Printable View
Lots of propaganda to be consumed; more than fact. (It has a higher "FATHEAD" content than fact).
My Daddy always told me to smell Bullshit before tasting it.
If a "BULLSHIT" detector were part of a utility program everyone had access to, then I think it would be a case of "Neither we nor the Emperor are clothed".
I just think that any kind of violence is wrong!
Amerika is a country where the the little kids are growing up using guns... for "hunting" .. right!
Bullshit man!
In Amerika all the people can buy guns in almost every shop!
If you carry 10 grams of weed, you will get molested! But if you carry a gun you get it back!!!!! What's wrong?
The whole Gun Law!! That's wrong!
Amerika has learned to have it, so they use it....
Fuck all aggressive means!!!!
The people of Irak are used to this kind of stuff! They have been in WAR all of there lives! They don't know any better!
If the father of the house dies by a bomb he attached to his body, and killes 1000's of (American) people with it, he will be a Martyr!!! And the rest of them will do the same!!!!
Be warned! We are in deep shit! THEY are not affraid of dying!!!!!! All "Normal educated people are"
To the point...
Any war is wrong! People die! Children die!
Even in this one.....
Why didn't Bush Snr and his cronies finish off the job when they had the chance 12, yes 12 years ago? I don't doubt that Saddam is an evil tyrant, who has murdered, tortured and repressed his people before the Gulf War and ever since.
I don't really think the Bush gives a flying shit about the people in Iraq, as is probably the case, to an equal or lesser extent, with other world leaders. Whilst the US has every right to track down the terrorists, I am not convinced of the links to justify attacking Iraq at this time.
The USA is such a powerful nation that it doesn't believe it needs an international mandate to attack Iraq, especially when dealing with an often impotent body like the UN. I am not anti-American. Indeed I think we all owe a lot to many of their contributions to the world we live in. And what happened on 11 September was a terrible thing.
I'm British and IMHO we should have given the weapons inspectors more time to come up with conclusive proof that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair has alienated himself too far this time in maintaining ' the special relationship' between the UK & US. I am against our troops taking part in any battles as it adds credibility to Bush's crusade. With the might of the US military he doesn't really need us there, despite our expertise in certain areas.
No, I'm afraid that this IS about oil. George W and his team are one of the most insular administrations in modern history, They don't travel, don't entertain other world leaders and have pulled out of at least 5 international treaties since being in power. They are looking after their own and don't give a toss about anyone else. This is their right but I believe it is fundamentally wrong and shortsighted. This breeds resentment or jealousy or whatever you want to call it.
I do find it sad that so many US citizens, probably not the enlightened ones on this board, know so little about what's going on outside their shores. Perhaps it's part of the whole cultural thing. You know the 'second is the first loser' thing and having a World Series sport in which the world doesn't take part.
You may like to read a very interesting article that is upcoming in 24 March edition of Newsweek:
The Arrogant Empirewhich covers somethings a lot better than I can.
Do you even realise how much this war is going to cost? Think about it, the world will change if this damn war starts.Quote:
Originally posted by kAb@17 March 2003 - 19:08
i've been convinced for a long time. his speech was good (i think it would've been better if he had been sitting) and saddam needs to leave.
here is a very good analysis of iraq to convince all you peacepeople that war is a must.
Crackedup..........your link takes me to Microsoft.com
Can you correct that please?
Thanks.....
Sorry - correct link inserted into original post.
If the USA/UK start implementing regime change against other dictatorships who dont have any oil then I will do a complete U-turn. The problem is that the USA is currently supporting dictatorships in South America and in the past the CIA have helped topple democratically elected Gvts, Chile is a good example. Thats why I am so sceptical when Bush and Blair start taking the moral highground about Saddams evil ways. So, in my eyes, the war cannot be about morality.
The 10 year old "evidence" that Colin Powell assured us would be convincing was certainly not. So due to the lack of evidence on links with Al-Queda and ownership of WMD the war cannot be about those issues.
So what is left...?
