PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: DepthBlade on May 20, 2004, 07:14:32 pm
-
Is anyone else getting tired of logging onto a browser or turning on the television and seeing the war on Iraq? Well maybe this will just be put out to North Americans because I have no idea if its being publicized as much in other places..
I just started to look through some of these pictures of U.S Marines torturing and gloating over dead bodies, and my stomach just turned its wrong!
Here is example of a american solider gloating over a dead Iraq body! (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/wrap/linker.jsp?floc=NW_1-I&ref=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/20/congress.abuse/index.html)
As much as I hate the American Government and the decisions they make, the USA is the major power in a world and bring us many good things but I am not seeing good in them anymore. I always had a bad view onto your government and some of your gangs,clans, cults and what not never really labeled you all as the same thing but its starting to kick in now that I see your soliders which were civilians of your country doing what they are doing! Maybe I am just overreacting, I still can\'t label you all as sadistic crazy mofos (only Sep :], not sure where he is from though) Anyways I can\'t see much good from USA anymore, being blocked out by all the bad lately! I think its time for the American people to overthrow their government and check themselves!
-
I kinda agree with you, but isn\'t this against an unofficial rule of not starting political discussions or something? There are so many discussions about Iraq and its so often in the news (afghanistan is almost forgotten it seems) its like an old record that keeps being replayed.
We\'ve heared everything about Iraq by now. Im going to wait and see while the Iraq situation is crumbling day by day and can\'t be ignored by the American people anymore. Will be fun to see Bush kicked out of the white hous. Wouldn\'t surprise me if in the future in history books its recorded that he was the worst president the USA ever had.
-
I think this being the Hydlaa Plaza, we should be aloud to talk about whatever we want! This has been such a big thing as of late I wouldn\'t mind getting opinions of other people and discussing them further on their thoughts!
-
Oh its allowed alright, only there is also an unwritten code of behavior. If you want to discuss Iraq and politics, thats fine by me. Maybe if ill even post in this topic a few times.
Anyway i am interested in the opinions of the PS members, especially those of Americans since ive heard those of dutch people more then enough by now.
-
USA have more than 500 million population how can you judge a countrys political system after what some small group of american soldiers do?
I know it\'s not looking too bright for Bush around the world but small things like the POW-torture have nothing to do with him.
-
people -> government. If the government is flawed, so is the majority of the people (behind them).
I lost faith in the USA a long time ago; there were bigger \"mistakes\" made and bigger wrongs left uncorrected.
-
I totally agree with Lynx..
-
Kinda pisses me off that they are the reason this has all happened did they not leave Sadaam Hussein in power back in the day? Correct me if I am wrong but didn\'t they put him up in that position?
-
I believe they assisted him with weapons, and didn\'t interfere when he made his assault on the iraqi government.. But I\'m not that well versed in the history of iraq
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
I think this being the Hydlaa Plaza, we should be aloud to talk about whatever we want!
Maybe we should be allowed to talk about whatever we want here, but do you really think a political argument is a right idea? Even if we won\'t degrade into flaming it won\'t come out good.
(only Sep :]
Sep is a brit.
I don\'t really read news, or watch tv, so I can\'t really be sure. But afaik the media here pretty much forgot it. They probebly cover big stories like the torturing thing, but aside from that the media here focuses mostly on domestic stuff.
-
Seps a brit? That explains alot :] No hate towards the brits, thats where my ancestors came from!
Yah most discussions somehow turn to flaming against each other! Hopefully this one can stay away from that!
OT: I can\'t help but feel the only reason USA is in Iraq is to protect their investment in oil resource! Now if they have gone this far to protect a oil resource will they do the same with any other country for any other resource?
After pearl harbor USA made some law or something about not standing back and waiting for the attack (It isn\'t said like that but its got the same idea, they take action before action is taken on them kinda thing! They stayed neutral before so)
So it makes me somewhat nervous that if they have a feeling something bad is happening in another country that can affect them, they will march on in overthrow the place, make accusations that are false and in the end accomplish what for that country? Anarchy?
-
Well first off you cant judge all americans by the actions of a few. Thats like saying because Saddam hussien was bad all iraqis are bad.
And secondly the people that did those things are being severly punished.
Finally if the government is bad the poeple are bad?
Thats not nessisarily true. It\'s a fact that power corrupts just bacause soem high up is a bad person doesn\'t mean that we all are. Stop just listening to your media\'s propaganda and take what they say with a grain of salt.
All you are talking about is what we do. What about the video they sent our government of then cutting of the head of one of their american prisoners?
They sawed that mans head off! That isn\'t brutal?
What they have been doing to women for years isn\'t bad? We are only trying to make the situation a little better.
Anyway it kinda pisses me off that someone would do something like that but I get more pissed off when people act like its my fault because I\'m american.
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
So it makes me somewhat nervous that if they have a feeling something bad is happening in another country that can affect them, they will march on in overthrow the place, make accusations that are false and in the end accomplish what for that country? Anarchy?
Funny that you mention that :). The USA doesn\'t acknowledge the international court of justice so there soldiers can\'t be prosecuted by it for crimes against humanity. They have declared that they might even get their americans out by force would he be hold in custody in the hague. So perhaps one day holland is invaded by the USA.
-
actually according to my passport(s) i am american and a brit
born in the us both mom and dad from the uk twisted evil and all conquing tecincallyty rolled up into one huge ball and let looses \\o\\\\o//o/
the war was about oil not Weps of MASS destruction thats all i have to say
stop talking about me everyone starting to weird me out with the talking >.>
-
Originally posted by Ineluke
Anyway it kinda pisses me off that someone would do something like that but I get more pissed off when people act like its my fault because I\'m american.
*nods*
Depthblade & others, I hate to say this, but...
You need to Shut the f*ck up!
European news agencies know that europeans will watch stories about things that interest them. This includes (but is not limited to) all kinds of bad news about Iraq. You didn\'t support the war, so any bad news from it is plastered all over your televisions for ratings!
Secondly: I hope you were joking about a government overthrow, because if you aren\'t, then my view of your intelligence has degraded beyond comprehension. -_-
3: The Oil for Food program was a sham for your politicians to get rich. Deal with it.
4: Being abused and having your head sawed off AND THE VIDEO SHOWN ON THE WEB are two vastly different degrees of punishment. How some people fail to understand this bothers me.
5: Sharon would not be prime minister of Israel if the palestinians would stop blowing themselves up and massacreing civilians. Then the Israelis wouldn\'t be so paranoid and the whole thing would stop. You\'d be crazy too if you were under constant theat of death. Domestic scandals can\'t kick a prime minister like him out until the Israelis feel safe.
Why can\'t they all just protest peacefully, then no-one (not even I) would like Israel, they\'d be forced into creating a palestinian state.
6: Even if the pretexts for the war in Iraq were fabricated, we are going to stay there to prevent a militarist, radical islamist dictatorship.
7: Note that gas prices are going up in the US, not down. If the war was for Oil, would this be happening? No.
(Yes I know European Petrol is really expensive, but you people did that to yourselves. Furthurmore, unlike Europe where everything is located in cities with miles of countryside, there is actually a need for cars here. Not hummers, of course.)
8: You do realise that people are living off some of the benefits for the unemployed over in Euro-land, why can\'t you just make them get jobs?
9: Bush will not be remembered as the worst president in American history. The right half of the nation will probably look back fondly.
10: You can\'t judge the actions of an entire army by the actions of a few soldiers. It took a soldier himself to report these abuses to his commanding officers!
Bush is not responsible for actions he did not know about. -_-
Soldiers generally are those who can not yet find or afford a better job.
11: If you don\'t like America, quit whining and stop buying products distributed by American companies.
12: If you don\'t like America, move here and change it.
13: \"CNN has not confirmed the identity of the body in the pictures, but it is believed the man died at Abu Ghraib prison.\" Which is the prison with the abuses, gee, I wonder why it happened there?
14: I\'ll quote Niber here: \"USA have more than 500 million population how can you judge a countrys political system after what some small group of american soldiers do?
I know it\'s not looking too bright for Bush around the world but small things like the POW-torture have nothing to do with him.\"
15: There\'s a man called Chalabi* who was in the employ of the US gov\'t. He gave false information on WMD\'s.
Lastly: It is clear to me that DB either conciously chose to create a Hate-America thread, or he actually intentioned it to have valid arguments and accidently created one.
I feel much better now.
*mutters to self* ...and to think just a few hours ago I was called a liberal...
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
OT: I can\'t help but feel the only reason USA is in Iraq is to protect their investment in oil resource!
Originally posted by seperot
the war was about oil
BS.
The war in Iraq was for the exact same reason like the first Gulf War: The Omega Agency.
And in this case the cause does justifies the means.
Sure, war sucks, the americans did bad things, the iraqies did bad things, bla bla bla. But when the Omega Agency will go into power, we\'ll all forget this war because it brings a better future.
It\'s wrong to say that if the government is bad the people are bad. It sounds right because the people chose the government, but it\'s wrong because no one can really tell what the government will do once they\'re in power. And throwing the government out isn\'t that easy, they\'ll have to do some serious peanut ups to get even close to getting themselves thrown out.
-
I agree with you SaintNuclear that oil wasn\'t the (only) goal of the war, since the expenses made in the war are too huge. And of course americans are not all to blame for the actions of the government, though the USA is a democracy.
Only i never heard of the omega agency? Maybe im just ignorant, but can anyone enlighten me?
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Only i never heard of the omega agency? Maybe im just ignorant, but can anyone enlighten me?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/omega.html
There should be an article in totse.com too, can\'t find it atm, but this link should be more than enough.
-
The Omega Agency is the focal point of the Cananadian plot to conquer the world.
Ooh, look, another video of the bad American soldiers... how many are abusing PoWs? Compare that to the number of soldiers we have there. And to blame the rest of America for that, or anybody in the government, is just ridiculous...
There are bad people everywhere. What makes you think that\'s a reason to erthrow our government? Also, what\'s the likelyhood that PoW abuse is going to be recorded? Personally, I think it\'s staged.
gangs,clans, cults
Again, those have to do with the government how? And... clans? Cults? What?
Also, even those in support of the war say it was fought under false pretenses... there was no evidence the weapons or weapons programs controlled by Hussain were destroyed. There is a lead now that they may have been moved to Syria (sorry if that\'s been resolved, I may be a bit behind). What would you do if you had weapons you didn\'t want people to see? I\'d store them away.
Even if the war was fought for oil (which it wasn\'t), I would still support it. Cheaper oil would be a great reward for LIBERATING THE COUNTRY.
However, our country does have problems. These are what I think they are:
1. No term limits on senators
2. Bipartisan system
Let me explain number two. We have two parties. They have to disagree about everything. Maybe they don\'t, but it\'s what they do. The right answer is often in the middle ground, but everybody\'s shooting at each other from opposite ends. Two parties isn\'t enough.
Anyway, those are the opinions of Davis.
-
Originally posted by Monketh
Originally posted by Ineluke
Anyway it kinda pisses me off that someone would do something like that but I get more pissed off when people act like its my fault because I\'m american.
*nods*
Depthblade & others, I hate to say this, but...
You need to Shut the f*ck up!
Monketh -See this is what was mentioned about flaming, I would have expected you not to jump in with that. You could just state your point and your evidence behind your point without the rest simple as that! This thread is about sharing your opinion and informing others with valid information and if something isn\'t valid and you have proof it isn\'t then point it out!
Secondly : No I wasn\'t joking about overthrowing a government thats exactly what they did in Iraq correct, They pushed over Sadaam Hussein who was recognized as leader(...government mmm..ok maybe somewhat of a dictatorship) They are trying to fix it , wow sure is working fine the head council guy just got suicide bombed!
Davis - Gangs, Cults etc have nothing to do with the government I just said I have a bad view on them! (Your right canada is going to take over who would have expected it :evil: )
Ineluke- Ofcourse we can\'t judge everyone by the actions of few, thats not what is being said. Ok time to reword its hard to see the good in USA when right now all you can see is the bad publicity!
Finally there is no 100 percent correct answer into why they went to Iraq. They say it was weapons of mass destruction (Haven\'t found those yet, did you look under the beds yet :D?) I believe its the oil investment and now I hear something about Omega whatever??? Who knows whats correct maybe all of it? Maybe none of it?
EDIT: I am Canadian Davis :P
-
No Monketh this isn\'t a Hate America thread! I have family and friends in America and it has been stated I just am feeling sick to my stomach reading this garbage about the war and now these abuse photos!But Yes I hate your government, If I could do something I WOULD but I can\'t, to me your GOVERNMENT is another form of a dictatorship as well is mine! Oil is going up as well as gas, so it can very well be over Oil still :P! Although my country decided to break away from USA by not helping their meaningless war on iraq, we still have to sit here and watch on our news all the stuff happening which pisses me off!! Its not your fault its on a Canadian news channel but if your government would have never jumped into this I wouldn\'t have to put up with it!
EDIT: And about the head chopping and abuse, ok they chopped of americans head and now the american soliders torture them? Two wrongs make a right I suppose eh?
-
Originally posted by Davis
The Omega Agency is the focal point of the Cananadian plot to conquer the world.
Canadian? Oh, yeah, that\'s why Bush sr. was in it, and Bush jr. is in it, and Canada isn\'t even participating in the current war in Iraq, right? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Originally posted by Davis
The Omega Agency is the focal point of the Cananadian plot to conquer the world.
Canadian? Oh, yeah, that\'s why Bush sr. was in it, and Bush jr. is in it, and Canada isn\'t even participating in the current war in Iraq, right? :rolleyes:
We are waiting for the dust to settle, then we will come in with our hockey sticks and armored tractors!
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
Secondly : No I wasn\'t joking about overthrowing a government thats exactly what they did in Iraq correct, They pushed over Sadaam Hussein who was recognized as leader(...government mmm..ok maybe somewhat of a dictatorship) They are trying to fix it , wow sure is working fine the head council guy just got suicide bombed!
Our government doesn\'t shoot councilers, rape it\'s citizens, mutilate people for speaking out against the government, wipe out villages, or a lot of other things that Saddam\'s regime was doing. Where\'s the similarity?
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Canadian? Oh, yeah, that\'s why Bush sr. was in it, and Bush jr. is in it, and Canada isn\'t even participating in the current war in Iraq, right? :rolleyes:
Just when you least expect it, they\'ll come. Trust me, they will come, and destruction will follow.
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
No Monketh this isn\'t a Hate America thread! I have family and friends in America and it has been stated I just am feeling sick to my stomach reading this garbage about the war and now these abuse photos!But Yes I hate your government, If I could do something I WOULD but I can\'t, to me your GOVERNMENT is another form of a dictatorship as well is mine! Oil is going up as well as gas, so it can very well be over Oil still :P! Although my country decided to break away from USA by not helping their meaningless war on iraq, we still have to sit here and watch on our news all the stuff happening which pisses me off!! Its not your fault its on a Canadian news channel but if your government would have never jumped into this I wouldn\'t have to put up with it!
EDIT: And about the head chopping and abuse, ok they chopped of americans head and now the american soliders torture them? Two wrongs make a right I suppose eh?
@Edit: Depends whether you\'re multiplying &dividing or adding. :rolleyes:
Uh, please explain to me how republics are a form of dictatorship, are you an anarchist or somethin\'?
Oil: My point about gas prices going up is that if this was an oil war then why are they going up? Shouldn\'t this \"stolen oil\" be bringing prices back down? :rolleyes:
-
Benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. Thing is, you need a benevolent dictator. It\'s kind of depressing, when you think abou tit. Dictatorship doesn\'t work because society fails to provide one person who can properly run the country.
I used to be a big supporter of democracy in all it\'s form, but now I\'m a more representitive republican type. The people are an impeding influence on the government. Why? They\'re idiotic sheep. If the people weren\'t such morons, we might not need our \"dictatorship\", as you call it.
All Americans reading this, see this as a public request to stop being such dumbasses.
-
We are not completely a dictatorship but we have qualities that prove to be forms of a dictatorship! A man with so much power, a senate or a house of commons that really only have the power to make comments! Theres more to say about the qualities we have to relate to a dictatorship but i dont have time to type it all out but i will later! MAY LONG!!
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
We are not completely a dictatorship but we have qualities that prove to be forms of a dictatorship! A man with so much power, a senate or a house of commons that really only have the power to make comments! Theres more to say about the qualities we have to relate to a dictatorship but i dont have time to type it all out but i will later! MAY LONG!!
I\'m glad we\'re not talking about the USA here :rolleyes:
-
I\'m American, I say so what. People hate me? Oh well, People don\'t like me? Oh well.
But some of you foreigners dang. When the U.S does something bad, oh yah okay the United States is evil. But if some other country did something bad well then I guess it isn\'t as bad because the United States didn\'t do it. As much as it sickens me some of you hope the U.S
does something bad just so you can criticize us. Of course people who think that won\'t really admit it.
-
Originally posted by Monketh
Depthblade & others, I hate to say this, but...
You need to Shut the f*ck up!
Talking about flaming... ;)
European news agencies know that europeans will watch stories about things that interest them. This includes (but is not limited to) all kinds of bad news about Iraq. You didn\'t support the war, so any bad news from it is plastered all over your televisions for ratings!
Not entirely true. The official statement of most European governments was they didn\'t support the war without the vote of the UN, because the reasons/the right to intervene was questionable to say the least. However not every country stating so had a big majority of the population behind them. Furthermore all Europeans can\'t be seen as \"one opinion\", exactly like not all Americans can be frowned upon for the bad treatment of POWs. :)
Of course news agencies stress the news that people will most likely listen to, but also note it is in no way different in the United States (believe me, I have some first-hand experience from being in NY on that very September 11th) :)
3: The Oil for Food program was a sham for your politicians to get rich. Deal with it.
As does the war in Iraq help many American companies. From an American point of view I can understand why companies from countries that opposed the war are excluded from the program to rebuild what has been destroyed during the war, but some were shut out even before their opinion was openly stated. (Not too fond of argueing about money here ;))
Remark: Anti-American attitude is nurtured by statements like your (a little patronizing) \"Deal with it.\"
6: Even if the pretexts for the war in Iraq were fabricated, we are going to stay there to prevent a militarist, radical islamist dictatorship.
I totally agree on that. Nothing would be more wrong than pulling out now. And I frown upon those who say \"bleh America can\'t handle it, they should leave.\" Wrong! No matter how questionable the intervention itself was for some people, think what would happen to that country without the protection (yes, protection!) of the US military right now. (For those who do not agree on that, think of it in a more anti-American way: They made the mess, they have to clean it up! :P)
7: Note that gas prices are going up in the US, not down. If the war was for Oil, would this be happening?
Short term effect vs. long-term effect. Let\'s assume the US would stay in full control over the oil reserves in Iraq. Right now there\'s still enough on the world market that prices can\'t be influenced by that. \"ait another 30 or 40 years -> whole different story. Plus the US have oil reserves on their own which are barely touched (as of now). If that was done your gas prices would be go down by one half at least... but of course no reserves last forever. ;)
8: You do realise that people are living off some of the benefits for the unemployed over in Euro-land, why can\'t you just make them get jobs?
eh? Yes that\'s how economy works .. *raises eyebrow, doubting Monketh is serious here* ;)
10: You can\'t judge the actions of an entire army by the actions of a few soldiers. It took a soldier himself to report these abuses to his commanding officers!
Bush is not responsible for actions he did not know about. -_-
The first part is definately true, as well that these actions are a side effect of every war. Assuming something different would be just naive. But what is more disturbing than the events itself is that they, according to Mr. Wolfowitz were ordered by people like Rumsfeld and seem to be common practice (perhaps not to the extends like the recent events). The fact that the US could be (COULD!) not only tolerating but even issuing orders to torture POWs is what strikes people hard over here.
11: If you don\'t like America, quit whining and stop buying products distributed by American companies.
A very populist argument, you have to admit. ;)
12: If you don\'t like America, move here and change it.
People are trying to change/influence it. Through words (like e.g. this thread). I do not see how moving across the atlantic should help.
Lastly: It is clear to me that DB either conciously chose to create a Hate-America thread, or he actually intentioned it to have valid arguments and accidently created one.
I sincerely disagree.
*mutters to self* ...and to think just a few hours ago I was called a liberal...
If it helps, at least for me your post didn\'t change that.
-
I feel the oil argument is overused, and lacking in substance. The US government has fairly good relationship to the Saudis, and I don\'t think Iraq\'s oil production rivals saudi arabias (although I\'m just making stuff up here!) I do believe that Bush et al. moved against Iraq because they had 1) finally felt the sting of random acts of destruction which had so far only happened to countries with really wierd names 2) wanted to hit back, Afghanistan was a really hollow victory 3) Saddam is a Bad Man 4) Iraq was percieved as a \"hostile\" country, i.e. even though it *didn\'t* have WMDs, they would be willing to harbour people who would attack the US.
As for the whole prisoner abuse scandal, it is truly an atrocity, but one that has happened time and time again - rape and pillage follow closely on the heels of war. If your army becomes a place full of people who have gotten themselves worked up to despise a group of people so utterly that they cease to see them as human, nothing but tragedy will occur.
I was under the impression that america had less than half a billion people, I thought it was more like 300-400 million. Then again, my facts probably came from my parents 1967 World Book Encyclopedia (One day, man might reach the moon! In 20 years everything will be nuclear!) Revolution in a nation like america 1) won\'t happen and 2) will cause more bloodshed, more extremism, and will change nothing for the better.
I\'d substantiate my arguments, but that would take thought :D
-
10: You can\'t judge the actions of an entire army by the actions of a few soldiers. It took a soldier himself to report these abuses to his commanding officers!
Bush is not responsible for actions he did not know about. -_-
Bush is resposible for the entire USA government, including the army and his ministers...
12: If you don\'t like America, move here and change it.
I can\'t: you have to be born in the USA to become president :-(
-
Originally posted by Pogopuschel
Not entirely true. The official statement of most European governments was they didn\'t support the war without the vote of the UN, because the reasons/the right to intervene was questionable to say the least. However not every country stating so had a big majority of the population behind them. Furthermore all Europeans can\'t be seen as \"one opinion\", exactly like not all Americans can be frowned upon for the bad treatment of POWs. :)
That was the official statement. France, Germany and Russia were all benefiting from the Oil for Food program, and Russia was selling stuff to Iraq. Also, they all had companies with business in Iraq. That\'s the reason they didn\'t support the US, not because they thought it was wrong.
As does the war in Iraq help many American companies. From an American point of view I can understand why companies from countries that opposed the war are excluded from the program to rebuild what has been destroyed during the war, but some were shut out even before their opinion was openly stated. (Not too fond of argueing about money here ;))
It seems to me like you are entirely failing to address the Oil for Food program here. Don\'t forget that this was money that was supposed to feed Iraqis, and was instead making European politicians richer.
Originally posted by Taldor
I can\'t: you have to be born in the USA to become president :-(
Actually, you just have to live here for a certain number of years.
-
Originally posted by Davis
Originally posted by Pogopuschel
Not entirely true. The official statement of most European governments was they didn\'t support the war without the vote of the UN, because the reasons/the right to intervene was questionable to say the least. However not every country stating so had a big majority of the population behind them. Furthermore all Europeans can\'t be seen as \"one opinion\", exactly like not all Americans can be frowned upon for the bad treatment of POWs. :)
That was the official statement. France, Germany and Russia were all benefiting from the Oil for Food program, and Russia was selling stuff to Iraq. Also, they all had companies with business in Iraq. That\'s the reason they didn\'t support the US, not because they thought it was wrong.
Okay you\'re partly right, at least my government officially stated to \"not support the US in whatsoever way\", which is a stupid statement (like any unconditional statement is anyway) and they were/are still bashed by the opposition for that one :D. They added the UN-part later on, basically saying they were understood wrong. Whether one can trust this is up to each individual\'s opinion (I don\'t believe that part either).
Of course every country had a few companies profiting there, like in every other country, but the importance of that is questionable.
I agree that any government always mentions only the \'noble\' reasons publically (whether they helped make the decision or not). As is probably was the case here, but I don\'t think it was because of the few companies making profits down there but more because they had no resources (money + personnel) to support another contingency of armed forces in yet another part of the world (Somalia, former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan). :)
There are countries with >80 million people who have but 280.000 soldiers with a constantly decreasing budget instead of a constantly increasing one (http://www.kurier.at/ausland/621392.php), you know. ;) (sry, got no English link on that).
Originally posted by Taldor
I can\'t: you have to be born in the USA to become president :-(
Actually, you just have to live here for a certain number of years.
True for any governor, but not for the president IMHO. But I think there\'s already an Act on it\'s way that changes that (at least it has been suggested) so Taldor might actually get the chance. :D
It seems to me like you are entirely failing to address the Oil for Food program here. Don\'t forget that this was money that was supposed to feed Iraqis, and was instead making European politicians richer.
I fail to see how politicians directly draw money from that, last time I checked that\'s not how economy works here. ;)
Otherwise I would have become a polititian, not a damn software dev. :D
-
Ok, just one thing about oil proces to clear up. Another big reason why our oil is much more expensive is that we use purer oil! The engines we use need it - a car driven in Europe would collapse in US after some 50Mm...
-
Originally posted by Davis
Also, they all had companies with business in Iraq. That\'s the reason they didn\'t support the US, not because they thought it was wrong.
There were \\ are american companies in Iraq too, so saying the europeans didn\'t support the US because they had companies in Iraq is pretty stupid.
-
Ok good good, we stayed away from continuing flames :D Just to point out something that has to do with the War on Iraq but breaks off into Canada and USA. It was convenient enough when my country decided that the War on Iraq was crap and we wouldn\'t help, the USA suddenly found madd cow in the beef we send to them and then closed their boarders and continually do so saying they are finding more and more cases when we do not? Its true there was one or two one based in USA and one in Alberta, Canada? The cow found in the states claimed to be from Canada RIGHTT!!? I think just another way to show the little brother that the big one makes the decisions :P Anyways when they decided to put all these boarder limits up FOR SO LONG! They bankrupted literally thousands of cattle farmers and what not including my uncle so thanks! Another reason I dislike your government with passion!
-
Indeed, complements to everyone for not flaming others just because of different opinions. And Canada is cool, too bad the immigration is so strict else i moved there right now :D
-
the fault is everyones form the Us to the radicals
U.s Was in the wrong for attacking iraq instead they should haved introduce a culture revelution (to free its people) instead of useing violence to solve violence Which only makes things worse
also their forgien policy which countless people hate ( iam netural on the subject) esp the weapons (dealing) part
And also the failure to commit of troops and equiment into iraq. this is particaly due to the ordinary american who wants the soilders brought home From where they are needed badly
I belive this is war is not to be fought on the the desert but on hearts and minds that live on it.
you cant teach a man if he doesent want to learn he has to be willing if not he will only have spite for his teachers
They have to be willing to learn form a moderate muslim and change themselves and their country for the better
-
Originally posted by snow_RAveN
U.s Was in the wrong for attacking iraq instead they should haved introduce a culture revelution (to free its people) instead of useing violence to solve violence Which only makes things worse
Actually, countries (atleast Israel and the US) tried stirring the iraqies to make coups \\ assasinate Saddam since atleast \'91, probebly before.
And you know, if it won\'t go by the brain, it\'ll probebly go with a Howitzer.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
There were \\ are american companies in Iraq too, so saying the europeans didn\'t support the US because they had companies in Iraq is pretty stupid.
It was definately a factor.
-
I think we need to do something about our government too. we have a total screw up for a president. he didn\'t even get in by popular vote, he had to rely on the electorial college. we\'re SUPPOSED to be a DEMOCRACY, in other words, my vote should count, but his presidency proves that we aren\'t and it doesn\'t. as a nation, we aught to be able to rectify this, but we can\'t without rebelling. it totally sucks a$$ho1e big time.
If the american public can\'t be trusted to vote in the right president, then why even pretend that we\'re a democracy?
-
btw, depth, where at in canada do you live, I\'m visiting my mother in law next year in maine, and my wife wants to visit canada while we\'re there.
it\'ll be my first time out of america.
-
Originally posted by tygerwilde
I think we need to do something about our government too. we have a total screw up for a president. he didn\'t even get in by popular vote, he had to rely on the electorial college. we\'re SUPPOSED to be a DEMOCRACY, in other words, my vote should count, but his presidency proves that we aren\'t and it doesn\'t. as a nation, we aught to be able to rectify this, but we can\'t without rebelling. it totally sucks a$$ho1e big time.
If the american public can\'t be trusted to vote in the right president, then why even pretend that we\'re a democracy?
While we\'re at it, let\'s get rid of term limits on senators and start some more political parties.
-
OT :heh right now I am located in Estevan, Saskatchewan Canada, The province is flat prarie land with farming of all kinds here we distribute wheat to most of the world! Its so flat you can\'t even lose your dog stand on a stool and you can see it running a few miles out :D Once I graduate ill be off to Saskatoon to live with my real dad which will be june 4th approximately!
