Arab nations, they have an oppressive violator of human rights on their doorstep- Israel, a nation with WMD- yet openly supported by the US and Britain. Now doesn't that seem just a little bit wrong? Israel's violated a long long list of UN resolutions as well...far more than Saddam has. Add to that the glaring fact that Iraq is the third largest producer of oil in the Middle East and you can forgive arab nations for being cynical about western motives in prosecuting a war resulting in regime change.

Would you trust Saddam?

Nope. But that's not the point. If you want to maintain the moral high ground, and claim that you are prosecuting a war for all the 'right reasons' (freedom, liberty, democracy)- then you must go about that in a proper manner. We live in societies that have the presumption of innocence as a cornerstone. Even the most crass of criminals are afforded them in our courtrooms- and nothing less will convince me that we should put people in harm's way. I don't trust Saddam- but I don't believe there is a proven case against him. Without due process there can be no just or humanitarian intervention, only a highly suspect one.

That's enough for some people- but in the fight against destabilizing forces, I don't want to wake up one morning and find that we've done the job for the terrorists with our own paranoia.

Occy