 |
|
|
|
 |
A.J.
Back from the dead
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Sydney
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by wwu.punisher
You can stand by and point your fingers at America and talk about how we're all morons and we don't know what we're doing, but most of the countries who oppose our presence in Iraq are opposing it because they don't have the military power or the money to go in and lay down the law themselves. |
I come from Australia, a country that supported the US in Iraq, despite overwhelming public outcry and opposition to it. People oppose the war in iraq because it is illegal, unjustified, and because politicians lied and deceived the public over the reasons for going there.
George Bush clearly stated that the reason for going to Iraq was because Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and he was capable of using them against the US or supplying other rogue nations. This was also used by Australia's Prime minister, John Howard, to justify Australia's involvement in the War in Iraq . We now find out later that intelligence reports were inaccurate and misleading. We now find out that the reason for going to Iraq has suddenly changed to removing the evil dictator Saddam Hussein from power (a good thing, but illegal nonetheless) and giving the people of Iraq "freedom" 
| quote: | Originally posted by wwu.punisher
They just don't want to see us gain any more power than we already have. |
Exactly. Maybe the world is tired of America's exploitation of conflict for their gain, tired of America's exploitation of weaker countries to become rich and powerful. Maybe the world is tired of America changing governments, assassinating heads of state, entering conflicts where they have no right to be there and pouring arms and cash into countries when it suits them. The US supported Osama Bin Laden, they supported the Taliban, they supported Iraq and they supported a number of other dictators/terroists/governments. However, when things started to turn all fucked up, they decided they didn't like those guys anymore, and they now faced a huge problem creating all by themselves.
Some of can see through the lies that we are fed by the US Government and the media, and we can see the alternate reason for going to Iraq, which is to gain control of Iraq's oil and secure oil interests in the Middle East.
| quote: | Originally posted by wwu.punisher
I understand that there are innocent people in the Middle East. A vast number of those innocent people, however, cheer and dance in the streets when an American dies, civilian or not. Someone mentioned something about the Roman empire a few pages back. Ironic, given that the Roman public was a bloodthirsty, angry mob focused on bringing a terrible and painful end to their nation's enemies. |
Maybe you need to look past your immediate response to people cheering when an American is killed and look at the reasons why they are cheering and dancing. It is a lot more complex than you make it out to be.
|
|
 May-14-2004 04:26 
|
|
|
|
|
speedracer_mec
DeepHouse & Progressive
Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Greece, where the good progressive comes from.
|
|
|
May-14-2004 04:51 
|
|
|
|
|
A.J.
Back from the dead
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Sydney
|
|
|
Here's another opinion that i found:
Jose Ramos-Horta: Keep fighting the good fight
May 14, 2004
THE new Socialist Government in Spain has caved to the terrorist threats and withdrawn its troops from Iraq. So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic.
They are unlikely to be the last. With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries - who do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq - will also cut and run. No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al-Qa'ida and other extremists who win. They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw.
As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonise over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without UN or international approval -- and in both cases they were right to do so.
Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without UN approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean-Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism.
Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened -- without a UN mandate -- to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the US-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.
So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten, too, is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbours lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.
Saddam's overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful, tolerant and prosperous. That's why the stakes are so high, and why extremists from across the Muslim world are fighting to prevent it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing Stone Age rule.
If we look beyond the TV coverage, there is hope that Washington's vision of transforming Iraq might still be realised.
Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women's advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.
Democracy and Islam can co-exist in Iraq, as long as it is led by wise clerics who are able to deliver freedom and good governance. The most probable contender to fill this role is Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has emerged as the national leader the country needs to keep it together. He may not be a democrat in the Western mould, but the US needs to cultivate him and provide whatever support is required to ensure that he emerges as ruler of the new Iraq.
THE US also needs to repair the damage done by the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. While it's important to remember that those involved only represent a tiny fraction of US service personnel in Iraq, the fact remains that the abuse was allowed to continue for many months after organisations such as the normally secretive Red Cross sounded alarm bells. Only thorough investigation, including action against those responsible, can US standing in Iraq be restored.
Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the UN plays the central role in building a new Iraq. As an East Timorese, I am well aware of the international body's limits, having seen first-hand its impotence in the face of Indonesia's invasion of my country in 1975.
The UN is the sum of our qualities and weaknesses, our selfish national interests and personal vanities. For all its shortcomings, it is the only international organisation we all feel part of; it should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the US will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a UN-led peacekeeping force would enable many Arab and Muslim nations to join in and help isolate the extremists.
In almost 30 years of political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. But Mandela, too, recognised the need to resort to violence in the struggle against white oppression. The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost 1 million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behaviour of religious fanatics.
Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.
Jose Ramos-Horta, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996, is East Timor's senior minister for foreign affairs and co-operation. This is reprinted with permission from The Wall Street Journal.
Pretty interesting reading.....
|
|
|
May-14-2004 06:19
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:56.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
