Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: House of Mustard on March 17, 2003, 11:57:35 AM
-
So, we're going to war.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.main/index.html
Not like this was unexpected, but it's about time that something happened.
-
And it's being debated rabidly all over my workplace.
While I disagree with Bush's procedure, the whole inevitability of the situation makes me accepting of it.
-
As much as I'd love to give peace a chance, I agree that sometimes you have to take the gun away from the psycho. I, too, disagree with a lot of Bush's methods and reasons, but if we have a clear plan to remove Saddam from power I don't think it will take much longer than a few weeks. I mean come one, it's only Iraq--last time we fought them, they were so desperate to give up they started surrendering to automated recon planes.
-
I'm tired of arguing against this, since my arguments have proven futile, so at this point I just hope we'll get in and out.
However, I still feel the need to point out we haven't PROVEN that "the baby" even has a gun. In fact, some of the evidence our good ol' president supplied has proven to be manufactured. It's also terribly hypocritical (violating a UN decision in order to enforce a UN decision). Further, what Iraq DOES have they started dismantling already. I just CANNOT see this as anything approaching a "righteous war" or even a "right cause."
this, from the onion, would be funny if it wasn't almost accurate:
Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War
WASHINGTON, DC - Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."
-
about friggin time.
i hope it doesnt take 18 months to invade iran. at least the benefit of all this UN crap is that when we invade the next country we wont have to bother, since we will have proved the complete uselessness of the UN.
oh, and this a classic : france has, since 1960, enforced regime change 37 times (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030314-061626-3442r), without UN approval. unilaterally.
-
Not to start an argument, but...
What evidence has been proven to be manufactured?
Also, what has Iraq started dismantling? About 25 missles? How can that be viewed as anything remotely approaching dismantling? Imagine if you were a goofy little country and a really big mean country with the world's best military had it's heart set on forcing you to disarm - would you drag your feet and dismantle about one ten thousandth of your weapons?
I'll agree that Iraq isn't dismantling because they're sure that we're coming over there to shoot them in the head, but I can't see how you can imply Saddam is trying to work with us.
In regards to your claim that the US is acting hypocritical, I agree, but only to some extent. The US set a bundle of sanctions and rules on Iraq after the last war (which was NOT a UN war), and it hasn't followed any of those rules either. The US goes through the UN, because the world wants the US to go through the UN. But, in reality, the US has never recognized the UN as having much authority, and, in light of recent events, I can't see that I blame them.
The US is not really going after Iraq because it's breaking UN resolutions, and they have never really claimed that that's they're real beef. The US is going after Iraq because 1) they don't like Saddam, 2) Saddam has WMDs, and 3) he is supporting terror organizations. That's what Bush has been pressing. He brings up the 14 broken UN resolutions when he's talking to the UN saying "look, we want to kill him and you should too because he's breaking all the rules."
I think that this whole episode in world events proves that the UN is a weak and ineffectual body. They make a resolution, the deadline comes, so they make a new resoultion. They warn that they'll use force, then the deadline comes, and they issue another warning. "Stop, or I'll say stop again."
Sure, the US doesn't really care about the UN, but can you blame them? What good is an international body that sets policy it has no plans of enforcing?
-
amen Mustard. I agree with everything you just said. All I know is we'll find 2 things there. 1) Sadam has lots of nasty stuff. 2) France has been selling them that nasty stuff. As for missle dismantling they dismanted 25 of like 150 and then inspectors found even more stuff they weren't supposed to have. and if anyone even thinks that the inspectors would be there and Saddam even distroying those missles without US troops there then your realy naieve. And anyway everysingle one of the past resolutions upto and including 14.41 gives us the right to kick sadams butt. but I think the first few give us the unbridled right to do so. the treaty we made with sadam was broken by him with him haveing just 1 of those missles not to mention him violating the no-fly zone all the time and shooting at us/brittish planes for the past 10 years. The UN dosen't want to admit it but we have the legal authority by UN law to go in. They're just Anti-US. I'm personaly one of the people that say we should stopp footing the UN's bills. we pay for like 60% (i'm too lazy atm to look up the real percent but its around there) of it. That's a waste of my tax dollar.
-
Interestingly enough, the Gulf War of 1991 has not legally ended (also, it wasn't really a 'war'). We are still, technically, in a cease fire. Kind of funny, I think.
Actually, Spriggan, we were delinquent on our UN dues for most of the 80's and into the 90's. Ted Turner actually donated 1 Billion dollars to the UN in 97, and he offered to pay the US's dues in 2000 since there was a big budget stalemate in congress. Kinda funny.
-
Not to start an argument, but...
What evidence has been proven to be manufactured?
I *should* counter that by asking what evidence has been substantiated? Nothing that Bush or Powell has said has been of higher quality than I could make up in my bedroom in half an hour. None of it has any backing other than "I, Colin Powell, say this came from some guy in Iraq."
However, to give you an example, Powell stated that the recent poisoning plot foiled in the UK was using poison supplied by Iraq. Th poison was, by the report made by British investigators, of European origin.
Again, none of Bush's "evidence" that Iraq has WMD has been substantiated. If we were to convict someone in court on the basis of such evidence, it would be a travesty.
And further, he has provided NO evidence whatsoever that Hussein is directly or indirectly supporting terrorists. Get me straight here, I don't think Saddam is a nice guy. I don't think he's even on this side of neutral on the good-to-evil scale. But neither are a dozen other world leaders. It doesn't mean we can go to war over it and then place our own military officers in charge of a foreign country (and yes, that *IS* the plan as told to the media by the White House -- not expatriated Iraqis, not Iraqi citizens who opposed Hussein, but US Military officers). There is just SO much wrong with the approach, planning, and talk.
I nearly laughed when I read today's headline on the front page of the Washington Post. "Bush to Give Diplomacy Another 24 hours." or something along those lines. BS. He hasn't even begun to try diplomacy. "Stop that or I'll kick your ass" is hardly diplomacy.
-
actually, yes it is saint. its just diplomancy with less BS.
and i really cant be bothered replying to your comments. i argu against them everytime i see my best friend. not worthy of my time.
