nuke iraq till they bleed american

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
And if the U.S. stays within its own borders, it is considered "isolationist" and is "ignoring its responsibilities to the world."

And, then, the U.S. is bad.

:sexywink:

Melon
 
JOFO said:


fuckin' A...

I might be wrong, but I heard iraq invaded kuwait in 1990.

And so what? Was Kuwait the 52nd member state of the United States of America?

Now, we can discuss if the intervention was right or wrong, and I may agree with you. But it wasn?t U.S. territory. Get my point?

The only attack on U.S. territory since WWII happened on Sept. 11th. And it was a terror attack, not an attack by a state, as far as I know.

So the question why U.S. military likes to "travel all around the world" is viable.

What if other nations were as powerful as America and tried to secure their interests worldwide, or to bring "their own version of democracy" (to be nice at this point), to all those poor countries?

Mind your own business. It would make the world a better place, in most of the cases.
 
STING2 said:
Courses I took at my University on US foreign Policy were objective and unbiased and there certainly were no courses that were so presumtive as to call America an Empire.

Courses I took at my University about international relations were objective as well, I might say.

How many professors from other countries did you listen to? Anyone from Chile, or Latin America, or Africa?
 
Well my course is actually fairly balanced it is America as Empire? Though the prof clearly has her opinion the overall conclusion is left open. Also there is plenty of range within the terms Imperialist. There's everything fropm the beneveolent to manipulative to blood thirsty monsters. Besides the facts I quote I dug up on my own ofr an OAC history project. The history anound the overtrhow of the Guatemalan government in '54 and the degree of US involvement in Pinochet's rise suprised the heck out of me. Even in my suspicion of the US I had never dreamed it was so blantant. I can't see how the Guatemala incident coulld be seen as anything other than imperialist, though the Chilean example has more room for interpretation. However in that case the couple recently released CIA documents from the period I had the chance to read, show a rather bad face of Nixon's forign policy.
 
STING2 said:
HIPHOP,

"You know, STING2, this thread was about the nuclear options, but there are a row of other topics too, like "the average American consumer". You asked me to explain how you were betrayed. I therefore must have implied you were an average American consumer - which you are, maybe. Most average American consumers don?t have a family members who are part of 1% (to me, it seems the financial "elite" is more in the direction of 0,001%, but thats another story, and we don?t really need to discuss about that)."

Sorry to inform but its not unlikely for the average person to have an Uncle, Aunt, Grandparent, Cousin, that is in the top 1% in the USA. Certainly many people don't, but there are many that do. Just because one or two members of a large family are very rich, does not make the rest of the family necessarily very rich. But why are bringing this up? Why is this relevant?

I can disagree with your view points or opinions but still respect them.

In fact, its not relevant. Thats what I meant when I said we don?t really need to discuss about that. I wanted to bring the topic of the average American consumer back, though. Because my personal opinion is that the social system (including medical care), public transport, and education system (including colleges)in the U.S. could be free for everyone if the wealth was distributed more equally.

And we neither need to discuss about the distibution of wealth... because you may think thats socialism knocking, whereas I say, those are principles that were laid down in the Bible. It would be enough - for a start - to readjust the high defense spending. I don?t know what the presence of American military in the gulf region costs per day (maybe you can provide data), but I am sure it would equal out free college for so-and-so many hundreds of American citizens.

Some people on this message board, for example, have to repay high student loans. Why that? The U.S.A. would be rich enough to offer free access to colleges.

Thats my point, you know. All Americans would profit. Not just a small minority, like at the upcoming war - arms ond oil industry, in my opinion. (Don?t bring up the security argument. Saddam won?t start a nuclear war against the U.S. - no one has the guts or the will to do so).
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
Not so Melon, it would appear that the US is just bad at choosing their battles.

Ant.

Perhaps...

I just woke up and decided to be argumentative today that's all.

:sexywink:

Melon
 
STING2 said:
HIPHOP,

"If the U.S. stays on its own territory, the U.S. is good."

And when the USA does not stay on its own territory you think it is .....?

I think it is claiming a right that no other state in the world regularly has, and it can afford that because of its power.
 
Last edited:
melon said:
And if the U.S. stays within its own borders, it is considered "isolationist" and is "ignoring its responsibilities to the world."

By who? I never heard that argument except from within the U.S.

The U.S. maybe ignoring its responsibilities, though, if it doesn?t pay its part for the U.N. when its due.
 
melon said:
And if the U.S. stays within its own borders, it is considered "isolationist" and is "ignoring its responsibilities to the world."

And, then, the U.S. is bad.

