quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline great motive! productivity and good debate is for losers!

and that's they very reason you started posting in this thread first place

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 Robby my bro, -i think France and Germany were the only brave countries to say a categoric NO , not even Arab countries had the courage to speak out loud to express their opinion. and if the UN votes for a resolution authorizing the US to bomb Iraq , i'm pretty sure France will use their Veto right to express their disagreement ,

actually, although France is a member of the UN, the way the voting system works, as of right now france does not have a vote. (don't ask me why, thats the way it works - there are actually only around 5-6 countries that HAVE votes). Doesn't matter though, it really doesn't take votes so much as just knowing what the countries' position is on the matter. Don't get me wrong, i would feel a lot better about an invasion if we had the UN's support.

quote:

-i'm confident there can be "preventive measures" other than war , let's first send the UN inspectors back to Iraq and make sure they do their work and have access to all the places witout any restriction for the Iraqi government to see if these ones are really guilty.

But these measure have already been taken.... Iraq hasn't let inspectors in for the last 6 years or so, and even now they are placing certain areas "off limits." What do you think this means? This isn't like not being allowed into the VIP section of a club, this is serious shit. IMO this is simply an admission of guilt. The fact that Iraq has let inspectors in at all is simply a faint attempt at showing cooperation, giving the UN a reason to not like the US (which Iraq is fully aware of and is working to their advantage).... their "attempts" to cooperate just furter garner support for themselves and build anti-US sentiments around the world... nevermind the fact they still have all the weapons they are not supposed to, just in different "off-limits" locations. So yeah, like you ask, why don't we just have the UN inspectors check ALL the places? Simple, iraq won't let them. how do you plan to solve that problem? You HAVE to do something about it, not sit quietly by...

quote:

look at Afghanistan , it's true there's no more crazy fanatics on the power , but look how the country is now destroyed by all the attacks , look how much people are still suffering.

the physical destruction of the country is unfortunate, but such is a casualty of war. During these last couple of months, the afghani people have had more food and health supplies dropped in, and more medical attention from our military than they've seen in years. Granted, its not the best situation in the world, but its better than they've had. We can try to help nations, but we can't make a country do an immediate 180.... our job was to oust the dictatorship (in this case of the Al Qaeda), and instate a somewhat democratic government that will provide the opportunity for citizens of the free world. granted, we kind of jacked that one up, b/c we focused so much attention on finding bin laden that we didnt take any time to think of what government we would instate. This is part of the controversy in our own country right now about what will happen to Iraq.

quote:

doing the same with Iraq will only make the things worse , children have been dying of starvation and diarea for the past 10 years because of the US restrictions , and they know that. do you think they will support the idea of the US "saving them from the evil Saddam" knowing the fact that USA is the evil for not letting food and medecine supplies in ?

THIS is a touchy subject... there is a LOT of politics behind this that we could never begin to delve into and discuss properly... bottom line is that their "beloved leader" cares sooo much for his people that he has them stand around his weapon outlets so the US doesn't bomb them... he doesn't help the economy out to provide for his own people. trading embargos or not, any food/medicine that country would have received would have mis-allocated anyway. Long before the Gulf War ever began, this country was in poverty because Saddam was more interested in building his military than providing for his people... and why? because he wanted to take over other countries, steal some more oil, get more money, to build his military even bigger and create some strange regime reminiscent of biblical-times Roman empire... Bottom line of the trade embargos: the steps taken to reach this point were WELL in the making way before we were old enough to tie our shoes. And, indirectly, they can be credited to their leader. Not to mention, trade restrictions and embargos were handed down from the UN, which means the USA was not solely involved in deciding them. Bush just makes a great scapegoat.


and to my dear friend trancaholic: i know you are not anti-US, and i understand your position... (although personally i think you dig too deep in finding sentiments against Bush - he's human), and even though i think criticizing people based on speeches alone is not the best way to derive a judging considering most speeches are written by aides and not the president himself.... anyway, besides the point. But answer me this one thing: do you not see guilt on Saddam's behalf in not allowing inspectors to inspect certain areas (which most obviously contain things that shouldn't be there?) (never mind the fact that Saddam broke many promises that were settled on at the end of the Gulf War, AND didn't allow inspectors in to his country for almost a decade) and if so, do you honestly think the best measure is to sit idly-by and just wait till Saddam attacks another country? I can guarantee given his track record he is not building up arms just to defend himself from invasion....

Instead of everyone criticizing us, i'd like to see some suggestions on how to handle this (and don't say "wait for an attack from him"...). I am interested in ideas. Don't forget though, that we have thought of anything possible to prevent war on this matter.... believe it or not the US, no matter what it does, always needs full UN support... here it doesn't have it. Trust me, we really want the support of everyone.

And finally on to Trance-Canada.... what is your problem? if you have a problem with me or something i've said, i'd love to hear what exactly you have a problem with. Your smug comments about my replies in this thread do not express anything on your behalf other than 1) you do not take this debate seriously , or 2) you have nothing to contribute. But if you disagree with me and you can put together a decent explanation, by all means i'd love to hear what you have to say.

