|
[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
You probably have already seen this message, but here it is anyway.
Quote:
MODERATOR EDIT: Changed the title from "Humankind is sick and tired of being used as an alibi by its murderers." to "Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation." edit2: Matched subject to the topic drift. [ April 16, 2003, 16:16: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I am with you on this Andrès.
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
[ March 09, 2003, 02:16: Message edited by: Arkcon ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Sorry guys, I had made a promise to myself that I would try to stay out of this line of threads. But this is beyond my limits of restraint. Any FOOL can take historical facts and bend them to support unfounded statements. But when looked at in a more complete context, the quoted brain fart is just pure garbage. Especially the use of atomic weapons. Japan got just what it had coming. The two nuclear releases brought the war to an end, and saved lives on both sides. It should also be noted that we were not the only nation trying to build the weapons in 1945. One of the weapons we used benefited from the production capabilities of the Nazi’s. And it was the intent of their allies in Asia to use the material in the form of a dirty bomb on their own soil. Also while America has had many failures at nation building, we have also had the best results of any nation that has ever tried to rebuild the economies and governments of nations destroyed by war.
As for Iraq, they hold the key to their future. If they disarm, then there will not be war. If they continue to thumb their noses as they lie and cheat their way past the inspection process, then they will again experience the weight of American arms. Lets face it guys, this man gassed thousands of his own citizens. That in itself is reason enough to have him before the bench with his life on the line. It is very easy for nations to look past their own short comings as they debate the actions of others. But if the world were left to the historical actions of these same nations, half would be under the colonial boot, and many of the rest would be under the boot of conquering armies. As for the voice of Argentina, I would think that the internal failures of Argentinean government would be sufficient to keep the need for published rhetoric occupied. No nation has been as generous as America during times of need. And no nation has ever been so generous to its fallen foes as America. America is not perfect, but when compared to the rest of the world, we look pretty damn good. [ February 25, 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: Thermodyne ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I agree, Thermodyne. Guess we know who the Americans and non-Americans are in this post.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
If we had wanted Iraq for the oil, we would have kept it Last time.
It is undisputable that Saddam Hussein is a terrorist. He used chemical warfare against his OWN POPULATION. It is undisputable that he has encouraged terrorist acts against this country. He rose to power in Iraq by assasinating any member of the legislature that had opposed him. I have seen videos of the event. For hours he sat and called them out, one by one, and had them killed. Grown men were blubbering in their chairs because they knew they were probably on the list. These are the facts. Is there a definite link between Saddam Hussein & 9-11? We will never know for sure. For every report that says yes, there will be one that says no. Has he publicly advocated such actions? Yes. Should he pay for those statements? Yes. Should the people of Iraq pay with him? The knee jerk reaction is NO. Upon further inspection, though, there might be a different answer. How responsible are they for the actions of their government? If the entire population of Iraq got up from prayers one morning and said "No. You are Evil. You are wrong. We will not cooperate. We will not be party to your tyrrany. Step Down," and began a campaign of peaceful civil disobedience (ala Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King) what would happen? If you determine that that is useless, they could find ways to leave. Considering the amount of contraband that is smuggled all over the world, I believe that people could get out if they really wanted to. They have choices and are not exercising them. If they populace of that country rose up in peaceful civil disobedience, how many civilians would die before it came to an end? I don't know, but I suspect it is more than the number of civilians that died in the Gulf War. And, furthermore, I suspect it is more than the number of civilians that are likely to die if this war commences. War is bad. War is ugly. War is evil. What is happening at the behest of Saddam Hussein is (at the very least) as bad, ugly, and evil. We must choose between evils. We can let this go on until he evaporates a city with nuclear fire. Or we can try to stop it now before it goes any further. Unfortunately, those are our choices. Talk has failed to work for 12 years. The most peaceful periods in history have been named Pax Romana and Pax Brittanica. During these periods, those two empires exerted enough military dominance that no one was strong enough to fight back. Rome had the Iron Pilum. Britain had their navy. Where we failed as a country was in failing to impose a Pax Americana when we had the bomb and no one else did. To be sure, we should allow cultures and societies to evolve and retain their individuality. But no where, in my opinon, does that imply that we must live in fear. You are entitled to your opinion. So am I. One Last thing: Yes, the United States of America is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in anger. I am not particularly proud of that fact. But I would ask you to take a hard look at the following and THINK. In the past, many have tried to conquer Europe. Rome (various leaders), Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, Napolean, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Adolph Hitler all made amazingly successful attempts. Since the release of nuclear weapons, no one has tried. How many lives has that saved? In World War II, 15 million soldiers died. Between 26 million and 34 million civilians died. How does that number compare to the tragic losses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many might Saddam Hussein kill if we keep letting him get away with things incrementally. How many fewer would have died between 1939 and 1945 if Hitler had been stopped in Czechoslovakia or the Sudetenland? No one complained when we kept the peace in Europe and Eastern Asia in the 1940's. Apparently we have more work to do. Pulling a thorn is usually painful. Amputating the leg because you were squeamish about the thorn is debilitating. Which would you choose? If you are citizen of the United States, call your congressman and voice your opinion. Vote for whomever represents your views. If you are not a citizen of the United States, mind your own damn business. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
And where did that bunk come from Andres?
