Re: Re: Re: Re: How many funerals did you go to after 9/11?
Thank you, this is a very good insight? I would not have thought of it!
-Dan
janneman said:
Thank you, this is a very good insight? I would not have thought of it!
-Dan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How many funerals did you go to after 9/11?
Perhaps you can explain then what Jan was trying to say with
all those examples and the quote from von Clausewitz. I have
no idea what conclusion he wanted us to draw from. I can think
of many quite different and incompatible conclusions that are
just as likely as one another.
dkemppai said:
Perhaps you can explain then what Jan was trying to say with
all those examples and the quote from von Clausewitz. I have
no idea what conclusion he wanted us to draw from. I can think
of many quite different and incompatible conclusions that are
just as likely as one another.
Do we not learn from history?
Most people on this planet abhor war as any reasonable person should. In an ideal world there would be no war, however in the real world there are people who delight in the quest for power at any cost, who
During the 1930's the west had every oppourtunity to stop Hitler. In 1935 when he broke the Treaty of Versilles treaty by announcing the creation of the Luftwaffe, in 1936 when he marched into the Rhineland. In 1938 we cheered that peace in our time had been achieved at the barganing table. That Hitler had been placated at the cost of a small part of Czechoslovakia. Months later the rest of Czechoslovakia fell to Germany. In 1939 came Poland and finally the world reacted 6 years of war, untold destruction and death. To those who are universally oppsed to war the same arguments were made then as are being made today. How can we restrict Germany's right to build military aircraft when we ourselves have them. Even though Hitler broke almost every treaty he signed, we should trust him when he claims that the Sudenland is the extent of his desires in Europe. In 1935 the whole of WWII could have been stopped had some violence been applied, had Europe enforced the Treaty of Versilles, threatended Germany with military strikes and conducted them to remove Hitler had they not complied, countless millions of lives would have been saved.
At the end of the Gulf War Iraq as part of her terms of surrender agreed to dismantle all of her weapons of mass destruction and to cooperate with the UN to ensure that they had in fact been destroyed. As soon as the troops had left his country Sadam began to violate these agreements, he hampered the inspectors, declared his massive palace complexes as off limits and continued to smuggle in components to build weapons that he had agreed to destroy. Eventually after years of back and forth attempts at negotiating and years of crippling sanctions (While the people of Iraq starved Saddam had no problem in finding ways to smuggle in Italian marble and Rolls Royces to repair his palaces). During this entire time the world could have easily made the choice to use force to remove Saddam, he had demonstrated that he had no intention of following the agreements he had signed. However because war is so horrible and Iraqi's might die in the conflict we chose instead to let Iraqi's starve to death in the streets. Saddam instead of fully co-operating with the UN, opening his facilities and demonstraing openly that he had complied and that the sanctions could be lifted, chose to let his people starve. Finally the weapon's inspectors were expelled and when they left they had undisputed evidence that Saddam contained equipment and materials for the construction of biological and chemical weapons. Then the recent resolution was passed and Saddam was faced with a choice, co-operate or face military action. That a complete accounting of all materials that could be used in the production of weapons be made. Again Saddam did not comply, even Hans Blix agrees that material known to exist in 1998 have not been accounted for in Iraq's recent declaration.
So now we have three choices
1. Continue to negotiate and send inspectors for months, years, all while the Iraqi people starve. To follow the same path as the past decade. One definition of insanity is to attempt the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
2. Admit that Saddam will never co-operate and give up. Drop the sanctions and let him go on his merry way hoping against hope that he has learned his lesson and demonstrating to every tin pot dicator around the world that the United Nations is as irrelevent as the League of Nations.
3. Enforce the resolutions in place against Iraq. In this case people will die, this will be sad and unfortunate, but time and time again Saddam has been offered ways out but he has chosen to discard them. The war will be short and the Iraqi people will be better off in the future.
Ask yourself is the average Afghani citizen better off today than he was two years ago? How about the average Afghani woman?
Unforunately human nature sometimes requires that violence be used to do what is right. Choices must be made and sometimes people die because of those choices. This is reality
Most people on this planet abhor war as any reasonable person should. In an ideal world there would be no war, however in the real world there are people who delight in the quest for power at any cost, who
During the 1930's the west had every oppourtunity to stop Hitler. In 1935 when he broke the Treaty of Versilles treaty by announcing the creation of the Luftwaffe, in 1936 when he marched into the Rhineland. In 1938 we cheered that peace in our time had been achieved at the barganing table. That Hitler had been placated at the cost of a small part of Czechoslovakia. Months later the rest of Czechoslovakia fell to Germany. In 1939 came Poland and finally the world reacted 6 years of war, untold destruction and death. To those who are universally oppsed to war the same arguments were made then as are being made today. How can we restrict Germany's right to build military aircraft when we ourselves have them. Even though Hitler broke almost every treaty he signed, we should trust him when he claims that the Sudenland is the extent of his desires in Europe. In 1935 the whole of WWII could have been stopped had some violence been applied, had Europe enforced the Treaty of Versilles, threatended Germany with military strikes and conducted them to remove Hitler had they not complied, countless millions of lives would have been saved.
