|
Post by daSilva on Feb 6, 2003 10:23:16 GMT -5
Of the eight (shocked ) who voted no, I'm curious how many are against War and how many are just against the US?
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Feb 6, 2003 11:05:57 GMT -5
da Silva,
Of course you can disagree with me!!
Now, to retaliate (umm, maybe I should use another word?), I don't think you can compare the suicide terrorists from Palestine with Saddam using nuclear weapons on either Israel or the US. Again, and I insist on this, even Saddam can make the difference between these two, and thus understand that the answer from the US/Israel will differ. I hardly doubt the US will nuke Iraq if Saddam sends a suicide bomber with explosives around his waiste, but should he send a Scud armed with a nuclear warhead to Israel, well things might be different. That is why I don't think he would use them if he had them.
About North Korea, I don't believe the problem is being dealt with for only the last three months! The threat from Kim has been clear and present for years, and that is also why they have since some time imposed UN sanctions on them to. It's not like Kim just started becoming a threat!! And, as you correctly pointed out, Kim is also starving his population, and has so for a long time, making him at least as obvious a target as Saddam. My point was really that it seems the US is spending more time and effort of somebody who seems to be a bit less of a real serious threat than Kim Jong-Il. Could this perhaps have something to do with the oil?
In the end though, both Saddam and Kim Jong-Il really must be removed.
As a closing thought, I would like to say that have on numerous occasions applauded the US intervention in conflicts in the world. As an example, it was not until they got involved that something happened in the Balkans. Otherwise who knows for how long Milosevic would have stayed in power. The European leaders, and especially the French, always have a tendency to be more words than action. They are always very quick at criticizing the US, but they rarely do anything about a dangerous situation themselves. It is just that in the whole Middle Eastern conflict, the US has on far too many occasions meddled in things, and their over-enthuisiastic support of Israel has done little to work things out there. When it comes to Iraq, I just wish they would have gotten rid of Saddam last time. The reasons for attacking Iraq back then were a lot more legitimate than what they are now, and they could much more easily have obtained support from the rest of the world at that point. Afterall, Iraq had then invaded Kuwait, whereas today, well they haven't done much wrong as far as most people can see.
|
|
|
Post by BrainFade on Feb 6, 2003 11:09:59 GMT -5
Rx - the difference between Truman, Churchill and Bush, IMO, is the fact that England and the US only declared war AFTER Germany had begun invading other countries. Bush, on the other hand, declared war on Afghanistan just to find Osama. The Taliban was a SHIT government for years before, but the US did nothing to stop them then, which to me is a clear indication that America only intervenes when their own interests are at stake. A true "global policeman" would act in the interests of altruism and human rights - meaning they would intervene in any country that violated the rights of its citizens. Clearly that's not the case either.
Now, with Iraq, it's this whole pre-emptive strike thing, which seems a bit presumptuous to me. It's like: "We'll kill Iraqi civilians because Iraq MIGHT do something bad in the future..." Makes no sense to me.
DaSilva - I voted no, not because I'm anti-American, but because I'm anti-war. Having said that, I am VERY much anti-Bush. There are many things I love about America, and it's probably the country that's closest to my heart after my own.
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Feb 6, 2003 11:19:15 GMT -5
So da_silva, I see Bush Junior's binary rethoric "you are either we me and democracy or against freedom" seems to have worked on you...
If one disagrees with the present US governmnent's imperialist view of Iraqui oil, it is surely because "we're just against the US".
I am against pre-emprive strikes. Only rogue states do that.
As the BBC wrote this morning: "North Korea has warned the United States that any decision to send more troops to the region could lead the North to make a pre-emptive attack on American forces.
US officials said on Tuesday that Washington was considering strengthening its military forces in the Pacific Ocean as a deterrent against North Korea.
They said the reinforcements would help signal that a possible war with Iraq was not distracting the US from a nuclear stand-off with the North.
North Korea also warned that any US strike against its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon would trigger "full scale war".
The North said on Wednesday that it had reactivated the nuclear site and its operations were now going ahead "on a normal footing".
