Disarmament Was Working... - Page 3 - 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 03-20-2003, 01:15 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish
So Michael, you don't find it interesting that Iraqi troops are being supplied with chemical weapons, the very weapons they said they destroyed in 1991? That doesn't give you any pause for thought?
I'm not disagreeing that Saddam is defiant and a lyer. Of course he is! I just don't think this initiative was put forth in the right manner. Again, there was not enough diplomacy put forth for more world support of a strike, and the wrong reasons were given for such a strike. That's simply my opinion, but I'm not alone. Most of the world agrees. This war wasn't provoked as much as it was sought out. 911 has not been shown to be tied to Iraq. I fear that much of the public support -- which as you say has come from countries that have suffered through terrorism -- has come from the premise that Iraq and Al Quada are somehow tied. Ask yourself this question: if the events of 911 had not happened, would public support be as high for a military strike in Iraq at this time? That's a tough question, but it has to be asked. To me, the Bush administration used those events as a tool to further their cause. I think loss of human life should never be used as propoganda. (Propoganda meaning using suspicion to formulate something that is disguised to sound factual, and then using that disguise to further a cause.) I find such manipulation insulting to all those who died that day, and if I were a family member I would either buy into the "revenge" aspect, or I would be even more insulted. Regardless of whether that manipulation was the administration's intention, that's how it comes across to many outside of America.
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 01:28 PM   #32
Elvis' Naughty Angel
 
Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: not here
Posts: 4,609
Local Time: 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

Well, I think he has to balance his principles with his politics in that even if he is opposed to the Iraqi invasion (for whatever reasons, let's just say), he would still have to find the middle ground to utilize Canada's relationship with the US. I think Canada should be supportive of something only if we agree. According to recent polls, 75% of Canadians are against military action without the support of the UN. So, if you look at it that way, he's representing the public view in this case. Also, he's not doing so simply to get re-elected: he has already stated he's not running again. He's stepping down at the end of his term. Paul Martin, among others, are in the running for his replacement.

I think Cretien and Canada as a whole are here to support the US and other nations in a humanitarian respect. We will be there to help clean up damage, to help feed and clothe. I don't think we can support the way the war was carried through, but now that it has happened, we will be fully cooperative, I'm sure.
I'll debate with you anyday, you fight clean! Nice chatting with you.
__________________

__________________
Angel is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 01:36 PM   #33
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish
Yet Chirac still says we can't prove that they have them? THey aren't a threat? Good lord people are ridiculous.
Even they have all that you enumerated, Iraq is not a threat to the US. Despite all VX unaccounted, missiles and so forth. What is laughable is the range of those missiles.
After all Israel HAS nuclear weapons and far better delivery vehicles.
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 01:39 PM   #34
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

I'm not disagreeing that Saddam is defiant and a lyer. Of course he is! I just don't think this initiative was put forth in the right manner. Again, there was not enough diplomacy put forth for more world support of a strike, and the wrong reasons were given for such a strike. That's simply my opinion, but I'm not alone.
You are definitely not, Michael.
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 01:42 PM   #35
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

Yes, disarmament was working with the thread of military action. That was the point. To actually invade without another resolution and world backing is another story altogether.
Absolutely.
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 01:52 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 03:03 PM
35 countries? Well, some of them are small countries and not really military relevant, and I bet a lot of them will do things like provide air space or help with humanitarian aid after the war is over, not actually fight.

As for Slovenia...first our foreign minister signed the Vilnius statement - he claimed our state supports a solution within UN, and later we signed an EU document stating just that. You could say we're trying not to piss off anyone.
Why the Vilnius statement was signed I'll never know. It clearly said it agrees with US arguments (that part was done even before Powell started his presentation in the UN!), and that it supports "any means necessary to disarm Iraq". (that includes war, right?)

Our Prime Minister said today Slovenia is not a part of the coalition ("there is no need to be a part of a coalition and we don't think it's necessary to join one" he said), as did our President. ("taking sides is not good in diplomacy" he said)
No one said anything about officially denying anything though.
Public here is against war, too.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 01:58 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,188
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


Even they have all that you enumerated, Iraq is not a threat to the US. Despite all VX unaccounted, missiles and so forth. What is laughable is the range of those missiles.
After all Israel HAS nuclear weapons and far better delivery vehicles.
Uh, first of all, no one would guess that Afghanastan would be a threat to the U.S. either. They don't have missles that can reach us.

It's not only about what Saddam has right now (although what he does have is illegal according to U.N. resolutions) It's what he is working on and will have if he is not stopped. His own bomb-makers, or I guess ex-bomb-makers, have said that he will have nuclear capability within 2 years, and the ability to deliver them almost anywhere. And it's not just about attacking the U.S. - He has already attacked several countries right next door to him, and yes, he's even attacked his own country!!

Now onto your second statement - Do you believe that Israel is a threat to the United States? Study politics much?
__________________
womanfish is online now  
Old 03-20-2003, 02:19 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,188
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Ok, Michael G. I will give you this.

