Skip to content

War - is it worth it?

Archived

120 replies · 2,838 views

This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.

McDermott wrote: "I believe the Secretary of State made a presuasive argument at the UN connecting Iraq and Al-Queda."

I don't think so. What part specifically are you saying establishes such a connection ?

"My time frame is not contrived. Iraq has been violating UN resolutions since before the ink was dry on them."

I'm well aware of the resolutions, etc.

"How, exactly, are all the "common folk" affording the cost of travel, lodging and time away from work in order to be human sheilds? How are they all just happening to arrive at the same time? I think the money trail would be interesting to follow."

I doubt it would be nearly as interesting as you are imagining. Some people put their money where their mouth is, and it wouldn't take that much to get over there. But, by all means, go ahead and launch an investigation, maybe you'll learn something.

"If memory serves, the United States was not in violation of any resolution handed down by a world body."

So what ? I'm sure the Japanese thought they had good reasons, but it really doesn't matter what the motivation behind a bomb is, at least not if you're underneath it.

"Furthermore, Japan DID act unilaterally, whereas the United States, if it comes to war, will not."

This remains to be seen

"I too fear what the North Korea will do. Again, it is a direct result of the inability of the UN to enforce it's own resolutions. It is also a direct result of our previous administration following the exact course you seek with Iraq."

What are you talking about ? Our intelligence found out about these nukes within the past few months. Kind of hard to blame that one on Clinton, although I realize that it's something that you have to try to do "for dear life".

0 likes

Originally posted by teleharmonium

What are you talking about ? Our intelligence found out about these nukes within the past few months. Kind of hard to blame that one on Clinton, although I realize that it's something that you have to try to do "for dear life".

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/21/183623.shtml

"The Clinton administration's 1994 agreement placed the Yongbyon and Taechon reactors under supposed monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency in exchange for shipments of heavy fuel oil and assistance in constructing a light-water nuclear reactor."

I'm sure the Clinton administration was assured by the Dear Leader that they'd NEVER build a nuke from the material they made at their reactors. Just like Saddam had passed a decry a few days ago outlawing WMD's inside Iraq.

0 likes

Those aren't weapons, they are nuclear power facilities like many countries have. The US doesn't decide who gets to have nuclear technology in general. You are deliberately distorting the issue.

0 likes

this war is typical of US leaders. they help putting presidents all around the world in order to keep their influences intact and their business relationships fluid. but eventually these characters turn their back to the US because they find out they aren´t useful anymore. so they start making noise. examples? quite a few. they needed saddam to fight komeini, bin laden to fight the russians out of afghanistan, militars in southamerica to "clean" up the countries of "left" sympathizers, etc. all those became useless since US achieved its goals. so no more help for them, no more money, no more promises of leaderships, etc. and when you give weapons to fight your enemy, once there is no enemy that weapons could be used against anyone. that "anyone" is the US because now they hate US because promises were broken or whatever. so I blame US leaders first. they started the fire. and now they want to fight the fire with gasoline! because we´re not naive. we know they want to control all the oil they can. look what happened in Venezuela (the third productor of oil worldwide) a couple of months ago. they tried to bring their president down in order to take control of the state oil company by a muppet supported by US government. yes! the US leaders! there´s democracy on venezuela, they voted for chavez for good or for bad. let the venezuelans decide for their own. I won´t defend chavez as I won´t defend bin laden or saddam. but I´m pretty tired of US leaders first. I don´t know why. maybe it´s because more than 20 million people are under the line of poberty in my country and all because of the foreign politics of the US goverments over the years. maybe if they start being more "human" with the world then all the world would start being more "human" too for the US. but since they don´t care about what happens outside their frontiers but only to make businesses... let me explain myself when I say "being human". I don´t know if the US people knows that all around the world millions of people smiled when they first saw the twin towers burn. I mean, the first image of US pretentious behaviour hurted. of course it was just a second and then everyone started to think and care about inoccent people that were in the towers. and that was painful and horrible and unfair and sad. but I would challenge anyone outside the US to say he didn´t think about "well, finally they messed so much with the world that the world now is messing with them" when first seeing the tv images. and this is for the US people, this is the image you give to the world, this is the rage you produce almost everywhere when anyone talks about "americans". because american foreign politics kills millions of people of hunger all around the world every year. realise that! and I know US leaders are NOT the US people and I don´t want anyone to die. but the leaders are the image of an entire society. you can change it if you care. it´s all up to you, guys.

0 likes

The US is a democratic republic.....does that mean the people are gonna have a vote whether we go to war? I certainly know that it's not gonna happen over here, it doesn't matter how many people go on the marches, the UK and US governments couldn't give a flying fuck. As for the ease bit that was mentioned, I am in total agreement. It looks more and more likely that France, Belgium and Germany will back down on their stance, and thus give the green light for war.....but if they do stick with the veto, America and Britain will pile in anyway, I believe this as a certainty, and shows the ease by which was mentioned, yes they've held back, but let's face it, we all knew it was gonna end up as a war.

