[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 28

mac5732 · #**271** March 16th, 2003, 05:18 AM

IMHO, between the two powers, Iraq & Korea, the one I strongly feel is the more dangerous is most definitly North Korea. They are more military able and willing besides being stronger in relation for fighting forces.

During the Korean war, they and the Chineses sacrifices thousands of troops against certain objectives, where all they wanted was to see if the allies were willing to fight for them and how much they were willing to lose.

Their military is way above that of Irag and better armed and trained. Also IMHO they are more radical and willing to start a war then any other nation around.

Be afraid, be very very afraid

IMHO only Just my 2 cents Mac

tbontob · #**272** March 16th, 2003, 06:26 AM

It is interesting that so many nations are against the war in Iraq.

Further there are mass demonstrations against it.

Things are so crazy that that everything is being turned on its head and George Bush and the USA is being portrayed as the evil aggressor nation instead of Iraq.

On January 15th, I posted this in the Rating the President thread

---------------------------------------------

What I am about to say may upset a few people, but it is my opinion that George Bush missed the boat of being a great president.

Being a neighbour of the U S of A, I wondered from 9/11 why George Bush did not actively propose a world court and a world law.

With 9/11, he had a magnificent opportunity since almost every nation lost citizens in the twin towers.

IMHO, the shock of the collapse would have galvanized the major nations of the world into establishing a world court with teeth to deal with nations who terrorize others just as our national courts deal with individuals who terrorize individual citizens within national borders.

All, it need was a leader and in this I feel George Bush fell short.

Instead, he choose to go on a crusade against the Al Queda while requesting the rest of world follow. And most of the world did because of the loss of their citizens and because of the shock of the event.

Now he wants to go after Iraq and he also has an issue with North Korea.

I wonder why he didn't take the route of establishing a world court in concert with the support of other nations.

I can only come up with the concept that he feared that the U S of A would have to use its power somewhat more responsibly because it could come up on charges if it misused its powers.

Because as it now stands, the U S of A is the only superpower, both economically and militarily, and most nations do not want to seriously offend the U S of A because if push came to shove, the weaker nation is sure to suffer.

Generally, I feel that the U S of A has an admirable record in conducting itself in world affairs.

But power does corrupt and absolute power does corrupt absolutely. With no outside body like a world court to judge its actions, the U S of A will have to be unusually diligent in overseeing its own actions to ensure it does not misuse it's power.

One can argue we already have the United Nations and a world court. But it is apparent, they lack the the formulation of laws to deal with terrorism as well as the power to enforce it. With 9/11, Bush could have ensured major changes which would have made the world a safer place since all the nations would be an active participant rather than just following the lead of the U S of A whenever it suffers a catastrophe.

And before I am buried under a barrage of vitriol (probably from U.S. citizens), I want to say the above is only my opinion. : )
==========================================

But alas, Bush choose to keep his powerful military base and his "so-called right to wield it when and where he wishes."

Because Bush and the USA refuses to acknowledge a higher law, nations and the populace of the world are concerned.

And they are acting out their concern by refusing to support the USA.

Gryphin · #**273** March 16th, 2003, 08:04 AM

My guess on why we go after Iraq and not Korea,
There is no way we can win in Korea.
We can win in Iraq.

We go after Iraq because we can.

Fyron · #**274** March 16th, 2003, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Question... Why are we not going after Turkey for its attacks on the kurds ??? How is this different ?

You have to start somewhere.

Quote:

Things are so crazy that that everything is being turned on its head and George Bush and the USA is being portrayed as the evil aggressor nation instead of Iraq.

Well if we go to war, the US will be the aggressor. The aggressor is the one that is attacking, after all. Just pure semantics. The "evil" part is based off of ignorance though.

[ March 16, 2003, 06:54: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob · #**275** March 16th, 2003, 09:11 AM

Sorry, messed up Fyron's quote with my own comments.

Correct Version follows...

[ March 16, 2003, 07:25: Message edited by: tbontob ]

tbontob · #**276** March 16th, 2003, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbontob:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QB
quote:
Things are so crazy that that everything is being turned on its head and George Bush and the USA is being portrayed as the evil aggressor nation instead of Iraq.

Well if we go to war, the US will be the aggressor. The aggressor is the one that is attacking, after all. Just pure semantics. The "evil" part is based off of ignorance though.

[/QB]

No, it is not just semantics. The term "Aggressor" is not soft and cuddly which is why it is being used. And many people associate aggressiveness with some form of evilness.

And ignorance is also not the issue. Once you are tagged with being "evil", it takes a lot of work to change it.

And unfortunately, ignorance can promote the association of "evil" with the current Bush administration and Americans in general.

Fyron · #**277** March 16th, 2003, 09:19 AM

Those are some confusing to read Posts.

Quote:

No, it is not just semantics. The term "Aggressor" is not soft and cuddly which is why it is being used. And many people associate aggressiveness with some form of evilness.

Semantics has nothing to to with softness or cuddliness. It has everthing to do with semantics. They say aggressor for (wrong) reasons.

Quote:

And ignorance is also not the issue. Once you are tagged with being "evil", it takes a lot of work to change it.

Yes it is. It is the ignorance of the people using such terms that causes this. They do not see the whole picture; they do not know what they are talking about. They are ignorant of the whole situation. This is why they brand the US as evil.

Quote:

And unfortunately, ignorance can promote the association of "evil" with the current Bush administration and Americans in general.

So ignorance does indeed have to do with it. Why did you just say ignorance has nothing to do with it?

[ March 16, 2003, 07:23: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob · #**278** March 16th, 2003, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Those are some confusing to read Posts.

quote:
No, it is not just semantics. The term "Aggressor" is not soft and cuddly which is why it is being used. And many people associate aggressiveness with some form of evilness.

Semantics has nothing to to with softness or cuddliness. It has everthing to do with semantics. They say aggressor for (wrong) reasons.

Fyron words communicate both thoughts and feelintgs.

There is a world of difference between "You are a stubborn, jackassed mule" and "You are a very determined person."

Think about it and you will realize they both mean the same thing. What is different is their emotional content which in this case has to do with the proponents opinion of the person in question (not very good in the first, somewhat neutral in the second).

Similarly "aggressor" and "attacker" mean the same think but the the emotional content is different.

Now you think it is for the wrong reasons, but they think it is for the right reasons.

Just because you say it is for the wrong reasons does not, ipso facto, make it the wrong reason.

tbontob · #**279** March 16th, 2003, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QB]

quote:
And ignorance is also not the issue. Once you are tagged with being "evil", it takes a lot of work to change it.

Yes it is. It is the ignorance of the people using such terms that causes this. They do not see the whole picture; they do not know what they are talking about. They are ignorant of the whole situation. This is why they brand the US as evil.

QB]

No, it is you who is implying that ignorance is the issue and then dismiss it as not being relevant. Ignorant or not, Bush and the American people are starting to be tagged as "evil". That is the issue and most people would say this is not a good thing.

Fyron · #**280** March 16th, 2003, 09:47 AM

Umm... please reread what I posted. I never said anything about relevancy.

Quote:

Fyron words communicate both thoughts and feelintgs.

I never said they didn't.