|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_38...ger_strike.jpg
WASHINGTON, DC—Against strenuous objections from his advisors, President Bush began a hunger strike Monday to protest human-rights abuses in Nepal, vowing to subsist solely on water and vitamin supplements until "the twin clouds of violence and oppression are lifted from the land." Above: Bush sits in front of the White House on Day Two of the hunger strike. "I can no longer stand idly by while the gentle, peace-loving Nepalese people are made to suffer," said Bush, a longtime admirer of Nepalese culture. "This hunger strike will send a strong message to the government of Nepal and the insurgent Maoist rebels that their suppression of freedom and subjugation of the innocent is not going unnoticed." Since 1991, Nepal has been locked in a bloody struggle between its constitutional monarchy and the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), a Maoist guerrilla group seeking to overthrow the oft-oppressive regime. Thousands of innocent civilians have lost their lives in the crossfire. After years of human-rights abuses by both the government and the CPN, Bush felt it was necessary to take action. "In recent months, there has been a sharp increase in the use of deadly force on both sides," said Bush, seated on a mat in the Rose Garden. "There have been numerous reports of civilians being killed as a reprisal for the death of military police or of CPN army personnel. Things are bad and they're only getting worse. Something had to be done." |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3809/gulf_war_2.jpg
WASHINGTON, DC—At a Pentagon press conference Monday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld touted the military's upcoming Gulf War II: The Vengeance as "even better than the original." Above: Donald Rumsfeld debriefs reporters on the upcoming Gulf War sequel, scheduled to hit Iraq March 22. "If you thought the first one was good, just wait until you see the sequel," Rumsfeld said of Gulf War II, scheduled to hit Iraqi theaters of operation March 22. "In the original, as you no doubt know, we defeat Saddam Hussein, only to let him slip away at the very end. This time, we're going back in to take out the trash." Rumsfeld said the soon-to-be-unleashed war will feature special effects beyond anything seen in the original. "Gulf War I was done 11 years ago, and war-making technology has advanced tremendously since then," Rumsfeld said. "From the guns to the planes to the missile-guidance systems, what you'll see in this one puts the original Gulf War to shame." "The budget for Gulf War II: The Vengeance is somewhere in the neighborhood of $85 billion," Rumsfeld continued. "And every penny of it is up there on your screen." Waged in 1991 at a cost of $61 billion, the first Gulf War was a major hit, making household names out of stars Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Wolf Blitzer. Asked who would star in the sequel, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was coy. "I don't want to give away too much, but let's just say you're likely to see a few familiar faces pop up," Myers said. "I will say that the son of one of the key characters in the first one, back then just a boy, is now all grown up and ready to take his rightful place at the head of the alliance." http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_38...war_2_jump.jpg Myers did confirm that the plot revolves around the Rebel forces' efforts to capture arch-nemesis Hussein, whom they believe is building a weapon of mass destruction somewhere deep within the mysterious and forbidding No-Fly Zone. Above: A publicity still from Gulf War II. "Obviously, Saddam will be back," Myers said. "He's the perfect villain: ruthless, efficient, and sinister. It would be an affront to all the fans not to include him. Beyond that, what's going to happen is anybody's guess. One thing, though, is guaranteed: We're going to have more action, more danger, and definitely more kill power than the first time around." "We've already started preliminary shooting," Myers said, "and so far, what we've got is unbelievable." In addition to a major PR push, Gulf War II will be accompanied by a major merchandising campaign. Pentagon has secured the commitment of Topps for a series of cards supporting the effort. It has also brokered a first-look deal with CNN, guaranteeing the network full access to the front lines, as well as first crack at interviewing the men and women behind the scenes. The Pentagon has also signed Dan Rather to a two-cry deal. In the 11 years since the original Gulf War, few conflicts have come close to matching the level of support and press attention generated by that operation. "We were disappointed by our numbers in Bosnia," Rumsfeld said. "That particular conflict played primarily to an art-house crowd. Your mainstream audiences didn't connect with the complexities of the centuries-old ethnic clash you had going there. But this time, we feel we've got something very accessible that will play in Peoria. I mean, how can you go wrong with an 'Axis of Evil'?" Though Gulf War II does not open fire for another two weeks, it has screened for select audiences in Los Angeles. Ain't It Cool News, the popular website run by Harry Knowles, recently leaked an advance review of the conflict. "The battle sequences are even better than Black Hawk Down," Knowles wrote. "And Afghan leader Hamid Karzai, while only given a little action, exudes a Tarantino cool." Pentagon officials, meanwhile, are already thinking about a third installment. "There's no reason this Iraq thing can't be a franchise for us like those wars with Germany or the Communists used to be," Rumsfeld said. "The public loves it, the soldiers love it, the media love it. And even if the U.S. wins at the end of the second one, there are still plenty of possibilities for a third: Saddam could be destroyed, only to be replaced by an even greater evil. Then, of course, there's the prequel set in the Stone Age, the era we bomb Iraq back to at the end of the third one. As far as we're concerned, this thing is just getting started." |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
http://specials.politinfo.com/Latest...ebuilding.html haven't really looked through it but it looks about right. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
classic cnn headline
World braces as deadline looms Terror alert level raised; March Madness may be delayed |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Aloofi:
Those are amazing "pictures". Did you do them yourself? Just Adobe with a lot of tender loving care? I can't believe how seamless the G.I. dubbya looks, even the right shadows and everything! |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
“Can America deliver a good peace?” Very good question Tesco. But one that only time can answer. The only thing we can do is look at history, and hope to develop a scale against which to measure the chances.
