I belive the United States should provide proof of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction before we fully commit ourselves to what surely will be a very slippery and ugly slope to hell in the Middle East.
Is War Worth it!?
- Thread starter Electro
- Start date
Great suggestion! I want to see that one again... its great!
Makes you think about why there's 11,000+ murders per year with hand guns in the US opposed to something like ~340 in South Africa was it? very strange indeed.
Not to get off the subject of course! =)
-Electro
Please explain your definition of "Redneck", you and Electro use it as sort of a mentality that is contary to yours. Also, can you explain the diverse population statement. Those that voted for Bush, or if you wish support defence against Iraq or those fun loving N. Koreans are somehow lacking a diverse mind set? I'm trying to figure that statement out because that would make a whole lot of Americans out of touch or perhaps racist.
Sig - I think we had a slight misunderstanding due to semantics. What I meant was that by taking in our news from more sources from around the world, our own personal views would be more accurate and complete. This is not to say that foreign sources do not display a bias or provide all the information. But by piecing together information from multiple viewpoints, we can thereby have a better understanding and take more informed stances on issues.
Darkcyd, Should I take this one or do u want it? heheh
Tom, If you've ever spent any extended amount of time in the bible belt (not to say there's anything wrong w/ the bible but I'm talking about the conservativity and old fashioned methodology of this region of people) of the US - that stretches from Texas to Washington D.C., you'd quickly understand that there is a vast majority of people that don't (or can't) think outside of their own complacent existance. This majority is unable to consider other cultures before taking actions that they deem "the right thing to do"... Most are not able to comprehend other people's perspectives because of the environment they were raised in. Just as it happens in other countries as well.
If you subscribe to this type of mentality, I mean no offense. These are merely observations that generate questions that demand answers.
-Electro
Tom, If you've ever spent any extended amount of time in the bible belt (not to say there's anything wrong w/ the bible but I'm talking about the conservativity and old fashioned methodology of this region of people) of the US - that stretches from Texas to Washington D.C., you'd quickly understand that there is a vast majority of people that don't (or can't) think outside of their own complacent existance. This majority is unable to consider other cultures before taking actions that they deem "the right thing to do"... Most are not able to comprehend other people's perspectives because of the environment they were raised in. Just as it happens in other countries as well.
If you subscribe to this type of mentality, I mean no offense. These are merely observations that generate questions that demand answers.
-Electro
Sig - I won't dispute that the US gives out the most worldwide aid. However, my belief is that the majority of this aid goes to further our own ends and desires and is not solely humanitarian. We hold a carrot in one hand and a stick in the other. If someone we give aid to doesn't follow our path, we withhold the carrot and threaten to beat them with the stick. I think it is this kind of aid relationship that causes so much of the world to resent us, even as we provide the most aid. I think we've played hardball politics too often and it's going to haunt us for a long time.
Unfortunately, I do not have any facts available to support a claim that some other nation holds a better record for world citizenship. But I do believe that the fact that we alone are despised so vehemently by many countries abroad is testament to a flaw in the way we go about our relationship with the rest of the world. Some may say that it is just envy of the king of the block, I just happen to think it goes beyond that.
As for Afghanistan, what I said was that post 9/11, we had almost unanimous worldwide support for whatever action we decided to take in response to the atrocities that took place that day. Opinions varied on what would be the most appropriate, but by and large we had a free hand. In Iraq however, we aren't just running into minor disagreements over our approach from the usual nations who dislike us. Even some of our staunchest allies have voiced grave misgivings and concern. That alone should be a wake-up call that perhaps we should rethink our actions. It's like a best friend telling us we're wrong and we're too stubborn and arrogant to heed their warning.
Tom - I think that Electro answered the question pretty well. I hope you don't take offense to what I have to say, I'll try my best to explain what I mean. This may just start a whole new debate, who knows. =)
Basically speaking, I believe that our education system is highly deficient. Beyond studies that consistently show that our youth are the most uneducated academically, they also score very low on international geographics and cultures. I read somewhere that before 9/11, some 80% or more of the youth didn't even know what region of the world it was located in. Let me know if you dissent, but it has been my experience that our educational system pretty well succeeds in circumventing any international studies in K-12, resulting in a lack of ability of most Americans to empathize with people of other countries and see issues from a more global perspective. It is also my belief that this problem is generally buffered a little bit more in areas that have more diverse populations because interactions between people of different cultures lends a hand in providing this type of education. In the absence of this diversity which I think is prevalent in much of the heartland and bible-belt, the problem remains unchanged. Thus yes, many Americans included in such a definition would be out of touch, not necessarily with what's going on in the world and not necessarily racist, but just unable to step out of their own small world to see the bigger picture.
Darkcyd, Its good to see that someone shares the same beliefs I do for a change...
Sometimes it seems like I'm the only one ranting and raving among most of my peers about how all this just doesn't add up...
If there was some sort of way to get "upper management" to see the light! arg!
-Electro
Sometimes it seems like I'm the only one ranting and raving among most of my peers about how all this just doesn't add up...
If there was some sort of way to get "upper management" to see the light! arg!
-Electro
Having served in the Military for few years, I think that a war with Iraq is a) part Bush Junior taking up where Bush Senior left off by following through with removing Saddam from power (right or wrong; retorical) and b) because if the rest of the World can't police a dictator with a history of violence from creating and/or using weapons of mass destruction (WMD), we'll do it for them.
Its far easier to develop an Anti-ABM defense then it is to rid another country of its nuclear arsenal, especially if they're your "enemy" and doing their best to hide it from you for a decade. But that defense doesn't protect our neighbors against a ground army or more conventional weapons, does it?
Saddam isn't the only bad apple in the bunch, but his family and those he put into positions to support his in power. Removing one person isn't going to domino the rest out of power and you see why its going to have to be an all out war.
