|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
posted March 06, 2003 02:29 AM |
|
|
For your amusement. Not off topic
http://www.laugh2day.com/minibush.html
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted March 06, 2003 06:37 PM |
|
|
Yeah, Private Hudson, I was trying to go back and read your response because I'm so long winded I'd forget what I was saying, then every time I returned to the post screen it was wiped clean. Can you say "slow on the uptake???" (I'm toggling back and forth now it's much better)
Some friends here frequently share the Onion's hilarity via e-mail. I've been out of the intelligence loop for about twenty years now (the external intelligence loop that came with studying international relations, not the internal intelligence loop, which I've been out of my whole life) but it sounds like you may be talking about the whole deplorable guns-for-hostages shtick that was going on with Iran back then. It's well known and conveniently ignored over here, like all the other evidence that America engages in nepharious dealings whenever it pleases. The scary thing is that if you walk down the street and say "MACHIAVELLI" to ten people, nine will think you're clearing your throat or swearing at them in a foreign language.
This county has deteriorated to gaging a president's value and trustworthiness on how physically attractive he is, unless and until he might get on the bad side of the press (with whatever help from the opposing political party might be lent) at which time he might be hung out to dry over the stupidest little piddle down the front of his trousers. (THAT should probably inflame a few responses!!!) --to which I might as well go ahead and reply now. I'm not saying that Clinton did not engage in nepharious dealings. I AM saying two things: if he did, why didn't we go after him for THOSE things instead of the dumb little things that made the rest of the world supress a chuckle of disbelief, and second, why him and none of the others? The Iran-Contra scandal WAS serious business but I certainly did not hear anyone screaming to impeach and/or bring charges against Reagan.
Two words: Jack Kennedy. All around him knew of his escapades, but I doubt the turkey shoot was arranged by any of Marilyn's buddies ya know. Yeah yeah I know. "Things were different" back then. Funny how "things" magically transformed somewhere between the Reagan Administration and the Clinton Administration.
On Nicaragua: I was on the edges of that thicket and some of my very close friends were involved with MISURASATA (The Miskito, Sumo and Rama Tribal coalition down there which later changed its name to I can't remember what) Believe it or not, as I was the local "expert" (LOL) on Tribal law back then, a few were trying to talk me into going down there and helping them on an autonomy plan. WAY OVER MY HEAD. I had nowhere near the courage to approach such an undertaking, let alone the brains. And friends who had been in the presence of Noriega described him as eveery bit the megalomaniac madman that Saddam is described as being. I knew people that went down there and died slow, painful deaths. Now I have the excuse of a little one to avoid dangerous situations like that.
But I am ashamed to say I don't recall how that whole thing went. Other than it was just a rehash of the same ol' colonialization scene that replays itself over and over, only instead of "Cavalry" or "Cardinals" they were "Contradoras."
Too long ago, too faw away, tried too hard successfully to forget. I got exhausted and it was too easy to simply sink back into the anonymity of placating American comforts. (I am a breed and can "pass" in either the White world or the Indian world; I had a luxury of getting lost in the dominant society over here that many of my friends don't have) Also, all my notes from that time were destroyed a couple of years ago in a basement flood. As you are obviously much more up on your global history than I right now, I would not at all be insulted by any additional reminders you might throw my direction.
As for your brains -- frankly it was one of your posts I accidentally ran across while googling a totaly unrelated subject that got me in this place to begin with. You really got my attention. I tracked you around here and there and found your thoughts and expressive powers to be very well developed and impressive. Really, I'm not a stalker or anything. But I have been debating senselessly with my ultra-conservative family members for several months (which I have come to understand is an act of utter futility) and started just browsing for intelligent debate. Found that ethics thread. That was great (one of my majors in undergrad was philosophy). Thought I might be able to learn something there.
Depending on how far along you are in your college scene, there's always being a college professor in History, International Relations, Policital Science, etc. etc. If you've already got a Master's you could probably go do that on an adjunct basis right now. If not, Night school is loads of fun. Most of the older, more serious students tak night classes and it's more stimulating all around.
Sorry. Am I sounding like Mama Bear? If so I apologize.
