Where did N korea get it's nukes from???? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-16-2003, 04:37 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 11:36 AM
I know I'm grossly misquoting here, changing words that were not in the original post. But still, imagine this 15 or 20 years ago...

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Some people here forgot how important Iraq has been in fighting Iran. At the current time Iraqi cooperation to fight Iran is more important than allegations about how Iraq might have a nuclear program. Iraq is not involved in the war on terrorism by the way. Also, a lot of these events happened long before the Bush Administration was in office, so your blame, if it is warrented, is partly mis-placed.
[...]
To the best of my knowledge, Iraq has never used WMD before (1988 that is).
And I only (mostly) substituted 'Pakistan' with 'Iraq' and 'finding Al Qaeda' with 'fighting Iran'...



Marty

(edited to correct the explanation of the substitution)
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 10:31 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Arun V,

Was it wrong to send Stalin Supplies and cash during World War II?

One should not be held hostage to unrealistic notions of idealism. The World is not black and white, its gray. The problems are complex and require complex solutions to deal with them.

Stalin was a mass murder, perhaps the worst in history. But it was more vital to the USA and the world, that he and his military successfully prevent the Germans from overruning their country, then the idealistic notion of "never under any circumstances supply anything of use to a genocidal muderer".

The current regime in Pakistan did not commit the autrocities you talk about from 30 years ago. Finding Al Quada is a must, a more important objective for the USA and world instead preventing funds from reaching the Pakistani regime or completely solving the problem of Kashmire.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 11:07 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Anitram,

Do you remember what happened on 9/11, these are NOT just some Terrorist! 3,025 people were killed in the space of 2 hours. The American people demand that this terror organization that has more global reach than any terrorist organization ever, be destroyed. I think thats a more important goal at the CURRENT TIME for the rest of the world in solving then trying to completely solve a decades old dispute in Kashmire.

I understand the problems that exist in Pakistan and Kashmire and they are difficult ones to solve. But at the current time they do not threaten the USA in the way that Al Quada does.


"In 20 years, when some guy trained in a Pakistani terror camp takes out Bloomingdales and 3 city blocks with it, then of course it will be time to invade, to liberate those poor people from dictatorship, to bring them democracy, to stop them from threatening the poor Indians next door. Why? because this government of Bush & co. only deals with consequences and not with the problems themselves."

There have been terror training camps in Pakistan for over 50 years. Your fantasy story has never happened and there is no reason to suspect that it will in the future because their fight is with India over Kashmire, not with the USA. I'm sorry, but all terrorist are not the same.

Actually its the Anti-War crowd that only likes to deal with consequences and not problems themselves. Remember, were supposed to wait until tens of thousands are dead on the streets of a US city or European City before the USA or another country can do anything about it. "The USA cannot not justify its attack on Iraq because Iraq has not attacked it yet".

It is the Bush administrations that has dealt with the problem of Iraq's refusal to disarm itself rather than waiting for the consequences to happen like the Anti-war crowd would have the USA do!

"And so it goes and so it goes. And so it went with Iraq in the 80s and so it went with Afghanistan in the 80s, and so it goes again and again like the politicians are all mentally challenged and 2+2=6 to them."

Ah, yes, more references to how the USA helped the SOVIET UNION's client state in the 1980s. Very little was done since the Soviet Union gave 80% of all the weapons that Iraq used in addition to training its military extensively in Soviet tactics. China and France are number 2 and 3 on the list of helpers. The USA would not make the top 10. I could get more detailed if you'd like.

But it was certainly in the USA's best interest that Iraq prevent Iran from overruning it after Saddam foolishly attacked Iran in 1980. But too many people don't understand that because THEY only look at the problems of today and make incorrect connections between today and the past. Did they ever ask themselves if it was in the best interest of the region and the world to have the Iranians overrun Iraq and push into the persian gulf region? What many of these critics fail to remember is the overall context of what was happening back then. They criticize the policies back then without considering the costs of the alternatives. But as you say "mentally challenged and 2+2=6"
Then again, most of them fail to know or even give an alternative.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 11:16 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Popmartijn,

Iraq was the Soviets Client State, not the USA's. It was in US interest though, that Iran not succeed in overrunning Iraq. By your recent posts, sounds like you wish Iran had won that war eh? Over 90% of the supplies and money to help Iraq fight that war came from the Soviet Union, China, France, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and other Gulf States. The USA had a smaller role than those countries. But perhaps your upset over those other countries aid to Iraq. Do you think it would have been in Kuwaits or Saudia Arabia's best interest to not help Iraq, see Iraq be defeated, and then become the next victims of Iranian aggression? If you were in charge and doing things differently, what would you have done, and oh, what would the costs have been?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 07:45 AM   #35
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Arun V,

Was it wrong to send Stalin Supplies and cash during World War II?