Here's a relatively short example of the difference between Saddam and the rest of the world. Some years ago, a missile was fired over Russian territory, all indicators nuclear and headed into Russian air space and Russian soil. Yeltsin couldn't confirm if this was a nuclear attack, a test, an aggressive neighbor, but everyone was supporting a counter strike against who, you guessed it, us. Yeltsin had literally no 100% accurate confirmation or not and had literally, only precious few hours to decide what to do. He decided NOT to pull the trigger himself and risk it. It was the closest the world has been to a nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Do you think Saddam in the same position would be that level headed when push comes to shove? I'm not willing to bet the safety of my family, my friends, my children (eventually), ad nauseam, on that chance and watch while Iraq goes nuclear, Iran follows suit, Libya joins the pack, and poor Isreal and the other nearby nations have even more to fear then just Iraq invading Kuwait.
Short term, Saddam and those in power removed from Iraq makes us safe, for now. I don't want my children or grandchildren having to practice air raid drills in addition to singing the national anthem.
Its the "right" thing to do to us, there are those in Iraq (Saddam included) who think eliminating the US and the other "Western" civilizations is the "right" thing to do. Its strength in numbers. If Iraq was the sole "superpower" instead of the US, we'd view them as Satan and "evil" too, wouldn't we?
Saddam is a bully and we either eliminate the threat or we find a new playground. That goes for any other country, which does include the US, with a history of violent behavior.
If we decide to do something like that to our people, or attack another country with total impunity for example, like invading Canada and the American people behind the effort for their oil reserves and beautiful countryside, we deserve what the rest of the world dishes out to us as punishment.
We have to let history be our guide. I can't begin to describe the sentiments towards American troops in the UK, having spent just over two years there. And a vast majority of which are thankful for our WWII efforts and the extra "security" having us as an ally grants. We may have never "cracked the code" and the UK may have been unable to hold out before it was invaded, and there would have been a hell of a lot of people speaking German right now. Not every German was a Nazi, not even close. Stalin was loved, just like Hitler, but definitely not by everyone. So is Saddam. Who's to say that a low or middle class Iraqi isn't happy with their way of life? What if they don't have or don't need the words or term "Civil rights" in their lives?
More countries then not, more of the people in those countries or not, are for making our lifes and their lifes better. There's a lot of resistance to war, but thats simply politics continued via other means. Its not going to be money, or sweet words, or meaningless diplomatic paperwork, its going to be a poke in the eye with a sharp stick thats going to bring this situation to a close.
Maybe we just need to send Monica over to be Saddam's intern and he'll grasp where we're coming from. Just kidding! But you get my drift. "We" don't think like "Them." We're the majority and the US with one of the loudest voices. If we go to war, the rest will have to deal. But deep down, its safer to let America do this then risk Iraq doing something worse to them.
Sunny
[This message has been edited by JaguarXJ6 (edited 13 January 2003).]
Its far easier to develop an Anti-ABM defense then it is to rid another country of its nuclear arsenal, especially if they're your "enemy" and doing their best to hide it from you for a decade. But that defense doesn't protect our neighbors against a ground army or more conventional weapons, does it?
Here's a relatively short example of the difference between Saddam and the rest of the world. Some years ago, a missile was fired over Russian territory, all indicators nuclear and headed into Russian air space and Russian soil. Yeltsin couldn't confirm if this was a nuclear attack, a test, an aggressive neighbor, but everyone was supporting a counter strike against who, you guessed it, us. Yeltsin had literally no 100% accurate confirmation or not and had literally, only precious few hours to decide what to do. He decided NOT to pull the trigger himself and risk it. It was the closest the world has been to a nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Do you think Saddam in the same position would be that level headed when push comes to shove? I'm not willing to bet the safety of my family, my friends, my children (eventually), ad nauseam, on that chance and watch while Iraq goes nuclear, Iran follows suit, Libya joins the pack, and poor Isreal and the other nearby nations have even more to fear then just Iraq invading Kuwait.
Short term, Saddam and those in power removed from Iraq makes us safe, for now. I don't want my children or grandchildren having to practice air raid drills in addition to singing the national anthem.
Its the "right" thing to do to us, there are those in Iraq (Saddam included) who think eliminating the US and the other "Western" civilizations is the "right" thing to do. Its strength in numbers. If Iraq was the sole "superpower" instead of the US, we'd view them as Satan and "evil" too, wouldn't we?
Saddam is a bully and we either eliminate the threat or we find a new playground. That goes for any other country, which does include the US, with a history of violent behavior.
If we decide to do something like that to our people, or attack another country with total impunity for example, like invading Canada and the American people behind the effort for their oil reserves and beautiful countryside, we deserve what the rest of the world dishes out to us as punishment.
We have to let history be our guide. I can't begin to describe the sentiments towards American troops in the UK, having spent just over two years there. And a vast majority of which are thankful for our WWII efforts and the extra "security" having us as an ally grants. We may have never "cracked the code" and the UK may have been unable to hold out before it was invaded, and there would have been a hell of a lot of people speaking German right now. Not every German was a Nazi, not even close. Stalin was loved, just like Hitler, but definitely not by everyone. So is Saddam. Who's to say that a low or middle class Iraqi isn't happy with their way of life? What if they don't have or don't need the words or term "Civil rights" in their lives?
More countries then not, more of the people in those countries or not, are for making our lifes and their lifes better. There's a lot of resistance to war, but thats simply politics continued via other means. Its not going to be money, or sweet words, or meaningless diplomatic paperwork, its going to be a poke in the eye with a sharp stick thats going to bring this situation to a close.
Maybe we just need to send Monica over to be Saddam's intern and he'll grasp where we're coming from. Just kidding! But you get my drift. "We" don't think like "Them." We're the majority and the US with one of the loudest voices. If we go to war, the rest will have to deal. But deep down, its safer to let America do this then risk Iraq doing something worse to them.
Sunny
[This message has been edited by JaguarXJ6 (edited 13 January 2003).]
JaguarXJ6,
Yes I agree that if sadam had the capability now, he'd probably use it against us. Who's to stop anyone from delivering a nuclear attack on US soil?
