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.

 

The End?Or Only The End Of The Beginning?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Be serious Mokuhadzushi! You can't compare the invasion of Iraq by the US to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.

That's not even in the same ballpark guy! Kuwait wasn't a threat to Iraq. They weren't killing and torturing and intimidating their citizens. They aren't developing WMD or funding terrorists.

As for how much the Iraqi government can ask in reparations from the US, here's your answer...0! Why? Because we've paid our debt to the Iraqi people by removing that maniac they had in power. To top it all off we are going to help them rebuild what destruction we did and even some that we didn't do.

How much can they ask from us...that would be like us asking Afghanistan for money to rebuild the World Trade Center because they let Osama bin Laden conduct terrorist operations from within their borders. How about a little money to the families of that tragedy?

So once again Mokuhadzushi..... BE SERIOUS!!!




posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 04:34 PM
link   
One can literally go back in history to the days of the Spanish American War to observe the response of the US to having defeated an Empire (one which controled
south and central America).

To quote the President of Venezuela it is a sovereign Nation.

So are all the other countries of south and central America, for that matter so is Canada. We bought Alaska from the Russians and we did not invade Hawaii. As far as the what colonies America still has, they have periodic elections in respect to changing there status.


Given all this, such implications as US intent to conquer and posses Iraq are not reflective of reality.



posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Excuse me Toltec,

you may be ignoring the facts but the repair contracts with american companies and the privatization of the Iraqi oil sector are very real.



posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Moku, you should feel ashamed for comparing our liberation of the Iraqis with Hussein's rape of Kuwait. Whether a war was justified by Iraq against Kuwait, the atrocities condoned and prompted by Hussein's regime is unthinkable.

As far as your assumptions that we will not aid in the rebuilding of Iraq, they are nothing but assumptions. Considering Iraq is going to be free and also will no longer need sanctions imposed (As if the European "leader" nations abided by them anyway *ahem, France, Germany*) it will be able to market its oil, thereby offsetting the cost of its liberation.

As far as America getting a thank you note in the form of a decent deal on oil, you have a problem with that?

That is what really steams the Franco-German anti-American movement. While they had no desire to upset their financial applecart with Saddam just to rid the world of a mad terrorist and free 25 million people, we went ahead and did it anyway. We proved that the U.N. is merely a place where nothing but "prodedure" gets done with even the sickest of despots taking turns chair committees on issues like human rights, and when those making money off of the misery of the Iraqis couldn't stop us from kicking the ever-lovin dog crap out of the Husseini regime, they got mad and now demand to be allowed to profit from the reconstruction of Iraq.

And, by the way, had it been any other military than those who were part of this coalition disassembling Hussein's House of Horrors, the cost, both in civilian lives and property damage would have been considerably greater. Proportionality! Maintain proportionality!!



posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 05:00 PM
link   
And neither the privatization of the oil or the contracts is necessarily a bad thing. You will, however, assume that if we are involved, it must be a bad thing.

Let me guess, you assume the contracts should be with firms out of Berlin, right? No desire to help the Iraqi people or to make the world a little safer from terrorist attacks using NBC/CBR weapons, but the French and German governments will be darned if they'll sit still and be left out of any profit-making. Heck, I'll bet they'd be willing to go to war over that, huh?!?



posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 05:18 PM
link   


the atrocities condoned and prompted by Hussein's regime in Kuwait is unthinkable.


Are you possibly referring to the atrocities commited on innocent british tanned

baby-puppets ?



As far as America getting a thank you note in the form of a decent deal on oil, you have a

problem with that?


Not at all. But Bush thanking himself isnt a thanking from the Iraqi people, it's more like

a wanking. No but seriously. Bush disposing of the Iraqi people foreign assets to finance

maintenance deals with Cheney's company is the unheard-of summit of international armed

robbery.



Proportionality! Maintain proportionality!!


Privatization of a national oil sector or passing contracts should be left to the

responsible parties. Anything other is skewing the issue to GWB&friend's favor, which likens

to a conglomerate making profits through the killing of tens of thousands.
The proportionality of the administrations' monstrosity has also to be respected.



