ok djdan,
i hate the US GOVERNMENT because its objectives are unclear and suspect. its motives are inherently venal and dishonest. its arguments for war are specious and illusory. because the elements of christian fundamentalism that play such a role in george bushs' life do not seem to be enough to cause him to behave in fundamentally christian ways.
and finally, because its leaders lack the Recommended Daily Allowance of moral fiber.
clear enough?
i do indeed care about North Korea along with many other world troublespots. my question to you is why doesn`t the current bush regime?
disliking the current us regime is not the same as disliking americans. disliking some aspects of american culture is not the same as disliking americans.
i hate the US GOVERNMENT because its objectives are unclear and suspect. its motives are inherently venal and dishonest. its arguments for war are specious and illusory. because the elements of christian fundamentalism that play such a role in george bushs' life do not seem to be enough to cause him to behave in fundamentally christian ways.
and finally, because its leaders lack the Recommended Daily Allowance of moral fiber.
clear enough?
i do indeed care about North Korea along with many other world troublespots. my question to you is why doesn`t the current bush regime?
disliking the current us regime is not the same as disliking americans. disliking some aspects of american culture is not the same as disliking americans.
Damn it joe-dick,
that's twice this evening I've been typing a reply only to find that you've beaten me to it, with almost identical sentiments. Only a lot more articulate than I would have been.
Cheers
that's twice this evening I've been typing a reply only to find that you've beaten me to it, with almost identical sentiments. Only a lot more articulate than I would have been.
Cheers
This thread is truely inspiring in its diversity.
I guess it is somewhat telling that we have no Iraqi contributors.
I was watching a news show last night where a bunch of interested officials were debating this thing (again). One of the American guys said something I thought explained a few things. He said that prior to 9/11 the US was happy to pursue a containment policy towards Iraq; the threat from Iraq was worrying but controllable. It was only after 9/11 that the US administration realised the true vulnerability of the US to terrorism, and so the perceived risk of terrorism multiplied. The containment policy was no longer considered adequate to contend with this new level of risk.
So the reason for the "war" now is not so much what Saddam has done recently but rather the exposure of a previous mis-calculation of risk by the US administration. Having removed Homer from the Whitehouse and done the correct calculation the threat of Sadam fuelling terrorists is now unacceptably high.
Perhaps.
But the underlying problem is why is there a terrorist threat to the US at all. I still think the causes of terrorism are not getting much air-time here. I mean, let's say the Shrub really wanted to remove the causes - or at least lance the middle-east boil a little. Would the highest priority really still be to invade Iraq? I sort of doubt it. I can think of better concessions to the causes than that.
I guess it is somewhat telling that we have no Iraqi contributors.
I was watching a news show last night where a bunch of interested officials were debating this thing (again). One of the American guys said something I thought explained a few things. He said that prior to 9/11 the US was happy to pursue a containment policy towards Iraq; the threat from Iraq was worrying but controllable. It was only after 9/11 that the US administration realised the true vulnerability of the US to terrorism, and so the perceived risk of terrorism multiplied. The containment policy was no longer considered adequate to contend with this new level of risk.
So the reason for the "war" now is not so much what Saddam has done recently but rather the exposure of a previous mis-calculation of risk by the US administration. Having removed Homer from the Whitehouse and done the correct calculation the threat of Sadam fuelling terrorists is now unacceptably high.
Perhaps.
But the underlying problem is why is there a terrorist threat to the US at all. I still think the causes of terrorism are not getting much air-time here. I mean, let's say the Shrub really wanted to remove the causes - or at least lance the middle-east boil a little. Would the highest priority really still be to invade Iraq? I sort of doubt it. I can think of better concessions to the causes than that.
What absolute nonsense making comparisons between the US regime (flawed like most) and Hitler's Germany. And what an insult.
Let's not take advice on how to deal with evil dictators from the French ("We surrender") or the Germans (!?!). Where would either of those countries be without the US (or the UK come to that)?
And can we please have less of this "Europe" talk. Europe is not united on this. Let's talk "France, Germany and Belgium" or the "UK, Italy and Spain", etc.
Does anyone else find it interesting that Europe has split on this question along federalist and anti-federalist lines? In other words, those countries who want to give up their national sovereignty for a "United States of Europe" have gone against the US, those like the UK who wish to remain independent within a free trading zone have gone with the US.
