The New Role of the United States of America

[pax]

The thread that deep posted of terrorists being transported on U.S. military planes got me thinking about American ideology these days; specifically, what is, or what should be, the role of the U.S. on the world stage. The U.S. is often referred to as the "world's policeman." I humbly suggest that we begin to pursue alternatives.

I've seen a number of things justified, throughout the so-called War on Terrorism, by saying that "Well, they're terrorists, so we can detain them illegally/transport them like cattle/deny them basic civil and human rights." I, as an American and a Christian, don't buy that anymore--if I ever did.

Don't get me wrong. I'm scared. I know I live in a world full of terrorism, full of people who would probably slit my throat or something if they had the opportunity. But I think I'm more afraid of living in a country that perpetuates the ideology and actions that creates terrorism--and don't say it doesn't. We are making terrorism, and the threat thereof, bigger and scarier. You know that's the truth.

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?

We are better than this, or at least we are supposed to be. We are the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world. Instead of using that position to be an example of what nationhood can be--prosperous, fair, peaceful, and attentive to the dignity of all persons--we have used this position to bully smaller, weaker nations, to pollute the planet, and to possibly drag our allies into a war that a majority of U.S. voters AND other countries' citizens do not want.

If anyone starts waving the anti-American flag at this post, go ahead and wave it, but I still believe that one of my most sacred rights as an American is the right to criticize my country. I'm not pointing fingers here--not at any one President or administration or political figure. This is just my opinion. And maybe I'm wrong. I've been wrong before. 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?

 

[Dreadsox]

I've seen a number of things justified, throughout the so-called War on Terrorism, by saying that "Well, they're terrorists, so we can detain them illegally/transport them like cattle/deny them basic civil and human rights." I, as an American and a Christian, don't buy that anymore--if I ever did.

Pax...please explain ......How they are being "illegally" transported? How they are being denied basic and civil rights?

Don't get me wrong. I'm scared. I know I live in a world full of terrorism, full of people who would probably slit my throat or something if they had the opportunity. But I think I'm more afraid of living in a country that perpetuates the ideology and actions that creates terrorism--and don't say it doesn't. We are making terrorism, and the threat thereof, bigger and scarier. You know that's the truth.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but, you make it sound like we have brought this on ourselves. Do you honestly believe that Al-Qaeda is fighting for a noble cause, like a Robin Hood, looking to rob from the Rich Americans and redistribute their spoils amongst the poor and downtrodden?

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?

Help me out here....I see many people working their asses off...paying taxes. How much more do we have to give? When 1/3-1/2 of what I make gets taken from me....How much more should I have to give?

This is going to sound very, very bad, but I will try to make the best of it. As a teacher, I see children, on free lunch programs. I am not opposed to this, however....these same children.....are:

Wearing better clothes than I can afford for my children......
They have all the latest games and toys.......
They somehow have the money to buy an extra lunch.....
Able to take trips to Florida.......(I am saving for one in three years)
Have multiple siblings with different fathers.
Take music lessons.....$8.00 a week(not counting instrument rental)
Play football, baseball, ect......($$$$$ Equipment, Fees)

How much more of the money that other people and I have worked hard to earn.....Do we have to give?

That said....I do have children that need this program.....and I am not opposed to it....but the fact is....

Many people busted their ass to get ahead in the world against great odds. I respect and admire that. These people are in my estimation few and far between. Too many people take advantage of the system.

This has nothing to do with my job as a teacher...I work along with many teachers out there extremely hard to help our students. Teaching is my job and I love it. I would not want to be any place else other than with my own children.

We are better than this, or at least we are supposed to be. We are the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world. Instead of using that position to be an example of what nationhood can be--prosperous, fair, peaceful, and attentive to the dignity of all persons--we have used this position to bully smaller, weaker nations, to pollute the planet, and to possibly drag our allies into a war that a majority of U.S. voters AND other countries' citizens do not want.

Please...quote a poll....give me some data. The last poll I saw said that the United States Citizenship was 60% in favor of action against Iraq if the United Nations was involved. The UN is now involved.

