M
Mon Mon
Guest
I think we should go reguardless of the UN but how about you guys what are yours
Regardless of what we think I believe our president is going to do it anyways. 
While were still chasing some idiot from cave to cave in afghanistan then going to war in Iraq I just hope we have enough troops to help patrol and control our home land. I'd hate to be a sitting target for some other organization to come in when all of our men/women are out. I guess it comes down to you must protect your own property then.
While were still chasing some idiot from cave to cave in afghanistan then going to war in Iraq I just hope we have enough troops to help patrol and control our home land. I'd hate to be a sitting target for some other organization to come in when all of our men/women are out. I guess it comes down to you must protect your own property then.
Tell me why we need to send our men and women to fight and die...then I can better answer the question.
Boogiemen, financial greed, and 'cuz I said so' or 'hes a baaaad mans' just aint good enough.
I have yet to see a good reason to goto war against Iraq. That said, I'm reminded when watching the UN of something Mr. Chamberlin said "I believe it is peace in our time."
He was wrong.
Funny thing is....the last major warmongering moron to wage a multi front globial war ended up blowing his brains out in a bunker in a shattered capital, with the world allied against him....and his cronies danced on air.
Hope this one turns out better.
Boogiemen, financial greed, and 'cuz I said so' or 'hes a baaaad mans' just aint good enough.
I have yet to see a good reason to goto war against Iraq. That said, I'm reminded when watching the UN of something Mr. Chamberlin said "I believe it is peace in our time."
He was wrong.
Funny thing is....the last major warmongering moron to wage a multi front globial war ended up blowing his brains out in a bunker in a shattered capital, with the world allied against him....and his cronies danced on air.
Hope this one turns out better.
S
sweeper
Guest
last major warmongering moron to wage a multi front globial war had now trade because he had no navy and had a world against him. We aren't there yet 
.
I don't think we should go in without a reason, we have no reason that I am aware of.
.I don't think we should go in without a reason, we have no reason that I am aware of.
K
Kirk
Guest
I think we DO have reason. There's a sect of muslims out there,
(*****e sp?) that just flat out hate us. And they will attack us, over
and over again, in similar fashions to that of 9-11. HOWEVER ...
something just doesn't click here. There's plenty of other
countries out there that hate us too, and they've flat out admitted
to having weapons of mass destruction (e.g. Pakistan, India,
N. Korea). Yet we're doing nothing about those countries?
Something just doesn't jive. During the bay of pigs, kennedy
released blatant evidence to the American people of the nukes
being planted there. So far, what I've personally seen in the
news is:
1) They have weapons of mass destruction!!!
We said "lets see the proof" ... we said, "lets see the proof that
they DON'T!
2) If they don't have them, then let the UN inspectors back in.
They did.
Couldn't find anything, and now it's 3) they have them .. but umm... they keep moving them, yeah,
that's the ticket!
I foresee problems with a multitude of Arabic countries. (And if
you read foreign news, they claim that we're loathed so strongly
by them because we support and protect Isreal.) They'll hate us
for decades to come, and they will attack for decades to come.
In that case, I see no other option than the best defense is a
good offense. But I'm not buying the crap we're being told. I
don't even believe that our government is going to war, because
they're eliminating a terroristic threat. I also don't believe that
the UN is a governing body over the U.S. Sure, you need foreign
favor, but not 100% of it.
K
Kirk
Guest
Oh yeah ... in my eyes, the last war mongering done was done
by this country, and ended the cold war.
by this country, and ended the cold war.
People say "If you hate it here so much, leave." They miss the point that its not that I hate it here, but I in fact LOVE it here.
It is our duty as citizens to question our government. To demand justification and explaination of its actions. And, when we do not get that, to change that government to one that lives up to its promise to follow the will of the people.
Mr. Bush swore on a christian bible the following oath:
"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Each congressman and woman swore this oath:
"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
The problem is, most people would rather not get involved, so the systems broken. When less than half the able to vote population says 'f-it' theres a problem.
I do not believe that there is just cause to wage a war against Iraq -at this moment-.
-The inspectors have found diddly.
-The world as a whole is -against- this war.
-There are other more serious issues that need attention: (The economy and N. Korea for example)
-GB has offered "We The People" no real tangible, will hold up in court reason for this war.
-The military has free reign to go nuclear...not in responce, but right away. Do it first, is the new mantra. They have also anounced the end of the 'no one gets left behind' policy. BOth are radical departures to past policies that made us different from 'them'.
