> That's not the point though. The point is that the initial act--no matter who actually did it--was used as an excuse to prosecute people who had nothing to do with it one way or another.
> Saddam started out as a hitman for the radical Ba'ath Party and he participated in the failed assassination attempt on the country's strong man, Gen. Kassem, in 1959.... After watching this I felt awful that the people of Iraq have who have had to endure fear for so long and I felt I was fortunate to be an American.
Now let's make a list of all the crimes the US government has committed since 1959. How many contries invaded, how many lawfully elected governments overthrown, how many seaports mined, how many villages burned, how many soldiers poisoned with LSD, how much Agent Orange dumped on SE Asia, how many times the National Guard has fired on our own citizens, how many "collateral" casualties in our overseas adventures, how many fabricated "incidents" to justify wars or bombing raids?
Vilifying Saddam for the asshole he is makes great propaganda for a public unsure about the rightness of this war, and the media are pumping it up our asses as fast as they can. But maybe we should insert a bit of honesty about ourselves for the sake of perspective.
Yeah, if there's a Hell then Saddam is going to rot there. But he'll have a lot of American leaders there to keep him company.
> During WW2, we basically declared war on Hitler.
If you are speaking as an American, please be informed that Hitler declared war on the USA.
It was right after Pearl Harbor; it is generally believed that he was expecting a tat-for-tit declaration of war against the USSR by Japan, which would have really helped the German war effort right then. (After Pearl Harbor the USSR rightly concluded that Japan had a tiger by the tail and wasn't going to be much of a threat to the USSR anymore, and accelerated its redeployment of first-rate winterized divisions from eastern Siberia to turn the tide against the German offensive against Moscow.)
The second problem with your claim is that the US war against Germany wasn't a war against Hitler as an individual any more than its war with Japan was a war against the Emperor as an individual. By the time the USA got involved both countries had very clearly revealed themselves as militaristic societies rampaging out of control, and the USA concluded that they would have to break the entire nations to stop the rampage. (Sadly, I think total war was the only thing that was going to solve the problem presented by WWII.)
> I for one am glad that the US is taking care of Hussein now rather than later when it really would have turned into WW/III with Hussein invading the entire middle east (as he also tried to do back in 1991).
About the only Hitler:Hussein analogies that actually work are that both styled a cheesy moustache and claimed to be taking back land that "belonged" to them, a doctrine technically known as revanchism. As brutal dictators, Saddam is Little League by WWII-era standards. As a psychotic paranoid nut case, Little League in comparison to Hitler. As a charismatic leader, Little League. As a military threat to powerful nations, Little League. Etc.
Ditto with Iraq as a populous, industrial, high-tech nation with a motivated, well-trained, state-of-the-art military force capable of projecting its will for hundreds or even thousands of miles in every direction from its source.
The analogy to Hitler or to 1938 doesn't stand up to careful scrutiny, and comes across to me sounding like dishonest rhetoric invoked to support a war that can't be supported by honest arguments. For starts, observe that Germany was re-arming itself in 1938, whereas until about a week ago Iraq was actually disarming. There simply isn't any relevant analogy, even if you buy into the dubious view that history repeats itself in analogous situations.
But you're certainly right about the folly of thinking you can kick Saddam's @ss and set up a successful Western-style democracy in a nation without much by way of democratic traditions. They were a monarchy at the end of WWII, and have had two revolutions since then. It looks like the natural life expectancy of a modern Iraqi government is about a generation.
> Turkey just approved entrance of their own forces into the northern areas of Iraq to secure their southern flank against possible insurgents. If the Kurds and Turks start going at it we're obligated to help the Turks even though the Kurds are our key to holding Northern Iraq. We gave weapons to both Turks and Kurds and now we have to try to diffuse that front while conquering the southern front. I have to wonder if Turkey did not allow US troops into their country because they had intended to invade northern Iraq all along, with or without US permission. Syria and Jordon have already expressed conern about the possibility of "resurrection of the Ottoman Empire" and are rattling sabers about military action if they don't back off. We have a new problem...or two...or three...
