Printable View
You like to play Chess???? There you can win or lose, not in wars. Both sides loose.Quote:
Originally posted by maximboy99@15 February 2003 - 09:53
Jetje, it just doesnt get more simple than this. When you lose a war, you sign a peace treaty. You follow that peace treaty or you get removed. Where is the confusion?
Only the side who losses less thinks he can dictate the other, my guess "Should they be called Dictators"?
Magic Nakor, so you believe diplomacy has not failed? When has diplomacy failed?
In 1941, WWII was not winding down. Thats just not true.
You like to play Chess???? There you can win or lose, not in wars. Both sides loose.Quote:
Originally posted by jetje+15 February 2003 - 11:44--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jetje @ 15 February 2003 - 11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--maximboy99@15 February 2003 - 09:53
Jetje, it just doesnt get more simple than this. When you lose a war, you sign a peace treaty. You follow that peace treaty or you get removed. Where is the confusion?
Only the side who losses less thinks he can dictate the other, my guess "Should they be called Dictators"? [/b][/quote]
If you aren't going to say anything based on any logic or fact, Im done replying. There is no substance to what you just said. I suspect you have no idea what my argument was, and that is why you cannot respond to it.
Eh, eh ! That's one of the consequences of cold war in your country. Imperialism is a marxist concept. It seems that you weren't taught anyting that was related to Karl Marx at school. :DQuote:
-----No, you must be confusing imperialism with hegemony.-------Quote:
imperialism : the policy, practice or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation esp. by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas.
You must have been mixing-up imperialism and colonialism.
edited typo
:blink: i thought i pretty much did in the post before the last one?
i just forgotten this one remark. English isn't my 1st language (too bad in these kinda debates), i just didn't like to go through your reply point to point. I couldn't get this one though. It showed me you think you won the previous gulf war, well the fact you need to start again shows you didn't. Now the Us tries to dictate again. They try to force their dictate by threatning with war. If you lose at chess, you can't make any moves cause whatever you do they take you. You can't add other pieces. Well in normal life you can change people unless you kill them all....
Is that more satisfying. Maybe i wass a bit to abstract in my reply, and had some anger in it cause i tought that was a stupid remark you made. It doesn't made any sence to me. Problably of that, made me make the harsh answer. But still think war is no solution, you just kill innocents.
I'll just answer those points aimed at me.Quote:
Originally posted by JunkBarMan@15 February 2003 - 04:18
jetje you are so wrong in your opinion that I am sick by your point of view. You live in a fog clouded world when you say "we provoke the terroist states", and the go on to say "Btw why i quoted terrorist states, there are none"...So what exactly are you trying to say with these two contradicting statements?
Next you go on to say "We need to help the politicians have fair trades for their countries, take them serious. The only thing we all have to do is share the wealth we have with all in the world. A happy man is a peacefull man. Not a frightend one he wants war (look at the US governement it's fear driven, fear for terrorism)" I ask you to look at yourselves (South Korea) and then let me know you have helped the world with your passive aggresive attitudes. Do you think the leader of North Korea is a happy man? if by what you say" a happy man is a peaceful man", then you would also say that he is peaceful then, right?
I really would like to go on and on and point how YOUR thoughts are so far off base, but you really wouldn't have anything good to come back with? Name one other country you would like to see on your side, in war time or peace.......and tell me why.
Rat Faced i dont know what cave you live in, But, "there is no link between Iraq and Al Queda, so i cant take any argument based on 'Terrorism' for attacking Iraq seriously..." Considering the CIA(central intelligence agency for you america haters) Just yesterday went in front of the world and point out 12 specific Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq, so exactly where do you not see a connection?
If you thinks this is such Bs, then why is the Brits backing the USA on this one? I think i saw your PM standing next our president saying that these terrorists need to be taken care of.
I am so sick of America helping and aiding the rest of the world and then getting bit in the ass for doing it. But when the crap starts to fling around the next time, guess who everyone asks for help from? USA, thats who.....
Black Propaganda is the art of the state turning public opinion their way.
The best example was the CIA stating that Iraq had no Nuclear capability last year in such terms as to scare the crap out of everyone. They said that Iraq was "GIVEN the FACILITIES and MATERIALS, were only 3 years away from producing Nuclear weapons"......as the HOW part is readily available, this is true of every high school in the USA. It is a way of saying 'they dont have any nuclear capability, and arent getting it'.