What does this say about the true agenda of France and Germany?
I can't help thinking that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the US strategy on Iraq (and better safe than sorry is my personal view), France and Germany have made a very grave mistake and it will cost them dearly.
Steve
Let's not take advice on how to deal with evil dictators from the French ("We surrender") or the Germans (!?!). Where would either of those countries be without the US (or the UK come to that)?
And can we please have less of this "Europe" talk. Europe is not united on this. Let's talk "France, Germany and Belgium" or the "UK, Italy and Spain", etc.
Does anyone else find it interesting that Europe has split on this question along federalist and anti-federalist lines? In other words, those countries who want to give up their national sovereignty for a "United States of Europe" have gone against the US, those like the UK who wish to remain independent within a free trading zone have gone with the US.
What does this say about the true agenda of France and Germany?
I can't help thinking that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the US strategy on Iraq (and better safe than sorry is my personal view), France and Germany have made a very grave mistake and it will cost them dearly.
Steve
In the UK, we have had direct experience of terrorism for the past 30 years or so, from the IRA and splinter groups, as well as Northern Irish loyalist groups.
We tried the military response... It didn't work...We ended up negotiating
In South Africa the government had terrorist groups oposing its aims.
They tried the military response...it didn't work... Apartite was repealed
The French had terrorist groups operating in Algeria.
They tried the military response...it didn't work...They withdrew from their colony
In Palestine in the 1940s terrorism was rife,
We tried the military response...it didn't work...We formed the State of Israel
The only approach that has ever worked in dealing with well armed and motivated terrorist groups is negotiation. I'm not talking about the small terrorist cells such as the Red Brigade or Bader Meinhof, there police action was sufficient.
Every other conflict has ended by changing both parties towards a middle ground, yes with some degree of compromise, but let's face it, political ideals are nice, but peoples lives are more important.
We tried the military response... It didn't work...We ended up negotiating
In South Africa the government had terrorist groups oposing its aims.
They tried the military response...it didn't work... Apartite was repealed
The French had terrorist groups operating in Algeria.
They tried the military response...it didn't work...They withdrew from their colony
In Palestine in the 1940s terrorism was rife,
We tried the military response...it didn't work...We formed the State of Israel
The only approach that has ever worked in dealing with well armed and motivated terrorist groups is negotiation. I'm not talking about the small terrorist cells such as the Red Brigade or Bader Meinhof, there police action was sufficient.
Every other conflict has ended by changing both parties towards a middle ground, yes with some degree of compromise, but let's face it, political ideals are nice, but peoples lives are more important.
7V said:
and this is not suppose to be an implied insult to the germans and the french?
yes, it is true that the french were over-run early in the 2nd world war. as were many other nations. it is also true that the RAF and BEF contingents sent to france were able to do little to stop this. and while this happened the americans were studiously neutral. isn`t it also true that britain suffered many reverses early in the war? were almost kicked out of N. Africa? indeed were almost invaded and considered surrender to the Nazis themselves?
with all this talk about the US' 'saving of europe`s bacon' in the second world war - aren`t we forgetting that the war was fought (and won) primarily in the former soviet union? that theatres like N. Africa and indeed Asia were comparitively a side show?
before i start anything here - i am not now, nor have i ever been a communist. i just like my history non-revised.
I mentioned it before in thei thread, the war was descided in Russia. And what the US goverment says about Mr chirac, france and germany is so ridicolously, we should stop any contacts with the USA goverment and wait until they established a serios new president. This people having the power in USA at the moment are a case for courthouse, not for whitehouse.
7V said:
doesn't make much sense what you are saying. Lots of soundbites and no depth.
I live in the UK; I have not gone with the US - the country is clearly split on whether it wants war. Most Polls suggest half don't want it (i'll be in Hyde park tomorrow with the other 500,000 or so), 30% want it cos they are mostly Sun reading brainwashed muslim hating numpty's with 100 IQ's, and the remiander only want it if more proof can be found and/or NATO is involved.
Yeah.. better safe than sorry - lets get the fuzzy wuzzy's muslim brownskin ("paki iraqi's") before they can threaten or endanger us. It will stimulate the economy; yield cheaper oil; and distract us from our **** transport system, education, hospitals, and housing crises.
joe dick said:
Spot on!! Russia did more than anybody to win the 2nd world war.
Most people are a bit confused by Hollywood and distorted history to realise this.....