As for my fellow Americans (many of whom no doubt would shudder to hear me use the term "fellow" in relation to them) who have accused you of being "biased, facist, communist, anti-American," etc. As I said, I drifted around reading some of your threads. I have found many of their responses to you come across as biased, facist, arrogant, short-sighted, blinded by patriotism, and anti-globalist. But as was suggested in your ethics thread, while much of this is in the eye of the beholder, such polarities may contain some basic cornerstomes of guidance in this time-space contiuum, which unfortunately is all we have to deal with.
In my way of thinking, it is not a matter of whether we all agree with one another. These are difficult topics of global ramifications over which very reasonable people can differ very greatly, and about which none of us has complete information. The existence of disagreements is the very source of learning new perspectives. The question is whether people are even willing to consider those different perspectives, and glean information others have that we might not. Anybody who thinks they really know what is going on behind the scenes is suffering under a delusion here. As for me, I have more questions than answers on most of this. While I might express sincere concerns about a particular position, when I say "What do you think about...???" I really mean "What do you think about...???" Not "That's a stupid position because...."
My point in all this is, if one happens across someone such as yourself, who explains the impetus behind his position so well, if they conclude you are biased then they are not paying attention because you are not closed to new thinking. You obviously have a well-developed analytical ability on international matters and an enormous wealth of historical information upon which you are drawing. Simply dismissing someone such as yourself as biased or whatnot usually means you've made your point more stongly than they can and they become frustrated simply because they don't like the fact that another is better than they are at backing up a position that is different than theirs. It kind-of misses the whole point don't you think?
Then again, these things are a matter of perspective. Just like Bush and Blair, maybe wou wouldn't look so good to me if I didn't have my fundamentalist family to contend with...
Did I say something about being long-winded before? Sorry if this is not cool. Chalk it up to months of pent-up frustration in trying to dialogue meaningfully with others here where I'm from...
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 07, 2003 12:22 AM |
|
|
*Blushes*
Is it me or has this become the "say nice things about PH thread?" Say peacemaker you're not 20 odd, female and got loads of money have you?  Guess my luck couldn't be THAT good, you do sound a little older than me if you were inolved in Nicaragua. 
I don't know what to say....... to be honest I'm more of an amateur historian and I'm kinda selective, I basically dump all the bits I consider boring about history and concentrate on wars and the periods I like. Therefore I know lots about WWII, Napoleonics etc, but damn all (except basic knowledge) about things like the English Civil War, or the policies of colonial america before the revolution or whatever.
On Nicaragua: You're probably 10 times more knowledgable than me I only read the link that America was ruled against by the UN court after dodging the issue, but as yet have refused to pay compensation demanded. Other than that I know little more than america was being very typically cold war in it's attitude, backing sides based on their political enemies rather than their policies.
Which would be the point, no nation is perfect, not even a system such as democracy is perfect. Here we see Blair ignoring the will of something like 40% of the people and desperately trying to persuade anyone who will listen that he's right, when 1/2 of his own government don't agree! To get round this we see such actions as the increase in "defensive" bombing over the no fly zones, furthering tension and creating war in all but name, or the ignoring of parliment. Blair has thus far dodged or slimmed down the time given to debate the war issue to avoid a scene were most of his own party are forced to either tow the line (through what we call whips - party enforcers basically) or be thrown out of the party for standing up for their voters and morals. No system's perfect, no government or country is what you would consider particularly upstanding.
As for the other bits..... HEY I want my reward money for bringing in a clever member!!! Actually you do sound like a stalker...... now I think I have seen the occaisional person watching and following me..... did I say I was british? oooooops I mean french *runs like mad*
But I also have an ultra right wing family in the main, most of them are far toooooooo of the "Thatcher for Saint" Brigade who hate any kind of change and especially anything foreign. Gets annoying sometimes I can tell you when all you get out of them is rabid remarks about blasting the hell out of Iraq. The nearest they got to a nice comment (in their opinion) was to gather up all the immigrants, give them a rifle and send them to invade iraq.... after all we brits shouldn't care what happens to them, they're not british don't you know?
I don't have a Degree unfortunately, mainly because of my selectiveness on my history. We did tudor and modern (post WWII) history, the tudor one being entirely about religion *yawns* and political intrigue *falls into coma* and the Modern one spent far tooooooooo much time boring me over the "evils" of communism (even post cold war in britain our teaching of communism is biased and smacks more of rhetoric and propaganda than facts). So I didn't do as well as I would of had it been on WWII or other periods that could keep you awake for more than 1/2 an hour on end......
