I was just wondering what is more dangerous, 100 bin Ladens mind-sets without a home or a state sanctioned/sponsored bin Laden?

As much as I was not crazy about the war on Saddam, can someone show me where dimplomacy in the mid-east actually works? Lifting the sanctions and the no fly zones on Iraq would be my preference with a complete hands off approach. However the world would have come begging at our door to stop the slaughter of the Kurd population.

The only thing I see repected in that region is power. There are no hordes going to Demascus for holiday, the only way they will reign in their loose nuts is a healthy fear of losing their power now that their oil supply is shut off.

Why should he? The end result is - after failing to plan anything outside the country - they turn against him and start screaming how bad he is and how much he gets paid by the US to shut up, and they start uncovering perfectly legl, perfectly authorized economic links with Israel, and turn them into the “mother of all conspiracies.” He’s been there, done that, and Egypt paid the price bad in the 1990s when he didn’t clamp down on the Islamists. From 1990 to 1995, Egypt was a tourist booby trap, and the economy took a nose dive, and it’s still trying to recover.

To this day, he’s still mopping up the country.

And surprise, surprise, the human rights activists aren’t happy. They proclaim that he’s limiting free speech and accuse the government of inhumane treatment of prisoners.

Let them go and they run rampant and the world accuses you of “harboring terrorists,” watching them destroy your national economy and sodomizing weaker minds.

Clamp down on them and give them the shit they deserve, and the peace lovers holler murder and you become a “brutal dictator.”

What gives?

Me thinks not.

I certainly don’t speak on Radley’s behalf, but I’d like to know myself.

What makes you think anyone opposed to the war is wrong to begin with?

The pro-war camp seems to think we thought the US would lose, or that there would be terrible human losses. That’s not what we thought. I doubt anyone with a brain thought that.

Personally, I don’t think I’m wrong; the “war” is far from over. Despite inadequate western reporting on anti-American sentiment in Iraq, I’ve already been shown that I was right. The US will now have to mop up its price of “democracy.” It has replaced a dictatorial regime with rogue mob religious factions. When the Iraqis have their way, Iraq will be governmed by strict Shiite Law, and - on refusal to cooperate with Gen. Garner - the US will have to spend a good X years in Iraq trying to enforce a “true, representative government, one that is eager to embrace the region’s new dynamic.”

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This is in fact what is happening today. The power vaccuum has cropped up religious leaders willing to take the political burden of acting on behalf of their communities. Iraqis are rallying for a secular Shiite government with a constituition prescribed by Islamic Law.

Seems President Mubarak of Egypt’s comments were true. “This war will yield 100 Bin Ladens.”

Radley Balko lays it out as thorough as I have seen it on the topic: Why it was wrong to

The fact that every nation in the world has a small chance of attacking us proves this idea ridiculous. And in GWB’s great campaign to prove his stance with Iraq correct with no avail, that % for Arabs seems to be decreasing exponentially.

What’s the percentage the mounties will swing from the north attacking St Paul and Minneapolis? I value American human life too, but basing the standard for the likelihood of attack at 0% makes everyone suspect.

Does that make the American truth any closer to reality?

Peter incorrectly jumps to the conclusion that Arabs are acting based on their government’s whims. How wrong you are. If you’ve been watching the news, riots and demonstrations were mostly oppposed to official responses to the war on Iraq. Most people would like nothing more than to remove their governments for actively colluding with the US and Israel. Believe me, it is not in the American’s ’security’ favor to remove Arab governments, as the war in Iraq will demonstrate.

‘A 1% chance that we lose 10,000 US civilians’ lives requires our action and I would not care if 1,000,000 Arabs died in the process, I value American lives that highly.’

I hope none of the fanatical lunatics catch drift of this conviction. You’ve just denigrated an entire race and have proclaimed them worthless. I beg to ask: how would you feel if that sort of statement came from an Arab? And then Americans question why they are so despised by the entire region.

To those who believe the rhetoric proclaiming that other countries harbor terrorists: Get your facts straight. Most of the terrorism works on a local scale, trying to dislodge governments from co-operating with Israel. Not everything you hear on the news is true.

‘Nothing will change in this region until its inhabitants can make decisions based on the truth.’

What truth is that exactly? And what makes you so sure the American version of the truth will be accepted by Arabs? Why can’t you simply accept the fundamental differences between American ‘values’ and the rest of the world?

I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, although I do think war was the right thing to do here. The only contention I have with anything that you wrote is that finding WMDs is necessary for the war to be right. I think that even if Sadam didn’t have WMD ready to go, it still could have been in the US’s interest to do what we did. We wanted to get him out before he got weapons he could use against us. Waiting too long is precisely the reason we can’t go after N. Korea. I think there is a great argument that this war was not the right thing to do (ie that we are less secure for having gone) but I don’t think a lack of WMD makes it cut and dry that we should not have.

