Good point fdegrove. If you want to stop a dictatorship there could be other ways to achieve so.
heres a classic,
we care so much about the welfare and suffering of your people we are going to bomb the living dayights out of you for 48 hours, you can witness the deaths of all your neighbors , families and freinds and then when weve got what we want, you can thank us for liberating you from this evil tyranny. Ive read this arrogance on this thread and also the crap cnn spews out.
we care so much about the welfare and suffering of your people we are going to bomb the living dayights out of you for 48 hours, you can witness the deaths of all your neighbors , families and freinds and then when weve got what we want, you can thank us for liberating you from this evil tyranny. Ive read this arrogance on this thread and also the crap cnn spews out.
Re: GOALS.
Frank and Lisandro, I am with you 100%. I would be perfectly satisfied if Saddam just disappeared.
But exactly how do you propose we make that happen? Saddam is still alive and in power because he is very good at staying alive and in power. He has had years of practice and along the way has killed off just about everyone in his own country who shows the slightest hint of apposing him.
An internal palace revolt is the only way this could happen. His own security people will have to kill him if war is to be avoided.
I don't hold any great hopes of that happening. Do you?
Phil
fdegrove said:
Lisandro_P said:
Frank and Lisandro, I am with you 100%. I would be perfectly satisfied if Saddam just disappeared.
But exactly how do you propose we make that happen? Saddam is still alive and in power because he is very good at staying alive and in power. He has had years of practice and along the way has killed off just about everyone in his own country who shows the slightest hint of apposing him.
An internal palace revolt is the only way this could happen. His own security people will have to kill him if war is to be avoided.
I don't hold any great hopes of that happening. Do you?
Phil
WARFARE.
Hi,
No.
There's not much hope there,he probably pays them in gold...does that mean the U.S. have a green light for bombing the whole country?
Cheers,😉
Hi,
No.
There's not much hope there,he probably pays them in gold...does that mean the U.S. have a green light for bombing the whole country?
Cheers,😉
Pedja said:
The resaon that ther will never be a hitler again is because we won't let it happen. We made that mistake once, and never again.
Are you blind to the fact that sadam attacked Kuait? It is exactly what Hitler did, attack his neighbors! History repeats itself. Are you so afraid of human nature being so terrible that you turn your head and pray it is not so, even when you eyes tell you it is? You have even seen it with your own eyes, and yet you do not believe?
What kind of world would you be in, if America fell to Sadam or Osama? Would you feel safer than you do now? Really, would you?
Yes, Hitler will be no more. But there will be names to follow, and legacies just as terrible. You may never see it, but will your children? Grandchildren?
-Dan
Re: WARFARE.
If we go, we can be pretty sure most of the bombs will fall on millitary targets. You can be sure that civilians will not be tarteged directly. We can pray that none of the bombs miss. You know as well as I that the intention is to NOT harm the innocent.
I wish you are right. I sure hope there is a way out of this without a war.
-Dan
fdegrove said:
If we go, we can be pretty sure most of the bombs will fall on millitary targets. You can be sure that civilians will not be tarteged directly. We can pray that none of the bombs miss. You know as well as I that the intention is to NOT harm the innocent.
I wish you are right. I sure hope there is a way out of this without a war.
-Dan
Do the things repeat or not? Well, postmodern is interesting and funny thing, but I’m still among those who believe in Hegel’s idea of progressive movement. At least in that sense the quantity of knowledge that mankind has become larger.dkemppai said:
I’m pretty sure you will easily find many cases in which certain countries attacked their neighborhoods and it is terrible thing. But Hitler's crimes are much worst.
Pedja
haldor said:
fdegrove said:
I do. The year or two of the serious and competent work, and it will happen. All the money that Sadam has to pay its surrounding is only a part of the CIA’s budget.
Pedja
Re: GOALS.
Absolutely. I was wondering when someone was going to post this bit of sense. I mean, isn't it obvious?
