An attack on Iraq and the middle east right now can have serious implications, exspecially with Bush not really having any good motives to do so. It really could be world war III.
Ah, after <b>FINALY</b> spending an hour reading all the posts in the topic, I can post my thoughts.
First off, on the whole war thing, I think overall its inevitable for the United States, and I don't think its a bad thing for them to kick Iraq's ### as long as they do it properly. The United States is hated for a reason, mainly in the middle east, and that is because <i>stereotypically</i> to the middle east, United States likes to bomb things ( sarcasm: Like cowards! ). The Middle east is full of people that have heard propaganda over, and over, and over, and now basicly United States is the devil. Of course I expect the leaders of those countries would know better, but thats something I know nothing about. Iraq basicly hates the US, and recently they have been gaining the power to cause some serious damage, and I hold <b>no doubt</b> that Suddam would at least try to use his weapons against the US one way or another. I have to, because if we doubted that he would, he could go ahead and do it, and we wouldnt be able to stop it.
In this situation, the united states cant really use its military that much. Weapons are stored underneath hospitals, suddam knows that if there is a fight, the US would win if its anywhere except right in the middle of baghdad. The only way I see it possible to prevent someone like Suddam using his weapons against the US is to hit him first. We can't wait for him to strike first, or else we'd end up with alot of casualties and a big problem. And as previously stated, its not very nice for a city of 6 million people to suddenly disappear from the map, is it? Would you wait for that to happen, or would you try to prevent it?
I'm really sick of the United States pouring billions of dollars into border security. Its impossible to stop people from getting into the country, they'll do it one way or another. Perticularily with us Canadians, it makes it easy for people like aliens to get into the country. So called "terrorists" could get in pretty easily too, even with all this money on border security. Money should be spent elsewhere, at least in my oppinion (of course I dont know much about that).
It would be hard enough I think for saddam to launch a missile to the US, with all the anti-missile stuff we have set up. But, for the US to launch any kind of missile or bomb or whatever at iraq, that's just plainly bad. Imagine how much it would lower world oppinion, perticularily in Iraq, it would make the citizens of the middle east more desperate.
I think no matter what we do, it will be impossible to stop the middle east from hating the United States. We can't exactly whipe them all out. The only 2 possible solutions I can see are a land assault and pure diplomacy. A land assault is overall a bad idea anyway, especially if it involves forcing people to go in there that don't want to. Of course, I believe we can all agree that anyone that sings up for the military automatically makes a vow that they will go anywhere and do anything to defend the country (within reason), so I figure they automatically 'want to go'. Of course we can all agree that its out of reason to send them in, so we'd be using only people that are specially and heavily trained for this type of operation. Of course, any operation of this matter would include taking suddam out of the government, and quite possibly taking over the country. If a land assault does happen, I think taking over the country would be the only way. It would be tough, especially with all the citizens quite possibly rebelling. Which is why a land assault is pretty much out of the question.
Now we reach diplomacy, which would include educating the citizens of the middle eastern countries, and overall trying to convince these places that they don't need to be bombing us. Unfortunatly with the desperation of most of the citizens that is extremely hard, almost out of the question.
So, when it comes down to it I guess everything is out of the question, but I guess some things are more out of the question than others. The only thing anyone can do is somehow do the thing that is the least out of the question, and that thing is debatable. If you asked me, however, I would say Land assault, mixed in with alot of the diplomacy stuff
that was a long one tzarcon. in quite simple and juvenile terms, diplomacy pwnz no matter what over a full-out assault. but if things get out of hand... then u know the consequences... somethings r inevitable u know?
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Sep. 07 2002,15:15--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Spooge @ Sep. 07 2002,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->6. As far as Kyoto or whatever that useless waste of pulp is called, there is no incentive for the U.S. to sign on. It won't change anything. Except that the U.S. will have to give MORE money to smaller nations who can't control they're own pollution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No incentive for the US to sign it? Well, how about the idea of giving the planet on which we reside to our children in a better state than which we found it. The technology, ingenuity, and innovation is there, we CAN come up with alternative fuels. And we SHOULD. The Kyoto Treaty says nothing about giving money to smaller nations. The thing you're referring to, prehaps picked up from the bullets on CNN, or from a newspaper headline in bold type, is the reason Bush said he didn't want to sign the Kyoto Treaty (aside from the obvious fact he has a vested interest in making sure we burn oil for as long as possible): the treaty did not require third-world countries signing to reduce emmissions for a set period of time, in which they can bring their industrial technology up to par.
I hate watching that retarded cowboy acting like he had 100% of the votes two years ago. He had less than half. Less than even, say, Al Gore.
You don't have my approval, Mr. President.
-Ryan!
Bah, I'm tired of wasting my time on this. Believe or don't believe. But I strongly suggest you start paying closer attention to the places where you get your information. Question all of them. -- Spooge
One thing I have learned early in life, dont discuss politics in public unless you wish to start an argument. My view on this whole thing though: Iraq is probably creating weapons of mass destruction, yet you all seem to think that they would create it in a missle form of some sort and strike at afar to the USA. Just remember, it is very doubtful that Iraq has the balls to send something like that at us. For Sadaam, it would be very terrible tactical move on his part to so blatently attack. Unfortunatly, as much of a jackass Sadaam is, he is fairly intelligent (or at least has intelligent advisors). If he was creating weapons of mass destruction, they would be in smaller, carriable form. Think of it, a briefcase nuke would be much easier to get past the United State's defenses than an ICBM would, so why would Sadaam waste his time on missles? Truly, it is only a matter of time before a weapon of mass destruction is used again. The questions are: What are we going to do to prevent it for as long as possible? Where will it be if it does occur? And will we know about it before the blinding flash?