In the past, war was a benefactor to the depression, it gave jobs to millions. Most people that were starving and hungry were saved by world war 2! War also is a excuse to advance in technology! Maybe this was the U.S plan start a war so they can conduct biochemical testing in nevada and create robot monsters who can destroy whole armies, or MAYBE NOT :D!
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
In the past, war was a benefactor to the depression, it gave jobs to millions. Most people that were starving and hungry were saved by world war 2! War also is a excuse to advance in technology! Maybe this was the U.S plan start a war so they can conduct biochemical testing in nevada and create robot monsters who can destroy whole armies, or MAYBE NOT :D!
You\'re absolutely right. War benefits the economy and allows the military to advance technology and other things. I wouldn\'t mind if that was one of the factors in the war. Kill two birds with one stone.
-
Sadly, but we need wars. It\'s a very efficient way to limit population growth and reduce overcrowdedness... :(
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
Most people that were starving and hungry were saved by world war 2!
I wonder if the soldiers that after the war became homeless beggars and died out of hunger and cold thought that war is good for economy too. What do you think?
War is good for economy for the countries that sell weapons to the fighting countries. The fighting countries waste peanutloads of money on whatever they can to strength the front.
I do agree that war is good for technological progress... Did you know that the chocolate thing that stiffens when you pour it on icecream was invented by the US army as a weapon? I can only imagine what it was supposed to do :rolleyes: It didn\'t work as a weapon, but now it\'s in the food industry, and it\'s great!
But the US don\'t really need war as an excuse for weapons R&D, the future wars that might happen is enough of an excuse for them.
-
1. The government is responsible for it\'s citizens actions.
2. The citizens are responsible for the actions of their government.
3. Discussing politics on the internet is about as useful as picking navel lint.
-
Originally posted by tygerwilde
I think we need to do something about our government too. we have a total screw up for a president. he didn\'t even get in by popular vote, he had to rely on the electorial college. we\'re SUPPOSED to be a DEMOCRACY, in other words, my vote should count, but his presidency proves that we aren\'t and it doesn\'t. as a nation, we aught to be able to rectify this, but we can\'t without rebelling. it totally sucks a$$ho1e big time.
If the american public can\'t be trusted to vote in the right president, then why even pretend that we\'re a democracy?
No, We\'re supposed to be a Republic.
Yes, the A) Political System and B)Financial system need an overhaul.
1. So if a man from Nebraska builds a Nuclear Weapon and obliterates, say... France from the face of the earth, the Government of the United States is responsible? What if he did this while he was in China?
2. So all those people in the US who opposed the war are at fault, eh? :rolleyes:
3. Some more moderate people such as myself swing back and forth on positions depending on what people say to us. Liberalism here is counter-acted by hard-core conservatism when I go to school, and vice versa.
Anybody, regardless of profession can easily become a homeless beggar. There is always some level of unemployment.
*France used as a random example, use of France as an example does not represent a hatred on the part of the author.
OT: Canadian Candy Ownz!!! :D
-
Originally posted by lynx_lupo
Sadly, but we need wars. It\'s a very efficient way to limit population growth and reduce overcrowdedness... :(
Of course it\'s always tragic to lose e.g. a member of the family to a war, but objectively talking numbers (= ppl who lost their life in wars like the one in Iraq) I don\'t think modern wars have any influence on world (over-)population.
-
Originally posted by Monketh
Anybody, regardless of profession can easily become a homeless beggar. There is always some level of unemployment.
After WWII many of the participating countries had to rebuild themselves. Soldiers in their early 20\'s had no qualifications, and wouldn\'t get money from the government (there just wasn\'t any money to give) became beggars.
No, this is nothing like when someone becomes a beggar in times of peace.
Maybe during the war the economy grows a bit, maybe. But after the war is over, the dust settles, and the destruction is uncovered, there\'s nothing good about the economy, and the good that might have been during the war is nothing compared to the inflation after it.
But of course, the US didn\'t really suffer from the war, they had nothing to rebuild, so it doesn\'t matter, huh?
-
Monketh
*France used as a random example, use of France as an example does not represent a hatred on the part of the author.
OT: Canadian Candy Ownz!!! :D
Ok how convenient you used France in the example I got a kick over the just because you guys had that whole thing where you were mad at them and wanted to change french fries to a different name lol! But anyways
OT: Damn right Canadian Candy ownz, you damn americans buy out or Eatmores and Toffee whenever you come to our store ;)!
-
i really didnt read all of the other posts.. but imho i believe they got what they got beeing a north american we hear about all of the suicide bombings of americans getting killed and they torure they are going through....i simply believe its an eye for an eye becuase what have they been doing?? getting our soilders and totureing and killing them and putting the video all over there news and boasting about it.... one of my best friends is a MP in the marines and this. to him makes him laugh because what you saw those people doing was only the first step in intearigation...... but abuse is only ythe second choice..not the first they give them the chance to talk to them..and if they dont then they will be made to... but they are not killed on purpose.... however on the other side of the rainbow..... all they do is toture and when they have there information... whats the use of having some us soilder laying around?? so they kill them... cut there heads off and plaster it all over there tv.. (and im not talking about the most recent one with the contractor) they\'re scum
The us is trying to give the iraqie people freedom and these people want to take it away...... This is my view on the matter altho it might be skewed by the fact if my military friends..but this is how i believe it to be.
-
You haven\'t read any of the other posts even though there were only 3 pages yet you expect us to read your\'s?
Originally posted by Peeeevs
i simply believe its an eye for an eye
Hmm, the Iraqis are terrible so you\'re allowed to be terrible too? The US is supposed to be modern, yet you justify the turturing as the barbaric \'an eye for an eye\'.
How exactly are you saving them by being barbaric? Out of the frying pan into the fire.
The us is trying to give the iraqie people freedom
Who says the Iraqis want the US to save them? If the majority of the Iraqis would want to be saved from Saddam\'s regime he would be long gone.
And even if they want to be saved, they probebly don\'t want a puppet government!
You can\'t save those that don\'t want to be saved, and saying that the US started this whole mess to \'free\' the Iraqis is even more of a BS than the oil excuse.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Who says the Iraqis want the US to save them? If the majority of the Iraqis would want to be saved from Saddam\'s regime he would be long gone.
And even if they want to be saved, they probebly don\'t want a puppet government!
So you\'re saying that the United States will control the Iraqi government years into the future? It\'s only a puppet government now because Iraq is too unstable for elections, some of the Iraqi councilors object to various US actions.
I\'m pretty sure North Koreans don\'t like starving, but their dictator is still in power.
-
meh, if bush stays in power he\'ll have his men over there for his whole term. mostly so he can steal oil to give to nascar racing...
Nascar, favorite of ignorant rednecks and redneck presidents everywhere :P
seriously, I don\'t feel that citizens are responcible for the actions of their leaders, remember, more people voted against bush being our president than did for him. I know I voted against him, and I\'m not claiming ANY responcibility for this iraq bulls**t
-
Originally posted by Monketh
I\'m pretty sure North Koreans don\'t like starving, but their dictator is still in power.
Maybe they don\'t like starving, but they don\'t feel like uprising either.
Don\'t forget that it\'s the poor and hungry people that usually make revolutions and not the rich ones.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Originally posted by Monketh
I\'m pretty sure North Koreans don\'t like starving, but their dictator is still in power.
Maybe they don\'t like starving, but they don\'t feel like uprising either.
Don\'t forget that it\'s the poor and hungry people that usually make revolutions and not the rich ones.
You missed my point entirely. The point was: Not all people that are dissatisied with or hate their government openly rebel. Why do you think feudalism survived for so long?
Tyger: You may not claim responsibility, but your tax dollars are gonna pay for fixing it whether you like it or not. Saying that those who didn\'t support the war shouldn\'t pay money for it is like not paying a portion of your taxes because your already have security at your house and you don\'t need police officers.
and saying that the US started this whole mess to \'free\' the Iraqis is even more of a BS than the oil excuse.
Actually, the oil \"excuse\" was an accusation.
Why do you think we went there then?
-
You can\'t save those that don\'t want to be saved, and saying that the US started this whole mess to \'free\' the Iraqis is even more of a BS than the oil excuse.
for oil??? HA i wish gas is not more than 2$ here in a place where its never ben more than 1.75 until the last 6 mouths
-
Originally posted by Peeeevs
for oil??? HA i wish gas is not more than 2$ here in a place where its never ben more than 1.75 until the last 6 mouths
If you\'d bother reading the previous pages you\'d see that I said that saying the war was for oil is BS.
Originally posted by Monketh
Why do you think we went there then?
As I said earlier, the Omega Agency.
-
We pay like $7 a gallon in the Uk.... I don\'t see what your problem is with $2 :D
Anyway... u all believe what the media tell you. Our media never shows anything positive, only bad things. Which is why people are so negative against the whole war thing.
Final word: US can do what it likes. Who\'s gonna stop them? 3/4 of the world needs the US to survive, where the US could cut off all trade, and survive comfortably, while watching the rest of the world crumble into dust. Your opinions only matter, if u\'r a US citizan, and it\'s election time... although even then.... :P
-
Originally posted by Xordan
We pay like $7 a gallon in the Uk.... I don\'t see what your problem is with $2 :D
Final word: US can do what it likes. Who\'s gonna stop them? 3/4 of the world needs the US to survive, where the US could cut off all trade, and survive comfortably, while watching the rest of the world crumble into dust. Your opinions only matter, if u\'r a US citizan, and it\'s election time... although even then.... :P
I acknowledged that at the begining of the thread, but not all americans know that. (Unfortunately...)
This is very true, a coup d\'etat dans les etats-unis would probably launch a worldwide depression. Unlike a lot of people, we have the natural resources to do whatever we friggin\' want. (With the prominent exception of oil, but that can be got along without if necessary.)
Let\'s use the rich-guy analogy: Everybody wants to be rich, but at the same time detests the rich. ;)
-
You have Alaska for oil. :D You just havn\'t got around to drilling for it yet.
-
Originally posted by Xordan
3/4 of the world needs the US to survive, where the US could cut off all trade, and survive comfortably, while watching the rest of the world crumble into dust.
Sure, they can do that, but it\'s bad for them.
When you stop exporting, maybe the countries you export to stop getting the benefits from your products, but you stop getting the benefits of their money.
Also, once the US will close outgoing \\ incoming trade, the world will find out it don\'t really need the US in probebly less than a year.
E.g. the oil-rich countries of the Middle East used to export oil to the west in tankers through the Suez Canal. After a few years, the Suez Canal was closed to wide and deepen it so bigger tankers could pass.
Did the oil-rich countries crumbled to dust without the oil trade because of that? No! They built oil pipes that go from them to some place in the Mediterranean, and tankers stock themselves there instead of in the countries\' docks. It\'s alot cheaper to transfer the oil this way because it\'s faster and they don\'t get taxed in Suez.
So both sellers and buyers of oil earned from Suez\' short closing, and Egypt lost, because oil don\'t go through there (atleast not as before).
The same will probebly happen if the US closes it\'s gates. Sure, the US got some good stuff, but when the world will stop getting them, it\'ll only be a motivation to make even better stuff in other places ;)
Edit: The US got
Alaska and Texas and maybe a few places with oil, but they stockpile it incase they get cut off of the Middle East oil supply from any reason (like when the Middle East will be dry of oil).
-
Most countries will starve to death before that year has past. Most of Europe will never recover if the US did that. Most of those countries rely on the US. And why? Becuase they have no other way of getting what they need. Only The UK would survive. (Good relations with US. :D)
-
Originally posted by Xordan
Most countries will starve to death before that year has past. Most of Europe will never recover if the US did that. Most of those countries rely on the US. And why? Becuase they have no other way of getting what they need. Only The UK would survive. (Good relations with US. :D)
Yep. Not to mention how our ravenous consumption of anything and everything helps your exports.
A closing off of the US would cause both a world-wide depression and a \'states-wide depression. Look at the number of multi-national corporations that started here. Honestly, what would 75% of the computing population do without Windoze? If all the multi-national corporations that are based in America shut down across to globe, bam! right there, recession. Now take away foreign aid, armies deployed in various parts of the world, small company trading, etc...
-
Tyger: You may not claim responsibility, but your tax dollars are gonna pay for fixing it whether you like it or not.
hehe, the thing is, I get way more back from my taxes every year than I pay into them, so I don\'t actually support the government, now do I?
*goes back to golddigging.*
(this message brought to you from the commitee for the impeachment of G. Dubya Bush)
-
Originally posted by Monketh
Yep. Not to mention how our ravenous consumption of anything and everything helps your exports.
A closing off of the US would cause both a world-wide depression and a \'states-wide depression. Look at the number of multi-national corporations that started here. Honestly, what would 75% of the computing population do without Windoze? If all the multi-national corporations that are based in America shut down across to globe, bam! right there, recession. Now take away foreign aid, armies deployed in various parts of the world, small company trading, etc...
Yep it would be very bad for the rest of the world. However the USA cannot stand alone. Isolating themselves would affect the economy of the USA in a very negative way too. In fact the economies of Europe and the USA do rely on each other. Companies lose income created by export. And the USA very likely imports products it doesn\'t/can\'t make as well as products with higher quality then the american companies can provide.
On the very long term both the USA and rest of the world would recover. However the economy can never get to the level it is when working together.
If Windows was unavailable the solution is very simple, start using linux.
Even if im wrong whats the point? You\'re saying we don\'t need the rest of the world so we don\'t have to pay attention to their criticism and can do what we want?
-
I think the US needs to learn to you\'se satire, they take themselves to seriously and rarely critise themselves except for maybe the simpsons but thats just one show.
In countries like Australia and England I think, satire is big, everybody joins in.
Whether it be comedic or otherwise, Americans need to learn to critise themselves and there goverment more and usaully the eventual result is for the better.
I mean I rarely see Americans make fun of George Bush or anyone in power at all. Where Australians make fun of Johnny Howard left right and center.
So basically my point here is that Americans should critise there goverment more instead of going for the old \"well he\'s from texas he\'s gotta be right\".
-
We only critisize our government in the Uk coz our media does. Our media never shows anything positive, and makes our government look like they\'re doing everything wrong.
If everyone is encouraged to critisize, then the people won\'t vote them in the next elections, and will all vote for some other party. For example, the voting in of the Nazi party in Germany.
I\'m not saying people shouldn\'t critisize, but they shouldn\'t over do it like we do in the UK.
-
Originally posted by Xordan
We only critisize our government in the Uk coz our media does. Our media never shows anything positive, and makes our government look like they\'re doing everything wrong.
If everyone is encouraged to critisize, then the people won\'t vote them in the next elections, and will all vote for some other party. For example, the voting in of the Nazi party in Germany.
I\'m not saying people shouldn\'t critisize, but they shouldn\'t over do it like we do in the UK.
The nazi party was elected because of the extreme bad state the economy was in and the frustration the germans had because of the stupid treaty of versailles.
Criticism itself wasn\'t the problem in germany.
Of course only criticising makes an unworkable environment especially when you don\'t provide alternatives. A healthy criticism like with satire is needed, without it people get an unrealistic positive view. Thus overlooking problems and acting in dumb ways.
Having changing votes in elections is i think a good thing, no government should stay for a long period. Actually i consider it as one of the main reasons why democracy works.
-
Originally posted by tygerwilde
Tyger: You may not claim responsibility, but your tax dollars are gonna pay for fixing it whether you like it or not.
hehe, the thing is, I get way more back from my taxes every year than I pay into them, so I don\'t actually support the government, now do I?
*goes back to golddigging.*
(this message brought to you from the commitee for the impeachment of G. Dubya Bush)
Bah, you hypocrite! Milking the gov\'t for money, why should your vote count? You wouldn\'t have supported Gore, after all, only undermine his finances.
This is the main reason we need a federal and state financial audit. ...and people wonder why we have a deficit. :rolleyes:
Kyp14: You don\'t read the american newpaper editorial pages do you?
Tainted: My point is, a lot of people are clueless about computers and need really friendly stuff like Windows to use a computer. :rolleyes:
Now my other point is that if you put a great big wall around the US, stretching out into space, we\'d still be relatively well off. We can shut down trade with one or two countries and still be more than okay. As much as you hate us, if we dissappeared you\'d definitely miss us.
...and finally a less serious question: Is WWII the US\' responsiblility for letting the French\' emotions disrupt their rationality of how Germany could possibly recover with such a burden, or France\'s fault for getting too emotional and expecting all their losses back? Or maybe is it The Wiemar (sp?) Republic\'s fault for not killing Hitler when he tried to the over the gov\'t?
Edit: Pardon Tainted, I put a line there to mean that it was a seperate part of the message. Not intended directly for you. It\'s a broad generaliztion.
-
Originally posted by Monketh
Tainted: My point is, a lot of people are clueless about computers and need really friendly stuff like Windows to use a computer. :rolleyes:
Now my other point is that if you put a great big wall around the US, stretching out into space, we\'d still be relatively well off. We can shut down trade with one or two countries and still be more than okay. As much as you hate us, if we dissappeared you\'d definitely miss us.
...and finally a less serious question: Is WWII the US\' responsiblility for letting the French\' emotions disrupt their rationality of how Germany could possibly recover with such a burden, or France\'s fault for getting too emotional and expecting all their losses back? Or maybe is it The Wiemar (sp?) Republic\'s fault for not killing Hitler when he tried to the over the gov\'t?
First of all what did i say that made you think i hate the US? I don\'t agree the way the US acts, don\'t really like the culture. I think some americans are to positive of the US. In general the US in my opinion acts arrogant as well as some americans do. But never have i hated america (or loved it). In fact there is no country i like or hate, only some governments i oppose or favor.
And then even if you are right, the USA doesn\'t need the world, which i seriously doubt (if you want to know why look back at the arguments i posted before). Then what does it have to do with this discussion. Again what is the point? Does it mean america shouldn\'t care about the rest of the world? Or their opinions?
About the second world war again i don\'t understand your response, i never said the cause of WWII had anything to do with the politics of the USA. No that would be ridiculous, UK and France were to blame as well as the economic state the world was in. Why i commented on the WWII was because i didn\'t agree with Xordan saying that the nazis gained influence because of criticism.
But since we are talking about the WWII, why do you think that the purpose of the marshall help was? This help had at least two reasons, to keep the communist influence out of western Europe. Secondly the USA needed a economically healthy europe for their own economy. Maybe that has changed by now, but with the globalisation the connection between them probably only got stronger and more important.
Im not entirely sure so correct me if im wrong but it just occured to me that it was the president of the USA who pushed France and UK to make the treaty of versailles in the way it was and have Germany pay a severe price for the war. Im not entirely sure so correct me if im wrong but th
-
actually, an audit wouldn\'t change a thing for me. I bring in more than I contribute because I don\'t earn enough for the government to take out taxes, therefore I get a refund of all paid taxes. I also get EIC for both of my children, roughly 800 total extra.
and it\'s entirely legal.
it\'s all a matter of unemployment, I don\'t actively try to welch off of the government, but this area is really bad employment wise. I can\'t keep a job myself, due to a learning disability, and my wife can\'t find a job locally that pays more than 10k a year. right now she\'s working at mcdonalds, about 20 hours a week. we\'re living off her $200-$300 a month, and our 350 welfare. not to mention the 3k that I borrowed for school. school loans are untaxable. found that out beginning of the year. when we get out of school, we\'re going to move to either california or New York, where there are jobs and become taxpayers :D
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Having changing votes in elections is i think a good thing, no government should stay for a long period. Actually i consider it as one of the main reasons why democracy works.
Democracy doesn\'t work, if it\'d work the world wouldn\'t be so peanutted up.
Why democracy doesn\'t work? Because the masses are stupid.
Even if there are smart, intelligent, and knowledgeable people, it doesn\'t matter - the masses are stupid.
That\'s why the world is like it is today.
-
A message to americans!
Love your country. hate your government! that is all
-
Originally posted by tygerwilde
actually, an audit wouldn\'t change a thing for me. I bring in more than I contribute because I don\'t earn enough for the government to take out taxes, therefore I get a refund of all paid taxes. I also get EIC for both of my children, roughly 800 total extra.
and it\'s entirely legal.
it\'s all a matter of unemployment, I don\'t actively try to welch off of the government, but this area is really bad employment wise. I can\'t keep a job myself, due to a learning disability, and my wife can\'t find a job locally that pays more than 10k a year. right now she\'s working at mcdonalds, about 20 hours a week. we\'re living off her $200-$300 a month, and our 350 welfare. not to mention the 3k that I borrowed for school. school loans are untaxable. found that out beginning of the year. when we get out of school, we\'re going to move to either california or New York, where there are jobs and become taxpayers :D
Ah, now that\'s a cow of a different color.
I agree entirely with SaintNuclear about the inherent uselessness of democracy. Unfortunately, you can never have more than one term at a time of benevolent dictatorship.
-
No WMD eh? I wonder where that sarin nerve bomb (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_SARIN?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) came from. Sure, its only one shell, but I wonder where the insurgents got their hands on it and if there is any more.
And we still haven\'t learned what happened to all those chemical weapons that the US gave to Iraq during the 80\'s (As part of an anti-Iran policy during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-1988 ). Just because the UN didnt find anything did not mean it did not exist in country. I would think it would be in Iraq\'s favor to at least give records on how they allegedly destroyed this supply.
BTW, not saying that this war was begun exlusively because of threats from WMD. There were many other reasons - such as:
1. Iraq financing suicide bombers against Israel (Hey, if they do it against one enemy, what prevents them from doing it to us mentality)
2.Iraq Harboring terrorists like Abu Abbas (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2952879.stm)
3. Faulty intelligence that probably overstated the threat.
4. Reports of severe abuse and torture committed by the regime (probably more a political motive to make the US appear benevolent rather than the real reason for action)
To name a few. I\'m sure oil was a factor but if the US used oil for personal wealth rather for using it to \"rebuild\" Iraq, I\'m sure it would be all over the media right now. Anyone have any reports on the current oil revenues of occupied Iraq and where the money goes?
-
Originally posted by Monketh
Kyp14: You don\'t read the american newpaper editorial pages do you?
being an Australian no I don\'t read them, although I would if I could.
basically I didn\'t mean only critise, I just think that in genral Americans need to do it more, being the most powerful country in the world not to critise what they do could and would eventually result in a disaster.
-
now i\'m not defending sadaam, but read this thing carefully
The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said it was possible the shell was an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s.
I think sadaam needed to be removed, but I don\'t think america had any responcibility doing it without any kind of evidence against sadaam beforehand. yes he was commiting crimes against his people, but the responcibility to deal with that lies within Iraq it\'self, not in an outside influence.
If the people had been revolting en mass, and asked for aid from america that would have been a different story. but we went in there, tore down their leader, forced our governmental system on them, all without knowing whether the people desired it or not.
what makes anyone think that can put us in the right?
-
Just my two cents on the photos that started all of this...
We are in a war... in a war you often need to kill... if there is no desire to kill the enemy there is no need for a war? To those of us on our couch watching this on cnn it is easy to say that they should not be smiling above a dead person.
Imagine yourself there and you are seeing you friends killed by the enemy. Would you not feel a certain amount of relief or even joy to see what could possibly be the corps of the one who killed one close to you?
The soldiers are trained to only kill these who are trying to kill them... this dose not ALLWAYS happen, mistakes can be made.
When it is kill or be killed you are much less disturbed by the death of someone who is trying to hurt you than one who is trying to help you.
-
Originally posted by tygerwilde
we went in there, tore down their leader, forced our governmental system on them, all without knowing whether the people desired it or not.
I just want to add to that.
A few new countries surfaced in the end of WWI (or II) from all those treaties. Some of them were forced into democracy.
These countries that were forced into deomcracy had alot of problems, and needed international aid.
Other countries, that started as monarchies, were doing just fine and changed to democracy later.
Right now, Iraq needs alot of rebuilding. A democracy in such a situation will only bring them even lower than they are now during the war.
---
Originally posted by tygerwilde
We are in a war... in a war you often need to kill... if there is no desire to kill the enemy there is no need for a war?
Soldiers with a desire to kill are serial killers that get awards from their country instead of a trial.
Soldiers shouldn\'t have a desire to kill, because then they\'ll do just that - kill.
However, a soldier that can kill, and is mentally to kill, will kill only when he have to.
No one should have a desire to kill, especially not someone that got training and weapons.
Imagine yourself there and you are seeing you friends killed by the enemy. Would you not feel a certain amount of relief or even joy to see what could possibly be the corps of the one who killed one close to you?
[...]
When it is kill or be killed you are much less disturbed by the death of someone who is trying to hurt you than one who is trying to help you.
Let\'s not forget that these soldiers were stationed in a prison. Not in some bunker deep behind enemey lines that was cut from reinforcements and supplies.
They probebly never saw anyone dying (aside from Iraqies, maybe).
And in any case, they\'re not in a \'kill or be killed\' situation!
So why? Why would they do that? Because they can? No, that\'s not enough. Because they were threatened? No, they wouldn\'t torture in that case, they\'ll just shoot.
The only reason I can think of is that they actually believe that Iraq had anything to do with the attack on the WTC. Something that they probebly heard while watchong Fox, or all those times that Bush said it.
If they really did torture these people because of disinformation, something is totally screwed up.
The soldiers are trained to only kill these who are trying to kill them... this dose not ALLWAYS happen, mistakes can be made.
Torturing someone by mistake? That\'s like cheating on your wife, and saying \"oh, it was dark and I accidently tripped and fell on her\".
-
Now I\'m probably going to come out of this sounding like a complete idiot... (That\'s what I get for not reading the whole story) I saw the images and my knee jerk reaction was they wouldn\'t be doing that unless they themselves had suffered.
But now that I have read the article a I begin to think of something I saw on the Discovery Channel. Researchers gathered a group of volunteers and split them into two groups, one group of captors and the other captives. The test almost went out of control. I wish I could remember what the name was. It was scary, these normal people off the streets becoming complete monsters and nearly killing one another.
I almost feel like removing my last post but I will let it stand to remind me to get the facts before I post my emotions.
-
Originally posted by Socrates Demise
Imagine yourself there and you are seeing you friends killed by the enemy. Would you not feel a certain amount of relief or even joy to see what could possibly be the corps of the one who killed one close to you?
Probably. But sadistically torturing an unarmed enemy (talking about individuals here) to death or humiliate him boundlessly is sick and wrong. Even animals kill only if it is needed, they do not take pleasure in inflicting pain!
Again, what is even more disturbing that it is now believed it was all permitted by the authorities responsible (General Sanchez openly admitted he allowed at least prohibition of sleep and forcing the POWs so stay in a cowered position, although now as it has caught the attention of the world he forbid that...).
EDIT: forgot to submit this post for a very long time, that\'s why I didn\'t refer to your 2nd post so far @Socrates Demise :)
-
Originally posted by Socrates Demise
Researchers gathered a group of volunteers and split them into two groups, one group of captors and the other captives. The test almost went out of control. I wish I could remember what the name was. It was scary, these normal people off the streets becoming complete monsters and nearly killing one another.
Yeah, I know about this research.
The people went so much into their roles that the test had to be stopped, and some were probebly sent into mental institutes.
Now I\'m probably going to come out of this sounding like a complete idiot...
Nah, don\'t feel bad.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Originally posted by Peeeevs
for oil??? HA i wish gas is not more than 2$ here in a place where its never ben more than 1.75 until the last 6 mouths
If you\'d bother reading the previous pages you\'d see that I said that saying the war was for oil is BS.
Originally posted by Monketh
Why do you think we went there then?
As I said earlier, the Omega Agency.
The Omega Agency?
I really hope that you are joking. I read the article that was linked to on this thread somwhere and um.... No.
This was an article posted on a conspiracy website from an unnamed author with no real supporting evidence.
Often when people read article on these conspiracy sites they fail to take the articles with the same amount of sketicism as the sites themselves ask people to take with other publishings. If you can provide more proof than that one article then I would be very interested to see it.
to Peeves: this is not meant as a personal attack but please read your messages befor posting them. They are not very readable.... or even coherent. I understand that english is not many peoples first language but you cant simply plug something into babelfish and expect it to be right.
As far as the oil thing goes America has an oil reserve to keep us at current levels of living for 30-50 years without ever drilling another drop. So why would we go through all the trouble of going to war for somthing we already have an abundance of.
We went to war because we felt threatened by Saddam, not because we wanted oil, not to free the people of Iraq (though that is a positive side effect) and not because of the Omega Agency.
I do believe Saddam had weapons of mass distruction.
As far as why they were not found, ask yourself this:
If I were a hated and public dictator and I knew that the most powerful country in the world was about to Invade because they knew I had WMD\'s what would I do?
I sell the WMD\'s Then when USA arrives we have no WMD\'s and the president looks like an ass.
Personally that whole incident made me think \"at least we have an honest president\"
How easy would it have been for bush to arrange for WMD\'s to be \"found\" in Iraq thus saving himself from much time and trouble.
Anyway thats my take on the reason we\'re im Iraq.
-
If sadaam had sold an abundant source of WMD to anyone, there would be some way of tracking them, too many people would have had to have been involved to keep it quiet.
and that is a fact
-
Originally posted by tygerwilde
If sadaam had sold an abundant source of WMD to anyone, there would be some way of tracking them, too many people would have had to have been involved to keep it quiet.
and that is a fact
Thats not nessisarily true. He\'s not a good man but he\'s not stupid either. I\'m sure he knew we were coming long before we actually came and got rid of the weapons over time and to a variety of people.
If by tracking you means some sort of technology then no. That technology does not yet exist. Otherwise we would have used that as proof that he had wmd\'s showed that to the un and had their full support. We would have never had to have gone into Iraq without the support of everone. We went in hoping to fing something he couldn\'t fence yet but he was just a little too fast for us.
-
nothing like that, I\'m saying that a project as extensive as the government believed was going on in Iraq would have involved literally hundreds of people, and when you have that many people involved, you are guaranteed to have someone with loose lips. there would have been a trail to follow to the weapons.
-
Originally posted by tygerwilde
nothing like that, I\'m saying that a project as extensive as the government believed was going on in Iraq would have involved literally hundreds of people, and when you have that many people involved, you are guaranteed to have someone with loose lips. there would have been a trail to follow to the weapons.
Well the threat of death for you and your family if you tell anyone is enough to tighten any loose lips...
-
Originally posted by Ineluke
The Omega Agency?
I really hope that you are joking. I read the article that was linked to on this thread somwhere and um.... No.
This was an article posted on a conspiracy website from an unnamed author with no real supporting evidence.
Often when people read article on these conspiracy sites they fail to take the articles with the same amount of sketicism as the sites themselves ask people to take with other publishings. If you can provide more proof than that one article then I would be very interested to see it.
Conspiracy is like religion. You got no evidence that it\'s true, and you got no evidence that it\'s false. What you do have is people that believe it, from whatever reasons.
-
So I take it you were joking then ok...
lol Omega Agency lol
-
No, I wasn\'t joking.
I am skeptic about it\'s existance, but I\'m a follower nonetheless
-
Originally posted by tygerwilde
The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said it was possible the shell was an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s.
Same thing that Blix said (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2941411). But both Blix and Kay make assumptions , do they provide any real evidence like say - records of the destruction of WMD, where they were dispensed, effeciency of the process (making sure the job was done completely and Saddam didn\'t lie), etc? The problem is that they did not provide any such evidence, just possiblities. Is this any better than the supposed intelligence that Powell provided before the UN regarding WMD in Iraq? Nope.
It took what.. 12 years of inspections and thats the best that they can come up with - assumptions? Sad isn\'t it?
I still haven\'t seen anyone provide any info on where post-war Iraq oil revenues are going. If the US uses the oil revenue to rebuild Iraq and leave it in Iraq\'s hands after they pull out, then the whole \"oil war\" crap will prove to be false.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
No, I wasn\'t joking.
I am skeptic about it\'s existance, but I\'m a follower nonetheless
Then maybe you could post links to a few more articles so that I can examine this myself.
No offense but it seems a bit silly to me to believe in anything transient without a shred of evidence. Even religeons have a little evidence to support basing your life around it.
I might as well say that I\'m really the queen of england and you would, because you have no evidence against it, beleive me?
Simply believing something like this baised on an article from an anonymous writer is very simple minded.
I am not intending to be offensive but I would like to know your reasoning behind beleiving something like this.
Please post some links so I research it a little.
-
Religions don\'t really have any strong evidences.
And when you say you\'re the queen of england you don\'t give even a false evidence.
That article says things that could mean that the Agency exists, but could be just bad speech writers (the \"new world order\" thing, for example). It\'s alot more than you give to prove you\'re the queen of england.
And as I said (and you even quoted):
I am skeptic about it\'s existance
You want me to give evidences that affirm the existance of the Agency while I\'m skeptic about it\'s existance? If I\'d have these evidences I wouldn\'t be skeptic about it\'s existance.
-
But you said you beleive it exists nontheless so which is it? I\'m confused.
-
No, I said I\'m a follower of it.
What I mean is that I think that the world should become like what the Agency (if it exists) tries to make it.
-
Originally posted by Ineluke
We went to war because we felt threatened by Saddam, not because we wanted oil, not to free the people of Iraq (though that is a positive side effect) and not because of the Omega Agency.
I do believe Saddam had weapons of mass distruction.
As far as why they were not found, ask yourself this:
If I were a hated and public dictator and I knew that the most powerful country in the world was about to Invade because they knew I had WMD\'s what would I do?
I sell the WMD\'s Then when USA arrives we have no WMD\'s and the president looks like an ass.
Personally that whole incident made me think \"at least we have an honest president\"
How easy would it have been for bush to arrange for WMD\'s to be \"found\" in Iraq thus saving himself from much time and trouble.
Anyway thats my take on the reason we\'re im Iraq.
If anyone also has problems with my english please say so. Its not my native language and i do want to accurately post my opinion on these matters.
And Monketh, you haven\'t responded to my response. Does this mean you agree with that post?
Ineluke, don\'t you think that is ridiculous? That the US by far the most powerfull nation feels threatened by a backward country like Iraq?
Ties between Saddam and Osama bin laden were very unlikely (they more likely could drink each others blood).
And i very much doubt the existence of WMDs in Iraq, Saddam knew that if they were found he would get in a very bad situation.
The only two prossible reasons for him to have wmds is defence (attacking a neigbour country failed before i don\'t think saddam is so stupid to try again knowing US responds) and revenge on the US. As a coward Saddam i don\'t think hed take the risk.
I admit there was a possibility Saddam wanted to have WMD\'s but for reasons listed above i doubt it.
Secondly, most of the \'proof\' the US provided for the existense of WMD\'s has later turned out to be incorrect or exegerated. The speech given before the UN was a laughter (sorry if that sounds rude but it was). In one document a sentence like \"Iraq might be able to deploy wmd\'s for defensive purpose\" was altered by changing defensive into aggresive. a 100% turn of meaning.
Considering the amount of people and work involved i doubt the watchfull eye of the US on Iraq hadn\'t noticed any shipments or gathered proof thereof. Actually the argumen the wmd\'s are in a different country seems to me as a very weak one. Its used to not having to admit the US was wrong and started the war based on at least one wrong assumption.
And placing wmds in Iraq is i think so obvious even the most naive would understand they were placed there. And aren\'t american wmds easily to pick out from those of other countries?
Okay finally (this text is becoming too long) lets assume there were wmds. You as a dictator would sell them. I if i was Saddam would place most of them in the area of baghdad (or a region easily defendable with many people) then threaten the US that any invasion means that the wmds are used on the iraqees. The US might have get their on time, however if they wouldn\'t THAT really reflects negative to Bush. If the population might revolt because of it, make the threat at the latest moment.
Well those are my two cents for now.
Edit: Its strange though, when US showed prove of missiles on Cuba at a UN convention it was accepted as such. While with Iraq some had doubts (me as well) and others believe(d) it.
Another thing, in short im saying the US should lighten up, there is no real danger to its existence. Terrorism might take some lives in the US and Europe however its nothing compared with death tolls by crime. Terrorists also might not need a country to provide wmds, aren\'t there mobile nuclear weapons (in suitcases) missing?
-
If anyone also has problems with my english please say so. Its not my native language and i do want to accurately post my opinion on these matters.
Your english is fine.
Ineluke, don\'t you think that is ridiculous? That the US by far the most powerfull nation feels threatened by a backward country like Iraq?
This is a joke right? Any country with WMD\'s is a monsterous threat to any country in the world. No matter how small that country may be.
Ties between Saddam and Osama bin laden were very unlikely (they more likely could drink each others blood).
This is besides the point since we didn\'t go in because of Bin Laden
And i very much doubt the existence of WMDs in Iraq, Saddam knew that if they were found he would get in a very bad situation.
Which is the very reason that he would have gotten rid of them in the first place
The only two prossible reasons for him to have wmds is defence (attacking a neigbour country failed before i don\'t think saddam is so stupid to try again knowing US responds) and revenge on the US. As a coward Saddam i don\'t think hed take the risk.
I admit there was a possibility Saddam wanted to have WMD\'s but for reasons listed above i doubt it.
You are making some very broad assumptions here.
1) Saddam is a coward
You can\'t possible know if he is a coward or not.
2)He could only have WMD\'s for defence.
Why could he only have them for defence? Even if he knows how the US responds that doesn\'t mean he won\'t do it anyway. Or that he even cares about the respose of the US.
Secondly, most of the \'proof\' the US provided for the existense of WMD\'s has later turned out to be incorrect or exegerated. The speech given before the UN was a laughter (sorry if that sounds rude but it was). In one document a sentence like \"Iraq might be able to deploy wmd\'s for defensive purpose\" was altered by changing defensive into aggresive. a 100% turn of meaning.
\"A sentence like\"? Don\'t put itin quotations if you are unsure whether or not it is the exact sentence. Also I am not aware of this document if you could provide a link...
Considering the amount of people and work involved i doubt the watchfull eye of the US on Iraq hadn\'t noticed any shipments or gathered proof thereof. Actually the argumen the wmd\'s are in a different country seems to me as a very weak one.
You have to realize that we were busy with the war on terrorism (which by the way was near Iraq relativly but had nothing real to do with it). We had our resources occupied by that situation and you also have to realize that Saddam had the resources of an entire nation with no one to answer to in order to cover it up.
Its used to not having to admit the US was wrong and started the war based on at least one wrong assumption.
Do you honestly think that we are so corrupt that we cover every mistake we make up? I really cant comment more on this until I see this document you speak of.
And placing wmds in Iraq is i think so obvious even the most naive would understand they were placed there. And aren\'t american wmds easily to pick out from those of other countries?
Again we aren\'t talking about Joe Shmoe from the street. this is the president of the USA. With the resources of the US it would have been no problem whatsoever. We could have made a bunch of crappy nukes to put there.
Okay finally (this text is becoming too long) lets assume there were wmds. You as a dictator would sell them. I if i was Saddam would place most of them in the area of baghdad (or a region easily defendable with many people) then threaten the US that any invasion means that the wmds are used on the iraqees. The US might have get their on time, however if they wouldn\'t THAT really reflects negative to Bush. If the population might revolt because of it, make the threat at the latest moment.
Um yeah but whos gonna detonate somthing like that knowing they will die? And if he did it remotly how long do you think he would last? He wouldn\'t have a country anymore and the remaining people would kill him.
Another thing, in short im saying the US should lighten up, there is no real danger to its existence. Terrorism might take some lives in the US and Europe however its nothing compared with death tolls by crime. Terrorists also might not need a country to provide wmds, aren\'t there mobile nuclear weapons (in suitcases) missing?
See my first response.
Also we didn\'t go into Iraq because we thought that they were giving them to terrorists we went in because we thought they may use them on us.
As far as the crime rate comment goes so what are we just supposed to let the terrorists kill americans because \"America will not cease to exist\" That seems a bit simple minded.
I do appreciate your post and am enjoying this discussion. i look forward to your reply. :D
-
I just want it to end, right now! No more Iraqs killing Americans, Americans killing Iraqs...for that matter how about all the violence in the middle east just STOPS!! I know this is impossible to accomplish considering these people have been fighting for years upon years, if not against Americans against their neighbors and themselves! What would this world be like if the wars stopped? the terrorism stopped? The THREATS stopped? Do you think it would be a better place?..Ofcourse it would for awhile but its just in us as humans to fight no matter what the nationality! Always a few naturally angry or war mongers born to rally the rest!
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
I just want it to end, right now! No more Iraqs killing Americans, Americans killing Iraqs...for that matter how about all the violence in the middle east just STOPS!! I know this is impossible to accomplish considering these people have been fighting for years upon years, if not against Americans against their neighbors and themselves! What would this world be like if the wars stopped? the terrorism stopped? The THREATS stopped? Do you think it would be a better place?..Ofcourse it would for awhile but its just in us as humans to fight no matter what the nationality! Always a few naturally angry or war mongers born to rally the rest!
Humans are not capable of entirely agreeing within a group.
Oh, and with Middle-East peace, what do ya think we\'ve been trying to do for years, eh? They seem to be getting closer, not to mention the Israeli justification of the fence is good. Suicide bombing rates have actually decreased.
Hm, I propose a more logical answer to US presence in Iraq.
It was done to increase US presence in the mid-east.
Not Oil, not fame, not contracts, not the Omega Agency, a little terrorism and a pinch of liberation.
What do you think?
Edit: Now that I found that post again Taintedsoul, I can respond.
US vs Teh World Economics:
Yup, we need you, but overall my point was to support my theory that the US could survive well on it\'s own. The only reason I continued as such is that some people were challenging that theory.
Also, it supports my statement that a coup in the US (not happenin\' folks : P) would launch a global depression.
Edit#2: Oh yes, DB, the disclaimer exists for a reason. I have never used the word \"freedom\" to describe the physically limiting food called \"fries\", except when joking, and I am taking french.
A man from Nebraska who is building a Nuclear weapon is probably conservative. Now, being a conservative and mildly insane, where would his target be? I used Europe in the Example becuase it\'s close to home for a lot of people. It was meant to enhance the meaning of the message. Now, back to why I chose La Belle France, this ultra-conservative would seek to destroy the most liberal country in Europe. Considering he lives \'States side, he would see that France seemed to have the biggest outpouring of anti-war sentiment (as shown by the US media), he would take this into account and deem that the symbolism of a nuclear attack on \"weak, pathetic\"* France would \"Toughen \'em up\"* (make them more conservative). The symbolism would also be the show of force as an attempt to terrorize the rest of Europe to \"shut up & take it like men!\"*. Of course, he may or may not take into account that the attack could be blamed on the US government, as I\'m sure you would all blame for it, could such a thing occur. Thusly, I chose France as the target nation for the example. Understand all that ranting?
If you don\'t, I hope you aren\'t proposing a Liberal or Moderate would build a Weapon of Mass Destruction. :P
*The quotes are meant to convey the underlying thought patterns of the theoretical Nebraskan man in question.
-
Sorry the oil is always a issue, maybe not the main one but like I have said so many times..protecting their investments..Your country is big and industrialized YOU NEED OIL as do most of us :) The supply in Canada is plentiful along with the natural resources but not so secure anymore..as of late its been alittle bouncy..there are US companies that own canadian oil companies but the government might be in the motion to change that after our next election..plans to either grasp those companies back or start putting extremely high tariffs on..and yes this is all about getting back at closing boarders to our beef lol! Most of the people going to be elected are promising such actions taken if their party gets put into government, I don\'t care who takes power as long as something is done!
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
I just want it to end, right now! No more Iraqs killing Americans, Americans killing Iraqs...for that matter how about all the violence in the middle east just STOPS!! I know this is impossible to accomplish considering these people have been fighting for years upon years, if not against Americans against their neighbors and themselves! What would this world be like if the wars stopped? the terrorism stopped? The THREATS stopped? Do you think it would be a better place?..Ofcourse it would for awhile but its just in us as humans to fight no matter what the nationality! Always a few naturally angry or war mongers born to rally the rest!
I see a lot of rhetoric, and no effort to try and give a solution. What would the world be like without wars - ask yourself what would the world be without crime. Such a goal is impossible as Monketh pointed out.
It only takes two people to disagree to start a conflict which can grow into a fight. The world has about 6.5 billion people and the population is still rising. As long as there is conflict in interest, there will be conflict period.
-
Originally posted by Ineluke
Ineluke, don\'t you think that is ridiculous? That the US by far the most powerfull nation feels threatened by a backward country like Iraq?
This is a joke right? Any country with WMD\'s is a monsterous threat to any country in the world. No matter how small that country may be.
Iraq\'s WMDs were from the early 1980\'s, and weren\'t stored in the appropriate conditions (no, I can\'t give you a link -_-).
Even if their rockets and launchers wouldn\'t be rusty, their biological and chemical warheads couldn\'t harm a butterfly (unless you smack it with one) for over ten years now.
Even if their (20 years old) launchers can launch (20 years old) missiles to a distance of over 600,000km (it\'s not accurate, but that\'s more or less the distance between the US and Iraq), the (20 years old) rusty rockets would fall apart before they reach their destination.
Even if the warheads are fine, and the missiles and launchers are fine, and they can actually reach the US, they probebly won\'t hit anything.
Hell, back in the Gulf War, only one SCUD actually landed on Israel soil. No, it wasn\'t because the Patriots took them down, most of the Patriots actually hit buildings and stuff. Besides this one SCUD that fell on a building and killed a man (indirect hit), all of them fell to the sea.
If they couldn\'t aim right 10 years ago for a less-than-medium distance, how the hell are they supposed to hit when their equipment is all rusty and is far from capable of launching inter continental missiles?!
And even if from some reason one of their missiles actually reaches a few tens of kms from the US, they\'ll launch ~20 brand new Patriots (these ones should actually blow the missile up, not like the Gulf War ones) just to make sure it\'s safe.
--------
Originally posted by Ineluke
Okay finally (this text is becoming too long) lets assume there were wmds. You as a dictator would sell them. I if i was Saddam would place most of them in the area of baghdad (or a region easily defendable with many people) then threaten the US that any invasion means that the wmds are used on the iraqees. The US might have get their on time, however if they wouldn\'t THAT really reflects negative to Bush. If the population might revolt because of it, make the threat at the latest moment.
Um yeah but whos gonna detonate somthing like that knowing they will die?
Ask the Palastinians and Al Qaeda.
-------
Originally posted by Monketh
Oh, and with Middle-East peace, what do ya think we\'ve been trying to do for years, eh? They seem to be getting closer, not to mention the Israeli justification of the fence is good. Suicide bombing rates have actually decreased.
I\'m not sure about the whole apartheid wall thing.
It sounded good in theory. I remmember watching the news and they explained how there\'ll be guard towers every N kms, and security cams, and all these things.
Looking at some pics of this wall thing, it\'s pretty pathetic. Little kids climb it and for fun, there are tens of ways to pass it. There aren\'t even barbed wires on the top of it.
Guard posts? Hardly. Security cams? None.
The building rate is as slow as a a snail running marathon, and the plans of where it passes change every other day, making it longer, more complicated, and alot more expensive.
Besides, netting the Middle East with apartheids won\'t do any good.
Ever noticed people on a hot day? Everyone are cranky, and pissed off.
That\'s the problem of the Middle East.
How do we solve it? We\'ll build two HUGE air conditioners to cool the place a little! And then there will be no war, everyone will live in peace!
Imagine that, an Israeli, Palastinian, Iraqi, Kurd, and Iranian, all eating a breakfast while telling dirty jokes as the breeze from the air conditioners blow in their hair...
Donate to the Air Conditioners for the Middle East Fund (ACMEF) now!
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
[Even if their rockets and launchers wouldn\'t be rusty, their biological and chemical warheads couldn\'t harm a butterfly (unless you smack it with one) for over ten years now.
This is incorrect. It is true that chemical weapons last a fairly short time in their activated form. What you fail to realize is that a chemical warhead contains a mix of chemicals that are only compounded together when the missile is activated and launched. The chemical precursors for the Sarin nerve toxin and VX, for example can last many decades without losing their effectiveness.
I also remember pre-war reports of Iraq building the illegal Al-Samoud missiles. Of course they were in the process of dismantling them after the UN caught them in the act - but this showed that Iraq was indeed capable of building new medium range ballistic missiles.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
[Even if their rockets and launchers wouldn\'t be rusty, their biological and chemical warheads couldn\'t harm a butterfly (unless you smack it with one) for over ten years now.
This is incorrect. It is true that chemical weapons last a fairly short time in their activated form. What you fail to realize is that a chemical warhead contains a mix of chemicals that are only compounded together when the missile is activated and launched. The chemical precursors for the Sarin nerve toxin and VX, for example can last many decades without losing their effectiveness.
Ah, didn\'t know that. I always thought it\'s live Sarin inside the warheads.
But still, wouldn\'t these chemicals degrade in time?
I also remember pre-war reports of Iraq building the illegal Al-Samoud missiles. Of course they were in the process of dismantling them after the UN caught them in the act - but this showed that Iraq was indeed capable of building new medium range ballistic missiles.
100 - 150km. This still doesn\'t pose a threat to the US...
Let me just remind you that in the 80\'s they tried to build a nuclear bombs facility, wich Israel\'s air force destroyed.
This was much more dangerous than a medium range ballistic missile, and was over with without any need to invade into the country together with a few more countries.
They asked no one, they just sent the planes, destroyed it, came back - mission accomplished. Short and simple.
Right, we shouldn\'t have done this because this and that. But the US shouldn\'t have invaded to Iraq either.
If there was a problem with a certain factory that makes missiles, they wouldn\'t have invaded like they did. It\'s careless. It\'s sending your own people to the death while you can solve it with alot less casualties.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Ah, didn\'t know that. I always thought it\'s live Sarin inside the warheads.
But still, wouldn\'t these chemicals degrade in time?
Yes but not at a rapid rate. They would still remain effective today if made during the 80\'s.
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
100 - 150km. This still doesn\'t pose a threat to the US...
Let me just remind you that in the 80\'s they tried to build a nuclear bombs facility, wich Israel\'s air force destroyed.
This was much more dangerous than a medium range ballistic missile, and was over with without any need to invade into the country together with a few more countries.
They asked no one, they just sent the planes, destroyed it, came back - mission accomplished. Short and simple.
Right, we shouldn\'t have done this because this and that. But the US shouldn\'t have invaded to Iraq either.
If there was a problem with a certain factory that makes missiles, they wouldn\'t have invaded like they did. It\'s careless. It\'s sending your own people to the death while you can solve it with alot less casualties.
Very true. It would not have threatened the US directly - but it put Saudi Arabia and Israel at risk. Not to mention US airbases enforcing the UN imposed \"no-fly zone\". The real danger was not from missiles, but the chemical warheads themselves (as the one that detonated two weeks ago). The fear was that these warheads would be shipped into the US and detonated in a major populated area. Goes back to the Saddam giving terrorists WMD stuff.
Sure Saddam was secular and in no way liked by Al-Quida or vice versa - but Hamas sure didnt mind when he paid for suicide bombing operations.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
Very true. It would not have threatened the US directly - but it put Saudi Arabia and Israel at risk. Not to mention US airbases enforcing the UN imposed \"no-fly zone\". The real danger was not from missiles, but the chemical warheads themselves (as the one that detonated two weeks ago). The fear was that these warheads would be shipped into the US and detonated in a major populated area. Goes back to the Saddam giving terrorists WMD stuff.
Sure Saddam was secular and in no way liked by Al-Quida or vice versa - but Hamas sure didnt mind when he paid for suicide bombing operations.
This is exactly what I was going to reply. Let me also add that as far as The whole \"who would detonate a nuke knowing they would die\" I was a bit pressed for time so I didn\'t get to flesh that out the way I wanted to.
So let me rephrase that...
Who would detonate a nuke knowing they would die and kill thousands of innocent countrymen thus barring their entrance from heaven for eternity?
-
Originally posted by Ineluke
So let me rephrase that...
Who would detonate a nuke knowing they would die and kill thousands of innocent countrymen thus barring their entrance from heaven for eternity?
This is rational, but the terrorists aren\'t. That argument didn\'t prevent them from blowing themselves up in Shia shrines in Iraq (killing one of the top clerics) or in Turkey where they targeted the Synagogues but actually killed far more of their countrymen. These people are erratic and their tactics are hard to predict.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
Originally posted by Ineluke
So let me rephrase that...
Who would detonate a nuke knowing they would die and kill thousands of innocent countrymen thus barring their entrance from heaven for eternity?
This is rational, but the terrorists aren\'t. That argument didn\'t prevent them from blowing themselves up in Shia shrines in Iraq (killing one of the top clerics) or in Turkey where they targeted the Synagogues but actually killed far more of their countrymen. These people are erratic and their tactics are hard to predict.
Terrorists are rational, actually. The diffrence between a terrorist and a non-terrorist is that a terrorist will do anything for his goal (sometimes dying too).
But right, saying that a terrorist won\'t do an act just because we think it don\'t make sense is wrong.
And let\'s go of the Muslim extremists for a moment:
What about all those apocaliptic cults? They wouldn\'t mind contaminating masses of land to tens of thousands of years.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
And let\'s go of the Muslim extremists for a moment:
What about all those apocaliptic cults? They wouldn\'t mind contaminating masses of land to tens of thousands of years.
This is true but these cults are not state sponsored nor do they have a global network with financers who own nearly a billion dollars (Bin Laden\'s fortune). Cults have caused damage - like in Japan where they released poison gas in the subway. But the threat is no where near the level of Al-Quida (9/11 US attack, Madrid train bombing, twin US embassy bombings in 1998, USS Cole bombing, etc).
Just because there are other threats out there doesn\'t mean we have to turn a blind eye to this even bigger one.
-
Monketh thanks for responding, it seems we agree for the most on that matter.
Ineluke, generally this is what i gather of your opinion from your posts so far:
Iraq probably had wmds, these would have been a threat to Israel, Saudi Arabie and other countries in the vicinity.
That the wmds haven\'t been found is likely cause they have been sold/transported to another country.
Is this correct? I want to know if i understand someones view correctly, thats why i ask.
I do appreciate your post and am enjoying this discussion. i look forward to your reply. :D
Thats mutual. Its interesting to directly discuss this with someone from america. Im glad we can disuss this respectfully without going into flaming. Here is something for you to disagree with ;)
Originally posted by Ineluke
Ineluke, don\'t you think that is ridiculous? That the US by far the most powerfull nation feels threatened by a backward country like Iraq?
This is a joke right? Any country with WMD\'s is a monsterous threat to any country in the world. No matter how small that country may be.
Since you already went further on this ill admit a country like Iraq with wmds is a threat to its neighbours.
Ties between Saddam and Osama bin laden were very unlikely (they more likely could drink each others blood).
This is besides the point since we didn\'t go in because of Bin Laden
And i very much doubt the existence of WMDs in Iraq, Saddam knew that if they were found he would get in a very bad situation.
Which is the very reason that he would have gotten rid of them in the first place
Erm, i dont really understand, thats what im suggesting, that he got rid of most of the wmds or at least stopped producing them.
The only two prossible reasons for him to have wmds is defence (attacking a neigbour country failed before i don\'t think saddam is so stupid to try again knowing US responds) and revenge on the US. As a coward Saddam i don\'t think hed take the risk.
I admit there was a possibility Saddam wanted to have WMD\'s but for reasons listed above i doubt it.
You are making some very broad assumptions here.
1) Saddam is a coward
You can\'t possible know if he is a coward or not.
2)He could only have WMD\'s for defence.
Why could he only have them for defence? Even if he knows how the US responds that doesn\'t mean he won\'t do it anyway. Or that he even cares about the respose of the US.
True im making assumptions.
1) That Saddam is a coward is however not entirely my own. He is a paranoid person afraid of losing his power, fearing to be betrayed by his own. Much like Stalin in fact. Even his own sons didn\'t always know where he went to or was. There were multiple convoys going in different directions. Not that he had it all wrong, assination attempts have been made on his life.
2) Saddam cared only for having power (think thats an assumption i can easily make). When he attacked Kuwait to gain power he expected the US to do nothing. Now if he attacked a country he knows the US responds. Why does he care? Well that is easy, does/did he stand a chance against the US army? No Saddam knew his regime is doomed when he attacks another country. And being in power is more important to him than anything except his life perhaps.
Then again, i do admit, im not a psychologist, i heard vaguely Saddam has a narcistic character meaning he is the kind of person to make the same mistake over and over again. But then again i doubt if he really would be so dumb and foolish to attack a country and defy the US.
Secondly, most of the \'proof\' the US provided for the existense of WMD\'s has later turned out to be incorrect or exegerated. The speech given before the UN was a laughter (sorry if that sounds rude but it was). In one document a sentence like \"Iraq might be able to deploy wmd\'s for defensive purpose\" was altered by changing defensive into aggresive. a 100% turn of meaning.
\"A sentence like\"? Don\'t put itin quotations if you are unsure whether or not it is the exact sentence. Also I am not aware of this document if you could provide a link...
Okay you\'re right i shouldnt put it in \"\'s but i wanted to clearly seperate that sentence. Unfortunately i don\'t have a link or source. Most of my information comes from the media here. However the meaning of the sentence was like the one i wrote, as well as the change. It was an example of the numerous documents where alterations have been made. Making them reflecting in a more negative and sometimes unrealistic way of the wmds in Iraq.
However this is no new news to you. There is/was an investigation concerning this going on in the US.
Considering the amount of people and work involved i doubt the watchfull eye of the US on Iraq hadn\'t noticed any shipments or gathered proof thereof. Actually the argumen the wmd\'s are in a different country seems to me as a very weak one.
You have to realize that we were busy with the war on terrorism (which by the way was near Iraq relativly but had nothing real to do with it). We had our resources occupied by that situation and you also have to realize that Saddam had the resources of an entire nation with no one to answer to in order to cover it up.
How did the USA get the \'proof\' Powell showed at the UN? Some of that were new weren\'t they? Apparently the US watched Iraq closely. Also the US stated to know of locations of wmds. Therefore id think they would have seen transportation of those wmds and have proof thereof.
