How does a war against Iraq affect you?
-
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]
-
Linux sucks. :beer:
Because of the off-topicness of your post, I conclude that you're either bored at work or you're just sick and tired of this whole US vs Iraq thing. :-D -- This space for rent.
-
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.:((
Bob Flynn wrote: That is impossible. How so? We have weapons of mass destruction, too, you know. My point is, do you really think war with Iraq will actually stop the terrorists? I don't think so. They come from all over the place, not just Iraq. It is possible that a war on Iraq would just fuel the fire, so to speak, and make things worse. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
-
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.
Maximilien wrote: How to stop the escalation ? I don't know how to end the cycle - but SH is a threat to me and to citizens of the countries around him. Do you think he would hesitate to attack Kuwait if the US was not around to stop him? Maximilien wrote: Will you be able to say one day that "well, now, I feel safe" Safe from everything. Never. I lock my doors at night because I have to. But that does not mean we should not take any steps to secure our safety. The thing is, noone is saying that they think SH is innocent. So why bash the US so much(not you directly)? It seem that it is more of an anti-US opinion - just because it is a US initiative.
-
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.
Beware, Saddam may be hatching a ploy. His compliance does not come from a good natured disposition. His compliance is reluctant and really only came after unyielding pressure from the US. We should not interpret his compliance to indicate a reformed Saddam. Saddam has time on his side. The inspections are done in fervor now, but what about 8 years later. Will the US still have the strength to insist upon inspections. The US may become distracted and the insistence for inspections will grow lax. Then Saddam would have an opportunity to rebuild his arsenal and gather maybe a nuclear warhead or two. Will the US commitment to inspections last until Saddam dies of old age? Maybe inspections will have to continue with Saddam's son. Perhaps the US will elect a new president who believes in a reformable Saddam, just like the president who believed in a reformable North Korea. Political winds change, and US foreign policy will ebb and flow. Saddam will wait for opportunities to come to him.
-
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 to problems with that - once the facts (which are arguable), and two moral ones (which of course are not): Saddam is unlikely to be the biggest threat for the US. He's a weapon-macho, even lunatic, but he isn't so far out of his mind as to attack the US directly. And he's collecting weapons, not giving them away. The majority of the 9/11 attackers was neither from nor trained in neither Afghanistan nor Irak. [edit]ok, you wrote "perceived". But they can't be *that* blind..[/edit] moral: A rogue that kindly asks you for all your money before drawing his knife is still a rogue. And why Irak now? I see more troublesome things happening right now (Ivory coast springs to mind).
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
-
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]
peterchen wrote: But a more willing world government? Not with the people living on this planet now, and not if it's forced on anyone. Again, that's what I'm suggesting. A world government that is not forced on anyone. We've already got all kinds of worlde wide entities, UN, World Bank, World Trade Organization, World Health Organization .... EU is looking to expand. US free-trade is including more countries in central/south america, and I look for unification to happen in these regions in the next 15-20 years. Africa could easily begin to unify over that same time period. It's not a big jump from there. BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
-
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
Thomas George wrote: 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 I'd like to chime in on this quote. Yes, children have died because of the embargo. However, the embargo is in place because SH has failed to live up to the agreements made during the Cease Fire Agreement at the end of the Gulf War. My opinion. -Sean ---- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Albert Einstein. I saw a woman wearing a sweatshirt with 'Guess' on it. I said, "Thyroid problem?" -- Emo Philips. Love is two minutes, 52 seconds of squishing noises. -- Johnny Rotten.
-
Because of the off-topicness of your post, I conclude that you're either bored at work or you're just sick and tired of this whole US vs Iraq thing. :-D -- This space for rent.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I conclude that you're either bored at work No, actually I am working hard - just the compile time can be soooo long. :zzz: Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: or you're just sick and tired of this whole US vs Iraq thing Nah, I just don't like discussions like this on CP. We should rant about technical issues, and not politics. :beer:
-
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
Stan Shannon wrote: A one world government is inevitable. The question is who,what and when, not if. Not with out a lot of force. Jason Gerard "This almost never matters, except quite often."
-
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
brianwelsch wrote: I think as international laws increase the need for a single central government becomes inevitable. Are you wishing such a government ? :confused:
I hurt so bad inside I wish you could see the world through my eyes It stays the same I just wanna laugh again
-
Bob Flynn wrote: That is impossible. How so? We have weapons of mass destruction, too, you know. My point is, do you really think war with Iraq will actually stop the terrorists? I don't think so. They come from all over the place, not just Iraq. It is possible that a war on Iraq would just fuel the fire, so to speak, and make things worse. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I meant to say that it is impossible for Iraq to launch a direct attack against the US. At least on the American continent. Navin wrote: My point is, do you really think war with Iraq will actually stop the terrorists? I don't think so. They come from all over the place, not just Iraq. It is possible that a war on Iraq would just fuel the fire, so to speak, and make things worse. I think there is a great risk that this will fuel more terrorism. That is partly why I asked this question in the first place. I wanted to see why so much of the world opinion is against the US. I do think it is because the US is behind the action. Go back to Kuwait. The world supported US actions then because we were defending a country that could not befend itself against Iraq. I am not sure if it will make it worse though. I think there are terrorist planning their next attack right now whether we fight Iraq or not. Will this motivate more human beings to attempt terrorism? I hope not.
-
brianwelsch wrote: I think as international laws increase the need for a single central government becomes inevitable. Are you wishing such a government ? :confused:
I hurt so bad inside I wish you could see the world through my eyes It stays the same I just wanna laugh again
If a government could be developed to handle it reasonably well, then Yes I'm all for it. Regional states would have to be developed across the globe, allowing for some level of self-governing per region, but with ultimate authority lying in those elected into federal positions. It seems that most people here think this is a bad idea. BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
-
Thomas George wrote: 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 I'd like to chime in on this quote. Yes, children have died because of the embargo. However, the embargo is in place because SH has failed to live up to the agreements made during the Cease Fire Agreement at the end of the Gulf War. My opinion. -Sean ---- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Albert Einstein. I saw a woman wearing a sweatshirt with 'Guess' on it. I said, "Thyroid problem?" -- Emo Philips. Love is two minutes, 52 seconds of squishing noises. -- Johnny Rotten.
I do not mean to blame US or UN for the death of Iraqi children; Saddam himself is to blame, and I think he doesn't care. He would, perhaps, be happy that he has something that he has one more item for his anti-US propaganda. What I mean is, war does not necessarily mean more casualities, especially since children are dying everyday. But, I am wary of US setting a pre-emptive strike precedent. North Korea could attack S Korea or vice-versa on the basis of a perceived threat. India could attack Pak or vice-versa. Now, there international opposition to aggression is a major factor that causes these hostilities to remain subdued. US, as a super power, does not need to care much about that; but, in my opinion, the precedent set would be harmful in the long run. 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
Stan Shannon wrote: A one world government is inevitable. Why? Mike