One should not be held hostage to unrealistic notions of idealism. The World is not black and white, its gray. The problems are complex and require complex solutions to deal with them.

Stalin was a mass murder, perhaps the worst in history. But it was more vital to the USA and the world, that he and his military successfully prevent the Germans from overruning their country, then the idealistic notion of "never under any circumstances supply anything of use to a genocidal muderer".

The current regime in Pakistan did not commit the autrocities you talk about from 30 years ago. Finding Al Quada is a must, a more important objective for the USA and world instead preventing funds from reaching the Pakistani regime or completely solving the problem of Kashmire.


Yeah...but the US did nothing 30 years ago..but apprantly since this is outside teh 20 year time limit I should just forget about it. And it has nothing to do with kashmir.


It's about a stance that the Us has taken on terrorism ....didn't bush say any country that harbors terrorists will not be safe???
huh...that must have been BS.

Sting you fail to recognize the base hypocrisy here. Pakistan harbors groups that are on the state departments terrorist list..but as long as they hand over al qaeda it's ok??? Those terrrorists also have contempt for the US and will bring the war here at some point.


Ok lets' say that the regime is different and didn't commit the attorcities of 30 years ago


what about the refugee crisis today that pakistan has caused? the ethnic cleansing? It's still going on.

And what about WMD"S and proliferation....they have them..and they have terror camps..whose to say that they wont' find their way into the hands of terror groups??? Let's say the pakistani government decides to proliferate it to country like syria which has ties to hezbollah...which has serious contempt for the US...what's going to happen.



we overlooked the attrocities saddam was commiting against his own people we overlooked when he used chem weapons against the iranians in fact we provided the ntellgience for saddam to attack the iranians knowing he would use chem weapons.

you can't use 9/11 as the only model for which the US will be attacked.


Sting this breaks down one or two ways 1.) The Us can take a tough stance on pakistan and say that it has to do more and just handing over al qaeda leaders isn't enough it has to prove it's truly an ally in the war on terror...and close all the terrorist camps. Which in and of itself has nothing to do with kashmir just being consistent with the stand the US has taken

or 2.) We allow the same mistake to happen twice..and we build saddam number 2. Sort of interesting that they way saddam and mushareff came to power was similair...and just like saddam we keep mushareff around because he's our ally...could history be repeating itself?



But if 2.) happens to take precedence...let's stop calling it a war on terror...it's then either "the war on al qaeda"...or " the war on countries that have terrorists..but dont' hand over the specific ones we want.




You can't blame me for asking that the US be consistent...it doesn't ahve to mediate in kashmir it doesn't ahve to solve it....all it has to do is pressure pakistan into closing other terror camps.



A rogue nation ...with nukes terror ties and the willingness to sell nuclear tech.....I think this falls under the security interests of teh US.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 05:04 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 05:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V

Sting this breaks down one or two ways 1.) The Us can take a tough stance on pakistan and say that it has to do more and just handing over al qaeda leaders isn't enough it has to prove it's truly an ally in the war on terror...and close all the terrorist camps. Which in and of itself has nothing to do with kashmir just being consistent with the stand the US has taken

or 2.) We allow the same mistake to happen twice..and we build saddam number 2. Sort of interesting that they way saddam and mushareff came to power was similair...and just like saddam we keep mushareff around because he's our ally...could history be repeating itself?



And STING, re-read what I wrote. I said that a terrorist trained in a Pakistani terror camp could cause damage/fatalities to the US in the future. You responded that terrorists in Kashmir have no problem with the USA, and that their problem lies with India. At no point did I talk about Kashmiri terrorists, I talked about anybody who is getting terror training within Pakistani borders. You can't tell me that you honestly believe that all terror training facilities in Pakistan only exist to pump out men who will go kill Hindus. No, there are Sadis, Yemenis, hell there was your very own John Walker Lindh in Pakistan. If you don't believe these people are a future threat to your country, fine, so be it. I think you're sincerely and sorely mistaken.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 01:15 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Arun V,

Listen, as I have said so many times before, do you think supplying Stalin with billions of dollars of supplies would be something the USA would want to do any day of the week. We had a very realistic and important reason to supply Stalin during World War II, just as we have an important reason to have Pakistans fool cooperation to root out Al Quada. But first answer my Question! Do you think it was wrong for the USA to supply Stalin during World War II?