I want Saddam out of Iraq and I feel that if civilian casualties can be kept to a minimum it may actually be worth it. The real problem is why the UK/USA are going to war. I simply dont trust their sincerity and possibly the most important issue of all is that Mulsims in the Arab world dont trust them either. If Osama wanted to create a Islam vs the Modern Day Crusaders mentality in the Middle-East... well he must be happy now.
The real crux of the matter in the Middle-East is the Israel/Palestine situation. There is some serious hypocrisy going on there. For example a few months ago Israel assasinated one man with a missile attack. It destroyed 4 apartment blocks of innocent people. A few days ago a 4 year old Palestinian girl was killed by Israeli troops. Israel, like Iraq, is also in breach of UN resolutions asking them to leave the occupied territorys. The hypocrisy is that we (UK/USA) sell Israel weapons and never condemn Israeli atrocities.
If the West can begin to deal with the Israel/Palestine situation in an even handed and fair way, i.e being equally harsh with atrocities committed by both sides, then we might be able to make some real progress. Until that happens terrorism will continue to rise. My main concern is that a war with Iraq at this moment in time will destabilise the Middle-East and create yet more terrorists. We need to get the moderate muslims onside, stop giving the Extremists proof that they are right and work together to deal with this issue once and for all.
Would you say that by killing German Jews, Hitler didn't kill its own people? Iraqi kurds and chiits are minorities in Iraq. For the Kurds, they're exactly in the position of the Jews, before Israel was created: a people without a nation. So you're just saying bullshit. And Hussein also kills sunnit Arabs, when they become too dangerous for him.Quote:
Originally posted by slick nick@18 March 2003 - 19:52
Fot the person asking for links showing he didn't kill his own I'll look to see. I don't dispute the fact he's killed Kurds who are who we're(the U.S) say he did when we talk about what he's done but they aren't his people. That propaganda is always thrown out there as the first argument and it's a bullshit one in my opinion. It being the base argument and being a hollow one makes what comes after it weak also. And a Presidents son who rapes his people? I bet that's more propaganda but I'll look.
There is propaganda in this war: biased agruments, faked evidences. But don't see it evrywhere. There are also facts, that we have to deal with. Our stance against a war shouldn't blind us about the very bad situation in Iraq, it would be very dangerous and criminal.
Hitler did kill his own people because they were actual citizens of Germany. The Kurds on the other hand i'm not certain that's the case. They are a group who were split between several countries purposely to stop them from being a force again. They want their own country. What's the circumstances this was done over? Was it just for fun? Or was it a military thing? I'm aware women and children were killed and i'm not trying to say it was right but to continue telling us "he gassed his own people" as though he did it to his actual citizens insatead of a nation within a nation with their own agenda is a different thing. This makes them unlike the Jews because they were living in Germany as citizens with rights and participating in society. Does Isreal kill and oppress there own people? Palestinians live in Isreal don't they? But they aren't the Isreali's people are they? End equation America doesn't care what he does to them because they've allowed him to stay in power and if he would've disarmed they way they and continue "killing his own people". To continue claiming this would be like illegal Mexican immigrants revolting in the American South West and them being gassed and people accusing us of gassing our own people. It doesn't hold water. And we have been blind all along to whats been going and there's certainly been no danger to us. Now that it suits an agenda though it's being milked. Killing people who are actually engaged in and planning to seced vs doing it because "he's a mad man" are two different things and continuing to tell the world that is a distortion of what's going on there.
Can I ask Americans to read this link posted by Crackedup?Quote:
Originally posted by Crackedup@18 March 2003 - 19:22
Why didn't Bush Snr and his cronies finish off the job when they had the chance 12, yes 12 years ago? I don't doubt that Saddam is an evil tyrant, who has murdered, tortured and repressed his people before the Gulf War and ever since.
I don't really think the Bush gives a flying shit about the people in Iraq, as is probably the case, to an equal or lesser extent, with other world leaders. Whilst the US has every right to track down the terrorists, I am not convinced of the links to justify attacking Iraq at this time.
The USA is such a powerful nation that it doesn't believe it needs an international mandate to attack Iraq, especially when dealing with an often impotent body like the UN. I am not anti-American. Indeed I think we all owe a lot to many of their contributions to the world we live in. And what happened on 11 September was a terrible thing.
I'm British and IMHO we should have given the weapons inspectors more time to come up with conclusive proof that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair has alienated himself too far this time in maintaining ' the special relationship' between the UK & US. I am against our troops taking part in any battles as it adds credibility to Bush's crusade. With the might of the US military he doesn't really need us there, despite our expertise in certain areas.
No, I'm afraid that this IS about oil. George W and his team are one of the most insular administrations in modern history, They don't travel, don't entertain other world leaders and have pulled out of at least 5 international treaties since being in power. They are looking after their own and don't give a toss about anyone else. This is their right but I believe it is fundamentally wrong and shortsighted. This breeds resentment or jealousy or whatever you want to call it.
I do find it sad that so many US citizens, probably not the enlightened ones on this board, know so little about what's going on outside their shores. Perhaps it's part of the whole cultural thing. You know the 'second is the first loser' thing and having a World Series sport in which the world doesn't take part.
You may like to read a very interesting article that is upcoming in 24 March edition of Newsweek:
The Arrogant Empirewhich covers somethings a lot better than I can.
I have tried to say what is wrong with US foreign policy many times, and ended up sounding anti-american (im not, im just bad with words).... the article here is written by an American (and i believe he is a 'conservative' american.
He manages to say it all, in a way that you cant say is 'anti-american' but will explain how the rest of the world feels at the moment.....and why.
I agree, American foreign policy has not been very good over the years;
but this time lets go and take care of Saddam once and for all.
I don't agree with some of you who think this is about oil. Bush merely pointed out
in his speech that the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people and that wealth is not to be
destroyed by Saddam. Maybe some of it can be used to rebuil the country.
I thought the speech was fair. I was never a big fan of Bush, but he's gotten a little better
over time. Clinton was much better at public speaking. Sometimes it is hard to take Bush
seriously; but I think last night everyone did...
WOW! 50 responses. im impressed guys! (cuz last night there wuz only 3.) :D
i think his speech was very well-written and he spoke very well, firmly, and clearly (which he doesnt often do).
another thing:
Do you think we are saving Iraqs citizens from Saddam? :huh:
This is another sort of underlying "excuse" although it does seem true, i think we are helping them even though some will inevitably die as a result (not just soldiers). Bush seems to emphasize this point (that Iraqis will be better off), even though its probably one of his lesser motivations.
What do u guys think? (im in canada by the way, 16yo w/ 8y in US and 8 in Canada).
crackedup. i read the article (written by an american).
it was very good. :)
:ph34r: I have a real idiot for a Prime Minister. He refuses to assist our best friend, trading partner and ally. I am embarassed to say i am canadian. i think that they should have just taken Saddam out ten years ago. Pls make it quick and godspeed to the troops.
I read the "Arrogant Empire" link; the columnist is not a conservative, but nonetheless does a fairly good job of providing a reasonably accurate snapshot of the situation in the mideast and the perception of U.S. and it's foreign policy by other relevant countries. This is especially impressive as the story appeared in NEWSWEEK, which is not noted for having a conservative point of view.
But I have to ask: What would any one of you have the U.S. do to please you? Everyone has an opinion. If I (or anyone) could poll all who are reading this thread, I would probably find no common theme other than a negative feeling about the U.S. in general and George Bush in particular. (As an aside, i noticed some seem to have a strange affection for Bill Clinton, but there is another thread) Everyone thinks he stole the election in 2000, he lives to execute people in Texas, he doesn't suffer from "international sensitivity", and is a war-monger to boot.
My point is, you can't please everybody-if you tried, you'd be dead in the water, immobilized by dissenting opinion. So-George Bush is going to do what he thinks is right.
Those who decry the plight of the Iraqi people don't choose to entertain another alternative, which would be to turn up international pressure to force Saddam to leave Iraq voluntarily; no coalition forthcoming there.
Jacque Chirac's deals with Saddam need not suffer if Saddam leaves-why didn't he join in that effort? Would that not have had the effect of assuring the Iraqi people wouldn't suffer? Chirac is not suffering anyone's wrath for failing to "do the right thing".