[Edited on 13-4-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Excuse me again look at the record of history. Yes initially the US gets directly involved once conditions are stable they do not interfere. If after this is all over and Iraq has a stable government they chose to ally themselves economically with other nations, the US is not going to invade them again just because of that.

The evidence of History is clear going back to the US war with the Spanish.

Who is responsible for making the repairs and the companies of what country??

This is standard US, policy nothing new here or is what happened in Europe and Japan after WWII the reuslt of misinformation. Have we attacked France militarily because we saved it in the 40s as well as rebuilt its economy, now that today is takes a stance against our interests.

Its absurd to even think the US would do that; your argument is absurd in respect to the US doing that now. Iraq will be treated no differently that Germany or Japan was treated (By the US). Furthermore the Iraqi people deserve the same respect afforded to the Israelis after WWII.

And that my friend is a very important issue



posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Oh, yeah, Toltec's right. Not only are you missing some important points on international law, you also seem to be woefully lacking on history.
You are in Berlin? Are you on the East side, perhaps?



posted on Apr, 13 2003 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Toltec,

Exactly what bit of "I am not accusing Bush of genocidal tendencies"do you not understand?
And where have I denied Saddam was a madman?

I assume you are trying to address the issues in this topic?

But the US posters are not addressing the issues.They do not want to address the issues.Instead they repeat the mantra the have been recently taught Saddam/Evil---USA/Righteous.Little realising that throughout history it is when nations reduce foreign policy to phrases four year olds can understand avoiding ambiguity,it is then that national intollerence becomes international instability.

Did the Athenian Empire resemble the Roman or the Roman Empire resemble the British?How can one Empire supercede the last if it doesn't improve on it?Would the British model of Empire be successful today?
Of course not.
So why is the most popular argument against America having imperial ambitions that it does not colonise other countries?
The days when nations colonised others in the traditional way are long gone.The British Empire ultimately failed because of something termed "Imperial Overstretch".It,like all empires before it,could not sustain troop numbers abroad to control populations.
Population control was a means to an end.The end being the control of trade that enriches the heart of the every empire and withers it's limbs.
Any modern empire would have to tackle the problem of Imperial Overstretch and yet control trade.The perfect Empire invades no countries and just controls trade.This has been the Americans desired model of empire for decades.The International community excepted that America was the most powerful country because militarily it was benign.Through the IMF and WTO it controled trade but not exclusively.
The USA does not control oil.Alaskan oil is expensive to drill for.
America does not want to colonise Iraq it only wants to have a regime friendly to US interest in power.Ideally the USA would like to change the regimes of other countries,Iran,Syria,Lybia,North Korea to name a few.
The USA does not want to change the regimes because they are evil,the twentieth century has enough examples of that,it wants to change them because they are not friendly.
This argument is compelling to the neo-conservatives in Washington but is considered too hard for the US population to grasp.So instead you are given the Good/Evil,Democracy/Dictatorship,Black/White argument.

Unfortunatey the prospect of US Hegemony is not one that is exceptable to the rest of the world.If the USA are willing to change the regimes of Iraq,Syria,Iran,Lybia,North Korea,they argue how long before they seriously damage their national interests?

Two philosophies are colliding.

And so a line in the sand must be drawn.It will not be public.I expect that in St Petersburg France,Germany,Russia,and perhaps quietly China are discussing where that line should be.They did want Blair there.Why?Simple to comunicate how concerned they are collectively and to explain where the line is so Blair could pass it on.
I suspect the line is Syria.Historically both France and Russia have interests and ties.

Like Poland before it,the world may be about to go to war for Syria.



posted on Apr, 13 2003 @ 12:20 PM
link   
John a wonderful speech for the record did read it all. The title of this thread is
The End? Or the end of the Beginning?

I know you are not accusing George Bush of committing genocide. By I am accusing many, who despite the preponderance of evidence. Are complacent and ignoring what is simply obvious.

Again John Bull, a fact of life in the 21st century is that Genocide for the purpose of meeting political goals. Has been found to be rampant in three countries. Those three countries are Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. To say that these are the only three countries in the Easter Hemisphere which apply Genocide. As a method to control their masses borders on a potential mistake.


