A strike on Iraq - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-07-2002, 10:39 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 01:19 AM
geeze, no problem to tell the ones spoon-fed by the media around here...

anyway...about the bomb, yes, an invasion would have been better, or something along the lines of the bombing of afghanistan - selective, stategic bombing. But to drop a bomb and end the lives of millions of innocent families...there is NO justification for that. These days, that would simply not be allowed. Can you imagine if America dropped an A bomb on Kandahar??
__________________

__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 11:14 PM   #47
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 03:49 AM
To STING2
Sorry for the delay in responding.
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
How many dictatorships did the USA install in Europe after World War II? After all if its in the interest of the USA to replace a regime with a dictatorship so it can control everything, as you say, why not do it in the part of the world that is most important to the USA? Wouldn't have been a problem to do it either with Europe in ruins and considering how easy most of the countries fell to the Germans which we defeated. Where are the dictatorships today in Bosnia, Kosovo, South Korea, the rest of Eastern Europe? All area's of US military, political, and economic intervention.
In the first place I did NOT say that it's in the interest of the USA to replace a regime with a dictatorship so it can control everything. My post says textually "In fact the regimes helped into office or assisted during their administration were in MOST cases dictatorships or other puppet governments who acted in favour of US "national interest" in detriment of their own nations' welfare." In fact it is not strictly necessary that a government is a dictatorship to serve external interests. There are many cases in which there have been/are US subservient "democracies" whose action has been and is highly detrimental to local populations. Many present and recently past Latin American governments are a clear example of this.

What I'm trying to say is instead that in all cases that the US intervened directly or indirectly in another nation's affairs it was to the sole end to preserve their (the US) own interest. This includes the reconstruction of western Europe after WWII. However most cases are/were NOT like post-war Europe. The European case after the world conflict was a particular one since the US needed to conform a powerful bloc both politically and economically to counterbalance the growing power of the USSR. To this end they helped Western Europe to rebuild itself through the Marshall Plan. Not to do this was an open invitation for them to turn to the Soviet Union. It would be foolish on my part not to recognise the benefits Europe derived from US help after the war, however I have to point out necessarily that this case was an exception to the normal rule of US interventionism.

In contrast you are ignoring all the regimes helped into power directly or indirectly in Africa, Asia and Latin America during the past 50 years. In none of those cases there was a Marshall Plan nor local people's welfare was of any concern, but rather exclusively US "national interest" no matter who was adversely affected. If you run a conscientious check you'll see that there are many more countries than what you imagine whose internal situations worsened dramatically after US (and also USSR) interventions.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
the USA is the only country attempting to live up to its UN obiligations in regards to enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
Of course it is!! UN resolutions seem to be important to the US only when their application is favourable their own interest. Regarding the war in Afghanistan UN rules were notably overlooked.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
There is no evidence that the Talaban were helped to power in any way shape or form by the USA.
What do you expect? An official statement from the government of the United States? Of course there isn't that sort of "evidence"! Maybe when we get access to CIA declassified files in a few years' time we'll get such evidence. However some analysis of the Middle Eastern/Afghan scenario of the last 20 years will provide some clues. I will not tackle this issue in depth because of the limited space available. However to review the following facts may prove helpful:

