The Looming Question.....War? Yes or No!

[RED FIRE COW]

Originally posted by Aardvark

'Decision by indecision.'

 

I'm not sure if Zen Buddism works in international diplomacy.

 

Im sure it would have worked in preventing the vietnam war(I dont know if thats a good ex cause I didnt think it through but hey).

[Aardvark]

The Vietnam war was being fought long before the Americans got involved. Still, i suppose America could have saved itself a lot of grief by not getting involved.

 

I wonder what the result would have been for SE Asia if America had not tried to help South Vietnam? Things might be very different today.

[Rossonero]

all i am saying is that the US should stop putting pressure on other countries. they can ask us once or twice to participate, but they should get the message and stop critisising, b!tching and pushing other countries into a war which they do not want to fight.

 

Also, who are the US government to all of a sudden just butt into australian politics and try to make decisions on our behalf. That goes majorly to the american ambassador to australia, who should go bak to america.

 

originally posted by AardvarkSimply turnng away from someone you diagree with achieves nothing.

 

funny that. when Prime Minister Howard went to america to remotely discuss free trade to benefit both american and australian farmers, Bust turned right away from the discussion.

 

So in my books the Bush Administration can go F@%k themselves up a tree. and perhaps if Bush so badly wants to kill sadam, maybe he should ask him for a 1 on 1 battle. rather than killing heaps of innocent civilians.

[Rossonero]

Originally posted by Matzi

Not if they do not agree in an issue.

 

i agree

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Rossonero

funny that. when Prime Minister Howard went to america to remotely discuss free trade to benefit both american and australian farmers, Bust turned right away from the discussion.

And was anything achieved?

[Rossonero]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

And was anything achieved?

 

no because, comprimising isnt a two way street for the bush administration and they turned well away from the issues of our importance and wish us to jump on the banwagon in support of their hidden agenda.

[aman]

I'd like to believe we aren't the United States we were twenty years ago, or ten years ago, or the day before 9/11/01, or the U.S. of yesterday but we're better every day. We had slavery, women couldn't vote, and we outgrew these and countless other shameful practices. That's because we are the U.S. and Americans won't tolerate injustice in the long run.

It's easy to focus on on the mistakes we made learning to be a great nation and forget that we are responsible for a lot of other nations being free to try to attain greatness themselves.

This is not Viet Nam. This is common sense.

Just aman

[Matzi]

Originally posted by Rossonero

[...]and perhaps if Bush so badly wants to kill sadam, maybe he should ask him for a 1 on 1 battle. rather than killing heaps of innocent civilians.

That would be probably the best solution, though I think the result wouldn't be that great...

[Matzi]

Originally posted by aman

[..]but we're better every day.

This thinking is exactly the problem in this whole issue.

 

That's because we are the U.S. and Americans won't tolerate injustice in the long run.

Sure, yeah, and every country not willing to get involved into this whole damn war thing does actually tolerate justice?

Besides, how do you define justice?

Presently, I have got the impression Americans think it is just to kill millions of people in order to kill one person who might constitute a threat that the US are not able to cope with.

This is - as I see it - a perfect example for injustice.

Is it so hard to accept an objective definition instead of a subjective one?

[Aardvark]

You might define justice as not, dropping nerve gas on your own people, never holding elections, shooting anyone who dares to disagree with you and trying to conquer your neighbours, all for personal glory.

 

And the idea that a war in Iraq will automatically lead to millions of causalties is infantile and purile.

 

As someone from Germany i would have hoped you would have learned the lessons about the need to stand up to dictatorships. Not shy away in a cloud of moral failure and cowardice.

[aman]

A million Bosnian women and children didn't get bombed by us when we stopped that carnage. A million Iraqui civilians didn't die in the last war except for the thousands that Saddam himself killed. A million Afgan civilians didn't die and in fact returned from being refugees and are slowly getting their country back.

The League of Nations turned their back. We can't do that again.

Also I can't see condoning dividing up the spoils of Iraq so France gets it big favorable contracts before the war even starts. There are not supposed to be any spoils. Iraq belongs to Iraq and France is just going to have to kiss it's one sided Saddam contracts goodbye.

Just aman

[PogoC7]

When Bush first came into office, his priorities weren't war and terrorism. Bush was cutting down on globalization (closing buisnesses abroad), and he did want to look at oil possabilities in Alaska (remember comedy centrals show "Thats my bush", loved that show) so we weren't so reliant on the Middle East oil.

