what would sun tzu say about the white house’s approach?
first the us claims disarmament is the goal…saddam gives free reign to unconditional arms checks
now the us is hinting that the goal is a change in regime…which very few countries support.
today i read in the news that gwb is trying to come up with the right combination of words to get approval to use military force towards iraq. rumsfeld said we don’t want another smoking gun incident. but there is no evidence whatsoever that saddam was connected to sept. 11. the white house is absolutely convinced that he’s a threat to our security and our way of life b/c of their weapons of mass destruction…
is china next on our list?
how supportive are american citizens on this war? are we being bullied into it? if you are a young american, are prepared to go to battle?
the point is, from a strategic point of view, from all that we know and have read about in sun tzu and musashi and martial arts training, is our strategy the best possible plan? are we acting in self-defence with our power? is the jkd principle of the best defence an being offence applicable here?
Let’s all be polite & mature about this discussion eh?
this thred may quickly deteriate to the usual politicly charged immature name calling fest… This has been the case with most such threds…
It could certainly be said that we Know our enemy as we were so instrumental in supplying him with the start-up resources for these unproven weapons of mass distruction.
Is’s interesting that 2 out of 3 of the head UN weapons inspecters insist that there is no proof of such weapons or facilities in Iraq. The Second of which is a former Marine Officer Scott Ritter, who has had alot to say on the subject.
So I would first have to question Bush’s motivation for persueing this course of action. History seems full of wars started to instill control of a given nation’s own people rather than the protection from a agressor.
Now, as I undestand U.N. security policy every nation has the right to protect itself from an agressor nation. Yet there’s no connection between Iraq & the events of 9/11/01. So how exactly has Iraq proven itself to be taking an “agressive” against the U.S.?
In the mean time the U.S. & Brittin has been enforcing an appariently illegal No Fly Zone.
This, along with the fearcetradesanctions makes me wonder who is really the agressor.
I remember My sifu telling me once… “Never start a fight, only finish it.” it seems to me that BUSH and company are too eager to prove their martial powers…
When you hear of talk of one making a war upon another you must ask:
If there is not peace in the heart, then there will not be peace in the house.
If there is not peace in the house, then there will be no peace in the nation.
If there is not peace in the nation how then can there be peace in the world?
So we must endeavor to find more ways to preserve, rather than destroy.
and now the democrats and republicans are head to head on this issue. so look what the war is doing here at home - it is tearing us apart rather than its intent, which is to have us join together as a nation.
rumsfeld says he found a link between iraq and al qaeda, but won’t release it. what does that mean? how does a link like that become a time sensitive issue? a link is a link, IMO.
I think Rumsfield is stalling for time, his “link” is still being manufactored (IMO).
Did anyone hear about TONY BLAIR’s new dossier ?
appariently only the U.S. believes it to be credible.
Based on THAT old Donald it probably trying to work out a much more marketable pitch. In the Mean time, while Barbra Lee’s Proposal has 26 democrats… There are more & more republicans realiseing how War with Iraq is a bad idea. Take TEXAS REPUBLICAN, U.S. REP. RON PAUL for instance.
“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes, he said, couldn’t be higher. Some day, some way, I guarantee you he will use that arsenal.” - William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in 1998
The Repubs were supportive of this statement…as were the Dems.
It’s laughable for anyone to act indignant about Bush implying that his opponents are playing politics with national security by changing their mind now.
Moving past that…
Iraq has repeatedly defied all sanctions, and lied about they’re willingness to do that which they PLEDGED to do after losing in Desert Storm.
Showing his ruthlessness…
Nerve Gas used in Northern Iraq on Kurds: http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html
Does anyone doubt that if he got his hands on weapons of mass destruction and/or biologicals…that he’d use them?
Everyone is saying, “How do we KNOW that he has them?”
My answer would be…why else would he be so worried about weapons inspectors for so many years?
Shaolin Punk, what would Sun Tzu say about Iraq’s approach?
“Warfare is the way of deception…”
or
“One who has emissaries come forth with offerings wants to rest for a while.”
He certainly would applaud Saddam’s attempt to assassinate our President.
Clinton was demanding weaopons inspectors be allowed to do their job. Saddam has now unconditionally permitted this, and Bush is pushing for “regime change.” Clinton had the support of the United Nations, Bush does not. It’s not the same situation at all, Radnohti, and shame on you for suggesting it is.
This isn’t the first time Iraq has agreed to allow inspections, in fact they told President Clinton the same thing when he “layed down the law”. Unsurprisingly when the time came they said they had changed their mind, but Clinton had already claimed his “victory” and the issue wasn’t raised again.
Also, the Saudi who helped broker the deal (some sort of Arab league president in England I believe?) was asked about these “unconditional inspections”. Would they include schools, presidental palaces and hospitals? Places Saddam has been known to hide munitions and/or his attempts to manufacture biological/chemical weapons? (Does anyone else remember how Saddam got permission to exclude “presidential palaces” from inspections and he went around declaring hundreds of places the inspectors wanted to go “presidential palaces”? :rolleyes:)
His answer was quick and GLARINGLY omitted from most news sources.
No. Inspections would only be allowed within MILITARY bases, the only place we know he would never put anything important. This is assuming that he doesn’t do what he’s done numerous times by backing out of ANY inspections.
Clinton had the support of the U.N. because they knew he would never back up his tough talk…so they talked tough (meaningless) talk alongside him. Several European countries said they would ALWAYS back their ally, the U.S., in any military action against Iraq when Clinton was President. The situation has only become more dire…nothing has improved, and where are these one-time allies? Showing what their talk is worth.
Although it doesn’t appear so, I’m not entirely decided on this matter. But I AM leaning one way. This thread NEEDED the other perspective, everyone agreeing and singing “All we are saying is give peace a chance.” together was nauseating.
