 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nobel prize winners are going to ask us to get an online subscription to the Wall Street Journal? That would be strange of them.  |
Its what all the cool Nobel Prize winners read.
quote:
ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY
Sometimes, a War Saves People
We must be willing to bring the fight to those who would do evil.
BY JOSE RAMOS-HORTA
Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
The new Socialist government in Spain has caved in to the terrorist threats and withdrawn its troops from Iraq. So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic. They are unlikely to be the last. With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries--which do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq--will also cut and run.
No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al Qaeda and other extremists who win. They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw.
As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without U.N. or international approval--and in both cases they were right to do so.
Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened--without a U.N. mandate--to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.
So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten too is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbors lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.
Those who oppose the use of force at any cost may question why overthrowing Saddam was such a priority. Why not instead tackle Robert Mugabe, the junta in Myanmar, or Syria? But while Mugabe is a ruthless despot, he is hardly in the same league as Saddam--a tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people, unleashed two catastrophic wars against his Muslim neighbors, and defied the U.N.
Saddam's overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful, tolerant and prosperous. That's why the stakes are so high, and why extremists from across the Muslim world are fighting to prevent it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing Stone Age rule. They know that forcing Western countries to withdraw from Iraq would be a major step toward that goal, imperiling the existence of moderate regimes--from the Middle East to the Magreb and Southeast Asia.
If those regimes were to fall, hundreds of thousands of Muslims who today denounce the "evils" of Western imperialism would flock to Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia, seeking refuge. As in Iran, Muslims might have to experience the reality of rule by ayatollahs before they realize how foolish they were not to oppose these religious zealots more vigorously.
Fortunately that remains a remote scenario. If we look beyond the TV coverage, there is hope that Washington's vision of transforming Iraq might still be realized. Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered Internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women's advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.
Iraq's Shiite majority has acted with restraint in the face of provocation by extremist elements in the Sunni minority, Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda and other foreign mercenaries. The coalition authorities would be wise to cultivate responsible Shiite clerics more closely and ensure that their legitimate concerns are met. While a Shiite-dominated regime might not meet America's goal of a Western-style democracy, it is still far preferable to risking the return of Saddam's thugs. The U.S. must reiterate that building democracy will not marginalize Islam. Democracy and Islam coexist in Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, while Israel offers an example of a state built on a single religion. That could be the case in Iraq, too, as long as it is led by wise clerics who are able to deliver freedom and good governance. The most probable contender to fill this role is Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has emerged as the national leader the country needs to keep it together. He may not be a democrat in the Western mold, but the U.S. needs to cultivate him, and provide whatever support is required to ensure that he emerges as ruler of the new Iraq.
The U.S. also needs to repair the damage done by the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. While it's important to remember that those involved only represent a tiny fraction of U.S. servicemen in Iraq, the fact remains that the abuse was allowed to continue for many months after organizations such as the normally secretive Red Cross sounded alarm bells. Only thorough investigation, including action against those responsible, can restore U.S. standing in Iraq.
Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the U.N. plays the central role in building a new Iraq. As an East Timorese, I am well aware of the international body's limits, having seen first hand its impotence in the face of Indonesia's invasion of my country in 1975. The U.N. is the sum of our qualities and weaknesses, our selfish national interests and personal vanities. For all its shortcomings, it is the only international organization we all feel part of; it should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a U.N.-led peacekeeping force would enable many Arab and Muslim nations to join in and help isolate the extremists.
In almost 30 years of political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. But Mr. Mandela, too, recognized the need to resort to violence in the struggle against white oppression. The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics.
Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.
Mr. Ramos-Horta, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1996, is East Timor's senior minister for foreign affairs and cooperation
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, because politicians are the ones who are putting this whole thing together. It's the Senators who are creating the plans and aiming the missiles?  Because there are absolutely no scientists working on the project? |
If I'm an applied science guy working for a contractor who stands to make billions on this thing, then of course it'll work, it'll work great, and the concept is really simple...  
quote:
How dumb can you get?
|
Look at the history of failed weapons systems, failed energy technologies, and other publicly funded technology boondoggles. What matters isn't being right, it's making a good enough Powerpoint presentation to get the ol' Pork-o-meter turned on.
quote:
And wasn't it Kennedy, a politician, who said we'll get to the moon by the end of the decade? How DARE a politician who knows less about science say those things.... oh wait, we did that. Never mind then |
Kennedy didn't say it until he had advice from credible enough scientists that it could be done. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
The upside is that potential nuclear states will see that it's no longer enough to make one or two nukes to be a nuclear power. Building and maintaining more than a handful of nukes is very expensive and has a large signature (easier for our intelligence to pick up). We're simply attempting to raise some reasonable barriers to entry into the nuke club.
