Forums > Social Discussion > Proud to be?
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
So when I was growing up, there was a lot of talk about being "Proud to Be an American."
I'm not. In fact, I'm ashamed to be an American. I'm ashamed of my country and I'm terrified of my government. I'm not proud of who we are, what we've done, or what we stand for. When I was in England, I kept wanting to apologize. I wanted to wear a button that said "It's not my fault!" And I know a number of Americans feel that way now.
So I wonder? Are you proud of your country? I mean, no country is perfect, and bad leaders come and go (Howard? Blair?), but in general, as a citizen of your country visiting a foreign land, do you feel proud to be an emmissary of your country, or do you feel like hanging your head in shame?
So when I was growing up, there was a lot of talk about being "Proud to Be an American."
I'm not. In fact, I'm ashamed to be an American. I'm ashamed of my country and I'm terrified of my government. I'm not proud of who we are, what we've done, or what we stand for. When I was in England, I kept wanting to apologize. I wanted to wear a button that said "It's not my fault!" And I know a number of Americans feel that way now.
So I wonder? Are you proud of your country? I mean, no country is perfect, and bad leaders come and go (Howard? Blair?), but in general, as a citizen of your country visiting a foreign land, do you feel proud to be an emmissary of your country, or do you feel like hanging your head in shame?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
Haven't you heard? I come in six-packs now.
134 posts
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Haven't you heard? I come in six-packs now.
134 posts
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Posted:
Well said, Firepoise! I must concur.
Well said, Firepoise! I must concur.
If you can talk you can sing / If you can walk you can dance
newbie
16 posts
16 posts
Posted:
First off, I think it is great that so many people can get together in one place and have such different views, yet find a way to express them. Perhaps it is the lack of emotion in a voice that makes it easier to read someone’s post and not get sideswiped by tone or sarcasm.
Stone, to answer your questions, somebody be it Bush or the next president, or PM of England or whoever, needed to do something about Saddam. I think it we would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Saddam was a good man, and a good leader. Perhaps in a very twisted way he was a good leader, but not in comparison to the standard of good leaders.
The end justifying the means, well you are right that things really have just started, however huge leaps have been made in the international community, so I must disagree that the world is less stable post the "Bush invasion" (does that sound kinky to anyone else?).
Here are just some of the things that have changed in the world that HAVE made it MORE stable...
The Taliban regime is gone.
Osama bin Laden is on the run.
Saddam Hussein is in jail. His sons are dead.
More than three-quarters of al Qaeda's key members and associates have been detained or killed.
Pakistan used to support the Taliban. Now it is a strong ally against terrorists.
A.Q. Khan’s clandestine network that had provided nuclear technologies to Libya, North Korea and possibly other nations, has been shut down.
Libya’s Moammar Ghadafi has given up his nuclear weapons program
These are all good things, am I not correct? And haven’t all of these things come to pass due to the "Bush Invasion"
I think the ends will justify the means on this one, in Iraq, it may be over in a matter of only a few years from when it started, but there will never be a 3 or 4-year solution to a problem that has been growing for how many years? However, when it does end, will it not be worth the price? What if, the times we are going through now are just the precursor to world peace? Would that not be worth it? I know I am being optimistic, but it COULD happen, the future isn't written.
Wonderlush, you know, there has been no proof that I have seen directly relating what happened at the Abu Ghrab prison to GWB.
Yes, his military is a direct reflection of himself, but he cannot control his daughters, how do you think that he can control individual members of the military thousands of miles away. Is he also responsible for the soldier that threw a grenade at one of his officers? No, the President cannot be held responsible for the actions of individuals, but he can be held responsible if they are not punished according to the law. If Bush sat back and did not punish those soldiers, then yes I would agree that he should be held responsible but since that isn't the case, then I cannot agree that he is a war criminal.
There is no international law against using DU weapons. So how can he be a war criminal if he hasn't broken a law that doesn't exist? Remember though your opinion is highly important to you, it doesn't make a law. I respect the fact that you feel that DU shouldn't be used, and I respect the evidence that DU can and does pollute, but until it is against the law to use it, you cannot hold someone to that law. I hope you see my point there.
Holding the enemy combatants is not a war crime, unethical, probably, but a war crime, no. Sorry I cannot agree with that.
Bush does have provocation, Bill Clinton had provocation to invade Iraq, but he did not act. When Iraqi ground units shot at US and coalition planes, there was the provocation to enter a new war with Iraq. The issue on WMDs isn't the only cause to go to war, it was made the biggest cause by the media, but it isn't the only one.
I hope you understand that Bush is not a war criminal for the reasons you have stated, and I have never seen a probable reason for anyone calling Bush a war criminal. From my little point of view, it is an opinion of some people in the world that Bush is a war criminal, but their opinion, though perfectly okay to have, isn't backed up with enough evidence or fact to support their claims.
Firepoise, I like the way you write, you should do something with writing. Umm the way I took your post was almost like a backhanded compliment. Granted you have the right to your opinion, and you tried your best to put it as eloquently as possible but it came across as 'Americans are arrogant, but don't worry so is the rest of the world
' Yes we can be, but you don't have to tell us 
I have seen enough of the world to know that a lot of Americans are arrogant, very caught up in the power of being an American. Especially being an American abroad. Americans are rich in comparison to the majority of the world, the power of money reeks from Americans like a 3-day-old baby's diaper! People see us coming 10 miles away, and to be honest, some Americans love it. I personally hated traveling with groups of Americans, for that very reason. The sad part is, the US dollar isn't as strong as a lot of people think. Other countries are richer than us and yet we seem to not notice or care.
We aren’t perfect, but we are not bad, evil, war mongering, peace mongering, we are an accumulation of all things both good and bad, because we are an accumulation of the world. I really doubt there is a country that doesn't have someone who lives in the US as an immigrant or some form or representative.
First off, I think it is great that so many people can get together in one place and have such different views, yet find a way to express them. Perhaps it is the lack of emotion in a voice that makes it easier to read someone’s post and not get sideswiped by tone or sarcasm.
Stone, to answer your questions, somebody be it Bush or the next president, or PM of England or whoever, needed to do something about Saddam. I think it we would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Saddam was a good man, and a good leader. Perhaps in a very twisted way he was a good leader, but not in comparison to the standard of good leaders.
The end justifying the means, well you are right that things really have just started, however huge leaps have been made in the international community, so I must disagree that the world is less stable post the "Bush invasion" (does that sound kinky to anyone else?).
Here are just some of the things that have changed in the world that HAVE made it MORE stable...
The Taliban regime is gone.
Osama bin Laden is on the run.
Saddam Hussein is in jail. His sons are dead.
More than three-quarters of al Qaeda's key members and associates have been detained or killed.
Pakistan used to support the Taliban. Now it is a strong ally against terrorists.
A.Q. Khan’s clandestine network that had provided nuclear technologies to Libya, North Korea and possibly other nations, has been shut down.
Libya’s Moammar Ghadafi has given up his nuclear weapons program
These are all good things, am I not correct? And haven’t all of these things come to pass due to the "Bush Invasion"
I think the ends will justify the means on this one, in Iraq, it may be over in a matter of only a few years from when it started, but there will never be a 3 or 4-year solution to a problem that has been growing for how many years? However, when it does end, will it not be worth the price? What if, the times we are going through now are just the precursor to world peace? Would that not be worth it? I know I am being optimistic, but it COULD happen, the future isn't written.
Wonderlush, you know, there has been no proof that I have seen directly relating what happened at the Abu Ghrab prison to GWB.
Yes, his military is a direct reflection of himself, but he cannot control his daughters, how do you think that he can control individual members of the military thousands of miles away. Is he also responsible for the soldier that threw a grenade at one of his officers? No, the President cannot be held responsible for the actions of individuals, but he can be held responsible if they are not punished according to the law. If Bush sat back and did not punish those soldiers, then yes I would agree that he should be held responsible but since that isn't the case, then I cannot agree that he is a war criminal.
There is no international law against using DU weapons. So how can he be a war criminal if he hasn't broken a law that doesn't exist? Remember though your opinion is highly important to you, it doesn't make a law. I respect the fact that you feel that DU shouldn't be used, and I respect the evidence that DU can and does pollute, but until it is against the law to use it, you cannot hold someone to that law. I hope you see my point there.
Holding the enemy combatants is not a war crime, unethical, probably, but a war crime, no. Sorry I cannot agree with that.
Bush does have provocation, Bill Clinton had provocation to invade Iraq, but he did not act. When Iraqi ground units shot at US and coalition planes, there was the provocation to enter a new war with Iraq. The issue on WMDs isn't the only cause to go to war, it was made the biggest cause by the media, but it isn't the only one.
I hope you understand that Bush is not a war criminal for the reasons you have stated, and I have never seen a probable reason for anyone calling Bush a war criminal. From my little point of view, it is an opinion of some people in the world that Bush is a war criminal, but their opinion, though perfectly okay to have, isn't backed up with enough evidence or fact to support their claims.
Firepoise, I like the way you write, you should do something with writing. Umm the way I took your post was almost like a backhanded compliment. Granted you have the right to your opinion, and you tried your best to put it as eloquently as possible but it came across as 'Americans are arrogant, but don't worry so is the rest of the world
' Yes we can be, but you don't have to tell us I have seen enough of the world to know that a lot of Americans are arrogant, very caught up in the power of being an American. Especially being an American abroad. Americans are rich in comparison to the majority of the world, the power of money reeks from Americans like a 3-day-old baby's diaper! People see us coming 10 miles away, and to be honest, some Americans love it. I personally hated traveling with groups of Americans, for that very reason. The sad part is, the US dollar isn't as strong as a lot of people think. Other countries are richer than us and yet we seem to not notice or care.
We aren’t perfect, but we are not bad, evil, war mongering, peace mongering, we are an accumulation of all things both good and bad, because we are an accumulation of the world. I really doubt there is a country that doesn't have someone who lives in the US as an immigrant or some form or representative.
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Sometimes these forums breed despair...
Crazy, you said someone needed to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and of course most people would agree with you that he was a brutal dictator.
But the UN, most European countries and at least half the people in the rest of the western world did not feel that invasion was the answer (and their opinions cannot be just ignored or sideswiped because they are not American).
The invasion was impulsive and ill prepared. Sanctions had been tried in Iraq, and failed, but an invasion was not the best way to depose Saddam.
And in global politics the best way must be the first option.
Saddam may not have been a 'good' leader in Western terms, but neither is Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), neither is the military junta that oppresses the people of Burma, neither is Hun Sen, part-leader of Cambodia, who was also part of the Khmer Rouge (yes, the group who killed a third of the population of that country). And many (I would highlight the Muslim community and many others in the rest of the world) would also say that President Bush is not a good leader ... so why Saddam in particular?
Why was he singled out?
Are we to believe that the all-powerful American intelligence network really got it so wrong that they accidentally confused countries? Accidentally believed Iraq had anything to do with their so-called 'war on terror'?
Where were the links to the Taliban? Where were the links to al-Qaida? (of course, you'll find plenty now, but it was not the case then) Where are the WMD?!!!