From CBS.COM...the latest poll from NOV 4 indicates:

The general support for using military force to remove Saddam Hussein has remained very constant. Sixty-four percent in this poll favor the policy. Just over three weeks ago 67 percent favored it, and in August 66 percent did. Just as in previous polls, support drops off when respondents are asked to consider some negative potential consequences of a war, down as low as 42 percent if military action meant that the U.S. would become involved in a war lasting months or even years.

As for Pollution...and bullying....Well....I am not in disagreement on the pollution thing. We can do better.

If anyone starts waving the anti-American flag at this post, go ahead and wave it, but I still believe that one of my most sacred rights as an American is the right to criticize my country. I'm not pointing fingers here--not at any one President or administration or political figure. This is just my opinion. And maybe I'm wrong. I've been wrong before. 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?

You are acting more like an American that I can respect when you offer a dissenting view than the 61% of the eligible voters who failed to vote last Tuesday.

As for your cultivation of Nationhood.......

Our current administration has:

Worked with the UN on Iraq and now currently has the UN supporting the resolutions. I hope people can see that this President has worked hard to do what is right in this area. 15-0 was the vote. Does this sound like they do not believe that we are a responsible nation? As for your theory that the world does not admire our government, our country, our way of life.......

Why do so many of them want to get here.....legally, and otherwise?
Why do they want to attend our schools?

I suppose.....we can do better in many areas....But I still want to know...how much more I have to give....when clearly.....others are taking advantage of the system.




Peace to all.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Re: Re: The New Role of the United States of America

Many people busted their ass to get ahead in the world against great odds. I respect and admire that. These people are in my estimation few and far between. Too many people take advantage of the system.

And too many people bust their ass just to survive in this world. Too many people work sixty hours a week just to put a roof over their head and food on the table. Too many people work two different jobs and still can't afford health insurance. Too many people work harder than you can imagine and still won't ever 'get ahead' in the world because the odds are so stacked against them. That's why we need fair progressive taxation and the provision of healthcare, welfare, education for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.

I agree that people take advantage of the system: too many rich people and corporations take advantage of the system to avoid paying their due in taxes. That's what pisses me off, not the person who does a day of work, cash in hand, even though she's claiming unemployment benefit because she wants to be able to buy her kids a present this Christmas.

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Re: The New Role of the United States of America

And too many people bust their ass just to survive in this world. Too many people work sixty hours a week just to put a roof over their head and food on the table. Too many people work two different jobs and still can't afford health insurance. Too many people work harder than you can imagine and still won't ever 'get ahead' in the world because the odds are so stacked against them. That's why we need fair progressive taxation and the provision of healthcare, welfare, education for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.

Sounds like many people I know. it also sounds like you want me to pay more taxes.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Sounds like many people I know. it also sounds like you want me to pay more taxes.

Not you specifically. And it's not so much that I want people to pay more taxes, it's that I believe we should have progressive taxation, by which those more able to afford it contribute more. I believe those with an annual income of $2 million should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than someone with an annual income of $5,000. And I believe that's the only way to create a society in which nobody is deprived of healthcare or education or other essentials because of their financial situation.

 

[deep]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Role of the United States of America

Sounds like many people I know. it also sounds like you want me to pay more taxes.

Dread,

W and Company will have you paying more taxes than any lefties left standing.

 

[diamond]

Dread-
You still got your 600.00 tax refund?
I do mine
Thank you GWsexy Bush
DB9

 

[pax]

Re: Re: The New Role of the United States of America

First of all, I just want to thank y'all for staying nice...I was a lil bit pissy when I posted this and I'm glad that no one has said mean things. So anyway, here I go answering Dread's points.

Pax...please explain ......How they are being "illegally" transported? How they are being denied basic and civil rights?

I said they were being transported like cattle, not illegally transported...although that probably should be illegal anyway.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but, you make it sound like we have brought this on ourselves. Do you honestly believe that Al-Qaeda is fighting for a noble cause, like a Robin Hood, looking to rob from the Rich Americans and redistribute their spoils amongst the poor and downtrodden?