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Oh god get out the flame boots...
|
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.
Good to hear from you, Doc. And others.
Lets keep it cool though. People are entitled to their oppinions, and are allowed to dislike US forign policy. Often, they have alot of reasons to. Anyone who has read my B.S. knows that Im behind our war effort in Iraq, the Philipines, Columbia, and wherever else we have troops on the ground fighting. But lets keep cool heads. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I apologize for forgetting to put an OT in the topic. Are you happy now?
Many have never forgiven the US of using the atomics. Large explosions are just more impressive than millons of soldiers killing millons of civilians. I don't share that 100%. I guess that sooner or later atomics would have been used against a real target at least once. Yes, the ended the war. It's hard to tell how many more or perhaps less would have died in a longer war. The world map would be different that's for sure. But it was a great move that secured the US position as a dominat potence. And the've managed to keep that place by not letting anyone else to get near ever since. Saddam is not the only dictator in the world, you know. Many have been placed or supported by the US, you know. And I'm sure he's probably not the one that made the worst atrocities, at least not until he was forced to a desperate situation anyway. And how can you acuse someone of acting deseperately when you force him into a desperate situation in first place? No one gave a f*** about poor arab peoples that have been at war with each other for centuries, until they discoverd oil and suddenly they were not so poor. Iraq had disarmed themselves long ago. Any mass destruction Iraq has had was to defend themselves from those who whant to steal the oil that is rightfully theirs. And any weapon found now will most likely be planted by american agents. That's just a pety excuse that never had anything to do to the war your government want. Anyway saying they can't have weapons of mass destruction is just the US saying "I have the gun, you can't have a gun. I could's shot down anyone I want, but as I don't do it I'm good." Humankind is sick and tired of being used as an alibi by its murderers. Quote:
This text was part of a letter of invitation to participate in the demonstrations of February 15th, and now is being repeated in some media as part of an anti-war campaign. But internal failures in Argentina are not independent from external influenced imposed by the dominant country. You forget that the US is about to use conquering armies for its own intersts. And someday we will decalre our independence from the US renewed versinon of the colonial boot. Quote:
Help they've given to other countries while they are the reason they don't have the funds ti help themselves doesn't count. Quote:
No country is perfect. No country has the right to call itself saviour of humankind. No country is evil either. There are no demons on earth. Although you try to make your chosen enemy look like one. The more you try to convince me Hussein is a demon the more baseless your accusations sound. This war will only generate more violence. Humankind will be no safer if a dictator, even if he is half as terrible as you say he is, is killed. While there are nations that don't have a country of their own, and while foreign nations want to exploit other's resources and keep all profit for themselves, there will be people that will fight for what they believe is rightfully theirs. Figures that lead those movements will be called dictators any bad actions thet make will be exagerated as unspeakable atrocities, any good actions and intentions hidden. MODERATOR EDIT: (Please try not to use the "F" word. Thank you.) [ February 25, 2003, 20:52: Message edited by: Atrocities ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
The difference between the US having atomic weapons and other nations having them (such as Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, etc.) is that the US will not use them nowadays, but those other nations will not hesitate to use them on their hated neighbors. Well... they will hesitate, but only because the US will most likely step in to the conflict to stop further use of the bombs. This is why the US tries to prevent other nations from developing them. There is no good reason for them to develop them.