Why is ALL the emnity reserved for America? I find it strange that in none of the threads I've followed is it suggested that ANY other nation could have acted effectively to alter or defuse the situation. Nobody at all has even raised the possibility. Why is that?
The U.S. has been waiting for the do-nothing U.N. to get off it's dead ass for more than a year-yet the dissenters-France, Russia, Germany, or anybody else-couldn't see the eventuality?
Yes, they did-but they chose to do nothing.
EVILBAGPUSS:im sorry? Afghanistan? North Korea (not yet)? Neither have oil. Which other regimes have the US tried to oust?Quote:
If the USA/UK start implementing regime change against other dictatorships who dont have any oil then I will do a complete U-turn.
:huh:
He has a backbone. I'm extremely glad Canada isn't sending troops over to fight Bush's "crusade." And yes, he did refer to it as a crusade at one point. The UN was working. It just wasn't fast enough for the US.Quote:
Originally posted by ksmurf@19 March 2003 - 05:00
:ph34r: I have a real idiot for a Prime Minister. He refuses to assist our best friend, trading partner and ally. I am embarassed to say i am canadian. i think that they should have just taken Saddam out ten years ago. Pls make it quick and godspeed to the troops.
Edit to add: Regarding other posts so that I don't take up countless spots:
lil_z: Afghanistan has oil. Roughly 95 million barrels left. It produces 300 barrels/day in the Angot oil fields.
Futhermore, when you're fighting in a city as big and heavily populated as Baghdad, there are going to be a horrendous amount of civilian causulties. I'm going to wager that the normal, every-day citizen of Baghdad is going to defend his housing and his family. The Americans and the British that are going in there aren't just going to be fighting the military. If I'm wrong, we'll see. But I doubt I will be.
ClubDiggler: Of course people took Bush seriously. You always take the man with a loaded gun seriously.
:ninja:
Chretien is just a follower (my opinion). i live in canada. if most countries hadnt opposed to bush's plan, he wouldnt have had enough courage to pull his head out of bush's ass.
now blair is another story...(i dunno about britain :P ).
edit to add:
magicnakor :
ty for pointing out afghanistans situation, but the fight there had nothing to do with oil. (Talibans refusal of turning in bin Laden and the human rights - or so they say...)
and yes i realize that there will be civilian casualties (was that response to me??). An
interview (on 20/20 was it?) with one of the military commanders stated, when asked if a stash of bombs or other military [devices] - for lack of a better word in my mind - is off limits to attacks, no, they are not off limits, but a decision must be made in each situation. he seems ready to bomb residential areas (though not necessarily to kill civilians, but not showing enough remorse if they have to do so).
i support ridding world of Saddam (can u say assassination? :P ) and until just today, i was undecided in my view of a war. but a war killing thousands of innocents (it will happen, no matter what they say) is unjustified no matter what (even after that speech). :o
I pity your ignorance.Quote:
Originally posted by al_birkett@18 March 2003 - 12:34
jetje is right .... all this war is about is oil and I wish everyone else could see this too. One of the first objectives of the allied attack is to 'secure the oil fields' yeah I bet 'secure' my ass , secure them from anyone else apart from america. you'd think that once in the process of attacking iraq the allies america would try and 'secure' all these chemical and biological weapons he is suppose to have hiding under his bed.Quote:
The speech...
Made me clear its about the oil...
From before the axes of evil speech, until a few months the words war and oil had nothing to do with each other and they still shouldn't. It is odd how this has become a war about oil only when the dissenting minority speaks their mind to the media. Only when it is the most sensational offense the opposition has against this attack. "Its about the oil and the gas prices" That is so much of a cliché it is ridicules. For any one that is keeping score and has followed this story for the past year they would know that any knowledgeable liberal in opposition of this war has never even uttered the word "oil" once. This is about terrorism. The terror that Saddam has inflected on his own people, and the potential for dealings with other terrorists that have clear and present motives against the United States.
I hate online rants, protesting, and standing on soapboxes. Opinions are like assholes, we all got one. But clearly missing the point and perpetuating misinformation is not acceptable.
