Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- US Housing and the Passive Home Standard
- Passive Solar Design Overview – Part 1
- Radical Retrenchment - A Reference Model
TOD:Europe
- Energy Policy: SER-2 [01] Introduction
- The Russian Bear?
- The Permanent Oil Crisis Conference in Amsterdam, January 21 & 22, 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 9th January 2009
- 2009: Predictions for Australia
- The Bullroarer - Tuesday 6th January 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Heading Out
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The "Enemy" I speak of is the extreme faction of Islam which publically endorses harming innocent nonmuslims. We must support moderate nations like Saudi, Jordan and Egypt, while surgically taking out the bad guys. One Air Force sorte costs more than 12 commandos behind enemy lines.
Guerrilla warfare is a tactic, terrorism is murder and morally wrong, and violates the rules of war, and the Koran.
If you think I have posted something false, debunk it. Calling me delusional is simply a fallacious cop-out.
How can you not morally support hunting down and killing the murderers of 9/11, the same killers pressure young men and women to strap bombs to themselves with lies of martyrdom. These suicide bombers kill as many innocent muslims as Israelis or Americans.
Twilight your statements are inconsistent, and your moral compass is spinning. It saddens me that you can have such a narrow minded view of your country. If these isolated cases of soldiers ALLEGEDLY murdering civilians are wrong what is your standpoint on a suicide bomber willing to kill his own countrymen in a cowardly attack on civilians?
We are also murderers and willing to kill innocents. We absolutely DID choose this war - if you dispute this, please provide one reason for attacking Iraq not based on things that were obvious lies beforehand. Diplomacy did not fail, we killed it.
You oppose the Iraq war because "Westerners on Arab soil bolster our enemy and gain support for the terrorist.", i.e. because it is ineffective. I oppose it because it is utterly, totally morally bankrupt to attack a country that has not done anything to you. Also, perhaps you can state who "this enemy" is that you refer to? Is it Arabs? Persians? Muslims? The Saudis who made up most of the 9/11 attackers? Anyone who disagrees with us? Maybe just those who have something we want?
At the time the chemical attacks on the Kurds occurred, the US analysis was that it was Iranian chemicals that had killed them, and that the town had been caught in a crossfire between the two sides. I'm sure you must be aware that the US and Europe supplied much of the chemical weapon technology that Iraq was using during the Iran/Iraq war - this was done because Iraq was getting it's butt kicked, and we were worried that Iran would win.
Modern weapons of war are far more effective at killing large numbers of civilians than are suicide bombers. We have killed, and are killing civilians in large numbers - but does it matter which method is more effective? Just what is it that would make someone willing to strap on a bomb and obliterate themselves just to strike at their enemy?
You say that "terrorism is murder and morally wrong, and violates the rules of war", but what the US is doing in Iraq (an unprovoked war of aggression) is also morally wrong, and in fact is about the highest war crime known. Our continued support of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is also morally wrong. They do not hate us because we are free; they hate us because of our actions.
If we had used the billions we have spent on war to make the lives of people in the ME tangibly better, had dealt with them in good faith - in short if we had behaved the way our national myths of self image tell us we should, then there would be no support for the madmen in the ME. And we would be far safer than we are now.
I see little difference between a soldier killing a civilian in support of a nation trying to steal the oil resources of another vs. a terrorist killing civilians in an attempt to strike back. Is the bomb dropped from an F16, or the sniper's bullet, more moral than the home-made bomb?
- Saddam stated his goal was to erradicate Israel/US
- Saddam like Hitler/Stalin and countless other dictators in history ran a murderous regime (minority driven by the way) with gross human rights violations.
- Stabilize the region/ build democracy. I disagree with this one but many analysts liberal and consevative thought it a good idea pre-shockandawe.
- Oil....not to steal it but to secure it. Stealing would be going into a stable country IE Kuwait for the sole purpose of killing and controlling the locals and taking the oil. We pay the Iraqis for all the oil we get from them. We also pay them higher than market value for a host of services. We also train their military and police and equip them.
- Saddam paid bounties to families of suicide bombers in palestine. On sept 12 Bush said terrorists anywhere and those who support them will be hunted and killed/captured.
- Saddam said he wanted WMD's and there was legitimate fear he would cooperate with a terrorist faction.
When a bomb dropped from the sky on a legitimate target kills innocents it is called "collateral damage" Saddam used his women and children as shields to make the us look bad. Intentionally in Desert storm and the recent conflict he did this. If you can't recognize the moral difference between intentionally targeting civilians and legitimate military targets then you are obviously "morally bankrupt" yourself. Snipers are highly trained in target recognition. Their role on the modern battlefield saves lives on both sides by taking out highlevel threats without full on engagements or large amounts of ordinance.There is a difference between killing a soldier and murdering a civilian. It is a soldiers job to put his life at risk. He is a fair target.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
Show me any violations the US has allegedly made and I'll show you 100 the Enemy has.
