<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know people are complaining about Mugabe, and thats great. But not in their thousands in Germany and France. Two nations who knew that they werent going to support the Iraq war, but decided to complain about the Americans killing poor Iraqi civilians. No peace protestor can honestly be out in the streets claiming they are "doing it for the innocents in country x". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There arn't millions in the street protesting against Mugabe because he doesn't really affect us to any great extent. I protested against the war on Iraq because I felt it was unjustified, illegal and it would place Australians at risk, both on the front lines and at home. Millions more just like me protested for those very reasons (just cross out Australians and place country of choice <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
I'll relate an interesting thing that occured during the peace rallies. Three days after the war started I took part in a march in Brisbane. There would have been around 5,000 people there. We marched from King George Square up into the CBD until we reached a large building. Suddenly, the march stopped. A group of socialists with megaphones were holding us up. As I watched, astonished, these socialists climbed up in front of this building and drowned out our cries of "No War!" with stories of how this evil evil corperation located in this building sold weapons to countries. They started going on about Palistine. Most of the people in the march were by this point becoming quite agitated. A smaller group split away and tried to continue the march but it failed. The chants of "No War!" were now gone. As I wandered away, I watched as the entire march simply splintered up and virtually vanished. The socialists were left addressing themselves.
My point here is that the people who did march didn't want that particular war in Iraq to happen. Many of them didn't care about socialist retoric, myself among them. We just wanted to oppose this particular action. We felt it was happening for all the wrong reasons and that it would just cause more conflict. A lot of the people by my side in those marches were buisinessmen or office workers, just ordainary people who didn't want Australia going to war. For that, we were labeled anti-Australian and "ratbags".
Is a nation that has "evil" rulers a legitimate military target. Some say yes. I say no. It's not our job to save people from their own government. Let 'em rot? No. Let 'em sort out their own problems. If everyone under Saddam's government didn't want him there, he wouldn't have been there. What is fast becoming clear is that the Iraqis arn't too keen on the Americans being there in his place.
Before a nation starts invading other nations to "free" their people and make their lives better, that nation should look at it's own population first. Millions of Americans live in poverty. Millions don't have health care. Still more recieve substandard education. The money spent on the Iraq conflict would have been better spent at home, both in Australia and the US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now that the US has dispelled the illusion that the French and Germans actually have some say in what goes on in the world via the UN, they arent happy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why exactly shouldn't the most powerful economic and military country in Europe be denied a say in world affairs? And why should a nuclear power with colonial ties across the world also be denied a say?
Seems like we always get yelled at for doing just that. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well what I don't understand is that there are always people ready to criticize ANY action (and I do mean ANY action) done by Bush.
America perhaps made the mistake of putting Saddam in power, however if we try to correct that mistake, someone says "Bush! You're so stupid! You're killing all these americans for a lost cause! This war isn't going to do a bit of good!"
Yet, if we hadn't moved in, he would have been criticized by the other side. Someone might say "Bush! You're so stupid! Look at all this evidence that Iraq is building nukes! If you don't stop them we'll all be in nuclear winter!"
So, consequentially, it is simply stating nothing to criticize. There is obviously more than one side to every issue, and in most cases, there are far more than two. They wouldn't be a side if there weren't evidence to support their claim, right? So everybody who believes any sort of side to an issue has evidence to wave in the air and beat other people on the side of the head with trying to get them to believe what you have to say. It is absolutely pointless.
Where am I getting with this? Lets not jump to conclusions. Lets look at facts peeps. What do we know about Saddam and Bush, and how would YOU do things given what they both knew and how they acted?
Also let me add that right now it is the popular opinion to hate America (not that it was ever popular to love America), but let me clarify that America has nothing to do with this. This is about Bush, another 4 year term, Saddam, tyrannical dictatorships, and a conflict of interest. No where in this have Americans, Iraqis, or anyone gotten actually involved in the conflict unless we're talking about Americans/Iraqis following orders in the military. Even then, they are following orders. The people that make decisions are the ones that should be held responsible.