-
actually, yes it is saint. its just diplomancy with less BS.
Then I'll amend my comments to add a word. It's hardly persuasive diplomacy (and it obviously hasn't worked any better than investigations -- which seems to me haven't worked primarily because they haven't found what Bush wanted them to find, whehter or not it was really there).
and i really cant be bothered replying to your comments. i argu against them everytime i see my best friend. not worthy of my time.
Sorry if this sounds rude, but, then you really shouldn't have said anything at all. If you can really prove that Iraq a) has WMDs, or b) has been supporting terrorists, then prove it. Document your sources. Show me how that conclusion has been drawn. If you don't want to bother, than don't tell me i'm not worth your time (especially if you ARE going to take time to say that). So yeah, I guess I'm not sorry if that sounds rude, because I wasn't the first.
Seriously, I wish I *could* believe that Bush is entering this war for good reasons. But I can't. There just isn't any evidence, just plenty of suspicious behavior on both sides. Perhaps they should BOTH resign.
-
oh well, my concsience is clean im not the one attacking iraq! it be quite funny if it was only me like running into iraq with a gun and mullering sadams troops, though im kinda worried about the after effects of the war! heres to the future prospect of peace
-
I've seen/heard enough eveidence to go take sadam out. Granted I would like to know more but I trust our goverment. especialy with todays technology we'll know realy quick if they were lieing to us. as sadams terrorists links, he has no direct links to Al-quadia (or how ever you spell that) but other smaller terrorists groups have had tranning camps there. And Sadam gives lots of cash to all the palastinin terriorist groups. there are lots of sensitive material that our goverment can't share at the moment. If they do someone could be killed or the source stopped.
but what about the human rights argument. I think off of that along we have the moral right to remove him. the stuff he does is just plain scarry. And before you ask yes I think we should go into all the countries that have the same issues and remove the leaders. weither it be weapons or human rights.
as for sadam and WMD he hasn't proven he dosen't have the stuff. Last time the inspectors were there he has chemical/biological weapons, no one dienies that. but he hasn't given any evedence that he's gotten rid of it. given Sadams history of lieing and deceving people how can you take that chance that he's got that and worse.
-
So much to respond to...
Sorry if this sounds rude, but, then you really shouldn't have said anything at all. If you can really prove that Iraq a) has WMDs, or b) has been supporting terrorists, then prove it. Document your sources. Show me how that conclusion has been drawn.
Um, Ehlers, where are your sources on:
However, to give you an example, Powell stated that the recent poisoning plot foiled in the UK was using poison supplied by Iraq. Th poison was, by the report made by British investigators, of European origin.
I can only assume you're talking about ricin, but I have no idea what alternative media you're reading where you say there's no connection. CNN reports (2/5) that Karqwai (the terrorist in London) lived in Iraq last year. That seems, to me at least, like a pretty strong 'Iraq connection.'
Hey -- I have plenty more things to say about this, but I have to go pick up my wife form work -- i'll post later tonight.
-
read this if you doubt sadam having chemical weapons
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81303,00.html
-
"This information is raw and hard to confirm."
Yeah, that eliminates all my doubts.
And I never said there was never any connection with Iraq about Ricin. Powell explicitly stated that the RICIN itself was manufactured in Iraq. It wasn't. That, my friends is a lie. It was on CNN, which today was specifically forbidden for us to look at at work due to bandwidth (don't ask). So I'm sorry I can't look up the link. That one of the perpetrators once lived in Iraq hardly condemns the regime either. We've had our own little bombers, poisoners, and terrorists from the US. Does that mean Reagan, the two Bushes, and Clinton are all terrorists?
-
your not addressing the matter of the training camps or the blood money that saddam is so fond of.
And BTW, just why are you so opposed to attacking iraq? it will take all of 3 weeks, we get rid of a horrific regieme that is hitler with worse tanks and a bigger 'tash, and we can start the ball rolling on instituting democracy in the middle east. Plus it allows us to start ignoring the UN. are you aware that the next head/host of the UN Disarming commitee is Iraq? The current holder is Iran. Think about that for a second. The current head of the human rights commitee is Libya, for Christ's sake. the sooner we jetison it, the better we are. even better than all that, we get to annoy the hell out of the French. It's just a pity we arn't allowed to invade france anymore.
-
I think he's opposed to invading Iraq for the same reason that all of us should be: war is bad. Killing people is bad. We don't want it to happen. There are times when it is necessary, but Saint is not convinced that this is one of those times. I'm not fully convinced either, though I support it a little more than he does.
I'm getting really sick of arguments (most of them made by bloodthirsty rednecks and forwarded to my email account) that anyone who opposes this war is an anti-government loser who loves Saddam--that line of thinking is the most short-sighted one in the whole discussion. Just because you oppose war doesn't mean that you support terrorists. The only warrior I will ever trust is the one who hates his job, because I know that he'll only do what he has to and nothing more.
That said, just because you oppose war doesn't mean that you should let yourself get walked on. Whether or not Saddam is an immediate threat, he is a scary person and I will rest easier once he's not in charge of a country with dangerous weapons. I doubt that it will change the terrorist situation very much, and I'm not even sure that it will change the Middle East or even Iraq very much, but I guess we'll see. Let's just hope that the army (I know some of the soldiers rather well, actually) is as prepared as we think, and that this invasion is as swift and painless as possible.
-
i respect SE and his views as long as he dosen't start calling our troops baby killers and all that crap. I agree with fell that that's a realy childish way to resond to someone that thinks that way. I'm glad none of us are useing that argument and that.
We've had our own little bombers, poisoners, and terrorists from the US. Does that mean Reagan, the two Bushes, and Clinton are all terrorists?
none of our presidents have activly suportted, given money or protected those people so no they're not. and if they did they would be accintable for doing such.
-
i respect SE and his views as long as he dosen't start calling our troops baby killers and all that crap. I agree with fell that that's a realy childish way to resond to someone that thinks that way. I'm glad none of us are useing that argument and that.
