Previous Thread |
|
Next Thread
|
|
Print Thread |
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,194
#deleteFacebook
|
#deleteFacebook
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,194 |
Thanks for that one Cobie. I've read quite a few of Monbiot's articles, but I hadn't seen that one.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,194
#deleteFacebook
|
#deleteFacebook
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,194 |
Just the name of the article Quis. Doesn't automatically mean I agree with it
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030
strange but not a stranger
|
strange but not a stranger
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030 |
But what if I agree with the article?
Big Dog! Big Dog! Bow Wow Wow!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861
Time Trapper
|
Time Trapper
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861 |
The Kay report, I think it is, has given the evidence of WMD programs. Blair mentioned it this morning in a statement. It was briefly mentioned, and then not mentioned again months ago. You wanted proof, there it is.
As to the reasons for war, again, look above.
Now, as to us needing France and Germany, i say...
Why? Because we want them to like us? Well, lets see, France has actively harbored terrorists before and taken steps to block their capture and deportation to other nations. They DEFIED a UN order not to deal with Iraq several, several times. Again, why do we need them? Global Harmony? Couldn't care less about that. Nations have disagreed and will disagree to the end of man.
We are Feared, not respected. Okay. And? I have no problem with nations that harbor terrorists fearing to tick off the US. Doesn't bother me one little bit.
The US has been put in the position by the rest of the world as being the Cops. Everyone wants cops around when the fit hits the shan, but, no one wants them around in peace time. Unfortunately, we swing the big hammer. Someone has to in the world. That is the way the world works. And whineing about not being liked or respected does no good.
The US HAS made mistakes in the past. And yet, when we get a president and administration that is even attempting to address this as almost no other administration in history has, the pure, undiliuted hatred is spewed far and wide.
Look, many of you will hate the admin for simply existing, i understand that. I hated the Clinton admin for existing. It was an embarrasement to have an obvious con man and his wife running the country to me. And i base this on his campaign for presidency, before he EVER became president. But, i honestly and fairly try to look at what took place. Just as i do the Bush administration. I wont take a political bullet for Bush either. He has made mistakes. The education bill, the healthcare bill. Giving in on other things. But to just blindly hate and spew "Well, i think the admin didn't do a good job planning the war..." without giving a REASON as to why is ridiculas.
Before the war, there were gloom and doom prophecies on millions of refugees. Hasn't happened. We would kill millions in the war. The actual number is less than Saddam killed on average per year. 'No global concensus'. So? We had more nations agreeing with us that opposed us. And frankly, looking at the record of those that opposed the war, and the leadership of many of those countries, how can you expect other dictators to be happy one of their own is being gunned for? The would obviously worry about being next.
Why would Saddam Hussein stop murdering his OWN PEOPLE and become all cute and loveable when the UN said "Now stop being naughty, okay?" and did NOTHING ABOUT IT WITH ANY CONSEQUENCES?
This isn't a What should Be world, as much as I would like it to be. IT is a What IS world, and parts of it are flat out mean, murderous, brutal, cruel, and inhumane.
Damn you, you kids! Get off my lawn or I'm callin' tha cops!
Something pithy!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,194
#deleteFacebook
|
#deleteFacebook
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,194 |
Originally posted by Quislet, Esq: But what if I agree with the article? Then you'd be in the same group as me
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030
strange but not a stranger
|
strange but not a stranger
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030 |
Originally posted by Sanity or Madness?: Originally posted by Quislet, Esq: [b]But what if I agree with the article? Then you'd be in the same group as me [/b]I kind of thought that already
Big Dog! Big Dog! Bow Wow Wow!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,194
#deleteFacebook
|
#deleteFacebook
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,194 |
Oh yeah, and you'll be a "traitor" to your grat nation, all it stands for, blah blah blah
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861
Time Trapper
|
Time Trapper
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861 |
Nice cartoon. Im sure the mothers and fathers, the sisters and brothers of the over 300,000 he had murdered found it kinda inconvienant too.
Damn you, you kids! Get off my lawn or I'm callin' tha cops!
Something pithy!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861
Time Trapper
|
Time Trapper
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861 |
and of course now it is being reported that the 'bogus' info is not so bogus. Weapons programs were in place.
Hmmmm. Guess the old lies just keep on a'comin'.
Damn you, you kids! Get off my lawn or I'm callin' tha cops!