-ABT-

___________________
Peace.

Interesting thread.

As a Briton, we have seen a lot about this, mainly because Tony Blair is becoming Bush's poodle and agreeing to everything he says. This is not going down well with people here or with his cabinet.
I think we are reluctant to become involved because we dont want to put ourselves up as a target for Islamic terrorists in the way America is.
I think if the UN agreement was there then attacking Iraq would not be a problem to most Europeans.

However, I think first of all the Israel/Palestine situation has to be addressed. Particuarly as most Muslims see Israel as the agressor which is being backed by the US, mainly because of the high population of Jews in USA.
The UN told Israel the occupation of Arafat's headquarters was illegal. A resolution endorsed by all the members of the security council except......The USA. They dont do themselves any favours.
And attacking another Muslim country would anly lead to massive increase in the numbers of Al-Qaeda fighters with one aim.....to die for Allah attacking the great Satan, America (God willing)!
What most Arabs fail to see is that the people who would benefit most from the removal of Saddam would be the Iraqi people themselves. No more sanctions and money being spent on the country rather than weapons programmes.

Perhaps if Iraq launched an attack against a neighbouring muslim country there would be more support in the area for his removal?

Maybe Saddam does have WMDs, and if he does he will be hiding them in his palaces etc, so there is no point the inspectors going in if they dont have full access to all areas and buildings. Its like the police raiding someones house and being told they cant look in the attic!

Does oil come into it? Maybe, but I dont agree it is America's main priority. Yes, they may want to reduce their reliance on Saudi Arabia, particuarly as 17 of the 20 9/11 hijackers were Saudi born (and so is OBL), but that would not be a major factor.

So what happens when Saddam is overthrown, and I believe it is when, not if.
Surely the Iraqi people should be allowed to elect a new leader. As long as they dont choose either of Saddam's sons as they are just as mad as him!
Peacekeeping troops will end up there as well (mainly from Europe again I expect)

Will the world be a safer place??? I doubt it.


Just some of my thoughts.

I really hate it when people twist things around.
Why are there people thinking that these posts bash americans?
Why are there posts like this :

quote:

C) You seem to be the type of person that hates the US for the sake of hating the US ... you have some kind of inferiority complex or something?

I'll make my stand on this clear.
-I don't like US policies in the middle east.
-I see things in a different perspective than other people (ex. ABT who's in the US airforce)
-I don't like it when people misunderstand, or simply have their own opinion, and claim that i don't have a logical understanding.
Is it my fault that i'm faced with some really smart people in this board that have things figuered out, and i just don't know shit according to them.

And i hate it when people think that this a American VS. European VS. Arab people issue. This isn't about people, or about us, is about politics. Why can't you just understand that people have different views on sensitive issues like politics.

___________________

apologies if there was a misunderstanding guy...

i am always up for a good political debate. I have my views just like everyone else has theirs, and i don't try to change everyone's opinion, just try to help them see the full story, or at least our side of it. When i see arguements like yours that have no real explanations or arguements, it seems like an unsupported opinion. And if thats what you have, thats fine. Just try to be open to hearing about whats going on.

peace
-ABT-

___________________
Peace.

quote:

Originally posted by Vestan_Pance Interesting thread. As a Briton, we have seen a lot about this, mainly because Tony Blair is becoming Bush's poodle and agreeing to everything he says. This is not going down well with people here or with his cabinet. I think we are reluctant to become involved because we dont want to put ourselves up as a target for Islamic terrorists in the way America is.

thats quite unfortunate that everyone sees it as that way... the way we see it - that our countries are brethren, and i know that if anyone started f@cking with the UK, myself and about a million other US soldiers would be over there to kick some ass, if you guys didn't take care of it first. I have experience with the UK's military, and they are some of the best, well-trained, and good-spirited forces i've ever dealt with. Right now out in the middle east we fight side-by-side, and you will not find more responsible, respectful people than Her Majesty's soldiers... As far as Tony Blair, i absolutely love the guy (i know my vote doesn't count)... but a better way to see it - that we are brothers... equals. Nobody is pandering to the likes of anyone. If someone at school picks on your friend, you don't care who/what/why, you want to kick their ass, no?

quote:

I think if the UN agreement was there then attacking Iraq would not be a problem to most Europeans.

agreed, but the majority of the UN NOT agreeing with us IS the europeans.... like a supercharger, its going to take some effort to get going, but once a couple of people 'fall' into the bandwagon, the process would be moving...

quote:

However, I think first of all the Israel/Palestine situation has to be addressed. Particuarly as most Muslims see Israel as the agressor which is being backed by the US, mainly because of the high population of Jews in USA.

i think this is a misconception... there is a high population of Muslims in the USA as well.... our support dates back very far, and add together many factors, as far as political negotiations, reasoning, logic, even down to who purchases weapons from us...

quote:

And attacking another Muslim country would anly lead to massive increase in the numbers of Al-Qaeda fighters with one aim.....to die for Allah attacking the great Satan, America [quote] true. [quote]What most Arabs fail to see is that the people who would benefit most from the removal of Saddam would be the Iraqi people themselves.

true.

quote:

Perhaps if Iraq launched an attack against a neighbouring muslim country there would be more support in the area for his removal?