I have a really bad feeling that eventually, its going to happen in the US. One way or another.
It seems as if this world is headed down the tubes the more and more populated it becomes. There's really no answer other than global war... to try and eliminate the "threats"... everyone has their enemies... and there's no changing anyone's mind at this point.
-Electro
Yes I agree that if sadam had the capability now, he'd probably use it against us. Who's to stop anyone from delivering a nuclear attack on US soil?
I have a really bad feeling that eventually, its going to happen in the US. One way or another.
It seems as if this world is headed down the tubes the more and more populated it becomes. There's really no answer other than global war... to try and eliminate the "threats"... everyone has their enemies... and there's no changing anyone's mind at this point.
-Electro
Electo - yeah, we've been lucky up to this point. It could have been far far worse with a biological attack for instance.
We've always been fighting throughout history, the stakes have changed, but its continually going to happen.
What if everyone is nuclear and everyone has anti-ballistic missile and/or other means of protection? What's the new war? Computer programs and genetic warfare? Hehe. One day, perhaps it will be.
I made some edits to my post above, but it definitely is a cause for concern and being isolationist isn't the right thing to be. I'll take the red pill, Mr. Morpheus, sir..
Sunny
We've always been fighting throughout history, the stakes have changed, but its continually going to happen.
What if everyone is nuclear and everyone has anti-ballistic missile and/or other means of protection? What's the new war? Computer programs and genetic warfare? Hehe. One day, perhaps it will be.
I made some edits to my post above, but it definitely is a cause for concern and being isolationist isn't the right thing to be. I'll take the red pill, Mr. Morpheus, sir..
Sunny
- Joined
- 1 September 2001
- Messages
- 4,123
I'm an American tired of American lies
Woody Harrelson
Thursday October 17, 2002
The Guardian
The man who drives me to and from work is named Woody too. A relief to me, as it minimises the chance of my forgetting his name. I call him Woodman and he calls me Wood. He has become my best friend here, even though he's upset that I have quit drinking beer. He's smart, funny, and there's nothing he hasn't seen in 33 years behind the wheel of his black cab. He drove me for a while before I felt confident he liked me; he doesn't like people easily, especially if they have a rap for busting up black cabs.
Woodman and I agree about a lot of things, but one thing we can never agree about is Iraq. He thinks the only language Saddam understands is brute force. I don't believe we should be bombing cities in our quest for one man. We've killed a million Iraqis since the start of the Gulf war - mostly by blocking humanitarian aid. Let's stop now. Thankfully, most of the Brits I talk to about the war are closer to me than to Woodman. Only your prime minister doesn't seem to have noticed.
I have been here three months doing a play in the West End. I am having the time of my life. I love England, the people, the parks, the theatre. The play is great and the audiences have been a dream. Probably I should just relax, be happy and talk about the weather, but this war is under my skin - it affects my sleep.
I remember playing basketball with an Iraqi in the late 80s while Iran and Iraq were at war. I didn't know at the time that the US and Britain were supplying weapons to both sides. I asked why they were always at war with each other and he said something that stayed with me: "If it were up to the people, there would be peace. It's the governments that create war." And now my government is creating its second war in less than a year. No; war requires two combatants, so I should say "its second bombing campaign".
I went to the White House when Harvey Weinstein was showing Clinton the movie Welcome to Sarejevo, which I was in. I got a few moments alone with Clinton. Saddam throwing out the weapons inspectors was all over the news and I asked what he was going to do. His answer was very revealing. He said: "Everybody is telling me to bomb him. All the military are saying, 'You gotta bomb him.' But if even one innocent person died, I couldn't bear it." And I looked in his eyes and I believed him. Little did I know he was blocking humanitarian aid at the time, allowing the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
I am a father, and no amount of propaganda can convince me that half a million dead children is acceptable "collateral damage". The fact is that Saddam Hussein was our boy. The CIA helped him to power, as they did the Shah of Iran and Noriega and Marcos and the Taliban and countless other brutal tyrants. The fact is that George Bush Sr continued to supply nerve gas and technology to Saddam even after he used it on Iran and then the Kurds in Iraq. While the Amnesty International report listing countless Saddam atrocities, including gassing and torturing Kurds, was sitting on his desk, Bush Sr pushed through a $2bn "agricultural" loan and Thatcher gave hundreds of millions in export credit to Saddam. The elder Bush then had the audacity to quote the Amnesty reports to garner support for his oil war.
A decade later, Shrub follows the same line: "We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people." I'm sure half a million Iraqi parents are scratching their heads over that. I'm an American tired of lies. And with our government, it's mostly lies.
The history taught in our schools is scandalous. We grew up believing that Columbus actually discovered America. We still celebrate Columbus Day. Columbus was after one thing only - gold. As the natives were showering him with gifts and kindness, he wrote in his diary, "They do not bear arms ... They have no iron ... With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." Columbus is the perfect symbol of US foreign policy to this day.
This is a racist and imperialist war. The warmongers who stole the White House (you call them "hawks", but I would never disparage such a fine bird) have hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist.
To the men in Washington, the world is just a giant Monopoly board. Oddly enough, Americans generally know how the government works. The politicians do everything they can for the people - the people who put them in power. The giant industries that are polluting our planet as well as violating human rights worldwide are the ones nearest and dearest to the hearts of American politicians.
But in wartime people lose their senses. There are flags and yellow ribbons and posters and every media outlet is beating the war drum and even sensible people can hear nothing else. In the US, God forbid you should suggest the war is unjust or that dropping cluster bombs from 30,000ft on a city is a cowardly act. When TV satirist Bill Maher made some dissenting remarks about the bombing of Afghanistan, Disney pulled the plug on him. In a country that lauds its freedom of speech, a word of dissent can cost you your job.
I read in a paper here about a woman who held out the part of her taxes that would go to the war effort. Something like 17%. I like that idea, though in the US it would have to be more like 50%. If you consider money as a form of energy, then we see half our taxes and half the US government's energy focused on war and weapons of mass destruction. Over the past 30 years, this amounts to more than ten trillion dollars. Imagine that money going to preserving rainforest or contributing to a sustainable economy (as opposed to the dinosaur tit we are currently in the process of sucking dry).