Basically I could talk endlessly on WWII and Napoleonics with loads of anecdotes and stuff, but give me some religious argument between england and spain and I'll manage nothing. That's why I'd probably enjoy working somewhere like a museum taking people round an exhibition on the war of the roses (english civil war from 1400ish). Unfortunately we only really have about 3 main museums here for that kind of thing, mostly hundreds of miles from where I live. Unlike what I've heard about places in America like gettysburg, or what I saw of Waterloo in Belgium we british are very slow at preserving our battlefields and promoting them as tourist attractions. We even built a damn modern day cafe in the middle of the Hill that formed the major terrain point for the battle of Hastings! That would be nice though, a guide for a battlefield like Gettysburg or Waterloo
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted March 07, 2003 01:54 AM |
|
|
Private Hudson -- Sorry if I came across as obsequious for a while there. Thanks for thinking me clever. Sounds like you've cornered the market on all the parts of history I know the least about. I wouuld certainly NOT dare say vice versa.
Sounds like you have a dearth of good colleges in your area. That is a shame for folks like you. I just kind-of moved around from college to college and picked and chose what I pleased. I once had a sturdy handle on the entiretly of Russian History as well as Native American histroy, but antiquity is taking its toll...
Sorry all, to have diverged so far from the thread subject...
Gotta go -- more later (see my e-mail)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 07, 2003 02:11 AM |
|
|
Just to clear things up, I never did take a history degree, basically to get into Uni here you need a certain number of points. These are gained through exams taken between the ages of 16 and 18 and are not compulsary. After school, adults can gain other qualifications that count as points.
The exams are marked with grades from A (being best) to G (being worst) with U for fail effectively. Basically to do a decent History degree you usually have to get at least a C in History and usually another B or a couple of C's in other courses, usually relevant ones such as english. Most people (bar the VERY clever ones) take 3 or 4 exams.
I unfortunately only managed a D in history, but I do have a C in english, mostly because I love arguing about stuff Essays are easy when you can argue for england! The third exam I took I dropped because I was doing quite badly in it (geography). So it would be unlikely without another adult qualification that I'd get a good choice of courses......
Never mind
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 08, 2003 07:00 PM |
|
|
Wow. Your system sounds radically different than ours. Still, if you really don't know it, you're excellent professor material. Does your system allow you to say like, transfer credits from one university to another? If you can you should really consider going back.
I will now speak not more of this unless others do.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 09, 2003 12:11 AM |
|
|
I never went to uni, I need more points or at least I did back then, haven't checked the requirements for a while now
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 09, 2003 06:18 PM |
|
|
Private Hudson, You continually surprise me. You have learned what you know on your own, or worse, in highschool (which for me here in the states was tortuously boring) and that indicates you're even more industrious and smarter than it originally appeared. More later on this ---
Back to Iraq for a few moments...
This was just shared with me by a close friend here in the States. If it has already been posted in this thread I apologize; I've tried to revew but the thread is very long.
I present this not because I necessarily agree or disagree. but I wanted to share the comments of one Senator's from this country, to encourage more international dialogue.
t r u t h o u t | Statement
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech
We Stand Passively Mute
Wednesday 12 February 2003
"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
© : t r u t h o u t 2002
| t r u t h o u t | forum | issues | editorial | letters | donate | contact |
| voting rights | environment | budget | children | politics | indigenous survival | energy |
| defense | health | economy | human rights | labor | trade | women | reform | global |
--
I think the site is www.truthout.com. I will get more specific information and get back to you all.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
reynaert
Adventuring Hero
Nicknamed the Fox
|
|
posted March 09, 2003 09:01 PM |
|
|
Wow... I think he's a democrat....
Seemingly the power is retaliating after 2 years of bush junior...
Did Bush Senior ever intended to use nukes on Iraq if they used Chemicals?
____________
http://guardiansgrove.com/
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 09, 2003 10:31 PM |
|
|
Very eloquent speech putting across the opposite side of the story. I was especially interested in the part about the pre-emptive strategy. Concievably Russia could misuse this to strike at say Chechnya, and who could defy them through the UN? After all if America and britain can go to war with or without UN backing why can't others? What kind of consequences will this war have is vitally important on such discussions...