Its used to not having to admit the US was wrong and started the war based on at least one wrong assumption.
Do you honestly think that we are so corrupt that we cover every mistake we make up? I really cant comment more on this until I see this document you speak of.
I don\'t accuse the US of covering up stuff (at least that was not my intention with my point). Im saying the argument of wmds are in other countries is lame. How i see it is: Your country didn\'t want to admit they were wrong (would have been to embarresing and damaging to their reputation) so it was said Syria had the wmds. Later they acknowledged that the information of wmds on which the war was based was overrated and wrong.
And placing wmds in Iraq is i think so obvious even the most naive would understand they were placed there. And aren\'t american wmds easily to pick out from those of other countries?
Again we aren\'t talking about Joe Shmoe from the street. this is the president of the USA. With the resources of the US it would have been no problem whatsoever. We could have made a bunch of crappy nukes to put there.
It would have been easy, thats for certain alright. However other countries (like france) in such a case would want the UN to take a close look at the wmds. And such a complex technology i think has specific technology that \'tells\' what country produced the wmd.
Okay finally (this text is becoming too long) lets assume there were wmds. You as a dictator would sell them. I if i was Saddam would place most of them in the area of baghdad (or a region easily defendable with many people) then threaten the US that any invasion means that the wmds are used on the iraqees. The US might have get their on time, however if they wouldn\'t THAT really reflects negative to Bush. If the population might revolt because of it, make the threat at the latest moment.
Um yeah but who would detonate a nuke knowing they would die and kill thousands of innocent countrymen thus barring their entrance from heaven for eternity?And if he did it remotly how long do you think he would last? He wouldn\'t have a country anymore and the remaining people would kill him.
After at least a decade of indoctrination Saddam was likely to have at least some very loyal followers. And to be certain, kidnap their children and wives. threaten to kill them if nothing happens and loyaltie is assured.
As a last resort it might work, Saddam could only threaten the US, if they back off nothing happens he is still in power. Otherwise he would lose his regime anyway.
Another thing, in short im saying the US should lighten up, there is no real danger to its existence. Terrorism might take some lives in the US and Europe however its nothing compared with death tolls by crime. Terrorists also might not need a country to provide wmds, aren\'t there mobile nuclear weapons (in suitcases) missing?
See my first response.
Also we didn\'t go into Iraq because we thought that they were giving them to terrorists we went in because we thought they may use them on us.
As far as the crime rate comment goes so what are we just supposed to let the terrorists kill americans because \"America will not cease to exist\" That seems a bit simple minded.
Okay, we agree that the war on Iraq had little to do with terrorists connection of Saddam. But it was used by the US as one of the reasons to attack Iraq.
About the crime rate: Although we terrorism is besides the point with iraq, im trying to put things into perspective. I dont want America or Europe to do nothing about terrorism. Instead of using violence the source of terrorism should be removed by improving the state people are in.
However it seems that after 9/11 terrorism is considered by most as the worst problem, people have become really afraid of something that kills considerably less people than common murderers do.
How often has there been warnings of possible terrorism activities in the US since 9/11? And how often did something occur? How often was there really something planned and how often was it false alarm?
I intended to post a clear view of how i see the war on Iraq (and afghanistan). This will have to come later im afraid but this is enough to argue on i think :).
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
About the crime rate: I dont want America or Europe to do nothing about terrorism. Instead of using violence the source of terrorism should be removed by improving the state people are in. However it seems that after 9/11 terrorism is considered by most as the worst problem, people have become really afraid of something that kills considerably less people than common murderers do.
How often has there been warnings of possible terrorism activities in the US since 9/11? And how often did something occur? How often was there really something planned and how often was it false alarm?
An attack like 9/11 did not only kill 3000 people (which is an act of mass murder I recall) - but how can you compare this to a crime? Does a crime target the financial infrastructure of one of the important places for the world economy (This alone cost the US and world economy more than hundreds of billions of dollars)? Does crime target the military nerve center of the US - the Pentagon - where the chaos may have led to a kneejerk retaliatory strike?
You have a good idea - improve society and conditions around the world. Now propose a solution to deal with it. One that will:
1. Work
2. Make everyone see the alternative as foolish and harmful to humankind
3. Outline a way to contain terrorism and its attacks that could destabilize the world (comparing it to crime is comparing apples to oranges).
-
I have a request: could everyone fill in their location, please? This could make it easier to see some posts in the right perspective. thx.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
An attack like 9/11 did not only kill 3000 people (which is an act of mass murder I recall) - but how can you compare this to a crime? Does a crime target the financial infrastructure of one of the important places for the world economy (This alone cost the US and world economy more than hundreds of billions of dollars)? Does crime target the military nerve center of the US - the Pentagon - where the chaos may have led to a kneejerk retaliatory strike?
You have a good idea - improve society and conditions around the world. Now propose a solution to deal with it. One that will:
1. Work
2. Make everyone see the alternative as foolish and harmful to humankind
3. Outline a way to contain terrorism and its attacks that could destabilize the world (comparing it to crime is comparing apples to oranges).
Sorry i really don\'t care about the financiel losses. All i care about is the cost in human lifes. The comparison is to put things into perspective. Yes it was mass slaughter. But how many people have been killed on average each year because of terrorism in America the last decade?
What is the average death toll because of murderers in the US? Much more.
Terrorism is not to be ignored however it isn\'t the worst problem we face today. We shouldn\'t concentrate mostly on terrorism forgetting other more important problems.
How to improve society? Naturally there is no way that works 100% and progress is slow. I dont claim to be smart/wise enough to provide the exact solution. I do think there is a better way than fighting war on nations.
Shortly what i would do is the following. Its my humble view on the matters and quickly put down.
Put the money spent on war in Iraq and afghanistan in the wellbeing of people in undeveloped countries. Encouraging education, economy, etc. In a countrie with a well educated middle class democracy will form easier and is more stable. With democracy a country is more stable and flourishes more (Saintnuclear probably disagrees). In such a countrie the situation has changed for the better and people are less easily influenced by fundamentalists.
So simple said give give more money to backward countries, encourage education and development. Yes this means the elite puts a large part in their pocket but its the part that gets to the population that matters.
And the west should stop supporting dicatorial governments like that of Saudi Arabia which isnt that much better than that of Iraq was. In general the west should live worldwide by the standards they claim to have.
And the international community should become more of a democracy instead of the USA influencing the world the way they see fit. Here i think the UN is important. Slightly naive perhaps i look out to a world where an invasion of one country by another will cause the others to helpt that country.
I have an example of the way people in third world countries can be helped. Im not really certain of the way the system was but both the USA and European union help their farmers by limiting import (raising import prices). This creates the weird situation where the farmers in Africa producing food much cheaper cant sell their food in Europe and the USA. In fact food is imported in africa making the food produced there worthless.
Europe and USA can really directly help those people make a living by removing those artificial restrictions. Both have been to arrogant and selfish until now. The problem they face of course are farmers. If Europe & USA would not only consider their own interests but those of the world as well the situation could be much better for those farmers.
-
Originally posted by Taldor
I have a request: could everyone fill in their location, please? This could make it easier to see some posts in the right perspective. thx.
Does that matter? Without knowing the location of someone the use of stereotypes (Americans are arrogant and ignorant, Europeans are sissys and naive) is less likely.
-
Americans are arrogant and ignorant
I agree with this statement, and I\'m american....
what does that make me???
perhaps king of the retards???
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Sorry i really don\'t care about the financiel losses. All i care about is the cost in human lifes. The comparison is to put things into perspective. Yes it was mass slaughter. But how many people have been killed on average each year because of terrorism in America the last decade?
What is the average death toll because of murderers in the US? Much more.
Terrorism is not to be ignored however it isn\'t the worst problem we face today. We shouldn\'t concentrate mostly on terrorism forgetting other more important problems.
I guess a couple hundred billion dollars plus loss of life doesn\'t mean much to you? Great, with the world going deeper in poverty expect to see more extremists and fighting over resources. Get real - the effect of such an attack not only has an immediate impact, but it will funnel more money into the war machine that you want to stop.
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Shortly what i would do is the following. Its my humble view on the matters and quickly put down.
Put the money spent on war in Iraq and afghanistan in the wellbeing of people in undeveloped countries. Encouraging education, economy, etc. In a countrie with a well educated middle class democracy will form easier and is more stable. With democracy a country is more stable and flourishes more (Saintnuclear probably disagrees). In such a countrie the situation has changed for the better and people are less easily influenced by fundamentalists.
So simple said give give more money to backward countries, encourage education and development. Yes this means the elite puts a large part in their pocket but its the part that gets to the population that matters.
Great, but where does the money come from? From the hundreds of billions that went down the drain after these attacks? What happens when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely - do you worry about extremist governments taking the reign because the job is not done to completion? In this case it would be counter-productive.
Not only will you further destabilize the region, you will further put the world in poverty as the extremist governments divert oil funds from the world economy and finance extremist organizations (further fueling this war).
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
And the west should stop supporting dicatorial governments like that of Saudi Arabia which isnt that much better than that of Iraq was. In general the west should live worldwide by the standards they claim to have.
And the international community should become more of a democracy instead of the USA influencing the world the way they see fit. Here i think the UN is important. Slightly naive perhaps i look out to a world where an invasion of one country by another will cause the others to helpt that country.
I agree with you here about the west stop funding these regimes (oh and don\'t single out the west, ok?). Too bad the cold war made that a habit. Instead of direct confrontation, the superpowers like the USSR and US poured money into these regional wars and warlords. Good at that time, but definately bad when the same warlords turned there backs to attack.
-
originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Ineluke, generally this is what i gather of your opinion from your posts so far:
Iraq probably had wmds, these would have been a threat to Israel, Saudi Arabie and other countries in the vicinity.
That the wmds haven\'t been found is likely cause they have been sold/transported to another country.
I this correct? I want to know if i understand someones view correctly, thats why i ask.
This is a correct summary. I would like to add that the wmd\'s were also a threat to american embassies and military bases in those countries.
And i very much doubt the existence of WMDs in Iraq, Saddam knew that if they were found he would get in a very bad situation.
Which is the very reason that he would have gotten rid of them in the first place
Erm, i dont really understand, thats what im suggesting, that he got rid of most of the wmds or at least stopped producing them.
Yes he got rid of the wmds but that doesn\'t mean that they were never there in the first place. I believe he sold/moved them.
True im making assumptions.
1) That Saddam is a coward is however not entirely my own. He is a paranoid person afraid of losing his power, fearing to be betrayed by his own. Much like Stalin in fact. Even his own sons didn\'t always know where he went to or was. There were multiple convoys going in different directions. Not that he had it all wrong, assination attempts have been made on his life.
I guess I have to concede that point.
2) Saddam cared only for having power (think thats an assumption i can easily make). When he attacked Kuwait to gain power he expected the US to do nothing. Now if he attacked a country he knows the US responds. Why does he care? Well that is easy, does/did he stand a chance against the US army? No Saddam knew his regime is doomed when he attacks another country. And being in power is more important to him than anything except his life perhaps.
This is not a point that I will concede. Saddam may have thought that with the US occupied with the war on Terrorism that they would not have time to deal with him. Or he may have not ever intended to actually use the wmd\'s but to have them and be able to threaten to use them. When dealing with wmd\'s you don\'t have to actually use them for them to have an effect on polotics and war.
Okay you\'re right i shouldnt put it in \"\'s but i wanted to clearly seperate that sentence. Unfortunately i don\'t have a link or source. Most of my information comes from the media here. However the meaning of the sentence was like the one i wrote, as well as the change. It was an example of the numerous documents where alterations have been made. Making them reflecting in a more negative and sometimes unrealistic way of the wmds in Iraq.
I don\'t think that those documents were changed as much as your media would like you to believe. I will admit that they may have been altered to cast Iraq in a more negative light but I highly doubt that we would go so far as to change words like defensive into offensive. Or to stretch the truch so far that it becomes false or unrepresentative of the actual situation.
How did the USA get the \'proof\' Powell showed at the UN? Some of that were new weren\'t they? Apparently the US watched Iraq closely. Also the US stated to know of locations of wmds. Therefore id think they would have seen transportation of those wmds and have proof thereof.
It could have been that Saddam slipped up in the transportaion or storage of a set of wmd\'s and we caught him when he slipped. Once he realized we knew he had wmd\'s he began to be much more carful.
I don\'t accuse the US of covering up stuff (at least that was not my intention with my point). Im saying the argument of wmds are in other countries is lame. How i see it is: Your country didn\'t want to admit they were wrong (would have been to embarresing and damaging to their reputation) so it was said Syria had the wmds. Later they acknowledged that the information of wmds on which the war was based was overrated and wrong.
Why would the US outright lie knowing that as soon as it was looked into the lie would fall apart? Lying about the weapons being moved to Syria when we knew that they weren\'t there either would have dammaged our reputationeven more than being wrong about the weapons in the first place.
It would have been easy, thats for certain alright. However other countries (like france) in such a case would want the UN to take a close look at the wmds. And such a complex technology i think has specific technology that \'tells\' what country produced the wmd.
You need to keep in mind we have seen Iraq\'s wmd\'s in the past. It would have been simple for us to construct a token number of \"Iraqi wmd\'s\" minicking their technology to make it seem like they were their\'s or we could put wmd\'s from another country and say saddam didn\'t construct them he bought them.
After at least a decade of indoctrination Saddam was likely to have at least some very loyal followers. And to be certain, kidnap their children and wives. threaten to kill them if nothing happens and loyaltie is assured.
Ok I concede this point but he still would have to deal with the revolt of his country as he killed a large portion of the populace.
Okay, we agree that the war on Iraq had little to do with terrorists connection of Saddam. But it was used by the US as one of the reasons to attack Iraq.
That was just a token reason. Somthing to add to the list. Because a list of reasons to go to war is much more impressive than one big reason.
About the crime rate: Although we terrorism is besides the point with iraq, im trying to put things into perspective. I dont want America or Europe to do nothing about terrorism. Instead of using violence the source of terrorism should be removed by improving the state people are in.
Ok now that I understand what you meant I completly agree.
I intended to post a clear view of how i see the war on Iraq (and afghanistan). This will have to come later im afraid but this is enough to argue on i think .
Good I\'m looking forward to it. :D
This should be a good amount for you to chew on.
I do have a request of you though. Only quote what is absolutly nessisary for your comments to make sence that last on was a bit long...
-
Originally posted by tygerwilde
Americans are arrogant and ignorant
I agree with this statement, and I\'m american....
what does that make me???
perhaps king of the retards???
It definitely reveals that you are arrogant and ignorant. Can\'t say the same about most Americans or Europeans.
-
I can think of several problems with the solution.
First, the rich makes a very unstable tax base. A recession can kill 30% of your income *snaps* just like that. Think California.
2.) Dictatorial regimes hog aid mean for civilians.
3.) Politicians will have to be threatened to convince them to send aid to people who are perceived as a threat.
Farmers are diliberately kept poor here in the \'States (and proll\'y Europe too) to ensure cheap food prices.
-
You\'re contredicting yourself here:
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Put the money spent on war in Iraq and afghanistan in the wellbeing of people in undeveloped countries. Encouraging education, economy, etc. In a countrie with a well educated middle class democracy will form easier and is more stable.
Here you\'re saying that the US should invest money in undeveloped countries, influencing them as they see fit.
However, here...
In general the west should live worldwide by the standards they claim to have.
And the international community should become more of a democracy instead of the USA influencing the world the way they see fit.
You\'re saying that the US shouldn\'t influence the world as they see fit.
Here i think the UN is important. Slightly naive perhaps i look out to a world where an invasion of one country by another will cause the others to helpt that country.
You do know that that\'s how WWI started, right?
Ineluke, generally this is what i gather of your opinion from your posts so far:
Iraq probably had wmds, these would have been a threat to Israel, Saudi Arabie and other countries in the vicinity.
This just reminded me of a certain article I\'ve read not long after the war on Iraq started.
Apperantly, Iraq and Israel had secret peace negotiations (that if I remmember correctly had an American representative or two to watch over).
They were going really well not long before Bush started giving Saddam deadlines for disarming.
Of course, once the war started, the negotiations stopped.
Peace between Israel and Iraq? It does sound a bit farfetched, but peace between Israel and Egypt seemed farfetched back in the time too.
And Saddam wouldn\'t attack Saudi either. And if he would, every single Muslim country would probebly pay to be the one to slay him.
Originally posted by kbilik
This is true but these cults are not state sponsored nor do they have a global network with financers who own nearly a billion dollars (Bin Laden\'s fortune). Cults have caused damage - like in Japan where they released poison gas in the subway. But the threat is no where near the level of Al-Quida
Let me remind you that these terrorist organisations started small too. And these terrorist organisations have existed for the last few tens of years, they\'re alot more known.
An apocaliptic cult probebly won\'t be state sponsored, but it can definitly have a network of rich people supporting them.
The damage part is mostly financial related. It takes only one rich bored guy to be able to do something even bigger than 9/11.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Originally posted by kbilik
This is true but these cults are not state sponsored nor do they have a global network with financers who own nearly a billion dollars (Bin Laden\'s fortune). Cults have caused damage - like in Japan where they released poison gas in the subway. But the threat is no where near the level of Al-Quida
Let me remind you that these terrorist organisations started small too. And these terrorist organisations have existed for the last few tens of years, they\'re alot more known.
An apocaliptic cult probebly won\'t be state sponsored, but it can definitly have a network of rich people supporting them.
The damage part is mostly financial related. It takes only one rich bored guy to be able to do something even bigger than 9/11.
Remember, economics and financial losses lead to poverty which in turn leads to fights over resources and a rise in extremism.
As for terrorism starting small first, yes it did. The problem is that people regarded it as a simple police matter (crime) at first. Then it became a means of other countries striking at their enemies. In Israel for example, the Arab armies were defeated in 3-4 full scale wars. So what did certain governments do? They fund suicide bombings and use the Palestinians and hijack their cause as human bombs. It didn\'t occur to anyone that this sort of thing could happen to anyone else. But the idea spread.
As for cults, there are no indications that they will become such a threat. Its a possibility, but not likely. Besides, many cults engage in mass suicide and their predictions are constantly proven wrong - thus discouraging others (not everyone I admit).
These extremists hijack an entire religion to claim what they do is holy. This makes it far more deadly because they can lure radicals and constantly indoctrinate which can give them a very large following.
As for \"rich bored guys\" causing disasters worse than 9/11... give me an example.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
As for \"rich bored guys\" causing disasters worse than 9/11... give me an example.
I didn\'t say it happened, I said that to make a disaster worse than 9/11 all you need is a rich bored guy.
1. With enough money, anyone can get themselves a few nukes, hire henchmen to plant them in big cities, and just press the button. If any of these henchmen gets arrested, money can take him out one way or another.
2. Boredom can make you do idiotic stuff, just so you won\'t be bored. I can\'t give you an example of someone that made a large-scale terrorist attack due to boredom, but two bored people could start a bloody fight against each other just so they can do something. If boredom can cause that, excessive boredom can cause worse stuff.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
2. Boredom can make you do idiotic stuff, just so you won\'t be bored. I can\'t give you an example of someone that made a large-scale terrorist attack due to boredom, but two bored people could start a bloody fight against each other just so they can do something. If boredom can cause that, excessive boredom can cause worse stuff.
It takes more than boredom and money to commit something like that. It takes determined fanaticism and hatred to actively find anyone willing to find the weapons (there is constant monitoring against this), thoughtlessly murder millions and plunge the world into a major depression.
If you intended to say that anyone with money and the will or connections can do such a thing, then I would agree. However, they would have to be suicidal as the reaction to such an act will be swift and merciless. No matter how much money they have, it won\'t be of much use when international banks and laws collapse and you have entire nations sending guys to mow you or those related to you down.
Which is why fanatics are so dangerous - they couldn\'t care less.
-
Originally posted by Monketh
Farmers are diliberately kept poor here in the \'States (and proll\'y Europe too) to ensure cheap food prices.
God these posts are getting longer and longer to read heh :)
You are right on that idea, they seem to be trying it here in Canada but the farmers have set so many fall backs for themselves in the years that if they are going under there is farmer insurance given to them by the government and if not by the government other farms from around Canada send funds and last year they were sending massive loads of wheat and such to feed the animals here in western Canada.
-
For now ill only respond to this post, but later ill reply to the others as well.
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
You\'re contredicting yourself here:
Here you\'re saying that the US should invest money in undeveloped countries, influencing them as they see fit.
However, here...
In general the west should live worldwide by the standards they claim to have.
And the international community should become more of a democracy instead of the USA influencing the world the way they see fit.
You\'re saying that the US shouldn\'t influence the world as they see fit
indeed the way i wrote down is somewhat contradicting, what i meant was not exactly what i wrote, its difficult to write it precicely down .
I meant more something like:
And the international community should become more of a democracy instead of the USA acting in the world the way they see fit.
So the USA/west shouldn\'t ignore interntational criticism and just go ahead do what they think is best for the world. They should however influence countries in a positive gentle nonviolent way.
You do know that that\'s how WWI started, right?
Here too i think my intention wasn\'t put down well enough. Im talking about a system (in the far future) where countries know that an attack on another country means they will lose because all the other nations (or at least those in the neighbourhood) will help that countrie. Like a Nato worldwide. But this is really far far into the future.
The WWI started for other reasons, yes alliances were the problem but in this case they were hidden and opposed. Im talking about a huge alliance between all nations.
Blame me for being naive but as an optimistic person i do believe one day this will be realised.
Apperantly, Iraq and Israel had secret peace negotiations (that if I remmember correctly had an American representative or two to watch over).
They were going really well not long before Bush started giving Saddam deadlines for disarming.
Of course, once the war started, the negotiations stopped.
Interesting, i never heard of that. Id like to add hear there is no real reason i can think of for Iraq to attack Israel. To help the palestinians? Like Saddam really cared, financing them was easy and only to raise his poor reputation to the arabics. And the army of Israel is more modern then that of iraq.
Leaves Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, at least they provide a reason, oil. However the US having troops in both of them makes winning such a war very unlikely for Iraq.
And i agree with SaintNuclear, the other arabic nations wouldn\'t allow such an act of Iraq.
Oh and one more thing, today in the newspaper there was an article about a report of IISS a british institute. They stated that terrorists can get wmds, they will keep causing small strikes until they have a wmd. This means (assuming the report as correct) i underestimate the threat of terrorism.
However they also claim that the number of terrorists have grown. The war on afghanistan and Iraq helped them grow. And though the taliban and Al Quaida in Afghanistan are removed this has little positive effect on the organization. Being decentralised its just as dangerous.
-
Originally posted by Monketh
I can think of several problems with the solution.
First, the rich makes a very unstable tax base. A recession can kill 30% of your income *snaps* just like that. Think California.
2.) Dictatorial regimes hog aid mean for civilians.
3.) Politicians will have to be threatened to convince them to send aid to people who are perceived as a threat.
1) Im not sure what you mean. Youre saying that having too many rich makes en economy unstable?
2) Unfortunately true, and to add most of the aid only helps out a very small part of the civilians. We should keep trying though, aid done in a smart way has helped some countries improve nonetheless. And there are other ways we can help like the example i posted.
3) If politicians have to be forced they\'re in the wrong place. If the general opinion of the population is that aid should be sent i doubt politicians just ignore that. Also i hope politicians will start to see that helping backward countries is effective against terrorism.
The idea needs working out i admit that. And i dont have all the answers, im not that arrogant to think i know exactly how to send aid.
Farmers are diliberately kept poor here in the \'States (and proll\'y Europe too) to ensure cheap food prices.
In holland maybe thats true too. Doesn\'t really matter, the system i talked about does exist for no real sensible reason yet makes life for african farmers harder.
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Oh and one more thing, today in the newspaper there was an article about a report of IISS a british institute. They stated that terrorists can get wmds, they will keep causing small strikes until they have a wmd. This means (assuming the report as correct) i underestimate the threat of terrorism.
Of course terrorists can get wmds.
They can get them from the black market, and they can steal them too.
Here\'s a scenario:
3 Al Qaeda militants join the US army as drivers.
After a while, they go up in the classification ranks, so they can deliver dangerous materials.
The army needs to deliver a nuke, and they\'re assigned to be in the convoy. One of them drives the truck, the two others drive escort vehicles.
A carefully planned ambush is made, so only the truck and the two escort vehicles with the terrorist drivers survive.
They drive to Mexico, and from there there\'s a boat \\ plane to take them out of there.
It may have to be a bit more complicated than the way I described it, but generally, it is possible. And Al Qaeda is known to have enough patience to plant a few terrorists in the US and use them only after a few years.
Terrorists can use missiles too.
When the Israeli army was in south Lebanon, there were many times that Lebanese kids (yes, kids) launched RPG missiles (no, not Role Playing Game, Rocket Propellant Grenade) on army vehicles and outposts.
In the last few years, Palastinians have launched Kasam missiles from Gaza strip on Israeli settlements and towns.
RPGs and Kasams aren\'t as harmful as military-grade missiles, but they\'re so light and mobile, that you can have a man on the roof of a building not far from the White House, shoot it, run away, and probebly not get caught while running away. Maybe he\'ll even come back home with the launcher.
-
RPGs and Kasams aren\'t as harmful as military-grade missiles, but they\'re so light and mobile, that you can have a man on the roof of a building not far from the White House, shoot it, run away, and probebly not get caught while running away. Maybe he\'ll even come back home with the launcher.
Or they could put a grenade in a potato gun... :D
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
RPGs and Kasams aren\'t as harmful as military-grade missiles, but they\'re so light and mobile, that you can have a man on the roof of a building not far from the White House, shoot it, run away, and probebly not get caught while running away. Maybe he\'ll even come back home with the launcher.
RPGs (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf) are mainly armor penetrators and will only blow holes into buildings. The Kassam is also a light missile that won\'t do much damage to these kinds of buildings. The real threat is from high explosives like in a car bomb or suicide bomber. Unless used in large numbers or against vehicles/small armored targets, these RPGs won\'t do much.
-
They won\'t, but it\'s still a threat.
With good aim and luck you could launch an RPG through a window and trash a room while killing \\ maiming the people inside it.
-
Originally posted by Ineluke
Yes he got rid of the wmds but that doesn\'t mean that they were never there in the first place. I believe he sold/moved them.
This is a point on which we disagree. You could be right. Iraq might have moved/sold the wmds. But consider the facts we know off, the proof of wmds was inaccurate, no wmds have been found so far. Considering that is it unlikely that there were no wmds?
Saddam may have thought that with the US occupied with the war on Terrorism that they would not have time to deal with him. Or he may have not ever intended to actually use the wmd\'s but to have them and be able to threaten to use them. When dealing with wmd\'s you don\'t have to actually use them for them to have an effect on polotics and war.
After 9/11 an attack on Iraq was more likely then before, it surprised me that the USA attacked Afghanistan and took so long before fighting war with Iraq. Also afghanistan was the only place where troops were busy with the war on terrorism.
If wmds are not intended to be used to threaten, why would they be a serious enough threat to start a war over?
I don\'t think that those documents were changed as much as your media would like you to believe. I will admit that they may have been altered to cast Iraq in a more negative light but I highly doubt that we would go so far as to change words like defensive into offensive. Or to stretch the truch so far that it becomes false or unrepresentative of the actual situation.
I don\'t think the media will make something like that up. Also they do as media should provide in a relative objective way news . Of course you should be carefull just to accept what they tell as the truth, i admit the media is slightly opposed to the war. If you doubt our media then i hope you do the same with information from your media.
It could have been that Saddam slipped up in the transportaion or storage of a set of wmd\'s and we caught him when he slipped. Once he realized we knew he had wmd\'s he began to be much more carful.
Then he was late with being carefull, usa claimed to know the locations for quite some time. And they did have much fairly recent proog. Covering up multiple transportations is not that easy without one being detected.
Why would the US outright lie knowing that as soon as it was looked into the lie would fall apart? Lying about the weapons being moved to Syria when we knew that they weren\'t there either would have dammaged our reputationeven more than being wrong about the weapons in the first place.
Im not saying its a lie. Transportation of wmds is a possibility but unlikely. Its however easier to claim then acknowledge that youre wrong. Admitting to be wrong is not something Bush is likely to do i think.
You need to keep in mind we have seen Iraq\'s wmd\'s in the past. It would have been simple for us to construct a token number of \"Iraqi wmd\'s\" minicking their technology to make it seem like they were their\'s or we could put wmd\'s from another country and say saddam didn\'t construct them he bought them.
Im not an engineer but i doubt such specific technology could be replicated well enough to fool exsperts in such a short time.
That was just a token reason. Somthing to add to the list. Because a list of reasons to go to war is much more impressive than one big reason.
Don\'t you think that when making such an important decision as whether to go to war the list of reasons the people should not be influenced by adding a false reason.
If you don\'t think of this, people are not stupid, they do realize terrorism has little to do with iraq. Having such a bad reason makes the other reasons lok less serious as well.
This as well as altering intelligence is one of the reasons the reputation of the US worsens. And makes people distrust the information of the US.