I don't think any intelligent person can be asked to swallow that.
And what of these huge leaps to a more peaceful world that you speak of?
The examples you gave seem to come straight from the mouths of the CNN broadcasters!! The Taliban was never such a strong network (in comparison to its vilification anyway) ... It did not have technology or even great weapons capability.
However, the strength of an army is not always in its numbers, it is in their determination and the conviction of its soldiers – and the determination and conviction that drives the Taliban cannot be beaten into the ground. That is something that must be dealt with through negotiation.
Some Americans do not appear to have grasped that al-Qaida was only a small part of the problem. The ‘enemy’, for want of a better word, was the backlash to decades of American sanctions and monetary oppression. If you want to fight a ‘war on terror’, you need to fight a war on poverty… don’t gloat about your wealth, distribute it.
Osama bin Laden saw (and still sees) himself as a freedom fighter, whether on the run or not. Your comment that the world is safer because he is on the run is flawed. After America’s invasion into Iraq he has found himself with countless more support than he had in the days following Sept 11.
You say that this is all a huge leap forward for the world…
Is it really a huge leap forward for humanity when you speak with such glory of the deaths of these people, considering the amount of innocents who died alongside?
I dread to think how many Afghans were killed in the search for al-Qaida (not even to mention forcing a country into refugee status in the run-up to a bitter winter – a slow, torturous death), but there have been at least 15,000 innocent Iraqi deaths. Please don't just skim over those words. Fifteen thousand men, women and children. Think about your use of the word terrorist. Probably something along the lines of ‘those who kill innocent people’?!
What exactly would you tell the parents of those children killed in allied bombing raids and gun battles? Because the majority of Iraqis see US troops as terrorists who have invaded their country to give them a government they didn’t ask for nor want.
You say it’ll all be worth it in the end – can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, eh?! I’m sure the families of those 15,000 Iraqis, and the families of the thousands of allied forces who have also lost their lives, would disagree. I doubt Ken Bigley’s family thinks it’s worth the pain they have suffered in the last 3 weeks. Is capitalism and the pursuit of oil and money really worth it in the end?
Because what this comes down to is that the American way must be right at all costs.
But how can you think that one way of life is less important than another?!
And continuing on your point about the invasion being worth it… what is your media telling you? That current fighting in Iraq is a continuation of the war by a handful of people who just don’t like Americans? No, that is not true.
Current fighting is due to the fact that when the US went into Iraq and destroyed the regime (without asking the people) they committed (and continue to commit) human rights abuses that sparked anger.
Abuses such as arrest without charge (internment), beatings, murder, humiliation and the abuses of a way of life, tradition and religion which is as old as humanity itself (perhaps the last point does not seem such a big deal to you… but this is a culture that prides itself on its sacred history).
All of this takes place amid an environment in chaos, because when the US attacked, they had no structures in place to rebuild. Social order broke down, and those who were left devastated by aforementioned abuses were free to take revenge for those abuses. It has gradually escalated to the situation we have today… and it will not resolve until America leaves Iraq.
Of course I understand why Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power, but what advances are we making if we reduce ourselves to the same level?
Americans may be told that the world is a safer place to live (and your government need you to believe that), but it's really not the case.
The world has been gripped by the illusion of threat – a very real fear of the unknown.
Perhaps I see it more clearly because I went travelling shortly after Sept 11 and returned 2 and a half years later, so the changes were more evident.
But even beyond the added security measures and breaches of personal privacy and freedom thanks to anti-terrorism laws that have been rushed through – there is a palpable sense of paranoia and insecurity that has risen thanks to the fear mongering and propaganda of this invasion.
As for your comment that the abuses in Abu Ghraib has no bearing on Mr Bush... would you say that the abuses of Nazi soldiers have no bearing on Hitler? Would you say that the abuses of the Khmer Rouge have no bearing on Pol Pot?
These may be extreme examples, but they prove the theory. You cannot exonerate a leader for the actions of troops he sent into war. That is morally wrong. If he cannot control his country, as you assert - then what is he doing as president of that country? You say it's ok as long as those soldiers are punished? But have they been? How do we know when the prisoners in Abu Ghraib don't have access to a lawyer or, in fact, any outside contact? Surely we're not expected to believe the word of those soldiers?
“So how can he be a war criminal if he hasn't broken a law that doesn't exist?”
Your comment that because there is no law against it means he isn’t ‘a criminal’ is deplorable (and I'm sorry, but may I suggest that that attitude comes from one of the main failings of the US constitution ‘all freedom must be protected at all cost’).
What about moral cost? What about respect for our fellow man? I understand the point you were trying to make, but really, some common sense and decency must prevail.
And you mentioned provocation... please provide evidence for the provocation that pushed Bush into this invasion. You admitted there were no WMD (not exactly a surprise to anyone who has been following these developments), but what are the other provocations? Also, please point out when Clinton was provoked into war? Unless I am mistaken, those US planes were flying inside an exclusion zone – where they should not have been – when they were shot at?! I'm quite sure an Iraqi jet would have been downed had it flown over the US!!
My post was in no way intended as a backhanded compliment to Americans. I do not pay compliments. I offered the view that Americans do seem to be more arrogant than the rest of the world (based on my own personal observation and continuing experience), but I also offered a suggestion for why that was the case. I’m not sure what made you think that I believe the rest of the world to share a similar view.
Incidentally, I am a sub-editor in a newspaper in Belfast, so I do try to string a sentence together. Also, if you read over this line in your post "you tried your best to put it as eloquently as possible but it came across as...etc" is actually quite condescending (see above point regarding American arrogance).
"The power of money reeks from Americans like a 3-day-old baby's diaper! People see us coming 10 miles away, and to be honest, some Americans love it"
Can you also see how this attitude (even if you don't share it yourself) could be perceived as arrogant and quite laughable considering the terrible poverty so prevalent (and most often hidden) in America?
The British pound is stronger than the American dollar, but (bad as they can be ) I couldn't imagine an English person saying something like that. The mere fact that some Americans revel in the poverty of others (the flipside to enjoying the wealth) is reprehensible.
Noone asks Americans to be perfect, we certainly don't expect perfection in ourselves, but please understand that the rest of the world gets edgy when a generally reactionary, impulsive, often greedy and occasionally obtuse people have their finger on the button of world domination.
And as for the US being a country of immigrants ... the same could be said of Australia. Oh, and did you know that every country in the world has an Irish bar (even temporary cities in the desert in Nevada)?! Maybe everyone wants to be Irish too (seems that way every March 17).
PS: sorry everyone that this post was so long... I got carried away
Sometimes these forums breed despair...
Crazy, you said someone needed to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and of course most people would agree with you that he was a brutal dictator.
But the UN, most European countries and at least half the people in the rest of the western world did not feel that invasion was the answer (and their opinions cannot be just ignored or sideswiped because they are not American).
The invasion was impulsive and ill prepared. Sanctions had been tried in Iraq, and failed, but an invasion was not the best way to depose Saddam.
And in global politics the best way must be the first option.
Saddam may not have been a 'good' leader in Western terms, but neither is Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), neither is the military junta that oppresses the people of Burma, neither is Hun Sen, part-leader of Cambodia, who was also part of the Khmer Rouge (yes, the group who killed a third of the population of that country). And many (I would highlight the Muslim community and many others in the rest of the world) would also say that President Bush is not a good leader ... so why Saddam in particular?
Why was he singled out?
Are we to believe that the all-powerful American intelligence network really got it so wrong that they accidentally confused countries? Accidentally believed Iraq had anything to do with their so-called 'war on terror'?
Where were the links to the Taliban? Where were the links to al-Qaida? (of course, you'll find plenty now, but it was not the case then) Where are the WMD?!!!
I don't think any intelligent person can be asked to swallow that.
And what of these huge leaps to a more peaceful world that you speak of?
The examples you gave seem to come straight from the mouths of the CNN broadcasters!! The Taliban was never such a strong network (in comparison to its vilification anyway) ... It did not have technology or even great weapons capability.
However, the strength of an army is not always in its numbers, it is in their determination and the conviction of its soldiers – and the determination and conviction that drives the Taliban cannot be beaten into the ground. That is something that must be dealt with through negotiation.
Some Americans do not appear to have grasped that al-Qaida was only a small part of the problem. The ‘enemy’, for want of a better word, was the backlash to decades of American sanctions and monetary oppression. If you want to fight a ‘war on terror’, you need to fight a war on poverty… don’t gloat about your wealth, distribute it.
Osama bin Laden saw (and still sees) himself as a freedom fighter, whether on the run or not. Your comment that the world is safer because he is on the run is flawed. After America’s invasion into Iraq he has found himself with countless more support than he had in the days following Sept 11.
You say that this is all a huge leap forward for the world…
Is it really a huge leap forward for humanity when you speak with such glory of the deaths of these people, considering the amount of innocents who died alongside?
I dread to think how many Afghans were killed in the search for al-Qaida (not even to mention forcing a country into refugee status in the run-up to a bitter winter – a slow, torturous death), but there have been at least 15,000 innocent Iraqi deaths. Please don't just skim over those words. Fifteen thousand men, women and children. Think about your use of the word terrorist. Probably something along the lines of ‘those who kill innocent people’?!
What exactly would you tell the parents of those children killed in allied bombing raids and gun battles? Because the majority of Iraqis see US troops as terrorists who have invaded their country to give them a government they didn’t ask for nor want.
You say it’ll all be worth it in the end – can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, eh?! I’m sure the families of those 15,000 Iraqis, and the families of the thousands of allied forces who have also lost their lives, would disagree. I doubt Ken Bigley’s family thinks it’s worth the pain they have suffered in the last 3 weeks. Is capitalism and the pursuit of oil and money really worth it in the end?
Because what this comes down to is that the American way must be right at all costs.
But how can you think that one way of life is less important than another?!
And continuing on your point about the invasion being worth it… what is your media telling you? That current fighting in Iraq is a continuation of the war by a handful of people who just don’t like Americans? No, that is not true.
Current fighting is due to the fact that when the US went into Iraq and destroyed the regime (without asking the people) they committed (and continue to commit) human rights abuses that sparked anger.
Abuses such as arrest without charge (internment), beatings, murder, humiliation and the abuses of a way of life, tradition and religion which is as old as humanity itself (perhaps the last point does not seem such a big deal to you… but this is a culture that prides itself on its sacred history).
All of this takes place amid an environment in chaos, because when the US attacked, they had no structures in place to rebuild. Social order broke down, and those who were left devastated by aforementioned abuses were free to take revenge for those abuses. It has gradually escalated to the situation we have today… and it will not resolve until America leaves Iraq.
Of course I understand why Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power, but what advances are we making if we reduce ourselves to the same level?
Americans may be told that the world is a safer place to live (and your government need you to believe that), but it's really not the case.
The world has been gripped by the illusion of threat – a very real fear of the unknown.
Perhaps I see it more clearly because I went travelling shortly after Sept 11 and returned 2 and a half years later, so the changes were more evident.
But even beyond the added security measures and breaches of personal privacy and freedom thanks to anti-terrorism laws that have been rushed through – there is a palpable sense of paranoia and insecurity that has risen thanks to the fear mongering and propaganda of this invasion.
