How should the U.S. respond?

Remove all ads!

Oh course it isn't.
It's being used to finace yet more wars against people Bush don't like *ahem* I mean the 'axis of evil'
Next stop, Cuba!
*Disappears muttering*

 

It is obviously meant as a provocation to invite the US to a massive and violent response, as seen in Fallujah.

Now guess what'll make Bin Laden and crew high-fiving each other ...

 

Quick side note: I am not Neo-Anything. Thank you.

 

Daie d'Malkin - That's simply ridiculous. Even if Bush DID want to attack Cuba, he couldn't come up with an excuse to. "Mad dictator" won't cut it. Congress would be against him, as would be the public, the UN, the press, and so on. Anyhow, Cuba wasn't even IN the "Axis of Evil." North Korea is safe, due to the fear of nuclear retaliation. THe only possible candidate is more Middle Eastern warfare, and that's unlikely. We have our hands full with Iraq, we hardly need more space for terrorists to flock to to fight "infidels."

Is that so? After WWII, we paid millions and billions for reparations in France, Poland, Germany, Japan, China, England (your country, interestingly enough.), and so on. France, for example, assuming interest is calculated, owes us billions for reperations we've paid them over the years. The only country, in fact, which has repaid our reparation dues is Finland. Kudos to them. Or, are we assuming that none of these countries "needed" it? Perhaps America should stay out of the world theatre altogether, and let oh-so-great Europe take the high moral ground? Of course, America should have stayed out of the European front of WWII - it wasn't our business to help there. Similarly, we shouldn't have sent money to South Korea, Turkey, Greece, and China when they needed it? Of course not, it wasn't our place. We were, of course, only in these wars for the money, which is clearly what all Americans want, and this is clearly evinced by our payment of reparations which have put us into an extremely deep deficit which doesn't really even exist, to be honest. If we tallied it with all the money owed us for REPARATIONS ALONE (interest included) we would come out ahead... strangely enough, I had never heard of a deficit during Clinton's reign as President. Such a large deficit would surely be brought up by objective Democrats, wouldn't it? Or is that only something to accuse Republican presidents of?

On an unrelated note, I think when we supported Saddam's rise to power, we never intended him to be a maniacal dictator who killed thousands to millions of his own people and otherwise. Of course, you can believe otherwise, if you want.

joacqin - I heard from a source I consider reliable (ex-military man) that it's likely that evacuated cities might be bombed to get rid of he terrorists. We're assuming here that the terrorists won't obey the evacuation orders, so they'll die in the flames. Hunting down the murderers is far too difficult - we, for one, don't have forensic experts to analyze fingerprints (and this bit is also complicated by no database of Iraqi fingerprints and residences) and we don't have the equipment or the personel to do so even if we did. Also, we have a country that wouldn't support our efforts in the name of justice, so that's another, larger, complication.

Errr... how is this, exactly? The Iraqis get really scared when they find out Vietnam Veteran Kerry is in the hotseat, with his pro war crimes policies, (sarcasm here...) and just quit fighting? Ridding ourselves of Bush isn't going to do a thing, unless Kerry makes the PHENOMENALLY STUPID choice to just bail out. The only real change would be the liberal criticism of the office of the President. It would melt away. Hmmph, this is one election that needs an independent candidate to win.

[ May 13, 2004, 04:02: Message edited by: Slith ]

 

Here's a link to the entire unedited video:

http://www.davva.com/beheaded.wmv

 

By clearing out of Iraq and leaving them to take care of themselves. You'd think they would learn something from Vietnam...which would be that it doesnt pay to be "the world's policeman" as someone before me posted here.

The abuse Iraqis are facing by the American soldiers is pointless, as is the abuse of the Americans by the Iraqis...rather, WAR is pointless. Just have everyone mind their own business...problems are solved.

Edit: @Slith --> One small point I would like to make. You make out the American motives in this war to be oh so noble, but I want to ask two things here...

1) WHERE are the weapons of mass destruction America cited as the "reason" for the war?

2) Why is it that America considers itself above the governing influence of the UN, and went ahead with war when the UN expressly forbade the US or rather, Mr. Bush from proceeding with his plans?

If you can provide me answers to those two questions which I dont think is total bull****, you'll have me converted!

To answer the original question though, the US should respond to this with the standard malarkey about how the Islamic militant terrorists are devils incarnate...and after a decently reasonable time, give a full apology to the people of Iraq, and get the hell out of Iraq.

[ May 13, 2004, 11:27: Message edited by: Faraaz ]

 

IMHO, the USA have to leave, and they'll hafta pay for the damages dealt upon Iraq to rebuild Iraq, just be allowed to leave would be the easy way out.

 

@ Faraaz:

1) Americans felt they had sufficient reason to believe that there were WMD's in Iraq, and/or that Saddam was assembling/planned on assembling them in the near future. The fact that he didn't give complete access to inspectors made complete verification difficult, but obviously Bush and co. believed the risk of doing nothing outweighed the risk of finding nothing.

2) Don't know about the rest of you (and I'm sure most of you will disagree), but if I'm the leader of a country, I don't need anybody's "permission" to protect my people. They were reasonably sure Saddam had WMD's (the fact that they were wrong wouldn't really matter in the initial decision to go to war), and thus presented a threat to US security (and Britain supported this as well). They were reasonably sure that Saddam was supporting terroritst activities-- which he almost certainly was-- and that those activities presented a threat towards US citizens. Now if I'm a US president, I don't really care if France, Germany, et al shake their collective fingers at my war; they aren't the ones being targeted by this regime's violence (keep in mind that they had reason to believe that Saddam could perhaps supply terrorists with WMD's) so if they don't like the prospect of war, then too bad.