If the US decides to move into Iraq, the only problem it will solve is that of the threat of nuclear or biological weapons from that one country. My viewpoint is if Sadaam is killed, or Osama, or anyone in charge of a terrorist organization for that matter is killed, there will always been someone to rise to take his place. Yes, unfortunatly THAT many people hate America. AND unfortunatly, they hate all Americans, not just the politicians. Those of us that dont go to war, but uphold American morals, even those that dont, are said to be of blame. The only way to win a war, is to inflict civilian casualties, theres no way around it no matter how many people tell you otherwise. Anyway, this has turned into sort of a rant, wasnt expecting to make this lengthy. Sorry if it seems disjointed, Im tired. 'Night all.
Now I am as military as you can get, I love the warm glow of tracer-fire and the smell of napalm. I view war as nessary because you can have peace if one side want war. I am what you call a combat-junky, but killing Sadam wont do shite in the region. Yes the ####### should die and i want to pull that trigger.
But america is justified, Saddam has been making bio-weapons for a long time and he hates us more than ever. His army is rebuilt, Tanks thanks to russia. But a t-80 cant stand up to a m1a2 of m2a2. Saddam knows this, but (as with Iran) a m2a2 cant destroy a t-80 is the american crew are dead from a virus.
So Saddam should be killed but i say the PRC should be smashed along side the RNK, Saudia Arabia, Iran , ahhhh too many to list...
Its not just the middle-east that hates america, i think youll find the majority of countries are extremely bias towards them and that includes England. <!--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-->stereotypically to the middle east, United States likes to bomb things<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As I said, not just the middle east thinks that. America have started more wars in such a short period of time than most other countries. Plus, Bush has only a slightly higher IQ than Forest Gump did. Im afraid the only reason your a superpower is because you were lucky enough to have masses of resources and space. If any other country had the same amount of fertile land that america does they would be miles ahead. Think about it, in sports the Americans arent exactly the best overall are they? Nor have you got the most intelligent scientists or made the biggest jumps in technology. Yet you have more people than anyone else so you should technically be ahead. Lets say a genius is born one in every 10000, you should have more genius's than any other country and unlike many heavily populated large countries, you have the resources to take advantage of there genius. All anyone outside of America really sees is a country full of loud, rude and superficial idiots. We realise that not all americans are like that, that it IS a stereotype and can be unfair. Yet at the sametime there is some truth to each stereotype and while you cant judge any single person by a stereotype you can judge a countries culture and its average persons traits. Anyway, this isnt an anti-america post so ill continue on the actual subject.
America cant fight unless they are attacked first, if they do then they are gonna need masses of proof so that you wont be attacked by other countries. You dont have enough proof at all. Its just a case of wanting to start a fight. Hicks... erm... stay away from peaceful native villagers full of women and kids.
But MOST americans are fat and stupid, look at greater Ca. That what makes me want to lash out, the frutsration i feel everytime i turn on my radio, get a burger, or go to class. At least combat is simple. No politics, no nothing! Its practicaly like when, in Ceaser, the mob killing Cina the Poet, nothing personal just have to vent. But then I feel worse cause some stupid american will do something that makes me feel bad to fight for. Like there is a senior in a Florida High School who wants to inforce a national dress code and outlaw hummers and games. Most Americas are stupid, and if you agree with my you might still be stupid. Seeing the light does not mean anything unless you do something. next time you see an animal rights freak who wants to starve a 100 humans to save a whale, then starve him! Americans have it so good that they beaytch about every little freaking thing. They don't know whats its like to run from a t-80 tank or die at the age of twelve. They don't know because the good americans die so as not to spoil that image, that perfect world. The world sucks. The ozone layer is holer than Jesus and the enviroment is in worse shape than the DOW. And you know what most americans cant evenm spell DOW. But hey everybody here is at least intelligent enough to operate a computer so the next time your talking about super strings, think of the morons down the hall talking about string. But even typing here doesent make me feel better, no this is just a feudel attempt to make you see my point. 90% of the world is stupid, 7% are smart enough to be dangerous, but 3% can do the unimaginable. You can do anything, just as I did. We are the scariest things to ever walk this planet. We hold the power to destroy and create, but we are killing ourself so you might as well do as much damage/help as you can before you check out.
Re: America (and other large countries) stupidity level.
It's a function of stats, the percent is roughly the same but the more people you have the more idiots you get, and modern med tech tends to save them from them selves a portion of the time. Not to mention with the internet those that are only margianly idiotic can now clump together in large groups.
I find liberal positions on Iraq so amusing, espcially since they turned a blind eye to it when Clinton was firing off missle, both under the desk and in Iraq.
First, Saddam is trying to get nukes- no doubt about it. Defector scientists and military commanders vouch for it. Add in the lack of inspectors, peculiar purchases (aluminum tubing designed for nuclear reactors anyone?) and unexplained construction at known weapons sites, you have irrefutable evidence that Iraq is trying to get nukes.
Second, and what infuraties me the most, is the political manipulation that is going on with the subject. Bush is trying to prevent a second September 11th. We all heard about how the government dropped the ball. As soon as the government begins a proactive attempt to avert future crisis, the whole world goes up in anger.
Then we come to Europe and other powers who will not back the US. Honestly, there is a lot of international resentment about the US. So although many countries are our 'allies', many secretly dislike the power the US has in international affairs. The reason that this is coming out know is because Clinton acted as if there was another superpower the US needed to be wary of. Now that Bush is treating the US as it is (the only world power), these countries are getting miffed.