0 likes

Originally posted by ShugZV©
The US is a democratic republic.....does that mean the people are gonna have a vote whether we go to war?I certainly know that it's not gonna happen over here, it doesn't matter how many people go on the marches, the UK and US governments couldn't give a flying fuck.As for the ease bit that was mentioned, I am in total agreement. It looks more and more likely that France, Belgium and Germany will back down on their stance, and thus give the green light for war.....but if they do stick with the veto, America and Britain will pile in anyway, I believe this as a certainty, and shows the ease by which was mentioned, yes they've held back, but let's face it, we all knew it was gonna end up as a war.

Shug,

No, having a democratic republic does not mean that there will be a nation wide referundem on the issue.

On the national level, having a democratic republic means electing senators (2 for each state) and representatives to the U.S. House (allotment based on the states population). Each member of the house is elected from a specific district within a state. The senators are voted on state wide. And so it goes from state to local politics.

In almost every instance, most major legislation or policy decision is made within the elected bodies. However, there are some issues that are put to state wide referendum. Petitions must be obtained to have them put on the ballot.

One note on protests. It seems that there is great consternation among the anti-war crowd that the government is not listening to them. That, by their sheer numbers, they should hold sway over elected officials.

Let's do a little math: for the sake of argument, let's say that the total amount of protesters that have shown up for the major events in the U.S. has been five million folks. That's probably generous by a factor of two or three, but we'll go with it. The United States has an estimated population of 280 million people. That means, with my VERY generous people count, that less than two percent of the population of the United States has chosen to take to the streets and protest. Now, this does not take into account the phone calls, letters and emails that anti-war prosters send to Washington.

However, I'll tell you what is not taken into account by the protesters: the phone calls, letters and emails that are sent to Washington SUPPORTING the presidents policy on Iraq. In addition, many people agree with the president that the safety of the citizens of the United States will not rest in the hands of those whose economic interests would undermine our national security.

0 likes

MacDermott wrote: "In addition, many people agree with the president that the safety of the citizens of the United States will not rest in the hands of those whose economic interests would undermine our national security."

Bush said that ? If that were true, he would have to recuse himself and let Congress decide. With their lengthy and substantial ties to the oil, oil processing and defense industries, GWB and his administration are among those that have the most economic interest in the Iraq issue as a whole. Cheney in particular profited probably more than any other individual from the last little shindig in Iraq, he was the first US businessman to go back to Kuwait (for Harken) to sell them new pumps and processing equipment to replace those that Saddam blew up (big dollars). No need to worry about the business side of things though, those people know just how to rake in the cash, and they don't care where it comes from. For example, Cheney was dealing with Iraq until just before the Kuwait invasion, but he needed government loan guarantees in order to deliver the huge amount of stuff that Saddam wanted. No problem if you have the connections: James Baker personally worked with Tariq Aziz (a name you may recognize) and got uncle sam to cosign in 10/89. I guess Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other members of that presidential admin as well as the current one didn't think Saddam was such a bad guy then, eh ? Of course, after the war started the loans defaulted, so the USA taxpayers ended up financing Saddam's oil rigs along with Cheney's commission (total in the ballpark of 2 billion USD). Makes you wonder what kind of damage these guys could do if they were running the Federal Reserve. Naturally Cheney came out ahead, not only on that score, but he also conveniently sold his Harken stock a couple of months before the invasion, which roughly coincided with Harken reporting huge losses (which would of course taken a heavy toll on his stocks, if he had still had them), something he refuses to discuss with the SEC to this day.

0 likes

Originally posted by teleharmonium MacDermott wrote: "In addition, many people agree with the president that the safety of the citizens of the United States will not rest in the hands of those whose economic interests would undermine our national security."Bush said that ? If that were true, he would have to recuse himself and let Congress decide. With their lengthy and substantial ties to the oil, oil processing and defense industries, GWB and his administration are among those that have the most economic interest in the Iraq issue as a whole. Cheney in particular profited probably more than any other individual from the last little shindig in Iraq, he was the first US businessman to go back to Kuwait (for Harken) to sell them new pumps and processing equipment to replace those that Saddam blew up (big dollars).No need to worry about the business side of things though, those people know just how to rake in the cash, and they don't care where it comes from. For example, Cheney was dealing with Iraq until just before the Kuwait invasion, but he needed government loan guarantees in order to deliver the huge amount of stuff that Saddam wanted. No problem if you have the connections: James Baker personally worked with Tariq Aziz (a name you may recognize) and got uncle sam to cosign in 10/89. I guess Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other members of that presidential admin as well as the current one didn't think Saddam was such a bad guy then, eh ? Of course, after the war started the loans defaulted, so the USA taxpayers ended up financing Saddam's oil rigs along with Cheney's commission (total in the ballpark of 2 billion USD). Makes you wonder what kind of damage these guys could do if they were running the Federal Reserve.Naturally Cheney came out ahead, not only on that score, but he also conveniently sold his Harken stock a couple of months before the invasion, which roughly coincided with Harken reporting huge losses (which would of course taken a heavy toll on his stocks, if he had still had them), something he refuses to discuss with the SEC to this day.

