War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking? - Page 6 - 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 08-12-2002, 10:53 AM   #76
Refugee
 
rafmed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: On the moon's belly button
Posts: 1,253
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by follower
STING2

You may think Im blind, or dumb. Maybe its just this lame nickname I use but I dont 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 havent got the message, it seems to me that you havent 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.

Well said
__________________

__________________
rafmed is offline  
Old 08-12-2002, 11:21 AM   #77
Refugee
 
follower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Porto Alegre/Brasil
Posts: 2,302
Local Time: 01:05 AM
STING2

My country is what it is. Sometimes a good place to grow up and live in, sometimes a bad one. I consider our choice for living in peace among other nations as a good one. Our inner problems, and I wont deny they are many, are our business. No other nation can be blamed for them.

As for U2 having supported wars like the ones you mentioned...thats pretty sad and disappointing, at least for me. If that is true I might have followed the wrong guys.

STING2, speedracer, any other US citizens here...I apologize, this is not my place, neither my business. Good luck in whatever decisions your government might take. Lets hope its a wise one, for the good of Mankind.
__________________

__________________
follower is offline  
Old 08-12-2002, 12:05 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Follower,

On this point of international relations, we have very different ideologies. I look at their support for the US war in Bosnia and Afghanistan as supporting and defending those that cannot defend themselves. I see more lives being saved than being lost. BONO wanted NATO to intervene in Bosnia, because the Bosnian Serb military was slaughtering women and childern and had a campaign of rape against Muslim women in Bosnia. US Bombs and US soldiers stopped this slaughter and rape, and Bosnia has known peace again for the past 6 years because of the presence of US other NATO soldiers.

People are much more complex than what the media may tell us. Even if I disagreed with everything U2 believed in politically, I would still be as big a fan simply because of the music and the fact that they are good and nice people. It was incredible to meet them when they came to my home town, which is small. All four of them were so nice and kind with their time.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-12-2002, 02:16 PM   #79
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 05:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
Have you anti-war people come up with a viable alternative to our current dilemma that doesn't involve killing? How about yogic flying?
nope, I still don't have a solution
but since there really is no prove the bombings in Afghanistan have ended Osama and since the Gulf War didn't end Sadam's thread (obviously since we're in for a repeat) it is a valid question whether attacks are an answer either

and I still don't know what is supposed to happen in Iraq after Sadam has been terminated
__________________
“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 08-13-2002, 10:01 PM   #80
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
nope, I still don't have a solution
but since there really is no prove the bombings in Afghanistan have ended Osama and since the Gulf War didn't end Sadam's thread (obviously since we're in for a repeat) it is a valid question whether attacks are an answer either

and I still don't know what is supposed to happen in Iraq after Sadam has been terminated
I'm still gonna stick to the obvious lesser of 2 evils here; the removal of Saddam's regime and the end of his reign of terror.

And of course, it looks like we will have to pay for a "friendly" government to be put into place all by ourselves, as with the removal of the one that threatens the entire world.
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 08-14-2002, 04:02 AM   #81
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 05:05 AM
finding a friendly government in Iraq might become a problem
even people who are against Sadam aren't too thrilled with us because of economic sanctions, bombings etc.

to decide between two evils would implement 2 options
I don't think right now there are two options since we have no idea what will happen when Sadam has been terminated
no idea at all
it would be a gamble
might pay off
it probably will
but what if it won't?
__________________
“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 08-14-2002, 04:42 PM   #82
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
finding a friendly government in Iraq might become a problem
even people who are against Sadam aren't too thrilled with us because of economic sanctions, bombings etc.
Sanctions designed to crush Saddam, had the people overthrown him as predicted.

Quote:
to decide between two evils would implement 2 options
I don't think right now there are two options since we have no idea what will happen when Sadam has been terminated
no idea at all
it would be a gamble
might pay off
it probably will
but what if it won't?
I assume the temperature of the rest of the Arab community might be more pro-america with that menace in the ground. It is my opinion that their "opposition" to this idea now is out of fear only, and that deep down they despise his reign of terror.