Do I think that the motives of the U.S. and UK are pure - No. But I do think getting rid of Saddam and the weapons he is creating is a good thing in the short and long term.

I also think that the motives and timing are suspect, but resolution 1441 was passed in November and that's pretty much what kicked this whole thing off. I suspect that it passed unanamously in the U.N. because everyone figured that it was just another useless warning to Saddam that he won't comply with and that the U.N. won't follow through with just as had happened with the first 15 resolutions. But this time the U.S., U.K., Spain and Australia figured that it was about time that the U.N. did make sure that Saddam complied. Many of the other countries then backed off of what they had initially agreed to do as members of the U.N.

This is being made out to be the fault of the U.S., U.K., Spain, etc... but in actuality all could have been avoided if Iraq would have complied OR if all the countries in the U.N. would have stood up and made a united front against Iraq. In both of those instances I feel war may have been avoided. So I put the blame on Iraq and the countries that backed out of their initial commitment that they signed onto.

And yes Michael, I too like debating with you. You are a fair fighter.
__________________
womanfish is online now  
Old 03-20-2003, 02:31 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish
This is being made out to be the fault of the U.S., U.K., Spain, etc... but in actuality all could have been avoided if Iraq would have complied OR if all the countries in the U.N. would have stood up and made a united front against Iraq. In both of those instances I feel war may have been avoided. So I put the blame on Iraq and the countries that backed out of their initial commitment that they signed onto.
that is one way to frame the argument.

but it could also be argued that regime change has been the goal of the american's all along. since saddam isn't going anywhere by choice a war of some kind would be neccessary. with a war impending then, saddam is not going to disarm.
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 02:54 PM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish


Uh, first of all, no one would guess that Afghanastan would be a threat to the U.S. either. They don't have missles that can reach us.

It's not only about what Saddam has right now (although what he does have is illegal according to U.N. resolutions) It's what he is working on and will have if he is not stopped. His own bomb-makers, or I guess ex-bomb-makers, have said that he will have nuclear capability within 2 years, and the ability to deliver them almost anywhere. And it's not just about attacking the U.S. - He has already attacked several countries right next door to him, and yes, he's even attacked his own country!!

Now onto your second statement - Do you believe that Israel is a threat to the United States? Study politics much?
Technically, the threat was Al Kaeda organisation, not Afghanistan as a state.
It could also be argued that the vast differences between the rich and the poor and current administration's attitude (in general and regarding the Palestine issue) don't help in providing the extremists with rage.

People say "if we didn't attack, others might get the weapons". Lots of countries have chemical or biological weapons, and several that have nuclear - why would someone try to get it from a country closely watched by the international community, with inspectors in it? Along with that, Bin Laden critisized Hussein several times, plus Hussein banned his religion in Iraq.
(not to mention military force does not help against fanatics - it didn't help in Middle East or in N. Ireland, and I don't see why it would work now. Intelligence data exchange, confiscating money/blocking accounts and police work are better IMO)

They say "Iraq has WMD and breeched UN violations". Correct me if I'm wrong, but Israel did exact the same thing yet nothing happens to them (US would be a lot credible if it had helped Palestinian set up their state). N. Korea has proven nuclear facilities and is said to be willing to sell rockets to anyone - and actually has rockets that can hit US coast - yet nothing significant happened there, except US sent spy planes back and put some more military forces in the area. (to which the Korean leadership has put very negative response)

They say "Iraq hat to do with 911" yet this has not been officially proven. I think that when deciding for a war, you better have proof for it.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 03:05 PM   #41
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 09:03 AM
At the end of each day there will be only one truth: Dozens, hundreds, or maybe even thousands of people will die. Iraqi PEOPLE, American PEOPLE, British PEOPLE, Australian PEOPLE....

And for what?

Why did they NEED to die?

Who's profiting from this war?

Why are they profiting from this war?



Elvis Costello....

"As I walk through
This wicked world
Searchin' for light in the darkness of insanity.

I ask myself
Is all hope lost?
Is there only pain and hatred, and misery?

And each time I feel like this inside,
There's one thing I wanna know:
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

And as I walked on
Through troubled times
My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes
So where are the strong
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

'Cause each time I feel it slippin' away, just makes me wanna cry.
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?


So where are the strong?
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

'Cause each time I feel it slippin' away, just makes me wanna cry.
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 03:48 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Angel and Womanfish:

Thanks for saying such nice things about me. You are both very fair people, too. I thought I was going to get massacred for stating my last opinion. (I commend you for choosing not to massacre me ) I think the main thing now is to go with the flow, even for those who are against the war (and whatever that entails), because criticism of that which has already taken place will not help anyone from here on in. We must deal with what we have in the here and now in order to deliver our voices toward the best possible outcome (and that can mean criticism too). I just hope we have the least amount of casualties as possible, and that somehow the required diplomatic processes occur in the aftermath to maintain some kind of stability in the Middle East and even Asia.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 04:39 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths


Yes, disarmament was working with the thread of military action.

