How does a war against Iraq affect you?
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the U.S. policies towards Iraq. I think a significant majority of the views oppose the US position in this potential war. But why? Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic (I wanted to keep this objecctive)? Bob
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the U.S. policies towards Iraq. I think a significant majority of the views oppose the US position in this potential war. But why? Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic (I wanted to keep this objecctive)? Bob
In general, I think their criticism combines: - Saddam might mind his own business and we shouldn't pre-emptively strike when there may, in fact, be no real danger (to us). - An attack on Iraq will certainly result in civilians casualties ( and if #1 is correct, they may be killed unnecessarily ). - War with Iraq could inflame an already angry Arab population. There are, of course, much more ignorant reasons to oppose war with Iraq. I've read a number of journalists who give stupid reasons not to attack Iraq. In my opinion, people who can't back up their ideas intelligently shouldn't be allowed to be journalists. Some other reasons - which I think are less-stupid, but are wrong - are: - Bush wants to get back at Saddam for an attempt on Bush Sr's life. - Bush wants to control Mid-East oil. This is a new colonialism. IMO, people who hold these opinions are subtly dodging the tough questions. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the U.S. policies towards Iraq. I think a significant majority of the views oppose the US position in this potential war. But why? Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic (I wanted to keep this objecctive)? Bob
I'm for Saddam being disarmed and possibly taken out of power. I see alot of people against it because of the idea that one country(A) can attack another(B) without country(B) physically provoking country(A) first. Most people feel we should live and let live, and turn our heads from our neighbors so long as that neighbor is not throwing sand in our face. Also, most other countries in the world can't do much about this situation anyway, nor would they even try to, so its also easier to say "look how we are keeping to ourselves US, you would do well to do the same. Eventually Saddam will go away." This may seem unrelated, but How many people would like to see a single world government at some point? BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the U.S. policies towards Iraq. I think a significant majority of the views oppose the US position in this potential war. But why? Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic (I wanted to keep this objecctive)? Bob
Bob Flynn wrote: How does a war against Iraq affect you? There is no war - yet. But isn't it so amazing that the Iraq governement has complied with everything, even ahead of schedule (when's the last time you shipped anyting on schedule?), and still it's not enough? I'm waiting for the next demand to just say "get the hell out, and leave the keys on the desk".
The answer is no, whatever the question is. You can't have it, you don't need it, and you'll break it in five minutes if I give it to you.
-
I'm for Saddam being disarmed and possibly taken out of power. I see alot of people against it because of the idea that one country(A) can attack another(B) without country(B) physically provoking country(A) first. Most people feel we should live and let live, and turn our heads from our neighbors so long as that neighbor is not throwing sand in our face. Also, most other countries in the world can't do much about this situation anyway, nor would they even try to, so its also easier to say "look how we are keeping to ourselves US, you would do well to do the same. Eventually Saddam will go away." This may seem unrelated, but How many people would like to see a single world government at some point? BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
brianwelsch wrote: Most people feel we should live and let live, and turn our heads from our neighbors so long as that neighbor is not throwing sand in our face. If this were done there would never be wars ... ? If we believed that Iraq would do this, we would not be going through this right now; at least not for the reasons that are given. Bob
-
I'm for Saddam being disarmed and possibly taken out of power. I see alot of people against it because of the idea that one country(A) can attack another(B) without country(B) physically provoking country(A) first. Most people feel we should live and let live, and turn our heads from our neighbors so long as that neighbor is not throwing sand in our face. Also, most other countries in the world can't do much about this situation anyway, nor would they even try to, so its also easier to say "look how we are keeping to ourselves US, you would do well to do the same. Eventually Saddam will go away." This may seem unrelated, but How many people would like to see a single world government at some point? BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
brianwelsch wrote: This may seem unrelated, but How many people would like to see a single world government at some point? A one world government is inevitable. The question is who,what and when, not if. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the U.S. policies towards Iraq. I think a significant majority of the views oppose the US position in this potential war. But why? Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic (I wanted to keep this objecctive)? Bob
your q's: It's because GWB fights fire with flame. Because SH is not the only one that has WMD. Because SH is not the most likely to give his "precious" away. Yes. Although I agree that's no good idea. Because it's demagogic to demand a "full disclosure or else" if you're not going to believe it anyway. Additional reasons: Because the loudest drum of war sounds from the west, not the east. Because you shouldn't smoke when you sit in a powder keg. Because the Middle east *isn't* that far away from the rest of the world. Because the US is going to fight one of their former allies again. But that's nothing new to someone that reads my posts here. You're welcome to ask - but next time, choose the soapbox, or John Simmons will declare war on you. ( And he's worse than GWB ;) )
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the U.S. policies towards Iraq. I think a significant majority of the views oppose the US position in this potential war. But why? Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic (I wanted to keep this objecctive)? Bob
I have no love for Saddam. The idea is to follow a process that legitimises the international forums. If the most militarily powerful nation wants to undermine it, it easily can. I just like to see US making an effort to make international consensus on issues that are of concern around the world. It, of course, does not help when they say that - they may not accept Blix commission report - they may unilaterally attack Iraq etc. A bit more responsibility in public statements, and behind the door bargaining with others, I guess, is not too much to ask. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
brianwelsch wrote: This may seem unrelated, but How many people would like to see a single world government at some point? A one world government is inevitable. The question is who,what and when, not if. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the U.S. policies towards Iraq. I think a significant majority of the views oppose the US position in this potential war. But why? Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic (I wanted to keep this objecctive)? Bob