Look, ethnic cleansing is going on in a lot of places around the world and Pakistan has WMD primarily because they need it to deter India. Most of the terror camps in Pakistan train people for fighting in Kashmire. Not to fight on a global scale like Al Quada.

"we overlooked the attrocities saddam was commiting against his own people we overlooked when he used chem weapons against the iranians in fact we provided the ntellgience for saddam to attack the iranians knowing he would use chem weapons"

Again, did you read my post! Do you know the context in which the attrocities under Saddam occured? What was going on at that point? We provided intelligence to Saddam about Iranian troop positions because we wanted to help prevent Iran from overruning Iraq and then the rest of the Persian Gulf! Your failing to understand US actions because your not looking at them in light of the full context of what was going on at that time.

"Sting this breaks down one or two ways 1.) The Us can take a tough stance on pakistan and say that it has to do more and just handing over al qaeda leaders isn't enough it has to prove it's truly an ally in the war on terror...and close all the terrorist camps. Which in and of itself has nothing to do with kashmir just being consistent with the stand the US has taken"

Cooperation with Pakistan is key to catching other members of Al Quada and Bin Ladin. The USA is working hard with Pakistan on this and has prevented the Kashmire dispute from errupting into full scale war. To a certain degree, the Kashmire dispute is so imbedded with the people that it would be impossible for the Pakistani government to fully destroy all the terrorist camps. In any event, unless the USA were to invade Pakistan, the USA is not going to get any more cooperation out of Pakistan than were getting now. The cooperation has been very helpful in rounding up terrorist that are targeting the USA. The USA is not going to sacrifice those gains just so we can fit your definition of what would be a consistent foreign policy in regards to terrorism.

Realism demands that you do the best you can to achieve what is more important realizing sometimes you will not get everything you want and sometimes there are tradeoffs. The USA cannot invade every country on the planet and kill every terrorist or supposed terrorist in every country. The USA does what is in its best interest, and its in the best interest of the USA to cooperate with Pakistan in order to get the most dangerous terrorist in history. Being able to do that right now is far more important then catching terrorist who are tied up in a conflict that has been going on for decades, or other "terrorist" not apart of Al Quada that one dreams will come back to haunt you some day.

"or 2.) We allow the same mistake to happen twice..and we build saddam number 2. Sort of interesting that they way saddam and mushareff came to power was similair...and just like saddam we keep mushareff around because he's our ally...could history be repeating itself?"

THE USA DID NOT BUILD SADDAM! Again, Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union. The USA did not put Mushareff in power either.

The USA is very consistent but it doesn't define terrorist or being consistent in the way that you do which basically lumps people places and things that are often unrelated.

Pakistan is not anything like Iraq. It has not invaded any countries in over 50 years. I'm talking about independent recognized countries, and not civil wars.

Iraq has invaded and attacked four different countries, independent countries, in the past 20 years. All of this occured under THE SAME REGIME!

There are definitely problems in Pakistan, but it is light years away from Iraq.

The US currently has the correct policy toward Pakistan that we'll yield the most positive results. Catching Al Quada is the #1 operation for the USA in that region. The USA is concerned about Pakistans alleged dealings with North Korea, and the problems with Kashmire. It continues to work with Pakistan on trying to settle these issues.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 01:24 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Anitrim,

"And STING, re-read what I wrote. I said that a terrorist trained in a Pakistani terror camp could cause damage/fatalities to the US in the future. You responded that terrorists in Kashmir have no problem with the USA, and that their problem lies with India. At no point did I talk about Kashmiri terrorists, I talked about anybody who is getting terror training within Pakistani borders. You can't tell me that you honestly believe that all terror training facilities in Pakistan only exist to pump out men who will go kill Hindus. No, there are Sadis, Yemenis, hell there was your very own John Walker Lindh in Pakistan. If you don't believe these people are a future threat to your country, fine, so be it. I think you're sincerely and sorely mistaken."

