Zarqawi & Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by njman2, Jun 11, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. njman2

    njman2

    Messages:
    325
    Lets agree to disagree.

    Your points of possiblities are valid. The sad reality is that there likely will be more attack(s) on the US. Much money has been spent already to "harden" the US and to make feds/locals more responsive to these. I think that these activities need to continue - but at the same time we have to go out and try to make the world a less hospitable place for the islamist terrorists. This will be painful in the short/medium term - I hope that it is effective over the long term.
  2. njman2

    njman2

    Messages:
    325
    Actually - cane and switchgrass are thought to be better sources...though I don't know this for a fact.

    I agree that the corn lobby are pushing - but the main focus of the spending, right now, is research. The feds/various sates have started to mandate fossil fuel use reduction for their own fleets and much of this is being done via ehanol. The current state of technology is such that it takes a large amount of energy to produce ethanol.
  3. njman2

    njman2

    Messages:
    325
    In both cases diplomacy and multi-lateral talks are being tried out. This, along with sanctions, was done for more than 10 years with Iraq. I hope it works - Japan imposed sanctions on North Korea today and is beefing up its defensive (offensive??) capabilities. Iran is an odd case - they are definitely worried about the US influence in Iraq and the possiblity of democracy there and thus are casting about for nuclear capability. It's time for the f'ing mullahs to just die off - these fuckers have been screwing up the world for way too long.
  4. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    That's debatable. Nothing of any importance has happened on either front to make me feel more comfortable.

    Unfortunately what I see happening is that corn growers have a powerful lobby that is pushing their product, while all the data I've seen points to the sugar beet as more efficient product for ethanol production. It is the same story all over again. Oil companies have invested large amounts of cash in seeing that America remains hooked on oil, and now we have the corn lobby pushing for us to use an inferior crop for ethanol production, contrary to the best interests of the country. I'm not suggesting we import beets from Brazil. What is to stop the US from going in that direction? If farmers see that is where the cash is, they'll move in that direction in a heartbeat.
  5. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Not if we lose the greater war on terror due to lack of resources. What if AQ is able to launch another attack on this country like a dirty bomb for example? Do you know the economic impact of such an attack? I'm certain the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq could have been put to better use funding better intelligence assetts, more radiation-detecting equipment, or fund the massive cleanup operation that will be required to make the area of the attack habitable again.

    Besides even if a stable, democratic Iraq emerges there is no guarantee that will work in our favor. Look at the Palestinian elections. Democracy does not guarantee the elected government will be aligned with US interests. What if the new, democratic Iraq aligns itself with Iran (a very likely possibility). How is that going to help us? Will we then have to destroy what we've helped build there?
  6. njman2

    njman2

    Messages:
    325
    What if, still a big what if - Iraq emerges as a stable democracy? Would it have been worth it then?
  7. njman2

    njman2

    Messages:
    325
    The two countries are being 'dealt' with.

    I admire Brazil. It is the only self-sufficient energy country at the moment. The ehanol push, based on local organics (midwest corn), is important. Yes we can buy Brazil's sugarcane cheaper right now - but the costs will rise over time. It is better to bring up the local infrastructure in this regard.

    The other energy push is cars that can be plugged into the grid. We will see several nuclear plants come online over the coming decade and will also see better technology go into coal plants (cleaner and more efficiency). US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

    The main impetus for these changes is the price of gasoline. Even if the market prices for oil fall...the cost of gasoline should be kept his (via a federal surcharge) to wean ourselves off once and for all. This could also help to balance the budget and the war on terror etc.
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2006
  8. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Excellent post Mousey. All your points are well taken, but those that I quoted I feel are dead-on accurate. I've never had a moral objection to the war in Iraq, but I have always felt it was a mistake to go in for more strategic reasons. I do believe we have squandered our finite resources in this war on terror, and are in a worse situation now to deal with other countries that do pose a threat.
  9. njman2

    njman2

    Messages:
    325
    Hindsight is perfect. The inspectors could not conclusively state, in the given timeframe, wether there were weapons or not. Saddam was also kicking out inspectors.
  10. Wowie69

    Wowie69

    Messages:
    788
    YES IT WAS!!!!!!!!

    Wake up! We would not have waged this war if Bush had not LIED that Iraq was an IMMINENT THREAT TO US!!!!!!!!

    No OTHER REASON WAS GOING TO VALIDATE US STARTING A PRE-EMPTIVE WAR.

    Bush FORCED the UN weapons inspectors out to start the war. Otherwise they would have come back with the result that there were NO WMD.

    That would have ruined Bush's IMMORAL plan to wage war.

    Take away the idea that Iraq was a threat and we would not have gone to war.

    Even Hans Blix (the UN weapons inspector) has said that if they had been allowed to finish their work, this war would not have started.
  11. HarryBeavers

    HarryBeavers

    Messages:
    174
    Who's Next???