The "Enemy" as I already put it is a tiny fraction of Muslims the footsoldiers of which are often uneducated young men being led by power hungry often highly educated leaders. They are being recruited from all the disenchanted youth across the Islamic nations. The religous rhetoric combined with poverty and squalor makes for a powerful recruiting tool.
Twilight every time you post it seems like you have not read my post. I am all about protecting human life. The murders we are fighting are an enemy to the US, Israel, and Islam. When the World Trade Center was attacked the planners knew there would be an american response. Just as every american knew we must respond. You repeatedly confuse my statements against terrorism for a pro Iraq war argument.
And this is not the right forum for this discussion, so I appologize to the TOD community for increasing the noise.
1. Saddam stated his goal was to erradicate Israel/US
Israel has stated its goal is to erradicate Palestine, Iraq and Iran. US has stated its goal to erradicate (sorry, spread democracy) to Afganistan, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, Cuba..... Ok, to be fair, they never have stated that as their goal, but I would like to see quotes from Saddam saying he wanted to erradicate Israel/US. Would that have been after the famed meeting with Rumsfield, after the years of CIA support? I find it so hard to believe that a country the size of California, half the world away, was considered a serious threat. You were worried they would invade you?
2. Saddam like Hitler/Stalin and countless other dictators in history ran a murderous regime (minority driven by the way) with gross human rights violations.
Ignoring the H word, it is also true that the US is running a murderous regime with gross human rights violations. Have you not heard about the latest UN and Amnesty reports? Covert operations are terrorism from the other side. Gulags anyone?
3. Stabilize the region/ build democracy. I disagree with this one but many analysts liberal and consevative thought it a good idea pre-shockandawe.
Yes, bomb them into stabilization. Bomb them until they vote. (bombing was carried out from Gulf war I)
4. Oil....not to steal it but to secure it. Stealing would be going into a stable country IE Kuwait for the sole purpose of killing and controlling the locals and taking the oil. We pay the Iraqis for all the oil we get from them. We also pay them higher than market value for a host of services. We also train their military and police and equip them.
I'm not sure there is a difference. I believe that when the war started, it was stated that it would be paid by Iraqi oil, and that reconstruction would be paid by Iraqi oil. Bomb them and make them pay. Higher pay as a rational for war? Disband an army then claim credit for trying to start a new one?
5. Saddam paid bounties to families of suicide bombers in palestine. On sept 12 Bush said terrorists anywhere and those who support them will be hunted and killed/captured.
Israel should abide by all UN resolutions against it. How about the right of return for 4 million refugees. How can you justify supporting an apartheid nation? Why didn't Bush say he would seek justice on only those who pepetrated 9/11? Why is that an excuse to attack anyone now labelled by Bush as a terrorist? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
6. Saddam said he wanted WMD's and there was legitimate fear he would cooperate with a terrorist faction.
Now the whole world wants WMD's, as it has been proven if you don't have them, you will be attacked by the US. Is the US now the world's thought police, attacking states because they might cooperate with someone that the US doesn't agree with, because they might want something?
Really what I find amazing is that some Americans (there are so many representations of smart and well informed ones here on this site) cannot see the other side. Up until the start of the Iraq war I also believed most American propaganda about how the US is good for the world. Its only because it has been so badly bunged up by Bush that I started researching other sources and other points of view. The more I read the more shocked I am. As been repeatedly stated here, Bush has worn through all the goodwill the US had. More and more people I talk to are coming around to understand the role the US has had in trying to dominate the world through force. While I know I will not change your opinions, you must realize that you are becoming part of a smaller and smaller section of Americans (latest polls say only 1 in three supporting Bush).
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/sa/saddam_hussein.html
Right and wrong are not a matter of the whims of the mob. I do not care what opinions are held. In the entire post above I have stated I do not support an occupation or democracy building. In the current trial procedings saddam said it was a duty of muslims to destroy Israel. I am in support of hunting down this perverted faction of Islam and killing them any means neccesary. Very few countries have WMD's and we have not invaded th others. Are we in Venezuela?
"While I know I will not change your opinions, you must realize that you are becoming part of a smaller and smaller section of Americans (latest polls say only 1 in three supporting Bush)."
Public opinion should not sway a presidents will. His conscience should. For whatever successes and failures he has I truly believe GW believes he is acting in good faith. I disagree with his tactics but not his principles. You will not change my opinion unless you can yank back some ficticous green curtain and show me the true OZ.
The bombings continued through clintons era because Saddam was a threat. Left alone he would eventual have made something nasty. Saddam SAID he wanted to.
Once again I hate war. Many of my buddies are dead in the past five years. I hope you understand a large percentage of moderate democrats are fed up with the lunacy of that party. This election will be up in the air and I think dems could win but they will probably run a far lefter and alienate the country. 4 more years republican. :)