We (and perhaps the rest of the world) will have to face this trash sooner or later. I feel it will be in everyone's best interest to face it now.

If the people of Iraq have a new democratic government, leader, freedom, and US aid and NO sanctions what could possibly go wrong?
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 08-14-2002, 05:12 PM   #83
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 05:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge
If the people of Iraq have a new democratic government, leader, freedom, and US aid and NO sanctions what could possibly go wrong?
I know of at least one democratic chosen government in that area that we also have problems with

what could go wrong is that perhaps nothing will be solved in Iraq

no economic sanction doesn't mean prosperity
a democratic government doesn't mean good leadership

it is true that things probably will work out,
but I'd say there is about a 10% chance it won't

my point is that it's a choice whether or not to remove Sadam
it's not a given
and when we do we better make sure Iraq will be better because of it
__________________
“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 08-14-2002, 05:19 PM   #84
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: offaly
Posts: 15
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge


Sanctions designed to crush Saddam, had the people overthrown him as predicted.



Youch. I usually lurk, but I decided to post in response to that. The people of Iraq (at least some of them) did attempt to rise up against him, under the illusion that the US was going to go all the way, and remove Saddam.

For pretty obvious reasons (the vacuum of power that would be created - Kurds attempting to get their own state - which would terrify Turkey, the possibility of Iran claiming much of Iraq - the prospect of an Iran that almost bordered Saudi Arabia didn't appeal to the Saudis, the possibility that a leader just as dangerous as Saddam but smarter would emerge etc etc)

I don't think it was ever predicted that the people would overthrow him, definitely not without outside help, which the US had no intent of providing (I mean during Iran Iraq war the US helped both sides). However the US allowed the people to believe this, and it led to horrific reprisals against those brave enough to rise. IMHO what Saddam has done to his own people is pretty much equatable to what Hitler did to the Jews. If a viable plan can be worked out for installing a democratic government of some kind (keep in mind that Iraq in both it's current and previous incarnations has NEVER known democracy) and keeping it there, then I believe he should be removed, by whatever means.

Mike
__________________
iMike is offline  
Old 08-14-2002, 07:40 PM   #85
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
my point is that it's a choice whether or not to remove Sadam
it's not a given
and when we do we better make sure Iraq will be better because of it
I actually agree with this

(it's been a while hasn't it)
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 08-14-2002, 07:48 PM   #86
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by iMike


Youch. I usually lurk, but I decided to post in response to that. The people of Iraq (at least some of them) did attempt to rise up against him, under the illusion that the US was going to go all the way, and remove Saddam.
That was the attempted coup in 94-95, correct?

Or are you talking about the Gulf War?

Quote:
I don't think it was ever predicted that the people would overthrow him, definitely not without outside help, which the US had no intent of providing (I mean during Iran Iraq war the US helped both sides).


Ummm yes it was, why Bush halted us when Kuwait was liberated. We didn't need to go after Saddam and lose more of our own when his own people would take him out in "6 months" as predicted by our CIA

Quote:
However the US allowed the people to believe this, and it led to horrific reprisals against those brave enough to rise. IMHO what Saddam has done to his own people is pretty much equatable to what Hitler did to the Jews.
Both points here are true.

Though originally or intent was to help if needed in an uprising.

Quote:
If a viable plan can be worked out for installing a democratic government of some kind (keep in mind that Iraq in both it's current and previous incarnations has NEVER known democracy) and keeping it there, then I believe he should be removed, by whatever means.

Mike
Well said Mike.

Welcome to the forum too, btw.
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 08-18-2002, 08:02 PM   #87
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: offaly
Posts: 15
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Apologies for not expressing my point properly - it was that the US had no real intention of taking Saddam out (for pretty obvious reasons), but led the people to believe that they had, as the distraction was useful to them during the gulf war. I still don't believe that the US administration at the time were willing to topple Saddam - and it does seem that it did not make sense at the time - however (hindsight is perfect sight I suppose) it was an ideal opportunity to remove him.