That is the only reason it was working. And why should the United States have to bear the brunt of the costs. I am not just refering to the monitary costs of having our forces move there.

The fact is that the actions of Saddam Hussein, have led us to keep a military presence in the region which in turn has brought about multiple terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda on my country.

The fact is that when steps had been taken in the past to try and make containment work, FRANCE, RUSSIA, and CHINA would block it. The Gulf Region States too, failed to help.

The fact is the President armed with the consent of congress was able to show the UN we meant business and led to 1441. If the President had not called the UN on their lack of inaction for 12 years there would have been further inaction and more dead civilians in Iraq because of the Veto powers of nations that would rather take advantage of the FOOD for OIL program than actually do something about the problem.

The fact is that the number of dead in 12 years is more than 12 times the numbers of people that died in the Gulf War. The only difference is that all of the deaths on the UN's head for twelve years are civilian as opposed to the 5,000 civilian deaths in the Gulf War.


That is the crime! The math does not lie! 30,000 Military 5,000 Civilians. Since Sanctions......30,000-60,000 Civilians a year for twelve years!!!!!!!!! How much longer is it acceptable to let him jerk us around????

The one and ONLY reason he started to comply is that he thought he could avert this war. When I say started, I want to point out that he was not fully complying. Start with the report from the Iraqis at the start of all of this which was full of lies.

When people sing the praises of inspections working I laugh.
Maybe if the UN meaning all of the countries on the security council had sent a force to the Gulf to help make it look like there would be consequences instead of leaving the United States and it's allies to do it alone I would not be so skeptical of the nations on the Security Council. Instead, the UNited States and its Allies have been paying the price without any help from the UN.

Not once did I hear the security council offer help with the build-up since it was evident that the military presence that made it work to the extent that it did.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 04:49 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,188
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl


Technically, the threat was Al Kaeda organisation, not Afghanistan as a state.
It could also be argued that the vast differences between the rich and the poor and current administration's attitude (in general and regarding the Palestine issue) don't help in providing the extremists with rage.

People say "if we didn't attack, others might get the weapons". Lots of countries have chemical or biological weapons, and several that have nuclear - why would someone try to get it from a country closely watched by the international community, with inspectors in it? Along with that, Bin Laden critisized Hussein several times, plus Hussein banned his religion in Iraq.
(not to mention military force does not help against fanatics - it didn't help in Middle East or in N. Ireland, and I don't see why it would work now. Intelligence data exchange, confiscating money/blocking accounts and police work are better IMO)

They say "Iraq has WMD and breeched UN violations". Correct me if I'm wrong, but Israel did exact the same thing yet nothing happens to them (US would be a lot credible if it had helped Palestinian set up their state). N. Korea has proven nuclear facilities and is said to be willing to sell rockets to anyone - and actually has rockets that can hit US coast - yet nothing significant happened there, except US sent spy planes back and put some more military forces in the area. (to which the Korean leadership has put very negative response)

They say "Iraq hat to do with 911" yet this has not been officially proven. I think that when deciding for a war, you better have proof for it.
First, I was using Afghanastan as a point of reference geographically, not saying that the people of that country are against us. In fact the leadership and people there are coming a long way, with help from the U.S. they are rebuilding, providing schools for all children, women's rights are improving, etc... After the U.S. went in and got rid of the Taliban and help set up new leadership, these things are taking place. Hmmmmmm..... sound familiar?

Yes lots of nations have WMD's - they are NOT ruled by ruthless dictators that have actually used those weapons. This was illustrated and spoken about on several occasions by President Bill Clinton (of whom I'm a big fan). Did you know that Clinton also sent missles into Iraq when he was president? Most people don't or at least don't bring it up at the moment.

Yes N. Korea is a concern, but they have not actually USED these weopons. I think it should be the U.N.'s next place to look at, but seeing as how they have a horribly unsuccessful history of dealing with such threats, I am not holding my breath for anything happening smoothly.

I have never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11/01. But guess what, they could have something to do with 9/11/05 if they were to be left to continue building and using WMD's.
__________________
womanfish is online now  
Old 03-20-2003, 04:49 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish
What Turkey has given support for is the ability to use their airspace which wasn't a sure thing a few weeks ago. They are in closed door sessions today discussing if we would be allowed to use ground space there. You have to remember. These people are terrified of Saddam, they know better than most what he has and is capable of.
I think the main reason the Turkish parliament did not gave the support for the USA to use their ground space is that they are afraid of the reactions of their own people. Most Turks do not approve of this war and the government still isn't that stable. They do not want to alienate their own people, not Saddam.

Besides, I think that at the end of the war the Turkish army will invade North-Iraq themselves. Not primarily to help overthrow Saddam (a nice bonus), but to control the Kurdish part of Iraq, so that they cannot create their own state. In Turkey there are also many Kurds and they want more rights, but are repressed by the Turkish government. The last thing that government needs is an independent Kurdish state next to their own borders.

(Edited for spelling mistakes)
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
 

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 09:03 AM.


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