|
Two things... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| evil_bastard |
| Izzy, you have to at least wonder about US motives in all of this. Blind faith is the trait of an extremist. I believe Pakistan and North Korea are much more dangerous than Iraq in terms of the damage they can and might do, and the job in Afghanistan is at best only half-finished. I think we would do better to address these problems first. There are many hotspots around the world where tensions run high and at present there are something like 30 conflicts in the world, most of which are ignored. Yet somehow Iraq is getting all this attention from a superpower whose entire culture and economy depends on an awful lot of oil. If you care about human suffering and global safety you must ask yourself: why? Isn't this all a bit strange in the context of things? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
Izzy, you have to at least wonder about US motives in all of this. |
You don't have to wonder about anything. The US motives are its own personal interests (in this case, that might be related to oil). And there's nothing wrong with that.
Countries, like people, are selfish. The U.S. just gets noticed more because it's big, influential, and is in direct competition with almost the entire world. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
At what cost?
How far can America go in "acting in it's own interests" and still be doing "nothing wrong"? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | | there are other alternatives to pay someone back then by conquering your neighbour |
No there are not if your neighbour is responsible for a huge drop in oil prices on which your country's economy is completely based upon.
| quote: | | because he feels more threatened by saddam then clinton did |
I'm really interested in seeing how can possibly Saddam be a threat to Bush and the USA at this time, and why is he more concerned about it than Clinton. Before Bush started proposing war, the relations were more or less stable.
| quote: | | do you belive saddam possess weapons of mass destruction? |
I'm not sure. But even if he does, who's to say he can't have them? Many countries have them and it's not a big deal. Those weapons will be used only if he's extremely threatened.
| quote: | | that said, it is not the UN inspectors job to find whether iraq has or does not have WOMD but rather to test saddam's willingness to be frank and open about his progams |
Well if he'd be willing, he'd tell them where they are the first day of their inspection. He didn't, so the US should say where they are, and the inspectors should look at, otherwise there will be no proof whatsoever of them existing.
| quote: | | america has no intention of "conquering" iraq and making it the 51st state of america. |
I'm not talking about what will hapen after the war gets started, but about changing public and international opinion towards accepting the war with forged or unproved evidence.
| quote: | | if you came to me with sources such as ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, BBC, SKY, CBC.. |
I'm not sure those sources still have that information at their web sites, it's been more than 10 years, but if I find some I'll notify you. And why wouldn't you trust Saddam? He's a nice guy.:D
| quote: | | "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait." as an OK for a complete act of war agianst kuwait |
But the American government knew it was not going to be just a simple borderline dispute. They knew that Saddam wants to invade Kuwait because it was the only way for it to get oil prices back at their previous state. A few gunshots from the one side to the other wouldn't solve anything, and americans knew that very well. It was not a territorial dispute, but the one that could be solved only by overthrowing Kuwaiti government, because all diplomatic tries have failed.
Besides, if you compare that war to many others in which americans didn't get involved it's not a big war. Kuwait is a very small but very rich country. Compare war in Kuwait to the one in Afghanistan, in which americans didn't get involved until the WTC incident. Americans only get involved in wars that have something to do with oil, or are in some other ways a threat to their dominance in the world.
| quote: | | The US motives are its own personal interests (in this case, that might be related to oil). And there's nothing wrong with that. |
In that case you can say there was nothing wrong with what Hitler did, because he was also protecting Germany's personal interests.
Which was ok in the beginning, because Germany was really opressed by the victorious countries, but what he did later was definitely not necesarry.
| quote: | | Countries, like people, are selfish. The U.S. just gets noticed more because it's big, influential, and is in direct competition with almost the entire world. |
I agree with that completeley. But it's also understandable that as it gets involved in many things, that will piss off many people. I agree that any country in that position would do exactly the same things. But that wouldn't mean that people outside of it would be satisfied. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
blah blah blah blah, why does the USA attack Iraq and not North Korea or Pakistan wha wha wha |
Simple reason, because IT CAN!
Just because it can't attack North Korea or Pakistan (Iran was BTW the other 1/3 of the axis of evil) doesn't mean they are any better and does not mean the US is any worse.
The fact is the USA right now CAN attack Iraq because of its isolated position, and if you are going to use the argument that if we can'tattack North Korea or Pakistan, we shouldn't attack Iraq.. well that is one of the most childish and ridiciolous arguments I've heard.
