pax
ONE love, blood, life
We're making some progress here, FYMers. Let's try and keep the debate going in the civilized manner in which it is currently proceeding, mmmmmkay?
paxetaurora said:We're making some progress here, FYMers. Let's try and keep the debate going in the civilized manner in which it is currently proceeding, mmmmmkay?
simply put, I do not agreeSpyplane said:Actually Salome, the real question is do we know what we are getting ourselves into if we do nothing at all?
STING2 said:In response to Ultraviolet7:
1. How many dictatorships did the USA install in Europe after World War II?
a. The US invasion of Iraq does have to do with Saddam Hussains behavior which when combined with weapons of mass destruction and the opportunity to supply terrorist with those weapons, makes the case for changing the regime.
2. Actually "spyplane" was right in a way when he said the USA is the UN. In
3. People look at evidence differently, but few other nations have the technology that the USA does to see and investigate what may be going on behind the scenes in another country, and provide evidence for the need for intervention. It was ..
non-intervention and Isolationism on the part of the USA that contributed to the starting of WW I and WW II. Engagement
5. There are cost to war, but one must also think of the cost of inaction. Doing
STING2 said:In response to Klaus:
Actually they way Ultraviolet7 presented their view did suggest that in nearly every case the USA installed a dictatorship to further its own interest. If
the USA goes in to remove Saddam, the US military will be there for at least 10 years giving time for a democratic government to devolop. If the US invest the needed resources in Iraq, there is no chance for a return to dictatorship(look at Japan, Germany, Italy, and several other countries)
Upon the ending of the Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement in which US forces agreed to halt their advance towards Baghdad in exchange for the Iraq's agreeing to multiple conditions. These conditions were 1. the elimination of all Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear related components, weapons, and supplies. This was to be done by a group of international inspectors. It was very successful and was coming close to completion despite Iraqi interference, in the years 1991 to 1998, then in November 1998 the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq for good, a total open violation of the Gulf War Ceace fire terms, which when violated calls for the resumption of offensive military action against Iraq in order to bring them into compliance with UN resolutions. Other ceacefire resolutions included 2. return of Kuwaiti hostages and other missing Kuwaities, 3. paying for the rebuilding of Kuwait. There were other conditions in addition to these 3. The US is not the UN of course, but when UN resolutions need to be enforced especially in regards to Iraq, the US is usually the only country enforcing agreed upon UN resolutions. It makes it SEEM like then that the US is the UN.
In response to me saying that US Isolationism and non-intervention as chief tenents of US policy from 1900 to 1941 partly contributed to WW 1 and WW 2, your response was this:
...
You are certainly correct in stating there are other political options rather than war, but the USA has more than used these options for the past 12 years with mixed results in regards to Saddam. Sometimes force is necessary.
1. Name one diplomatic solution that the USA has not used over the past 12 years in regards to Iraq.
2. There are Iraqi dissendent groups in the USA, but these have actually largely been ignored by the US government over the past 12 years.
3. Certainly we do respect and consult are allies, but it would be foolish to do simply what they say, especially when it is the USA and not are allies that have the evidence that proves are allegations. I have not seen a convincing arguement by any of our allies yet.
4. Can we afford to wait for an event 10 times worse than 9/11 to happen before we act.
5. Again the USA is NOT breaking international rules by attacking Iraq. It is mandated that we attack under the conditions of the March 1991 UN ceacefire agreement. Breaking the agreement allows for the resumption of offensive operations against Iraq that were halted in 1991 only because Iraq agreed to the Ceacefire agreement.
6. What is the cost of NOT killing the old dictaror and replacing his regime with a democracy?
7. The Kurds will finally have a voice in the government in Baghdad, and Kurdish politicians will now have the opportunity to become the president of all of Iraq.
8. We didn't except it because it was inspections with restrictions. Part of Saddam's cheat and retreat strategy. The UN ceacefire agreement of 1991 called for un-restricted inspections of all of Iraq.
9. Iraq will become a prosperous democracy helping to bring greater stability to the middle east and lower energy cost for the entire world helping to spur economic growth.
The question of war with Iraq should be decided by the answer to this question: Does the risk of continuing with just containment of Iraq outweight the cost of regime change in Iraq?
Spyplane said:
What?
If not the US then whom?
We have no business in other countries policies? The truth is we are the only ones with the balls to interviene and put a stop to terrorism, tyrants, dictators, genocide, etc.
The UN?
We are the UN buddy!
WHAT A FREAKING JOKE!
STING2 said:How many dictatorships did the USA install in Europe after World War II? After all if its in the interest of the USA to replace a regime with a dictatorship so it can control everything, as you say, why not do it in the part of the world that is most important to the USA? Wouldn't have been a problem to do it either with Europe in ruins and considering how easy most of the countries fell to the Germans which we defeated. Where are the dictatorships today in Bosnia, Kosovo, South Korea, the rest of Eastern Europe? All area's of US military, political, and economic intervention.
STING2 said:the USA is the only country attempting to live up to its UN obiligations in regards to enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
STING2 said:There is no evidence that the Talaban were helped to power in any way shape or form by the USA.
STING2 said:as far as US interventions worsening conditions in the country intervened in I refer to Europe, and several countries in Asia where your theory has no traction.
STING2 said:As far as Hussain's replacement and the idea that the USA can't guarantee that his replacement will be better, similar things were said about the replacement of the dictatorships in Germany, Japan, and Italy.
STING2 said:If the USA is willing to commit enough resources to build a new nation in Iraq, the US can guarantee not only a stable democratic government, but a prosperous country as well.
