[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Andrés]

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.

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.

FYI Eduardo Galeano is not Argentinaen, he's Uruguayan. But I admit I heard that in an Argentinaen radio.
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.

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.

It's easy to be generous when you manage to emerge victor and relatively unharmed from a war that devastaded all other world potences.

Help they've given to other countries while they are the reason they don't have the funds ti help themselves doesn't count.

America is not perfect, but when compared to the rest of the world, we look pretty damn good.

I agree with this. That text I quoted is more anti-american than my feelings.

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 ]

[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. 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.

[ZeroAdunn]

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.

[Fyron]

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.

That is essentially what I said a few Posts back.

[QuarianRex]

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.

[Fyron]

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.

That sounds like highly unsound science to me. Who did this research, and where did you hear of it?

[Askan Nightbringer]

*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

[primitive]

Originally posted by 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. 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.

Is this what Americans really belive ?
Now I am really scared.

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That sounds like highly unsound science to me. Who did this research, and where did you hear of it?

Not as unsound as you might think. It was mentioned in passing by one of my profs in a neuro-science class. We were looking at the effects of the geo-mag field on the brain (specifically with epileptics and such) and questions were raised about the extent to which the GMF could affect the mind and that was brought up as a possible macro-effect.

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.

[VampiricDread]

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.