Both of you need a fucking drink. Can't we all just drink and get along?

You want to advocate a foreign policy of arrogant aggression...a foreign policy of "The American Way or the Highway"...a foreign policy of "Fuck You for Being Different, We're Going to Bomb You"...and yet, I'M the "worst kind of political thinker"? Let's see...

By my version of foreign policy, our military resources are concentrated on American soil, ready to defend our homes against attack. Under your version, they are spread out in 50 different countries mopping up the messes of the Third World.

By my version of foreign policy, America pulls out of the Middle East and Al Qaeda loses its momentum because they don't have a cause to rally around anymore. Under your version of foreign policy, Al Qaeda gets their version of "Remember the Alamo" and recruits thousands of newly pissed off Muslims.

By my version of foreign policy, countries that are immediately and directly threatened by Iraq are free to grab a little sack and defend themselves. Under your version of foreign policy, every country in the world looks to us to solve its problems.

By my version of foreign policy, we only spend billions of dollars and risk American lives when we are directly threatened with attack. Under your version of foreign policy, we go in with guns blazing whenever George Bush and Colin Powell (and their little bitch Tony Blair) say we should, even if it's based on semi-credible evidence, and other countries seriously question the need to do so.

Under my version of foreign policy, we provide a strong homeland defense while remaining free of limitless, open-ended foreign wars. Under your version of foreign policy, we go to war with a dozen countries over the next 25 years.

Who gives a fuck if the U.S. has been the spearhead of UN aggression for the past 50 years? Does that mean we are obligated to continue such a responsibility? If the US is carrying the UN in terms of military capabilities, why don't we just abolish the UN?

And no thanks, but I won't get off my "Saudi Arabia kick" because you know the Bush Administration is being completely fucking hypocritical. The Bush Administration cries about the atrocities in Iraq and says we need to liberate them all, but they impliedly consent to the atrocities taking place in Saudi Arabia, where people get their tongues cut out if they criticize the government. Women aren't even allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, Al Qaeda was able to receive between $300 million and $500 million over the last 10 years from wealthy businessmen and bankers whose fortunes represent about 20 percent of the Saudi GNP, through a web of charities and companies acting as fronts. Two-thirds of the Islamist militants being held in Camp X-Ray are Saudis. Saudi Arabia is the world's biggest purveyor of fanatical Wahhabi Islam, which propels Islamist terror, and the Saudi media disseminates anti-American and antisemitic slanders. Doesn't this sound like a regime that needs to be toppled? No...because we buy their oil, and they leave us alone. So the Bush standard seems to be...ignore our oil buddies in Saudi Arabia even though they have actual connections to Al Qaeda and they treat their citizens brutally, but attack Iraq because they don't sell us much oil and they might support Al Qaeda.

If you can explain how this is NOT hypocritical, I'll get off my Saudi kick.

Bluto: Seriously, where do you get this stuff. Since 1950 the US has been the spearhead of ALL UN military actions. Why? Because, the US forces are the most advanced, most highly trained, most seasoned, best funded, most experienced military in the world. About 20% of the military frontline forces will be British and Australian because those are the only troops that are as well trained as the American forces. And even their weapons can't keep up with ours. Other countries have only provided peace-keeping forces, reconstruction funds, and war funds for decades. What do you want us to do, try and coordinate forces with Bulgaria and Mexico? To try and run a coalition of actual frontline forces is the stupidest possible thing to try and do. More American troops would be put in harms way by depending on inferior weapons, troops, and generals provided by other countries.

And seriously, get off this Saudia Arabia kick you're on. My hypothetical anecdote about France and the Effel Tower still applies and still goes unanswered. Big fucking deal if 15 of 19 attackers were Saudis. Saudi Arabia is a country which harbors no terrorist groups (unlike Iraq), provides no funds to terrorst groups (unlike Iraq), condones no terrorist actions (unlike Iraq), provides no anti-American rhetoric or pro-Jihad rehtoric (unlike Iraq) and you have the audacity to compare the two. It's assinine. Did you even read the excerpt I posted from TIME confirming actual Al-Qeada forces in Iraq right now. You simply sit there and twist facts to fit your opinion rather than base your opinion on the facts.

And speaking of your "facts," where did you read that this Gulf War will cost thousands of American lives? All reports from Kurdistan (the closest front line) say that the defectors which come over ( a couple dozen a day since December) say that Iraqi forces are cold, tired, hungry, scared, and even the Republican Guard forces that are enmeshed with the regular troops believe that the US is serious this time and are thinking of the safest possible way to surrender.

