|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted November 02, 2002 10:15 PM |
|
|
*off topic, only saw that AFTER I finished that post*
People can look here if they want
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 08:09 AM |
|
|
Quote
“USA needed KUWAIT's oil, not Iraq's. I said nothing about USA needing Iraq's oil back then. However, now USA wants to grab Iraq's oil reserves as well.”
Hehe…man where does this ability to so accurately perceive all the inner motives of USA come from? So let me make sure I understand. 10 years ago we didn’t want Iraq’s oil, but now we want to start a war because suddenly we now want it?
Quote
“If the USA had been interested in regime change, why didn't Bush(the older one) finish Saddam off when he had the chance.”
This is a new one…so Bush followed the UN mandate 10 years ago and didn’t finish Iraq off… thus we were wrong. Now we are thinking of doing a regime change without the UN’s blessing and we are wrong. I guess USA is just plain wrong no matter what they do.
Quote
“it was none other than the government of the United States of America, that is and should be held responsible for the tragedy.”
Sigh…some people’s reasoning astound me. So the USA government is now actually responsible for the attack….no not OBL and his terrorists…they were simply pawns being forced to kill by the big mean USA government.
Quote
“And it aren't the Democrats that are against drilling on USA's soil. Ever heard of environmental activists?”
LOL….democrats are environmental activists Look at any environmental issue and you will typically find the democrats on one side and republicans on the other side. Republicans have been advocating responsible oil drilling on our own soil for ages.
Quote
‘Only partly Dargon, I don't think even the most pro bush supporter could honestly say Saudi Arabia is a nice gentle democracy with good honest rulers and a decent legal system. Not on the same level as Iraq perhaps,”
No one (Bush, etc) has argued that all countries must adopt our values. There are of course many nations that have very poor values according the standards in USA. To do a regime change in every nation that has different moral values than us would definitely make us imperialistic. “Axis of evil” is not narrowly defined as abhorrent moral values. It has a lot more to do with countries that are a danger to the safety of the USA and the world at large.
Quote
“Every war has its own causes. “
I think you missed the point. You are making the allegation that USA is only going to war to claim Iraq’s oil…yet you make that argument with little historical precedence. For example, if we had previously taken other countries solely for their oil…then your argument would have some weight given historical precedence. You can’t just make wild allegations with no factual support.
Quote
“methinks America and the west can be VERY selective about who is and is not their ally at times.”
Global affairs are infinitely complex. There are true allies that share a common goal and values. And there are allies of need/convenience. As you of course know given your expertise in history.
Quote
“did not fight the civil war solely on the grounds of anti slavery”
Of course it was not the only issue…state’s sovereignty was a big issue but intimately intertwined. Most if not all wars are fought with multiple motives. If you are trying to allege that slavery was a nonissue or minor issue in the civil war than you are dead wrong.
Quote
“Free elections? No black person in the south could vote!”
LOL…you are surprising me here…that argument is faulty logic….it begs the question….of course they couldn’t vote that is one of the large reasons there was a war Are you making these un-characteristically unreasoned responses just because you and I have had a good debate in a while
Quote
“Many european nations were fighting slavery”
What is your point….I never alleged they didn’t. My point was that we lost more men in that battle than any other…that says something to me.
Quote
“I don't recollect the Americans asking the democratic will of the tribes of Indians living in their current country before ethnically cleansing them from their homelands and killing most of them”
Man you are being quite contrary for some reason? If you read my whole post I stated that there are different moral standards in every historical era. I don’t agree with what the USA did to the Indians…but in the time period imperialistic intervention was the norm of most significant civilizations (Britain, France, etc.).
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 08:14 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 3 Nov 2002
|
Quote
“I understand, God forbid you read what other people have actually said before you disagree with them.”
LOL…you crack me up man! Good point.
Quote
“I just don't appreciate the notion that america was born with this perfect constitution or that it was this perfect place with freedom and justice for all from it's birth.”
Are you arguing against a phantom? Who would make such an asinine allegation that USA doesn’t have plenty to be ashamed about?
Quote
“Why if slavery was such an issue did lincoln not fully denounce slavery until 1862 with his proclomation?”
Slavery was a huge issue from the beginning of our nation not just when Lincoln came on the scene. Many of the founding fathers wanted slavery abolished but knew that there was no way to unify the country as many in the south would not give up their “sovereignty” on the issue. It was one of the issues that would of destroyed the USA before it ever got off its feet.
Quote
“1. Weve been trying to kill Sadaam for several years”
Hmmm I think not.
Quote
“Going to war with Iraq will cuase a lot more harm than good “
Or it could do a lot more good than harm
Quote
”Every country except Great Britain, and Russia (which is neutral on it) does not approve, add that up “
Incorrect….Israel supports it.
Quote
” even if we kill sadamm whos oing to replace him, either a figurehead, or a US official, it wouldnt matter either way, things would either get worse or stay the same“
Valid concern but tired example. There have been many times that nations have been defeated and they actually got their act together afterwards (Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.).
Quote
”3. The Bushes are not known for their internal policies,”
Hmmm I would guess you haven’t heard of tax reform/cuts, school reform/accountably, social security reform/privatization, etc.
If you were present anywhere during the presidential election…Bush’s pundits favorite axe to grind was that he was only domestic presidential candidate and didn’t have enough experience in foreign affairs ( guess that is kind of the opposite of what you were trying to allege).
Guess the whole handling of Al Queda in an amazing military intervention/strategy and diplomatic coalition kind of silenced those critics.
Quote
“I'm not familiar with the details of the assassination attempt, but it is my impression that it was on George Bush (father). Was that during the war, or after it?”
Happened AFTER the gulf war.
Quote
“If the U.S. had really cared about the Iraqi people, had really cared about getting Saddam out of there, why didn't the rebellion receive U.S support?”
Two words…..UN.
Also you are mistakenly assuming that the regime change is solely because we “care” about the Iraqi people. That is one of the issues but not the main reason.
Quote
“The timing of this whole thing is suspicious to me”
Could someone please delineate when is the appropriate time? If we would of done something right after they kicked out the inspectors…it would have been rash. We tried diplomatic and economic measures with no effect. Now four years later and after of course 9/11 we are attempting regime change…but our timing is suspicious? So again I ask when would the timing not be suspicious? It comes down to there is no “correct” answer and people would rather just try to malign USA’s motives.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 02:02 PM |
|
|
Dargon
Had to start something right?
Quote:
No one (Bush, etc) has argued that all countries must adopt our values. There are of course many nations that have very poor values according the standards in USA. To do a regime change in every nation that has different moral values than us would definitely make us imperialistic. “Axis of evil” is not narrowly defined as abhorrent moral values. It has a lot more to do with countries that are a danger to the safety of the USA and the world at large.
I have to add to that and suggest the axis of evil also excludes nations that america would face difficulty in fighting and defeating, EG China (Who threaten allies of yours over taiwan and are developing nuclear weapons) to name but one.
Quote:
I think you missed the point. You are making the allegation that USA is only going to war to claim Iraq’s oil…yet you make that argument with little historical precedence. For example, if we had previously taken other countries solely for their oil…then your argument would have some weight given historical precedence. You can’t just make wild allegations with no factual support.
I didn't actually make this suggestion, that was another. Mine was that it comes down to whatever suits the individual nation who begins the war at the time.
On the civil war thing I was merely pointing out that I get more than a little annoyed when it is put across that the sole and most important reason for the civil war was the issue of slavery, as the common person on both sides did not care much either way for the isssue. Also it disparages the south in claiming that they were a one issue country with no other grievances. No matter how much rhetoric and will there was from the start of america true equality did not come until recently. Now I'm not comparing this to us, but then again we don't usually go around declaring our nation to be freedom loving and justice for all in our country from that date (as all of us here know we were not!)
Same with the issue of indians, America has always made a big thing about being anti imperialistic and against the rule of one people's other the other, yet fails to point out that this is one of the major reasons for the founding of the United States. Of course Britain ruled over many people's without their initial or continual permission, but there's no point in denying or sweeping the Native American issue under the carpet as is often done when America has got all high and mighty about colonial countries.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
FrustratedBa...
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 02:05 PM |
|
|
Sigh, yes, terrorists carried out the bombing on the twin towers, but they didn't do it simply out of the blue. They had a reason for doing so, and the US government with its foreign policy gave them one.
Don't get me wrong. I totally condemn the attack, but I wouldn't blame only the terrorists in that tragedy. If the US foreign policy hadn't been what it was, the attacks would have never happened.
____________
A: What's your ICQ number?
B: What for do you need an icy cucumber??
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 03:37 PM |
|
|
PH- I agree with what you said
The U.S. was imperialistic when Polk was president. "54, 40' of fight" was his campaign slogan.
FB- What part of U.S. foriegn policy is wrong. The part where we give money to third world countries without hope of ever getting it back? Helping in wars (with supplies and troops) or trying to act as the world's police?
____________
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 04:09 PM |
|
|
Acting as the world police is quite bad since most of your policing ends up in your advantage, and was never asked for. We have the UN for police, we don't need the US.
Your helping of third world countries is not as large as you might think(I'm quite sure that other countries contribute as much if not more).
You don't help in wars unless you have a profit of it (well, that's how most countries are). Like WWII, you didn't give a damn about the world until you were attacked.
____________
|
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 07:46 PM |
|
|
I want to jump in americas defence: in the first world war they joined after the sinking of the lusitania (don't forget how much both Germany and the USA had warned their people to go on British merchant ships). They lost many men in the trenches, and in the second world war peole weren't that happy to do that all over again. But in the end, the main purpose was to male sure all europe didn't became communist.
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 08:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
want to jump in americas defence: in the first world war they joined after the sinking of the lusitania (don't forget how much both Germany and the USA had warned their people to go on British merchant ships). They lost many men in the trenches
With respect the losses America suffered in WWI, though terrible were miniscule compared to the losses of France and Britain, at one point the French army was on the verge of mutiny over another proposed offensive. This is one of the major reasons why the british and french pushed so hard for serious reperations at versailles, whereas America, mostly untouched by the war largely did not push for punishment.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 08:40 PM |
|
|
I know- I am not exactly known in my neighborhood to be america-minded (no offence intended).
Everybody joins a war if it has some advantages from it- unless you're reeaaalllyy defending (belgium in WW1).
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 04, 2002 12:11 AM |
|
|
|
My understanding is that the US did not help the Kurdish rebellion (and I think there was a rebellion in the South, too) immediately following the Gulf War was because Saudi Arabia essentially didn't want a precedent set of brutal dictatorships being overthrown in the Middle East. Gee I wonder why not.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 04, 2002 12:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My understanding is that the US did not help the Kurdish rebellion (and I think there was a rebellion in the South, too) immediately following the Gulf War was because Saudi Arabia essentially didn't want a precedent set of brutal dictatorships being overthrown in the Middle East. Gee I wonder why not.
This would be funny if the best part of a few thousand Iraquis didn't die to satisfy the needs of the allies of the west........
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 04, 2002 12:37 AM |
|
|
Th U.S. didn't join WWII until we were attacked because we were in the worst depression the country has ever seen. The war pulled us out of the depression. Why would the common person want to fight the germans if they didn't do anything to them. Pearl Harbor united the country and put them in war mode. We switched to a wartime economy and pulled us out of the depression.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 04, 2002 12:58 AM |
|
|
(controversy time again)
As much as you have valid points there wolfman I'd just like to add :
The germans were sinking US ships in the period prior to you going to war with them.
The British had discovered through Enigma the knowledge of the holocaust prior to 1941. Now there's no way of proving that the british informed the americans, but given the pro-jewish feeling in america I'd be VERY suprised if Churchill did not use this knowledge to persuade Roosevelt more towards war.
America had shown her colours long prior to the outbreak with the Lend Lease schemes (which she profited immensely from) and were already hinting which side they would fall in with before 1941.
Add to that the fact that considerable proof that America knew about the "Day of Infamy" at pearl some time prior to the event and it shows a country that geared for war long prior to 1941. America was waiting for excuses, pearl gave them one.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted November 04, 2002 06:05 AM |
|
|
Do I think the U.S. should have allowed Iraq to occupy Kuwait? Yes, yes I do.
I think that it was okay for the UNITED NATIONS to send in peacekeeping forces to DEFEND KUWAIT, and nothing more. No taking out iraq military installations, no crossing the border. And, of course, instituted economic sanctions. They'd have backed down eventually. And yes, I'm aware that they still haven't back down, eventually can be a long time!
The fact is, it's not our place to tell other nations how they should be runnning themselves. Well, rather, I have no problem with us telling them how they should, but we shouldn't be enforcing it.
And if this sounds heartless, well, tough nuggets. Bombing a third world country regardless of the civilian casualties it causes, now THAT'S heartless.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 04, 2002 03:15 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 4 Nov 2002
|
What do you mean by defend? By the time the UN could even convene, much less deploy troops, Kuwait had already been defeated.
