What, besides War, would have stopped these monsters? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-05-2003, 01:27 PM   #16
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 03:52 PM
I trust Saddam less than I trust Bush

Saddam's regime has been a very cruel one
__________________

__________________
“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 04-05-2003, 01:58 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 03:52 PM
I also think that most pro/anti war countries care about their influense in the mid east. Imagine someone who can control Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia...
..that's the main reason why i think the war against iraq was just the first step. If G.W.Bush will continue to be President of the USA i excpect 4 more wars.

FizzingWhizzbees:
why did you disslike that idea?


80sU2isBest
They are not only noble - they can work if we'd spend about 10% of our war money and energy in supporting this. Was it a problem that this money wouldn't flow back direckktly to the funders of the G.W:B. election campaign?
And.. the use of cluster bombs isn't exactly "an honorable and compassionate manner, taking careful steps to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible". I'm affraid either your media didn't show this yet or you didn't want to see

The Wanderer:
Free elections is that was democracy is about, you think the US installed regime dosn't need them because they are sent from gods country?

Salome:
I also trust bush more than Saddam - but i don't trust both of them verry much. Take a look how he treats the weak countries and you know how "honorable" he is.


There was a big chance to take away the power of Saddams regime without a war - but oviousley some things were more important to the US government than a few hundred allied soldiers, several hundred more iraqi soldiers and sevral thousand civilists

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 02:39 PM   #18
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 09:52 AM
"free election" would never happen under saddam hussein's regime, that was one item put forth as an alternative to the current course of action, I laughed at it. it would be really great to have a democratic election in iraq, first let's try giving them a chance to establish their own free press and flow of information and ideas, otherwise you will end up right back where you started, which we've seen far too often already. if they do it right it can work, but it's certainly not gonna work by removing saddam and then backing off to see what happens, certainly you arent proposing this? or did you want the UN to choose an election? cause they have a great track record too...
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 03:06 PM   #19
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 03:52 PM
The Wanderer:

you're right, that's why i mentioned:

6. Free press (funded by the UN)
7. free elections ensured by UN

and it wouldn't be the first time a dictator falls because of UN ensured free elections (UN troops are in the country to ensure that everyone can vote and to ensure that noone cheats while counting the votes)

Of course my plan wouldn't work out in weeks - it's a long term plan.

Longterm is a problematic thing for leaders who's horizon is the next election campaign

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 03:12 PM   #20
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:52 PM
Re: What, besides War, would have stopped these monsters?

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
If you do think his regime had to end, but not with war, I'll have to ask what you would suggest. Don't tell me any of the following 3, because we've tried them and they don't work:

1)Assassination
2)Sanctions
3)Coup from the inside
U tried them and they don't work? Poor boys...
Of course, it's harder to multiply 2 by 2 than to start a war. It's harder to use one's brains than fists, especially when fists are the biggest...
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 03:14 PM   #21
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 09:52 AM
dont you think UN troops in Iraq would have been seen as an act of aggression by saddam, since it would have put his regime in peril and would have resulted in violence? first of all against anyone who opposed saddam, secondly between the UN forces and saddam's military force
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 03:18 PM   #22
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer
what makes you think the government has forgotten about al Qeada? much of the infrastructure has been decimated and the organization is under seige, it's more of a silent war.
So why is it silent? Why we still know NOTHING about Bin Laden's whereabouts? Why NYC authorities regularly increase alarm colour? Becuase the war against Al-Qaeda is successful?

Im afraid it all will stop being silent when another tragedy breaks out.....
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 03:39 PM   #23
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 03:52 PM
The Wanderer:

You can't do this with force - DIPLOMACY is the keyword - you must convince the Iraqi regime that it's the only way..
..but i'm afrraid rumsfeld or bush are not good enough in that business. And the troops have to pay the price

ALEXRUS:
Wasn't capturing Bin Laden the mayor goal of the afghanistan attack?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 03:50 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


It's about who has control over and dominance of the Middle East region. It's about who controls the second largest oil reserves in the world. It's about the United States asserting itself as the dominant power in the world and reminding other countries of its military power.

