Osama vs. Saddam?

[CSM]

CSM I enjoyed our debate and thanks to everyone who joined in. I don't believe George Washington was a terrorist I just like to get people thinking but that theory was shot down almost as fast as I thought it would. I look forward to debating with all of you again but I most go now. Never forget that your opinions matter even if others don't agree thats what makes the United States so great, HAVE A GREAT DAY.

I too enjoyed the debate. You have a great day too!

And just so I get the last word:

The United States spends a far smaller percentage of its GNP (3.9%) than the mighty nation of Eritrea (11.9%).

 

[wade]

We can quibble all day long about priorities. If you want to get to the root of the problem, let's go back to Jimmy Carter. The damn Iranians took fifty of our people hostage. If that isn't an act of war, I don't know what is. We should have attacked Iran then and there - and I'm not talking about a half-assed action like the one Carter finally approved - an action which was doomed to fail before it ever got out of the planning stage. We should have gone in and rescued our people. If those holding our hostages harmed any of them, then no Iranian in the embassy compound should have been left alive.

Here's the thing that is important as I see it - moslems respect strength and hold weakness in contempt. That is why the Iranians held the hostages until that gutless wonder Carter was out of office. That is why it is important for this nation to strike back somewhere.

Merlin - you are being silly. Carter did not have the military option vs. Iraq, because the Soviets were sitting right there, in far better position than we, ready to step in and "save" the Iranians. The situation was far different in the 1970's than in the late-90's or the present.

Just what should Carter have done, assuming he wanted to get the hostages back? Trade arms for them like the Regan Adminstration did?

I think the whole thing was sad, the Iranians blamed Carter for policies of earlier administrations. After 3 years, they wanted to end the situation ad badly as we did, they just needed to do so in a way that saved face. They could not give them up to Carter, because they have so villified him, and thus they gave them up to Reagan for minor concessions.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Again, if we define a freedom or guerilla fighter as one who takes armed action against military targets and terrorists as one who uses armed tactics against a civilian force, then George Washington is certainly not a terrorist. The argument that OBL is a freedom fighter is awful hard to swallow considering that his organization DELIBERATELY targets civilians. In my opinion, freedom fighters do not DELIBERATELY target civilians.

Um... the tea that went in to Boston Harbor was owned by civilians, and the men guarding it were civilians. Towns were burned by both sides, those were civilians... But I agree, in general, "civilians" were not targeted. I don't think G. Washington was a terrorist, but I suspect the British did at the time.

It's a hard thing to define. Personally, I think there are no "civilians". People are responsible for the actions of their leaders, and responsible to depose leaders who act in evil ways.

Wade.

 

[Merlin1047]

Merlin - you are being silly. Carter did not have the military option vs. Iraq, because the Soviets were sitting right there, in far better position than we, ready to step in and "save" the Iranians. The situation was far different in the 1970's than in the late-90's or the present.

Just what should Carter have done, assuming he wanted to get the hostages back? Trade arms for them like the Regan Adminstration did?

I think the whole thing was sad, the Iranians blamed Carter for policies of earlier administrations. After 3 years, they wanted to end the situation ad badly as we did, they just needed to do so in a way that saved face. They could not give them up to Carter, because they have so villified him, and thus they gave them up to Reagan for minor concessions.

Wade.

And you're being ignorant. Try reading a little history. Here, I'll start you out with a bit of post WWII data:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Petroleum/bamberg.htm

The Iranians and the Soviets have a decades long dispute over oil concessions and Soviet attempts to undermine and intimidate the Iranian government.

The Soviets were never in a position to take us on in a conventional war. Witness the fact that a pack of backward tribesmen kicked their butts out of Afghanistan or the fact that a few bomb throwers in Chechnya are giving them fits today.

So the only thing you have accomplished is to identify yourself as just another liberal whose principles are dictated by circumstance. The Iranians kidnapped out people - period. I don't give a hoot who may or may not have come to the aid of Iran. We had a duty, as a nation, to come to the assistance of our fellow citizens. That concept is apparently as lost on you as it was on Carter.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Indeed some tried, and died, by the thousands. Along with their families and fellow villagers.

I can't believe he really said that the Iraqis "could have attacked with the force they have unleashed on our troops" and overthrown the regime. How ignorant is he? Did he not know about their earlier attempts which failed?

First of all, a lot the ones attacking the troops are pro-Saddam elements. Second, the US could employ the tactics of Saddam to crush the rebellion (kill Iraqis indiscriminantly with no regard for civilians) which the US will not do (though anti-American news sources will still accuse them of doing so). Trying to avoid civilian deaths when possible often will lead to more deaths.

