The big problem...
-
You are assuming that GWB knows what is really going on outside the US......... He is better at that than some previous presidents though. Elaine :rose: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Just curious what you would consider to be proof? Not sure. I would think more than just hearsay. *And*, in the case of attacking a sovereign nation where thousands of civilians may be killed in the execution of the war, the evidence would have to satisfy the requirements of a declaration of war. But just out of curiosity. Wasn't it proven to be bin laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban who planned and orchestrated the attacks? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: If the first is agreed to this is no longer the case. Of course the Arab nations would be the ones accepting the proof. Which in my opinion many would not, no matter what is offered. That is possibly correct. However, the burden of proof will be on the US, and it will have to have much stronger evidence to convince the Arab nations than it would take to convince the American public. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The answer is of course not. My question is how many times does the US have to have thousands of civilians murdered before it risks this? What about the thousands of innocent civilians who will be killed in the execution of a war on Iraq?
Londo wrote: I would think more than just hearsay. Agreed. But between the US and many (all?) Arab nations this would likely never be agreed to. Londo wrote: But just out of curiosity. Wasn't it proven to be bin laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban who planned and orchestrated the attacks? And Saddam's son is a principle financier of this organization. He appears to be welcome and supported by his father in this role. So when does that make Saddam a member? I do not have a good answer here and do not expect you to have one. Londo wrote: What about the thousands of innocent civilians who will be killed in the execution of a war on Iraq? It is not good if we wind up having no other options but to have deaths on one side or the other (probably both.) I fear we are closer to this being the case than I wish. Londo wrote: However, the burden of proof will be on the US, and it will have to have much stronger evidence to convince the Arab nations than it would take to convince the American public. I do not think evidence will ever exist to convince all of the Arab nations. Given this when the US is convinced and feels it has no other option other than nothing and letting US citizen die something will happen. I emphasis "feel no other option". To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Londo wrote: I would think more than just hearsay. Agreed. But between the US and many (all?) Arab nations this would likely never be agreed to. Londo wrote: But just out of curiosity. Wasn't it proven to be bin laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban who planned and orchestrated the attacks? And Saddam's son is a principle financier of this organization. He appears to be welcome and supported by his father in this role. So when does that make Saddam a member? I do not have a good answer here and do not expect you to have one. Londo wrote: What about the thousands of innocent civilians who will be killed in the execution of a war on Iraq? It is not good if we wind up having no other options but to have deaths on one side or the other (probably both.) I fear we are closer to this being the case than I wish. Londo wrote: However, the burden of proof will be on the US, and it will have to have much stronger evidence to convince the Arab nations than it would take to convince the American public. I do not think evidence will ever exist to convince all of the Arab nations. Given this when the US is convinced and feels it has no other option other than nothing and letting US citizen die something will happen. I emphasis "feel no other option". To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: He appears to be welcome and supported by his father in this role. Appearances can be deceiving. Though I suspect that this is correct. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I fear we are closer to this being the case than I wish. Same here. :(( Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I emphasis "feel no other option". At the moment I think there are a more options available that just blowing the crap out of the bad guys. At least I think that an attack on Iraq is the last thing that should be considered, considering the ramifications.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: He appears to be welcome and supported by his father in this role. Appearances can be deceiving. Though I suspect that this is correct. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I fear we are closer to this being the case than I wish. Same here. :(( Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I emphasis "feel no other option". At the moment I think there are a more options available that just blowing the crap out of the bad guys. At least I think that an attack on Iraq is the last thing that should be considered, considering the ramifications.
Londo wrote: At the moment I think there are a more options available that just blowing the crap out of the bad guys. At least I think that an attack on Iraq is the last thing that should be considered, considering the ramifications. Agreed (strongly!) So we are back to the other line. How do we get each side to at least see some truth in each side. That is not happening from what I see. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Colin^Davies wrote: 1. Stalling the Biological weapons inspections. 2. Not obeying the no fly zone rules. 3. Breaking the weapons import sanctions. Do these justify an invasion? Colin^Davies wrote: Most of the other Arab countries will probably want to divide up any of spoils of Iraq between themselves; more then caring to defend Iraq. The problem with treaties is that they depend on good faith. If one member is in trouble and the others dont 'follow the rules' then the treaty is worthless to every party. No-one can trust anyone any more. For instance if Australia was attacked and the US didn't come to our aid, then none of the other signatories would trust the US to help them. They would then seek out alliances with nations they could trust, possibly to the detriment of US interests. Imagine Australia seeking an alliance with China because the US didnt come to her aid. That is the problem with breaking a treaty. Colin^Davies wrote: No the US doesn't want a world war; that's why they should attack ASAP; and less lives on both sides will be lost. Attacking ASAP, without considering all the possibilities is more likely to precipate a major conflict, rather than prevent one.