I think that Bush should improve our economy first before he decides to go to war with Iraq. I really would like to see people stop worrying about their stocks and money before anymore bloddshed.
Hey, that dead horse twitched a li’l bit. Hit it harder, fellas, it’s gonna hav’ta get up!! Let’s keep trying…
Bush says Saddam is a really bad man who tried to kill his daddy. Buddy, if that’s good enough reason for ol’ Bush then it’s good enough for Budokan. And if Bushie Jr. says he has evidence that old mean Saddam has some big bad weapons then I for one believe him. Besides, it’s not bad odds that we’ll ignite a wider war in the Middle East. Seeing as how I ain’t gonna be over there fighting none, jus’ like dem chicken hawk Republicans, what do I care?
I mean, it ain’t like the Republicans would lie about something like that, now is it? Dem Republicans, dey straight shooters when it comes to telling us unwashed masses de truth. If dey say dey got proof den dey gots de proof. Dey only have our best interests in mind, despite de fact dat many of dem hollerin’ the loudest for war ran the fastest during the 'Nam.
…you’ll note someone else is saying Saddam is a bad man now.
Colin Powell. His dissent with the White House was held up as a bright shining example of a principled man when it suited the (mostly) liberal media.
It’s funny how “principled” someone seems when they’re singing your favorite tune and it’s what you want to hear…
I tend to believe a President is telling the truth until he’s a proven liar…you know…like the last one. I’d include Nixon in my list of liars, but I’m too young. Oh yeah, Bush Sr. said, “Read my lips…”, etc. So he’s lied as well. Reagan probably knew all about the Iran/Contra thing, but he was never REALLY caught. Carter had a questionable story about a UFO encounter too, but I ended up believing him. It was too stupid a story to be a lie. Is it possible that the distinguishing characteristic of a President is willingness to lie?
Of what worth is an honest man in a political position? Probably even less than I am imagining…
Well, I’m bummed out now. I’m gonna go before I wax even more philosophic.
as much as budokan believes that beating a dead horse can bring it back to life, i also believe that my dead car battery will get fixed if i just ignore it.
rad- all politics are based on lies and manipulation. it is about upholding images. how else can one make unpopular decisions and still get approval? how much freedom do you think you really have? where do we get our information from? can we trust those sources? can we trust that those sources are giving us the whole unbiased picture? where do we base this trust?
Why didnt we kill him in '91 when we invaded? OIL. and the other Arab countries embargoeing OIL to us.
Why are we now wanting to war with Iraq? OIL ,we are runing out,why do you think our IDIOT president wants to explore the alaskan wilderness for oil?.
Saddam Hussein is Nothing compared to us and OUR weapons of mass destruction,we could blow his country up 10 times over and still have enough to do it another 10 times if needed.
Saddam has only threatened our oil trade,nothing more,there is NO evidence that supports the thoery that he was connected in some way to 9-11..
Its re-election year kiddies,strange that this whole “lets go to war,all for one one for all crap,coincides with an election year”
I SAY Get out of the middle east,,let them kill each other and fight like they have continued to do so for thousands of years over some religious rite or land dispute. Embargoe trade with the middle east(im sure they will not mind that) and lets go onto to more prosperous relations say like with China,,North Korea(we feed those people,,and they are thankful that we do).
MRTWS
I outright reject the proposition that the first war with Iraq was entirely about oil. Why? We DIDN’T go in and install another government (especially a democratic one) that would completely open the oil reserves up. OPEC decides how much oil to release, regardless of market pressures. A free market system in Iraq would REALLY take advantage of that, which would aid our nation as well. Now, had Bush Sr. gone on in and started “nation-building” I would think that arguement had merit…he didn’t, and he’s constantly criticized for that decision. But, I suspect that had he gone on in the “it’s all about the oil” arguement would be much more prevalent.
It is re-election year, and I’m cynical enough to raise an eyebrow about the timing. HOWEVER, Iraq has been firing at our aircraft which are LEGALLY (according to the agreements signed) patrolling the no-fly zone. I DO think Hussein is working toward serious weaponry that (as things now stand) he’d be very happy to have used on U.S. citizens. He’s broken his own agreements for weapons inspection…what?..like 16 times? We know Baghdad has offered monetary rewards to the families of suicide bombers attacking Israel. It’s an issue that deserves to be addressed.
Foreign policy, to me, IS something we should evaluate when choosing our leaders.
well… it seems the no-fly Zone is not as “legal” as some would say…
Putting that aside, I still don’t see how firing against aggresive air attacks justifies a full on invasion. Especially when it endangers some 50,000 American service men & women
Maybe we should attempt to find common ground…or at least where we differ in opinion here.
Does anyone NOT believe that Saddam Hussein WOULD use “weapons of mass destruction” if he had them?
I think his track record with chemical weapons (that I documented earlier) leads one to believe that he would.
Does anyone here think he ISN’T working toward “weapons of mass destruction”?
I feel his continuous dodging of weapons inspections…which he promised to allow…would indicate that he is doing so.
Anyone who disagrees with either of these two suppositions, please say so and indicate why…and thanks for the opportunity to hear “the other side”.
Edit: For the sake of referrance here’s a link to UN resolution 687…which Iraq…as I understood it agreed to honor after losing the war.
Note the inclusion of inspectors…I’ll see if I can dig up the legality of the “no fly zone” the link DS put up basically seemed to have Hussein saying the U.S. was bombing Iraq for no reason…
To which I would respond with: his attempts to eradicate certain minorities within his country led to the establishment of a no-fly zone…that’s MY understanding, if I’m wrong please set me straight.
This thread NEEDED the other perspective, everyone agreeing and singing “All we are saying is give peace a chance.” together was nauseating.