I think the pink furry one makes a strong argument. Terrorism isn't about some madmen with nothing better to do: it is fuelled by deep feelings of anger - a need to cause change, to correct perceived injustice. Palastinian girls don't explode themselves for no reason. It is a terrible, terrible thing that we humans can cause our fellow humans, inadvertently or not, to be driven to such terminal action.
So is it sensible for the Shrub to attack Iraq? Will this remove the perceived injustices in the region? I'm not convinced. It certainly will not without the UN sanctioning it - no way.
Getting back to my earlier point, what of Iraq's situation? It must seem somewhat unfair to the Iraqi people that they have spent 12 years under embargo and now, although nothing material has changed, the Shrub is threatening attack because the US suddenly changed their mind about their security situation. And this because a (probably) unrelated terrorist group decided to kill 3000 people in Manhattan. What a bummer.
I suppose if we could trace the 9/11 event to Iraq there might be some justice in the plan. Suppose the highjackers were Iraqis. Suppose those 767s were from Sadam's personal fleet. Suppose those highjackers were trained in Iraq rather than Florida. But none of this is true and no other links are proven. Afghanistan took the hit for this.
I think taking it out on Iraq is a little rich unless a terrorist link can be proven. Attacking Iraq for the sole purpose of deposing Sadam isn't legal and requires a totally different UN sanction. Better to focus on the causes of the terrorism, I think.
So is it sensible for the Shrub to attack Iraq? Will this remove the perceived injustices in the region? I'm not convinced. It certainly will not without the UN sanctioning it - no way.
Getting back to my earlier point, what of Iraq's situation? It must seem somewhat unfair to the Iraqi people that they have spent 12 years under embargo and now, although nothing material has changed, the Shrub is threatening attack because the US suddenly changed their mind about their security situation. And this because a (probably) unrelated terrorist group decided to kill 3000 people in Manhattan. What a bummer.
I suppose if we could trace the 9/11 event to Iraq there might be some justice in the plan. Suppose the highjackers were Iraqis. Suppose those 767s were from Sadam's personal fleet. Suppose those highjackers were trained in Iraq rather than Florida. But none of this is true and no other links are proven. Afghanistan took the hit for this.
I think taking it out on Iraq is a little rich unless a terrorist link can be proven. Attacking Iraq for the sole purpose of deposing Sadam isn't legal and requires a totally different UN sanction. Better to focus on the causes of the terrorism, I think.
pretty representative UK under 35 view:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=32661
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=32661
joe dick said:
And again, this has nothing to do whatsoever with going to war in Iraq or not. As I said before, friends have an obligation to tell each other what they think, and an obligation to listen and take account, seriously, of what is said. I have the feeling that the US (government) doesn't really listen to what is said this side of the pond, to their loss.
Jan Didden
WW II
Hi,
May I add to this that Hitler had declared war to America?
Maybe this little fact was not mentioned in the American history books?
Cheers,😉
Hi,
May I add to this that Hitler had declared war to America?
Maybe this little fact was not mentioned in the American history books?
Cheers,😉
From Brett's link:
"Last weekend, Blair said there was no need for the UN weapons inspectors to find a "smoking gun" for Iraq to be attacked. Compare that with his reassurance, in October 2001, that there would be no "wider war" against Iraq unless there was "absolute evidence" of Iraqi complicity in the September 11. And there has been no evidence."
Exactly.
"Last weekend, Blair said there was no need for the UN weapons inspectors to find a "smoking gun" for Iraq to be attacked. Compare that with his reassurance, in October 2001, that there would be no "wider war" against Iraq unless there was "absolute evidence" of Iraqi complicity in the September 11. And there has been no evidence."
Exactly.
Thank you joe dick and Stryder. My comment about the French was a little "tongue in cheek" but contained more than an element of truth nonetheless. As to the Germans, I meant what I said.
I'm extremely fond of Germany. I'm an English Jew and my wife is German (my children half German). We spend about 6 weeks each year in Germany with my in-laws and I love it there. Most Germans today tend to believe that war is absolutely wrong under any circumstances. That's an understandable viewpoint from their perspective and, given the history, is no doubt a good thing. The pendulum has certainly swung a long way. But that's the point. As long as the pendulum is swinging so strongly from generation to generation, Germany won't have a balanced approach to this or other questions of military intervention.