At the end of the Gulf War Iraq as part of her terms of surrender agreed to dismantle all of her weapons of mass destruction and to cooperate with the UN to ensure that they had in fact been destroyed. As soon as the troops had left his country Sadam began to violate these agreements, he hampered the inspectors, declared his massive palace complexes as off limits and continued to smuggle in components to build weapons that he had agreed to destroy. Eventually after years of back and forth attempts at negotiating and years of crippling sanctions (While the people of Iraq starved Saddam had no problem in finding ways to smuggle in Italian marble and Rolls Royces to repair his palaces). During this entire time the world could have easily made the choice to use force to remove Saddam, he had demonstrated that he had no intention of following the agreements he had signed. However because war is so horrible and Iraqi's might die in the conflict we chose instead to let Iraqi's starve to death in the streets. Saddam instead of fully co-operating with the UN, opening his facilities and demonstraing openly that he had complied and that the sanctions could be lifted, chose to let his people starve. Finally the weapon's inspectors were expelled and when they left they had undisputed evidence that Saddam contained equipment and materials for the construction of biological and chemical weapons. Then the recent resolution was passed and Saddam was faced with a choice, co-operate or face military action. That a complete accounting of all materials that could be used in the production of weapons be made. Again Saddam did not comply, even Hans Blix agrees that material known to exist in 1998 have not been accounted for in Iraq's recent declaration.
So now we have three choices
1. Continue to negotiate and send inspectors for months, years, all while the Iraqi people starve. To follow the same path as the past decade. One definition of insanity is to attempt the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
2. Admit that Saddam will never co-operate and give up. Drop the sanctions and let him go on his merry way hoping against hope that he has learned his lesson and demonstrating to every tin pot dicator around the world that the United Nations is as irrelevent as the League of Nations.
3. Enforce the resolutions in place against Iraq. In this case people will die, this will be sad and unfortunate, but time and time again Saddam has been offered ways out but he has chosen to discard them. The war will be short and the Iraqi people will be better off in the future.
Ask yourself is the average Afghani citizen better off today than he was two years ago? How about the average Afghani woman?
Unforunately human nature sometimes requires that violence be used to do what is right. Choices must be made and sometimes people die because of those choices. This is reality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How many funerals did you go to after 9/11?
Christer,
??? I thought I was giving a (partly) reason why Europeans are much less inclined to accept (preventive) war than Americans, and to a lesser extend, Britons and French. (I realise that Britons & French are also Europeans, of course). I don't see how my post could be misinterpreted at that? I mean, you can have a different opinion, but surely my argument is clear?
Jan Didden
Christer said:
Christer,
??? I thought I was giving a (partly) reason why Europeans are much less inclined to accept (preventive) war than Americans, and to a lesser extend, Britons and French. (I realise that Britons & French are also Europeans, of course). I don't see how my post could be misinterpreted at that? I mean, you can have a different opinion, but surely my argument is clear?
Jan Didden
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How many funerals did you go to after 9/11?
Well, I got the feeling that you also tried to say something more
than just pointing out the difference in views, making some
valuation of the european view. However, I couldn't figure out
if you tried to defend the european view or if you thought it
naive, or whatever. I probably overinterpreted you. Maybe it
was that quote from von Clausewitz at the end that puzzled me
in the context of what you said, and I still don't know why you
put that in if you did not try to argue for something.
janneman said:
Well, I got the feeling that you also tried to say something more
than just pointing out the difference in views, making some
valuation of the european view. However, I couldn't figure out
if you tried to defend the european view or if you thought it
naive, or whatever. I probably overinterpreted you. Maybe it
was that quote from von Clausewitz at the end that puzzled me
in the context of what you said, and I still don't know why you
put that in if you did not try to argue for something.
Kelly McDonald said:
The west did not make them happy enough during past 12 years?
Did you ask yourself ever, how it seems to be bombed?