Why do I say that, one reason is simply because the countries in question are not altogether interrelated.

They are separate entities who have been guided by there own internal design.

You seem to think we are ignorant of what can potentate "The End". Nonetheless what seems very clear is your lack of concern. For what is obvious and crystal clear as well as related to cause and effect.

After WWII all the countries of the world upon looking at the plight of the Jews formed the UN and swore it would never happen again.

Its becoming very apparent that leaders in the Eastern Hemisphere at that time made a promise they did not keep.

How many more dead do we need to find John before you wake up??

What are your thoughts?



posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 04:09 AM
link   
At the risk of being called a pendant.I must take issues with a couple of points.

First,The dictionary describes genocide as "The extermination of a race".
From my general knowledge this has only been achieved once.By the British/Australians perpetrated against the Tasmanians.
Hitler certainly had a pathological genocidal nature as he actively sought to achieve genocide against the Jews.
There may be other examples but I do not know them.
Saddam acting against the Kurds is not a case.It was not the Kurdish race that were being attacked.The fact that they were Kurds was incidental.
Similarly(and I only say this as an example)the attacks against the North American Indians by the early Americans was not a case of attempted genocide.
If we allow the most heinous of crimes to be misinterpreted it loses something.We should all fight to stop emotive language used trivially or history will adopt it and our children will be misimformed.

Secondly,I am very confused about your definition of "Eastern Hemisphere"as the source of all ills.Generally it is defined as East of the Greenwich Meridian.
But your definition seems to include the entire planet excluding the North and South American continents.This must be a very reassuring map that you look at yet it ignores the action taken against South and Central American Indians by their Governments ,even Mexico is presently being accused of similar atrocities.So you see your "Civilised World" is shrinking everytime you l;ook closely at it.
If your "Uncivilised" Eastern Hemisphere stretches from China to Greenwich including South and Central America then your "Civilised" Western Hemisphere includes the USA, Canada, UK, Australia .Can you see that you are isolating your position in the world and starting to view only English speaking nations as civilised?

But what I really worrying is the prevalent view held by those who defend this action that we can decide whether or not to go to war by weighing some kind of moral cheques and balances.
It is an almost pre-galileon view of the world with a clockwork universe.Where everything is quantifiable and where we can foresee the consequences tomorrow of the actions we take today.
I would guess(I stress guess) that from an Iraqi Army of 400,000 ,mostly conscripts,at least 20,000 have been killed add to that the civilian death toll and those horrible limbless casualties.
This was worth it??Because in the future more would suffer.I can not predict the future but it has been weighed by Bush and Blair.Can they see the future??
Then there are the medium term consequences.Who's next?Will France,Russia,Germany and China join in?Will the death toll then be worth it because more would have suffered?

In the Clockwork Universe the Neo-Conservative live in the USA not only controls it's own destiny but that of the world.It is a breathtaking,almost Creationist view of the world that denies the modern science of Chaos theory and adopts,instead,an attitude that the consequences of military action can be predicted.

I would be amused if the most powerful weapon held by either side was a musket but at least 8 countries,including North Korea 9,have Nuclear weapons.

Anyway the butterfly has already flapped it's wings.



posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 06:17 AM
link   
www.thedebate.org...

True/ not true interesting anyway.


dom

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I agree with jb on this issue (surprise surprise), but it's worth pointing out that there are plenty of cases of the US getting rid of governments that aren't friendly to the US.

South America has seen plenty of cases, such as Chile, where a socialist-communist democratically elected government was removed and replaced by a right wing dictatorship under Pinochet. 3K dead there, was that worth it?

It's plainly naive to think that after all this effort, the US would allow a democratic government in Iraq which wouldn't be aligned with US interests. If the only other option is an undemocratic government, then that's what will happen. More likely that it will be a democratic government on the surface, but it'll actually be kept in line from afar as Washington pull the puppet strings.

It's also naive to think that the US doesn't already have an empire. Count up how many countries currently have US troops on their soil. Look at where the US wealth comes from. The US empire is alive and kicking.



posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 09:09 PM
link   
My understanding of the definition of Genocide is as follows...



Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
- geno·cid·al /"je-n&-'sI-d&l/ adjective

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy


As far as your second comment of the hemispheres would refer you to the "Blaeu Wall map" or if you would prefer, look up "Nova Totivs Terrarvm Orbis Geographica AC Hydrographica Tabvla - Henricus Hondius. But if nay-other confusion exist in respect to what is being defined see link....

Eastern Hemisphere



Can you see that you are isolating your position in the world and starting to view only English speaking nations as civilized?


I am aware of the events related to police actions in south and Central America; the problem is an issue here in the US. But it does not involve 10 of thousands or 100,000s or for that mater millions of people.

What has been made clear is that in the Eastern Hemisphere the executive branches of many leaders throughout recent history officially sanction such behaviors. To date, those names are apparent Hitler, Stalin, Molshevic (sp), Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. My point is clear and while the leader of a country where police has tortured people justifiably and morally, is responsible for addressing those matters. Gentlemen, the level with regard to what has been observed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia is clearly the result of a Government sanction to commit atrocities. Against very large amounts of people under the direct authority, of who is in charge of those countries. I am concerned as to how many others have same situation and feel the blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the UN.



I would guess (I stress guess) that from an Iraqi Army of 400,000, mostly conscripts, at least 20,000 have been killed add to that the civilian death toll and those horrible limbless casualties. This was worth it?? Because in the future more would suffer. I can not predict the future but Bush and Blair have weighed it. Can they see the future??




But what I really worrying is the prevalent view held by those who defend this action that we can decide whether or not to go to war by weighing some kind of moral checks and balances.


Based on what evidence are you claiming we went to war based upon moral checks and balances. I understand with respect to the issue of conscripts but when defining them as civilians you would first have to get their statements they were in fact conscripts. Furthermore the death of a person who was forced to fight is the fault of the one that forced him to fight.



Then There are the medium term consequences. Who's next? Will France, Russia, Germany and China join in? Will the death toll then be worth it because more would have suffered?


Do you feel its appropriate for millions of people to live under a death threat is they so much as look at the wrong person in a negative way? To put it another way would you live in a country whose policies in regards to treatment of the masses is parallel to the policies inherent in some of the nastier forms of feudalism?



I would be amused if the most powerful weapon held by either side was a musket but at least 8 countries, including North Korea 9,have Nuclear weapons.


I most certainly am not amused by the idea that the UN a failed so miserably in ascertaining the plight of Moslems and acting upon it.

Despite the seriousness and rapid response it afforded to the Israeli’s. Myself am not trying to predict the future either but man to be honest that sucks.


Dom in respect to Chile A three-year-old Marxist government was overthrown in 1973 by a dictatorial military regime led by Augusto PINOCHET, who ruled until a freely elected president was installed in 1990. Sound economic policies, first implemented by the PINOCHET dictatorship, led to unprecedented growth in 1991-97 and have helped secure the country's commitment to democratic and representative government.




It's plainly naive to think that after all this effort; the US would allow a democratic government in Iraq, which wouldn't be aligned with US interests.


Tell that to the French and Germans



More likely that it will be a democratic government on the surface, but it'll actually be kept in line from afar as Washington pull the puppet strings.


You had better E-mail President Putin and let him know.



It's also naive to think that the US doesn't already have an empire. Count up how many countries currently have US troops on their soil. Look at where the US wealth comes from. The US Empire is alive and kicking.


Hurry and contact the French Government and remind them before its too late
:



posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I claim no expertise, but I do state this, if you cannot do a little research, then why spout someone else's opinion? Parrots get crackers, Polly want a cracker?

If you read nothing else in my post, remember this, It does not matter if Bush is like Hitler, it only matters if the rest of the world thinks he is. History is written by the victor, not the truth.

Question my patriotism if you will, I served my time in the military, and fought in the first gulf conflict. I felt it was justified as well, they invaded Kuwait, we had the support of the world, and there was no question of reasons. Bush cannot decide on a reason, the world does not support us, and there are many tyrants in the world, why this one.

