N. Korea threats the US with a pre-emptive attack...

Mike, your points are as always well founded. But to be honest, the problem I have rationalizing war with Iraq is that people need to keep making excuses to justify war. Iraq has done nothing out of the oridinary over the past 12 years. N.Korea, on the other hand, is literally spitting in our face. It just seems to me that the *urgency* of a war on Iraq is being equated with the size of a headline, nothing more. War propaganda in its most basic form.

And for the record: I think it is just as ignorant to believe N.Korea is ' bluffing' , as it is to believe Sadaam is ' ready to fire' if we don' t stop him with war right now. Propaganda.

very good point xanadu...

although, the war against iraq, and the threat that nk poses to the world, is causing the economy to plum down in an instant...i live in the border withing mexico and in the US, and right now, it' s chaos. people that live in mexico and work (or study in the US) and viceversa, are having tons of problems to get to their respective home.

and the worst part of all, is that having a military base (Actually 2) close to here is a threat against us in mexico and the people that live close to it. Fort Bliss is where the Patriot missiles are stored, and in Alamogordo, NM is where all of the stealth bombers are stored too...

i think Mr. Bush is obssesed with war. fighting against terrorism with weapons is not going to bring dead people back lost in terrorism attacks or wars. fighting the terrorism (harsh word to call what i' m about to say) inside our countries (mexico, us, and all others) is the way out, and i don' t mean by terrosism like in killing and explosions; what i mean by terrorism, is all the lack of education, hunger, and the high crime rate that many cities are suffering from.. that' s the terrorism we have to fight..

Hmm.....

I guess not too many of you have been to Washington lately. If you go, there' s something you might see that may help remind you what happened the last time we didn' t take North Korea seriously

What, you mean the VIETNAM WAR MEMORIAL

The one thing I cannot fathom is how resolute some of you are to ignore history and how despots develop. There were tons of idealists trying to " work with" Hitler up to WWII. What good did it do? If France, Britain & the USA had sucked it up and slapped Germany down HARD instead of capitulating time and time again we may have spared the millions of deaths. But we' ll never know now, will we?

Saddam has shown his willingness to attack and destroy. He spits in the face of the UN time and time again and does not show a single sign of relenting. So what, do we wait until he can blackmail the world under the threat of nukes to cover his wars of aggression?

I don' t like the idea of war, either. It' s obviously the last resort. But in many cases, it' s better to get it started sooner than later and save lives on both sides. If we' d done so with Arab terrorism back in the 70' s, we might not have those empty acres in downtown NYC right now. The US govt let the world see that pussies with bombs can kill US soldiers & citizens without much by way of consequence. We should have spent our time giving the terrorist scum & their supporting countries 9mm lobotomies, " diplomacy" be damned.

Nice historical integration, Ekim. That is precisely what I' ve been saying all along.

I think the whole question of whether Saddam has " weapons of mass destruction" is utterly irrelevant. We know a few basic facts which make it more than justifiable to utterly annihilate him-- namely, he has funded certain terrorist organizations (going so far as to give checks to the families of those who have killed themselves in suicide bombings), and those terrorists pose a threat to us. I could care less whether he has nerve agents or nuclear weapons, and in fact, would much prefer we slaughtered him before he acquired such.

On a related note, the above also explains why I' m not totally gung-ho about Iraq-- frankly, I don' t think they' re the big fish. Sure, I' d like to see Iraq decimated. But more importantly, I think, we need to destroy Iran and Saudia Arabia, the two major sources of terrorist funding. With those two, the rest of the Middle East (minus Israel) will fall. And then I' ll smile. But don' t get me wrong, I' m still for blasting Iraq.

-lifepulse

LOL....destroy Saudi Arabia????? Oh, you mean the country that supplied 17 of the September 11 hijackers?

Why would we attack them? They give us oil.

Jpjr, I agree that too much of our policies are shortsighted due to oil. The Saudis haven' t acted like true allies for a good number of years now. And considering we saved their ass from Saddam, they' re quite the ungrateful bastards. You' d think they were French, for god' s sake!

ORIGINAL: Ekim

The one thing I cannot fathom is how resolute some of you are to ignore history and how despots develop. There were tons of idealists trying to " work with" Hitler up to WWII. What good did it do?

It allowed the allies to maintain a second front in Europe and win the war. Most historians at this point feel that Chamberlain knew that Hitler would never abide by any agreements, but he also knew that Britain would be utterly crushed by the German war machine (which was already in overdrive by that point) if he didn' t buy time. Which he did, and during the next year he built up the British military enough to withstand the German onslaught (however narrowly) and remain a thorn in Hitler' s side. Had Chamberlain forced the issue at Munich, Europe would have been lost.

Saddam has shown his willingness to attack and destroy.

