How does a war against Iraq affect you?
-
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.
-
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?
OK OK!! I will admit it for all Americans! We're Imperialists. We want to rule the world!
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
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.
Colin Davies wrote: FDR. :confused: How so? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
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.
I figured thats what was meant, but at best maybe 5% of the world was controlled at any one time. I meant a concerted effort to create a government, not who has tryed to conquer the world. BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
-
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
I kind of see it this way US is trying to protect itself from it's perceived biggest threat. The US is making transparent (lip service) attempts to use the UN process, but at the same time making it clear that if the UN does not actually make progress, then the US will. The 9/11 attack happened, and brought us to where we are today. Should the US wait for the next attack before reacting? If we wait, does anyone believe that SH will not attack some country? Should we always be reactionary rather than proactive?
-
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
Those in political office: 1. lie outright 2. lie by omission 3. lie by speaking to our emotions, not our reason 4. lie by exaggeration or minimization 5. lie by trying to personalize a problem 6. lie by complication or by simplification Therefore, it's impossible to make an intelligent decision on whether the US should go to war based on what the gov't says. Any gov't, not just the US. And I include the UN in the above list also. In fact, I include most of my clients in the above list. Therefore, I'm only left to decide based on my own personal biases, experiences, and opinions. I am opposed to a war with Iraq. For my own personal reasons, having nothing to do whatsover with what my gov't or any other gov't has or has not told me, and regardless as to whether any information that I have been told is accurate or not. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus -
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 haven't really watched enough television to make an educated rant over this. If they're going to start a war, they better have a good reason though. Brad Jennings
-
OK OK!! I will admit it for all Americans! We're Imperialists. We want to rule the world!
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
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
Linux sucks. :beer: