Non-liberal Brunonians

Colleges and Universities A-Z Brown University
81

<p>"they are developin these weapons to fight (or atleast use it as political weapons) against the western world..."</p>

<p>The odds that they'll use these weapons against the US are SLIM. If they did use them, the US would retaliate and their countries would be obliterated within days. Why would they risk that? The only country that ever used atomic weapons was, yes, the US, and it knew no one would fight back because it would just destroy any country that messed with it.</p>

<p>"i believe tht the US and the european allies should deal w/ so called 'rogue regimes' like iran, korea etc. because</p>

<ul>
<li>most of these regimes dont like US and western europeans</li>
<li>Americans and Europeans have most to lose (like 9/11 etc.)</li>
<li>They have the resources</li>
<li>It comes alongwith the title of 'sole superpower' "</li>
</ul>

<p>I don't know that much about Korea or Iran, but 9/11 had nothing to do with the "rogue" regime of Iraq. Saddam was not conspiring with Osama to destroy the US. Saddam was a very secular leader; he didn't want to impose his religious morals on the US like Osama did. He just wanted to be the dictator of his country and die in peace. Ironically, after Saddam was deposed, religious fundamental crazies like Osama gained MORE control of parts of the Middle East.</p>

82

<p>"oh yeah and btw as you might know korea just announced tht they have nukes and it has been widely known tht they have ballistic missiles tht can reach the west coast...deja vu...cuban missile crises..."</p>

<p>Like they'd actually use them. They know if they did the US would turn tear them to pieces in a minute.</p>

83

<p>soccart, maybe i should have clarified everything i said for better understanding...</p>

<ul>
<li><p>about korea "Like they'd actually use them. They know if they did the US would turn tear them to pieces in a minute" - if you would study about north korea what you would realize tht their situation is sooo bad tht even if US tear them to pieces in a minute, it is not a huge loss. they dont have food, they dont have gas for winter, they dont have s hit. they are just living on aid given by western countries. Because they dont have anything to lose, they can get desparate and tht is what i meant when i said in my second point tht US and europeans have everything to lose. A nuke (or even a threat of nuke) to the US would change the American lifestyle forever.</p></li>
<li><p>"The odds that they'll use these weapons against the US are SLIM" - i agree 110% that no country would ever think about using these weapons against any country, BUT
a. They can use it as political weapons. they can get a lot of negotiating capacity against the US if they have these weapons.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>b. You have to remember that there are some ppl in these govts tht supports fundamentalism. I dont know if you saw the documentary on CNN last weekend about A.Q.Khan of Pakistan but as you might know, A.Q.Khan developed nukes for Pakistan and then smuggled it to other Islamic nations (and maybe even Islamic organizations) because he wanted to empower Islam. It will be only matter of time tht Iran, Pakistan or North Korea's nuclear plants are infiltrated by some of these fundamentalist supporting ppl and give access to these weapons to the likes of Osama.</p>

<p>about 9/11 - i know and agree tht it had nothing to do with rogue regimes but what i was trying to exhibit was that US had the most to lose. As mentioned before, I am an international and maybe you can tell me better, but dont you think find is saddening how millions of americans have taken it as a part of their life tht everything they go to the airport, they take of their shoes, belts etc. without asking??? just an example of how these countries can impact a normal life style...</p>

<p>anyways, we moving too far away from the main topic of liberal/conservative etc...sorry bout tht</p>

84

<p>Again... Saddam had NO weapons and NO ties to Osama. As leaders, they had completely different goals, and the Bush administration itself (after lying for months) now openly acknowledges this. I remember seeing a Meet the Press clip of Rumsfeld where he said "I never said there was a link between Saddam and Osama," and then the moderator said "well, actually, you did," and he showed a clip of Rumsfeld saying just that. Rumsfled was speechless. </p>

<p>The US's intervention is, in my opinion, making things much less safe for the US. The attitude of cultural conversion that many Americans have is no different from the attitudes that Osama and the terrorists have. Both want to rule the world.</p>

85

<p>"after Saddam was deposed, religious fundamental crazies like Osama gained MORE control of parts of the Middle East."</p>