I concur. I'm not against the members of the military. I think the anti-war "movement" has matured past that (although I'm sure with exceptions). I have a lot of good friends in the military, in most branches. However, I don't agree with the goal they've been sent to do. I admire people who can follow orders and do their duty, esp. ones that they may not agree with (like the guy from my gaming group who just got sent out).
none of our presidents have activly suportted, given money or protected those people so no they're not. and if they did they would be accintable for doing such.
You missed my point. My point is that just because some one is from a country, such as the Iraqi in the Ricin plot, does not indicate that the leader of that country is guilty.
-
Back finally... And there's now SO much to repond to.
And I never said there was never any connection with Iraq about Ricin. Powell explicitly stated that the RICIN itself was manufactured in Iraq. It wasn't. That, my friends is a lie.
Someone's been listening to a bit too much Barbra Streisand. Foxnews said on Jan. 8th that the ricin was linked to terrorist camps in northern iraq. UsaToday reported the same thing on Jan. 16th, and the Monterey Institute for International Studies said the same thing on Jan. 23. So what, my friend, is a lie.
Also, where are these sources you keep referring to?
The big question is this: What evidence would you believe?
Powell presented satellite photos, recordings, statistics, etc... which all seemed very convincing to the unbiased observer. Do you believe he made them up? Or do you want him to say: "It was Akmed Al-Farabi that made this recording for us. His address is 123 Baghdad St. Please go and shoot him now for treason."
The problem is that the government is asking us to take their word for it. They're not asking us to take their word for it that they have evidence (they've given us the evidence) -- they simply ask us to believe it. There are some people that will believe it blindly. There are some people that will weigh the theories and make an informed decision pro or con. Then there are some that will see what the government says and declare that it is a lie, despite concrete evidence to the contrary.
I'm against war generally, but blind opposition can be just as bad as blind support.
Well, enough of that.
Perhaps the most compelling bit of evidence is what Saddam hasn't talked about. Powell asked about the 100 to 500 tons of chemical munitions and four tons of concentrated VX (those numbers come from the UN, by the way) and Saddam hasn't said a word. Wouldn't you suppose that if someone was threating to blow you up that you would gladly say "WAIT!! We destroyed that stuff a long time ago! We did it in March last year, out at Army Base B!"
If he doesn't have the stuff anymore, why doesn't he say what happened to it? Instead he just says "liar liar pants on fire" and hides in his palace. We know (and the UN knows - they SAW the stuff), but he insists it never existed. Why, pray tell, does he say that?
Here are a few juicy tidbits (not evidence for war, but just fun facts about our favorite dictatorial doofus) from a paper I wrote last year:
Saddam employs professional rapists (What do you put on a resume for that job?)
One escaped prisoner described a torture room. It had leaky pipes on the cieling that dripped, occasionally, nitric acid. The prisoners would go insane, running around the room trying to avoid the acid that fell randomly.
There are even accounts that during the Iran-Iraq War political prisoners would have their blood pumped out to provide transfusions for soldiers. They would give all they had until they died, and then a new prisoner would take their place.
What a guy! Lets all assume he's rational and that continued diplomacy will work with him.
-
Granted I would like to know more but I trust our goverment.
Personally, I don't exactly trust Bush right now, not completely. And I voted for the guy. It's just sometimes, when he talks, I wonder. I just feel deep-down uneasy about this whole situation. But then sometimes I trust him a little more. I don't know. It's all very confusing. I agree with SE--I haven't seen enough evidence right now for me to feel like there's any immediate threat to the US from Saddam Hussein. We lasted how many decades in the Cold War without any battles being fought (other than behind-the-scenes spies, which I have no idea about numbers)?
I know that he does horrible things in his own country, and for that, yes, he should be removed from power. This alone should be enough. But then there's the question: do we (the US alone) have the right? I struggle with the implication--we have the right to judge all other countries and be the police force of the world. This is something we've been doing for quite a while, but I still can't be completely comfortable with it.
Back to the Cold War: I realize we did come close to blows several times, but it never came to open war. Is it just that different times call for different measures? Or do we just have a lack of commitment in our leadership to do everything possible to avoid war? Or has everything been done and I just, as a layperson, don't understand it?
Everyone in the news and in the press conferences are so confident that it'll only take a couple weeks, no problem. But what if it doesn't? What if, in the 12 years since Saddam should have been taken care of (and I *do* think if it should have been done at any time, the appropriate time would have been during the Gulf War), what if since then Saddam has gotten himself a better army? What if on his home turf he's harder to defeat than in another country?
And I find it disturbing how going to war makes stocks shoot up by almost 300 points. Are we that bloodthirsty as a people, that we can be that excited about a war starting? And here, of course, is another area where I have to admit ignorance, that of economics. But it does disturb me. I hear that if war lasts longer then stocks normally go down, but none of it makes sense to me, really.
Mainly I have personal objections to war right now. I freely admit that I am no expert when it comes to international relations. I'm sure that there are things they can't tell us because it would compromise vital operations. And those are probably exactly the things that would connect the dots for me. I just feel like in this particular situation, unless some clear link is made to the Sept. 11 attacks, or unless we see imminent danger to the US or its allies, I will have misgivings over this.
I have pondered this for a long time and even though I agree that Saddam Hussein is bad and evil etc., what I want to know is why we aren't attacking other countries and regimes that are just as bad, for all the same reasons that we've talked about Saddam Hussein--for example Saudi Arabia for harboring terrorists (we KNOW that they harbored Al Qaeda camps and operatives) and China for civil rights violations and North Korea for weapons of mass destruction, etc. etc. etc.
Slightly related: I found this quote the other day, in a discussion of the Patriot Act that allows the FBI full access to anyone's library and bookstore lending/purchasing information without the burden of a warrant. Yeah, I may not be in danger of being investigated by the FBI anytime soon, but that smacks of Bill of Rights violations all over the place to me. I think that if the FBI suspects someone of something, due process should be followed (with yet another disclaimer that I'm no law student--but I still agree with the quote).