There is 0 doubt that the US using the atomic bombs on Japan saved millions of lives. The Japanese had foguht very very resiliantly, most often to the Last man standing, on every minor little island that the US liberated from their occupation in the Pacific. Imagine how they would have fought to defend their home islands. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Actually Fyron, I have to say one thing there. Not to long ago the military was given the authorization to use controlled nuclear strikes (albiet from my understanding on a smaller scale then hiroshima and nagasaki) in the middle east. I don't think it will come to that, but saying they could is already going to far.
Finally, I seem to recall after world war I, while all of Europe was playing lets see how hard we can kick Germany in the balls, America was saying we all need to work together to rebuild. Of course Europe would rather kick germany in the balls make peace, and so came world war II. And I have to agree, we had the middle east in our hands, why didn't we hold it if we were so focused on oil? And why are we suddenly so heavily investing in alternative feul if we will soon have so much oil? The first time was oil, I admit it, this time it is something else. |
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.
This certainly is an interesting thread. And I have some thoughts on some of what has been said.
SamuraiProgrammer: "Has he publicly advocated such actions? Yes. Should he pay for those statements? Yes." Are you serious? Do you really believe that a foriegn dictator saying that he hopes all americans get anthrax is a justification for war? So much for free speach. "...they could find ways to leave. ...I believe that people could get out if they really wanted to. ...They have choices and are not exercising them." Leaving ones home is usually not a viable option. Most people from the middle east (hell, even europe, asia, africa, etc.) have strong ties to the land of their birth. Ties that are deeper than social, economic, or even religious. This is something that people growing up in immigrant countries don't usually understand. Also, where would they go? People without a home usually aren't treated very well in the middle east, just look at the palestinians (and I'm not talking about their dealings with Isreal either). It sounds almost as if you are trying to justify civilian deaths. Remember too that governments, even democracies, don't have a very good track record of listening to their populace. Did the multitude of hippies really cause viet nam to end any quicker than it otherwise would have? Probably not. Imperator Fyron: "The difference between the US having atomic weapons and other nations having them (such as Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, etc.) is that the US will not use them nowadays, but those other nations will not hesitate to use them on their hated neighbors." This is the popular preconception. People (especially americans) tend to think that the only thing keeping the world from tearing itself apart is the threat of the US retaliating with the big bad bomb. This is a delusion. If a nuke went off in downtown Calcutta the states would Not immediately launch ICBM's at pakistan. It is not fear of the US that prevents nuclear war, it is fear of nuclear war itself, an instinct for survival. "This is why the US tries to prevent other nations from developing them. There is no good reason for them to develop them." This is a foolish argument that goes against human nature. No one voluntarily allows another to maintain power over them. No matter how benign the wielder of that power may seem they do not have your best interests in mind, they have their own. That means that they cannot be fully trusted. When you see someone conspicuously waving around a baseball bat you always feel safer if you have one yourself. Also realize that this potential war will not be a 'righteous' one. This will not be a defense against a possible world conqueror. If (when) it happens it will be barely justifiable and will most likely not be an extremely proud moment in history. Remember how this all started? Osamma bin Ladden? Where is he now, is he caught? Who cares? He was a convenient excuse to renew a fifteen year old grudge match. And it seems as if the primary goal here is to pick a fight. And it just might succeed. On a side note, I recently saw some research that was kind of interesting. It seems that wars tend to spring up every ten to fifteen years, correlating to shifts in the earths geo-magnetic field. It seems like the planet likes us getting a little rowdy every decade or so. It looks like we're due. |
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.
