How does a war against Iraq affect you?
-
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 * -
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 * -
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
-
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.
-
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
I never said these were my views. These are just the more intelligent critiques from the anti-war movement. ------------------------------------------ "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
-
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
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes. History shows very clearly that political revolution follows after economic evolution. That's right, very good point. However (you didn't expect me to give up so quickly, did you? ;) ) History shows as well that nothing lasts forever. Or, in your words, economic revolution follows after political revolution. I don't doubt that the US could even succeed in a "world rule" for some time - but people still oppose foreign rulership simply because it's foreign. Oh - the roman economy of the known world wasn't that different of today's - much slower, though.
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
Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. The Iraqi people are getting a raw deal because of Saddam and the U.S. and the U.N. etal aren't doing a damn thing. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Of course he does. It is too easy to hide that stuff and he has been getting supplies from all over the world including people like the U.S., France, and Russia. Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? There have already been links established between SH and terrorism. Even this morning there is a new report out about more shipments of WMD to terrorists via Turkey. But don't forget, he doesn't have any. :laugh: Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? I doubt it, but who knows. If he HAS been supporting terrorism, then obviously not. Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure. Of course it is a delaying tactic. It is common practice to bury people in paper work to delay. His original disclosure many years ago was about 10 pages long. :) drum roll... I still feel that this whole war mess has been very poorly handled. But I also feel something needs to be done about SH. What? I don't know. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
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.
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? Fundamentally, the US doesn't trust Saddam. If you limit your critique to the last 6 months of Iraq-US relations, the US seems to be overly harsh. If you take into account Iraq's behavior over the last 12 years, it seems a little more reasonable. ------------------------------------------ "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
-
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]
peterchen wrote: Soviet Union is definitely more than 5% true enough. peterchen wrote: if until now everybody failed to rule a small part of the world - why now the entire? I'm not suggesting ruling the world as a tyranny, I'm thinking of a reasonable government where each country entered into it willing, etc... Also, as was stated elsewhere, the world has become much smaller making it easier to govern as a whole, where this never remotely possible before. I think as international laws increase the need for a single central government becomes inevitable. 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
I'll answer the question in the subject first : It affect me, because I'm just freaking tired of reading about war, pain, suffering, poverty, racism, inegalities, drought, famine, civil wars, gangs wars, rape, savage capitalism, terrorism..., ... do you want more ? Day after day, seems that there's no good things going on this planet! At some point, it becomes hard to try to see and make good and beauty and happiness. I still don't understand how people get so power hungry/angry ! now, answering the other questions : Because I believe that Saddam Hussein is more a threat to his own people than to the rest of the world. SH did have a deal with the USA in the 80's that's how he could manage a war against Iran, and how he could manage to invade Koweit; the deal explicitly broke in 1991. SH did have some WMD, I don't know what's the status righ now! Where is the line between then civilian and military use of chemical, bacteriological and nuclear products ? I don't know this. reading about the "dreaded" SCUD missiles, I still surprised that people are still ordering them, or maybe Korea has a end-of-year sale of used missiles! Depending on the state of Irak's WMD, the choice of giving weapon, or sponsoring terrorists is a hard one, and if proof is given to the public, then the whole UN will be on Irak's case! SH does not want to be left alone, It's in his best interest that the world talks about him, in good or in bad, as long as he is in the spotlight, he will be untouchable, and can become are hell of a martyr is someone touches him. SH is more dangerous to his own people than the rest of the world. the 12000 pages report looks like a technical manifest of heavy Irak Industries.( some index pages were posted on CNN ), Irak need to show the UN that their industrial complexes are used for civilian purpose; once that's done, the inspectors will either find or not find evidences to the contrary. This is where most people against the Irak war have grips against the US. The US will always say that Irak are not telling the thruth and will want to go to war for that. Others will says that they have reasonable doubts, and will not permit a war. Max.
-
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
Okay, I'm American, and, at least at this point, I oppose war with Iraq. Why? I don't think Iraq is our biggest threat. I still think Al-Quaeda and other terrorist organizations are bigger threats, and they aren't all in Iraq. Even if we blow Iraq off the face of the Earth, I don't think that'll stop the terrorists. Any war with Iraq will divert resources away from tracking down the real terrorists. I'm more afraid of an attack like the WTC attacks than a outright attack via a nuke or other weapon of mass destruction. Saddam may be a lunatic, but I don't think he's an idiot. If a major attack on the US comes from Iraq, everyone knows we would fight back and pretty much obliterate them. But I haven't totally made up my mind. And I don't run this country, anyway. :-O Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
-
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?