Oh goodness....

GWB did not say that. I was paraphrasing the opinion expressed by many ( that our "friends" on the UN security council just might be acting more out concern for their own pocket books than for the long suffering women and children of Iraq) and allued to by the president when he says that at the end of the day he hopes our "allies" will do the right thing.

I would certainly like to see your source material on the rip job you did on the vice president.

As far as dealing with Saddam when he was fighting Iran, here we go again, just for you.....: the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Foreign policy is not conducted in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class.

0 likes

McDermott wrote: "I would certainly like to see your source material on the rip job you did on the vice president."

I'll bet you would. If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger. Weren't you the guy that was preaching to me a few threads back about what you claimed were liberal tactics of doing exactly that ? I've heard of Cheney's Harken days many times and did a quick google search on it to make sure what I heard was correct about part of it, and I found more than I expected. Go see for yourself, I gave you enough specifics. Of course, sources for information like that are not likely to be found in far right mouthpiece publications, and you can't get it from the horse's mouth since Cheney won't talk about it even to people whose job it is to oversee such matters for the government, so in your terminology they come from the 'liberal media'. By the way, Bush himself also sold his Harken stock around the same time Cheney did, I'm sure you've heard of that. Both of them failed to notify the SEC of their sales until months afterward, breaking the deadline to do so.

"As far as dealing with Saddam when he was fighting Iran, here we go again, just for you.....: the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Foreign policy is not conducted in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class. "

nice condescending attitude; FYI the Iran Iraq war ended in August '88, while the Harken deals in question were in '90. Care to try again ?

0 likes

Originally posted by teleharmonium McDermott wrote: "I would certainly like to see your source material on the rip job you did on the vice president."I'll bet you would. If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger. Weren't you the guy that was preaching to me a few threads back about what you claimed were liberal tactics of doing exactly that ? I've heard of Cheney's Harken days many times and did a quick google search on it to make sure what I heard was correct about part of it, and I found more than I expected. Go see for yourself, I gave you enough specifics. Of course, sources for information like that are not likely to be found in far right mouthpiece publications, and you can't get it from the horse's mouth since Cheney won't talk about it even to people whose job it is to oversee such matters for the government, so in your terminology they come from the 'liberal media'. By the way, Bush himself also sold his Harken stock around the same time Cheney did, I'm sure you've heard of that. Both of them failed to notify the SEC of their sales until months afterward, breaking the deadline to do so. "As far as dealing with Saddam when he was fighting Iran, here we go again, just for you.....: the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Foreign policy is not conducted in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class. "nice condescending attitude; FYI the Iran Iraq war ended in August '88, while the Harken deals in question were in '90.Care to try again ?

Would I care to try again? Certainly:

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/97-0601K.htm

"The Iran-Iraq War ended in 1989 after nearly eight years of bloodshed. "

I fear that you protest too much concerning my "attack" of you as messenger.............

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Shug,No, having a democratic republic does not mean that there will be a nation wide referundem on the issue.On the national level, having a democratic republic means electing senators (2 for each state) and representatives to the U.S. House (allotment based on the states population). Each member of the house is elected from a specific district within a state. The senators are voted on state wide. And so it goes from state to local politics. In almost every instance, most major legislation or policy decision is made within the elected bodies. However, there are some issues that are put to state wide referendum. Petitions must be obtained to have them put on the ballot.One note on protests. It seems that there is great consternation among the anti-war crowd that the government is not listening to them. That, by their sheer numbers, they should hold sway over elected officials.Let's do a little math: for the sake of argument, let's say that the total amount of protesters that have shown up for the major events in the U.S. has been five million folks. That's probably generous by a factor of two or three, but we'll go with it. The United States has an estimated population of 280 million people. That means, with my VERY generous people count, that less than two percent of the population of the United States has chosen to take to the streets and protest. Now, this does not take into account the phone calls, letters and emails that anti-war prosters send to Washington. However, I'll tell you what is not taken into account by the protesters: the phone calls, letters and emails that are sent to Washington SUPPORTING the presidents policy on Iraq. In addition, many people agree with the president that the safety of the citizens of the United States will not rest in the hands of those whose economic interests would undermine our national security

I´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

0 likes

Originally posted by almansoI´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

0 likes

MacDermott wrote: "Would I care to try again? Certainly:

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/97-0601K.htm

"The Iran-Iraq War ended in 1989 after nearly eight years of bloodshed. ""

that's interesting, because on the same website, you'll find the following:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

"The Iran-Iraq war lasted nearly eight years, from September of 1980 until August of 1988. It ended when Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire. "

..........