He has waged war twice, once at the urging of both his great benefactors (the US and the Soviets) and a second time motivated by legitimate economic greivances (ie the Kuwaitis illegally slant-drilling Iraqi oil). Today huge sections of both southern and northern Iraq exist in states of complete independence from Saddam. Hardly the mark of a man with world-domination on his mind, he' ll be lucky if he ever regains complete control of his own country. Not a one of his neighbours favors war or feels it necessary for their protection. You think if someone had offered to take down the Germans in 1938 the Polish and the Czechs wouldn' t have been thrilled? There' s a doberman down the street from me who bears a more meaningful resemblance to Hitler than Saddam does.

He spits in the face of the UN time and time again and does not show a single sign of relenting. So what, do we wait until he can blackmail the world under the threat of nukes to cover his wars of aggression?

We thought he might have nukes back in 1990... and that made a difference how?

If we' d done so with Arab terrorism back in the 70' s, we might not have those empty acres in downtown NYC right now.

Right, if only we had gone to war with the nation of Terrorism. We could have knocked out their army and occupied their capital city, Terrorismia. Then we could have set up camps to " re-educate" all of the Terrorish people. For all who believe that terrorism can be defeated by mere force of arms, see exhibit a) Israel. Doesn' t work that way. The more aggressively they pursue the issue militarily, the worse it gets.

For all who believe that terrorism can be defeated by mere force of arms, see exhibit a) Israel. Doesn' t work that way. The more aggressively they pursue the issue militarily, the worse it gets.

Actually, maybe Israel' s " force of arms" hasn' t worked in combatting terrorism because they' ve hardly shown any " force of arms" . If they really wanted to solve the problem, they' d raze that farcical country that people call " Palestine" to the ground. But no, instead they' ve captured Arafat, and then held onto him for a while, and then let him go about his business.

On OceanMachine' s logic, the proper thing to do when you encounter a burglar in your home is not to shoot him dead on the spot. Oh no, that will only make his burglarizing increase (or rather, piss off his burglar friends, who themselves will then burglarize you). Rather, you have to " make a deal" with the burglar-- for instance, tell him you " understand his grievances" , but that you think he should only take one TV instead of both of them.

You cannot compromise with immoral or evil people. The homeowner has nothing to gain from the burglar, but only a TV to lose, if he compromises. In any compromise between the good and evil, only the evil can win. In any compromise between Israel and Arafat, only Arafat can win. Israel has nothing positive to gain from him and his ilk (and no, " not being attacked" is not something positive to *gain*; it is the natural state of things). The only way to deal with such people is to obliterate them. Terrorist attacks have increased in Israel precisely because they have *refused* to flex their real muscle, not *because* they flexed any such muscle.

-lifepulse

ORIGINAL: lifepulse
On OceanMachine' s logic, the proper thing to do when you encounter a burglar in your home is not to shoot him dead on the spot.

On OceanMachine' s logic, the proper thing to do is not make half-assed, inapplicable analogies.

In any compromise between the good and evil, only the evil can win.

I' m sorry, but I have a difficult time being persuaded by someone who apparently bases his position on the teachings of Dark Helmet. Good and evil are not concepts that have any place in policy. Right and wrong, perhaps, but not good and evil. Their definitions are totally subjective and arbitrary. They are terms that obscure more than clarify, manipulate more than persuade, and are used, most of the time, only to justify the most awful of human actions.

This moral relativism is driving me nuts.

Given what we know about Saddam, it is more than fair to say that he is an evil man who represents an evil agenda. Not merely " wrong" , but EVIL.

ORIGINAL: Namless
Given what we know about Saddam

Ah, but what do we know of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney to decide on which side of the fence they stand?

Isn' t it about time we get rid of the trolls that don' t really take part in any music discussions, but only in the political flame wars? Just a thought.

KYO:

Who are these " trolls" you refer to?

ORIGINAL: OceanMachine

If we' d done so with Arab terrorism back in the 70' s, we might not have those empty acres in downtown NYC right now.

Right, if only we had gone to war with the nation of Terrorism. We could have knocked out their army and occupied their capital city, Terrorismia. Then we could have set up camps to " re-educate" all of the Terrorish people. For all who believe that terrorism can be defeated by mere force of arms, see exhibit a) Israel. Doesn' t work that way. The more aggressively they pursue the issue militarily, the worse it gets.

Wrong. When we show force, those pussies quake in their boots. Intel reports showed that most of the terror organizations were petrified when GWB came out with his first speeches. With good reason. They understand force and that' s about it. You spare no expense and make them dead. Then you bury their asses with pig guts & blood to soil them in the afterlife like McCarthur did in the Phillipines in the early 1900s. Problem solved. And even if it' s not, you just keep killing them until it is. Sooner or later, razing their turf will get the message across. They' re mad dogs that need to be put down. End of story.