You're the worst kind of political thinker, one who selectively reads and hears what he wants. Why else would you continually ignore all the evidence I've laid before you about Iraqi terrorism, yet harp on the fact that Saudis that trained in other countries, got funds from other countries, and aren't backed by the Saudi government are Saudi? None, except that you're grasping at straws.

To answer Bluto's question:

We're committing the most troops because we're the ones that care about the oil. Cars in France are powered by anal beads and contempt.


Furthermore, North Korea has no oil of note, therefore we stay on our own side of the DMZ.

Anyone see the Jones v.s Ruiz fight? That was badass. Only third man in the history of boxing to win in a weight division higher than his own.

Nobody answered my question, so I'll pose it again. Assuming that action is justified against Iraq...why does the US have to commit 200,000 troops while most other countries will be committing a few thousand?

Also, y'all talk about Iraq and how they implicitly condone terrorism against Americans. Well how about Saudi Arabia? 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

We're going to spend $200 billion. We're going to lose hundreds or thousands of American lives. We're going to kill up to 500,000 Iraqis (yes, experts have said this won't be like the first Gulf War...this is going to be all-out war and more ammo will be dumped on Iraq in the first 24 hours than was dumped on them the entire length of the first Gulf War). And what will be the result? The removal of Saddam (hopefully), the creation of a mini-America complete with our brand of democracy, rampant anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East as America once again forces Western values on an Arab nation, and the elimination of Iraq as a POTENTIAL supporter of terrorism.

Of course, remaining consistent with this policy, Bush and Company will start looking for the next pushover country to attack -- after all, it helps distract us from the slumping economy back here at home. And we'll continue to try diplomacy with North Korea -- after all, they might actually put up a fight if we attacked. Meanwhile, the ever-present state of war will make it even easier for Adolf Ashcroft to piss all over the Constitution since the country is kept in fear with monthly "terror alerts" (that never materialize).

"A tyrant is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader." - Plato

I didn't know my "golden rule" reference was going to strike such a chord. Obviously, I know we can't and won't attack every country that stands in opposition to our foreign policy, and we don't need to. France, Germany, and the like are not threats to us at this point. But that is not the issue. What I am saying is that we know Saddam is funding terrorist groups, we know he is producing WMDs, we know he has been defying international law for years, and we know he is in full-support of any and all people who attack the United States.

Kelly's statement that genuine threats requiring preemptive strikes are few and far between is very true. So what qualifies as a genuine threat? Saddam's consistent refusal to comply with UN resolutions, coupled with everything else that we know about his activities and intentions, ought to be enough to justify a preemptive strike in this case. How many times are we going to say "this is your last chance" before we finally decide to take action?

UN weapons inspectors have said that Iraq's inspection proposals are not enough to allow them to form a concise opinion on exactly what is going on, so subsequent inspections are worthless, unless we force the Iraqi government to give unlimited access to the inspectors. The only way that will happen is through some kind of military strike. Saddam thinks the rules don't apply to him, and he will not stop until he is shown otherwise. If France and Germany want to stick their heads in the sand, let them. We need neither their permission nor their company.

France has a deal with Iraq worth 50 billion over the next 20 years. They are also owed 7 billion in loans by Iraq. Schroder won re-election in Germany on the platform of no war in Iraq. Of course they don't want to go to war. Both of these elected leaders had no support at home until they waved the anti-war banner. People voted for Chirac with surgical gloves to express their disdain. Schroder had less than 20% approval until he said "No War." Besides, we don't live in a world government where we must all agree. The US has to do what it believes is in it's own best interests regardless of the rest of the world thinks.

Besides, just look at Iraq this way. What if the hawks are wrong? A mass murdering mad-man will be gone. Terror groups will lose funds and a safe haven. The Iraqi people will no longer live under crippling sanctions and the thumb of a dictator. Stabilization will be brought to the region. Now, if the dove's are wrong. Lots of Americans will die. Lots of Kurds, Shi'ites, and Iraqi civilians will continue to die. Terror groups will have access to weapons of mass destruction. Rogue states will see the "resolve" of the UN.

I think a whole lot worse happens if the dove's are wrong than if the hawks are wrong.

do unto others before they do unto you...

that was the Golden Rule of Business, according to Mayor Cleveland.

in un-oil/war related news, i'm spending the first 3.5 days of Spring Break with my girlfriend's family. and i swear to god, the only thing i'm worried about is where i'm gonna take a shit.