Londo wrote: 1. Stalling the Biological weapons inspections. 2. Not obeying the no fly zone rules. 3. Breaking the weapons import sanctions. Do these justify an invasion? Absolutely! These were the terms for a cessation of hostilities last time, and they agreed to these terms, but never complied with them. Invasion now would not be a new war, but a continuation of the old for failure to comply with the mutually agreed terms of the cease-fire. Based upon intel about Iraqi purchasing patterns and materiel movements, analysts are convinced that Iraq will be a nuclear power within about one year if no action is taken to halt them. This would be a disaster for the entire region, and if they should also acquire intercontinental delivery capability, the threat would extend world wide. I'm not a proponent of war, but this threat cannot be ignored. Hussein is not a sane man, and though I'm not certain that all of his likely successors are of sound mind, he is most certainly mentally unbalanced, and not to be entrusted with dangerous toys. We already know that he will not hesitate to use biological weapons against his own people - why would anyone imagine that he'd draw the line against using nukes on strangers? "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
-
You are assuming that GWB knows what is really going on outside the US......... He is better at that than some previous presidents though. Elaine :rose: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: You are assuming that GWB knows what is really going on outside the US......... [sigh] That's been a weak spot in our leadership since the end of the Nixon era, and Tricky Dick was clueless about domestic issues. It seems that we can't ever get the mix right. I wonder if it would help to put more emphasis on geography and world affairs in the classroom. "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
-
...with the US attacking Iraq has two faces. First, Iraq hasn't done anything since the Gulf War that could be used to justify an invasion or even a declaration of war. (I know that they are considered to have supported terrorism including 9/11 but this has yet to be proven.) This violates a whole bunch of UN agreements the US has signed, and which are a big part of 'civilised warfare', if there is such a thing. Second, Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Which means that if there is an 'unprovoked' attack on them, their 'allies' have to assist in their defence. Now, the Gulf War was provoked. An attack by the US may be considered unprovoked. My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing.
Assuming that the US does nothing and minds it's own business (which honestly is my preference) do you honestly believe that ANY other Arab countries (or Middle Eastern countries or even Asian or European countries for that matter) will get off their collective "dead arses" to stop Saddam from becoming the next Hitler? Neither do I.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Assuming that the US does nothing and minds it's own business (which honestly is my preference) do you honestly believe that ANY other Arab countries (or Middle Eastern countries or even Asian or European countries for that matter) will get off their collective "dead arses" to stop Saddam from becoming the next Hitler? Neither do I.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Winston Churchill was called a 'lover of war'. No one at the time expected Hitler to become what he was, when he came to power. The judgement call for US people (represented rather strongly by GWB - the democratic opposition and the media is now a farce - just shy to stand up against GWB, even if they believe otherwise.) is whether Saddam Hussain would embark on a large scale occupation policy of neighbouring countries and Does he have the capability to do that? If United States sufficient evidence that he is building huge arsenals that are targetted at this, then they are justified in taking note of history and going in for an early invasion - rather than wait for Saddam to become powerful enough to make this war of a larger proportion. But, other nations also have a judgement call - is GWB obsessed with war? Even though toeing the official line of religious tolerance, is he at heart, really tolerant of other religions? Does he believe that much in liberty, when his administration has been calling everyone who raises a voice against his policies or even raises an question, a traitor and against US interests?
-
...with the US attacking Iraq has two faces. First, Iraq hasn't done anything since the Gulf War that could be used to justify an invasion or even a declaration of war. (I know that they are considered to have supported terrorism including 9/11 but this has yet to be proven.) This violates a whole bunch of UN agreements the US has signed, and which are a big part of 'civilised warfare', if there is such a thing. Second, Iraq is a member of a Arab mutual defence treaty. Which means that if there is an 'unprovoked' attack on them, their 'allies' have to assist in their defence. Now, the Gulf War was provoked. An attack by the US may be considered unprovoked. My question is does the US want to start a war on the scale of a world war? The entire Arab world united against the US, and her allies may result in such a thing.