I'm always happy to to say I told you so. (Look at the date and then scroll down to the last paragraph).
BTW, it looks like the "hit 'em hard, hit 'em fast" doctrine is playing out as "trickle into Iraq". Has the Bush Administration's clueless mode of dealing with reality trickled down to the level of military operations? If so, this could turn out worse than I ever imagined.
> But, what has war achieved, apart from splitting Europe (hey, America now has one less 'federal superpower' to contend with..), putting a good many people's lives in danger (all the troops, and Iraqi civilians, who're supposed to be being saved), and generally costing a fortune?
Well, on Night #1 we expended fourty million dollars worth of munitions, killed one civilian, and wounded thirteen others.
> Everyone wants to make sure that no matter how much you disagree with the politics of the administration or the military as a whole, you never turn your anger on the individual solders, sailors, airmen and marines who are out there doing their jobs.
> The talking heads are reporting that this may or may not have been a PsyOp
More likely the Bush Administration is disappointed that Saddam didn't give them the political cover that they so desperately need and want by carrying out the much predicted preemptive attack using weapons of mass destruction, and this is their way of telling him he's got one more chance to do that.
Somebody in Washington wants political cover for the invasion a heck of a lot more than they're letting on. They keeps saying "We don't need authorization from the {Congress,UN}", but they've been trying like heck to get it.
Traditionally when you want to fight an unjust war you arrange an "incident" to get your citizens' dander up, and I'm starting to think that's the strategy they've adopted. Don't be surprised at anything you hear on the news this week.
And don't be surprised at what you find out about this month's events several years from now, either. This might be a good time to recall the "Tonkin Gulf Incident".
Re: Even MORE vehement positions
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
> Another crazy Texan said "Iraq will bow to the most powerful nation in the world and you will stand by and observe. Your representatives are powerless against gods chosen nation. No country has the power or the intellect to do anything about it." Guys: I am a proud US Citizen residing in California -- please tailor your invective appropriately.
Ah, but when he said "God's chosen nation" he was talking about Texas, and you're a mere heathen from California.
> > Bush wanted to kick Saddam's ass, but the political situation didn't allow him to.
> Bullshit. He could have done whatever he wanted as commander-in-chief. He chose not to. He was responsible for that decision, not "the political situation."
There was a rising outcry both at home and abroad over the perceived senseless slaughter on the Highway to Hell and reports of Iraqi soldiers buried alive in their bunkers by bulldozers. The political situation did indeed trigger the decision to cease operations.
(Yes, the US public has a foolish notion that people shouldn't get hurt in wars.)
I never cared much for Bush(1), but at least he was aware of a bigger picture than the "I want" that drives his idiot son's foreign policy. Bush(1) spent a lot of time building up international support and reacted promptly when that support started turning sour. Bush(2) thinks he inherited international support as an entitlement, and has completely squandered our goodwill abroad at a time when 9/11 should have given us more international goodwill since WWII.
It will take us decades to undo the international ill-will that Bush(2) has stirred up in a mere 26 months. I shudder to think how much more damage he'll do in the next 22 months, before we get a chance to fix the problem.
Re: I hope they have good reasons
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
> If not, I agree with Putin - he is not a threat to the US so why go in now? I agree that the UN is pretty limp, but I think that we finally had their attention and that another month would not make a difference.
Ah, but another month would have made a difference, because disarmament was starting to make tangible progress and another month's delay would have made the invasion seem even more unreasonable than it does now.
Remember, Bush has been singing "regime change" for a whole year now. This isn't about disarmament, disrespect for the UN, tyranny, genocide, or any of that stuff: it's about installing a pro-US government in Baghdad. The doctrine goes back at least to a document Wolfowitz wrote during the Bush(1) era, which Bush(1), unlike his idiot son, was smart enough to reject.
