|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on May 6, 2003 14:02:44 GMT -5
*Argh, was writing a good reply, and then somehow lost it Um, will try again * If the UN isn't going to do anything, then someone has to rise up and do it. Peace talks are great, but not when they either repeatedly fail or fall on deaf ears. Yeah, but what if everyone decides to attack countries they dislike? I mean, let's face it, the US has a pretty massive list of countries it wants to sort out, what's the UN to do, let them just attack freely? It's been Afghanistan, Iraq... what's next? That's two countries in under two years since 9/11! I don't know about you, but that seems like quite a lot to me. Interestingly, both countries are Arab nations. Surely you can't blame Muslims for feeling anger towards you (let's not get into a discussion about whether it's justified, what I'm saying is that you've got to look at reasons for their possible anger. Another example could be your support for Israel, disregarding the Palestinians). Anyway, let's look at the consequences of disregarding the UN: - It leaves a significant lack of respect for the major peace-keeping force in this world! The US is one of the main countries involved, and when the UN didn't comply with what you wanted, you just did what you wanted anyway. What example does that give for others to follow? - Does that mean that other countries can simply attack as they wish? Say someone wanted to attack the US? You've done quite a lot to anger other nations, and you shouldn't underestimate the manpower of, for example, China or N. Korea, especially in a coalition force. I know you were attacked at 9/11, but that's not the worst it can get. - Or even if totally uninvolved with you, what would happen if, for example, Russia decided to invade Argentina because they didn't like the way it was run? Or another two countries? What if we all started attacking each other, simply because we disagreed with each other's policies? The world would be in absolute disarray, and the UN, the institution that was set up in an attempt to maintain peace and has managed reasonably successfully given the circumstances, would have no respect from anyone. - And who set the trend? The US. - All I'm saying is that there could be major consequences in what the US has done, which is why so many people did not like what happened. I don't think it's something to be flippant about. Maybe we are looking at worse-case scenarios, but even so... I really love how every little critisism of the US is being dredged up to discredit the liberation. Liberation?! No, I don't think so. I mean yeah, you've done a good job - perhaps - but the Iraqis don't want you around! They'll only feel liberated when they're allowed to live freely with a good and honest IRAQI leader, and when foreign forces are out of their way.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 6, 2003 14:54:15 GMT -5
Self-inflicted? I seriously doubt that the Iraqi's threw themselves in jail and hung themselves on meat hooks because they're such wild party animals.
Obviously, that wasn't what I was saying. The thing is, there is intense conflict between Shiites, Sunnites, and Kurds, etc. If you think that's going to be solved by another country walking in and "liberating", that's just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 6, 2003 15:47:48 GMT -5
The UN has proven itself to be bloated and ineffective in resolving conflicts that require immediate action.
The UN was ineffective in Rwanda as they stood by and watched the genocide.
The UN was ineffective in Bosnia and Kosovo because of fear of the Russian veto, NATO was forced to act outside the UN "umbrella."
It seems to me this whole idea that only the UN can authorize the use of force has only come about in the last 12 years or so, since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The whole idea that only the UN can authorize the use of force troubles me as well, because I know that only Congress has that right.
When exactly has the UN ever even authorized the use of force? Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Now Im pretty sure that in the last 55 years there has been more than 3 wars, so it seems to me that if nations are going war, they will do it regardless of what happens in the UN.
<<countries are Arab nations>>
Not to nitpick, but I dont think Afghanistan is an Arab nation.
<<Another example could be your support for Israel, disregarding the Palestinians).>>
Maybe you havent read about the roadmap, and missed out on Clinton basically handing the Palestinians a state.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 7, 2003 9:12:55 GMT -5
For a guy who hated the US he sure didn't mind taking billions of George Washingtons, eh?
As to why the US does not go into other countries, i.e. Rwanda, which the UN has made a total mess of. Iraq for example is very important on a global scale.
Interestingly, both countries are Arab nations.