A quick look brings a few prime indicators to light; economic development seems to be a good marker. Developed countries recover more quickly than undeveloped ones. Also the Education of the population seems to have some importance. On the other hand, religious hatred and tribalism seem to prevent recovery and the building of nations that have a sound respect for basic human rights. Iraq has a good level of education, along with a fair level of industrial development. But they also suffer from religious zealots and tribalism. The trump card is oil. With oil they can finance a strong recovery, and make their first gains in the area of living standards for the common man. Happy people are more apt to work for the stabilization of the government, rather than against it. I think that the model that was used in Japan can be adapted to work in Iraq. Take away the ego of one man, and it was a very good plan. I think Iraq must remain as one state; to partition it would destabilize the region. Also instead of worrying about which sect will have power, they should form a coalition right from the start. All Iraqi’s not actually in positions of great authority should have amnesty. And any that are going to be punished, should receive it swiftly. The one compelling rule should be to always move forward. This of course rules out much involvement by the UN. They take years to do what can be done in weeks. Personally, I think that the current Army of Iraq should be retained in a reformed entity. They will be well suited for maintaining order, US troops will not. Also, US forces should be withdrawn to specific bases ASAP. There should be a strong presence, but not a highly visible one. The Iraqi people need to build their own government based on acceptable standards already set by the UN. Lastly, I do believe that America and her allies should create a PAX Americana/Allies in Iraq. Those who were not against Saddam should be frozen out of the post war revitalization of Iraq. It is time for the west to abandon the colonial ideas and aging ways of empire. We must accept the new nations as equals, not clients. As a side bar I would like to address the “what about all the other places and other dictators” point that has been brought up. Three things determine the level of our involvement. Strategic considerations, spheres of influence, and public opinion. Let’s take Nepal for example. The west could have taken the Chicoms to task and expelled them from Nepal. But at what cost? Nepal would be rubble, and in all likelihood, several cities would be people free zones right now. Glassed over by fusion fires. Would that have served the people of Nepal? I don’t think so. Also, history tells us that they are a breakaway republic that was part of China in the past. Who has the valid claim? Does a successful revolt guarantee unchallenged independence? How for back do we apply modern law? An awful lot of questions and danger to be found in this problem, and for what gain? Unless Nepal finds linkage to another world problem, they will remain part of China so long as the Chicoms choose to hold them. The point here is that each situation has its own set of risks and benefits, that in and of themselves have no linkage. To merely try to use their weight in numbers as a plank in your position has very little merit. It is not unlike the kid, who when caught red handed, rats out his peers in an effort to lesson the punishment that is about to be applied. To say that the US is wrong for only addressing one of the world’s problems is not sporting. The fact is, that we are addressing several of them at this time, who will step forward and address another? France? Belgium? Canada? There are plenty to go around. And 50 years of talking has not found a solution yet. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Who here supports the President? I do, and why I do is simple. I feel that if we leave Saddam alone he will continue his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. That in turn he would give or sell these weapons to others terrorist along with training his own terrorist to use them against us.
That if he obtained the ability, then built a nuke, that he would use the device to blackmail the rest of the world into letting him do as he pleased in the middle east. He has already stated many times that he has no weapons of mass destruction, yet he just gave the order to his troops to arm weapons with chemical warheads, and boasted that if the Americans invade Bagdad, he would kill all the people rather than allow them to live without him. Ask yourself what he ment by that? How would he commit mass extermination of his own people? Ya he has no weapons of mass destruction, and Bill Clinton did not have sex with the fat chick either. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I believe that Robin Cook's resignation speech should be read. I post it here.
