posted by Uncle Moneybags:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That being said, your explanation as to what you would do was exactly what I sought. I disagree.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, bear in mind, over and above the fact that Western civilisation will fall before the U.S. military is dismantled, my idea is more about the military in general than about the "Iraq situation." I have a much bigger problem with pissant would-be dictators here at home than I have with them on the other side of the earth. If the second half of the 20th century proved anything, it is that the United States military is just an exceedingly stupid, bad idea in its current form, and that it needs to go. Naturally, this is not going to happen, and people who should have been aborted will argue that our military is neccessary for "preserving world peace" and all that, but that is nonsense. The only reason we have this massive, superfluous military for preserving world peace is the massive, superfluous bunch of politicians in Washington who go around creating world crises. It's a vicious cycle, like doubling up when you lose.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I would much rather see 1,000 soldiers die now instead of 1,000,000 soldiers and civilians die later.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, killing soldiers (American or otherwise) *just in case* is an idea I find truly sickening. Again, you want to save 1,000,000 civilian lives, stop practicing heavy-handed interventionist policies in violent countries. It is such a sad joke that so many Americans act as if there is no reason in the world for people outside of America to want to sand-blast us off of the map. For every good deed we have ever done in the international arena, we have done at least 1.1 bad ones.
Simple solution? Fvck the international arena. Stop trying to *help* people that are only our friends when they need something, stop trying to *spread democracy* to savages that would build it on their own if they were worth shitting on, stop trying to be the world's policeman, spiritual guide, nanny and accountant, because our own country is so screwed up that the charade and pretension is just disgusting.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't want to get into a "Saddam is no threat to us" debate ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Great, because he isn't, and never has been. The only Americans who have ever been in danger from Saddam Hussein were the ones standing in the middle of his country holding M-16s, and frankly based on the way it's played out even those guys were not in all that much danger.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
... but I think we can agree he wouldn't hesitate to use intermediate and intercontinental weapons to devastate us and other nations, especially Israel.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And? He's never had intercontinental weapons, and he's used intermediates on Israel in the past. I fail to see the problem, at least how the problem relates to America. You want to float your boat in the middle of a sea of hatred and resentment, that's fine; but dont come crying to me for help when the obvious happens.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The question is: Who has these weapons? North Korea and China are two that have had dealings with Saddam in the past. I won't mention the European angles.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
North Korea has intercontinental ballistic missiles? That's suprising. I'm not denying it, because I honestly don't know, but that would be really suprising. China has some to be sure, but I seriously doubt that they would sell trade or give them to Hussein, and of course the point is now moot since we've killed several hundred Americans and several thousand Iraqis *just in case* China ever decided to provide Iraq with intercontinental missiles.
Now that that's done, we'll never have to worry about Iraq or China again, right? No future ruler of Iraq will ever make such an agreement with any future ruler of China, is that the case? Ah. It's not the case. Well, no problem; we'll just periodically kill some more Americans, Iraqis and/or Chinese to further reinforce the world's understanding of our commitment to peace and justice in the world.
The whole argument is just fvcking disgusting, exactly the logical conclusion of a century of mostly pointless warfare in an age of increasingly sophisticated techonolgy, declining morality, and utterly, utterly out of control statism. I almost wish the whole thing would just hurry up and collapse in on itself. Global social pandemonium is an only slightly less appealing idea to me than even one more decade of the current state of things.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That being said, your explanation as to what you would do was exactly what I sought. I disagree.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, bear in mind, over and above the fact that Western civilisation will fall before the U.S. military is dismantled, my idea is more about the military in general than about the "Iraq situation." I have a much bigger problem with pissant would-be dictators here at home than I have with them on the other side of the earth. If the second half of the 20th century proved anything, it is that the United States military is just an exceedingly stupid, bad idea in its current form, and that it needs to go. Naturally, this is not going to happen, and people who should have been aborted will argue that our military is neccessary for "preserving world peace" and all that, but that is nonsense. The only reason we have this massive, superfluous military for preserving world peace is the massive, superfluous bunch of politicians in Washington who go around creating world crises. It's a vicious cycle, like doubling up when you lose.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I would much rather see 1,000 soldiers die now instead of 1,000,000 soldiers and civilians die later.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, killing soldiers (American or otherwise) *just in case* is an idea I find truly sickening. Again, you want to save 1,000,000 civilian lives, stop practicing heavy-handed interventionist policies in violent countries. It is such a sad joke that so many Americans act as if there is no reason in the world for people outside of America to want to sand-blast us off of the map. For every good deed we have ever done in the international arena, we have done at least 1.1 bad ones.
Simple solution? Fvck the international arena. Stop trying to *help* people that are only our friends when they need something, stop trying to *spread democracy* to savages that would build it on their own if they were worth shitting on, stop trying to be the world's policeman, spiritual guide, nanny and accountant, because our own country is so screwed up that the charade and pretension is just disgusting.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't want to get into a "Saddam is no threat to us" debate ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Great, because he isn't, and never has been. The only Americans who have ever been in danger from Saddam Hussein were the ones standing in the middle of his country holding M-16s, and frankly based on the way it's played out even those guys were not in all that much danger.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
... but I think we can agree he wouldn't hesitate to use intermediate and intercontinental weapons to devastate us and other nations, especially Israel.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And? He's never had intercontinental weapons, and he's used intermediates on Israel in the past. I fail to see the problem, at least how the problem relates to America. You want to float your boat in the middle of a sea of hatred and resentment, that's fine; but dont come crying to me for help when the obvious happens.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The question is: Who has these weapons? North Korea and China are two that have had dealings with Saddam in the past. I won't mention the European angles.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
North Korea has intercontinental ballistic missiles? That's suprising. I'm not denying it, because I honestly don't know, but that would be really suprising. China has some to be sure, but I seriously doubt that they would sell trade or give them to Hussein, and of course the point is now moot since we've killed several hundred Americans and several thousand Iraqis *just in case* China ever decided to provide Iraq with intercontinental missiles.
Now that that's done, we'll never have to worry about Iraq or China again, right? No future ruler of Iraq will ever make such an agreement with any future ruler of China, is that the case? Ah. It's not the case. Well, no problem; we'll just periodically kill some more Americans, Iraqis and/or Chinese to further reinforce the world's understanding of our commitment to peace and justice in the world.
The whole argument is just fvcking disgusting, exactly the logical conclusion of a century of mostly pointless warfare in an age of increasingly sophisticated techonolgy, declining morality, and utterly, utterly out of control statism. I almost wish the whole thing would just hurry up and collapse in on itself. Global social pandemonium is an only slightly less appealing idea to me than even one more decade of the current state of things.
Phaedrus