Sadly, the stupidity of the sheep currently in office handed GW the power to do what he wants, WITHOUT! the checks and balances that used to be in place. G.Bush Sr. needed congressional permission to start the Gulf War. Jr. just needs to say "go."
9-11 changed many things...the checks and balances to prevent major abuses of power were one of those victims.
:asian:
It is our duty as citizens to question our government. To demand justification and explaination of its actions. And, when we do not get that, to change that government to one that lives up to its promise to follow the will of the people.
Mr. Bush swore on a christian bible the following oath:
"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Each congressman and woman swore this oath:
"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
The problem is, most people would rather not get involved, so the systems broken. When less than half the able to vote population says 'f-it' theres a problem.
I do not believe that there is just cause to wage a war against Iraq -at this moment-.
-The inspectors have found diddly.
-The world as a whole is -against- this war.
-There are other more serious issues that need attention: (The economy and N. Korea for example)
-GB has offered "We The People" no real tangible, will hold up in court reason for this war.
-The military has free reign to go nuclear...not in responce, but right away. Do it first, is the new mantra. They have also anounced the end of the 'no one gets left behind' policy. BOth are radical departures to past policies that made us different from 'them'.
Sadly, the stupidity of the sheep currently in office handed GW the power to do what he wants, WITHOUT! the checks and balances that used to be in place. G.Bush Sr. needed congressional permission to start the Gulf War. Jr. just needs to say "go."
9-11 changed many things...the checks and balances to prevent major abuses of power were one of those victims.
I tend to agree with this.
:asian:
Some thoughts to consider...
True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes strong than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson
I do not like broccoli. And I haven't liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. And I'm President of the United States and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli.
George Bush
True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes strong than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson
I do not like broccoli. And I haven't liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. And I'm President of the United States and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli.
George Bush
This is the bottom line. So Damn Insane stated that he supports terrorism on the US, he will continue to support terrorism on the US, and that he will reward terrorism on the US. Yes, as Americans we have a "right to know", but damn it people, you/we DO NOT have the right to know everything. Saddam gets his frigging intelligence from CNN, and you know what? They tell him EVERYTHING he needs to know. That kind of abject stupidity is going to cost a lot of American lives. The last moron to fight on multifronts? I love that reference to Hitler. First of all, I am a Jew and despise the very thought of Hitler. Unfortunately, had Hitler not lost his sanity, he probably would have been successful, the man had a a genius level IQ. Second, THE US was fighting on SEVERAL fronts during WWII. You can break it down to 2, if you want, Europe and Asia. The way I see it, it isn't an issue of whether we go kick the stuffing out of Iraq again or not, it is an issue of whether or not we are going to finish what we started. Excuse me, but we haven't finished anything since V.J. day. 12 years ago, my buddies and I were the fresh faced kids either joining up or being sent over to Iraq, today they are the veteran leaders and I am bitter about my service 12 years ago. I am not bitter about serving, I am bitter about how we were NOT led. We were given a job and told to do it, and when it looked like we were going to succeed, we were told not to do it by the US Congress. What was I doing? Besides law enforcement and Search & Rescue, I was training counter terrorist tactics to the reservist that were being activated. The middle-east has been a hot bed of political controversy for the past 50 years. How many countries over there have NOT supported terrorist or other attacks on US citizens? Last time we went over to kick Saddam out of Kuwait at their request. Saudi Arabia asked us to defend them, and then gave us a bunch of rules, that we followed. Do I think we are justified, yes. Do I think we need UN approval? No. We support the UN and if it were not for us, it would have folded a LONG time ago.
Seig, you make alot of good points. I think it should have ended in the last war, but like so many other cluster-fraks, things were screwed up by the polititians.
Why the Hitler reference? Because. Because I hear our government saying the -exact- same things that were said in 1938 and 1939 by a certain German leader. Because a good number of people around the world view the US as nothing more than a global bully, who uses its military to promote the corporate agenda.
As to Sadamy being kept in the dark, I doubt it. Its kinda hard to hide the 150,000+ troop we've moved into the region, the growing number of warships and aircraft arriving. He knows we are going to attack. The only thing he does not know is the time and date and location of the first strike. You and I don't need to know that. We do not need to know -anything- that will cause a problem for the military operation. In all honesty, and all seriousness, we dont need 150,000 troops. We need a team of modern day ninjas (not in the pajamas) to infiltrate and then remove Saddam and his higher ups.
What we need is the knowledge that this is in fact right. Tell me there is proof...not that its suspected. I suspect my nephew of stealing a couple of bucks from me, should I spank him without proof? If not, then without proof, why should we ask our warriors to die?