Certainly there are elements in Pakistan and maybe 150 different countries around the world that could had some point have the potential to cause harm to the USA. But is it likely, is it the most serious and urgent threat that Al Quada is, NO. Most terror training camps in Pakistan are for Kashmire, and John Walker Lindh, Saudi's and others were there for Al Quada. Al Quada is who were after and Pakistan has been enormously helpful in rounding up Al Quada. Your failing to understand and acknowledge that. You seem to underestimate the known threats and create or overestimate threats that at most are small and may not even exist. You worry about the future John Walker Lindh, I'll worry about Bin Ladin.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 03:55 AM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 11:36 AM
OK, I'll bite.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Listen, as I have said so many times before, do you think supplying Stalin with billions of dollars of supplies would be something the USA would want to do any day of the week. We had a very realistic and important reason to supply Stalin during World War II, just as we have an important reason to have Pakistans fool cooperation to root out Al Quada. But first answer my Question! Do you think it was wrong for the USA to supply Stalin during World War II?
First, Stalin is ancient history. It did not happen in the last 20 years.
Second, yes I do think it was wrong for the USA to supply Stalin during WWII. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, killing millions of Sovjets. Would the Sovjet Union have lost the war with Hitler's Germany when he wasn't supplied? We never know for sure, but I think not. Hitler made some serious planning mistakes when he began Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the USSR), which made the invasion doomed from the start (although with a very high death toll).

Quote:
"we overlooked the attrocities saddam was commiting against his own people we overlooked when he used chem weapons against the iranians in fact we provided the ntellgience for saddam to attack the iranians knowing he would use chem weapons"

Again, did you read my post! Do you know the context in which the attrocities under Saddam occured? What was going on at that point? We provided intelligence to Saddam about Iranian troop positions because we wanted to help prevent Iran from overruning Iraq and then the rest of the Persian Gulf! Your failing to understand US actions because your not looking at them in light of the full context of what was going on at that time.
Does the context in which the atrocities happened have any significance? If so, then you can stop saying things like "Iraq has invaded 4 countries in 20 years" and "Saddam used WMD on 'his own people' (the Kurds)". Because, in your view, considering the situation those things were not bad enough for the USA to take some action then, so why should they have been relevant 15 years later?
Many in this thread state that by helping/supporting a dictator will in the long run cause that you've created a new enemy.

Quote:
Realism demands that you do the best you can to achieve what is more important realizing sometimes you will not get everything you want and sometimes there are tradeoffs. The USA cannot invade every country on the planet and kill every terrorist or supposed terrorist in every country. The USA does what is in its best interest, and its in the best interest of the USA to cooperate with Pakistan in order to get the most dangerous terrorist in history. Being able to do that right now is far more important then catching terrorist who are tied up in a conflict that has been going on for decades, or other "terrorist" not apart of Al Quada that one dreams will come back to haunt you some day.
Realism also demands that you take into consideration what the result will be of your actions. As I said above, supporting a tyrant will increase the possibility that the tyrant becomes so powerful that it can/will turn against you. It's nice that the USA gets cooperation from Pakistan to get the most dangerous terrorist in history. But in the meantime the USA is supporting a regime that might also develop the second most dangerous terrorist in history.

Quote:
"or 2.) We allow the same mistake to happen twice..and we build saddam number 2. Sort of interesting that they way saddam and mushareff came to power was similair...and just like saddam we keep mushareff around because he's our ally...could history be repeating itself?"

THE USA DID NOT BUILD SADDAM! Again, Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union. The USA did not put Mushareff in power either.
Maybe the USA did not build Saddam, but they did fully support him. The USA also did not build Musharraf, but now they are fully supporting his regime. And building does not only mean helping someone get into power, but also keeping someone in power and making him more powerful. IIRC, Musharaf's position was quite weak before the USA started supporting him (after all, he did came into power in an unlawful way, through a military coup), but now he's securely in power. That's also a way of building a dictator.

Quote:
Pakistan is not anything like Iraq. It has not invaded any countries in over 50 years. I'm talking about independent recognized countries, and not civil wars.

Iraq has invaded and attacked four different countries, independent countries, in the past 20 years. All of this occured under THE SAME REGIME!

There are definitely problems in Pakistan, but it is light years away from Iraq.
Are you saying the same when eventually Pakistani terrorists will attack the USA? Besides, the Taliban initially came from Pakistan and they harboured Bin Laden. Just because a country hasn't invaded before does not mean it will not do so in the future. For more than 18 months we are talking about the USA tackling the cause of the 9-11 terrorist attacks instead of just it's consequences. Some argued for an attitude change, but preventing 'terrorist dictators' to gain/increase power is just as important.