I was also interested to see that in America, like here Democracy has died, with no clear debates on the issue. If this gentleman's speech is accurate this bodes badly for both nations. The notion that 2 of the most powerful nations in the UN can go to war without the backing of either the UN, or without consultation of their own people seems ludicrous to me.
On a side issue BTW, 1 member of the Labour party in Britain, a cabinet minister's aide resigned in opposition to the war, and there is talk of maybe 2 or 3 others considering similar action. Blair is truly dividing his country and party in 2 as there is talk that the chancellor Gordon Brown, considered by many to be the next leader of the labour party is furious about such plans as he has worked hard to build a stronger economy, something that may be destroyed through a war. In the interests of unity and power though he is keeping quiet.
Oh btw I'm not sure what e-mail I use here, but I only use privatehudsonuk@hotmail.com so if you did want to reach me, that's the address to try.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 13, 2003 06:01 AM |
|
|
Well PH looks like you have an admirer….good for you…about time somebody got some respect around here
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 14, 2003 01:55 AM |
|
|
Isn't that nice.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 14, 2003 06:10 PM |
|
|
Yup, seems I've got a real friend in peacemaker
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted March 17, 2003 04:35 AM |
|
|
After intense thought, I have decided:
Attack Iraq? No!
March troops up to Iraq's border, causing Saddam Hussein to blow up all of his oil wells in panic, then turn around and go home while giggling? Yes!
|
|
this_other_guy
Famous Hero
{0_o} heh...
|
|
posted March 17, 2003 07:40 AM |
|
|
The latest news indicated that the war might start as soon as in a few days. I reckon that Saddam is probably cowering in a bunker underneath Baghdad, pissing himself, while demanding his soldiers to fight to the death... 
____________
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2003 08:42 PM |
|
|
#1:...Bort did u mean that seriously(word for word i mean...)?
#2:...If u have heard the war is supposed to start tonight or tommorow.
Now for my humble contribution on the subjects...
So Attack Iraq:...deffinately NOT! This is one of biggest signs of current american imperialism that i have seen.
This whole thing is about oil and raisng bushes popularity between the so called american people.
Then again if there realy are biological weapons...a quick momne to reconsider....nah it still is a foolish thing to do. I mean for how long has Izrael had these weapons? Baisicly from the late 50, early 60.(weapons of mass distruction that is) and what do u hear about it? Oh i'm sorry they'r a "good stable state that would never concider using these weapons against anyone else"....nonono...
It will be a pointless waste of lives. Even when u overthrow the iraqui regime i think that the chances of anothed dictator apearing are rather high.
So what shall we do, u may ask? Well these inspections seem to be working lately but if there is a deffinate threat i mean a huge huge huge (1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% chance of him using the weapons) then attack but only with the mandate of the UN...not like now...
That is all for now...for this moment
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted March 18, 2003 12:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So Attack Iraq:...deffinately NOT! This is one of biggest signs of current american imperialism that i have seen.
This whole thing is about oil and raisng bushes popularity between the so called american people.
How is it imperialism? Getting a corrupt regime out of power is imperialistic? Then the Allies in WWII are imperialistic, and the Axis must not be because the Allied governments were fine.
Wee all should know that this is backwards.
Quote:
Then again if there realy are biological weapons...a quick momne to reconsider....nah it still is a foolish thing to do. I mean for how long has Izrael had these weapons? Baisicly from the late 50, early 60.(weapons of mass distruction that is) and what do u hear about it? Oh i'm sorry they'r a "good stable state that would never concider using these weapons against anyone else"....nonono...
It is true, they probably wouldn't attack anyone, unless they're attacked. In 1991, Saddam launched scuds at Jeruselem. Did Israel retaliate? Nooooooo. Could they have? Oh, yeah!
Quote:
It will be a pointless waste of lives. Even when u overthrow the iraqui regime i think that the chances of anothed dictator apearing are rather high.
Why is that? Why do you think that?
Quote:
So what shall we do, u may ask? Well these inspections seem to be working lately but if there is a deffinate threat i mean a huge huge huge (1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% chance of him using the weapons) then attack but only with the mandate of the UN...not like now...