Regarding the comments about the reverses Britain suffered during the early phases of the 2nd world war, this was absolutely true. However, surrender was not seriously considered by many of the British population or their leaders and certainly not by Churchill.
Yes, the Russians played an enormous part in the defeat of the Nazis. The Russian people payed in blood and their contribution should not be understated. It was a combined effort though and no one will ever know what would have happened if the British hadn't fought so heroically or if the US hadn't joined the war, albeit late in the day.
I also wonder what state Germany would be in today if the US hadn't played their role in ensuring that only the East was under Soviet control.
As for Stryder implying that my arguments or beliefs are based on racism - "lets get the fuzzy wuzzy's muslim brownskin ("paki iraqi's") before they can threaten or endanger us" - YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG. I have fought against racism my whole life and continue to do so.
Most of the comments in my previous post referred to governments of the countries and not the people. We in the West are democracies in the sense that we elect govenments and then, more or less, permit them to take the political decisions - although we have various tools (such as protest marches and pressure groups) to try to influence them. I believe that this is the only practical way for democracy to work. Many of our population are strongly against this war and this is an extremely important factor. It's not the ultimate factor however. It's a long time since the 1990 war and we have to assume that, by now, the UK and USA have a number of agents on the ground in Iraq, as the Iraqi government certainly does in the UK and USA. We the people don't have all the facts. In the end it's a judgement call as to who we can trust most.
Finally, a word about the military campaign. There's much talk about 'smart bombs'. The smartest bomb of all would be one that simply targetted Sadam Hussein and his inner circle. To a large extent all other damage is 'collateral' and highly regretable. I hope that the American military chiefs know this and can come up with a plan that is creative and effective enough to be truly 'smart'. If this could be achieved, few Iraqis would be sorry to see the end to the regime of Sadam.
With hope of a rapid resolution and hope for peace
Steve
I'm extremely fond of Germany. I'm an English Jew and my wife is German (my children half German). We spend about 6 weeks each year in Germany with my in-laws and I love it there. Most Germans today tend to believe that war is absolutely wrong under any circumstances. That's an understandable viewpoint from their perspective and, given the history, is no doubt a good thing. The pendulum has certainly swung a long way. But that's the point. As long as the pendulum is swinging so strongly from generation to generation, Germany won't have a balanced approach to this or other questions of military intervention.
Regarding the comments about the reverses Britain suffered during the early phases of the 2nd world war, this was absolutely true. However, surrender was not seriously considered by many of the British population or their leaders and certainly not by Churchill.
Yes, the Russians played an enormous part in the defeat of the Nazis. The Russian people payed in blood and their contribution should not be understated. It was a combined effort though and no one will ever know what would have happened if the British hadn't fought so heroically or if the US hadn't joined the war, albeit late in the day.
I also wonder what state Germany would be in today if the US hadn't played their role in ensuring that only the East was under Soviet control.
As for Stryder implying that my arguments or beliefs are based on racism - "lets get the fuzzy wuzzy's muslim brownskin ("paki iraqi's") before they can threaten or endanger us" - YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG. I have fought against racism my whole life and continue to do so.
Most of the comments in my previous post referred to governments of the countries and not the people. We in the West are democracies in the sense that we elect govenments and then, more or less, permit them to take the political decisions - although we have various tools (such as protest marches and pressure groups) to try to influence them. I believe that this is the only practical way for democracy to work. Many of our population are strongly against this war and this is an extremely important factor. It's not the ultimate factor however. It's a long time since the 1990 war and we have to assume that, by now, the UK and USA have a number of agents on the ground in Iraq, as the Iraqi government certainly does in the UK and USA. We the people don't have all the facts. In the end it's a judgement call as to who we can trust most.
Finally, a word about the military campaign. There's much talk about 'smart bombs'. The smartest bomb of all would be one that simply targetted Sadam Hussein and his inner circle. To a large extent all other damage is 'collateral' and highly regretable. I hope that the American military chiefs know this and can come up with a plan that is creative and effective enough to be truly 'smart'. If this could be achieved, few Iraqis would be sorry to see the end to the regime of Sadam.
With hope of a rapid resolution and hope for peace
Steve
janneman said:
Quite right Jan. My comment was not about going to war with Iraq but about the Franco/German governments position against the US on this and the way that they have played it.
One more comment ...