Pedja
Well, I don't know personally, but my ancestors begged Churchill and Roosevelt to bomb them- or, more precisely, the camps where their families were being held prisoner and slaughtered. Bombing would have inflicted much death upon us, but prevented much, much more. Sadly, Roosevelt and Churchill declined, Auschwitz stood, and Europe is nearly Judenrein.
Bombing is horrible, but there are things that are even worse.
Bombing is horrible, but there are things that are even worse.
I think Pedja got the point. Does anybody wonder if irak people will hate Amerika for the next 50 jears after they got bombed?
If Mr Hussein is the problem you should eliminate only him, not the people over there in irak.
If your point is to bring peace to near east - start in palestina and israel.
I´m very sure the people in irak don´t want to kill us here in europe. But i´m very frightened of a goverment that want´s to USE nuclear weapons. News in germany say USA wants to USE nukes. I´don´t know if saddam has nukes. Whom should i frighten more?
If Mr Hussein is the problem you should eliminate only him, not the people over there in irak.
If your point is to bring peace to near east - start in palestina and israel.
I´m very sure the people in irak don´t want to kill us here in europe. But i´m very frightened of a goverment that want´s to USE nuclear weapons. News in germany say USA wants to USE nukes. I´don´t know if saddam has nukes. Whom should i frighten more?
I asked several times yesterday what the proofs are that USA
refers to and why they don't share this piece of information with
the weapons inspectors. Yet, no american even tried to answer
those questions, but rather went on telling how convinced they
are that war is the "right" thing, and how horrible it is that not
everybody else is just as convinced. Finally, someone, Kelly
McDonald, tried to give at least a partial answer. Thanks Kelly.
I remain puzzled, however, why it would take almost 24 hours
before this answer came, and why it had to come from a
canadian???!!!
You add som interesting pieces of information, which, if true,
may shed some light on the matter. So if I understand you
correctly, there are official reports from the previous UN inspection
teams of findings of weapons of mass destruction, or materials/
equipment for production of such, and that this was the current
state of affairs when the previous inspectors were forced out
of Iraq. This makes it somewhat easier to understand what it
is Iraq is supposed to prove. It still does not answer the
question of why the US are not telling the current inspection
teams where to look for such weapons, if they have the proof
they claim.
So what about the people of Iraq? Are they suffering from the
sanctions? yes, undoubtedly. Do they starve? I don't know, there
is very conflicting information on that point. Some claim that
a million and a half Iraqis have died from starvation and lack
of medicines. Others say that there is no such problem since
Iraq was allowed to sell oil to buy food and medicines. Do the
Iraqis suffer so much that they prefer to be bombed? It does
not seem so from reports we are getting from Bagdad in media.
Those who can are starting to leave the country to avoid the war.
Of the rest, those who are rich enough are digging wells in their
backyards to make sure they have water even when the
infrastructure is destroyed.
The message is still unclear, is the war intended to get rid
of Saddam at whatever cost, or to stop the claimed (and possibly
real) starvation of the Iraqi people, or ...? If the latter, then
better start with North Korea, where we have rather credible
evidence that people are starving.
refers to and why they don't share this piece of information with
the weapons inspectors. Yet, no american even tried to answer
those questions, but rather went on telling how convinced they
are that war is the "right" thing, and how horrible it is that not
everybody else is just as convinced. Finally, someone, Kelly
McDonald, tried to give at least a partial answer. Thanks Kelly.
I remain puzzled, however, why it would take almost 24 hours
before this answer came, and why it had to come from a
canadian???!!!
You add som interesting pieces of information, which, if true,
may shed some light on the matter. So if I understand you
correctly, there are official reports from the previous UN inspection
teams of findings of weapons of mass destruction, or materials/
equipment for production of such, and that this was the current
state of affairs when the previous inspectors were forced out
of Iraq. This makes it somewhat easier to understand what it
is Iraq is supposed to prove. It still does not answer the
question of why the US are not telling the current inspection
teams where to look for such weapons, if they have the proof
they claim.
So what about the people of Iraq? Are they suffering from the
sanctions? yes, undoubtedly. Do they starve? I don't know, there
is very conflicting information on that point. Some claim that
a million and a half Iraqis have died from starvation and lack
of medicines. Others say that there is no such problem since
Iraq was allowed to sell oil to buy food and medicines. Do the
Iraqis suffer so much that they prefer to be bombed? It does
not seem so from reports we are getting from Bagdad in media.
Those who can are starting to leave the country to avoid the war.
Of the rest, those who are rich enough are digging wells in their
backyards to make sure they have water even when the
infrastructure is destroyed.
