It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


reasoned arguments

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 04:33 AM
Just been going through the morning papers.

Somthing is starting to worry me about the immenant war in Iraq, mainly that the current political situation is mirroring the discursive situation here.

Currently. America is all guns blazing into Iraq, and any country that suggests this is the wrong idea is "ant american" Its interesting that, just like here, I've seen US news articles bringing up the french's role in WW2, one of our own papers today suggested that the 4 collective leaders proposing more inspections are disgracing the memory of those who died in that conflict.

how utterly childish.

whats interesting is that I have a feeling the harder the US and UK push france germany russia and belgium with increasingly personal attacks, the more likely they are to deliberately attempt to block any attack on Iraq, not for rational reasons but as a simple up yours to the US.

If you read the threads here, you can see this kind of mentality all over the place.

I'm against the war, but I'm against it for reasoned political beliefs, not simply because the US is telling me I have to go to war and I'm feeling stubborn.

We are rapidly approuching a situation where allied countrys are simply slagging each other off and dredging up the past.

what practical purpose does this serve?
It does nothing to actually help with the situation in Iraq it simply pits nations against each other in a name calling session.

Rumsfield was abhorant in the speaches he made in Germany, Blair has been sickeningly dismissive of the french, and Bush....well ok, his labotomy prevents reasoned discussion but oe would think that the advisors to the leader of the US would have suggested a little more tact and a little less racism might not go amis.

I worry that the issues surrounding Iraq has been lost in some global "my countrys better than your country" slagging match.

[Edited on 11-2-2003 by Lupe_101]

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 05:04 AM
While I dont always agree with you, I can agree that this seems to be turning into nothing more than a political shoving match. I'm afraid of what could happen if push comes to shove. I agree that the name calling is VERY childish, regardless of what anyone says. My feelings about France and Germany, are that the leaders are perhaps actually listening to the people of their nations about not going to war....who knows...just my two cents.

[Edited on 11-2-2003 by Grommer]

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 05:10 AM
Blairs stated pretty catagorically that we're going to war wether the people want it or not.
he even admitted that its political suicide, he simply thinks its the right thing to do.


guess those of us against it just have to keep protesting.

The turnout on the 15th for the stop the war march should be pretty impressive.

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 05:30 AM
Interesting parallel Lupe,

Of course disagreements here happen all the time(though recently they have become marked)It makes you wonder that if it weren't for international diplomacy the UN would be just like ATS(scarey thought)

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 07:45 AM
hurling insults at allies, instead of hurling missiles at each other over something like how to deal with Iraq...

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 07:48 AM
common knowledge iof some one tells you you have to do something you dont do it or its done very poorly

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 08:19 AM
damn straight.
especially if the person telling you to do it is also telling you how much better it is than you.

I know politics is about stabbing each other in the back, but it seams to me that france will block the US simply because its sick of the US saying it doesn't need france.

Now personally, thats a good thing. I may not approve of their reasoning but it helps my adgenda, that being to prevent war with Iraq, I just feel that it could damage international relations in the long term.

I'd hate to see us go in without full UN backing mainly because siteing precident next time one of the UN need help would be the height of immaturity, and Bush is just stupid enough to do it.

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 08:50 AM
likes france giving the u.s the finger

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 09:28 AM
It's all about the money. The profit margin will ultimately drive the politics; not that it hasn't driven the intentions in this and all modern wars, it's just the forthcoming realization that the US & UK need foreign markets and investments to survive.....the domestic consumer can only bouy the economy for so long until that gives out. Wait until the large multi-nationals that DON'T have a warfare mfg. division start to bitch & moan.....then the tune will change.

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 09:32 AM
was that "the break between the US and everyone else could mean the end of the UN as we know it".

This is the stupidest comment I've ever heard!!! The UN is doing what it should be doing, but just because its not going along with shrubs bully-pulpit tactics, it could mean the end of the UN?

The US has to come to the reality that we are not the UN's only member, and we should not expect the UN to agree with us everytime. What a sham it would be if the UN were notheing but our lapdog.

Both shrub and Blair are commiting political suicide and both will be voted from office for just the reason Blair mentioned... the peoples will should be their will!!

Secondly, this entire fiasco is completely unAmerican, yes you heard right!!!

The American way is not to be the bully and push our wieght around against wimpy little third world countries!!