That's the way I feel about the two points you presented. I'm sure many (if not most) disagree, but then that's to be expected in an issue like this.

I think the US pulling out of Iraq right now is a terrible idea. The people want you out, fine, that's their right. But the US set a date (June 30th, was it?) in which they were scheduled to hand over soverignty to the Iraqis, and they should stick to that, regardless of what terrorists do. In no way should the US let radical groups performing atrocities like this one dictate their foreign policy, a la Spain with the bombing incident. Bin Laden should not be made to believe that he has the power to influence the US to that extent.

 

Disclaimer: No flaming intended...so, don't flame me back as well

@Shazamdude (and others who feel similarly, I guess)

Alright, what you are saying is true, but what one must realise here, is that their 'sufficient reason' has now been proven, beyond doubt, to have been unfounded, and that Iraq indeed DID NOT have any WMD. Having settled that fact, should not America leave as soon as practically possible?

Also, if you will read my post again, you will find that I said that America SHOULD hang around till "after a decently reasonable time, give a full apology to the people of Iraq, and get the hell out of Iraq." ... its a bit disjointed, but you get my point?

Also, if America feels 'threatened' by Iraq and proceeds to go to war against the wishes of the UN, WHAT is the PURPOSE of having a UN? Each country might as well go to war with whoever they like. India and Pakistan have been antagonised for ages now. So have Israel and Palestine. But due to the efforts of the UN and its member nations, full-on war has been largely avoided, and (an uneasy) peace reigns. Wouldn't you say that is better than war?

Now...saying that America is threatened, hence it will go to war against Iraq is an apalling and inexcusable reason for these events.

Britain supporting America, IMHO should be read as more of Blair supporting Bush. (Please note the use of "IMHO"...I repeat, do NOT flame me over this)

If you are a US president, you will not care if France, Germany, et al shake their collective fingers at your war...but if you do that, what difference is there between you and people like Osama bin Laden who resort to anarchy and terrorism? Is it not anarchy when America goes to war as and when it wishes? First in Afghanistan, where they miserably failed to capture Osama Bin Laden, then in Iraq where they have proceeded to compound the situation. Not to mention Vietnam.

WHEN will Bush learn from this whole debacle, that he has screwed up?

 

@ Faraaz

When will Bush learn?

November this year.

 

That's what I thought as well. Bush KNEW as good as all of us Saddam did not have any weapons. he used is to get to Saddam, to kill him, just as he killed the decapitated man. Disgusting, he cares for none but himself.

A fool he is, there can be no doubt...

Who of you actually SAW the video. Someone nice posted the link, I couldn't bear to watch after 10 seconds so I put it off. So... Anyone?

 

I didn't. I'm not grossed out by it, but I dont want to see the way the guy dies. I'll leave it to those more bloodthirsty than I.

 

Well, i'm not bloodthirsty, but curious nonetheless, so i watched. I saw something similar before though. A Russian soldier who got decapitated by Chechen rebels. Some joker found it necessary to sent that footage to me by e-mail and thought it was funny too.

 

Can't believe they actually post that stuff. I can't say I approve, but they have to do something against Bush. Their ways of doing things are just meant to shock. And this IS electrifying. No more now... Get out of there.

 

I just saw it and I'm not bloodthirsty I just wanted to see it. I must say It didn't shock me at all since I knew what would happen but I think it's sick that a men can actually preform such an action. Just sick.

@Pac man Yeah, I saw that one to! It also didn't shock me but I can't call it funny though.

 

I know it's a little off topic but Slith brought this up a few posts back...

You didn't hear about it because out of the 8 years Clinton was president, we had a budget SURPLUS for 6 of those years. The debt was reduced about 20% while Clinton was in office. The debt started increasing again when Bush II took over.

 

In fact, since 1980, not one single Republican president has managed to break even any year they were in office. I thought Ronny was the deficit hawk of all time...but look out, here comes Shrub. Tax and spend liberals? It is Republicans who cannot be trusted with tax dollars. The saddest aspect of those deficits? A large majority of it is devoted to weapon systems and wars in which we did not have to be involved. Hence the term...deficit hawk.

Vote Kerry!

 

Well, that was horrid. I have seen attrocities like it before. Pictures of crimes in Chechnia and Jugoslavia. Rwanda? Back then it took me days to get it out of my head. What a world that we can say: "Oh, I have already seen stuff like that."
It makes me so very sad. Cruelty and hatred like this, as well as the falsehood, the lies and the corruption of the U.S. and all the other crap just make me sad, make me want to close my eyes to the world, zone it all out and stop caring what's happening out there. I am tired of it. As tired as hearing 'U.S. this' and 'U.S. that'.
Oh, and I dont *care* how the U.S. should respond. Do what you think is your 'mission', you proud liberators. You shall fail anyway. If only I werent forced to listen to the insipid speeches about democracy, freedom, human rights. It all sounds so hollow when mentioned by certain people.

What I care for is that poor guy who wasnt allowed to live to see even my age (even though he was a fool to go to Iraq in the first place). He died for absolutely nothing. I hope they drugged him, or that he was in a state of shock.