How does a war against Iraq affect you?
-
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:
-
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
From the "few guesses" - Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Constantine tried to rule the entire known world. Remember that world maps looked different in ancient rome ;) And the entire Soviet Union is definitely more than 5% of the world - it get's even more if you include the "behind the wall" socialist countries that all more or less had to ask Moscow for agreement on major decisions. And to restate the question - if until now everybody failed to rule a small part of the world - why now the entire?
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
-
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 GrausRight now I haven't made up my mind, but I am cynical like you.
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
I think many people who don't want a war against Saddam don't understand who he is or what his intentions are. Saddam envisions himself as the re-incarnated Nebuchadnezzer (who conquered all the Middle East around 600 BC), and his goals are the same -- conquest of the entire Middle East. He's rebuilt the city of Babylon (former capital of the empire) and someday hopes to rule the whole Middle East from there, just like Neb. When he threatens both Israel and many of the Muslim nations (like S.A.), do you really think he wants to just be left alone. Is SH really getting a raw deal? The US could've nuked him w/o warning. Instead, the US decided to go the UN route, which is usually anti-US anyway... doesn't make sense to me that he's getting a raw deal. Of course he has WMD -- if he was only a two years away from them over 10 years ago, and then we left him alone for 4 years, most likely the first thing he did was re-start the programs. Why did SH stonewall and protest about the inspectors in the first place if he has nothing to hide? Ever notice how he now has dozens of palaces, some of which used to be military complexes? Nothing going on there at all! For Saddam, it would be advantageous to use terrorists to distribute his WMD -- terrorists are stateless, and if there's little or no paper trail, how could the US tie terrorist acts back to him? If he goes head-to-head with the US, he'll lose. But if he uses terrorism to cripple the US economy and infrastructure -- he'll fair a lot better. What does a 12,000 POS doc from Iraq mean if it doesn't tell the truth? It could be 100,000 and it wouldn't make a difference. I'm sure the US is able to obtain import records of many of the materials into Iraq, and when things don't add up, it'll put more suspicion on SH. Iraq spent a ton of $$$, and all of a sudden they decided not to pursue it anymore when they were so close? I don't buy it.... Also, in spite of the media reports, I think that the US-British intelligence is strong enough such that when Iraq denies having WMD, we hand our 12,000+ page document to the UN and people will realize what a threat he really is. It's beyond my understanding that people blame the embargo on "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi deaths. Saddam has literally billions of dollars, yet his people starve!! Seems to me that a nation's leaders should take care of their people out of their own pocket first, before another nation sends them relief money. If there was no embargo on Iraq, would that really make a diff
-
We are just better at it than others. USA USA USA :rolleyes::laugh: Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
These people just crack me up. Lets just make the rest of the world the 51st state and be done with it. :laugh:
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
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?
I wonder hOW many countries are currently paying for US troops to be stationed on their soil? BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
-
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 GrausI have to agree with everything you said. My opinion - I support a war with Iraq. I believe that Iraq is an indirect threat to the physical safety of my family. INDIRECT because I think they will fund fanatical groups that are willing to do the dirty work.