<p>i would disagree with tht..
- iraq is marching towards demoracy
- libya has come clean
- jordan and egypt supports US's efforts
- and biggest, recently announced peace between israel and palestine</p>

<p>am i missing something here??</p>

86

<p>bjrwrh - i agree with u.
but i also agree with pre-emptive strikes.
it is amazin to me how soon the world has forgotten the feelings of 9/11. My bro was in wtc on the 89th floor (and he survived...) but i cant bear the thought tht everytime we have to wait for a '9/11' to attack our enemies...life is too short for tht...</p>

87

<p>"iraq is marching towards demoracy"</p>

<p>Someone has been listening to Bush/Cheney too much.</p>

88

<p>:-) yeah...hey, i thought tht this was the thread for non-liberal Brunonians...seems like i belong to a dyin creed...</p>

89

<p>"Because they dont have anything to lose, they can get desparate and tht is what i meant when i said in my second point tht US and europeans have everything to lose. A nuke (or even a threat of nuke) to the US would change the American lifestyle forever."</p>

<p>All right, I'll grant you that the US has more to lose than North Korea does. However, even if their country is a mess, they're not gonna let the US destroy it even more. They're not going to risk getting captured by US leaders and tortured like Saddam was.</p>

<p>"a. They can use it as political weapons. they can get a lot of negotiating capacity against the US if they have these weapons.</p>

<p>b. You have to remember that there are some ppl in these govts tht supports fundamentalism. I dont know if you saw the documentary on CNN last weekend about A.Q.Khan of Pakistan but as you might know, A.Q.Khan developed nukes for Pakistan and then smuggled it to other Islamic nations (and maybe even Islamic organizations) because he wanted to empower Islam. It will be only matter of time tht Iran, Pakistan or North Korea's nuclear plants are infiltrated by some of these fundamentalist supporting ppl and give access to these weapons to the likes of Osama."</p>

<p>Ok, so if they're building WMD's, does that mean the US should go in attack them right away? That will just make them angrier and more likely to make threats, and, then they MIGHT actually USE the weapons. As it stands now, they're not going to do anything. So we may as well leave them alone.</p>

<p>And besides, there will always be fundamentalists no matter what we do. Going in and imposing our own agenda is in no way going to get rid of them. In fact, it might even make them more powerful. Removing a secular leader from power leaves room for fundamentalists to take over. </p>

<p>"just an example of how these countries can impact a normal life style..." </p>

<p>But it wasn't the governments in "these countries" that impacted our lifestyle. It was a few fundamental crazy people that were not closely associated with these governments. Iran and Korea have NOT impacted our lifestyle, and if we go in and invade them, we're not getting at the root of our problem, which are still those fundamentalists. I know you mentioned that CNN document, but as of yet, there are few, if not no, militant fundamentalists controlling the major governments of Iran and Korea.</p>

90

<p>"but as of yet, there are few, if not no, militant fundamentalists controlling the major governments of Iran and Korea"
-surely they are sayin diff. stuff on tv in the US and India coz from wht I am hearin on the tv over here - Korea is run by a fanatic who has openly claimed tht he is God...</p>

<p>"does that mean the US should go in attack them right away?"</p>

<p>I go back to 9/11. As i mentioned by bro escaped (barely...) and i still remember the horror of seeing the towers collapse and not knowin if my bro is inside or not...i dont want to go through such an episode again...
if i am bush on 9/11 I am thinking, "god, i want to avenge whoever did this. But more importantly, i want to be sure tht nothing like this ever happens again on american soil" and there you have a rationale for iraq...you know hindsight is 20/20 and we can debate all we want about wmds in iraq but bush didnt fabricate the evidence, CIA did and also kerry agreed with it (before he disagreed with it :))</p>

<p>all i am sayin is in the world where wmds can be bought and sold (like aqkhan did) we cannot be reactionary like 9/11 all the time. we have to analyze our risks and take calculated measures to eradicate these risks...sometimes we might be proven wrong (like no wmds in iraq, but iraq is a better place withouth saddam. yeah listening too much to bush :) )and sometime right and safeguard the world from other massive '9/11'</p>