No way. I don't believe, as some probably do, that 9/11 was "America's fault." It was the fault of a few dozen twisted individuals who committed an extremely evil act. And Al-Qaeda's "goal," if they have one, is to promote their own sick agenda of terror and religious tyranny--not to help the poor and downtrodden. But I do believe that if America wants to present itself as a country that deserves better treatment from the rest of the world, then we ought to act like it. With great power comes great responsibility. Didn't you ever see Spider-Man?

Help me out here....I see many people working their asses off...paying taxes. How much more do we have to give? When 1/3-1/2 of what I make gets taken from me....How much more should I have to give?

I believe that our government ought to be able to do better than they are with the money we already give them. I'm not in favor of increasing taxes--I'm a working girl myself--but we have one of the lowest tax rates in the Western world, too, hard as that is to believe.

Please...quote a poll....give me some data. The last poll I saw said that the United States Citizenship was 60% in favor of action against Iraq if the United Nations was involved. The UN is now involved.

The UN may well be *involved.* But I'm not certain that the UN is really behind us. And 60% is no groundswell of support, either, particularly if that support is contingent on the support of the UN.

Just as in previous polls, support drops off when respondents are asked to consider some negative potential consequences of a war, down as low as 42 percent if military action meant that the U.S. would become involved in a war lasting months or even years.

As for your theory that the world does not admire our government, our country, our way of life.......

Why do so many of them want to get here.....legally, and otherwise?
Why do they want to attend our schools?

I see your point here, and I should have made myself clearer. I'm not saying that the U.S. isn't a darn great place to live--I think, for the most part, it is. But when you consider a lot of the places from which immigrants (legal or otherwise) come--the former Soviet Union, Haiti, Cuba, whatever--is it really saying much that the U.S. is better than those places? Of course we are! It doesn't take much to be a better place to live than Port-au-Prince! The question I address, I suppose, is that of *complacency.* Are we really satisfied, in this GREAT country, to merely be a little better than Russia?

Dreadsox, I appreciate your comments--it's both sides of the debate that make FYM, and America, great. I think you have a lot of good points, too. Peace to you, too, and everyone else while I'm at it.

 

[STING2]

The current human development report by the United Nations states that the USA has the 6th highest standard of living in the world. Were way ahead of Russia.

 

[bonoman]

Re: Re: Re: The New Role of the United States of America

I'm a working girl myself[b/]

I love the thread, dont have time to respnd but i thought this was funny. I'm sure you're not the type of that working girl!!

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Role of the United States of America

I'm a working girl myself[b/]
I'm sure you're not the type of that working girl!!

 

[deep]

Why do so many of them want to get here.....legally, and otherwise?
Why do they want to attend our schools?

Dread,

Could it be because we offer the best deal on the planet.

Our pay to play rates cannot be beat.

Immigrants get to participate in the American dream at our bargain basement prices.

The costs of starting a business, the payola involved, etc. in other countries is significantly higher everyplace else. Our tax system that we all complain about, is the lowest of all developed nations.
No, I don?t want to pay more taxes, I?m American, remember.

As much as the Corporations complain, they are not relocating in England, Europe, Canada.
Sure many are using sham legal* off shore Caribbean Corps to avoid our reasonable tax rates, but they are not moving operations there.



*legislation bought and paid for

 

[deep]

and to possibly drag our allies into a war that a majority of U.S. voters AND other countries' citizens do not want.

Half-A-Million March in Anti-War Rally in Italy

November 09, 2002 01:56 PM ET


By Luke Baker

FLORENCE, Italy (Reuters) - More than half a million anti-war protesters from across Europe marched through this Italian Renaissance city on Saturday in a loud and colorful demonstration denouncing any possible U.S. attack on Iraq.

Brimming with anti-American feelings and riled by a tough new U.N. resolution to disarm Iraq, young and old activists from as far afield as Russia and Portugal joined forces for the carnival-like rally, singing Communist anthems and 1970s peace songs.