I give in to Woodman, and we stop for a few beers. He asks me what I'd do in Bush's shoes. Easy: I'd honour Kyoto. Join the world court. I'd stop subsidising earth rapers like Monsanto, Dupont and Exxon. I'd shut down the nuclear power plants. So I already have $200bn saved from corporate welfare. I'd save another $100bn by stopping the war on non-corporate drugs. And I'd cut the defence budget in half so they'd have to get by on a measly $200bn a year. I've already saved half a trillion bucks by saying no to polluters and warmongers.
Then I'd give $300bn back to the taxpayers. I'd take the rest and pay the people teaching our children what they deserve. I'd put $100bn into alternative fuels and renewable energy. I'd revive the Chemurgy movement, which made the farmer the root of the economy, and make paper and fuel from wheat straw, rice straw and hemp. Not only would I attend, I'd sponsor the next Earth Summit. And, of course, I'd give myself a fat raise.
Woodman drops me at home and I ask if he likes my ideas. He offers a reluctant "yes". As he pulls away he yells out, "But I'd never vote for a man who can't handle a few pints at the end of the day!"
· Woody Harrelson appears in On an Average Day at the Comedy Theatre, Panton Street, London SW1 until November 3. Box office: 020-7369 1731.
Woody Harrelson
Thursday October 17, 2002
The Guardian
The man who drives me to and from work is named Woody too. A relief to me, as it minimises the chance of my forgetting his name. I call him Woodman and he calls me Wood. He has become my best friend here, even though he's upset that I have quit drinking beer. He's smart, funny, and there's nothing he hasn't seen in 33 years behind the wheel of his black cab. He drove me for a while before I felt confident he liked me; he doesn't like people easily, especially if they have a rap for busting up black cabs.
Woodman and I agree about a lot of things, but one thing we can never agree about is Iraq. He thinks the only language Saddam understands is brute force. I don't believe we should be bombing cities in our quest for one man. We've killed a million Iraqis since the start of the Gulf war - mostly by blocking humanitarian aid. Let's stop now. Thankfully, most of the Brits I talk to about the war are closer to me than to Woodman. Only your prime minister doesn't seem to have noticed.
I have been here three months doing a play in the West End. I am having the time of my life. I love England, the people, the parks, the theatre. The play is great and the audiences have been a dream. Probably I should just relax, be happy and talk about the weather, but this war is under my skin - it affects my sleep.
I remember playing basketball with an Iraqi in the late 80s while Iran and Iraq were at war. I didn't know at the time that the US and Britain were supplying weapons to both sides. I asked why they were always at war with each other and he said something that stayed with me: "If it were up to the people, there would be peace. It's the governments that create war." And now my government is creating its second war in less than a year. No; war requires two combatants, so I should say "its second bombing campaign".
I went to the White House when Harvey Weinstein was showing Clinton the movie Welcome to Sarejevo, which I was in. I got a few moments alone with Clinton. Saddam throwing out the weapons inspectors was all over the news and I asked what he was going to do. His answer was very revealing. He said: "Everybody is telling me to bomb him. All the military are saying, 'You gotta bomb him.' But if even one innocent person died, I couldn't bear it." And I looked in his eyes and I believed him. Little did I know he was blocking humanitarian aid at the time, allowing the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
I am a father, and no amount of propaganda can convince me that half a million dead children is acceptable "collateral damage". The fact is that Saddam Hussein was our boy. The CIA helped him to power, as they did the Shah of Iran and Noriega and Marcos and the Taliban and countless other brutal tyrants. The fact is that George Bush Sr continued to supply nerve gas and technology to Saddam even after he used it on Iran and then the Kurds in Iraq. While the Amnesty International report listing countless Saddam atrocities, including gassing and torturing Kurds, was sitting on his desk, Bush Sr pushed through a $2bn "agricultural" loan and Thatcher gave hundreds of millions in export credit to Saddam. The elder Bush then had the audacity to quote the Amnesty reports to garner support for his oil war.
A decade later, Shrub follows the same line: "We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people." I'm sure half a million Iraqi parents are scratching their heads over that. I'm an American tired of lies. And with our government, it's mostly lies.
The history taught in our schools is scandalous. We grew up believing that Columbus actually discovered America. We still celebrate Columbus Day. Columbus was after one thing only - gold. As the natives were showering him with gifts and kindness, he wrote in his diary, "They do not bear arms ... They have no iron ... With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." Columbus is the perfect symbol of US foreign policy to this day.
This is a racist and imperialist war. The warmongers who stole the White House (you call them "hawks", but I would never disparage such a fine bird) have hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist.
To the men in Washington, the world is just a giant Monopoly board. Oddly enough, Americans generally know how the government works. The politicians do everything they can for the people - the people who put them in power. The giant industries that are polluting our planet as well as violating human rights worldwide are the ones nearest and dearest to the hearts of American politicians.
But in wartime people lose their senses. There are flags and yellow ribbons and posters and every media outlet is beating the war drum and even sensible people can hear nothing else. In the US, God forbid you should suggest the war is unjust or that dropping cluster bombs from 30,000ft on a city is a cowardly act. When TV satirist Bill Maher made some dissenting remarks about the bombing of Afghanistan, Disney pulled the plug on him. In a country that lauds its freedom of speech, a word of dissent can cost you your job.
I read in a paper here about a woman who held out the part of her taxes that would go to the war effort. Something like 17%. I like that idea, though in the US it would have to be more like 50%. If you consider money as a form of energy, then we see half our taxes and half the US government's energy focused on war and weapons of mass destruction. Over the past 30 years, this amounts to more than ten trillion dollars. Imagine that money going to preserving rainforest or contributing to a sustainable economy (as opposed to the dinosaur tit we are currently in the process of sucking dry).