In fact im one of those people. Its strengthened my negative ideas about the war and the impression that the USA was determined to go to war even if no wmds were found.
I do have a request of you though. Only quote what is absolutly nessisary for your comments to make sence that last on was a bit long...
I tried too, is this better?
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
But consider the facts we know off, the proof of wmds was inaccurate, no wmds have been found so far. Considering that is it unlikely that there were no wmds?
Sigh... I guess that sarin nerve toxin that the insurgents detonated was not WMD? Check your facts please.
Sarin nerve bomb (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ_SARIN?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)
After 9/11 an attack on Iraq was more likely then before, it surprised me that the USA attacked Afghanistan and took so long before fighting war with Iraq. Also afghanistan was the only place where troops were busy with the war on terrorism.
If wmds are not intended to be used to threaten, why would they be a serious enough threat to start a war over?
Simple. Bin Laden and Al-Quida were widely known to be rooted in that area thanks to the Taliban extremist government. The case for Iraq took longer to decide - whether it was necessary to attack or not.
BTW, all your arguments about WMD not found are invalid. This sarin projectile raises the question of if even Saddam knew the extent of his WMD supply. The shell was unmarked - probably the sign was taken off by the Iraqi military. With the signs taken off, it\'d be pretty easy for the chemical weapon supply to be hidden in the thousands of tons of conventional shells of Saddam\'s armory. The intention was probably to hide the weapons.
One possibility. Still would be a threat though if unmarked shells were shipped to aid extremist factions. And remember, Iraq promised to destroy all WMD or it would be in violation of the armstice agreements it signed with the UN. Thus this sure doesn\'t help the naysayer\'s cause.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
I guess a couple hundred billion dollars plus loss of life doesn\'t mean much to you? Great, with the world going deeper in poverty expect to see more extremists and fighting over resources. Get real - the effect of such an attack not only has an immediate impact, but it will funnel more money into the war machine that you want to stop.
Of course i do care about human lifes, why do you think im against the war on iraq? Of course the attack was a terrible thing. What does that money amount to? Is it mainly from the USA? If so the loss doesn\'t really add to terrorism. Its a huge amount true. But a human life means much more to me then plain dollar billes. Unfortunately you\'re right that this loss of money is not to be taken too lightly. But the economy recovered quite well from 9/11.
True the attack will funnel more money in the war machine as well as it created an environment where people were more ready to go to war. That brings me to the point i have, the attack though serieus should not mean that fear of terrorism is the leading factor in everydays life and politics. Causing very strict security, no private rights, abuse of human rights (perhaps guantomana bay).
Not that the situation in the USA is in such a desperate state, but when too concerned with terrorism the USA might throw away the things they are about. Democratic rights and such. The day that happens is the day the terrorists win the battle
Great, but where does the money come from? From the hundreds of billions that went down the drain after these attacks? What happens when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely?
I dont want the USa to leave iraq and afghanistan. That would be a huge mistake. But instead of having started the wars to those nations america should have used the money to improve the world.
Where to get the money from? Well the west is in a much better economic position then most nations. Im sure they can share a little of what they have. Europe gives more to aid then the USA does so it is possible.
(oh and don\'t single out the west, ok?).
What do you mean by that?
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Of course i do care about human lifes, why do you think im against the war on iraq? Of course the attack was a terrible thing. What does that money amount to? Is it mainly from the USA? If so the loss doesn\'t really add to terrorism. Its a huge amount true. But a human life means much more to me then plain dollar billes. Unfortunately you\'re right that this loss of money is not to be taken too lightly. But the economy recovered quite well from 9/11.
That doesn\'t matter. Global disruptions like this one have a long term effect. Money that could have gone for improving conditions around the world at an accelerating rate would now be diverted. This is a chain reaction that has wide implications just as depressions during the 20s and 30s throughout the US and Europe led to a rise of fascism and then WW2, then the cold war, then to this sad situation of cold-war supported regimes destabilizing the world.
That brings me to the point i have, the attack though serieus should not mean that fear of terrorism is the leading factor in everydays life and politics. Causing very strict security, no private rights, abuse of human rights (perhaps guantomana bay). Not that the situation in the USA is in such a desperate state, but when too concerned with terrorism the USA might throw away the things they are about. Democratic rights and such. The day that happens is the day the terrorists win the battle
No, terrorism is the leading cause of concern as I explained earlier. It\'s effect has already caused disgruntled soldiers to commit abuse and Iraqis to drag burned contractors through the streets, hang them, saw off heads of civilians, etc. It is a chain reaction as I said that will not stop even when one side stops. It will only stop if both sides back down. The problem is when one side backs down, the other attacks in the moment of weakness. Reminds you of the cycle of mideast violence, eh?
(oh and don\'t single out the west, ok?). What do you mean by that?
I mean that the west wasn\'t the only one aiding dictatorships. The USSR can be considered as a historically major investor in war-like regimes. Not to mention every country to a lesser extent (funding indirectly to avoid direct confrontation).
-
Originally posted by kbilik
BTW, all your arguments about WMD not found are invalid. This sarin projectile raises the question of if even Saddam knew the extent of his WMD supply.
Okay almost no wmds have been found. That better? :D
The fact remains the proof of the existence of the number of wmds the USA claimed there to be still is very limited about a year? now after the start of the war. One shell i hardly call a good reason for war. If a stockpile of those shells are found then ill admit im wrong about the existence of numerous wmds. As the link provided also says, they don\'t know if that is the only shell or not.
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
But the economy recovered quite well from 9/11.
The economy is going worse and worse since before 9/11, and is still in a very bad shape.
Any recovery that was after 9/11 was nothing as it\'s still in a bad shape (and no, not better than when it was right after 9/11)
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
The fact remains the proof of the existence of the number of wmds the USA claimed there to be still is very limited about a year? now after the start of the war. One shell i hardly call a good reason for war. If a stockpile of those shells are found then ill admit im wrong about the existence of numerous wmds. As the link provided also says, they don\'t know if that is the only shell or not.
I fully agree on that point. One shell is no justification. However, it does leave the question open of more WMDs. The problem is - when do they decide to stop looking. Heck the UN looked for 12 years and missed this Sarin warhead. I wonder how long it would take before we get a definite answer.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
That doesn\'t matter. Global disruptions like this one have a long term effect. Money that could have gone for improving conditions around the world at an accelerating rate would now be diverted.
Psychology speaking you could be right (what i explained about letting fear get the upper hand). Economically speaking you\'re saying that the money is being diverted and therefore has a negative impact? Cause the effects of 9/11 on economy have faded away by now.
Im afraid you could get to be right about worsening of worldwide conditions. This is not something thats completely out of our control however.
No, terrorism is the leading cause of concern as I explained earlier. It\'s effect has already caused disgruntled soldiers to commit abuse and Iraqis to drag burned contractors through the streets, hang them, saw off heads of civilians, etc. It is a chain reaction as I said that will not stop even when one side stops. It will only stop if both sides back down. The problem is when one side backs down, the other attacks in the moment of weakness. Reminds you of the cycle of mideast violence, eh?
I think the acts of soldiers have more to do with human nature and cirumstances then with terrorism. The prison experiment had very similair results. You and i would probably have acted the same way.
It does remind me of the middle east yes. The israel - palestinian situation shows violence is not the way to deal with the problem. Building a wall works for israel, but we can\'t do the same thing. The problem is the eye for an eye attitude. One acts the other responds even more. Very human, if i hit you softly, you will hit me to retaliate thinking its just as hard, but you will hit me harder. Then i will hit you again etc.
By responding to violence of terrorists with violence the only result we get is more violence. The war in afghanistan and iraq caused a growth of terrorists and made the decentralised terrorists even more dangerous.
Naturally they will keep attacking even when we do nothing but resorting to violence because we cant handle it leads to nothing. Anyway attacking nations is a dead end. The USA hasn\'t got the finances to attack another nation having wmds or terrorists. Enough of those countries still exist. How will the USA continue its way of dealing with the war on terrorism?
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
The economy is going worse and worse since before 9/11, and is still in a very bad shape.
This due to normal recession like that in the 80\'s and not 9/11. This is quite a normal phenomena that happens periodically. Economically good periods are followed by recessions. Economy will improve again (and maybe is already).
Originally posted by kbilik
I fully agree on that point. One shell is no justification. However, it does leave the question open of more WMDs. The problem is - when do they decide to stop looking. Heck the UN looked for 12 years and missed this Sarin warhead. I wonder how long it would take before we get a definite answer.
The USA should certainly continou look for wmds. They do have an advantage to the UN of having Iraq in their control so there are no problems with cover ups (besides the possible ones at the start of war)
One sarin warhead is easy to miss isn\'t it? I mean suppose its the only wmd then what are the chances the UN had of finding it?
Anyway the iraqis did hide something :)
[afbeelding (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/graphics/att13761_sm.jpg)]
This plane was found in the last war. Personally i think they misinterpreted the manual. :D
-
did anyone ever realise that the US broke their own laws? the law in america is that the prosecution has burden of proof.
we laid claims against sadaam, yet we didn\'t prove him guilty before acting against him. looks like we\'re going by the law of guilty until proven innocent to me
yes, I believe he had a number of WMDs, not nearly an amount that would be dangerous, but he had them. but we didn\'t have the right to go in there until undeniable proof was obtained.
-
tyger you should know by now that major powers are allowed to make laws and break laws with no consequences to their actions! Only because no one would able to stop them...
-
Originally posted by tygerwilde
yes, I believe he had a number of WMDs, not nearly an amount that would be dangerous, but he had them. but we didn\'t have the right to go in there until undeniable proof was obtained.
Isn\'t 12 years enough time for the UN to get some results? They failed to find either 1) anything or 2) Proof of destruction of the 80s chemical weapons that the US gave him. What do you expect the US to do after waiting for 12 years and under such pressure and threats?
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul Psychology speaking you could be right (what i explained about letting fear get the upper hand). Economically speaking you\'re saying that the money is being diverted and therefore has a negative impact? Cause the effects of 9/11 on economy have faded away by now.
Im afraid you could get to be right about worsening of worldwide conditions. This is not something thats completely out of our control however
No, I\'m not speaking psychologically. I am talking about deficit spending where the funds for certain helpful programs are instead put into efforts to rebuild infrastructure, pay insurance of property damage, pay for lost time, life, delays, lost investments, etc etc. No, the economic effects of 9/11 have not faded away as there is still no replacement for the amount of lost life, property, and company migrations that these attacks have brought. A lowering of investor confidence by a vaste percentage isn\'t helping either.
These losses will snowball and influence in many subtle ways the financial landscape of the US and world.
Naturally they will keep attacking even when we do nothing but resorting to violence because we cant handle it leads to nothing. Anyway attacking nations is a dead end. The USA hasn\'t got the finances to attack another nation having wmds or terrorists. Enough of those countries still exist. How will the USA continue its way of dealing with the war on terrorism?
The option if not hunting out these organizations is unacceptable. What happens if they strike another financially important infrastructure on the scale of 9/11? What then - do you expect a whimper and no response?
As for the US not having the finances to attack - that argument doesn\'t prevent deficit spending. DOn\'t underestimate the lengths the US will go to retailate if another 9/11 happens. I surely hope not.
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Cause the effects of 9/11 on economy have faded away by now.
Not really.
Let\'s say the US was investing time and money on developping their educational system (good idea, they might want to do that...).
Then the 9/11 attack happened, and the US had to take as many resources as it can to fight terrorism, make a quest on finding Bin Laden, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
The developping of the educational system was stopped, and it\'s slowly degrading to it\'s normal state (you can\'t just \'pause\' a development. if you stop it, it starts degrading back).
The US finds Bin Laden, finishes the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a few more countries.
Meanwhile, the educational system becomes even worse than it is today.
All the time and money they spent on developping the educational system was wasted.
Due to the US\' crappy educational system, technological improvements happen only outside of the US.
Because of that, major companies that have something to do with technology move their main offices and branches to Europe.
The ship that ships the office desks of Microsoft sinks after a bunch of crazy \'nix fanatics take over it.
Microsoft bankrupts.
Companies lose alot of time and money on learning how to use Unix.
The world\'s economy goes even worse.
Japan goes fubar and degrades to anarchy after discovering an unrepairable bug in Unix that prevents users from watching Hentai movies.
Japan-freaks around the world torch western monuments.
The economical depression deepens.
Mailmen around the world go postal. The only postal office that survives is located in Siberia.
The US sees that as an economical oppertunity and invades.
Russia retaliates with nukes.
The US re-retaliates.
The European Union is pissed off so they nuke both.
...I could go and on, it\'s kinda fun. But I think you got the point. Even if the stock markets have stabilized after 9/11, it doesn\'t mean it\'s economical impact doesn\'t matter anymore. And like in my example, it does affect human life :rolleyes:
-
Its become much longer then intended :(. Flame me, burn the piece to the ground, ignore it because its too long but here is my view of the wars and process to it.
Since the attack of 9/11 and the speeches of Bush (you\'re with us or against us, it seems im against then) i expected the USA to go to war with iraq (technically continou the war). It surprised me somewhat that afghanistan was attacked first.
When the US gave its ultimatum to the taliban it was my opinion that they didn\'t give the taliban enough time to discuss it. The US seemed eager to retaliate on afghanistan.
Because i doubted the US to win the war easy without it getting into guerilla warfare like russia had to face i was slightly opposed to it. Killing afghanistans because of a terrorist attack didn\'t seem right.
I was wrong though, the northern alliance was a great help to the US. Still however it remains to be seen if afghanistan becomes a stable democratic nation and doesnt plunge again in a war.
Starting to feel relieved and believing Iraq was not second on the retaliaton list my hope was wrong. From the moment the usa wanted the un to look for wmds the iraqis surely had war had been decided upon. Later i heard that bush wanted to attack iraq first when 9/11 had just happened.
When nothing was found despite the US claimed to know locations of wmds yet wasnt very helpfull giving them to the un. Also when blix made a report about the wmds the usa wanted it to be more negative about the wmds, the paper wasn\'t claiming precense of wmds enough.
This strengthened my opinion that the US was only using the wmds as an excuse to go to war wether they were present or not. This isn\'t the first time for the US. In the first gulf war (that i agree with) a whole story was fabricated about kuwait infants brutally being murdered.
Then more reasons were given to go to war, like the unlikely connection between osama bin laden and saddam. Also the intelligence of the us and uk claimed the precense and serious threat of wmds. Later those were at least considered as misleading.
When trying to get a UN resolution for war, the usa presented \'prove\' which seemed far fetched most of the time and could hardly be called proove.
The bribing and threatening of backward countries to a certain vote by giving more or less aid was the lowest act of all.
Then not getting enough support the US decided to go to war anyway, ignoring criticism in most of the world. Again like with afghanistan i feared a guerilla war especially in baghdad, again i was wrong. Still it amazes me that the us soldiers had so little casualties. Perhaps what i hoped for, iraqi soldiers massively surrendering, and came true was the reason for this.
But until now having Iraq under control the US has found almost no wmds they claimed there were. First it was said that the wmds had been moved to syria. Later the many exegarations and flaws in the documents appeared and the american government admitted the wmds probably were not there.
When bagdhad fell clearly the iraqi people were glad to have been liberated. Unfortunately the few that fight the soldiers now could mess up the whole proces and leave iraq not in a much better state. Especially if the american soldiers dont become less triggerhappy. Too many innocent iraqis get unnecisarily get killed. The british soldiers perform better.
Furthermore its a shame and mistake the defence of the usa instead of foreign matters got the task of rebuilding iraq.
The usa seems to be the first to claim responsibility for positive events but with negative events there is much trouble admitting it, most of the time its denied, in other cases no responsability is claimed. Like saying that its not the fault of the us that the soldiers acted like they did, thats something you get in a war. Forgetting the war is caused by the us.
so what is my opinion? With almost no proof I believe there were at most few wmds. Even with wmds i consider Iraq no threat to its neighbours. Nothing is to be gained in israel, and attacking other countries would mean the end of the regime of saddam.
The terrorist connection i don\'t buy. No the only good reason to go to war with iraq would be liberating the iraqis of oppression. But im still opposed, because i believe the cost of the war in human lifes outweighs the cost in lifes when not acting too much.
How high is the death toll by now, adding both iraqis and soldiers? Holland has 1 dead soldier and killed 1 iraqi = 2. Is it thousands? Tens of thousands?
And instead of going to war the usa could have used the money helping people in other nations as well.
Third, war is a very unpredictive chaotic mostly out of control process where most of what comes from it is damaging. The acts of american soldiers is one example of this.
Whatever you think of this war, the usa can\'t continou attacking countries anyway. The economic price is too high. Ruining your economy to retaliate and feel better is plain dumb. And many dictatorial hostile countries with wmds still exist. Iraq was only one of many. Does Saudia arabie have wmds? Its not hostile i know but do they?
Saudy arabia is one of the nations where the usa still supports a dictatorial regime. Most terrorists come from that nation. Strange isnt it, that people living there don\'t like the us?
Why do i think us wanted to attack iraq?
1) extend its influence in the middle east
2) be less dependant of saudi arabia
3) bush wanted to continou where his father left (its personal)
4) to liberate the iraqis
why i don\'t think the war was raged?
for oil, though the us government did talk about letting iraq pay for the war with oil and the american businesses are the main ones rebuilding the country
What else was i wrong about?
I believed Turky to invade northern iraq, fortunately they were wise enough not to even when us asked their help
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Its become much longer then intended :(. Flame me, burn the piece to the ground, ignore it because its too long but here is my view of the wars and process to it.
Don\'t worry we have had very few people get flamed in this thread and the ones who did flame got shot down and stopped :P State your opinion with no fear!
Your reasons for why he attack Iraq!
1)extend influence in middle east -probally true
2)be less dependant on saudi arabia (What do you mean by this? How were they dependant on them?)
3) Continue his fathers work- Maybe
4) To liberate Iraqs - DING DONG WRONG!!!
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
2)be less dependant on saudi arabia (What do you mean by this? How were they dependant on them?)
Never heard of OIL?
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
you\'re with us or against us
He said it in a much dirtier way. He said something like \'You either support the US, or you support the terrorists\'. No one wants to be in the terrorists side, so it makes people think \'ok, then I\'m with the US\'.
It surprised me somewhat that afghanistan was attacked first.
[...]
they didn\'t give the taliban enough time to discuss it. The US seemed eager to retaliate on afghanistan.
Well, since Al Qaeda\'s HQ was\\is in Afghanistan, it was pretty obvious that they\'ll attack Afghanistan before they go into Iraq.
Personally, I think that they gave the Taliban more than enough time. They should\'ve given the Taliban a day (no more than two) to decide if they\'re giving Bin Laden and as many Al Qaeda people as they can, or not.
Not retaliating to something like 9/11 fast and hard is probebly the worse thing a country can do against terrorism.
Of course they\'ll be eager to retaliate. Did you expect them to just sit there with their arms crossed and have a frown face after 9/11?
Still however it remains to be seen if afghanistan becomes a stable democratic nation and doesnt plunge again in a war.
No way they\'re going out of this without a war.
The Taliban is growing weak, the Northern Alliance is going strong. They\'ll probebly take over and be worse (yes, worse) than the Taliban (atleast the Taliban don\'t go into a village and rape and slaughter women and children for the heck of it). The Taliban will fight against the Northern Alliance, and when the Taliban will be strong enough, the US will step in again to push them down.
The war in Afghanistan will continue for as long as the US thinks that Islam = Bad.
Again like with afghanistan i feared a guerilla war especially in baghdad, again i was wrong.
Wrong? Then how come soldiers keep dying in Iraq?
Of course there\'s a guerilla war. The US don\'t want to stay in Iraq, they got better things to do. They stay there because the civillians are upset with the American army reign and oppose it.
When bagdhad fell clearly the iraqi people were glad to have been liberated.
Liberated?
Neither the Shiites nor the Sunnis thinks Iraq is liberated. True, the Sunnis didn\'t like Saddam at all, but do you think they like being controlled by the US? Hell, it\'s even worse! Controlled by a foreign army!
Unfortunately the few that fight the soldiers now could mess up the whole proces and leave iraq not in a much better state.
What you\'re saying, is that what the majority of the Iraqi population thinks is right will leave it in a worse state than what the US (the minority) thinks?
I thought you support democracy?
I thought the world learned it\'s lesson from Lebanon and South Africa?
Furthermore its a shame and mistake the defence of the usa instead of foreign matters got the task of rebuilding iraq.
Actually, it makes alot of sense.
Right now, Iraq isn\'t a country or a state. Right now it\'s a populated land mass controlled by the US army.
To make it a foreign matter to the US, they have to leave Iraq under the control of any country besides the US (preferably Iraqi citizens).
As long as it\'s controlled by the US army, it\'s nothing but the defence ministry\'s matter.
Third, war is a very unpredictive chaotic mostly out of control process where most of what comes from it is damaging. The acts of american soldiers is one example of this.
Wrong.
War isn\'t chaotic. The battlefield might be.
It\'s unpredictable only because nothing is predictable.
And war is never out of control. There\'s always a commander awake and making sure everything runs as smooth as possible. Afterall, no one wants to lose in a war.
The acts of any American soldier that are considered as \'wrong\' only show that the US army don\'t filter those that want to join it, and is full of anti-Islamic propaganda.
And many dictatorial hostile countries with wmds still exist.
The problem isn\'t really hostile countries with wmds, but friendly countries with them.
First of all, hostile countries are hostile for a reason. It\'s known why they\'re hostile, and who they\'re hostile toward.
It\'s easy to defend against someone with known goals.
Also, other countries can put pressure into these countries to disarm themselves (such as what is going on in Iraq).
Friendly countries, however...
They produce wmds without any third-party organization monitoring them, they got no known agendas, they got no known enemies, and you trade with them.
A \'friendly\' country can suddenly attack with so many wmds that they won\'t even have soldiers to fight against.
Totally unexpectable, and almost impossible to defend against.
Why do i think us wanted to attack iraq?
1) extend its influence in the middle east
2) be less dependant of saudi arabia
3) bush wanted to continou where his father left (its personal)
4) to liberate the iraqis
1. The US got Israel, Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and Turkey with good relations. They also have Jordan and Egypt in ok relations. They got bases all over the Middle East (even in Iraq, since the first Gulf War, maybe before). They got more influence in the Middle East than any place in the world, including Europe (and maybe some of the states in the US :rolleyes: ).
2. They don\'t really have anything to be dependant to Saudi. Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE got alot more oil, turkey got high-tech bases, they got alot of forces in the gulf itself and in the eastern med\' sea... Saudi is good for them, it\'s big so there\'s alot of room for bases, but they don\'t need it.
3. \"This is the guy who tried to kill my dad.\" -Bush :D
4.
What else was i wrong about?
I believed Turky to invade northern iraq, fortunately they were wise enough not to even when us asked their help
They didn\'t even let the US attack from there.
I\'m not sure if it was a good idea to decline the US from attacking from their territory or not.
On one hand, if they let them, they got good relationship with the US.
On the other hand, the Turkish Muslims will use it against the gov, and other Islamic countries will support them.
I don\'t know much of the current gov vs Muslims situation in Turkey, so I don\'t know if it was a good idea or not to oppose to the US.
-
Originally posted by Taldor
Originally posted by DepthBlade
2)be less dependant on saudi arabia (What do you mean by this? How were they dependant on them?)
Never heard of OIL?
I heard of OIL!! I just didn\'t know what resource that they were dependant on that country for!
-
SaintNuclear since your opinion seem to differ so much of mine im curious to what your view on the matters are. Could you give an explanation of your ideas?
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Even if the stock markets have stabilized after 9/11, it doesn\'t mean it\'s economical impact doesn\'t matter anymore.
I talked about the stocket market and economy in general. You are right that the actions of the usa following 9/11 do have a negative effect on the economy. I don\'t think this is a snowball effect though, meaning after getting worse it levels. The war on iraq had less effect on the stock market and economy then expected. But its true that the cost to maintain troops was high and that this was bad on the us budget.
He said it in a much dirtier way. He said something like \'You either support the US, or you support the terrorists\'. No one wants to be in the terrorists side, so it makes people think \'ok, then I\'m with the US\'.
You\'re sure? I remember it differently. Anyway it reflects bad on the us.
Personally, I think that they gave the Taliban more than enough time. They should\'ve given the Taliban a day (no more than two) to decide if they\'re giving Bin Laden and as many Al Qaeda people as they can, or not.
Not retaliating to something like 9/11 fast and hard is probebly the worse thing a country can do against terrorism.
Considering terrorism has become more dangerous because of the war in afghanistan youre wrong. And if you give the taliban only one day then dont at all. Just be honest of your intent and attack.
I think if the taliban had been given more time a peacefull way out might have been possible where the terrorist threat in afghanistan was removed. However small the chance. Its a better solution then gettin much more afghanistans killed then the death toll at 9/11.
No way they\'re going out of this without a war.
So you agree with the war of the us on afghanistan yet you think it will throw afghanistan into more chaos?
Wrong? Then how come soldiers keep dying in Iraq?
Of course there\'s a guerilla war.
yes there is now, i meant of iraqi soldiers against the us soldiers before baghdad fell
Neither the Shiites nor the Sunnis thinks Iraq is liberated. True, the Sunnis didn\'t like Saddam at all, but do you think they like being controlled by the US? Hell, it\'s even worse! Controlled by a foreign army!
As far as i know most iraqis are glad to have saddam removed. Quite logical really. Under his regime you could be picked up put in jail, tortured and killed anytime without reason. Ultimately the iraqis should get control of their own country of course.
What you\'re saying, is that what the majority of the Iraqi population thinks is right will leave it in a worse state than what the US (the minority) thinks?
I thought you support democracy?
I thought the world learned it\'s lesson from Lebanon and South Africa?
I don\'t really get what you mean. Also what about lebanon and south africa are you talking about? The black white segregation?
Most iraqis whether do want their country to be stable. And the iraqis supporting atacks on troops are in a minority. Many iraqis want the us army to leave in the shortest time possible, yes, but not in a violent manner.
Actually, it makes alot of sense.
Right now, Iraq isn\'t a country or a state. Right now it\'s a populated land mass controlled by the US army.
To make it a foreign matter to the US, they have to leave Iraq under the control of any country besides the US (preferably Iraqi citizens).
It might make sense, only the defence apartment hass less knowledge/interist of developing a country. They had almost no plan for after the war was over. Which is pretty stupid if you go into war planning to leave that country in a good state.
Wrong.
War isn\'t chaotic. The battlefield might be.
It\'s unpredictable only because nothing is predictable.
And war is never out of control. There\'s always a commander awake and making sure everything runs as smooth as possible. Afterall, no one wants to lose in a war.
I strongly disagree with you here, war is most certainly chaotic by nature. Just consider what happened in ww1, the plan there was to let the assisanation get slightly out of control into a small war for gain of territory.
Just name one war where most happened as planned.
The acts of any American soldier that are considered as \'wrong\' only show that the US army don\'t filter those that want to join it, and is full of anti-Islamic propaganda.
Do you have proof that there is a lot of anti islamic propaganda?
The actions of soldiers torturing resemble very precise the prison experiment which had similair conditions. Why the american soldiers are trigger happy i dont know, also a lot of friendly fire comes from american soldiers.
The problem isn\'t really hostile countries with wmds, but friendly countries with them.
Are you talking about countries like pakistan? a friendly country turning hostile would be serious yes. But what country you think that is likely for? That has somehting to gain and cab win in such a situation?
1. The US got Israel, Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and Turkey with good relations. They also have Jordan and Egypt in ok relations. They got bases all over the Middle East (even in Iraq, since the first Gulf War, maybe before). They got more influence in the Middle East than any place in the world, including Europe (and maybe some of the states in the US :rolleyes: ).
UAE?
Okay thats true, they do have influence already.
2. They don\'t really have anything to be dependant to Saudi. Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE got alot more oil, turkey got high-tech bases, they got alot of forces in the gulf itself and in the eastern med\' sea... Saudi is good for them, it\'s big so there\'s alot of room for bases, but they don\'t need it.
mm not sure right now, ill concede to that for now.
What do you think the reasons were then?
They didn\'t even let the US attack from there.
I\'m not sure if it was a good idea to decline the US from attacking from their territory or not.
Correct, and their relation with the US is still good. The us tries to get them in the european union because of the friendship. Why wouldnt it be good for turkey to not invade northern iraq getting into trouble with kourds?
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
I talked about the stocket market and economy in general. You are right that the actions of the usa following 9/11 do have a negative effect on the economy. I don\'t think this is a snowball effect though, meaning after getting worse it levels. The war on iraq had less effect on the stock market and economy then expected. But its true that the cost to maintain troops was high and that this was bad on the us budget.
Many economic and regional factors indicate 9/11 did have a snowball effect. The economy would have been in far greater condition if this attack did not occur in the first place along with all the side-effects.
Considering terrorism has become more dangerous because of the war in afghanistan youre wrong. And if you give the taliban only one day then dont at all. Just be honest of your intent and attack.
