US - Iraq: what do you think? - 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 01-13-2003, 08:14 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,574
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Because the point of critical thinking is to educate yourself about a topic, and reach a conclusion based on that education and your own personal beliefs. I feel I have done so, and reached a conclusion of my own, which I am quite happy with. You have not discussed anything other than your rigid POV wrt Iraq; clearly your mind is made up. That's fine - you have informed yourself, and this is the end result. Those of us who disagree are no different.
Rigid perhaps, but I think that on this particular topic Sting has done way more to articulate the reasons for his opinion than anyone else in this forum.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 08:26 PM   #32
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Rigid - Yes very.

I don't have a problem with Sting's articulate reasons and I respect his opinion. It's more that he could be reciting a textbook "Why we are going to attack Iraq" from Bush's war cabinet. There is no varying from the strict party line.

I find it hard to agree with anyone else's position so absolutely. But that is just my POV.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 08:47 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,574
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
Rigid - Yes very.

I don't have a problem with Sting's articulate reasons and I respect his opinion. It's more that he could be reciting a textbook "Why we are going to attack Iraq" from Bush's war cabinet. There is no varying from the strict party line.

Whether Sting's arguments sound like they could have come out of the mouth of Donald Rumsfeld is irrelevant. The relevant point is, are they accurate?
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 10:37 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Scarletwine,

"and there isn't a single thing Bush and Co. or STING here or anybody could do to convince me otherwise"

Have I ever said that there was nothing anybody could do to convince me otherwise of my positions? To the best of my knowledge, I have never made such a statement.

I don't think there is anything rigid about my positions compared to several others expressed here. I've attempted to articulate why certain policies have been selected in different foreign policy situations and why I think those policies are the best ones for resolving each situation.

That certainly is not as rigid as those that simply oppose all war anytime, anywhere, regardless of any of the circumstances involved. But that is ok and I'm careful to read their viewpoints specifically because they are the opposite, or at least in some way different, than mine.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2003, 10:39 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Whether Sting's arguments sound like they could have come out of the mouth of Donald Rumsfeld is irrelevant. The relevant point is, are they accurate?
I have not known him to be otherwise. Using the UN Resolutions to make the case is a great idea, however, they are UN Reolutions and it is up to the UN to decide when to enforce their own resolutions.

I am 100% in favor of the United States doing something about the problem through the United Nations. If they say they want a year to inspect they should get a year. I am not sure that I buy that Iraq violating resolutions gives the US the right to enforce them without the UN. They are UN resolutions and it should be through them that we act.

However, the paper the resolutions are written on are less useful than toilet paper if they are not enforced. If they decide to give him a year after over ten year of Iraq's deceptions and lying then maybe they are running low on their supply and we should send them some TP so they do not have to use the paper the resolution is on.



What would change my mind on this issue????

I started a thread a while back stating that I had not felt that Bush had made his case. I still feel this way.

The President of the United States needs to make his case to the people if he is not going to follow the United Nations lead on this. He needs to prove to us that there is a Clear and Present Danger to us posed by Iraq. If the President makes his case and it is a convincing one I have no problem supporting us going it without the UN. According to Ari Flescher today, the President "will" make his case when the time is right.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 08:32 AM   #36
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I have not known him to be otherwise. Using the UN Resolutions to make the case is a great idea, however, they are UN Reolutions and it is up to the UN to decide when to enforce their own resolutions.

I am 100% in favor of the United States doing something about the problem through the United Nations. If they say they want a year to inspect they should get a year. I am not sure that I buy that Iraq violating resolutions gives the US the right to enforce them without the UN. They are UN resolutions and it should be through them that we act. ...

What would change my mind on this issue????

I started a thread a while back stating that I had not felt that Bush had made his case. I still feel this way.

The President of the United States needs to make his case to the people if he is not going to follow the United Nations lead on this. He needs to prove to us that there is a Clear and Present Danger to us posed by Iraq. If the President makes his case and it is a convincing one I have no problem supporting us going it without the UN. According to Ari Flescher today, the President "will" make his case when the time is right.
This is my thoughts also. I'm not a pacifist, but I do feel the need to be convinced absolutely to support an armed conflict, otherwise it's just another VietNam and I'm totally against an unilateral action by the US. It stinks of Imperialism. And as a lover of history, I've seen where that has taken other countries without exception.

Also, I was not trying to offend you Sting, just make an observation. I'm actually impressed by your knowledge of the details.

I personally like to know the facts, but have to balance that with my conscience and emotional thoughts. Every problem can have multiple solutions. The world is not mathematics. At this time I cannot agree with Dubyah's policy.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 08:56 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,574
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine


I personally like to know the facts, but have to balance that with my conscience and emotional thoughts. Every problem can have multiple solutions. The world is not mathematics. At this time I cannot agree with Dubyah's policy.

Saddam Hussein's Baath party isn't going anywhere. His sons Uday and Qusay are by all accounts just as evil as he is. He liquidates all opposition to his rule.

There's no credible opposition party currently within Iraq.

The half-assed UN sanctions have not done anything to weaken Saddam's grip on power.

What is this alternate solution, and why is it more likely to return a positive result than an attack on Iraq?
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 09:37 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
The half-assed UN sanctions have not done anything to weaken Saddam's grip on power.
Well, they have been described by those imposing them as "the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in history" and having killed over half a million children at the most conservatie estimates, I wouldn't say they're "half-assed."

However, I agree they've done nothing to weaken Saddam. It just proves that sanctions hurt the most vulnerable in a society, not the strongest.