91

<p>"if i am bush on 9/11 I am thinking, "god, i want to avenge whoever did this. But more importantly, i want to be sure tht nothing like this ever happens again on american soil" and there you have a rationale for iraq...you know hindsight is 20/20 and we can debate all we want about wmds in iraq but bush didnt fabricate the evidence, CIA did and also kerry agreed with it (before he disagreed with it )"</p>

<p>But the question still stands, where is the evidence of the connection between 9/11 and Iraq? I mean, you can't just go around attacking random countries until you have at least reasonable suspicion that they're involved. Do you really think that Bush had a strong feeling that Iraq was somehow involved with Sept. 11?</p>

92

<p>there is no connection between 9/11 and iraq. And i do believe tht bush knew tht iraq wasnt involved with 9/11. What i believe bush was trying to do by going to iraq is to reduce the risk of future 9/11 like events. If he hadnt done nething and iraq would have done nething to harm the US after 9/11, every1 would have been askin - oh why did he not attack iraq knowin tht they were not followin the un weapon inspector's guidelines...</p>

93

<p>i don't necessarily disagree with bush for going into iraq. certainly, saddam was a terrible leader, and Iraqis suffered at his hands. i also believe that oil was a major factor. i suppose invading iraq was/is an inevitable part of our war on terror. i don't know. it doesn't bother me too much...</p>

<p>what really bothers me is the fact that we went in with no plan whatsoever on how to get out. thousands of american soldiers, american contractors, and iraqi civilians have now died, and we are no closer to our eventual goal of leaving iraq. true, the iraqis just voted in their first democratic election, yet the government they are forming is dependent upon our presence. </p>

<p>and, still, people are dying.</p>

<p>we can only call this war a success when the iraqi people can sustain themselves (with a government that suits them), without US intervention.</p>

94

<p>"What i believe bush was trying to do by going to iraq is to reduce the risk of future 9/11 like events. If he hadnt done nething and iraq would have done nething to harm the US after 9/11, every1 would have been askin - oh why did he not attack iraq knowin tht they were not followin the un weapon inspector's guidelines..."</p>

<p>But it still stands that Iraq wouldn't have done anything to harm the US. No, Saddam wasn't following UN weapons inspector guidelines, but that was not enough for the US to be justified in waging war on him.</p>

<p>Suppose I'm wrong and the US did not attack Iraq, and then Saddam, by some odd chance, attacked the US. People might say, "Why didn't Bush do something about this, knowing that Saddam was not following UN weapons inspection guideline?" so Bush might take a hit to his personal reputation. But risking a hit to your personal reputation is not enough of a justification for waging war against Iraq. </p>

<p>And how would Bush's attack reduce the risk of 9/11-like events? Terrorists are going to attack no matter what Bush does to secular political leaders.</p>

95

<p>"part of our war on terror"</p>

<p>Never utter that phrase in my presence again! lol</p>

96

<p>haha sorry :)</p>

97

<p>i'm pretty skeptical about the "war on terror" as well. </p>

<p>let's not forget that getting saddam was on w's list of "things i want to do that daddy couldn't."</p>

98

<p>:)
I agree with funkyspoon's 1st post. also, about leaving iraq, i do hope tht the US forces complete their job before succumbin to political pressure. afterall, talibans and afghanistan was a result coz US left too early after the war with russia...I do feel tht completion of the job will be sooner than later, esp. we will know once the election results are announced...</p>

<p>soccart - it is not about personal reputation (ideally!) it is about safeguarding your country ppl from another outside attack...</p>

99

<p>"it is about safeguarding your country ppl from another outside attack..." </p>

<p>But how does fighting IRAQ safeguard from terrorists?</p>

100

<p>true. </p>

<p>if we really wanted to halt terrorism, we could, for example, examine EVERYTHING that floats down the hudson river. a clever terrorist could put something into a plastic bottle and just wait and gleefully rub his hands together until the bottle floats past manhattan. </p>

<p>we could also enhance airport security. in many airports, security stinks, like it did before 9/11.</p>

<p>there are so many ways we can prevent a terrorist attack. i'm not so sure if invading iraq is one of them.</p>