I don't deny Sadamy is an evil SOB who should be taken out. But then again, so are the N. Koreans, the Chinese, the Iranians, our old buddy Col. Kadafy Duck, and about 20 other SOBS. Are we gonna go after all of them too?
The other thing I would like to know is, once we win, then what? Does this administration which has no clue on how to fix the problems at home, have a plan to fix things over there so that we don't instead create 200 or 2000 or 20,000 Osama bin Laddens? Are we going to allow the military to finish the job, or will the polititans yet again stop short of finishing the job like they have so many times before?
Do I support a war against Iraq?
No. Not without proof. Suspicion is not enough. We had proof in the last war. We had proof in Afghanastan. We must have proof here too. Show us the proof, and my support will be 100%.
To anyone still reading.
These are -my- opinions. They are not 'Official MT position'. I have my own position on things, and you have yours. Please, do not hesitate to share your own if you so wish. I will sometimes throw out a few quotes, or radical comments to provoke thought. Some of these comments may (will) be controversial. See them for what they are, something to think about, not neccessarily what I see as the 'truth'. Thank you. :asian:
Why the Hitler reference? Because. Because I hear our government saying the -exact- same things that were said in 1938 and 1939 by a certain German leader. Because a good number of people around the world view the US as nothing more than a global bully, who uses its military to promote the corporate agenda.
As to Sadamy being kept in the dark, I doubt it. Its kinda hard to hide the 150,000+ troop we've moved into the region, the growing number of warships and aircraft arriving. He knows we are going to attack. The only thing he does not know is the time and date and location of the first strike. You and I don't need to know that. We do not need to know -anything- that will cause a problem for the military operation. In all honesty, and all seriousness, we dont need 150,000 troops. We need a team of modern day ninjas (not in the pajamas) to infiltrate and then remove Saddam and his higher ups.
What we need is the knowledge that this is in fact right. Tell me there is proof...not that its suspected. I suspect my nephew of stealing a couple of bucks from me, should I spank him without proof? If not, then without proof, why should we ask our warriors to die?
I don't deny Sadamy is an evil SOB who should be taken out. But then again, so are the N. Koreans, the Chinese, the Iranians, our old buddy Col. Kadafy Duck, and about 20 other SOBS. Are we gonna go after all of them too?
The other thing I would like to know is, once we win, then what? Does this administration which has no clue on how to fix the problems at home, have a plan to fix things over there so that we don't instead create 200 or 2000 or 20,000 Osama bin Laddens? Are we going to allow the military to finish the job, or will the polititans yet again stop short of finishing the job like they have so many times before?
Do I support a war against Iraq?
No. Not without proof. Suspicion is not enough. We had proof in the last war. We had proof in Afghanastan. We must have proof here too. Show us the proof, and my support will be 100%.
To anyone still reading.
These are -my- opinions. They are not 'Official MT position'. I have my own position on things, and you have yours. Please, do not hesitate to share your own if you so wish. I will sometimes throw out a few quotes, or radical comments to provoke thought. Some of these comments may (will) be controversial. See them for what they are, something to think about, not neccessarily what I see as the 'truth'. Thank you. :asian:
E
Elfan
Guest
The poll question confuses me. Are you asking if the US needs a UN fig leaf/permision to cover a war? Or if the US should attach Iraq? or something else...
Is that meant as a reference to Iraq or another country? Iraq is a secular state that had a war *against* Islamic fundamentalists in the 1980s. Just wanted to clear up what you meant.
Is that meant as a reference to Iraq or another country? Iraq is a secular state that had a war *against* Islamic fundamentalists in the 1980s. Just wanted to clear up what you meant.
S
sweeper
Guest
Sadam has said he supported terrorism against the US since the gulf war. He actualy sent terrorists aorund the world to attack US targets, they all failed.. if that is the limit of the thret why didn't we hit him in the 90s?
knowing that sadam has wepaons of mass destruction probably would not greatly alter our strategy in the gulf, and as such him knowing we know wouldn't help him.
Bottom line in my opinion is there is no presented evidence that there is a reason to attack iraq (any greater than there has been a reason in the past or there is a reason to attack any number of other nations). And I don't trust our leaders saying that they have evidence yet not presenting any. If they did have evidence they would get near 100% support of this war, that would be worth to much t pass up.
As to arab nations not likeing the US because of how we support israel.. maybe if we supported them also they wouldn't hate us so much.. Not suggesting we should but rather there is a reason for their dislike, one wich we could change..
knowing that sadam has wepaons of mass destruction probably would not greatly alter our strategy in the gulf, and as such him knowing we know wouldn't help him.