I give in to Woodman, and we stop for a few beers. He asks me what I'd do in Bush's shoes. Easy: I'd honour Kyoto. Join the world court. I'd stop subsidising earth rapers like Monsanto, Dupont and Exxon. I'd shut down the nuclear power plants. So I already have $200bn saved from corporate welfare. I'd save another $100bn by stopping the war on non-corporate drugs. And I'd cut the defence budget in half so they'd have to get by on a measly $200bn a year. I've already saved half a trillion bucks by saying no to polluters and warmongers.
Then I'd give $300bn back to the taxpayers. I'd take the rest and pay the people teaching our children what they deserve. I'd put $100bn into alternative fuels and renewable energy. I'd revive the Chemurgy movement, which made the farmer the root of the economy, and make paper and fuel from wheat straw, rice straw and hemp. Not only would I attend, I'd sponsor the next Earth Summit. And, of course, I'd give myself a fat raise.
Woodman drops me at home and I ask if he likes my ideas. He offers a reluctant "yes". As he pulls away he yells out, "But I'd never vote for a man who can't handle a few pints at the end of the day!"
· Woody Harrelson appears in On an Average Day at the Comedy Theatre, Panton Street, London SW1 until November 3. Box office: 020-7369 1731.
NSX/MR2
Suspended
Our imminent conflict with Iraq does infact serve many purpose for the current administration. There are several reason why the U.S. is willing to go to war with Iraq, and here I dissect them for you.
Some might feel that some of these reasons are totally ludicrous, but as the only superpower left, the U.S. will indeed have to play the role of the bully in certain situation, in order to maintain that status. Unfair, is it not? But last time i checked, this has never been a fair and sympathetic world.
First of, the question of the terrorist connection with the Saddam regime might never be fully realized, but it is still a good card to play by the current administration, in order to gain support in lieu of the public opinions on terrrorist organizations, and their actions around the world. As long as there are bomb exploding in supermarket, clubs, building, and other public places. As long as blood is shed, people will feel the need to retaliate. As a result, it will forever be an ongoing cycle, and I do not think that it will ever stop, the differences are just too great of a barrier to overcome.
Seconly. The question of weapon of mass destruction. Even without the concrete proof that some would want to see. I can say for certain that the Iraqi still possess that capability. And why not, weapon of mass destruction is a great political tool, and very easy to produced (chemical and biological that is). To a maniac like Saddam Hussein, there would be no better bargaining tools. As tenuous as Saddam's hold to the regime is right now, in the face of the U.S.'s threat; he might resort to weapon of mass destruction as a last resort. It has been proven before, that Saddam has no qualms about using such weapon, either against his people or those of his neighbor. But if he infact does use it against the U.S. the consequences will be grave, and this conflict will become very ugly.
Thirdly, Saddam is a very cruel man, and so are his sons (it has been demonstrated), whom will succeed him to the throne. The world would be better off without these kind of leaders. Let's just hope that the U.S. will pick a wise, and strong leader, when and if he is overthrow.
Fourthly. The question of oil. Iraq has a huge oil reserve, second in size only to Saudi Arabia's. Do you guys seriously believe, that the world dwindling oil reserve, where everything is based around it, is of no concvern to the only superpower left in the world? The U.S. hates to be left out in such profitable business dealing, where as it stands right now, only France and Russia have billionth and trillionth worth of contract with the Iraqi. Little wonder why France and Russia are not the most willingest partner in this adventure. They are afraid, that if the U.S. achieves its the end result; all the contracts that they sign with the Iraqi regime will disappear along with Saddam Hussein. To ease their concern, there has been some sort of agreement, that when the U.S. defeat Saddam, the other two will be able to share in the spoil, as long as they are willing to share the burden of overthrowing Saddam.
Fifthly. To a warrior and military's stand point; Iraq offer a fantastic location for future conflicts, it is very close to the Caspian sea, the Balkan, and Iran, along with other. It is border by friends and foes alike, thus making vey easy to keep watch. As such, its strategist implications are huge. From a staging point in Iraq, the U.S. can move its forces around, anywhere it wants to. In a time when friendship with Saudi arabia, Yemen, and other Middle eastern countries are in question, the U.S. would like nothing better than to have a location that they can call their own. Freely operated, without any strings attach.
These are, to some extend, the reasons why the U.S. is willing to do this. There are many out there whom might not agree with all of this. But I know that it is in human nature to dominate, or surpass one another. As such war will go side by side with human's evolution. Only that when, we as a specie, no longer exist, can we say that we truly have peace.
Some might feel that some of these reasons are totally ludicrous, but as the only superpower left, the U.S. will indeed have to play the role of the bully in certain situation, in order to maintain that status. Unfair, is it not? But last time i checked, this has never been a fair and sympathetic world.
First of, the question of the terrorist connection with the Saddam regime might never be fully realized, but it is still a good card to play by the current administration, in order to gain support in lieu of the public opinions on terrrorist organizations, and their actions around the world. As long as there are bomb exploding in supermarket, clubs, building, and other public places. As long as blood is shed, people will feel the need to retaliate. As a result, it will forever be an ongoing cycle, and I do not think that it will ever stop, the differences are just too great of a barrier to overcome.
Seconly. The question of weapon of mass destruction. Even without the concrete proof that some would want to see. I can say for certain that the Iraqi still possess that capability. And why not, weapon of mass destruction is a great political tool, and very easy to produced (chemical and biological that is). To a maniac like Saddam Hussein, there would be no better bargaining tools. As tenuous as Saddam's hold to the regime is right now, in the face of the U.S.'s threat; he might resort to weapon of mass destruction as a last resort. It has been proven before, that Saddam has no qualms about using such weapon, either against his people or those of his neighbor. But if he infact does use it against the U.S. the consequences will be grave, and this conflict will become very ugly.
Thirdly, Saddam is a very cruel man, and so are his sons (it has been demonstrated), whom will succeed him to the throne. The world would be better off without these kind of leaders. Let's just hope that the U.S. will pick a wise, and strong leader, when and if he is overthrow.