To your point...There is MORE than 12 groups operating in and around USA...so are you linking USA with support for Al Queda? There is also a number of 'White Supremisist Groups...so does USA support this? Or how about the CHRISTIAN fundamentalists? You support them?Quote:
Just yesterday went in front of the world and point out 12 specific Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq, so exactly where do you not see a connection?
Iraq suffers from terrorism itself from Al Queda. It is a 'secular' government, and Al Queda sees it as a 'traitor' to Islam....you'll be doing it a favour by invading. I have no doubt there are more than 12 Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq.....they are busy blowing things up, and if the Hussain catches them, they'll be executed.
Black Propaganda works by telling lies when you must, but half truths and spin when you can...just in case your caught out...like the UK Government last week. In this case its even more laughable, as the CIA last year proved there was no link between Al Queda and Iraq, when Mossad tried to link the two after WTC....bit of a contradiction there dont you think?
We arent, at the last Poll 80% of the 'Brits' were against a war with Iraq......dropping to 61% against if there is a call from the UN for Military action. You have the support of Tony Blair....even his own cabinet is split, with many speaking out against.Quote:
If you thinks this is such Bs, then why is the Brits backing the USA on this one? I think i saw your PM standing next our president saying that these terrorists need to be taken care of.
Unfortunatly, Mr Blaire can use the 'Royal Perogative', and declare war in the Queens name, without the need for his Government or the People to support his actions.
No, America has done many good things (Peacecorps, Aid etc etc). But dont confuse 'helping and aiding' with your Governments interests. There is a big difference.Quote:
I am so sick of America helping and aiding the rest of the world and then getting bit in the ass for doing it. But when the crap starts to fling around the next time, guess who everyone asks for help from? USA, thats who.....
The hate of the middle east fundamentalist Muslems for the USA was brought about by US foreign policy...and only that. They dislike your way of life etc etc but dont HATE you for that, or they would hate every other Western Nation....which they dont.
But Arabs consider themselves one people, immaterial of the false borders put there by the UK and the French. They see the US alone not condemning Israel when THEY commit attrociaties, but condemning the Palestinians when they do....a bit one sided. They see and hear the US preparing to attack Iraq....one of the few Islamic governments which is secular, and see it as an attack on them all.
The other Arab 'leaders' support USA, or their support is withdrawn (like the Philipenes)....but the arab people? You create MORE fudamentalist every day with your policies...and when the attack on Iraq starts then the number of Islamic Terrorists in the world will multiply.
These people will see every Shopping Mall in the USA as a legitamate Target....because to most of them YOU started the Jahad...Holy War.
As to other possibilities? Pakistan is already influenced by Fundamentalist Musslims but the attack may give the Fundamentalist the power there......and they HAVE NBC capability (NBC=correct term for WMD). If that happens then India will be on a permanent war footing and they have NBC capability.....you may have missed how close these two nuclear powers came to war last year...as the press in the USA concentrated on trying to keep support for the attack on Iraq.
The situation that allowed hitler to rise are fundamentaly different in the world at large.Quote:
Originally posted by maximboy99@15 February 2003 - 09:53
Jetje, tomorrow I will sit down and try to figure out exactly what you *ARE* arguing for. Until than, I will give you something to think about. If you do not understand this argument (which I dont think you will) I beg you to research WWII. An important lesson: Appeasement lead to World War II.
The world made a mistake trying to conduct weapons inspections in Germany after WWI. At the time, it was believed as long as Germany was under international scruitany, they would dare not rebuild. The allies knew of Germany's failures to comply with inspectors. But popular thought dictated that militarily disarming Germany, would only further inflict wounds to a weak and DEFEATED country. We all know the course of Germany's actions in the following years. Several times the war weary Europeans favored appeasement. They allowed Germany to make small military victories, which eventually escalated to war in 1939. It still is amasing how simply enforcing their own rules, would have stopped WWII.
Yet here we are, half a century later, facing a remarkably similar situation. The UN has failed to enforce its own resolutions. Europe, having not learned its lesson, cries for appeasement. The rest of the world, unequipped to handle this situation. America, firm in its resolve, marches to war. Leaving many critics of American policy leaping on an anti-war bandwagon. But what do they truly offer as a solution? Nothing. More complexly put: they offer continued inspections, which have failed to stop WMD proliferation. Further, the inspections have also shown Iraq has failed to comply with resolution 1441. What is a serious consequence to 12 years of failure to comply? Resumption of the first gulf war, which only ceased after Saddam accepted a peace agreement, but Saddam has broken his own peace agreement. The stipulations of peace were infact: FULL AND COMPLETE COOPERATION IN DISARMING. Period.