1.That the US alongside Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia participated actively during the 80s by supplying and training anti-communist guerrilla fighters most of which of fundamentalist Islamic background including Osama bin Laden.
2.That throughout the Cold War the United States used Islam as a bulwark against communism and revolution.
3.That Taleban leaders were trained in the madrassas of Pakistan and funded mainly by wealthy Saudis and Pakistanis (wealthy groups in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are those who run the countries actually). Despite the anti-American and generally reactionary teachings of these madrassas, Pakistan has been a US ally and Saudi Arabia has been one of Washington's most priced assets in the Middle East due to its stalwart complacency to US demands.
4.That the Northern Alliance (ruling force until 1996) was conformed in part by former pro-communist elements who even after the fall of the Soviet Union might have been prone to nationalisation of foreign investments, or of hindering foreign based business in the area, etc. In addition the Northern Alliance was believed to receive support from Iran, a notorious US enemy state.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
as far as US interventions worsening conditions in the country intervened in I refer to Europe, and several countries in Asia where your theory has no traction.
My theory has no traction in those cases since they are the exception to the general rule of interventionism! Excuse me but you are only seeing what you want to see. As for South Korea and "several countries in Asia" (?) the situation also called for an ally in the region mainly to keep the North Koreans in line and to avoid the suction of the southern part of the country into the communist orbit. However it must be noted that the Southern Korean situation hasn't been that brilliant in the last 25/30 years since there have been bouts of massive Southern Korean emigration due to the less than desirable economic conditions over there (most notorious era - a few years ago during the SE Asian crisis). So bad they were that many Southern Koreans ended up in Latin America, whose own conditions were already far from brilliant. It must also be noted that what's said especially in the US/Europe regarding developing countries is to be taken with a pinch of salt. In fact all over the first world it was publicised that Latin America was seeing during the last decade the light of day regarding economic growth and consequential well-being of the populations when nothing was further from reality. I mean it did look like that on the surface, but it was in truth a huge farce of which the consequences are the present situation in countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay present victims of what is known as Tango effect.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
As far as Hussain's replacement and the idea that the USA can't guarantee that his replacement will be better, similar things were said about the replacement of the dictatorships in Germany, Japan, and Italy.
The comparison doesn't hold. The situation was completely different in the post war scenario and as I said, it was in the US interest to strengthen those countries politically and economically. BTW who said "similar things" then? It was more than obvious that the US wouldn't help to power other dictators in those countries especially after the war in view of what had happened and even if there had not been an aid plan to go with it.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If the USA is willing to commit enough resources to build a new nation in Iraq, the US can guarantee not only a stable democratic government, but a prosperous country as well.
You're right here: IF and ONLY the USA wants to. That is to be seen.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In 1990 on the eve of the Gulf War, everyone was saying the same things, how every country in the middle east would become militantly anti-US and governments would be overthrown left and right. Islamic fundamentalism would reign supreme. Arabs would be in the streets everywhere pulling down their governments once the USA attacked Iraq. Not so, not even close. The same was said about the US invasion of Afghanistan last year, again this did not happen, not even in Pakistan. It is in Arab peoples interest to have Saddam Hussain removed from power as well and millions of arabs behind the scenes realize this.
Well most countries in the Middle East are actually militantly anti-US! Maybe not at governmental level but certainly at popular level. Islamic fundamentalism doesn't reign supreme but there's no denial of a dramatic escalation in fundamentalist adhesion in the last few years. There's no doubt that they've got more power now, they are well funded, they've got massive popular support and they've already shown that they have the will and power to strike the West. Regarding Pakistan they are an US ally. It isn't a very difficult guess that the US may be actually supporting Musharraf which would be the main reason for his permanence.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
That is why these catastrophic events do not happen when the USA intervene's in a major way in the middle east.
Why is that these catastrophic events don't happen when the US intervenes in the Middle East? Sorry but I got lost here.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
This war will bring freedom and democracy to a country that has never known it
Who says so???

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
You, me and everyone else on this planet benefit when the world is made more secure by the elimination of a threat to international security.
If the *threat* is proven to be real, yes. It hasn't. Not that I'm fond of Hussein since he's a dictator and violates systematically human rights. However I'm not fond either of imperialism of any sort (American, Soviet, Islamic, whatever).

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Intitially oil prices will go up as well as energy cost, but then they will return to normal and in fact drop as the region experiences more stability than it had before do to the removal of a regime that has attacked 4 countries in the region and been in a near state of war with either one or all its neighbors for the past 20 years. When the price of oil drops, so does the cost of energy for you and me that we use everyday. That free's up money and increases the amount of disposable income one can use to save or buy things which spurs economic growth.
This is purely theoretical. I'd love to believe you but I can't. Why? Because a monopoly will be constituted. Monopolies can evade clean-cut most of the rules of capitalism, basically because they break capitalism rule #1: with a monopoly there's no possibility whatsoever of a free market.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I imagine the few that you think are trying to some how cynically profit in some way from this are the President and his circle of advisors.
No. This has nothing to do with Mr Bush's probable personal ambitions which are certainly of a more limited scope (re-election/glory for himself, etc). I'm talking about the establishment who detains real global power.
__________________

__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 01:51 AM   #48
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Basstrap


I just saw this post and it is the most pathetic thing ever.
Thank you for your compliment

Quote:
it is this arrogance and feeling of superiority that gives you guys a bad name.
Again thank you for your compliment, and thank you for stating that we Americans have a bad name.