Bottom line in my opinion is there is no presented evidence that there is a reason to attack iraq (any greater than there has been a reason in the past or there is a reason to attack any number of other nations). And I don't trust our leaders saying that they have evidence yet not presenting any. If they did have evidence they would get near 100% support of this war, that would be worth to much t pass up.
As to arab nations not likeing the US because of how we support israel.. maybe if we supported them also they wouldn't hate us so much.. Not suggesting we should but rather there is a reason for their dislike, one wich we could change..
L
lvwhitebir
Guest
OK, it's old news. The govt presented the evidence to the UN just last week.
I watched CNN over the weekend and they showed Colin Powell presenting the evidence to the UN, complete with satallite photos, human intelligence reports, and photographs. US intelligence has a lot of information that shows that Iraq not only has had the capability within the last 12 years that it is not currently accounting for, but it is circumventing the inspectors by hiding evidence and cleaning out facilities days before the inspectors arrive.
The Iraqi intelligence is also using all of its resources to spy on the inspectors, bugging their communications, and hampering their investigations.
For the past 12 years, Saddam has refused to follow the UN Resolutions. He denied the inspectors access to key areas and then kicked them out of the country. He has played the political game of refusing all the way to the line and then suddenly giving some ground. Nothing is different today, other than Pres. Bush has said enough is enough.
Iraq is a big country. With a few inspectors, it will not be easy to find a smoking gun. I'm not surprised they haven't. Hell, we have a hard enough time finding people and things in this country, and we have a large support force. If we know he has had the capability in the last 12 years, it is his responsibility to show what was done with the technology. He's not. He's pretty much denying he ever had it.
There is evidence that terrorists are hiding within his country and are training and receiving assistance from that government.
I personally don't want a war, but don't see what choice we have except to invade, unless he opens up. I'm all for a political solution, but Saddam plays games in that realm.
We could ignore him, but how does that help the war against terrorists? Terrorists could gain valuable training and weapons from him: conventional, biological, and nuclear. And you know who's going to be targetted. We've already tried the embargo deal, but technology and terrorists still slipped through.
OK, we try diplomacy. We've tried that since 1991. Where do we draw the line and say, that's it, we tried and he's not cooperating?
WhiteBirch
I like George H Bush.
I tolerate George W. Bush.
As for the Gulf War, well to support Seig, it was really Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm, I do not know of an actual declaration of War by Congress.
As Kaith and Others pointed out, in the 'Gulf War', Neither the U.S. Congress nor the U.N. Gave the U.S. Military and its' allies the authority to take Iraq. Just free Kuwait.
As for helping the Arab nations, the U.S. does help our Middle East Friends, both the IsraeliÂ’s and the Arabs. To day the best built Main Battle Tank is U.S. Made and is sold to the KuwaitiÂ’s and the Saudi's as well. As well as many of our Fighter Planes.
As for the Proof, I see that White Birch has related the Colin Powell Report to the U.N. This is good, yet, realize that this is what was presented to the U.N. to show why we ( Executive portion of the Government ) believe that it is imperative to take action.
I wish I could say more about things, yet a promise is a promise.
As for the Chinese, they have stolen secrets and they have built weapons of mass destruction, yet they have not sent death squads or other attacks after U.S. Tourists or our country. The Chinese just want to make their own ways, and currently those in power have chosen Communism. The best way to handle the Chinese, in my opinion is the way of economics. Our U.S Government and the Chinese Government has opened up economic reform and allowed companies from the west in to market to the Chinese. Note: The local companies have to be at least 50% owned by locals. One of the first large products were cars from the U.S. The demand is higher than ever imagined. Previously Chinese Law did not allow for cars to be purchased on credit. Yet, to keep all those people working they need to sell cars. To sell those cars, they took the Henry Ford Model and instituted a credit program.
As for the N. Koreans, they are very dangerous, and could or have sold weapons or weapon grade uranium on the open market. Were that originally got the capability is another long discussion. The N. Koreans main goal is the re-uniting of North and South, even though many in the south do not wish it so.
As for 'Kadafy Duck', he has been a threat and should be on a major watch list, and proof can be found, he should be taken out. Yet, we have found it hard to go into these Desert countries and infiltrate and strategically take out certain targets to avoid collateral damage. This seems to be true with Afghanistan as well.
As for Sadam, there have been things about him and his country that has not made the general public, even with the great coverage by CNN. Yet, with the U.N. Debriefing we now know that there are cell phone calls and tapping and bait and switch, and whole manufacturing sites moved.