ORIGINAL: Ekim

ORIGINAL: OceanMachine

If we' d done so with Arab terrorism back in the 70' s, we might not have those empty acres in downtown NYC right now.

Right, if only we had gone to war with the nation of Terrorism. We could have knocked out their army and occupied their capital city, Terrorismia. Then we could have set up camps to " re-educate" all of the Terrorish people. For all who believe that terrorism can be defeated by mere force of arms, see exhibit a) Israel. Doesn' t work that way. The more aggressively they pursue the issue militarily, the worse it gets.

Wrong. When we show force, those pussies quake in their boots. Intel reports showed that most of the terror organizations were petrified when GWB came out with his first speeches. With good reason. They understand force and that' s about it. You spare no expense and make them dead. Then you bury their asses with pig guts & blood to soil them in the afterlife like McCarthur did in the Phillipines in the early 1900s. Problem solved. And even if it' s not, you just keep killing them until it is. Sooner or later, razing their turf will get the message across. They' re mad dogs that need to be put down. End of story.

And what intel is that? LOL. Let me guess some of the terrorist groups that probably freaked... FARC, ELN, ETA, the Chechenyans... groups very much similar to the separatist group the NATO supported back when (led by Bill Clinton) they bombed the hell out of Yugoslavia. But now instead of " freedom fighters" are targeted as terrorists, and thank god for that.

And Ekim, terrorism is something that' s born with an idea. You cant kill an idea, when you kill a terrorist 3 of his family members become terrorists, and you are going to keep killing and killing and killing, and you' ll have more and more 9/11' s until someday someone will push the trigger, a nuke blows a city and next thing we know... we all die with a nuclear world war.

Lets get back to the Israel-Palestine issue. If someone kills Arafat, do you really think the palestine will just sit on their asses and do nothing? hell no! if you think killing 50 inside a disco is really awful (like I do), the waves of terrorist attacks that follows will most certainly bring Israel to crumbles (economically and socially speaking). What choices do you have? -Kill Arafat and get ready for a wave of attacks that could last for years and years -Kill Arafat and start killing all palestinians to " protect" yourself, something Hitler would be very proud of and will bring Israel to global isolation. OR!!! you could just try to settle your difference for as long as it takes because any other thing you try to pull is going to be worse for you and your people.

Again, you cant fight against an idea, and if you try to fight fire with fire you will end up burning yourself up.

PEACE...

ORIGINAL: Namless

This moral relativism is driving me nuts.

Given what we know about Saddam, it is more than fair to say that he is an evil man who represents an evil agenda. Not merely " wrong" , but EVIL.

You' re right, people having to think for themselves and make their own moral evaluations is a pain. Clearly everyone should have the exact same moral outlook. But that leaves the nasty problem of deciding on exactly what moral outlook we should all share...

Since I am of a charitable spirit, let me help out:

Henceforth I shall decide the true meaning of good and evil and provide such rulings as are necessary to define who fits in which category and all people shall abide by these decisions, forever freeing us from the scourge of moral relativism. And my first decree is that all those who would arbitrarily slap the label of evil on others in order to justify a self-serving war are evil.

ORIGINAL: SymphonyOfDreams

And Ekim, terrorism is something that' s born with an idea. You cant kill an idea, when you kill a terrorist 3 of his family members become terrorists, and you are going to keep killing and killing and killing, and you' ll have more and more 9/11' s until someday someone will push the trigger, a nuke blows a city and next thing we know... we all die with a nuclear world war.

...

Again, you cant fight against an idea, and if you try to fight fire with fire you will end up burning yourself up.

It' s funny your signature is " Peace" when your ideals only invite more attacks by showing weakness.

As for your " terrorism comes from ideas" you' re looking at it too simplistic a manner. Terror is an ideal tool when the other side doesn' t fight back effectively. The USA ties its hands willingly to fight these cowardly bastards. We don' t carpet bomb innocents for yuks. We take some effort to avoid " collateral damage" . But don' t mistake that to mean we can' t destroy our enemies if we want to. I say scrap the niceties, and hunt these dogs down. EVERYONE that gets in the way, dies. Simple.

As for Isreal, the smartest thing they could do is whack Arafat. They have nothing to lose. Seeing as how the pyscho kills everyone on his own team with a dissenting opinion, we might discover that the PA is willing to deal on honest terms and actually stop their homicidal attacks. Maybe so, maybe not. But it wouldn' t make anything worse. The Isrealis have held back way more than I ever would were I in charge.

Israel is far from innocent, Ekim. Far each attack a Palestinian individual makes, Isreal retaliates by destroying an entire village.
There is no proof provided whatsoever that Arafat is the mastermind behind these terrorist attacks, eliminating wuldn' t solve a thing.
Al Quada is far from eliminated. The US activities in Afghanistan still continue, and are far from over.
No need for muscle-flexing.

