How does a war against Iraq affect you?
-
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
-
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
Stan Shannon wrote: Or maybe not. Errrr make that PROBABLY not! Stan Shannon wrote: Or blame the U.S. for not acting? This is the damn Catch-22 Americians have to live with I guess. I would rather act first. Stan Shannon wrote: They insist on being angry for the most lunatic of reasons I agree here also. They have been doing nothing but fighting amonst themselves (and others) for too many years. I often wonder if they even know what it is like NOT to fight. Maybe they know nothing else. Maybe we should drop a few thousand X-Boxes on them instead of bombs. Might keep them occupied.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
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
Thomas George wrote: It sidelines the UN, and all UN resolutions will have no meaning. They don't anyway. After 10 year of Iraq thumbing it's nose at resolutions nothing happened until GWB forced the issue. Thomas George wrote: The fact is, US has not been able to show the evidence about Iraqi involvement, as it had about Afghanistan. "We" don't know what evidence exists or has been shown to the other permanent members of the Security Council. If I were an Iraqi who escaped from Iraq without my family would it be fair for the US to let the New York Times know what I gave to the US? The answer is no. Thomas George wrote: The N Korea - Pak nuclear equation, brought forward by CIA, is being sidelined. I would wager they are next unless China reins them in. Don't you suspect that is why their shipment of scuds was stopped - to send a message? I'll have to correct myself, I personally believe the shipment was stopped so the scuds could be "tagged" then followed via satellite once they are delivered. Mike
-
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.
Emcee Lam wrote: Will the US commitment to inspections last until Saddam dies of old age? Maybe inspections will have to continue with Saddam's son. Thsi is why I think we need to HOLD Iraq. Not just run in, slap them on the face, act nice, shake hands and call it a day. We need to make a decision that we could never and can never trust him (or any puppet leader that we might think about putting in his place) and just control the damn country. The US acts too nice sometimes. We took Japan then handed them our money on a silver platter to let them rebuild. We took germany and then backed off. I don't think that we can afford to do the same thing here. Do not get me wrong. I have nothing against Japan or Germany at all. I just think that the purpose of winning a war is to WIN. A total win. Not a slap and run. All winning then leaving does is allow those bitter about loosing to slowly and secretly build arms against you. Something that we can not afford to let haoppen again. This is my biggest fear of Afganastan. We clean house all but for a few low lives, then leave in the sake of peace for the new puppettleader. 10 years from now we are right back where we started. If SH wants to show that he is a reformed leader, I woul dtake nothing more than his resignation to proove that. If he really wants to convince me that his only interests are that of his people then step aside, give up the wealth and pass it all on to the people he cares so much about.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
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]
I has to be wanted. A time will come when all people will realize that we need to behave as a team. Far too many people put thier ethinc backgrounds, thier religion, and thier own personal ideals infront of them and build a wall with them. The others in the past have failed because the world was not ready. When the world is ready the world will ask. Are we ready now? NO.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
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
Amen Mike
-
Thomas George wrote: It sidelines the UN, and all UN resolutions will have no meaning. They don't anyway. After 10 year of Iraq thumbing it's nose at resolutions nothing happened until GWB forced the issue. Thomas George wrote: The fact is, US has not been able to show the evidence about Iraqi involvement, as it had about Afghanistan. "We" don't know what evidence exists or has been shown to the other permanent members of the Security Council. If I were an Iraqi who escaped from Iraq without my family would it be fair for the US to let the New York Times know what I gave to the US? The answer is no. Thomas George wrote: The N Korea - Pak nuclear equation, brought forward by CIA, is being sidelined. I would wager they are next unless China reins them in. Don't you suspect that is why their shipment of scuds was stopped - to send a message? I'll have to correct myself, I personally believe the shipment was stopped so the scuds could be "tagged" then followed via satellite once they are delivered. Mike