No one is saying that preemptive action in certain situations is ridiculous. However, you can never be 100% sure that it is necessary. We could launch an attack on Iraq, and find out that they were completely clean, and that allowing the UN inspectors to finish their job was all that was necessary. Is this scenario highly unlikely? Probably. But it's still possible, and that's why you have to have as many facts as possible before you strike. If we made preemptive action an across the board rule, we'd be attacking everyone but Tony Blair and England at this point.

And again--by launching a strike before other countries have jumped onto the "Down with Iraq!" bandwagon, you're isolating the risk significantly. The US will most likely always be the most visible target, but it's better to be a six-foot tall person in a crowd of five-foot tall people than a six-foot tall person standing alone. If France, Germany, et al are all hesitant to move aggressively at this point, it says something, and the US should listen.

This was worded much better, but I accidentally hit the "This isn't good enough" button, so you're getting the regurgitated "did I remember to say everything again" version.

What I don't mind is preemptive military action against countries that have shown the desire and the ability to attack us. Whether or not Saddam or anyone else actually does attack us is of little consequence because we can't know that until it's too late. What we do know is that they all are well aware of the consequences of terrorist actions or the enabling of terrorist actions against our country. So as long as they sit back and make their threats, they are begging for an ass-kicking and are willingly putting themselves in the line of fire. We took the liberal approach by sitting on our thumbs and waiting for something to happen, and it finally did. Until we step up and prevent such actions from happening again, we will forever be dealing with these repressive monsters. You think a regime change will take a long time? Containment will take even longer, because the longer we're in or near Saddam's territory and the more inspections done by the uN, the more pissed he's going to be and the greater opportunity he will have to distrubute his WMDs to other countries. Saddam has had chance after chance to disarm, and the fact that we're still having to inspect his country 12 years after the fact ought to be a wake up call to everyone who thinks we shouldn't be there.

As for Clinton, I'm not necessarily talking about the speech he gave here. I heard him say on television recently that he feels Bush is doing a commendable job of handling the Iraq situation but should be more concerned about North Korea than Iraq at this point. I agree with that sentiment, but I find it amusing that the man who gave them the power to advance their nuclear program is the one telling Bush to worry about the North Koreans before he deals with Saddam Hussein.

"Do unto others before they do unto us" gives me visions of international McCarthyism, war-style. *Shudder*. I would be scared shitless of a world in which that was the cardinal rule.

Genuine threats that warrant a pre-emptive strike are few and far between. To make that the across the board rule would be insane.

And Bluto, we're finally agreeing on politics!

Looks like I'm wrong. There are proven Al-Qeada links in Iraq. Whoops.


"Nearby, a grittier enemy is priming for battle. In a small pocket of northeastern Iraq, up to 700 well-trained, battle-hardened terrorists backed by al-Qaeda await U.S. forces, eager to enmesh them in a repeat of the Afghan confrontations in Tora Bora and the Shah-i-Kot Valley. They are the Kurdish Islamic militants of the Ansar al-Islam militia, fundamentalists who have imposed a Taliban-like order on the villages they now control. Western and local intelligence sources say the militants receive support from Saddam's state security agencies and hard-line Iranian interests as well as al-Qaeda veterans from Afghanistan and elsewhere.

For more than a year, Ansar has waged a bloody military campaign against the secular administration of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of two political parties controlling the Kurdish region in northern Iraq. In the snow-clad mountains looming over the hamlet of Halabja, where 5,000 people were killed in a 1988 Iraqi chemical bombardment, Peshmerga front lines are hit almost daily by mortar barrages. The jihadists, known to decapitate and burn prisoners alive, overran a Kurdish position Dec. 4 of last year, massacring more than 40 men. Now their supply lines are feverishly channeling matériel forward, including new 120-mm mortars that have begun raining down on Kurdish trenches. In the past month, these extremists have been fortifying their bunkers, bolstering their numbers. Last week trucks visible through field binoculars delivered the latest batch of reinforcements.

General Sheik Jaffa, who directs the front-line Kurdish forces, believes Ansar is bent on war with America. He claims that the audiotape allegedly made by Osama bin Laden that aired on al-Jazeera Arabic satellite news network in February was aimed at these fighters. Their increased activity suggests they are answering bin Laden's call to assist Saddam in any U.S.-led war."

TIME, "Lying in Wait in Kurdistan," March 3, 2003

"Do unto others before they do unto us."

That's setting a pretty dangerous, expansive precedent. If our government decides to conduct preemptive foreign policy, I hope you don't mind the United States being at war for the next 50 years.