I am sorry but if these are the new rules: North Korea SHOULD attack. And soon: while most US forces are in the gulf if possible. Thewy could nuke bettween 50 and 75 000 GIs in one shot...The opportunity of a lifetime...
I think greece SHOULD attack the Turks and Taiwan SHOULD really go after mainland China.
Mugabe SHOULD strike at UK interests, and let's be honnest Colombia should bomb Belfast...
Pre-emptive strike...try that in court..."Your honnor, I didn't like his face, he looked dangerous to me...I killed him first. Pre-emptive strike, you know..." -"But he didn't have any weapons..." -"I didn't know that..." -"He never made a move to go after you" -"No, but he could have, eventualy" -"Ah, I see, then you are free my good man"
But no, we're too stupid to think for ourselves. We just "against the US"...
Do you know Howard was censured in Oz yeaterday by his own parliement? Australians are clearly against the US... Less then 20 % of Canadian think we should go without the UN, 40% with it...ohhh, Canadians are against the US... Nato doesn't want to embark, and as we all know, NATO's main goal is to take out the US...
I wouldn't have tought that Jr's anal rethoric of "you are either with me or against me" would have worked here at SC.
C'mon, let's be serious for a minute...
S..h
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Feb 6, 2003 11:23:29 GMT -5
Churchill WAS a murdering rasist thug, the truth although known for a long time to a few, is now being made public. Bush, he just does/say's whatever the people who pull his strings tell him.
|
|
|
Post by BrainFade on Feb 6, 2003 11:37:11 GMT -5
Danny - I've never been much of a history bufff, and as such have only a superficial knowledge of Churchill. However, I'd be very interested to learn more about the "real" Churchill. If you could provide info, that would be great
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on Feb 6, 2003 11:41:53 GMT -5
Hold on a second Srrh....
It's a legitimate question. I would be curious myself, to see this answered on a global level. I don't think you'd get too many replies here at SC...
As for N.Korea....I think they're a very valid threat to stability in that region. It's as if all the dictatorial tyrant folk have realised their time is running out...
However I'm affraid the "Ok, screw the little bastards, they're next!" attitude is just around the corner. I'm just pointing out that N.Korea has made alot of noise recently.
As for Canada being against the US...LOL, last I added...20% plus 40% = 60% out of a 100%! ;-) lol Just having fun with numbers...
Later, Rx
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Feb 6, 2003 11:43:26 GMT -5
BrainFade The official German service regulations 'aerial war' (LDv. 16) read: 'Attacks on civilian targets for the purpose of terror is to be rejected by all means.' Churchill ordered the bombard-ment of German cities in order to break the moral of the civil population. ... Coventry as a target of German air strikes was within legality according to the international conventions of war, since the city was the centre of British armament factories for aerial warfare. The attack on Coventry cannot be used as a justification for the terror attacks on Cologne, Lübeck, Hamburg and Dresden. ... I want to say: If Churchill had been a German he would have been inevitably convicted before the Nuremberg War-Crimes Tribunal as a war criminal and subsequently executed by hanging. If Curchill had been convicted at Nuremberg there would be no memorial for the 'butcher' Harris either." --P. Lothar Groppe, SJ, longtime lecturer of German and Austrian Military General Staff. Source: Die Welt, 25 Nov. 2002, p. 9)
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Feb 6, 2003 11:47:14 GMT -5
Srrh, C'mon lets be serious for a minute. Let me clarify. I don't want war. I haven't bought Dubya's rhetoric. I want harder evidence. But lets give the US a break here, they have been going through all the right channels so far, Iraq is clearly in contravention of the UN sanctions and are doing nothing to facilitate the inspectors jobs. Does anybody not think Saddam is a threat? Bush is playing hardball with Saddam and trying to get him to flinch but I believe the US will not go in alone, and if there is a War it will be sanctioned by the security council. But like I said I want to see the hidden weapons of mass destruction, I want hard evidence that he is misdirecting the world. Hopefully he does flinch and takes off into exile, I would be quite happy with that. SG, the US never declared war against Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Feb 6, 2003 11:50:50 GMT -5
No, the US declared a war on terrorism.