*puts on his flame proof suit*
Getting rid of the Saddam is probabaly a noble cause. Unfortunately the American government has really stuffed up diplomatically with what looks like crude attempt to bludgeon its way through what are fair questions with bizzare rhetoric and half truths. With the amount of propaganda flying around at the moment its really hard to guess at what the truth is, and I assume in ten years time I'll get the answer. But for the convenience of everyone here I'll just give a few points at some of the stuff that is really annoying me. - Yes Saddam gassed some Kurds. Everyone knows it coz Rumsfield was in the country at the time. I think he said .... "" (nothing). In fact the whole world found it so revolting that the British had to go sell Saddam some new guidance missile systems and lathes for making artillery shells. But where could Saddam put all these new British toys coz all his warehouses were full with Russian missiles, French nuclear technology, US Anthrax cultures, German chemicals and 12 pairs of old size 7 Australian army boots? In fact everybody cared so much about the Kurds that we let Saddams Republican Guard crush their rebellion post gulf war and we let Turkish jets into the no fly zone to bomb Kurdish camps (when the Turkish are bored with bombing Kurds in their own country I suppose). - Yes Saddam runs a repressive regime. I remember all those public outcries when he was busy killing off communists in his government and getting rid of Islamic extremists. - Yes Saddam invaded Kuwait. We knew he was going to because he told the US ambassador at the time. I beleive her words were something like "its not US policy to get involved arab - arab conflict". I believe after the gulf war she said something to the effect of "well we didn't think he was going to take the whole country" - Yes Saddam kicked the weapon inspectors out of his country. Well that's not quite true because Richard Butler (the idiot Australian who was given to the UN coz he stuffed up Australia's chance of getting elected to the security council) withdrew the inspectors on the advice of the US because the US and Britian were about to embark on a big bomb dropping spree. Other members of the Security Council complained that they were not advised of the descision to withdraw and they wanted him sacked. Saddam let other inspectors back in after the bombing but for some reason didn't want to co-operate as much and the whole thing fell apart. - Yes Saddam is aggresive. But please don't compare him to Hitler, a guy who was in charge of a large industrialised nation that was probabaly the strongest military power at the time. Iraq can never achieve the dominance over its neighbours that Germany did in World War II. There's only a handful of countries who can do that now, and they all have vetoes on the Security Council. So in short Saddam is a complete Frankestein. The powerful players of the world made him and the powerful players of the world are going to unmake him. There is only one party of innocents in this whole thing and thats the Iraqi people. They will be the ones losing arms, legs, food, water, parents and children. Send thousands of blue helmets to stablise the country and let these people live! Askan |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Now I am really scared. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Also, note that it was a correlational study and so merely suggests a relationship, not cause and effect. The specifics are buried in a notebook somewhere. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Being from a different thread group, where I moderate with the help of other fans, I was appaled with the warning of what was going on here.
I have my views on this, but, come on, guys, this thread of yours is really for something different, I would imagine. Don't spoil your environment with things you cannot control; don't disrupt friendships over something one should have a stand, but is way off the purpose of SEIV. Cool off and calm down, please. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Now I am really scared.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh yeah, we are going to go nuke the rest of the world tomorrow. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif There would be no need to use nuclear weapons in any conflict. The US could crush the rest of the world with conventional forces. [ February 25, 2003, 08:48: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Well, about the US and A-bombs.
Yes, the A-bombs in WWII save a LOT of lifes. About US not using thema gain. In vietnam it was the president who stopped the use of them, the military was planning to use them. In Sweden we see that Russia today isn't a threat to us, bot we have been neighbours with them a long time and so we don't disarm totally, one never knows what will happen tomorrow. This also correlates to the US and the A-bombs, you don't know how the US policy will be in 10 years. Today I find it hard to belive that the US would be forced to use the A-bomb as they are clearly superior in conventional forces. Samurai > About non US not should care about this. I belive the Iraqi are non US citizens, and they should care about this I belive. Also, we are a humanty as a whole. Atrocoties (Not the person) should be stopped whoever is doing them, even if it is the US. Having said all that I'm starting to agree that the US and their allies should strike against the Iraqi. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
There is so much on this thread that I want to respond to that I hardly know where to start. Thankfully Askan summed up many of my beliefs in his post. Yes, Saddam is a monster, but our governments only choose to recognise that fact when it suits them. To pretend this war is for humanitarian reasons is a delusion when the very countries advocating it are the ones who armed Saddam in the first place. False and emotive pro-war propaganda (in particular I refer to that plagiarised thesis) and shifting justifications ("it's about stopping terrorism - oh, no one believes that. OK, it's about weapons of mass destruction - no, it's actually about 'liberating' the people of Iraq.") do nothing to convince me of our governments' humanitarian motives. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and finally: Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
There is more than one reason why the Us Dropped the two bombs in 1945. One would have been the cost of lives if Operation Olympic was to succeed. The second was that their were 120 russian divisions who just happened to completely wipe out 80 Japanise divisions in 2 months and claimed two islands. Third was the political aspect of the bombs to act a deterient against Russia. There are many more reasons ( some which we will never know about as it was extrememly complex )but I believe that the 2nd and 3rd points were the main reasons behind the bomb.
