Reading the news

[weaktwos]

Ahh, lunch. One of life's simple pleasures. I was reading www.salon.com while I grazed upon a tuna sandwich and some chips.

This article is interesting: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/12/foreign_aid/index.html. It discusses the extent of bribery that the U.S. must exert on various countries to try and get a vote on the security council.

What's particularly haunting is Ari Fleischer's comment of, "There are many ways to build a coalition. The Security Council is but one of them."

Clearly, the rest of the world doesn't see our threats to Iraq as mainly human rights based. Nor do they feel the threat of germ warfar like Bush does. If this impending war served more interests than just that of the United States, I feel certain that they would jump on board. After all, we're not asking for troop support, really. If the cause is right and good for the greater population, what a cherry deal to support the U.S. But alas, it is not that simple.

Any of you pro-war zealots care to comment?

Comments

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Thanks for defining immediate for me. I had been lost without that definition.

Yes, everyone pays attention to the obvious threat. But it wasn't Saddam who drove planes into the WTC, it was someone most of us forgot about entirely. Once this war is over, we will be no safer than we are now. In the eyes of some, Saddam will be martyred, some will step in to fill the gap left by him. We can't seem to find the guy who actually caused a national tragedy on our soil though. No sir. So let's bomb another guy's country in the meantime.

And yes, history shows that war is a fantastic deterrant and purveyor of peace. Just look at Israel and Palestine. Why, without war, they probably would have destroyed each other in 100 years instead of fighting back and forth for a thousand years. Yeah, that makes sense!

We'll drive our government deeper into debt, pick on the French, bribe a bunch of other countries, kill some innocent children, create more tensions between us and the muslims, and risk our soldier's lives for potentially ousting a leader who will probably not be killed, but will escape to terrorize us another day.

And yes, while we're fighting this potential threat, where we can't find anything, we ignore the fact that N. Korea is months from having the bomb, and Iran has a very advanced nuclear program going on.

But no, let's ignore the big picture and destroy Iraq. Violence is the answer, because aggravating our enemies makes us safer.

Re:

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

We can't seem to find Osama, yes, but his 3rd in command just got arrested. No, he hasn't been forgotten about, and we're creeping up behind him still. His regime has been scattered to the 4 winds. They no longer have a stable base of operations. They have been severely hindered.

And kill innocent children? You think the US is going to go in there and kill innocent children? Where on God's green earth do you get that we're going to go in there and kill innocent children? We're not the ones hiding military equipment in mosques and civilian housing! Not only is Saddam pissing all over the *18* UN resolutions but he's giving the big fat finger to the Geneva Convention. And if you're so concerned about the children, how about the children in Iraq that Saddam is disfiguring and killing? You practice any kind of dissent in Iraq, then you and your family get shot, gassed, and turned into lab rats. Where's your compassion for them?
And a potential threat where we can't find anything? Where we can't find anything?! How about the Al Samoud with Warheads that are fitted for chemical and biological agents that we found. How about the Bombs that can scatter into mini bombs that are fitted to disperse chemical and biological agents that we found. How about the *unmanned drone* that Hans Blix so conveniently left out until after the debate at the UN, that are *all* fitted for the distribution of chemical and biological agents that have been found. There is so *much* proof pointing the finger at Saddam that it's amazing people can keep themselves blind to it.
And I'm sure that Iran is very very very aware of the 300,000+ troops that are right around the country.
And just look at Israel and Pa

Re:

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

And just look at Israel and Palestine. Palestinian terrorists kill innocent civilian women and children. Isreal attacks Palestinian military outposts. Hrmm, sounds to me like Isreal needs to be given permission to do what we're doing. And then, there will be victory. And THEN there will be peace. Peace is a direct product of Victory. After World War II, after the Victory in World War II, there was peace. After the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan, there was Freedom, and peace is on it's way. After Victory in Iraq, of course we wont be safe. Complete safetly is an illusion. But we *will* be safe from the threat of Saddam. Our allies will be safe from the threat of Saddam. And there will be no gap to fill. There will be no totalitarian goverment for someone to enter and rape the country again, because the country is going to be led by the people. It will only happen again if the majority of the people in Iraq are scum, and I don't believe they are.
We don't want to aggravate our enemies? Hey, who's the superpower? Who needs to worry about aggravating who? Peace through Victory.
All that nonviolence sure has freed Tibet, hasn't it?