As to sanctions. I'm not a huge fan of sanctions as a method of diplomatic pressure. In the context of Saddam Hussein ruling a country, sanctions result in more deaths than an attack by western nations. This is because Saddam Hussein is clearly cynical enough to divert humanitarian funds to weaponry and whatnot and then point out how much his people are suffering as a result. I'm also not entirely sure that they actually work to effect change -- can anyone enlighten me on what the South Africa situation was? I want to say that sanctions helped bring about the end of Apartheid, but I might just be making stuff up. How do I feel about the current sanctions against Iraq? I don't like them, but I feel they're a necessary evil in light of what Saddam does when he has virtually unlimited funds. Cuba? Lift the sanctions since Fidel hasn't shown himself to be a threat to neighbors, even if he is a threat to his own people (though not nearly on the scale that Saddam is a threat to his own people.)
Overall, I don't like sanctions since I'm convinced that the best way to prevent wars is to make them too expensive. The way to do that is to have extensive trade networks to the point that both sides would be hurt more by the loss of trade than they could possibly hope to gain in a war. Let's face it, France and Germany are never going to fight eachother again (other than sniping at eachother about EU guidelines) since major portions of their economy would shut down if that ever happened. Japan and the US are not going to go to war again for fear of losing all that money they get from eachother. No matter what people might say, China and the US will never go to war with eachother, not even over Taiwan since all those Chinese factory owners would go "oi! Stop it, we need the business" and all those American companies trying to sell cars to the Chinese would go "oi! Stop it, we need the business." Am I going "yip yip yippee Globalization?" Yeah, I am. I don't like the way that it appears to excaberate poverty in certain regions, but I think total war a la WWI and WWII would be even worse. Does it apparently lead to extremist terrorist cells? Yeah, maybe, but pick your choice - terrorism or total war? Terrorism (and I live in New York, so I'm not some guy on a farm in Iowa who figures I won't be hit by the anthrax, anyway).
In addition, if there's anything that Saddam has proven to be very, very good at, it's crushing opposition. How long after Saddam was in power in Kuwait do you think it would be before there weren't any Kuwaitis left who were capable of governing in a post Saddam world? Don't you think Saddam would have just pumped assloads of oil out of Kuwait, stockpiled it in Iraq and then said "okay, I give in, I'll leave Kuwait, now lift these sanctions so I can sell all of that oil." Then left and giggled as Kuwait collapsed?
Like I said before, people like Saddam Hussein force evil acts in others. Doing nothing is an evil act because it allows a killer free reign(and don't be so naive to claim that Saddam is just a doddering old man. He's a killer. The only killer in the world? No, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be stopped). Having economic sanctions is an evil since, regardless of who is most responsible for the deaths, deaths and suffering occur as a result. Going to war is an evil act since, well, people are killing eachother and that's always bad. Pick your evil, but whenever a guy like Saddam Hussein is around, everybody has to get their hands dirty, no matter what course of action they choose.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2002 07:58 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 5 Nov 2002
|
Quote
“I have to add to that and suggest the axis of evil also excludes nations that america would face difficulty in fighting and defeating”
True there are pragmatic concerns as we’ve agreed before. Bush is not like Reagan who had the balls of steel to call the USSR the evil empire. But also axis of evil is primarily related to danger to our safety in general and terrorism more specifically as it use came into play after 9/11 (granted NK doesn’t have any terrorist links/history to my knowledge). It is interesting to note that Bush included NK in axis of evil before anyone knew they had broken their treaty and developed nukes (hmmm seems like Bush has pretty far reaching insight) all the while NK was receiving all sorts of free goodies from the USA as we were keeping up our end of the agreement but apparently they didn’t feel the need to keep their promises.
Quote
“I didn't actually make this suggestion, that was another.”
Yeah I know you didn’t…..I was mixing up my responses..not necessarily responding in chronological order.
Quote
“Acting as the world police is quite bad since most of your policing ends up in your advantage, and was never asked for. We have the UN for police, we don't need the US.”
Hehe…the USA is the UN’s police force…unfortunately. As far as not asking for our involvement in different affairs…sometimes that has been true…but look at most of our historical interventions…they have been requested.
Quote
“Like WWII, you didn't give a damn about the world until you were attacked.”
While I agree that we should of gotten involved militarily much earlier…to say that we didn’t give a damn and weren’t doing anything is just completely incorrect. We were providing lots of background support and supplies.
Quote
“Don't suppose it has anything to do with the US's current economic situation and George W.'s popularity?”
uh as stated before…our economy is doing pretty well all things considered….this is but our typical historical 10 year decline. Our housing sales are soaring, interest rates low, unemployment low, inflation low, stock market growing, and still the strongest overall economy in the world. As far as Bush’s popularity….he continues to set historical records. Even now Bush has the strongest presidential approval rating in 50 years during mid term (presidential) elections. 67% approval ratings are quite unheard of for our country during midterm elections.
Quote
“Even if Saddam has a nuke, he certainly lacks the means to get said weapon all the way to the US.”
First we have people and allies all over the world so wherever he hits he will endanger our safety.
Second….you are saying that if he is ABLE TO CREATE the most POWERFUL and destructive weapon in the world…a weapon few countries have…that somehow he WON’T BE ABLE to figure out how to hurt the US with it???? That is very perplexing logic. Also it is his chemical weapons and ties with terrorism that are also a big concern for our safety. When he gets nukes it will only exponentially expand the danger that he is to us and the world.
Quote
“The way to do that is to have extensive trade networks to the point that both sides would be hurt more by the loss of trade than they could possibly hope to gain in a war.”
Bort that sounds positively capitalistic and republican….did you switch parties on me And to address PH earlier statement about China not being part of the “axis of evil” this is one of the main reasons….USA has adopted a conquer through world trade strategy with certain countries (though I have concerns about it from a moral perspective).
But in summery I would just like to say that the only reason USA was attacked is because we deserved it through our manipulation of different governments and exploitation of poor and helpless nations and people. The only reason that USA is advocating regime change in Iraq is because we want Iraq to be our own government run really really big gas station...not to mention all that sand we could freely import to fill all the sand boxes of our demon spawned children. The only thing USA has contributed to the world is countless acts of cruelty, starvation, greed, imperialism, gluttony, theft, murder, rape, hypocrisy, and destruction. Don't get me started about cancer, environmental devastation, and AIDS....they were/are all us also. And I am very suspect about earthquakes and hurricanes...I think there might be a USA link. The world would be a glowing array of paradise if only the USA would die a rapid and painful death. Did I get that all right?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 05, 2002 11:15 AM |
|
|
Nice to see you taking the discussion so seriously there dargon, methinks it's you turning into bort IN FACT YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON AREN'T YOU!
As for the UN and the world I read the following little joke yesterday (NOT to be taken seriously!)
The united nations recently conducted a worldwide survey in an attempt to solve the severe problem of food shortages across the world.
The survey consisted of one question: "please give your honest opinion about solutions to food shortages in the rest of the world."
It was a complete failiure, Africa did not understand the meaning of "Food", Eastern Europe did not know what "honest" meant, Western Europe did not know what "shortage" meant, and the Chinese didn't know what the word "opinion" meant.
The whole of the middle east didn't know what "Solution" meant.
And as for the Americans? Well they couldn't figure out what "the rest of the world" meant........
Quote:
But in summery I would just like to say that the only reason USA was attacked is because we deserved it through our manipulation of different governments and exploitation of poor and helpless nations and people.
Other than the Deserving the attack bit this is very accurate actually. If you look at the nations america has fought since the 1990's - Iraq, Afghanistan etc it was entirely down to western and mainly american obsession with anti-communism that lead to the current rulers being in power. It is mostly down to the west (and since America is the biggest western nation, mostly her) that these countries have fallen into chaos which lead to these people coming to power.
As for trade, doesn't America STILL hold a trade embargo on cuba? When shall we see this lifted in an attempt to persuade the people of this country to overthrow castro? You could attempt to say they are not a danger, but cuban involvement lead directly to the greneda crisis of recent times and they train numerous terrorist and partisan groups to fight in capitalist nations. The point is that america is not fighting terrorism as a whole, it is fighting terrorism that it can beat and that is against America and no-one else. Anyone elses terrorism or terrorism that would be hard to stop.........well that's someone else's problem isn't it? Let's stop claiming that this is some crusade against terror around the world, it's america fighting what america needs wants to fight, I wonder where america will be though when one of her current allies needs her to fight their terrorism..........
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 05, 2002 02:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
PH's UN joke
love it
Quote:
When shall we see this lifted in an attempt to persuade the people of this country to overthrow castro?
When the Miami Cuban exile lobby stops being so powerful.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 05, 2002 03:05 PM |
|
|
|
So basically you have a relatively small group of die hards holding up progress towards dealing with castro and cuba in a way that might just remove him? (because let's face it no american president has the balls to invade cuba). Typical I geuss of a democratic/capitalist system where money can quite literally buy you a favourable decision.........
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