Since 9/11 most of the Bush Administration has been in the grips of a neocon agenda that calls for "benevolently" invading unfriendly nations and setting up pro-US puppet governments. If this one doesn't give us a black eye you can bet your yarbles that they'll be spinning a case for invading someone else next year, probably Iran.
No, wait. Next year's an election year, they'll have to be more careful about public opinion for 8-9 months. Iran will get it's chance in 2005, if we're fool enough not to have a "regime change" here at home in 2004.
Re:even a witty troll deserves attention!
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
> Godwin's Law after the first reply! Who'd have thunk it!
I reckon Hitler would have been annoyed by his internet experience!
> No, that was Serbia. I wonder if Baghdad has a Chinese Embassy?
They'll be looking for a French Embassy this time.
Re: to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
> My view is that this shouldn't have taken 12 years to finish, and it's about time it's happening.
It hasn't taken 12 years. In 1991 the only goal was to kick Iraq back out of Kuwait. The agenda has grown somewhat over the past 12 years.
Re: to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
If your corp'rate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq. If your politics are sleazy, And hiding that ain't easy, And your manhood's getting queasy, Bomb Iraq.
> If I didn't know any better, I'd pin this verse on the Clinton regime.:-D
For the Clinton version, replace all occurrences of "bomb Iraq" with "poke a ho".
Re: Early weird news reports
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
> BBC is extremely liberal by US standards. They won't even bother hiding it.
Why should anyone hide being liberal "by US standards"? Most of the political spectrum is "liberal" by US standards.
Re: What they are counting on
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
> Is to find some "Bad Stuff" (tm) over there after the war is over, proving the weapons of mass destruction talk. [...] If they don't then there's a problem - that's the gamble.
I'm sure someone in the Bush Administration has heard of a "throw-down" before.
Hell, they lied about various "evidence" trying to make the case for war, why should we expect them to do different afterward?
What chaps me as much as anything is how much of what we're hearing (from everyone) is utter bullshit, and we won't find out for years what was real and what wasn't.
> Looks like a good bet though, Saddam was obviously just toying with the UN.
Clearly he has never intended to do anything he didn't have to do. But I'm still agnostic about what he has. Lots were destroyed in the 90's, though probably not everything, and he has had 4 years to rebuild and hide anything new. OTOH Western intelligence has been completely incapable of guiding the inspectors to a cache, so what gives? OTGrippingH, history seems to show that intelligence services aren't so hot as they're cracked up to be.
Unfortunately, if he does have anything he will almost certainly use it, since "regime change" is just a synonym for "unconditional surrender". I suspect the USA would do the same in similar circumstances.
> I've done the same things with stupid management at my own company.
We'll be invading you next, buster.
Re: Not How its Supposed To Be
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
> I agree they have been ineffective of late and they probably need some revising, but if countries go around attacking each other at will despite what others may think, then that is a step in the wrong direction.
Yep. Bush was right when he said this makes the UN irrelevant, but he was wrong about why it makes the UN irrelevant. It's irrelevant because there's a rogue superpower on the Security Council, with both the will and ability to ignore both diplomacy and international law.
> I just dont think we did all we could to avoid this war
The sad irony is that the war is starting right when disarmament is starting to make progress. If Bush weren't pursuing a "higher agenda" he could have taken a lot of credit by claiming that it was his threat of force that finally made Iraq start disarming.
Unfortunately, Bush doesn't want disarmament: he wants regime change.
> and that we should be focusing on why the vast majority of middle east people hate us
Yes, but that would mean giving up too many goals that are too important to too many powerful people in the USA.
> not taking out all these "threats" to our country
Another sad irony is that most of the 9/11 hijackers came from our "allies" citizenry.
The war on terror needs good, pedestrian police work, not invasions and puppet governments. We are about to do ourselves much harm.
