SkankinMonkey
Established Member
So when does the US need to disarm? It's more of a threat to the world than any other country than I can see right now.
Why I think War with Iraq Is justifiable
- Thread starter Lyzel
- Start date
Didn't you know Saddam's not an Islamist, which is precisely the reason the US backed him against Iran? Of course now he's made a token conversion for political reasons, a bit like every western leader make themselves out as such pious christians. [/b][/quote]
That comment was NOT about Iraq. It was regarding the terrorists, aka osama bin ladin.
Yes, well obviously I misread you when you call me a pussy...funny that.
Since I'm sick of giving you a long version of my thought and feelings, I'll just give a few short things to respond to.
Why are you so eager to see Iraq attacked? What is in it for you? What gives America the right to invade another country? Saddam has WMD. America has WMD. There is no link between terrorism and Iraq at this time.
Since I'm sick of giving you a long version of my thought and feelings, I'll just give a few short things to respond to.
Why are you so eager to see Iraq attacked? What is in it for you? What gives America the right to invade another country? Saddam has WMD. America has WMD. There is no link between terrorism and Iraq at this time.
Yeah. I still don't see 'why now'. Yes, twelve years, I know. But what's he done in 12 years? Built up weapons. Used them on US interests? Unless there's some revelation and Iraq is indeed involved with Al Qaeda, then probably not.
But, in all due fairness, if there wasn't a link between Iraq and terrorists, there shortly will be. And I mean, Saddam doesn't have the kind of money or firepower the US totes... he's going to extract some measure of revenge.
In fairness to Lyzel, I don't see how he can explain his eagerness, since Bush himself still really hasn't given any sort of indication.
Now you are sounding selfish...
How dare you believe that only you should have the choice for freedom. You should be glad that YOU are able to express your views against your government without getting punished or KILLED for it. The Iraqi people do not have the glamour, options that you and me both have. If they were to try to remove Saddam Hussen from office, their mothers, daughters, etc would be raped or killed in retaliation. Once Saddam Hussen killed one of his deputies after he recommended Saddam Hussen leave the country.
That's why I'm so eager. I'm eager to see a better Iraq. a PEACEFUL Iraq. Where Iraq is THE people, NOT Saddam Hussen. And they have their freedom.
There are no comparision between Iraq & the US. The US has done more for ANY country than anyone else, including YOURS. What has Australia done?? Your reasoning is selfish, and jealousy.
Believing that the best way of confronting a problem is to hide, is what a pussy would do. If you haven't yet realized it, being a pussy is basically being a coward.
That'd be fine and dandy if that's why we were going there. But it isn't. Or, now it is (sorta), because we have to give a reason for something.
In any event, it's a nice sentiment that it'll be a peaceful Iraq once we take out Saddam. You know, technically, that was supposed to be the case in Afghanistan. Sure doesn't look that way. Ironically, the Taliban WAS a source of peace in Afg. If you think replacing Saddam with a US chosen leader will bring peace to Iraq, you're living in some fantasy world. His rise to power would be fake; he'd be a puppet to U.S. interests. Saddam rose to power at a fairly young age - he claimed the power through means that could only command the respect of his people. He's maintained that power for a very long time - we US'ers would like to think his people hate him - but you'd be pretty surprised how they rally around him. They rallied around him in 92, again in 95-96 when we started talking about taking out Saddam again, and they're doing it now.
It's becoming pretty clear how people are analysing the situation - I think it's very important to stress that these Iraqis are people (not simply a stagnant entity), who view themselves and the world around them much differently than we do. To judge the plight of the Iraqi people though the eyes of an American is borne of ignorance and short-sightedness (no pun intended). Essentially, believing that certain events will take place because they have some sort of logic within the US paradigm doesn't necessarily translate to Persia. And as a final though, 'to every action there's an equal and opposite reaction'.
That'd be fine and dandy if that's why we were going there. But it isn't. Or, now it is (sorta), because we have to give a reason for something.
[/b][/quote]
That is your perogative. I'm not going to argue it, because you could argue that they are going there because you were scratching your ass, right?? (sarcasm intended for those that are too slow to read that - Hehehehe
Changes do not happen within days, weeks, or months. It's still too early to say how things are in Afganistan. Afganistan is more democratic now, AND the Afghan people are in control of it. Creating their own constitution with the help of the United Nation. How you can say that's a bad thing, is beyond me. Then again, you just don't want to admit it.
Originally posted by Lyzel@Mar 18, 2003 @ 11:46 AM
That is your perogative. I'm not going to argue it, because you could argue that they are going there because you were scratching your ass, right?? (sarcasm intended for those that are too slow to read that - Hehehehe)
Changes do not happen within days, weeks, or months. It's still too early to say how things are in Afganistan. Afganistan is more democratic now, AND the Afghan people are in control of it. Creating their own constitution with the help of the United Nation. How you can say that's a bad thing, is beyond me. Then again, you just don't want to admit it.