"Take your war and go to hell," read one banner, in a forest of multi-colored and multi-lingual placards.

"Drop Bush, not Bombs" read another. Some placards depicted President Bush as Hitler and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi as Mussolini.

Organizers said the rally, planned months ago, gained added relevance by Friday's U.N. Security Council resolution which gave Iraq a last chance to disarm or face almost certain war.

The protest, involving children as well as grandmothers, marked the climax of the first European Social Forum, a four-day meeting of anti-globalisation campaigners from all over Europe. Delegates discussed topics from debt-reduction to support for the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation.

Florence has been virtually shut down for the November 6-10 period, with the State Department advising its citizens to steer clear of Italy's art capital over concerns that violent, anarchist groups might infiltrate the demonstration.

Authorities estimated that some 450,000 protesters flooded Florence's streets for the march on a chilly autumn afternoon.

But by dusk, the crowed had swelled to over half a million, many of them arriving on specially chartered trains and buses. Organizers estimated the gathering at around one million, making it one of Italy's biggest ever anti-war rallies.

Despite the large crowds, the march was largely peaceful and no incidents were reported.

"The atmosphere here is wonderful. Absolutely perfect. It shows that a new young left is emerging," said Stavos Valsamis, a 27-year-old Greek activist from Athens.

Children climbed on their parents' shoulders to get a view of the sea of crowds marching along the seven-km (4.5-miles) route. Many clapped as marchers passed by.

"This is amazing, it's so impressive," said 12-year-old Bianca Ronglia as she watched with her family from the side of the road. "I'm happy and proud that my city is holding this."

BIGGER THAN GENOA

The march was bigger than a protest at a G8 summit in Genoa last year, when 300,000 demonstrators took to the streets and an orgy of violence left one protester dead and hundreds injured.

Some 7,000 police officers were on call but security forces kept a low profile along the rally's route. No incidents were reported.

The rest of Florence was a ghost town with most shops in the art-rich historical center pulling down the shutters for fear of vandals. However, the city's famed museums remained open and offered free entry to the few tourists around.

Many Florence residents deserted the city for the four days of the forum, prompting criticism from those who stayed behind.

"I'm really disappointed by my fellow Florentines -- it really shows very little faith. This whole event has been very calm, in fact the city has been much calmer and friendlier than usual," said housewife Maria Briccoli, 37.

As well as university-age students, older political activists and thousands of trades unionists, Saturday's throng also included Italian World War II partisans and a U.S. Vietnam war veteran who marched in the first row of the crowd.

While Friday's U.N. resolution gives the Security Council a central role in assessing the new arms' inspection program for Iraq, it does not require the United States to seek U.N. authorization for war in case of violations.

"I think it's a scandalous resolution," said Sean Murray, 29, a member of Workers' Revolution. "It proves once more that the U.N. is a puppet of America, Britain and France."

 

[STING2]

The fact is, the majority of US citizens support disarming Iraq with force if necessary. They support Bush and his policy on terror and Iraq. The USA will not stop defending itself because of the opinion of people from other countries. Despite the rally in Florence, Italy has been a stronger supporter of the USA than countries like France or Germany. The UN voted 15-0 to support Bushes policy of disarming Iraq. EVEN Syria voted to support the resolution!

 

[Rono]

There was a time that the USA was happy to arm Sadam. That were the days

And now that Iraq is not following western rules we are prepared inocent civilians and poor children. It realy puzzels me that some countrys are allowed to have weapons of mass destruction ( Isra?l ) and others not.

There was a tv programm on that was reporting about the Big oilcompanies who where splitting the oilcake in pieces already. France agreed with the VN resolutions after thier biggest oilcompany secured a part of the cake.

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 )

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[STING2]

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.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Salome]

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

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

 

[STING2]

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]

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.

 

[boywonder]

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

 

[melon]

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

 

[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.

 

[hiphop]

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 hasn?t been answered and won?t 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?

 

[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.

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.

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

 

[STING2]

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.

 

[Under Current]

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.