Last nights speech by President Bush. What do you think?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

(even you, you pacifist europeans!)

Eh...? At least not all of us are like that. I for myself am less pacifist than you seem to imply. I am ready to fight wars and do not rule them out totally, no matter the price - when I see the need to do it. And I know by experience that people do not like my thoughts on the way I would fight a war, if needing to do it and have a say in it - it'S just that I do not like it and usually don't see it as my first and only option. I just want to be sure of two things: that the cause is a worthy one, not an intellectual stillbirth like this one has been from the very beginning, and that those that are leading and are in command are knowing what they are doing, know the method of war, and have the experience to talk about war - and are not only hypnotized by their childish illusions that are flying around inside the boundless vacuum inside their heads.

[baggygreen]

Oh dont worry mate it certainly wasnt directed towards you, by no means. from my background, its normal, common and almost expected that you stereotype by region. Thats just how my and my particular... group (for want of a much much better term) are. Yanks are loud and obnoxious, poms whine, europeans are pacifist and the french are 'cheese-eatin surrender monkeys'. The kiwis are just a little too friendly with their domesticated animals.

But at the same time, these stereotypes have got some backing in truth, and a lot of europeans are compeltely opposed to warfare. a little too many for my liking, but thems the breaks.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

But at the same time, these stereotypes have got some backing in truth, and a lot of europeans are compeltely opposed to warfare.

That is true. But you see - two huge world wars, and centuries of continent-wide warfare before worked wonders in acchieving that attitude. Also, those who have much have more reasons to fear losing more, and europe is fat, and old, and lazy. Also, Europe is closer to and more directly affected by many of the world's hotspots than America.

"Those without swords - still can get killed by a sword." But being easy to go to war is no virtue, but a sin. "Readiness is all", said Shakespeare. I say "Readiness is enough, don't be early, don't be late - and you can't get surprised."

[baggygreen]

All this is true. And i'll also be the first to commend the nato contributions in the balkans and in afghanistan. But, what about the question of how much is too much? in war, any is obviously too much, but how much can you let things go before you do go to war? How much can we let Saddam get away with back in the day, how much can we let Iran and NK get away with today - what will it take for action?

I understand perfectly the legacy of the wars and whatnot. no doubting that. But, as a european what do you think itd take today for members of the EU to go to war? Do we need another Sept 11 01? would it honestly take another major attack to reawaken peoples memories?

I assure everyone this is still perfectly on topic. The 2nd gulf war began as a war to depose a dictator and liberate the Iraqis, the majority of whom were oppressed. It has become, however a major front in the war against international terrorism (as determined by 'western' standards). Bush, by electing to send more troops, is continuing the fight. To stabilize iraq is to remove yet another haven for said terrorists (whether it was before the war is irrelevant here, it is now).

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

I assure everyone this is still perfectly on topic. The 2nd gulf war began as a war to depose a dictator and liberate the Iraqis, the majority of whom were oppressed. It has become, however a major front in the war against international terrorism (as determined by 'western' standards). Bush, by electing to send more troops, is continuing the fight. To stabilize iraq is to remove yet another haven for said terrorists (whether it was before the war is irrelevant here, it is now).

Actually the invasion of Iraq began as way to protect America from Sadam's WMD's.

When that didn't pan out it was because Sadam was ignoring 17 UN resolutions and shooting at US Planes.

That quickly went to hell in a handbasket so then it was because there was a direct link betwen Sadam and 911.

That one stuck a little longer (thanks in large measure to Faux News), but eventually was exposed as another neo-con-job.

So then... when every other concievable excuse for the debacle had been exhausted... then we get the "Cuz he was a bad guy" excuse.

America has a obligation and moral responsibility to put right what they have done. If they ever want to have credibility in the World again they cannot leave Iraq until they rebuild what they have destroyed.

JCC

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by John Channing

America has a obligation and moral responsibility to put right what they have done. If they ever want to have credibility in the World again they cannot leave Iraq until they rebuild what they have destroyed.