Now, after Sept. 11, all people hear is terrorism, but thats how it is. I do feel better now that we are aware of threats. Isreal shows that you can't let terrorism happen, although, terrorism is a state of mind when a person is driven to the point of wanting to kill. But Iraq adds to the injustice which leads to terrorism.

We also have people protesting and they have their points, but they all call Bush a war mongal and appose war. But they also say they don't support Suddam. So what is the solution? We have inspectors there forever and ask Suddam to leave peacefully. We have given him a pardon (become a anonymous millionaire). There are also Iraqis protesting. They are walking the streets with AK-47s and flags of Suddam. Funny how they are the only protestors SUPPORTING SUDDAM. Opinion isn't a big vertule in Iraq. Seems we actually do have the same views towards Iraq.

 

Originally posted by aman

Also I can't see condoning dividing up the spoils of Iraq so France gets it big favorable contracts before the war even starts.

Yes, it is sad. NATO (people who are incharge of united war, not UN, UN has to approve war) has 18 members: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Czech Rep, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom (Given: U.S.). 16 of these countires DO NOT appose action against Iraq, only France, Germany (which has troops working with American already), and Belgium want "peaceful" resolutions. Scary what they really want. FOR GODSAKE, they won't even defend their NATO ALLIE Turkey ( article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nato_iraq_107 ). People seem to be bashing, but the main problem in this thread is Suddam. So can I hear some peaceful resolution other than the same comment or arguements, over and over.

 

Suddam has used chemical weapons throughout his regime. 1988 - he used them agaisnt Iran, he had arcenals of weapons (biological) after the Gulf war, but now those weapons aren't accounted for? He shot 39 missles into Tela Viv during the Gulf War. Civillian dying is not the issue (Suddam kill more civilans then U.S. troops). The U.S. does a very good job protecting the civilians. The proof is in the puttin. We are an intelligant civilization, we appose war because we know the consiquences. But the U.S. (along with other countries) are not looking to kill people, they want to help keep our world safe.

[Aardvark]

Peaceful resolution with Saddam Hussein? Dream on.

[Rossonero]

wake up and smell the coffee. racists . :lame:

[Matzi]

Originally posted by Aardvark

[...]And the idea that a war in Iraq will automatically lead to millions of causalties is infantile and purile.

 

As someone from Germany i would have hoped you would have learned the lessons about the need to stand up to dictatorships. Not shy away in a cloud of moral failure and cowardice.

1. Ok, maybe not millions, but there will victims. Victims that could be avoided by a peaceful solution. Consider you were in that situation.

2. We certainly have.

But it's a matter of means. I think that every victim is a victim too much. So there have to be other possibilities and they have to be considered at least in a situation in which this is still possible. When Saddam has launched missiles against whomever then you certainly can forget about that...

 

Btw:Germany will help NATO partner Turkey in case of an attack. Claiming the opposite is just a sign of misinformation and prejudice..

 

Btw II: In such situations it a matter of looking at the present and the future and not at the past since we will never find a solution this way.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by Rossonero

wake up and smell the coffee. racists . :lame:

maybe a bit too radical... but we will come to that soon when it is going on as some people here (and everywhere else) would like to have it...

[Aardvark]

Racists? Look in the mirror.

 

You're the ones who seem to think its fine to leave the Iraqis in the grips of a brutal dictactorship. I wonder if you would feel the same way if they were white rather than arab?

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Rossonero

wake up and smell the coffee. racists . :lame:

If you're going to go so far as to call people racist, you would do well to explain why you think that is so.

 

Otherwise there's nothing stopping me from calling you an Aussie Convict, and this thread would just deteriorate into name calling.

[Rossonero]

Originally posted by Aardvark

Racists? Look in the mirror.

 

You're the ones who seem to think its fine to leave the Iraqis in the grips of a brutal dictactorship. I wonder if you would feel the same way if they were white rather than arab?

 

hmmm, exept for the fact that i am caucasian, so, would that make me racist against myself.

[Rossonero]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

If you're going to go so far as to call people racist, you would do well to explain why you think that is so.

 

Otherwise there's nothing stopping me from calling you an Aussie Convict, and this thread would just deteriorate into name calling.

 

thats all well and good, considering: -

 

1. How many Italian Convicts do u know that came too australia.

 

2. My parents came to australia in the 70's

 

3. We still have a house and residence in Italy.

 

4. I have both italian and australian citizenship.

 

5. well, im sure if i wanted to i could think of a 5, but atm cbf.