Re: The only thing war has ever done is...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
> Parot are you out of your fucking mind ? Threatening someone with not giving him a handout is considered a fucking crime. Are you living in a real world ?
What amazes me about the political discussions on Slashdot is how many people hold vehement positions even though they don't follow the news well enough to know what's going on in the world without having every little reference explained to them.
It's no wonder half the US public supports the war.
Re: The only thing war has ever done is...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
> Ah yes... handouts. The US wasn't threatening to withdraw the free money they always give Turkey. They were threatening to not give tens of billions of ADDITIONAL aid.
Actually, the US threatened to reduce what we are already giving them (in addition to withholding the new carrot).
Re: Not necessarily the war yet
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
> > What if the troops stopped fighting and started protesting? I don't want to hear about innocent people dying over there, i want to hear about soldiers over there refusing to fight. That is the kind of support i want.
> It'll never happen. The US military is entirely voluntary. Those unwilling to go to war are encouraged not to join. Those that join anyway are unlikely to stay, as one can leave without prejudice any time during the first 6 months of service. Those miniscule few that might remain in and then start saying "I don't wanna go to war" when called upon to do what they've been training to do for months or years-- well, there's not a lot of sympathy for those few. It ain't the 60's anymore, friend. There ain't no draft. That's one of the main reasons why the US military is effective as it is.
I remember that at the start of Gulf War I there were some soldiers who wanted out on CO status. I wondered at the time how a CO ended up in an all-volunteer army.
Re: The only thing war has ever done is...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
> Maybe you should point that out to all the countries in Eastern Europe who came out early and voiced their support for the US even though France threatened to keep several of them out of the EU in retaliation.
And the USA threatened to cut handout$ to Turkey if they didn't let us into their sandbox.
There are no good guys here; it's just politicians trying to get their way.
Re: First war post!
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 0, Troll
> My personal pet peeve is the "name" that each channel has
My personal pet peeve is that certain stations consistently refer to this as part of "the war on terror" and describe the troops over there as "defending their country".
Slashdot Mirror
> That's not the point though. The point is that the initial act--no matter who actually did it--was used as an excuse to prosecute people who had nothing to do with it one way or another.
And looking back on that first act of that sad affair from the vantage point of the last act, we have the immortal words of Hermann Göring.
> Saddam started out as a hitman for the radical Ba'ath Party and he participated in the failed assassination attempt on the country's strong man, Gen. Kassem, in 1959.
Now let's make a list of all the crimes the US government has committed since 1959. How many contries invaded, how many lawfully elected governments overthrown, how many seaports mined, how many villages burned, how many soldiers poisoned with LSD, how much Agent Orange dumped on SE Asia, how many times the National Guard has fired on our own citizens, how many "collateral" casualties in our overseas adventures, how many fabricated "incidents" to justify wars or bombing raids?
Vilifying Saddam for the asshole he is makes great propaganda for a public unsure about the rightness of this war, and the media are pumping it up our asses as fast as they can. But maybe we should insert a bit of honesty about ourselves for the sake of perspective.
Yeah, if there's a Hell then Saddam is going to rot there. But he'll have a lot of American leaders there to keep him company.
> Then again, just as I was about to click "Submit", I saw most of the government buildings in Baghdad get the absolute shit blown out of 'em.
Ghastly irony in a war sold to the American public as a way of preventing a repeat of 9/11.
> During WW2, we basically declared war on Hitler.
If you are speaking as an American, please be informed that Hitler declared war on the USA.
It was right after Pearl Harbor; it is generally believed that he was expecting a tat-for-tit declaration of war against the USSR by Japan, which would have really helped the German war effort right then. (After Pearl Harbor the USSR rightly concluded that Japan had a tiger by the tail and wasn't going to be much of a threat to the USSR anymore, and accelerated its redeployment of first-rate winterized divisions from eastern Siberia to turn the tide against the German offensive against Moscow.)
