War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking? - Page 5 - 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 08-10-2002, 11:38 PM   #61
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Let's not forget that containment worked for the U.S. in the past, most notably with the former U.S.S.R. during the Cold War and it continues to work today with China-countries who posed/pose much bigger threats to our security than Iraq. Since the Gulf War our policy of containment has worked against Iraq...but apparently Bush and his neo-conservative imperialists are so thirsty for blood it doesn't matter.

It was interesting to hear Mr. Conservative himself (Dick Armey) stating today that war with Iraq was a bad idea. He said a "pre-emptive" all-out attack on Iraq without provacation undermined international law and would destablize the entire Middle East...not to mention the heavy casualty toll both sides could take. Maybe some Republican lawmakers are coming to their senses on this after all.

When I stated in an earlier post that "no one wants this war" it is true...no one wants this war...EXCEPT Bush and the neo-conservatives imperialists in his administration!!! I haven't YET heard anybody in the administration give an explanation for potential war with Iraq that is grounded in international law...instead, they speak in terms of how "evil" Saddam is and the "threat" he poses. And that threat is what again??? Saddam is not nearly the threat everyone in the Bush admin makes him out to be. Is he evil??? Of course he is. Would the world be a better place without him around??? Sure it would. Personally, I'm more concerned with the lilkes of Pakistan, India, and Iran...countries who now all possess nuclear capabilities...not an Iraqi regime that, according to former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, currently poses no immediate threat to the U.S. or the region...as Mr. Ritter has stated that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was all but eliminated when the U.N. inspectores pulled out 5 years ago...and that 5 years is not nearly enough time to have re-established such a program.

I believe the lyrics to "What's Going On" state that "War is not the answer." Maybe Bono can sing that verse to Bush the next time they chat. Hopefully..........Bush will be listening.
__________________

__________________
Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 11:45 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 06:38 PM

Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat - Connecticut) has wanted "this war," or an attack on Iraq, since October 8, 2001. He is not a part of President Bush's administration.

~U2Alabama
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 11:50 PM   #63
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Yes...

Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame
Let's not forget that containment worked for the U.S. in the past, most notably with the former U.S.S.R. during the Cold War and it continues to work today with China-countries who posed/pose much bigger threats to our security than Iraq. Since the Gulf War our policy of containment has worked against Iraq...but apparently Bush and his neo-conservative imperialists are so thirsty for blood it doesn't matter.

It was interesting to hear Mr. Conservative himself (Dick Armey) stating today that war with Iraq was a bad idea. He said a "pre-emptive" all-out attack on Iraq without provacation undermined international law and would destablize the entire Middle East...not to mention the heavy casualty toll both sides could take. Maybe some Republican lawmakers are coming to their senses on this after all.

When I stated in an earlier post that "no one wants this war" it is true...no one wants this war...EXCEPT Bush and the neo-conservatives imperialists in his administration!!! I haven't YET heard anybody in the administration give an explanation for potential war with Iraq that is grounded in international law...instead, they speak in terms of how "evil" Saddam is and the "threat" he poses. And that threat is what again??? Saddam is not nearly the threat everyone in the Bush admin makes him out to be. Is he evil??? Of course he is. Would the world be a better place without him around??? Sure it would. Personally, I'm more concerned with the lilkes of Pakistan, India, and Iran...countries who now all possess nuclear capabilities...not an Iraqi regime that, according to former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, currently poses no immediate threat to the U.S. or the region...as Mr. Ritter has stated that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was all but eliminated when the U.N. inspectores pulled out 5 years ago...and that 5 years is not nearly enough time to have re-established such a program.

I believe the lyrics to "What's Going On" state that "War is not the answer." Maybe Bono can sing that verse to Bush the next time they chat. Hopefully..........Bush will be listening.
Well said.

And I hope the same thing would happen the next time Bono talks to Bush.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 08-11-2002, 12:16 AM   #64
Registered User
 
chain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 126
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama


Chain:

Was that article really from the AP? It seemed a bit satirical, but you posted it and quoted it as being from the Associated Press. Please post a link for us if that is the case; I would like to see related articles if they have any. Thanks!