As for your comment that the abuses in Abu Ghraib has no bearing on Mr Bush... would you say that the abuses of Nazi soldiers have no bearing on Hitler? Would you say that the abuses of the Khmer Rouge have no bearing on Pol Pot?
These may be extreme examples, but they prove the theory. You cannot exonerate a leader for the actions of troops he sent into war. That is morally wrong. If he cannot control his country, as you assert - then what is he doing as president of that country? You say it's ok as long as those soldiers are punished? But have they been? How do we know when the prisoners in Abu Ghraib don't have access to a lawyer or, in fact, any outside contact? Surely we're not expected to believe the word of those soldiers?
“So how can he be a war criminal if he hasn't broken a law that doesn't exist?”
Your comment that because there is no law against it means he isn’t ‘a criminal’ is deplorable (and I'm sorry, but may I suggest that that attitude comes from one of the main failings of the US constitution ‘all freedom must be protected at all cost’).
What about moral cost? What about respect for our fellow man? I understand the point you were trying to make, but really, some common sense and decency must prevail.
And you mentioned provocation... please provide evidence for the provocation that pushed Bush into this invasion. You admitted there were no WMD (not exactly a surprise to anyone who has been following these developments), but what are the other provocations? Also, please point out when Clinton was provoked into war? Unless I am mistaken, those US planes were flying inside an exclusion zone – where they should not have been – when they were shot at?! I'm quite sure an Iraqi jet would have been downed had it flown over the US!!
My post was in no way intended as a backhanded compliment to Americans. I do not pay compliments. I offered the view that Americans do seem to be more arrogant than the rest of the world (based on my own personal observation and continuing experience), but I also offered a suggestion for why that was the case. I’m not sure what made you think that I believe the rest of the world to share a similar view.
Incidentally, I am a sub-editor in a newspaper in Belfast, so I do try to string a sentence together. Also, if you read over this line in your post "you tried your best to put it as eloquently as possible but it came across as...etc" is actually quite condescending (see above point regarding American arrogance).
"The power of money reeks from Americans like a 3-day-old baby's diaper! People see us coming 10 miles away, and to be honest, some Americans love it"
Can you also see how this attitude (even if you don't share it yourself) could be perceived as arrogant and quite laughable considering the terrible poverty so prevalent (and most often hidden) in America?
The British pound is stronger than the American dollar, but (bad as they can be
) I couldn't imagine an English person saying something like that. The mere fact that some Americans revel in the poverty of others (the flipside to enjoying the wealth) is reprehensible.Noone asks Americans to be perfect, we certainly don't expect perfection in ourselves, but please understand that the rest of the world gets edgy when a generally reactionary, impulsive, often greedy and occasionally obtuse people have their finger on the button of world domination.
And as for the US being a country of immigrants ... the same could be said of Australia. Oh, and did you know that every country in the world has an Irish bar (even temporary cities in the desert in Nevada)?! Maybe everyone wants to be Irish too (seems that way every March 17).
PS: sorry everyone that this post was so long... I got carried away
Getting to the other side 
newbie
16 posts
16 posts
Posted:
I must ask you Firepoise, do you honestly think that you can talk down a dictator, who is in control of his country? I do not. To me that is trying to talk a jumper off the bridge when they are in mid-air. I am sorry to say this, but I have no faith in the world governments.
I often see the trend of asking why the US isn't involved in other countries, my simple direct answer is, the US can only do so much, and since you and I are not incharge of the US we can only go along with what is happening. We may not agree with it and we may strive to change or prevent it, but untill change is made, we must go along with it.
Why is Saddam singled out? Well there are or were, training camps in Iraq, this has been proven. That is a good start don't you think? Hit them where you know they are and then work on where you don't. We knew there were terrorists in Iraq, Clinton knew it, Bush Sr. knew it and the UN knew it, why not Iraq? I have yet to hear an actual answer, why not Iraq?
I unfortunatly can't answer your questions on WMDs, can you? No, but you know what the US military can do? Keep looking for them, the UN knows he had them, the UN knows he didn't have EVERYTHING accounted for, so where are they? The people who know are either dead or not talking, so that means that searching is the only way to find them.
I know a bunch of US military personel, I was raised in the military, trust me, they think the sacrifice is worth it. If they are willing, who are you to judge? Their mothers can no longer hold their hand, they are all adults, they make their own choices in life.
You can excuse the leader of the organisation, IF the leader had no bearing on the actions of those in the organisation who commited the offences. Hitler who had bearing on the action of the Nazis and Pol Pot, who not only had bearing but PARTICIPATED... see the paterin?
I never said there were no WMDs, I said that it wasn't the only reason to go to war in Iraq. Please read more carefully.
Provoction, to go to war is the violation of the peace accord between coalition forces and Iraq ohh 14 years ago. Not to mention the unprovoked attacks on the US military over the no fly zones.
I am sorry I have to go, I will finish this later. Much respect to you Firepoise, you are a worthy opponent.
I must ask you Firepoise, do you honestly think that you can talk down a dictator, who is in control of his country? I do not. To me that is trying to talk a jumper off the bridge when they are in mid-air. I am sorry to say this, but I have no faith in the world governments.
I often see the trend of asking why the US isn't involved in other countries, my simple direct answer is, the US can only do so much, and since you and I are not incharge of the US we can only go along with what is happening. We may not agree with it and we may strive to change or prevent it, but untill change is made, we must go along with it.
Why is Saddam singled out? Well there are or were, training camps in Iraq, this has been proven. That is a good start don't you think? Hit them where you know they are and then work on where you don't. We knew there were terrorists in Iraq, Clinton knew it, Bush Sr. knew it and the UN knew it, why not Iraq? I have yet to hear an actual answer, why not Iraq?
I unfortunatly can't answer your questions on WMDs, can you? No, but you know what the US military can do? Keep looking for them, the UN knows he had them, the UN knows he didn't have EVERYTHING accounted for, so where are they? The people who know are either dead or not talking, so that means that searching is the only way to find them.
I know a bunch of US military personel, I was raised in the military, trust me, they think the sacrifice is worth it. If they are willing, who are you to judge? Their mothers can no longer hold their hand, they are all adults, they make their own choices in life.
You can excuse the leader of the organisation, IF the leader had no bearing on the actions of those in the organisation who commited the offences. Hitler who had bearing on the action of the Nazis and Pol Pot, who not only had bearing but PARTICIPATED... see the paterin?
I never said there were no WMDs, I said that it wasn't the only reason to go to war in Iraq. Please read more carefully.
Provoction, to go to war is the violation of the peace accord between coalition forces and Iraq ohh 14 years ago. Not to mention the unprovoked attacks on the US military over the no fly zones.
I am sorry I have to go, I will finish this later. Much respect to you Firepoise, you are a worthy opponent.
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
Hi insaineCRAZY, i'd like to respond to this also,
How can you compare these two things? Any government has the power to change its decisions. I empathise with your lack of world governments though, no world power has done more than bush to shake the faith of the western world, and inspire the rath of the eastern.
Why must we go along with it? The government in a democracy is answerable to the people. That is what your vote is for. I for one want my voice to be heard and when the time comes i will vote accordingly. The entire UN voted against the invasion of iraq.
There are also terrorists in Syria, Lybia, Ireland, The Basque, Columbia, India, Bali. If my government invaded a country on the premise of 'why not' i would be very disturbed. Not only has the invasion of iraq been not been justified, its occupation hasnt been either.
There is a big difference between searching and occupying a country. The UN were searching and they found nothing. The country is now subject to military action and martial law. Any option of a peacful solution has been rendered effectivly useless until the military reduces its presence and influence.
This was discussed just a while ago, i think everyone agreed that if a person joins the army they are doing so in the knowledge that they may be asked to go to war. Its worth noting though the that recent 'Stop Loss' action on behalf of the military will force at least 6500 soldiers , that were due to go back to their families, to stay in a warzone for another year.
We are questioning all of the governments decisions involved in the war on terror, not just the soldiers. I for one cannot excuse the death of 15000 people, the crippling of a third world country (afghanistan) or the detaning prisoners without affording them the rights that are the very foundations of the constitution.
Your assertion above that "it wasnt the only cause" might be true. It would be a gross mis-interpretation of the facts though, if are asserting the this wasnt the cheif reason for the military invasion. I stood in new york and watched 400,000 people asked the same question. "You told us they had weapons, where are they?" This cannot be blamed completly on the media. It has also been well recorded in speeches.
Flying an armed fighter jet in a no fly zone is provoking an attack. No one has proved the peace accord has been violated. The UN has declared the war illegal, these arent just "some" people as you say above, they are a world govering body and they were not satysfied that all peacful options had been explored yet.
I too think that your assertion that the world is a safer place is misguided. Its clearly not, there are people dying all over the world. People everywhere feel this. These past three years have seen the in action the most succesful terrorist campaign ever. My feeling is that it is only going to get more out of control and that governments could to more to fight global terrorism if their troops were not dying in a war the ultimatley will not end terrorism but will instead, change the price of oil.
Bear in mind, I am not directing this completley at one government, I've tried to avoided pointing the finger at one government in particular where possible and i am not pointing the finger at all and any particular country.
Please dont think of me as your opponent also, this is a forum, and such is for discussion, not competition.
All the best
ado-p
ps for the sake of being on topic
I am proud to be irish, in fact, I love it.
EDITED_BY: ado-p (1096806475)
Hi insaineCRAZY, i'd like to respond to this also,
Written by:
I must ask you Firepoise, do you honestly think that you can talk down a dictator, who is in control of his country? I do not. To me that is trying to talk a jumper off the bridge when they are in mid-air. I am sorry to say this, but I have no faith in the world governments.
How can you compare these two things? Any government has the power to change its decisions. I empathise with your lack of world governments though, no world power has done more than bush to shake the faith of the western world, and inspire the rath of the eastern.
Written by:
I often see the trend of asking why the US isn't involved in other countries, my simple direct answer is, the US can only do so much, and since you and I are not incharge of the US we can only go along with what is happening. We may not agree with it and we may strive to change or prevent it, but untill change is made, we must go along with it.
Why must we go along with it? The government in a democracy is answerable to the people. That is what your vote is for. I for one want my voice to be heard and when the time comes i will vote accordingly. The entire UN voted against the invasion of iraq.
Written by:
Why is Saddam singled out? Well there are or were, training camps in Iraq, this has been proven. That is a good start don't you think? Hit them where you know they are and then work on where you don't. We knew there were terrorists in Iraq, Clinton knew it, Bush Sr. knew it and the UN knew it, why not Iraq? I have yet to hear an actual answer, why not Iraq?
There are also terrorists in Syria, Lybia, Ireland, The Basque, Columbia, India, Bali. If my government invaded a country on the premise of 'why not' i would be very disturbed. Not only has the invasion of iraq been not been justified, its occupation hasnt been either.
Written by:
I unfortunatly can't answer your questions on WMDs, can you? No, but you know what the US military can do? Keep looking for them, the UN knows he had them, the UN knows he didn't have EVERYTHING accounted for, so where are they? The people who know are either dead or not talking, so that means that searching is the only way to find them.