It was from an Arab nation that the 9-11 terrorists came from, that is Saudi Arabia. While Afghanistan is not an Arab nation, it is where the Taliban, another terrorist network, the one fueled by Osama bin-Laden, was based and they turned Afghanistan into a total wasteland.
Surely you can't blame Muslims for feeling anger towards you
IT IS a religious war. You have Muslims against the West. To the Muslim world, the US is a Christian nation, they do not make a distiction between Christian and western. To them it's one and the same. We are the infidels, they want us dead.
All I'm saying is that there could be major consequences in what the US has done, which is why so many people did not like what happened. I don't think it's something to be flippant about. Maybe we are looking at worse-case scenarios, but even so.
The Fear Factor is all white noise, look at the SARS scare. We look at worst case scenarios that never happen.
They'll only feel liberated when they're allowed to live freely with a good and honest IRAQI leader, and when foreign forces are out of their way.
Which will happen when we help Iraq stablize itself. That and shut off the French who are helping Saddam and his henchmen.
Obviously, that wasn't what I was saying. The thing is, there is intense conflict between Shiites, Sunnites, and Kurds, etc. If you think that's going to be solved by another country walking in and "liberating", that's just ridiculous.
Should we pull out of Iraq now? That would put the country somewhere back in the 15th Century.
======================================
From MSNBC an excerpt:
General says Saddam had WMD V Corps chief says forces found ‘plenty of documentary’ data NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES WASHINGTON, May 7 — American forces have collected “plenty of documentary” evidence suggesting Saddam Hussein had an active program for weapons of mass destruction, said the commander of U.S. Army troops in Iraq. The reason Saddam didn’t use them against invading forces may be that they were buried too well to retrieve before the swift coalition march to Baghdad, said Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of the Army’s 5th Corps.
“IT’S TAKING US a while ... to sort through the documentary evidence,” Wallace told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from the Iraqi capital.
“A lot of the information that we’re getting is coming from lower-tier Iraqis who had some knowledge of the program but not full knowledge of the program, and it’s just taking us a while to sort through all of that.” He did not elaborate. . .
. . . The Bush administration said destroying Iraq’s suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs was the main reason for the war. Despite weeks of searching its top suspected sites, none has been reported found so far. And though Pentagon officials suggested before the war that some Iraqi units were armed with chemical weapons, none was found when those units were overrun. Separately, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer repeated that the U.S. administration was confident that Saddam’s arsenal would be found and he suggested that a briefing later Wednesday at the Pentagon would offer details on one element of the search, a suspected mobile laboratory. BIO-CHEM LAB? U.S. experts are still investigating the alleged biological-chemical lab, said Wallace, who was commander of the battle for Baghdad. Acknowledging that it was only one of his theories, Wallace said the reason such weapons never were used was that the Iraqis had to hide them from U.N. weapons inspectors up until the last days before the war.
“Because they were so clever in disguising them and burying them so deep, they themselves had a problem getting to it,” he said. Wallace said among work his men are doing now is joint police patrols and helping train Iraqis in police procedures. He said there is still small-arms fire in Baghdad and occasional criminal acts that he attributed partly to prisoners Saddam released before the war in an unusual pardon.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 7, 2003 20:33:56 GMT -5
IT IS a religious war. You have Muslims against the West. To the Muslim world, the US is a Christian nation, they do not make a distiction between Christian and western. To them it's one and the same. We are the infidels, they want us dead.
Not all Muslims feel that way. They do, however, all have a right to be angry.
Wouldn't WE be angry if China invaded in order to 'liberate' us from capitalism and create order and morality in the US?
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 7, 2003 21:25:21 GMT -5
<<Wouldn't WE be angry if China invaded in order to 'liberate' us from capitalism and create order and morality in the US? >>
Youre really comparing apples and oranges here, if youre going to even try to make a comparison, you would have to completely ignore China's atrocious record of rights.