I think if the taliban had been given more time a peacefull way out might have been possible where the terrorist threat in afghanistan was removed. However small the chance. Its a better solution then gettin much more afghanistans killed then the death toll at 9/11.
The Taliban was given plenty of time to hand over Bin Laden and various Al-Quida leaders to the US. The reply? Taliban: They [Al-Quida and Bin Laden] are guests and under Muslim law it is illegal to hand them over. Under the circumstances there was no other choice but military strikes.
It is also known that Al-Quida\'s capabilities to carry out and plan attacks has been severly degraded (not totally - remember Madrid and Turkey bombings, plus thesurface to air missile attack that almost shot down that Israeli jet in Africa?) following the invasion of Afghanistan. It\'s really hard to plan attacks if you are on the run and wooried about US or Pakistani forces finding you in Afghanistan or Pakistani tribal regions.
It might make sense, only the defence apartment hass less knowledge/interist of developing a country. They had almost no plan for after the war was over. Which is pretty stupid if you go into war planning to leave that country in a good state.
The defense department wins wars - that is its jobs. The job of reconstruction should have been more thoroughly planned and discussed with the UN. However, this insurgency was unexpected by the war planners (yeah right like they were really going to give the US troops flowers and drop their weapons - foolish prediction). It was also thought that the Shia majority that were depressed under Saddam would stand with the coalition. It now seems that radical Shia elements are undermining reconstruction and this is probably being in some way funded by the Iran Shia Theocracy (a possibility knowing that Iran has funded anti-Saddam terrorists and insurgents in the past).
-
Originally posted by kbilik
Isn\'t 12 years enough time for the UN to get some results? They failed to find either 1) anything or 2) Proof of destruction of the 80s chemical weapons that the US gave him.
How do you expect someone to proof destruction of weapons? Fact is there is almost no proof for wmds. And the us still attacked.
No, the economic effects of 9/11 have not faded away as there is still no replacement for the amount of lost life, property, and company migrations that these attacks have brought. A lowering of investor confidence by a vaste percentage isn\'t helping either.
The losses wont come back true, but the economic effect has ceased. There is no snowball effect occuring now.
The option if not hunting out these organizations is unacceptable. What happens if they strike another financially important infrastructure on the scale of 9/11? What then - do you expect a whimper and no response?
1) figthing a war and killing thousands just for the usa to be safe is wrong
2) the war on terrorism so far has only caused terrorism to increase worldwide as well as the threat is poses. So doing nothing makes more sense.
As for the US not having the finances to attack - that argument doesn\'t prevent deficit spending. DOn\'t underestimate the lengths the US will go to retailate if another 9/11 happens. I surely hope not.
Ruining your economy to retaliate is plain dumb.
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
How do you expect someone to proof destruction of weapons? Fact is there is almost no proof for wmds. And the us still attacked.
Easily. If Saddam did as he stated (destroyed his WMDs and did so officially under his government workers watch), he should have provided the location, records, and number of WMDs destroyed. The problem? He didn\'t! Heck they don\'t even know where this so called \"destruction and demilitarization\" took place. Hmm.. isn\'t that suspicious.
The losses wont come back true, but the economic effect has ceased. There is no snowball effect occuring now.
See post above regarding a snowball effect. The lack available funds is enough to keep the US and world economy in a far worse state then pre-9/11.
1) figthing a war and killing thousands just for the usa to be safe is wrong
2) the war on terrorism so far has only caused terrorism to increase worldwide as well as the threat is poses. So doing nothing makes more sense.
It is not just for the USA. It is for world financial, military, political stability. An attack on nuclear reactors or some nations food supply would have drastic global influences.
The world is connected - don\'t make the mistake that a problem in this or that region will not affect or spread to other regions.
Ruining your economy to retaliate is plain dumb.
Its dumb but sitting there and letting them strike thus completly destroying not just your economy, but the world\'s economy is worse.
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
SaintNuclear since your opinion seem to differ so much of mine im curious to what your view on the matters are. Could you give an explanation of your ideas?
I\'ll have to think about it... If I start I might accidently make it 20 pages showing how other stuff are connected to it, and how other stuff are connected to these other stuff, etc :rolleyes:
I don\'t think this is a snowball effect though, meaning after getting worse it levels.
Read one of my above posts about how it can snowball to a nuclear war.
Considering terrorism has become more dangerous because of the war in afghanistan youre wrong.
[...]
Its a better solution then gettin much more afghanistans killed then the death toll at 9/11.
I didn\'t say it\'s good that they killed innocent civillians, I said it\'s a good thing that they retaliated.
Destroying everything on the way was wrong.
If the US wouldn\'t have retaliated after 9/11, it\'d show terrorists around the world that there\'s no punishment for destruction toward the US. Terrorists would do 9/11-like attacks toward the US every other day.
Retaliation isn\'t a bully-ish way of showing who\'s stronger. It\'s a way of showing that you don\'t get away after messing with them.
Think about a guy that touches a random chick\'s boobs and gets slapped. Was the chick a bully for slapping him? No.
And if you give the taliban only one day then dont at all.
I said one day to decide if they want to give Al Qaeda up or not. Of course that actually doing it would take longer, so the US would give them time to do it.
So you agree with the war of the us on afghanistan yet you think it will throw afghanistan into more chaos?
I agree on a retaliation after 9/11, I don\'t agree about the indiscriminated disaster the US is causing, and I don\'t agree about the support of the Northern Alliance and the taking-down of the Taliban government.
I don\'t really get what you mean. Also what about lebanon and south africa are you talking about? The black white segregation?
Most iraqis whether do want their country to be stable. And the iraqis supporting atacks on troops are in a minority. Many iraqis want the us army to leave in the shortest time possible, yes, but not in a violent manner.
You said that those that attack the soldiers will mess things up.
The US is trying to install a pro-US-democratic-capitalist regime, yet it\'s the minority in Iraq.
The same things happened in Lebanon and S. Africa happened. The strong minority ruled.
You know what happened then? The majority failed to be as weak as the minority expected it to be, and did a violent coup.
The majority of the Iraqis oppose having a puppet-government controlled by the US. A few of them actually do something about it.
Not wanting a puppet-government isn\'t not wanting the country to be stable, it\'s exactly the opposite.
I strongly disagree with you here, war is most certainly chaotic by nature. Just consider what happened in ww1, the plan there was to let the assisanation get slightly out of control into a small war for gain of territory.
Just name one war where most happened as planned.
As long as there are commanders, and soldiers follow their orders, wars aren\'t chaotic. The battlefield can seem chaotic, but it\'s chaotic only when soldiers run around not caring what their officers tell them what to do.
What happened in WWI was that a certain population wanted independance, and assasinated one of the royalty in the country they were in.
The country attacked their neighboring country that had a majority of the population that assasinated the royalty. And then the chain of alliances started the war.
No one planned the assasination to cause a war, not even a small one. They thought it\'ll give them independance.
And wars that went as planned? It depends on your POV.
From the US\' POV, for example, WWI and II went as planned.
From Israel\'s POV, the Independance Day War went as planned, and so did the Six Days War.
Britain\'s wars against France during the Imperialism always went as planned. So did the conquering of most of Africa by European countries (some of them didn\'t went as planned because the conquering countries had more casualties than expected).
Oh, wait, you asked for only one, right? :rolleyes:
Do you have proof that there is a lot of anti islamic propaganda?
I can\'t show you video bits of obvious propaganda, or documents or whatever, but it\'s pretty easy to see.
First of all, there\'s O\'Reilly and Fox. But it\'s more than that.
Islam is often looked down upon as a barbaric religion that supports dying for it.
Also, I saw Americans justifying the war in Iraq like \'We want to liberate them! They make the women wear robes all over their body! It\'s so cruel!\' many many times.
The Taliban vs N. Alliance is another thing. On one hand, there\'s the Taliban, an extreme Islam government that the population of Afghanistan supports. On the other hand, there\'s the N. Alliance that is more moderate than the Taliban, and they enjoy pillaging villages, murdering people, and raping women.
Do the US support the less-Islamic side, or the more-Islamic side? They support the less-Islamic side, ignoring completely the fact that the more-Islamic one is actually much better to Afghanistan and the surrounding.
Are you talking about countries like pakistan? a friendly country turning hostile would be serious yes. But what country you think that is likely for? That has somehting to gain and cab win in such a situation?
Pakistan is far from being friendly. They\'re arming themselves to the teeths with nukes to throw on India (wich is doing the exact same thing).
I\'m actually talking about countries like Canada, European countries, a few S. America countries, etc.
Each one of them can arm with wmds without anyone noticing.
I can\'t classify Israel as a friendly country as it got hostile relationships with various countries, but I can tell you that Israel can create atleast 100 H-bombs each year (and that\'s only in one plant. who knows if we got more of those). That\'s excluding chemical and biological weapons, of course.
What do you think the reasons were then?
The Omega Agency.
And if not that, then creating the puppet-government they\'re trying to in Iraq.
And UAE is the United Arab Emirates. It\'s kinda like Kuwait and Qatar, only that it\'s made of many tiny emirates. Highly oil-rich, of course.
2) the war on terrorism so far has only caused terrorism to increase worldwide as well as the threat is poses. So doing nothing makes more sense.
The increase in terrorism is caused by armies killing innocent civillians, destroying infrastructures, installing puppet-governments, etc.
As I said above, doing nothing will only show to the terrorists that you don\'t mind them attacking you, and they\'ll attack more frequently, and harder.
-
Ah, UAE. Those guys are crazy. :P According to an article in PopSci, they\'re making huge islands and planning on beating out the twin Petronas and other towers to hold the record.
If Islam is looked down upon, it\'s the terrorist\'s own fault, and partially that of the moderates who won\'t stop them.
Saint: The Iraqi government is to be friendly to the US, of course, but not controlled by it.
Obviously, the average Iraqi (and the militants) don\'t understand that if we weren\'t being attacked, we\'d be gone by the end of this summer. I thought terrorists were supposed to have patience.
Mr. Sadr is shelling his own mosques to stir up hatred, and his fighters claimed to a Time Magazine reporter that he couldn\'t see the wreckage of two american tanks since a machine came and sucked it up. :rolleyes:
Although, of course, I agree on the point of snowballing.
-
ill keep it short,
SaintNuclear, so you support retaliation yet not the way the usa does? In what way would you retaliate then?
Depthblade, i meant that the usa didn\'t depend on saudi arabia for providing a base for troops and delivering oil possibly.
About liberation, i cant prove the usa acted to liberate iraq, i want to believe it. And if you say its wrong explain why. Rejecting something is easy, giving good arguments is harder.
But you think the reason was oil then?
Monketh, terrorists do NOT represent the islam! That islam (as well as religion in general) is indeed since 9/11 been viewed upon more negatively is a shame.
Hm it appears im outnumbered 3 to 1 concerning the snowball vs faded effect of economy. Still im not convinced. Ive seen no clear logical reasoning for the snowball effect yet economists do say the effect is gone. Ill look back tomorrow to see if i didn\'t miss anything.
-
Originally posted by Monketh
If Islam is looked down upon, it\'s the terrorist\'s own fault, and partially that of the moderates who won\'t stop them.
And the media that makes people think that the Islam supports dying for the religion, wich is false. Islam is against dying for the religion.
The Iraqi government is to be friendly to the US, of course, but not controlled by it.
Obviously, the average Iraqi (and the militants) don\'t understand that if we weren\'t being attacked, we\'d be gone by the end of this summer. I thought terrorists were supposed to have patience.
Afaik, the president that the US wants Iraq to have lived in the US and UK most of his life. A total outsider by the eyes of the Iraqis.
How can such a president not be a puppet-government?
These militants are attacking the soldiers because they don\'t want the government the US wants Iraq to have. They want their own government.
If they won\'t fight against the army, the army might leave in the end of the summer, but it\'ll leave them with a government they oppose.
-
My personnel opinion is that they never went there to free the Iraqis, why haven\'t they went to other countries that mistreat their people then? North Korea, China, certain parts of South America! They originally went there for the so called weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION but on the way they picked up all these other reasons for going there? I have stated my opinion to why i think they went already and it hasn\'t changed...
-
Keep in mind that the soldiers fighting in this conflict are doing so for very different reasons. The American, Australian, UK and both New Zealand troops are there for their government. The Iraqis that are still fighting are doing so for religious reasons. Their religion has been in place for centuries and they see nothing wrong with it.
The big question is: when will it stop. Until all Iraqis are dead or the Americans swallow their pride. For every Iraqis that dies, the others get more upset, angrier and end up listening more to the religious fanatics. Eventually, through no fault of their own, every Iraqi citizen will be a \"terrorist\". And the Bush Administration won\'t pull out of Iraq because if they show weakness, or go back on their policy, they\'ll get murdered at the election polls.
It\'s a sad conflict fought between actaul people. I lived among Muslims in Saudi Arabia for six year when I was young and their not bad people. And the Americans aren\'t bad either. But neither will blink first.
-
I don\'t know how it will stop? They basicly found a BIG KILLER BEES nest and busted a cap in it, just like that movie killer bees! There is a solution probally not a good one, actually its not even a option but i think the only way to end the fighting there is to get the yanks out and blow up the whole freaking country! Even if the US leave, it won\'t stop the fighting, its ANARCHY there! Then so as they leave another person will take power and use it just like Sadaam, and then we will have to do this all over again!
-
Missed Tainted\'s post:
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
SaintNuclear, so you support retaliation yet not the way the usa does? In what way would you retaliate then?
Ok, presuming they have information on Al Qaeda\'s bases and hideouts in Afghanistan and other countries in the world, I\'d send squads to them.
A building that is known to be a base will be invaded. Officers and higher ups are arrested for interrogations. The others are worthless, a bullet to the head is more than enough.
Tunnels with terrorists will have tear gas pumped into them. The terrorist will run out. Again, officers are arrested, grunts are shot.
A building that is known to have only terrorists in (no civilians) and isn\'t a main terrorism operations center (with alot of officers and other such goodies) will simply be raised to the ground. No need to waste time in transporting soldiers there.
No innocent people dying, no whole cities being destroyed, short, clean, and deadly. Goodbye. :tup:
Still im not convinced.
Have you read my post about snowballing of the economy yet?
economists do say the effect is gone
On every economist you find that says the snowball effect is gone, you can find an economist that says it\'ll keep snowballing for the next few years (or more).
---------
Originally posted by DepthBlade
China
China is mistreating it\'s citizens? First time I hear about it, really. Can you give examples? (no, not asking for prooves, only examples)
---------
Originally posted by The Limpid School
The Iraqis that are still fighting are doing so for religious reasons.
Actually, they\'re doing it for territorial reasons. Iraq is their home, and no matter what the west thinks about their home, it\'s still their home and they like it. They\'re fighting because their home was invaded by foreigners that try to change it without asking them, the residents, if it\'s fine by them.
In the US you\'d get shot for invading to someone\'s home, and you won\'t be jailed nor sued for that.
I agree completely about your next paragraph.
-
Originally posted by The Limpid School
Keep in mind that the soldiers fighting in this conflict are doing so for very different reasons. The American, Australian, UK and both New Zealand troops are there for their government. The Iraqis that are still fighting are doing so for religious reasons. Their religion has been in place for centuries and they see nothing wrong with it.
I don\'t understand that. The troops aren\'t trying to eradicate Islam, the new Iraqi government officials are Muslims, and Saddam Hussain did not run a religious government, as opposed to, say, Saudi Arabia.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Ok, presuming they have information on Al Qaeda\'s bases and hideouts in Afghanistan and other countries in the world, I\'d send squads to them.
A building that is known to be a base will be invaded. Officers and higher ups are arrested for interrogations. The others are worthless, a bullet to the head is more than enough.
Tunnels with terrorists will have tear gas pumped into them. The terrorist will run out. Again, officers are arrested, grunts are shot.
A building that is known to have only terrorists in (no civilians) and isn\'t a main terrorism operations center (with alot of officers and other such goodies) will simply be raised to the ground. No need to waste time in transporting soldiers there.
Sounds nice, problem is it doesn\'t work. When sending squads the taliban army is in the way. Youre thinking about sending delta force and the like in? Don\'t think they can get in, kill/capture/arrest terrorists, then get away again. Theyre good but that good?
And if you bomb buildings with terrorists they probably just go into caves hiding there until things calm down.
Dont get me wrong, if there is a realistic way of retaliating without killing too many innocents and encouraging terrorism id favor it right away.
Have you read my post about snowballing of the economy yet?
On every economist you find that says the snowball effect is gone, you can find an economist that says it\'ll keep snowballing for the next few years (or more).
I read everything you posted so yes. Maybe i read it again tomorrow to see if i missed anything. However maybe i misunderstand what you mean with snowball effect. I thought it meant that economy was only to get worse since 9/11 without recovery. But seeing you talk about years it seems you too think that the negative effects will stop, only the period is longer.
If so we agree i think on the actually important thing, the damage from 9/11 is extensive.
China is mistreating it\'s citizens? First time I hear about it, really. Can you give examples? (no, not asking for prooves, only examples)
[/quotes]
surprises me you dont know that. China has a strict dictatorial communist regime. It has one of the highest count in death penaltys (not sure if thats also relatively) including many politic dissidents. If you\'re found guilty often you will get shot right away. The family gets billed for the bullet.
Example, the way china acted when the students demonstrated. They sent tanks to deal with them. One student bravely stood in the way of the front tank. It was crushed down with violence. Dont know exact details beside that.\'
And the stupid thing is that holland/europe want to sell weapons again to china claiming human rights have improved. Thats true but china still has a long way to go. The mobile gas chambers they started using recently for more efficient execution is just a proof of that.
Depthblade, youre right you did gave your opinion, i forgot.
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Sounds nice, problem is it doesn\'t work. When sending squads the taliban army is in the way.
I didn\'t say they shouldn\'t invade.
Deploying a few tanks around the place of operation will be enough to cover the units against any intervention of the local army.
Youre thinking about sending delta force and the like in?
[...]
Theyre good but that good?
No, I\'m thinking about sending grunts in.
Ten grunts inside an apartment building will do the same job and have the same amount of casualties as special ops. It\'s better to lose a grunt every 4 buildings than a special op every 4 buildings.
And if you bomb buildings with terrorists they probably just go into caves hiding there until things calm down.
A cave is not a problem. Easier than a building.
Maybe you meant a tunnel?
In that case, as I said, they\'ll simply pump tear gas inside. The bastards will run out of their holes in no time! :]
If they don\'t feel like pumping tear gas (from whatever reasons), there\'s a new cool weapon that can get the bastards out too (and was used in Afghanistan).
It\'s a rocket launcher, that launches a certain rocket. The rocket exploads in the air like a fuel bomb.
The heat then sucks alot of oxygen from the surrounding.
Using one above a tunnel entry will suck alot of oxygen from it. Anyone that won\'t run out in 10 mins will never run again ;)
It has one of the highest count in death penaltys (not sure if thats also relatively) including many politic dissidents. If you\'re found guilty often you will get shot right away. The family gets billed for the bullet.
Hmm, I didn\'t knew that. Interesting.
Example, the way china acted when the students demonstrated. They sent tanks to deal with them. One student bravely stood in the way of the front tank. It was crushed down with violence.
Are you sure it wasn\'t during Chairman Mao\'s Cultural Revolution?
But still, I doubt the US will deal with China.
If the US army will invade to China prices for so many things everyone use will go very high. Companies won\'t allow it. The US army and government won\'t have investors, and the political party of the president that will order the attack will be nothing but a tiny bit in the history books.
-
Originally posted by The Limpid School
The Iraqis that are still fighting are doing so for religious reasons.
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Actually, they\'re doing it for territorial reasons. Iraq is their home, and no matter what the west thinks about their home, it\'s still their home and they like it. They\'re fighting because their home was invaded by foreigners that try to change it without asking them, the residents, if it\'s fine by them.
SaintNuclear was certainly right, I did make a bit of an oops. The \'raqis ARE fighting for territorial reasons. There wouldn\'t be all this death if they hadn\'t been invaded. But I suppose I meant that the terrorists that would have attacked regardless, such as 9/11 and Bali, do so for religious purposes.
Originally posted by Davis
The troops aren\'t trying to eradicate Islam, the new Iraqi government officials are Muslims, and Saddam Hussain did not run a religious government, as opposed to, say, Saudi Arabia.
I never intended to say that the western troops were in place to iradicate Islam, I merely meant to comment on their motivation.
With that cleared up, I\'d like to state that my personal belief is that the Iraq conflict will not ever really die down. I think it\'s going to be another Northern Ireland, conflict going back and forth forever, and in ten years no one will remember why.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
No, I\'m thinking about sending grunts in.
Ten grunts inside an apartment building will do the same job and have the same amount of casualties as special ops. It\'s better to lose a grunt every 4 buildings than a special op every 4 buildings.
There\'s nothing better about losing any life. They are still people and special ops are at least trained to enter in such situations where the odds against them are far higher. From a tactical and strategic view, SAS, Delta Force, Navy Seals, Marine Recon, \"Black Ops\" (CIA paramilitaries) etc are far better suited for this kind of task where as infantry rely more on artillery, mechanized forces, and heavy air support.
But even special forces need some kind of support - they can\'t handle 1000 - 1 odds. Remember Mogadishu, Somolia?
If they don\'t feel like pumping tear gas (from whatever reasons), there\'s a new cool weapon that can get the bastards out too (and was used in Afghanistan).
It\'s a rocket launcher, that launches a certain rocket. The rocket exploads in the air like a fuel bomb.
The heat then sucks alot of oxygen from the surrounding.
Using one above a tunnel entry will suck alot of oxygen from it. Anyone that won\'t run out in 10 mins will never run again ;)
Ah you mean the thermobaric bombs? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-118.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-118.htm )
Nasty stuff... at the least it will collapse the lungs of anyone inside a cave or underground facility.
But still, I doubt the US will deal with China.
If the US army will invade to China prices for so many things everyone use will go very high. Companies won\'t allow it. The US army and government won\'t have investors, and the political party of the president that will order the attack will be nothing but a tiny bit in the history books.
A conventional war between China and the US will never happen. Never. The Chinese army is the largest in the world (although outclassed by superior US capabilities and technologies). This war would involve nuclear exchanges if it is ever fought = World War 3.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
he should have provided the location, records, and number of WMDs destroyed. The problem? He didn\'t! Heck they don\'t even know where this so called \"destruction and demilitarization\" took place. Hmm.. isn\'t that suspicious.
Youre right its suspicious, however i still would like to know how you proof the destruction of something. By showing the remains? The place of destruction?
And the whole wmd thing just seems to me like the following.
There is a village, here one claims someone else (S) has outlawed weapons in his house that should have been removed. He provided some of these to this man and fears there still there.
Now he asks the others to go look, but nothing is found despite much search. Though saying to know where the weapons are hidden he doesn\'t precisely say where.
Then he brings proof to them, giving photos of S carrying some package. He claims these to be the weapons hiding them before inspection.
Then he forcefully enters the house despite protest. Still he finds no weapons. But he says those have been moved to the neighbour.
Is this man right (US) by acting this way? my opinion is he isnt.
See post above regarding a snowball effect. The lack available funds is enough to keep the US and world economy in a far worse state then pre-9/11.
Do you see snowball effect as only getting worse condition of the economy or as econonmy in a worse state eventually recovering though?
It is not just for the USA. It is for world financial, military, political stability. An attack on nuclear reactors or some nations food supply would have drastic global influences.
An attack on the food supply of a western nation isnt such a threat i believe, the west can easily import food if necessary. Only economicily it would be damaging. If youre talking about spreading some disease then i dont know the realism of such a scenario.
Ill be honest that i don\'t know the likelihood of a succesfull attack on a nuclear reactor and the impact of it (wheter it gives a nuclear chain reaction and or tsjernobyl like impact or not)
Actually there are other possible scenarios as well, consider a cyberattack where flight control, economical transactions and electricity are attacked. In a experiment a hacker succesfully got control of the steering of a american cruiser, another shut down a high level security computer by shutting down the air condition in the room.
Problem is i have no idea how likely serieus attacks by terrorists are. If they keep attacking like they are now the chance of getting killed by terrorist attack is very small.
Its dumb but sitting there and letting them strike thus completly destroying not just your economy, but the world\'s economy is worse.
Retaliating if it worsens the terrorist problem and makes strikes even likelier (which has happened) and ruining your economy doing so is like i said plain dumb.
Only if the risk of so extensive damage to the economy is seriously high and you have a way of decreasing terrorist attacks you should act in that way. Else your doing what you feared, damaging your economy
-
SaintNuclear, ill reply to your other post later, for now ill leave it with this:
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
I didn\'t say they shouldn\'t invade.
Deploying a few tanks around the place of operation will be enough to cover the units against any intervention of the local army.
Then even with the superior technology you need enough of those tanks, which easily becomes a full scale war you dont want.
No, I\'m thinking about sending grunts in.
grunts? You have to clear me on that one. I get a picture of a 2 meter high troll carrying a huge weapon.
A cave is not a problem. Easier than a building.
Maybe you meant a tunnel?
Problem with caves is that there are so many to hide in, you should bomb them all like they did in the war.
Are you sure it wasn\'t during Chairman Mao\'s Cultural Revolution?
Im sure mao was dead then. It was somewhere in the 80\'s. These students i talked about wanted more political freedom. The cultural revolution was a completely different thing, More like a country going insane. I read a fascinating book of a chinese woman, telling the stories of her and her female family line. This begins with her great grandma in the time of chinese warlords and the old ways (concubines locked up in their home bored to death, familys very important, etc) Then goes on to the time of kwomintang. corrupt and rotten to the bone, brutal and very oppressing.
When the town they live in is taken by communists who bring a total new way of living (everyone is equal) you understand why theyre glad with them and join them. The soldiers really seem to want a new good way of live for them (and probably do). Later the dream becomes a nightmare when mao gains in power. However the indoctrination is strong. Well its too much to tell, the book is called the wild swans. Realy fascinating. It goes on shortly after the death of mao.
But still, I doubt the US will deal with China.
I fully agree with that, likewise with north korea. Attacking them will really be a mess and bring to high casualties. If the usa wants to overthrow dictatorial regimes they should look at african nations. Those have the weakest defence.
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
[Youre right its suspicious, however i still would like to know how you proof the destruction of something. By showing the remains? The place of destruction?
And the whole wmd thing just seems to me like the following.
There is a village, here one claims someone else (S) has outlawed weapons in his house that should have been removed. He provided some of these to this man and fears there still there.
Now he asks the others to go look, but nothing is found despite much search. Though saying to know where the weapons are hidden he doesn\'t precisely say where.
Then he brings proof to them, giving photos of S carrying some package. He claims these to be the weapons hiding them before inspection.
Then he forcefully enters the house despite protest. Still he finds no weapons. But he says those have been moved to the neighbour.
Is this man right (US) by acting this way? my opinion is he isnt.
How about if you put it this way: There is a scorpion in your room (WMD) that you confirm was there because someone put it there (The US giving Iraq the chemical weapons - many tons during the 80s). You ask the room attendant (UN) to go look in the room and find the scorpion and then get rid of it. The attendant doesn\'t find anything and shrugs then leaves. Do you feel safe enough to go back in even though 1)You know the scorpion/wmd is there and 2)The attendant didnt find anything so it still must be there somewhere?
Do you see snowball effect as only getting worse condition of the economy or as econonmy in a worse state eventually recovering though?
I see the world economy in a worse state than it would have been had the 9/11 attacks not happened. This ultimately taking decades to recover fully - not a year or three.
An attack on the food supply of a western nation isnt such a threat i believe, the west can easily import food if necessary. Only economicily it would be damaging. If youre talking about spreading some disease then i dont know the realism of such a scenario.
Ill be honest that i don\'t know the likelihood of a succesfull attack on a nuclear reactor and the impact of it (wheter it gives a nuclear chain reaction and or tsjernobyl like impact or not)
Actually there are other possible scenarios as well, consider a cyberattack where flight control, economical transactions and electricity are attacked. In a experiment a hacker succesfully got control of the steering of a american cruiser, another shut down a high level security computer by shutting down the air condition in the room.
Problem is i have no idea how likely serieus attacks by terrorists are. If they keep attacking like they are now the chance of getting killed by terrorist attack is very small.
Oh comon, an attack on the food supply being economically devastating is the least of our concerns. Such an attack is extremely hard to detect and only after people start to get sick and die will it be suspicous. Then we won\'t know for sure which food or if all of them are contaminated which will worsen the situation. As for an attack on a nuclear reactor, I heard of a recent UK paper that will soon be published outlining the risk of a jet crashing into a reactor. They say the crash will initiate a chernobyl effect at the least with the worst scenario causing 3 million fatalities near an England reactor (probably because the area is highly populated). Then there\'s the long term mutation and radiation damage that might as well poison the area for a hundred years.
Retaliating if it worsens the terrorist problem and makes strikes even likelier (which has happened) and ruining your economy doing so is like i said plain dumb.