Of course, Europe is Ultra Liberal and sees any proactive US action as a threat, and they begin preaching morals. No offense, but Europe tried that whole 'live and let live' appeasment strategy with Hitler. They were <i>very</i> succesful, wouldn't you agree? And of course, there is washed-up superpower resentment in all of Europe.
Ultimatly, Saddam is a threat. There is proof of his fraterinization with terrorsits. Proof of his nuclear program. Proof of his ill-will to the US. The US is trying to defend itself. I ask, why does the world expect us to sacrafice our citizens for a reactionary world policy?
We need a non dumb-a** president. We wouldn't have the whole world poo pooing us if Gore were in office, but thank's to Kathrine Harris, Jeb Bush, and the butterfly ballot (which is a piece of sh*t in my oppinion), we get Dubya, who is barely over the hill of human evolution.
Very well put Jammer I must say. If Saddam isn't a threat to the US now he is doing everything in his power to become one. Not doing something now is like not taking down the Taliban back in the day. Of the few things Bush has done right, the war on Afgavistan and the possible war on Iraq are the two best things he has yet to do. Sitting around being complacent will only lead to more lives lost. And if lives must be lost the President should follow his duty and make sure as few of those as possible are United States citzen's lives.
Why do so many people react badly to him having nukes when everyone else has them. ALL the countries that dont have them want them. Those that do want to be the only ones that do.
Until America gets rid of all its nukes they should be quiet about it.
oh and someone mentioned that alot of people love Saddam because of the PR campaigns, all they hear is how wonderful he is and how evil Bush is... ever thought that it could be the same in our own countries?
The majority of civillians in the UK and US are against war, and will want to see any other method tried to solve this 'problem' before blood is shed. We are urging against an assault.
The remaining minority, and Bush and Blair, are of course setting their sights and supporting the idea. The leaders are going against their peoples wishes.
Now, say they attack Iraq; one thing leads to another, and suddenly the world is in a far worse state than it is now because the plan backfires horribly, resulting in an uprise of middle-eastern countries against the US and UK. Whose fault is it? It's our leaders, and they will go down in history for it and be on no one's love-list. Us anti-war types will mourne and think dully 'We told you so.'.
Suppose they are successful, and they get away with it. Iraq is devastated and crushed, and we are sadenned by the losses of life in the conflict on both sides. (And if anyone thinks not, then I should remind you of a certain attack last time this year and how we all felt about that. Now think about how civillians in Iraq would feel when their town is being bombed by the US. Do you think they'll see a difference?) If they crush Iraq then there will be no proof that Saddam was ever thinking about doing anything, and so no sense of achievement or joy can be felt by anyone except that a dictator has been taken out. It will seem almost a pointless venture, and still Bush and Blair will be winning no popularity contests.
So let's think about the other possibility. They back off, leave Iraq to its own devices and concentrate on their own countries for the next few years.
If Iraq launches an attack against the US or UK, and lives are lost - it's our fault. We said there shouldn't be war, we campaigned against it and won, and it was our downfall. We only have ourselfs to blame, and noone else. (Well, except partially the US government for arming Iraq in the first place, but we won't get into <i>that</i>...)
Lives are lost. Tragedy. But we were willing to take the risk if it meant a chance at peace.
On the other hand, suppose it turns out that Iraq never had any intentions of harming us, and the next 5 years are non-eventful and we are not in fact dead by the end of it all? I'm happy. Blair's happy. Bush is...well, I think he'd probably be quite disappointed to tell the truth, but that's what you get if your views on such matters have the depth and complexity of that first drawing of your house and family you did in play-school in Crayola. People will be grateful towards their leaders for giving peace a chance, and all is well. Sure Iraq may still be goverened by a dictator, but that's really not as much of our business as we like to think it is, providing Saddam stays put.
So, I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that acting out of fear for a future attack is not the right way to do it. It may seem the safest, but fundamentally it makes *US* the aggressors and *US* the enemy. We should not make the first move. If we did, even in the name of defence, it would be an <i>offence</i> and as such <i>we</i> would be starting the war. This is something I never ever want to see happen.
Iraq and the western world are like two people with knifes, in a locked room, with an extreme distrust for one another, standing poised in a defensive position. There's the high possibility that one person may twitch, and draw blood. After that, the only thing that can follow is more blood.
Furthermore, remember how all the big enemies of today came into their positions. No, I'm not going at an 'it's all your fault' - rant, but remember that there is absolutely nil plan of what to do after the 'possible' attack. How easy do you think would it be for another (maybe even worse) dictator to rise through the arising chaos? And don't tell me your troops will be there to stop them. They'll maybe keep your posts for the first one or two years, yes, but we're talking about processes that can take <i>decades</i> to show their effects here.
I've read a lot of opinions here that minimalized this discussion on 'Liberals vs. Republicans'. If you haven't got it yet, this is not American inner politics. Not only are multiple countries (GB is currently goverened by people that are by their party even far more lefty than Liberals) involved, it also does <b>not</b> matter to anyone closely involved (think: innocent citizens of the Iraq) which President gave the order to attack. In effect, 'the Americans' will be shooting at 'them'. Accept that foreign policy doesn't know parties.