However, it wouldn't be politically expedient. The troops used in this type of operation would be up against the best and most willing troops Iraq has to offer, in very difficult situations, and the losses would be high. Do you think the shrub is willing to have lots of body bags come home (and be seen on the news)? Looks really bad, when it's so much easier to send 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad and kill huge numbers of Iraqi <i>civilians</i> to try to force them to do your dirty work for you.
Although I am totally against the war, I would support this type of operation. But I would HATE the loss of life of the US, British etc troops that did it.
This would be a far more honourable endeavour: the Iraqi people would be liberated (and their loss of life small), rebuilding and democracy could be implemented, Saddam and entourage could be removed. It would look better, and be harder, though not impossible, for the more extreme elements in the world to spin negatively, and I think is a better approach to long term stability in the region.
Then again, it might be impossible. After all they found Bin Laden, didn't they?
fdegrove said:
Absolutely. I was wondering when someone was going to post this bit of sense. I mean, isn't it obvious?
However, it wouldn't be politically expedient. The troops used in this type of operation would be up against the best and most willing troops Iraq has to offer, in very difficult situations, and the losses would be high. Do you think the shrub is willing to have lots of body bags come home (and be seen on the news)? Looks really bad, when it's so much easier to send 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad and kill huge numbers of Iraqi <i>civilians</i> to try to force them to do your dirty work for you.
Although I am totally against the war, I would support this type of operation. But I would HATE the loss of life of the US, British etc troops that did it.
This would be a far more honourable endeavour: the Iraqi people would be liberated (and their loss of life small), rebuilding and democracy could be implemented, Saddam and entourage could be removed. It would look better, and be harder, though not impossible, for the more extreme elements in the world to spin negatively, and I think is a better approach to long term stability in the region.
Then again, it might be impossible. After all they found Bin Laden, didn't they?
Brett said:
If this is an option... it is delusion they will do that. If the war starts, Iraqi civilians, exposed to killing (from the safe distance), could only be strongest with their president, like him or not. Trust me, I know what I am talking about.
Pedja
Pedja said:
Pedja, I agree that trying to force the Iraqi civilian population into overthrowing a well guarded and fortified man by bombing the daylights out of them is doomed to failure. And worse, I'm sure the loss of life will incence other people to do who knows what to retaliate.
My sarcasm you quote was in reference to press report here, quoted in a previous post in this thread.
Cheers
dkemppai said:
Weren't you surprised to see the weapons inspectors handling these "biological" warheads?
In every other piece of footage I have seen where biological or chemical weapons have been present, the inspectors were wearing protective full body suits, with respirators. With these 13 warheads you mention, the inspectors were handling them ungloved and without protective suits. Even if they were operating on the suspicion that these were chemical/biological warheads, don't you think they would have taken the precaution of protecting themselves? The truth is, they didn't need to, because the whole thing was a fabricated stunt designed to lend credibility to the claim that Iraq has these weapons.
The US Govt. knows that it needs to sell this story hard. If the public ask for proof that these weapons exist and they can't provide any, they manufacture it. That's what it's about - manufacturing consent.
Just my opinion.
🙂
Once and for all (and I am an atheist, so this has nothing to do with beliefs):
Taking a human life is wrong, not matter what this humang being has done in his life.
Summing up lifes against each other is wrong. Is it right to kill a man to save other peoples (more than one) lifes? No, it is not. It simply comes down to this: A human life is ended. Violently. Against his will.
Think of yourself, and try imagining an unavoidable death, like death senetence, or an atom bomb coming down on you etc. Do you want to live?
Has the Iraqui soldier less a right to live than you have? Even if he faces you, about to pull the trigger, to take your own life? From moralistic standpoints: No, he has not, He has any right in the world to live. So have you.
I I could decide this, I would force EVERY human being in the world to read "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo, and to read it with their eyes and minds wide open. I can't anyone imagine supporting the KILLING OF PEOPLE (and this is what warfare is all about) any longer.
