It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America is in a no win situation!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Well here's my $0:02 regarding the whole war issue with Terror at the moment. I'm not pro-American nor am I anti-American, but it has come to my attention that so many people out there are so quick to condem George Bush for his actions.

Has any average person stopped and took a step back to think about the huge responsibility Bush has taken on since he has come to office.

I myself am an everyday citizen (not of America), and I couldn't imagine the frustration and confusion in his mind when September 11 occurred. Yet from the ashes of the tradgey, he has done all he has in his power to restore security and hope for his country. Now I ask you is that an easy thing to do for any man?

There are conspiracies of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destructions), and USA wanting to take over IRAQ oil wells etc. Life as it is works with this basic concept of truth.
"There are three sides to a story, your side, their side and the TRUTH". Often as you may know the truth is stretched.

I don't have sympathy for George Bush, but I do empathize for him. Doesn't matter what he does, he will be condemmed. If he goes after IRAQ to assure a regime change then he Bush would be called an old dog trying to start war and secretly to obtain the oil wealth.

But if Bush leaves IRAQ to further develop WMDs, and America gets nuked then all hell breaks loose. America will then turn and ask "Why did the Bush Administration not do anything to prevent this?".

Can you see how whatever Bush does he just can't win. What are your thoughts on this issue?



[Edited on 19-9-2002 by ddtn]




posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Its all in the title baby



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 07:42 AM
link   
the answer is obvious: what if bush doesn't invade iraq and america DOESN'T get nuked.

win situation.

the idea that there is only two options is a result of the western propaganda machine. they are portraying that violence is inevitable.

i say that's bollocks.

to take up another of your points, bush has a responsibilty. not only to the american people, but to the human race as a whole.

whilst he must attempt to restore a sense of security to america, he must do so whilst upholding his principles. if his principles include the killing of thousands of innocent lives - as his actions over the past year have suggested - then he can have no sympathy from me.

- qo.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 07:59 AM
link   
~ quiet one

Don't get me wrong, you do make good points and I should have expanded more on my discussion. Defintely there is more then two options, but as you are aware sometimes there are external factors that go beyond any individual or groups control when it comes to options i.e political interests, global interest, economic interest etc.

Sure we can say, IRAQ let inspectors back in and have your nuke and biological stockpile disposed, further more a regime change for IRAQ as suggested by the US. Would America would have any further reasons to attack IRAQ?

Now for IRAQ to turn around and abide by all those sanctions would raise the question of American supremacy of passive world domination.

But lets not drag the issue out further, my point being whatever action America takes it is likely to be in a no win win situation.

Theoretically a win win situation is there, but we are talking about reality taking into account the issue is on a global scale and that the options are clear at the moment in accordance with world politics.

As I said, I am not Pro nor am I Anti American.

Cheers...

P.S By the way, one should not give sympathy but if anything more so empathy. I'm sure you know the difference in concept.

[Edited on 19-9-2002 by ddtn]



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 08:07 AM
link   
you seem to be saying that 'realistically' america can't win. that sounds defeatest to me. i suppose the question should be, what constitutes a 'win' situation?

to me, the only way america can win is to resolve the iraqi question in a manner which does not inflame more hatred of the west.

an invasion of iraq does not do this: it'll piss off the french, the swedish, not to mention most of the arab nations.

forcing a regime-change in iraq does not do this: it'll piss me off for starters, not to mention most of the arab nations and anyone else who feels that international sovereignty needs to be respected.

working with saddam through the UN MIGHT just do it. it'll take a lot of work, some sacrifices from the west and the UN, and a lot of patience. perhaps most importantly, bush will have to sacrifice his political brownie-points that he'd get by satisfying the american bloodlust.

i agree that it is a highly unlikely situation, but it is there.

- qo.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 08:29 AM
link   
~ quiet one

At this stage it appears to be heading that way wouldn't you agree? You and I can sit here and acknowledge that there is a resolution, but is that resolution in reach realistically?