The Us is very very right wing. They tried it in the 70's but failed ( watergate, do you remember it, Its like it never happened ), but did the right wing go away. No they formed new alliances with Groups such as the Christan Fundamists etc... and are now on the path to control again ( hoping their is no nasty surprises, ) And with only 37 companies controling all of AMerican media I am sure their will not be any. I have no fear that the Us will drop the bomb today. But in 10 years or 20 that question is not so easy to answer. Now, to say that the current issue with Iraq is only about oil is only part of the picture. Tell me what happens if they do get the oil. They flood the markets with it. Other countries will turn their production back. The Oil arguement alone does not make any sence. All Sudam has to do here is comply with the UN resolution 100% and then see where that issue takes his nation and the US. Eduardo Galeano uses Hiroshima and Nagasaki but fails to mention Toyko, Berlin , Dresdan, Hamburg, nor Nanking. My God he is defending a man who has killed over a million people. 900,000 Iranians 350, 000 of his own people in that one war. 40,000 in the Shia Rebellion 91-92 , 85,000 in Gulf War 1, 1,000,000 because of the Embargo, 300,000 Kurds. Think about that. ( Well somehow I think I wrote a post that will piss everyone off.... SOrry... ANd Fryon if the US was involved in a convential war against the world.. They would lose. ) |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
No other nation on Earth has such a doctrine and yes, it includes Russia as well, whatever propaganda you have been feeded by western media. |
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.
Well, my two cents:
First of all, I don't wanna hear anymore that BS that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people, because its an insult to the intelligence. Everybody knows that the Iraqis hate the Kurds for some old reasons (or misreasons) and they applauded when Saddam droped the gas. No Iraqi see the kurds as their own. For the Iraqis the Kurds are terrorists as bad as Al Qaeda is for the Yanks. Second, you are deluding yorself if you believe that the US will not use their nukes if the time for the need comes. That's just plain stupid. No nuclear power will ever be defeated on his own soil, or get his cities nuked, without nuking back. What I'm saying its that if a nuke goes off in an American city, all bets are off. Third, there is already an state of war between Iraq and the US, you probably heard of fire interchange over the no fly zone on a weekly basis, if not daily. Iraq have been under a blockade for the Last 13 years, and they have to stop that somehow. If Iraq get their hands on a nuke I have no doubt on my mind they will use it against the US. So its foolish for the US not to take Saddam out. You may argue that Saddam could disarm, but the problem with that is the fact that if you haven't found a nuke doesn't mean that there is none. I would never believe, and so will the US govt, that Saddam can't hide nukes in some hidden place 1000 meters underground. The risk of a nuke going off in an American city its a risk that no administration can take. And that's why there is going to be a war. Do I support this war? No, I don't. I don't like Bush and company. I liked Clinton a lot better, but this Georgy guy is too involved in corporate business to trust him for half a second. I mean, this guy actualy put one of his employees as President of Afghanistan! Well, ok, ex-employee, ex co-worker of Condy Rice, and ex oil analist under Dick Cheney. Still is mighty suspicious. Anyway, I think there is going to be a war, either this year or next, but war it will be. And I do expect Iraqi attacks on American soil. Any half witted armchair general knows that you have to take war to the enemy territory or lose, and I don't see a reason to believe that Saddam will repeat the same stupid mistakes he did the Last time. Rule number one of war: NEVER understimate the enemy. I know its hard not to, because of the easy victory Last time, but don't. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I am scared if Americans believe they are more intelligent and have higher moral standards then the rest of the world. And if they believe it’s their “right” or “duty” to police the world. India and Pakistan have managed to fight several “limited” wars, without (correct me if I am wrong here, because I know to little about this) escalating it into full force terror bombing of the other sides cities. There is absolutely nothing that would indicate that they are stupid enough to start nuking each other. And my Country: We will be there when it is necessary. We just don’t think it’s necessary yet. What GBW is doing is not problem solving, it’s creating new problems. |
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:
If I was being unspecific, I would point to the general air of desperation coming from the Whitehouse & Downing St as they scrabble around for anti-Iraq sticks to hit the public with... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Huh! Is this an official thread for taking sides?