"I fear that you protest too much concerning my "attack" of you as messenger............."

Fine, you can have at it with the many media sources of that information, as I indicated. A good place to start is the Columbia Journalism Review which has a page online with detailed notes on all of the contemporary coverage of that particular piece of Cheney business and a lot more that I didn't get into. It's all grouped together as 'Iraqgate'.

0 likes

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by almansoI´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

Presumably ancient Greece doesn't count as a democracy, in spite of their articulated democratic ideals, because they were a slave-holding society and slaves did not have the vote. Now the early US on the other hand...oh...er...hang on a moment...

0 likes

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by almansoI´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

I'm sorry but the claim that the US 'invented democracy' is simply rubbish.

As a concept it had been around for millenia, back to ancient Greece as you mention (and possibly also in Buddist parts of northern India)

Even in practice the US was not particularly ahead of the rest of the world in introducing the concept. The Britain that the US gained independence from was moderately democratic itself, and post-independence US was not fully democratic either (e.g. the slaves and women). Democracy is a concept that has slowly evolved and developed right across the world, the US has no special claim to have 'invented it'.

Women in the US did not get the vote till the 1920s, later than many other countries, e.g. the UK 1918, New Zealand 1893 etc. The 'Jim Crow laws' prevented many black americans from voting long after the abolition of slavery.

0 likes

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by almansoI´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

first I´m not insulting THE democracy. I´m insulting the fact that the US internal democracy leads us all to a war. but there´re many ways of democracy: US democracy is sustained by economic values. they way of thinking and living is far away from what, let´s say, spain and argentina. and I say these countries because we have a history in common, probably the same values and thoughts even though we´re different in many ways. what do we have in common to the USA?!?!?!? absolutely nothing. but in spite of that our leaders usually wants to follow them everywhere they go. and now to a war. as for the "US invented democracy"... I won´t fight with you about this because I´m fond of you Budvar. but I´m only saying this: if they say "jump off a building" would you do that? because that´s what they saying. and, last, for the "Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie" I wonder if you are that naive to think they sent them because their belief in democracy! they send them because they wanted to be on war, because is a country that is economically based on wars, because that´s how they sustent their way of life. tell me, why always the US is involved on wars all around the world? because of democracy? please! just remember who they always send to war: black people, latinos, other minorities and THEN some white americans. because they always thought there´re first class citizens and second class citizens and always will no matter what they say. what a good democracy! I don´t want to be part of it.

0 likes

Originally posted by almanso > Originally posted by Budvar Huber> > > > Originally posted by almanso> tell me, why always the US is involved on wars all around the world? because of democracy? please! just remember who they always send to war: black people, latinos, other minorities and THEN some white americans. because they always thought there´re first class citizens and second class citizens and always will no matter what they say. what a good democracy! I don´t want to be part of it.

You should check your facts about just what race will be on the front lines.

When the racist congressman from New York, Charles Rangle, initially introduced legislation to bring back the draft, he did it on the grounds that it was to insure that minorities were not over represented on the front lines. Well, USA TODAY (of all publications) did a little article about how over 90% of the frontline infantryman, pilots, tank drivers etc. are European-American. They went on to talk about how most black recruits chose rear echelon positions which, in most cases, would provide them with a marketable skill after their service in the military. So, you can put the race card back in the deck........ It will mostly be white folks that are put in harm's way.

0 likes

MacDermott wrote: "Would I care to try again? Certainly:

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/97-0601K.htm

"The Iran-Iraq War ended in 1989 after nearly eight years of bloodshed. ""

Of course, regardless of which of these dates is accurate, either way that war was over before the Cheney/Harken deal with Saddam, so your excuse doesn't work, and there's just no way to spin it to save face for the Bush/Cheney crowd. Either they knew damn well Saddam was "evil" in 1990 and gave government backing to the loan anyway so Cheney and GWB could make a bunch of money, which is extremely unethical on several levels, or else they thought Saddam was peachy keen in '90 - (several years AFTER the gassing of the Kurds, which was reported worldwide at the time) - meaning that the current characterization of Saddam as having been evil for a long time and their stance as the war being some kind of humanitarian mission is crafted political speak that they don't really believe, particularly them bringing up the gassing of the Kurds as justification. Or both.

0 likes

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by almanso > Originally posted by Budvar Huber> > > > Originally posted by almanso> tell me, why always the US is involved on wars all around the world? because of democracy? please! just remember who they always send to war: black people, latinos, other minorities and THEN some white americans. because they always thought there´re first class citizens and second class citizens and always will no matter what they say. what a good democracy! I don´t want to be part of it.

You should check your facts about just what race will be on the front lines.

When the racist congressman from New York, Charles Rangle, initially introduced legislation to bring back the draft, he did it on the grounds that it was to insure that minorities were not over represented on the front lines. Well, USA TODAY (of all publications) did a little article about how over 90% of the frontline infantryman, pilots, tank drivers etc. are European-American. They went on to talk about how most black recruits chose rear echelon positions which, in most cases, would provide them with a marketable skill after their service in the military. So, you can put the race card back in the deck........ It will mostly be white folks that are put in harm's way.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PRDraft103.html

"Department of Defense figures dispute the claim by Rangel plan supporters that minorities would suffer a disproportionate number of frontline casualties in an Iraqi conflict. While 20 percent of soldiers are African-American, only 10.6 percent of the Army's combat infantry is black. Black personnel also are underrepresented as pilots and in high-risk commando units.

Military sociologist Charles Moskos told USA Today: "If anybody should be complaining about battlefield deaths, it is poor, rural whites." As for the class disparity, Hoover Institution research fellow Stanley Kurtz points out that liberal opposition to JROTC and ROTC presence in high schools and colleges since the Vietnam era has led to fewer college graduates considering the military as a career option.

A 1997 survey of 76,000 servicemen found that minority soldiers had an overwhelmingly positive view of race relations in the military. Over one-third believed conditions in the military were better than in the civilian world. Good race relations are an important factor in ensuring troops' combat readiness."

0 likes

Originally posted by 404 error **> Originally posted by Budvar Huber> > > > Originally posted by almanso>**I´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

I'm sorry but the claim that the US 'invented democracy' is simply rubbish.

As a concept it had been around for millenia, back to ancient Greece as you mention (and possibly also in Buddist parts of northern India)

Even in practice the US was not particularly ahead of the rest of the world in introducing the concept. The Britain that the US gained independence from was moderately democratic itself, and post-independence US was not fully democratic either (e.g. the slaves and women). Democracy is a concept that has slowly evolved and developed right across the world, the US has no special claim to have 'invented it'.

Women in the US did not get the vote till the 1920s, later than many other countries, e.g. the UK 1918, New Zealand 1893 etc. The 'Jim Crow laws' prevented many black americans from voting long after the abolition of slavery.

No it's not. I said that the Greeks had put the idea forward, and then French encyclopedists and English (and Scottish!) philosophers gave it shape but the first Democracy was the US. Of course it did not start as a perfect entity. Complete from minute one. It took years to develop the concept and I am sure you'll agree with me it is not perfect yet. The huge influence in the outcome of the funds raised by the candidates and the distorting power of the media spring to mind. The fact remains, though, that US democracy became a new landmark in its development and started acting as a beacon for democratic movements all the world over.

0 likes

Originally posted by almanso **> Originally posted by Budvar Huber> > > > Originally posted by almanso>**I´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

first I´m not insulting THE democracy. I´m insulting the fact that the US internal democracy leads us all to a war. but there´re many ways of democracy: US democracy is sustained by economic values. they way of thinking and living is far away from what, let´s say, spain and argentina. and I say these countries because we have a history in common, probably the same values and thoughts even though we´re different in many ways. what do we have in common to the USA?!?!?!? absolutely nothing. but in spite of that our leaders usually wants to follow them everywhere they go. and now to a war. as for the "US invented democracy"... I won´t fight with you about this because I´m fond of you Budvar. but I´m only saying this: if they say "jump off a building" would you do that? because that´s what they saying. and, last, for the "Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie" I wonder if you are that naive to think they sent them because their belief in democracy! they send them because they wanted to be on war, because is a country that is economically based on wars, because that´s how they sustent their way of life. tell me, why always the US is involved on wars all around the world? because of democracy? please! just remember who they always send to war: black people, latinos, other minorities and THEN some white americans. because they always thought there´re first class citizens and second class citizens and always will no matter what they say. what a good democracy! I don´t want to be part of it.

Alejo, of course we are not fighting here. We can have different opinions on a number of questions and remain friendly. I do respect your views and I'll happily stand corrected if you prove to me that I am wrong. Anyway I do not think that our positions are that dissimilar. I am sure that we can find a common base for both of us.

1-Democracy is better than tirany. Always. For everyone. 2-Prosperity is better than scarcity. 3-More freedom is better than less freedom.

