War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's not forget that containment worked for the U.S. in the past, most notably with the former U.S.S.R. during the Cold War and it continues to work today with China-countries who posed/pose much bigger threats to our security than Iraq. Since the Gulf War our policy of containment has worked against Iraq...but apparently Bush and his neo-conservative imperialists are so thirsty for blood it doesn't matter.

It was interesting to hear Mr. Conservative himself (Dick Armey) stating today that war with Iraq was a bad idea. He said a "pre-emptive" all-out attack on Iraq without provacation undermined international law and would destablize the entire Middle East...not to mention the heavy casualty toll both sides could take. Maybe some Republican lawmakers are coming to their senses on this after all.

When I stated in an earlier post that "no one wants this war" it is true...no one wants this war...EXCEPT Bush and the neo-conservatives imperialists in his administration!!! I haven't YET heard anybody in the administration give an explanation for potential war with Iraq that is grounded in international law...instead, they speak in terms of how "evil" Saddam is and the "threat" he poses. And that threat is what again??? Saddam is not nearly the threat everyone in the Bush admin makes him out to be. Is he evil??? Of course he is. Would the world be a better place without him around??? Sure it would. Personally, I'm more concerned with the lilkes of Pakistan, India, and Iran...countries who now all possess nuclear capabilities...not an Iraqi regime that, according to former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, currently poses no immediate threat to the U.S. or the region...as Mr. Ritter has stated that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was all but eliminated when the U.N. inspectores pulled out 5 years ago...and that 5 years is not nearly enough time to have re-established such a program.

I believe the lyrics to "What's Going On" state that "War is not the answer." Maybe Bono can sing that verse to Bush the next time they chat. Hopefully..........Bush will be listening.
 
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat - Connecticut) has wanted "this war," or an attack on Iraq, since October 8, 2001. He is not a part of President Bush's administration.

~U2Alabama
 
Yes...

Like someone to blame said:
Let's not forget that containment worked for the U.S. in the past, most notably with the former U.S.S.R. during the Cold War and it continues to work today with China-countries who posed/pose much bigger threats to our security than Iraq. Since the Gulf War our policy of containment has worked against Iraq...but apparently Bush and his neo-conservative imperialists are so thirsty for blood it doesn't matter.

It was interesting to hear Mr. Conservative himself (Dick Armey) stating today that war with Iraq was a bad idea. He said a "pre-emptive" all-out attack on Iraq without provacation undermined international law and would destablize the entire Middle East...not to mention the heavy casualty toll both sides could take. Maybe some Republican lawmakers are coming to their senses on this after all.

When I stated in an earlier post that "no one wants this war" it is true...no one wants this war...EXCEPT Bush and the neo-conservatives imperialists in his administration!!! I haven't YET heard anybody in the administration give an explanation for potential war with Iraq that is grounded in international law...instead, they speak in terms of how "evil" Saddam is and the "threat" he poses. And that threat is what again??? Saddam is not nearly the threat everyone in the Bush admin makes him out to be. Is he evil??? Of course he is. Would the world be a better place without him around??? Sure it would. Personally, I'm more concerned with the lilkes of Pakistan, India, and Iran...countries who now all possess nuclear capabilities...not an Iraqi regime that, according to former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, currently poses no immediate threat to the U.S. or the region...as Mr. Ritter has stated that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was all but eliminated when the U.N. inspectores pulled out 5 years ago...and that 5 years is not nearly enough time to have re-established such a program.

I believe the lyrics to "What's Going On" state that "War is not the answer." Maybe Bono can sing that verse to Bush the next time they chat. Hopefully..........Bush will be listening.

Well said.

And I hope the same thing would happen the next time Bono talks to Bush.

Angela
 
Re: Yes...

Moonlit_Angel said:


Well said.

And I hope the same thing would happen the next time Bono talks to Bush.

Angela

24333231md1bVZRxZn_ph.jpg
 
Last edited:
Z-Edge,
Was that a pic of a B-1 that you just recently posted?

Like Someone to Blame,

I'm sure we have not forgotten what happened on 9/11, when in the space of 2 hours 3,056 Americans and other nationalities were murdered by a bunch of cowards. How many people here wish today that we had invaded Afghanistan in 1998 after the Embassy bombings in Africa to take out UBL! But no, that would have been against someone's concept of "international law".