That is all for now...for this moment
Why do you think the inspections are working? They find things, but who knows what else they have. They will only work if there is an army camped on his doorstep.
And the UN right now is a joke! They are crumbling, they won't last long now, and why does the US have to go through them? France didn't in their wars in Africa, Clinton didn't with the Bosnia and Kosovo mess.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 02:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How is it imperialism? Getting a corrupt regime out of power is imperialistic?
Perhaps he meant selective about which corrupt regime you consider friends and enemies? Also I have read rumours that the contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq are to be offered only to american companies, not even British/Spanish ones. If that is a forerunner of the oil issue then I think an accusation of dubious grounds for invasion could be levelled.
Quote:
It is true, they probably wouldn't attack anyone, unless they're attacked. In 1991, Saddam launched scuds at Jeruselem. Did Israel retaliate? Nooooooo. Could they have? Oh, yeah!
They didn't because the Anglo/Americans virtually begged them not to for fear of collapsing the alliance against hussain. I'd imagine that their reasons for not using force (of any kind) in that period had a lot more to do with allied diplomacy/offers of millitary aid than Israeli lack of will to use such force.
Quote:
Why is that? Why do you think that?
If Iraq is left alone in the future when attention and millitary force is elsewhere the corruption and problems will likely re-occur, just under a new "friendly" leader. Don't think the allies will leave Iraq alone? Why not, they've all but left Afghanistan to fight Iraq whereas the Afghan conflict is still going on........
Quote:
but who knows what else they have
Indeed, but in the unlikely event that there is nothing else to find a lot of people will have died pretty much illegally and immorally......
Quote:
and why does the US have to go through them?
Oh yes, why should you? I mean ignore the UN! You don't need them! Defy them! Then wonder why people compare you to Hussain when he ignores the UN? Who needs the UN when nations can do what the hell they like? Will you be there backing Russia to the hilt the next time they drive their tanks into chechnya in defiance of the UN though?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 03:05 AM |
|
|
From where I sit, PH is right on all points. Right now we are about to prove to those who paint us as the great evil west, who unilaterally imposes its will on muslim nations with impunity, that they are absolutely right. It is this very perception (which has some basis in reality) that spawns terrorist attitudes against us. And this is part of a war on terrorism????
Where does it end, Wolfman??? This area of the world is so unstable that an attack on iraq could very easily lead to the overthrow of otherwise moderate governments in surrounding nations by maniacal dictators. And if you think there is any shortage of maniacal dictators LOOK AGAIN. THe people in the streets are getting pretty pissed at us. Otherwise moderate citizens might just rise up and turn fanatical on you overnight.
So instead of having one Hussein to fight we could have six. Or eight. Some would say there are that many already. Why this one? What are the parameters? Do we proceed on down the line to the next dictatorship and impose a new government there too? How about the U.S. economy? Can we support war after war in the name of righteousness????
I pray to the Creator this moment that we are not seeing the eve of WWIII, a war of our own making. I earnestly pray that you are absolutely right, Wolfman, and that I am terribly mistaken...
For all our sakes.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 03:28 AM |
|
|
By the way, Sir Dunco! Salut to Slovakia! It is nice to meet you and I did not mean to overlook you in my reply to the recent dialogue in this thread. I tend to favor PH a bit you know. But "Imperialist" is an accusation that has uttered from my lips about my own country's recent threats many many times of late.
Wolfman and others who support this invasion do not seem to realize that what we are about to embark on is a radical departure from our own precepts of "just war," at least those to which we have paid lip service in international diplomacy lo these last hundred or so years.
Never was global cooperation more critical than it will be in a war on terrorism. And never has the U.S. taken a more radical step without any clear and present danger, fracturing what inroads we had made into mitigating the perception of us as "imperialist."
Wolfman, the reason this differs so radically from WWII, for only one thing, was because you had somebody marching around taking over countries all over the place in that one. That is exactly what is absent here. Saddam is nothing more than a potential threat. I do not mean to underspeak the danger he represents or in any way defend him. I think he is an absolute frigging lunatic egomaniac. What I am saying is that WWII is not even close to a valid comparison here and I am sure you realize this.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