If the antiwar side was succesful, then 25 million Iraqis would still be under the iron fist of Sadaam tonight.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 8, 2003 7:47:50 GMT -5
It's true that not all Muslims are mad at the US but with the Muslim population placed at somewhere near one billion people, and most of those living in Muslim countries, and most of them, 800,000,000 or so hate Americans. Watch the news and watch them erupt when the slightest things happen. Wild! There is a deep seated hate going on in Saudi Arabia. Allies make for strange bedfellows.
The latest is that Mohammed Atta the lead terrorist HAD met with Iraqi officials and Saddam to discuss what he was going to do. Everyone wants proof, keep your eyes open, and listen as the evidence will present itself in the coming weeks and months.
Wouldn't WE be angry if China invaded in order to 'liberate' us from capitalism and create order and morality in the US?
This is really a tired argument, and it's not going to happen since US businesses employ a huge Chinese population, and the fact that Chinese goods such as electronics are in such demand in the US too. But to answer your question, if China or some other country "liberated" us from our way of life and capitalism, the world economy would be in serious trouble. The US is a huge consumer of electronics, oil, goods, clothing, food, you name it. We buy from other countries, which bolsters their economies. They now have money to buy what they need, sometimes our goods that we manufacture. It goes both ways.
The US and the rest of the world are very tightly bound because of the nature of business and the way it works. We are part of a global economy. If a factory closes in Montana, people in Briatain could lose thier jobs as well, which could cause the German supplier to Britain to also close, which then leads to an Indonesian business dependent on both businesses to go under too. To liberate the US or level sanctions on America would also backfire seriously.
We produce and give away billions of tons of wheat every year. If sanctions were placed against the US, millions outside the US would starve. (And we'd be blamed for that too, I'm sure.) In fact, sanctions against the US would cause failures of many world-wide businesses. It would also cause the destruction of major economies. It's not that the US is anything special, its that the US buys, imports, exports, and spends billions upon billions of dollars. Heck when the US dollar hiccups, look what happen to stocks in Taiwan.
Think very carefully what you wish for.
|
|
|
Post by busybodies on May 8, 2003 7:54:14 GMT -5
Somebody reply to my post! I didn't type that out for nothing *now that that's past me* Continue with your discussion ;D
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 8, 2003 15:12:54 GMT -5
Heck when the US dollar hiccups, look what happen to stocks in Taiwan.
Think very carefully what you wish for.
I obviously wasn't saying China's going to invade. Just that if a country wanted to invade us for our lack of structure, class system, captalism etc. we would pretty obviously be unhappy about it.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 8, 2003 17:10:53 GMT -5
<<Then don't call this a war on terror. If you're targeting only specific countries and ignoring the rest (where terrorism has claimed and continues to claims 1000s of lives) then you'll are just being hypocrites.>>
Well we cannot be everywhere at once, and we are trying to destroy terror where there is a threat to the secuirty of the United States first and foremost.
<<The point is that Bush didn't have proof about anything.>>
We dont know that right now, it has been less than a month since Baghdad fell, and Sadaam had years to hide his weapons programs. We think that we have found a mobile chemical weapon lab that matches exactly what Colin Powell described at the Security Council in February. I believe that these theories that Bush was unfounded in his assertations about Iraq will be proven wrong in time.
With Sadaam in power there was always the chance that the sanctions could be lifted and his weapons programs could be restarted in full effect. He would continue to have the means, the material, and the knowledge on the ground to restart his nuclear and chembio programs with a renewed vigor.