I had a friend, who once said "war can't be avoided". I didn't believe him for a while (months). But now I see how the world is really working. The future have wars to come with, the past had wars, and even in this very now, there will be war. It's a human nature. Or is it? Is this the curse God sent on us when Adam and Eve were expelled from Utopia? Or is it just the human evolution, our neverending hunger for power, money, and fame? How come that we, on this small planet, covered 70% with water, can't live together hand by hand? Nationalism? Hate? Imagine then, how would it be after 5000 years? Will humans still be living? Will the Earth look like it does today? Or will it be the wasteland left behind of a Grand Armageddon? Will humans live on wast worlds, looking out on the green plains, breathing the air of an alien planet? Or will we take cover behind the rock in a wast war, breathing the sickening smell of dead soldiers from unknown worlds? Will we stand proud of cities, technology and knowledge of peace, life and love? Or will we stand on conquered worlds, "proud" of what we have done with it? These are the questions. The time, is yet to come.
<!--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, except partially the US government for arming Iraq in the first place, but we won't get into that...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, the US armed Saddam . . but didn't Churchill draw up the original borders of Iraq? He wanted the two richest oil reserves in the region, and didn't mind arbitrarily drawing a border around the three largest warring tribes (Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites) in order to do so. So we gave him the weapons and the gas, and the Brits handed him the motive.
In addition, Churchill also ended up extracting Kuwait from the Iraqi region, contrary to established Ottoman boundaries.
Not that the U.S. isn't doing its (lion's) share to screw up the region these days . . but the Europeans occasionally need a reminder that their former colonial meddlings were just as damaging as our current ones <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
I still believe that war can be avoided. And more important, I think that war MUST be avoided.
I think it's better to risk your life to avoid a war then to provide a war. If some people long ago hadn't believed the unbelieveable, we would still think the world is a disc. I could count thousands of those "If..."things, but they all end the same: We MUST believe to make changes.
Does anyone of us here in the forums have <i>experienced</i> a war? I mean in reality? Has anyone of us been in a cellar, hearing the sound of detonating bombs above him? No? Well, than noone of us really sees the whole danger we're heading towards. But everything i read, saw, heard and know about war tells me: This can't be a possibility. There must be another way.
Remember the cold war (?). America was almost sure the "bad" russians are all about attacking america. Russia was almost sure the "bad" americans are all about attacking Russia. Nothing happend. Both were wrong. I don't compare Iraq to Russia, but have you ever thougt about the possibility that the situation is very similiar? Have you ever thought about that Saddam maybe <i>fears</i> a conflict? Have you ever thought about that both the american population and the iraq population has a wrong impression of their "enemy"?
I'm sure Saddam is a bad person, a horrible dictator. But this isn't a reason to start a war. Nothing could be more terrible than a war. And there is NO difference between a "protective" war and any other war. You archieve nothing exspect sorrow and hate. Do you think the population of the Iraq would be happy if america kills Saddam? Sure, they mostly don't like Saddam (Propaganda mostly doesn't last long) but you can't just attack Saddam. You attack the Iraq. The WHOLE country. And the people of Iraq will experience REAL war. They'll hate you for that. And you, who thougt you done good for the world, will see that noone is your opinion. And there will be no reason to be your opinion, as the only thing you've archieved with the war is chaos in a already half-destroyed land.
I may sound like an idealist(?) but if you always say: That's the way things go... or I can't do anything against that... then you'll never change anything. At least try to not support things you don't want.
<!--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 the Europeans occasionally need a reminder that their former colonial meddlings were just as damaging as our current ones <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No doubt there, but as Merk said - let's don't get into that. Blaming each other helps nobody; learning from each others mistakes, however, does.
I'm not trying to place blame . . but US foreign policy is such a unilateral, ham-fisted affair these days that sometimes these things are forgotten, to the point where we're blamed not only for propagating the misery in the region, but for being its exclusive creators as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--Merkaba+Sep. 09 2002,01:49--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Merkaba @ Sep. 09 2002,01:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->...It's time to lay down that knife.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *stands up and cheers for Merkaba's rant*
*looks around*
*realizing a standing ovation may not have been called for here, just leans back in the chair and makes a simple statement*
You know, I hate reading posts saying nothing more than "Me, too." But there's little more I can say BUT that here. And it needed to be said.
Merkaba, that was great, that was wonderful, that summed up my opinions perfectly, and it was a work of art to read.
-Ryan!
One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one. -- Agatha Christie
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake. -- Jeannette Rankin
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? -- Mahatma Gandhi
One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once 'The Unnecessary War'. -- Sir Winston Churchill
<!--QuoteBegin--Merkaba+Sep. 09 2002,20:04--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Merkaba @ Sep. 09 2002,20:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sigh. It had to happen at some point.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ehh?
The problem with the, "Let Iraq do their own thing" idea is that as soon as something DOES happen, those that having been screaming anti war, will then be screaming at the government for not doing anything beforehand. It happens, its America, free speech and all that fun stuff remember? Now I am in no way pro-war, but our government has backed us into this position where we are damned if we do, but could be even more damned if we dont. Would you rather lose a city to a tactical nuclear weapon with no warning but the flash of it going off, than destroy the factory that created it? The thing is, the threat is not only to the USA, but any countrys that carry "Western Culture". Those of you not living in the US saying, "What the hell is wrong with you people? Trying to start other's wars? Just back the hell off, and maybe the world will be a better place." The thing is, they WILL keep fighting. Unlike us, they have a goal that many believe in. Unfortunatly, the "enemy" seems more united than those of the allied countries. We may want to check where the enemy lies, in Iraq or on our own soil with those who sit back and say, "Let the world reign in peace, all people are good, and all will follow morals and values". Trust in others is by far a major downfall in politics. Trust in other people in politics leads to conflict more than 50% of the time.
What REALLY irritates me, is even though you all sit there and say, "Make love not war", the American government will do whatever it pleases. Those of you that say, "It's not fair, Im buying a ticket to Canada" seem to be content sending other's sons and daughters off to foreign soil to die for their country while you sit there on your lazy bums and complain. It MAY not be fair, but you live here, and you DO have a responsibilty to your country. The attitude that "Its not our fault, its everyone elses" is the one that created the terrible image Americans have to the rest of the world as pompus, fat, idiots that dont have a clue about the rest of the world.
I am an American, as far as the government is concerned I realize that it IS run by quite a few who dont know what they are doing. Regardless, if my country requires me to fight and even die, I will do it. I have grown up here under it's laws, rules, and morals. I have a responsibility to my country, and I will carry it out if it's asked of me.
And yes, I know I sound very patriotic, just my view is all, flame or agree, its all up to you. Though there seems to be a lack of Americans on these boards... <!--emo&???--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'><!--endemo-->
mmm, Jammer that Clinton thing about the US having fear of other countries and that now with "cut the trees there'll be no more fires" Bush US is the only powerful country......how many comics have you read man!. Its just amazing to see how TV can distort the reality to the pple. War is NO good and US is so scared with the arab countries cause they've been focking them over the last 50 years. i repeat. WAR IS NO GOOD FOR ANYONE. dont think US is the most powerful, dont do the same mistake as US goverment.
im not wanting to flame or be flamed, but this matter were discussing in this thread started nearly over the 80's, we dont really know all the story so wait and please beg god nothing bad happens.
oh and another thing. Is this the place or the moment to return to the "US saves the world from Hitler, we europeans suck and US pple are the best" thing. Jammer....childish.
<!--QuoteBegin--Umbrella Master+Sep. 09 2002,21:35--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Umbrella Master @ Sep. 09 2002,21:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Those of you that say, "It's not fair, Im buying a ticket to Canada" seem to be content sending other's sons and daughters off to foreign soil to die for their country while you sit there on your lazy bums and complain. It MAY not be fair, but you live here, and you DO have a responsibilty to your country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree. I am NOT content to send other's sons and daughters off to a war. I'm all for democracy and justice, but I think there are better ways to accomplish it than the senseless killing of millions of people we would never meet. It may be fair to some, and not fair to others, but that's not the issue. I disagree with my country's decision, and so I may decide to move out of the country. True, I live here, under my country's protection, but I feel I owe them little more than what I pay in taxes every day.
I am an American.
I am a citizen of the world.
-Ryan!
Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Either war is obsolete or men are. -- R. Buckminster Fuller, New Yorker, Jan. 8, 1966
<!--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--> Those of you that say, "It's not fair, Im buying a ticket to Canada" seem to be content sending other's sons and daughters off to foreign soil to die for their country while you sit there on your lazy bums and complain. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They arent sending anyone else, those people are sending themselves. America cant send in ground troops if everyone refuses to fight. Unfortunately people just give in because everyone else is too. You dont have to fight for a country, you dont have to do anything even if others do it. Nor can you take the blame when some people die for charging into death while you sensibly sit back and protest against the war.
Comments
First off, on the whole war thing, I think overall its inevitable for the United States, and I don't think its a bad thing for them to kick Iraq's ### as long as they do it properly. The United States is hated for a reason, mainly in the middle east, and that is because <i>stereotypically</i> to the middle east, United States likes to bomb things ( sarcasm: Like cowards! ). The Middle east is full of people that have heard propaganda over, and over, and over, and now basicly United States is the devil. Of course I expect the leaders of those countries would know better, but thats something I know nothing about. Iraq basicly hates the US, and recently they have been gaining the power to cause some serious damage, and I hold <b>no doubt</b> that Suddam would at least try to use his weapons against the US one way or another. I have to, because if we doubted that he would, he could go ahead and do it, and we wouldnt be able to stop it.
In this situation, the united states cant really use its military that much. Weapons are stored underneath hospitals, suddam knows that if there is a fight, the US would win if its anywhere except right in the middle of baghdad.
The only way I see it possible to prevent someone like Suddam using his weapons against the US is to hit him first. We can't wait for him to strike first, or else we'd end up with alot of casualties and a big problem. And as previously stated, its not very nice for a city of 6 million people to suddenly disappear from the map, is it? Would you wait for that to happen, or would you try to prevent it?
I'm really sick of the United States pouring billions of dollars into border security. Its impossible to stop people from getting into the country, they'll do it one way or another. Perticularily with us Canadians, it makes it easy for people like aliens to get into the country. So called "terrorists" could get in pretty easily too, even with all this money on border security. Money should be spent elsewhere, at least in my oppinion (of course I dont know much about that).
It would be hard enough I think for saddam to launch a missile to the US, with all the anti-missile stuff we have set up. But, for the US to launch any kind of missile or bomb or whatever at iraq, that's just plainly bad. Imagine how much it would lower world oppinion, perticularily in Iraq, it would make the citizens of the middle east more desperate.
I think no matter what we do, it will be impossible to stop the middle east from hating the United States. We can't exactly whipe them all out. The only 2 possible solutions I can see are a land assault and pure diplomacy. A land assault is overall a bad idea anyway, especially if it involves forcing people to go in there that don't want to. Of course, I believe we can all agree that anyone that sings up for the military automatically makes a vow that they will go anywhere and do anything to defend the country (within reason), so I figure they automatically 'want to go'. Of course we can all agree that its out of reason to send them in, so we'd be using only people that are specially and heavily trained for this type of operation. Of course, any operation of this matter would include taking suddam out of the government, and quite possibly taking over the country.
If a land assault does happen, I think taking over the country would be the only way. It would be tough, especially with all the citizens quite possibly rebelling. Which is why a land assault is pretty much out of the question.
Now we reach diplomacy, which would include educating the citizens of the middle eastern countries, and overall trying to convince these places that they don't need to be bombing us. Unfortunatly with the desperation of most of the citizens that is extremely hard, almost out of the question.
So, when it comes down to it I guess everything is out of the question, but I guess some things are more out of the question than others. The only thing anyone can do is somehow do the thing that is the least out of the question, and that thing is debatable. If you asked me, however, I would say Land assault, mixed in with alot of the diplomacy stuff
No incentive for the US to sign it? Well, how about the idea of giving the planet on which we reside to our children in a better state than which we found it. The technology, ingenuity, and innovation is there, we CAN come up with alternative fuels. And we SHOULD. The Kyoto Treaty says nothing about giving money to smaller nations. The thing you're referring to, prehaps picked up from the bullets on CNN, or from a newspaper headline in bold type, is the reason Bush said he didn't want to sign the Kyoto Treaty (aside from the obvious fact he has a vested interest in making sure we burn oil for as long as possible): the treaty did not require third-world countries signing to reduce emmissions for a set period of time, in which they can bring their industrial technology up to par.
I hate watching that retarded cowboy acting like he had 100% of the votes two years ago. He had less than half. Less than even, say, Al Gore.
You don't have my approval, Mr. President.
-Ryan!
Bah, I'm tired of wasting my time on this. Believe or don't believe. But I strongly suggest you start paying closer attention to the places where you get your information. Question all of them.
-- Spooge
If the US decides to move into Iraq, the only problem it will solve is that of the threat of nuclear or biological weapons from that one country. My viewpoint is if Sadaam is killed, or Osama, or anyone in charge of a terrorist organization for that matter is killed, there will always been someone to rise to take his place. Yes, unfortunatly THAT many people hate America. AND unfortunatly, they hate all Americans, not just the politicians. Those of us that dont go to war, but uphold American morals, even those that dont, are said to be of blame. The only way to win a war, is to inflict civilian casualties, theres no way around it no matter how many people tell you otherwise. Anyway, this has turned into sort of a rant, wasnt expecting to make this lengthy. Sorry if it seems disjointed, Im tired. 'Night all.
But america is justified, Saddam has been making bio-weapons for a long time and he hates us more than ever. His army is rebuilt, Tanks thanks to russia. But a t-80 cant stand up to a m1a2 of m2a2. Saddam knows this, but (as with Iran) a m2a2 cant destroy a t-80 is the american crew are dead from a virus.
So Saddam should be killed but i say the PRC should be smashed along side the RNK, Saudia Arabia, Iran , ahhhh too many to list...
<!--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-->stereotypically to the middle east, United States likes to bomb things<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said, not just the middle east thinks that. America have started more wars in such a short period of time than most other countries. Plus, Bush has only a slightly higher IQ than Forest Gump did. Im afraid the only reason your a superpower is because you were lucky enough to have masses of resources and space. If any other country had the same amount of fertile land that america does they would be miles ahead. Think about it, in sports the Americans arent exactly the best overall are they? Nor have you got the most intelligent scientists or made the biggest jumps in technology. Yet you have more people than anyone else so you should technically be ahead. Lets say a genius is born one in every 10000, you should have more genius's than any other country and unlike many heavily populated large countries, you have the resources to take advantage of there genius. All anyone outside of America really sees is a country full of loud, rude and superficial idiots. We realise that not all americans are like that, that it IS a stereotype and can be unfair. Yet at the sametime there is some truth to each stereotype and while you cant judge any single person by a stereotype you can judge a countries culture and its average persons traits.
Anyway, this isnt an anti-america post so ill continue on the actual subject.
America cant fight unless they are attacked first, if they do then they are gonna need masses of proof so that you wont be attacked by other countries. You dont have enough proof at all. Its just a case of wanting to start a fight. Hicks... erm... stay away from peaceful native villagers full of women and kids.
Awww Man....
But MOST americans are fat and stupid, look at greater Ca. That what makes me want to lash out, the frutsration i feel everytime i turn on my radio, get a burger, or go to class. At least combat is simple. No politics, no nothing! Its practicaly like when, in Ceaser, the mob killing Cina the Poet, nothing personal just have to vent. But then I feel worse cause some stupid american will do something that makes me feel bad to fight for.
Like there is a senior in a Florida High School who wants to inforce a national dress code and outlaw hummers and games. Most Americas are stupid, and if you agree with my you might still be stupid. Seeing the light does not mean anything unless you do something. next time you see an animal rights freak who wants to starve a 100 humans to save a whale, then starve him! Americans have it so good that they beaytch about every little freaking thing. They don't know whats its like to run from a t-80 tank or die at the age of twelve. They don't know because the good americans die so as not to spoil that image, that perfect world. The world sucks. The ozone layer is holer than Jesus and the enviroment is in worse shape than the DOW. And you know what most americans cant evenm spell DOW.
But hey everybody here is at least intelligent enough to operate a computer so the next time your talking about super strings, think of the morons down the hall talking about string.
But even typing here doesent make me feel better, no this is just a feudel attempt to make you see my point. 90% of the world is stupid, 7% are smart enough to be dangerous, but 3% can do the unimaginable.
You can do anything, just as I did. We are the scariest things to ever walk this planet. We hold the power to destroy and create, but we are killing ourself so you might as well do as much damage/help as you can before you check out.
It's a function of stats, the percent is roughly the same but the more people you have the more idiots you get, and modern med tech tends to save them from them selves a portion of the time. Not to mention with the internet those that are only margianly idiotic can now clump together in large groups.
First, Saddam is trying to get nukes- no doubt about it. Defector scientists and military commanders vouch for it. Add in the lack of inspectors, peculiar purchases (aluminum tubing designed for nuclear reactors anyone?) and unexplained construction at known weapons sites, you have irrefutable evidence that Iraq is trying to get nukes.
Second, and what infuraties me the most, is the political manipulation that is going on with the subject. Bush is trying to prevent a second September 11th. We all heard about how the government dropped the ball. As soon as the government begins a proactive attempt to avert future crisis, the whole world goes up in anger.
Then we come to Europe and other powers who will not back the US. Honestly, there is a lot of international resentment about the US. So although many countries are our 'allies', many secretly dislike the power the US has in international affairs. The reason that this is coming out know is because Clinton acted as if there was another superpower the US needed to be wary of. Now that Bush is treating the US as it is (the only world power), these countries are getting miffed.
Of course, Europe is Ultra Liberal and sees any proactive US action as a threat, and they begin preaching morals. No offense, but Europe tried that whole 'live and let live' appeasment strategy with Hitler. They were <i>very</i> succesful, wouldn't you agree? And of course, there is washed-up superpower resentment in all of Europe.
Ultimatly, Saddam is a threat. There is proof of his fraterinization with terrorsits. Proof of his nuclear program. Proof of his ill-will to the US. The US is trying to defend itself. I ask, why does the world expect us to sacrafice our citizens for a reactionary world policy?
And you're all hell-made. :-P
Until America gets rid of all its nukes they should be quiet about it.
oh and someone mentioned that alot of people love Saddam because of the PR campaigns, all they hear is how wonderful he is and how evil Bush is... ever thought that it could be the same in our own countries?
The majority of civillians in the UK and US are against war, and will want to see any other method tried to solve this 'problem' before blood is shed. We are urging against an assault.
The remaining minority, and Bush and Blair, are of course setting their sights and supporting the idea. The leaders are going against their peoples wishes.
Now, say they attack Iraq; one thing leads to another, and suddenly the world is in a far worse state than it is now because the plan backfires horribly, resulting in an uprise of middle-eastern countries against the US and UK. Whose fault is it? It's our leaders, and they will go down in history for it and be on no one's love-list. Us anti-war types will mourne and think dully 'We told you so.'.
Suppose they are successful, and they get away with it. Iraq is devastated and crushed, and we are sadenned by the losses of life in the conflict on both sides. (And if anyone thinks not, then I should remind you of a certain attack last time this year and how we all felt about that. Now think about how civillians in Iraq would feel when their town is being bombed by the US. Do you think they'll see a difference?) If they crush Iraq then there will be no proof that Saddam was ever thinking about doing anything, and so no sense of achievement or joy can be felt by anyone except that a dictator has been taken out. It will seem almost a pointless venture, and still Bush and Blair will be winning no popularity contests.
So let's think about the other possibility. They back off, leave Iraq to its own devices and concentrate on their own countries for the next few years.
If Iraq launches an attack against the US or UK, and lives are lost - it's our fault. We said there shouldn't be war, we campaigned against it and won, and it was our downfall. We only have ourselfs to blame, and noone else. (Well, except partially the US government for arming Iraq in the first place, but we won't get into <i>that</i>...)
Lives are lost. Tragedy. But we were willing to take the risk if it meant a chance at peace.
On the other hand, suppose it turns out that Iraq never had any intentions of harming us, and the next 5 years are non-eventful and we are not in fact dead by the end of it all? I'm happy. Blair's happy. Bush is...well, I think he'd probably be quite disappointed to tell the truth, but that's what you get if your views on such matters have the depth and complexity of that first drawing of your house and family you did in play-school in Crayola. People will be grateful towards their leaders for giving peace a chance, and all is well. Sure Iraq may still be goverened by a dictator, but that's really not as much of our business as we like to think it is, providing Saddam stays put.
So, I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that acting out of fear for a future attack is not the right way to do it. It may seem the safest, but fundamentally it makes *US* the aggressors and *US* the enemy. We should not make the first move. If we did, even in the name of defence, it would be an <i>offence</i> and as such <i>we</i> would be starting the war. This is something I never ever want to see happen.
Iraq and the western world are like two people with knifes, in a locked room, with an extreme distrust for one another, standing poised in a defensive position. There's the high possibility that one person may twitch, and draw blood. After that, the only thing that can follow is more blood.
It's time to lay down that knife.
<!--EDIT|Merkaba|Sep. 09 2002,06:54-->
Furthermore, remember how all the big enemies of today came into their positions.
No, I'm not going at an 'it's all your fault' - rant, but remember that there is absolutely nil plan of what to do after the 'possible' attack. How easy do you think would it be for another (maybe even worse) dictator to rise through the arising chaos?
And don't tell me your troops will be there to stop them. They'll maybe keep your posts for the first one or two years, yes, but we're talking about processes that can take <i>decades</i> to show their effects here.
I've read a lot of opinions here that minimalized this discussion on 'Liberals vs. Republicans'. If you haven't got it yet, this is not American inner politics. Not only are multiple countries (GB is currently goverened by people that are by their party even far more lefty than Liberals) involved, it also does <b>not</b> matter to anyone closely involved (think: innocent citizens of the Iraq) which President gave the order to attack. In effect, 'the Americans' will be shooting at 'them'.