I get sick when I hear reports of generals in the news like "Today we have disabled this or that target." - Makes me want to shout "No! You did not! You did not destroy a building, a vehicle, a bridge! You TOOK SOMEONE ELSES LIFE(S)!"
And that is wrong, simple like that.
Taking a human life is wrong, not matter what this humang being has done in his life.
Summing up lifes against each other is wrong. Is it right to kill a man to save other peoples (more than one) lifes? No, it is not. It simply comes down to this: A human life is ended. Violently. Against his will.
Think of yourself, and try imagining an unavoidable death, like death senetence, or an atom bomb coming down on you etc. Do you want to live?
Has the Iraqui soldier less a right to live than you have? Even if he faces you, about to pull the trigger, to take your own life? From moralistic standpoints: No, he has not, He has any right in the world to live. So have you.
I I could decide this, I would force EVERY human being in the world to read "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo, and to read it with their eyes and minds wide open. I can't anyone imagine supporting the KILLING OF PEOPLE (and this is what warfare is all about) any longer.
I get sick when I hear reports of generals in the news like "Today we have disabled this or that target." - Makes me want to shout "No! You did not! You did not destroy a building, a vehicle, a bridge! You TOOK SOMEONE ELSES LIFE(S)!"
And that is wrong, simple like that.
Re: Re: GOALS.
Food for thought: why should America be RESPONSABLE for removing Hussein from power?
Before you jump at me, let me explain 🙂 I can fully understand that you want (hell, you *should*) defend the interests of your country. But the thing is i just can't see any reason to justify it. Either if it's terrorism support or illegal weapon storage; where's the HARD EVIDENCE? You're going to war, and i really think Americans should start considering what are the real, ulterior reasons below that. Are you willing to let your government kill people just because they don't like its leader? Innocent people, as much as you or me.
So, with that out of the way; we all agree Hussein is no saint. I won't go over the huge benefits of democracy over a dictatorship mainly because almost everyone, as i do, beleive in that. The thing is, if there's no real reason for a war... well, what he does it's none of your buissnes. Not that you shouldn't care, by all means, but we already have a UN to deal with issues like this. The point is i don't like a dictatorship more than you do, but i keep hearing how "America MUST free Irak from their tyrant leader". Do you *MUST*? How, exactly? And most important: at what cost?
Say a council of countries decide that military action against Irak is necesary. Hell, i want the US there. You guys have the number one military organization in the entire planet; i just want it to be used wisely. You all should. And before anyone flames me, no, i'm not anti-American, by a long shot. But i do beleive America has it's flaws, like every single country, and one of the most notory ones it's to act like the worlds' single peace mantainer when we have organizations to do that. It's dangerous, because as i said you have the power to control pretty much anyone military, and that belief it's what some people are basing an inminent war on. Perhaps that's the line of thinking that separates american/eurpeans, and the reason most of the rest of the world isn't happy with this issue.
To sum it up: just use your head. The information is there for you to read and analyze. Draw your own conclutions. And if you don't like whats happening, know there are ways for you to stop it.
haldor said:
Food for thought: why should America be RESPONSABLE for removing Hussein from power?
Before you jump at me, let me explain 🙂 I can fully understand that you want (hell, you *should*) defend the interests of your country. But the thing is i just can't see any reason to justify it. Either if it's terrorism support or illegal weapon storage; where's the HARD EVIDENCE? You're going to war, and i really think Americans should start considering what are the real, ulterior reasons below that. Are you willing to let your government kill people just because they don't like its leader? Innocent people, as much as you or me.
So, with that out of the way; we all agree Hussein is no saint. I won't go over the huge benefits of democracy over a dictatorship mainly because almost everyone, as i do, beleive in that. The thing is, if there's no real reason for a war... well, what he does it's none of your buissnes. Not that you shouldn't care, by all means, but we already have a UN to deal with issues like this. The point is i don't like a dictatorship more than you do, but i keep hearing how "America MUST free Irak from their tyrant leader". Do you *MUST*? How, exactly? And most important: at what cost?