Quote:
America never intervenes BUDDY
I am NOT a big ASS-KISSER in interference, so I don't think we are buddies

Quote:
which of the dozens of genocides in the 20th century has the US stopped?
Please go to school and get an education, I do not have time to teach you tonight.

Quote:
They didn't even enter WWII until the last minute when somebody attacked them.
And if we hadn't have entered WWII? Perhaps you woud be happier then?

Quote:
And Hiroshimi and Nagosoki both seem like genocidal massacres to me.
So? BOOM!

Quote:
And what about canada you ask? we like hiding in the shadows?
Well, I think the whole kyoto affair proves that wrong, alone.-
-We were in both of the world wars right from the beginning-
-We were the ONLY ones who tried to stop the Rwanda genocide, but the UN (which I guess is actually the US right?) ignored that canadian officer and let 800,000 people become slaughtered.
-We are the worlds leading peace keepers and have soldiers all over the world. When the UN wants peacekeepers they come to us
If you are the "world's leading peacekeepers", then you are even a bigger failure than I thought! Look around you! You call this PEACE???????????

What a freaking JOKE!

Quote:
So don't say we are hiding in the shadows of the US, I hate it when people say that
Whatever, I am not going to argue about your military.

You will need my help sooner or later.......
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 02:25 AM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Normal

Bass-
Can u try to be more friendly to us Americans?
thank u
-diamond-
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 02:53 AM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge
[B]

I do not have time to teach you tonight.[B]
Yes master, we understand.


Quote:
And if we hadn't have entered WWII? Perhaps you woud be happier then?
Glad that the Russian people helped us out, and the irish, and the marrocan, and ect.

Quote:
So? BOOM!
That is realy repectfull to all the innocent victims that suvered the radio active fallout. Up to today, there are Japanese dieing because of it. Or all the children that are born dead or mutelated.


Quote:
If you are the "world's leading peacekeepers", then you are even a bigger failure than I thought! Look around you! You call this PEACE???????????
That should be prove enough that war never is a permanent solution to problems.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 06:24 AM   #51
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 03:49 AM
Cool It

This thread went on reasonably well, but both of you (Z_Edge and Basstrap) are turning it into a hate-fest. I implore you to stop it.

Basstrap; I know you didn't like Z_Edge's post. I myself hated that 'US is the UN' comment, and found it as arrogant as you did. However, there are better ways of arguing the point that paint you in a better light. Please control your anger at the arrogant notions you find in here.

Z_edge; Basstrap responded to you in such a way because your post was inflammatory, at best. Honestly, you put in a sweeping comment such as 'The US IS the UN!' and you're bound to get a less than respectful answer. I myself felt the impulse to flame you, but I did what I usually did and tried to control myself. I ended up not posting anything in the end.

Two wrongs don't make a right, either, hence I'm asking BOTH of you not to endanger the quality of the thread. STING2 has kept his composure and his cool, and has argued in a respectful and coherent way.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 07:00 AM   #52
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Hi Bias:

I agree with most of the things you said - that (Oil) is the real motivation of the invasion.


To Sting:

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to Klaus:

Bush did say he wanted to reduce US peace keeping missions, and he was mainly refering to the US role in Bosnia and Kosovo. But those missions have continued to this day. The US still has thousands of troops in both places.


So what do you want me to say with that?
Yes he did say it, but he dosn't do what he says? That's not that surprising - after all he is a politican ,-)

Quote:
It is true there were spies in the UN team, but Saddams moves and his weapons of Mass destruction or...


And there's no excuse for that, using spies in a UN Mission damages the image of the UN.
It's like transporting Weapons in Red Cross Cars (Hapened in ex Yougoslavia by the Germans)

Quote:
In regards to WW 1, WW 2, I have the feeling you do not completely


As i sad before - that theory would lead this thread far off topic, please send me privat mails about that or start a new thread (and tell me about that).

I spent years studying both Worldwars I'm looking forward to share my knowledge.

Quote:
A UN inspection regime without US inspectors is simply crazy. It benifits Iraq because its easier to hide things when some of the best members of the inspection team are not on the inspection team...


I simply don't agree to that point.
I don't want to start a flame war which nation has the best inspectors.

Quote:
If the USA topples Saddam, then Saddam will have been prevented from the possibility of building and arming terror organizations with Weopons of Mass destruction that could cause an event in the USA 10 times worse than 9/11.


Did i get you right:
It's okay to attack everyone who has the chance to make great damage (comparable to the 9/11 Terrorism?