Now for my overall opinion
I support the U.S. Constitution without have to swear an oath. I think it is the best form of Government out there. It allows for people to express themselves, and for the document it self to be amended. This allows for growth and change.
As long as we have a view of only belonging to this country or that, or this religion or to that one, then there will be major differences, that result in friction to the point of military action. The point of the League of Nations and the successor the U.N. is to try to create a place for these differences to be aired with respect. The U.N. is a very weak Confederation that allows it members to follow the resolutions if they so wish too. If they do not wish too, then they are not in the U.N. or the rest of the U.N. has the option of taking action against them.
So, if the U.N. had sovereign power/authority over it's members then there would be a difference. The problem is that the small countries believe today that they do not get a big enough voice. Currently the U.S.A. is the Big boy in the block and s called upon to support the enforcement of the U.N. Resolutions. Our Allies do assist either with money or troops of their own, so it is not always the U.S.A alone. Just we are the biggest. As for the money, some of our allies still have not paid all of their support money to the U.S.A. Yet, we have not gone after them. Why?
They are our allies and not threaten to upset the world economy, by not repaying us. These other countries we 'target' have expressed a great dislike of the U.S.A. and would like to disrupt our economy and out the worlds as well. If you look at it from a certain point of view I can see why. They live in what we would call another time, with little modern conveniences. They just wish for us to be just like them, so as not to be a threat to their culture and way of life. Sound Familiar?
Yes or No? Do we go? Personally I think the U.S.A. should wait for the support of the U.N. and or the support of the U.S. Congress, and not just the President. This expresses that either most of this country supports these actions, or most of the planet supports these actions.
Respects
I tolerate George W. Bush.
As for the Gulf War, well to support Seig, it was really Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm, I do not know of an actual declaration of War by Congress.
As Kaith and Others pointed out, in the 'Gulf War', Neither the U.S. Congress nor the U.N. Gave the U.S. Military and its' allies the authority to take Iraq. Just free Kuwait.
As for helping the Arab nations, the U.S. does help our Middle East Friends, both the IsraeliÂ’s and the Arabs. To day the best built Main Battle Tank is U.S. Made and is sold to the KuwaitiÂ’s and the Saudi's as well. As well as many of our Fighter Planes.
As for the Proof, I see that White Birch has related the Colin Powell Report to the U.N. This is good, yet, realize that this is what was presented to the U.N. to show why we ( Executive portion of the Government ) believe that it is imperative to take action.
I wish I could say more about things, yet a promise is a promise.
As for the Chinese, they have stolen secrets and they have built weapons of mass destruction, yet they have not sent death squads or other attacks after U.S. Tourists or our country. The Chinese just want to make their own ways, and currently those in power have chosen Communism. The best way to handle the Chinese, in my opinion is the way of economics. Our U.S Government and the Chinese Government has opened up economic reform and allowed companies from the west in to market to the Chinese. Note: The local companies have to be at least 50% owned by locals. One of the first large products were cars from the U.S. The demand is higher than ever imagined. Previously Chinese Law did not allow for cars to be purchased on credit. Yet, to keep all those people working they need to sell cars. To sell those cars, they took the Henry Ford Model and instituted a credit program.
As for the N. Koreans, they are very dangerous, and could or have sold weapons or weapon grade uranium on the open market. Were that originally got the capability is another long discussion. The N. Koreans main goal is the re-uniting of North and South, even though many in the south do not wish it so.
As for 'Kadafy Duck', he has been a threat and should be on a major watch list, and proof can be found, he should be taken out. Yet, we have found it hard to go into these Desert countries and infiltrate and strategically take out certain targets to avoid collateral damage. This seems to be true with Afghanistan as well.
As for Sadam, there have been things about him and his country that has not made the general public, even with the great coverage by CNN. Yet, with the U.N. Debriefing we now know that there are cell phone calls and tapping and bait and switch, and whole manufacturing sites moved.
Now for my overall opinion
I support the U.S. Constitution without have to swear an oath. I think it is the best form of Government out there. It allows for people to express themselves, and for the document it self to be amended. This allows for growth and change.
As long as we have a view of only belonging to this country or that, or this religion or to that one, then there will be major differences, that result in friction to the point of military action. The point of the League of Nations and the successor the U.N. is to try to create a place for these differences to be aired with respect. The U.N. is a very weak Confederation that allows it members to follow the resolutions if they so wish too. If they do not wish too, then they are not in the U.N. or the rest of the U.N. has the option of taking action against them.