Jetje, it just doesnt get more simple than this. When you lose a war, you sign a peace treaty. You follow that peace treaty or you get removed. Where is the confusion?
(below is directed at Jetje)
It must be that innocent people are going to die. I know it is sad. But life is sad for many people all over the world. It is sad that Iraqis will die in this war. But how many would die if the US waited? Do you not doubt Saddam will one day use WMD (he already has used chemical agents on his own people), one day obtain a nuclear missle? There are hundreds of ways in which allowing Saddam to continue evading inspections will lead to a much more dangerous world.
Let us suppose for a moment that Saddam allowed Isreal to be attacked (suitcase nuclear bomb or biological agent or Scud attacks with Ricin tips etc). This is not entirely a hypothetical situation. Saddam has shown his willingness to attack innocent Israeli citizens. The Israeli response, a Nagasaki and Hiroshima of modern day proportions. Israel would fire its nukes into Iraq and possibly ignite a worldwide reaction. How many more would die than? Are you prepared to shoulder the moral responsibility of a third world war? Of a nuclear or biological catastrophe? No, because you supported peace. You fail to see your actions have consequences. You(Jetje) are blinded by years of American protectionism. Your freedom to discuss this matter with me, is entirely reliant upon 37,000 American soldiers risking their life for your ingratitude. Thats your ignorance. Theres your so called peace.
In the 1930's the whole world was in recession, and all governments were looking internally trying to control their economies.
Hitler was a charismatic leader, saying the right things at the right time to inspire his country behind him, after years of depression and starvation for his country...he retained power by making the country vibrant and the economy healthy....despite the rest of Europe and the USA being in a slump.
Agreed the French and English may have been able to stop him. The German army were under orders to turn around if the French objected to their training near the French Border...where the Treaty had forbade German Troops to enter..and neither the English nor French objected. This may well have gave a great boost to his ego and confidence.
As to other 'infringements'........which ones?
They werent allowed to build war ships over a certain weight, and so invented the 'Pocket Battleship'...stayed within the treaty to do it.
They created one of the best trained armies the world has ever seen, and weapons of greater ability than their enemies...all whilst staying within the terms of the treaty.
Just because the treaty was faulty and full of loopholes, and the French/UK governments didnt shout on the few infringements... is no way to claim they built their Armed Forces in contravention of the Treaty, they didnt.
So there wasnt a lot of 'Appeasement' going on...or at least not as much as you claim.
The current situation is totaly different.
The world is NOT in an economic slump...although i'll grant USA is in recession. Hussain is not a charasmatic leader leading them into an economic miracle, he is a dictator that isnt loved by the ppl and is in economic ruin. He also happens to be sitting on the 2nd largest oil deposits in the world, and is not allowed to sell oil unless its under the USA's/UK's terms.
95% of his armed forces has been smashed to peices by 1st the War against Iran, followed by Desert Storm, and lastly by the illegal bombing by US and UK forces since Desert Storm.
He is desperate and a nutcase...that "possibly" has Biological and Chemical weapons. These weapons are such that they are easily transported and smuggled, which is the problem the inspectors have.
IF he is expecting an attack, and remember every country that has these has them as a last resort, do you think they will be hidden in Iraq, where they can only be used on protected troops? Or would he hide them outside Iraq...say at the point they woiuld be used, on the civilian, unprotected populations of the countries attacking him? One nice Chemical attack in Washington with the message 'withdraw or the rest of them go off' perhaps.
Your point is?Quote:
Let us suppose for a moment that Saddam allowed Isreal to be attacked (suitcase nuclear bomb or biological agent or Scud attacks with Ricin tips etc). This is not entirely a hypothetical situation. Saddam has shown his willingness to attack innocent Israeli citizens. The Israeli response, a Nagasaki and Hiroshima of modern day proportions. Israel would fire its nukes into Iraq and possibly ignite a worldwide reaction.
Of course he will do that....he is desperate to get support of the Arabian people.
BUT has he thrown anything at Israel, when he wasnt being attacked?
He supports the Pallestinians.....wake up. So does EVERY muslim country, and quite a few non muslim.