~U2Alabama


Satire.

http://www.bettybowers.com/newsgolf.html
__________________
chain is offline  
Old 08-11-2002, 12:39 AM   #65
Banned
 
LOVE MUSCLE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: my lovenest / in bed with Larry, Bono, Larry, :heart: Adam, Larry, Edge, *swoon* kisses and THUD !!!
Posts: 986
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Re: Yes...

Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Well said.

And I hope the same thing would happen the next time Bono talks to Bush.

Angela
__________________
LOVE MUSCLE is offline  
Old 08-11-2002, 12:42 AM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
adamswildhoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Somewhere in NorCal
Posts: 10,333
Local Time: 04:38 PM
I just wanted to say that i dont agree with going to war at all but if we must then we must!
__________________
adamswildhoney is offline  
Old 08-11-2002, 02:21 AM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Z-Edge,
Was that a pic of a B-1 that you just recently posted?

Like Someone to Blame,

I'm sure we have not forgotten what happened on 9/11, when in the space of 2 hours 3,056 Americans and other nationalities were murdered by a bunch of cowards. How many people here wish today that we had invaded Afghanistan in 1998 after the Embassy bombings in Africa to take out UBL! But no, that would have been against someone's concept of "international law".

I'm all for being careful and cautious, but this did not help us from 1998 to 2001 in trying to get Bin Ladin. We want to do everything we can to prevent another 9/11 or something worse. Americans are united on that point! Americans based on the latest opinion polls(CNN and MSNBC) strongly support an attack on Iraq. Its around 75%. Then they did another poll that(makes me sick to my stomach) asked "do you support an attack on Iraq if it cost thousands of US lives?" Still 49% supported an attack on Iraq, with only 26% opposed. Compared to the 1991 War, the amount of opposition is tiny in Congress.

If you want a reason for war that is based on International Law, I'll give you one. In March 1991, Iraq signed a ceace fire agreement with coalition forces to end the 1991 Gulf War. In the Ceace fire terms, which THEY signed on to, they agreed to have UN inspectors comb the country for as long as they needed to insure every bit of Iraq's weapons program was destroyed. Despite great success, this was program was not finished in 1998 when Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out. Plus, there are still kuwaities missing from the Gulf War which they agreed to turn over or find, in addition to Iraq's failure to comply with other terms and his violation of other 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire terms, the USA has all the reasons it needs based on International Law to change the regime in Iraq. This is what could have happened in 1991 if Iraq had not agreed to the ceace fire terms then. Iraq breaks international law every day while the rest of the world fails to do what is needed to enforce it.

Containment worked with the Soviet Union because we had an effective deterent, plus invasion was simply not an option, the Soviet Union was simply to large, it was difficult enough just trying to defend Western Europe from an attack. India is a democracy that has no desire to take over any country, even Pakistan. Pakistan is evolving, but currently does have stable leadership, hopefully democracy will soon develop. These countries military build ups are directed at each other, not anyone else. Outside of the Indian Sub continent, these countries have not been aggressive toward other countries. Iran's capabilities may have increased over the past 10 years, but they are still not strong enough to threaten Iraq and their Chemical and Bio weapons and Nuclear programs are not where Iraq's were in 1990. In addition, Iran has not attacked 4 different countries with its military like Iraq has over the past 20 years. In addition, Iran is no longer controlled by just extremist or a dictator. The culture and politics are becoming more liberal, although they have a long way to go.

Simply having mass destruction weapons does not make a country a threat. Having Saddam/Iraq style government and exibiting similar behavior in addition to having mass destruction weapons is what makes a country a threat. In the 21st century, that is a very high threshold to cross, but Saddam does cross it.