The message is still unclear, is the war intended to get rid
of Saddam at whatever cost, or to stop the claimed (and possibly
real) starvation of the Iraqi people, or ...? If the latter, then
better start with North Korea, where we have rather credible
evidence that people are starving.
the story is based on us amerikan information - do you rad LA times?
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...,7057300.story?coll=la-headlines-sunop-manual
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-17.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...3feb03,0,1013258.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...,7057300.story?coll=la-headlines-sunop-manual
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-17.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...3feb03,0,1013258.story?coll=la-home-headlines
The US will not use nuclear weapons except in response to another nuclear attack and even then it would be as limited as possible. The news in Germany is using sensationalism, meaning they are making outlandish guesses or accusations in order to sell more papers or get more viewers. US journalism is as guilty as anyone of that.
Pedja said:
How it feels to be bombed. I'd expect it to be terrifying and horiffic. A close friend of mines mother was one house away from being killed in Germany during WWII. Should we then have left Hitler to run unchecked accross Europe because of the feelings of those innocents that might have been killed in our attacks?
I also suspect that it would be horrible to slowly die of starvation, or lack of basic medical care, or to be tortured to death. In Iraq there is a choice to be made and each and every one of those choices means that someone will die. They may die as a political prisoner of Saddam's or as a victim in his next play for power should we give up and let Saddam do as he wishes. They may die as a result of starvation or lack of medicine if we continue our sanctions. Or they may die from a cruise missile. As I said before it is all about choices and because of these choices people will die, this is not a good thing, it is tragic, it is unforunate, but it is the world in which we live. I wish it were otherwise, I wish that the thousands of horible and tragic accidents that occur world wide every day were avoidable, but again that is reality, it is the price we pay for being mortal.
till, with all due respect, it might be better to understand the difference between "editorial" and "news." The idea that the US *wants* to use nuclear arms is ludicrous.
Cradle22 said:
Arndt,
How much lack of self assurance have the anti-war posters exhibited in this thread? I posted my message, because I saw a lot of messages that oozed certainty about how brainwashed and kill crazed Americans are.
My wife is a professor of History at the local technical university. I am an electrical engineer, but my true love is history and if my engineering job didn't pay double what teaching does, that is what I would be doing as well. Between the two of us we probably own somewhere around 1000 non-fictional books. Most of these books are about historical subjects and all of them have been read multiple times (we get rid of the duds to make room for the good stuff). We read every issue of the Economist and most of our TV time is spent watching PBS (plus I must confess a weakness for Stargate SG1 as well).
I am not saying that my opinions are not influenced by my culture, but I am also saying that neither my wife nor I am brain washed idiots.
Nicolo Machiavelli made a particularly astute observation about human nature in his work "The Prince". Never do anyone a small injury. Either make them your friend or kill them. In the Gulf war the west ignored this advise and inflicted a great injury on Saddam, while leaving him in power.
Saddam has the means. He has used the resources of an oil rich country to acquire the technology to create weapons of mass destruction. If you wish to ignore the evidence that has been amply presented of his intent to acquire these weapons over the last 20 years, then nothing I say will convince you of that.
Saddam has the motivation. Does anyone really believe that he has forgiven the West for what we did to him and his country in the Gulf war? Do any of you doubt that Saddam will do whatever he can to hurt us if he can avoid being punished for it?
Saddam has proven he has the will. He invaded his neighbor for wealth. He has used chemical weapons on his own people. He has very little left to lose at this point.
Saddam has the opportunity. There are terrorist groups that will gladly accept weapons from Saddam and use them against the West. Saddam only has to survive his current difficulties and wait for the world to stop looking at him. After all revenge is a dish best eaten cold.
Unless Saddam is removed from power there is almost total certainty that he will get his revenge on the West. And don't think that his puppets will concentrate just on America. The radical Muslims hate your culture just as much as they hate ours.
I don't know for sure why Bush the elder faltered at the end of the first Gulf war. By leaving Saddam in power in Iraq, he set has the stage for what is happening now. Look to your own history in Europe. Unfinished business keeps coming back up until it is dealt with. WW1 was left unfinished, that is in great part is why WW2 happened. And the anti-war protestors in Europe played a role in preventing the democracies of the west from apposing Hitler until it was too late.
In 1943 Winston Churchill had the following to say to the pacifists of his day:
We have been attacked. We will be attacked again. This is not going to go away if we just think gentle thoughts and sing anti-war songs.
Phil
Christer said:
Do you think that the weapons are in one place at a time, and are never moved? Do you think that the inspectors are really able to 'sneak' up on a storage location?