So - thinking logical, it's okay to bomb every country that dosn't sympathize with the US regime and has pilots who can fly big airplanes?

Sorry, i can't agree with that.
Imho that would result in much more agression against Americans Worldwide

Quote:
The Anthrax attacks last year were do to someone in the USA. They were able to get a hold of incredibly refined Anthrax, something not even Iraq could create at this point, but still their method of sending Anthrax in the mail did not cause mass losses.
It wasn't the intension of that guy to kill lots of people.
He wanted to scare the people - and he did that quite successful.
Lots of people paniced, including the government which forjudged (is this the right word? - i'm not sure, i wanted to talk "they were behaving like Communists against factory owners) patents for Anthrax medicals. Also that company was willing to sell as much as the US government wanted to have.

Quote:
Turkey does not accept an independent Kurdastan. But they would not have any problem if a Kurdish politician became president of a united democratic Iraq.
I'm pretty sure there will be problems.

Quote:
Arabic culture may be different from the US or European, but Iraq is actually the most westernized country of the Arab world. All the restrictions that women are force to deal with in other countries do not exist in Iraq. In this regard, Iraq is more like their muslim neighbor Turkey.
Imho Iran is much more westernized than Iraq (they are starting to split Religion from Politics!). Of course Israel is also much more westernized ,-)

But again we could discuss endless about that - it's just my oppinion.

We can be pretty sure that their culture differs a lot from the culture we're used to.

One more point:

You're talking about war like it was just a simple computer game.
Always remember there will be lots of dead innocent people in every war - much more than there were on 9/11 and also they live far away from us and we never have to look in their eyes.

Stoping Terrorism is also starting to give others the chance to change the world without terror. The more agressive we get - the more agressive they get.

You can only stop hate with love - also it's verry unpolular these days it dosn't stop that sentence from being right

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 01:25 PM   #53
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 09:49 PM
Re: Cool It

Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony
This thread went on reasonably well, but both of you (Z_Edge and Basstrap) are turning it into a hate-fest. I implore you to stop it.
Well it is more than just us but I agree to stop it.

Quote:
Basstrap; I know you didn't like Z_Edge's post. I myself hated that 'US is the UN' comment, and found it as arrogant as you did. However, there are better ways of arguing the point that paint you in a better light. Please control your anger at the arrogant notions you find in here.

Z_edge; Basstrap responded to you in such a way because your post was inflammatory, at best. Honestly, you put in a sweeping comment such as 'The US IS the UN!' and you're bound to get a less than respectful answer. I myself felt the impulse to flame you, but I did what I usually did and tried to control myself. I ended up not posting anything in the end.
This is all you are going to say? Basically you are telling Basstrap that what he said was understandable because of my inflammatory post, but try to slam me in a better way.

What about the crap I found to be inflammatory?

ANd by the way, can somebody tell me who gave the U.N. $100,000,000.00 in 1962?

Can someone tell me who is the biggest player in UN missions? DOn't tell me, I have personally been there!

Have any of you?

Quote:
Two wrongs don't make a right, either, hence I'm asking BOTH of you not to endanger the quality of the thread. STING2 has kept his composure and his cool, and has argued in a respectful and coherent way.

Ant.
Yes STING2 keeps his composure quite well, though he dosen't get personally attacked like I.

As far as someone I do not share the same opinion of but I respect the qualities of his post, Klaus.

I respect Klaus in the way he presents himself and his opinion, I wish more people could post like him and STING2.
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 02:10 PM   #54
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 03:49 AM
Well, z_edge, Basstrap was responding to your post, it is arguable, but don't you think that the post may have contained something inflammatory? I do NOT condone his reaction and the way he did, but I do understand such a response. Everybody gets it, its called disagreeing with someone intensely. I even, gasp, understand how you may be feeling when people talk to YOU directly with inflammatory comments.

However, that warning was for BOTH of you.

As I said in the other thread, if you have a problem with the way I do things, PM me about it. I warn publically in threads because its what I'm supposed to do, if you have gripes that do not concern the thread then take it up with me.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 07:09 PM   #55
Refugee
 
OzAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,612
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Remind me again why the US shouldn't get rid of a corrupt tyrant who runs a police state, has liquidated his political enemies in the past, and builds extravagant palaces for himself while allowing his people to live without adequate food?
well I guess that they should, but then they should also step into Africa and maybe get rid of Robert Mugabwe, but thats right there is no oil in Mozambique! and the US dont have any interest in either Mozambique or Mugabwe
__________________
OzAurora is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 08:35 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:49 AM
In response to Ultraviolet7:

I understand I overstated your claims early on. But I still disagree with your assertion that most regimes put in place, helped, assisted by the USA during the cold war, were dictatorships acting in the USA's interest to the detrimint of their own civilian population.