Robin Cook's resignation speech: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/h...cs/2859431.stm This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here. None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you. It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview. On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support. The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime. I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him. I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance. France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council. To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired. I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies. It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the Last hope of demonstrating international agreement. The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis. Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq. The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands. I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk. Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy. For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the Last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest. Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops. The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign Languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal. It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo? We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead. We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto? I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests. I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
As to Mr. Cooks position. Nice speech, but he was never for the war. And on top of that, he has a rather large axe to grind against the PM. http://www.observer.co.uk/2001review...617634,00.html
At best he had reached his high water mark. At worst, he was on the way out. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
A very good speech indeed. Interesting that he points out the same problems others have done on this thread...
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Maybe the following has been discussed...I haven't read everything in this thread.
Bush does not strike me as a warmonger. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Yet he insists on going to war when the inspections have been giving some results. What is going on? One aspect and maybe the most important one is the cost. The U.S.A. has incurred enormous costs in outfitting and sending its forces to Iraq. If they did not do so, I doubt Iraq would have permitted the inspections. A delay would mean the US of A would face continuing costs which would be borne by its own citizens. Not a popular choice for a president. To stop the hemorrage, the U.S.A. would have to withdraw its troops. If the president deemed it necessary to send the troops over at a later date, he would face severe criticism about the double expense. Another aspect of the conflict. Saddam is seen as figuratively thumbing his nose at the U.N. and it's resolutions. I feel the U.S.A. has taken this somewhat personally. If so, it contributes to the unwillingness of the U.S. of A. to back down. There is a need to teach Saddam a lesson about U.S. resolve. It will also serve as a lesson to any nation who is contemplating to defy it in the future. Fear and coertion is not a good basis for future relations. But this seems to be the path the U.S. of A. has chosen. Just some thought to provoke a conversation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Kiesling I know of, he is a well known, well to do mal-content. He is a recipient of the Rivkin award, given for decent against the policies of the state department. I applaud him for making a demonstration of his feelings on the subject. But I also condemn him for using the moment to add sensationalism to his resignation. I would suggest that his job was not to decide policy, but to work towards the goals of achieving the policies already in place. Perhaps he should run for a seat in the house, where his voice, if added to a majority of others, would help set policy. I respect people for going to bat for what they think is right, but I have no respect for those who resign when other fail to abide by their point of view.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Why Bush is insisting on going to war is because Saddam has been trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. He has hidden these weapons from the UN, and only when the Inspectors "find" some does he then come out and say, "oh they were disclosed." Yet they were not.
Saddam has every intention to get a nuke bomb. If he were allowed to do so, he would use it to black mail the rest of the world, including his neighbors into allowing him to do as he pleased in the Middle East. HE WOULD USE IT on Israel. He has offered to give Terrorist biological and chemical weapons before. Some have accepted and thank God have been stopped. You don't hear or read about them because the information pipeline must be preserved. Bush has the intelligence reports, the proof, and above all else, the smoking gun to justify the action he has order taken. France, Germany, and Russia have huge stakes in IRAQ, and don't want to loose those investments. That is understandable however regrettable. China just likes to cause the US heartache. Remember, they paid for a Democrat President, but got a Republican instead. Saddam is a man who will continue to seek weapons of mass destruction. He is a man who would give, or sell these weapons to people who would use them in terrorist attacks. The fact that so many people are protesting against a war only shows how little they value human life. They don't want the war because of what might happen to the IRAQ people. Saddam has already stated that he would kill all of his people rather than allow them to live without him. That shows how sick of a man he really is. He is a liar, killer, mass murder, rapist, etc, yet these people want to keep him in power. Where were these people when Saddam was committing genocide against people of his society? Where were they when he invaded Iran and then later Kuwait? They were sitting in the rafters waiting for the US to get involved so they could pounce upon us like crazed followers of Satan. These people are fools to believe that Saddam is a nice man. These are the people who file billion dollar lawsuits after a jet crashes because a terrorist was able to take control of it and slam it into a building. These are the people who protest against war and the treatment prisoners at a military base, but turn their backs on the suffering of the people who have to live under or with those who commit terrorist action and other atrocities against their own people. Where the hell were these fricking protesters when the Taliban was killing innocent people and ordering the mass extermination of non-believers? Where were they when Alkida (sp) was planning to kill 3k + Americans? Where in the hell were they when Saddam butchered his own people as a fricking test to see if his newest chemical bombs worked? I will tell you were they were, sitting back with their cell phones drinking a latté and laughing at the misfortunes of those people. They couldn't give a rats *** about them, and now that someone is finally fed up with it, and has taken a leadership role to end some of this senseless violence, the come out of the fricking wood work like maggot bugs and swarm those who would free an oppressed people in support of a mass murder. The below mentioned politicians are nothing more than political game players who out for themselves and NOTHING more. People believe that a war in Iraq is bad, yet they can live with the knowledge that Saddam, a mass murder, is in control. They can live with the fact that this insane man wants nuclear power? They can live with the fact that he is an avid supporter of suicide bomber, and they believe that he posses no threat to our security given the fact that he wants nuclear weapons? Come on! Where will these idiots be when one of these weapons of mass destruction is set off as a terrorist weapon? Where will they be then? Sitting in the dark waiting for the US to respond once again, so they can protest one more time. [ March 18, 2003, 18:05: Message edited by: Atrocities ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I think your missing the overall point here.