There is a big difference between searching and occupying a country. The UN were searching and they found nothing. The country is now subject to military action and martial law. Any option of a peacful solution has been rendered effectivly useless until the military reduces its presence and influence.
Written by:
I know a bunch of US military personel, I was raised in the military, trust me, they think the sacrifice is worth it. If they are willing, who are you to judge? Their mothers can no longer hold their hand, they are all adults, they make their own choices in life.
This was discussed just a while ago, i think everyone agreed that if a person joins the army they are doing so in the knowledge that they may be asked to go to war. Its worth noting though the that recent 'Stop Loss' action on behalf of the military will force at least 6500 soldiers , that were due to go back to their families, to stay in a warzone for another year.
Written by:
You can excuse the leader of the organisation, IF the leader had no bearing on the actions of those in the organisation who commited the offences. Hitler who had bearing on the action of the Nazis and Pol Pot, who not only had bearing but PARTICIPATED... see the paterin?
We are questioning all of the governments decisions involved in the war on terror, not just the soldiers. I for one cannot excuse the death of 15000 people, the crippling of a third world country (afghanistan) or the detaning prisoners without affording them the rights that are the very foundations of the constitution.
Written by:
I never said there were no WMDs, I said that it wasn't the only reason to go to war in Iraq. Please read more carefully.
Your assertion above that "it wasnt the only cause" might be true. It would be a gross mis-interpretation of the facts though, if are asserting the this wasnt the cheif reason for the military invasion. I stood in new york and watched 400,000 people asked the same question. "You told us they had weapons, where are they?" This cannot be blamed completly on the media. It has also been well recorded in speeches.
Written by:
Provoction, to go to war is the violation of the peace accord between coalition forces and Iraq ohh 14 years ago. Not to mention the unprovoked attacks on the US military over the no fly zones.
Flying an armed fighter jet in a no fly zone is provoking an attack. No one has proved the peace accord has been violated. The UN has declared the war illegal, these arent just "some" people as you say above, they are a world govering body and they were not satysfied that all peacful options had been explored yet.
I too think that your assertion that the world is a safer place is misguided. Its clearly not, there are people dying all over the world. People everywhere feel this. These past three years have seen the in action the most succesful terrorist campaign ever. My feeling is that it is only going to get more out of control and that governments could to more to fight global terrorism if their troops were not dying in a war the ultimatley will not end terrorism but will instead, change the price of oil.
Bear in mind, I am not directing this completley at one government, I've tried to avoided pointing the finger at one government in particular where possible and i am not pointing the finger at all and any particular country.
Written by:
you are a worthy opponent
Please dont think of me as your opponent also, this is a forum, and such is for discussion, not competition.
All the best
ado-p
ps for the sake of being on topic
I am proud to be irish, in fact, I love it.
EDITED_BY: ado-p (1096806475)
Love is the law.
"if i jump in the fire, will you?"
633 posts
Location: USA, wishing I was in SA
633 posts
Location: USA, wishing I was in SA
Posted:
blady irish!
you gotta love 'em 
blady irish!
you gotta love 'em i like breaking the Law 
, of Gravity 
!
newbie
16 posts
16 posts
Posted:
I think of people as opponents, just like in a game, or sport. Debate is a sport to me. It is nothing personal, trust me. An equal or superior is the greatest opponent. To me to call someone an opponent is to show respect to thier skill and in this case ability to argue/debate a point. It is kind of like gambleing. Things are always more fun when money is involved... bah! don't worry about the whole opponent thing, just me putting my own personal spin on things Perhaps I shouldn't have said it, but the cat is out of the bag, and if you have ever tried to get a cat in a bag let alone BACK in a bag, hehe Kennels can be just as hard ahh I miss my kitty.
Anyhow back at the farm....
No fly zones, were set up by the UN/Coalition forces, at the end of the Iraq's invaision of Kuait as part of the peace agreement. They were not set up against UN/Coaltion forces, but against Iraq. It was a one sided DMZ. Meaning Iraq can not have troops, or aircraft in those zones. Not that the UN couldn't, Iraq couldn't. I feel that you were mistaken in thinking it was the other way around, if that is indeed what you thought.
Iraq, did shoot at Coalition, and more specifically US planes over the no fly zone. An illeagle act in accordance with the peace accord. It has happend numorous times, and had always been met with retaliation. Not only did it happen numorous times but it was doccumented and even reported in the news numorous times. So... in reply to your last comment, you are quite mistaken if you thought that flying a war plane into a no fly zone was provoking an attack. It wasn't the Iraqi troops shouldn't have been there in the first place.
You may have joined the 400,000 people in New York asking where are the weapons, I also ask where are the weapons, it is cool to ask that question, however you have to think things through here. The UN knows Iraq has the weapons, they knew at a minimum of 2 decades ago. The UN also knows that there are WMDs missing, unaccounted for. Meaning Iraq has proof that they had them, and no proof that they were destroyed, or sold. So where are they? It is only logical to surmise that Iraq still has them, and are hiding them. This still doesn't answer the question, where are they?
By the way the UN weapons inspectors, not only were kicked out of Iraq, but were waylaid, and given the runaround when it came to doing their jobs. It is my opinoin that they were never allowed to do thier job in the first place, had they, WMDs would have been found and removed/destroyed and we wouldn't be asking this question.
It could be very possible that in a rush attempt to hide their WMDs Iraq, lost them. Paperwork got jacked up, people make mistakes... Ever loose your keys? I know there is a big differance, but the theorys are relitivly similer.
I disagree that Afganistan is crippled, did you know that for the first time since the Iron curtain lifted, Afganistan is seeing REAL tourisim? They are due to have their first democratic vote EVER in just a few days. Things are all roses, but they are far from crippled.
15000 deaths, terrible absolutly sickening, you are right. Tell me something though, when all is said and done... and you took, the final deathtol in Iraq and referanced it with the probable death rate of the Saddam and sons regime, what do you think the lesser of two evils would be?
People in the US talk about the lesser of two evils when it comes to Bush and Kerry... lets be pessimistic for a minute, lets say that by the end of the fighting 20,000 Iraqis die... How long do you think it would take for 20,000+ people to be killed uner the regime of Saddam? How many Kurds did he gas? How many Iranian women and children did he murder? How many of his own people did he have killed simply because they spoke out against him? How many more people would die if we left Saddam in power? If the number could possibly come to more than 20,000, dont you think it would be better to take a course of action that might cost 20,000 people thier lives?
I admit that neither action is good, it honestly is a loose loose situation, but one loss might not have been as bad as the other. I think the lesser of two evils was chosen.
What stoploss are you talking about that has been put in effect to prevent 6500 soldiers from going home. I have yet to hear of it, not to mention that stop loss wouldn't prevent someone from going to home, it would prevent them from getting out of the military, stop move on the other hand, is the only thing that can keep people in an area. And to my knowlege, a stop move/loss (meaning both) has not been put into effect in the US military in over a year.
You are right, a peaceful soloution to what is going on in Iraq is pretty much out of the picture. The US is going to have to see this one through to the last insurgant. It was the hand the US picked, sort of a damned if you do damned if you dont situation. The US has got to stay in and fight, it would be far worse for the US to pull out at any point of time in the near future.
You are right, there are terrorists in other countries, so? The target was picked, the target was picked for reasons you and I don't know and can only speculate on. Personally if you think the cause is oil, wouldn't it be smarter to go into a country with just as vile of criminal actitivites that doesn't have an AK47 toeting population? I mean, S. America is rich in oil as well, not to mention a whole lot closer and just as dirty. There are several small countries the US could have taken over in a matter of days and met with even less resistance, but Iraq was chosen.
I can not say for certain why Iraq was chosen, you, like myself, have only our opinions. More than entitled to them, just and opinoin isn't fact.
You know, I don't know about you but the German involvment in WWI and WWII sure did shake a few foundations, not to mention the spread of communisim by the USSR and China. Bush has made some folks angry, no doubt, I think that if the world would have united behind an all out blitz on terrorisim things would have been a lot differnt.
BTW, when did the UN deem the war in Iraq illeagle? I think I missed that news article, would help if I read more than the comics ehh?
How do I compare Saddam's dictatorship, to a jumper. Well, in both cases talk accomplishes nothing. It is kind of like telling a brick wall to move out of your way... it just doesn't happen. You could talk Castro to his gave, he wouldn't change from communisim to democracy. Saddam is far more stubborun than Castro anyday.
Umm... on to Firepoise post, or atleast ot finish it...
Firepoise, on the proving of theorys, you can't prove a theory, did you know that? Any theory. A theory is only correct untill it is disproven. Take for example the theory "what goes up, must come down"... up untill the early to mid 20th century nobody had proven this theory wrong. Then we sent a rocket into space, the theory that "what goes up, must come down" was then disproven. We sent something up too high to come down. A new theory took its place though, "What goes up, doesn't have to come down."
A bit off topic, but ohh well... sue me, you can reach my lawyer at 555-5555
Americans are arrogant little SOBs, I know this to be a fact, I agree with you... the backhanded compliment, was more about it not needing to be pointed out every five seconds.
And yes I gave you your own backhanded compliment, sorry, but one good turn deserves another.
Firepoise, like I said before, the no fly zones were against Iraq, not the US. To my current knowlege the US was not in a place it shouldn't have been.
Here are two links to US war planes over the no fly zones in Iraq.
https://www-tech.mit.edu/V118/N65/iraqi.65w.html
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_and_firepower/244364.stm
So one from BBC and one from... some place I've never heard of *cough* (read that with my voice trailing off to next to nothing)
Anyhow and on the BBC site you see several instances of Iraq acting up. To me, that is cause enough to blow up everything Iraq ownd that could be used for military action. Maybe not quite a regime change, but a smack on the back of the head with a baseball bat, would definatly have gotten the attention of Saddam.
I don't know if I have replied to everything, and I know that it probably isn't the easies form to reply to, but have fun and I eagerly await any responce. Have a wonderful night I am off to bed.
I think of people as opponents, just like in a game, or sport. Debate is a sport to me. It is nothing personal, trust me. An equal or superior is the greatest opponent. To me to call someone an opponent is to show respect to thier skill and in this case ability to argue/debate a point. It is kind of like gambleing. Things are always more fun when money is involved...
bah! don't worry about the whole opponent thing, just me putting my own personal spin on things Perhaps I shouldn't have said it, but the cat is out of the bag, and if you have ever tried to get a cat in a bag let alone BACK in a bag, hehe Kennels can be just as hard ahh I miss my kitty.Anyhow back at the farm....
No fly zones, were set up by the UN/Coalition forces, at the end of the Iraq's invaision of Kuait as part of the peace agreement. They were not set up against UN/Coaltion forces, but against Iraq. It was a one sided DMZ. Meaning Iraq can not have troops, or aircraft in those zones. Not that the UN couldn't, Iraq couldn't. I feel that you were mistaken in thinking it was the other way around, if that is indeed what you thought.