See...we agree on the basis. 95% of what we think is exactly the same and we only disagree on a mere 5%. It would be quite ridiculous to get too worked up over that meagre 5%.

Once said that I must admit that I am naive enough to think that the US went into the II World War impelled by a sense of duty towards Democracy and towards its allies, namely Great Britain. What was the economic advantage to be gained from entering the war? US could have remained sitting on the fence, selling to both combatants, basking in the anticipation of the rewards to be got from post war reconstruction. From a solely economic point of view there was no gain in getting in at that point still very much undecided war.

0 likes

The big economic and political interest for the US to enter the war in Europe was to stop communism from becoming the main force in Europe. Don't get me wrong; I am glad it happened and that I am now one of the couple of hundred million people in the world living in a democracy. I'm not saying it's purely selfish motives that drives the US foreign policy. But the US has supported various very undemocratic regimes over the years when it considers that to be the best way to protect its interests.

0 likes

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by 404 error

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by almansoI´m sorry but I didn´t vote for US senators. neither did all citizens worldwide but only americans. even though a war would affect everyone. so let me ask you where did you read that USA control the world and its citizens and decide what´s good or bad for anyone? please answer that because being the major country economically or military speaking doesn´t mean you could decide killing millions of people. there´re people just like you everywhere around the world and you don´t have the right to decide that. SPECIALLY when the US motivation for this war is so plain to see: oil. so fook your democracy. this is the world we´re talking about and not Texas. USA IS NOT THE WORLD!!!! realise that, please, for once. peace!

Alejo, before insulting US democracy please remember that US invented Democracy, the Greeks put forward the notion and the French and the English developed it but Democracy as we know it today was truly born in the US. Then they proceeded to save it for us in succesive World Wars. If not for the US, Europe now would be either a Nazi Farm or a Communist Gulag. Probably both. If the US then had not pondered and I quote you "what´s good or bad for anyone" and agreed that Democracy is good and tirany is evil for everyone we would all be slaves by now. While the French were happily cooperating with the Nazis, (how many Petains and Miterrands to a De Gaulle, then?) the Americans were sending their sons to be slaughtered in the beaches of Normandie. While the Italians were playing second fiddle to Hitler, the US were keeping England on foot with supplies and loans.

You are of course entitled to your views and I do not discuss them, just stop to consider waht I wrote before badmouthing US democracy, that is, our Democracy. The one they do not have in Iraq. Un abrazo, Alejo.

I'm sorry but the claim that the US 'invented democracy' is simply rubbish.

As a concept it had been around for millenia, back to ancient Greece as you mention (and possibly also in Buddist parts of northern India)

Even in practice the US was not particularly ahead of the rest of the world in introducing the concept. The Britain that the US gained independence from was moderately democratic itself, and post-independence US was not fully democratic either (e.g. the slaves and women). Democracy is a concept that has slowly evolved and developed right across the world, the US has no special claim to have 'invented it'.

Women in the US did not get the vote till the 1920s, later than many other countries, e.g. the UK 1918, New Zealand 1893 etc. The 'Jim Crow laws' prevented many black americans from voting long after the abolition of slavery.

No it's not. I said that the Greeks had put the idea forward, and then French encyclopedists and English (and Scottish!) philosophers gave it shape but the first Democracy was the US. Of course it did not start as a perfect entity. Complete from minute one. It took years to develop the concept and I am sure you'll agree with me it is not perfect yet. The huge influence in the outcome of the funds raised by the candidates and the distorting power of the media spring to mind. The fact remains, though, that US democracy became a new landmark in its development and started acting as a beacon for democratic movements all the world over.

While I regret putting the point quite so harshly (this being a more light'n'fluffy forum than a hardcore vicious political one) I still see absolutely no reason to single out the US version of democracy for any special credit. US democracy was indeed 'imperfect' at the start, as was that of the UK it broke from. Both countries, and much of the rest of the world, have moved gradually in the direction of democracy. The creation of the US did not represent any qualitive leap in that process, and indeed the US was slightly behind some other countries.

There's no possible basis for declaring it to be the 'first democracy'. Blacks did not have the vote, nor did women, nor did the poor - in that respect it was scarcely any more democratic than parts of the rest of the world at that time. Even if one could argue that it was, it was simply another quantititive step rather than a radical break.

The desire to give the US some special status as regards democracy seems to me to be special pleading on behalf of a particular ideology or nationalism.

0 likes

Originally posted by Budvar Huber Alejo, of course we are not fighting here. We can have different opinions on a number of questions and remain friendly. I do respect your views and I'll happily stand corrected if you prove to me that I am wrong. Anyway I do not think that our positions are that dissimilar. I am sure that we can find a common base for both of us.