Say a council of countries decide that military action against Irak is necesary. Hell, i want the US there. You guys have the number one military organization in the entire planet; i just want it to be used wisely. You all should. And before anyone flames me, no, i'm not anti-American, by a long shot. But i do beleive America has it's flaws, like every single country, and one of the most notory ones it's to act like the worlds' single peace mantainer when we have organizations to do that. It's dangerous, because as i said you have the power to control pretty much anyone military, and that belief it's what some people are basing an inminent war on. Perhaps that's the line of thinking that separates american/eurpeans, and the reason most of the rest of the world isn't happy with this issue.
To sum it up: just use your head. The information is there for you to read and analyze. Draw your own conclutions. And if you don't like whats happening, know there are ways for you to stop it.
Re: Re: Re: GOALS.
Yeah, but America has never REALLY strongly supported the UN, and right now tries to undermine it any way they can. The same with the new International Court, the UNO Human Rights Charta (at least concerning captives of war) and so on.
What I fear is that after this struggle the UN will be rendered useless and weak, and that more and more "big" nations will try and act like the US, ignoring decisions of the UN any way they can.
Lisandro_P said:
Yeah, but America has never REALLY strongly supported the UN, and right now tries to undermine it any way they can. The same with the new International Court, the UNO Human Rights Charta (at least concerning captives of war) and so on.
What I fear is that after this struggle the UN will be rendered useless and weak, and that more and more "big" nations will try and act like the US, ignoring decisions of the UN any way they can.
To this comparisons with Hitler. Remember, not the USA stopped Hitler, but France, UK, Russia, and USA. USA was the last country to go against Hitler, maybe because they needed to feel a problem with teyr own interessts - japan. Not the massiv bombing of Dresden, Hannover - and so on stopped Hitler - it only killed civilians because the others were away from germany - at Russia or elswere. My grandma was bombed in Hannover with my 3 jears old pa. She saw her husband first time again twelve years after this- he was in sibira. What stopped Hitler was massiv usage of troops- and the most military effect was caused by the russians. Yes Hitler invaded Polonia like Saddam Kuwait, but noone rally was intereted in Polonia - because they had no oil? These arguments have no coherent line. Is the reason Kuwait? Twin towers? a personal Saddam problem? Holocoust?
I don´t belive in the oil theorie - its to simple. But the theorie oil is the reason for this is better than arguments without causal coherence like - Hitler - Jews - Kuwait- terror- saddam - osama....
Terror: What happend in NY was terrible. But is anybody able to say what was te political motivation behind this?
Am i allowed to ask here hypotetical, would this tragedy have happend if there would be peace between Israel and Palestina?
Again what reaches me is same list as above, other sequence. This terror is they terroricice me now more than some times ago when i´m at the airport. Yes. The worst thing in europe is they use the Twin towers for political interests. More taxes, more "safety" more control, more censur, less democracy, less "inner terror", more police for "fight against terror", more cameras around... sounds for me like more of this 33-45 policy and less liberal.
Lisandro,
In Argentina happend some kind of wonder. There was changed politics by people making noise withs pots and pans, only, correct me,36 of them killed by police. I don´t belive anything would changed with that liottle violence in Iraq or in the USA , or in europe. Before a president would be forced this way to go away here - hundreds would be killed, tenthousend swould be arrested, everyone would be threatened by goverment for the rest of his live because his name would be on some lists in police computers.
please excuse the lots of mistakes in language usage, i hope you understand the point.
Philo said:
Well, we have to be straight here. Saddam never said he wanted to bomb the US to oblivion. Yet, we feel it is right to strike preemptive, because, as I said in another post (quoting von Clausewitz) it's the capabilities that count, as intentions can change overnight.