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 07:48 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:36 AM
"First, Stalin is ancient history. It did not happen in the last 20 years.
Second, yes I do think it was wrong for the USA to supply Stalin during WWII. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, killing millions of Sovjets. Would the Sovjet Union have lost the war with Hitler's Germany when he wasn't supplied? We never know for sure, but I think not. Hitler made some serious planning mistakes when he began Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the USSR), which made the invasion doomed from the start (although with a very high death toll)."

I know it irritates you, but I bring up Iraq's actions of the past 20 years, because it has violated international law 4 times in the most serious of ways, all of it under the same regime. I never stated that something was ancient history because it happened longer than 20 years ago.

The example I use with Stalin and the Soviet Union is applicable regardless of what time period were talking about. Its an example which shows that sometimes, in order to survive or secure something that is more valuable, you have to compromise and be willing to do things that under ordinary circumstances you would not do.

Having studied extensively the conflict on the Eastern front and knowing how quickly modern military's will collapse without a strong logistical base, I know that without the massive aid that the Soviet Union recieved from the west in the form of raw materials, food, clothes, etc. It would have been impossible for the Soviet Union to defeat Germany. The Lend-lease supply operation is the largest supply operation in the history of warfare. Despite Hitlers mistakes in the begining, the Soviets could not have sustained a resistence for several more years without the massive aid from the west.

"Does the context in which the atrocities happened have any significance? If so, then you can stop saying things like "Iraq has invaded 4 countries in 20 years" and "Saddam used WMD on 'his own people' (the Kurds)". Because, in your view, considering the situation those things were not bad enough for the USA to take some action then, so why should they have been relevant 15 years later?
Does the context in which the atrocities happened have any significance? If so, then you can stop saying things like "Iraq has invaded 4 countries in 20 years" and "Saddam used WMD on 'his own people' (the Kurds)". Because, in your view, considering the situation those things were not bad enough for the USA to take some action then, so why should they have been relevant 15 years later?
Many in this thread state that by helping/supporting a dictator will in the long run cause that you've created a new enemy.
."

First its the cumulative total of Saddam's behavior plus his possession of WMD that makes him the dangerous threat that had to be overthrown. The USA had strong reasons to overthrow him in 1991, but it was felt at that time that it would be better politically to try and disarm Saddam peacefully and that he would most likely not survive another 12 years in power. Sanctions and other constraints were put on him. But all these efforts to contain or resolve the threat over the pass 12 years without going to war failed. Saddams increasing ability to evade the sanctions and his pursuit of WMD and the possibility that he may only have been a year or two away from building a nuclear weapon were the reasons that finally forced the USA to ensure that he was disarmed by using military force.

Another reason why the USA did not overthrow Saddam say in the 1980s, was the context in which events were taking place. I'll say it again, we did not want to weaken Iraq so that it would be unable to prevent the Iranians from overruning the country and then Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Despite Saddam's bad behavior it was more important at the time to contain Iran. Also Saddam at that point had only invaded one country and the full extent of his WMD program was not known yet, like it would be after the 1991 Gulf War. Again, not only do you have to look at the context in which things happen, but you also have to remember what was known and had happened at certain points in time say 1988. Saddam in 1988 was a dictator who had invaded and attacked only 1 country rather than 4.

Not the USA had much of a choice though in the situation, since the biggest suppliers of Iraq were, the Soviet Union, China, France, and other Gulf States. The USA was not even in the top 10 and the minor aid it sent to Saddam had very little effect on the outcome of the Iran/Iraq war.


"Realism also demands that you take into consideration what the result will be of your actions. As I said above, supporting a tyrant will increase the possibility that the tyrant becomes so powerful that it can/will turn against you. It's nice that the USA gets cooperation from Pakistan to get the most dangerous terrorist in history. But in the meantime the USA is supporting a regime that might also develop the second most dangerous terrorist in history."

