(no subject)

[weaktwos]

Perhaps the conflict with Iraq isn't just about oil. But I doubt it's about human rights. We're not really diligent about really helping out other countries, per se. We just like to send our military out to play once in a while.

Arguably, war is a great distraction to our woes at home.

Consider this: http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/02/ma_219_01.html

Comments

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Well, the whole issue of the bomb ending the war sooner is moot. The fact is, an atrocity is an atrocity. We were first to market with the big bomb at the time, so of course the War ended. But we're not in such a position now. The rules have shifted just a bit.

There's a timeless truth, if the Israel-Palestine "1000 or so year grudge" has demonstrated anything: Retaliation begets more retaliation. And Saddam isn't a new problem. The use of force previously was not sufficient to rid us of him. We're not going eliminate him this way. His government appears to be run by all his close family. He's been around for 30 years, so he's demonstrated some longevity, here. It's abundantly clear that there is no quick solution to this problem. For a whacko, he's remarkably stable.

Slower, tentative economic sanctions and steady negotiations are the best path, because it builds a cooperative environment.

In addition, this conflict creates more fear of terrorist retaliation which leads to further restrictions of our freedoms.

Then we must consider that we're expending our military might on perhaps a lesser problem, with North Korea and their nuclear developments. Korea has been fairly unfettered are considered more powerful than Iraq. India and Pakistan...getting everyone pissed off and compelled to take sides lacks prudence for the long term.

When we helped to defeat Hitler, we didn't just win and leave. We had to occupy the country for 40 years. War was not the solution. You don't just kill a bad government and a good one grows back.

Hey, thanks for the cool discussion!

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

It's how you judge something to be an atrocity. Shooting someone in the head, dead, is an atrocity, right?
In cold blood, saying, "HI!" *BLAM!* yeah, that's not so good.
Walking down the street, then someone trying to rape your wife, then *BLAM!* not so bad.
But you know, kinda like abortion is an atrocity, right?
It's not really the act, but the why.
Nuke a city, lives are saved, many ways of life are preserved, I'd say we made out pretty good.
Nuke a nation because you don't like their stinking ugly jewish faces, not so good.
And then you end up with a whole good egg and bad egg explanation.

Isreal and Palestine. Easy. Palestine suicide bombs innocent civilians. Isreal attacks military and terrorist installations. Isreal is right in the assertion of trying to keep their inhabitants relatively safe.
Saddam, for a whacko, he's remarkably intelligent. He's playing head games with the entire world, to buy time to achieve his own goals. Sanctions and negotiations have been proven totally worthless. All it does is to keep Saddam in pants and cigars while the rest of the entire nation, which he couldn't give a rat's ass about, degrades and suffers. But if we don't go in there and do what we promised we would do, then we would be just as worthless and inefectual as the UN is. The situation would degrade, and then there really most liekly *would* be world war 3.
Fear of terrorist retaliation. Right now, it's a fact of life. These guys would attack us whether or not we went in to Iraq. Terrorism is basically just a method to conquer. The only reason our freedoms get restricted is because the people of Americ

Re: Hey, thanks for the cool discussion!

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Dude. The end of your reply looks like it has been circumcized by a drunken rabbi.

Re: Hey, thanks for the cool discussion!

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

Gawdammit! Now I got to remember what I typed.