Even if I accept this "12 years is long enough" argument, my next question is: Why does the United States have to take the lead in conducting this disarmament-by-force on behalf of the UN? Why not Israel, or European countries? We're going to have 200,000 troops over there fighting, and most countries are only going to commit a few thousand.

Judging by the Clinton speech a few weeks ago, I dont' think his message was "concentrate on N. Korea more than Iraq". I think it was more "the strategy used for N. Korea should not be the same as the one used for Iraq", which is completely true. N. Korea isn't a threat insofar as a direct attack on the US in the way Iraq is--the threat from them is more that they'd sell the weapons to someone like Iraq, making them an indirect threat... to employ the same focus on those two situations would be downright stupid. To give more attention to one situation than the other would also be massively stupid, and I'd be much more concerned of too much focus on Iraq than vice versa.

Back to oil temporarily. My argument was meant for the long term, as in 4-6 years, obviously any campaign in Iraq will inflate prices(thus helping oil companies) for a while. But the eventual increase in supply will lower prices, so regardless of what else is going on in the world, having a government friendly to the US in Iraq will make prices lower than otherwise. Also, Iraq doesn't have to say "fuck this cartel" because EVERYBODY in OPEC produces at capacity except the Saudis. Iraqi oilfields will also greatly increase output when they are able to finally get outside help to upgrade their wells (they operate on bad machinery with outdated methods). I retain my argument that 95% of American oil companies will be hurt (in the long haul) by action in Iraq. I actually do have an idea as to what im talking about here.
Also, do yall reely expect me to chek my grammar on a massage board?

Don't get me started on Clinton and North Korea. He is the dumbass who started all of that crap by giving them access to our nuclear weapons program, yet he has the audacity to say that Bush should concentrate more on North Korea than on Iraq right now. Translation: "I screwed up, so cover my ass."

As for weapons inspections, I'm gonna have to side with "Me" on this one. From what I've heard, Saddam has been more cooperative with the inspections recently, but if we're gullible enough to believe that means he isn't hiding anything, then we're screwed. Our intelligence efforts have already proven that Saddam is being deceptive about exactly what kind of weapons he's been producing and where they are located. All the inspections in the world aren't going to change that. We've given the man 12 years to learn how to circumvent UN weapons inspectors, so he knows what the hell he's doing. Now is the time to change the golden rule to "Do unto others before they do unto us."

If having to get into fist fights with 15 year old mexican kids to see some tits is considered fun than Mardi Gras Austin is fun!!! Seriously, greasy mexicans can pay $5000 for a top of the line digital video camera to film themselves groping tits, on the only night of the year than can get away with it, but they can't buy soap so that we don't have to smell them from a mile away, or a box of condoms so that they will stop over populating our cities

If having to get into fist fights with 15 year old mexican kids to see some tits is considered fun than Mardi Gras Austin is fun!!! Seriously, greasy mexicans can pay $5000 for a top of the line digital video camera to film themselves groping tits, on the only night of the year than can get away with it, but they can't buy soap so that we don't have to smell them from a mile away, or a box of condoms so that they will stop over populating our cities

I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think Iraq is being handled well. North Korea on the other hand . . . don't get me started.

I will concede your first and second points.

I also agree with your third point - that attacks from Al Qaeda may be imminent. They are by all accounts PROBABLE, but I can't say they are imminently about to happen. However, since Al Qaeda has proven they are willing to carry out attacks on our soil, I agree we should pre-empt those attacks by finding and aliminating all Al Qaeda members. Which we are doing. And which has little to do with launching a full scale war against Iraq.

Your fourth point - there is no guarantee that future inspections will find and destroy all of Saddam's weapons. For 11 1/2 years following the first Gulf War, inspections were carried out half-heartedly, and the inspectors voluntarily withdrew when the least bit threatened. However, the past 6 months, Saddam has been under a worldwide microscope. If we were to simply continue inspections with a little more consistency and thoroughness, it would be unlikely that under such a scrutinous worldwide microscope he could develop and store WMDs, including nook-yoo-ler weapons. With the right intelligence and consistent inspections, it would be next to impossible for Saddam to import uranium, and if he began building a nuclear facility capable of building weapons, a tactical military strike would quickly take care of that (as the Israelis did in 1980).