Who isn't for me is against me, and the like? Do any of you have a saying to start or stop the American/Iraqi crisis? Can this thread be moved OUTSIDE SEIV, Shrapnel Admins and Moderators, please? Some place like a new area to bash everything you dislike about world politics? Thanks, guys. Make my day. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Actually Dread, we do tend to discuss all kinds of non-SE4 stuff on this forum. This is quite normal.
Furthermore, this is probably one of the few places you'll find where a discussion like this expressing both sides of the debate can be held without it degenerating into flames... If you don't like this thread, I respectfully suggest you go read one of the ones not labelled [OT]. [ February 25, 2003, 16:55: Message edited by: dogscoff ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Point taken, Dogscoff. Should this mean that ALL Shrapnel community is to get here and voice their oppinions over this issue? I suggest that this HOT topic is placed somewhere else, that's all, but it's your playground, not mine.
Thanks. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I am not going to lock this down just yet. As an OT thread you guys have a little latitude. I would ask that you try to remain civil. And I am going to edit the title to something a little less inflamatory. The current one is just asking for trouble.
Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I agree. As long as there is no name calling and everyone remains CIVIL I think there is no problem with having active discussion on stuff like this when it is clearly labeled off topic.
I would voice my opinion on the subject but I have other avenues to argue these issues http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . Play nice kids. (And yes I still read these forums from time to time). |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Since no one has posted anything interesting elsewhere I'll muck rake here -
Polls are polls but. . . a recent gallup poll found that "those with postgraduate degrees were the most likely to oppose an invasion of Iraq. Pew found support among college graduates was 13 points lower than among those without degrees. Backing among rural residents was 16 points higher than among city dwellers. White evangelical Christians were the strongest backers of all -- 85 percent in the Pew poll." You guys can draw your own conclusions - but it seems that if you are educated and have some level of intellectual curiosity you are more likely to oppose a war. [ February 25, 2003, 19:16: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Public opinion polls are inherently biased by those asking them, and are never very accurate. Relying on them is a bad idea.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Well, considering that most education is not how to think, but what to think (whether conservative or liberal colleges), it's not surprising that more post-grads would be anti-war. That's like being surprised that most college professors are anti-war--but I don't see the public at large rushing to put them in charge of things. Most people wouldn't give two figs about what "some professor" thinks, because they are perceived (often rightly) as being intellectual elitists who don't know enough common English to effectively communicate with the plumber.
Education != Intelligence Education also != Correct view on any given issue [ February 25, 2003, 20:16: Message edited by: Krsqk ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
No other nation on Earth has such a doctrine and yes, it includes Russia as well, whatever propaganda you have been feeded by western media.[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think that a link would be in order here. I don't remember him saying that. What I heard was a policy statement. You might want to look up NATO's policy for responce to bio and chem attack. Also the WP had some very interesting rules about first use. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Official American policy for decades during the cold war was that we would use nuclear weapons first if neccesary to stop a Soviet convetional invasion of our allies in Europe. This is not a change in policy with the current administration.
Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
JMHO
Saddam wants the nuke. Why? What would happen if he got it? Would he hold the middle east hostage and threaten to set off a nuke in the oil fields if we or anyone retalated against him for nuking Israil? You better believe he would. What Saddam wants, he gets. He will continue to seek the bomb until he has it. That is unless he himself is stopped. Whether we take him on now, or after New York and Washington DC are craters the results will be the same, with one noteable exception, if we take him on now, and remove him from power, then perhaps, we just might save billions, yes billions, of lives. My vote is bite the bullet and take him on now. Then North Korea. They are a threat, but they are not yet terrorist bent on destroying their neighbor(s). |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I did a Google search for "Bush use of nuclear weapons". This is the most authorative link I found:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/10/nuclear.contingency/ Bush officials downplay story on nuke plans WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Bush administration and military officials said Sunday the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event it or its allies are attacked, but said that option does not represent a change in policy. ---- I didn't see any that advocated a first strike. All the links seem to be plans to use nukes in response to an attack on us or our allies. [ February 25, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: raynor ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Everyone forgets that Pakistan has the bomb (and they have more anti-american extremists than anybody - that's where the Taliban come from - remember them?) so if the govt really cared about disarming terrorist they probably should have focused on them -
The war on Saddam is just a red herring because W needs something so that people don't think about his failed economic policies and his failure on the war on terrorism. [ February 25, 2003, 20:56: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I had just heard that comment I quote on the radio and wanted to know the opinion of my "American friends" around here.
Maybe I should have edited out the mention of atomic bombs, I don't think this has anything to do with the Iraq conflict. I agree with you Dogscoff, this is one of the few places where I can see both opposite opinions confronted and compare them. I don't think we'll ever convince each other in this issue, but that will not change the respect I hold for other members of the SEIV community, and hope they feel the same way towards myself. I don't think this disrupt any friendships as VampiricDread feared. The reason I posted it here and wouldn't want this thread to be moved is that I never visit any of the other forums in shrapnel. My bookmarks point directly to the SEIV section. It's scary to see how most Americans, who always have claimed to support free thought and speech, have been convinced by their propaganda and supporting this war at any cost. I don't think he is half as bad as you describe but no one is defending Hussein. Even if Americans turned him into a monster, the fact that he's a monster remains and something needs to be done about this monster. I just think that war will make more problems that it will solve. If they just wanted Saddam killed they a few infiltrated agents could have done it. They could support an internal revolution from the Iraqi people and maybe even place their own puppet government in power. But they need to make an example out of Iraq so no one else dares to defy US authority, and also need an to place troops permanently there. The international community is not standing for such a blatant act of imperialism now either. The only ones that have been convinced by all this "war on terror" propaganda are Americans themselves and a few pro-Americans in their closest allies. As a matter of fact all this discussion is pointless. Even if we could make some Americans see how wrong this war is. The decision is already done, the invasion of Iraq was planned long before 9-11. American government, or whoever is actually in charge seems to excel in manipulating masses. First leaving themselves open to a terrorist attack, that may have been worse than what they expected. Then skillfully manipulating the people's emotions to extract the worst part of their hatred and xenophobia and direct it towards their previously chosen enemy. So after Iraqis hate you after you've been provoking them after more than a decade. What did you expect? I do mind my own business when the discussion is about internal USA affairs. (although I found that your discussions and complains about politician are not so different from the complains we have about own) But here the US pretends to have higher moral standards and that it's their duty to save the rest of the world from its own barbarism. While they are actually doing it for their own reasons. OK it's not only the oil, there's also the need to justify their military expenses, and of course unite their own people and distract them from the problems in their own country. You have no right to accuse those who do not support you of being cowards o traitors. You will never convince me that this war will be for the good of humankind. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
War is always a failure, but some times it's inevitable.
You are most likely 100% correct when you say that war will probably cause more problems then it solves. But I support going to war if diplomacy fails in the end because I believe that the problems caused by the war will be preferable to the problems that will be caused by continuing to tolerate and appease the current Iraqi administration. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
This quote is from a victim of the Holocaust and is printed on one of the walls in the Holocaust Museum. The quote reads something like:
- When they came for the socialists I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. - When they came for the homosexuals I did not speak out because I was not a homosexual. - When they came for the Jews I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. - When they came for me there was no one left to speak out. I have said what I wanted to say in this thread. I will not post here again. Going to the Cantina for a drink, anyone care to join. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"It's scary to see how most Americans, who always have claimed to support free thought and speech, have been convinced by their propaganda and supporting this war at any cost."
Free speech includes the freedom to hold views you find wrong or offensive, you know. "I don't think he is half as bad as you describe but no one is defending Hussein. Even if Americans turned him into a monster, the fact that he's a monster remains and something needs to be done about this monster. I just think that war will make more problems that it will solve. If they just wanted Saddam killed they a few infiltrated agents could have done it. They could support an internal revolution from the Iraqi people and maybe even place their own puppet government in power. But they need to make an example out of Iraq so no one else dares to defy US authority, and also need an to place troops permanently there." Wacking the leader of a head of state, without consulting any of our allies? That'd send a pretty strong message, and I guarentee there would be much yelling and screaming over even thinking about it. "The international community is not standing for such a blatant act of imperialism now either. The only ones that have been convinced by all this "war on terror" propaganda are Americans themselves and a few pro-Americans in their closest allies." You're spouting about as much proof as the propagana. Please defend this: before Bush started talking war, I heard: "Take away the sanctions, they are useless" "Take out the inspectors, Iraq has disarmed" Now I hear: "The sanctions are working fine." "Give the inspectors a chance" "Iraq has disarmed" "Iraq will use chem/bio weapons if we attack" Many of these come from the same Groups, and interestingly, I've seen those Last two in the SAME ARGUMENT. Hello? "As a matter of fact all this discussion is pointless. Even if we could make some Americans see how wrong this war is. The decision is already done, the invasion of Iraq was planned long before 9-11. American government, or whoever is actually in charge seems to excel in manipulating masses. First leaving themselves open to a terrorist attack, that may have been worse than what they expected. Then skillfully manipulating the people's emotions to extract the worst part of their hatred and xenophobia and direct it towards their previously chosen enemy." Who is spouting propagnda now? Lets see here..latest opinion poll (not hugely reliable, but it's what I've got) support for war declines to 36%. You say the international community doesn't want war; it was that SAME community that got Bush Sr. to stop before taking out Saddam Hussein in the first place. If we were so hell-bent on doing this..explain why it didn't happen then. "So after Iraqis hate you after you've been provoking them after more than a decade. What did you expect?" Provoking them. You have got to be ~$%~ me. The dictator in question ignores the treaty which got him the cease-fire, and is punished for it- by the UN, not just the US. And we're responsible for this. Hmm. "I do mind my own business when the discussion is about internal USA affairs. (although I found that your discussions and complains about politician are not so different from the complains we have about own) But here the US pretends to have higher moral standards and that it's their duty to save the rest of the world from its own barbarism. While they are actually doing it for their own reasons. OK it's not only the oil, there's also the need to justify their military expenses, and of course unite their own people and distract them from the problems in their own country. You have no right to accuse those who do not support you of being cowards o traitors" I'll ask this, intead of berating you like I want to. If it is about oil, and everything you mentioned, why Iraq? Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabi, which is only marginally friendly to the US and has more oil. Phoenix-D |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
My remark was to indicate whose opinions I would give credence to when reevaluating my position. You have pointed out a flaw in my logic and I thank you for that. Please remember that the written word is usually harsher than the spoken word. Much can be softened by intonation and body language. I would like to clarify my statement as follows: Anyone can have an opinion and are welcome to voice it. I will even pay attention to it if you come from a country that had thousands of civilians murdered in an *unprovoked* attack by foreign nationals. [ February 25, 2003, 23:10: Message edited by: SamuraiProgrammer ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
OK so let's say the US her allies back off and leave Iraq alone. I'd be interested in hearing from the peace activists when is the right time for war?
Is it when Iraq develops long range missles that can hit Israel? or maybe Europe? Is it when he fires a few at Israel? Or perhaps when he expands program to give cash to the families of sucide bombers in Israel to include bombers in your country? Is it when he finaly gets nukes? Or perhaps when he dies and his even more barbaric son takes over? I also find it interesting how certain countries who oppose a war seem to be considered all high and noble. Like France who is one of Iraqs major trading partners and whos oil companies have, I heard, signed multi billion dollar contracts to deveolp Iraqs oil fields. Or Russia who is owed approximately 8 billion dollars by Iraq for past weapon sales. Or China another of Iraqs trading partners etc etc. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.