Something pithy!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 34,634
Bold Flavors
|
Bold Flavors
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 34,634 |
Originally posted by rickshaw1: Nice cartoon. Im sure the mothers and fathers, the sisters and brothers of the over 300,000 he had murdered found it kinda inconvienant too. Rick, isn't that a bit harsh for this message board? It's obvious to anyone reading that SoM meant nothing quite as mean-spirited as your above post. If you want to debate, there are people here willing to do it. But if you're going to start being venomous in your posts, this might not be the forum. I know you're the resident 'cranky' poster on Legion World, and from what I can tell from your political views, you've had to be on the defense quite a bit in the last three years, but there's no need for any of us to act like that idiot on Hardball.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861
Time Trapper
|
Time Trapper
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861 |
And what i wrote wasn't directed at SoM. It was directed at a cartoon that nicely glossed over the murder of over 300,000 people.
Is only one side of things, one view, acceptable here? I havent attacked anyone. I simply didn't roll over when someone shouted about the mean conservatives.
Don't you think fair is fair? If i offended him, then he should consider that some of his items may offend others as well. It wasn't meant to be an attack, or offensive. It was meant to point out that the cartoon was a little too slick for its own good and really didn't give a fair shake to the other side.
Damn you, you kids! Get off my lawn or I'm callin' tha cops!
Something pithy!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 34,634
Bold Flavors
|
Bold Flavors
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 34,634 |
Rick, I have no problem with you stating your point of view, and I think in order for this debate to be fair, the other side must constantly be heard. So no, there should be more than one acceptable view here.
When reading your last post, I took it as an attack on SoM, but thats the downside of reading things on a message board. So, my apologies then for over-dramatizing it, although I hope you can see how someone reading your post may have thought it was venomous.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030
strange but not a stranger
|
strange but not a stranger
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030 |
Rick,
First, I respect your right to your opinion. And I hope you don't feel picked on. (easy to feel when your opinion is opposite of the majority. and that seems to be the case on this thread)
This is not meant to gloss over the Iraqis killed by Saddam, but their deaths were not the reasons given by our government for the war. Therefore the cartoon was not "glossing over" their deaths. What I see as the point of the cartoon was that it wasn't about whether you supported the war or not, but about labeling someone as supporting Saddam because they questioned the validity of the war.
And has been pointed out here already, there are other governments that do equally horrible things to their own people that we have supported or continue to support. Where is the outrage over those deaths?
Big Dog! Big Dog! Bow Wow Wow!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 267
Active
|
Active
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 267 |
Originally posted by rickshaw1:
Now, as to us needing France and Germany, i say...
Why? Because we want them to like us? Well, lets see, France has actively harbored terrorists before and taken steps to block their capture and deportation to other nations. They DEFIED a UN order not to deal with Iraq several, several times. Could you elaborate, please, or provide me a link where I can see by myself if it's true, because it's the first time I heard of all of this...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,078
Wanderer
|
Wanderer
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,078 |
First, how proud to be a board member I am. Every reference to the US, pro or con, used in this touchy subject, used the words "we" and "us" when posting. With this I most agree. Even if my country does something with which I do not agree, I feel responsibility. There seems many here that feel that way. Originally posted by Kid Prime: I think historically speaking, this whole thing will be a post-Cold War footnote. Cleanup, if you will. I do think in many ways, however, we are responsible for both Saddam and Osama, and have a moral obligation to clean up our messes.
Having said that, I also believe the war has been mismanaged by the administration. There were other things in this post with which I agreed, but these two the most strongly. We were warned by humanitarian groups, particularly Red Cross, of our responsibilites to citizenry as the was progressed and area put under control. We failed to meet those obligations in a way that many believed would have calmed the populace and reduced the war effort. Comments such as "bring em on," not only enliven an already fanatical enemy, but bring fear to companions and comrads. Originally posted by Sudro Brown II: I'm still not satisfied that there was an immediate threat to the United States from Iraq.
I'm still not convinced that preemptive military action was the only way to get Saddam out of power.
And I remain wholly unconvinced that there is any link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. I'd agree with the first two and say the jury is out on the last. Strange bedfellows and all that. All we can do is bring our own background into the conversation. I've yet to be treated poorly by someone that did not fear me. That is not so true I am sure with the dictator mindset, but in general. Fear is not respect. Fear gives cause to the non-fanatical. Fear is not the way to approach any relationship. Is there any rational political grouping on the face of the Earth that doesn't realize that the US has the technical capability to bomb them to oblivian? What they want most to know, is that we won't. Our response to 9-11 gave many that comfort. Our response to Iraq removed it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861
Time Trapper
|
Time Trapper
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861 |
Frog Kid, i am pulling this up from memory but around ten years or so ago france had some serious troubles with terrorist attacks in Paris. In order to stop them, instead of tracking them down they used a policy of appeasement, and if i remember correctly, in a few cases actively resisted the transfer of captured terrorists to other nations for trial. A websearch should give you more information. Hope this helps, i am not to web savy.