Containment has been a success in many ways. There has not been a conventional Iraqi military attack on any of its neighbors since 1991. Iraq's conventional military has been unable to rebuild itself. But mass destruction weapons don't require large factories and engineers neccessarily. A small bio lab in a truck or in a cave somewhere can create some nasty stuff that you would not want a person with Saddam's behavior to have. Saddam has often been undeterred in the past. He has a strong record of miscaculation. Do we want to trust are security to Saddam's unpredictible behavior? What good is containment if in the post 9/11 world, the contained is suddenly undeterred in attacking others in a new way that is hidden under the mask of Islamic terrorism? Are the risk of continuing with just containment greater than the cost of regime change in Iraq?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-11-2002, 01:36 PM   #68
Banned
 
LOVE MUSCLE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: my lovenest / in bed with Larry, Bono, Larry, :heart: Adam, Larry, Edge, *swoon* kisses and THUD !!!
Posts: 986
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Z-Edge,
Was that a pic of a B-1 that you just recently posted?

Yes STING2 tht first pic I posted last night was a B1B-Lancer, or the B1 bomber. The 2nd pic I tried to post which didn't show up was probably a B-2.
__________________
LOVE MUSCLE is offline  
Old 08-11-2002, 03:28 PM   #69
Refugee
 
follower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Porto Alegre/Brasil
Posts: 2,302
Local Time: 09:38 PM
I donīt usually post in this forum unless my people and my country are mentioned but I feel like I must break my own rule this time around to post something special...something kinda old, a song written by four men who has opposed firmly and utterly against war throughout their lives...any kind, any form, any thought of war. After having read and seen what I read and saw in this thread itīs all I can do. Please, forgive me if it sounds out of place, really.


Seconds


Takes a second to say goodbye
Say goodbye, oh, oh, oh
It takes a second to say goodbye
Say goodbye, oh, oh, oh, say bye bye...
Where you going to now...


Lightning flashes across the sky
East to west, do or die
Like a thief in the night
See the world by candlelight.


Fall, rise and...Fall, rise and...


In an apartment on Time Square
You can assemble them anywhere
Held to ransom, hell to pay
A revolution everyday
USSR, GDR, London, New York, Peking
It's the puppets, It's the puppets
Who pull the strings


Fall, rise and...Fall, rise and...


Say goodbye, say goodbye
Say goodbye, say goodbye
Say goodbye


It takes a second to say goodbye
Say goodbye, oh, oh, oh
Push the button and pull the plug
Say goodbye, oh, oh, oh


Fall, rise and...Fall, rise and...


And they're doing the atomic bomb
Do they know where the dance comes from
Yes they're doing the atomic bomb
They want you to sing along
Say goodbye, say goodbye
Say goodbye
Say goodbye.
__________________
follower is offline  
Old 08-11-2002, 07:55 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Follower,
One of my favorite songs from the WAR album. But U2 is NOT opposed to all war of any kind. BONO supported NATO's war's in Bosnia to free the people of Serb domination. This is well documented in the book "Until The End Of The World". Just recently in "HOT PRESS"(January 2002) Bono explained his full support for Bush's War in Afghanistan.

One thing that U2 is clearly against is terrorism, especially the type used in Northern Ireland. The IRA's tactics for achieving their political goals is what they are against. One can apply that to other terror organizations as well.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-11-2002, 08:25 PM   #71
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 07:38 PM
STOP ...please......you fight against yourself .......

Please
Please
please
please
please
please.....................................can't you see what the song is about and you 're all like have no ears to hear or to feel .. i'm speechless....your combat shoues ...your holy war ... your catholic/jewish/arab blues ..........so love is big and loove is tough but love is not what you're thinking of........................






have we just started again ?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
pinkfloyd is offline  
Old 08-11-2002, 11:59 PM   #72
Refugee
 
follower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Porto Alegre/Brasil
Posts: 2,302
Local Time: 09:38 PM
STING2