1-Democracy is better than tirany. Always. For everyone. 2-Prosperity is better than scarcity. 3-More freedom is better than less freedom.

agreed. but NOT at any price. i do not like US proceeds and I do NOT like the US deciding about MY life and YOUR life. simple as that.

See...we agree on the basis. 95% of what we think is exactly the same and we only disagree on a mere 5%. It would be quite ridiculous to get too worked up over that meagre 5%.

of course. I still love you! :D

Once said that I must admit that I am naive enough to think that the US went into the II World War impelled by a sense of duty towards Democracy and towards its allies, namely Great Britain. What was the economic advantage to be gained from entering the war? US could have remained sitting on the fence, selling to both combatants, basking in the anticipation of the rewards to be got from post war reconstruction. From a solely economic point of view there was no gain in getting in at that point still very much undecided war.

it seems you´re forgetting the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations, both created and controlled by US after the WW2. they´re one of the explanations of why US became what it is nowadays: the number 1. if those were not political AND economic gain for the US then explain to me what gaining is. you seem to forget that US pays its sallaries and its wars with money of countries like mine and yours. if not tell me why Aznar is supporting this war. because he believes in democracy or because he doesn´t want to say no because of eventual US reprisals after the war or because he wants to "divide the cake" with the winners? I know the answer but what do you think?

0 likes

[Content deleted by Grigori Rasputin on 2/26/2003 3:12:32 AM EDT]

0 likes

So what have we learned so far?

Gotta say, for all the different arguments so far, I still haven't changed my mind that Bush is an arse, Blair licks de arse, and I still haven't been convinced by anyone that we should be going to war with Iraq.....not yet anyway:nod:

ShugZV Give Peace a Chance.

0 likes

If you look at the current situation in Iraq, you will see that there are large numbers of US troops and equipment in the region, heavy monitoring of the area by the US and the UN, and basically our highly trained people on the ground in Iraq going around wherever the hell they want 7 days a week looking for forbidden weapons (and not finding squat, really, just a few missles that may be a little too long range). The country is run by a guy (Saddam) that was supported by the US because he wasn't as bad as the alternatives. This already sounds more like a post war situation than a pre war situation. What would be different after a war ? A bunch of dead Iraqis, probably a few dead Americans, lots of money spent on the military (which the presidential administration has extensive financial and political ties to, not coincidentally), and some other guy running the place.

Perhaps the initial post war gov't would be an intended precursor to some form of democracy whether they want it or not, but whomever it would be, it will be the lesser evil in some form. That is, any leader that a middle eastern country (except Israel) is going to have will have a certain amount of anti American, anti Israel, pro Arab (politically, culturally and ethnically) sentiment, because that's pretty much the way everybody is over there. The most moderate person we could find is going to be regarded as scary to the paranoid Americans that don't trust any Arabs, and it goes without saying that we wouldn't leave anybody in power that is radical or tied to or sympathetic to violent terrorism. It would have to be somebody from that area, since in this day and age I don't see us putting some white foreigner in charge, that wouldn't fly with anybody.

You can't say that any threat to US/Western interests would be eliminated in the whole country; even if we achieved absolute perfection in a puppet government, all it takes is a few bad apples to do some damage, they needn't have any ties to the government. We can't find every single terrorist or potential terrorist or other risk in our own country, how could we do it over there where we are all easily identifiable as outsiders ?

Even ignoring the human cost, where is the value for the money in this war, given the above lack of potential that this war really has to change anything ? Is this supposed to be a roundabout way to revive the US economy ? There are more ethical (and effective) ways to achieve that.

I suppose there could be legitimate concern for the well being and quality of life of Iraqi citizens generally, but really, where is the evidence that what they have now in Iraq is any worse than the other countries in that area ? Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan have serious problems, and they aren't on the USA's shit list, at least at the moment. It's not like we could promise to make life golden for everybody over there, or even as safe as eastern Europe or South America. We've got lots of military in Afghanistan after our invasion there, but we can't stop the heroin from being produced and exported, in fact the exports have gone up 600% since the fall of the Taliban according to some news reports. Small wonder we couldn't find Osama, maybe he was driving a heroin truck !

0 likes

I wanted to put here something colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez once wrote, after the 9/11/2001 attacks. I´ll put it on its original language (spanish) because I don´t want his words to be translated badly by me. I beg your pardon, english speakers. please, if someone has the time and the will to translate it to english, please do it. I do want everyboby reading it.

