The Tragedy of War As An End In Itself

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-09 12:34am

Coyote wrote:Uhh.. we can already win this fight.

Uhh, he's not talking about this fight. He's talking about some bizzare kind of containment involving selling Saddam second-line US equipment.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-09 12:38am

0.1 wrote:
Plus, what are you going to do once he stockpiles all the weapons he buys and decides to start taking over the middle east? Rap him on the knuckles and say 'bad boy'?
No, it's simple, you make a deal with him, since America is the supplier, it'll always be in the superior position. So he'd have: F-15s, F-16s, M1A1s. The Americans would have F-22s, JSFsl, M1A2s.. point: don't pick a fight you can't win.

You are one cold hearted SOB...
Uh huh, Josef's little phrase: "disease is the gratitude of dogs" points to the fact that in the end, you are looking out for #1 first, foremost, and only. And there is NOTHING wrong with enlightened self-interest. The world would understand that at least as it would fall in line with what other countries would do to gain influence, power and money.

Besides, people don't want to be policed, and Americans aren't been asked by everyone else to do it. Ask any of the anti-war people here, and they will tell you that no one is asking the U.S. to be the world's cop, and it ain't America's job.

Ah, yes, there is nothing wrong with enlightened self interest, but supplying him with material to carry on a war against anyone he pleases, especially after his militaristic position on the US and our allies in the middle east?

And I also find it somewhat disturbing that you use quotes from the man who killed more people than anyone in history because they didn't agree with him to reinforce your points. If anything, it just makes you look more and more like a cold hearted SOB.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-09 12:40am

I got to looking, and the more I see, the more 0.1 looks like a troll...

Baron Mordo · Post by **Baron Mordo** » 2003-03-09 12:45am

Coyote wrote: Why didn't America step in back then? I dunno. The world changes; interests and policies and expectations change. Now Saddam has nukes, missiles that can threaten the neighbors, and signed a treaty specifically stating that he woudl disarm him WMDs.

It could also be that Iraq now has the capability to take out Israel, a big investment priority for the US.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-03-09 12:47am

You mean if a “few wars break out” on their terms rather than our own? No. Fighting when they set the timetable and choose the location will be a far more costly affair even with United Nations assistance.

The counter point is, there is NOT one single country in the world that would consider directly attacking the U.S. If they attack someone else, well, as long as American economic interests aren't threatened in the long run, then it's ok.

Ah, yes, there is nothing wrong with enlightened self interest, but supplying him with material to carry on a war against anyone he pleases, especially after his militaristic position on the US and our allies in the middle east?

Geopolitical reality, enemies can be friends. Think Japan and Germany, heck, if America switched position in the middle of WWII, do you think ole Adolf would've refused? So, make a deal with Saddam.

And don't misunderstand the concept of using a quote that is very much pointing to human nature. If that makes me a cold hearted SOB, well, I haven't denied it, have I?

By the way, Enlightenment, I am not talking about containment. The U.S. shouldn't care about that, why contain him? Where is the profit in that?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-09 12:47am

Yes, another thing.

Israel.

Our strongest ally in the middle east, and one of the few we can truly count on to help us if need be in the middle east. Plus, they are a military powerhouse in the entire region, and could most likely take on any middle eastern country single handedly, if it wasn't for their small size.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-09 12:50am

0.1 wrote:Geopolitical reality, enemies can be friends. Think Japan and Germany, heck, if America switched position in the middle of WWII, do you think ole Adolf would've refused? So, make a deal with Saddam.

And don't misunderstand the concept of using a quote that is very much pointing to human nature. If that makes me a cold hearted SOB, well, I haven't denied it, have I?

Yeah...

I am sure that Saddam would just up and take us in. Seeing that he killed his brother-in-law among other family members to keep his regime secure, I cannot see him just accepting us just like that. This is a mad man we are talking about. He does not think rationally.

Plus, he has alot of the Iraqi public thinking that they won the gulf war. You think he is just going to fess up to his people that they lost the war?

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-03-09 12:54am

Plus, he has alot of the Iraqi public thinking that they won the gulf war. You think he is just going to fess up to his people that they lost the war?

Sounds like a problem wounded pride to me. So what, he tells his people they won. Big deal, do you think anybody likes to tell people that they are losers?

Simple analogy:

Let's say you kicked someone's teeth in, and everyone knew it. And the guy who got beat up says that he won the fight, and kept yammering about it. Do you think it really matters?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-09 12:57am

That analogy is a bit off, 0.1. There is a difference between telling your buddies you won a fight when you didn't and a despotic ruler telling his people he won a war in which he lost horribly.

And, if his pride is so wounded, do you think that he would go into an alliance with the people that did the wounding? No.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-03-09 01:18am

Not talkinga bout Saddam's pride. Sound like wounded pride for the Americans because they worry so damn much about what some nobody is lying to his own people

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-09 01:24am

0.1 wrote:Not talkinga bout Saddam's pride. Sound like wounded pride for the Americans because they worry so damn much about what some nobody is lying to his own people

What the heck?

Not really that worried about it, other than we think it is stupid.

And how would we have wounded pride? We beat the crap out of him and the world knows it...

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-03-09 02:19am

NF_Utvol wrote:I got to looking, and the more I see, the more 0.1 looks like a troll...

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-09 09:49am

Don't you think that's silly though? Why would any country want to be the world's policemen... there isn't really anything in it for them. Not like the world is paying money directly to us for the services of being the world's cop.

We are “the world’s cop” – but only where conducive to American interests. It’s an unfair stereotype, really. One might better describe us as equally self-interested and yet inherently more capable than all others out there.

The counter point is, there is NOT one single country in the world that would consider directly attacking the U.S. If they attack someone else, well, as long as American economic interests aren't threatened in the long run, then it's ok.

Nobody will launch a direct attack. As far as indirect attacks go? I give you Afghanistan.

If Hussein attacks any other party in the vicinity or continues to fund Palestinian terror directly, he remains a threat to American interests and must be countered.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-09 12:45pm

Hameru wrote:
NF_Utvol wrote:I got to looking, and the more I see, the more 0.1 looks like a troll...

WTF? Screaming that we ought to give weapons to Saddam? Making irrational arguments?

Just looking like a troll to me. Might not be, but that is what I am seeing.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-09 03:23pm

jegs2 wrote:
Ted wrote:
jegs2 wrote:Yes, ware is terrible, but at times it is also necessary.
Is it necessary now though?

I have seen or heard no evidence that it is.
The removal of Saddam's regime is necessary. Currently, an invasion is the recommended course of action IOT meet that objective. Do you know of a viable alternative that would accomplish that objective?

I must have said that 40 times in the last week.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-09 03:33pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:
jegs2 wrote:
Ted wrote: Is it necessary now though?

I have seen or heard no evidence that it is.
The removal of Saddam's regime is necessary. Currently, an invasion is the recommended course of action IOT meet that objective. Do you know of a viable alternative that would accomplish that objective?
I must have said that 40 times in the last week.

But do the majority (I say the majority, not all) of anti-war protestors listen to reason?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-09 04:01pm

not usually, no.