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
P.S. Who do I ask about accessing my profile? I can't get into it and change my sig, city, etc.
-
I have pondered this for a long time and even though I agree that Saddam Hussein is bad and evil etc., what I want to know is why we aren't attacking other countries and regimes that are just as bad, for all the same reasons that we've talked about Saddam Hussein--for example Saudi Arabia for harboring terrorists (we KNOW that they harbored Al Qaeda camps and operatives) and China for civil rights violations and North Korea for weapons of mass destruction, etc. etc. etc.
One at a time, one at a time. We will not go for China though. They have nuclear missiles. Baaaaaad idea to attack them.
But then there's the question: do we (the US alone) have the right?
Interesting fact: when Britain outlawed Slavery, we decided that we outlawed it across the globe. And so we carried out "gunboat diplomancy". I think we can all agree that the UK was in the right. And yet under current laws that would be illegal. Thats a bit iffy, ain't it?
Besides, how come everyone has forgotten that the UK, Australia and Spain actively support war, and that another 15 odd eastern European countries have added their voices in support?
And I find it disturbing how going to war makes stocks shoot up by almost 300 points.
I am no expert on stock markets, but i think this may be due to surety. People know that war is starting. The stock market fell due to uncertainty. City traders dislike nothing more than uncertainty.
-
We lasted how many decades in the Cold War without any battles being fought (other than behind-the-scenes spies, which I have no idea about numbers)?
Entirely different ball of wax. I would refer you to a long argumentative thread from about a month ago (sorry - I can't remember what it's called, but you can look it up). Peace (relative peace) was maintained in the Cold War for two reasons: 1) Bipolarity of the international system and 2) USA and USSR both had nuclear weapons.
Bipolarity means that everyone in the whole world (or at least everyone that matters) is affiliated with one side or the other, basically reducing the world into two countries. Both powers know that if war starts then it's going to be World War III, and no one is willing to do that. And why are they not willing to do that? Nuclear weapons.
(There's fifty years of political theory condensed into a paragraph - it's a little more complicated, but that's the gist of it.)
Anyway, the point is that Iraq does not fit the Cold War mold. We are not lacking the "commitment to avoid war." It's just a different method entirely. The reason that people turn to terrorism is because they are unable to change the course of world events with the standard methods (they are diplomatically and militarily weak). Iraq cannot fit the profile of a superpower, yet still wants superpower status. It is this problem that leads countries to become 'Rogue nations'.
As far as whether or not his army is better, I don't know other than to say that it is generally the same size it was in 91. And in regards to whether they are tougher on their home turf - in 91 they WERE on their home turf. We didn't go to Baghdad, but we tromped all over Iraq.
what I want to know is why we aren't attacking other countries and regimes that are just as bad, for all the same reasons that we've talked about Saddam Hussein--for example Saudi Arabia for harboring terrorists (we KNOW that they harbored Al Qaeda camps and operatives) and China for civil rights violations and North Korea for weapons of mass destruction, etc. etc. etc.
There a lot of reasons. Saudi Arabia contains terrorists, but the current regime (the King, his son, etc...) do not. As a matter of fact, Al Qaeda can't stand that regime and they are one of the terrorists main targets.
China is a big stinking nuclear power. True, they have human rights violations, but stepping in over there would be a long drawn out war that we may not win (they have more than five times our piddly population).
North Korea certainly needs to be dealt with, but it's a sticky situation because we know they have nukes. In Iraq, we just know they're trying to get them.
But here's the main thing: just because we're not going after them right now doesn't mean we won't ever. The US used to have a "Two War" policy, meaning that we would always be ready for two different major engagements. Then Jimmy Carter came along and reduced it to a one war policy. Over the next decade it was built back up to about a war and a half, which is where we were at the beginning of Bush Jr.'s presidency. He's trying to get back to two, but isn't there yet. So the reason we aren't going after these other potential targets is because we simply don't have the resources right now. (Although we are being very watchful - as soon as we get bogged down in a shooting war in Iraq, North Korea might use the opportunity to cause trouble. There's even been talk that China might head back over to Taiwan once we're busy with other things)
Anyway, there you go. Just so you know, I was against this war for a long time - A few months ago I had a couple really good arguments with Spriggan about it. But I think that there has been ample evidence given to support it and I've changed my mind.
-
Regarding gunboat diplomacy (practiced heavily by both the British and the Americans), I'm not sure I agree that we are ever "in the right." Sure, slavery is wrong, but so is forcing your beliefs onto other people. This is probably the trickiest issue in global politics, and we're only going to encounter it more and more. If I suspect that my next-door neighbor beats his wife, do I have a moral responsibility to stop him? Yes. Do I have the right to invade his house and stop him physically? No. The difference is that my neighbor and I both live within a legal system that holds him accountable for his actions and provides a means for me to indirectly affect the situation by sending for the police. Earth as a whole has no such governing body, and no acceptable legal means of interfering with countries that don't want to be interfered with. Some nations have come together and agreed to certain rules (for example, any country that's signed the Geneva Convention can be held accountable to it), but the others are largely off-limits.
If a dictator kills his own people, we can't do anything about it. Saddam has been killing his own people ever since he came into power, but we didn't raise a finger until he started killing somebody else's people (Kuwaitis, mainly). The Khmer Rouge has killed more people in Cambodia than Saddam could ever hope to kill, but we've never done anything about it because they keep to themselves.
Our invasion of Iraq will set a dangerous precedent because we're breaking this rule: we're dealing with situation before it happens (though it could be argued that Saddam's terrorist funding, if it exists, counts as 'affecting other people'). If we wait for Saddam to do anything, the argument says, then it will be too late; it's time to take him out now before he gets any more dangerous. What we are essentially saying is that we want to fill the gap in global government and become both judge and police--if you do something we think is bad, we're coming to get you on no authority other than our own. We've hired ourselves to babysit a world full of people who don't want us to bother them.