    North Korea, Iran? As soon as one facist falls, like cancer another one is there to take reins. No wmd found in Iraq. The latter two countries have them. The U.S.MUST find other ways to produce energy ie.

    Our thirst for fossil fuel, causes a double edged sword in this "War on Terror" It pays for the our military, and funds the Saudi's to assist Al Queda. Bush and Cheney have not cared one iota about this issue for obvious reasons. The dependency on oil in this country may not slow for 25-40 years UNLESS Detroit hybrid auto R&D puts the brakes on it.

    Countries like China are growing in leaps and bounds, also searching for global sources of oil. The U.S. has larger problems forcasted because of this dilemma. As soon as local development turns out hybrid autos that get 100 mpg via methanol,and battery power we will see a vast change in Al Queda, and mutant Islamic cells who are funded by the dollars paid to the Saudi's by the U.S. for fossil fuel.

    Brazil ships millions of tons of sugarcane to China, and does not to the U.S. because of 100% duty tax applied to it by Washington. The U.S. wants to use Corn,grain. To produce Ethanol, which is much more expense to produce than the sugar derived variant, that could be purchased for less than the cost of corn ethanol. The politicians NEED to be awakened, right now

    This sleeping giant, may not awake in time to save itself this time. This issue affects all Americans and our futures. I can only hope that the people who can get this job done take the initiciative to start it. Global warming falls in line with this also. The emissions that have been given off by fossil fuels will melt Greenland in the future causing a 25 ft. rise in sea height. This will happen in our childrens lifetime if nothing is done to stop it.

    Manhattan will be under water. The Venice of the west so to speak. Oil addiction is an issue that needs undivided attention now not later.
  12. njman2

    njman2

    Messages:
    325
    mousey -

    I have to disagree a bit about Iraq. Iraq's role in the war on terror, in my opinion, is subtle. It was important to fight this war and if it works - it will gel world resources towards this fight. The US needed to set an example for rogue countries and there was no better chioce than Iraq.

    1) the guy had been asking for it for a long time and Iraq's people were not going to do anything about it.

    2) Being in the heart of Islam - success here could trigger a sea change.

    3) Iraq has its oil wealth to fall back on - so rebuilding is a tad easier. If Iraqis can get to it.

    4) The US needed to act to prove how useless the UN had/has become at this stuff.

    I had also thought that he had WMD's. Based on his past record and the cheating uncovered in the UN's oil for food program - this seemed likely. But this war was not just about that.

    I am not so happy how the war has been conducted. I think Rumsfeld tried out some new things with mixed success. My biggest problem with the administration has been the willingness to admit mistakes and fix them quickly. This I think is changing now.
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2006
  13. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Really thoughtful stuff Mousey. Great post. And you may end up being right in the long term. But if Sadaam, now or later, eventually got nukes, we would be singing a different tune......

    That's one thing that drives me crazy about opposition politics. Blame the president for not connecting the dots, then blame him for trying to attain the means to connect the dots.

    The Sdaam ar
  14. its_mousey

    its_mousey

    Messages:
    1,095
    ONE:
    I agree w/your observation w/the problems of characterizing this war as a mere "police action." Undoubtedly, many of the aspects of civilian police work does NOT apply here, such as presumption of innocence, probably cause, serving the public good, and other derivatives of the US Constitution. However, it is undeniable that there are aspects of the US occupation of Iraq that DOES involve "police work": such as maintaining the peace (not just against insurgents, but from garden variety criminals who are having a field day right now), detective work, and gathering intel. Unfortunately, our military, which is primarily built on the premise of destroying an opponent as quickly as possible w/massive force, is ill-equipped to handle such civilian-related tasks.

    TWO:
    I also agree that we should 'win' this war by any means necessary.

    THREE:
    However, I'm sure no one will disagree that we have finite resources and that we cannot afford to waste lives, money, time and political capital. We simply cannot be everywhere and have the same fighting effectiveness. This is especially true for a protracted war such as this.

    FOUR:
    Therefore, we were wrong in attacking Iraq based on point 2 (win by any means necessary) and point 3 (we have limited resources) and not due to any lack of "moral clarity". We're wrong because by wasting the blood of so many American soldiers, needlessly expending billions of dollars and wasting inordinate amount of time in the wrong place we have grossly misallocated our "means". As a result, we are failing our prime directive of winning this war.

    Who gives a fuck about Saddam. Yeah, maybe the middle east has one less dictatorial asshole but did the expenditure of countless of lives (both US and civilians), time and money spent in removing him put us closer to killing the one responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks? Has being bogged down in Iraq made Afghanistan Al-Qeda/Taliban-free? Has our occupation of Iraq guaranteed our safety? Has this costly endeavour made us new allies?