I'm all for being careful and cautious, but this did not help us from 1998 to 2001 in trying to get Bin Ladin. We want to do everything we can to prevent another 9/11 or something worse. Americans are united on that point! Americans based on the latest opinion polls(CNN and MSNBC) strongly support an attack on Iraq. Its around 75%. Then they did another poll that(makes me sick to my stomach) asked "do you support an attack on Iraq if it cost thousands of US lives?" Still 49% supported an attack on Iraq, with only 26% opposed. Compared to the 1991 War, the amount of opposition is tiny in Congress.

If you want a reason for war that is based on International Law, I'll give you one. In March 1991, Iraq signed a ceace fire agreement with coalition forces to end the 1991 Gulf War. In the Ceace fire terms, which THEY signed on to, they agreed to have UN inspectors comb the country for as long as they needed to insure every bit of Iraq's weapons program was destroyed. Despite great success, this was program was not finished in 1998 when Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out. Plus, there are still kuwaities missing from the Gulf War which they agreed to turn over or find, in addition to Iraq's failure to comply with other terms and his violation of other 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire terms, the USA has all the reasons it needs based on International Law to change the regime in Iraq. This is what could have happened in 1991 if Iraq had not agreed to the ceace fire terms then. Iraq breaks international law every day while the rest of the world fails to do what is needed to enforce it.

Containment worked with the Soviet Union because we had an effective deterent, plus invasion was simply not an option, the Soviet Union was simply to large, it was difficult enough just trying to defend Western Europe from an attack. India is a democracy that has no desire to take over any country, even Pakistan. Pakistan is evolving, but currently does have stable leadership, hopefully democracy will soon develop. These countries military build ups are directed at each other, not anyone else. Outside of the Indian Sub continent, these countries have not been aggressive toward other countries. Iran's capabilities may have increased over the past 10 years, but they are still not strong enough to threaten Iraq and their Chemical and Bio weapons and Nuclear programs are not where Iraq's were in 1990. In addition, Iran has not attacked 4 different countries with its military like Iraq has over the past 20 years. In addition, Iran is no longer controlled by just extremist or a dictator. The culture and politics are becoming more liberal, although they have a long way to go.

Simply having mass destruction weapons does not make a country a threat. Having Saddam/Iraq style government and exibiting similar behavior in addition to having mass destruction weapons is what makes a country a threat. In the 21st century, that is a very high threshold to cross, but Saddam does cross it.

Containment has been a success in many ways. There has not been a conventional Iraqi military attack on any of its neighbors since 1991. Iraq's conventional military has been unable to rebuild itself. But mass destruction weapons don't require large factories and engineers neccessarily. A small bio lab in a truck or in a cave somewhere can create some nasty stuff that you would not want a person with Saddam's behavior to have. Saddam has often been undeterred in the past. He has a strong record of miscaculation. Do we want to trust are security to Saddam's unpredictible behavior? What good is containment if in the post 9/11 world, the contained is suddenly undeterred in attacking others in a new way that is hidden under the mask of Islamic terrorism? Are the risk of continuing with just containment greater than the cost of regime change in Iraq?
 
I don?t usually post in this forum unless my people and my country are mentioned but I feel like I must break my own rule this time around to post something special...something kinda old, a song written by four men who has opposed firmly and utterly against war throughout their lives...any kind, any form, any thought of war. After having read and seen what I read and saw in this thread it?s all I can do. Please, forgive me if it sounds out of place, really.


Seconds


Takes a second to say goodbye
Say goodbye, oh, oh, oh
It takes a second to say goodbye
Say goodbye, oh, oh, oh, say bye bye...
Where you going to now...


Lightning flashes across the sky
East to west, do or die
Like a thief in the night
See the world by candlelight.


Fall, rise and...Fall, rise and...


In an apartment on Time Square
You can assemble them anywhere
Held to ransom, hell to pay
A revolution everyday
USSR, GDR, London, New York, Peking
It's the puppets, It's the puppets
Who pull the strings


Fall, rise and...Fall, rise and...


Say goodbye, say goodbye
Say goodbye, say goodbye
Say goodbye


It takes a second to say goodbye
Say goodbye, oh, oh, oh
Push the button and pull the plug
Say goodbye, oh, oh, oh


Fall, rise and...Fall, rise and...


And they're doing the atomic bomb
Do they know where the dance comes from
Yes they're doing the atomic bomb
They want you to sing along
Say goodbye, say goodbye
Say goodbye
Say goodbye.
 
Follower,
One of my favorite songs from the WAR album. But U2 is NOT opposed to all war of any kind. BONO supported NATO's war's in Bosnia to free the people of Serb domination. This is well documented in the book "Until The End Of The World". Just recently in "HOT PRESS"(January 2002) Bono explained his full support for Bush's War in Afghanistan.