Whatever that implies.....
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Feb 6, 2003 11:51:14 GMT -5
BrainFade Do a search for "Jörg Friedrich Der Brand" he is a German historian who has just released a book "Der Brand" about the bombing of civilians in WW2.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Feb 6, 2003 12:01:12 GMT -5
Srrh/da-silva if you don't think Bush will go it alone, and has been planing it all along, read this. [ftp]http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Articles.asp?Article=43311&Sn=COMM[/ftp]
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on Feb 6, 2003 12:11:07 GMT -5
Rx - the difference between Truman, Churchill and Bush, IMO, is the fact that England and the US only declared war AFTER Germany had begun invading other countries. Bush, on the other hand, declared war on Afghanistan just to find Osama. The Taliban was a SHIT government for years before, but the US did nothing to stop them then, which to me is a clear indication that America only intervenes when their own interests are at stake. A true "global policeman" would act in the interests of altruism and human rights - meaning they would intervene in any country that violated the rights of its citizens. Clearly that's not the case either. Now, with Iraq, it's this whole pre-emptive strike thing, which seems a bit presumptuous to me. It's like: "We'll kill Iraqi civilians because Iraq MIGHT do something bad in the future..." Makes no sense to me. DaSilva - I voted no, not because I'm anti-American, but because I'm anti-war. Having said that, I am VERY much anti-Bush. There are many things I love about America, and it's probably the country that's closest to my heart after my own. BrainFade...My apologies, I missed this one all together. These are all very valid points, incredibly valid. I think the US does intervene where their interests are. This makes this country look like a bunch of greedy bastards that turn their heads to other autrocities throughout the world. You know, it makes you wonder, seriously. They have to be well aware about so many other autrocities taking place, but we do seem to act only on those which will put our government in a position to CAPITOLIZE....Not a good thing. However, on the other hand, this country just isn't big enough to go running all over the globe and save ALL the others being unfairly imprisoned, forced into slave labor, murdered, etc, etc.....HOWEVER, it would be nice if the US did it just once in awhile...it'd make us look a little less capitolistic? Which I'm sure to many looks straight up evil... I can understand why soo many out there dislike us. But seriously, to choose between the likes of the Iraqi Govenrnmet, The Taliban, or the N. Korean Government? I'd no doubt take this one anyday of the week, despite it's problems, and do what I could to fix them. I think you (maybe it was DannyBoy?) said it earlier though, that this country is beyond repair. Wuff, I still vote with the hope that it's not! I'll keep voting until I'm convinced it's dead, or I'm dead...LOL! In closing, I want to stress that I have NO hard feelings in anyway, towards what all we've discussed. I hope you feel the same. If not, oh well... In all honesty, I've enjoyed the conversation & look forward to more. Sometimes, I might get excited & write something that comes across as personal or attacking...don't take it that way, I'm just attacking the issue. I'm not a journalist, and surely not the knowledgable one here when it comes to WORLD issues...I'm more like an opinionated (sometimes very) regular joe. As for the info on Churchill, I'm eagr to see what DB has on that too. Later, Rx
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Feb 6, 2003 12:12:15 GMT -5
On going after the Taliban before sept 11th, we all know that no one would have supported Bush/ Gore / Clinton if they looked at a place and said heh this looks like a good spot to help out. Plus that is a ton of cash. We got to pick our fights, and yes it usually means that we will benefit from it. No one will go to a war if it means nothing to them, and noone will put thier military in harms way just to be a good samaritan.
The only thing i know about churchill was he drank a ton and from being so drunk it is likely that most of his great speaches were done by a man who worked for the BBC who also did Winnie the Poo
Iraq
option 1 Containment- if Saddam has so many weapons inspectors up his ass he will never be able to do a bad thing again becuase his hands will be tied.
option 2 We bomb his ass, and make sure that none of this stuff happens in Iraq again.
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Feb 6, 2003 12:13:58 GMT -5
Thx DB,
It would be nice to see a full copy of that report and all it's detail.
|
|