Bottom line: I think a full scale war and regime change is unnecessary and costly...both in terms of lives and in terms of billions of dollars that we can't afford to spend right now considering all the domestic problems we have and the continuing hunt for Al Qaeda. I do think that continued inspections, destruction of weapons found, and containment will suffice...and if facilities are found that violate UN sanctions, targeted military strikes will do the job. A full blown war is simply overdoing it. There are also some collateral reasons why a full-scale war might do more harm than good...rebuilding Iraq for 2+ years with all our troops, generating more anti-American sentiment in the Middle East (after all, Osama bin Laden began hating America because we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia...how do you think the Arab nation will feel about us having troops in Saudi Arabia AND Iraq?), unnecessary Iraqi civilian casualities, US death from friendly fire (remember the Gulf War...we lost more troops to friendly fire than to enemy fire), etc. But I think that, strictly from a foreign policy view, a full-scale war is not necessary when inspections and targeted military strikes (if and when necessary) will do the job. Less is more, sometime.

Dear Bluto,

Thanks for finally arguing your actual convection: containment instead of preemption. I won't argue with you, I just want to say one thing, correct one of your mistakes and ask two questions:

(1) If drafted, I would readily go. I'd be scared shitless, but I'd go.

(2) Saddam attacked and gassed the Kurds several times in the early ninties to put down revolutions. All while the vaunted No-Fly Zone was in effect.

(3) Three embassy bombings are attributable to Bin Ladden and his terror networks, two while in Afghanistan. If that doesn't lead one to believe that future attacks are immenant, what does?

(4) What leads you to believe that future inspections will find and destroy weapons that have been successfully hidden for the past twelve years?

Signed,
Chickenhawk

Cry me a river. Are YOU gonna put on a uniform and go fight when the bombs start dropping? Or are you just another chickenhawk who is so willing to send everyone else into harm's way?

My idea of good foreign policy is one of non-intervention unless our sovereignty is directly threatened. Afghanistan was justified after 9/11. You say we should have pre-empted 9/11 in the mid-1990s? What is this...Minority Report? Well maybe your Magic 8-ball could have predicted that, but no one in the Clinton administration did. If we know of an impending attack on us, it makes sense to pre-empt it by attacking them. But there is a difference between pre-empting a planned, known attack on you, and attacking a country because you speculate that they might try something in the future. If you want to pre-empt every possible attack on the US that might occur in the future, then we're going to have to attack a lot of countries.

12 years and 17 resolutions. And in those 12 years, how many times has Iraq invaded Kuwait? Zero. How many times, in those 12 years, has Iraq attacked Israel? Zero. How many times has Iraq attacked the Kurds to the North or South? Zero...thanks to our no-fly zone. So it looks like the 17 resolutions more or less did their job. However, if we invade Iraq, you can bet on 3 thing: (1) Iraq will fight back against American troops (perhaps with chemical weapons that could have been found and destroyed through further inspections), (2)Iraq will launch missiles against Israel (perhaps with missiles that could have been found and destroyed through further inspections), and (3)Iraq will start slaughtering all the Kurds it can get its hands on. So, an attack by the US will effectively negate all the goals of the UN sanctions that have, for the most part, been met the past 12 years.

Are you still done, or do you want the last word?

Bluto : I'm done with this.

If groups that say that America is the devil and would like to carry out terrorist acts against us isn't anit-American, I don't know what is.

I never in my life argued a certain connection with Al-Qeada to Iraq. Just PIJ, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

And you said that Osama said that Saddam should be killed, which he didn't. I said he backed the Iraqi government against America, which he did.

After you completely ignored my comment about Syria you said it's whacked out reasoning that we don't attack Saudi Arabia because I don't support invading a country where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from? Are you serious? So if 8 Americans acting without the support of the government bomb the Effel Tower in France, France should therefore attack us? And I'm the one with the whacked out reasoning? The actions of a few screwballs or even the feelings of the majority of the people don't determine allies and enemies. The government does. Always has and always will.

As for the flavor of the week: How about 12 years and 17 UN resolutions. If that's not giving peace a chance I don't know what is. How about that he still has biological and chemical warheads and has used them on hundreds of thousands of people and five seperate nations. How about the smuggling of illegal oil out of the country. How about the proven link with finacial funding for terror groups. Those flavors not good enough for you?

If we had invaded Afghanistan after the first embassy bombing, there would never have been a 9/11. If you don't support the policy of preemption, fine, at least I can respect that, but don't keep up with your incorrect statements and faulty logic. It's just gotten sad. Better yet, just don't talk to me anymore.

Dear Mr. Handle of Jager,
You make for one crazy night. Next time, please allow us to think rationally.

Your Friend,
Wheatables

P.S. You made Typing Monkey the drunken, puking monkey. Next time, he'll have your number.