He stays in power by very clever manipulation...eg giving money to the PLO, which appeases the Fundamentalists in the country. He doesnt give a monkeys about the politics of Pallestine/Israel, he does it to show he is 'religious' (which he isnt). Attacking Israel would mean the death of his little 'empire'....so he doesnt do it, unless its to get the help of the Arab ppl in his hour of need.
Quote:
You fail to see your actions have consequences. You(Jetje) are blinded by years of American protectionism. Your freedom to discuss this matter with me, is entirely reliant upon 37,000 American soldiers risking their life for your ingratitude. Thats your ignorance. Theres your so called peace.
It is YOU that fails to see that actions have consequences. The conseqences being a huge rise in Islamic Fundamentalism and Terrorists. These will attack you and me in our homeland, and as said before...every shopping mall is a legitamate target to them. One sniper put Washington into a state of fear just a couple of months ago....what will you do with 20 terrorists in every major city? Planting bombs randomly, as well as shooting randomly?
The 37,000 'American Soldiers'....which ones? More than that in the Gulf...more than that many British Troops, i believe. But they are the safe ones.
'The War' will be over very quickly....he only has 5% of his armed forces intact, and most of these are conscripts that want US to win. Its the AFTERMATH that will take decades to clear up. As such, those '37,000 American soldiers' are putting us and our families at risk more than they are risking their own lives.
I think he's gotten jetje and myself mixed up. He quoted the approximate amount of US soldiers stationed here on the peninsula(South Korea, my location). Of course those same remarks applied to me, would make no sense whatsoever.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@15 February 2003 - 22:01
Quote:
You fail to see your actions have consequences. You(Jetje) are blinded by years of American protectionism. Your freedom to discuss this matter with me, is entirely reliant upon 37,000 American soldiers risking their life for your ingratitude. Thats your ignorance. Theres your so called peace.
The 37,000 'American Soldiers'....which ones? More than that in the Gulf...more than that many British Troops, i believe. But they are the safe ones.
And as far as North Korea being a threat to the Netherlands(jetje's location), I don't think so. Not once have heard North Korea make threatening remarks about tulips, windmills, or wooden shoes. Rest assured, my wife and myself(as people affiliated with US Forces Korea) play no role in protecting the Netherlands from North Korean aggression. :lol:
I think he's gotten jetje and myself mixed up. He quoted the approximate amount of US soldiers stationed here on the peninsula(South Korea, my location). Of course those same remarks applied to me, would make no sense whatsoever.Quote:
Originally posted by El_Jefe+15 February 2003 - 15:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El_Jefe @ 15 February 2003 - 15:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Rat Faced@15 February 2003 - 22:01
Quote:
You fail to see your actions have consequences. You(Jetje) are blinded by years of American protectionism. Your freedom to discuss this matter with me, is entirely reliant upon 37,000 American soldiers risking their life for your ingratitude. Thats your ignorance. Theres your so called peace.
The 37,000 'American Soldiers'....which ones? More than that in the Gulf...more than that many British Troops, i believe. But they are the safe ones.
And as far as North Korea being a threat to the Netherlands(jetje's location), I don't think so. Not once have heard North Korea make threatening remarks about tulips, windmills, or wooden shoes. Rest assured, my wife and myself(as people affiliated with US Forces Korea) play no role in protecting the Netherlands from North Korean aggression. :lol:[/b][/quote]
El Jefe
Aye. I replied at 5:00 in the morning my time. Unfourtunately, I did confuse you two, thanks for pointing that out. I was of course, talking about the 37,000 stationed in South Korea as a deterent for North Korea's agression.