UN has meaning only when the powerful countries that make it up want it to be successful. Why did not US push the security council for 10 years? Was it not their responsibility too (although it was never theirs alone)? They make up 20% of the veto power of the security council. UN does not have an army. The members make the enforcement possible. As regards UN resolution violations, Israel is in violation of many resolutions. US supports them. The no-fly zone on Iraq could have been made into a UN resolution to give it legitimacy; but US and Britain chose not to. The major powers continuously take steps that erode UN; and then they claim UN does nothing! A team is only as good as its members. The evidence need not be in NY Times. UN did not approve action in Afghanistan based on reports from NY times; neither did the administration have to convince you or me. The evidence can be shown to top-level officials (at the presidential level, if need be) to members including Russia, France and China. If they had as compelling an evidence as with Al-Qaeda and Taliban, we would already be in a US-Iraq war. That is the biggest evidence that US has not been able to link Iraq with terrorism in any diplomatic forum. This is also the reason why WMD and UN resolutions which US did not care for so long have come to the fore. It gives an impression that US is running out of targets and want to cover up their inability to find Osama or completely shutdown Al-Qaeda. Russia supports US based on its support in Chechnya. How else can you explain a sudden reversal of stand regarding Chechnya leading up to the UN resolution? No member in UN will be able to hold off action, if there was compelling proof. In the N Korea - Pak situation, Pakistan has been more dangerous because they have made another country nuclear-capable. What guarantee does Bush administration have that it will not go to another? Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
I has to be wanted. A time will come when all people will realize that we need to behave as a team. Far too many people put thier ethinc backgrounds, thier religion, and thier own personal ideals infront of them and build a wall with them. The others in the past have failed because the world was not ready. When the world is ready the world will ask. Are we ready now? NO.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
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
Yeah, and I'm sure the soldiers also provide a nice contribution to the local economy. Regards, Alvaro
Well done is better than well said. -- Benjamin Franklin (I actually prefer medium-well.)
-
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
-
UN has meaning only when the powerful countries that make it up want it to be successful. Why did not US push the security council for 10 years? Was it not their responsibility too (although it was never theirs alone)? They make up 20% of the veto power of the security council. UN does not have an army. The members make the enforcement possible. As regards UN resolution violations, Israel is in violation of many resolutions. US supports them. The no-fly zone on Iraq could have been made into a UN resolution to give it legitimacy; but US and Britain chose not to. The major powers continuously take steps that erode UN; and then they claim UN does nothing! A team is only as good as its members. The evidence need not be in NY Times. UN did not approve action in Afghanistan based on reports from NY times; neither did the administration have to convince you or me. The evidence can be shown to top-level officials (at the presidential level, if need be) to members including Russia, France and China. If they had as compelling an evidence as with Al-Qaeda and Taliban, we would already be in a US-Iraq war. That is the biggest evidence that US has not been able to link Iraq with terrorism in any diplomatic forum. This is also the reason why WMD and UN resolutions which US did not care for so long have come to the fore. It gives an impression that US is running out of targets and want to cover up their inability to find Osama or completely shutdown Al-Qaeda. Russia supports US based on its support in Chechnya. How else can you explain a sudden reversal of stand regarding Chechnya leading up to the UN resolution? No member in UN will be able to hold off action, if there was compelling proof. In the N Korea - Pak situation, Pakistan has been more dangerous because they have made another country nuclear-capable. What guarantee does Bush administration have that it will not go to another? Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: Why did not US push the security council for 10 years? (Opinion) We had an unprincipled president. Much more interested in looking the part of a leader than actually leading. Thomas George wrote: Israel is in violation of many resolutions. Yes. The UN after pushing the formation of Israel at the end of WWII found itself with a significant number of countries (this time in the east, not Europe) who believed Jews/Israelis/Zionists to be evil. Note that no superpower or Security Council member ever says squat, fairly well proving my point. Thomas George wrote: The evidence can be shown to top-level officials (at the presidential level, if need be) to members including Russia, France and China. And we don't know that it wasn't. Otherwise why did they finally agree? Thomas George wrote: It gives an impression that US is running out of targets and want to cover up their inability to find Osama or completely shutdown Al-Qaeda. I'm all for bombing Pakistan back to the stone age. And I am not quite sure how you find the grease spot that is Osama. Finally, stopping all of Al-Qaeda is impossible as anyone with an ounce of intellect knows. You can't spot or kill something that morphs and move from cave to cave, country to country, hole to hole. But you keep chasing. Thomas George wrote: In the N Korea - Pak situation, Pakistan has been more dangerous because they have made another country nuclear-capable. What guarantee does Bush administration have that it will not go to another? N Korea is next. Pak will have their turn, watch what happens if militants gain more power there. Mike