So, if the U.N. had sovereign power/authority over it's members then there would be a difference. The problem is that the small countries believe today that they do not get a big enough voice. Currently the U.S.A. is the Big boy in the block and s called upon to support the enforcement of the U.N. Resolutions. Our Allies do assist either with money or troops of their own, so it is not always the U.S.A alone. Just we are the biggest. As for the money, some of our allies still have not paid all of their support money to the U.S.A. Yet, we have not gone after them. Why?
They are our allies and not threaten to upset the world economy, by not repaying us. These other countries we 'target' have expressed a great dislike of the U.S.A. and would like to disrupt our economy and out the worlds as well. If you look at it from a certain point of view I can see why. They live in what we would call another time, with little modern conveniences. They just wish for us to be just like them, so as not to be a threat to their culture and way of life. Sound Familiar?
Yes or No? Do we go? Personally I think the U.S.A. should wait for the support of the U.N. and or the support of the U.S. Congress, and not just the President. This expresses that either most of this country supports these actions, or most of the planet supports these actions.
Respects
S
sweeper
Guest
lvwhitebir, I know they have had the capability in the past, I think I talked about that on another one of these threds.
"There is evidence that terrorists are hiding within his country and are training and receiving assistance from that government."
I wans't aware of this, could you direct me twards such information? just CNN.com ?
as to the gulf war thing, people just cal it that, like the vietnam war and the korean war.
"There is evidence that terrorists are hiding within his country and are training and receiving assistance from that government."
I wans't aware of this, could you direct me twards such information? just CNN.com ?
as to the gulf war thing, people just cal it that, like the vietnam war and the korean war.
Sweeper,
As to the Korean / Vietnam and the Gulf War's I have to agree. It is what people call them. Any time to countries have physical conflict it should be defined as a war. I was only trying to make a point that there are shades of gray when talking about this for the Government.
No Disrespect to any man or woman who served their country in these or any conflict.
L
lvwhitebir
Guest
I actually got that information from Colin Powell's briefing to the UN. He said that we have knowledge of a specific terrorist being in his country and asked a friendly service (friendly to whom I didn't get) to ask Iraq to catch him. We even supposedly provided information which would make it easy to catch him. They denied he was even there.
Here are some CNN articles on the subject:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/06/sprj.irq.powell.world.reax/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.key.points.txt/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.case.against.saddam/
Bush told the U.N. General Assembly in September that al Qaeda operatives are now in Iraq and warned that Saddam could provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
And recently the administation said al Qaeda members have been in Baghdad seeking training in biological and chemical weapons and to discuss safe haven opportunities in Iraq.
"We certainly have evidence of senior al Qaeda who have been in Baghdad in recent periods," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The article cited also links activities seen in Iraq to post-WW1 Germany.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/timep.bush.iraq.tm/index.html
When it was over, Powell had done about as much as any member of the Administration could to convince the world that Saddam was cheating the inspectors, hiding weapons of mass destruction, maneuvering to acquire nuclear weapons and in league with terrorists from al-Qaeda.
The difficulty is this: lots of people already knew that or at least suspected it. The issue is what to do now and how to make the case for war. As a senior diplomat at the U.N. said, "The Security Council is not arguing about whether Iraq is cooperating with the inspectors. Everyone but the Syrians acknowledges that it is not. The question is, Should we go to war?" Neither the Security Council nor the American public have answered that question unambiguously in the affirmative.
WhiteBirch
An Article about N. Korea
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...20030212/ap_on_go_co/us_north_korea_missile_9
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...20030212/ap_on_go_co/us_north_korea_missile_9
C
Cliarlaoch
Guest
Alright, here comes the tirade:
:soapbox:
I don't know what to do with Iraq... I find it kind of strange that Bush is concentrating so much on this one dictator when the whole world's chock full of them.