Exactly, and your failing to realize that not supporting certain regimes will have consequences as well! Your not realizing the costs of not engaging in the actions the USA is currently engaged. Realism demands that you look at the costs of not acting as well as acting. A Judgment is then made on what to do based on the likely costs, chance of success, and future benefits. It is more beneficial for the USA to help Pakistan and thereby catch the most dangerous terrorist on the planet rather than not have Pakistans cooperation, fail to catch the worst terrorist on the planet, all because you do not want to in any way support a regime that supports terrorist fighting in Kashmire who some dream will suddenly start showing up in the USA despite the fact that the fighting in Kashmire will not be over. Al Quada is the most serious terror threat to the USA in Pakistan. Working with Pakistan will and has resulted in capturing many of them. Not working with Pakistan will prevent the USA from catching its #1 terrorist, and will do nothing to prevent the hypothetical threat you think is going to come from some Pakistani not aligned with Al Quada. The support the USA has given the regime in Pakistan has helped to catch more terrorist than it has created, if indeed it has created any. The terrorist and fighting in Kashmire exist independent of who ever is in control of the central government in Pakistan.

"Maybe the USA did not build Saddam, but they did fully support him. The USA also did not build Musharraf, but now they are fully supporting his regime. And building does not only mean helping someone get into power, but also keeping someone in power and making him more powerful. IIRC, Musharaf's position was quite weak before the USA started supporting him (after all, he did came into power in an unlawful way, through a military coup), but now he's securely in power. That's also a way of building a dictator."

Your going to have to clarify what you mean by fully supporting? The USA has very little ties to Iraq in terms of money, weapons, etc. , so "fully supporting Saddam" is not a phrase that fits with what the USA actually did to Saddam. It does fit the SOVIET UNION that still had 2,000 troops stationed in Iraq a few months prior to the first gulf war.

Again, with Mucharaf, what do you mean by "full Support". The USA ended some sanctions that had very little effect on Pakistan and decided to let a few F-16s that Pakistan bought, finally be delivered to them. If anything, I might say the USA has not supported Musharaf enough. You also forget that the person he deposed had more ties to terrorism than Musharaf and was far than being a white Knight in Armor.

To sum up the USA has done very little to support either regime, although it has had an interest in working with or seeing either regime survive at certain points in history because of other more important events.

"Are you saying the same when eventually Pakistani terrorists will attack the USA? Besides, the Taliban initially came from Pakistan and they harboured Bin Laden. Just because a country hasn't invaded before does not mean it will not do so in the future. For more than 18 months we are talking about the USA tackling the cause of the 9-11 terrorist attacks instead of just it's consequences. Some argued for an attitude change, but preventing 'terrorist dictators' to gain/increase power is just as important."

Who or what Pakistani Terrorist is going to attack the USA and when. The only thing you can say is you never know. It is more likely that a terrorist from the USA will launch an attack on the USA rather than some non-aligned terrorist in Pakistan who cares much more about what is happening in Kashmire.

What will you be saying when such a terror attack does not occur, the USA captures the rest of Al Quada with Pakistans cooperation, and Pakistan develops again into a democracy? The USA can't predict the future and you fail to offer a reasonable alternative to working with Pakistan in capturing members of Al Quada. What is your alternative to working with Pakistan that will help the USA capture Al Quada members in Pakistan faster than it is doing now? The only thing you have said is that you don't like the fact that the USA is helping the current regime in Pakistan. You would like the USA to obviously give up the gains it has made in capturing members of Al Quada and not cooperate with Pakistan. What does that achieve? NOTHING.

Al Quada will be successfully hiding in Pakistan, and the terrorist you dream exist that are not Al Quada will still be there. Thats why cooperating with Pakistan, unless you favor an invasion, is the only way to achieve the our most important security goals.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-19-2003, 06:35 AM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
[B]What will you be saying when such a terror attack does not occur, the USA captures the rest of Al Quada with Pakistans cooperation, and Pakistan develops again into a democracy?
[b]

Pakistan was a democracy, until General Musharaf launched a military coup and deposed the democratically elected leader. If the US supports democracy, is it really acceptable for them to work so closely with, and praise so highly, a man who took power through military force, not through the ballot box?

And I'm wondering on what basis you predict that the US will capture members of Al Qaeda and Pakistan will return to democracy?


Quote:
Al Quada will be successfully hiding in Pakistan, and the terrorist you dream exist that are not Al Quada will still be there. Thats why cooperating with Pakistan, unless you favor an invasion, is the only way to achieve the our most important security goals.
So you're saying it's okay to co-operate with regimes which violate all the principles that (at least in theory) the United States supports. That was exactly the justification the US used in supporting Iraq, it was exactly the justification they used in supporting death squads in El Salvador and supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. They didn't agree with what the US theoretically believed in, but at least they weren't communists, even if they did go around villages murdering people in the most disgusting ways imaginable, at least they weren't communists, so it was accceptable to support them as it was the only way to stop communism.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-19-2003, 05:23 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 05:36 AM
The ethical gymnastics needed to sustain the argument make me dizzy.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 02:58 AM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Fizzing,

Was it wrong to aid Stalin and Russia during World War II?