Once you've declared yourself the moral enforcer of the world, where do you draw the line? Do we invade countries that don't have child labor laws? Do we force muslim cultures to stop requiring women to wear veils, on threat of military invasion? What about countries that don't offer an acceptable minimum wage or provide safe workplace conditions? What about countries with legal and prison systems much harsher than our own--do we invade and force them to change?
And what about other countries who decide they want to be the police too? Let's say Gooberonia (to remove any political baggage from the discussion) follows our lead and starts enforcing its own ideas. Their neighbors are kind of scary, and start developing some big weapons, so Gooberonia storms in and shuts everything down, ousting the old government and establishing their own. What do we do--congratulate them for being so concerned, or invade them to stomp out their dangerous imperialist tendencies? Would we view the situation differently if Goobernia were socialist or monarchist rather than democratic? They have, arguably, the same moral right to invade that we do, but what are the odds we'll let them use it?
As a fan of science fiction, I'm a firm beleiver in world governments. Shows like Star Trek and Robotech show us how nice the world can be when everyone works together and follows the rules, and I support that kind of idea in the real world. Unfortunately, the real world includes people who don't want to play by anyone else's rules. Can we, in good conscience, rewrite the world in our image?
-
complete tangent : does anyone here actually believe a "world government" is a realistic possibility? I have seen nothing that suggests it would be either possible or desirable. The current attempt, the UN, is poo. Apart from anything else, how in the name of god would you get countries to join up to a world government? would you storm into, say, japan and demand that they join up? If they do not, then it is hardly a world government. And then consider the problem that nobody can agree on anything. America and the UK are about as close in terms of outlook as countries get.
-
I wouldn't call this a tangent, since that's more or less the thrust of my above post. I honestly don't think a world government is possible unless it is totalitarian, in which case I'd rather not. My concern is that current U.S. action, taken to a ridiculous extreme, forms the foundation of a totalitarian world government.
-
Just watching the news and according to colin Powell we have 30 countries publicly supporting us and 15 "quietly" supporting us. don't a full list atm (again this is what he said on TV). that dosen't seam like going it alone to me.
edit: here it is http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81420,00.html
-
Does it really matter how many people are supporting us? If fifty countries decided that we were wrong, and led a military invasion of America, I don't think you'd agree with that. It all comes down to this: does any country or group of countries have the right to decide how another country runs itself? On those grounds, I think it makes perfect sense for the UN to run a human rights investigation on the US, because that's exactly what we would do if any other country pulled the stunt we're pulling today.
-
Yes we have the Moral right to change a leadership that threatins it's own people or the rest of the world. Under what you've been saying we should have never done anything about Hiltler. This BS that your spewing Fell is the same crap france was saying 50 years ago about Hitler.
-
This BS that your spewing Fell is the same crap france was saying 50 years ago about Hitler.
Be careful Spriggan. France took action 2 full years before America did. America only joined in after it was attacked. Your moral superioty on that issue is rather weak.
-
I'm not takeing a Moral high ground, there is no high or low groud here. A moral reason is the only reason we have to do so. France only took action after it was attacked as well. But France could have acted a lot sooner but it chose not to. Hindsight is 20/20 we've learned from WW2 to deal with world threats, France hasn't.
-
France only took action after it was attacked as well.
o_0
Where did you pull that from? France, along with Britain, declared war after Germany invaded Poland. France was only invaded in 1940, several months afterwards.
-
geese excuse me for being wrong once. But if I'm not mistaken wasn't frances govement very pro-Nazi as in several of hitlers buddies in control.
-
So? Most of the British aristocracy, and a couple members of the pre war cabinet were pro - hitler.
Nobody has clean hands over WW2. Best to leave it out of the Iraq debate.
-
WW2, by the way, goes right in line with what I'm saying: the world doesn't do anything about a 'corrupt' nation until that nation starts affecting others. Hitler did whatever he pleased to his own people, and nobody stepped in until he started doing screwy things like invading Poland.
Compare me to France if you want, but to say that we have the right to invade a foreign country and impose our own form of government is to do exactly what Nazi Germany was doing in WW2. Just because we claim to have a moral superiority doesn't make us right--the Nazis claimed the same thing. Any form of global government that is not directly ruled by God must by nature be morally relative, because no one in a free society has the right to say that our beliefs are better than yours. If we do say that, and then proceed to enforce the statement with guns, we've stopped being a free society.
-
Hindsight is 20/20 we've learned from WW2 to deal with world threats, France hasn't.
Maybe they just learned a different lesson than we did. Maybe France learned that if you declare war on a madman then millions of your people will be killed, your cities will lie in ruin and your country will go bankrupt.
What are the problems that we have with France? They're arrogant and like to flaunt their power? It reminds me of someone else I know.
I'm also getting sick of people saying that France owes us because we saved their rear end in WW2. I distinctly remembered that they saved ours first (in the Revolutionary War).
And have you heard about the many restaraunts that changed the name of French Fries to 'Freedom Fries' (a trend that started in the House of Representatives dining room).
Have we forgotten that France is our ally, for crying out loud? Have we forgotten that they are tied to us politically, economically and ideologically? The fact that they won't help us fight a two bit dictator has suddenly made them our worst enemy. A little over-the-top, I think.
-
"Freedom Fries" was first reported in a restaurant in Tennessee, actually. As usual, the US Congress is just following the trends.
And it has precedent, too. Guess what country Belgian Waffles and French Toast were named after before WWII. For that matter, guess why we don't call Frankfurters by that name anymore?
The only problem is, as HoM says, France is actually an ally in general (immediate circumstances notwithstanding), not our opponent in a war. No wonder American sympathy in Europe is at a low ebb.
I'm a little tired of it too. I mean, I made as much fun of France as the next guy before this whole spiel, but wtf is up with this? I'm an American. And I oppose this war. The fact that I oppose it does not make me any less American.
Yes, Hussein is evil. No one has argued he isn't. However, the moral justification for blowing up his country is murky at best.