[Sayonara]

Same principle applies.

 

Calling people racist without backing it up is just as bad as me calling you a Dago or a Guinea without any good reason (although I'm fairly certain there would never be a good enough reason for me to call you those names, as outdated as they are!)

 

[edit] I rather thought that most Australians were caucasians.

[blike]

 

sorry, had to fulfill my daily duty to incite flames.

[Aardvark]

No Rossonero,

 

Displaying contempt for the oppressed people of Iraq doesnt make you racist against yourself, it implies that you might be racist against Arabs.

[RED FIRE COW]

Im tired of this race bullshi# getting brought up by people that have nothing intelligent to say.

 

Rossonero your white right; why the hell do you bring this stuff against yourself specially when its not true.

 

It reminds me of Freuds death instinct theory.

[Sayonara]

I've been reading through this thread from the start and there is a lot of ignorance in it, as well as a whole load of half-truths and misconceptions.

 

I have attempted to summarise the main points raised in the thread, leaving out the drivel and the off-topic posts, as well as some posts that have been adequately dealt with already.

 

I know a lot of this will sound like country bashing or member bashing so I have tried my best to remain objective. It's inevitable that some people will object to hearing certain things about where they live or who leads them.

 

Here's my non-comedy round up:

Originally posted by aman

We [uSA] still have to keep India and Pakistan from nuking each other, North Korea contained, try for peace in Israel and Palestine, and then we are just getting started finally with the continent of Africa.

Actually, no you don't. The Israel-Palestine conflict has nothing to do with the USA and neither does the India-Pakistan conflict. India and Pakistan, contrary to whatever America might believe, aren't actually stupid enough to nuke each other. Some parts of Africa might not be paradise but it's a huge and varied continent and it needs US troops piling into it about as much as the US needs a whole new family of pissed-off foreign terrorists.

 

As far as North Korea goes, they may be a hilariously dictatorial regime with revisionist history and overinflated self-importance (sound familiar?), but they can't take on the world themselves. Why should anyone try to contain them? There's not a lot they can do even with nukes. Why does the US feel it has the right to preclude expansion of another culture anyway? That's an ecological process called resource partitioning, and it basically translates to "we're going to ensure our survival by curbing your efforts to thrive".

Originally posted by PogoC7

The U.N. is controled by power countires. These are (not exact) China, Russia, England, Germany, France, and the U.S.

"(not exact)" might as well say "I don't know and can't be bothered checking". Incidentally, 'England' should read 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain', or the UK or GB for short. Saying England is a member of the UN is retarded in the same way that claiming Mexico represents the Americas is retarded - it's non-inclusive.

Also, these countires have veto power, but would never dare veto something propossed by the U.S.

What, you mean vetoing like when the US vetoed a UN resolution designed to protect UN staff, most of whom were British? http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2002/12/21/41153.html Because FRANCE VETOED THE USA http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/208188.htm so I guess you were wrong about that. Even Belgium vetoed that one, for crying out loud. You must think a lot of the US if you don't believe the rest of the world would dare say "hang on a minute...".

What I find telling is that a search on google for "UN vetoes against the USA" returns more than 2700 results, most of which are actually the USA vetoing UN resolutions that don't serve its interests directly.

Even though the U.N. is the cooperation of all world countries, it's still a power (food) chain. The U.S. has as much power in the U.N. as it has anywhere else.

Not true. It's a council. They use these things called "votes", and unlike the weird democracy the US favours the current rate of exchange is 1 vote = 1 vote.

Originally posted by PogoC7

Correction *Mothers out there*

Japennesse (kamakazies, Overall Fight to the death people)

Nazies (need I say more)

Not a lot of Nazis in Japan in WWII. In point of fact Kamikaze pilots were in the minority as the caste and role was an honoured one that not any old Joe (or Akira) could fill. The reason the Japanese kept fighting was because they had never had experience of losing a war before and did not know how to back out honourably. Knowing something about Japanese culture would probably be an advantage if you wish to discuss them as a people or spell their name correctly.

Originally posted by PogoC7

Terrosism is a State of mind. That is what America needs to address and will once they get the Middle East under control (Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia). I do have many opinions about this subject, but I'll wait until I open a thread regarding my thoughs about terrorism and how to resolve that issue.

Geography alert! The Middle East is a lot bigger than you think and incorporates a lot of countries you've probably never heard of. For the most part they are stable, economically sound and West-friendly, and the presence of a rogue dictator in one country does not mean that they are all 'evil'. Saudi Arabia for instance only takes issue with the US because of the number of times the US has screwed them over for oil trade rights.