As I said I doubt it, there are external factors that are contributing to the heightened tension of this issue, what is the likely-hood of IRAQ throwing itself on its knees to pull itself back from the brink of war?

I would seriously doubt Sadam decides to declare to the world that it was wrong for building WMDs and BWF and had been deceiving the world all this time. Let alone resign for the sake of his people to have a new government come in, who knows I could be wrong!

I can't see America stepping back either as they have there own interest to protect as well as the Worlds. On that note, America has an obligation to the world to follow UN procedures but push comes to shove if something catostrophic does occurr again what then?

If you were threatened by others would you not take decisive action to protect yourself at all means? I'm not a violent person, but I do understand the difference between picking a fight and self defence.

This may sound Pro-American to you but I would rather have George.B to be my nation leader then Sadamm.H.

Cheers...



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Just a quick point.
I can not except that the USA could be directly attacked by Iraq with nucear weapons.It's doubtful(at best) that they even have them and they certainly do not have a delivery system with that range.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Since you all seem to think the US should not do anything about Iraq and their WMD's, how would you feel about this option? The US pulls all of its forces out of every country in the world, back inside it's boarders, and lets you all fend for your selves? How comfortable would you feel about THAT option, HMMM???




Jackasses


Fry

posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Scary thought Affirmative but that may be what it takes for people to realize......



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I've posted that same thought many times.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 09:56 AM
link   
"Since you all seem to think the US should not do anything about Iraq and their WMD's"

please prove that Iraq has WMD's that it intends to use in any more agressive manner as America has and is currently using theres.

do that and I might consider backing an attack.

unfortunately both our leaders have stated quite clearly that they have no proof and as such I'm not prepared to risk the lives of our army on a political hunch or desire.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 09:57 AM
link   
ddtn:

"At this stage it appears to be heading that way wouldn't you agree? You and I can sit here and acknowledge that there is a resolution, but is that resolution in reach realistically?"

you started with a really nice post about the idea of a no-win situation for the u.s. now you want to talk 'realistically'. shame. realistically what you say is true, but its not a discussion. everyone that watches/read/listens to the news should know that war is pretty likely. its a given.

- qo.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I see no compelling reason to take out Saddam or Iraq. As was pointed out, their ability to hit us is very limited (except directly, as in terrorist attacks) and anything they tried to launch would be detected almost instantly.

The Navy very very actively monitors that area.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Affirmative Reaction:

"Since you all seem to think the US should not do anything about Iraq and their WMD's, how would you feel about this option? The US pulls all of its forces out of every country in the world, back inside it's boarders, and lets you all fend for your selves? How comfortable would you feel about THAT option, HMMM???"

as an option, i see it as preferable to us going to war at this point.

however, it is not my preferred course of action. america is part of the international community, and rather than see her withdraw from that community i'd prefer if she was just to act in what i consider to be a responsible manner.

- qo.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Lupe,
you need to change the way you spell your tag, because you are either loopy, or ignorant. I expect the latter. The proof is in past actions and use of such weapons. And where, praytell, do you get the misinformed idea that the US and UK leaders have said they have no proof? THAT is a figment of your warped imagination. I believe I will no longer respond to your idiotic rantings, as you are obviously mentally ill, and I have no desire to drive you to further lunacy. Oh, and by the way, we don't need your backing to kick Saddam's ass.

Quiet one: "part of the international community". True. But let me ask you this. Say you are the biggest kid in your class by a far bit. Being a nice guy, whenever you see a smaller kid being bullied by others, you stick up for that kid. After you do so, the kid you just saved from a beating starts talking bad about you behind your back and ridiculing you. Do you think you would stick up for this kid the next time his ass is in a sling? I think not, but that's what the US has done time and time again. Just look at the Saudi's. They treat us like crap, and are about to learn a lesson about being good stewards of what they have...



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:19 AM
link   
They do have the ability to strike our allies and friends in that region. Iraq launched a scud missile attack on Israel. They could hit Turkey and beyond I can imagine. We also seem to forget our troops in SA, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain that could be a potential target for Saddam. Don't we want to protect those interests as well?