-
Fell, I've thought the same thing about WWII and what its precendent means for us nowadays. Different times call for different attitudes, but I've heard it argued both ways about Hitler: why didn't we stop him before he did all those horrible things? some people ask. We should have known, they say. Yes. We should have. But if we (that is, not the US, because we weren't involved at the time, but Britain and France) had taken him down before he actively invaded another country, would history be singing a different tune? Would we have been saying that Britain was the aggressor, punching down a Germany already weakened by WWI and reparations?
What I'm trying to say is it can go both ways for that situation. Anyway, Fell said it better than I can, about setting precedent on invading other countries. I think I need to stop thinking about this. My uncle's in the Air Force and he's been over in the Middle East three or four times in the last year and a half, and I just found out that this last time, which was supposed to be a 45 day assignment, is now indefinite. Let's just pray that whatever happens, it's done quickly. I have homework I should be concentrating on anyway.
By the way, did you guys know that I'm in grad school now, those of you that know me from before? I've been in Boston since January, going to Simmons College and working on my master's in Children's Lit. Fun!
(Tangent: for class I just recently had to read the James Cross Giblin book The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, which just won the Sibert award, the equivalent of the Newbery for nonfiction. I highly recommend it, by the way, as a straightforward history of the rise of Hitler's power. You all probably know this, but several years before he came into power, he was involved in a coup that sent him to prison, where he wrote Mein Kampf. What if Hitler had been taken out then? Would history be any different? Or would the social conditions just have brought a different madman to power? Not that I'm trying to start a discussion on it--just thoughts I had as I read the book.)
-
Congratulations on being in grad school...that sounds weird somehow. Anyway, good luck.
-
And have you heard about the many restaraunts that changed the name of French Fries to 'Freedom Fries' (a trend that started in the House of Representatives dining room).
I heard about that, did anyone hear about the attempt to change the name of the two towers and to change 911?
I personally don't support the war. i still haven't heard proof about these "weapons of mass-destruction". Oh.. and half the country now hates tony blair.
-
did anyone hear about the attempt to change the name of the two towers and to change 911?
That effort, in fact, was a Troll. It really was a web site, but it was simply there to see who they could piss off. Funny if you're Andy Kaufman, I guess...
-
there's a difference between us and hitler. Case in point the Iraqi people haven't chossen their govement it was imposed on them. we're not going into a sovern country that has a fair and legal goverment and laws. If we invaded turkey or france that would be different, even though they didn't support us when we needed it that was the will of the people there. If the Iraqi people had chosen their leader and still wanted him in power that would be different. But they didn't. I don;t see this as imposing our form of goverment on the Iraqi's but instead freeing them so they can have the choice of how their country is to be run. Just like in Afganistan.
as for the whole freedome fries & kiss that's just plain stupid. It's just a few people over reacting and the media blowing it out of perportion (or how ever you spell that ???)
as for we saved the Frenchs butts in WW2 I can see why its a big deal a lot of those people are still alive and it's defantly in recent memory more then the Revolutionary war.
I know there's WOMD in Iraq. If there wasn't you wouldn't see both Republicans and Democrats (the ones on the Intellegence commitie) say that they are 100% sure that Sadam has these weapons. That's enough for me, I'm not following blindly. I've heard countless of my leaders say that there is and only a small part of them are in the Bush adminastration. I've also read testomony from Iraqi defectors, but military and Scientests.
I just want to know this from the Anti-War people. If we go in and we find countless Stores of weapons and the Iraqi people great us a liberators what will you say then? Will you still be against the action? Will you apologise for being wrong? Or will you just pretent like it never happened? I'm not trying to be confrontagious or cynical here I realy want to know.
True Ismar half your country hates Blair but sence the 48 hours to get our the percentage of Brittans who Oppose the war fell 15%, granted it's at 60% now. But if the war goes quick and we find these stores he'll be a lot more popular. A lot of people hated Churchill during WW2 now, at least here in the States, he's prectalcly a hero.
-
For my part, I'm not denying that Iraq has WMD or that Saddam is evil--I think those are pretty accepted facts. What I'm saying is that we are setting a dangerous precedent for sticking our nose into other people's business (though this is not technically the first time America has pre-emptively invaded a foreign power and planted its flag on conquered soil--that was back in 1898 and our war with Spain). If our example shows people that it's okay to invade people you don't like, what's next?
-
Well this may be kinda a stupid answer, but unless it's china what's going to keep us from threating us if they do?
But your right and that was a question that was rasied quite a lot when Bush/Blair first said that's what they wanted to do. And from what a lot of people said is if we have a resolution from the UN then it's no big deal. But now we don't have on (and despite my pro-war thoughts I still wish we had the UN's approvil if for nothing more then to avoid this problem). But I guess the only thing we can do is wait and see what happens.
-
Spriggan, frequently I can't understand what you're trying to say.
However, as for being opposed to war, if we really found stuff, I'd certainly admit I was wrong in my opposition ON THAT COUNT. I wouldn't apologize, however. Why would I owe an apology? And to whom?
I would still believe it was probably wrong due to the morality of messing with other governments, as Fell keeps pointing out.
Again, I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems like your last post is justifying invading other countries on the basis that we're capable of doing it with more or less impunity. That sounds very, very frightening to me. Please tell me I misunderstood.
As a further side-note, I find it extemely unlikely that we'll be greeted whole-heartedly as liberators. According to the Washington Post, Most Iraqi ammo/firearms dealers are very low on supplies because the citizens of Baghdad are buying them up. The Post makes a big deal about how they're doing it to combat rioters/looters, but also admits that these citizens state they're doing it to fight US soldiers. Granted, it's my opinion they'd just as soon shoot an Iraqi soldier who tries to break down their door, but they still don't want to see us running their country. The Iraqis have been told for many, many years that the U.S. is evil and wants to destroy their religion and their society. Sure, it's a lie, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been absorbed. And it'd be hard to believe that the people who've been bombing your home for the last dozen years are doing it to set you free.
-
True, Spriggan: at this point there's little we can do other than wait and see what happens. I highly doubt that we'll begin an age of rampant imperialism. Bush Jr. is the first president to offer a well-formed description of America's international policy in a post-Cold-War environment, and I want to see how it plays out--invading Iraq, it should be noted, is only a small portion of that plan.