America will win the war. But they will not resolve the mistrust and resentment of American foreign policy. The world does not want to live in a world shaped by the US. Only in one country does the majority of the people support this war. Israel. That is it. Just remember when countries are the economic and military might of the world. The world joins against them. The next election in the US should be about Multilateral Alliances vs American Imperium. I hope that a Roosevelt , Truman or Marshall spirit prevails. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Those pictures were done by the guys at the onion. They have become real masters in picture making http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
In a hundred years, non of this will matter.
And for the record, it is a war against Saddam (Terrorism), not a war against Iraq(Oppressed people). [ March 18, 2003, 18:27: Message edited by: Atrocities ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I hate to say this, but Bush seems to embrase the old Gebbels' maxim: "if you want people to believe in lies, make lies extrodianary!" (sorry, I may misquote). |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
And really don't like the idea of a world without the US keeping China, NK, Iran and the others back in line, because if it were for the EU Pakistan and India would have had radiated borders long ago. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
In a hundred Years Saddam and the Iraq war will only be a footnote in history. I am afraid 2003 will be remembered as the year USA, as the worlds only superpower, stept aside from the path of unity and cooperation, and decided they was better off alone. But I hope I am wrong. I am afraid 2003 will be remembered as the year when the new frontlines was drawn, when the new cold war started. Not between East and West, but between USA (and a few close friends) and the rest of the world. But I hope I am wrong. The damage done to USA's international relations by singlehandedly take matters in their own hand, will take years and years of carefull diplomacy too undo. I hope GWB is wise enough to do it. But I fear he is not. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Hey does anyone remember the League of Nations? The precusor to the United Nations. It proved to be an all talk no action group. Their failer lead to WW2. Today the United Nations is not so different. It is no suprize that the French and Russians are against this war in Iraq? They have economic deals that might fall apart. They have the most to lose. They could care less that Sadam is murdering his own people provided France gets paid.
Iraq has been building weapons of mass destruction for over 20 years. Anyone wonder why they tried to build a nuke reactor in the 80's. That wasn't for power. They wanted the bomb. Now imagine them having nukes when the Gulf War started. The world has given Iraq over 12 years to comply. In that time they rebuilt their forces and chem/bio weapons. Yep VX gas. I'd say this stuff is worse then a nuke. It breaks just about every treaty out there. But what else changed? Terror strategies changed. 9/11 woke the US up. These rogue states that support these terror Groups now have a way to get at America. And countries like Iraq can support them and play dumb. So now the US has to strike. If we don't it only encourages these terror strikes. We took down Afganistan because of this. Iraq is next. I say it was a mistake for Allies to not invade Iraq when they had the chance in 1991. It may have stablized the whole region. The biggest mistake of the Bush Sr Presidency. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I know that the EU doesn't want a Pakistani/Hindi war. [ March 18, 2003, 21:24: Message edited by: Aloofi ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
No one knows for certain what is right and wrong in this. There are people who love to protest just for the sake of protesting. They are nothing more than "15" minute fame seekers who could not get on reality tv show. Before you protest something, you should be informed, and they are not. No one wants a war, and Saddam has been given over 12 years to prevent one. How much longer should we wait? Should we wait until he gives a biological weapon to some suicide terrorist group who then use it to kill millions? Or should we just wait until he develops a nuke and blows one of his neighbors to hell? Remember, the choice to fight is Saddams. He has had ample time to come clean. Hell he has even had time to leave Iraq and has instead elected to remain behind and make threats that he will use the very weapons of mass destruction that he claims he does not have against his own people to insure that they die rather than live without him. Sure lets just leave him alone, I am sure he won't do anything that will hurt people. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I should also point out that if people feel that Saddam is a good man, they should go live in his country for a year. If they protest there, they would simply be shot without ever getting a sound bite on the local news. Correction, they would get a report, a report annoucing their deaths as traitors to Saddam.