I realise a lot of people disagree with this analysis of the war, and I'm sure I'll get a lot accusations of "anti-americanism" or "wanting 'our' troops to be killed in Iraq" and probably "supporting Saddam" for making those suggestions. However, you did ask why I think this war is being fought and so I've answered honestly.
I do not agree with you on the first paragraph by itself. If it were about controlling Iraqi Oil, it would have been very easy to ease sanctions. I am not naive enough to believe that oil was not part of it, but, I do believe that it was not the reason.

AS for the US flexing its muscles based on your interpretation about Wolfowitz and others I can understand your interpretation. I will finish my thoughts below.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

I'd suggest people have a look at some of the articles on the website of Project for the New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org) where you can see that plans for this war began long before September 11th and long before Bush came to power. Note how many contributors to PNAC are now working for, or have worked for the Bush adminstration: Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld... There are even articles entitled "How to Attack Iraq" as well as suggestions that containment is not a desirable strategy with regards to Iraq, regardless of whether it is an effective strategy or not.
What bothers me is your interpretation that there was some hidden agenda on the part of this administration. I too do not like the fact that many, especially Richard Pearle, wanted to attack Iraq immediately after 9/11. This was not hushed up, or kept secret. It has been on the news, in the news, and in at least two books that I have read.

Mr. Pearle was urging Israel to attack Iraq in 1997-98 when he worked for the Israeli governement. There is no smoking gun, nor any secret that this is what he desired to do.

Now having read books on the topic, and I admit it bothers me that there are hawks that have wanted to attack Iraq, I do not agree with your analasis of the situation. We have been bopgged down for 12 years, with little help from the UN and the Arab allies in the area. IN my opinion, the influence of Saddam on our Foreign Policy in the region has forced the USA into some very poor decisions, IE Building bases and sending troops to Saudi Arabia, sending troops to Kuwait among them. These policy decisions in my opinion are one of the reasons 9/11 occured.

Aside from that, we have countries on the Security Council that have contributed to the failure of containment. Russia breaking the no fly ban into Baghdad, France helping put the "food for oil" program under the control of Iraq, ect. There was no way the UN Security Council was going to support any action, due to the relationships between Iraq and their countries.

That said, I am so refreshed by your comments, I just want to thank you, because you explained yourself and provided some evidence of your line of thought.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 03:57 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
2. the UN should provice food and medicine to the people directly, not through the iraqi government
[I am not certain I agree with all you said, especially about US allies smuggling weapons into Iraq. So I will not comment in that area, because I fear it will throw the thread off topic.


I will comment on the above idea however. That #2 should have been done from the start. The Food For OIL program did nothing other than provide Saddam with the ability to suppress his own people and use the program to increase his power over the territories under his control.

This would have been great to see done years ago. Maybe Saddam would be gone, instead the UN Created a tool that helped keep him in power.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 04:13 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 12:22 PM
the thing I find interesting about it all is the changing of motives.

The whole pretense of the war started on selfdefense...that was the only way they could legally do it - war of agression is a huge no no! That whole pretense rested on the iraqis having WMD.
Then Bush realized it could very well happen that they don't find any WMD and that would be humiliating, so he decided that he had better change the reason for this...so...."iraqi freedom"...
I seriously don't think that Bush cares about iraqi freedom very much.