Fourthly. The question of oil. Iraq has a huge oil reserve, second in size only to Saudi Arabia's. Do you guys seriously believe, that the world dwindling oil reserve, where everything is based around it, is of no concvern to the only superpower left in the world? The U.S. hates to be left out in such profitable business dealing, where as it stands right now, only France and Russia have billionth and trillionth worth of contract with the Iraqi. Little wonder why France and Russia are not the most willingest partner in this adventure. They are afraid, that if the U.S. achieves its the end result; all the contracts that they sign with the Iraqi regime will disappear along with Saddam Hussein. To ease their concern, there has been some sort of agreement, that when the U.S. defeat Saddam, the other two will be able to share in the spoil, as long as they are willing to share the burden of overthrowing Saddam.
Fifthly. To a warrior and military's stand point; Iraq offer a fantastic location for future conflicts, it is very close to the Caspian sea, the Balkan, and Iran, along with other. It is border by friends and foes alike, thus making vey easy to keep watch. As such, its strategist implications are huge. From a staging point in Iraq, the U.S. can move its forces around, anywhere it wants to. In a time when friendship with Saudi arabia, Yemen, and other Middle eastern countries are in question, the U.S. would like nothing better than to have a location that they can call their own. Freely operated, without any strings attach.
These are, to some extend, the reasons why the U.S. is willing to do this. There are many out there whom might not agree with all of this. But I know that it is in human nature to dominate, or surpass one another. As such war will go side by side with human's evolution. Only that when, we as a specie, no longer exist, can we say that we truly have peace.
I have been watching with great interest the discussions here about our "impending" war with Iraq. I have my own views on the situation over there, and I'd like to see what some of you think.
First of all, I'll come clean and say that I have a very personal interest in the situation due to my job, being that I will probably be involved in whatever goes down in that part of the world.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with the assertion that some media types have made that Saddam is a direct supporter of Al-Qaida. There has been a terrorsit training camp in Iraq, but it was in the far north in Kurdish-controlled territory. You know, the Kurds, the people we are protecting from Saddam?
Saddam is a moral supporter of any group that opposes the USA, including Al Quaida. However, who he gives his money and resources to is up for debate. He is an evil man who must be removed, but you can't say that he must be removed because he supports terrorism. That's the only issue I have with going to war with Iraq........it shouldn't be tied to the "war on terrorism" because there is far too little to tie the man with terrorist activities against the USA.
Now, there are several compelling reasons to remove Saddam from power. He is belligerent and dangerous to his neighbors, he opresses his people while wallowing in the accumulated wealth from the "oil for food" program, and does not contribute at all to our world's overall well being. However, I don't think we as US citizens should support action for war because of this, either.
Here's why I think we should invade Iraq and finish the job: we've been at war with Iraq for the last 12 years! Let's get it over with already.
In 1991, the United Nations imposed "no fly zones" over nothern and southern Iraq to keep Saddam from performing atrocities on his own people. The United Nations represents the will of the collective world, and the world said that Saddam needed to be contained. Who rose to the challenge and does so to this day? The good ol' USA and our only true ally, Great Britain.
So, the tiny "coalition" has been flying patrols over Iraq for the past 11 years, enforcing the will of the world. We fly a scant few hours per day enforcing these no-fly zones, merely a thorn in the side of Saddam who merely waits for us to leave before unleashing his military on his poor citizens. But Saddam isn't content with just doing this.....he doesn't want to listen to the opinion of the rest of the world.
Saddam has never acknowledged the legitimacy of the no-fly zones. He orders his military to fire upon coalition aircraft at every possible opportunity. He replaces destroyed missile and artillery sites with new ones, he places his hardware in places like mosques, hospitals, and children's water parks (yes, a children's water park!) and other places where his soldiers can fire on our men and women with impunity.
Every day for the last 11 years, Saddam's guns have been firing on our aircrew with the intent to kill. Operationally, I won't go into detail as to why we've been lucky so far and haven't been shot down yet, but our luck won't last forever. Is the world ready for that eventuality, when Saddam does shoot down a US or British plane enforcing UN resolutions? I don't think the world gives a crap, just like they don't give a crap about enforcing their own resolutions. We've been relegated to the position of "police of the world," and nobody else will step up with the cajones to back up their words with actions.
Before 1991, our troops were busy training and preparing for war, which should be our primary mission. Most of our time was spent at home in the USA, and we would be deployed occasionally to unfriendly spots of the world to take care of business. Since 1991, our troops can count on spending a sizeable chunk of their military careers in the middle east in countries that don't want us there in the first place. Our pilots spend as much as six months out of EVERY year on a southwest asia tour. An ungodly amount of resources, manpower, and money goes into our 11-year effort to enforce two no-fly zones over a country the size of Arizona. I remember in the mid-nineties, our troops were told that this would be a temporarly thing and wouldn't last very long. Since then, that kind of talk has been replaced by endless "rotations" and troops getting ready for their next trip to the desert within weeks of their previous one. Our military is tired because of this......don't believe the "yes" men at the top that will tell you otherwise.
So, why do we do it? Because, right now, there isn't a way out of it. If things remain the way they are, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. If we leave, Saddam will have free reign to disobey international law and commit atrocities against his people. If we stay, Saddam continues to fire away at our men and women, and we wait for the day when one of our planes goes down over Iraq.
So, I propose that we got to war with Iraq, to bring our men and women home. I propose we go to war with Iraq, to shut off the endless flow of money into a police action the rest of the world isn't interested in helping out with. I propose we go to war with Iraq, to finally solve a problem that has no other solution.
We need to go to war with Iraq because we are at war with Iraq. If you doubt that, ask the pilots who are being shot at over there every day.