    Indeed, a very compelling argument can be made that we are losing the war on terror because by attacking a muslim country that has not attacked us and incurring new enemies, as well as alienating most of the Muslim world - we've played right into Bin Laden's hands.

    It's not a matter of "moral clarity". It's a matter of simple math. We have very limited resources in combating this 'war'.

    Furthermore, you can't just discount that we attacked the wrong country and say, "so what, he's a bad guy anyway right?" Don't forget that as this president and his ilk has stated repeatedly, the 'war' on terror is a global endevour. Therefore, we cannot fight this alone. We will need the help and cooperation of other countries (esp. those in the middle east) whether we like it or not. And by attacking the country that never attacked you (nor had any realistic capabilities of doing same) and killing thousands of people in error, does not make allies.

    Also, although I do agree that we should 'fight fire w/fire', and be 'more ruthless than the enemy' and other macho cowboy bullshit, always remember who we are and who we are fighting. Yes, I agree w/this president that this won't be a clear-cut war and that it will be fought in the shadows. But let us not forget that although the lines can get blurry, there IS a line nonetheless.

    Always remember, when you cease being good, you stop being great.

    *Squeak!*
  15. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    We now have three threads talking about the same thing and I'm not going to go tit for that over this or that aspect. Sorry, I'm not much fun that way.

    But a lot of the comments here reflect the theory that what we should be doing is police work. Who's the perp? How do we find him. Read him his Miranda rights. Don't arrest the wrong guy. Etc.

    I think the entire landscape of this conflict was changed by 911. All the niceties and neatness of legal police work in the U.S. is replaced by the war mindset. You do ANYTHING you can to avoid another attack. And it does not matter if Iraq was involved in the 911 attacks directly. The moral clarity of "he didn't do it specifically so you can't attack him" just goes away.

    It becomes more like. He (Sadaam) MIGHT do it to us and he did it in the past and the whole world thinks he might do it and we have sanctions against him and we don't like him anyway and we're sick of dealing with him for the past decade and we need a solid theater in the mideast to show we aren't going to run away just because we get a bloody nose.

    I don't think the tactical details are the point. If you see this as a war, then you would accept the fact that we must fight it as a war. If you see it as legal police work in the states, then we are wrong to be in Iraq. I see it as the former. And from the standpoint of OUR civilians dying, it's going well.
  16. akm495

    akm495

    Messages:
    1,156
    No. The war on terror has it's roots in Afghanastan.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2006
  17. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Not the attacks specifically. But the generalized war on terror has its roots there.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2006
  18. its_mousey

    its_mousey

    Messages:
    1,095
    Absolutely. We have to be quick, hard, and above all, decisive. I would even go so far as to saying yes to "unconventional" means of extracting actionable (potentially life saving) info from prisoners and yes to secret covert prisons. If that means it will prevent another attack on our soil and/or bringing us closer to Bin Laden - then fuck yeah.

    But what we can't do, is what we did in Afghanistan right after Sept. 11, 2001 - where it took us awhile to get enough boots on the ground because we were relying on inept and self-interested tribal leaders to assist us. As a result, many Al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban sympathizers escaped - including the biggest catch of them all, Bin Laden.

    What we can't do, is attack another country that: 1) posed no real threat to the U.S.; 2) no role in the Sept. 11 attacks; and 3) had no history of supporting terror groups, and thereby squandering precious lives, money, time, political capital and divide us.

    I'm no rainbow flag waiving peace-nick liberal.

    I want Bin Laden dead.

    I want his family dead.

    I want his friends and associates dead.

    I want his cat and any of its playmates dead.

    I want any structure that has afforded him safe haven razed to the ground.

    If that sanctuary is a mountain or cave, then I want that mountain collapsed.

    I know that killing Bin Laden and wiping out Al Qaeda will not stop terrorism. But doing same is one fucking good start. It will be almost 5 years since he killed thousands of Americans here and yet, not all of their remains have been layed to rest while this bastard is still sending us video/audio tapes.

    This just cannot do. His continued existence is a constant blemish to our national pride.

    What we cannot afford to do, is make the same mistakes again.

    *Squeak!*
  19. its_mousey

    its_mousey

    Messages:
    1,095
    Oddfellow:

    Sorry, but I'm a bit confused now.

    Let me see if I understand you correctly: are you trying to say that we are in Iraq because of what Bush thinks to be links to the Sept. 11 attacks as opposed to whether there are real links to the same?

    If that's the case then I agree w/you then - but just make sure you put that one qualifier: we are in Iraq because of what Bush thinks to be links to the Sept. 11 attacks. Because to say otherwise would be misleading.

    *Squeak!*
  20. njman2

    njman2

    Messages:
    325

    One of the tactics of the islamist terrorists is to exploit havens whereever they can. We have to fight this whereever it comes up.