The second problem with your claim is that the US war against Germany wasn't a war against Hitler as an individual any more than its war with Japan was a war against the Emperor as an individual. By the time the USA got involved both countries had very clearly revealed themselves as militaristic societies rampaging out of control, and the USA concluded that they would have to break the entire nations to stop the rampage. (Sadly, I think total war was the only thing that was going to solve the problem presented by WWII.)
> I for one am glad that the US is taking care of Hussein now rather than later when it really would have turned into WW/III with Hussein invading the entire middle east (as he also tried to do back in 1991).
About the only Hitler:Hussein analogies that actually work are that both styled a cheesy moustache and claimed to be taking back land that "belonged" to them, a doctrine technically known as revanchism. As brutal dictators, Saddam is Little League by WWII-era standards. As a psychotic paranoid nut case, Little League in comparison to Hitler. As a charismatic leader, Little League. As a military threat to powerful nations, Little League. Etc.
Ditto with Iraq as a populous, industrial, high-tech nation with a motivated, well-trained, state-of-the-art military force capable of projecting its will for hundreds or even thousands of miles in every direction from its source.
The analogy to Hitler or to 1938 doesn't stand up to careful scrutiny, and comes across to me sounding like dishonest rhetoric invoked to support a war that can't be supported by honest arguments. For starts, observe that Germany was re-arming itself in 1938, whereas until about a week ago Iraq was actually disarming. There simply isn't any relevant analogy, even if you buy into the dubious view that history repeats itself in analogous situations.
But you're certainly right about the folly of thinking you can kick Saddam's @ss and set up a successful Western-style democracy in a nation without much by way of democratic traditions. They were a monarchy at the end of WWII, and have had two revolutions since then. It looks like the natural life expectancy of a modern Iraqi government is about a generation.
> Turkey just approved entrance of their own forces into the northern areas of Iraq to secure their southern flank against possible insurgents. If the Kurds and Turks start going at it we're obligated to help the Turks even though the Kurds are our key to holding Northern Iraq. We gave weapons to both Turks and Kurds and now we have to try to diffuse that front while conquering the southern front. I have to wonder if Turkey did not allow US troops into their country because they had intended to invade northern Iraq all along, with or without US permission. Syria and Jordon have already expressed conern about the possibility of "resurrection of the Ottoman Empire" and are rattling sabers about military action if they don't back off. We have a new problem...or two...or three...
I'm always happy to to say I told you so. (Look at the date and then scroll down to the last paragraph).
BTW, it looks like the "hit 'em hard, hit 'em fast" doctrine is playing out as "trickle into Iraq". Has the Bush Administration's clueless mode of dealing with reality trickled down to the level of military operations? If so, this could turn out worse than I ever imagined.
> But, what has war achieved, apart from splitting Europe (hey, America now has one less 'federal superpower' to contend with..), putting a good many people's lives in danger (all the troops, and Iraqi civilians, who're supposed to be being saved), and generally costing a fortune?
Well, on Night #1 we expended fourty million dollars worth of munitions, killed one civilian, and wounded thirteen others.
So much for the "hit 'em hard" doctrine.
> Everyone wants to make sure that no matter how much you disagree with the politics of the administration or the military as a whole, you never turn your anger on the individual solders, sailors, airmen and marines who are out there doing their jobs.
As in "I was just following orders"?
> Does anyone else have an opinion about reducing number of bugs?
Yeah... program in the much despised Ada and you'll get built-in protection against all the bullets in your list except the first one.
It's not like this technology isn't 20 years old. Though I'm glad that geeks are finally starting to see the importance of this really basic stuff.
Photo sharing service? You can get as many photos as you want at alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.*
> The talking heads are reporting that this may or may not have been a PsyOp
More likely the Bush Administration is disappointed that Saddam didn't give them the political cover that they so desperately need and want by carrying out the much predicted preemptive attack using weapons of mass destruction, and this is their way of telling him he's got one more chance to do that.