Lets try not to cutthroat America, Iraq, Pakistan, China or any other country in this discussion, ok? For every country you name, I can promise I can give you a list of millions of citizens of that country that had nothing to do with that decision. Lets watch what we say.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well what I don't understand is that there are always people ready to criticize ANY action (and I do mean ANY action) done by Bush. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course. There are so many different people in the US (and world) with so many varying perspectives on politics that for any given action there has to be *some* person who's going to criticize it. But this happens to every president.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lets look at facts peeps. What do we know about Saddam and Bush, and how would YOU do things given what they both knew and how they acted? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> While it we may not be able to come back on-topic, at least I can try to address the questions of the thread starter. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> So let's take a look at the facts about Bush and Saddam: So pretend I'm pre-war Bush. This is what I know: -I know that we haven't found WMD in Iraq yet. -I know that Saddam is a maniac who kills his own people. -I also know that US precedent doesn't really care about this. -I know that oil prices are going up and our economy's going to hell. -I know that no president ever gets reelected when the economy's bad. -I know that Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 -I know that without proper justification, it will be hard to motivate the country to go to war. -I know that war always brings the economy up, and 'acquiring' oil can make it come up even more. -I know there are people out there who want to fight terrorism, and there are people out there who care about human rights. -I know that despite this, there are many people out there who will swallow whatever the media feeds them.
Given Bush's beliefs, factual knowledge, and goals, I think he's smarter than we give him credit for. Basically, he raised the economy (which improves his chances for re-election) by starting a war using lies like 'anti-terrorism', 'weapons of mass destruction', and 'human rights' as reasons, and uses the media to disseminate them to this very day. Think that's not true? Why else, then, would there be such a hub-bub about the administration lying about WMD or terrorism in the news today? There was a white house official who said a little while ago something to the extent of 'I'm sorry if we gave the impression that we were going after terrorism, or Al-Qaida, because we really weren't.'
Now here's a sticky point to my logic. You may not believe it is an unjustfied war. That's fine. But at least agree that the war is not justified by the reasons that Bush stated. It is not an anti-terror war, nor was it to find WMD (we still haven't found any) nor is it about human rights (we don't give a flying fig about other countries in similar situations.) So while you may believe it's a justified war for other reasons, it is pretty clear that it's not justified by the reasons that Bush gave.
In my opinion, if I were Bush, with his goals and beliefs, I would've tried to pull off exactly the same thing. And he's been pretty successful at his goals too -- basically using the media to pawn off lies as justification to a war to the American public to raise the economy and his re-election chances.
Now, if I weren't Bush and actually cared about my country, I might've done something different.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But thats just it, they are not stepping over everyone, they are trampling on a few Middle Eastern countries, and yet their biggest opponents are other Western Nations. Now that the US has dispelled the illusion that the French and Germans actually have some say in what goes on in the world via the UN, they arent happy. And they want to bring the US down.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They ARE stepping over everyone. You even said so right there in the same paragraph. The French and Germans DO have some say, obviously it's very very small compared to the US, or else the US wouldn't have stepped on it so easily.
That 'illusion' that you say other countries have is true to some point. There really is no other country that matters as much as the US. But that still doesn't mean that the US should go and crush everyone else's opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also let me add that right now it is the popular opinion to hate America (not that it was ever popular to love America), but let me clarify that America has nothing to do with this. This is about Bush, another 4 year term, Saddam, tyrannical dictatorships, and a conflict of interest. No where in this have Americans, Iraqis, or anyone gotten actually involved in the conflict unless we're talking about Americans/Iraqis following orders in the military. Even then, they are following orders. The people that make decisions are the ones that should be held responsible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So America has nothing to do with it sending troops over to Iraq? last I heard, the majority of Americans supported the war.
I also must refer to Nuremburg. When you say that the leaders of the US are the only ones that should be held responsible for decisions made, you deny that it was in any way the fault of the citizens of the US. Unfortunately, you ARE responsible. This was ruled at Nuremburg, which was to set teh example for the rest of these decisions. Even if you disagree with this ruling, there still are the points that you as citizens: 1. voted him into office 2. approved of the decisions he was making 3. made no significant outcry at things you though was wrong with his decisions 4. have a mind of your own. you can make your own decisions. 5. and he also represents your country. He IS the leader.