My main problem with any invasion of Iraq comes from fears of gung-ho solutions... I don't think just bombing the spit out of the country's going to solve anything. The economic sanctions that have been leveled on that country have destroyed its entire economy. They have enough problem making bread, much less bombs. If you want to fix Iraq, you've got to remove the sanctions, you've got to get new institutions in there that rebuild its economy. And then there's Saddam Hussein. I do think he needs to be removed. I don't know how, but I don't know if the polits back in office in D.C. are willing or capable of making the choice to remove a person from power in another country. It's the moral thing to do, sure, but it violates every international law we've got. That's half the problem. (And by the way, don't think I'm justifying international law unconditionally, here... I've got my own problems with a system that allows folks like Hussein to have power unchecked)
The other half is, how do we justify a war against a country for the sole purpose of removing one man? Can we justify however many thousand people are going to be MURDERED because we can't stand Saddam? I've seen enough evidence from independent news sources about how bad things got the first time the world attacked Iraq. It wasn't pretty. No criticism of the people living in the US or working in its various military bodies, they were "just doing their job," but there were an awful lot of innocent civilians who got killed. Maybe it's time we start questioning WHY it is the U.S. Government wants this war, when it seems that an increasing number of American CITIZENS don't want anything to do with it. Then there's the fact that most of the US's primary allies want nothing to do with this war for various reasons. I guarantee that Germany isn't going to support the war, nor will France.
So why a war in Iraq? To take coverage off Bush's mismanagement of the US economy? To win oil (the old standard of the left's case against the war)? To settle an old family feud? Why just Iraq? The honest answer I've got is, I don't know. I can't for the life of me understand how or why Bush thinks this is justifiable.
On another note, I can't trust CNN. They don't operate based on the interests of the people of the US, nor do they operate on the basis of the good of humanity. They have to get advertisement, and to do so, they support a view of public policy that is SKEWED toward corporate and elite agendas. If you think I'm bulling you all on this, read "Understanding Power" or "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky. It's all there. Maybe it's just that I'm somewhat skeptical, but I do not and cannot trust information that is given to me by a source that is based in one side of a conflict. Of course they're going to be biased toward their own side, and that doesn't help me decide what is the best way to deal with the issue.
I realize all this seems somewhat like a tangential argument, but the truth is, I DON'T TRUST what I'm being fed by Bush's administration. It doesn't sit right with me, and the evidence from Powell wasn't exactly a smoking gun. For that, I need to see pictures of the bombs, the nukes, the missiles, etc. Give me that, and I'll support a war.
My point in raising all these rather radical ideas is that I feel we have to question what's going on. Kaith said it as well as I can, in that it is our civic responsibility, and our moral responsibility as human beings, to question the decisions of those in power. We must make sure that we do not take a course of action that could kill innocent people, or that could cause more damage than good.
And as to the whole "Hitler" issue, I find it somewhat ironic that Bush is labelling Hussein as the new Hitler, when he's the one invading people and using scapegoating to stir up war. I'd also question the idea that the rest of the world "hates" the US. Sure, some do, some don't, but if they do, perhaps instead of bombing the snuff out of some country that already hates us, the West should start questioning why it is that the rest of the world "hates" the West. The West has had a long history of forcing itself on the rest of the world, both economically and socially. Maybe we in the US and Canada ought to think about whether or not we have the right to stick our noses in other people's business. Let's not forget that Osama bin Laden and Saddamn Hussein were trained, financed, and supported by the good old U.S. of A's government. Is it any real wonder that, once they were done fighting off our Cold War opponents, they continued to do what they were trained to do (i.e., fight off foreign invaders)? This time, we're the invaders. I find no moral justification for invading a country because we're upset that the monsters WE created have come back to bite the hand that fed them. If we want to fix things, then maybe we should stop training said monsters, and stop supporting their actions. The US's military industrial complex sold weapons to the Germans in WWII, for crying out loud, during the middle of the war!!! It's the same thing here.
I say, no more guns to foreign countries. No more tanks to people who are going to use them to murder civilians. No more bombs to people who are going to use them to commit suicide attacks. Enough is enough. Once the West does that, I can say that our hands are clean enough to remove a dictator from power by force... but even then, only if all other options are exhausted.
If we're going to be moral and noble, we'd better bloody well do it honestly.
--Cliarlaoch
PS: I realize this little rant of mine has probably pissed a few people off, however, I will not apologize for it. I respect the right of others to say what they feel, and I ask the same from them in exchange. In so doing, I recognize that some people are going to have a completely different point of view from mine that may offend me, and vice-versa. But if we're going to claim to believe in free speech and in the right to believe in what we choose... well, then we'd better be willing to be offended. Good day, all.
PPS: Never invite a politics student to argue with you... you end up with a rant.
:soapbox:
I don't know what to do with Iraq... I find it kind of strange that Bush is concentrating so much on this one dictator when the whole world's chock full of them.