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:21 AM
link   
affirmative reaction:

your analogy is flawed. the comparison of the international community to a school ground is interesting, but consider that america - the big kid - has sat by and watched the little kids get beaten up time and time again, and done nothing about it. only when the little kids that are being beaten up are losing their lunch money, which america wants for itself, does she get involved and break up the fighting. making sure that the poor, little kid that's just been saved knows exactly who saved them, and where their lunch money is going in future.

perhaps i can offer a slightly different analogy. america is the biggest kid in the play ground, and she does indeed want everyone to 'play nice'. that's fine. all well and good, and i'm sure the teachers - make whatever analogy of that you will - are very happy. however, consider the teachers' surprise to see her beating the sh!t out of some smaller kid, right in the middle (east) of the playground. when stopped and asked to explain herself, america responds with "he wasn't playing nice, so i taught him a lesson."

hypocracy.

you can't teach children to be good by beating them. or rather, you CAN, but you're a monster if you do so.

- qo.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:22 AM
link   
"They do have the ability to strike our allies and friends in that region. Iraq launched a scud missile attack
on Israel. They could hit Turkey and beyond I can imagine. We also seem to forget our troops in SA,
Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain that could be a potential target for Saddam. Don't we want to protect those
interests as well? "

Finally...a lucid reply!

Not to say that there haven't been a few others...



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:31 AM
link   
quiet one,


YOUR analogy is flawed. It smacks of the same anti-American rhetoric that is so pervasive among those who do nothing but complain about what others do or don't do, while they sit on their azzes doing nothing. You makd it seem that the US is nothing but a greedy gangster, looking to steal a childs lunch money. What an ignorant idea. The US gives more money in grants and loans to third world nations than most of the rest of the world combined! And as far as playing nice, I suppose if Iraq nuked Isriel, you would say, "They were mistreated as children...don't punish them, give them a hug!"

The reason this would is in sucha stare today, with crime on the rise, and children out of control is that boneheads like you think spanking your children is a crime! There have to be concequences for improper actions. Fear of punishment is what keeps honest people honest.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Affirmative Reaction:

"YOUR analogy is flawed. It smacks of the same anti-American rhetoric that is so pervasive among those who do nothing but complain about what others do or don't do, while they sit on their azzes doing nothing...."

whine whine whine .... my analogy could easily be applied to any country. it is not specifically anti-american. in fact, i state here and now (once again, as i've done it before) that the UK is almost as bad as america in these respects.

"You makd it seem that the US is nothing but a greedy gangster, looking to steal a childs lunch money. What an ignorant idea. The US gives more money in grants and loans to third world nations than most of the rest of the world combined!"

america takes more money from third world nations that any other through the IMF, WTO and the massive third world debt. if i wanted to be ~really~ cynical i could say that the only reason why america gives what she does to the third world is so that they don't go ~completely~ tits up and hence not be able to repay said debts at all.

"And as far as playing nice, I suppose if Iraq nuked Isriel, you would say, "They were mistreated as children...don't punish them, give them a hug!" "

nope, if iraq nukes israel - and there was evidence to show that saddam could immediately do it again, i.e. they had another nuke - i would say that there is reasonable justification for assassinating saddam.
contrary to what you may believe i am not a pacifist. i seem want some common sense, some open discussion of the ~facts~ governments never want to give the people, and some serious exploration or alternative solutions to the iraqi problem.

"The reason this would is in sucha stare today, with crime on the rise, and children out of control is that boneheads like you think spanking your children is a crime!"

well, i can't speak for boneheads ~like~ me, but this bonehead does not think that way.

"There have to be concequences for improper actions. Fear of punishment is what keeps honest people honest."

fear or punishment keeps DIShonest people honest. if a person is honest, then he need not fear.
either way, your attitude - if i may draw a comparison - is similar to the christian god "thou shalt do as i say or burn in hell". an attitude i disagree with. why? because you are talking about 'rule through fear'. it is a recipe for oppression, not freedom.

- qo.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join