Chuck
------------------
'91 Black/Ivory NSX
'89 Gray/Gray F-16C
First of all, I'll come clean and say that I have a very personal interest in the situation due to my job, being that I will probably be involved in whatever goes down in that part of the world.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with the assertion that some media types have made that Saddam is a direct supporter of Al-Qaida. There has been a terrorsit training camp in Iraq, but it was in the far north in Kurdish-controlled territory. You know, the Kurds, the people we are protecting from Saddam?
Saddam is a moral supporter of any group that opposes the USA, including Al Quaida. However, who he gives his money and resources to is up for debate. He is an evil man who must be removed, but you can't say that he must be removed because he supports terrorism. That's the only issue I have with going to war with Iraq........it shouldn't be tied to the "war on terrorism" because there is far too little to tie the man with terrorist activities against the USA.
Now, there are several compelling reasons to remove Saddam from power. He is belligerent and dangerous to his neighbors, he opresses his people while wallowing in the accumulated wealth from the "oil for food" program, and does not contribute at all to our world's overall well being. However, I don't think we as US citizens should support action for war because of this, either.
Here's why I think we should invade Iraq and finish the job: we've been at war with Iraq for the last 12 years! Let's get it over with already.
In 1991, the United Nations imposed "no fly zones" over nothern and southern Iraq to keep Saddam from performing atrocities on his own people. The United Nations represents the will of the collective world, and the world said that Saddam needed to be contained. Who rose to the challenge and does so to this day? The good ol' USA and our only true ally, Great Britain.
So, the tiny "coalition" has been flying patrols over Iraq for the past 11 years, enforcing the will of the world. We fly a scant few hours per day enforcing these no-fly zones, merely a thorn in the side of Saddam who merely waits for us to leave before unleashing his military on his poor citizens. But Saddam isn't content with just doing this.....he doesn't want to listen to the opinion of the rest of the world.
Saddam has never acknowledged the legitimacy of the no-fly zones. He orders his military to fire upon coalition aircraft at every possible opportunity. He replaces destroyed missile and artillery sites with new ones, he places his hardware in places like mosques, hospitals, and children's water parks (yes, a children's water park!) and other places where his soldiers can fire on our men and women with impunity.
Every day for the last 11 years, Saddam's guns have been firing on our aircrew with the intent to kill. Operationally, I won't go into detail as to why we've been lucky so far and haven't been shot down yet, but our luck won't last forever. Is the world ready for that eventuality, when Saddam does shoot down a US or British plane enforcing UN resolutions? I don't think the world gives a crap, just like they don't give a crap about enforcing their own resolutions. We've been relegated to the position of "police of the world," and nobody else will step up with the cajones to back up their words with actions.
Before 1991, our troops were busy training and preparing for war, which should be our primary mission. Most of our time was spent at home in the USA, and we would be deployed occasionally to unfriendly spots of the world to take care of business. Since 1991, our troops can count on spending a sizeable chunk of their military careers in the middle east in countries that don't want us there in the first place. Our pilots spend as much as six months out of EVERY year on a southwest asia tour. An ungodly amount of resources, manpower, and money goes into our 11-year effort to enforce two no-fly zones over a country the size of Arizona. I remember in the mid-nineties, our troops were told that this would be a temporarly thing and wouldn't last very long. Since then, that kind of talk has been replaced by endless "rotations" and troops getting ready for their next trip to the desert within weeks of their previous one. Our military is tired because of this......don't believe the "yes" men at the top that will tell you otherwise.
So, why do we do it? Because, right now, there isn't a way out of it. If things remain the way they are, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. If we leave, Saddam will have free reign to disobey international law and commit atrocities against his people. If we stay, Saddam continues to fire away at our men and women, and we wait for the day when one of our planes goes down over Iraq.
So, I propose that we got to war with Iraq, to bring our men and women home. I propose we go to war with Iraq, to shut off the endless flow of money into a police action the rest of the world isn't interested in helping out with. I propose we go to war with Iraq, to finally solve a problem that has no other solution.
We need to go to war with Iraq because we are at war with Iraq. If you doubt that, ask the pilots who are being shot at over there every day.
Chuck
------------------
'91 Black/Ivory NSX
'89 Gray/Gray F-16C
Great points made Chuck. If we're going to go to war with Iraq, at least let's be clear about why we should be doing it.
Electro, I'm also glad that there are others who feel the same way. =)
Electro, I'm also glad that there are others who feel the same way. =)
Necessary or not....I'm ready to go. Someone above my paygrade makes that decision.
Bill,
Somewhere in the Persian Gulf with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit
Bill,
Somewhere in the Persian Gulf with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit
Excellent points, Chuck. Its one of the reasons I personally had to leave the Military. I disagree with allowing the situation to continue and/or the Military to be misued like an international police force. War is one thing, but what is going on now is unacceptable and for that reason alone, I'm behind a final effort to end the conflict and move on.
Sunny
Sunny
"hehe, do you want me to take this one, or do you want it" -Electro
I guess we need to be schooled, according to your doctrine ?
Rather condescending don't you think, you have just managed to put a vast majority of people according to Electro as not being able to think outside the box, conversly insulting them at the same time b/c they don't subscribe or have your intellect or have the capacity as you say. Then you mean no offence !
"This is not a topic where personal attacks can be sufficient in dealing w/the questions i've posed" Quote by Electro
You have just effectively done the same thing.
[This message has been edited by Tom Larkins (edited 14 January 2003).]
As a human being, no war is worth it.
As an American, freedom is worth fighting for.
As an American, freedom is worth fighting for.
Darkcyd, Should I take this one or do u want it? heheh
Tom, The reason I said that was because Darkcyd seems to be the only one who shares my views on this subject. And I was only making light of this really heavy topic that I started. It was not meant to sound like I was saying you were unable to understand what I was about to say or anything. And I'm not sure if I consider what I believe doctrine at all... Its an observation of collected facts that make up what I believe. The term doctrine implies that I have only my beiefs to rely on. Which is not the only thing I'm relying on here. I'm bringing up questions and issues which have not been adressed by anyone in this forum, nor from the US gov't.