I wish I could believe that there were causes of terrorism that, if addressed, would solve all the problems. I don't. I believe that terrorism is born of fanatisism. If, for example, Israel was to return all the land occupied in 1966 to the Palestinians and Syrians (and I really hope this happens as soon as possible), do you really believe that the terrorism would stop?
Humanity has, throughout history, demonstrated its ability - even willingless - to kill or die in the name of religious belief or political doctrine. I don't see what could stop this. Does anyone?
Steve
Such a situation were never occurs under an other Us administration (ie Clinton) , Bush want to outmatch his father and finishes the job he has began 12 years earlier .
7V read the comment from the Spiegel posted by Till
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Wollen Sie allen Ernstes behaupten, Bushs Irak-Politik sei eine Synthese aus Vaterkomplex und religiösem Fundamentalismus?
Drewermann: Die religiöse Komponente kann sich mit der Beendigung seiner Alkoholismus-Probleme verbunden haben. Alkoholiker kompensieren schwere Minderwertigkeitskomplexe - Bush galt über Jahre als der Versager der Familie - durch die Droge und durch Loyalität und Jovialität. Trocken geworden, als Bekehrte sozusagen, strengen sie sich dann an, die verinnerlichten Maßstäbe ihres Über-Ichs perfekt zu erfüllen. Für George W. verschmelzen Gott und sein Vater zu dem Auftrag, einen noch größeren und noch besseren Krieg zu führen als der eigene Vater - mit dem Beistand des Vaters im Himmel. Das alles ist eine Verzahnung aus individueller Neurose und sozialpsychologischem Wahn: ein Überbietungssyndrom und eine Weltbeglückungskomponente.
A automatic traduction from Systran:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you want to state in all seriousness, Bushs Iraq politics is a synthesis from father complex and religious fundamentalism? Drewermann: The religious component can have connected itself with the completion of its alcoholism problems.
Alcoholics compensate heavy inferiority complexes - Bush applied over years as the looser of the family - by the drug and by loyalty and Jovialitaet. As it were, they exert to fulfill itself drying become, as Bekehrte then, the internal-light yardsticks of their practicing Erich perfectly. For George W. merge God and its father into the order to lead a still larger and still better war than the own father - with the assistance of the father in the sky. All this is a teeth from individual neurosis and socialpsychological illusion: an over-bidding syndrome and a Weltbeglueckungskomponente.
Over years Bush,
- was Alcoholic
- the looser of the family (he never success in oil business)
I can’t trust such an individual for leading the nation who is the first world power.
7V read the comment from the Spiegel posted by Till
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Wollen Sie allen Ernstes behaupten, Bushs Irak-Politik sei eine Synthese aus Vaterkomplex und religiösem Fundamentalismus?
Drewermann: Die religiöse Komponente kann sich mit der Beendigung seiner Alkoholismus-Probleme verbunden haben. Alkoholiker kompensieren schwere Minderwertigkeitskomplexe - Bush galt über Jahre als der Versager der Familie - durch die Droge und durch Loyalität und Jovialität. Trocken geworden, als Bekehrte sozusagen, strengen sie sich dann an, die verinnerlichten Maßstäbe ihres Über-Ichs perfekt zu erfüllen. Für George W. verschmelzen Gott und sein Vater zu dem Auftrag, einen noch größeren und noch besseren Krieg zu führen als der eigene Vater - mit dem Beistand des Vaters im Himmel. Das alles ist eine Verzahnung aus individueller Neurose und sozialpsychologischem Wahn: ein Überbietungssyndrom und eine Weltbeglückungskomponente.
A automatic traduction from Systran:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you want to state in all seriousness, Bushs Iraq politics is a synthesis from father complex and religious fundamentalism? Drewermann: The religious component can have connected itself with the completion of its alcoholism problems.
Alcoholics compensate heavy inferiority complexes - Bush applied over years as the looser of the family - by the drug and by loyalty and Jovialitaet. As it were, they exert to fulfill itself drying become, as Bekehrte then, the internal-light yardsticks of their practicing Erich perfectly. For George W. merge God and its father into the order to lead a still larger and still better war than the own father - with the assistance of the father in the sky. All this is a teeth from individual neurosis and socialpsychological illusion: an over-bidding syndrome and a Weltbeglueckungskomponente.
Over years Bush,
- was Alcoholic
- the looser of the family (he never success in oil business)
I can’t trust such an individual for leading the nation who is the first world power.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.