We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing

• “Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have fled their homeland are likely to seek refugee status in the United States, humanitarian groups said, putting intense pressure on the Bush administration to reexamine a policy that authorizes only 500 Iraqis to be resettled here next year.”—from this article

The American people should not be asked to pay, with further endangerment of their security, for the mistakes of the American government, or rather, for the inevitable Sunni-Shi'a friction and hostilities in Iraq. Those hostilities became inevitable because of the nature of societies suffused with Islam (and therefore unable to compromise and naturally aggressive not only toward Infidels, but toward all those who in some way were different, were not the same), once American soldiers undid the Sunni despotism of Saddam Hussein.

Americans have spent or committed close to half-a-trillion dollars in the effort to make Iraq a better place. They have discovered that far from demonstrating any real gratitude, the Arabs of Iraq, both Sunni and Shi'a, have been content to grab as much money -- fantastic sums -- and stuff of all kinds, and to watch the Americans, under hellish conditions, attempt not to "re-construct" but rather to construct all kinds of things for them, in a vain effort to pull them out of the primitive and aggressive and Hobbesian world in which they live.

It is not the Iraqis who have been doing much of the fighting to bring about a better Iraq. Many Iraqi soldiers routinely show up only to collect paychecks. Many run in combat situations, leaving the Americans to fight and die for a place called "Iraq" that the so-called "Iraqis" have no loyalty to, and on every occasion, by the testimony of so many of our fed-up and disgusted soldiers, have left the Americans in the lurch or substituted their own brutal methods of treatment of the population and ignored everything the Americans have tried to teach them.

We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing. We do not owe any Iraqis asylum at all. If asylum is to be given, it should be strictly limited to Christians and the handful of Mandeans and other non-Muslims. Not a single Muslim needs to come to swell the Muslim ranks in this country, adding to the security risk, adding to all sorts of worries.

To those who say, as someone does in the article linked above, that we let in Vietnamese refugees, the answer should be obvious. The Vietnamese Buddhists and Christians were fully able to integrate into American society. They were not raised on a belief system that counselled them, that taught them, to see others as their enemies and to work to dominate them, and to spread a belief-system that was inimical in every way to the legal, political and other institutions and arrangements and understandings of this country. That is quite different from the permanent problem posed by Islam.

Anyone who begins to prate about "what we owe the Iraqis" should be reminded of who has been fighting for the idea of "Iraq" over the past few years, who has been spending or committing a half-trillion dollars, receiving only more demands for more-more-more, and whining, and ingratitude, and the occasional smile as some "Iraqi" asks for a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq. Oh, they've had their Marshall Plan. They've had all kinds of things.

And they've got the oil wealth to live on, like all the other Muslim oil states that are rich through no effort on their own. They can stay there in Iraq. They can move about - Shi'a to Shi'a controlled regions, Sunni to Sunni controlled regions in Iraq, or outside Iraq, to other Arab countries. But examine the attitude of Iraqis toward the Americans who rescued them from a murderous despot who had ruled for 35 years, and whose homicidal sons were prepared to succeed him and to rule for another 35. Examine the behavior of both Iraqi civilians and the Iraqi soldiers and police, the former in often demonstrating indifference to or even taking pleasure in the killings of Americans, and the latter often neglecting their duties or running away, or selling the weapons supplied to them by the Americans on the black market, and almost in no case providing the kind of minimal aid that the Americans had, and have, every right to expect that people will offer. It is, after all, their country and supposedly it is they who care about it.

But we have had quite a demonstration of how the Iraqis think and behave. It has been edifying. And the officers and men of the American military, who have served in Iraq, ought to be consulted first about whether or not they think that we "owe Iraqis" something and whether or not they think tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Muslims should be allowed to settle in our country, or for that matter other Infidel lands.

The response of those officers and men should be instructive.

[The Avon Lady]

!