I would not have thought I could be such a big fan of Tony Blair. The man is standing tall in a pretty stiff breeze.
yes blair is very courageous. maybe his image afterwards will turn out better. :P
If he were such a follower, he would've followed the US' lead, as the US has far more impact on Canada than China, or Angola, or Guinea.Quote:
Originally posted by lil_z@19 March 2003 - 06:20
Chretien is just a follower (my opinion). i live in canada. if most countries hadnt opposed to bush's plan, he wouldnt have had enough courage to pull his head out of bush's ass.
now blair is another story...(i dunno about britain :P ).
edit to add:
magicnakor :
ty for pointing out afghanistans situation, but the fight there had nothing to do with oil. (Talibans refusal of turning in bin Laden and the human rights - or so they say...)
and yes i realize that there will be civilian casualties (was that response to me??). An
interview (on 20/20 was it?) with one of the military commanders stated, when asked if a stash of bombs or other military [devices] - for lack of a better word in my mind - is off limits to attacks, no, they are not off limits, but a decision must be made in each situation. he seems ready to bomb residential areas (though not necessarily to kill civilians, but not showing enough remorse if they have to do so).
i support ridding world of Saddam (can u say assassination? :P ) and until just today, i was undecided in my view of a war. but a war killing thousands of innocents (it will happen, no matter what they say) is unjustified no matter what. :o
About Afghanistan, I was just commenting on the "Afghanistan has no oil." ;)
The civilian casualities wasn't in response to anyone, really. I just got off-topic.
:ninja:
magicnakor:
thats exactly my point. he seems like a follower most of the time, and this time b/c more countries are objecting, so is he.
btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.
Yes , he deserves some sort of respect for standing up for what he believes in ... even when he knows that he could be putting his job at risk, apparentley he made a gud speech last niteQuote:
yes blair is very courageous. maybe his image afterwards will turn out better
I saw the speech on TV, but is there a site where you can get the whole speech in text format? :unsure:
In Afghanistan it's about opium :lol: and haschich (thanks to the UN I can now get excellet Afghani haschich, which had disappear under the Taliban regime :lol: )Quote:
Originally posted by lil_z@19 March 2003 - 07:32
btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.
More seriously, I think oil has its part in this war, but it's not the essential motivation. It's much more important than the well-being of the Iraqi people. The main purpose is to reorganize the Middle East, in order to fight terrorism. It's a good idea, but it's highly probable that it will fail and have the exact opposite effect : an increase of terrorism. The US don't know a shit about the Middle East. I sincerly hope the Brits, who know it much better, will help them not to do to many mistakes.
First, he's right. The trade embargos established by the UN 12 years ago were basically ignored by most countries.Quote:
Originally posted by ketoprak@18 March 2003 - 14:25
Do you really believe what you say? The second resolution was about a war! The alternative was between a war (with UN approval) or... a war (without UN approval).Quote:
Dont be blaming the Americans and the Brits for going to war over the oil, blame Russia, France and Germany, for trying to put a block on it so the 2nd resolution failed, if that had passed maybe they could have worked out an extension for peace and weapon inspectors but instead France Vetoed it so it would have failed anyway, so blame them for this war, not the americans and the brits.
And don't forget there's been NO vote at the UN (ie no veto). If there'de be one, a veto would proibably not have been necesseray from Russia or France, as there was not a majority of the Council willing to vote for this war.
France among them.
As for the UN vote, Bush was willing to adhere to the outcome, whatever it was, until France made it well known they would veto it no matter what the vote.
Why would France need to veto if the US did not have a majority vote?
And if France veto'd, in my mind, THAT would go against the UN.
You cannot worm out of this. France proved that it was they who were not willing to go along with a UN resolution.
France wanted the destruction of Iraq mass destruction weapons, which was going on fine with the inspections decided by the UN and didn't see the necessity of a war if the inspectors didn't say they couldn't work. That's all.
Moreover the USA needed 9 votes for its resolution, and has never been able to reach them. So it's not about France or Russia. (edit : and Russia said it would veto before France. It's just a very good excuse for the US & UK)
But we're used to be the favorite scapegoat of UK & sometimes of the US. So it doesn't matter. If you need one, please do.