Iraq, did shoot at Coalition, and more specifically US planes over the no fly zone. An illeagle act in accordance with the peace accord. It has happend numorous times, and had always been met with retaliation. Not only did it happen numorous times but it was doccumented and even reported in the news numorous times. So... in reply to your last comment, you are quite mistaken if you thought that flying a war plane into a no fly zone was provoking an attack. It wasn't the Iraqi troops shouldn't have been there in the first place.
You may have joined the 400,000 people in New York asking where are the weapons, I also ask where are the weapons, it is cool to ask that question, however you have to think things through here. The UN knows Iraq has the weapons, they knew at a minimum of 2 decades ago. The UN also knows that there are WMDs missing, unaccounted for. Meaning Iraq has proof that they had them, and no proof that they were destroyed, or sold. So where are they? It is only logical to surmise that Iraq still has them, and are hiding them. This still doesn't answer the question, where are they?
By the way the UN weapons inspectors, not only were kicked out of Iraq, but were waylaid, and given the runaround when it came to doing their jobs. It is my opinoin that they were never allowed to do thier job in the first place, had they, WMDs would have been found and removed/destroyed and we wouldn't be asking this question.
It could be very possible that in a rush attempt to hide their WMDs Iraq, lost them. Paperwork got jacked up, people make mistakes... Ever loose your keys? I know there is a big differance, but the theorys are relitivly similer.
I disagree that Afganistan is crippled, did you know that for the first time since the Iron curtain lifted, Afganistan is seeing REAL tourisim? They are due to have their first democratic vote EVER in just a few days. Things are all roses, but they are far from crippled.
15000 deaths, terrible absolutly sickening, you are right. Tell me something though, when all is said and done... and you took, the final deathtol in Iraq and referanced it with the probable death rate of the Saddam and sons regime, what do you think the lesser of two evils would be?
People in the US talk about the lesser of two evils when it comes to Bush and Kerry... lets be pessimistic for a minute, lets say that by the end of the fighting 20,000 Iraqis die... How long do you think it would take for 20,000+ people to be killed uner the regime of Saddam? How many Kurds did he gas? How many Iranian women and children did he murder? How many of his own people did he have killed simply because they spoke out against him? How many more people would die if we left Saddam in power? If the number could possibly come to more than 20,000, dont you think it would be better to take a course of action that might cost 20,000 people thier lives?
I admit that neither action is good, it honestly is a loose loose situation, but one loss might not have been as bad as the other. I think the lesser of two evils was chosen.
What stoploss are you talking about that has been put in effect to prevent 6500 soldiers from going home. I have yet to hear of it, not to mention that stop loss wouldn't prevent someone from going to home, it would prevent them from getting out of the military, stop move on the other hand, is the only thing that can keep people in an area. And to my knowlege, a stop move/loss (meaning both) has not been put into effect in the US military in over a year.
You are right, a peaceful soloution to what is going on in Iraq is pretty much out of the picture. The US is going to have to see this one through to the last insurgant. It was the hand the US picked, sort of a damned if you do damned if you dont situation. The US has got to stay in and fight, it would be far worse for the US to pull out at any point of time in the near future.
You are right, there are terrorists in other countries, so? The target was picked, the target was picked for reasons you and I don't know and can only speculate on. Personally if you think the cause is oil, wouldn't it be smarter to go into a country with just as vile of criminal actitivites that doesn't have an AK47 toeting population? I mean, S. America is rich in oil as well, not to mention a whole lot closer and just as dirty. There are several small countries the US could have taken over in a matter of days and met with even less resistance, but Iraq was chosen.
I can not say for certain why Iraq was chosen, you, like myself, have only our opinions. More than entitled to them, just and opinoin isn't fact.
You know, I don't know about you but the German involvment in WWI and WWII sure did shake a few foundations, not to mention the spread of communisim by the USSR and China. Bush has made some folks angry, no doubt, I think that if the world would have united behind an all out blitz on terrorisim things would have been a lot differnt.
BTW, when did the UN deem the war in Iraq illeagle? I think I missed that news article, would help if I read more than the comics ehh?
How do I compare Saddam's dictatorship, to a jumper. Well, in both cases talk accomplishes nothing. It is kind of like telling a brick wall to move out of your way... it just doesn't happen. You could talk Castro to his gave, he wouldn't change from communisim to democracy. Saddam is far more stubborun than Castro anyday.
Umm... on to Firepoise post, or atleast ot finish it...
Firepoise, on the proving of theorys, you can't prove a theory, did you know that? Any theory. A theory is only correct untill it is disproven. Take for example the theory "what goes up, must come down"... up untill the early to mid 20th century nobody had proven this theory wrong. Then we sent a rocket into space, the theory that "what goes up, must come down" was then disproven. We sent something up too high to come down. A new theory took its place though, "What goes up, doesn't have to come down."
A bit off topic, but ohh well... sue me, you can reach my lawyer at 555-5555
Americans are arrogant little SOBs, I know this to be a fact, I agree with you... the backhanded compliment, was more about it not needing to be pointed out every five seconds.
And yes I gave you your own backhanded compliment, sorry, but one good turn deserves another.
Firepoise, like I said before, the no fly zones were against Iraq, not the US. To my current knowlege the US was not in a place it shouldn't have been.
Here are two links to US war planes over the no fly zones in Iraq.
https://www-tech.mit.edu/V118/N65/iraqi.65w.html
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_and_firepower/244364.stm
So one from BBC and one from... some place I've never heard of *cough* (read that with my voice trailing off to next to nothing)
Anyhow and on the BBC site you see several instances of Iraq acting up. To me, that is cause enough to blow up everything Iraq ownd that could be used for military action. Maybe not quite a regime change, but a smack on the back of the head with a baseball bat, would definatly have gotten the attention of Saddam.
I don't know if I have replied to everything, and I know that it probably isn't the easies form to reply to, but have fun and I eagerly await any responce. Have a wonderful night I am off to bed.
newbie
16 posts
16 posts
Posted:
So, I wonder, if I can give a like that shows that Iraq, HAD WMDs, would that effect anyone in anyway?
Here it is, from you're very own BBC...
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
Proof that they, at the very least, had WMDs. Can anyone now argue the fact they had them? Can anyone claim the US sold them WMDs, we know the Brits lent a hand... can you prove the US did too?
So, I wonder, if I can give a like that shows that Iraq, HAD WMDs, would that effect anyone in anyway?
Here it is, from you're very own BBC...
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
Proof that they, at the very least, had WMDs. Can anyone now argue the fact they had them? Can anyone claim the US sold them WMDs, we know the Brits lent a hand... can you prove the US did too?
BRONZE Member
Haven't you heard? I come in six-packs now.
134 posts
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Haven't you heard? I come in six-packs now.
134 posts
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Posted:
Of course, anyone can argue anything....that doesn't make it so. Did you even bother to really read that article? Yes, you are right...Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...but all evidence points towards the fact that they had agreed with our demands to disarm after the 1st gulf war. The fact of the matter is this: the U.N. weapons inspectors found NOTHING and we invaded anyway, before they could even finish their searches - AGAINST the will of the U.N. Bush insisted they were there(and don't give me that "faulty intelligence" crap...the CIA and others were pressured into presenting evidence that supported the invasion plan), and went in without any exit strategy.
And all of those other reasonings for invading Iraq are completely moot. THOSE WERE NOT THE REASONS WE WERE GIVEN BY BUSH. HE LIED, plain and simple. The ends do not justify the means...not on the world stage.
It is things like this that make it so easy for organizations to recruit terrorists. Our country's self-importance and greed have earned us distaste and hatred the world over. I'm not speaking of every person , of course...I'm speaking of how the U.S. presents itself to the rest of the world via its foreign-policy. This needs to change before we can ever hope to stop this terrorist aggression against the U.S. There will always be people who will attack us, but why give them more reasons?
Of course, anyone can argue anything....that doesn't make it so. Did you even bother to really read that article? Yes, you are right...Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...but all evidence points towards the fact that they had agreed with our demands to disarm after the 1st gulf war. The fact of the matter is this: the U.N. weapons inspectors found NOTHING and we invaded anyway, before they could even finish their searches - AGAINST the will of the U.N. Bush insisted they were there(and don't give me that "faulty intelligence" crap...the CIA and others were pressured into presenting evidence that supported the invasion plan), and went in without any exit strategy.
And all of those other reasonings for invading Iraq are completely moot. THOSE WERE NOT THE REASONS WE WERE GIVEN BY BUSH. HE LIED, plain and simple. The ends do not justify the means...not on the world stage.
It is things like this that make it so easy for organizations to recruit terrorists. Our country's self-importance and greed have earned us distaste and hatred the world over. I'm not speaking of every person , of course...I'm speaking of how the U.S. presents itself to the rest of the world via its foreign-policy. This needs to change before we can ever hope to stop this terrorist aggression against the U.S. There will always be people who will attack us, but why give them more reasons?
If you can talk you can sing / If you can walk you can dance
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
InsaineCRAZY
Its obvious that you dont do any research and the your entire arguement is based on opinion
In light of that, i've done some for you. Its surprising you dont know this, being in a militry family. If the official website isnt enough, google it, there is no shortage if information
The Stop Loss Program
You might find this interesting also
In truth I no longer want to play this 'game' as you so style it, except to say that i dissagree with practicly everything you say.
All the best
ado-p
InsaineCRAZY
Its obvious that you dont do any research and the your entire arguement is based on opinion
In light of that, i've done some for you. Its surprising you dont know this, being in a militry family. If the official website isnt enough, google it, there is no shortage if information
The Stop Loss Program
You might find this interesting also
In truth I no longer want to play this 'game' as you so style it, except to say that i dissagree with practicly everything you say.
All the best
ado-p
Love is the law.
newbie
16 posts
16 posts
Posted:
Ohh did he? So how did he lie? If you own a car, and loose the keys, does that mean that you lied about owning the car? No!
Two very differnt things, yes, but he didn't lie just because they have yet to be found.
If Bush is that conniving to lie about Iraq having WMDs, not that the article didn't prove that they did, then why didn't he have evidence planted? This isn't a card game, there is no bluffing and hope you don't get cought.
The world was watching, either he lie and look a fool or lie and look the hero when "something" was found.
It would be political scuicide to lie and look a fool, yet no WMDs have been found, so it isn't even logical for him to lie and then not have anything found?
It just doesn't make any sence.
You arae gravly mistaken if you think Iraq complied in the least with UN weapon inspectors. Saddam only prevented them from getting into certain areas and eventually kicked them out of the country.
You know the saying "You can only make someone work hard enough not to get fired"? Well Saddam complied with weapons inspectors just enough not to get into too much trouble. The US weapons inspectors were even kicked out. How exactly is that complying?
The UN weapons inspectors didn't find anything, not because WMDs didn't exist but because Saddam prevented them from getting to the weapons! Don't you remember any of those news stories?
I have already proven, with the BBC article that as of '98 Iraq had WMDs. "Okay it has been nearly 7 years, where are they?" you ask.
Good question, do you think you can hide something in 7 years, so well that nobody could find it? I am pretty sure I could.
How long were all UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq? Do you think that Saddam could have hid any WMDs that he still had during their absence? Do you think that while inspectors were at point A, that Saddam wasn't moving stuff around to point C-AA?