The primary goal of US foreign Policy since 1945 in a very narrowly defined way, was to deter, but if necessary defeat a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. The vast majority of aid, that did not end with just the Marshall Plan, went to Western Europe to rebuild and strengthen it not only so it did not fall into the Soviet Orbit, but to restore one of our biggest trading partners, vital, long term wise to the US economy, and the part of the world that America has its deepest cultural and historical ties to.

You speak of all these other places in the world, but when compiling US foreign Policy over the past 60 years, they are a mere footnote compared to US involvment in Europe. In terms of the number of US troops, the annual budget of NATO, the constant and yearly Reforger exercises, US weapons technology, the bulk of it built with war in Europe the top priority, how do you defeat a Soviet/Warsaw Pact military force capable on mobilization of fielding over 250 Armored and mechanized divisions(one of the many questions diplomats, NSC officers, Think Tanks, and military officers spent much of their time debating and arguing over the best course of action).

I can go into great amounts of detail with Statistics that I have from the IISS(International Institute of Strategic Studies) which is based in London. But I'll just say briefly that my main point is that there were 20 West European countries that the USA spent the lion share of its money the past 60 years supplying and helping defend and deter an attack that could come at any time. Even at the height of the Vietnam War, the USA still maintained its entire force structure in Western Europe and never called up its reserves for service in Vietnam in order to keep them ready for possible deployment to Europe. 80% of US force structure, whether based in Europe or in the United States, had as its soul purpose to fight a war in Europe against a Soviet/Warsaw Pact Invasion. Spies and other covert operations were aimed at pentrating the Soviet Union to dig up secrets and plans.

With the exception of the two hot wars fought by the USA in Asia and US support for Israel and South Korea during the Cold War, Latin America, Africa, and to a lesser extent Asia were all tiny fractions of US commitment compared to Europe. With the exception of the hot wars, the real history of the Cold War is the constantly changing military balances between NATO and the Warsaw Pact Forces in Europe. Thats where the vast majority of the men, material, and money went over 50 years.

What you would call the normal rule of US intervention, I clearly see as the exception and in those exceptions, it is simply making the best of a bad situation or supporting the lesser of two evils. The fact is, it was simply either Soviet interest or US interest prevailing. To not be involved at all, would be letting the Soviets possibly have a free hand, which would be foolish strategically for the US and its allies considering the long term global bipolar struggle that the world was locked into that could erupt in major world war at any given moment. The USA also does not have infinite resources for a marshall plan everywhere, if it did, it would have enacted one, because just as in the case of Europe, building up and developing a countries economy and democratic government, was one of the best ways to hedge against communism and Soviet expansion.

Now lets turn to your facts on US involvment in Afghanistan.

1. The US provided 1/3 of the supplies which only amounted to a few Billion dollars, pocket change in military terms, to what ever fighters were available. Islamic fundamentalism in the rural area's of Afghanistan is almost universal. The fact is the only fighters available were ones that would be labled fundamentalist. The more secular groups of people lived in the cities where the government still ran and controlled things with Soviet help.

2. Your assertion that the USA used Islam as a bulwark against Communism and revolution falls flat in the middle east. Most US support in the Middle East went to Israel to fight SOVIET supported Islamic countries like Egypt, Syria, Jordon and Iraq. The massive numbers of Soviet Tanks, APC's, Artillery, Jets, shipped to these countries testifies to this point. So does the glarring lack of Western European weapons in most of the above named countries arsonals during the ARab Israeli wars. Only the secular dictatorship of the Shah recieved anything substantial and this was comparitively a tiny fraction of what the Soviets sent to the region.

3. The friendly relations between the USA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan does not translate into support for the Taliban. Thats a gross overgeneralization in my view. Again the USA pulled out of Afghanistan militarily, economically and politically, in 1989. It was certainly a mistake to have done so.