CARTA A BUSH DE GABRIEL GARCÍA MÁRQUEZ ¿Cómo se siente? ¿Cómo se siente ver que el horror estalla en tu patio y no en el living del vecino? ¿Cómo se siente el miedo apretando tu pecho, el pánico que provocan el ruido ensordecedor, las llamas sin control, los edificios que se derrumban, ese terrible olor que se mete hasta el fondo en los pulmones, los ojos de los inocentes que caminan cubiertos de sangre y polvo? ¿Cómo se vive por un día en tu propia casa la incertidumbre de lo que va a pasar? ¿Cómo se sale del estado de shock? En estado de shock caminaban el 6 de agosto de 1945 los sobrevivientes de Hiroshima. Nada quedaba en pie en la ciudad luego que el artillero norteamericano del Enola Gay dejara caer la bomba. En pocos segundos habían muerto 80.000 hombres mujeres y niños. Otros 250.000 morirían en los años siguientes a causa de las radiaciones. Pero ésa era una guerra lejana y ni siquiera existía la televisión. ¿Cómo se siente hoy el horror cuando las terribles imágenes de la televisión te dicen que lo ocurrido el fatídico 11 de septiembre no pasó en una tierra lejana sino en tu propia patria? Otro 11 de setiembre, pero de 28 años atrás, había muerto un presidente de nombre Salvador Allende resistiendo un golpe de Estado que tus gobernantes habían planeado. También fueron tiempos de horror, pero eso pasaba muy lejos de tu frontera, en una ignota republiqueta sudamericana. Las republiquetas estaban en tu patio trasero y nunca te preocupaste mucho cuando tus marines salían a sangre y fuego a imponer sus puntos de vista. ¿Sabías que entre 1824 y 1994 tu país llevó a cabo 73 invasiones a países de América Latina? Las víctimas fueron Puerto Rico, México, Nicaragua, Panamá, Haití, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, República Dominicana, Islas Vírgenes, El Salvador, Guatemala y Granada. Hace casi un siglo que tus gobernantes están en guerra. Desde el comienzo del siglo XX, casi no hubo una guerra en el mundo en que la gente de tu Pentágono no hubiera participado. Claro, las bombas siempre explotaron fuera de tu territorio, con excepción de Pearl Harbor cuando la aviación japonesa bombardeó la Séptima Flota en 1941. Pero siempre el horror estuvo lejos. Cuando las Torres Gemelas se vinieron abajo en medio del polvo, cuando viste las imágenes por televisión o escuchaste los gritos porque estabas esa mañana en Manhattan, ¿pensaste por un segundo en lo que sintieron los campesinos de Vietnam durante muchos años? En Manhattan, la gente caía desde las alturas de los rascacielos como trágicas marionetas. En Vietnam, la gente daba alaridos porque el napalm seguía quemando la carne por mucho tiempo y la muerte era espantosa, tanto como las de quienes caían en un salto desesperado al vacío. Tu aviación no dejó una fábrica en pie ni un puente sin destruir en Yugoslavia. En Irak fueron 500.000 los muertos. Medio millón de almas se llevó la Operación Tormenta del Desierto...¿Cuánta gente desangrada en lugares tan exóticos y lejanos como Vietnam, Irak, Irán, Afganistán, Libia, Angola, Somalia, Congo, Nicaragua, Dominicana, Camboya, Yugoslavia, Sudán, y una lista interminable? En todos esos lugares los proyectiles habían sido fabricados en factorías de tu país, y eran apuntados por tus muchachos, por gente pagada por tu Departamento de Estado, y sólo para que tu pudieras seguir gozando de la forma de vida americana. Hace casi un siglo que tu país está en guerra con todo el mundo. Curiosamente, tus gobernantes lanzan los jinetes del Apocalipsis en nombre de la libertad y de la democracia. Pero debes saber que para muchos pueblos del mundo (en este planeta donde cada día mueren 24.000 pobladores por hambre o enfermedades curables), Estados Unidos no representa la libertad, sino un enemigo lejano y terrible que sólo siembra guerra, hambre, miedo y destrucción. Siempre han sido conflictos bélicos lejanos para ti, pero para quienes viven allá es una dolorosa realidad cercana, una guerra donde los edificios se desploman bajo las bombas y donde esa gente encuentra una muerte horrible. Y las víctimas han sido, en el 90 por ciento, civiles, mujeres, ancianos, niños, efectos colaterales. ¿Qué se siente cuando el horror golpea a tu puerta aunque sea por un sólo día? ¿Qué se piensa cuando las víctimas en Nueva York son secretarias, operadores de bolsa o empleados de limpieza que pagaban puntualmente sus impuestos y nunca mataron una mosca? ¿Cómo se siente el miedo? ¿Cómo se siente, yanqui, saber que la larga guerra finalmente el 11 de septiembre llegó a tu casa? Gabriel García Márquez

0 likes

Let's just turn Iraq into Texas, okay?

0 likes

You're leaving NewOrderOnline

This link goes to an external website we don't operate, which has its own privacy policy and terms.

Destination:
Continue ↗