"Hit them before they hit us"

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ferret, Sep 21, 2002.

  1. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    I just read an interesting article about President Bush's proposed new policy against terrorism: Strike them before they build up a military that can rival ours. Of course, he only proposes this against countries that he feels harbour terrorism and encourage it. "Fredom Loving" countries need not worry.

    The problem I see w/ this is first it was Afghanistan, now it's Iraq. Who will it be tomorrow? What country will we have to destroy because they could potentialy destroy us?

    Between, our new Homefront Security force and going to war w/ whomever the President doesn't like this week, it's quickly becoming like something from a George Orwell nightmare.


    "...so, we're not at war w/ Eurasia?"
  2. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Though his policy seems to state this will be done outright or in a preventative manner, there are not many other countries looking to threaten us. There are plenty of people in other countries who despise us, but they aren't ruling those countries.

    I take this to show that if a ruler of another country expresses his loathing of the U.S. that action would be taken against them, because they then have the potential to do such harm.
  3. Lotus Mox New Member

    It should be legitimate in a free world that someone doesn't like the other.
    No need to put them into room no. 101 Ministry of Love.

    Of course if they start to threaten the western world it has the right to defend themselves, that's why the weapon inspectors will go to Iraq to see what's up there.

    If they find nothing and the US still bombs the Iraq it's against anything the free world stands for.
  4. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    My thoughts exactly. Of course, I wonder...Hussein has refused to let the inspecters in for some time and now all of a sudden he says "sure, come on in". Could it be possible that he just moved his weapons in the meantime just so he can make America look like the bad guys?

    ...not that it matters or anything. Bush plans to fight them no matter what...

    On a different note: Bush had advised that any country that harbours terrorists would be considered our enemy. What if it turns out that tomorrow a terrorist is hanging out in Paris and Bush insists that they turn him over and the French government refuses? Could we really afford to go to war w/ a country that has another Disney park?


    "...it's a small *BOOM* after all..."
  5. train The Wildcard!!!...

    I don't think Bush would chase France for this, but hey, I'm a Texan and lived under this man for a while, he'd do it!!!

    France is also probably more scared than Iraq at what the U.S. could do to them... I think it just comes down to whether or not the country in question is pursuing this terrorist or harboring them... Just like in America, harboring a fugitive is wrong, and needs to be dealt with, so any country harboring a terrorist has problems.

    It is always possible and probably reality that there are terrorists in every country, but if a country knows about them and doesn't do anything about it, then it's just wrong.
  6. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    But Iraq has no links to terrorism, and isnt a threat to the US in any way.

    And Iraq has NO links to terrorism. You know who does have links to terrorism? The Kurds who Saddam attacked a few years back.

    What happened to the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

    Dont be fooled into thinking Bush is going after Iraq for any reason other than to divert attention from his corrupt administration's domestic troubles.
  7. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Name an administration that hasn't been corrupt... The only one I can think of that gets close is Mandela's...
  8. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    I think thats a very wrong statement. As far as Im aware the UK government hasnt broken the law to protect the interests of people who are personal friends of Tony Blair.
  9. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Just let me start by saying how cool this is: hearing opinions from multiple countries (U.S., U.K., Germany, Texas).

    Now, back to my point. Our government is corrupt. It always has been. Every President we've had in at least the past eight generations have been rich old white men. Some claim they care about the little guy (while they get huge kick-backs from big corporations) and some say they care about small business (while tehy get huge kick-backs from big corporations), but in the end they're all just old rich white guys.

    If you check most Americans' opinion and they'll tell you that they're bored of the whole war w/ Afghanistan and they're starting to notice problems at home again. Our government cannot afford to let that happen - so, it's time to bomb the one country that the past two Presidents used when people were starting to pay too much attention to them.


    "...of course, by saying this I will be branded a risk to national security and sent away to be 're-educated'"
  10. Svenmonkey Pants Chancellor

    My thoughts exactly, Ferret. I've been referring to our government as "a bunch of creepy old rich men" for a while now. And what the heck is up with this "national security" crap? The government keeps going against the constitution for what they call "national security," and if you don't like it, they might just consider you a security risk. :mad:
  11. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    I believe this is how most dictatorships start. The government frightens everyone into thinking there is some great enemy from without at first and then they make you believe that it is an enemy from within. Necxt thing you know, you have members of the government w/ armbands or antenae sticking out of their heads on every street corner...


    "...the paranoids are out to get me!"
  12. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    No known links, at least.

    Like I said in another thread, the president changes every four years (eight at the most) and policies change...
  13. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    ...sure Presidents change, but scapegoats don't.

    Let's look at the past three, shall we?

    Bush (Daddy) had a few favours that he owed the Saudis and Iraq was seen as a threat to him - he bombed them - instant popularity...

    Clinton had the whole world watching out for his impending impeachment - he bombed them - no one cared...

    Bush (Jr.) noticed that people were starting to stop paying attention to his Middle East campaign and started paying attention to problems at home - he wants to bomb them so that we might be distracted from our civil rights being trampled...