4. The Northern Alliance was basically the remain core of the Mujahadeen. Their leader, killed on Sept. 10, 2001, was probably the biggest player in the Mujahadeen's drive to survive and continue to resist Soviet Occupation. Both the Russians and the USA see their interest with the Northern Alliance because they are the more secular of the two groups. By the way, in 1995/1996, Russia is a developing democratic country, starting to privatise whole sections of its economy. They are much more interested in seeing Afghanistan develop into a capitalist country rather than something from their failed past.

I think your seeing only what you want to see. Your view on the main form of US intervention in my opinion is the exception not the rule. My reasons are stated above. South Korea has seen some of the most rapid economic development in the past 50 years that many economist have called it a miracle. Per capita GDP is now higher than some Western European countries. South Korea does several hundred Billion dollars worth of trade every year with the international community. I can produce annual export and import statistics if needed as well as GDP and per capita GDP figures. My father has been to South Korea twice during his military career, each time for a year. My best friend in the US Marine Corp was just there in the Spring. They can both testify to what I'm saying if you disregard national statistics.

Why would it be as you seem to suggest, in the USA's interest not to develop a democracy like they did in Germany and Japan to prevent a threatening dictatorship like Saddam from rising again? Far better in my view to have a democracy focused on the people rather than military invasions of its neighbors and the raw accumulation of wealth for one person and his followers. That will enhance the security of mideast oil, and may even bring the price down.

When I say catastrophic events, I mean Islamic revolutions and overthrowing of governments etc. These things were supposed to happen in 1991 and last year. They never did, not even close. The rate of Al quada attacks on US targets is no great than it was 5 years ago. Most muslims will tell you they are not fundamentalist and are not interested and are in fact insulted by Bin Ladin perversion of their religion. I just talked extensively with a women from Pakistan when I was in Dublin a few months ago about this very point.

It does not take a genious to realize that if the USA commits the resources after invading and taking over Iraq, that Iraq will become a proserperous democratic country. Unlike most other countries that go through nation building, Iraq sits on the worlds second largest oil reserves. That type of wealth properly distributed has a way of smoothing out problems and rough edges that other third world countries come up against.

The evidence produced by the fine men and women of our armed forces and intelligence services is proof enough for me. Plus, this is really about pre-emption and the fact that Saddam has failed to live up to the ceace-fire agreement he signed in March 1991 ending the US offensive towards Baghdad. His failure to comply allows the USA to resume offensive operations stopped in March 1991.

How many true monopolies exist today. Where in our free market do you NOT see competition? In regards to oil prices, the price of oil is dirt cheap! Adjusted for inflation its less now than it was 40 years ago. Its only half of what it was in 1982, adjusting for inflation. Monopolies create high price's for the consumer, low prices is a clear sign of a healthy competitive market.

Please explain to me this establishment that detains real global power.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 09:56 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:49 AM
In response to Klaus:

Actually no, you got me wrong. It is first and formost a countries behavior then the addition of weapons of mass destruction that make that a country a threat and a candidate for regime change. Iraq's behavior over the past 20 years speaks for itself.

Actually Iraq is the more western of the two. It already had a mainly secular government over 10 years ago. This was widely publized in the lead up to the 1991 Gulf War The prime minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz is actually a Christian and not a muslim.

With all due respect Klaus, I really do not need to be reminded about the cost of war. I'm a bit surprised that you refer to my post as computer game talk. I really don't want to get into personal stuff but I come from a US military family and have kind of had a bit of history with the military myself and may again in the future. In addition, my best friend of 18 years will be going to Iraq if there is a war. He is a Cobra Helicopter Attack Pilot with the US Marine Corp. How many people on this board have a friend of 18 years that will be flying into combat in a helicopter gunship? If there is a war he will be in the thick of it. He is currently stationed in California but I will soon get to see him for a week coinciding with my birthday. After that though we may not see him again until the operation is over. It is dificult to think about and sometimes I dream that there is not about to be a conflict.

This US operation is being done of a love and respect for international security and the desire to PREVENT a catastraphic episode down the road that will cause more loss of life than an invasion of Iraq. One of the ways to defeat terrorism is to pre-empt which is what the USA military and other militaries and police have been doing since 9/11. Some types of pre-emption are on a greater scale and this is one of them.

This has nothing to do with hate, this is about security.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 10:50 PM   #58
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
 
Mrs. Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Torontonian in Maryland
Posts: 2,913
Local Time: 11:49 PM
"And Hiroshimi and Nagosoki both seem like genocidal massacres to me."