 

The issue of terrorism cannot and will not be resolved. As long as you have people who are facing the extinction of their ideals in the face of a superior naked force, there will be terrorism. Anyone can make a bomb.

Originally posted by Mastermold

I have to believe that a leader of most countries must be relatively intelligent to reach and maintain their position... especially a person who is multi-lingual (you should see an old interview with Saddam Hussein.. I think it was with Dan Rather) and Saddam spoke almost flawless and astute English.

A small amount of research will explain why. I think you'll be surprised.

And I also have to believe that he only spouts the religious nonsense because it is good for his peoples' morale. (Just like Bush with his "God bless America," Saddam has his, "may Allah protect us.")

Most likely true, but scarily, Bush probably does mean it. He's a Born Again Christian.

< ...true bits... >

 

I am embarrassed of an America that declares a country an "axis of evil" and then complains when they disobey nuclear arms treaties (N. Korea) because of our own arrogance.

True, except that North Korea didn't disobey the treaty - they withdrew from it, and have every right to do so. Self determination is a right of all sovereign countries, whether you agree with the way they are ruled or not.

We need to apologize for our arrogance to N. Korea and I guarantee they will be willing to talk.. we need to apologize for the two girls killied by drunk marines in S. Korea and they will assist us even further...

Assist you? Do you even know why the US supports the South?

and we need to apologize to Iraq for our distrust (as legitimate as it is) and begin to talk with Saddam... to understand his intentions and goals.

That shouldn't be too difficult to establish. The US keeps detailed files on the dictators they put into office.

It all may sound too Utopian and Ideal, but I believe all is within reach. As for oil, I say if only we were born with more foresight, we would understand the futility of SUVs, overpopulation, and pollution... but unfortunately we don't.. so we will continue to squander one of the Earth's most precious resources until it's all gone and there will be nothing left... Bush promises his hydrogen cars, but it will be prohibitively expensive, just like electric cars, until a DEMOCRATIC congress pushes for tax benefits and other incentives for companies and customers.

Don't hold out for hydrogen cars. Where do you think the energy will come from to distill, compress, store and transport all that hydrogen?

Originally posted by PogoC7

Anyone who is dumb enough to fire Nuclear weapons deserves to die. This is why Iraq and the U.S. are going at it.

I have to say I agree.

Iraq would fire a nuclear weapon

They don't have any.

America is supported by many (almost every) nation, even if the nation don't show it.

Where did this startling intel come from?

If America wanted to go to war tomorrow, then countries like Germany, Britian and Russia would so, "Ok. We don't agree, but we will help you". They know what dealing with Iraq is not easy and America has the forces of taking him out very quickly.

Our survey said: 1 out of 3 isn't bad.

As for N. Korea, they use their weapon capabilities for political gain.

Just like the anyone with those capabilities. So?

They want U.S. forces to leave S. Korea. Unification is eventually the outsome in Korea. What is important to undrstand is that the Asian Culture is very complex and Asians are very good at dealing with eachother (better then American dealing with N. Koreans). I don't know why China or Japan don't get involved in the Korea sistuation. Just another example of the U.S. needing to the the Police of the world.*

The first bit was right - Asian culture is complex. China and Japan are getting involved, or have done since you wrote that. You see, their response was reasoned and thought out, and therefore took time to formulate. When you say that the US needs to police the world you are flatly contradicting what you just said about Korea. Decide.

Originally posted by fafalone

From what I've heard about US WOMD contingencies (both public and classified material), if Iraq used WOMDs on us, we would do the same and completely annihilate them in a matter of days.

Excluding weapon transit periods, the total time required to plan and execute the US-led sterilisation of Iraq would be about 60 minutes.

Originally posted by PogoC7

We have to be in Iraq. The "no fly zone". We protect neighoring Countires. Those Countires don't show gratitude, but they are very happy we are in Iraq.

We have been in South Korea since Communism, but there is'nt any reason to be there. That is why we have tention there now. Eventually, the Koreas will unify.

Unlikely.

 

According to the "Glorious Leaders" of the North, the South is an evil force held back from invading the northern utopia by sheer will of the government alone. WWII did not happen, and the west are evil aggressors.

 

We know this to be revisionist dogma, but the N. Koreans positively chant it.

Originally posted by Matzi

Yeah, sure, Saddam would have already nuked us if the planes had not been there...

He has no nukes.