The whole war is plagued with awkward lines like "Shoick and Awe" and "operation irqi freedom"
no trouble to tell these are some of the same people who coined "freedom fries"

don't get me wrong, I'm all for the downfall of saddam and the freedom of iraqi people. I'm not all about Bush and his cronies invading the country under that false pretense, however.
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 04:15 PM   #27
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 03:52 PM
Dreadsox:

you're right, it should be number one, it's much more important!

maybe
0. stop war (most humanitarian organisations can't work when there is war)
1. the UN should provice food and medicine to the people directly, not through the iraqi government
2. Different embargo than in the past
JUST a weapon embargo (no embargo against eggs (because the leader of the UN command disslikes them because they are imported from the wrong country)
3. un patrols at all iraqi borders
4.UN weapon inspections (which get access to all secret service documents of the UN members and not the other way around)
5. UN humanitarian inspections(which get access to all secret service documents of the UN members and not the other way around)
6. Free press (funded by the UN)
7. free elections ensured by UN
8. warcriminals who had or are still violating international laws in this conflict should be sent to the ICC to show the arabic world that we are not taking revenge but care about justice (and not only for our enemies)

...and finally Peace

Klaus

p.s. i edited it after a simple copy & paste to remove the (especially to the borders of the US alies ...) to keep this thread on topic
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 04:22 PM   #28
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus

ALEXRUS:
Wasn't capturing Bin Laden the mayor goal of the afghanistan attack?

Klaus
Well, it was.
At least the Taliban was overthrown.. thus a great REAL threat for Russia's security was removed by the US...for some time.
The Taliban is regrouping its ranks...
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 04:33 PM   #29
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
The Wanderer:

You can't do this with force - DIPLOMACY is the keyword - you must convince the Iraqi regime that it's the only way...

Klaus
oh c'mon now.
__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-05-2003, 05:47 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I do not agree with you on the first paragraph by itself. If it were about controlling Iraqi Oil, it would have been very easy to ease sanctions. I am not naive enough to believe that oil was not part of it, but, I do believe that it was not the reason.


True, lifting sanctions would have given access to Iraqi oil. However, it wouldn't have given the US control of Iraq's oil reserves, and in fact if you look at which countries had contracts with Iraq's government (primarily Russia and France) you can see that the US' access to Iraqi oil reserves could have been very limited indeed.

Quote:

What bothers me is your interpretation that there was some hidden agenda on the part of this administration. I too do not like the fact that many, especially Richard Pearle, wanted to attack Iraq immediately after 9/11. This was not hushed up, or kept secret. It has been on the news, in the news, and in at least two books that I have read.


I don't necessarily think it was a hidden agenda: the fact that PNAC publishes its opinions openly clearly demonstrates that. However, I don't think the mainstream media has devoted a huge amount of time to putting across that information. I watch news shows everyday, as well as reading a newspaper and yet I found out about sources such as PNAC through my involvement in the peace movement, not through mainstream media. Again, that's not to say it was a hidden agenda, simply that I don't think it was a highly publicised agenda.

Quote:
Mr. Pearle was urging Israel to attack Iraq in 1997-98 when he worked for the Israeli governement. There is no smoking gun, nor any secret that this is what he desired to do.


I've always found that really frightening. Surely someone like Richard Perle should be aware of the relationship between Israeli and most countries in the Middle East and realise that had Israel attacked Iraq, it would almost certainly have been met with very serious retaliation. I know that the US would of course have come to the defence of Israel had it attacked Iraq, but it would still have been an extremely volatile situation.

Quote:
Aside from that, we have countries on the Security Council that have contributed to the failure of containment. Russia breaking the no fly ban into Baghdad, France helping put the "food for oil" program under the control of Iraq, ect. There was no way the UN Security Council was going to support any action, due to the relationships between Iraq and their countries.

That said, I am so refreshed by your comments, I just want to thank you, because you explained yourself and provided some evidence of your line of thought.
I agree to an extent: the relationships of many countries in the Security Council towards Iraq is partly dictated by their business interests in the region. However, I think the US' policy towards Iraq is similarly dicated by business interests in the region and I don't believe you can condemn France and Russia's opposition to war as "just about protecting their interests" without also realising that the US' decision to go to war was also based on protecting their own interests.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees 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 09:52 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