Also, I do not think that civilian casualities are a criteria here. Because, half a million children died in the last 10 years, because of embargo; How many will die in the future in genocide and embargo related problems, if statusquo is maintained vs How many more will die in case of a war? The second seems to raise alarms all around the world, but I would reckon it costs lesser lives. But, IMO, US should not do a unilateral attack, causing two things 1) more animosity towards itself from the middle-east 2) undermine the international community totally (which US as a superpower has a responsibility to uphold), giving other regimes a precedent for pre-emptive strikes without a broad consensus. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
brianwelsch wrote: Most people feel we should live and let live, and turn our heads from our neighbors so long as that neighbor is not throwing sand in our face. If this were done there would never be wars ... ? If we believed that Iraq would do this, we would not be going through this right now; at least not for the reasons that are given. Bob
Bob Flynn wrote: If this were done there would never be wars ... ? Sure and live would be swell, but we all know the bad guys attack unprovoked sometimes. BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
-
In general, I think their criticism combines: - Saddam might mind his own business and we shouldn't pre-emptively strike when there may, in fact, be no real danger (to us). - An attack on Iraq will certainly result in civilians casualties ( and if #1 is correct, they may be killed unnecessarily ). - War with Iraq could inflame an already angry Arab population. There are, of course, much more ignorant reasons to oppose war with Iraq. I've read a number of journalists who give stupid reasons not to attack Iraq. In my opinion, people who can't back up their ideas intelligently shouldn't be allowed to be journalists. Some other reasons - which I think are less-stupid, but are wrong - are: - Bush wants to get back at Saddam for an attempt on Bush Sr's life. - Bush wants to control Mid-East oil. This is a new colonialism. IMO, people who hold these opinions are subtly dodging the tough questions. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Brit wrote: Saddam might mind his own business and we shouldn't pre-emptively strike when there may, in fact, be no real danger (to us). Or maybe not. Brit wrote: An attack on Iraq will certainly result in civilians casualties ( and if #1 is correct, they may be killed unnecessarily ). Innocents will die if your first assumption is wrong. Will you stand up and accept responsibility for their deaths? Or blame the U.S. for not acting? Brit wrote: War with Iraq could inflame an already angry Arab population. So? They insist on being angry for the most lunatic of reasons, might as well give them a rational reason for it. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Do you really believe that? That's no mocking, it's a serious question. It's been tried before. Numerous times. All have failed. Why now?
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
Really? when was this ever seriously tried? BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
-
Do you really believe that? That's no mocking, it's a serious question. It's been tried before. Numerous times. All have failed. Why now?
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
When has it been tried before?
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Do you really believe that? That's no mocking, it's a serious question. It's been tried before. Numerous times. All have failed. Why now?
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
peterchen wrote: Why now? With electronic communication and fast travel, it's a small world now. Here at CP we're from many different countries, but we don't even think of those differences. Plus, look at the EU and the Euro. That's a small step toward a world government.
"..documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very, very good; and when it is bad, it is still better than nothing." -Jaykul, http://geoshell.sourceforge.net/GeoWiki
-
brianwelsch wrote: This may seem unrelated, but How many people would like to see a single world government at some point? A one world government is inevitable. The question is who,what and when, not if. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
What if its based on the US's prominence as world police? With more and more involvment from the UN regarding international policy, etc.. Instead of Saddam being an evil ruler, he'd be a mayor gone crazy, and immediately taken out of power no questions. No egos to step on, no sovereign nations to prance around. BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the U.S. policies towards Iraq. I think a significant majority of the views oppose the US position in this potential war. But why? Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic (I wanted to keep this objecctive)? Bob
Bob Flynn wrote: But why? 1945-46, 1950-53 China 1950-53 Korea 1954, 1967-69 Guatemala 1958 Indonesia 1959-60 Cuba 1964 Belgian Congo 1965 Peru 1964-73 Laos 1961-73 Vietnam 1969-70 Cambodia 1983 Grenada 1986 Libya 1980s El Salvador 1980s Nicaragua 1989 Panama 1991-99 Iraq 1995 Bosnia 1998 Sudan 1999 Yugoslavia 2001 Afghanistan * - any country from previous list Is it because you think * is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that * does not have WMD? Do you think * will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think * just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? --- What do you think?
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the U.S. policies towards Iraq. I think a significant majority of the views oppose the US position in this potential war. But why? Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic (I wanted to keep this objecctive)? Bob
Bob Flynn wrote: But why? 1945-46, 1950-53 China 1950-53 Korea 1954, 1967-69 Guatemala 1958 Indonesia 1959-60 Cuba 1964 Belgian Congo 1965 Peru 1964-73 Laos 1961-73 Vietnam 1969-70 Cambodia 1983 Grenada 1986 Libya 1980s El Salvador 1980s Nicaragua 1989 Panama 1991-99 Iraq 1995 Bosnia 1998 Sudan 1999 Yugoslavia 2001 Afghanistan * - any country from previous list Is it because you think * is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that * does not have WMD? Do you think * will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think * just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? --- What do you think, why?
-
Do you really believe that? That's no mocking, it's a serious question. It's been tried before. Numerous times. All have failed. Why now?
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
peterchen wrote: Do you really believe that? Yes. History shows very clearly that political revolution follows after economic evolution. city states, nations states, empires, etc, were all political reactions to control newly evolved economic conditions. We now have a one world economy. By the end of this century there will be a one world government to control it. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Really? when was this ever seriously tried? BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
A few guesses Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Constantine, Napoleon, Stalin Hitler FDR. I don't expect agreement from anyone, but thats my opinion. 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.