If one man stands for the people, they call him Democrat, another for Business they call him Republican, and one stands for thinking they call him out of luck. How is it that Republicans, who stand for business can actually win an election based on popular vote? Why do we stick to parties, are we as individuals too lazy to look at the candidates? Only two to look at, we should have more, but society has been corrupted to a point where it will not happen. Hitler had to go against several parties to gain power, Bush is a shoe in comparatively, and he didn't have popular vote like Hitler did. Promises of revenge, just like Hitler, promises of getting the money flowing, just like Hitler. I could go on with these links for a while. Does this mean Bush is Hitler? Not likely, but it does show how support from a nation could lead someone like Hitler into power. Even if one as unpopular as Bush.

Three things I see that can lead to a larger scale war then we may be ready to deal with.
-Attacking Syria, Bush already made threats.
-Taking money from Iraq to pay for the coalition.
-Attacking any other countries within the next couple of years, for whatever reason, unless backed by the UN first. (Which the UN will be very hesitant for political reasons.)

Strong reading suggestion: American Ignorance of War, by Czeslaw Milosz. This is a short story that talks about the results of war, it is not very pretty, but it is very impacting.

It does not matter if Bush IS Hitler, it only matters if the rest of the world believes he is. As with Hitler no one jumped in until Hitler decided to push. But America will not see this as quickly. Hitler saw more resistance due to WW1, and the original problems associated with it. If Hitler were say 50 years later, he probably would have gotten an extra country or two before the rest of the world woke up. There are lots of good sites for history of Germany and both WW1 and WW2.

Will the US see WW3 start as easily against them? If we decide to attack any more countries, all countries with similar political views will declare war on us in one means or another, most likely terrorist activities. Others will then join in, probably both against and for us. Right now the world is in political unrest, America needs to keep their mouths shut, finish what we already started, and no push further. Only then will things be allowed to settle, but with Bushes quick mouth, this is unlikely.

When the US backs terrorists, they are called "Freedom Fighters", when anyone else does, it must be terrorism. Angle of perception is what the world lives for. The US trained Osama Bin Laden, not Iraq, or some far of country.

Excerpt from: www.guardian.co.uk... (Hopefully this link works.)
‘As Jeremy Schneider, attorney for one defendant, put it in his opening: "And you know what? You know who backed the Arab freedom fighters? United States. United States. We supported the Arab resistance in 1984 in Afghanistan. We, the United States, supported the training in Afghanistan. We gave them guns." ‘

Bush presented to us gullible Americans that Iraq was the source, indirectly of course, not the US. How quickly we forget when the world is not looking.

And where are all these chemical and bio weapons we keep hearing "evidence" is found? Not used, in what you would expect a desperate act from a man such as Saddam.

I agree Saddam was a tyrant, but he was not the one that started Sept. 11th. Why could we not wait just a short time longer for political debate? Get more worldly support?

In reality you state how firmly the US does not take land, but we have. We just call it liberation, put the ruler we want in control, and run them under protection and the watchful eye of yours truly, us.

But it would be far better for the people to be directly under the US, why don't we? Economy! USSR when the power shifted was thrown into chaos, we help a little, but if we owned the USSR it would be more costly than letting a few of them starve while they restructure. Also extended power creates extended unrest. The size of a country greatly dictates the amount of control over the people it can have. If you get too many people, especially from opposing views and backgrounds, the stable power some have solidified will shift. Later when these countries ask to be states, we will let them in.

Another point, war has never been about land. It has always been about resources, land is just where the resources are. How many people are fighting over Antarctica right now? If we can get those resources without the cost of maintaining the land, is that not better than owning the land?

But what of humanitarian aid? The amount we provide in aid reaches very few, it costs tremendous amounts to get a country going in a completely different direction. Later when they are economically stable and guided all these years by our helping hand, we get pay back in trade agreements, and allies, later perhaps as states.