It's nice to state an opinion is one thing. But make claims without valid information is another.
Our reasons to go to Iraq are multiple, but they are certainly not going there to liberate the Iraqi people. If that were the case, we'd be giving them the power of their oil fields; rather, Donald Rumsfield is now mentioning the kind of profits we will receive on the Iraqi oil fields as a way to offset the cost of the war.
If a warning sign hasn't gone off yet, it'd better start soon.
Now about the Afghan people, could you tell me where you're pulling this nonsense from? The results after the first week after the defeat of the Taliban? I'll tell you where the status is now - much like post Russia/pre Taliban, the warlords are having at each other again. So where's our troops? Oh right, in Iraq. In the meantime, the Brits are taking care of what we hadn't quite finished, you know, liberating the people. It's a GREAT thing to liberate people - it's quite another to bomb the fuck out of a country then not put much emphasis in rebuilding it. So Lyzel, tell me how that's a good thing! Oh wait, I forgot, I wasn't admitting something. Now what was it...
After all of this pressure about an emminent war, after Bush's speech, it alls seems useless. It feels like the Gulf War again, IMO. I was only 8 or 9 at the time but I remember the war being something far away and distant. Just something that is happening. Whether that is good or horrible feeling is up to you guys, I guess.
After all of this hullabaloo, the only thing I can gleem from it is that politicians have the most amorphous moralities known to man. Bush says we're going to war, and people are scrambling to different sides. This shouldn't be new to me, but with all the shouting going on from both sides I seem to have forgotten. I saw Sen. John McCain talking on the O'Reilly factor (which is, IMHO, a right-wing version of Bill Maher's Real sans audience) and he really looked whipped. He honestly tried to be buddy-buddy with O'Reilly and it pained him to do so. O'Reilly acted like an asshole, comme toujours. And now the French are supporting this war after all the moral polemics. Yeesh.
Lyzel, the US is not participating in these military actions for the good of other nations. It's all about the benjamins. It always has been. We have allies because they believe they'll get money out of this venture. We have opponents because they believe they won't. With the "progressive" movements that have happened over the last forty years, countries still act like countries. MTX, the Wilhelm comparison is intriguing and appropriate, I think. People often say Wilhelm entered WWI because of his deformity and inferiority complex, when it was economic motivation and the potential acquisition of power that fueled the ambition. A lot of people stand to make a lot of money off this war.
BTW.. I can't help but be reminded of the film "The Day the Earth Stood Still." In it, aliens threaten to destroy earth if we don't stop using nuclear weapons. Now, the US is threatening to annihilate Iraq if they don't stop with the nuclear weapons. Just a random thought, like everything else.
After all of this hullabaloo, the only thing I can gleem from it is that politicians have the most amorphous moralities known to man. Bush says we're going to war, and people are scrambling to different sides. This shouldn't be new to me, but with all the shouting going on from both sides I seem to have forgotten. I saw Sen. John McCain talking on the O'Reilly factor (which is, IMHO, a right-wing version of Bill Maher's Real sans audience) and he really looked whipped. He honestly tried to be buddy-buddy with O'Reilly and it pained him to do so. O'Reilly acted like an asshole, comme toujours. And now the French are supporting this war after all the moral polemics. Yeesh.
Lyzel, the US is not participating in these military actions for the good of other nations. It's all about the benjamins. It always has been. We have allies because they believe they'll get money out of this venture. We have opponents because they believe they won't. With the "progressive" movements that have happened over the last forty years, countries still act like countries. MTX, the Wilhelm comparison is intriguing and appropriate, I think. People often say Wilhelm entered WWI because of his deformity and inferiority complex, when it was economic motivation and the potential acquisition of power that fueled the ambition. A lot of people stand to make a lot of money off this war.
BTW.. I can't help but be reminded of the film "The Day the Earth Stood Still." In it, aliens threaten to destroy earth if we don't stop using nuclear weapons. Now, the US is threatening to annihilate Iraq if they don't stop with the nuclear weapons. Just a random thought, like everything else.
MTX, I don't really think anyone "liberates" people, per se. What seems like a good act is only a set up for something alterior. We technically "liberated" Panama from Columbia but come on, we wanted to make the canal. Bombing the dickens out of country isn't dandy either, but I don't think the two are as polar as one would think.
OK Lyzel, now we are getting to something other than propaganda.
Conversly, how dare you judge the needs and wants of the Iraq people by your standards. Of course I believe that every one should be given choice and freedom, but you don't think that forced choice is a little pointless? If the people of Iraq revolted and overthrew Saddam, then it might mean something. As it stands, the US appears to me - and many other world citizens - that she is using her military domainance to force situations on less powerful countries. Situations I might add, that seem to benefit the United States rather heavily. Not everyone in Iraq wants change - the reasons are many and various and do not necessarily take into account the "evilness" of one man.