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Tibet and the United States are not the same. And yes, why haven't we come to the aid of Tibet?

In World War II, we were attacked, not vice versa. It also helped that Hitler killed himself. There was peace for us, because our country wasn't the battleground, therefore we could forget about it and live our Leave it to Beaver lives, build our bomb shelters (yes, peace with fear of nuclear war), and prepare our stop, drop and roll drills. Plus, we had to occupy Germany for 40 years before we allowed them on their own.

Of course, no peace is like the peace we felt after Vietnam.

As for Jerusalem, they are giving as good as they get. Each Palestinian act of violence is often followed by retaliation that takes more lives.

Re:

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

Vietnam is a horrible example because there was no Victory. We didn't go in with a clear agenda, and then with the anti-war protests and lack of support, America beat itself. These troops, even the drafted ones, were spit upon and called baby killers by stupid selfish unamerican bloody fucking idiots! These people were out there protecting that freedon! And now so many of these Vietnam Vets are fucked up in the head because of this very Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist rhetoric.
My grandfather that just passed away was *in* World War II, participated in the Battle of the Bulge and had his finger shot off there. He was a horrible fucking person, but I can respect him for the fact that he laid down his life for the right of people in America to be so goddamn unamerican. I can actually begin to love that asshole just because of that very fact.
And Jerusalem giving as good as they get? How in the world can you profess to care about the US killing children in Iraq when you totally just blow over the fact that Palestinian acts of violence kill such innocent children? Sounds to me like the argument should be that Isreal should be allowed to protect it's people. That Isreal is the one that is Morally Correct in that situation.
And Thank The Good Lord that we were able to go about and lead our Leave it to Beaver lives! Vive America! Thank The Good Lord that we have the opportunity to choose whether we want to believe in God, by any name, or not. Thank the Good Lord that we have the opportunity to pursue a life of happiness, if we so choose.
I want to know why, if America is such a horrible place to live, don't all these people migrate to a new country?
And of course we had to occupy Germany. That was the only int

Re:

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

And of course we had to occupy Germany. That was the only intelligent thing to do. And they're *still* not allowed to have any real military. Hey, looks like our efforts worked. France is okay again. Germany is a whole lot better off now.
I say Thank the Good Lord, or whatever diety or nonentity you want to praise.

[neryx.livejournal.com]

No, it wasn't Saddam who flew planes into the WTC. And no, we've NEVER been safe on our own soil. It's just not possible until we manage to put up a fence/dome type thing around our country. (Now wouldn't THAT be unique) But you can't disregard the fact that there may be a link between the two. (ie, Saddam and Osama)

Nonetheless, Saddam is being pressured because he's committed his own "crimes." And perhaps some don't consider what he's doing to be tantamount to criminal behavior. I do. I'm sorry, but I can't look at someone who's potentially holding the end of the human race in his hands in any other manner.

And what exactly do you suggest? Should we focus our aggressions on North Korea instead? Or on Iran? Or is the UN going to hit them with sanctions and embargoes as well? And what good is that going to do?

Let's face it. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. We live in the greatest country (at least from the perspective of looking at the lives of its people) in the world. Our omelet is protecting what's ours. The eggs are people (and let's face it, it really IS just people, and not entire countries) that are threatening what's ours. It's hard to look at people and say, "Let's just be friends," when New York and L.A. just aren't there anymore.

Personally, I would rather not see war happen because war itself is a pointless endeavor. But in reality, what options are we left with? What else CAN we do at this point? We've put both ourselves and Saddam into a situation in which there is no trust. And when you have reached a point at which you can no longer trust someone or thing, you excise it. It's unfortunate, but that's kinda how it goes.

Peace.