Look at it this way:

1. Determine what the problem is.

2. The problem is always that you want to feel powerful.

3. Find a justification for doing the thing that makes you feel powerful (i.e. Al Qaeda attacked us BECAUSE they didn’t think we’d respond). Use the first thing that pops into your head and don’t question it.

4. Defend the justification vigorously, as if that was what really convinced you in the first place.

Optional: further steps for reinforcement. Many possibilities here. Not everyone just wants to feel powerful, but pretty much everyone wants to feel justified.

I don’t however, dispute your questions about Saudi Arabia, et al. If they are supporting terrorists (and I think there is evidence that they are), then they should be dealt with in the same manner as Iraq.

Surfer924

One: Whether we find WMDs or not I believe they were there. We know he had produced them and continued to purchase the materials to make them, so where is that stuff now? I don’t know but I am not willing to risk this country’s safety trusting that he destroyed them when all he had to do was show us he destroyed them and he would still be in power.

Two: He had an active nuclear weapon program going on and he was purchasing materials to enrich uranium. Were you willing to wait until he produced a working nuclear weapon to do something about it? The day he produces a working nuke we are screwed. First, we can not attack him the same way we just did because we could not mass all our troops in one area at risk of losing them all. Second, do you really think that he does not start invading other Arab countries the day he gets his nuke? Are you saying that a nuclear Iraq would not be a threat to the US’s safety? If you admit that a nuclear Iraq would be a threat to us then the is no alternative to removing Saddam. Everything else we tried did not work, our allies were subverting the sanctions. Do we hope that Saddam would have told us that he was three months away from finishing a bomb so that we knew the exact time to act.

Three: Am I to understand you are making a destinction between terrorists, ones that we can live with and ones that we can’t? So if he trained terrorist that would only attack Israel that is ok? So you think that these terrorists would never attack us? You think that these terrorist would not train other terrorists in the future that would attack us? You now admit that he has terrorist ties, just not the terrorist that you consider important.

Four: Our country is not responsible for Israel’s safety. That could be true but I would argue that Israel’s safety is our safety. Are we not supposed to defend our allies, those who believe in the same things we do, those that have prospered through democracy and freedom? Actually, why the hell did we defend Europe in WWII, we could have just taken care of Japan.

Five: You seem to argue because these other dead beat countries are doing bad things we should not do something about Iraq. That is, no offense, typical liberal thinking. Grab a group and disprove an action by the rest of the group, not the issue at hand. Make a case against Iraq please. I can actually use that same exact argument in the other direction. We overthrew Iraq and now it is time to take care of the other scumbags. Actually, that argument sounds real nice to me.

Overall, it seems that you understand that Iraq posed a threat to the US but you don’t think it was a major threat. I can certainly accept that argument, but I disagree with it. Before 9/11 almost everyone would have argues that Al Qaeda was a threat but how could they pose a legitimate threat to us.

I am not willing to allow any legitimate threat to this country to exist. A rogue regime in the Middle East with WMDs that is working on a nuclear weapon and run by a lunatic that has repeatedly shown his desire for conquest is a threat to the US. Sure he was not bent on attacking us right now, but what do you put the possibilities of him eventually doing something to hurt us? 1%? 5%? What is an acceptable chance to you? I would say that a 1% chance that we lose 10,000 US civilians’ lives requires our action and I would not care if 1,000,000 Arabs died in the process, I value American lives that highly.

At the end of the day we must understand that the problem in this region is one of disinformation. All these countries are tyranies that opress their citizens. They keep them misinformed intentionally. These continued lies make the population of these countries hate us and Israel. An easy solution would be for us to stop supporting Israel, if you believe that then come out and state it, don’t beat around the bush. But if you are unwilling to make that move (as I am) then we will always be hated in the Middle East.

Nothing will change in this region until its inhabitants can make decisions based on the truth. That of course requires a change in Arab society, and whatever we need to do to change their way of thinking then we must. We tried peacefully for a long time and now it’s time to flex our muscles. We should continue flexing until we have completely destroyed the Arab leaders’ ability to maintain a brainwashed public that acts as its leaders support and base.

Arab leaders, enter to the right and take a number please. We are now serving number 2, please step forward to the counter.

The nature of Muslim culture is that they respect strongmen and see non-use of power as weakness. This occurs both on the political level and the religious level.

Saddam was attacked as an example. The US took out the biggest baddest Arab in 3 weeks. The rest are on notice. The next time Osama bin DeadGuy rants about American weakness, the marginally loony will be less inclined to take him seriously.

Paul