Why does Bush believe... - 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 02-04-2003, 05:02 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus

But.. if the USA would care about international rights and the UN they wouldn't weaken their possition by telling them "either you do it the way we think it has to be done or you're irelevant"

And the United States has done this how? The country has been working through the UN. I keep going through all the posts on this issue since last summer. Everyone complaining that Bush was going it alone and needed to work through the UN. The United States has. Tomorrow is another attempt to point out that the Iraqi Governement has repeatedly spit in the face of the United Nations and their resolutions. So far, the US has NOT acted without the support of the UN. Can you say the same things about Iraq?

Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus

And if they'd care about the people in Iraq they wouldn't think about droping the A-Bomb we know how generations later still suffer from that, not only from Japan but also from the A-Bomb tests in Bikini.
Also the use of dirty amunition in the operation Desertstorm (the cancer rate of small children exploded after that in southern Iraq) dosn't seem verry humane to me.
So the use of Biological agents would be much better? Klaus, I am not debating the awful side effects of the A-Bomb. But, if this man uses Chemical or Biological agents in a war with the United States, it is 100% reasonable to expect the president to use any means necessary to protect Amercian lives.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 05:46 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:37 AM
Dreadsox: How can he protect American lives if (supposed that your stategy is what Saddam plans) the chem/ bio agents are living in America?

By throwing an A bomb on another part of the earth?

BING! Answer: No.

What you mean is: To take revenge.

BING! Answer: yes (umm, no, its preempitive, innit - doesn┤t qualify for revenge - its the other way round).

Second question. How can you be so full of propaganda to confuse protection of Americans with revenge?

Oh, I understand. You expect the Iraqis to be stupid! You expect them to say: first, our airpots are bombed. Then we will fly our agents to America. Yahoo!

I understand your point of view. After all, they are just Arabs, ummm insects. Now hand me your spray can.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 07:50 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Klaus,

The USA cares far more about international law and human rights than its friends in Europe, and more importantly, its willing to do something about it.

It was US led military action that stopped the violance in Bosnia and Kosovo and it will be some type of US led action against Iraq that will disarm Iraq and finally enforce resolutions that Iraq was supposed to comply with over a decade ago.

Its not the USA that is frustrating or attempting to stop the process of international law, rather its the Europeans that are doing that.

The USA has reserved the right to use nuclear weapons IF IT FELT it was necessary in any situation since 1945. This is nothing new. It does not mean that Nuclear weapons will be used against Iraq. Nuclear weapons will not be used Iraq because they are not needed to accomplish the mission. But, we always reserve the option to use them in any senerio as we have done for the past 60 years.

The number of Iraqi civilians that will be die in a 3 week war will be much smaller than the number of Iraqi's that will die if Saddam continues to rule Iraq indefinitely.

This so called "dirty ammunition" is not dirty enough to cause ill effects to civilians are the soldiers that come in contact with them the most often. Most of the fighting took place in Kuwait and the prevailing winds in that particular area usually blow from north to south. Yet, where is the rise in Kuwaiti childern suffering from similar conditions? Its not there. What about Saudi or Iranian childern close to the region? Again, nothing. The USA has used Depleted Uranium in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia in the border towns, and will be using these weapons again if there is war in Iraq.

France, Germany, Russia, and China's attempts to block enforcement of UN resolutions and a UN ceacefire agreement, and there refusal to do what is necessary to disarm Iraq and desire for Oil contracts with Saddam, show me that term "international justice" is not really apart of their vocabulary.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 07:58 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
Dreadsox: How can he protect American lives if (supposed that your stategy is what Saddam plans) the chem/ bio agents are living in America?
If it comes to war, and he launches Biological/Chemical/Nuclear weapons I support a strike. Yes.


Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

By throwing an A bomb on another part of the earth?

BING! Answer: No.

What you mean is: To take revenge.

BING! Answer: yes (umm, no, its preempitive, innit - doesn┤t qualify for revenge - its the other way round).

Yes, That is it. You are brilliant. I want revenge. Give me a break!



Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

Second question. How can you be so full of propaganda to confuse protection of Americans with revenge?

Oh, I understand. You expect the Iraqis to be stupid! You expect them to say: first, our airpots are bombed. Then we will fly our agents to America. Yahoo!

I understand your point of view. After all, they are just Arabs, ummm insects. Now hand me your spray can.
This is absolutely one of the most insulting things anyone has ever thrown at me. I may be conservative in my views. I may have a difference of opinion from you on the world events. This does not mean I have this view of anyone else in the world. For you to insinuate that I or anyone else with a view different view from yours is a "racist" is pretty disappointing. You and I have disagreed before on things, but you have never made comments like this.

Very disappointing.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 08:00 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:37 AM
HIPHOP,

What Dreadsox is talking about is using Nuclear Weapons to nuetralize Iraqi WMD capability if that were the only way. If this indeed were to be the case it and it was the only way, it could potentially save hundreds of thousand of civilian lives if done properly. If that was the case I would indeed support it.

I don't think Nuclear Weapons will be necessary in any situation we get into in Iraq, but the USA can never take that option off the table. In addition, keeping it on the table has a benefitial deterent effect that has been helpful as history has sometimes shown in particular cases.

HIPHOP,

I don't know where you get off insinuating that Dreadsox is racist or thinks of Arabs as insects. One could easily say the same thing towards you in regards to Iraqi victims of Saddam or potential victims of WMD attacks in the region or around the world by Saddam. Both assertions are wrong.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 07:45 AM   #21
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: 09:37 AM
Dreadsox:

>And the United States has done this how?