The US clearly has no intention (at this time) to bomb anyone to oblivion, yet they have the capability. So, the only thing between us and a US nuke is an intention.
And now Philo says, yeah, there may be cases, limited, etc. So, why does the US insist Saddam disarms, and why do we not insist the US disarms?
Just trying to show different sides to theses arguments, really.
Jan Didden
Good point, Jan. That is a good perspective from someone outside the US.
The reason the US does not support the UN is fear of being held accountable for not supporting such ideas as banning of land mines, the Kyoto Accord on global warming, and world disdain for capital punishment. These fears are understandable considering such issues infringe on national sovereignty. But it is about time for the world to get passed the idea of national identity and try to picture a world community.
The reason the US does not support the UN is fear of being held accountable for not supporting such ideas as banning of land mines, the Kyoto Accord on global warming, and world disdain for capital punishment. These fears are understandable considering such issues infringe on national sovereignty. But it is about time for the world to get passed the idea of national identity and try to picture a world community.
Prompted by an earlier post I saw "Bowling for Columbine" last night.
Everyone should go and see this film. It is often quite amusing and at the same time deadly serious. In any case it is very moving. Holds a mirror up.
IMO there are direct connections between what happens at the individual level in the US and what is happening at the international level.
It seems to me that the general public's opinion outside the US is that it is just as crucial for World harmony and safety to contain US foreign activities as it is to contain the activities of Sadam. And this is reflected in this thread.
Isn't that just amazing?
I think people outside the US trust the UN far more than the US Gov. Even though the UN is an imperfect, committee-think organisation. It is because of the values and principles that the UN aspires to. Given this, it makes the US seem like a very self-interested country when it seems to choose which UN resolutions to support and which to ignore as if it is an a-la-carte menu.
Given the perception that the US does not follow international guidance in a principled way it is not hard to see why it is perceived to act in a purely self-interested way. This leads to speculation that the US wants to invade Iraq for oil or to protect Israel or to increase the chances of Bush being re-elected (since the economy is pants right now) or whatever. And none of these reasons is acceptable to other nations to endanger their own citizens. The lack of evidence and apparent manipulation of the inspectors just reinforces this view.
None of us (here) know for sure whether Sadam is a credible threat to us or not. What we do know is that attacking a sovereign state is not to be taken lightly and must only be done for the right reasons and with impeccable justification. Fear of the unknown is not one of these. Clashing values is not one of these. Otherwise what does it say about our leadership in the World?
Everyone should go and see this film. It is often quite amusing and at the same time deadly serious. In any case it is very moving. Holds a mirror up.
IMO there are direct connections between what happens at the individual level in the US and what is happening at the international level.
It seems to me that the general public's opinion outside the US is that it is just as crucial for World harmony and safety to contain US foreign activities as it is to contain the activities of Sadam. And this is reflected in this thread.
Isn't that just amazing?
I think people outside the US trust the UN far more than the US Gov. Even though the UN is an imperfect, committee-think organisation. It is because of the values and principles that the UN aspires to. Given this, it makes the US seem like a very self-interested country when it seems to choose which UN resolutions to support and which to ignore as if it is an a-la-carte menu.
Given the perception that the US does not follow international guidance in a principled way it is not hard to see why it is perceived to act in a purely self-interested way. This leads to speculation that the US wants to invade Iraq for oil or to protect Israel or to increase the chances of Bush being re-elected (since the economy is pants right now) or whatever. And none of these reasons is acceptable to other nations to endanger their own citizens. The lack of evidence and apparent manipulation of the inspectors just reinforces this view.
None of us (here) know for sure whether Sadam is a credible threat to us or not. What we do know is that attacking a sovereign state is not to be taken lightly and must only be done for the right reasons and with impeccable justification. Fear of the unknown is not one of these. Clashing values is not one of these. Otherwise what does it say about our leadership in the World?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.