Oleg, look at his track record. Look at what Saddam has done in the past to his own people. Has Bush committed mas murder in order to test out a biological weapon? No, he has not. Saddam's connection to terrorism is that he has funded many families of suicide bombers. He has given money to other terrorist organizations and even had terrorist training camps in Iraq. So ya, he connected alright, right at the hip. If he has the technology to use, he WILL use it. He has proven this. What has Bush and many others worried is that he had given biological weapons away to terrorist before. They were stopped. Once the conflict starts, and it has been shown that Saddam has been sitting on these weapons all the while denying they exist, then perhaps people will understand the true danger he poses. Its not the country with 50 nukes I am afraid of, its the dumbass with one that has be freaked out. And biological weapons make nukes look like firecrakers. AND SADDAM has that technology. Remember what he did to the Kurds and to the Iranians? [ March 18, 2003, 21:31: Message edited by: Atrocities ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
atomannj for 30 years Isreal has not left the occupied terrorties. That is a UN resolution.
Yes France and Russia are against it. That does not answer why most of the world is against it as well. Mexico, Latin America, Canada are against it. And that is a pile of bull saying that France does not care he is murdering his own people... No one has cared. So when is your war on terror going to bomb Ireland. Sinn Fenn is in Dublin I believe... Why not bomb Cork, Dublin etc... Why not start with the CIA head quaters. Yes their strong so we should attack. But lets attack now when their weak. We will find out over the next week what weapons they have. Will we find out the truth. I doubt it. It took a web of lies to get us this far. Why stop now. Your own country supports terror. Go look it up. IRA recieves most of its support from Eastern United States. Contra's , Panama, Trujillo , Somoza , Marcos , Duvalier. Perhaps it is the time to question why your country is going down this direction and why it is dragging the rest of the world with it. ( just to give it an 80's feel ) |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Oh, I think it will matter in a hundred years. The USA has set a precedent for extending 'right to self-defense' way beyond imminent threat into mere 'potential' threat. Many other dictators who don't happen to be on the public radar at the moment will be quite pleased to use this precedent to attack whomever they please -- after checking with the US to make sure it's ok with them, of course. We've now returned to a world of 'might makes right' that was supposedly ended in the 20th century, and we will be paying the consequences for a long time to come. Who knows, in a hundred years we might see President P. D. Q. Bush deposed by the Chinese-led coalition to free the USA. We will not be the biggest bully on the block forever. But I'm sure they'll promise to minimize civilian casualties and rebuild the smashed infrastructure. And cut themselves in for control of huge tracts of US farmland to feed themselves.
[ March 18, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ March 18, 2003, 21:47: Message edited by: Atrocities ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Let’s free Ireland next, a wee little bit of home rule http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif then we move on to free the Scotts, paint our faces blue and showem owur arses. After that we might settle that little difference the canuks have, Brits to the left and Frogs to the right. Perhaps a little piece in the north for the original owners. And I think a few people in France and Spain would like to get in line. By the time we carve out a country for everyone that wants one, I think we will need a bigger UN. But of course, every coin has two sides, some of these people might object. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Baron Munchausen I am LOL. China freeing Americans, LOL. They bought and paid for Clinton, and if they can do that, why invade?
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I am watching an Iraqi gentleman on CNN. To hear him talk, the world is on the side of Iraq. Well I’m a reasonable man, who will stand with Iraq? Who is willing to step in and offer them aid? Talk is cheap! I must note that while Abduri looked very mad, his aids had a different look on their faces.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I am sorry, but I fail to understand why people would not want Saddam removed. Here is a man who has actively used biological and chemical weapons against his own people, and has an active program to mass produce them.