Also, what about the 13 biological warheads that were discovered by the inspection team? Yes, bilogical warheads were found, is that not proof enough?
Christer said:
Hi All,
I don't know about the current situation...
I worked with a girl who lived in IRAQ, in Bagdad, during the Persian gulf war... ...her uncles house was 3 blocks from one of Sadams palaces. After the war, she came to America. Her whole family came to America. I had a chance to chat with her about the war, and how she felt. She was glad to be in America, after all was said and done.
I don't remember many of our exact conversations, but I do remember her saying it was a sad thing. She felt that the Iraqi government would not let the people do anything and neither would the American government. Sort of between the old rock and hard place. She felt she and her family would have a better life here in America, which they did.
What I learned was something that I allready knew, that the Iraqi people are no different that I, or my wife. We all want peace, and we all want to be free to live our lives, make a living, and raise a family. Northing more, nothing less. Again, this is the opinion of only one former Iraqi citizen... ...but probably rings true for many.
Is that worth fighting for? I would have to think hard about doing so for the people of Iraq, but is worth thinking about.
Would the Iraqi people hate me for wanting them to have that freedom? For wanting that freedom for myself?
I don't know. It seems that many europeans fear my freedome and choice to carry a gun. Maybe, just maybe I won't stand against the next Hitler...
-Dan
OK Jan, not a problem, that is what I meant.
Kelly and Dan mentioned Hitler… Once, there was a Hitler. And Hitler will be never more. Every comparisons of the present politicians or policies with Hitler doesn’t have in the background any insight in the real events, but only wants to rise the blood in people’s veins. But when we are at him, yes, it is possible there was a chance to make something to stop him before he did anything, the first step probably could be that not to mortify Germany as the world did after the WW one. But the politicians that make this world worst, yes, they exist, and unfortunately, they will ever exist. And it is not a problem to agree Sadam belongs to this kind of politicians. And as about what till said, I’m sure with the power of the USA and the power of its and allied countries intelligence services, it would not take more than a year or two to dethrone Sadam. If it only were a goal…
I can seem like a freak, like a …, my problem is I’m sick of any statement as “it is good for Iraqi people”. Anyone who claims such thing offends the people’s IQ. I don’t need anyone to tell me what the bombing is. I’ve been bombed 4 years ago. I know how it feels to be bombed. If I ever say that those who did it, did it in a good will to make me happy, please, take me to the madhouse. The reason the Americans (and Englishmen of course) will bomb Iraq is in their intention to raise the level of control over the oil resources in the world. It doesn’t have anything with any good wishes to Iraqi people. Iraqi people will get only pain, dead, blood, destroyed homes and towns, destroyed factories… They will lost their children, spouses, parents, friends…
Thinking step by step, originally proclaimed goal is to protect the world from the terrorism. Anyone believes this war will protect anyone from the terrorism? Of course not, it is ridiculous. And the level of the tensions in the world could be only higher after this. That will certainly not make world a better place…
Pedja
Kelly and Dan mentioned Hitler… Once, there was a Hitler. And Hitler will be never more. Every comparisons of the present politicians or policies with Hitler doesn’t have in the background any insight in the real events, but only wants to rise the blood in people’s veins. But when we are at him, yes, it is possible there was a chance to make something to stop him before he did anything, the first step probably could be that not to mortify Germany as the world did after the WW one. But the politicians that make this world worst, yes, they exist, and unfortunately, they will ever exist. And it is not a problem to agree Sadam belongs to this kind of politicians. And as about what till said, I’m sure with the power of the USA and the power of its and allied countries intelligence services, it would not take more than a year or two to dethrone Sadam. If it only were a goal…
I can seem like a freak, like a …, my problem is I’m sick of any statement as “it is good for Iraqi people”. Anyone who claims such thing offends the people’s IQ. I don’t need anyone to tell me what the bombing is. I’ve been bombed 4 years ago. I know how it feels to be bombed. If I ever say that those who did it, did it in a good will to make me happy, please, take me to the madhouse. The reason the Americans (and Englishmen of course) will bomb Iraq is in their intention to raise the level of control over the oil resources in the world. It doesn’t have anything with any good wishes to Iraqi people. Iraqi people will get only pain, dead, blood, destroyed homes and towns, destroyed factories… They will lost their children, spouses, parents, friends…
Thinking step by step, originally proclaimed goal is to protect the world from the terrorism. Anyone believes this war will protect anyone from the terrorism? Of course not, it is ridiculous. And the level of the tensions in the world could be only higher after this. That will certainly not make world a better place…
Pedja
- Status
- Not open for further replies.