Somebody in Washington wants political cover for the invasion a heck of a lot more than they're letting on. They keeps saying "We don't need authorization from the {Congress,UN}", but they've been trying like heck to get it.
Traditionally when you want to fight an unjust war you arrange an "incident" to get your citizens' dander up, and I'm starting to think that's the strategy they've adopted. Don't be surprised at anything you hear on the news this week.
And don't be surprised at what you find out about this month's events several years from now, either. This might be a good time to recall the "Tonkin Gulf Incident".
> Another crazy Texan said "Iraq will bow to the most powerful nation in the world and you will stand by and observe. Your representatives are powerless against gods chosen nation. No country has the power or the intellect to do anything about it." Guys: I am a proud US Citizen residing in California -- please tailor your invective appropriately.
Ah, but when he said "God's chosen nation" he was talking about Texas, and you're a mere heathen from California.
> > Bush wanted to kick Saddam's ass, but the political situation didn't allow him to.
> Bullshit. He could have done whatever he wanted as commander-in-chief. He chose not to. He was responsible for that decision, not "the political situation."
There was a rising outcry both at home and abroad over the perceived senseless slaughter on the Highway to Hell and reports of Iraqi soldiers buried alive in their bunkers by bulldozers. The political situation did indeed trigger the decision to cease operations.
(Yes, the US public has a foolish notion that people shouldn't get hurt in wars.)
I never cared much for Bush(1), but at least he was aware of a bigger picture than the "I want" that drives his idiot son's foreign policy. Bush(1) spent a lot of time building up international support and reacted promptly when that support started turning sour. Bush(2) thinks he inherited international support as an entitlement, and has completely squandered our goodwill abroad at a time when 9/11 should have given us more international goodwill since WWII.
It will take us decades to undo the international ill-will that Bush(2) has stirred up in a mere 26 months. I shudder to think how much more damage he'll do in the next 22 months, before we get a chance to fix the problem.
> If not, I agree with Putin - he is not a threat to the US so why go in now? I agree that the UN is pretty limp, but I think that we finally had their attention and that another month would not make a difference.
Ah, but another month would have made a difference, because disarmament was starting to make tangible progress and another month's delay would have made the invasion seem even more unreasonable than it does now.
Remember, Bush has been singing "regime change" for a whole year now. This isn't about disarmament, disrespect for the UN, tyranny, genocide, or any of that stuff: it's about installing a pro-US government in Baghdad. The doctrine goes back at least to a document Wolfowitz wrote during the Bush(1) era, which Bush(1), unlike his idiot son, was smart enough to reject.
Since 9/11 most of the Bush Administration has been in the grips of a neocon agenda that calls for "benevolently" invading unfriendly nations and setting up pro-US puppet governments. If this one doesn't give us a black eye you can bet your yarbles that they'll be spinning a case for invading someone else next year, probably Iran.
No, wait. Next year's an election year, they'll have to be more careful about public opinion for 8-9 months. Iran will get it's chance in 2005, if we're fool enough not to have a "regime change" here at home in 2004.
> Godwin's Law after the first reply! Who'd have thunk it!
I reckon Hitler would have been annoyed by his internet experience!
> No, that was Serbia. I wonder if Baghdad has a Chinese Embassy?
They'll be looking for a French Embassy this time.
> My view is that this shouldn't have taken 12 years to finish, and it's about time it's happening.
It hasn't taken 12 years. In 1991 the only goal was to kick Iraq back out of Kuwait. The agenda has grown somewhat over the past 12 years.
For the Clinton version, replace all occurrences of "bomb Iraq" with "poke a ho".
> BBC is extremely liberal by US standards. They won't even bother hiding it.
Why should anyone hide being liberal "by US standards"? Most of the political spectrum is "liberal" by US standards.
> Is to find some "Bad Stuff" (tm) over there after the war is over, proving the weapons of mass destruction talk. [...] If they don't then there's a problem - that's the gamble.
