How does a war against Iraq affect you?
-
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."
-
For all my cynics, I would not want to give up the dream.
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
Oh hey, I don't want to give up either, but this is something that is so important that it CAN'T be rushed.
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 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.
A one world government is inevitable. * Really? when was this ever seriously tried? * A few guesses Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Constantine, Napoleon, Stalin Hitler FDR. So the conditions of the Lend Lease agreement were tantamount to occupation under an American One-World government? Regarding the rise of American power after 1945: the US is apparently at fault for being the only major industialized country not ravaged by WWII? ------------------------------------------ "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
-
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]
The Roman Empire was as relaxed as the US will probably never be... Sure it's still a "if you don't give we take" relationship. Quite a taste for the melodramatic, huh Pete? ------------------------------------------ "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
-
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
A one world government is inevitable. The question is who,what and when, not if. No. I don't think it will happen until we meet aliens or colonize space. There may be a loose federation, however. There is simply too much diversity to form a single world government. There would be too much suspicion about who's leading the whole thing. Human political entities form because they have a common interest to defend against another group. (read: NATO, OPEC, the Arab League) In early history, that other group was just down the road - hence city-states. In later history, as mobility increased, it was nations like France and Germany. Now, with mobility increased even further, europe is uniting because they have a certain commonality as opposed to, say, Russia, China or the US. The enlargement of political entities occurs because separate political entities feel a common threat. A one-world government has no unifying force -- until the establishment of other human civilizations on other planets or an alien race. In many cases, very large entities have been formed (by the Romans and Mongols) but they are always unstable because the separate political groups feel more threatened by each other than they do by a common foe. Take for example the cold war and the post-cold war world. Devoid of the common Russian threat, europe seems to be slowly drifting away from the US. The drift will stabilize, however, because Europe and the US really do have common interests and a commonality through their ancestry, democracy, industrialization. But, the fact that Europe and the US are realigning is a testament to the unifying force of a common Russian threat. In short, a one-world government will not form until there is an "other". ------------------------------------------ "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
-
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.
It's not about organized religion. It's about people abusing religions. Jesus never picked up a sword to force anyone to convert. Neither did any of Jesus disciples. People who have in the past forced others to convert are not real Christians. If they were real Christians, they would have understood that Jesus ministry consisted of caring for people, not killing people.
-
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.
Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan. There seems to be a lot of questions surrounding why the US treats each one of them differently despite them each having WMD development programs. Let's start with Pakistan. Pakistan and India are pointing nuclear weapons at each other, and nobody else. It's a bit more isolated. Pakistan's Musharaff is a US ally and therefore is controllable to some extent. The US would like Pakistan to lay down its nuclear weapons, but a more pressing matter is overting war between India and Pakistan. North Korea, a country that is fast becoming a major regional threat. Both South Korea and Japan are being threatened. Fortunately, North Korea has abstained from war for the last 50 years. North Korea seems to be using weapons as a political leverage rather than as a military weapon. "Give us food and oil, or else." Let's hope that those weapons are just used for political leverage and the situation doesn't escalate to actual usage. Iraq is different. Saddam seeks to enlarge Iraq by taking territory and he's made attempts to do so. First he tried taking Iran and failed. Then he tried taking Kuwait and failed. Saudia Arabia likewise believes that Iraq wants its territory as well. Saddam is far closer to turning threats into actual military actions. This is what makes Saddam such a threat. If Saddam had nuclear weapons, there's no holding him back. This is the reason why Saddam is treated so differently from either North Korea or Pakistan.
-
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: Pakistan has been more dangerous because they have made another country nuclear-capable No my dear, who made Pakistan Nuclear capable?? Pakistan's Nuclear program was started by Dr. Abdul Qadir Khan who was graduated from Holland and was working there. At that time, i remember, many western news papers blamed Holland for transfering metallurgy plants to Pakistan. Most of the early days scientists of Pakistan nuclear program were US graduates. Last year ago a ship was caught near British ports in which neuclear material was captured which was heading towards Pakistan. The nuclear production style of Pakistan is based on Heavy Water (D20) and Gas centrifuges, something similar to that of style used in US So, if you think that a country that transfers nuclear technology to others is dangerous, then those countries are more dangerous that provided nuclear know how to Pakistan.
-
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
Thomas George wrote: 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. FYI, Lashkar-e-Taiba was sponsored by USA during its "virtual" war with USSR in Afghanistan during 80s.
-
Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan. There seems to be a lot of questions surrounding why the US treats each one of them differently despite them each having WMD development programs. Let's start with Pakistan. Pakistan and India are pointing nuclear weapons at each other, and nobody else. It's a bit more isolated. Pakistan's Musharaff is a US ally and therefore is controllable to some extent. The US would like Pakistan to lay down its nuclear weapons, but a more pressing matter is overting war between India and Pakistan. North Korea, a country that is fast becoming a major regional threat. Both South Korea and Japan are being threatened. Fortunately, North Korea has abstained from war for the last 50 years. North Korea seems to be using weapons as a political leverage rather than as a military weapon. "Give us food and oil, or else." Let's hope that those weapons are just used for political leverage and the situation doesn't escalate to actual usage. Iraq is different. Saddam seeks to enlarge Iraq by taking territory and he's made attempts to do so. First he tried taking Iran and failed. Then he tried taking Kuwait and failed. Saudia Arabia likewise believes that Iraq wants its territory as well. Saddam is far closer to turning threats into actual military actions. This is what makes Saddam such a threat. If Saddam had nuclear weapons, there's no holding him back. This is the reason why Saddam is treated so differently from either North Korea or Pakistan.
-
Emcee Lam wrote: he US would like Pakistan to lay down its nuclear weapons Why only Pakistan and not India ????
Shamoon wrote: Emcee Lam wrote: he US would like Pakistan to lay down its nuclear weapons Why only Pakistan and not India ???? Oops, my mistake. The US would like both Pakistan and India to lay down their nuclear weapons. One can't disarm, without the other doing likewise.