In the famous words of some person I forgot "all that is neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
P.S. yeah, I know evil is a strong word, but that's the quote. rename evil to something less if you want to.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There arn't millions in the street protesting against Mugabe because he doesn't really affect us to any great extent. I protested against the war on Iraq because I felt it was unjustified, illegal and it would place Australians at risk, both on the front lines and at home. Millions more just like me protested for those very reasons (just cross out Australians and place country of choice <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
I'll relate an interesting thing that occured during the peace rallies. Three days after the war started I took part in a march in Brisbane. There would have been around 5,000 people there. We marched from King George Square up into the CBD until we reached a large building. Suddenly, the march stopped. A group of socialists with megaphones were holding us up. As I watched, astonished, these socialists climbed up in front of this building and drowned out our cries of "No War!" with stories of how this evil evil corperation located in this building sold weapons to countries. They started going on about Palistine. Most of the people in the march were by this point becoming quite agitated. A smaller group split away and tried to continue the march but it failed. The chants of "No War!" were now gone. As I wandered away, I watched as the entire march simply splintered up and virtually vanished. The socialists were left addressing themselves.
My point here is that the people who did march didn't want that particular war in Iraq to happen. Many of them didn't care about socialist retoric, myself among them. We just wanted to oppose this particular action. We felt it was happening for all the wrong reasons and that it would just cause more conflict. A lot of the people by my side in those marches were buisinessmen or office workers, just ordainary people who didn't want Australia going to war. For that, we were labeled anti-Australian and "ratbags".
Is a nation that has "evil" rulers a legitimate military target. Some say yes. I say no. It's not our job to save people from their own government. Let 'em rot? No. Let 'em sort out their own problems. If everyone under Saddam's government didn't want him there, he wouldn't have been there. What is fast becoming clear is that the Iraqis arn't too keen on the Americans being there in his place.
Before a nation starts invading other nations to "free" their people and make their lives better, that nation should look at it's own population first. Millions of Americans live in poverty. Millions don't have health care. Still more recieve substandard education. The money spent on the Iraq conflict would have been better spent at home, both in Australia and the US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now that the US has dispelled the illusion that the French and Germans actually have some say in what goes on in the world via the UN, they arent happy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why exactly shouldn't the most powerful economic and military country in Europe be denied a say in world affairs? And why should a nuclear power with colonial ties across the world also be denied a say?
America perhaps made the mistake of putting Saddam in power, however if we try to correct that mistake, someone says "Bush! You're so stupid! You're killing all these americans for a lost cause! This war isn't going to do a bit of good!"
Yet, if we hadn't moved in, he would have been criticized by the other side. Someone might say "Bush! You're so stupid! Look at all this evidence that Iraq is building nukes! If you don't stop them we'll all be in nuclear winter!"
So, consequentially, it is simply stating nothing to criticize. There is obviously more than one side to every issue, and in most cases, there are far more than two. They wouldn't be a side if there weren't evidence to support their claim, right? So everybody who believes any sort of side to an issue has evidence to wave in the air and beat other people on the side of the head with trying to get them to believe what you have to say. It is absolutely pointless.
Where am I getting with this? Lets not jump to conclusions. Lets look at facts peeps. What do we know about Saddam and Bush, and how would YOU do things given what they both knew and how they acted?
Also let me add that right now it is the popular opinion to hate America (not that it was ever popular to love America), but let me clarify that America has nothing to do with this. This is about Bush, another 4 year term, Saddam, tyrannical dictatorships, and a conflict of interest. No where in this have Americans, Iraqis, or anyone gotten actually involved in the conflict unless we're talking about Americans/Iraqis following orders in the military. Even then, they are following orders. The people that make decisions are the ones that should be held responsible.