Bush repeated several times that he will attack Iraq either with or without the UN.
And he continued his speech with:
"Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
That's what i was talking about.
For me this means:
Either UN does what US wants - or they're irrelevant and we play police of the world without asking other nations.


>So the use of Biological agents would be much better? Klaus,
>I am not debating the awful side effects of the A-Bomb. But,
>if this man uses Chemical or Biological agents in a war with
>the United States, it is 100% reasonable to expect the
>president to use any means necessary to protect Amercian
>lives.

Biological and Atomic wepons have a really awful long term effect.
It's impressive to see the Battlefield of WWI between France and Germany, and a-bombs are far worse. They do not "only" destroy one region for centuries, they have global influence.

whenhiphopdrovethebigcars:

i like your first question.. but the 2nd one is unbelievable.
Also Dreadsox and Sting2 have a different opinion than we have i'm sure they care about allk humans and ii'm sure they don't think that an Iraqi man has less right to live than a US man.

STING: Well first i'd like to read the ai report of the united states for the last year. I'm sure every single american cares about human rights, but the government dosn't allways act that way.
I don't want so say europeans are better in this issue, they just have less power which results in less mistakes, because they can't do everything wrong they'd like to


>Its not the USA that is frustrating or attempting to stop the
>process of international law, rather its the Europeans that
>are doing that.

Well it's the US who boycot the ICJ (International Court of Justice) and for that they even bribe small countries.

But of course that's not because Europeans are better than Americans.. there are 2 simple reasons:
first: the US has more to loose (since without laws they always have the power to enforce their point of view)
second: Since the american independancy there were many wars which resulted in lots of suffering in europe. And this impression is still recent in our memory.

As far as i know a-bombs were only to be used if America was attacked by nuclear weapons - so "whenever we feel it's neccessary" sounds a little more agressive then that.

And this slight change might be a reason that hundreds of warlords will try to buy a-bombs from pakistan, russia, china or north korea. (If the USA threatens with a-bombs anyway they want to strike back with the same wepon)


This so called "dirty ammunition" is dirty enough - ask the
"Medecins sans frontieres" that's an international organisation which dosn't make politics - they just try to help people (and write down what hapened).
This "dirty ammunition" had serious effects on children (enourmous increase of cancer).
But that reminds me on the debate about the people who lived at the Bikini island. I'm not sure how long it took the US government to confess their guilt.


>France, Germany, Russia, and China's attempts to block
>enforcement of UN resolutions and a UN ceacefire
>agreement, and there refusal to do what is necessary to
>disarm Iraq and desire for Oil contracts with Saddam, show
>me that term "international justice" is not really apart of their
>vocabulary.

Well Germany for example has only one irellevantly small oil company, we buy almost everything from British companies.
So you might think about the folowing..
..maybe the countries who criticize US politics are not allways selfish driven but might have good noble reasons to do so.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 07:47 AM   #22
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: 09:37 AM
Well i almost forgot:

Back to my initial posting:

since US supported warlords and dictators in the arabic countries in the past why do you think should the arabic countries trust the US this time?

Klaus

p.s. i have a problem with governments who tell me "trust us, we are good, they are evil" and the bombing of the chemistry factory in arabia (clinton) didn't make me less sceptical - i'm still waiting for the proof they had that they produced chemical weapons.

And because of that i'm really courious about Powell's speech at the UN Security Council. I hope Joschka Fischer does his job there as briliant as we know him ;-)
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 10:00 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Klaus,

I take it your not aware of the contracts France and Russia have signed with Saddam in regards to Iraqi Oil? I definitely see those countries acting for their short term economic interest and being mysteriously un-supportive of attempts to stop Saddam and enforce Security Council resolutions against Iraq. I think they need to re-read UN Resolution 687!

As far as that "dirty Amunition" if its really "dirty", why are all the alleged effects felt in Iraq and not Kuwait where the majority of the "dirty Amunition" was used? How come soldiers working at Marylands Aberdeen proving grounds that test this stuff not effected? Afganistan? Bosnia? Why only Saddam controled Iraq? Think about that.

ps. I have a problem with governments that bend over backwards to ignore resolutions like 687 that they signed on to support. I have a problem with governments who will do anything they can to prevent other governments from protecting the world community. I have a problem with other governments that seem to enjoy scratching the back of a man like Saddam.

When Saddam worries about the USA, he knows he can always count on France, and Russia to help stall or prevent efforts at enforcing international law against him. Interestingly, Germany has recently decided to join this bandwagon. Saddam could not be more pleased.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 12:34 PM   #24
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: 09:37 AM
Sting2:

well i'm surprised that their oil-contracts would be affected when the government changes - 3rd world depts aren't canceled when a government changes.

And of course, if their contracts will expire, you can say that the interest of Russia and France is as high to keep them as USA and Britains interest in getting those deals.

Klaus

p.s. there is a difference between being against war and ignoring resolutions. I know you come from a military point of view but military is not the only option.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 01:47 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The USA cares far more about international law and human rights than its friends in Europe, and more importantly, its willing to do something about it.
Right. I guess that's why they won't sign international agreement like Kyoto treaty, they don't respect international organisations like ICC or UN (remember, they said they'll act "with or without UN" - arrogant attitude IMO) and they trample human rights when it comes to fighting terorrism.
__________________

__________________
U2girl 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 03:37 AM.


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