-
Well the bum rush is about to begin and I must say that I'm behind our troops 100%. We've painted ourselves in a corner here and it's obvious that war is all but inevitable now. Initially I was opposed to the war, but something has to be done about Saddam and apparently we're not too hot on diplomacy these days.
Isn't Nicadymus over there?
I just read that we most likely have EMP bombs now, which is certainly interesting. I guess we'll finally see all the gadgets the military has been secretly developing in the last decade or so.
-
Nicadymus is in the reserves so I guess he would be. He's one of my childhood friends and I don't even know :-/.
-
I don't think that the precedent that Bush is setting is as terrifying as some here seem to think. I also don't know where all of you kids have been for the last eighteen months, but that precedent (invading a country with the intention of regime change based on evidence of state-sponsored terrorism and human rights violations) was set pretty handily back in scenic Afghanistan.
The US has been a major fan of regime change for a century. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it backfires miserably (ousting the shah in Iran to put in the Ayat Allah? Nice move.)
Anyway, the point is that the precedent was set long ago, and invading Iraq today and maybe North Korea tomorrow is not a big step toward much of anything.
There is a technical difference, I admit, between handing out buckets of guns to the Contras or the Northern Alliance, and invading with three fourths of our entire military. I would argue, however, that the difference is negligible.
In the first case, we induce a regime change by supplying guns and special forces and money, and everybody knows that the US just changed the leadership of Nicaragua - or - we charge in and shoot up the place, and everybody knows that we changed the leadership of Nicaragua. Whether it's with our own boys, or the local opposition parties, the effect is the same - regime change with US influence at the cost of some bloodshed and a lot of money.
So what is the disturbing precedent? That now it's our boys in uniform? It's unfortunate, but probably fewer will die in the attempt.
Anyway - it's 1:00 in the morning and I'm glued to the TV. A couple of Iraqi units have already showed up at the Kuwaiti border with white flags. Lets all pray that it's a sign of things to come.
-
Skar was over there for a while, but he was supposed to come back in February--is he back? Was his tour extended?
I didn't watch the war coverage last night, I played an FPS. How's that for surreal?
-
By the way Fell, I forgot to mention something: You're a dirty communist.
-
Big talk, Australopithecus Jones.
-
OK. so here is something i do not understand. just wtf is Saddam doing? He knows the coalition will capture baghdad within 3/4 days. so, what is his plan?
Seeing as how we are all RPers here, lets see if we can't figure this out from his perspective. I would have thought he would be running by now.
-
Frankly, if he were a CoC character, he'd have insanity points coming out his ears. He probably knows he can't touch us with military might, so he's not even trying. Instead he hopes that intl sympathy will extend to condeming the US. Unlikely, because what would the UN do against the US? I mean, I wouldn't want to fight a war with Russia and China, but even as a UN coalition, does anyone have the cahoneys to do that over *IRAQ*? it's not an issue anyone feels is worth the risk, even if they DID feel that passionate about it, and the French have already shown they don't feel it. So yeah, Hussein just doesn't understand all the factors. It's like he's playing risk and he doesn't understand that holding continents gets you more troops. (how's that for two game analogies in one on-the-fly answer?
-
"The United Nations should pass a resolution prohibiting the sun from rising while they are at it." - A Freeper's response to Jacques Chirac's declaration that he will use the French veto to force the UN to oppose any post-war administration of Iraq by Britain and America
-
Nicadymus is at boot camp atm, not in Iraq. I talked with a friend and found this out. Just FYI sence he's a TWGr
-
(http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030409/capt.1049901490.war_us_iraq_northern_front_sulf102.jpg)
-
Well, we can only hope this kind of sentiment spreads. It will alleviate the tensions that inevitably build to terrorism.
-
I'm going to have to fins an article on the subject but the news channels have been reporting a bunch of Iraqis have been vocaly criticizing Al-jezera and arab media for being pro-sadam
-
(http://www.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/0903GAL2.jpg)
Anyone wanna tell me where he got that from?
And, these two items nicely summarise the latest Anti-war movement "arguments".
"Now their lives are open-ended and uncertain! At least under the stability of Saddam they knew tomorrow would always suck."
(http://members.aol.com/jimtreacher/images/moresigns.gif)
-
I don't get the third one of the billboards about the kids belonging in jail
-
Wait. Are we talking about the stability of dying of dehydration or from looting in Basra?
-
I find your selectivity in news watching extremely humorous, Ehlers. Do you just turn on the TV for two minutes at a time and, by zany conincidence, only see the negative stories? Or, perhaps, do you simply to refuse to believe that anything good can come from this (even though much proven good already has)?
-
Actually, just about all I ever see on TV is the negative stories. I think the liberal bias in media has become overtly apparent in the war.
It's rare to find a positive story on any of hte news networks except for Fox News...which is heavily conservatively biased.
-
Yes, you also have an interesting way of approaching my comments and the news. "Proven good" yes, I agree Hussein was evil and I'm glad he's being pushed out of the picture, but you're ignoring negative things. I still disagree with why we went. I disagree with the belittling that's been done about war protesters. And I disagree with the villification of any party that disagreed with the war. Please don't accuse me of coloring the facts when I'm only doing what you're doing but reaching a different conclusion. Thanks for noticing me though.
However, I don't think Mr. Pleasington is watching ANY CNN. It's the only thing on here at work. And while they try to throw in some negative things, they're talking an awful lot about how great everything is.
-
First, I'm happy to see that you are attributing opposition to the war to a 'party'. All this time I'd heard that the opposition was because the war was bad, not because a certain party had established a policy against it. I guess this is political after all.
But the real issue:
I'm not ignoring the bad things, I just think you're exaggerating them. You complain about looting and dehydration, but do you think that the Iraqis are in a worse state now than they were a month ago? That really is the only important question here. You can complain about the reasons we went in all you want (although nobody cares because we're in and it's almost over), but there is no question (none - not even one) that the Iraqi people are in a better state now than they have been for decades.
