How does a war against Iraq affect you?
-
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.
-
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
The ultimate responsibility of government is the control of economics. You don't think the WTO (World Trade Organization) is enough? ------------------------------------------ "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
-
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
Ok. True. You'll always get assholes who'll band together under any convenient banner, be it religion or something else, and decide to either convert or failing that, wipe out everyone else who deviates. Thinking a little about it this weekend I've decided that maybe I just have issues about religion in general. That said, maybe this should be my last post in this thread.
Peace.