How does a war against Iraq affect you?
-
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
-
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
-
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."
Simple. Abolish organised religion. If Christians, Jews and Muslims aren't going to take their blinkers off and realise just how much their religions actually have in common, (as apposed to killing each other over the [relatively] minor differences), then I reckon that the whole damn thing should be scrapped. Come on. After thousands of years we're still at this point. Makes me sick.
-
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
-
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
In Pakistan, militancy is secret-service sponsored. They recently released leaders of a group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is in the US terrorist groups list, citing no evidence. The whole world power equation changed with nuclear weapons; it can change in a day with something else - and it may not necessarily occur in US. All international co-operation should be seen from that perspective. There has to be a world order, where the powerful nations stand by a commitment to make international law - and make it work; and make sure that it applies to themselves too. Until, US, China and Russia takes steps towards that goal, we will see more of these problems. The arrogance of "we can take on anyone else" is a definite road block to any meaningful cooperation. All policies have to take into account a situation where you are no longer the most powerful (it is just a matter of time that this happens) ; and being able to put together a system, where small countries are not bullied around. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
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
Duh, I'll be at army then and I don't like that, I prefer to work and not to serve. Remember it is a one month every year for you to go to army here (in Israel), regardless if you have finished 3 years service or not, lol. Makes me sad Philip Patrick Web-site: www.stpworks.com "Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer
-
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
-
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: Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. The guy is by my eyes a cruel leader, but he has as much right to rule by his rules as any other leader, whatever they work to. I think it's very clear that anybody opposing the US will get a raw deal, Saddam is getting nothing special here. Bob Flynn wrote: Do you think that SH does not have WMD? I'm sure he does, but for what intents is far more important. But even then, we have very little moral groud by which to judge them. If he becomes a viable threat then we have a duty to our own societies to provide protection, but to take someone out of the premise that they might one day pose a threat means we'll need to take all all but one human being alive. Bob Flynn wrote: Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? There has yet to be any proof that Iraq has sponsored or aided anti-western terrorists or their organisations since Black September's infamous excursion decades ago. I think Saddam is a very clever man and he knows all too well that doing anything to directly support anti-western terrorists will give his enemies a clean slate to kill him with. Add to this he is a man who must be in complete control, which you cannot get with outlaw groups such as terrorists. He won't supply terrorists with WMD; he has not turned insane yet. But push him and who knows. People in corners have no option other than to meet their cornerer on their own grounds. Bob Flynn wrote: Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? I think Saddam wants Iraq and his regieme to become viable players in the Middle East and then the World. Just as every other country utlimately wants. Bob Flynn wrote: Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic Again Saddam is not stupid. I do not doubt for a moment what has been submitted (providing we are talking about the final version and not the edited highlights the Americans created) is truthfull and complete. I also have little doubt he has systematically been destroying both produce and evidence of the numerous questionable operations that were being performed, as they are in every country. He's been caught with his pants down and he's cut his own gentitals off to make sure nothing is found when the doct
-
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 *Not for all Americans, of course, but for American's goverment and for majority of Americans. You remember CNN stories about Serbs in Balkan wars? I do hope it is not for all Serbs, and I do hope CNN explained it clear to Americans. American's goverment not only want to rule the world, they even have a lot of success in it.
-
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
Chris Hambleton wrote: MUSLIMS -- did the US ever get a thank-you? I thought the national religion in the States was Christianity? :confused:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.
-
Colin Davies wrote: FDR. :confused: How so? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: FDR. I admit I through that in to bait an american. :-) But in WW2 every country was trying to get as much out of a victory as possible. (That's ony logical) And America was no exception. The US went pre WW2 from being incredibly isolationalist to being the main power internationally. The US won WW2 and enjoyed the spoils. Prior to even entering the war the US must have planned how it would leverage it's position to the best of it's advantage. The UK never really recovered from WW2 as it's empire was finally in tatters, US businesses managed to pick up where the Brits left off. The late 1940's were a time that the US was americanizing the world nicely. IMHO: If it had not have been for Russia the US would have Americanised the world. Yes I know FDR didn't live to see the plan full out. I don't really see any evil in what happened, it just makes sense to take opportunities that arise, even for nations. 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.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: FDR. I admit I through that in to bait an american. :-) But in WW2 every country was trying to get as much out of a victory as possible. (That's ony logical) And America was no exception. The US went pre WW2 from being incredibly isolationalist to being the main power internationally. The US won WW2 and enjoyed the spoils. Prior to even entering the war the US must have planned how it would leverage it's position to the best of it's advantage. The UK never really recovered from WW2 as it's empire was finally in tatters, US businesses managed to pick up where the Brits left off. The late 1940's were a time that the US was americanizing the world nicely. IMHO: If it had not have been for Russia the US would have Americanised the world. Yes I know FDR didn't live to see the plan full out. I don't really see any evil in what happened, it just makes sense to take opportunities that arise, even for nations. 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.
Right, which is why America annexed West Germany, France, and Japan. Oops. So much for the "get as much out of a victory as possible" theory. Russia, on the other hand, brought lots of German workers to Russia as slave labor after the war. ------------------------------------------ "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
-
Right, which is why America annexed West Germany, France, and Japan. Oops. So much for the "get as much out of a victory as possible" theory. Russia, on the other hand, brought lots of German workers to Russia as slave labor after the war. ------------------------------------------ "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
I think you missed the gist of it. The UK France Japan, Germany, Italy and a lot of other places were in a shambles after the war. Instead of taking the actual countries the US took their off shore investments off them on a commercial basis. The US economy boomed with itself become the centralised trade area, and the US dollar became an international monetary unit. If you want to see how this worked just check the wording of the Atlantic Charter, or Lend Lease agreements. You have probably read the arguements about the 3rd. 4th and 7th clauses of the AC. (the 8th is still a joke) The rational for this was that these aggrements had to be sold to the US congress and senate players so that it was benificial to their electoral interests. While on the otherside of the Atlantic the UK was on it's knees pleading for help. FDR admitted blandly in the LL proposal, "I am talking selfishly, from the American point of view--nothing else" before the garden hose analogy. 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.
-
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:
True that :) These threads can go on and on. The only thing we can ever agree on is that Linux sucks! ;P Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
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
-
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
brianwelsch wrote: Again, that's what I'm suggesting. A world government that is not forced on anyone. It will be always forced on someone. Even democratic nations like the US or UK have so many quirks that not even a majority will be assured to be happy. (neither the US President or UK PM are elected on the popular vote) Also we only count what we consider as "worthwhile" as well as "known world" in our assumptions about a world govt. If China, India and the rest of Asia combined alone, they would probably have over half the worlds population but would white Europeans consider them to be the World government ? 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.
-
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: Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Constantine, Napoleon, Stalin Hitler FDR. Don't forget: Bill Gates Brain (from Pink & Brain) I see dumb people
-
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
The real reason most poeple are opposed to the Iraq war is because this whole damn thing is obviously nothing but a ploy by the Bush administration. The reasons for the ploy are many, and amazing: - To distract the US public from issues that Bush is either ignoring or actively moving backwards on, such as environmental issues, personal freedom, corporate accountability, tax cuts for the rich, cronyism, etc. - To keep people afraid, so as to increase support for his phony "war on terror" and thereby ensure Republican dominance of our government. - To advance Isreal's objective of shutting Iraq down (see recent news reports that show how Bush administration personnel were on Israel's payroll in the late 90's, and issued a stratgic report for Netanyahu describing reasons for removing Hussein from power.) - To gain control of Iraqi oil. Note that _nothing_ in this has anything to do with Hussein and his so-called "weapons of mass destruction" (an ambiguous term that can mean whatever Bush wants it to mean.) Hussein and his capabilities are irrelevant; he's just a scapegoat. If Bush were concerned about "WMD", he'd be working on North Korea and Pakistan.
-
Simple. Abolish organised religion. If Christians, Jews and Muslims aren't going to take their blinkers off and realise just how much their religions actually have in common, (as apposed to killing each other over the [relatively] minor differences), then I reckon that the whole damn thing should be scrapped. Come on. After thousands of years we're still at this point. Makes me sick.
Hey, you won't get one ounce of argument from me there... The only problem is that if you outloaw the whole thing you are bound to end up with people that want to be outside the norm, and we have enough religous fanatics already.
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."