And what makes you so right healimonster? So Bush is going in there for the good of the world and because he feels it his duty to take out Saddam and his evil regieme? You are very naive not to see that he has a hidden agenda. Who will get the huge contracts for rebuilding Iraq? The arms industry needs wars to keep it going. And who was one of Iraq's major backers in the war against Iran?
Are you seriously telling us that Bush has no interest in the worlds second biggest oil supply....because if you are I'm afraid you don't understand the way powerful governments and companies work. And I would still like to hear an answer as to why Bush Snr didn't finish the job off 12 years ago - that surely would have saved the lives of countless Iraqi's who have been tortured or killed in the meantime.
I never said Afghanistan was an oil-rich country. 300 barrels a day isn't producing much at all. All I said was "Afghanistan has oil," which it does, to the person who said "Afghanistan doesn't have any oil," which is untrue.Quote:
Originally posted by lil_z@19 March 2003 - 07:32
btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.
:ninja:
I never said Afghanistan was an oil-rich country. 300 barrels a day isn't producing much at all. All I said was "Afghanistan has oil," which it does, to the person who said "Afghanistan doesn't have any oil," which is untrue.Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor+19 March 2003 - 11:15--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 19 March 2003 - 11:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lil_z@19 March 2003 - 07:32
btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.
:ninja: [/b][/quote]
You forgot to mention the oil pipeline now being built through it.......which the Taliban wouldnt allow to be built. This will carry a LOT of oil.
It may be pure co-incidence that the President (?) of Afganistan and US Embassador there worked for the oil company building it......and people in the US administration are major shareholders in this company.
The reason the the U.N. allowed the gulf war was because Iraq was taking over another country, (forgot which one). The U.S. could only fight to keep Iraq out of that country, so as soon as we won and got them out, their was nothing we could do. We weren't allowed to take any further actions.Quote:
Originally posted by Crackedup@19 March 2003 - 11:24
And I would still like to hear an answer as to why Bush Snr didn't finish the job off 12 years ago - that surely would have saved the lives of countless Iraqi's who have been tortured or killed in the meantime.
That is what I was told anyways.
The reason the the U.N. allowed the gulf war was because Iraq was taking over another country, (forgot which one). The U.S. could only fight to keep Iraq out of that country, so as soon as we won and got them out, their was nothing we could do. We weren't allowed to take any further actions.Quote:
Originally posted by dwightfry+19 March 2003 - 18:24--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dwightfry @ 19 March 2003 - 18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Crackedup@19 March 2003 - 11:24
And I would still like to hear an answer as to why Bush Snr didn't finish the job off 12 years ago - that surely would have saved the lives of countless Iraqi's who have been tortured or killed in the meantime.
That is what I was told anyways. [/b][/quote]
There was a huge International Effort in Desert Storm...with the backing of the Arabian/Islamic Countries.
There would have been no backing from the Arabian/Islamic countries for a full invasion of Iraq. The UN and Arabian countries therefore insisted that Desert Storm stop at the Iraqi border.....as to go further would cause more problems than it solves.
Hmm.....bit like today really.
I never said Afghanistan was an oil-rich country. 300 barrels a day isn't producing much at all. All I said was "Afghanistan has oil," which it does, to the person who said "Afghanistan doesn't have any oil," which is untrue.Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor+19 March 2003 - 12:15--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 19 March 2003 - 12:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lil_z@19 March 2003 - 07:32
btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.
:ninja: [/b][/quote]
hey, dont get upset. im not an expert in this area, all im trying to say is that afghanistan is a pretty poor country, and their amount of oil does not help them out very much. Compared to iraq, the world depends on iraq for its oil.
BTW, please, would everyone with an opinion about bush's motivations and plans please read this article from newsweek: The Arrogant Empire originally posted in this thread my Crackedup. It is an excellent article which shows many different points of view. And its written by and American with a foreign name. (i cant say theres much bias in the article).
B)
Thats not exactly true.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@19 March 2003 - 19:47
There was a huge International Effort in Desert Storm...with the backing of the Arabian/Islamic Countries.