This raises a question Londo: How many people have discussed WHY that attacked (an similar against the US) occur ? From what I saw on the news this wasn't spoken about in the US and in fact I have spoken to a couple of people who were virtually ostracised for raising the topic. I hope that was not a typical reaction. None of us live in a vacuum, particularly a political one these days. Elaine :rose: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
This raises a question Londo: How many people have discussed WHY that attacked (an similar against the US) occur ? From what I saw on the news this wasn't spoken about in the US and in fact I have spoken to a couple of people who were virtually ostracised for raising the topic. I hope that was not a typical reaction. None of us live in a vacuum, particularly a political one these days. Elaine :rose: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
I have noticed this also. I'd be prepared to discuss it here but this forum is frequented by Americuns, who would lead the discussion away from the truth. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
This raises a question Londo: How many people have discussed WHY that attacked (an similar against the US) occur ? From what I saw on the news this wasn't spoken about in the US and in fact I have spoken to a couple of people who were virtually ostracised for raising the topic. I hope that was not a typical reaction. None of us live in a vacuum, particularly a political one these days. Elaine :rose: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: From what I saw on the news this wasn't spoken about in the US I have seen and heard this discussion take place many times. A few times here on CP, and many times between friends and on various news shows. Perhaps the conclusions were not the same as you had drawn, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been discussed. Trollslayer wrote: How many people have discussed WHY that attacked (an similar against the US) occur ? If you are saying that you hadn't seen it on some US news, then I think you must have missed some of the shows I've clicked through. If you are saying that you saw on a non-US news source that the US wasn't concerned about the 'why', then those reports you saw are incorrect. It may not be on 'Nightline' or other nightly news magazines: but people spoke about, discussed, and questioned things among themselves long before any tv news shows first aired. I don't need Dan Rather or any other news person (US, BBC, etc..) to tell me what questions I should be asking. Trollslayer wrote: I have spoken to a couple of people who were virtually ostracised for raising the topic. I hope that was not a typical reaction. I've spoken about this topic with close friends, raising the question of 'why' as in 'how does someone convince themselves that God wants them to ram a jumbo jet into an office building', 'how does someone justify blowing up a bomb in a civilian cafe', etc... What has engendered the absolutely maniacal hatred for the US that exists in so many people these days? I'm genuinely interested: I want to understand. And then, of course, I've seen the same question asked as a weapon. "Only intelligent and righteous people would dare ask such a question - I'm so far above anyone who doesn't already know what I have determined is the correct answer!" I've seen this more than a few times on CP. Conversations instigated by these types of questions typically degenerate into worthless insults and name-calling within one or two posts. I hear and see alot of otherwise intelligent and brave people trying to sidestep their way into thinking that the WTC attack is, in some light, justifiable or understandable. They would be absolutely outraged if the US or Israel (or whomever else ends up falling out of favor with the elite) flew jumbo jets into a civilian occupied building for the purpose of killing civilians - and of course will wrap themselves in self-congratulatory sorrow and
-
I have noticed this also. I'd be prepared to discuss it here but this forum is frequented by Americuns, who would lead the discussion away from the truth. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin^Davies wrote: but this forum is frequented by Americuns A conversation is much more likely to be led away from truth when it is started with a jab like that. -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
-
I have noticed this also. I'd be prepared to discuss it here but this forum is frequented by Americuns, who would lead the discussion away from the truth. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin^Davies wrote: I'd be prepared to discuss it here but this forum is frequented by Americuns, who would lead the discussion away from the truth. I a US citizen have brought it up more than once and have received very few replies. I have found that most would rather throw cheep shots, than find a solution. At least that is my conclusion from which threads have many posts vs those that have few. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Colin^Davies wrote: I'd be prepared to discuss it here but this forum is frequented by Americuns, who would lead the discussion away from the truth. I a US citizen have brought it up more than once and have received very few replies. I have found that most would rather throw cheep shots, than find a solution. At least that is my conclusion from which threads have many posts vs those that have few. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Yes; I think; I have noticed your opinions vary from the stereotyped opinions of many in the US. The general feeling I get from Americans re 'Sept 11' ; is "Who cares why they did it; what they did was wrong !!" Also most westerners and easteners alike seem to be lacking in both general knowledge and history of the events. Which makes a lot of debate worthless and turns it more into a lesson; rather than a discussion. My comment was a generalization and I should have said "some Americans". My apologies. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Yes; I think; I have noticed your opinions vary from the stereotyped opinions of many in the US. The general feeling I get from Americans re 'Sept 11' ; is "Who cares why they did it; what they did was wrong !!" Also most westerners and easteners alike seem to be lacking in both general knowledge and history of the events. Which makes a lot of debate worthless and turns it more into a lesson; rather than a discussion. My comment was a generalization and I should have said "some Americans". My apologies. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
First, Apology accepted. I agree on a lot of debates are worthless and with many lacking in general history knowledge. I have always had a interest in history so... I would like to say you are wrong with the general feeling statement. However I work with a program that has many international contact and both my brother and brother-in-law married foriegn nationals so my associates are not typical and so I am likely not that objective. Just maybe this lounge area can start a seed to change it (just a little.):) I was starting on a dialog but much of it has already been said. So let me just conclude with Have a good day and lets keep talking.:-D Take Care and Best Wishes. Mike To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
First, Apology accepted. I agree on a lot of debates are worthless and with many lacking in general history knowledge. I have always had a interest in history so... I would like to say you are wrong with the general feeling statement. However I work with a program that has many international contact and both my brother and brother-in-law married foriegn nationals so my associates are not typical and so I am likely not that objective. Just maybe this lounge area can start a seed to change it (just a little.):) I was starting on a dialog but much of it has already been said. So let me just conclude with Have a good day and lets keep talking.:-D Take Care and Best Wishes. Mike To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: First, Apology accepted Thx Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I would like to say you are wrong with the general feeling statement. I admit my opinions are flavoured with comments on discussion boards and the mentality of CNN commentaries. Quite likely we all hear to much from the vocal minority. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I was starting on a dialog but much of it has already been said. So let me just conclude with Have a good day and lets keep talking. Yes, this thread has already become hidden in the depths of the CP servers. :-) Have a good day yourself. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.