Lets try not to cutthroat America, Iraq, Pakistan, China or any other country in this discussion, ok? For every country you name, I can promise I can give you a list of millions of citizens of that country that had nothing to do with that decision. Lets watch what we say.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course. There are so many different people in the US (and world) with so many varying perspectives on politics that for any given action there has to be *some* person who's going to criticize it. But this happens to every president.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lets look at facts peeps. What do we know about Saddam and Bush, and how would YOU do things given what they both knew and how they acted?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it we may not be able to come back on-topic, at least I can try to address the questions of the thread starter. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
So let's take a look at the facts about Bush and Saddam:
So pretend I'm pre-war Bush. This is what I know:
-I know that we haven't found WMD in Iraq yet.
-I know that Saddam is a maniac who kills his own people.
-I also know that US precedent doesn't really care about this.
-I know that oil prices are going up and our economy's going to hell.
-I know that no president ever gets reelected when the economy's bad.
-I know that Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11
-I know that without proper justification, it will be hard to motivate the country to go to war.
-I know that war always brings the economy up, and 'acquiring' oil can make it come up even more.
-I know there are people out there who want to fight terrorism, and there are people out there who care about human rights.
-I know that despite this, there are many people out there who will swallow whatever the media feeds them.
Given Bush's beliefs, factual knowledge, and goals, I think he's smarter than we give him credit for. Basically, he raised the economy (which improves his chances for re-election) by starting a war using lies like 'anti-terrorism', 'weapons of mass destruction', and 'human rights' as reasons, and uses the media to disseminate them to this very day. Think that's not true? Why else, then, would there be such a hub-bub about the administration lying about WMD or terrorism in the news today? There was a white house official who said a little while ago something to the extent of 'I'm sorry if we gave the impression that we were going after terrorism, or Al-Qaida, because we really weren't.'
Now here's a sticky point to my logic. You may not believe it is an unjustfied war. That's fine. But at least agree that the war is not justified by the reasons that Bush stated. It is not an anti-terror war, nor was it to find WMD (we still haven't found any) nor is it about human rights (we don't give a flying fig about other countries in similar situations.) So while you may believe it's a justified war for other reasons, it is pretty clear that it's not justified by the reasons that Bush gave.
In my opinion, if I were Bush, with his goals and beliefs, I would've tried to pull off exactly the same thing. And he's been pretty successful at his goals too -- basically using the media to pawn off lies as justification to a war to the American public to raise the economy and his re-election chances.
Now, if I weren't Bush and actually cared about my country, I might've done something different.
Go politics.
Rhuadin
They ARE stepping over everyone. You even said so right there in the same paragraph. The French and Germans DO have some say, obviously it's very very small compared to the US, or else the US wouldn't have stepped on it so easily.
That 'illusion' that you say other countries have is true to some point. There really is no other country that matters as much as the US. But that still doesn't mean that the US should go and crush everyone else's opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also let me add that right now it is the popular opinion to hate America (not that it was ever popular to love America), but let me clarify that America has nothing to do with this. This is about Bush, another 4 year term, Saddam, tyrannical dictatorships, and a conflict of interest. No where in this have Americans, Iraqis, or anyone gotten actually involved in the conflict unless we're talking about Americans/Iraqis following orders in the military. Even then, they are following orders. The people that make decisions are the ones that should be held responsible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So America has nothing to do with it sending troops over to Iraq? last I heard, the majority of Americans supported the war.
I also must refer to Nuremburg. When you say that the leaders of the US are the only ones that should be held responsible for decisions made, you deny that it was in any way the fault of the citizens of the US. Unfortunately, you ARE responsible. This was ruled at Nuremburg, which was to set teh example for the rest of these decisions. Even if you disagree with this ruling, there still are the points that you as citizens:
1. voted him into office
2. approved of the decisions he was making
3. made no significant outcry at things you though was wrong with his decisions
4. have a mind of your own. you can make your own decisions.
5. and he also represents your country. He IS the leader.
In the famous words of some person I forgot "all that is neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
P.S. yeah, I know evil is a strong word, but that's the quote. rename evil to something less if you want to.