Here is a man who funds suicide bombers and has hosted terrorist training camps in his own DICRTORIALLY control country. Here is man that in Last 23 years has attempted to invade two of his neighbors. Here is man that has openly stated that he has no objection to selling or giving away biological weapons to Terrorist. Why in gods name would you not want him removed following what had happened on 9-11? If we had known that Alkida (sp) could do what they did prior to 9-11, we would have taken issue with them. The problem is, Clinton did know, and he chose to sit on his arse and do nothing THUS inviting the attack. Bush and many others know that Saddam will give away his weapons of mass destruction to terrorist who will in turn use them on innocent people. If he does not act now what will that invite? If Bush had foreknowledge of Alkida's plan for 9 - 11, and went into Afghanistan and took them out in a preemptive strike, he would have been labeled a warmonger. Oh wait, isn't that exactly what he is doing now? Going into Iraq to PREVENT another f***ing 9-11? And the worlds say no, what you are doing is wrong. You should wait until after they kill a million or more Americans before you take action. No thanks; I would rather have my family alive then dead. I ask myself why is the world against this, and the answer is simple. It is the "in" thing to do right now, hate those who are dying to keep you from being murdered. It is the oldest song in the book. You hate the ones who care the most about you. It deeply sickens me to think that American's have, are, and will die for arseholes like the weak and pathetic French. Germany, well they have an unknown agenda that frankly scares the hell out of me. Russia, well Russia is doing it because the Putnoff (sp) wants to look tough to his people standing up againt the big bad Eagle. Um didn't the Soviet Union crumble? And if so, why in the hell is he trying to put it back together? As for the rest of the world? They want money to support us. It is that simple. Pay up or we will opose you. Nothing more than greedy dogs begging for dinner table scraps. [ March 18, 2003, 22:08: Message edited by: Atrocities ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
What you fail to understand, Atrocities, is the concept of INTERNATIONAL LAW. Just because there is currently no offical 'world government' doesn't mean that there is no standard of right and wrong in international affairs. It's not a question of anyone wanting to 'keep Saddam in power' it's a question of the appropriate legal right to attack him. The US is violating all standards of international law in this obsessive quest to depose a tin-horn dictator. Many people who were afraid of Saddam Hussein are now afraid of the US instead. Think about that.
Here is a nation that disregards the rest of the world to do whatever the hell it wants. And why in God's name would they want all those nuclear weapons, and a dozen aircraft carriers Groups, and on and on. Scary isn't it? And it's spelled Al Qaeda or Al Qaida depending on which transliteration scheme you are using. This only adds to the black humor of your ranting about anti-war protestors being 'uninformed' while making ignoramous statements like saying that our government didn't support all those dictators or there's 'no evidence' that the CIA has committed crimes like Al Qaeda. It was the CIA that TRAINED OSAMA BIN LADEN. Not only has the CIA done far worse than Osama, it actually taught him how to do it. You really are making a fool of yourself. [ March 18, 2003, 22:25: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Atrocities:
It's very hard to write something here without someone accusing me of supporting Saddam. I do not, I think he is scum and deserve everything that comes to him (But USA should not take it on by themself to act as prosecutor, judge and excecutor). But I fail to see any connection between what happened 9/11 and Saddams weapons of mass destruction. 9/11 was done by 50 suicidal idiots armed with very low tech weapons (pLastic knives ?), on a budget of perhaps 100 K $. Fundamentalist muslems don't support the US attacking Saddam (not because they love Saddam, but because they hate USA more). Taking out Saddam will only increase the number of idiots willing to do such suicide missions, and the small sum of money needed will always be available. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Linkage
___________________________________ The Wall Street Journal AT WAR The Baluch Connection Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tied to Baghdad? BY LAURIE MYLROIE Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, is a Pakistani Baluch. So is Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In 1995, together with a third Baluch, Abdul Hakam Murad, the two collaborated in an unsuccessful plot to bomb 12 U.S. airplanes. Years later, as head of al Qaeda's military committee, Mohammed reportedly planned the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, as well as the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Why should the Baluch seek to kill Americans? Sunni Muslims, they live in the desert regions of eastern Iran and western Pakistan. The U.S. has little to do with them; there is no evident motive for this murderous obsession. The Baluch do, however, have longstanding ties to Iraqi intelligence, reflecting their militant opposition to the Shiite regime in Tehran. Wafiq Samarrai, former chief of Iraqi military intelligence, explains that Iraqi intelligence worked with the Baluch during the Iran-Iraq war. According to Mr. Samarrai, Iraqi intelligence has well-established contacts with the Baluch in both Iran and Pakistan. Mohammed, Yousef and Murad, supposedly born and raised in Kuwait, are part of a tight circle. Mohammed is said to be Yousef's maternal uncle; Murad is supposed to be Yousef's childhood friend. And U.S. authorities have identified as major al Qaeda figures three other Baluch: two brothers of Yousef and a cousin. The official position is thus that a single family is at the center of almost all the major terrorist attacks against U.S. targets since 1993. The existence of intelligence ties between Iraq and the Baluch is scarcely noted. Indeed, these Baluch terrorists began attacking the U.S. long before al Qaeda did. Notably, this Baluch "family" is from Kuwait. Their identities are based on documents from Kuwaiti files that predate Kuwait's liberation from Iraqi occupation, and which are therefore unreliable. While in Kuwait, Iraqi intelligence could have tampered with files to create false identities (or "legends") for its agents. So, rather than one family, these terrorists are, quite plausibly, elements of Iraq's Baluch network, given legends by Iraqi intelligence. SOMEONE NAMED Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was born in Kuwait to Pakistani parents on April 19, 1965. After high school in Kuwait, he enrolled at Chowan College in North Carolina in January 1984, before transferring to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, where he received his degree in December 1986. Is the Sept. 11 mastermind the same person as the student? He need not be. Perhaps the real Mohammed died (possibly during Iraq's occupation of Kuwait), and a terrorist assumed his identity. Mohammed should now be just under 38, but the terrorist's arrest photo, showing graying sideburns and heavy jowls, seems to suggest an older man (admittedly, a subjective judgment). Yet this question can be pursued more reliably. Three sets of information exist regarding Mohammed: information from U.S. sources from the 1980s (INS and college documents, as well as individuals who may remember him); Kuwaiti documents; and information since the liberation of Kuwait (from his arrest, the interrogation of other al Qaeda prisoners, and the investigation into the 1995 plane-bombing plot). The Kuwaiti documents should be scrutinized for irregularities that suggest tampering. The information about Mohammed from the '80s needs to be compared with the information that has emerged since Kuwait's liberation. The terrorist may prove to be taller (or shorter) than the student. Interrogators might ask him what he remembers of the colleges he is claimed to have attended. Acquaintances--like Gaith Faile, who taught Mohammed at Chowan and who told the Journal, "He wasn't a radical"--should be asked to provide a positive identification. Along these lines, Kuwait's file on Yousef is telling. Yousef entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport in the name of Ramzi Yousef, but fled on a passport in the name of Mohammed's supposed nephew, Abdul Basit Karim. But Kuwait's file on Karim was tampered with. The file should contain copies of the front pages of his passport, including picture and signature. They are missing. Extraneous information was inserted--a notation that he and his family left Kuwait on Aug. 26, 1990, traveling from Kuwait to Iraq, entering Iran at Salamcheh on their way to Pakistani Baluchistan. But people do not provide authorities an itinerary when crossing a border. Moreover, there was no Kuwaiti government then. Iraq occupied Kuwait and would have had to put that information into the file. KARIM ATTENDED college in Britain. His teachers there strongly doubted that their student was the terrorist mastermind. Most notably, Karim was short, at most 5-foot-8; Yousef is 6 feet tall. Nevertheless, Yousef's fingerprints are in Karim's file. Probably, the fingerprint card in Karim's file was switched, the original replaced by one with Yousef's prints on it. James Fox, who headed the FBI investigation into the 1993 WTC bombing, has been quoted as affirming that Iraqi involvement was the theory "accepted by most of the veteran investigators." Pakistani investigators were likewise convinced that Yousef had close links with the MKO, an anti-Iranian terrorist group run by Iraq, and conducted a bomb attack in Mashhad, Iran, in 1994. U.S. authorities may unravel the story very quickly if they pursue the question of Mohammed's identity, instead of assuming they know who their captive really is. As for the larger issue of these murderously anti-American Baluch, that matter may become clear soon, once U.S. forces take Baghdad--and take possession of Iraq's intelligence files. Ms. Mylroie is the author of "The War Against America" (HarperCollins, 2001). A related editorial appears here. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Of course not my friend.
The differences are understood by myself ( I am from Northern Ireland )and all who read this forum. But the key word of that sentance was the word 'your'. Last year the world was becoming united in the war to stop terrorism. That is being tossed away. Rather sad. That was my point. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
The UN is a joke. It has always been a joke. You should see what countries a scheduled to lead what programs at the UN this year and next. That will surprise you. Libia for example. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The UN members feel that it is OK to leave a man who would develope and sell weapons of mass destruction in a position to do so out of fear that the OIL prices will go to high. That is just sick and wrong. They are afraid to act because they think he is a good guy, no they are afraid to act because they know he is not. They fear that he already has the means to destroy the oil fields if threatened. The US is fearful of this as well, but has no choice. The time to remove him has come. BEFORE he sells his biological weapons or technology to a terrorist group. The world is largely for peace, I am for peace, but I am not willing to allow that desire for peace to prevent me from being informed as to why we must remove a dangerous man like Saddam from power. People who fear the US should. They absolutely should. If they are training, harbering, or planning a terrorist attack against us, we will no longer, or at least until a democrat is elected, turn the other cheek. This is not a war against the IRAQ people, but a war against thier insaine leadership. A leadership that has promised to kill its own people rather than allowing them to live without it. And the UN would stand by. Hey wait, that is what the UN does well doesn't it, just stand by. If I was Ted Turner, I would tell the UN to take a hike on that Billion he promised them. They are not worth the investment. [ March 19, 2003, 06:19: Message edited by: Atrocities ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
You are correct, that 9-11 was masterminded by a bunch of sick fanatical religious fools who believed that their way was the only way because they enjoy killing in the name of God. The connection to 9-11 and Saddam is that he could sell some of biological technology, or worse give it and biological weapons to the above mentioned sick fanatics and then they could really do some damage. The situation is, he has offered it to them already. He has given a terrorist group biological weapons to be used in a suicide bombing in Israel. The Israeli’s stopped this from happening thank god. They also knew what he was planning to do with his nuclear research and blew up his nuclear plant as a preemptive strike. The facts are: 1. Saddam want weapons of Mass destruction 2. Saddam is actively researching these weapons. 3. Saddam has already produced biological and chemical weapons. 4. Saddam has already used said deadly weapons upon his own people and the people of IRAN. 5. Saddam has given some away to a terrorist group. 6. Saddam has offered to give a lot a way to any terrorist group. 7. Saddam believes he is Salideen (sp) and it is his duty to free the Arabic people. Free them by any means possible. (He is insane) 8. Saddam is a mass murderer and enjoys using weapons of mass destruction against his own people and his enemies. 9. Saddam has threatened to blow up Iraq oil fields in order to remain in power. 10. Saddam has blown up oil fields and killed millions with chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Baron Munchausen
Quote:
And thanks for the spelling tips on Al Qaeda. [ March 19, 2003, 06:38: Message edited by: Atrocities ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Just words, guys. The real reason for this war is oil, nothing else. There are dozens of dictators around. USA, like most other countries, is happy to give generous fundings to most of them if they allow free reign of american companies. No talk about murderers and moral concerns here.
This doesn't make the attacks on saddam less reasonable, but it leaves a bitter aftertaste, especially with USA behaving like the biggest bully on the block violating every international law that exists. People always have two reasons for what they do: one that sounds good, and the real one. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
If only we lived in such a simple fantasy world where oil was the only factor.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
All those countries opposing the US are nothing but a bunch of pussies. A lot of talk and no action. I guess nobody wanna die defending their ideals.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif This is becoming a show of how low the west have fallen. And to think that once we were warriors, fighting for whatever we thought to be right, doesn't mattter how wrong that was, but we were warriors. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
A very heated discussion. I would like to tell you what I think about this situation.
1. American doctrine of world domination, the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) is active now. Members and chief designers of the PNAC are Perle, Bolten, Cheyney, Rumsfeld etc. (a "who is who" of the current american government) But this is not a covert operation of some fanatics. Everybody can find the outlined 90page documentation of this program at the internet. Try this link http://www.newamericancentury.org/ 2. According to this project which was born 1993 and forced up in the year 2000, america should impose its way of life and kind of freedom and prosperty to the whole world. The enemy countries Irak Iran and S-Korea (the axis of evil) are firstly named in this PNAC document in the year 2000. (2 years before 9/11) The goal of this policy is to play the leading role in the world in every way (political, economical and military) after the cold war. 3. It seems that the terror attack is a good chance for the PNAC group to publicly justify their american hegemonic goals and philosphy. But I am sure they would have done it anyway (9/11 or not) 4. The first "victim" of this policy is Irak. The second will be next country of the axis of evil. The only chance that this PNAC idea is probably not realized is that the americans vote for another president the next time. 5. Many political leaders in this world know the american goal to lead the world in the 21st century and they dont like it of course. (French, Russia, Germany, China etc.) Thats why they are against it. Nothing else. They are NOT moralic, they just have another politicial doctrine. 6. Regarding Saddam I am sure that its correct from American military to remove this tyrant from his throne. The American government dont have "idealistic" goals (just read the PNAC) and they are now on a very dangerous path but even a fully american controlled Irak is much better than Saddam. klausD PS. sorry for my bad english [ March 19, 2003, 14:11: Message edited by: klausD ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.