How does a war against Iraq affect you?
-
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.
-
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 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? Pakistan made anotehr country nuclar capable. but what about America making Nuclear capable to Israel.?? sorry for my Bad English.
-
The way I see it is like this: If I might possibly have a gun in my possesion - which I might use or give to someone who would use it. Is that enough reason to shoot me? Kevin
Kevin Glover wrote: The way I see it is like this: If I might possibly have a gun in my possesion - which I might use or give to someone who would use it. Is that enough reason to shoot me? Yes, if you're waving it around, threatening your neighbors, and you have a history of aggressive behavior.
-
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
-
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.
Bob Flynn wrote: I meant to say that it is impossible for Iraq to launch a direct attack against the US. At least on the American continent. How the next scenario sounds: Iraqi intelligence loads several mobile missiles on a merchant ship with flag of Tongo leaving Lebanon/Syria. It wont be detected in Lebanon. Approaching NY the missiles are stationed at ship's top, armed with VX and fired. Those missiles are Katyusha like type - small, light and can be fired from everywhere. Iraq striking US is a decision thing, not feasibility.
-
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
Brit wrote: A one world government is inevitable That wasn't me who posted that. Brit wrote: So the conditions of the Lend Lease agreement were tantamount to occupation under an American One-World government What I originally replied to was that FDR was similar to others who had aimed for a World Government. Please rememeber who instigated the United Nations. :-) FDR is even credited with creating the name. Brit wrote: 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? I don't think the US was at fault for doing anything in particular. Being the only industrialized country not ravaged (apart from Sweden) was a matter of geographical circumstance and good economic management. 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.
-
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.
Zathrus wrote: Abolish organised religion Than why was the world such a violent place before the rise of organized religion? Religion is not the problem, the human propensity for violence is. It would be just as bad if we were all athiests. "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
Nope. It is all about economics. The ultimate responsibility of government is the control of economics. A one world economy demands a one world government to manage it. It *will* happen. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Zathrus wrote: Abolish organised religion Than why was the world such a violent place before the rise of organized religion? Religion is not the problem, the human propensity for violence is. It would be just as bad if we were all athiests. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
As long as all certain religions have that elitist "we're right, you're wrong, and you're going to hell" attitude, there's always going to be extreme friction.
And besides, the world has always had organise religion of sorts. And I dare say that we used to be even more bloody back then. Sacrifices anyone? How about an inquisition. Um, maybe a crusade or two. Ugh.. people have been killing in the name of some deity or other since the beginning of [our] time. It just doesn't cut it.
-
As long as all certain religions have that elitist "we're right, you're wrong, and you're going to hell" attitude, there's always going to be extreme friction.
And besides, the world has always had organise religion of sorts. And I dare say that we used to be even more bloody back then. Sacrifices anyone? How about an inquisition. Um, maybe a crusade or two. Ugh.. people have been killing in the name of some deity or other since the beginning of [our] time. It just doesn't cut it.
-
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.
I have no doubts about Pakistan's legal position since they are signatories to NPT. All nuclear tech transfer to Pakistan happened before US signed NPT, I would assume (I am not certain about this). The point is CIA reports and Pakistan's denial. US has to make it clear either way - CIA was wrong OR US supports proliferation from non-NPT countries as a policy. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Oops, I left out the witch hunts of the dark ages. Paganism was and is a perfectly valid religion, all but wiped out by... Christians.. "Shock!, horror! we never did anything like that." ... right, think again.
And the pagans slaughtered each other wholesale even though they all worshipped the same gods. Northern Ireland was a blood bath long before religious differences became a factor. Ancient Greeks all worshipped the same gods, yet killed one another for any number of secular reasons. Same with native Americans, Asians, Africans, etc. Rome was largely tolerant of all religions yet was an incredibly violent civilization. I'm not religious or anything, but your arguments just do not stand up to scrutiny. You are trying to solve the religion problem not the violence problem. They are not the same thing, and never have been. History would have been no less violent or cruel if everyone had been athiestic, and possibly far more so. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Bob Flynn wrote: I meant to say that it is impossible for Iraq to launch a direct attack against the US. At least on the American continent. How the next scenario sounds: Iraqi intelligence loads several mobile missiles on a merchant ship with flag of Tongo leaving Lebanon/Syria. It wont be detected in Lebanon. Approaching NY the missiles are stationed at ship's top, armed with VX and fired. Those missiles are Katyusha like type - small, light and can be fired from everywhere. Iraq striking US is a decision thing, not feasibility.
Felix Gartsman wrote: How the next scenario sounds: Iraqi intelligence loads several mobile missiles on a merchant ship with flag of Tongo leaving Lebanon/Syria. It wont be detected in Lebanon. Approaching NY the missiles are stationed at ship's top, armed with VX and fired. Those missiles are Katyusha like type - small, light and can be fired from everywhere. Iraq striking US is a decision thing, not feasibility. Very likely scenario. In fact, I think that is the basis of the US position for pre-emptive strikes against Iraq. I think this is more of a terrorism scenario than a direct attack. Iraq can claim innocence until we prove them guilty in the world opinion.