Jetje
You're right in that the english language has not been able to bridge our conversation. I honestly feel you have not addressed my points, and I feel like I have failed to let you see my point of view. However, the fact that you can speak and understand a second language, write it, (and I assume speak it) so well is a testament to your knowledge. I will give it one more shot later today. :)
Rat Faced
I really am not sure how you consider this "fundamentally" different. I agree that there are differences. For instance, I do understand the difference of the world recession's impact. But I dont think its much different than the regional oppression of the muslim world. The same kind of anti-american propaganda floats around which parallels the anti-semite Germany. Certainly this Anti-Americanism hasnt reached the levels of pre-WWII but its certainly on the rise. Now whose fault is this, directly and indirectly? It is a difficult question. Certainly, Americans must realise their actions in the world will not always be popular. Certainly America has allowed bad people to come to power (IE Saddam). Fighting communisms encroachment on the world lead to American support of questionable regimes, which has certainly come back to haunt us, especially in South/Central America and the Middleast. I would argue these actions have seeded anti-Americanism, and rightfully so. I would also argue, the world does not seem to appreciate that the US believes it was in an economical war with the Soviet Union which forced our hand. So the US is now owning up to the responsibility of a world power. There are many equally disturbing questions that are not addressed. Why are nations like Egypt, which recieves and accepts money every year from the US, spending money among other things, to TEACH anti-americanism. Certainly America's support of Israel began this, but why is it so pervasive? Why do France and Russia pretend like the reason they oppose the war is because they stand on the moral high ground. Yet, they stand to lose the most in oil contracts and debts, which is exactly what French protesters accuse the US of doing. NATO's refusal to aid Turkey in merely defensive capabilities shows alliances of the past may be useless because some European nations are expressing anti-Americansim. European anti-americanism is on the rise in the West, but on the fall in the East.
What is my point? I understand what you are saying Rat Faced, but I politely disagree. The idea that the arab street will rise up is flawed. Infact, there is unlikely to be much of any regional backlash. Why? Because they hate Saddam as much as they hate us, and when they see liberated Iraqis cheering as American tanks roll by, the arab street will not be able to claim Americans are in the wrong. Really, there is no question about Saddam's hampering of inspections to hide WMD. If you can admit that Saddam will use his chemical weapons, possibly on Israel or American troops, are you not admitting that the inspections failed? That Saddam failed to destroy prohibited weapons, per the peace agreement he signed. The peace agreement that the UN brokered as the solution to the gulf wars finality. Didn't the UN say "riding into bahgdad" was a bad idea. It certainly seems like the UN made a mistake it is unwilling to fix.
The world is at a turning point. The UN: an international body, claims to be a neutrality in international affairs. Yet, in many ways is an insult to international cooperation. What good is an organization that makes rules which it cannot enforce? What good is an organization that claims to support human rights, and than slaps the US in the face by chairing Libya on the human rights commission. And the people responsible for its failures, are infact the same ones who hamper US multilateral action. I might remind you of Bosnia. A human rights catastrophe in your backyard. The UN was so mucked up in politics it couldnt handle a simple, black and white affair. It took the US standing up to the UN to get the right thing done. This is not different in that respect. Iraq has broken resolutions of the peace agreement, and again the US has to stand up for an organization that doesnt appreciate itself. I must ask you, what is the point of the UN? There are indications that it is becoming an organization whose focus is to oppose American action worldwide. The humour lies in the fact that the US shoulders the majority of that bill.
Lastly, rat faced. I think your ideas about terrorism are a bit irrational. By this I mean, you believe they have the capability to do what you spoke of. 20 terrorists in every major city. Well, if they could do it, they would have done it. Al Qaeda has been hurt, it no longer has an openly supportive regime to supply it. The Taliban's power, shattered. Remember the international critisism of US plans to attack Afghanistan? How it would ignite the arab street, be a horribly long war, huge civilian casualties etc.? None of this happened. Those ideas are just tactics of fear mongering by irrelevant political bodies. If you cant understand what the defeat of the Taliban, what the defeat of the Iraq signals to American enemies, I question your ability to debate. No government wants to be associated with terrorism that attacks America. Why? Because it is guaranteed destruction, much like American and Russian nukes deterrence of all out war between two hostile nations. If your government doesnt support military action against terrorism. You (Western countries) really dont understand appeasement is your own peril. Because when september 11th comes to your country, those terrorists will not fear retribution. But they will fear a US reaction, because I promise you this: America will be there to help.
I appreciate anyone whose taken the time to read and respond to my posts. It is extremely important to discuss matters as dire as these. I feel as though I am the only one who is making a case for what I believe. I can't help but feel some of you (ketoprak for example) are just nit picking my comments. I challenge you to write a comprehensive post which argues your opinion, based on fact and logic (and of course your opinion). I like to believe I am not entrenched in my positions, but I feel only one of you has challenged my position at all: Rat Faced. The rest of you are not responding to my arguments, but responding to a specific line, which is even slightly out of context. I am sure you guys can write a comprehensive argument against war. Rat certainly understands world history, and makes solid points based on facts and is what I am asking you to do in response to mine. Thanks.