You may think Iīm blind, or dumb. Maybe itīs just this lame nickname I use but I donīt believe in what you said, honestly. I never, ever heard or read a word coming from any of the members of U2 in favour of a war, of any kind. People tend to believe in what they want, in what suits them and their beliefs. I believe you misinterpreted Bono and the others about their support to US durig the terrible events of last year. They have always asked you to do more, to be better, to give the best examples simply because you are the most powerful and blessed people on Earth. Many people in this thread showed their support to a war, showed their pride on building and using deadly toys. Things like that only serve to one purpose and that is to reinforce the image of US citizens as belligerent people, something I wholeheartedly want to disagree with...people from the most powerful and blessed nation on Earth. It seems to me that you havenīt got the message, it seems to me that you havenīt learnt a line with people like, lets say, your very own Rev. Martin Luther King, really. And that gets me really frightened. What else to expect from this world? Maybe I should be glad that I grew up without listening a word from the government in favour of a war against other people, other nations. I hope my children can realise the same thing when they are my age.

Good luck and farewell from an old-fashioned peace lover.
__________________
follower is offline  
Old 08-12-2002, 01:49 AM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Follower,

With all do respect, I have a copy of "Until The End Of The World" and the January "HOT PRESS" where BONO was interviewed and said the above things. In my opinion, you are making a mistake in judging me or my governments idea's of regime change in Iraq as some thirst or lust to cause people pain and suffering. There is a police force in Brazil(if I am wrong pleace correct me) considering that crime is high there, and in certain situations, I'm sure the police are required to use deadly force as a last resort to defend the safety and well being of citizens in your country and preserve law and order. What the US military may do in Iraq is no different, only the scale of it is different.

BONO's or the bands politics is not fully known, and there are of course several military actions that BONO has been opposed to, but at the same time there are several that he has supported it. He stated in the "HOT PRESS" article in January that although he wants to be a pacifist, that he is not.

People here that supported the war in Afghanistan and may support US action against Iraq do so not because they like war or lust for it, but because it is the course of action that they believe will in the long run in this particular situation, the best way to help preserve freedom and peace for all people around the world.

Contrary to what you may think, people here who may be in the military or were in the military do not think of military weapons as toys. My father served in the US military for 30 years and two very good friends of mine are in the US military, one is currently in Afghanistan. These people are the kindest most gentle people I know, but they are prepared to do their job and are very good at what they do. They have an incredible amount of courage and discipline, and make big sacrifices often, in order to keep Peace and prevent harm to US and other countries citizens. They are just as peace loving as you are. They perform the same job that your local policeman does, except they do it on the international scale.

I do NOT think you are blind or dumb! I very much respect your opinions and idea's! I have read a lot about the band and thought I would share what I had read in the articles and book I had read above as it related to your post. You can buy the book "Until The End OF The World" on the internet I think. I could photocopy the "HOT PRESS" article from Ireland and send it to you if you want.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-12-2002, 04:48 AM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 07:38 PM
follower,

Whether or not U2 would support an attack on Iraq I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that they're no fans of Saddam Hussein's regime.

And for general enlightenment, here's a transcript from MSNBC of an interview with Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Here Biden discusses the extent of the threat Iraq poses and possible diplomatic alternatives to war.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/789865.asp
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 08-12-2002, 05:34 AM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame

Personally, I'm more concerned with the lilkes of Pakistan, India, and Iran...countries who now all possess nuclear capabilities...not an Iraqi regime that, according to former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, currently poses no immediate threat to the U.S. or the region...as Mr. Ritter has stated that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was all but eliminated when the U.N. inspectores pulled out 5 years ago...and that 5 years is not nearly enough time to have re-established such a program.

I can't find an article where Scott Ritter says this. I can find articles dating to 2000 where Ritter says that Iraq has no nuclear capabilities, but also an article from August 1998 (two months or so before the UN weapons inspectors left and Operation Desert Fox began) that Iraq still had "prescribed weapons capability" and the ability to quickly revive its chemical and biological weapons capabilities.

From what I understand, Mr. Ritter does think that if Iraq will allow UN inspectors total access, they will be able to control Iraq's WMD programs, but that he thinks the US, if it says "let the weapons inspectors back in or we're going to attack" is bluffing about the weapons inspectors part.
__________________

__________________
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 07:38 PM.


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