Other idiots start the fights, America just finishes the fights!! THAT IS THE AMERICAN WAY!!!

shrub will be a lame duck president, a one term wonder when the people speak at the polls and he WILL HEAR US THEN!!!!

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 09:42 AM

Note: This is a US specific rant, please insert the mad moves of your native land as well!

Someone comes up with the idea of impeaching a democratically elected president for lying about sex (something most people in the country do), and the Congress goes ahead and does it.

We have millions upon millions of people uninsured in this country, but when someone comes up with a real solution to this problem, some scaremonger screams that we would become like Canada (a country that doesn't have our health care crisis), and the plan is nixed.

A right-wing propaganda mill that finds every foolish Republican idea worthy of support declares itself news and fair and balanced, and people believe it.

A dimwitted frat boy with the skimpiest of resumes runs for president, and he wins the nomination of one of our two major parties.

The Supreme Court decides that counting votes in an election would pose too great of a hardship on the candidate that lost, and so it hands the election to the loser. Then the people who actually expected to have the votes counted are told to move on and shut up about it.

The Congress is asked to give up its constitutional powers by giving a deranged and out of control executive branch the right to wage war, and the Congress complies.

The very week that a report is issued saying that the gap between rich and poor is growing and that a million more people have joined the ranks of the poor in two short years, the president announces yet another plan to give more money to rich people because the poor are always ganging up on them, and this idea, like all the previous soak the poor ideas, is taken seriously.

Our country is viciously attacked by 19 men wielding box cutters and taking over airliners, and the government decides to take away my civil rights, none of which were used in the attack. If I or anyone complains about this and defends the Constitution, we're called unpatriotic and told to go wave a flag and cheer the unelected president.

The administration, against the wishes of the UN, decides to reinvade a third world country that has virtually no infrastructure, no way to defend itself from our massive military machine, less of a connection to Al-Qaeda than the U.S. government itself, and no declared intention to attack its neighbors or the U.S., and our media and representatives decide that this is a good idea and anyone who disagrees is un-American.

All of this is insane, absurd, and farcical.

So, my question is, when did we go collectively insane? When did we reach the breaking point where we became so accustomed to psychosis in our political life as a nation that we no longer even saw the sheer lunacy of what was being proposed?

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 10:50 AM
speaking as your fellow american, i say the insanity started right before the planned assasination of JFK and will never end.

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 11:03 AM
and I agree with what you are saying except for one difference. I believe that we should remove Saddam, but not for the reasons being given...but because it should have been an objective of the previous war, but wasn't, just to save international face. This man does serve as a threat to stability in the region, and will only continue to do so, and on a greater scale if left unchecked...

But great post BT...especially loved the insights into the election fiasco, hehe... I still sometimes have a hard time believing that idiot ever got in office, hehe...

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 11:14 AM
(*** For the Black & White group thinkers, Gazrok just dropped anther shade of gray on ya! For war/Against Bush if you didn't catch it!

Out of all the arguments I've heard pro or con, I'm amazed that Americans are not lazer focused on the fact that our Constitution was breached by Congress giving up war making authority!

Was there an amendment I slept through!?!

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 11:31 AM
Many of which are total abuses of why these were instituted in the first Amendments you slept through...hehe...

Slipping to "Gray" eh...??? Nah, I've never been one to support the current president (I voted for Gore, and usually, I'm pretty Republican minded...). I have always been in favor of finishing the job in Iraq though...I just disapprove of how it is being gone about...(i.e. the WMD slant). For me, the bottom line is lose a war, you agree to certain conditions to hold on to power...if you continue to violate those then forfeit power. Simple as that really. I'm just amazed it took 12 years of violating the conditions before we decided to do anything about it....and then, choosing what is perhaps the worst timing imaginable to do it...??? That said though...I am glad to see it will finally be done...(isn't it the 15th yet?
) *taps foot*

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 12:09 PM
I support finishing the Job as well as far as these insults that is childish. But people should be reminded what the UN really is supposed to stand for. That does not mean they are buffoons for not taking a stance against Genocide.

Setting the wrong precedence in a situation like this could foster in policies, which make such behavior permissible. There is nothing crazy about that in and of itself it justifies war for the purpose to taking Saddam Hussein out of power. This is the basic function of the UN and as an institution, if they due not follow through they fall under the category of a paper tiger.

In my opinion this is the bottom line

top topics


log in