    "...we'll see if anyone cares, this time..."
  14. Seeker of Truth New Member

    I think I might be a little confused here.

    Ferret, from what I can see from your posts, I can see that you certainly don't trust the President (and heck, I think we've all learned not to trust politicians in general), but your comment about "old rich white men" seems to be somewhat heavy-handed. You wouldn't be suggesting that if our president was a young poor African-American woman, we wouldn't be fighting terrorism and that there wouldn't be corruption in our government, would you?

    What mess would we be in right now? And how does the fact that our presidents have all been "old rich white men" translate into a justification that we should or should not attack Iraq, or that this is all a smokescreen to cover up domestic problems, or anything else, besides implying that Bush's policy is an extension of "the white man keeping us down"?

    However, I do agree with what you said about the weapons inspectors. If anyone out there thinks that the weapons inspectors will find anything in Iraq after all this time, they're either incredibly naive or they really don't give Hussein any kind of credit for being a brilliant manipulator and, dare I say it, politician. What such a lack of evidence means, however, is an entirely different story. Will people be trusting enough of Iraq to actually believe that they don't have chemical or nuclear weapons, or will people believe that they're just hiding everything, as seems quite obvious by the quick 180 Hussein has done on this issue?

    train, I think you're right on the money here. If there are countries or individuals harboring known terrorists who refuse to turn them over to justice, that is not just a threat to America's national security, that is a threat to any nation or organization that happens to support a policy or idea that that particular terrorist or terrorist group opposes.

    In regards to who the US can go after in terms of being a threat to us, I don't think that America should go and bomb someone just because someone says that they don't like us, even if that person is the leader of the country and they say that they would enjoy seeing Sept. 11th images 365 days a year. Unless that nation actually has the means to initiate such an assault, there are other procedures that America can take in those situations.

    And why does it seem like everyone just assumes that Bush has all this unilateral power? He's not a king. What, there's no legislative or judicial branches anymore? Who's been giving Bush all this power anyway? Not me. And I doubt it was you. Last I heard, the President still needs approval to start a war, it's not that Bush can simply say, "OK, today, let's bomb...(throws a dart at a map of the Middle East)...Qatar!"

    Suddenly, I bet my signature seems so much more ironic...:eek:
  15. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Gizmo I mentioned nothing about personal friends having to be involved for a government to be corrupt. And you'd have to name the law the government has broken... There are statutes in each of our "branches" of government that allow leaders thin lines to push. If they break a law they should be dealt with, just like if I broke a law, I should be dealt with. I pay for my tickets, and thankfully, that's all the law-breaking I do.

    Chances of them breaking the law are slim, since they can amend laws they want to break.

    It's sad to hear about affairs and sex scandals within a government, but it is not against the law to have an affair... If it were, our government would be run from behind bars and not a capitol building or white house...

    As you said, the UK government hasn't broken the law to protect personal friends of Blair, but what about everyone else, what about changes made to laws so something isn't illegal anymore?

    Seeker There is a statute that allows the president to attack, not necessarily declare all-out war, without consent, but it's pretty much war. I'll see if I can find it and post it.

    Ferret Thanks for giving Texas it's rightful status as a country(i'm kidding)!!! Did you know Texas is the only state that can fly it's flag the same height as the U.S. flag??? Though I prefer it to be lower .
  16. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Ferret: There's a difference between waging war, especially against a nation like Iraq that just goes and invades a smaller and weaker country, and then STOPPING when that nation is pushed out (no-fly zone and military advice notwithstanding) and FORMULATING a policy that has preemptive strikes, which can change with the next president. And I don't remember any Clinton bombings :confused:

    train: Are you thinking of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution or something?
  17. train The Wildcard!!!...

    That might be it.... Us Texans get confused when there's not six-shooters, bank robberies, and stampeding cattle rush through town around us...
  18. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Perhaps I should have enhanced my "Rich Old White Man" bit.

    If you look behind each and every rich old white man in the White House or Congress, you'll find a corporate big-wig putting money in his pocket. The people that we "vote" for or nothing more than puppets for Big Corporations.

    This is why you will never see:

    A cure for cancer - the Medical Corporations make too much money from "therapy" and "drug treatments"

    Cars that get decent gas mileage - the Big Oil companies would lose too much money

    Clean, efficient power sources - see above about cars

    Decent Tv shows in prime time on the big six networks - We have to keep the populace dumb so no one realizes that the country is run by idiots.

    It doesn't matter if they're Democrats, Republicans, Men, Women, Black or White - Anyone that gets voted into a national-level office is a "Rich Old White Man" in spirit because the only way to get into office is to cater to where the money is...


    "...we do not live in a Republic - it's a Feudal Society...new thread to follow..."
  19. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Spidey There was a little-remembered action in 1998 called "Operation Desert Fox" - it lasted for about three hours and then everyone forgot about it.


    "...look it up - it happened..."
  20. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    What was that referring to? Were you proving my point about kicking out a country who invaded another, or were you using that as the example of when a president could declare "war" without Congress' consent?

Share This Page