Why do we continue with the sanctions knowing that they're ineffective and only serve to cause great suffering to the Iraqi people?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 09:42 AM   #39
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:43 AM
I'm not sure there is ultimately a viable alternative solution. However, I dislike the timing of the administration and feel it is a way to show a victory since they lost Osama.
Spending the money on breaking up terrorist cells and fostering goodwill seem more urgent to me. As you say Sadaam's gov't isn't going anywhere. I don't feel his ability to create nuclear weapons is imminent either. So let the inspectors do thier job, until they are satisfied.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 10:43 AM   #40
Refugee
 
Desire4Bono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: living in a rock and roll fantasy- and what's wrong with that?
Posts: 1,921
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Thanks for the detailed history, Sting.
__________________
Too bad,
the things that make you mad
are the things that I love

Brandon Boyd

-Incubus
Desire4Bono is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 12:52 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Thank you Desire4Bono.

The sanctions on Iraq are not the cause of the suffering Iraqi people experience. Iraq is able to sell all the oil they want to to buy food and humanitarian supplies through the United Nations. With or without sanctions, people would suffer because Saddam controls the distribution of any food or humanitarian supplies brought into his country. He can starve one town or region while he rewards another with food, humanitarian supplies and other perks for cooperating with him. This is how Saddam maintains total control of the country. It is a Police State. This figure that 500,000 people have died from sanctions is an unproven theory. It is false primarily because Iraq has purchased more than enough food and humanitarian supplies to take care of everyone, each year. It is true that some people may have been denied by Saddam, food and humanitarian supplies and have suffered because of the fact. Rather than being an arguement for lifting sanctions, it is an arguement for regime change in Iraq because that is the only way that many people there will be lifted from the horror and restrictions they currently live under.

What sanctions have been able to do, is that they have prevented Saddam from rebuilding his military forces, most of which was lost during the Gulf War in 1991. For his conventional military forces, Saddam relied heavily on imports for all Tanks, Armored Personal Carriers, Artillery, and Aircraft. Sanctions have prevented him from getting spare parts to maintain much of the military equipment that he has left. This has helped to make the region much more secure, and will save many lives if the USA, Coalition, or UN, decide that Iraq must be disarmed with military force.

Unfortunately now, Sanctions are really starting to break down. It is estimated that Iraq was able to smuggle in 3 Billion dollars worth of goods last year in addition the much larger sum in Billions that is purchased legally through the UN "Oil for food" and humanitarian supplies program. So far it does not appear that major weapon systems like, Tanks and Aircraft were smuggled in, but other smaller types of weapons more concealable may have been smuggled in.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 01:45 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Iraq is able to sell all the oil they want to to buy food and humanitarian supplies through the United Nations
But you said earlier they spent everything on arms.
I agree, Iraq's people have suffered greatly from sanctions while Saddam is still in power.

I'm sorry, but unless US (or Britain) can come up with a evidence of WMD or that Iraq is a threat to the world I don't believe this attack is necessary and I think North Korea is far more dangerous to the world.

And I don't think that the "Iraq has to prove it has disarmed" point of view is valid. Proving part has to be done by the accusing party, not the accused party. US&Britain say Iraq has WMD, THEY have to prove it and so make their case. If they know something UN inspectors don't, maybe it's time to share.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 01:50 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 07:43 AM
yeah, if they know something, just come out with it and the problem is solved.

"we have had spies deep within iraq for the last 5 years and know that there is an underground nuclear facility at such and such, and there are mobile laboratories on rail cars developing anthrax that rune from here to here, and we have photographic evidence of ......"

just do it, if not, they don't have it.
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 02:10 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:43 AM
U2girl,

Money derived through the sell of Oil to the United Nations can only be used to purchase humanitarian supplies and food. The United Nations controls the flow of this money and buys food and humanitarian supplies when Iraq sales its oil. Money that is payed for Iraqi Oil goes straight to the UN and not to Iraq. The UN then purchases food and humanitarian supplies and delivers it to Iraq.

Any Money that Saddam Hussian got before Sanctions or gets after sanctions is spent primarily on the military and his personal security. Saddam makes far less money now than he did before sanctions. Saddam does not get any money from any oil that is sold legally. Who ever buys the oil pays the United Nations.

Saddam of course is becoming more successful in smuggling and selling his oil illegally and last year brought in 3 Billion dollars
from smuggling.


"And I don't think that the "Iraq has to prove it has disarmed" point of view is valid."

Actually the UN resolutions and the UN 1991 ceacefire agreement clearly state that it is valid. Iraq was already found guilty in 1991 of having weapons of mass destruction. Iraq agreed to give up its weapons of mass destruction and also agreed that it was "incumbent on Iraq to prove they given up such weapons". The burden of proof has always been on Iraq. Iraq agreed to those conditions when it signed the 1991 ceacefire agreement and other UN resolutions.

So according to international law, Iraq has to prove it does not have weapons of mass destruction! So far they have failed to do this.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 02:20 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,574
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by JOFO
yeah, if they know something, just come out with it and the problem is solved.

Well, we know that Saddam is a ruthless dictator who presides over one of the two most repressive regimes on Earth, has killed really large numbers of his political enemies within Iraq and has invaded several of his neighbors over the last 20 years. Why is this not enough reason to justify removing him from power?

Sometimes I wonder if the only thing that keeps ultra-liberal types from saying that the UN needs to initiate a "humanitarian intervention" a la Kosovo is the fact that Iraq sits atop the world's second largest oil reserves.
__________________

__________________
speedracer 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 02:43 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