Even if the missile defense doesn't work 100%, then the barriers to entry will be raised. In the future, it might indeed work 100%, so a country is going to have to factor that into its trade-off of nukes vs. no nukes.
|
Sorry DanS, but that logic simply doesn't hold water.
As myself and others have pointed out again and again in missile "shield" threads, an intercontinental ballistic missile is the most complex, the most expensive, the hardest to develop and most easily detected delivery system.
A warhead could be much more easily delivered via ship, small plane, or even truck. A multi-billion dollar missile shield gives the US 0% protection against such threats.
Far from "raising the entry barrier", a missile shield (even a perfect one) only channels potential enemies into using lower-tech delivery systems that are (perversely) perhaps more likely to succesfully reach their target (i.e. container ship technology is far more tested, reliable, and available than intercontinental ballistic missile technology).
These arguments have never been refuted in something like ten different missile shield threads.
DanS, I fear you have already forgotten the lesson of the USS Cole. Terrorists did not need to acquire a nuclear sub or an AEGIS cruiser to attack the Cole. They simply used an alternate delivery system: a rowboat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whoha
|
 |
The TOC is supposed to be classified guys...
Dec 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
Sorry DanS, but that logic simply doesn't hold water.
As myself and others have pointed out again and again in missile "shield" threads, an intercontinental ballistic missile is the most complex, the most expensive, the hardest to develop and most easily detected delivery system.
A warhead could be much more easily delivered via ship, small plane, or even truck. A multi-billion dollar missile shield gives the US 0% protection against such threats.
Far from "raising the entry barrier", a missile shield (even a perfect one) only channels potential enemies into using lower-tech delivery systems that are (perversely) perhaps more likely to succesfully reach their target (i.e. container ship technology is far more tested, reliable, and available than intercontinental ballistic missile technology).
These arguments have never been refuted in something like ten different missile shield threads.
DanS, I fear you have already forgotten the lesson of the USS Cole. Terrorists did not need to acquire a nuclear sub or an AEGIS cruiser to attack the Cole. They simply used an alternate delivery system: a rowboat. |
The Attack on the Cole was done in shallow water. A fishing boat is not going to make it across the Ocean to reach the US. A ship that can make that journey is easily detected and dispatched.
Should we not buy bullet proof vests because they do not defend against drowning?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:36
|
|
I am somehow in doubt that it cannot work. If you work with it enough, it will work. The alternate delivery systems, relevant to the terrorism threat, etc. are of course, not targetted by this, but this could put off North Korea. ( Though I think that for the money spent, you could actually buy north Korea, but I am not sure. )
WRG to the terrorist threat, This can be solved for much less cash, and quite easier, but noone cares, I guess. ( The total screening all of that traffic costs a lot? I somehow think that the equipment will cost much much less, and can be merged with screening for contraband, which would actually benefit the economy somewhat.
In a somewhat related topic, We already have Anti-Theatre-ballistic-missiles, and they're operational. Those, of course, are different from AICBMs*whistles*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
|
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
The Attack on the Cole was done in shallow water. A fishing boat is not going to make it across the Ocean to reach the US.A ship that can make that journey is easily detected and dispatched. |
 Fishing boats, small cargo vessels, container ships and small prop planes are all routinely - and successfully - used by smugglers to get drugs and illegal aliens into the US, despite the best attempts to "detect and dispatch" them. These are tried and tested delivery systems.
And as we know from NK's nuclear program, smuggling shipments of highly sensitive materials around the world is pretty easy. I wouldn't expect to see, for instance, a container ship set sail directly from North Korea to LA at the outset of hostilities. Anyone capable of clandestinely developing a nuclear weapon deserves credit for more cunning than that.
For that matter, the container ship in question may not knowingly have anything to do with the attack. For example, a weapon could be trans-shipped to any number of ports around the world, and finally put on board an unsuspecting vessel destined for an American harbor. Then the weapon is detonated remotely.
The 50 billion could be far better spent on other programs such as intelligence - programs which, unlike a missile shield, would actually contribute something to our national security.
quote:
Should we not buy bullet proof vests because they do not defend against drowning? |
Better analogy: Should we buy 50 BILLION dollar bulletproof vests to defend against someone who has easy access to a sword?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-05-2004 01:03
|