:sexywink:

Melon

Well Melon,
it the US would use its power to strengthen international organisations and would send their troops just in UN missions to foreign countries, if they would care about international laws, if they wouldn't build a shield against atomic weapons and tell us in the same year what their new policy of using a-bombs is..
..well maybe then more people outside the USA would love their international engagement.

Lots of power means lots of responsibility.

It would be helpful to listen to the concerns of your friends and not talk just to new alies who say "yes" to everything you say because they get new weapon technology from you (well hussein said yes to everything too to get weapons from you, didn't he?)

Klaus
 
Klaus said:


(well hussein said yes to everything too to get weapons from you, didn't he?)

Klaus

A more accurate statement would be........

We provided him with AID in the area of Argriculture. This in turn allowed him the money to spend on weapons from France and Biotechnology from Germany.

In turn.....he did a 180 on his position on MANY things....

Israel.


PEace
 
Dreadsox said:


A more accurate statement would be........

We provided him with AID in the area of Argriculture. This in turn allowed him the money to spend on weapons from France and Biotechnology from Germany.

In turn.....he did a 180 on his position on MANY things....

Israel.


PEace

To recall the immortal words of another president "It was clear he was a bastard, but he was 'our' bastard"

The US supported the Shah and Saudi Arabia (two "kingdoms" or dictators as you like it) and after the overthrow of the Shah they needed new allies in Arabia because they were afraid of the "evil communist".
And with the fear about Communism you can get everything from US politics - even Chemical Weapons for Saddam.
To complicate the sheer nuttiness of what passes for American foreign policy, the Reagan administration was at the same time selling arms to Iran and using the profits to support death squads in Central America. But that's a completely different story i guess..
..back to Saddam:
USA used their international influense to soften national and international embargos after that USand their friends (France/Germany/Great Britain) sold equipment to Iraq.
For example: US the knowhow for Chemical Weapons (ok, so called duel use technology), France mainly conventional weapons and Germany helped to build the Factories for the Chemical Weapons (sorry, for duel useable Chemical Factories).
That's one of our sources why we know that he has this technology - because we sold it.
So.. Saddam is still a bastard but no longer "ours"!

Klaus

p.s. i wasn't aware that this was a Spiderman quote - seems like Yoda wasn't the only movie character with a little wisdom ;-)
 
Right...Europeans are greedy, and envious of US. Interesting talk coming from Americans.

People say "oil will help Iraqi people". Well, I just wonder how much influence on what happens with oil they will really have - come to think of it, I seriously wonder how much oil they will be given.

And this whole thing had better not be a "he tried to kill my Daddy" thing.
 
Klaus,

If you want to know where nearly all the weapons for Iraq's military came from its called the THE SOVIET UNION. Iraq had been the Soviet Unions client state for years. This idea that the USA turned to Iraq to oppose Soviet Communism holds no water what so ever. Did you know that the Soviet Union had 2,000 military troops stationed in Iraq during the 1980s and up to 6 months before the Gulf War in 1991. Over 80% of Iraq's military equipment was from the Soviet Union. Not a single piece of USA military combat equipment was ever sold to Iraq.

Iraq's Nuclear, Chemical and Biological programs started in the early 1970s. The USA did not supply Chemical weapons to Iraq. It did allow Biological cultures to go to Iraq that Iraq later refined into weapons grade material for mililtary use rather than medical use. Certainly a mistake, but why don't people talk about the dozen or so other countries that benefited from lax restrictions on the trade of "duel use" technology. By the way, Iraq never used biological weapons against Iran. In addition, they were dozens of other countries including the Soviet Union that supplied or could of supplied similar material in the off chance that the USA had canceled the order.

The USA's financial assistance to Iraq amounted to a tiny fraction of the 140 Billion dollars sent to Iraq by other Gulf States during the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq's victory/stalemate in the war benefited the entire Persian Gulf region and ironically both USA and Soviet interest. The Soviets client state survived, and the oil reserves vital to the USA, Europe, and other industrialized nations was prevented from being potentially overrun by Iranian military forces.

Considering the legitamite interest that the USA had in seeing Iraq survive the war intact, its surprising that the USA's contributions to that effort were so tiny. But the Soviet Union did the lions share of the work, supplying and replacing all equipment the Iraqi military needed throughout the war in addition to the extensive training they recieved in Soviet military tactics and organization fromt he 2,000 Soviet military personal stationed in Iraq through out the war.
 
HIPHOP,

"How many professors from other countries did you listen to?"

Several, and none of them accused the USA of being and Evil Empire either!

"Don?t bring up the security argument. Saddam won?t start a nuclear war against the U.S. - no one has the guts or the will to do so)."