Accept that foreign policy doesn't know parties.
Sure, the US armed Saddam . . but didn't Churchill draw up the original borders of Iraq? He wanted the two richest oil reserves in the region, and didn't mind arbitrarily drawing a border around the three largest warring tribes (Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites) in order to do so. So we gave him the weapons and the gas, and the Brits handed him the motive.
In addition, Churchill also ended up extracting Kuwait from the Iraqi region, contrary to established Ottoman boundaries.
Not that the U.S. isn't doing its (lion's) share to screw up the region these days . . but the Europeans occasionally need a reminder that their former colonial meddlings were just as damaging as our current ones <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
<!--EDIT|BathroomMonkey|Sep. 09 2002,14:16-->
I think it's better to risk your life to avoid a war then to provide a war. If some people long ago hadn't believed the unbelieveable, we would still think the world is a disc. I could count thousands of those "If..."things, but they all end the same: We MUST believe to make changes.
Does anyone of us here in the forums have <i>experienced</i> a war? I mean in reality? Has anyone of us been in a cellar, hearing the sound of detonating bombs above him?
No?
Well, than noone of us really sees the whole danger we're heading towards. But everything i read, saw, heard and know about war tells me: This can't be a possibility. There must be another way.
Remember the cold war (?). America was almost sure the "bad" russians are all about attacking america. Russia was almost sure the "bad" americans are all about attacking Russia.
Nothing happend. Both were wrong. I don't compare Iraq to Russia, but have you ever thougt about the possibility that the situation is very similiar? Have you ever thought about that Saddam maybe <i>fears</i> a conflict? Have you ever thought about that both the american population and the iraq population has a wrong impression of their "enemy"?
I'm sure Saddam is a bad person, a horrible dictator. But this isn't a reason to start a war. Nothing could be more terrible than a war. And there is NO difference between a "protective" war and any other war. You archieve nothing exspect sorrow and hate.
Do you think the population of the Iraq would be happy if america kills Saddam? Sure, they mostly don't like Saddam (Propaganda mostly doesn't last long) but you can't just attack Saddam. You attack the Iraq. The WHOLE country. And the people of Iraq will experience REAL war. They'll hate you for that. And you, who thougt you done good for the world, will see that noone is your opinion. And there will be no reason to be your opinion, as the only thing you've archieved with the war is chaos in a already half-destroyed land.
I may sound like an idealist(?) but if you always say: That's the way things go... or I can't do anything against that... then you'll never change anything. At least try to not support things you don't want.
No doubt there, but as Merk said - let's don't get into that. Blaming each other helps nobody; learning from each others mistakes, however, does.
*stands up and cheers for Merkaba's rant*
*looks around*
*realizing a standing ovation may not have been called for here, just leans back in the chair and makes a simple statement*
You know, I hate reading posts saying nothing more than "Me, too." But there's little more I can say BUT that here. And it needed to be said.
Merkaba, that was great, that was wonderful, that summed up my opinions perfectly, and it was a work of art to read.
-Ryan!
One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one.
-- Agatha Christie
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.
-- Jeannette Rankin
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
-- Mahatma Gandhi
One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once 'The Unnecessary War'.
-- Sir Winston Churchill
ehh?
What REALLY irritates me, is even though you all sit there and say, "Make love not war", the American government will do whatever it pleases. Those of you that say, "It's not fair, Im buying a ticket to Canada" seem to be content sending other's sons and daughters off to foreign soil to die for their country while you sit there on your lazy bums and complain. It MAY not be fair, but you live here, and you DO have a responsibilty to your country. The attitude that "Its not our fault, its everyone elses" is the one that created the terrible image Americans have to the rest of the world as pompus, fat, idiots that dont have a clue about the rest of the world.
I am an American, as far as the government is concerned I realize that it IS run by quite a few who dont know what they are doing. Regardless, if my country requires me to fight and even die, I will do it. I have grown up here under it's laws, rules, and morals. I have a responsibility to my country, and I will carry it out if it's asked of me.
And yes, I know I sound very patriotic, just my view is all, flame or agree, its all up to you. Though there seems to be a lack of Americans on these boards... <!--emo&???--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'><!--endemo-->
im not wanting to flame or be flamed, but this matter were discussing in this thread started nearly over the 80's, we dont really know all the story so wait and please beg god nothing bad happens.
oh and another thing. Is this the place or the moment to return to the "US saves the world from Hitler, we europeans suck and US pple are the best" thing. Jammer....childish.
I disagree. I am NOT content to send other's sons and daughters off to a war. I'm all for democracy and justice, but I think there are better ways to accomplish it than the senseless killing of millions of people we would never meet. It may be fair to some, and not fair to others, but that's not the issue. I disagree with my country's decision, and so I may decide to move out of the country. True, I live here, under my country's protection, but I feel I owe them little more than what I pay in taxes every day.
I am an American.
I am a citizen of the world.
-Ryan!
Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons.
-- R. Buckminster Fuller
Either war is obsolete or men are.
-- R. Buckminster Fuller, New Yorker, Jan. 8, 1966
Those of you that say, "It's not fair, Im buying a ticket to Canada" seem to be content sending other's sons and daughters off to foreign soil to die for their country while you sit there on your lazy bums and complain.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They arent sending anyone else, those people are sending themselves. America cant send in ground troops if everyone refuses to fight. Unfortunately people just give in because everyone else is too. You dont have to fight for a country, you dont have to do anything even if others do it. Nor can you take the blame when some people die for charging into death while you sensibly sit back and protest against the war.
Merk, Im glad logic does exist, thank you.