Do you think Saddam is an honorable truth telling man, who has just been misinterprited by the media as a bad man?
Ohh did he? So how did he lie? If you own a car, and loose the keys, does that mean that you lied about owning the car? No!
Two very differnt things, yes, but he didn't lie just because they have yet to be found.
If Bush is that conniving to lie about Iraq having WMDs, not that the article didn't prove that they did, then why didn't he have evidence planted? This isn't a card game, there is no bluffing and hope you don't get cought.
The world was watching, either he lie and look a fool or lie and look the hero when "something" was found.
It would be political scuicide to lie and look a fool, yet no WMDs have been found, so it isn't even logical for him to lie and then not have anything found?
It just doesn't make any sence.
You arae gravly mistaken if you think Iraq complied in the least with UN weapon inspectors. Saddam only prevented them from getting into certain areas and eventually kicked them out of the country.
You know the saying "You can only make someone work hard enough not to get fired"? Well Saddam complied with weapons inspectors just enough not to get into too much trouble. The US weapons inspectors were even kicked out. How exactly is that complying?
The UN weapons inspectors didn't find anything, not because WMDs didn't exist but because Saddam prevented them from getting to the weapons! Don't you remember any of those news stories?
I have already proven, with the BBC article that as of '98 Iraq had WMDs. "Okay it has been nearly 7 years, where are they?" you ask.
Good question, do you think you can hide something in 7 years, so well that nobody could find it? I am pretty sure I could.
How long were all UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq? Do you think that Saddam could have hid any WMDs that he still had during their absence? Do you think that while inspectors were at point A, that Saddam wasn't moving stuff around to point C-AA?
Do you think Saddam is an honorable truth telling man, who has just been misinterprited by the media as a bad man?
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
InsaineCRAZY
I thought you might find this interesting.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. KAY[1] FORMER UNITED NATIONS CHIEF NUCLEAR WEAPONS INSPECTOR IN IRAQ, UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMISSION ON IRAQ AND INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY ASSOCIATION
InsaineCRAZY
I thought you might find this interesting.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. KAY[1] FORMER UNITED NATIONS CHIEF NUCLEAR WEAPONS INSPECTOR IN IRAQ, UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMISSION ON IRAQ AND INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY ASSOCIATION
Love is the law.
BRONZE Member
Haven't you heard? I come in six-packs now.
134 posts
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Haven't you heard? I come in six-packs now.
134 posts
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Posted:
I'll have to agree with ado-p, it does seem that your arguments are more opinion based than fact based. You keep saying things like "that doesn't make any sense" and "pretty sure' and "do you think?' I'm trying to talk about the facts that we have now. You can speculate all you want, but it's just that - SPECULATION. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it seems a little pointless to argue opinions at this point...we already know where we stand.
I'll have to agree with ado-p, it does seem that your arguments are more opinion based than fact based. You keep saying things like "that doesn't make any sense" and "pretty sure' and "do you think?' I'm trying to talk about the facts that we have now. You can speculate all you want, but it's just that - SPECULATION. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it seems a little pointless to argue opinions at this point...we already know where we stand.
If you can talk you can sing / If you can walk you can dance
newbie
16 posts
16 posts
Posted:
I am sorry that you feel that my opinoin is not important in this discussion. I am also sorry that you feel I do not do any research, I mean, I did only post a few links to prove some points.
Ado-p, question, did you realise that the Army stop loss program you found was put into effect shy of a year ago? That isn't current, not in the least bit seen as how it has all ready ended!
Please do some research on your arguments.
Not to mention that article was for the US Army, one of four main branches of the US Military.
Why would you even think that I would consider the second link of any interest?
Feel free to disagree with what I say, I have no problem with it what-so-ever. I disagree with what you have said. I disagree with your whole stance on this issue. That is the wonderful thing called opinoins. They are great. I respect your opnion, even though my opinion conflicts with yours. I have no problem with this. I only feel sorry that you think that I present no facts.
I do rely heavily on my opinion, this is true. But all arguments must stem from something. I don't know about you, but I don't think I could take up a cause if my opinion didn't match the cause.
I have shown proof that Saddam had WMDs. Your HASC article, unless I really missed something, backs up what I have said. I don't know why you posted it. It presents the side of this debate that I have spoken on with a clear source of fact. It leaves the other side with nothing but their opinoin of GWB as a man and a president.
I have yet to see proof of any lie, I have yet to see someone prove that Iraq never had WMDs, and I have yet to see someone prove that Iraq doesn't have them now.
The main theory that the US went to war with was that Iraq had WMDs, untill this theory is disproven it stands true.
Yes, questionable things have been done througout the Bush administration, none of these have been deemed by any ruleing body as illeagle. The only body that thinks Bush is doing wrong is people, though a lot of people, who have opinions.
My opinoin is that Bush is doing the best he can with what he has. Wonderlush, you speculate a lot more than I do.
I do not speculate Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs, I do not speculate at the instability of Afganistan. You have never presented me facts. I am sorry my friend, but there are no facts in any of your posts. To make sure that I have not stuck my foot in my mouth, I reread your posts... no facts, no news articles, only your opinoin. The pot calls the kettle black yet again!
There is no evidence that Iraq complied completly with the terms of their surrender 14 years ago. In fact there is surmounting evidence that they didn't! To include the HASC report!!
I am sorry that you two feel that I present no debate based on fact. I admit that I rely on my opinion, but I have also brought facts to the table. I hope I have not made it to where you or anyone else does not wish to discuss this topic. It is fun for me, it is a game, but where I feel my biggest fault lies, it might not be fun or a game for others. I will do my best to remember this fact, I want everyone to feel that they can express their opinion openly, and present their facts openly and know that they will be read and re-read, but it isn't anything against them. Your opinion is a priceless thing, change it at will, but don't let anyone else make your opinion for you.
I am sorry that you feel that my opinoin is not important in this discussion. I am also sorry that you feel I do not do any research, I mean, I did only post a few links to prove some points.
Ado-p, question, did you realise that the Army stop loss program you found was put into effect shy of a year ago? That isn't current, not in the least bit seen as how it has all ready ended!
Please do some research on your arguments.
Not to mention that article was for the US Army, one of four main branches of the US Military.
Why would you even think that I would consider the second link of any interest?
Feel free to disagree with what I say, I have no problem with it what-so-ever. I disagree with what you have said. I disagree with your whole stance on this issue. That is the wonderful thing called opinoins. They are great. I respect your opnion, even though my opinion conflicts with yours. I have no problem with this. I only feel sorry that you think that I present no facts.
I do rely heavily on my opinion, this is true. But all arguments must stem from something. I don't know about you, but I don't think I could take up a cause if my opinion didn't match the cause.
I have shown proof that Saddam had WMDs. Your HASC article, unless I really missed something, backs up what I have said. I don't know why you posted it. It presents the side of this debate that I have spoken on with a clear source of fact. It leaves the other side with nothing but their opinoin of GWB as a man and a president.
I have yet to see proof of any lie, I have yet to see someone prove that Iraq never had WMDs, and I have yet to see someone prove that Iraq doesn't have them now.
The main theory that the US went to war with was that Iraq had WMDs, untill this theory is disproven it stands true.
Yes, questionable things have been done througout the Bush administration, none of these have been deemed by any ruleing body as illeagle. The only body that thinks Bush is doing wrong is people, though a lot of people, who have opinions.
My opinoin is that Bush is doing the best he can with what he has. Wonderlush, you speculate a lot more than I do.
I do not speculate Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs, I do not speculate at the instability of Afganistan. You have never presented me facts. I am sorry my friend, but there are no facts in any of your posts. To make sure that I have not stuck my foot in my mouth, I reread your posts... no facts, no news articles, only your opinoin. The pot calls the kettle black yet again!
There is no evidence that Iraq complied completly with the terms of their surrender 14 years ago. In fact there is surmounting evidence that they didn't! To include the HASC report!!
I am sorry that you two feel that I present no debate based on fact. I admit that I rely on my opinion, but I have also brought facts to the table. I hope I have not made it to where you or anyone else does not wish to discuss this topic. It is fun for me, it is a game, but where I feel my biggest fault lies, it might not be fun or a game for others. I will do my best to remember this fact, I want everyone to feel that they can express their opinion openly, and present their facts openly and know that they will be read and re-read, but it isn't anything against them. Your opinion is a priceless thing, change it at will, but don't let anyone else make your opinion for you.
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
It is a fact that there at least 15000 dead, it is a fact that no one has found weapons of mass destruction, it is a fact that terrorism is present all over the world and not just in iraq. It is a fact the UN has objected to the invasion to the point of declaring it illeagal. The stop loss program is a fact. I didnt say they were starting it, i said they were actioning it. They havent stopped using it, I for one dont think its fair, and was using it to illustrate the point that even many soldiers dont want to be there any more. That point still stands.
The other links were for your interest in the hope that would would see that there is another side to the story inside the army. It also has many facts about the war and lives of the soldiers that are not evident from the official website.
I dont think the other article on wmd's backs up your opinion at all. I dont however, mind that you dissagree.
This isnt really a game for me either. The reason i want my voice heard is in the hope that others will see how important it is to reasile that we dont have to accept our governments decisions if we believe they are wrong. I honestly dont want to compete with you, or beat you. Its just important to me that people see a contrast between our opinions.
I said i wasnt going to argue any more, i admit i find it difficult not to respond to you
Also, im sorry that we;ve managed to veer so wildly off topic.
This thread is about being proud of.
You are proud to be american, you dont need a war to justify that.
I am proud to be irish, and i dont need a pint to justify it either
Peace and good will folks
Written by: insaineCRAZY
I am sorry to say this, but I have no faith in the world governments.
Written by: insaineCRAZY
My opinoin is that Bush is doing the best he can with what he has. Wonderlush, you speculate a lot more than I do.
It is a fact that there at least 15000 dead, it is a fact that no one has found weapons of mass destruction, it is a fact that terrorism is present all over the world and not just in iraq. It is a fact the UN has objected to the invasion to the point of declaring it illeagal. The stop loss program is a fact. I didnt say they were starting it, i said they were actioning it. They havent stopped using it, I for one dont think its fair, and was using it to illustrate the point that even many soldiers dont want to be there any more. That point still stands.
The other links were for your interest in the hope that would would see that there is another side to the story inside the army. It also has many facts about the war and lives of the soldiers that are not evident from the official website.
I dont think the other article on wmd's backs up your opinion at all. I dont however, mind that you dissagree.
This isnt really a game for me either. The reason i want my voice heard is in the hope that others will see how important it is to reasile that we dont have to accept our governments decisions if we believe they are wrong. I honestly dont want to compete with you, or beat you. Its just important to me that people see a contrast between our opinions.
I said i wasnt going to argue any more, i admit i find it difficult not to respond to you
Also, im sorry that we;ve managed to veer so wildly off topic.
This thread is about being proud of.
You are proud to be american, you dont need a war to justify that.
I am proud to be irish, and i dont need a pint to justify it either
Peace and good will folks
Love is the law.