Humanitarian aid is not as easily noticeable as it is. It is one of an investment in interest; we helped them so they will give us better oil deals. What of the poor, actually few of them see a difference, other than a few years of starving. The new oil barrens on the other hand, get lots of aid, and profit, while helping America profit from oil trades. We treat foreign aid as a big deal, but we have people on our own streets starving, and we keep our own poor down. Why should we do any differently in another country? We keep them alive to feed the economy, but letting them better themselves destroys the pyramid of capitalism. While this is no economy class, it is important to not, war is almost entirely based on economy, WW1, WW2, and just about every other war in the world had money as an underlying theme. The politics involved only push mockery reasons for the action.

In actuality, only rare occasions during feudal government eras were wars based on reasons other than economy. When one person had ultimate command, and decided that someone upset him enough to declare war on his or her country. Every once in a while, we have war like actions, to present our supremacy, or to protect our invested interests. But rarely does this ever turn into full-scale war.

To sum it up, war is never about tyrants being brought down. Iraq is ruled by one, but there are other countries currently ruled by tyrants, some far worse than Saddam. We have not set siege to these places, because they have no impact on us economically. Once again it boils down to money. The real question is, will Bush stop before the rest of the world decides enough is enough, or will he continue his crusade for oil and riches?

If you disagree with my points, that is fine, but please do not just go off what you heard somewhere else, research your response and opinion, otherwise it is not yours, it is only what you heard.

As a final note, I was against starting the war, but since it started, I realize that if we stopped, it would make matters worse. Now we have a chance to stop, lets take that chance. Support our troops does not mean accept our leaders choices. I pray they return home safely, and pray for those on both sides, innocent or soldier that died in this conflict will rest in peace.

Before you stop and spit on a Muslim, remember Christians have killed several times more than Muslims or any other religous group. More then have died even during Rome's power. Remember, Religion is no reason to praise one's morals or justification, the facts will betray you. This also means religion is no place to wage war, though it is often used as a means to recruit soldiers. Stop the Jihad and embrace the difference of views. America is the land of freedom, worship is one of those freedoms, respect that, show the Muslims we are not against them.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Toltec’s post was at least thought out, though I do disagree in many aspects. I am sorry I missed your post, before posting mine. I would have like to cover it, so in addition to my post, I will cover it specifically.

Using your own definition of Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Are we not trying to destroy non-democratic civilizations? Doing it quiet systematically in fact. We are also trying to stop anyone that feels America’s ways are immoral, and aggressively taking actions (Terrorism). While I agree to the later, is the first right, can we stand on such a moral high ground to say our way is any better? Read American Ignorance of War, its really insightful as how perception is relative.

Quoting you again:
I understand with respect to the issue of conscripts but when defining them as civilians you would first have to get their statements they were in fact conscripts. Furthermore the death of a person who was forced to fight is the fault of the one that forced him to fight.

While this point is valid, I ask, if you can save thousands of lives by playing a political game just a bit longer, is it worth it. And you seem to be neglecting children hit by bombs; we could have reduced that type of bloodshed at the cost of more soldiers, which is the moral way to go? Innocents or our soldiers can be a hard choice to make; did we make the right one?

Quote:
Do you feel its appropriate for millions of people to live under a death threat is they so much as look at the wrong person in a negative way? To put it another way would you live in a country whose policies in regards to treatment of the masses is parallel to the policies inherent in some of the nastier forms of feudalism?

I will not debate this as bad or good, it seems clear to my moral stand. But as I stated before, Saddam is one of many tyrants, and definately not the worst. Why are we focusing on him, what of the others suffering? Are we even going to make a difference in a land riddled with years of war? What of the next tyrant we put in power there? You failed to answer these questions before going over and killing thousands of innocents, getting our own soldiers killed in the process. Iraqi casualties of soldiers around 1-2 thousand, civilians, 4-5 thousand (most from our bombs). Is the end result going to be worth it? We are not giving aid to revolutionaries, the people are not uprising, it could be out of fear, but are these not the same type of people that are supposed to be terrorists unafraid to die for what they believe in? For whatever reasons many must have supported Saddam, if that is so, what makes us believe taking him out of power will change things.