US can be proactive. But, it is far more dangerous to set a premptive strike precedent. It sidelines the UN, and all UN resolutions will have no meaning. Iraq attacked Kuwait US led forces acting on a UN resolution drives Iraq out If US attacks Iraq (without providing enough evidence to convince other nations), what should UN do? Whatever it should do, it CAN do nothing. Then UN does not exist anymore, for all practical purposes. The precdent of a perceived threat justifying a pre-emptive strike has already been established by that action. If US proves Iraqi involvement in 9/11, or if it had enough evidence, would Bush be talking now? He would have gone straight there. The fact is, US has not been able to show the evidence about Iraqi involvement, as it had about Afghanistan. IMO, perception of threat is not enough. Showing how real the threat is, to others is important too. Who all will they go after? The N Korea - Pak nuclear equation, brought forward by CIA, is being sidelined. Why? Both these countries are nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Both are dictatorships. I have difficulty understanding the logic. I am certain that this will come back to bite US in the long run. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
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
I was expecting that argument ;) But IMO social processes have become faster all the time, but although the scales have changed, the history books still read the same stories. Another point I would consider different is that: a) we're hitting a limit in acceleration: The "generation" quantum. b) We know the entire world, no room for expansion (if you take out space which is a different thing altogether at the moment) But with both things I don't see how they should stabilize a one-world-rule. (As said in another reply, I don't doubt the possibility of a limited one-world rule, but it will shatter as all the others did)
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
-
I 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.
I don't agree with you, but I can understand your point of view. How do you know when there's no more real indirect threats ? Will you be able to say one day that "well, now, I feel safe" How to stop the escalation ? Max.
-
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 ? And by whom ? The closest I can think of is the Roman Empire and that worked out pretty well for a couple of milleniums. Actually I think that while creating problems of its own a one world Gov. will eliminate many of todays problems as long as the Gov. is Democratic in its principles and the members have to face election every 3-4 years and some limits are placed on the amount of time one can serve. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Okay, I'm American, and, at least at this point, I oppose war with Iraq. Why? I don't think Iraq is our biggest threat. I still think Al-Quaeda and other terrorist organizations are bigger threats, and they aren't all in Iraq. Even if we blow Iraq off the face of the Earth, I don't think that'll stop the terrorists. Any war with Iraq will divert resources away from tracking down the real terrorists. I'm more afraid of an attack like the WTC attacks than a outright attack via a nuke or other weapon of mass destruction. Saddam may be a lunatic, but I don't think he's an idiot. If a major attack on the US comes from Iraq, everyone knows we would fight back and pretty much obliterate them. But I haven't totally made up my mind. And I don't run this country, anyway. :-O Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Navin wrote: If a major attack on the US comes from Iraq, everyone knows we would fight back and pretty much obliterate them. That is impossible. But Iraq can supply terrorist with nuclear bombs, chemical and biological weapons, and the like. That is why I support a war against Iraq. Not only are they capable of doing these things, I think they are willing to support terrorist. I do not have a position on whether I believe they HAVE supported terrorist this way. I don't run the country either, but I may have to leave my family to fight in this war. That is not something I want to do. But I rather do that than wait for my family to be at some place that is hit by terrorist.:((
-
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.
You are of course wrong with the exception of the Romans - not Caesar Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
peterchen wrote: Soviet Union is definitely more than 5% true enough. peterchen wrote: if until now everybody failed to rule a small part of the world - why now the entire? I'm not suggesting ruling the world as a tyranny, I'm thinking of a reasonable government where each country entered into it willing, etc... Also, as was stated elsewhere, the world has become much smaller making it easier to govern as a whole, where this never remotely possible before. I think as international laws increase the need for a single central government becomes inevitable. BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
The Roman Empire was as relaxed as the US will probably never be. As long as the provinces paid their taxes and didn't eat romans, they could often do as they pleased. Sure it's still a "if you don't give we take" relationship. But a more willing world government? Not with the people living on this planet now, and not if it's forced on anyone. For the speed issue - I've pondering this myself - may I redirect you here[^]?
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]