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Ohhh... jeez, I wrote my post yesterday... I come back and all hell has broken loose
I'm busy in work just now, so will try to post on this tomorrow, but I think it would help if everyone tried to empathise a little. Just think why each person has their opinions and how those opinions have been formulated - if you were brought up with a similar background maybe you would share a similar view?!
Anyways, it is impossible to prove or disprove the validity of the war in Iraq with hard evidence. Mainly because the governments do not release all those details and nobody here is privy to that information, and also because so much of the argument is caught up in emotion.
Admittedly it is possible to give examples to back up your opinion... but opinion it remains... anyways, have to go
take care
xx
Ohhh... jeez, I wrote my post yesterday... I come back and all hell has broken loose
I'm busy in work just now, so will try to post on this tomorrow, but I think it would help if everyone tried to empathise a little. Just think why each person has their opinions and how those opinions have been formulated - if you were brought up with a similar background maybe you would share a similar view?!
Anyways, it is impossible to prove or disprove the validity of the war in Iraq with hard evidence. Mainly because the governments do not release all those details and nobody here is privy to that information, and also because so much of the argument is caught up in emotion.
Admittedly it is possible to give examples to back up your opinion... but opinion it remains... anyways, have to go
take care
xx
Getting to the other side
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
insaineCRAZY
I agree that we would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Saddam was a good leader. But, what gives the US the right to usurp the UN, and invade another country??? Like, what has the US done about China and Tibet, for example.
Now I know this takes imagination, but pretend for a minute that the US led invasion was not about oil or Bush family problems or putting arabs in their place or whatever, because it wasn’t about WMD, now was it? Then Bush, and you by default, still show no understanding of international diplomacy. You must be naïve to think that you can march the troops in, get rid of Saddam Hussein and the problem is solved. Bull in China shop stuff. That’s why Bush is still fighting a war he declared over 12-mts ago.
The implications of what would happen following the invasion were never considered. Some people call this "American Arrogance", and I’m inclined to agree, because the US did the same thing in Vietnam, and didn’t learn a thing. The US should stay out of foreign politics. There is just too much of this "I've got a big army syndrome". Did I say compensation.
The list you present of “things that have changed in the world” is just that, a list. Read the papers, watch the news. How many people were killed yesterday by car bomb explosions? How many tomorrow? Put it this way, if terrorism was a powder keg waiting to explode before the US led invasion, then Bush lit the fuse. Terrorism has just been driven further underground.
What happens in the future, is written today by the actions of Bush and his cronies. Instead of world peace we get the “new normal” Blah…
opps a few edits
EDITED_BY: Stone (1096875302)
insaineCRAZY
I agree that we would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Saddam was a good leader. But, what gives the US the right to usurp the UN, and invade another country??? Like, what has the US done about China and Tibet, for example.
Now I know this takes imagination, but pretend for a minute that the US led invasion was not about oil or Bush family problems or putting arabs in their place or whatever, because it wasn’t about WMD, now was it? Then Bush, and you by default, still show no understanding of international diplomacy. You must be naïve to think that you can march the troops in, get rid of Saddam Hussein and the problem is solved. Bull in China shop stuff. That’s why Bush is still fighting a war he declared over 12-mts ago.
The implications of what would happen following the invasion were never considered. Some people call this "American Arrogance", and I’m inclined to agree, because the US did the same thing in Vietnam, and didn’t learn a thing. The US should stay out of foreign politics. There is just too much of this "I've got a big army syndrome". Did I say compensation.
The list you present of “things that have changed in the world” is just that, a list. Read the papers, watch the news. How many people were killed yesterday by car bomb explosions? How many tomorrow? Put it this way, if terrorism was a powder keg waiting to explode before the US led invasion, then Bush lit the fuse. Terrorism has just been driven further underground.
What happens in the future, is written today by the actions of Bush and his cronies. Instead of world peace we get the “new normal” Blah…
opps a few edits
EDITED_BY: Stone (1096875302)
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
newbie
16 posts
16 posts
Posted:
It is my opinion when someone represents a side in a debate, that they must produce the evidence to back up what they have said. It is also a matter of being polite and fair.
If the UN declared the war in Iraq illeagle, please provide myself and others some sort of visable proof that they did so. I have never heard of the war in Iraq being illeagle by the UN, so untill it is proven to me it would be unlogical to believe so.
15000 dead, okay, fact I can believe that, hundreds die everyday... whos fault is it? I know those numbers don't just include innocent. Did the US place the innocent in harms way? No, the people who put AA guns and missle launchers on schools and hospitals put the innocent in harms way. The men who take their children with them when the go and launch morter rounds at US bases put them in harm way, not the US guns that retaliate. Yes bombs do not always hit their targets. That is indeed a tragic thing, nobody and I mean nobody will say otherwise. But to place the blame souly on the US for deaths of innocents is not only unjust and wrong, but foolish.
Ado-p... the stop loss ended it is over, there is no more stop loss! I don't know how else to tell you this, yes it happend, there is no denying that, but there is no new stop loss planned or in effect. Read your dates.
Stone, the US didn't start Vietnam, that was a French mistake, unless I am mistaking Vietnam and Korea... The US, though they lost many lives, were not the cause of fighting in Vietnam. Why is it, that the US is made out to be the bad guy in Vietnam, while the VC arnt?
Why is it that the US is made into the bad guy with Abu Ghaib when it is the insurgents cutting off heads?
This doesn't make any sence to me. The real bad guys are ignored and the people who are actually trying to do a good thing are being hailed as evil!
Yes terrorisim exists around the world, do you want the US to invade Ireland next? I know it would be nuclear war if we went into China... and I know that an assault on N. Korea would lead to death tolls in the millions.
The US didn't have a plan for post Iraqi invasion... well this is a common opinion, but unsubstanciated. We may not have had the best plan but a plan was there, how else do you explain power and running water increases... Iraqis buying AC units by the thousands, new money being printed without Saddams mug on every bill...?? Come with it people, yes the US did not have the perfect plan, but show me something perfect that is man made!
It is my opinion when someone represents a side in a debate, that they must produce the evidence to back up what they have said. It is also a matter of being polite and fair.
If the UN declared the war in Iraq illeagle, please provide myself and others some sort of visable proof that they did so. I have never heard of the war in Iraq being illeagle by the UN, so untill it is proven to me it would be unlogical to believe so.
15000 dead, okay, fact I can believe that, hundreds die everyday... whos fault is it? I know those numbers don't just include innocent. Did the US place the innocent in harms way? No, the people who put AA guns and missle launchers on schools and hospitals put the innocent in harms way. The men who take their children with them when the go and launch morter rounds at US bases put them in harm way, not the US guns that retaliate. Yes bombs do not always hit their targets. That is indeed a tragic thing, nobody and I mean nobody will say otherwise. But to place the blame souly on the US for deaths of innocents is not only unjust and wrong, but foolish.
Ado-p... the stop loss ended it is over, there is no more stop loss! I don't know how else to tell you this, yes it happend, there is no denying that, but there is no new stop loss planned or in effect. Read your dates.
Stone, the US didn't start Vietnam, that was a French mistake, unless I am mistaking Vietnam and Korea... The US, though they lost many lives, were not the cause of fighting in Vietnam. Why is it, that the US is made out to be the bad guy in Vietnam, while the VC arnt?
Why is it that the US is made into the bad guy with Abu Ghaib when it is the insurgents cutting off heads?
This doesn't make any sence to me. The real bad guys are ignored and the people who are actually trying to do a good thing are being hailed as evil!
Yes terrorisim exists around the world, do you want the US to invade Ireland next? I know it would be nuclear war if we went into China... and I know that an assault on N. Korea would lead to death tolls in the millions.
The US didn't have a plan for post Iraqi invasion... well this is a common opinion, but unsubstanciated. We may not have had the best plan but a plan was there, how else do you explain power and running water increases... Iraqis buying AC units by the thousands, new money being printed without Saddams mug on every bill...?? Come with it people, yes the US did not have the perfect plan, but show me something perfect that is man made!
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
Kofi Anan Declares The War In Iraq Illeagal
Civilian Death Count in Iraq
An article on progress in Iraq
A clip from that article
The Stop Loss Program
If im mistaken about the dates, fair enough, i could not find one bit of information saying its been stopped. I would be very happy if it was. As i said above, i was using the program to illustrate a point. I think you missed the point. The dates are secondary. It happened and seems to be still happening.
Do we really need to continue this?
EDITED_BY: ado-p (1096903972)
Kofi Anan Declares The War In Iraq Illeagal
Civilian Death Count in Iraq
An article on progress in Iraq
A clip from that article
Written by:
Stars and Stripes did. The magazine, which is funded in part by the Pentagon but retains editorial autonomy, conducted a survey of U.S. troops in August. Their findings contradict the President's. Half of those polled said that their morale is low, they are inadequately trained and they do not plan on re-enlisting when their tour of duty is up.
One third were critical of the way the administration is prosecuting the war, saying that the their mission lacks clear definition and the war in Iraq has little or no value.
The "The Ground Truth" series is online at https://www.stripes.com/morale/
For some, the spartan living conditions, the separation from families, and the danger, stress and precariousness of living in a war zone has caused severe mental distress and even led some to suicide. The Army has sent 478 soldiers home for mental health reasons, and has recently reported that at least 11 soldiers have committed suicide in Iraq in 7 months.
The Stop Loss Program
Written by:
Army to Expand Stop-Loss Program
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
January 5, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Army officials are expected to expand the stop- loss/stop-movement program soon to include more soldiers deployed in support of the war on terror..
If im mistaken about the dates, fair enough, i could not find one bit of information saying its been stopped. I would be very happy if it was. As i said above, i was using the program to illustrate a point. I think you missed the point. The dates are secondary. It happened and seems to be still happening.
Do we really need to continue this?
EDITED_BY: ado-p (1096903972)
Love is the law.
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
really? maybe you know something the weapons inspectors don't...
Written by: insaineCRAZY
I have shown proof that Saddam had WMDs.
really? maybe you know something the weapons inspectors don't...
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Hello hello everyone,
Oh dear, this has become all rather negative… peoples, if you shout too loud sometimes the point can’t be heard.
I haven’t responded here since Saturday, so I’m going to give my opinion on some of the interesting points, as I see them.
Firstly, Crazy, you asked ages ago do I think a government could ‘talk down’ a dictator… you said it was impossible. Well, I have to disagree. Maybe it would have been impossible to reason with Saddam, but the important difference is that an attempt must be made to ascertain that one way or the other… and there were no negotiations between the world powers before the US invasion.
The weapons inspectors had previously gained ‘relatively’ open access to Iraq, and witnessed sites of former WMD dumps dilapidated and rundown. Then Saddam threw them out. The US threatened to invade and the day before the invasion was due to begin, Saddam agreed to let the inspectors back in. But the US did not stop, they went on ahead. Make of this as you will. (This is based on a documentary I watched a few months ago featuring interviews with the weapons inspectors. They basically told it as they saw it).
(As an aside, please think for a moment, if the situation was turned around. How would George Bush feel if the UN demanded that weapons inspectors were sent into the US to see just what weapons America has... because they have been guilty of throwing their weight around of late? Would the UN get to see all the little secrets America has to offer?)