On another note, it's going to be quite hard to gain international support for invading Iraq (as seen so far). Iraq owes Russia over $9 billion (for arms deals I believe), and because of this Russia blocked US and British efforts to impose "smart sanctions" which would ease restrictions on civilian goods whilst being harder on military supplies. Also, it looks like Germany doesn't want to get involved, and MPs in Britain seem to be making a lot of noise about the whole affair.

Thanks for the welcome !

Mike
__________________
iMike is offline  
Old 08-19-2002, 05:02 PM   #88
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 04:05 AM
First thing hello everybody, I'm new here.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The bottom line is, when countries are defeated and taken over by the USA, it is actually a huge benifit since dictatorship is taken out replaced by democracy, US troops to help with security and massive funds to help in reconstruction from the richest country in the world. Again, look at what happened to GERMANY and JAPAN. Look at SOUTH KOREA, a poor farm country in 1950 is now a growing Asian industrial power.
Sting2,
you're missing out on most of US interventionism in the world during the past 60 years. Most of the operations the US have been involved with in the foreign front illustrate that they are NOT particularly interested in establishing democracies throughout the world but rather regimes that are compliant to first world interests (US mainly). Saddam Hussein is a blatant example. He was assisted to power in the past by the US, since he was seen as an asset in the area to counterfeit the Iranian threat back in the 80s. He could have been deposed at the end of the Gulf War, but he wasn't - not particularly because Bush Sr was too concerned with pushing the interventionist line too far, but rather because it was deemed that Hussein could be put to some more good use in the area.

Another example is the Taleban who was helped by the US to gain power against the now re valued Northern Alliance back in 96. The reason: they would be more inclined than the previous government to apply Western-serving policies in an area coveted for its main produce - oil. The fact that they were a fanatical group or that due to their ideology they would be prone to systematically violate human rights and much less still that they were meant to be a dictatorship wasn't a main concern at the time of securing assistance to them, nor were these traits, all surely known by the West beforehand, the main reason (or a reason taken into account at all) of US intervention to depose them last year. In fact the main reason seems to become clearer with time: they suddenly seemed to become less compliant to Western policies than desirable so they had to be removed. Why did the Afghanistan episode of the "war against terrorism" suddenly die down after the Taleban was overthrown, even if the main target which was to capture Osama bin Laden was not even near accomplishment?

Still more examples: Latin American dictatorships back in the 70s (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, etc) were assisted to power by the US (CIA declassified files prove US officials' role in these operations - Henry Kissinger one of them). Motives: 1) to wipe out the threat of a communist takeover in the region (the left wing cells were actually done away with using the worst of methods: state-endorsed terrorism which "to make sure" that there wasn't a single trace of communist danger left murdered thousands of innocent people) 2) to be able to place in these "virgin markets" important quantities of surplus dollars (the infamous "petro-dollars") in the guise of "loans" at outrageous interest rates which now make up most of the debt these countries have to live with and pay back with the suffering of their people which includes the dramatic shrinking of the middle class and deepens the divide between the very rich (who run things) and the increasing poor, a situation that does NOT encourage egalitarian regimes for the present and future at all. These loans have nothing to do with "massive funding" Marshall Plan style. Note that only US/first world compliant dictatorial regimes (i. e. that did NOT have to respond to the people) could have accepted these loans, which obviously never got to the people. Present Latin American "democratic" governments are US respondent - I stress the "democratic" qualification since these governments are "elected" by the people under false promises or lack of other alternatives but all their policies are first world interest subservient in detriment of local populations. If there's a trace of deviation from them they are politely (or not so) removed. The 1989 financial coup in Argentina orchestrated by the newly elected government with the support of the international financial establishment comes immediately to mind. Obviously in none of these cases the US' main interest was to establish a "democracy" or the foundations for further well-meant development, but rather to use its power to accomodate the world's political map to their best interest regardless of who was adversely affected in the process.

Re the use Saddam makes of his country's money, it's certainly not surprising that he doesn't put it into the people's best interest. He is a DICTATOR - he doesn't have to respond to the people's mandate. But the bottom line here is that it was the West who supported his rise to power at the time and absolutely nothing, in view of US past interventions including Iraq in particular, guarantees that the people's interest will be a priority to be considered in that the candidate supported to replace Saddam will be more inclined to serve Iraqi people. In fact this candidate could as bad or even far worse.

To Like someone to blame
you make excellent points throught the thread.

To Salome
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
nope, I still don't have a solution
but since there really is no prove the bombings in Afghanistan have ended Osama and since the Gulf War didn't end Sadam's thread (obviously since we're in for a repeat) it is a valid question whether attacks are an answer either

and I still don't know what is supposed to happen in Iraq after Sadam has been terminated
Fully agree

To garibaldo
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
Have you anti-war people come up with a viable alternative to our current dilemma that doesn't involve killing? How about yogic flying?
There are solutions but they are long-term, since the present situation in the Middle East and Muslim world in general stems from long-term US and first world policy in general towards this part of the world. Western policy in the area has always been self-serving and detrimental for the locals at the same time. This has created an ideal ground for fanatical groups which fund terrorism as a way of making themselves heard. People support them because they consider the West responsible for the appalling conditions many of them live in as opposed to the Western way of life which flowers in a great part from the riches Asians are milked from on their own soil. When you see thousands of Muslims supporting fanatical regimes you can't possibly understand why they are doing so. Desperation and lack of education is at the root of that. Remove the cause and you'll realise that less and less people will relate to terrorist and fanatical groups.

As a matter of fact, why are the sort of regimes these countries live under tolerated by the West? Or is it that they are convenient to Western interests? If you come to think of it educated people under truly democratic regimes wouldn't put up with the sort of "business" the West is doing with Asian natural resources. The conflict right now stems from the fact that the current regimes which are useful (from Western POV) to keep people in control have got out of hand. It had to be expected sooner or later: dictatorial and other mercenary governments are prone to exacerbate and extreme conduct at some stage. Play with fire...

As Salome has pointed out war has not demonstrated in the long run to be a solution to anything. A change of Western policy is needed which may allow these countries to develop within their own cultures. Naturally it's a slow process but sooner or later it will have to be applied if we don't want this world to be torn to pieces.
__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 08-19-2002, 10:08 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,574
Local Time: 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolet7

There are solutions but they are long-term, since the present situation in the Middle East and Muslim world in general stems from long-term US and first world policy in general towards this part of the world. Western policy in the area has always been self-serving and detrimental for the locals at the same time. This has created an ideal ground for fanatical groups which fund terrorism as a way of making themselves heard. People support them because they consider the West responsible for the appalling conditions many of them live in as opposed to the Western way of life which flowers in a great part from the riches Asians are milked from on their own soil. When you see thousands of Muslims supporting fanatical regimes you can't possibly understand why they are doing so. Desperation and lack of education is at the root of that. Remove the cause and you'll realise that less and less people will relate to terrorist and fanatical groups.
Downtrodden, uneducated Palestinian teenagers might be recruited by Hamas and subsidized by Saddam Hussein to conduct suicide bombing missions, but Osama bin Laden sent a bunch of relatively prosperous Saudis to fly the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
__________________
speedracer is online now  
Old 08-19-2002, 10:50 PM   #90
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Downtrodden, uneducated Palestinian teenagers might be recruited by Hamas and subsidized by Saddam Hussein to conduct suicide bombing missions, but Osama bin Laden sent a bunch of relatively prosperous Saudis to fly the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
And your point is?
__________________

__________________
ultraviolet7 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 11:05 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