I would rather the world leaders get rid of all weapons except for boxing gloves, and go box it out instead of dragging others to their death. Bush is firm to send 1000s of Americans off to die, but is he brave enough to go fight himself? Oh that’s right he skipped out on war. As a vet of war, I see him as a coward to make such claims of hate and war without no real experience of the gloom of war. It is not pretty, and it can be far devastating that years of tyranny, whether you believe me or not, it is true. Europe knows all to well, and this may be part of their hesitation above and beyond economic and political reasons.

quote:
Tell that to the French and Germans

French? Err, hmm, let’s see, they helped us, we helped them, they helped us, we helped them, they disagree with us, and we spit on them. Strange isn’t it? If someone disagrees with us, we rename their foods and call them names.

Germany
Glad you brought it up. Well lets see, we take them over, then setup them up in a nice little divide, where families on one side of the fence are screwed, cause they no longer can see their families on the other side. France, England, the US all agree to join their side, and set in motion nice little stipulations and regulations, 50 years later, we finally get the USSR to tear down the wall, Pink Floyd had nothing to do with it of course. In the meantime, West Germany sets up nice little trade agreements, all the while under COMPLETE control by the US, England, and France, of which England and France pretty much ignored, the US keep troops there for “their protection” since they could not harbor their own army. Japan and Germany finally get some freedom in regards to all of this. Also to note, Japan wanted America to pull out, we asked them to change their mind, hmm, no Empire or anything right?

I am not arguing that Germany did not benefit from this, we also benefited from this in many ways. Peace in Europe was more stable; the trade agreements were profitable for American businesses. Considering the situation I see nothing wrong with the way it was handled, but the points are the points, we did turn them into a branch of America in many ways. Just because they have disagreements with our leaders, we still have McDonalds in Germany (Unless they got looted). And it is part of our systematic means of removing non-American like governments.

Quote: Hurry and contact the French Government and remind them before its too late

Well, well, I will not try and guess what the result of France will be in the end, but if we hate them so bad, why is their statue still standing in NY? We rename their food, but can’t tear down a statue? Actually, French fries doesn’t imply France, just as a note it means fancy. And freedom fries sounds pretty stupid to me. If we are going to rename it, try fancy fries, or just fries. Freedom needs to exist before we can sling the word around so easily.

As a note to my last sentence, “America has more freedom then any other country” is a common response I hear. Guess what, you’re a fool to believe such rubbish. America is free only if you can pay the price. While yes it is free in comparison to some countries, others have gone beyond us. We are wage slaves, with a two party system; left wing or right wing, democrat or republican, liberal or narrow, oh sorry I meant conservative. While we see ourselves as free, compared to what is the question. Other countries embrace better schooling so all have the freedom for higher education, not just those lucky enough to have parents pay for it, or be in the right place at the right time. The rest have to work full time jobs, pay for school, and go when they can afford it and find time, and usually get lower marks as a result. Socialized systems have a place, and often offer more freedom. Think of growing old, you can live in Germany, where they treat their old with respect and comfort, or here where you no longer make money, so try and survive on the chicken scraps we throw you. While I state America is not the worst place to live, it is also not as bright and glorious as Americans wish it were. I have seen many countries, all have their strengths and weaknesses, but freedom is in the eye of the beholder. If you ask anyone rich, America is a very free place, free labor (or almost), free to kill and pay a high-class lawyer to get away with it. What of all those on death row recently released on DNA evidence, where was their high-class lawyer? Did they get retribution for their “crimes” they did not commit? All good evidence that America has it’s problems, and often makes bad judgments, are we going to kill countless millions on those judgments? Or are we going to at least listen to what those around us say, wiegh it, and then take actions? The UN is not there just for soap boxes, it is there so that a single power does not get over zeolous and decide to take a "moral high ground" like in the inquisition.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Shorien,
Can I ask who's views I am parroting.?
Little presumptuous to decry a lack of research don't you think?

You've obviously got a lot of pent up opinions.It will to be good to read them.