One thing that U2 is clearly against is terrorism, especially the type used in Northern Ireland. The IRA's tactics for achieving their political goals is what they are against. One can apply that to other terror organizations as well.
 
STOP ...please......you fight against yourself .......

Please
Please
please
please
please
please.....................................can't you see what the song is about and you 're all like have no ears to hear or to feel .. i'm speechless....your combat shoues ...your holy war ... your catholic/jewish/arab blues ..........so love is big and loove is tough but love is not what you're thinking of........................



:silent: :( :sad: :banghead:


have we just started again ?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
STING2

You may think I?m blind, or dumb. Maybe it?s just this lame nickname I use but I don?t 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 haven?t got the message, it seems to me that you haven?t 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.
 
Follower,

With all do respect, I have a copy of "Until The End Of The World" and the January "HOT PRESS" where BONO was interviewed and said the above things. In my opinion, you are making a mistake in judging me or my governments idea's of regime change in Iraq as some thirst or lust to cause people pain and suffering. There is a police force in Brazil(if I am wrong pleace correct me) considering that crime is high there, and in certain situations, I'm sure the police are required to use deadly force as a last resort to defend the safety and well being of citizens in your country and preserve law and order. What the US military may do in Iraq is no different, only the scale of it is different.

BONO's or the bands politics is not fully known, and there are of course several military actions that BONO has been opposed to, but at the same time there are several that he has supported it. He stated in the "HOT PRESS" article in January that although he wants to be a pacifist, that he is not.

People here that supported the war in Afghanistan and may support US action against Iraq do so not because they like war or lust for it, but because it is the course of action that they believe will in the long run in this particular situation, the best way to help preserve freedom and peace for all people around the world.

Contrary to what you may think, people here who may be in the military or were in the military do not think of military weapons as toys. My father served in the US military for 30 years and two very good friends of mine are in the US military, one is currently in Afghanistan. These people are the kindest most gentle people I know, but they are prepared to do their job and are very good at what they do. They have an incredible amount of courage and discipline, and make big sacrifices often, in order to keep Peace and prevent harm to US and other countries citizens. They are just as peace loving as you are. They perform the same job that your local policeman does, except they do it on the international scale.

I do NOT think you are blind or dumb! I very much respect your opinions and idea's! I have read a lot about the band and thought I would share what I had read in the articles and book I had read above as it related to your post. You can buy the book "Until The End OF The World" on the internet I think. I could photocopy the "HOT PRESS" article from Ireland and send it to you if you want.
 
follower,

Whether or not U2 would support an attack on Iraq I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that they're no fans of Saddam Hussein's regime.

And for general enlightenment, here's a transcript from MSNBC of an interview with Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Here Biden discusses the extent of the threat Iraq poses and possible diplomatic alternatives to war.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/789865.asp
 
Last edited:
Like someone to blame said:

Personally, I'm more concerned with the lilkes of Pakistan, India, and Iran...countries who now all possess nuclear capabilities...not an Iraqi regime that, according to former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, currently poses no immediate threat to the U.S. or the region...as Mr. Ritter has stated that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was all but eliminated when the U.N. inspectores pulled out 5 years ago...and that 5 years is not nearly enough time to have re-established such a program.


I can't find an article where Scott Ritter says this. I can find articles dating to 2000 where Ritter says that Iraq has no nuclear capabilities, but also an article from August 1998 (two months or so before the UN weapons inspectors left and Operation Desert Fox began) that Iraq still had "prescribed weapons capability" and the ability to quickly revive its chemical and biological weapons capabilities.

From what I understand, Mr. Ritter does think that if Iraq will allow UN inspectors total access, they will be able to control Iraq's WMD programs, but that he thinks the US, if it says "let the weapons inspectors back in or we're going to attack" is bluffing about the weapons inspectors part.
 
follower said:
STING2

You may think I?m blind, or dumb. Maybe it?s just this lame nickname I use but I don?t 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 haven?t got the message, it seems to me that you haven?t 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 :up:
 
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 won?t 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...that?s 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 it?s a wise one, for the good of Mankind.
 
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.
 
garibaldo said:
Have you anti-war people come up with a viable alternative to our current dilemma that doesn't involve killing? How about yogic flying?:shrug:
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
 
Salome said:
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.
 
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?
 
Salome said:
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.

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 said:
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
 
z edge said:


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
 
Salome said:
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)
 
iMike said:


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?

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

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
First thing hello everybody, I'm new here.:wave:

STING2 said:
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.:up:

To Salome
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 :up:

To garibaldo
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 said:

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.
 
Last edited:
speedracer said:


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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom