The New Role of the United States of America - Page 2 - 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 11-10-2002, 07:20 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



Half-A-Million March in Anti-War Rally in Italy
awww, and i'd just started to get over the fact that i was in the wrong country this weekend and then you remind me again!

sting - berlusconi is a strong supporter of the war on terrorism. the italian people are not. (besides, that demo was made up of people from all over europe who were at the esf.) the same is true for the uk - blair might want to attack iraq but in september we had a demo of 400,000 plus against it. and as for syria voting for the resolution, perhaps it just remembered what happened to yemen in 1991 - it voted against attacking iraq then and the next day the us cancelled its aid to yemen. you could almost call it bribery.

rono - good point about israel. it's the only nuclear power in the middle east, but we never hear demands for inspections of israel's weaponry, do we? nor do we hear much about mordechai vanunu who is still imprisoned by israel because he exposed israel's nuclear weapons programme.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 11-10-2002, 08:52 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono

And about the US is the police of the world ? Bullshit, killing people in a ohter country ( Jemen ) is like a deathpenalty without a trail. ( Hitler and Stalin did like that kind of police work )

1st.....Your statement is QUITE offensive comparing the US of today with the 3rd Reich.

2nd....There was a war...they lost...they (IRAQ) signed an agreement.....

3rd.....They violated the agreement.....again and again.

4th.....The United States has worked through the UN on this and has a 15-0 vote in support of the sanctions and the fact that we need to do something if they again fail to comply.

5th.....The target in Yemen fled the Battlefield in Afghanistan. For all you know they were in the midst of planning more terrorist operations. For all you know....they were involved in the Bombining at the night club last month. IT is a war........They attacked us for ten years.....again and again.

Boy the similarities between us and Germany are astounding....


Your comment....is so offensive to me. I lost relatives in World War II. My grandfather, until the day he died had nightmares almost nightly about what he saw in the concentration camps.

Maybe you would be happier today if the United Stated had not stepped up to the plate and saved your rear-ends. I suppose your people are thankful those "policemen" showed up.

God I hate comments like that.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-10-2002, 04:28 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Fizzing,

I have very good friends in Milan Italy and they support the US war on terrorism and Bush's policy on Iraq. We don't have to give any aid to Yemen or Syria period and certainly would not if they try to obstruct are right to defend ourselves.

Israel is not in violation of UN resolutions under chapter 7 rules and has not behaved the way Iraq has over the past 20 years invading and attacking 4 other countries, completely without any cause or provacation. There is a huge difference between democratic Israel and Saddam Hussian and his thugs.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-10-2002, 04:35 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
We don't have to give any aid to Yemen or Syria period and certainly would not if they try to obstruct are right to defend ourselves.

Israel is not in violation of UN resolutions under chapter 7 rules and has not behaved the way Iraq has over the past 20 years invading and attacking 4 other countries, completely without any cause or provacation. There is a huge difference between democratic Israel and Saddam Hussian and his thugs.
No, the US doesn't have to give aid to anyone. However, given that it does give aid, it's interesting to see how it's used to manipulate countries into acting in accordance with US demands.

Israel is in violation of UN resolutions. Resolution 242 states that Israel must withdraw from the territories it occupied in the 1967 war. It still has not done so, although this resolution is renewed every year.

And as for the suggestion that Israel hasn't invaded other countries - tell that to Egypt, Syria and Jordan, all of which were attacked in 1967 and had territories taken illegally from them by Israel.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 11-10-2002, 04:36 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:19 PM
I do not think comparing the Bush Administration to the Third Reich is either wise nor correct, the two should not be uttered in the same sentence.

The question posed is an intriguing one, we have a chance of assesing what the role of America should be without perhaps appearing to attack it. What should America's role be? More importantly, what is America's role NOW?

I do not hold with the opinion that it is a 'police state', as some have called it, that is neither accurate nor true, if I had to answer the question on the spot, I feel that America's role is not something that is established, atleast not on an international level. What it is, though, is the superpower of the world and it perhaps should have a role defined.

I have always felt that the role of America should be to bring the world forward, in more ways than one. America is the world's dominant power, and it should be more defined in its responsibilities to other countries when, for instance, regime change occurs. They should be there to remove the failed regime, and they should be there to pick up the pieces as well, as they have started to do in Afghanistan.

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 11-10-2002, 04:41 PM   #21
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


No, the US doesn't have to give aid to anyone. However, given that it does give aid, it's interesting to see how it's used to manipulate countries into acting in accordance with US demands.

Israel is in violation of UN resolutions. Resolution 242 states that Israel must withdraw from the territories it occupied in the 1967 war. It still has not done so, although this resolution is renewed every year.

And as for the suggestion that Israel hasn't invaded other countries - tell that to Egypt, Syria and Jordan, all of which were attacked in 1967 and had territories taken illegally from them by Israel.
very interesting

Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony
I do not think comparing the Bush Administration to the Third Reich is either wise nor correct, the two should not be uttered in the same sentence.
very true
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 12:33 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Fizzing,

I realize that Israel is violation of UN resolution 242 but it has agreed to comply with that resolution once a peace settlement is signed. The problem over the past decades has been Arab countries commitment to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and Palestinians refusal to agree to recent settlements.

In addition, UN resolution 242 was passed under CHAPTER 6 rules which do not allow the use of military force to achieve compliance with the resolution. All resolutions in regards to Iraq were passed under Chapter 7 rules which approves military actions to bring about compliance with the UN resolution.

I did not say or imply that Israel has not invaded other countries, I implied that Israel has not invaded other countries without provication like Iraq has.

Israel invaded those countries out of military necessity. Because of prior actions by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and preperations to strike Israel, Israel had no choice but to strike first, or face the real possiblity of being wiped from the face of the earth. Israel did what it had to do to insure its survival in the face of enormous odds. It eventually gave the land it took from Egypt back when a peace settlement was worked out. When similar settlements are worked out with the Palestinians, they will have an independent state.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 12:51 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Rono,

If you believe the USA supplied military weapons to Iraq, please name the type of weapon system or vehicle and the quantity sold. The only USA weapons in Iraq's arsonal are a small number of weapons that it captured from Iran during its war with Iran in the 1980s.

Any US military action against Iraq has never and will never target innocent civilians.

Its obvious to me why some countries are allowed to have weapons of mass destructions and others are not. Its called behavior, and Iraq's behavior is why this conflict is occuring.

Targeting and taking immediate military action against terrorist potentially can save hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilian lives.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 04:08 AM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 36
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Iraq has received the vast majority of its weapons from Russia (former USSR).

Comparing Israel and Iraq and saying that, in terms of nuclear weapons risk, they are the same thing is much like saying that a child waving a weapon towards an Israeli soldier in the Gaza Strip is much like an adult Palestinean doing the same thing. If you believe that, Rono, then I guess shooting them both would be the appropriate answer, correct?

"And now that Iraq is not following western rules we are prepared inocent civilians and poor children"

Here are some of the findings from the United Nations Special Commission (the Iraqi UN weapons inspectors):

Aflatoxin: Iraqi scientists studied how to produce liver cancer using aflatoxin. Aflatoxin has no direct military value, as its cancerous effects take years to develop. Iraq produced more than 2000 liters of aflatoxin, and admitted putting it into missile warheads and R-400 bombs.

Iraq declared that it produced 8445 liters of anthrax, and inspectors determined that at least three times this much could have been produced with the equipment and growth media Iraq had at its disposal. One gram of dried anthrax spores has been estimated to contain about 10 million lethal doses. The US Army estimates that a person inhaling 8,000 spores (weighing about .08 millionths of a gram) would be likely to die in less than a week. However, as the attacks on the United States made clear, far fewer spores can cause death in some victims.

Botulinum toxin is the most poisonous substance known - the average man would only have to inhale about 70 billionths of a gram for it to be fatal. Eighty percent of victims die within 1-3 days of being infected. Iraq made almost 20,000 liters of botulinum toxin, much of which was placed into munitions and missile warheads.

The Clostridium perfringens bacterium can cause gas gangrene, which in turn causes toxic gases to form in the body's tissues. The result can be acute lung distress, leaking blood vessels, the breakdown of the red blood cells or platelets (which enable the blood to clot to stop bleeding), and liver damage. Inspectors believe Iraq could have produced some 5,000 liters of clostridium perfringens, though it declared it had made far less.

He ACTUALLY used these weapons without provocation:

Hussein used VX nerve gas on Kurds in his country in the eighties. In the town of Halabja alone, an estimated 5,000 civilians were killed and more than 10,000 were injured.

So, how exactly is Iraq "suddenly" not following Western rules? I don't even want to know what all this implies about Eastern rules



__________________
boywonder is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 01:17 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If you believe the USA supplied military weapons to Iraq, please name the type of weapon system or vehicle and the quantity sold.
In a May 25, 1994 Senate Banking Committee report, Iraq received from the U.S., in 1985, "pathogenic, toxigenic and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." The report then details 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding, "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

And what was Donald Rumsfeld's response to Sen. Robert Byrd's questioning of this back in September? "Certainly not to my knowledge." Yes...a classic case of Reagan-style amnesia... Apparently, up to the Gulf War, the U.S. was more concerned about Iran toppling Iraq, so the U.S., utterly, built much of the problem that we have today with Iraq.

National Security Directive 26 on October 2, 1989 (declassified): "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The United States government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and to increase our influence with Iraq."

So, really, this is partially what led up to today.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 03:05 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Melon,

Biological materials have medical and scientific uses and are not military weapons unless converted to such uses. There are dozens of other countries that recieved the same things from the USA for the purposes of scientific research. In addition, there are multiple other nations besides the USA that Iraq recieved materials or knowledge associated with Biological and Chemical agents for scientific and medical research. The problem is that they are duel uses for many of these Biological and Chemical agents.

These agents were not sent to Iraq for military purposes but were converted by Iraq for such use. Chemical and Biological weapons because of their nature are not necessarily effective weapons on the battlefield but can be effective terrorist weapons against defenseless civilian populations given the right conditions. So that the idea that the Iraqi military was aided in its war with Iran by such materials is fluff. The Iraqi military defeated the Iranian military on the battlefield because of the extensive amount of weapons and training it recieved from the former Soviet Union. Iraq briefly used Chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian soldiers, but this was not exstensive. The overwhelming number of Kurds and Iranian military personal killed in the conflict were killed by conventional weapon systems supplied by the former Soviet Union.

Supply of duel use technology with out strict safe guards back in the 1980s was mistake committed by the USA and many other countries but not the USA alone. Iraq was not the only country that recieved this technology because of its duel use nature. Duel use techonology are not defined as military weapons, although they can be converted to such use. Lots of things that are not weapons can be converted into one. Iraq would have their Bio/Chem capability with or without the transfer of duel use techonology from the USA in the 1980s because of its close relationship with the former Soviet Union(the largest manufacter of Bio/Chem weapons and material in the history of the planet). In addition, Iraq did extensive trade with several other European companies and firms, and recieved a lot of its Nuclear weapons technology and know how from a German company.

Rumsfeld did not work for the Commerce Department in the 1980s as did a lot of other officials. So Rumsfeld was correct in his statements. Sen. Byrd had a better chance of knowing at the time and yet, here he is asking Rumsfeld this question. As I said before the problem with Iraqi Weapons of Mass destruction would exist today with or without the transfer of duel use technology to Iraq during the 1980s from the USA. NSD made sense in 1989. Iraq had one war with Iran and know one knew how irrational Hussein really was as he was soon to demonstrate with invasion and attacks on Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel with its vast arsonal of conventional military weapons supplied by the former Soviet Union.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 03:21 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:19 AM
Re: The New Role of the United States of America

Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
Why do we not, as a nation that consistently claims to be better than those of the terrorists who would destroy us, *act* as though we are better? Why do we not share more of our wealth and time with the impoverished of the world? Why do human rights go straight out the window as soon as they're inconvenient for us to attend to?

But I suppose the question I really want answered is: how do we cultivate a more responsible ethic of nationhood? How do we prove to the rest of the world something that few nations are wont to believe at the moment: that we truly do have one of the greatest countries in the world?
Your question hasnt been answered and wont be answered.

So I may ask again, just for asking, just for having fun:

WHY DO WE NOT SHARE MORE OF OUR WEALTH WITH THE IMPOVERISHED OF THE WORLD?

Hello?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 03:56 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Biological materials have medical and scientific uses and are not military weapons unless converted to such uses. There are dozens of other countries that recieved the same things from the USA for the purposes of scientific research. In addition, there are multiple other nations besides the USA that Iraq recieved materials or knowledge associated with Biological and Chemical agents for scientific and medical research. The problem is that they are duel uses for many of these Biological and Chemical agents.
So I guess it would be okay to give an arsonist a box of matches and gasoline, as long as you're not the one starting the fire?

Give me a break. Unless the Reagan Administration was really this dumb, they knew exactly what they were doing.

Quote:
Rumsfeld did not work for the Commerce Department in the 1980s as did a lot of other officials. So Rumsfeld was correct in his statements. Sen. Byrd had a better chance of knowing at the time and yet, here he is asking Rumsfeld this question.
Rumsfeld was an active equation with Iraq even in the 1980s. It was Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983 that launched the U.S.'s support for Iraq in its war against Iran. He is as entrenched of a Republican as it gets.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 05:53 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Melon,

Sorry but your anology does not work. Many of these Biological and chemical agents of duel uses including medical uses that can treat people with certain medical conditions. I'll say it again, Biological material went out to dozens of countries for various medical and scientific reasons as they had been doing for years before that.

"The Reagan Administration new exactly what it was doing"? This happen due to the import/export rules of the time and was largely a matter handled by the commerce department. What would be the point of supplying Iraq with Biological material to develop weapons that had little if no battlefield use for the war against Iran? While Iraq briefly used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians, they have never used Biological weapons against anyone. Such weapons are difficult to properly deliver and take days to take effect. Its not a useful battlefield weapon, but if carefully distrubuted among an unsuspecting immobile civilian population, it can have terrible effects.

The US support for Iraq in its war with Iran amounts to simply verbal support, a few transport vehicles, and food. The transfer of Biological material is simply the result of the rules at the time set by the commerce department. Similar material went to dozens of other countries as well.

The Iraqi military machine was built by the Soviet Union. I have the weapons tables and other information which clearly proves this beyond any reasonable doubt. Democrats, liberals, or others attempts to stick this to the Reagan Administration are baseless and not supported by any facts.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-12-2002, 04:41 AM   #30
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Melon,

Biological materials have medical and scientific uses and are not military weapons unless converted to such uses. There are dozens of other countries that recieved the same things from the USA for the purposes of scientific research. In addition, there are multiple other nations besides the USA that Iraq recieved materials or knowledge associated with Biological and Chemical agents for scientific and medical research. The problem is that they are duel uses for many of these Biological and Chemical agents.

These agents were not sent to Iraq for military purposes but were converted by Iraq for such use. Chemical and Biological weapons because of their nature are not necessarily effective weapons on the battlefield but can be effective terrorist weapons against defenseless civilian populations given the right conditions. So that the idea that the Iraqi military was aided in its war with Iran by such materials is fluff. The Iraqi military defeated the Iranian military on the battlefield because of the extensive amount of weapons and training it recieved from the former Soviet Union. Iraq briefly used Chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian soldiers, but this was not exstensive. The overwhelming number of Kurds and Iranian military personal killed in the conflict were killed by conventional weapon systems supplied by the former Soviet Union.

Supply of duel use technology with out strict safe guards back in the 1980s was mistake committed by the USA and many other countries but not the USA alone. Iraq was not the only country that recieved this technology because of its duel use nature. Duel use techonology are not defined as military weapons, although they can be converted to such use. Lots of things that are not weapons can be converted into one. Iraq would have their Bio/Chem capability with or without the transfer of duel use techonology from the USA in the 1980s because of its close relationship with the former Soviet Union(the largest manufacter of Bio/Chem weapons and material in the history of the planet). In addition, Iraq did extensive trade with several other European companies and firms, and recieved a lot of its Nuclear weapons technology and know how from a German company.

Rumsfeld did not work for the Commerce Department in the 1980s as did a lot of other officials. So Rumsfeld was correct in his statements. Sen. Byrd had a better chance of knowing at the time and yet, here he is asking Rumsfeld this question. As I said before the problem with Iraqi Weapons of Mass destruction would exist today with or without the transfer of duel use technology to Iraq during the 1980s from the USA. NSD made sense in 1989. Iraq had one war with Iran and know one knew how irrational Hussein really was as he was soon to demonstrate with invasion and attacks on Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel with its vast arsonal of conventional military weapons supplied by the former Soviet Union.
Wow it's amazing that you actually believe this. The Americans knew the consequences of giving those chemical and biological agents to the Iraqis, at the very least knew they could be converted into weapons by Iraqi scientists. They probably hoped the Iraqis would use them against the Iranian civilian population and win the war. What the Americans did not forsee was a U.S. war against Iraq soon after in which the Iraqis could use those same agents against the U.S and people asking why the Americans sold such agents to the Iraqis.

If your saying the U.S. didn't know what the Iraqis intended use of those agents were then you must think the American government naive or stupid. Governments do these kinds of things for intended purposes (using the tools against your mutual enemy), sometimes those same 'friends' become your enemy and use the same tools you gave them against you, it's not hard to see how this has happened but it's almost unbelieveable that you think the Americans didn't know what the iraqis were gonna do with the stuff (make them into weapons) and that Rumsfeld is not aware of what was being sold to the Iraqis. Like Melon said Rumsfeld had the first meeting with Iraqis in 1983 which was the beginning of the U.S. support to Iraq so he was aware of all the things America was doing in it's support to Iraq.
__________________

__________________
Under Current 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 06:19 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