OceanMachine, I' d be happy to discuss what the non-arbitrary, non-subjective, factual basis of the concepts of " good" and " evil" are, if you were to take such a discussion seriously. (I' m not saying you wouldn' t, but I don' t know if you would, either; you seem a bit hostile at the outset, so I don' t have the greatest of hope.) Of course, such a discussion would move this topic from the realm of the principle of justice (that is, how to deal with other people in a social setting-- what is the *right* and *wrong* way to deal with people in certain circumstances, and what actions determine whether one is *good* or *evil*)-- to the realm of meta-ethics (i.e., that branch of philosophy that deals with the definitions of moral terms, and with the foundations of ethics-- such questions as, " Why do we need morality at all?" , " What, if any, is the factual basis of moral concepts?" , " What does ' good' and ' evil' mean?" , etc.).

I will only say in advance that I certainly *do* think the terms " good" and " evil" have an actual referent in reality, and are not arbitrary, subjective, emotionalist terms that people fling about merely because they feel like it (though some may in fact do this; but of course, that doesn' t prove that the concepts are necessarily invalid as all people use them).

The simplest way to enter such a discussion is to merely ask, what is the referent of the concept " evil" or " good" as I have used it? I wouldn' t just say, " Saddam Hussein, he' s the referent" . Rather, I think a proper answer would have to be based on some type of moral principle-- " A person is evil if they consistently take actions that are classifiable as evil, and actions are classifiable as evil if they fulfill such and such condition" .

Of course, the ball is now in your court. You have charged me with using arbitrary, subjective concepts. I' m hoping your statement wasn' t merely an arbitrary, subjective assertion, and that you' re willing to enter into an actual rational discussion.

-lifepulse

And my first decree is that all those who would arbitrarily slap the label of evil on others in order to justify a self-serving war are evil.

Correct me if I' m wrong, but are you saying that Saddam is not evil? Are you saying that the utterly deplorable things he has done to his own people does not make him evil? That' s what it sounds like you' re saying.

The US is just naming him evil to justify a war for oil? That sound about right?

ORIGINAL: DawnOfNone

Israel is far from innocent, Ekim. Far each attack a Palestinian individual makes, Isreal retaliates by destroying an entire village.
There is no proof provided whatsoever that Arafat is the mastermind behind these terrorist attacks, eliminating wuldn' t solve a thing.
Al Quada is far from eliminated. The US activities in Afghanistan still continue, and are far from over.
No need for muscle-flexing.

Muscle-flexing? Is this the new " ert" around here now?

This discussion is entirely a waste of time if you' re seriously going to assert that Arafat is not behind the attacks against Isreal.

ORIGINAL: Ekim
It' s funny your signature is " Peace" when your ideals only invite more attacks by showing weakness.

As for your " terrorism comes from ideas" you' re looking at it too simplistic a manner. Terror is an ideal tool when the other side doesn' t fight back effectively. The USA ties its hands willingly to fight these cowardly bastards. We don' t carpet bomb innocents for yuks. We take some effort to avoid " collateral damage" . But don' t mistake that to mean we can' t destroy our enemies if we want to. I say scrap the niceties, and hunt these dogs down. EVERYONE that gets in the way, dies. Simple.

As for Isreal, the smartest thing they could do is whack Arafat. They have nothing to lose. Seeing as how the pyscho kills everyone on his own team with a dissenting opinion, we might discover that the PA is willing to deal on honest terms and actually stop their homicidal attacks. Maybe so, maybe not. But it wouldn' t make anything worse. The Isrealis have held back way more than I ever would were I in charge.

Oh my god dude! this isn' t a penis measuring contest! showing weakness?!? quick lets spend 380 billion on some superdooper viagra!

Ok now... for real. How is waging war an act of peace? how is killing people be it " evil" or be it " good" an act of peace? what does war bring? resentment, hate, and thirst for vengeance. There' s where terrorism is born.

No one is born hating someone or something, it' s something you adquire in time, how? living through it. Some missile blows your house up and kills all your family, next thing you know you have a bomb in your waist and blow up 30 people inside a disco, 30 people that had nothing to do with what happend to your family, yet are some how related to those who did. One airplane crashes against a building and kills all your family who where inside it, next thing you know you are declaring war against countries and start throwing missiles killing thousands and thousands to seek revenge but those thousands had nothing to do with the death of your family inside the building, so then the children of those thousands killed start wearning bombs around their waist and so the cycle begins... again.

Waging war against other nations will just make terrorism stronger, your nation will waste trillions of dollars in time, will go to war with the current axis of evil and the axis of evil to come, and there will still be 9/11' s happening in the world over and over again.

Hate + hate = 2hate. war + war = 2war.

PEACE...

ORIGINAL: Namless
KYO:
Who are these " trolls" you refer to?

I think you just answered your own question here ...