I'm sure someone in the Bush Administration has heard of a "throw-down" before.
Hell, they lied about various "evidence" trying to make the case for war, why should we expect them to do different afterward?
What chaps me as much as anything is how much of what we're hearing (from everyone) is utter bullshit, and we won't find out for years what was real and what wasn't.
> Looks like a good bet though, Saddam was obviously just toying with the UN.
Clearly he has never intended to do anything he didn't have to do. But I'm still agnostic about what he has. Lots were destroyed in the 90's, though probably not everything, and he has had 4 years to rebuild and hide anything new. OTOH Western intelligence has been completely incapable of guiding the inspectors to a cache, so what gives? OTGrippingH, history seems to show that intelligence services aren't so hot as they're cracked up to be.
Unfortunately, if he does have anything he will almost certainly use it, since "regime change" is just a synonym for "unconditional surrender". I suspect the USA would do the same in similar circumstances.
> I've done the same things with stupid management at my own company.
We'll be invading you next, buster.
> I agree they have been ineffective of late and they probably need some revising, but if countries go around attacking each other at will despite what others may think, then that is a step in the wrong direction.
Yep. Bush was right when he said this makes the UN irrelevant, but he was wrong about why it makes the UN irrelevant. It's irrelevant because there's a rogue superpower on the Security Council, with both the will and ability to ignore both diplomacy and international law.
> I just dont think we did all we could to avoid this war
The sad irony is that the war is starting right when disarmament is starting to make progress. If Bush weren't pursuing a "higher agenda" he could have taken a lot of credit by claiming that it was his threat of force that finally made Iraq start disarming.
Unfortunately, Bush doesn't want disarmament: he wants regime change.
> and that we should be focusing on why the vast majority of middle east people hate us
Yes, but that would mean giving up too many goals that are too important to too many powerful people in the USA.
> not taking out all these "threats" to our country
Another sad irony is that most of the 9/11 hijackers came from our "allies" citizenry.
The war on terror needs good, pedestrian police work, not invasions and puppet governments. We are about to do ourselves much harm.
> Parot are you out of your fucking mind ? Threatening someone with not giving him a handout is considered a fucking crime. Are you living in a real world ?
What amazes me about the political discussions on Slashdot is how many people hold vehement positions even though they don't follow the news well enough to know what's going on in the world without having every little reference explained to them.
It's no wonder half the US public supports the war.
> Ah yes... handouts. The US wasn't threatening to withdraw the free money they always give Turkey. They were threatening to not give tens of billions of ADDITIONAL aid.
Actually, the US threatened to reduce what we are already giving them (in addition to withholding the new carrot).
> > What if the troops stopped fighting and started protesting? I don't want to hear about innocent people dying over there, i want to hear about soldiers over there refusing to fight. That is the kind of support i want.
> It'll never happen. The US military is entirely voluntary. Those unwilling to go to war are encouraged not to join. Those that join anyway are unlikely to stay, as one can leave without prejudice any time during the first 6 months of service. Those miniscule few that might remain in and then start saying "I don't wanna go to war" when called upon to do what they've been training to do for months or years-- well, there's not a lot of sympathy for those few. It ain't the 60's anymore, friend. There ain't no draft. That's one of the main reasons why the US military is effective as it is.
I remember that at the start of Gulf War I there were some soldiers who wanted out on CO status. I wondered at the time how a CO ended up in an all-volunteer army.
> Maybe you should point that out to all the countries in Eastern Europe who came out early and voiced their support for the US even though France threatened to keep several of them out of the EU in retaliation.
And the USA threatened to cut handout$ to Turkey if they didn't let us into their sandbox.
There are no good guys here; it's just politicians trying to get their way.
> My personal pet peeve is the "name" that each channel has
My personal pet peeve is that certain stations consistently refer to this as part of "the war on terror" and describe the troops over there as "defending their country".