Cobalt, no problem. After looking at it as objectively as possible, it would be easy to read that into it. All i can say is that when called on something, i will answer as honestly as possible and state my case as i wrote it. Like i said, I like SoM. He seems like a good guy. I don't hold differences in politics as a reason to dislike someone. Others may, i don't.
Quislet, I dont' hold with that either. It isn't one of the things i agree with the conservative side about. I believe in the right and duty to question my government by anyone that votes, that is involved in the running of our country. And even those that don't vote, such as children, etc...
And the outrage is right here. I don't hold with that either. But this isn't about those countries, its about Iraq. And yes, i do want to see america address this problem. But as much as we might like it, there are only so many things we can do at once.
Damn you, you kids! Get off my lawn or I'm callin' tha cops!
Something pithy!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 267
Active
|
Active
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 267 |
Originally posted by rickshaw1: Frog Kid, i am pulling this up from memory but around ten years or so ago france had some serious troubles with terrorist attacks in Paris. In order to stop them, instead of tracking them down they used a policy of appeasement, and if i remember correctly, in a few cases actively resisted the transfer of captured terrorists to other nations for trial. A websearch should give you more information. Hope this helps, i am not to web savy. Ok I think I know what you're talking about! In fact, the problem I know is with the UK; IIRC the man believed to be the leader of the terrorists live in England. The various French Governments asked many time for this guy to be transfered, but the UK refuses even today. I'll look if my governement did the same think with others terrorists...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861
Time Trapper
|
Time Trapper
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861 |
Block, we took down an administration that was a threat to several other countries in the region. We used technology to minimalize the impact to non-combatants as much as currently possible. If we were the villians they like to paint, we would not have respected turkeys' telling us we couldn't use their country.
And yes, sometimes the best way to talk to a bully is to stand in front of him and say "No." Not to beg him to understand that you don't want him to do something, but to say "Here we are, take your shot, then, we take ours."
And i am not convinced that asking a homicidal maniac to not kill anymore people, to give up power would cause him to do that. I do not think that millions of people should be deprived of food, a chance to earn a decent living, etc... for years on end would work to deter someone that has shown he is more than willing to kill them himself.
Again, reality has to come into play at some point. Hussein was a homicidal con man who mastered the stall, all the while continuing to murder, rape, steal, and butcher.
America is a republic, and our chosen representatives made a choice. They voted to back the president. Not everyone agreed, but the choice was made.
Damn you, you kids! Get off my lawn or I'm callin' tha cops!
Something pithy!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,181
Wanderer
|
Wanderer
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,181 |
Originally posted by rickshaw1: Global Harmony? Couldn't care less about that. Nations have disagreed and will disagree to the end of man.
You and I have different priorities. And that's okay. It takes both idealists and realists to keep this country running.
White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,181
Wanderer
|
Wanderer
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,181 |
Originally posted by rickshaw1: Look, many of you will hate the admin for simply existing, i understand that. I hated the Clinton admin for existing. It was an embarrasement to have an obvious con man and his wife running the country to me. And i base this on his campaign for presidency, before he EVER became president. But, i honestly and fairly try to look at what took place. Just as i do the Bush administration. I wont take a political bullet for Bush either. He has made mistakes. The education bill, the healthcare bill. Giving in on other things. But to just blindly hate and spew "Well, i think the admin didn't do a good job planning the war..." without giving a REASON as to why is ridiculas.
I've never hated the administration for simply existing. And I really don't appreciate hearing the words "blindly hate and spew" thrown my way, either. Makes me not want to participate in this conversation anymore. If we could leave Bill O'Reilly on Fox News and not bring him with us to the Legion board, that would be great.
White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861
Time Trapper
|
Time Trapper
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861 |
Kid, i don't watch bill oreilly, and i wasn't neccessairly (SP?, im off today) directing that comment at you. I have heard it many many times over the last few weeks, the main ones being Gephardt and Dean. Their thing is he didn't do a good job planning the war, yada yada yada, and yet all the dire predictions they based this on have fallen flat. Or that we needed "x" nation in on it when that very nation was illegally dealing with Iraq. They through the accusations out parroting the lines and yet when you ask for specifics, there are none.