<<I obviously wasn't saying China's going to invade. Just that if a country wanted to invade us for our lack of structure, class system, captalism etc. we would pretty obviously be unhappy about it. >>
Of course we would, but we havent been subjected to decades of tyranny and opression. Like I said, apples and oranges.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 9, 2003 6:52:30 GMT -5
Add to that, that if a country did decide to invade us, they wouldn't get past our defenses, that is airpsace, and shores. They would be stopped short and the invasion would last about a minute. The rest of an invasion would be cut short if it were an air war, since our air defenses are among the best in the world. In short. How would we like it if another country invaded us? Not gonna happen, and won't happen because of the reasons stated earlier. Now terrorism is another matter since it's not a full-scale invasion. Terrorism is for cowards, and wild-eyed Mohammad Atta clones bolstered by Osamas and Saddams of the world who don't have it in them to fight their own battles. Notice how quickly Saddam's regime collapsed and feared "fedayeen" were a bunch of pushovers. Like it or not, terrorism has dropped and will be dealt with. Let's hope if Bush is voted out of office that someone with the same guts he has, will take over. Thank God, it's not Gore or some other placid do-nothing Clintonesque slacker in office now. Bush will get my vote next election. I fear for this country with the current crop of slackers who plan on running for President. Take a look at them and you can only imagine the "kick me" stickers on their backs.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 10, 2003 17:40:25 GMT -5
In short. How would we like it if another country invaded us? Not gonna happen, and won't happen because of the reasons stated earlier.
ONCE AGAIN, that's not the point. Are you saying that because we're bigger, we should bully the little guys and not worry about how they feel because "it won't happen to us?" That is exactly the kind of thinking that makes people want to terrorize the US.
|
|
|
Post by strangelilboi on May 11, 2003 9:43:07 GMT -5
You know what, OneBigMush...if I were ever to have my own Anti-Terror campaign, you be the first on my list!
Honestly, if there was any other person inciting anti-american hatred, i'd be surprised. Your bigheadedness makes u sound like a 5year old repeating what his cowboy father has just told him.
Believe, you cant get by in the world outside America by flashing your damn guns.
And pettyluv, if this is not a campaign against terrorism but a campaign to prove America has bigger guns than the rest of the world, why is it called so?
At the moment, you guys seem to have helped bury Blairs political career. I always said its was absolute stupidity for us to follow the American cowboys headlong into this war. But for the duration of it, i was behind our British troops.
You pro-military Americans seriously need some help with your ideas on what your position is in the world. The world is our world. It is NOT America's little wargame. If an American died for every other innocent person in the world who's life you have destroyed or taken away, the "United" States would have stopped existing 50 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 11, 2003 13:51:43 GMT -5
^Youre free to express your opinions, but personal attacks are unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 12, 2003 7:20:28 GMT -5
ONCE AGAIN, that's not the point.
The question was asked; what would happen, and how would we like it if we were invaded.
you saying that because we're bigger, we should bully the little guys and not worry about how they feel because "it won't happen to us?"
Not at all. We are bigger, which probably by default, makes us more accountable. But if we are attacked, things happen on a global scale. Take a look at tourism and the airline industry, it's being propped up by gov't grants.
That is exactly the kind of thinking that makes people want to terrorize the US.
They're going to think what they want and there's nothing we can do that would matter.
Honestly, if there was any other person inciting anti-american hatred, i'd be surprised. Your bigheadedness makes u sound like a 5year old repeating what his cowboy father has just told him.
What I said goes for any large country, in this case I was describing the US. If the E.U collapsed, or Russia, Asia, even Japan, the same things I described earlier would happen.
Believe, you cant get by in the world outside America by flashing your damn guns.
Funny we think the same. You won't get anywhere by crashing planes into buildings.
And pettyluv, if this is not a campaign against terrorism but a campaign to prove America has bigger guns than the rest of the world, why is it called so?
Because it is a campaign against terrorism.
At the moment, you guys seem to have helped bury Blairs political career. I always said its was absolute stupidity for us to follow the American cowboys headlong into this war. But for the duration of it, i was behind our British troops.
Again, Blair and Bush knew something we didn't. Blair had nothing to gain by back the US but he did. I applaud Blair and you should too, it's not everyday you get a leader who doesn't care what others think and bow to pressure. Blair's job like our president, is not to appease but to do what's best for the people, even if it seems unpleasant.
You pro-military Americans seriously need some help with your ideas on what your position is in the world. The world is our world. It is NOT America's little . . .
Been there, done that.
|
|