STING2 said:In 1990 on the eve of the Gulf War, everyone was saying the same things, how every country in the middle east would become militantly anti-US and governments would be overthrown left and right. Islamic fundamentalism would reign supreme. Arabs would be in the streets everywhere pulling down their governments once the USA attacked Iraq. Not so, not even close. The same was said about the US invasion of Afghanistan last year, again this did not happen, not even in Pakistan. It is in Arab peoples interest to have Saddam Hussain removed from power as well and millions of arabs behind the scenes realize this.
STING2 said:That is why these catastrophic events do not happen when the USA intervene's in a major way in the middle east.
STING2 said:This war will bring freedom and democracy to a country that has never known it
STING2 said:You, me and everyone else on this planet benefit when the world is made more secure by the elimination of a threat to international security.
STING2 said:Intitially oil prices will go up as well as energy cost, but then they will return to normal and in fact drop as the region experiences more stability than it had before do to the removal of a regime that has attacked 4 countries in the region and been in a near state of war with either one or all its neighbors for the past 20 years. When the price of oil drops, so does the cost of energy for you and me that we use everyday. That free's up money and increases the amount of disposable income one can use to save or buy things which spurs economic growth.
STING2 said:I imagine the few that you think are trying to some how cynically profit in some way from this are the President and his circle of advisors.
Basstrap said:
I just saw this post and it is the most pathetic thing ever.
it is this arrogance and feeling of superiority that gives you guys a bad name.
America never intervenes BUDDY
which of the dozens of genocides in the 20th century has the US stopped?
They didn't even enter WWII until the last minute when somebody attacked them.
And Hiroshimi and Nagosoki both seem like genocidal massacres to me.
And what about canada you ask? we like hiding in the shadows?
Well, I think the whole kyoto affair proves that wrong, alone.-
-We were in both of the world wars right from the beginning-
-We were the ONLY ones who tried to stop the Rwanda genocide, but the UN (which I guess is actually the US right?) ignored that canadian officer and let 800,000 people become slaughtered.
-We are the worlds leading peace keepers and have soldiers all over the world. When the UN wants peacekeepers they come to us
So don't say we are hiding in the shadows of the US, I hate it when people say that
z edge said:
I do not have time to teach you tonight.
And if we hadn't have entered WWII? Perhaps you woud be happier then?
So? BOOM!
If you are the "world's leading peacekeepers", then you are even a bigger failure than I thought! Look around you! You call this PEACE???????????
STING2 said:In response to Klaus:
Bush did say he wanted to reduce US peace keeping missions, and he was mainly refering to the US role in Bosnia and Kosovo. But those missions have continued to this day. The US still has thousands of troops in both places.
It is true there were spies in the UN team, but Saddams moves and his weapons of Mass destruction or...
In regards to WW 1, WW 2, I have the feeling you do not completely
A UN inspection regime without US inspectors is simply crazy. It benifits Iraq because its easier to hide things when some of the best members of the inspection team are not on the inspection team...
If the USA topples Saddam, then Saddam will have been prevented from the possibility of building and arming terror organizations with Weopons of Mass destruction that could cause an event in the USA 10 times worse than 9/11.
The Anthrax attacks last year were do to someone in the USA. They were able to get a hold of incredibly refined Anthrax, something not even Iraq could create at this point, but still their method of sending Anthrax in the mail did not cause mass losses.
Turkey does not accept an independent Kurdastan. But they would not have any problem if a Kurdish politician became president of a united democratic Iraq.
Arabic culture may be different from the US or European, but Iraq is actually the most westernized country of the Arab world. All the restrictions that women are force to deal with in other countries do not exist in Iraq. In this regard, Iraq is more like their muslim neighbor Turkey.
Anthony said:This thread went on reasonably well, but both of you (Z_Edge and Basstrap) are turning it into a hate-fest. I implore you to stop it.
Basstrap; I know you didn't like Z_Edge's post. I myself hated that 'US is the UN' comment, and found it as arrogant as you did. However, there are better ways of arguing the point that paint you in a better light. Please control your anger at the arrogant notions you find in here.
Z_edge; Basstrap responded to you in such a way because your post was inflammatory, at best. Honestly, you put in a sweeping comment such as 'The US IS the UN!' and you're bound to get a less than respectful answer. I myself felt the impulse to flame you, but I did what I usually did and tried to control myself. I ended up not posting anything in the end.
Two wrongs don't make a right, either, hence I'm asking BOTH of you not to endanger the quality of the thread. STING2 has kept his composure and his cool, and has argued in a respectful and coherent way.
Ant.
speedracer said:
Remind me again why the US shouldn't get rid of a corrupt tyrant who runs a police state, has liquidated his political enemies in the past, and builds extravagant palaces for himself while allowing his people to live without adequate food?
z edge said:So? BOOM!
STING2 said:In response to Klaus:
Actually no, you got me wrong. It is first and formost a countries behavior then the addition of weapons of mass destruction that make that a country a threat and a candidate for regime change. Iraq's behavior over the past 20 years speaks for itself.
Actually Iraq is the more western of the two. It already had a mainly secular government over 10 years ago. This was widely publized in the lead up to the 1991 Gulf War The prime minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz is actually a Christian and not a muslim.
This US operation is being done of a love and respect for international security and the desire to PREVENT a catastraphic episode down the road that will cause more loss of life than an invasion of Iraq. One of the ways to defeat terrorism is to pre-empt which is what the USA military and other militaries and police have been doing since 9/11. Some types of pre-emption are on a greater scale and this is one of them.
This has nothing to do with hate, this is about security.