Thats not so at all. Saddam has been undetered in the past regardless of USA strengths and will become even more dangerous once he possess a nuclear weapon.

I've studied military and international security for a long time. It would be a mistake for the USA and the world community to return to the years before World War II when wishful thinking and appeasement were thought to be effective foreign policy. Security and military spending is important and its about time other countries contributed more to that.

By the way, the USA is currently at #6 in terms of standard of living around the world according to the United Nations! The American people are doing very well and the only European countries that are ahead of the USA in terms of standard of living are Belguim, Sweden and Norway. There are all kinds of ways Americans can pay for University. Most Americans can get financial aid and there are many scholarships and other ways of support. Today, 60% of Americans go to University and 28% graduate with a 4 year degree. The USA has more Universities and Colleges per capita than any other country on the planet. More foreign students come to studied in the United States than any other country in the world.

Security is a very important issue and USA's large defense spending has not impoverished it but protected it and allowed it to grow. I do believe in balance though, but since 1945, the USA has gotten that balance right more often than not. This defense spending has also benefited the rest of the world in terms of deterence and preventing war in Europe and helping to bring war when it happens to a quick and just resolution. Clearly, European and Asian defense spending would be higher without a US presence in those regions. It should be higher anyway, and its easy to see that they benefit from Uncle Sam being around in that money is invested in other area's.

USA engagement of the world since 1945 has made the world a safer place. US isolationism contributed to two World Wars, and were not going to repeat that terrible cycle. The cost were to great the last time. But some people unfortunately tend to forget.
 
Klaus,

That is 100% wrong. The T-72 is not an American tank, it is a Soviet made tank. So is the T-55, and T-62. I have a large weapons table that completely describes all of Iraq's weapon systems as of June 1st 1989. Just ask any of the 500,000 American soldiers in the Gulf that fought the Iraqi forces.

If you like, I can put the weapons table up to show you the facts. There are also numberous other sources that you can look up which will show that this is a fact as well.

Honestly Klaus, I think you must of mistyped something.
 
STING2 said:
HIPHOP,

"How many professors from other countries did you listen to?"

Several, and none of them accused the USA of being and Evil Empire either!

There are all kinds of ways Americans can pay for University. Most Americans can get financial aid and there are many scholarships and other ways of support. Today, 60% of Americans go to University and 28% graduate with a 4 year degree. The USA has more Universities and Colleges per capita than any other country on the planet. More foreign students come to studied in the United States than any other country in the world.

Clearly, European and Asian defense spending would be higher without a US presence in those regions.

1) Fine to see! Would you say, in your opinion, that I?m biased?

2) I agree to that, American colleges offer great education, just like European Universities. But I think American colleges are very expensive anyway. Many Americans have to take student loans to finance their studies. I am sure they (and me, even if I don?t have the right bc I?m European) would prefer to study for free. And the American state could afford that, or do you disagree?

3) Good point. But don?t forget, the NATO costs a lot, too.
 
U2girl said:
Right...Europeans are greedy, and envious of US. Interesting talk coming from Americans.

People say "oil will help Iraqi people". Well, I just wonder how much influence on what happens with oil they will really have - come to think of it, I seriously wonder how much oil they will be given.

And this whole thing had better not be a "he tried to kill my Daddy" thing.

Yeah...

MiniFly, you're welcome (I like your sig, by the way).

Angela
 
Klaus,

Thats fine, I was really puzzled by your remark. I just thought to myself you must of made a typing mistake.
 
I gotta love when people say that the u.s. should just mind their own buisness.

when we go to somalia, people say "stay out".

when we don't go to bosnia, they say "where the hell are you?"
 
OK I have a question with the supporters of this attack: you say Iraq has WMD and violates UN resolutions. That may be the case, but there are also other regimes who do both, and certainly many other who are cruel and oppresive to their own people.

Would you take on war with all of them?
 
U2girl said:
OK I have a question with the supporters of this attack: you say Iraq has WMD and violates UN resolutions. That may be the case, but there are also other regimes who do both, and certainly many other who are cruel and oppresive to their own people.

Would you take on war with all of them?

that is an immature question. one crisis at a time please. this is not about the u.s. verses the world.
 
U2girl said:
OK I have a question with the supporters of this attack: you say Iraq has WMD and violates UN resolutions. That may be the case, but there are also other regimes who do both, and certainly many other who are cruel and oppresive to their own people.

Would you take on war with all of them?

U2girl,

I understand where you are going with this question. I will ask you some questions back. How many of these other nations have used them in the past 30 years? How many of them have attacked or invaded three other countries in the past 30 years? How many of them have signed Cease Fire treaties, and violated them?

Peace
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom