Bush [Archive] - THE TOLKIEN FORUM

Thorin

02-26-2003, 05:30 PM

Don't get me wrong. I think Bush did a great job in handling post 9/11 and his war against Al-Qaida. However, I think he is going in the wrong direction very rabidly (cool play on a pun :) ), over the whole Iraq thing.

Iraq is a country that must use trade and the economics of other countries to survive. Saddam is not stupid enough to bring the entire free world down on him and Iraq should he attack the US with WoMD. As crazy as you folks think he is, he is not going to commit political suicide for he and his people. The ONLY danger he will be is if he decides to sell some weapons to the highest Islamic terrorist bidder.

The real threat are those fanatics who don't care about countries, or economics, or free trade. They belong to no country but use religious ideology to further their carnage and destruction. They are Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups just like them. The US was on the right track in going after them. And while they are uselessly sparring with Saddam, AQ will be slipping in the back door once again to reek havoc amongst innocent people. And I ask again. WHEN another 9/11 (or worse) attack occurs, which Islamic country will the US blame then?

Focus on the REAL terrorists who are doing something.

ms Greenleaf

02-26-2003, 05:31 PM

He THREATENS to use them does not mean he has them yet still puts the world in danger...I agree.

Second point...I beleive though I may be wrong that the USA did use those weapons on Afghanistan and so they will PROBABLY use them again.

third point... who Told you he uses them on his people are you positive this is a completely non-bias informant.?

lastly... Hussain who I already mentioned is insane is moving his people out of the oil mines so he can blow them up so the USA will not get them. , THIS IS HORRIBLE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT so I think that the UN and hussain should find some way around this stupid argument. In my opinion there is never a need for war. Non-violence is only the second stupidist reaction, violence being the first. of course that is all my opinion and not really important to the argument.

Galdor

02-26-2003, 05:49 PM

Iraq is a country that must use trade and the economics of other countries to survive. Saddam is not stupid enough to bring the entire free world down on him and Iraq should he attack the US with WoMD. As crazy as you folks think he is, he is not going to commit political suicide for he and his people. The ONLY danger he will be is if he decides to sell some weapons to the highest Islamic terrorist bidder.

I hardly think that many people are afraid that Saddam would attack America directly with his WoMD. The fear is that he will sell them to terrorist who would try to attack USA with. And also that he will use his WoMD to attack countries around him, most probably Israel.

Second point...I believe though I may be wrong that the USA did use those weapons on Afghanistan and so they will PROBABLY use them again.

I believe that the largest weapon we used in Afghanistan was the Daisy cutter, and I do not think that it is considered a WoMD.

third point... who Told you he uses them on his people are you positive this is a completely non-bias informant.?

I believe that of this we have undisputed proof. I'll have to look into it.

lastly... Hussain who I already mentioned is insane is moving his people out of the oil mines so he can blow them up so the USA will not get them. , THIS IS HORRIBLE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT so I think that the UN and hussain should find some way around this stupid argument. In my opinion there is never a need for war. Non-violence is only the second stupidest reaction, violence being the first. of course that is all my opinion and not really important to the argument.

Which would you rather, some oil get set on fire that will hurt the environment a bit. Or to have Saddom dropping Biological, Chemical, and nuclear weapons on his neighbors? And those will only hurt the environment; they will also kill tons of people.
And how can you make peace with one who does not want peace? If Saddom wanted peace he would hand over to the UN his Bio and Chem. weapons. He would tell the UN what happened to all of the weapons that we know for a fact that they had at the end of the Gulf War. This man does not want peace, he is driven by hate and lust of power. The only way to stop a man like Saddom, is to kill or imprison him.

ms Greenleaf

02-26-2003, 05:57 PM

Well if they should kil Huissain why not send in some assassins... why blow up a country for one man... tthe Usa already tried that tactic on Bin Laden and look.. he is supposedly still alive.

Gandalf White

02-26-2003, 06:44 PM

Uh oh. Thorin wages a convincing argument. His logic has just about won me over. I almost totally agree with his last post.
Well if they should kil Huissain why not send in some assassins... why blow up a country for one man... tthe Usa already tried that tactic on Bin Laden and look.. he is supposedly still alive. Yes, just the other day I was thinking how cool it would be to have that job. However, that would throw the entire region into hysteria, and some radical islamist group would probably seize control, giving us worse problems.

Just to nitpick. We did not "blow up" Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

Parrot

02-26-2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Thorin

The ONLY danger he will be is if he decides to sell some weapons to the highest Islamic terrorist bidder.
Though I mostly agree with you here Thorin, the question is; Is this a reasonable fear, requiring preemptive action? Many people think it is.

WHEN another 9/11 (or worse) attack occurs, which Islamic country will the US blame then?
I am not sure what you are driving at here. Are you saying that our attacks in Afghanistan were unwarranted? or that we are blaming Iraq for 9/11? I haven't heard that.

Focus on the REAL terrorists who are doing something.
This too I agree with; my main problem with the Iraq situation is that we should not allow ourselves to become distracted and our efforts divided 'til we have UBL and every last Al Qaeda douchebag tagged and bagged.

ms greenleaf, we have laws forbidding U.S. sponsored assassinations - we are not quite the "Machiavellian" barbarians some would make us out to be.

Parrot

02-26-2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf

2 "War is not bad"
If anyone wants to put that sort of opinion on this thread could they please aknowledge that either it is an opinion or give reasons for it being right so that it is not taken the wrong way for ex using Faila's quote. If HE/SHE had written that war is good in that it can stimulate an economy then it is more acceptable. Thank you
I can't honestly say that "War is not bad", but sometimes it is a necessary evil.
There is Bad Peace (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-goldblatt022403.asp) too.

The last century should have taught us the price of a bad peace. For antiwar activists, however, "bad peace" remains an oxymoron. Peace is what they want, peace is what they demand, and the prospect of a lasting peace later, rather than a doomed peace now, does not compute. Indeed, it is characteristic of liberals to avoid painful, long term solutions to difficult problems in favor of ill-conceived but humane-sounding stop gaps that make them feel good about themselves. Racial quotas are a legacy of the Left's craving for immediate gratification; so, too, is welfare dependency.

The war on terrorism is, without question, an exceedingly difficult problem. The protesters sing "Give Peace a Chance," but that's not even a logical stop gap in this case; it's an invitation to our enemies, a baring of our throats, to be followed necessarily by a baring of our talons after our enemies strike again. Nor does the war on terrorism require further study. Sifting through the brew of social, political, cultural, economic, and religious pathologies behind the attacks of September 11, 2001 is an academic exercise; the bottom line of what happened that cloudless morning is that a lunatic fringe of Muslims called America's bluff. Following World War II, American leaders carefully cultivated the idea that, if sufficiently provoked, we would unleash violence against our enemies of biblical proportions. It was a useful bluff; it did keep the Soviets in check until their system rotted away from the inside. The bluff was still in tact in 1991, when Saddam invaded Kuwait. It prevented him, when his army was routed, from responding with chemical or biological weapons.

September 11 changed all that. The lunatics provoked us, and, after initial outbursts of glee on the West Bank, the Islamic world held its collective breath. How would America respond to such carnage on its own soil? But our response, when it came, was utterly proportionate. Yes, we took down the Taliban, the regime that directly sponsored the attack, but we did so with a scalpel, not with a terrible swift sword. We could have decimated the Afghani population; instead, we liberated them.

FREEDOM!

02-26-2003, 07:55 PM

Ok, Ok, First off The reason we cannot just go into Iraq and assassinate Saddam is because if we do someone even more evil than him ( I believe that would be his son, i'm pretty sure of that), and his son is very much worse than he himself!

2) We are not in this war for the oil, come on our scientists have just about discovered how to use cars that run on nitrogen (i think it was nitrogen), and at the end of The Gulf War we destroyed several oil wells, partly cause they were leaking into some river or ocean, but mainly so that Saddam wouldn't be able to use them to "steal" our money.

3) 9/11 was no where near the worst terrorist act that has ever happened!

4) and as for France not wanting to join the war (I know this hasn't really been touched on yet). In WW2 France was asking for a smoking gun as Hitler rolled through Paris! They still didn't want to join the war. (this is no joke, this actually happened).

Parrot

02-26-2003, 07:57 PM

Another View on "War" with Iraq (http://http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri022603.asp)
"Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" Nasser the poet demanded. ......

......."I had a few questions for the marchers," Sultani said. "Did they not realize that oppression, torture and massacre of innocent civilians are also forms of war? Are the antiwar marchers only against a war that would liberate Iraq, or do they also oppose the war Saddam has been waging against our people for a generation?"

Sultani could have told the peaceniks how Saddam's henchmen killed dissident poets and writers by pushing page after page of forbidden books down their throats until they choked.

Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals, had hoped the marchers would mention the fact that Saddam had driven almost four million Iraqis out of their homes and razed more than 6,000 villages to the ground.

"The death and destruction caused by Saddam in our land is the worst since Nebuchadnezzar," he said. "These prosperous, peaceful, and fat Europeans are marching in support of evil incarnate." He said that, watching the march, he felt Nazism was "alive and well and flexing its muscles in Hyde Park."

Thorin

02-26-2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
I am not sure what you are driving at here. Are you saying that our attacks in Afghanistan were unwarranted? or that we are blaming Iraq for 9/11? I haven't heard that.

No. The Taliban was harboring Osama and his training camps. They admitted this (eventually) and decided that they would not give him up. They were given ultimatum after ultimatum and the US and UN made it clear that any country harboring the terrorists who did not give them up were part of the war on terrorism. It was pretty cut and dried and the fools who hated America and wanted terrorism brought it on themselves.

However, with Iraq, there is no direct proof that he funds Al-Qaida and to me, that is not the issue. The issue with Saddam is not terrorism, but the breaking of restrictions and laws that were placed on him ten years ago and his thumbing his nose at the UN in seeming defiance.

ms Greenleaf

02-26-2003, 08:27 PM

Okay now that we are talking about those cars. Environmentalists are mad at Bush because although he is sponcering the making of those cars t (the car are by the way not a new concept) he is some how i am not quite sure of the details still polluting by either the substance or the making of them...but hey do not trust me look it up for yourselves cause I am not always right.

Parrot

02-26-2003, 09:27 PM

One more quote that pretty much sums up my feelings on much of this;
"If you're at a peace march, and the guy next to you has a sign saying 'Bush is Hitler,' stop the peace stuff for a second and beat his ass."

--Dennis Miller, on The Tonight Show.

faila

02-26-2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Hadhafang
That smacks of Machiavelli. No because of the fact that killing is not always wrong, their is justfied killing.

Ms Green Leaf People are not born equal think about it, FOr instance I can not play soccer (football for the British people) as well as Diago Maradona I can not spell as well as Tolkien, but I obviously can logically think better than other people. Obviously people do have different skills, but some people are truly better than others. For instance going back to the sports anology, Is david beckahm as good as pele (in prime?) Their people that are better than others in a respective field, and repective fields that are better than other respective fields. Edited by me for it was no right for meto say.
And any way the bombing of nagasaki and hiroshima was very stratigical and probobly ended the war sooner than if they hadnt of been dropped, Im not saying it was justified because it was probobyl the wrong thing to do, but I think I would of done the same in that situation.

ms Greenleaf

02-26-2003, 10:26 PM

Okay parrot feeling accepted

Faila...i am not sure I get what you mean do you mean that some people are not as good as other people period OR do you mean that some people are not as good as other people at certain things. If it is the first i feel that you are incorrect, if you mean the latter you are correct...of course going from everything you have said in this thread and the closed thread Bushad the electoral;... I feel you mean the first. Please prove me wrong.

Ciryaher

02-27-2003, 12:31 AM

Please stay on topic, people.

If you want to discuss the war or communism, there are appropriate threads, already in existence, for that purpose.

Hadhafang

02-27-2003, 01:52 AM

No because of the fact that killing is not always wrong, their is justfied killing.
...like killing innocent Japanese women and children with two atomic bombs.:confused:
I thought we as Americans were supposed to go out of our way to avoid civilian deaths. The two bombs dropped in 1945 were aimed specifically at civilians. Don't even try to justify it. It was wrong. Oppenheimer felt so guilty after developing the weapons that he waged a war against their proliferation for the rest of his life. America is a great country. But we aren't perfect. Mistakes like these shouldn't be justified.
Believe me, I am all in favor of getting rid of Saddam (who like Hitler is evil not just crazy). But this eagerness for war and bloodlust our president has been pushing is disturbing and in itself evil. War is bad. Killing is bad. Their are plenty of evil dictators in the world that deserve to be removed from power. We focus on Saddaam because he has some of the purest oil under his feet that Bush wants a crack at. Trust me....if there was no oil over there we wouldn't even know who Saddaam Hussein was.

Ciryaher

02-27-2003, 02:38 AM

Our president is not pushing war and bloodlust. It's isolated voices of fanaticism that are calling for war and bloodlust. I can quote a good many people around where I live that would eagerly kill every Muslim they could get their hands on. President Bush is for action, but he's not a warmonger. Why would he agree to all these UN resolutions if all he wanted to do was have people killed? He's trying to get Hussein to give up his weapons (which he has used before and still has) without fighting, but does any sane person think that Hussein will actually surrender/destroy all of his WMD's? Gimme a break, people.

I don't want a war, let me make that clear. I would prefer to support the Iraqi people in an uprising against the man, or if not that, to have him extracted by Coalition Special Forces and tried before a War Crimes tribunal. But if it takes a war to dismantle his totalitarian regime, then that's what it takes.

Dain Ironfoot

02-27-2003, 03:32 AM

Ok a couple of points, America is against assassins and doent use them PUBLICLY, but then again you never knows what goes on in the goverment.

secondly, I blelieve that we should kill sadam, but I have mized feelings about the war. Last time we were in Iraq me had pilots that refused to do their jobs due to the thousands of civilians that are not in the army yet fight as if in one. There was a highway in Iraq called the Highway of death.

I want to give testimony on what are called the "highways of death." These are the two Kuwaiti roadways, littered with remains of 2,000 mangled Iraqi military vehicles, and the charred and dismembered bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, who were withdrawing from Kuwait on February 26th and 27th 1991 in compliance with UN resolutions.

Yes these are civilans but theyare carrying weapons and shooting at you. What is the moral thing to do when a 74 year old woman is shooting at you?

"The US armed forces bombed one end of the main highway from Kuwait city to Basra, sealing it off. They bombed the other end of the highway and sealed it off. They positioned mechanized artillery units on the hills overlooking it. And then, from the air and from the land they simply massacred every living thing on the road. Fighter bombers, helicopter gunships, and armored battalions poured merciless firepower on traffic jams backed up for as much as twenty miles. When the traffic became grid locked, the B-52s were sent in for carpet bombing." Our forces did not wait for the fleeing people to surrender, they did not surround them and force them to surrender, they just exterminated them. Americans never heard about the "Highway of Death," they just paid for it, a slaughter that, in Barnes' words "ranks among the great atrocities of modern warfare."

This is what I hope that the War with Iraq will not turn into. Will we be dealing with the weapons and Sadam or killing machinegun wielding old women?

Cir also has a great point:

Our president is not pushing war and bloodlust. It's isolated voices of fanaticism that are calling for war and bloodlust.

Bush is not Fighting his "daddy's" war because of his own bloodlust, he and all of america has been violated. When someone threatens to use chem. weapons on you, that is when you have to step in and put an end to the terrorists and the dirty bombs that are made.

Now-a-days everyone has bombs, France, China, Even Russia (though they can't find half of them), what will we do if they ever threaten us?

Hadhafang

02-27-2003, 03:59 AM

Dain Ironfoot

02-27-2003, 04:13 AM

I admire everyone's belief that we are spending 70 billion dollars on this war to help the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictator. I do not judge you or your beliefs because your motivations are just and moral. However, I don't believe Bush when he says that this war is about terrorism or the salvation of the Iraqi people. I believe it is about seizing oil that rightfully belongs to the people of Iraq. Find some good in it if you will. However, the motivation of our president is not morally driven. I personally think he could care less about the tens of thousands of people he will kill in this war. His sole desire is to get his payoffs from his corporate buddies who profit off these deaths. Hence, you may be right in that he doesn't have a bloodlust. Everytime a bomb drops someone is getting rich....Yuck!

ok, this has to make as little sence as the canada vs Usa thread. Bush is respondng to a formal threat. Sadam even made a coment about having a duel.... we cant bomb them to the stone age because the country is against upgrading Iraq at the present moment, and even if we did, WE (America) wouldn't get the oil from Iraq, there is just to much politics to go around, and Bush wouldn't put Americans in Iraq to pump oil. We would apoint a new leader. Plus, there are many other countrys with oil that we use.

Ciryaher

02-27-2003, 04:39 AM

Mexico, Venezuela, and Russia are huge oil exporters outside the Middle-East. If all the government were concerned about was getting oil, then why in the heck wouldn't we be trying to take over those countries, too? Iraq has (or had) the 5th largest military in the world, so why go after the hardest one to defeat?

Face it, people, this isn't about oil. We already get plenty of oil from the M-E. There isn't a shortage. At the worst, Bush thinks that Hussein supports terrorists. Hussein has already admitted to giving the families of suicide bombers money (as an incentive for the bombers). He has already murdered thousands of Kurds and Iranians with chemical/biological weapons. Open your eyes, people, because as much as some of you hate Bush, that doesn't mean that you have to blind yourselves from the truth.

And Dain, assassinating Hussein wouldn't do anything but make him a martyr. We have to discredit him in the eyes of his own people, and that way he'll be a villain to everyone, and a hero only to the fools whose minds will never be changed.

Dain Ironfoot

02-27-2003, 05:22 AM

thank you Cir but you misunderstand me. I was telling all of the people eho used the term "assassins" that America doen't use them publicly, and it is my opinion that sadam does not deserve to live. Plain and simple, I see your point on the Martyr, but you also have to take into acount the thousands of people that he have killed. Do you believe he deserves to live Cir?

Ciryaher

02-27-2003, 07:21 AM

No, I don't think he deserves to live. But as Gandalf put very well, "Some that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life...can you give it to them? Then don't be so eager to deal out death in punishment."

If the Iraqi people kill him, then I don't think there will be a strong response against the West from the Arab world. If we kill him, we're sure to get attacked worse than ever before. Let them kill him, or let us capture him.

Dain Ironfoot

02-27-2003, 12:52 PM

ah, yes, my sentiments also, so we finaly agreed?

Hadhafang

02-27-2003, 01:58 PM

ok, this has to make as little sence as the canada vs Usa thread. Bush is respondng to a formal threat. Sadam even made a coment about having a duel.... we cant bomb them to the stone age because the country is against upgrading Iraq at the present moment, and even if we did, WE (America) wouldn't get the oil from Iraq, there is just to much politics to go around, and Bush wouldn't put Americans in Iraq to pump oil. We would apoint a new leader. Plus, there are many other countrys with oil that we use.
I'm not even going to bother trying to argue this. I'll let time prove you wrong. The only part that doesn't make sense is that you think our president is being magnanimous in spending $70 billion in an already faltrerring economy to aid the benevolent people of Iraq in their time of need. There is a 100% guarentee that we will have troops over there for years to come and that Cheney's oil company will have wells all over Iraq when this is all over. I agree our oil companies won't have Americans over there. They will pay Iraqis to man the wells at a non-living wage. Americans cost too much. Why will the Iraqis accept this? Because we are going to appoint a western-friendly dictator in charge who we will pay off handsomely. That is how it works in Saudi Arabia...that is how it is going to work in Iraq.

I am not sticking up for evil Saddam when I say this but, Iraq made chemical weapons threats AFTER Bush showed his intent o attack. I think we would do the same if another power stated an intent to invade the U.S. Our guns were so outnumbered back in the sixties that we stated...if the Soviet Union attacks us conventionally, we will attack using nuclear weapons and they will be responsible for the end of the world.
So show me some real world evidence evidence how my argument doesn't make sense. or shall I just let time prove you wrong?

Gandalf White

02-27-2003, 02:29 PM

So show me some real world evidence evidence how my argument doesn't make sense. or shall I just let time prove you wrong? Alright, go ahead and ignore all the good arguments just previous to yours, which you seem to have overlooked. Or just let time prove you wrong.... I don't really care which way.

ms Greenleaf

02-27-2003, 04:01 PM

I have an idea why don't we stop arguing the same things back and forth and just wait and see what happens,,, since Bush is obviously NOT going to isten to me in particular.

Hadhafang

02-27-2003, 04:08 PM

I am still waiting for evidence. You can't just say I am wrong. You have to give some real world instances of why my argument is wrong not emotional propaganda driven reasons. I just heard on the radio that Bush intends to keep troops over there for a long time after we invade. 'Time' has already proven me correct on one point. Next Haliburton will state their interest in drilling services.

ms Greenleaf

02-27-2003, 04:48 PM

Actually Bush has talked about the oil mines.. He SAYS that he is going to use them to re-build the societuy after he is done eliminating terrorists...but is that to be beleived and would it not be easier to just not destroy part of the country and then re-build it? I feel that there has to be another way around this situation though I am not sure many others do.

Parrot

02-27-2003, 04:58 PM

Irony anyone? Hadhafang, what makes you think you get to put the burden of proof on the rest of us when you are the one apparently reading minds in telling us what Bush is really thinking? Do you have anything vaguely resembling factual support for the too tedious "It's all about oil" mantra? If you do I will truly be impressed because it will be the first I have seen.

faila

02-27-2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Okay parrot feeling accepted

Faila...i am not sure I get what you mean do you mean that some people are not as good as other people period OR do you mean that some people are not as good as other people at certain things. If it is the first i feel that you are incorrect, if you mean the latter you are correct...of course going from everything you have said in this thread and the closed thread Bushad the electoral;... I feel you mean the first. Please prove me wrong. Both, some peolpe are just completely and totally better than others. For instance, this may sound mean, but i am better than a retarded child. Why? My worth is higher for I can accomplish more.

And War is not bad because war can save life just as much as it can kill.

And any way he could take the oil mines as war reparations.

ms Greenleaf

02-27-2003, 05:50 PM

Faila you and I will have to start a completely different thread if you want to argue this BUT...a retarded child may be mentallyw "worth less than you" but maybe for instance they are kinder or maybe they have a different skill... for instance my uncle is retarded and he has a much better sence of rythm than i as well, and is better at crafts than I am... does it make him worse because I am mentally stronger.? Oh and war repairs for which place the USA or Iraq?

faila

02-27-2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Faila you and I will have to start a completely different thread if you want to argue this BUT...a retarded child may be mentallyw "worth less than you" but maybe for instance they are kinder or maybe they have a different skill... for instance my uncle is retarded and he has a much better sence of rythm than i as well, and is better at crafts than I am... does it make him worse because I am mentally stronger.? Oh and war repairs for which place the USA or Iraq? Tell me which is worth more his rhythm skills and craft skills or logical thinking and math skills, or possibily being able to heal people. Rythm and most craft skills are of extremely little use,so yes he his of a lesser value.(No I dont think your Uncle should be killed, thats wrong and actually if i didnt have such a large tax burden I would donate money to charity organazations for the mentally handicapped.) For the Us, but actually I think they should just sell it to us for profit, it would help both nations.

Ciryaher

02-27-2003, 07:39 PM

Hadhafang, you call for evidence that has already been given. Take off your horse-blinds and read each post in the thread.

Dain Ironfoot

02-27-2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by faila
Tell me which is worth more his rhythm skills and craft skills or logical thinking and math skills, or possibily being able to heal people. Rythm and most craft skills are of extremely little use,so yes he his of a lesser value.(No I dont think your Uncle should be killed, thats wrong and actually if i didnt have such a large tax burden I would donate money to charity organazations for the mentally handicapped.) For the Us, but actually I think they should just sell it to us for profit, it would help both nations.

Ok, This is an opinion, not fact. What is worth more to you might not be worth as much to other "retarded children" as you incompassionatly put it. Opinions are great but dont post them as facts and please read all posts befor posting.

Galdor

02-27-2003, 10:44 PM

I think maybe a better way to put it faila would be to say that all people are equal, but not all people are of the same worth to socieity.

faila

02-27-2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Dain Ironfoot
Ok, This is an opinion, not fact. What is worth more to you might not be worth as much to other "retarded children" as you incompassionatly put it. Opinions are great but dont post them as facts and please read all posts befor posting. Galdor put it correctly, its worth to society. But I still say that worth to society means that one is better than another. I dont understand how one can say that truly all are equal. It should be accepted as fact not opinion. I read what I want. any way I have read all the posts.

Hadhafang

02-27-2003, 11:32 PM

"Do you have anything vaguely resembling factual support for the too tedious "It's all about oil" mantra?
No.
I am afraid you caught me talking out of my @$$ a bit.:p
However, noone has presented any evidence that says this war is NOT going to be fought for oil. Don't get me wrong. I will support our troops when time comes to take action. I just have some moral problems with killing tens of thousands of people to save me ten cents on a gallon of gas. However, there are a number of reasons why a war is usually fought. Saddaam is a loser and I support removing him. His regime is violent and we most likely will not be able to preclude violence when dealing with him.
I also will maintain that if there was no oil over there we (the U.S.) would not be investing this much money, time , and heartache in dealing with this war. I don't think anyone can argue that.

Ciryaher

02-27-2003, 11:37 PM

Ten thousands don't have to die for ten cents off of the price of gas. Some people, such as me, support extracting Hussein by coalition forces, or by getting the Iraqi people to stage a coup and lynch him.

Hadhafang

02-27-2003, 11:44 PM

Ten thousands don't have to die for ten cents off of the price of gas. I would be happy with that as well. I would also like the U.N. to get off their rear-ends and have them commit troops to post war stability. We shouldn't have the right to occupy.

Ciryaher

02-27-2003, 11:48 PM

What about Afghanistan? There is a coalition force keeping the peace there. What would happen in Iraq is the same concept. Do you object to that? I think that Afghanistan is on the road to better times, with their new council in place and so on.

Parrot

02-27-2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Hadhafang
No.
I am afraid you caught me talking out of my @$$ a bit.:p
However, noone has presented any evidence that says this war is NOT going to be fought for oil. Don't get me wrong. I will support our troops when time comes to take action. I just have some moral problems with killing tens of thousands of people to save me ten cents on a gallon of gas. However, there are a number of reasons why a war is usually fought. Saddaam is a loser and I support removing him. His regime is violent and we most likely will not be able to preclude violence when dealing with him.
I also will maintain that if there was no oil over there we (the U.S.) would not be investing this much money, time , and heartache in dealing with this war. I don't think anyone can argue that.

You can't prove a negative; you can only lay out evidence to the contrary. Many reasonable, if not compelling, arguments have been made for military action. You are totally within reason to reject them, I reject some myself, but don't pretend they haven't been made. I believe that you are right at least in that oil and the importance of the entire middle-east to our economy does play some part, but this whole idea that our whole motivation is just to roll in and grab the oil is more than a little simplistic in my opinion.

Hadhafang

02-28-2003, 06:34 AM

What about Afghanistan? There is a coalition force keeping the peace there. What would happen in Iraq is the same concept. Do you object to that?
I absolutley support the multinational coalition in Afghanistan and would support it in Iraq. I would not support U.S. alone occupying the country.

ms Greenleaf

03-01-2003, 02:16 AM

What I want to know is who will take the place of Suddam and his Regime... because it can have a bad effect on a country such change--- also remember not all his people hate him

Eliot

03-01-2003, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
What I want to know is who will take the place of Suddam and his Regime... because it can have a bad effect on a country such change--- also remember not all his people hate him

Mr. Bush will probably appoint an exiled Iraqi to take the place of Hussein.

I don't think it really matters if everybody likes him OR hates him. There's not a President on the planet that can please EVERYBODY in his nation.

Morgoth

03-01-2003, 06:42 PM

Actually, I believe there was a plan to install a US politcian to run a protectorate in Iraq for 'a short period'. I'm more concerned how short that period would be. Maybe Bush should appoint one of his oil prospector buddies.

Hadhafang

03-01-2003, 07:07 PM

In my opinion it won't be short. We (the U.S.) never go anywhere without leaving some military behind. In this instance we will protect our enormous $70 billion investment in oil and security. These countries generally can't get rid of us once we are in. However, I would much rather have U.S. troops occupying my country than having to deal with warlords and dictators. But that is just my opinion. I don't know how the rest of the world looks upon our occupation of such countries.
That is why I feel that we should have a multinational coalition to maintain the peace unil their new government stabilizes.... hopefully a democracy.

Eliot

03-01-2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Morgoth
Actually, I believe there was a plan to install a US politcian to run a protectorate in Iraq for 'a short period'. I'm more concerned how short that period would be. Maybe Bush should appoint one of his oil prospector buddies.

I hope we don't stay there TOO long. I don't think it would be bad for some coalition forces to stay there for maybe a little less then a decade just to help out in rebuilding the country. I wouldn't mind that. But I don't want US forces staying there permanently, because then a lot of the Arab world would look at us as "empire builders".

I'm getting sick and tired of all these people saying that Bush wants Iraq's oil. It's just plain stupid. We already get a lot of their oil anyway, and we already have enough oil as it is. It's just kinda expensive, that's all. I don't really mind, because I can't even drive yet anyway. :rolleyes:

Did you know that there's more oil in the Gulf of Mexico then in any other spot in the world? The only problem is that we'd have to drill all of it and set up all of the rigs. I got the info from a friend that works at an oil refinery near my house. I was only saying that as a fact, not as some weird comeback.

Samweis

03-01-2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Eliot
But I don't want US forces staying there permanently, because then a lot of the Arab world would look at us as "empire builders".

I don´t believe that this depends on the period, how long US forces have to stay in Iraq, the attack will be quite enough.

I'm getting sick and tired of all these people saying that Bush wants Iraq's oil. It's just plain stupid. We already get a lot of their oil anyway, and we already have enough oil as it is. It's just kinda expensive, that's all.

I agree Bush doesn´t want Iraq´s oil! I think rather he wants to show the US-voters, that he fights "successfully" his self-proclaimed "war on terror".

The problem is that force will create force - a conventional war is not able to abolish terror. The force-helix will increase rapidly.

Don´t get me wrong, I would agree a war, but as last possibility only. But the USA has to know that Afghanistan still requires help and Iraq will require help for a very, very long time.

faila

03-01-2003, 10:02 PM

Galdor

03-01-2003, 11:03 PM

You know, I don't understand Bush, why attack Iraq for oil? I mean think about it guys, all we want is oil, but there's plenty of other easier places that we could get oil from besides Iraq. Why attack Iraq for oil when we could just open oil wells in Alaska, or just attack another country like Kuwait(sp?). They'd be a whole lot easer to take out than Iraq. And I'm sure that Bush and friends could come up with some great reasons why we should attack Kuwait. Maybe we could accuse them of harboring terrorist, or say that they have nukes and stuff. Then make up lots false evidence that seems to prove our accusations, like we're doing with Iraq. And than try and get the UN to help us out, and if they don't, well who cares, we can just do it ourselves, we'd probely get more oil that way anyway. I mean it's not like we value human lives over dropping the price of oil a few cents or anything.:rolleyes:

(Deep sarcasm.)

Anamatar IV

03-01-2003, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by faila
I think its immoral to rule a people without their consent.

Democrats don't consent to Dubya being in office, though;)

Galdor, I did a paper as to why there shouldn't be drilling for oil in the wildlife reserve in Alaska last year. I'll see if I can't dig that up.

Dain Ironfoot

03-02-2003, 12:13 AM

plus, why would he spend billions on a war on Iraq if he wants the price if oil to drop a few cents?

gilgalad

03-02-2003, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Ciryaher
It's our war because this is the whole civilized world acting as a united body to seek out and destroy terrorist organizations. If you aren't for elimination terrorists, then you're for letting the terrorists do as they wish.

Hold on just a minute buddy. What makes you think you can push this war on the entire civilised world just because America thinks itself important enough to act unilaterally. I dont know if you realise it, (i do because Ireland is next door to britan and we are in touch with what happens there) but Tony Blair has been trying his utmost to convince the British people to support YOUR war. To what effect? MILLIONS of people demonstrating AGAINST YOUR WAR.

The very fact that the UN is refusing to give permission for America to wage this war shows clearly that it is not the International Communities war, but YOURS.

You people also need to ask yourselves, what really is suggestive of terrorism, a country complying with the demands of the UN to allow weapons inspectors in, or a country TERRORIZING another, threatening it with an immediate and terrible war if it doesn't comply.

"DO WHAT I SAY OR I'LL KILL YOU"
That's terrorism.

ms Greenleaf

03-02-2003, 03:01 AM

Same in Canada lots of anti-war people... oh and if they set oil wells in alaska I would go assasinate Bush..and it would all be thanks to HI assasin trainging (joking) but quite honest about the other two statements... The wildlife is much more important then the rich Americans saving what is it two cents american...or four Canadian.?

Ciryaher

03-02-2003, 05:48 AM

Hold on just a minute buddy.

Call me that again and you can expect a very nasty private message from me, "buddy".

Yes, it is the entire world's war, as a matter of fact. If you'd pull your head out of the sand, you'd know that I myself don't think Hussein is a terrorist. I know that he supports terrorism, but not that he organizes it. I *do* however know that he has murdered tens if not hundreds of thousands of his own people, as well as used chemical/biological weapons on Iraqis, Kurds, and Iranians. He is conveniently destroying the homes of the tribes of minority Muslims in the marshlands of Iraq. No, he's not a terrorist. Just a dictatorial madman and an advocate of ethnic cleansing. Reminds me of Stalin and Hitler...or for a more recent example, Milosevic. Two of those we got (one by suicide, other was ousted and arrested)...but why isn't Europe so apt to go after Hussein (who is as bad as Stalin, and much worse than Milosevic).

Again, you can all protest. That's your right (unless you're an Iraqi, in which case you have no freedom of speech). But that doesn't at all mean that you are protesting for the right reason. Protest war, but don't protest removing Hussein...why in tarnation would anyone support that man, anyways?..

Ciryaher

03-02-2003, 05:53 AM

And don't even get me started on the so-called "environmentalists". Research has proven that if the drilling operations were set up correctly there would be minimal habitat disruption.

CERTAINLY much less disruption caused by the forest fires that the American West has experienced...and whose fault was that? I believe that the environmentalists blocked the state legislature that would have allowed selective cutting of forests, which would reduce the risk of fire as well as the rate at which any fire would spread. Perhaps if they knew that they had caused the hundreds of thousands of acres of forest to become a charred lump of cinders, they wouldn't be so ignorant.

Morgoth

03-02-2003, 09:11 AM

faila

03-02-2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
Democrats don't consent to Dubya being in office, though;)

Galdor, I did a paper as to why there shouldn't be drilling for oil in the wildlife reserve in Alaska last year. I'll see if I can't dig that up. Thats not the way I meant it. Democrats consent to the government set up we have or they should leave. bush got elected through the normal processes just like any one else, even hoguh the supreme court interferdto enforce he constitutional ammendments, he still won by the legal process.

Galdor we may get oil from this, but that is notwhy we are attacking.

Samweis

03-02-2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by faila
Thats not the way I meant it. Democrats consent to the government set up we have or they should leave.

Sorry faila,

of course an democratic elected government should be accepted by the population, but to ask people, who don´t do that, to leave the country is not the right attitude.

Galdor

03-02-2003, 04:52 PM

Galdor we may get oil from this, but that is notwhy we are attacking.

Faila, read the two words at the very bottom of my post. They say "Deep sarcasm." I know that we aren't going to Iraq for oil, I was being sarcastic. My point was to simply show those who are saying that it is only for oil that we are going to Iraq how foolish it is to do so without any evidence.

Dengen-Goroth

03-02-2003, 07:01 PM

Cir, could you please tell me how Hussein compares to Stalin. (I'm not in any way disputing you) I may have stated my opinions in other threads, but I'll say it again. War with Iraq is utterly unnecessary for us right now. I believe Saddam is a cruel dictator, a madman, but I do not believe we have the right to go in there and take him out of power unless he does something like expel UN inspectors or commit an act of aggresion against another nation. America, in my mind, is a peace-loving nation, and the thought of our first war without provocation in history is slightly disturbing. And on another page, the cost of this war is overwhelming, there is no reason whatsoever to wage a war which will cost America's already weakened economy far over 100 billion. Or am I mistaken?

Gandalf White

03-02-2003, 08:15 PM

How do you 'know', Cir, if Saddam supports Terrorism? Have you talked to him face to face in complete honesty? Thought not? So what are you going by? Colin Powell's report to the UN? People laughed at him in our media. The stuff he put forward is nonsense. So you reckon Saddam supports al-Qaeda? Saddam is completely anti Islam, and Osama bin Laden is an Islamic extremist. Work it out. First off just because some people in America laughed at Powell doesn't mean it's nonsense. If 15 of 18 (83.33%) countries in the UN support the war on Iraq there obviously must be some reason to attack. Maybe the public is not given the real reasons. Of course, the other three nations are, err, some little nation, I forget which :eek: , Germany, who has a lot of money at stake, and France, headed by their criminal leader who not only does a lot of trade with Iraq, but supplies them with parts for WoMD.
As to Saddam supporting terrorism, Cir may have gone a bit far. However, he does support the terroristic homicide bombings, and who knows, maybe he would give a terrorist group WoMD. You can never be sure.

Samweis

03-02-2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf White
First off just because some people in America laughed at Powell doesn't mean it's nonsense. If 15 of 18 (83.33%) countries in the UN support the war on Iraq there obviously must be some reason to attack.

15 of 18??

From where did you get these numbers?

Samweis

03-02-2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf White
Of course, the other three nations are, err, some little nation, I forget which :eek: , Germany, who has a lot of money at stake, and France, headed by their criminal leader who not only does a lot of trade with Iraq, but supplies them with parts for WoMD.

Didn´t sell the whole west (the USA included) these weapons, which are the reasons of all, to Iraq for the war between Iraq and Iran?

Morgoth

03-02-2003, 08:48 PM

Well Gandalf, in France's case, they had to vote for the crook or the Nazi, and they chose the crook. Also, who are you to call Chirac a crook? May I remind you that Bush also has a criminal record, for drink-driving. And 15 out of 18 countries DO NOT support the war, only 3 are for it, 3 are against, and 12 are abstaining. So where you got those figures for is beyond.

Gandalf White

03-02-2003, 09:37 PM

Ok, guys. You win (for once). :D
Didn´t sell the whole west (the USA included) these weapons, which are the reasons of all, to Iraq for the war between Iraq and Iran? I'm talking present-tense.
Also, who are you to call Chirac a crook? May I remind you that Bush also has a criminal record, for drink-driving. I believe that seriously beating a policeman, and throwing a Molactav (sp?) cocktail at another (nearly burning him to death) is more serious than drunk driving. (Of course, that doesn't pardon Bush, but still your point is almost amusing)
they had to vote for the crook or the Nazi, and they chose the crook. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I was unaware of it.

Ciryaher

03-02-2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Dengen-Goroth
Cir, could you please tell me how Hussein compares to Stalin. (I'm not in any way disputing you) I may have stated my opinions in other threads, but I'll say it again. War with Iraq is utterly unnecessary for us right now. I believe Saddam is a cruel dictator, a madman, but I do not believe we have the right to go in there and take him out of power unless he does something like expel UN inspectors or commit an act of aggresion against another nation. America, in my mind, is a peace-loving nation, and the thought of our first war without provocation in history is slightly disturbing. And on another page, the cost of this war is overwhelming, there is no reason whatsoever to wage a war which will cost America's already weakened economy far over 100 billion. Or am I mistaken?

He compares to Stalin because he kills anyone who opposes his views within Iraq, and he murders his own people. Do you want him to expel inspectors again? Or would you rather he invade Iran or Kuwait again? Or would you like him to gas and poison his own people...again?

And I know he supports terrorism because he has admitted to paying the families of suicide bombers, which is some mighty good incentive for people to do it.

Samweis

03-02-2003, 10:48 PM

Of course Saddam Hussein is not like Stalin.

There is no comparison which will fit perfectly. A comparison is a simplification, only. Such comparison are used to bias others.

gilgalad

03-02-2003, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Ciryaher
Or would you rather he invade Iran or Kuwait again?

The fact that the US told Saddam at the time that an invasion of Kuwait would be perfectly alright by them obviously doesn't matter.

Ciryaher

03-02-2003, 11:38 PM

The first Bush and Reagan administrations won't have any excuses made for them by me. I know that the US did some very stupid things, but neither will I make excuses for Iraq.

Hadhafang

03-02-2003, 11:41 PM

In my opinion Bush IS going to war over the oil issue. However, Hussein has to go regardless. Bush is using this opporunity to kill two birds with one stone. Anyone who denies the oil connection is simply kidding themselves. Evidence....All of the other warlords and dictators in the world that you never heard of. Why aren't we invading other countries that oppress their citizens? Because our "benevolent president who cares so much for the welfare of oppressed peoples :rolleyes:" has nothing to gain from it economically.
On the otherhand, after more than a decade of sanctions Saddaam has still thumbed his nose up at international law. THE THREAT OF WAR IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS COMPELLING SADDAAM TO COMPLY WITH THE UN. America is a great nation. In my opinion we have shown more restraint than probably any other super power in history. Other super powers in the past would simply have done what they liked when they liked. I am sure our European friends here on TTF can attest to that.

gilgalad

03-03-2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Hadhafang
In my opinion we have shown more restraint than probably any other super power in history. Other super powers in the past would simply have done what they liked when they liked. I am sure our European friends here on TTF can attest to that.

Example please.

Hadhafang

03-03-2003, 12:36 AM

Our European allies have had many examples of lack of restraint over the past two hundred years.
Most of my examples are obvious ones.
France: Napolean trying to make an empire for France.
Germany: Hitler invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, France etc., the holocaust.
Russia: invading Afghanistan,
None of these countries at their respective times really looked for international support as much as the U.S. does today. We actually sponsored the U.N. and gave them a home within our borders. The reasons why we have shown so much restraint is because of the conscious citizens of our country that didn't accept prolonged agressiveness from our leaders. That doesn't mean that we are all angels though.

ms Greenleaf

03-03-2003, 02:41 AM

I agree that Hussain is Insane but there has got to be a better way of de-throwning him...in many ways this war will make him look like a hero kinda like Bin Laden---who I feel sorry for at timjes.

(I know I am nuts)

Gandalf White

03-03-2003, 02:43 AM

Wow hadafang, I'm surprised, but I actually totally agree with you on your last point! :)

ms Greenleaf

03-03-2003, 03:42 AM

Hey speak for yourself I am an angel * twirls devils tail*

Parrot

03-03-2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by gilgalad
The fact that the US told Saddam at the time that an invasion of Kuwait would be perfectly alright by them obviously doesn't matter.
"Fact"? I have seen this claim before but have never seen any support for it. Link?

Morgoth

03-03-2003, 06:52 PM

I would like to apologise for some partially incorrect evidence i put forward in a previous post. The actual number of security council members opposed to the war is 11, and security council members for the war is 4.

Parrot

03-03-2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Hadhafang
In my opinion Bush IS going to war over the oil issue. However, Hussein has to go regardless. Bush is using this opporunity to kill two birds with one stone. Anyone who denies the oil connection is simply kidding themselves.

The "connection" has been conceded in that the area is undeniably important to our economy; the question is whether we are going to war to "steal" or "grab" the oil and whether or not those who espouse this simplistic notion are the ones "kidding themselves".

Blood, Oil & Iraq (http://www.msnbc.com/news/879343.asp)

Hadhafang

03-04-2003, 07:05 AM

The "connection" has been conceded in that the area is undeniably important to our economy;
Parrot I know you have recognized that but not most of the pro-war devotees have not....and they say I am wearing horse blinders.:rolleyes: I have no evidence to back up my suspiscions. However, I am very skeptical of Bush's motivations. I have the right to, given that I voted for him. I think the administration is taking advantage of the goodwill of the American people by dressing this up in terrorism. I would give him a lot more respect if he just admitted that he wants to put someone in power over there that the rest of the world can do business with. That won't look to good if he admits that though. Once again these are just my opinions. I hope that Bush proves me incorrect and that he really believes in promoting Democracy.

By the way, why is it taking our entire military and 70 billion dollars to take out this litle puny regime? Lets just send James Bond in to take care of the problem.:D

Parrot

03-04-2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Hadhafang
Parrot I know you have recognized that but not most of the pro-war devotees have not....and they say I am wearing horse blinders.:rolleyes: I have no evidence to back up my suspiscions. However, I am very skeptical of Bush's motivations. I have the right to, given that I voted for him. I think the administration is taking advantage of the goodwill of the American people by dressing this up in terrorism. I would give him a lot more respect if he just admitted that he wants to put someone in power over there that the rest of the world can do business with. That won't look to good if he admits that though. Once again these are just my opinions. I hope that Bush proves me incorrect and that he really believes in promoting Democracy.

By the way, why is it taking our entire military and 70 billion dollars to take out this litle puny regime? Lets just send James Bond in to take care of the problem.:D
Hadhafang, I hope you are not lumping me with the "pro-war devotees" - that would not be accurate. I am not a fan of this war, at this time, either. I think there are very compelling arguments against this war; I just don't consider "OIL GRAB!" and "BUSH IS THE NEW HITLER!" to be among them. Not only do I not consider these good arguments; I think they do more harm than good by alienating moderates like myself who have misgivings about the current policy but aren't quite ready to march hand-in-hand with people spewing this pablum.

I also think there are slightly less compelling arguments for the war, so neither side is a slam-dunk where I am concerned. I respect opinions provided they are considered opinions.

People need to really look at the issue and decide for themselves what is right and just - and not just accept whatever platitudes or rhetoric they hear from their personal side of the aisle; this is why I am challenging people I primarily agree with on the larger issue here.
"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear. "
- Daniel Dennett

please don't ask me who this guy is/was because I haven't a clue

Hadhafang

03-04-2003, 04:52 PM

Hadhafang, I hope you are not lumping me with the "pro-war devotees"
I apologize for that. I didn't have any right to suggest you or anyone else on the forum is actually 'pro-war'.
People need to really look at the issue and decide for themselves what is right and just, and not just accept whatever platitudes or rhetoric they hear from their personal side of the aisle; this is why I am challenging people I might agree with on the larger issue here.
I will go along with that. It is difficult to dtermine who is right and wrong in this whole debacle anyway. I for one, don't even no for myself anymore.

Parrot

03-04-2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Hadhafang
I apologize for that. I didn't have any right to suggest you or anyone else on the forum is actually 'pro-war'.

I will go along with that. It is difficult to dtermine who is right and wrong in this whole debacle anyway. I for one, don't even no for myself anymore.
An apology is neither necessary nor expected; given my lines of debate in this and other threads I can see how you got that impression. I merely wanted to make clear my own position.

ms Greenleaf

03-04-2003, 11:39 PM

Well I am radically against war... o and I usually think it pointless... look at Iran and Iraq they have been fighting for how long...lot of good it does them.

Ciryaher

03-05-2003, 01:20 AM

You may think war is pointless, but that doesn't stop other people from thinking that Jihad is the fashionable thing to do. I'm not for war. I think the idea of starting a war when a surgical action (surgical in the military sense of the word) combined with a diplomatic effort is all that is needed. It's easy to shoot someone you don't like. It's a totally different thing to bring them justice.

Eliot

03-05-2003, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Well I am radically against war... o and I usually think it pointless... look at Iran and Iraq they have been fighting for how long...lot of good it does them.

Correction: The Iranian's and Iraqi's stopped fighting 15 years ago. Just stating the facts, not trying to start more trouble. :)

Morgoth

03-05-2003, 06:35 PM

Yes, and didn't the US government have a fit when that happened. Just think, all those WOMD that America sold Iraq to be used on Iran weren't going to be used on Iran! So your government lumbers us with a problem that it started to protect it's own interests. Where have I heard that before? WWII, perhaps, when the US dealt with Hitler. And who was doing the dealing? A man named Prescott Bush, Dubya's grandpappy.

ms Greenleaf

03-05-2003, 11:26 PM

Well OFFICIALLY the war ended but that does not mean anything if you live in Iran or Iraq

faila

03-06-2003, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Ciryaher
You may think war is pointless, but that doesn't stop other people from thinking that Jihad is the fashionable thing to do. I'm not for war. I think the idea of starting a war when a surgical action (surgical in the military sense of the word) combined with a diplomatic effort is all that is needed. It's easy to shoot someone you don't like. It's a totally different thing to bring them justice. isnt that a form of war?

Ciryaher

03-06-2003, 05:40 AM

If those are forms of war, then so are riots, lynchings, and arrests made by police.

Gandalf White

03-06-2003, 05:01 PM

WWII, perhaps, when the US dealt with Hitler. :rolleyes: I'm getting really tired of you spewing stuff Morgoth. Give me proof. Anything, a link, reference to a book, anything.

Thorin

03-06-2003, 05:31 PM

I do find it interesting how the US seems to come down on all these powers only when they find it inconvenient to themselves. They helped Ho Chi Min during WWII and then attacked him in Vietnam. They gave help to the Afghan rebel against Russia, and then attacked them in Afghanistan. They gave weapons to Saddam against Iran and then attacked him during the Gulf....All when American interests seemed affected.

We keep coming back to that phrase...American interests. That's really what it is ultimately all about.

Parrot

03-06-2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Thorin
I do find it interesting how the US seems to come down on all these powers only when they find it inconvenient to themselves. They helped Ho Chi Min during WWII and then attacked him in Vietnam. They gave help to the Afghan rebel against Russia, and then attacked them in Afghanistan. They gave weapons to Saddam against Iran and then attacked him during the Gulf....All when American interests seemed affected.

We keep coming back to that phrase...American interests. That's really what it is ultimately all about.
Which countries have foreign policies not predicated on their own interests?

"Let's enact policies contrary to our own interests! That ought to sell with the electorate!"
:rolleyes:

"Telling the future by looking at the past assumes that conditions remain constant. This is like driving a car by looking in the rear view mirror. "
- Herb Brody

Samweis

03-06-2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
Which countries have foreign policies not predicated on their own interests?

I agree every country´s foreign policies is predicated on their own interests, but if this foreign policy is tried to archieved unilateral, the country´s administration shouldn´t be very astonished, that other countries try to find alternative ways to solve the problem.

Parrot

03-06-2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Samweis
I agree every country´s foreign policies is predicated on their own interests, but if this foreign policy is tried to archieved unilateral, the country´s administration shouldn´t be very astonished, that other countries try to find alternative ways to solve the problem.
True. But neither should these other countries be astonished when the first nation is not easily swayed to their alternatives when said alternatives don't seem to "solve the problem".

Ignoring a problem does not make it go away.

Samweis

03-06-2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
True. But neither should these other countries be astonished when the first nation is not easily swayed to their alternatives when said alternatives don't seem to "solve the problem".

True, the "first nation" don´t need to sway to the alternatives, but the "other nations" don´t need to sway to the opinion of the "first nation", too.

Communication and not unilaterism is the key.

Ignoring a problem does not make it go away.

Nobody in Europe is ignoring the problem of terrorism. This is a prejudice in the USA. The adminstrations disagree in the way to solve the problem, only.

Dain Ironfoot

03-06-2003, 11:18 PM

You really believe that terrorism isn't Europe's problem? Terrorist are everyone's problem! There are so many terrorists countrys, not just Iraq (yes I know, he only supports terrorism.) There is N. Korea, Lybia, and MANY others.

Terrorists are the World's problem.

ms Greenleaf

03-06-2003, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf White
:rolleyes: I'm getting really tired of you spewing stuff Morgoth. Give me proof. Anything, a link, reference to a book, anything.

Actually you have not given anyone a reference either... should the terrorists not be innocent till PROVEN guilty?????

Ciryaher

03-07-2003, 12:01 AM

When they admit to being responsible for acts of terrorism, that's proof enough. For example, Hamas and Islamic Jihad regularly claim responsibility when they blow up a bus in Israel.

Eliot

03-07-2003, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Thorin
I do find it interesting how the US seems to come down on all these powers only when they find it inconvenient to themselves. They helped Ho Chi Min during WWII and then attacked him in Vietnam. They gave help to the Afghan rebel against Russia, and then attacked them in Afghanistan. They gave weapons to Saddam against Iran and then attacked him during the Gulf....All when American interests seemed affected.

We keep coming back to that phrase...American interests. That's really what it is ultimately all about.

Well, we were desperate to defeat the Japanese in WWII. Why NOT side with Ho Chi Minh? Sure, he was a cruel dictator, but we didn't realize that at the time.

About Afghanistan, we were trying our hardest to somehow hurt the Soviets, without starting an actual war between the USSR, and the US. We (again) didn't really think that these poor sheep-herders were going to turn out dangerous (no offense :)).

About Iraq, we (yes, again) didn't really think of Hussein as a tyrant then. We weren't at the greatest terms with the Iranians. So, (once again) we had somebody else take out our enemies (they obviously didn't succeed).

You're obviously European (once again, no offense :rolleyes: ).

Inderjit S

03-07-2003, 01:50 PM

Well, we were desperate to defeat the Japanese in WWII. Why NOT side with Ho Chi Minh? Sure, he was a cruel dictator, but we didn't realize that at the time.

Thats not the only time you've sided with cruel dictators. That's seem to be America's policy-to do everything so that it benefits THEM and their own slefish interests.

You're obviously European (once again, no offense ).

An YOU'RE obviously American, buying all your goverments propaganda. No offence.

Maedhros

03-07-2003, 03:06 PM

An YOU'RE obviously American, buying all your goverments propaganda. No offence.
And that is the problem when you have few networks (CNN, ABC, etc) reporting the news. The few control the majority of what is seen in TV news.

spirit

03-07-2003, 03:20 PM

y cant the world line as merry lil hobbits (but lets not be gay)
goodbye comeagain
(simpsons)

Thorin

03-07-2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Eliot
Well, we were desperate to defeat the Japanese in WWII. Why NOT side with Ho Chi Minh? Sure, he was a cruel dictator, but we didn't realize that at the time.

About Afghanistan, we were trying our hardest to somehow hurt the Soviets, without starting an actual war between the USSR, and the US. We (again) didn't really think that these poor sheep-herders were going to turn out dangerous (no offense :)).

About Iraq, we (yes, again) didn't really think of Hussein as a tyrant then. We weren't at the greatest terms with the Iranians. So, (once again) we had somebody else take out our enemies (they obviously didn't succeed).

You're obviously European (once again, no offense :rolleyes: ).

Actually, I'm Canadian thank you very much.

And at the least, what you are saying is that the Americans have had bad judgment in most of their political alliances with third world countries. I don't buy that. The Americans don't care about the rest of the world and which dictator is hurting his people. It's all about America. Since 1998, inspectors haven't been allowed in Iraq. Where was the push from America back then? It wasn't only until terrorism reared its ugly head against America that they finally settled their sights on Saddam. Yet they hide their campaign behind rhetoric such as "The people of Iraq need to be freed from this dictator" and "Saddam is a threat to all free countries". Nonsense. Iraq is a threat to America and now that Iraq has outlived its usefulness to America and become a thorn in its side, it is time for him to go just like every other alliance they've had with shady characters (starting with the Mafia).

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be ousted, but America needs to show that it is for political and self preserving reasons, not for moral and evil vs good reasons. Stop the smoke screen and the ridiculous moral propaganda to try and get American citizens on board for a war.

Eliot

03-07-2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Inderjit S
Thats not the only time you've sided with cruel dictators. That's seem to be America's policy-to do everything so that it benefits THEM and their own slefish interests.

An YOU'RE obviously American, buying all your goverments propaganda. No offence.

None taken. I get that all the time. Would it have been better to let the Japanese to take over Asia? Selfish interests by butt. We were trying to stop the Japanese from conquering the whole continent, and eventually aiding Hitler against the Soviets in eastern Europe; and the Brits in the Mideast.

Parrot

03-07-2003, 04:34 PM

Sorry WM and Mods but this is a rebuttal.

Has America made some poor foreign policy positions in the past? Sure, no question. Some bad alliances with some bad people too. Many of these were made in the interest of trying to suppress forces that were counter to the interests of the free world - Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Militant Islam. etc. As the opposing superpower we were put in the position of being the ones expected to do something even if it was wrong. Many of the countries crying the loudest now were happy to let us make these deals when we were backing them up against Big Red and ensuring their freedom. There wasn't much b!tching about American hegemony and the McDonaldsization of the world back when the alternative was Marxist hegemony and communist bread lines.

Hindsight is a handy thing isn't it? As is the comfort of knowing that someone else will do the dirty work for you and if anything goes awry down the road you will be free to criticize those efforts, even though they were largely on your behalf.

Thorin, I notice you never answered my question on the "Castration" thread, in fact the silence was deafening. If we were half as bad as you make us out to be, the American flag would be flying over Baghdad already and oil would be 20 cents instead of 2 dollars. Instead we and Britain have spent months trying to build this into a coalition effort. Your position that America doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks doesn't hold water. Sorry.

Whatever, I'm done here. Let your little bash party continue.

Since 1998, inspectors haven't been allowed in Iraq. Where was the push from America back then?
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike 12-17-98 (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html)

Clinton's airstrikes in response to the expulsion of inspectors? Anything ring a bell there?

Eliot

03-07-2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
And that is the problem when you have few networks (CNN, ABC, etc) reporting the news. The few control the majority of what is seen in TV news.

Few networks???

I have:

CBS
NBC
ABC
WGN
FNC
CNN Headline News
CNN
CLTV
CNBC
MSNBC

I might have even more. I'm not sure.

Eliot

03-07-2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Thorin
Actually, I'm Canadian thank you very much.

Oh, um, sorry. :eek: :eek: :( :)

Parrot

03-07-2003, 04:55 PM

Et tu, Canuckus?
The Back Page
March 3, 2003

Our Only Best Friends

Anti-Americanism is on the rise Here. It's unworthy of Canadians -- and unfair.

L. IAN MACDONALD

THERE'S A RISING WAVE of anti-Americanism in Canada. It's partly about anti-war sentiment, which runs deep in this country. It's partly about the perception of George W. Bush as a cowboy. But it's largely about America's wealth and power. And in that sense, anti-Americanism is as pernicious as anti-Semitism, rooted in envy rather than grievance.

Anti-Semitism is defined by the Anti-Defamation League as "simply a hostility directed at Jews solely because they are Jews." Similarly, anti-Americanism is aimed at Americans largely because they are Americans. It's not because of anything they've done to us; it's because of who they are and what they have: money and might.

It's also because their government, unilateralist most of the time, marches as to war with or without the support of the UN. It's because their trigger-happy pilots kill Canadian soldiers on the ground. It's because we take in their planes on a day of infamy and their president forgets to thank us even as he thanks everyone else. It's because they think the terrorist problem is at our border, when it demonstrably isn't -- not one of the terrorist hijackers entered the U.S. through Canada, and every alert since has proven to be a false alarm, unless crossing the border to gas up is now considered terrorism. It's because Washington harasses Canadian softwood lumber. But these are issues between our two governments, not between our two peoples.

In a fashionable Montreal restaurant the other night, one man's loud table talk included frequent references to "les maudits Americains," in the same contemptuous tone some Quebecers once spoke of "les maudits Juifs." In Toronto, in Ottawa, and everywhere in our English media, we constantly refer to "the Americans," the way the Americans might talk about their inlaws -- a bother in their lives.

This should be very troubling to Canadians, not just because of negative implications for our relations with the U.S., but because it is revealing of a flaw in our national character -- an insufferable air of moral superiority.

Bring back the Canadian inferiority complex. It suited us much better than the sanctimonious sense that we are better than Americans, a better people living in a better land.

"Canada is a country without enemies," one woman said loftily at a recent Montreal lunch, organized by the Institute for Research on Public Policy for a briefing on counterterrorism measures by a colonel from West Point. The anti-American sentiment in the room was as clear as the scepticism greeting Russ Howard's message that new-age terrorists "don't want a seat at the table, they want to destroy the table, and everyone sitting at it."

Canadians don't get it because they don't feel threatened as a target of terrorism. Well, at least Canadians know they've been named as a target of terror on Osama bin Laden's hit list. At any rate, given our notorious sensibilities, we would have been offended if we'd been left out.

Canadians don't get it because they would rather have a debate about the root cause of terrorism than do anything about it. They would rather view the world in terms of moral equivalency between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. This is a country, after all, where a pre-Christmas poll found that 38 per cent of Canadians thought Dubya was a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam. When the Prime Minister's communications director carelessly let slip that the President of the United States was "a moron," far too many Canadians agreed with her. As if, as a matter of routine, Harvard gives out M.B.A. degrees to morons.

And Canadians don't get it because even as we live under the protection of the American shield, and live off the profits of our trade with them, we resent Americans. We see ourselves as the "kinder, gentler" place of which the first George Bush spoke. A nation of peacekeepers -- but we don't even do as much of that any more. The impoverished nation of Bangladesh leads the world in peacekeeping, while Canada's contribution has slipped to 34th place. The Prime Minister keeps icing the puck on Iraq, hoping the UN will pass a second resolution authorizing force before the U.S. goes in on its own. And then what?

At a conference organized by the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, in a plenary on responsibilities of the media, there was a question from the floor about the U.S. being on orange terror alert while Canada was on "baby-blue alert." An American panellist, Alex Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center at the Kennedy School of Government, touchingly replied that he hoped Canadians "will be spared" what Americans have been put through.

But there is little sympathy for the U.S., even on that account any more. On the same afternoon, the coldest day of a bitter winter, 100,000 people marched through downtown Montreal as part of the impressive global protest against the looming invasion of Iraq. But it wasn't just about that, or even about the chants of "Bush Sucks." It was about anti-Americanism, as bone-chilling as the day.

It's in the air, all right. It's unworthy of Canadians. And it's time to speak up for our friendship with "the Americans," who are, for their abundant failings, the only best friends we have.

Journalist L. Ian MacDonald is a former head of public affairs at Canada's U.S. embassy

Morgoth

03-07-2003, 05:01 PM

Gandalf, what do you mean you're sick of me spewing stuff. You ask for a reference, but any reference I give, you will dissmiss as 'Commie' propaganda. You never get references for your facts, so why should I post references for mine. Hypocrite.

Morgoth

03-07-2003, 05:04 PM

I walked out of school today to go on an anti-war demonstration. Everyone was enjoying themselves (despite the weather). It was filmed by BBC South East, and will be shown tonight at 6.30 on BBC One. It's a continual reminder to Blair that the voters of tomorrow are against him.

Parrot

03-07-2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Morgoth
Gandalf, what do you mean you're sick of me spewing stuff. You ask for a reference, but any reference I give, you will dissmiss as 'Commie' propaganda. You never get references for your facts, so why should I post references for mine. Hypocrite.
Or......

you could try posting a reference and see what actually happens..........

Gandalf White

03-07-2003, 05:54 PM

Lol, there's no need to jump all over me because I asked for a reference. I was not talking about ALL of Morgoth's posts, nor indeed MOST of them. In fact I was talking about ONE! (Yes, count them, 1) WWII, perhaps, when the US dealt with Hitler. And who was doing the dealing? A man named Prescott Bush, Dubya's grandpappy. I simply asked for a reference. So sue me. :rolleyes:

legolasismine

03-07-2003, 06:06 PM

I am nieve to the war really I am I don't care about how many people die and the fact that I don't care scares me cause I want to care but instead I couldn't care less.

Morgoth

03-07-2003, 06:09 PM

Sorry. The reference was from Michael Moore's book, Stupid White Men, which in turn came from a Boston Globe Article from April 23rd 2001, called 'An American Dynasty'.
It also came from the Sartosa Herald-Tribune article of November 12 2001 titled 'Author Links Bush Family to Nazis'
There.

Maedhros

03-07-2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Eliot
Few networks???

I have:

CBS
NBC
ABC
WGN
FNC
CNN Headline News
CNN
CLTV
CNBC
MSNBC

I might have even more. I'm not sure.
Hehe. It makes me wonder when someone posts that CNN and CNN Headline News as different news sources. I would have mentioned Fox too.
But there is little sympathy for the U.S., even on that account any more. On the same afternoon, the coldest day of a bitter winter, 100,000 people marched through downtown Montreal as part of the impressive global protest against the looming invasion of Iraq. But it wasn't just about that, or even about the chants of "Bush Sucks." It was about anti-Americanism, as bone-chilling as the day.
And what is wrong about that? It seems to me freedom of expresion.

Gandalf White

03-07-2003, 06:14 PM

Wow, Parrot, that last article was a gem. I'm going to have to start reading the one's you post. ;)

Yes, America has problems. So does every other nation. I am continually surprised by the amount of people (Americans and non-Americans) who think America is the great Satan. As the article said we are hated because of our wealth and power. Islam hates us because we are (were?) a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles. We live in the best nation in the world, and people are mad at us because of it.

Hypocrite. I walked out of school today to go on an anti-war demonstration. Everyone was enjoying themselves (despite the weather). It was filmed by BBC South East, and will be shown tonight at 6.30 on BBC One. It's a continual reminder to Blair that the voters of tomorrow are against him. I commend Tony Blair for doing what's right, even if it will cost him. He's a brave man to do such a thing, to actually stand against evil.

As to the hypocrite thing I find the protestors against the war to be the biggest ones. They rail against evil America, seemingly unaware that you are not allowed to protest your governments actions in certain other countries. They tell how evil America is, how it completely terrorizes the world, and looks only to dominate it. And yet they do not leave. :rolleyes:

Oh, how I wish they would. Maybe they could come join you, Morgoth! :p ;)

Parrot

03-07-2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf White
Wow, Parrot, that last article was a gem. I'm going to have to start reading the one's you post. ;)

Ehh, don't bother, most are more along the lines of this (http://www.pottedmeatmuseum.com/meatpages/041.htm) .........

Maedhros

03-07-2003, 06:38 PM

I commend Tony Blair for doing what's right, even if it will cost him. He's a brave man to do such a thing, to actually stand against evil.
Well, that is certainly interesting. Democratic rules need popular support. The funny thing is that i don't recall people bashing George Sr. when he decided not to take out SH. Was the time not right then?
As to the hypocrite thing I find the protestors against the war to be the biggest ones. They rail against evil America, seemingly unaware that you are not allowed to protest your governments actions in certain other countries.
I don't think they are hypocrites, they have their right to express their opinions, they just think that war against Iraq can be avoided.
Remember George Sr. could have deposed SH but he thought better to leave him there. Is he to blame for this?

Morgoth

03-07-2003, 06:48 PM

Gandalf, you say that if people are unhappy, they should just leave the country. Are you crazy? That's totalitarianism you're advocating with that statement.

Gandalf White

03-07-2003, 06:54 PM

I don't think they are hypocrites, they have their right to express their opinions, they just think that war against Iraq can be avoided. Yes, I realize they have the right to express their opinion. I just find it extremely odd that the wish to live in "the most evil nation on the face of this planet."

Parrot

03-07-2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
Well, that is certainly interesting. Democratic rules need popular support. The funny thing is that i don't recall people bashing George Sr. when he decided not to take out SH. Was the time not right then?

I don't think they are hypocrites, they have their right to express their opinions, they just think that war against Iraq can be avoided.

Remember George Sr. could have deposed SH but he thought better to leave him there. Is he to blame for this?

Some of the protesters are hypocritical opportunists, some are genuine, IMO. There are good arguments against this war in its current incarnation, unfortunately they are being drowned in a sea of knee-jerk liberal anti-American, anti-Capitalist, very-little-to do-with-Iraq-specifically rhetoric.