There would have been no backing from the Arabian/Islamic countries for a full invasion of Iraq. The UN and Arabian countries therefore insisted that Desert Storm stop at the Iraqi border.....as to go further would cause more problems than it solves.
Hmm.....bit like today really.
The ground forces may have stopped at the iraqi border, but our aircraft were giving Baghdad hell. :)
I'm not really sure that the ground forces stopped there.
Does anyone else know? This calls for a bit of web searching.
I'm not upset. ;) Rarely do I get upset over forums. Just correcting a misconception. B)Quote:
Originally posted by lil_z@19 March 2003 - 22:24
hey, dont get upset. im not an expert in this area, all im trying to say is that afghanistan is a pretty poor country, and their amount of oil does not help them out very much. Compared to iraq, the world depends on iraq for its oil.
magic nakor: okay, sorry. :)
the other guys:
about the gulf war, ya dwightfry and zardoz, the iraqis invaded kuwait (where the US is based now) and the US pushed them back. once they were contained, the US backed off, if they had pushed in further, there would have been severe casualties. (this is also just from what i am told, but how would ne1 know neways? :P )
Can I ask Americans to read this link posted by Crackedup? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced+18 March 2003 - 23:38--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 18 March 2003 - 23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Crackedup@18 March 2003 - 19:22
I do find it sad that so many US citizens, probably not the enlightened ones on this board, know so little about what's going on outside their shores. Perhaps it's part of the whole cultural thing. You know the 'second is the first loser' thing and having a World Series sport in which the world doesn't take part.
You may like to read a very interesting article that is upcoming in 24 March edition of Newsweek:
The Arrogant Empirewhich covers somethings a lot better than I can.
The article is very well written. I am a true believer in the repeating nature of history, that simple lessons hold true regardless of time and place. Major, singular powers in past history have faded for various reasons. It may happen to the United States. That is another issue for another time.
The issue now is the validity of the war.
The war is not about oil. Americans can care less about the price of oil. I drive a large SUV because I want to and can. If the price of oil rises, so be it. A 20% cost in the price of gasoline doesn't have a huge effect per person. In 10-15 years power cells will be running in most cars on the road so it won't matter. We'll be talking about $0.25/gallon gasoline and giving loans to Middle Eastern countries that have failed to diversify their country's revenue stream.
The quote above, stating that it is sad that American's don't know what's going on outside of our shores, may be true to some. But the converse is also true - citizens of other countries don't know what's going on inside of our borders.
Hijacked planes destroying buildings 4 blocks from where I work everyday is nothing the United States is used to and certainly nothing we will accept. As the article so elloquently points out, there was a military response unlike any other seen in history. We have the equipment and the means to do so.
It is not our problem that other countries will not or cannot respond to terrorists in this manner. I see the "new" Manhattan skyline as I go to work every day. I fear that my office may be next. It can happen again and probably will, regardless of actions we take. But we sure as hell aren't going to sit around and wait for it to happen.
There will be remarks that the war costs too much, the inspections were working, etc. But you can't put a price on over 3,000 lives that were lost on that day and uncounted numbers lost to terrorism in the past. You can't wait to see what may happen, you can't wait to give terrorists time.
But what counts is my safety as an American citizen. Do what has to be and what will be done.
ok otis, but this war is not about terrorism at all. (or at least its not a response to 9/11).
i agree the article was very good indeed.
i also agree that Saddam should be taken care of. but inevitably killing any amount of innocents in the path cannot be justified in my view.
The war is about terrorism, though. Preemptive strikes to avoid future terrorist attacks on the US. Whether or not you trust Bush's word is another issue, but in his letter to Congress yesterday explicitly states
"acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." [emphasis mine]
The psy-ops the US military has been running have resulted in surrenders before the war actually begun. The innocents that will die will mostly be human shields, as Hussein has put many strategic military assets in civilian locales. I do fear a battle in the streets of Baghdad, and I do hope for minimal innocent deaths.
But if nothing is done now, how many innocents can die in a terrorist attack in the future? How many innocents have already been slaughtered under Hussein's reign? You have to expand the realm of impact here.
War isn't good. It certainly isn't justified in all cases, but here I do think it is. I respect your opinion, however, and see your point.