Only if the risk of so extensive damage to the economy is seriously high and you have a way of decreasing terrorist attacks you should act in that way. Else your doing what you feared, damaging your economy
No, retaliation destroys the terrorists ability to counterattack. It makes another 9/11 attack far less likely as the terrorist planning cells and infrastructure are destroyed.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
There\'s nothing better about losing any life. They are still people and special ops are at least trained to enter in such situations where the odds against them are far higher.
Of course that losing any life is a bad thing. But you can\'t go to a war without having people dying, and from a strategic point of view - losing a special op is alot worse than losing a grunt.
Special ops may be trained for situations where the odds are against them, but you don\'t need them for invading into terrorist buildings.
Kicking the door down, throwing a very short fuse flashbomb, getting in. By the time the terrorists can do anything, they got guns pointed at their heads.
Any terrorist movement is a bullet to the head.
Identifying the leader, cuffing him, taking every kind of document and equipment that can be found and taking it all to the truck outside.
There are two soldiers standing outside the room incase any terrorist comes in, and a few along the stair case.
They keep going like that until they clear the building, and that\'s it.
Using special ops for this is highly inefficiant. It costs too much to deploy them, they could be doing a more important job (where they\'re actually critical), the death toll will be exactly the same as with using grunts - you\'ll use the same amount of people anyway, it\'s better to lose the grunts.
Nasty stuff... at the least it will collapse the lungs of anyone inside a cave or underground facility.
Doesn\'t matter. The most important things are the documents and equipment. Officers and other higher-ups are only bonuses - they probebly won\'t know more than what\'s written in the documents anyways.
------------
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Do you see snowball effect as only getting worse condition of the economy or as econonmy in a worse state eventually recovering though?
Economy always goes up and down. It\'ll rebuild itself after a while. It might be alot better than the economy before it started snowballing, and it might rebuild itself to be worse than it is now (after it\'ll be alot worse).
Ill be honest that i don\'t know the likelihood of a succesfull attack on a nuclear reactor and the impact of it (wheter it gives a nuclear chain reaction and or tsjernobyl like impact or not)
Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear bombs factory back in the 80\'s and it didn\'t had a nuclear explosion. True, it was only in it\'s early stages, but still.
It should be possible to destroy a nuclear power plant or factory without a nuclear explosion. I don\'t know enough of these things to be sure exactly how, but it should be possible. Afterall, it\'s not like the whole building is one nuclear bomb :P
Actually there are other possible scenarios as well, consider a cyberattack where flight control, economical transactions and electricity are attacked. In a experiment a hacker succesfully got control of the steering of a american cruiser, another shut down a high level security computer by shutting down the air condition in the room.
People should stop watching sucky movies :rolleyes:
Some of the things you listed there aren\'t controled by a computer. Those that are aren\'t connected to any kind of network outside the cruiser \\ plane \\ whatever.
It might be possible if they\'ll actually be on that plane \\ cruiser, manage to find their way to a computer that they can plug their laptop into, and somehow hack it and steer it to wherever they want.
But, when everyone will be panicked and run around screaming that they lost control, they\'ll find that hacker sitting infront of his laptop with an evil grin typing stuff and take him down.
If he\'s already on the cruiser, and is strong enough to fend off all of the histeric people that run around, it\'ll be alot easier for him to simply go to the controls and take over...
--------
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
SaintNuclear, ill reply to your other post later
Why don\'t you just post everythingi n one post instead of making double posts?
Then even with the superior technology you need enough of those tanks, which easily becomes a full scale war you dont want.
Not at all.
The tanks won\'t attack anyone, they\'ll just be there to discourage anyone from attacking the operating forces.
Imagine a soldier shooting next to a civillian that is throwing stones toward him. The soldier is shooting only next to him, not hitting. The civillian runs away.
Stationing a tank or two infront of a building is exactly like that, only without shooting.
grunts? You have to clear me on that one. I get a picture of a 2 meter high troll carrying a huge weapon.
Lmao. Grunts are the most simple combat soldiers. Basic combat training and the like.
I fully agree with that, likewise with north korea. Attacking them will really be a mess and bring to high casualties.
I don\'t think the US will attack China not because of the casualties, but because when they\'ll overthrow the Chinese government, companies probebly won\'t be able to use the cheap work force there.
It\'ll be an economical nightmare.
-----------
Originally posted by kbilik
No, retaliation destroys the terrorists ability to counterattack. It makes another 9/11 attack far less likely as the terrorist planning cells and infrastructure are destroyed.
Even if they\'re still able to counterattack, a retaliation is mainly for discouraging.
-
Nuclear explosions are not much to worry about in the event of a terrorist attack on a Nuclear facility. The reactor itself and it\'s containment are generally designed to survive in the event of an airplane impact. \'Problem is, the storage area for spent fuel is not.
So, don\'t worry about an explosion, worry about released radiation.
-
Originally posted by Monketh
Nuclear explosions are not much to worry about in the event of a terrorist attack on a Nuclear facility. The reactor itself and it\'s containment are generally designed to survive in the event of an airplane impact. \'Problem is, the storage area for spent fuel is not.
So, don\'t worry about an explosion, worry about released radiation.
Yep thats what I was saying. Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion - rather a reactor core meltdown where the feul rods overheated and blew, releasing vaste quantities of radiation. The initial rads would kill millions if a populated city were near (like having a neutron bomb next door to your city).
Originally posted by SaintNuclear Of course that losing any life is a bad thing. But you can\'t go to a war without having people dying, and from a strategic point of view - losing a special op is alot worse than losing a grunt.
Special ops may be trained for situations where the odds are against them, but you don\'t need them for invading into terrorist buildings.
Kicking the door down, throwing a very short fuse flashbomb, getting in. By the time the terrorists can do anything, they got guns pointed at their heads.
Any terrorist movement is a bullet to the head.
Identifying the leader, cuffing him, taking every kind of document and equipment that can be found and taking it all to the truck outside.
There are two soldiers standing outside the room incase any terrorist comes in, and a few along the stair case.
They keep going like that until they clear the building, and that\'s it.
Using special ops for this is highly inefficiant. It costs too much to deploy them, they could be doing a more important job (where they\'re actually critical), the death toll will be exactly the same as with using grunts - you\'ll use the same amount of people anyway, it\'s better to lose the grunts.
I think you misinterpret what I wrote. Special forces will suffer less casualties not more. They are trained for these type of quick missions specifically and as I said will rely on far less outside assistance. Infantry (what you call grunts) are trained for long drawn conventional battles and long range gunfights (not the close in apartment-apartment battles). Sending infantry to do the job of elite troops is a no-no. It usually results in the infantry getting bogged down and needing the aid of special forces operators anyway, rescuing them in battles.
If you want quick strikes and less casualties , go with special ops (especially in urban warfare). If you want a hundred dead grunts and still send those same special ops, send in the infantry.
-
I think this argument of grunts vs special ops in these kind of missions as I described is pretty useless.
I still think that grunts will have the same amount of casualties and be more efficient in the big picture, but I don\'t think this disagreement will lead us anywhere.
The point is, that if the retaliation was planned in a way such as the one I described a few posts up, there would be hardly any civillian casualties, hardly any Al Qaeda people left, and the US wouldn\'t be there for so long.
Armies these days got generals that went through strategical training, they got an incredible amount of intel on any nation \\ terrorist group, yet the best strategy they can come up with against a worldwide terrorist group is to go to one country and destroy as many cities as they can? ?(
-
all im mad about is my gas price going up... they are suposed to GET MORE OIL... PRICE DOWN.... so not only did they mess up the war... THEY ALSO MESSED UP MY BANK ACCOUNT!
......
/canada sits back and trys to design a radiation cleaner-uper for the Nuclear fall-out thats coming in 10 years or so......
-
i just hope this whole thing blows over soon
-
As an American who\'s opinions are often considered against the government and the current president, i feel the Bush saw Iraq as both a possible threat and as a possiblity for oil resources.
Since the attack on pearl harbor (and more recently the cold war) our government has tried to become the policeman of the world and this idea has grown into the fabric of our public (i hate this idea and feel that our country has exploited this throughout the years). It is my opinion that the average American feels superior to most other peoples of the world, even if they do not consciously realize it. But, most patrioic nations have this problem and our country is full of flaming patriots.
These \"issues\", as well as the paranoia that set in after 9/11 (caused by years of complacency and arrogance), was all that the government needed to gain public support for any war against a nation that they labeled terrorists (with only a little propaganda). So, IMO, my government had many intentions for the war in Iraq:
1. Eliminate a possible threat (even if they had no real info of Iraq as being a threat)
2. Make any gains that are possible (oil, an ally in the Arab/Muslim world)
3. Regain the Public\'s trust with a real war (Afghanistan had not had the desired effect to public opinion)
4. Eliminate a blemish from the Bush family record (a conspiracy theory of my own).
P.S. And even with the mess that Iraq is still in, Bush stated in a speech on monday that he still plans to hand over control of the country to the Iraqis on June 30. just amazing
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
The point is, that if the retaliation was planned in a way such as the one I described a few posts up, there would be hardly any civillian casualties, hardly any Al Qaeda people left, and the US wouldn\'t be there for so long.
Armies these days got generals that went through strategical training, they got an incredible amount of intel on any nation \\ terrorist group, yet the best strategy they can come up with against a worldwide terrorist group is to go to one country and destroy as many cities as they can? ?(
Nope, your attack plans don\'t work in the real world. First quick strikes need extremely good intel - up to the minute. The 1998 Desert Fox airstrikes and the cruise missile attacks against Sudan and Afghanistan failed miserably. They failed to prevent 9/11 and Al-Queda was strong as ever. Mogadishu and the plan to protect UN aid to starving Somalis failed miserably as well even with the quick strike by Rangers to stop the militia from stealing the food (at least they tried to make it quick - but got bogged down).
Its far more complicated than that I\'m afraid. Hope this blows over too, but I\'m afraid that it looks too much like mideast type of violence where its keeps on going for decades. I really hope I\'m wrong on this.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
Nope, your attack plans don\'t work in the real world. First quick strikes need extremely good intel - up to the minute.
As I said, it was presuming they have enough intel.
And if they don\'t (they probebly don\'t) have this kind of intel, it only prooves the incompetence of the CIA\'s and the US army\'s intel gathering.
They failed to prevent 9/11 and Al-Queda was strong as ever.
The CIA and the governments has been warned about 9/11 since \'95 by various intelligence agencies around the world.
Over the years, more and more information about 9/11 was found and given to the US.
Over a month before 9/11 they were given exact information. They knew the date, the organization, the places, the method, and the time of the day (not exact time, but whether it was morning, noon, etc).
9/11 is not an example to lack of intel. Even if they didn\'t knew the exact people that will do it, they could do many things to prevent what happened.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
As I said, it was presuming they have enough intel.
And if they don\'t (they probebly don\'t) have this kind of intel, it only prooves the incompetence of the CIA\'s and the US army\'s intel gathering.
So you\'re basically reinforcing my point. Such intel is impossible to obtain especially when we\'re dealing with radical militants who don\'t care if they blow themselves up (How would you infiltrate such a group?). Which makes the whole base of your argument and attack plans falter.
The CIA and the governments has been warned about 9/11 since \'95 by various intelligence agencies around the world.
Over the years, more and more information about 9/11 was found and given to the US.
Over a month before 9/11 they were given exact information. They knew the date, the organization, the places, the method, and the time of the day (not exact time, but whether it was morning, noon, etc).
9/11 is not an example to lack of intel. Even if they didn\'t knew the exact people that will do it, they could do many things to prevent what happened.
Ok they were warned about an attack at an airport. They did not know as you say the exact information sorry (thats conspiracy theorist baloney unless you give me proof). All they knew is that terrorist chatter was increasing and something was obviously going to happen. They didn\'t know where or how. Maybe it might have been a hijacking - but to crash planes into buildings was unprecedented and never thought of.
And then you\'d have all the same people complaining that there\'s no real purpose for military intelligence at the end of the cold war. So closing airports over a presumed far-fetched (at the time) terrorist plot did not make sense. Now you see what happens when CIA and NSA funding went down for decades and the intel (or lack of) didn\'t get where it should have.
Same thing in any military operation. Up to the minute accurate intelligence is rare and rarely acted upon. In any case, that attack strategy won\'t work in real life as I\'ve explained.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
So you\'re basically reinforcing my point. Such intel is impossible to obtain
Why do you keep twisting whatever I say? : \\
The fact that the CIA and US army can\'t gather intel doesn\'t mean it\'s impossilbe.
And infiltrating such a group shouldn\'t be hard. It\'s a worldwide organization, they can\'t keep track and make cumbersome initiations on every member.
You can also just pay a few members to get such information.
I really doubt that the CIA or any intelligence agency don\'t have a few people inside Al Qaeda. Especially in these days.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Why do you keep twisting whatever I say? : \\
The fact that you said intelligence agencies are incompetant and probably don\'t have the info reinforce my point that such info is extremely hard and impossible given circumstances to get and definitely can\'t contribute to quick and to the point operations. I didn\'t twist anything, really.
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
The fact that the CIA and US army can\'t gather intel doesn\'t mean it\'s impossilbe.
And infiltrating such a group shouldn\'t be hard. It\'s a worldwide organization, they can\'t keep track and make cumbersome initiations on every member.
You can also just pay a few members to get such information.
I really doubt that the CIA or any intelligence agency don\'t have a few people inside Al Qaeda. Especially in these days.
Unless you are betting that a radical who has the will to blow himself up is trustworthy, I doubt it. The CIA already payed people for their loyalty in the past especially in the Afghanistan campaign. Now these same warlords have defected once again to the enemy cause.
That sure doesn\'t make this route militarily feasible or even a good strategy to counter terrorism. Neither are the others but this one won\'t even help prevent future terrorist attacks (refer to my example about cruise missile strikes and Somolia).
-
Originally posted by kbilik
The fact that you said intelligence agencies are incompetant and probably don\'t have the info reinforce my point that such info is extremely hard and impossible given circumstances to get and definitely can\'t contribute to quick and to the point operations.
Afaik, the CIA and US army aren\'t the only intel gathering in the world, and certainly not the best.
Unless you are betting that a radical who has the will to blow himself up is trustworthy, I doubt it.
No one is trustworthy, and not all the Al Qaeda members are willing to blow themselves up. If most of the Al Qaeda members couldn\'t wait to just blow themselves up taking as many Americans as they can, they\'d do these things alot more frequently.
The CIA already payed people for their loyalty in the past especially in the Afghanistan campaign. Now these same warlords have defected once again to the enemy cause.
First of all, Bin Laden turned against the US because they didn\'t let him fight against Saddam in the first Gulf War. The US went in, and became very influencing in the Middle East, so Bin Laden went mad and now he wants the US to get out of the Middle East.
Also, I\'m not talking about paying warlords for loyalty and to fight armies. I\'m talking about paying the little guys for information about bases.
And they\'ll die when the bases are invaded anyways, so they won\'t be able to come back 20 years later and use the $20 they got against anyone.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Afaik, the CIA and US army aren\'t the only intel gathering in the world, and certainly not the best.
Not the best, yet still no other intelligence agency can infiltrate these groups. The point remains valid.
No one is trustworthy, and not all the Al Qaeda members are willing to blow themselves up. If most of the Al Qaeda members couldn\'t wait to just blow themselves up taking as many Americans as they can, they\'d do these things alot more frequently.
That\'s why the offensive in Afghanistan was effective. It basically killed those who were most radical (the ones not afraid to run into the fight and die) and the others simply ran to the tribal areas of Pakistan or out of the country.
Too bad the mountains and valleys provide excellent cover and plenty of ways for the terrorists to come back into the country once their strength returns.
First of all, Bin Laden turned against the US because they didn\'t let him fight against Saddam in the first Gulf War. The US went in, and became very influencing in the Middle East, so Bin Laden went mad and now he wants the US to get out of the Middle East.
Partially true. Bin Laden and Mohammed Atef (he was killed by a Predator drone) made Al-Quada in 1988, before the gulf war. At that time the US officially cut contact with him. He was angry that the US dared to enter holy Saudi territory where only muslims are allowed to enter. After that he began calling the US \"great satan\", etc etc.
Also, I\'m not talking about paying warlords for loyalty and to fight armies. I\'m talking about paying the little guys for information about bases.
And they\'ll die when the bases are invaded anyways, so they won\'t be able to come back 20 years later and use the $20 they got against anyone.
That won\'t work. The little guys are out of the loop and can only give mediocre intelligence at best (Then you\'d have to find them first too - who\'s little and who\'s pretending to be little). The really fanatic inner members have the best intel. But even a $25 million dollar bounty on Bin Laden\'s head isn\'t working. It worked for secular figures like Saddam where one of the bodyguards gave his bosses position. Won\'t have the same effect for the radicals.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
no other intelligence agency can infiltrate these groups. The point remains valid.
I doubt it.
And even if they can, they need to do is to intercept the communication between the bases. Once they know the locations of the bases, collecting information about the inside of them shouldn\'t be a problem.
That won\'t work. The little guys are out of the loop and can only give mediocre intelligence at best
Let me remind you that I\'m talking about gathering of information about bases, not about the location of Bin Laden or something.
They know where the bases they go to are, and they know how many people are usually there. They also know about locations of traps there (they were probebly warned about them). These are the important things.
(Then you\'d have to find them first too - who\'s little and who\'s pretending to be little)
How about using satellites? The US obviously knew about atleast one base in Afghanistan. They just monitor the place and see who goes in and out. Shouldn\'t be hard to pick the little ones out of the officers.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
I doubt it.
And even if they can, they need to do is to intercept the communication between the bases. Once they know the locations of the bases, collecting information about the inside of them shouldn\'t be a problem.
It is a problem actually. The terrorist organizations stopped using radio communications because they know its easy to tap. Now they use old fashioned methods which are slower, but stealthier. The benefit to us is that they become less organized, but still dangerous.
Let me remind you that I\'m talking about gathering of information about bases, not about the location of Bin Laden or something.
They know where the bases they go to are, and they know how many people are usually there. They also know about locations of traps there (they were probebly warned about them). These are the important things.
Location of the bases sure didn\'t help when the cruise missiles struck the Afghanistan bases and Saddam\'s safe houses at the start of the Iraq war. You need location of people, not location of bases because the bad guys are always on the run.
How about using satellites? The US obviously knew about atleast one base in Afghanistan. They just monitor the place and see who goes in and out. Shouldn\'t be hard to pick the little ones out of the officers.
Its harder than you think. All you can see is figures and maybe clothing with good enough resolution. Problem is that Al-Quida doesn\'t have formal military uniforms and attire so sorting them out is hard and time consuming. Then there\'s the chance you can mistake civilians for fighters - as has happened many times before.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
It is a problem actually. The terrorist organizations stopped using radio communications because they know its easy to tap. Now they use old fashioned methods which are slower, but stealthier.
Old methods can be intercepted too.
I don\'t know about any method of communication that can\'t be intercepted. Maybe if they talk to each other using telepathy, but I don\'t think they do that. And it might be possible to intercept too, if it goes by waves or something.
Location of the bases sure didn\'t help when the cruise missiles struck the Afghanistan bases and Saddam\'s safe houses at the start of the Iraq war. You need location of people, not location of bases because the bad guys are always on the run.
Well, once you reveal the location of many bases, it doesn\'t really matter.
You can watch them with satellites (read below) before the invasion actually starts. When the forces are closing in to Afghanistan, some will notice them and report to Al Qaeda.
Some will hide in tunnels, and some will run out of the building to hide in another building.
With enough people looking at the monitors, you can track many people that are on the run.
The forces will then be deployed, search the buildings as I said in the previous posts, and try to see if there are any trapdoors or whatever that lead to tunnels (tunnels will be dealt with as I said in previous posts).
Other units will be deployed in the places the terrorists ran to.
Terrorists in civillian buildings will of course cause more innocent civillians to be killed, but it\'s by far less than simply ruining whole cities as happened when the US invaded.
Its harder than you think. All you can see is figures and maybe clothing with good enough resolution. Problem is that Al-Quida doesn\'t have formal military uniforms and attire so sorting them out is hard and time consuming.
Still, you can see people coming and going.
When somone comes out of the HQ (afaik, the US knew about it\'s location), he\'s probebly a terrorist. And if he\'s a resident, he\'s an Al Qaeda supporter, because he gotta be really stupid not to understand he\'s living in a peanuting HQ!
Resident houses with bases are obviously diffrent than normal resident houses. You\'ll see alot more people coming and going into bases, and this is something that can be seen using a satellite.
If their way of communication is by messangers, you can tell too.
Think about it, you see a house, and a person comes out of it. He walks to some other house, and stays there for some time. Then you see some guy (maybe the same guy, doesn\'t matter) walking back to the first house.
A coincidence? Yeah, right.
Both houses are then marked as bases, and are being watched.
The CIA probebly have a few operatives in Afghanistan. Once a certain house is marked as a base, an operator can watch the house from a closer range to give a final verification.
I\'m not sure what he\'ll have to do to see if it\'s a base or not, but I\'m sure they can do it somehow.
Also you said that:
cruise missiles struck the Afghanistan bases
So they did know about the bases. Enough to justify sending a cruise missile launcher.
Satellites can monitor these bases, and CIA operatives can watch them to try and see wich method of communication they\'re using.
-
Sorry I missed the begining of this. I would like to answer Blades original question.
Personally it makes me sad that the world view has changed the way it has. I am from the US. The impresion I get is exactly what the title of this thread implies. We went from good to bad overnight.
I would like to point out that USA is not the largest or the most populated country. We are a minority in the world. A sort of redheaded stepchild. Made up of the worlds rejects. Actually \"Americans\" have never been thought of in high reguard, but now it is open season on us. We have not gone from good to bad, we have gone from tollerated to loathed.
I believe the our Presidents actions have been just. The Terorist have not changed their goals and neither have we. This is a no compromise war between the USA and Islamic fundimentalist. Why the rest of the world can not feel our pain I do not understand. I am not just talking about 9/11.
-
Originally posted by derwoodly
compromise war
What\'s that?
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Old methods can be intercepted too.
I don\'t know about any method of communication that can\'t be intercepted. Maybe if they talk to each other using telepathy, but I don\'t think they do that. And it might be possible to intercept too, if it goes by waves or something.
This is getting old fast :D . There are thousands of ways they can keep in touch and communicate. They can change it each and every time. The simple fact is that nearly every western intelligence agency is trying to do what you say but it isn\'t getting them the kind of intel needed for quick strikes. They couldn\'t even prevent the Madrid train bombings and the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia where 22 people were killed. I ask you - does this method prove effective in real life? Real world events signify that it does not.
The forces will then be deployed, search the buildings as I said in the previous posts, and try to see if there are any trapdoors or whatever that lead to tunnels (tunnels will be dealt with as I said in previous posts).
Other units will be deployed in the places the terrorists ran to.
Terrorists in civillian buildings will of course cause more innocent civillians to be killed, but it\'s by far less than simply ruining whole cities as happened when the US invaded.
The US is doing exactly as you say - surveying the area with satelite and recon teams. The problem is that the insurgents love to hide in civilians areas and spread out all over the city to get good sniper positions as well as RPG posts. Their exact strategy is to use the city itself as a shield. And the US isn\'t ruining the whole cities... I didn\'t hear of any B-52 carpet bombing missions to level Falluja or anything. Using smart bombs doesn\'t mean its perfect but its not exactly leveling whole cities...
So they did know about the bases. Enough to justify sending a cruise missile launcher.
Satellites can monitor these bases, and CIA operatives can watch them to try and see wich method of communication they\'re using.
Which is exactly what they did. The problem? They destroyed an old run down base doing barely any damage or inflicting casualities. What did the fighters do? Simply split up and us the mountain ranges for cover then move to a new base. They can do this every single time as they were trained to do.
Originally posted by derwoodley
Actually \"Americans\" have never been thought of in high reguard, but now it is open season on us. We have not gone from good to bad, we have gone from tollerated to loathed.
It\'s simple really. The US is a big target. Damned if you do and damned if you don\'t.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
They couldn\'t even prevent the Madrid train bombings and the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia where 22 people were killed. I ask you - does this method prove effective in real life? Real world events signify that it does not.
As I say, say again, and say three more times:
They should look for the bases.
They\'ll never get intel about future terrorist attacks unless they\'re lucky. They should locate their bases. Locating their bases should be by far easier than trying to figure out where they\'re going to attack.
The US is doing exactly as you say
Yes, after they caused mayhem and let all the terrorists run for cover.
I\'m talking about what they should\'ve done, not what they should do after they already made idiotic decisions.
I didn\'t hear of any B-52 carpet bombing missions to level Falluja or anything. Using smart bombs doesn\'t mean its perfect but its not exactly leveling whole cities...
What causes more damage:
1. Soldiers that go into a building, killing a few people, and taking prisoners.
2. Launching \'smart\' bombs on buildings.
?
Besides, I\'ve seen a few pics of Kabul some time after the war in Afghanistan dropped from the main pages. It wasn\'t exactly neat. And it wasn\'t because of a defunct government.
They destroyed an old run down base doing barely any damage or inflicting casualities. What did the fighters do? Simply split up and us the mountain ranges for cover then move to a new base. They can do this every single time as they were trained to do.
Again, you fail to see what I\'ve been saying in the last few posts.
They should get the locations of many bases and only then deploy soldiers in all of them at the same time. Not find a base, launch a missile on it, and expect the terrorists to sit there and wait for the missile to blow them up.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
As I say, say again, and say three more times:
They should look for the bases.
They\'ll never get intel about future terrorist attacks unless they\'re lucky. They should locate their bases. Locating their bases should be by far easier than trying to figure out where they\'re going to attack.
And you can keep on saying it. That doesn\'t mean it will work because its been proven not to over and over. Locating bases is of no use for a mobile enemy that can hide in 60 countries.
What causes more damage:
1. Soldiers that go into a building, killing a few people, and taking prisoners.
2. Launching \'smart\' bombs on buildings.
?
Besides, I\'ve seen a few pics of Kabul some time after the war in Afghanistan dropped from the main pages. It wasn\'t exactly neat. And it wasn\'t because of a defunct government.
Soldiers going into a building. Reasons - they attract fire to their positions and return fire into the outlying areas as far as hundreds of meters. You\'re also putting the soldiers into risk by sending them over. If they\'ll get stuck, you\'ll need to send a rescue force which in turn will be susceptible to ambush and it goes on from there.
Again, you fail to see what I\'ve been saying in the last few posts.
They should get the locations of many bases and only then deploy soldiers in all of them at the same time. Not find a base, launch a missile on it, and expect the terrorists to sit there and wait for the missile to blow them up.
All at the same time? Yeah right. The world is fluid, its not a game where you can pause and plan all your actions plus position every force at the same time. Planning takes time - by then the terrorists move and you need new intel, what then? And while you\'re planning the enemy is already doing their thing carrying out attacks and moving.
-
I won\'t bother keeping arguing with you, you just keep not reading what I\'m saying and what you do read you twist.
-
Originally posted by SaintNuclear
I won\'t bother keeping arguing with you, you just keep not reading what I\'m saying and what you do read you twist.
I answered you directly, no twisting involved. Sorry if it seemed that I kept \"not reading and twisting what I do read\".
So basically the gist of your argument is:
1. Locating bases, and attack every base at the same time.
Counterpoint : Won\'t work. Because there are too many bases and they are mobile (ie don\'t stay in the same location so current intel is outdated).
2. Don\'t bomb, send in the grunts. Less damage and less caualties; enemy won\'t know what hit them.
Counterpoint : This is an incorrect assumption because it doesn\'t always hold true. A raid on a base caused the death of 3,000 Somolians and 19 US troops in Mogadishu. A bomb on the same base may have left far less destruction.
3. The US invasion caused \"mayhem and let the terrorists run for cover\" thus they escaped.
Counterpoint : If you mean Afghanistan, the US sent in paratroopers to all the bases and sorrounded the Tora Bora region to try and quickly kill the terrorists. Instead of being a quick and clean operation as predicted, there were far too many escape routes for the mobile enemy forces. After that they decided to send in a larger invasion force because the element of surprise had been lost. This \"mayhem\" is basically the result of what you suggested going wrong and resulting in having to mop up.
-
Kbilik,
I agree with you, it seems we are damned either way. I am baffled by how a group of wackos who were kicked out of their native countries and consider all human life but their own to be expendable became the \"good guys\". Has the whole world lost their mind? or is it just the medias effort to get ratings by making it look this way.
If anyone can explain how the USA is evil and Islamic fundamentalist who don\'t even have a country to call there own can be good, please explain it to me. And use small words so I will understand.
-
Originally posted by derwoodly
I am baffled by how a group of wackos who were kicked out of their native countries and consider all human life but their own to be expendable became the \"good guys\". Has the whole world lost their mind? or is it just the medias effort to get ratings by making it look this way.
First id like to ask you why you believe the world is against the usa and pro terrorists. Since i\'ve seen no reasons to believe people in general to uphold those ideas.
Secondly, if you do believe thats true nonetheless, ask yourself the same question, why do people dislike america so much? Maybe it is an indication there is something wrong with the foreign policy of the usa.
Third, thinking in good and bad is simplifying the problem greatly. The usa isn\'t bad or good neither are most terrorists.