As for George senior not taking out Saddam, there was no U.N. authorization for such an action, - make up your minds, do want us to be cowboys or not? Can't be hind-sight rearing its ugly head again I hope.

Now dang it, I said I was done with this. ;)

Thorin

03-07-2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
Thorin, I notice you never answered my question on the "Castration" thread, in fact the silence was deafening. If we were half as bad as you make us out to be, the American flag would be flying over Baghdad already and oil would be 20 cents instead of 2 dollars. Instead we and Britain have spent months trying to build this into a coalition effort. Your position that America doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks doesn't hold water. Sorry.

I didn't bother to respond because the media is making it quite obvious that Bush still wants to go in with or without the UN. The only reason why he isn't in their guns blazing is because cooler heads are prevailing and it is his duty to listen to them. Bush has been ignoring any evidence or disputing of his own evidence from the beginning. His gung-ho attitude has not changed one bit.

As for your article, I disagree with most things said in it. The biggest reason for anti-americanism in Canada is simple: American disregard for Canada and US ignorance shrouded in egocentric patriotism.

We are just as prosperous as the US and we share the same benefits of living in a free society. Our ideologies and religions are the same. We don't consider the US "the Great Satan" and do consider them allies and for the most part, peace-keepers. Their cavalier and arrogant attitude to the North is the most vexing to Canadians.

Parrot

03-07-2003, 07:27 PM

He wants to go in with the U.N., he is afraid he will have to go without them, there is a difference. The irony is that if the Security Council had showed some backbone and enforced their own resolution from the outset, odds are we would not currently be standing on this brink. Instead the U.N. is quickly being relegated to a debate society rather than any kind of enforcement organization.

From that notoriously pro-Bush rag The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/) (this is sarcasm, they are actually virulently anti-Bush and fairly pro-liberal most of the time);
Waiting Game
by the Editors

The debate over war with Iraq centers on means rather than ends. Unlike Vietnam, where opponents questioned whether the goal of repelling Hanoi's aggression was worth the price in blood, nearly all war critics today concede the necessity of the goal at hand--disarming Iraq. Yet they insist it can be achieved at a lower cost, either by forcing Saddam Hussein to relinquish his weapons peacefully or by obtaining U.N. approval before invading. Those who oppose war are not mistaken to think that either outcome would be preferable to fighting without the imprimatur of the Security Council. Where they go wrong is in believing that those outcomes remain possible. The case for waiting--a case that still appeals to a depressingly large number of liberals--thus rests upon a delusion.

Consider voluntary disarmament. The best way to get Saddam to relinquish his weapons was for the United Nations to draw a line in the sand, in the form of Resolution 1441, and back it up with the threat of force. Alas, the Iraqi dictator has stomped over that line. He failed, weapons inspectors say, to submit a full accounting of proscribed weapons, as he was required to do under 1441. His scientists--no doubt threatened by his secret police--have refused to be interviewed outside the country or have insisted upon tape-recording their interviews. Hans Blix has been reduced to praising Iraq for partial compliance.

War opponents describe this state of affairs as "progress." In fact, it's just the opposite. When crafting Resolution 1441 last November, Russia and France worried that the United States would declare war over some ultra-technical violation. Today, Iraq is allowed to engage without sanction in substantive violations that not even France countenanced three months ago. Resolution 1441 is effectively a dead letter--a development that has only fed Saddam's confidence. As The Washington Post reported last month, "Saddam Hussein's government, apparently emboldened by antiwar sentiment at the U.N. Security Council and in worldwide street protests, has not followed through on its promises of increased cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors." This further degradation of the U.N.'s credibility has erased any slim possibility that the mere threat of force might compel Iraq to disarm.

Some war opponents have therefore retreated to a fallback argument: Even if Iraq never disarms completely, at least the presence of inspectors will keep it from expanding its arsenal. "What can [Saddam] get away with?" Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean asked recently, "as long as Iraq is inspected, under constant surveillance, surrounded, grounded because of no-fly zones?" But this assertion rests upon an ignorance of history. In the 1990s, while UNSCOM, considered by many weapons experts to be more aggressive than the current inspections regime, prowled Iraq, inspectors and American intelligence were convinced the Iraqi nuclear program had been eradicated. Only a series of high-profile defections--a lucky break unlikely to recur--revealed that Saddam had been working toward a bomb under their noses. And, even if today's inspections are working, history suggests that the minute the threat of force recedes, Saddam will end even his current minimal compliance. Many liberals complain that war will end the inspections, but, if we reach the summer, when war is deemed impossible, it is a sure bet that Saddam will end them himself.

Just as naive is the hope that further delay will convince the Security Council to authorize force. Many Democrats have presented the dearth of international support as essentially a conscious choice by President Bush. As Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said this week, "The only way to do this and do it right is through the auspices of the U.N. and an international coalition. I think in both cases this administration has fallen short." Yet the Bush administration has demonstrated more interest in the Security Council than the Security Council has demonstrated in Iraqi disarmament. For a dozen years, France and Russia fought to weaken inspections and resisted even modest punishments of Iraq. The last few months have followed the same pattern. When Iraq withholds full cooperation from inspectors, Paris and Moscow are unmoved because this violation falls short of a "smoking gun." When a breakthrough does occur, such as the discovery of the Al-Samoud missiles, they see it as evidence that inspections are working.

It's now clear that the Security Council endorsed Resolution 1441 only as a gambit to avoid war. French President Jacques Chirac revealed perhaps more than he intended last week when he blurted out that "disarmament must happen peacefully." This gives the game away. Disarmament could only come about either through war or the threat of war. If disarmament must be peaceful, then there will be no disarmament. And, when Democrats insist that war must have U.N. approval, they are attaching themselves to the French position. It may seem they are arguing for a certain means, but in fact they are arguing for an end.

ms Greenleaf

03-07-2003, 07:48 PM

Firstly Gandalf... when you said that the Usa was the best place to live in that is a matter of opinion... I would hate to live in the USA because I would probably be alive, in many ways New Zealand or many places in Europe would be better.

2nd I have noticed that most of the pro war information has come from Americans... that may be due to media coverage.

3rd There is no way in hell that BUsh is doing this just so he can be the helper of other countries... last I have a question... why is BUsh talking to UN when he knows firstly they will say no and secondly that he will start a war anyway... ????????????????????????????????????????????????.?/

Parrot

03-07-2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf

3rd There is no way in hell that BUsh is doing this just so he can be the helper of other countries... last I have a question... why is BUsh talking to UN when he knows firstly they will say no and secondly that he will start a war anyway... ????????????????????????????????????????????????.?/
I feel like Michael Corleone - Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in!:)

ms Greenleaf, I don't think anyone has claimed that Bush is doing what he is "just" for that reason - but at worst it is a nice bonus collateral plus and is still a compelling rationale for the war.

Interesting how quickly so many liberals reject a humanitarian basis for this action simply because they don't like the messenger.

Eliot

03-07-2003, 08:07 PM

If he's going to start a war anyway, why are you protesting and debating about it?

ms Greenleaf

03-07-2003, 08:15 PM

Because some of disagree with it... well its not the leader... its the idea I am (unfortunatly) one of those people who hate war for any reason...I do not see a reason for it...there are not any orks to defeat only people to kill.

Eliot

03-07-2003, 08:24 PM

But you have to understand that sometimes war is a need. Without war, all of us (Americans) would be under British control (not that's a bad thing, but I like my independance). The Brits could even be under the rule of Napoleans descendants. Think about all the things that would, and wouldn't exist without war. Give it some thought.

Inderjit S

03-07-2003, 08:46 PM

I feel like Michael Corleone - Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in!

Micheal offered to shoot Sollozo and Mcluskey. Besides who who else would take over the 'olive oil bussiness' after the Don was gone? Freddie? :D

If he's going to start a war anyway, why are you protesting and debating about it?

Maybe. Just maybe. It's because he/she wants to voice their own opinion?

ms Greenleaf

03-08-2003, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Eliot
But you have to understand that sometimes war is a need. Without war, all of us (Americans) would be under British control (not that's a bad thing, but I like my independance). The Brits could even be under the rule of Napoleans descendants. Think about all the things that would, and wouldn't exist without war. Give it some thought.

And I am saying that if they had come to some sort of non-violent substitution then well, why would it matter:rolleyes: besides the Brits would eventually have given America its freedom they gave Canada freedom eventually so...? :rolleyes:

Eliot

03-08-2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Inderjit S
Maybe. Just maybe. It's because he/she wants to voice their own opinion?

:eek: :eek: That could be true!! :) jk

Anamatar IV

03-08-2003, 04:42 AM

I, for one, am pro-war. Wars have aided evolution. If there were no wars, and the Spanish returned to their homes when the native americans said no then we would not be as far in technology and civilization as we are today.

With a guy like Saddam who has 3,000 lookalikes and 54 sons the only way to take care of him is through war. There is no way. You can't play enie mino moe with the look alikes and shoot the loser. You can't search through all of Iraq for anyone with family history with Saddam. The only thing you CAN do is destroy Iraq's military and main buildings so that the UN can occupy it safely and fully.

Why should America treat Iraq any differently than we did any other country? The Nazi's tried to conquer Europe, the US drove them back. Don't argue that the US only attacked Germany when Pearl Harbor was bombed, however true that may be. Don't argue that because if that was the sole reason for going to war we would have ONLY tried for the destruction of Japan. No we have Iraq who has tried to take over neighboring countried TWICE. Americans drove them back into Iraq and stopped. Saddam still lives. Not only that, he launched missiles at Israel. Israel should have bombed Iraq then and there, but they understand war is war. As long as the bombs land in the sea and aren't hitting populated areas, no need to bomb Iraq.
But now there is a need. Saddam is alive. That is need enough.