Quote:
Originally posted by z edge

So? BOOM!
Z edge, you know I have nothing against you, nor would I want to start an argument, (being a typical Canadian hiding out in the shadows and all), but I find this statement to be truly disturbing.

Do you REALLY mean this?
__________________
Mrs. Edge is offline  
Old 09-09-2002, 05:43 AM   #59
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to Klaus:

Actually no, you got me wrong. It is first and formost a countries behavior then the addition of weapons of mass destruction that make that a country a threat and a candidate for regime change. Iraq's behavior over the past 20 years speaks for itself.


Okay, than there are some Coutries with a higher priority for Invasion left:

1. Jemen (they have training camps for terrorists)
2. Sudan (also training camps for terrorists)
3. Pakistan (Military regime, Al Quaida sympatisants with access to nuclear weapons)

What's the main difference? For some of us it looks like Oil, Strategical interests or lobyists spending tons of money in Washnington.

Quote:
Actually Iraq is the more western of the two. It already had a mainly secular government over 10 years ago. This was widely publized in the lead up to the 1991 Gulf War The prime minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz is actually a Christian and not a muslim.


Discussions about that might become quite academical. Let's say it in another way: Lots of problems can result because of a missunderstanding of how they could feel about good things we want to do.
That reminds me on a western reporter who gave a Afghan kid a saussage as a gift - and it turned out it was pork meat in it. The (muslim) parents got pretty upset.
That's an pretty easy obvious thing - we know that from Jews and some protestants here too - just as an example of wanting to do good and earning hate for that.

Quote:
This US operation is being done of a love and respect for international security and the desire to PREVENT a catastraphic episode down the road that will cause more loss of life than an invasion of Iraq. One of the ways to defeat terrorism is to pre-empt which is what the USA military and other militaries and police have been doing since 9/11. Some types of pre-emption are on a greater scale and this is one of them.


Remember my point a few postings ago?

You can't stop Terrorism with war - it might be usefull to destroy the infrastructure of them with bombs.
But the more unnecessary agression you show against their people the more terorrists you get.

Let's take an example of Afghanistan:
Because of wrong informations from the spies and the "allied" warlords the US Military was bombing the wrong things there with the high-tech equipment.
Result: the US military started to use Daisy Cutters for example

(you know it, z-edge know what they are but for other readers:
These are international outlawed weapons who kill everything in the radius of hundreds of meters)

Some Al-Quaida leaders are caught, some killed and some are still out there and we have no clue where they are (for example Osama bin Laden)

Lots of the small kids and the young people who saw these masacres hate the US or the Western world quite a lot for it and are, because of this, easy to catch for radical ideas.

And another thing - it seems easy for us to score military victories over "them" (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan) to lead them to peace or turn them into a democratic country is something much more difficult.
W are not willing to spend just a few percent from our military budget and menpower to prevent desasters or to help people there to solve conflicts without war.

Quote:
This has nothing to do with hate, this is about security.
As long as there are people ther who think you are is a western tyranny - as long as they see no perspective to change things other than by terror they won't stop it.
And war against terrorists is far more complicated than bombing countries of their supporters. Terorrists won't care about rules, they will start to hide in other countries. There are already Terror-groups connected to Al-Quaida in Canada or France for example - at least at that point you will come to the conclusion that War against these countries is not a sollution.

War against terrorism seems to me a war much more difficult to win than vietnam.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-09-2002, 11:38 AM   #60
Acrobat
 
Not George Lucas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Bend, IN USA
Posts: 399
Local Time: 03:49 AM
There are some things we Americans must realize:

1. The United States has never been given the position of World Police. It is neither our right nor our duty to interfere with foreign affairs unless we are specifically asked.

2. It is not up to the US to decide what other countries can and cannot have weapons of mass destruction (as opposed to weapons of mass love?), no matter how much we hate the guy in charge. Furthermore, there is no real evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. All we have is speculation.

3. An unprovoked invasion of Iraq would be unnecessary, unjust, and violate international law. International law specifically states that any unprovoked attack on any nation (like when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor) is wrong. Such an attack would also be unjust (and here I'm using Plato's definition of justice), as we have no business there other than to interfere.

4. Other than similar geographic location, there is no real evidence that the attacks on 9-11 were in any way linked to Saddam Hussein.
__________________

__________________
Not George Lucas is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com