So boo hoo. There's looting. That may be bad, but it certainly not as bad as the chemical baths and electrocution chambers that have been found BY THE HUNDREDS in the Baghdad prisons. The military is already organizing security to stop the looting.
And as far as dying of dehydration goes, you apparently forget the thousands that have been starving to death every year under Saddam. The US is bringing aid, but they've been slowed because of Iraqi mines and resistance. (And please don't say that the Iraqis starving was the US's fault - we put sanctions on them because they haven't been following the UN rules. Even if he didn't want to follow those rules, Saddam has a bucket of money he could use to spread the food around. Seems he bought a lot of palaces instead).
Please don't accuse me of coloring the facts when I'm only doing what you're doing but reaching a different conclusion. Thanks for noticing me though.
Which facts am I coloring? Am I understating the vileness of looting? Or am I exagerrating the vileness of torture chambers, war crimes, executing POWs, and weapons of mass destruction? As I said in a previous post (which you conveniently never responded to) - blind opposition is just as bad as blind support.
-
I didn'tn respond to it because you were doing what you're doing now. In short, being a bit of an ass.
"party" doesn't necessarily refer to a gathering for celebration NOR does it necessarily refer to a political group organized within a nation for achieving election of members of their group. It refers to any like minded group, and for that matter, it can refer to an individual in this context.
I never said you were coloring facts. I said I wasn't. Please read more carefully before taking insult at what I said.
As for saying there's "no question" I find that to be a bit naive. I honestly don't think there will be a lot of stability in Iraq for many years (woah! just like most other governments where we've worked to change regimes!). While we're there AND after we leave.
But obviously I can't talk about this with you because you don't think that ANY argument that doesn't point directly to what you want to conclude is remotely worth considering or viable. So I'll go back to not responding to these threads, since they seem to show we can't respect each other's views. I'd rather not speak up about my opinion than me flamed for disagreeing with someone who won't listen anyway.
-
On March 17th, 2003, SaintEhlers wrote:
Sorry if this sounds rude, but, then you really shouldn't have said anything at all. If you can really prove that Iraq a) has WMDs, or b) has been supporting terrorists, then prove it. Document your sources. Show me how that conclusion has been drawn. If you don't want to bother, than don't tell me i'm not worth your time (especially if you ARE going to take time to say that). So yeah, I guess I'm not sorry if that sounds rude, because I wasn't the first.
I apologize if it appeared like I was flaming you. I try not to make personal comments or digs in my posts, but I may have stepped over the line.
On the other hand, do you want to actually discuss facts or not? I'm sorry if it appeared like I was belittling you. I was actually trying to make a point, based on facts, and drawing a conclusion. Of course I was trying to prove you wrong - that's kind of the point of debate. It wasn't meant as an insult.
If your comment about stability was actually (as I took it) a legitimate attempt at debate, then let's debate. If it was, instead, just an opportunity to take a jab at those that support the war, then that seems to go against your well-laid out (see quote above) rules of argument.
I'm happy to lay aside the personal attacks if your willing to address the facts.
-
For starters, Mustard WAS making personal attacks--that's how he gets people to argue back when he's bored and wants to argue. Rest assured that he didn't mean any of it, and will probably just discuss issues now that he's got your attention.
And for Mustard...knock it off.
As for the war, in terms of immediate habitational concerns the Iraqis are, indeed, worse off today than they were one month ago (not counting the ones taking luxurious chemical baths one month ago, because I assume they're dead). The simple fact is that they used to have water and now they don't; they used to not have looting and now they do.
Before anybody flames me, however, the key point to my argument is this--in order to make them better off in the future, we kind of had to make their lives crappy for a while. In a matter of weeks or months they'll have water and police and such and be back to where they were before, but this time they won't have the ominous threat of tyrannical rule and corruption hovering over everything. I doubt they'll get a stable government right off the bat, but at least it won't be the kind that hides military targets inside of elementary schools.
I think it's kind of funny that so may people point to the conditions in Iraq--Basra especially--and talk about how bad they have it. Well duh: they live in a war zone. The coalition forces have taken some impressive measures (in my mind) to reduce collateral damage, but the whole point of the war is to make their futures better by ruining their present a bit.
-
I think you all need to watch this weeks South Park, It'll replay friday. I think then you'll all be able to get along.
As for libral bias There's still plenty in print but on TV only MTV's coverage has been onsided very negative so much you'd think they were owned by Al-jezzera. But CNN, MSNBC and Fox have been very pro-US. The main thing that has not been getting enough coverage here is civilain casuaties. Need to swtich to the BBC to get that (got to love digital cable).
But it's to bad that SE still dosen't think we should be in there when even the French have been changeing their mind. But seeing what I saw yesterday with the Iraqis celbrating I feel vindicated that the US was right to go in the WMD feels only secondary now. In the long run their lives will be better, sure there's some unstability but at least they can live without halfthing to worry about Sadams goons killing them. And SE you were wrong about that.
I find it extemely unlikely that we'll be greeted whole-heartedly as liberators. According to the Washington Post, Most Iraqi ammo/firearms dealers are very low on supplies because the citizens of Baghdad are buying them up[\quote]
we've also found manysite that are posably Bio-weapon sites. The've found a truck that appears to be a mobile lab. And a site that is very radioactive and what the beleave to be weapons grade plutonium. And who's leading them to these sites...The Iraqi people.
-
Lol. I didn't realize Saddam was so hip.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.saddam.hideaway/index.html
-
hehe Sadams "love shack"
-
Not sure if I should put this in cool stuff on the internet or here
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
-
All I know is that my friends in the Gulf will hopefully be coming home soon.
War even when waged for the right reasons is never a good thing. It is a necessary evil. To act like it is glorious and right is to gloss over the awfulness of it. Yes awful men are out of power in Iraq, but many people on the winning and losing sides are dead. We should respect the sacrifice on both sides.
-
Well said.
-
Bravo, ElJeffe, bravo.
-
More Iraqi Information minister fun
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/caple/030415.html
-
he hung himself, so the comedys over
-
that has actualy yet to be proven. It's just a rumor running around