"Pakistan was a democracy, until General Musharaf launched a military coup and deposed the democratically elected leader. If the US supports democracy, is it really acceptable for them to work so closely with, and praise so highly, a man who took power through military force, not through the ballot box?"

Certainly, but only under extreme conditions in which there is a threat to US national security. The threat is Al Quada and one of the best ways to to capture Al Quada operatives is through cooperation with Pakistan. An Unknowable number of lives have been saved because of US and Pakistani cooperation on this issue. Musharaf has as his goal, the restoration of democracy. The government that was overthrown was not innocent and may have helped North Korea with its Nuclear Program. But the fact of the matter is, an urgent US National Security problem currently trumps any attempt at rebuilding democracy quickly in Pakistan for the time being. The lives of innocent people around the world are at stake.

"And I'm wondering on what basis you predict that the US will capture members of Al Qaeda and Pakistan will return to democracy?"

If you have been following the news in Pakistan for the last 18 months, you will know that many important Al Quada members have been captured because of Pakistani cooperation and work. This has saved an unknowable number of lives and is the basis for why continued cooperation with Pakistan in the future will succeed in capturing more of Al Quada.

An eventual return to democracy is in the best interest of Musharaf in the long term.


"So you're saying it's okay to co-operate with regimes which violate all the principles that (at least in theory) the United States supports. That was exactly the justification the US used in supporting Iraq, it was exactly the justification they used in supporting death squads in El Salvador and supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. They didn't agree with what the US theoretically believed in, but at least they weren't communists, even if they did go around villages murdering people in the most disgusting ways imaginable, at least they weren't communists, so it was accceptable to support them as it was the only way to stop communism"

With Iraq, the USA was not even in the top 10 of Iraq's supporters during the 1980s. Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union. The Soviets trained, and built the Iraqi Army that Saddam had been using for the past two decades.

Working with thugs and dictators is alway justified if it is to meet an important urgent security goal and there is simply not a better alternative to meet that security goal. Again, do you think it was wrong to help Stalin and Russia during World War II considering that if Russia had been defeated, victory for the allies would have been impossible?

Do you think the middle east situation would have been better off if the countries that did most of the supplying and support for Saddam had not done so? Would an Iranian victory and occupation of Iraq been in the interest of the world? With Iraq defeated and occupied, how long do you think it would be before the Iranians would grab huge chunk of the worlds oil in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Probably one of the worst security nightmares in the 1980s was an Iranian victory over Iraq and then Iranian occupation of most of the smaller Gulf States. But because Iraq was heavily supported by the Soviet Union, China, France and others, it prevented this from happening. The war finally ended with Iraq having a slight victory over Iran.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 05:46 AM   #44
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Sting,

You keep saying continually that the USA was not in the top 10 of Iraq supporters in the 80s. But why did they then still support Saddam? If you're such a small supporter then withdrawing your support because of the regime does not change much for Iraq. It is, however, a political signal, one that says that the USA does not work with dictators. As you imply, it wouldn't have mattered in the Iraq-Iran conflict (since Iraq was heavily supported by other countries).

Now I still have the feeling that the USA is arbritrarily targetting countries. We target Iraq now because of Saddam, but Pakistan is OK because Musharraf says he supports us. We'll target Syria later because we're in the neighbourhood, but talking with North Korea is enough. I (and maybe others) don't see a clear line in this, a clear idea behind these actions.

C ya!

Marty

P.S. A short answer to your "what if's": I already said before that without US support Stalin still would have held strong against Hitler. And should an Iranian victory have occurred then it would have cost less lives than what Saddam has killed the past 25 years. Maybe the Iraq-Iran war would never have happened when Saddam would not have had any support (as he attacked first).
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 09:12 AM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Working with thugs and dictators is alway justified if it is to meet an important urgent security goal and there is simply not a better alternative to meet that security goal.
Sorry but I just cannot agree with that. It's like saying it's okay for the people of other countries to live under a US-backed dictatorship, just so long as the people of the United States are okay. I believe all people are equal, whether they're from America, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Pakistan, Iraq or any other country - the United States does NOT have the right to consign the people of another country to a life of misery just to ensure that its people will be safe.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com