Thats what i was referenceing, Kid. And yeah, thats why i asked for specifics. I can't rebut, or offer a different view, if i don't know what the arguement is beyond the most vague of soundbites.
Damn you, you kids! Get off my lawn or I'm callin' tha cops!
Something pithy!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030
strange but not a stranger
|
strange but not a stranger
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030 |
Originally posted by rickshaw1: Block, we took down an administration that was a threat to several other countries in the region. We used technology to minimalize the impact to non-combatants as much as currently possible. If we were the villians they like to paint, we would not have respected turkeys' telling us we couldn't use their country.
Given that Saddam was a threat to the other countries in that area (and his war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait are good indicators that he was a threat) I don't remember those countries coming to the US and asking for our help in removing Saddam. And from their point of view (my own assumption), the US now poses an equal threat to their countries as Saddam did (if not more of a threat) How people perceive things affects how they respond to it. Just saying that we removed a threat to the area doesn't mean that the people in that area see it as we do. The fact that we minimized th eimpact to non-combatants as much as possible, means little to the relatives of those killed.
Big Dog! Big Dog! Bow Wow Wow!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861
Time Trapper
|
Time Trapper
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,861 |
it may mean little to them, true. And no one is saying it wasn't lamentable or regretable. But consider this...
The insurgents from other countries have now killed how many with suicide bombings, etc... ? That amount, comibined with the amount accidentally killed in the war is still less than the amount killed in one year on average by saddam. And other countries see us as a threat. yes, thats true. And they saw us as a threat before the war. And even if we had sat on our hands and done nothing they would consider us a threat. Why? Because we are a large, rich, powerful nation. England considers us a threat in ways. Spain does. Italy does. Poland does. Every country in the world does. Just as average ordinary citizens consider police a threat. And like it or not, we are the policemen of the world. the UNITED NATIONS has seen to that by calling us in in every conflict they have failed to handle.
Tell you what. Why don't you get a copy of the speach by the new mayor of baghdad i think it is to the UN today. Read or listen or see and hear what he had to say about them. How they failed the people of Iraq. How they let thousands be murdered while they sat in nice safe comfort in new york and played games with their lives. Read the kay report, i think it is, on his wmd programs. View footage of the mass graves.
You can't let fear of the possible outweigh whats right to do. If nothing else, go and read FDR's speeches about confronting nazism. Oh, and no, those other countries didn't call us in. Now, ask yourself why totalitarian governments wouldn't want a democratic government for the people, and not their own personal ruling houses, to gain a foothold in the middle east.
We have more freedom here in the US than in any other country in the world. Read the way some people are punished over there for infractions here that would get a slap on the wrist. Read about how a 13 year old girl, raped, is taken out and stoned for having premarital sex. remember, she was raped. Now, imagine it was your sister.
Do you think the people of Iraq to be less than us? That it is okay for a mass murdering rapist to ruin thousands of lives each year? Sorry, i can easily stand a few million guys to be ticked off that their misogynistic playhouse be upset. Doesn't bother me one little bit.
You? Cause that is what would have been left in place. Like it or not.
Damn you, you kids! Get off my lawn or I'm callin' tha cops!
Something pithy!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 765
Active
|
Active
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 765 |
The question was raised earlier if we should feel safer now that Hussein is now out of power. Well, yes I do feel safer. No, I'm not getting more sleep than I did before the war started, nor do I feel brave enough to walk down Eight Mile Rd. at 2 in the morning. But as long as our rebuilding efort strive to give Iraq a stable environment I do feel that the potential for further conflict in the Middle East has decreased. A potential match has been removed from a barrel of gun powder. While I hate to see any of our soldiers lose their lives in battle, I would much rather have to fight this battle now than fight a larger one down the road. The question of the existence of WMD's was not even an issue before the war started. It was Hussein's lack of cooperation with inspectors that led to the war. We know he had weapons that he was told not to have. We now have evidence that programs were in existence that would have multiplied his arsenal if time allowed him to develop those programs.
So here's a few questions for those who were against the war - 1. How long should we have let Hussein violate UN treaties before we had to take action? Some sort of retaliation had to take place sometime. It was not a matter of IF but WHEN. So what would have been a more acceptable timeframe for you?
2. Were trade sanctions really an effective deterrent against Hussein's violations? Who was really being harmed the most by these sanctions? Who was really being helped by the UN-sponsored "Oil for Food" programs?
3. How many people have now lived at least ten months longer than they would have if we had pursued a multilateral approach and a longer, more forgiving timetable to coerce Hussein to comply with UN resolutions?
4. What kind of conditions do our soldiers really face each day? Remember that we have 150,000 troops in Iraq. Estimates conclude that the ratio of attacks to soldiers is about 1:10,000, so constant battles are NOT the norm over there. Are they under fire at times? Yes. Are they trained to face these situations? Why else would they be in the army?
5. Finally, what would Iraq be like if our troops pulled out early and left the job of rebuilding to the UN? see Kosovo (still can't get much electrical power over there and its been over four years since that conflict ended) and North Korea (been fifty years since that conflict ended and I don't see them cozying up to us anytime soon).
So what war our alternative to war? Isolationism? We've tried that before and it just doesn't work. Would you truly feel any safer if we had done everything the UN's way?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030
strange but not a stranger
|
strange but not a stranger
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030 |
Originally posted by Super Lad Kid:
So here's a few questions for those who were against the war - 1. How long should we have let Hussein violate UN treaties before we had to take action? Some sort of retaliation had to take place sometime. It was not a matter of IF but WHEN. So what would have been a more acceptable timeframe for you?
2. Were trade sanctions really an effective deterrent against Hussein's violations? Who was really being harmed the most by these sanctions? Who was really being helped by the UN-sponsored "Oil for Food" programs?
3. How many people have now lived at least ten months longer than they would have if we had pursued a multilateral approach and a longer, more forgiving timetable to coerce Hussein to comply with UN resolutions?
4. What kind of conditions do our soldiers really face each day? Remember that we have 150,000 troops in Iraq. Estimates conclude that the ratio of attacks to soldiers is about 1:10,000, so constant battles are NOT the norm over there. Are they under fire at times? Yes. Are they trained to face these situations? Why else would they be in the army?
5. Finally, what would Iraq be like if our troops pulled out early and left the job of rebuilding to the UN? see Kosovo (still can't get much electrical power over there and its been over four years since that conflict ended) and North Korea (been fifty years since that conflict ended and I don't see them cozying up to us anytime soon).
So what war our alternative to war? Isolationism? We've tried that before and it just doesn't work. Would you truly feel any safer if we had done everything the UN's way? These are only my opinions 1)A more acceptable time would have been when the UN agreed that intervention was necessary. Or at least when there was a great concensus rather that what appeared to be the US saying "now is the time and that's all there is to it!" The main argument from the Bush White House was that Saddam had this huge stockpile of weapons that he could use on us at a moments notice. I still have not seen that this was the case. 2) Would the trade sanctions have worked? I don't know and lean towards that they would not have gotten Saddam out of power. That still doesn't mean that I have to support this war. There is the argument that the trade sanctions did weaken Iraq which would have made it easier to conquer it. 3)This question does not have any bearing on whether we should have gone to war or not. These are hypothetical people. If the reason for the Iraqi war is solely that Saddam was killing his own people, then there are other countries that we should be going into right now to stop the same thing. There were real people who have died because the war was started when it did. 4)Again this question has no bearing on whether we should have gone to war or not. 5) No bearing to whether we should have gone to war in the first place. I do agree that now that we are there and have destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure, we have an obligation to rebuild it. What were our options to war? Probably in the long run there wasn't any. However that still doesn't change the fact that the reasons given for the war were not valid reasons. And given what our country is supposed to stand for and our military might, we need to makes sure that the reasons we go to war are unquestionable. As for whether I would have felt safer if we hadn't gone to war. Probably. Before the war you had some people in the Middle East saying "The US is out to get us" I imagine that most people in the Middle East would have thought "OK that is possible, but show us your proof" Now we have provided the proof by invading a sovereign nation on questionable reasons. According to the American Bar Association's Canons of Ethics, it is not enough not to not behave with impropriety, but you need to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I believe that the US needs to avoid the appearance of impropriety in dealing with other nations.
Big Dog! Big Dog! Bow Wow Wow!
|
|
|
Forums14
Topics21,080
Posts1,051,218
Legionnaires1,732
|
Most Online53,886 Jan 7th, 2024
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
Posts: 25
Joined: July 2004
|
|
|
|