Peaceful Iraq is a great idea. You are dreaming if you think an invading and occuping foreign force will create this situation. I agree, Iraq should be free, but like I said above it needs to be a freedom without the catch 22 that is US occupation.
Yes, the US has done much for a lot of countries. That has not necessarily been a good thing though. Often her motives have been somewhat questionable and the results disasterous. Vietnam was a complete shambles. The Korean War took place (admittedly I know next to nothing about this one), yet we still have a tense standoff with a nuclear power. Afganistan was a singular failure in stamping out Osama bin Laden and Al Qedea - the point, I thought. The Gulf War seems to have created, or at least failed to prevent, the current situation.
Currently Australian forces are in the fledgling nation of East Timor as part of the peace keeping force there. We are there to enforce their bid to maintain independance from former "owner" Indonesia. The people of East Timor voted to seperate from Indonesia in a referendum - violence, seemingly perpetrated by Indonesian forcess, ensued. So Australia is certainly doing its bit, under the UN banner I might add and after a formal request for help.
I am not jealous of the military power of the United States, or how she chooses to use it.
Conversly, how dare you judge the needs and wants of the Iraq people by your standards. Of course I believe that every one should be given choice and freedom, but you don't think that forced choice is a little pointless? If the people of Iraq revolted and overthrew Saddam, then it might mean something. As it stands, the US appears to me - and many other world citizens - that she is using her military domainance to force situations on less powerful countries. Situations I might add, that seem to benefit the United States rather heavily. Not everyone in Iraq wants change - the reasons are many and various and do not necessarily take into account the "evilness" of one man.
Peaceful Iraq is a great idea. You are dreaming if you think an invading and occuping foreign force will create this situation. I agree, Iraq should be free, but like I said above it needs to be a freedom without the catch 22 that is US occupation.
Yes, the US has done much for a lot of countries. That has not necessarily been a good thing though. Often her motives have been somewhat questionable and the results disasterous. Vietnam was a complete shambles. The Korean War took place (admittedly I know next to nothing about this one), yet we still have a tense standoff with a nuclear power. Afganistan was a singular failure in stamping out Osama bin Laden and Al Qedea - the point, I thought. The Gulf War seems to have created, or at least failed to prevent, the current situation.
Currently Australian forces are in the fledgling nation of East Timor as part of the peace keeping force there. We are there to enforce their bid to maintain independance from former "owner" Indonesia. The people of East Timor voted to seperate from Indonesia in a referendum - violence, seemingly perpetrated by Indonesian forcess, ensued. So Australia is certainly doing its bit, under the UN banner I might add and after a formal request for help.
I am not jealous of the military power of the United States, or how she chooses to use it.
Originally posted by Daniel Eriksson@Mar 16, 2003 @ 01:07 PM
Why not try to assasinate SaddamWe should try to discuss solutions, not problems.
I don't know how else to explain this to you without sounding like a communist.
The rich people who run our country and every other country are the ruling elite. The rest of us are all Proletarians.
To put it bluntly, the American president, the Iraqi dictator, and every other leade rint he world, views us as expendable. We can be sent to die for them anyt ime they need. They'll send nice letters back to your family saying how you died serving your country. Beyond that, you are NOTHING.
Now another elite on the other hand, they are something. Even if they're an enemy, the elites frown on killing each other. It's not "civilized" or "gentlemanly." On top of that, if people find out they had another elite assassinated, the chance of someone deciding to assassinate them would increase.
This is just the way it works. The only solution is to remove the elites from power but as we've seen before, some of the proletarians just create themselves as a new elite class (look at the Bolshaveks) and put everything into an even worse mess than it was before (the USSR).
This kind of revolt is what Marx described and reality is, it just never works.
Conclusion: we are eternally fucked until everyone decides to try anarchy for a while. (which would probably collapse into ochlocracy a.k.a. "mob rule," guess that means we really are fucked)
The only real power you have is to decide not to fight when your leader wants to and follow what you believe in. It may get you killed but what do you value more, your life or being just?
"Liberate" is the code word for "take over."
Since the days of Sumer, rulers have gone around "liberating" other lands from their oppressive rulers. Some of the greatest liberators of all time were Sargon (Akkad), Xerxes (Persia), Alexander the Great (Macedon), and Octavion (Rome). Around 500 B.C. the Athenian Greeks decided to "liberate" their other Greek neighbors.
I have a question, how benevolent does history consider those rulers?
Not very.
Now the American Empire is going on a liberation quest. I wonder how history will judge us after America collapses in another 100-200 years. And it will collapse. We're nearing the end of the lifespan for a democratic republic.