My main problem with any invasion of Iraq comes from fears of gung-ho solutions... I don't think just bombing the spit out of the country's going to solve anything. The economic sanctions that have been leveled on that country have destroyed its entire economy. They have enough problem making bread, much less bombs. If you want to fix Iraq, you've got to remove the sanctions, you've got to get new institutions in there that rebuild its economy. And then there's Saddam Hussein. I do think he needs to be removed. I don't know how, but I don't know if the polits back in office in D.C. are willing or capable of making the choice to remove a person from power in another country. It's the moral thing to do, sure, but it violates every international law we've got. That's half the problem. (And by the way, don't think I'm justifying international law unconditionally, here... I've got my own problems with a system that allows folks like Hussein to have power unchecked)
The other half is, how do we justify a war against a country for the sole purpose of removing one man? Can we justify however many thousand people are going to be MURDERED because we can't stand Saddam? I've seen enough evidence from independent news sources about how bad things got the first time the world attacked Iraq. It wasn't pretty. No criticism of the people living in the US or working in its various military bodies, they were "just doing their job," but there were an awful lot of innocent civilians who got killed. Maybe it's time we start questioning WHY it is the U.S. Government wants this war, when it seems that an increasing number of American CITIZENS don't want anything to do with it. Then there's the fact that most of the US's primary allies want nothing to do with this war for various reasons. I guarantee that Germany isn't going to support the war, nor will France.
So why a war in Iraq? To take coverage off Bush's mismanagement of the US economy? To win oil (the old standard of the left's case against the war)? To settle an old family feud? Why just Iraq? The honest answer I've got is, I don't know. I can't for the life of me understand how or why Bush thinks this is justifiable.
On another note, I can't trust CNN. They don't operate based on the interests of the people of the US, nor do they operate on the basis of the good of humanity. They have to get advertisement, and to do so, they support a view of public policy that is SKEWED toward corporate and elite agendas. If you think I'm bulling you all on this, read "Understanding Power" or "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky. It's all there. Maybe it's just that I'm somewhat skeptical, but I do not and cannot trust information that is given to me by a source that is based in one side of a conflict. Of course they're going to be biased toward their own side, and that doesn't help me decide what is the best way to deal with the issue.
I realize all this seems somewhat like a tangential argument, but the truth is, I DON'T TRUST what I'm being fed by Bush's administration. It doesn't sit right with me, and the evidence from Powell wasn't exactly a smoking gun. For that, I need to see pictures of the bombs, the nukes, the missiles, etc. Give me that, and I'll support a war.
My point in raising all these rather radical ideas is that I feel we have to question what's going on. Kaith said it as well as I can, in that it is our civic responsibility, and our moral responsibility as human beings, to question the decisions of those in power. We must make sure that we do not take a course of action that could kill innocent people, or that could cause more damage than good.
And as to the whole "Hitler" issue, I find it somewhat ironic that Bush is labelling Hussein as the new Hitler, when he's the one invading people and using scapegoating to stir up war. I'd also question the idea that the rest of the world "hates" the US. Sure, some do, some don't, but if they do, perhaps instead of bombing the snuff out of some country that already hates us, the West should start questioning why it is that the rest of the world "hates" the West. The West has had a long history of forcing itself on the rest of the world, both economically and socially. Maybe we in the US and Canada ought to think about whether or not we have the right to stick our noses in other people's business. Let's not forget that Osama bin Laden and Saddamn Hussein were trained, financed, and supported by the good old U.S. of A's government. Is it any real wonder that, once they were done fighting off our Cold War opponents, they continued to do what they were trained to do (i.e., fight off foreign invaders)? This time, we're the invaders. I find no moral justification for invading a country because we're upset that the monsters WE created have come back to bite the hand that fed them. If we want to fix things, then maybe we should stop training said monsters, and stop supporting their actions. The US's military industrial complex sold weapons to the Germans in WWII, for crying out loud, during the middle of the war!!! It's the same thing here.
I say, no more guns to foreign countries. No more tanks to people who are going to use them to murder civilians. No more bombs to people who are going to use them to commit suicide attacks. Enough is enough. Once the West does that, I can say that our hands are clean enough to remove a dictator from power by force... but even then, only if all other options are exhausted.
If we're going to be moral and noble, we'd better bloody well do it honestly.
--Cliarlaoch
PS: I realize this little rant of mine has probably pissed a few people off, however, I will not apologize for it. I respect the right of others to say what they feel, and I ask the same from them in exchange. In so doing, I recognize that some people are going to have a completely different point of view from mine that may offend me, and vice-versa. But if we're going to claim to believe in free speech and in the right to believe in what we choose... well, then we'd better be willing to be offended. Good day, all.
PPS: Never invite a politics student to argue with you... you end up with a rant.
Similar threads
- Locked