Third, they really have not accomplished much. I'm in no way trying to suggest that 900+ deaths is nothing, but it's much less than what some suggested and a lot more terrorists and insurgents (or whatever you want to call them) have been killed.

Osama is a sick old man with no power fine who wants to target him, he only killed 3,000 Americans, forget that, it is all in the past. We need a better target AH Iraq perfect we will show the world how powerful we can be. We go in we kick butt we make an example of Saddam MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. But wait why won't they stop killing us almost 900 hundred soldiers dead since Baghdad fell what is going on Muslims respect power and we showed that I don't understand. Our Allies hate us, who needs United Nations anyway we have all those tiny countries with no armies to back us up when we need them. We all know them Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia look out Iraq. You are right I think I will also blame Jimmy Carter no wait in fact I blame George Washington. Since George Washington would have been a terrorist in Great Britains eyes I guess we will all have to see who ends up a terrorist and who becomes the father of a nation. Osama President of the United Muslim Nation?

I don't even know where to begin with this ignorant, rambling post where you put words in people's mouths and make up things.

 

[wade]

And you're being ignorant. Try reading a little history. Here, I'll start you out with a bit of post WWII data:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Petroleum/bamberg.htm

The Iranians and the Soviets have a decades long dispute over oil concessions and Soviet attempts to undermine and intimidate the Iranian government.

The Soviets were never in a position to take us on in a conventional war. Witness the fact that a pack of backward tribesmen kicked their butts out of Afghanistan or the fact that a few bomb throwers in Chechnya are giving them fits today.

So the only thing you have accomplished is to identify yourself as just another liberal whose principles are dictated by circumstance. The Iranians kidnapped out people - period. I don't give a hoot who may or may not have come to the aid of Iran. We had a duty, as a nation, to come to the assistance of our fellow citizens. That concept is apparently as lost on you as it was on Carter.

Comrade,

Had the USA taken military action in Iran it would have opened the door for the Soviets to move in as "protectors". And just what do you think would have been accomplished by such action anyway, except a major destabalization of the whole area and the deaths of all the hostages?

And you are the one being niave to think the Soviets were so weak they would not have been able to contend with the USA in a ground war in the 70's or early 80's. As far as Afganistan goes, the situation was far different for the Soviets than for the USA, much more like Vietnam than our venture into Afganistan. They didn't have the kind of air superiority we enjoy now, and neither did we!

What we needed to get the hostages back was something to hold over Iran's head, and we didn't have many options. You still have not provided a viable option, you imply we could have invaded and taken them back, but that was not a workable solution, unless returning them in body bags was deemed acceptable. I'm not saying that something more should not have been done, but the "military option" was not really much of an option at all.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Comrade,

Had the USA taken military action in Iran it would have opened the door for the Soviets to move in as "protectors". And just what do you think would have been accomplished by such action anyway, except a major destabalization of the whole area and the deaths of all the hostages?

And you are the one being niave to think the Soviets were so weak they would not have been able to contend with the USA in a ground war in the 70's or early 80's. As far as Afganistan goes, the situation was far different for the Soviets than for the USA, much more like Vietnam than our venture into Afganistan. They didn't have the kind of air superiority we enjoy now, and neither did we!

What we needed to get the hostages back was something to hold over Iran's head, and we didn't have many options. You still have not provided a viable option, you imply we could have invaded and taken them back, but that was not a workable solution, unless returning them in body bags was deemed acceptable. I'm not saying that something more should not have been done, but the "military option" was not really much of an option at all.

Wade.

We could have also just nuked one of the leaders vacation hideaways or even a locale within their cities. Of course it brutal and inhumane, but it practically guarantees the immediate, safe return of our hostages and sents a signal to all such Islamic leaders we're not particulary going to be sensitive and fuck around with conventional warfare when it comes down to our own people and their well being. Russia wouldn't dare stick their necks out for the sake of Iran, and we'd be practically guaranteed protection from the last few decades of terror they unleashed without regard for our own sense or morality.

I think this is more you're style, from what I've discussed with you before. I wouldn't have felt too bad about it, especially if it had prevented 9-11 from ever happening.

But Americans just don't do that sort of thing anymore.

 

[wade]

Well, something of that nature might have been tried. But keep in mind it would have set a precident. We would probably have then seen the Soviets using nukes in Afganistan on a similarly limited scale.

And I really think you are very wrong about the balance of power between the USA and the Soviets at that time. The Soviets were quite strong, and US techology did not get way out in front of them for another decade. The Soviets certainly out gunned us for a land war, were probably close to a match for us in the air, and had an equivalent long range nuclear capability. The question is would it have made sense to actually risk nuclear war over such a small number of hostages?

And again, I think the likelyhood was that the hostages would have been immeadiately and publically executed, so the only real value would have been deterance.

Wade.