Go ahead, tell me yourself.. what should the USA do against North Korea or Pakistan. If you were in Bush's shoes what would you do differently in addressing thier risk to your nation and the world? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
ok tito, my lengthy reply to you just got erased so I will sum it up.
Here is an alternative for Saddam not paying debts to Kuwait:
a.Stop paying debts to kuwait.
This is better then:
b. invade kuwait
Saddam can't have WOMD because the WORLD say's so. He signed a contract with the UN that said the world said so, and that he said its ok.
Then he went on to have WOMD. You break a contract their are consequences (or at least there SHOULD BE!), simple no?
Third, Hitler invaded Czech without a just cause for war, and therefore was seen as an agressor. The USA has a just cause for war against Iraq as it violated the contract it signed with the world, of which the USA is very important in.
Please man, open your mind a little, get some thought to other peoples suggestions, their are other conspriacies on the other far end you could learn. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | | my lengthy reply to you just got erased so I will sum it up. |
Same thing happened to me a day ago. Hate it when that happens.
| quote: | Here is an alternative for Saddam not paying debts to Kuwait:
a.Stop paying debts to kuwait.
This is better then:
b. invade kuwait |
Yes, but Kuwait wasn't the only loan giver to Iraq, and it caused Iraq not to be able to pay back other loans as well. And if it stopped paying those loans, there would be no foreign investments at all.
| quote: | Saddam can't have WOMD because the WORLD say's so. He signed a contract with the UN that said the world said so, and that he said its ok.
Then he went on to have WOMD. You break a contract their are consequences (or at least there SHOULD BE!), simple no?
Third, Hitler invaded Czech without a just cause for war, and therefore was seen as an agressor. The USA has a just cause for war against Iraq as it violated the contract it signed with the world, of which the USA is very important in.
Please man, open your mind a little, get some thought to other peoples suggestions, their are other conspriacies on the other far end you could learn. |
Ok, I forgot that he signed a contract with the UN about it. But you don't know if he has them or not yet. So there is still no just cause for the US to invade yet as well. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Yes, but Kuwait wasn't the only loan giver to Iraq, and it caused Iraq not to be able to pay back other loans as well. And if it stopped paying those loans, there would be no foreign investments at all. |
Again, stop paying the debts seems like a better alternative then war. Also if at financial trouble, why didn't they ask the world bank for help? Nations in financial debt that can't pay it, that are (or were) allies of the USA, usually has the USA buy out the debt as long as the nation promises to reform the economy, which the IMF and world bank then oversea. This is usually the number 1 option for nations going into debt without the ability to repay it. The 2nd is to not pay them and become isolationists.
| quote: | | Ok, I forgot that he signed a contract with the UN about it. But you don't know if he has them or not yet. So there is still no just cause for the US to invade yet as well. |
The just causes is that Iraq violated contracts with the USA and with the UN of which the USA is a security council member of.
If the inspectors do find that Iraq is in violation, then the USA will have a just cause. Even if it is a thing like they didn't let them see the scientist, or they hampered or bugged inspections. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Just because it can't attack North Korea or Pakistan (Iran was BTW the other 1/3 of the axis of evil) doesn't mean they are any better and does not mean the US is any worse. |
Who is the United states to say which countries are evil....LOL....Thats a ing joke. Rememeber.. your president is an Ape in human costume. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Who is the United states to say which countries are evil.... |
its called soverignty
what is evil, what isnt? do you belive in natural modesty? in some places its evil to show any exposed skin while other places its completely natural to sun bath topless... are we born knowing what is evil and what isnt or are we conditioned by society? |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
its called soverignty
what is evil, what isnt? do you belive in natural modesty? in some places its evil to show any exposed skin while other places its completely natural to sun bath topless... are we born knowing what is evil and what isnt or are we conditioned by society? |
What im trying to get at here is that the American government is executing "national/cultural relativism". By comparing the UNited states to other countries.. the Us has labelled anything that is different. IF you dont follow US policy.. ideologies... practices.. you are, evil, communist, oppressive and any other labels they have come up with in the past. Basically...if you are not like they US, you are uncivilized. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Who is the United states to say which countries are evil....LOL....Thats a ing joke. Rememeber.. your president is an Ape in human costume. |
And who are you to say that our president is an ape?
Remember Canadains, are shields for saddam! |
|
|
|
|