DEFINITELY true.

quote:

Maybe Saddam does have WMDs, and if he does he will be hiding them in his palaces etc, so there is no point the inspectors going in if they dont have full access to all areas and buildings. Its like the police raiding someones house and being told they cant look in the attic!

true, what i've been trying to say....

quote:

Will the world be a safer place??? I doubt it.

here i disagree.... if we eliminate Saddam, true that doesn't solve all the world's problems, but its one less serious threat to have to deal with. But great arguements m8, i welcome more views.

-ABT-

___________________
Peace.

I don't have 3 hours to read this thread, but all I know is the longer we wait to take the offensive, as a world, the worse it can get. We know certain countries have chemical weapons, and what are we waiting for, them to use it on an entire city or state. I would like to think the the world learned something for sept. 11...

___________________
TRY TO UNDERSTAND

Fast: Thanks man!

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline and to my dear friend trancaholic: i know you are not anti-US, and i understand your position... (although personally i think you dig too deep in finding sentiments against Bush - he's human), and even though i think criticizing people based on speeches alone is not the best way to derive a judging considering most speeches are written by aides and not the president himself.... -ABT-

First of all, thanks for calling me a friend. It actually means a great deal more to me, than I would have expected.

I will try to explain myself a little better:
You seemed perplexed as to why there was a growing amount of hostility towards the US, and I tried to explain the reasons, according to how understand the people around me.

I am aware that I am not looking for things to sway my impression of Bush for the better, since my opinion of him is already firmly rooted. I can see that the guy is only human, but, in my little world, smirking when talking about the possible deaths of thousands of people is not forgivable, and I suspect that Bush has a chance to run through a speech before giving it.

Anyway, it might be sad and shallow, but I really think that Bush as a person is to blame for a good deal of the growing divide among the US and its allies. I choose to believe, however, that all the things that bind the US and the rest of the west in friendship is so dominating that it survives even Bush, whose retirement I feel is a necessity for radically improved US-EU-relations.

But then again, It is a possibility that we who do not like Bush, in a self-centered demagogic and conspirational way, simply prefer each others company, and that most of other europeans don't feel the same. I guess only other TAs can confirm or deny that.

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline anyway, besides the point. But answer me this one thing: do you not see guilt on Saddam's behalf in not allowing inspectors to inspect certain areas (which most obviously contain things that shouldn't be there?) (never mind the fact that Saddam broke many promises that were settled on at the end of the Gulf War, AND didn't allow inspectors in to his country for almost a decade) and if so, do you honestly think the best measure is to sit idly-by and just wait till Saddam attacks another country? I can guarantee given his track record he is not building up arms just to defend himself from invasion.... -ABT-

A terrible question to answer for me - and you are right in all the points you are bringing forth. I have a very ambivalent attitude towards this war. On the one hand all my principles bids me to denounce it, but at the same time I would really, really love to see Saddam ousted or even killed. The aversion I feel to him, however, is a result of what I've seen on TV and in magazines/newspapers and heard from refugees living here in Denmark only...So I guess the answer is that I would like to see him removed, if all I've been told about him and his regime is true. And since I don't know if it is, I would prefer the Iraqi people to deal with him themselves.

On suggestions for what to do about Iraq, I would like the US government to go out and state exactly why it is imperative to invade Iraq now, as opposed to 18 months ago. Have new evidence materialized? And if so why are we not being told/shown?
Then I would like Bush to walk the civilized and respectful path to war: send in inspectors, let them be turned away at one of those palaces, and then get a new UN-resolution allowing for the use of military force.

That is, if the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" are really what this whole affair is actually about. If not then I would like Bush to come clean and say "we have a moral responsibility to rid the world of cruel leaders," *and* add "after Mr. Hussein the following countries can expect a visit: Zimbabwe, Burma...". In short: some clarity, honesty and consistency.

quote:

Originally posted by Tranzlucent I don't have 3 hours to read this thread, but all I know is the longer we wait to take the offensive, as a world, the worse it can get. We know certain countries have chemical weapons, and what are we waiting for, them to use it on an entire city or state. I would like to think the the world learned something for sept. 11...

I think that people like you are dangerous. You don't want to do an effort (reading for three hours) in order to understand more sides of a matter, and then you suggest that we/you should take the offensive.

In my previous post I forgot to mention one more thing I would like: a clear statement on what should happen to an Iraq with no Saddam, and how many/much of his henchmen/army would have to join him in the immediate afterlife.

Little off topc note but I just had to say that I'm amazed at trancaholic's English. He seems to speaks better and owning a word tresaure far more comprehensive than most of the native Americans (not to offend any1 here). Where do you have that from, if I may ask?

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I think that people like you are dangerous. You don't want to do an effort (reading for three hours) in order to understand more sides of a matter, and then you suggest that we/you should take the offensive.

I am very dangerous.

___________________
TRY TO UNDERSTAND