I originally let the land issue go because if we deal with too many issues in one topic the thread gets muddied.But you are right the official military occupation of Japan lasted 10 years and today 44,000 US troops are still there.German occupation lasted 7 years and 50,000 troops are based there today.But my point was that trade control is the key to empire,if it can be achieved without occupation then that is preferable.Bases can be seen as low level occupation but the security that they afford the host means that finding hosts in strategic positions around the world is not that hard.Germany can be replaced by Hungary,Saudi Arabia will be replaced by Iraq.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 01:56 PM
link   
For the record this Polly wants brown sugar


Shorien my points in respect to this discussion center on the issue of what has been found do date. This in respect to the extent of torture and killing that is occurring for the purpose of political goals. That the US is not perfect is no real mystery. I have that cited three clear examples exit, in each of these cases Moslems have been the brunt of atrocities.

We wonder often as to the practical reasons for why there is so much hostilities between the Jews and Moslems. And what we have seen is that in respect to Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq the difference between the way Moslems are treated today. And the way Jews were treated by the Germans, during W.W.II is really not that different.

How can this be possible?

What institution or organization is responsible for
making sure that was never supposed to happen?

My comments in respect to the French, Germans and or Russians was in respect to Doms comments.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I have been doing research recently for an article I am writting about predictions to the results of this war. I appologize for it being so long and perhaps confusing. The responce was based on the following:

America is building a trade empire, the occupation is mearly to help ensure our instated government succeeds during unrest piriods. As we did with Japan and Germany. It is far better to not directly control the land while gaining economic benifits of trade. No cost in maintaining the land. Also as a government gets to large it looses control. This is why the colinist movements of England was so outpowered by America before WW1 and 2. As a result we opened free trade for the world (more or less), and cut our own power firmation. As a result other countries started rivaling us in economics, so we maintained a large military as show. The result is an economic downslide for the US. We started borrowing to keep our war machines oiled.

My largest concern is as follows: We attack Syria, Iran decides they are next, and a preemptive strike takes place. Or switch the direction. In any regards, Iran has a stronger army than Iraq, especially after recent events. It is not a simple conflict at this point, choices our leaders make could cause deadly results. With Bush being so quick to throw out threats, it indicates he is likely to act on them, especially since if he does not, other countries will see America as afraid of acting further, and see Iraq as a quick world threat flex. If these threatened countries back down things will be ok, otherwise things will get harry fast.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 07:35 PM
link   
When the US began this conflict with Iraq the main message to free the Iraqi people. 25 days it seems clear that in fact the Iraqi people needed to be freed. Given what we have found to date it is obvious that one would not need James Bond to figure what was happening there.

So despite the cover up, there really is not reason no to believe the Iraqi people would have reacted the way they did, when the US forces reached the point they are at today.

So one very important question is are the same problems existing in Syria and in Iran?

If the answer really is no then using military force is not really realistic. The US has proven two very important things at this juncture, one that a response to an attack within its boarders or of its interest is a deadly mistake.

And two that in the 21st century atrocities against civilians is a part of our lives (today). Does Syria and Iran support the actions of people trained in military techniques, for the purpose of applying those techniques against civilian populations?

Yes they probably have in the recent past.

Has Syria or Iran applied those same methodologies to people within there own boarders?

Syria and Iran are not the only countries in which such behavior is conceivable but may not actually be occurring?

Its time to stop and accomplish the means of assessing what is happening on this planet realistically.

There was a question related to economics that I did not respond to in respect to your prior post. This in respect to the issue of Why Iraq and is it related to oil?

In the first place Iraq in respect to any other country which engaged in this type of behavior is more than likely the wealthiest and most powerfull. Therefore an attack on Iraq, which resulted in what we know today would send a very clear message. To whatever other leaders are out they’re who see what Saddam did to his population as a means of controlling them as a standardized policy.

Clearly Iraq saw itself as capable of dealing with America’s armed forces and to be certain they were wrong. In respect to the war with Afghanistan it took 44 days (a country which has never been defeated since Alexander the Great), the question at this point is what counties are there in the world, which could deal with either one in less than 70 day's?

At this juncture the best response is to allow Diplomacy the opportunity to work, but by far it must be made apparent that we as a world culture are facing a crisis. And to pretend that it is not obvious that Atrocities against humans on earth do not happen every day is a mistake.

What are your thoughts?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join