(cont below)
Tom, The reason I said that was because Darkcyd seems to be the only one who shares my views on this subject. And I was only making light of this really heavy topic that I started. It was not meant to sound like I was saying you were unable to understand what I was about to say or anything. And I'm not sure if I consider what I believe doctrine at all... Its an observation of collected facts that make up what I believe. The term doctrine implies that I have only my beiefs to rely on. Which is not the only thing I'm relying on here. I'm bringing up questions and issues which have not been adressed by anyone in this forum, nor from the US gov't.
(cont below)
As far as the other stuff, It's just an observation that can only be made by someone who actually grew up there... I'm originally from Atlanta, GA. I was born there. I know this to be fact. Facts can only be offensive if the offended party is unwilling to accept those facts. This is something I've determined over the course of my life to be true after dealing with countless people that litterally can *not* think outside of the box. I know this from personal experience. That type of activity actually frightens these people and they refuse to even try. There's another term for this, its called ignorance.
-Electro
-Electro
Well, im not quite sure why the 'hawk' vs 'dove' debate had to become bigoted, but I'll respond.
electro/darkcyd; your condescension towards the 'heartland' is unfair and unwarranted. There certainly are many in the heartland who fit your stereotype, just as there are many westcoasters who fit various stereotypes.
Here's a quick lesson for you, from an ignorant heartlander;
beware of anyone who tries to convince you or further an argument based upon bigotry, prejudice, or other 'argumentum ad hominem'. They are of insufficient intellect or of devious intent to rely upon such flimsy tactics of persuasion.
You should also note, that corrupt governments rely upon the belief that the people are too stupid to decide for themselves. A good argument, like good government, has no need to question someone else's intelligence; its success speaks for itself. Democracy is founded upon the belief that we are all just ignorant enough to make it work.
Keep this in mind; "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last" appropriate words of Winston Churchill which can be applied to the Iraq question.
And for those who think midwesterners are too stupid to figure all of this out, as was inferred by a previous poster, "To hell with them. When history is written they will be the sons of bitches--not I." Harry Truman, regarding the press.
signed,
poor ignorant midwestern sharecropper
electro/darkcyd; your condescension towards the 'heartland' is unfair and unwarranted. There certainly are many in the heartland who fit your stereotype, just as there are many westcoasters who fit various stereotypes.
Here's a quick lesson for you, from an ignorant heartlander;
beware of anyone who tries to convince you or further an argument based upon bigotry, prejudice, or other 'argumentum ad hominem'. They are of insufficient intellect or of devious intent to rely upon such flimsy tactics of persuasion.
You should also note, that corrupt governments rely upon the belief that the people are too stupid to decide for themselves. A good argument, like good government, has no need to question someone else's intelligence; its success speaks for itself. Democracy is founded upon the belief that we are all just ignorant enough to make it work.
Keep this in mind; "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last" appropriate words of Winston Churchill which can be applied to the Iraq question.
And for those who think midwesterners are too stupid to figure all of this out, as was inferred by a previous poster, "To hell with them. When history is written they will be the sons of bitches--not I." Harry Truman, regarding the press.
signed,
poor ignorant midwestern sharecropper
"Let's just hope that the U.S. will pick a wise, and strong leader, when and if he is overthrow."
Only a small not: wouldn't it be better for the Iraqi population if they could choose a new leader THEMSELVES?
Only a small not: wouldn't it be better for the Iraqi population if they could choose a new leader THEMSELVES?
Huckster - My apologies if you felt as if you were automatically included in the aforementioned definition, purely based on geography. That was not intended. I merely stated that there is a large population in those areas that do fit that bill. If you are not one of those who do fall into that category, then you can exclude yourself from it.
You made a very good point that democracy is based on people having the intelligence to know whats good for them and decide on the right path or choice. That is all fine and dandy when the topic of discussion is something that is familiar to them and relevant to their everyday lifestyles. But how can you trust the wisdom of people making choices on topics that they don't fully understand or grasp? It's like somebody asking me for my opinion on an engineering or architecture issue. Sure, I could come up with an opinion, but I doubt it would be worth its weight in air.
As for your quote on Iraq. I don't think anybody is trying to appease them. We're the ones in control of the situation. The question is, is war with Iraq as pressing as Bush makes it seem. For the reasons he states, I think not. For some of the reasons Viper Driver brought up, I think it is. But I have problems blindly following a president whose legitimacy is questionable and who doesn't seem to give a rats ass about the opinions of the global community and what the repercussions of his actions will be. I think the people should really sit back and question the wisdom of what is about to go down.
This situation is not just about us. What happens when the war is done? Are we going to be policing Iraq just like we are in Arghanistan and Bosnia? Are we going to be responsible for rebuilding their entire country like we did with Japan post-WWII and Afghanistan post 9/11? Who is going to lead Iraq? Is that going to disrupt the stability of the entire region with the vacuum of power? If we disregard the international community and act unilaterally or bilaterally with Britain, what does that mean for the UN and it's legitimacy as the will of the world when we as the single superpower and largest backer of the UN, decide to push it by the wayside simply because the world doesn't see things the same way we do?
So when you ask yourself, is this war worth it, you have to answer the question of whether or not it's worth it to the US and also whether or not it's worth it to the world.
[This message has been edited by Darkcyd (edited 14 January 2003).]
Originally posted by gheba_nsx:
"Let's just hope that the U.S. will pick a wise, and strong leader, when and if he is overthrow."
Only a small not: wouldn't it be better for the Iraqi population if they could choose a new leader THEMSELVES?
Therein lies the hypocrisy that causes some of the resentment towards us. We believe as mentioned in a prior post, that the people have just enough intelligence to choose wisely for themselves. But when it comes to people of other nations, they somehow or other lack the same ability so in our infinite wisdom, we have to choose for them. And even when we let them choose, if we don't like the results, we exert our influence. Reference Peru. Establishing puppet governments is just one way the world sees us as manipulative and overbearing.
[This message has been edited by Darkcyd (edited 14 January 2003).]
Similar threads