I look at terrorists the way i look at the nazis in wwii, they were not evil. They had a reason to be frustrated as well there was grouppressure and other factors as well that made from a average day citizen a ruthless killer.
The same holds for the american soldiers torturing iraqis, i dont think they are evil but actually think most of us would act the same way in the same conditions.
The terrorists come from a region that is often poor, uneducated, oppressed (saudi arabia), where already there is a general negative view to the west (with the usa as representant) and strong islamic believes. Thats why they can get fundamentalistic pretty easy.
Its not like they don\'t have values of right and wrong but those are very different then ours.
Not that im saying you shouldn\'t do anything about terrorism and leave them alone, of course not.
About negative opinions on the usa:
When i was a child i was quite positive of the usa. I saw them as the heros in wwii and as one of the greater countries in the world carrying the idea of democracy and freedom.
But when i learnt more from history and about the usa i had to adapt my opinion. I still see the usa as the ones who can bring democracy freedom and welfare better then any other country. However i also see many problems in the usa, while it seems many americans think they are living in the greatest nation where everything is better then in the rest of the world.
Also the way the west in the cold war behaved surprised me. While stating to uphold freedom and democracy for the world we supported dictators and terrible regimes. In fact we still are.
Its not that i hate america, but i have grown to dislike it, especially since 9/11. The attitude of the usa seems to me like an arrogant one.
Something like this: We don\'t need anyone and we do whatever we like no matter how much criticism there is. If there is criticism its just because youre antiamerican. Oh and btw europe is naive and cowardly.
In general i think the reasons for people to dislike the usa are:
1: The usa is the most powerfull nation, this gives great responsobility. No matter what you do you\'ll always be criticised (and please listen to that criticism, there could be a good point in it)
2: The usa represents the west, in the past and present the west has supported dictators and betrayed people in the middle east countless times.
3: Yealousy can be a reason for some people as well of course.
4: The \"with us or against us\" attitude that is uphold in the usa. Criticism is cast aside without even looking into it. Its like the usa thinks to know what is best for the world and that the rest of the world doesn\'t know that.
5: In extension to 4, the way the usa deals with international matters, like the kyoto treatment, un, international court of justice and so on.
6: The way the war on iraq was started was done in a suspicous manner, it seemed like the usa was eager to attack no matter what the reason. Whether that is true or not, the usa should have acted more honestly.
7: The way the iraq war was dealt with, cnn looked alot like a war propaganda media at the start. Why were most reporters not allowed to go in Iraq? Why do american soldiers kill more easily then british troops? Why if a wedding ceremony is attacked don\'t they just admit that? Why was a hospital attacked to release a prisoner with much show while there was already an agreement to release her?
I can go on and on on this point...
More points can be named probably, but i do believe the american really believe they are doing the right thing, only i think its not the best way of dealing with matters.
And i really sincerely don\'t hate america, its just that the usa is hard to dislike sometimes.
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
1: The usa is the most powerfull nation, this gives great responsobility. No matter what you do you\'ll always be criticised (and please listen to that criticism, there could be a good point in it)
True. As I said, the USA is a big target. People like finding scapegoats to blame all their problems instead of trying to think of solutions. Furthermore, if the solutions don\'t work, they can always blame US policies to escape culpability.
2: The usa represents the west, in the past and present the west has supported dictators and betrayed people in the middle east countless times.
Well, let\'s look at it in terms of the time and setting. Is it better to fight the cold war up front and possibly have a nuclear war between NATO and the Warsaw pact? Or is it better to fund your enemy\'s enemies (Even if they are dictatorships or repressive regimes). Sometimes the answers aren\'t easy.
3: Jealousy can be a reason for some people as well of course.
Yep, relates to the 1st point,
4: The \"with us or against us\" attitude that is uphold in the usa. Criticism is cast aside without even looking into it. Its like the usa thinks to know what is best for the world and that the rest of the world doesn\'t know that.
I don\'t like that attitude either. The world isn\'t black and white - there are plenty of greys. It\'s a very complex situation.
5: In extension to 4, the way the usa deals with international matters, like the kyoto treatment, un, international court of justice and so on.
That\'s the problem of being a world power and having others try to level the playing field.
6: The way the war on iraq was started was done in a suspicous manner, it seemed like the usa was eager to attack no matter what the reason. Whether that is true or not, the usa should have acted more honestly.
Well we can argue about that forever. The simple fact is that the UN failed in its duty for 12 years. Had the UN found conclusive evidence either of WMD or records that all were destroyed, the US would have no excuses to go to war.
7: The way the iraq war was dealt with, cnn looked alot like a war propaganda media at the start. Why were most reporters not allowed to go in Iraq? Why do american soldiers kill more easily then british troops? Why if a wedding ceremony is attacked don\'t they just admit that? Why was a hospital attacked to release a prisoner with much show while there was already an agreement to release her?
I can go on and on on this point...
The US, European, and Arab news channels all have their biases and spread propaganda. The truth lays somewhere in the middle. It always helps to be open and look at many sources then base your conclusions on how the facts add up.
-
This is OT right now, but I\'d like to add that islamic terrorism is due to the snowball effect of the great depression.
Great Depression->WWII->Cold War->Backing of far off, questionable regimes, creating a lose-lose situation for both countries, small regional wars->Poor public opinion of the West, especially US o\'A->Easy fundamentalist recruitment.
-
I might not respond soon again since im busy with exams and an essay so it might take a while if i post again.
Originally posted by kbilik
True. As I said, the USA is a big target. People like finding scapegoats to blame all their problems instead of trying to think of solutions.
I\'d like to add to this that its not the only reason for criticism. And that it doesn\'t mean criticism isn\'t valid.
Well, let\'s look at it in terms of the time and setting. Is it better to fight the cold war up front and possibly have a nuclear war between NATO and the Warsaw pact?
If it is a right decision or not is a whole other discussion, i myself have not thought/discussed enough about it to have a well formed opinion about it.
However it doesn\'t matter if you look at the POV of the inhabitants in such countries. Can you blame them for not understanding the reason why they have to suffer because of the politics of other nations?
That they like in Iran dislike the west because and in their eyes seemingly double morality?
I don\'t like that attitude either. The world isn\'t black and white - there are plenty of greys. It\'s a very complex situation.
Im glad to hear that :).
If the Bush as president announces statements like that and worldwide the usa acts accordingly it does reflect negative on the usa and its government.
That\'s the problem of being a world power and having others try to level the playing field.
Im not sure what you mean. So i just state my opinion here, i think the usa should instead of trying to lead the world and act on its own work together with the rest of the world.
If you act alone you\'ll stand alone. If you ignore the rest of the world don\'t be surprised they are not to positive about you.
Well we can argue about that forever. The simple fact is that the UN failed in its duty for 12 years.
I think you misunderstand me. I find it difficult to write down what i mean clear here. Im talking about the way the iraq war was started in a pr sense. In that sense many mistakes were made.
The US, European, and Arab news channels all have their biases and spread propaganda. The truth lays somewhere in the middle. It always helps to be open and look at many sources then base your conclusions on how the facts add up.
Unfortunately true. And the media tends to unfortunately ignore good news giving a distorted view on matters. Its too bad that we can\'t really view each others media more closely :(.
Only, and im saying this with great hesitation, maybe just maybe the media in europe has the least problems with this. Since in general Europe stands between the arab an usa opinion. Just maybe.
-------------------------------------------
Monketh,
I partly agree and partly disagree. Its true that the great depression caused the events you named. But its not the only cause for terrorism and laying a relationship between an event decades ago and the world today is pretty bold. And its not a matter of cause and effect, humans are involved and can make choices that affect the situation. Like in the cuba crisis we might have had a wwIII if the wrong decisions had been made, then terrorism wouldn\'t be a problem.
The event WWII also had more reasons besides the depression like the versailles treaty.
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
I might not respond soon again since im busy with exams and an essay so it might take a while if i post again.
It\'s alright, take your time. Good luck on the exams.
I\'d like to add to this that its not the only reason for criticism. And that it doesn\'t mean criticism isn\'t valid.
Of course criticism is valid. But sometimes it\'s hard to discern helpful criticism from a sea of complaints sometimes inspired by jealousy or steroetypes.
If it is a right decision or not is a whole other discussion, i myself have not thought/discussed enough about it to have a well formed opinion about it.
However it doesn\'t matter if you look at the POV of the inhabitants in such countries. Can you blame them for not understanding the reason why they have to suffer because of the politics of other nations?
That they like in Iran dislike the west because and in their eyes seemingly double morality?
You can\'t blame them. But we know (not them perhaps) that sometimes the lesser \"evil\" is chosen over the worse option. During the cold war, the US and USSR each had 30,000 nuclear devices (enough to destroy the world 100 times over). Maybe them choosing to sponsor regimes instead of spiraling into a nuclear war was the right decision. Maybe there were other, better ways. Can\'t know for sure now.
As for exchanging views and trying to explain this reasoning to them - the arguments end with allegations of conspiracy from both sides. This lack of communications and unwillingness on both sides to agree is a major problem.
Im not sure what you mean. So i just state my opinion here, i think the usa should instead of trying to lead the world and act on its own work together with the rest of the world.
If you act alone you\'ll stand alone. If you ignore the rest of the world don\'t be surprised they are not to positive about you.
I understand what you mean. However, the US also has certain rights over its own sovereignty. The fact that other nations try to influence the US too much (not sure what exactly counts as \"too much\" ) through these policies can sometimes be viewed as trespassing. Same thing that other nations feel when the US uses its superpower status to interfere with the policies of other nations. Its mutual I guess.
I think you misunderstand me. I find it difficult to write down what i mean clear here. Im talking about the way the iraq war was started in a pr sense. In that sense many mistakes were made.
Yes, many mistakes were made on both sides. Had certain things been made more clear, the chances of war would have been less.
Unfortunately true. And the media tends to unfortunately ignore good news giving a distorted view on matters. Its too bad that we can\'t really view each others media more closely :(.
Only, and im saying this with great hesitation, maybe just maybe the media in europe has the least problems with this. Since in general Europe stands between the arab an usa opinion. Just maybe.
The European news media is just as biased on certain things. It is true that they try to be fair and look at it differently, but they are still influenced by ratings, critics, personal opinions of the reporters, and other such things.
-
Its not that i hate america, but i have grown to dislike it, especially since 9/11. The attitude of the usa seems to me like an arrogant one.
Something like this: We don\'t need anyone and we do whatever we like no matter how much criticism there is. If there is criticism its just because youre antiamerican. Oh and btw europe is naive and cowardly.
You cannot possibly know the attutude of america without living here and being exposed to it everyday. Because we are a democratic country we have many conflicting views within our country. The thing I can see you basing that opinion on is reperts from your media, who by the way are against this war and are not unbiased. It is unfair to america and americans to make blanket statements about the attitude of america. If you are just talking about our foriegn affairs actions you need to find an unbiased news source.
Oh and saintnuclear you cannot use the omega agency as a basis for any argument without proof. You dont even have proof that this agency exists let alone that it had some impact on the US going into iraq.
ps sorry for the hiatus should post more regularly now...
-
Ok here is alittle update on the War in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq\'s interim prime minister said Tuesday the fledgling government \"is currently negotiating\" with coalition authorities for the handover of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to its custody.
They want Saddam back in a month once the country is handed back to Iraq? Now this seems to be a bad thing...you go in take down the man you wanted taken down now you hand him back to a country that is anarchy! Most likely will be freed before ever executed in that country! Once US leaves back to the good ole days for IraQ!
-
[/QUOTE]
First id like to ask you why you believe the world is against the usa and pro terrorists. Since i\'ve seen no reasons to believe people in general to uphold those ideas.
[/QUOTE]
Oye vie, you must not have read the title of this post! :)
I have read much of this post and I am still confused. What is it exactly that we were saposed to do before we attacked Iraq? Yes, I know all the standard answers to this question. It is exactly these answers and the commentary in this post that upsets me.
I personally do think that the USA is the best nation out there. But, that is because I live here. I hope that you think the country that you live in is also the best.
-
Just a short response for now, ill respond later to the others as well when ive got the time.
Originally posted by derwoodly
Oye vie, you must not have read the title of this post! :)
The title is the opinion of one individual not that of the whole world. I really don\'t know anyone who hates america. Only people who do have criticism on the usa.
I have read much of this post and I am still confused. What is it exactly that we were saposed to do before we attacked Iraq? Yes, I know all the standard answers to this question. It is exactly these answers and the commentary in this post that upsets me.
Why does it upset you? Its only my opinion on the matters, and i even tried to balance things by also naming reasons that are not the fault of the usa.
If you want answers you haven\'t heard before, im the wrong guy probably. If you\'ve heard all things before and still wonder why then i doubt i can explain what others couldn\'t.
Only thing i can say is that the main reason why i disagree with politics of the usa is that they act too self-centered according to what they think is right without cooperating with other nations.
Another reason why there is criticism is because the usa started (continoud technically) a war against another country. Its pretty logical that the world doesn\'t respond well to a country beginning a war. What would you think if China invaded Taiwan or if Belgium invaded Holland since we have wmds (nuclear missiles of the usa).
To conclude you say: before we attacked iraq, this suggests the decision was already made and you ask how people should have been influenced to agree with a already made decision.
Darn now i still tried to give answers to your question :(, well do with it what you want
I personally do think that the USA is the best nation out there. But, that is because I live here. I hope that you think the country that you live in is also the best.
I disagree on both statements. Why is it a good thing to believe your country to be better then all the others? Im sure holland is NOT the best country. Maybe in some aspects were more advanced, in other aspects we\'ll still have some work to do.
To like and identify with your country is a good thing, i do that too, but being so patriottic only makes you blind to the weaknesses, problems and faults made by your nation.
-
Since im on it anyway :D, first i\'d like to point out that the comments made by Bush on the G8 conferention were somewhat like my comment about raising welfare and education in nations. Yes for once i agree with him :D.
Originally posted by Ineluke
You cannot possibly know the attutude of america without living here and being exposed to it everyday. If you are just talking about our foriegn affairs actions you need to find an unbiased news source.
Yes i am talking about foreign affairs mostly. But i do think i can state that the attitude of america in foreign affairs is an arrogant one. If i would need a completely unbiased, meaning objectively source it means none of us can have opinions on any matter. Since no newsmedia is completely unbiased and certainly not that of the us.
So then you also can\'t be pro war against in iraq because of the inhuman situation since you don\'t know if it is all western propaganda.
To get to my point, no my view on the foreign policy is not completely correct (none of us is), but i don\'t have to live in the usa to know what it is. Even with biased news you do get enough of a accurate picture even if its not 100 % correct. And that picture is not a pretty one.
Also i don\'t just take things the media tell me for granted. Criticism is a healthy thing.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
It\'s alright, take your time. Good luck on the exams.
Thank you :). Today is the last exam and then only the essay still has to be made :(.
Of course criticism is valid. But sometimes it\'s hard to discern helpful criticism from a sea of complaints sometimes inspired by jealousy or steroetypes.
That can be problematic i understand, though if someone only repeats easy arguments of others without thinking first, it usually shows.
And the opposite is also true, that in some cases people have too little criticism since they are too pattriotic.
Maybe there were other, better ways. Can\'t know for sure now.
I don\'t know either, it would be interesting to think about it since there is still support of dictatorial regimes like saudi arabia.
As for exchanging views and trying to explain this reasoning to them - the arguments end with allegations of conspiracy from both sides. This lack of communications and unwillingness on both sides to agree is a major problem.
Im not sure what to make of this. Exchanging views and try to reason seems pretty difficult to me. What are you going to say to them? \"We believe in democracy and freedom for the whole world however you had to pay with your freedom so ours and that of the world was safe.\"
No i don\'t think they\'ll understand or want to.
I understand what you mean. However, the US also has certain rights over its own sovereignty. The fact that other nations try to influence the US too much (not sure what exactly counts as \"too much\" ) through these policies can sometimes be viewed as trespassing. Same thing that other nations feel when the US uses its superpower status to interfere with the policies of other nations. Its mutual I guess.
Inner policy of the usa should be a matter of the us, as long as no human rights are violated. There is a lot i disagree with (like the death penalties) and i would discuss such things but its up to you what to do.
Foreign policy is a whole other matter, it concerns the world and has much less to do with sovereignty. Therefore the usa should work together with the other nations in foreign matters and not do whatever it thinks is right in these cases because it concerns us all.
BTW the usa has much influence on nations as well and is not the only one being criticised or influenced. Holland gets criticism for its liberal drugs policy. As an example of the usa having influence in the sovereignty of other nations the iraq issue is a nice one.
Yes, many mistakes were made on both sides. Had certain things been made more clear, the chances of war would have been less.
Though interesting im not talking about how the war could have been prevented, in fact its my believe it had been decided before the un inspections started.
I mean if the usa had made the reasons for the war more clear and accurate people would search less for other reasons like oil. That the threat of wmds was exegerated was not a good move. PR speaking that is.
The European news media is just as biased on certain things. It is true that they try to be fair and look at it differently, but they are still influenced by ratings, critics, personal opinions of the reporters, and other such things.
Yes thats all true, the media is not unbiased. Only it might be we hear more facts from all sides pro and against the war then in the usa or arabic nations.
Anyway even with good media one still hears more information supporting their opinion then opposing them.
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
Inner policy of the usa should be a matter of the us, as long as no human rights are violated. There is a lot i disagree with (like the death penalties) and i would discuss such things but its up to you what to do.
Foreign policy is a whole other matter, it concerns the world and has much less to do with sovereignty. Therefore the usa should work together with the other nations in foreign matters and not do whatever it thinks is right in these cases because it concerns us all.
BTW the usa has much influence on nations as well and is not the only one being criticised or influenced. Holland gets criticism for its liberal drugs policy. As an example of the usa having influence in the sovereignty of other nations the iraq issue is a nice one.
This is the main problem. The US government feels that certain UN rules or global treaties (Kyoto being one) that deal with \"foreign matters\" interfere with domestic policy. Kyoto for example will force US industry to cut back on production in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is considered a threat to the economy by some people from a treaty that many say has little or no proof that it can scientifically or practically work. So in certain cases, the US feels that the UN can be used by other countries to influence its policy.
Then again, it is hypocritical for the US to have that view and want regime change or influence other countries. I can see why some people hate US policies because they seem hypocritical. But the line must be drawn somewhere on how much influence global and often biased (or used as tools by the majority) organizations like the UN have. This is where the argument arises between people who are isolationist (or unilateralists) and those that want more global dialogue.
So basically three viewpoints:
1. The unilateralists see the UN as a bloated, biased, bureaucracy which takes too long to get anything done or is too biased to do it correctly.
2. The moderates, who want some dialogue but want to draw the line somewhere.
3. The pro-UN people who see unilateralism as foolish, misguided, dangerous, and rash.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
Kyoto for example will force US industry to cut back on production in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
And ban teeth whitening. Is that really what we want? It sure as hell isn\'t what I want.
-
Originally posted by kbilik
This is the main problem. The US government feels that certain UN rules or global treaties (Kyoto being one) that deal with \"foreign matters\" interfere with domestic policy. Kyoto for example will force US industry to cut back on production in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I understand that, only its not just kyoto its a whole list of these sort of global treaties signed by many countries and not by the usa. And above that the start of a war by the usa a large part of the world disagrees with. Especially since Bush became president this is the foreign policy.
Then again, it is hypocritical for the US to have that view and want regime change or influence other countries. I can see why some people hate US policies because they seem hypocritical.
If the usa doesn\'t allow influence whatsoever in their country by other nations then yes that would be hypocritical, but thats not the case i think. Every country gets influence from other nations and also influences other nations.
But the line must be drawn somewhere on how much influence global and often biased (or used as tools by the majority) organizations like the UN have. This is where the argument arises between people who are isolationist (or unilateralists) and those that want more global dialogue.
So basically three viewpoints:
1. The unilateralists see the UN as a bloated, biased, bureaucracy which takes too long to get anything done or is too biased to do it correctly.
2. The moderates, who want some dialogue but want to draw the line somewhere.
3. The pro-UN people who see unilateralism as foolish, misguided, dangerous, and rash.
Naturally a the global influence should be limited. Thats the same case as a state in the usa and a country in the EU, both have two opposite concerns between cooperation and not being controlled.
As in most cases the moderates are probably right.
-
Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
I understand that, only its not just kyoto its a whole list of these sort of global treaties signed by many countries and not by the usa. And above that the start of a war by the usa a large part of the world disagrees with. Especially since Bush became president this is the foreign policy.
That is understandable (that many other countries have signed on), but this does not mean it is acceptable to the US. Each country is unique and has its own economic forecasts and problems. That is the problem with wide ranging treaties like these. If I\'m not mistaken, certain countries with already low CO2 emissions will not have to make any kind of sacrifice economically for Kyoto to work - so of course they\'ll sign to gain prestige if nothing else.
Naturally a the global influence should be limited. Thats the same case as a state in the usa and a country in the EU, both have two opposite concerns between cooperation and not being controlled.
As in most cases the moderates are probably right.
I agree with the moderate position as well.
BTW a few updates. The 9/11 inquiry found that there is no evidence that Al-Quida was supported by Iraq in the 9/11 attack.
However, President Putin of Russia (who was against the war) passed intel to the Bush administration telling them that Iraq planned terrorist attacks on US soil (Possibly without Al-Queda aid) even before the invasion of Iraq started in 2003.
Here\'s the link to the Putin article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3819057.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3819057.stm)
And the 9/11 inquiry: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3816021.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3816021.stm)
-
Originally posted by kbilik
That is understandable (that many other countries have signed on), but this does not mean it is acceptable to the US. Each country is unique and has its own economic forecasts and problems. That is the problem with wide ranging treaties like these.
Are you talking about treatys in general here or about kyoto? Anyway, countries also have a lot in common, any developed countrie trying to bring down its CO2 output for instance will suffer economically. Many countries accept the offer they have to make to work together worldwide. The usa is not so unique to have better reasons not to cooperate.
Since it was in the news again, here is another example:
The usa didn\'t want to sign the International Court of Justice (IJC) afraid their soldiers might become a target. Since no exception was made to american soldiers a law has been made in the usa. It authorizes the president to use force to free the soldiers when hold in the hague.
It is not just not signing treatys it is breaking them that matters the most. When you live in a village you don\'t do everything the way you like and expect the rest to accept that? The world is much the same, a global village of nations.
BTW a few updates. The 9/11 inquiry found that there is no evidence that Al-Quida was supported by Iraq in the 9/11 attack.
If evidence would have been found i had been really surprised. Connecting Al-Quida with Iraq was usefull to add to the list of reasons to invade but not that realistic.
However, President Putin of Russia (who was against the war) passed intel to the Bush administration telling them that Iraq planned terrorist attacks on US soil (Possibly without Al-Queda aid) even before the invasion of Iraq started in 2003.
Though i dislike and distrust Putin this does surprise me. To be honest i haven\'t seen it in the news (i only read the newspaper lately) here. This raises many questions too say the least.
-
Another update:
Iraqi officer in Al-Queda, papers show (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040621-124414-5078r.htm)
By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A senior officer in Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein\'s security services was a member of the terrorist group that committed the September 11 attacks, a member of the commission investigating the suicide hijackings said yesterday.
\"There is at least one officer of Saddam\'s Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda,\" said September 11 commission member and former Navy Secretary John Lehman.
Although he stressed that the intelligence \"still has to be confirmed,\" Mr. Lehman told NBC\'s \"Meet the Press\" that the information came from \"captured documents\" shown to the panel after the September 11 commission\'s staff report had been written.
The report, which received heavy news coverage when it was released last week, maintained that Osama bin Laden\'s al Qaeda network had ties with Iraq, but did \"not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.\"
Are you talking about treatys in general here or about kyoto? Anyway, countries also have a lot in common, any developed countrie trying to bring down its CO2 output for instance will suffer economically. Many countries accept the offer they have to make to work together worldwide. The usa is not so unique to have better reasons not to cooperate.
Since it was in the news again, here is another example:
The usa didn\'t want to sign the International Court of Justice (IJC) afraid their soldiers might become a target. Since no exception was made to american soldiers a law has been made in the usa. It authorizes the president to use force to free the soldiers when hold in the hague.
It is not just not signing treatys it is breaking them that matters the most. When you live in a village you don\'t do everything the way you like and expect the rest to accept that? The world is much the same, a global village of nations.
I\'m talking about treaties in general here. I was making the point that under Kyoto, some countries do not have ANY obligations to lower their output since it is deemed low enough under the treaty (read somewhere that Japan for instance would be obliged to lower emissions by 0%). So no, this does not seem fair in the least.
Brings back my other point that a global treaty runs into problems with generalizing and making it worse for others while giving advantages to some.
BTW, about the IJC- if you do not sign the treaty, then you cannot break it. On the other hand, Iraq did sign various UN charters and mandates but did not abide by them. This is not rare (other countries do it all the time), but under the circumstances it is clear why the US saw Iraq as a threat (look at all the recent news about threats and intel before the invasion).
-
Tainted,
I am still reading this post with intrest.
Its good to know you don\'t hate the USA, but I am not making any travel plans outside of the USA.
[ edit 6/25: looks like the tread is dead now, BTW I even though the world does not see the US as heros I believe time will prove otherwise ]
-
Another update. Ever wonder why you don\'t hear as much about the cleric al-Sadr in the news anymore?
Army unit claims victory over Sheik:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040622-113720-3352r.htm (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040622-113720-3352r.htm)
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Army\'s powerful 1st Armored Division is proclaiming victory over Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr\'s marauding militia that just a month ago seemed on the verge of conquering southern Iraq.
The Germany-based division defeated the militia with a mix of American firepower and money paid to informants. Officers today say \"Operation Iron Saber\" will go down in military history books as one of the most important battles in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
...
Once he had targets, Gen. Dempsey could then map a battle plan for entering four key cities ? Karbala, Najaf, Kufa and Diwaniyah. This would be a counterinsurgency fought with 70-ton M-1 Abrams tanks and aerial gunships overhead. It would not be the lightning movements of clandestine commandos, but rather all the brute force the Army could muster, directed at narrowly defined targets.
Last week, Sheik al-Sadr surrendered. He called on what was left of his men to cease operations and said he may one day seek public office in a democratic Iraq.
Gen. Hertling said Mahdi\'s Army is defeated, according the Army\'s doctrinal definition of defeat. A few stragglers might be able to fire a rocket-propelled grenade, he said, but noted: \"Do they have the capability of launching any kind of offensive operation? Absolutely not.\"
The division estimates it killed at least several thousand militia members.
Although this is a good development for the coalition forces, it certainly doesn\'t eliminate the threat they are facing. But the more stability in that war torn country, the better.
-
Ill stop discussing this matter, im getting bored and said most of what i wanted to. I can\'t really say i changed my opinion much, but i did enjoy the discussion. And it was interesting to learn about the ideas and opinions here others had.
I hope to see you all some day ingame and perhaps talk about PS politics ;)
So this is my last response:
Originally posted by kbilik
Another update:
Iraqi officer in Al-Queda, papers show (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040621-124414-5078r.htm)
If this is true that would be a good support to the warcause. Still id like to wait and see if this is correct. Seems too much like a political damage control after the to Bush bad report.
I\'m talking about treaties in general here. I was making the point that under Kyoto, some countries do not have ANY obligations to lower their output since it is deemed low enough under the treaty (read somewhere that Japan for instance would be obliged to lower emissions by 0%). So no, this does not seem fair in the least.
Brings back my other point that a global treaty runs into problems with generalizing and making it worse for others while giving advantages to some.
Emission might be lower in some countries since they already control it despite economy. And yes some will have to cut down more then others. If that enough countries do that (disadvantaging themself) others have little excuse not to.
With kyoto btw, the usa wanted African countries to sign it as well, meaning that nations that have very little should cut down on economy...
BTW, about the IJC- if you do not sign the treaty, then you cannot break it. On the other hand, Iraq did sign various UN charters and mandates but did not abide by them.
Other treaties were broken. Im not really sure but i believe nuclear missile control treaty was broken.
About a stable Iraq, well we can all agree that thats important. To me more because of the iraqis then soldiers, but every dead person is one to many.
Derwoodly, why don\'t you want to travel outside the usa? Afraid you\'ll be pointed after as america? :D
Well to be honest i won\'t leave europe as well, for now, im really a home keeping guy actually. Far countries don\'t appeal much to me. hm I really need the vacation to Italy, ive planned :(
Oh and i think no country wil ever be seen as heros.
To conclude positively: The usa have withdrawn the un resolution to grant them immunity to the ICC/IJC? There was to little support this year.
Hopefully the Hague Invasion Act won\'t be withdraw. American soldiers landing on the beach while im on it, would be a great free show. Please bring some choppers ;)
And despite of differences the USA and Europe need each other more then ever. Maybe the strength lies not in the way of the US or Europe but in the combination. That the USA has the will and power to force nations while Europe tempers this and encourages talks.
Together it could be a well balanced stimulus to make the world more democratic, free of oppresion, safe and equal.