You asked why not Iraq?! They had training grounds? Well, Columbia has many training grounds used by ETA and, in it’s day, the IRA. Saudia Arabia was the home for most of the attackers on Sept 11 – surely that would have been a more viable target? My answer to ‘why not Iraq’ is because at that time they were not threatening anyone. They were of no real military threat to anyone (despite the unfounded government claims of WMD – by the way, both George Bush and Blair have admitted they were wrong about those), Iraq has been destroyed by wars, sanctions and the corruption of its leaders, but life was beginning to acquire some semblance of normality for its innocent civilians. That’s why not.
With regards your comments on the troops out there… bizarrely, I saw a news report on either BBC or Channel 4 at the weekend about a rally in America of parents wanting to see their soldiers brought home… but I can’t find any mention of it now. Well, I guess it’s fair to say, that, like the country itself, the army will be split between those who believe the war (and therefore their actions) are justified and those who do not.
I apologise if my confusion over the no-fly zone issue caused tension… however, I don’t actually see the downing of two planes most likely on spy missions as justification for a full-scale war, as you stated.
You made a point that Saddam would have matched the overall total of Iraqi deaths – this is morally unjustifiable. Surely the reason the US went in there in the first place was to stop the killing… not match it?! And I agree that Saddam needed to be removed, but we are disagreeing about the method, not the ultimate aim. Incidentally, you also made a comment that if the war was about oil why would they invade an AK47 toting population?! I actually find this quite offensive in it’s ignorance. This is a terrible slur on these people… it’s like saying all Irish are terrorists (and believe me, you don’t want to go there
)
Also, you said this regarding the innocent deaths:
“No, the people who put AA guns and missile launchers on schools and hospitals put the innocent in harms way. The men who take their children with them when the go and launch mortar rounds at US bases put them in harm way, not the US guns that retaliate.”
Where on earth did you hear that?!! Men who take children with them?! I’ve never heard of that? And while I’ve heard of missile launchers on deserted schools in Palestine against the Israelis, I have not heard of that happening in Iraq.
And please don’t think these people fighting against US troops are brutish, evil men. They are normal people, like you and me, who’ve seen their country invaded by people with big guns, big attitudes and (in their deeply religious country) people who are hugely disrespectful. I’m quite sure you’d lift whatever you had too if such a threat fell on your country.
But please, think twice before you repeat obvious media vilification…
You agreed that bombs do not always hit their targets – but these are the multi-million dollar precision bombs, aren’t they?!! I have listened to enough interviews with soldiers, and read emails from a Marine I met in Brisbane – I know the bombings can be totally indiscriminate, and that some US troops revel in it. I believe the words of my Marine friend were “and the blood is running through the streets of Baghdad tonight, thanks to us”. Needless to say, we no longer correspond.
But my point is, sole responsibility for thousands (admittedly not all) innocent deaths can be laid directly at the door of the US…
It disturbs me that you do not know your countries history regarding Vietnam… or maybe that part of history is glazed over these days… anyways, thanks to the way the BBC is funded:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1243338.stm
As you will read, the US became involved out of fear – fear that more countries would turn to communism, god forbid (another country where the people just fought back the invaders… notice a pattern?!). Incidentally, while in Vietnam, America also successfully bombed the crap out of its neighbours Laos and Cambodia – unexploded US ordinance remain in those countries, blowing up random farmers and children to this day.
You asked why the US are the bad guy in Abu Ghraib - the US are supposed to be the good guys, as you keep saying - they are the ones supposed to be setting up law and order and rebuilding the country – teaching these rebels how to behave?! This is why it is so shocking that they abuse and humiliate their prisoners. Of course, it is shocking when Iraqi militants abuse and humiliate their prisoners… but I think the point is that one neither side should be committing these human rights abuses.
There is an interesting song in the British charts at the minute by a band called Green Day. It’s a catchy wee song called American Idiot. It basically talks about how the American people are being fooled by their media (it got to number 2 and it’s very popular).
But it got me thinking… Sept 11 was the first time America as a country realised other people really didn’t like her. The people began asking why?
Why does the rest of the world not like us?
The people had three choices:
1. Ignore the attacks – well, America has known for years that some kind of undercurrent of ill-feeling exists, but put it down to jealousy and has managed to ignore it quite well. Sept 11 brought that ill-feeling home and mustered all that patriotism taught at schools for generations. They couldn’t just sit there and take it.
2. Stand on every single person opposed to them (see Afghanistan, Iraq, probably Iran and others also).
3. Ask those people why they don’t like her. Hohum. A strategy yet to be tried.
Anyways, back to the topic…
Well, actually reading through it, I think I’ve more or less covered everything, in fact I’ve probably repeated some points already. So anyways, hope you’re all having a pleasant Monday…
Wonderlush… you’re making some lovely points, well thought out, balanced and reasoned… restoring my faith in Americans
Aidan… thanks for bringing things back from being angry… although, a pint does make me proud to be Irish (even if it’s a pint of vodka)
Take care m’luvlies
xx
Hello hello everyone,
Oh dear, this has become all rather negative… peoples, if you shout too loud sometimes the point can’t be heard.
I haven’t responded here since Saturday, so I’m going to give my opinion on some of the interesting points, as I see them.
Firstly, Crazy, you asked ages ago do I think a government could ‘talk down’ a dictator… you said it was impossible. Well, I have to disagree. Maybe it would have been impossible to reason with Saddam, but the important difference is that an attempt must be made to ascertain that one way or the other… and there were no negotiations between the world powers before the US invasion.
The weapons inspectors had previously gained ‘relatively’ open access to Iraq, and witnessed sites of former WMD dumps dilapidated and rundown. Then Saddam threw them out. The US threatened to invade and the day before the invasion was due to begin, Saddam agreed to let the inspectors back in. But the US did not stop, they went on ahead. Make of this as you will. (This is based on a documentary I watched a few months ago featuring interviews with the weapons inspectors. They basically told it as they saw it).
(As an aside, please think for a moment, if the situation was turned around. How would George Bush feel if the UN demanded that weapons inspectors were sent into the US to see just what weapons America has... because they have been guilty of throwing their weight around of late? Would the UN get to see all the little secrets America has to offer?)
You asked why not Iraq?! They had training grounds? Well, Columbia has many training grounds used by ETA and, in it’s day, the IRA. Saudia Arabia was the home for most of the attackers on Sept 11 – surely that would have been a more viable target? My answer to ‘why not Iraq’ is because at that time they were not threatening anyone. They were of no real military threat to anyone (despite the unfounded government claims of WMD – by the way, both George Bush and Blair have admitted they were wrong about those), Iraq has been destroyed by wars, sanctions and the corruption of its leaders, but life was beginning to acquire some semblance of normality for its innocent civilians. That’s why not.
With regards your comments on the troops out there… bizarrely, I saw a news report on either BBC or Channel 4 at the weekend about a rally in America of parents wanting to see their soldiers brought home… but I can’t find any mention of it now. Well, I guess it’s fair to say, that, like the country itself, the army will be split between those who believe the war (and therefore their actions) are justified and those who do not.
I apologise if my confusion over the no-fly zone issue caused tension… however, I don’t actually see the downing of two planes most likely on spy missions as justification for a full-scale war, as you stated.
You made a point that Saddam would have matched the overall total of Iraqi deaths – this is morally unjustifiable. Surely the reason the US went in there in the first place was to stop the killing… not match it?! And I agree that Saddam needed to be removed, but we are disagreeing about the method, not the ultimate aim. Incidentally, you also made a comment that if the war was about oil why would they invade an AK47 toting population?! I actually find this quite offensive in it’s ignorance. This is a terrible slur on these people… it’s like saying all Irish are terrorists (and believe me, you don’t want to go there
)Also, you said this regarding the innocent deaths:
“No, the people who put AA guns and missile launchers on schools and hospitals put the innocent in harms way. The men who take their children with them when the go and launch mortar rounds at US bases put them in harm way, not the US guns that retaliate.”
Where on earth did you hear that?!! Men who take children with them?! I’ve never heard of that? And while I’ve heard of missile launchers on deserted schools in Palestine against the Israelis, I have not heard of that happening in Iraq.
And please don’t think these people fighting against US troops are brutish, evil men. They are normal people, like you and me, who’ve seen their country invaded by people with big guns, big attitudes and (in their deeply religious country) people who are hugely disrespectful. I’m quite sure you’d lift whatever you had too if such a threat fell on your country.
But please, think twice before you repeat obvious media vilification…
You agreed that bombs do not always hit their targets – but these are the multi-million dollar precision bombs, aren’t they?!! I have listened to enough interviews with soldiers, and read emails from a Marine I met in Brisbane – I know the bombings can be totally indiscriminate, and that some US troops revel in it. I believe the words of my Marine friend were “and the blood is running through the streets of Baghdad tonight, thanks to us”. Needless to say, we no longer correspond.
But my point is, sole responsibility for thousands (admittedly not all) innocent deaths can be laid directly at the door of the US…
It disturbs me that you do not know your countries history regarding Vietnam… or maybe that part of history is glazed over these days… anyways, thanks to the way the BBC is funded:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1243338.stm
As you will read, the US became involved out of fear – fear that more countries would turn to communism, god forbid (another country where the people just fought back the invaders… notice a pattern?!
). Incidentally, while in Vietnam, America also successfully bombed the crap out of its neighbours Laos and Cambodia – unexploded US ordinance remain in those countries, blowing up random farmers and children to this day. You asked why the US are the bad guy in Abu Ghraib - the US are supposed to be the good guys, as you keep saying - they are the ones supposed to be setting up law and order and rebuilding the country – teaching these rebels how to behave?! This is why it is so shocking that they abuse and humiliate their prisoners. Of course, it is shocking when Iraqi militants abuse and humiliate their prisoners… but I think the point is that one neither side should be committing these human rights abuses.
There is an interesting song in the British charts at the minute by a band called Green Day. It’s a catchy wee song called American Idiot. It basically talks about how the American people are being fooled by their media (it got to number 2 and it’s very popular).
But it got me thinking… Sept 11 was the first time America as a country realised other people really didn’t like her. The people began asking why?
Why does the rest of the world not like us?
The people had three choices:
1. Ignore the attacks – well, America has known for years that some kind of undercurrent of ill-feeling exists, but put it down to jealousy and has managed to ignore it quite well. Sept 11 brought that ill-feeling home and mustered all that patriotism taught at schools for generations. They couldn’t just sit there and take it.
2. Stand on every single person opposed to them (see Afghanistan, Iraq, probably Iran and others also).
3. Ask those people why they don’t like her. Hohum. A strategy yet to be tried.
Anyways, back to the topic…
Well, actually reading through it, I think I’ve more or less covered everything, in fact I’ve probably repeated some points already. So anyways, hope you’re all having a pleasant Monday…
Wonderlush… you’re making some lovely points, well thought out, balanced and reasoned… restoring my faith in Americans
Aidan… thanks for bringing things back from being angry… although, a pint does make me proud to be Irish (even if it’s a pint of vodka)
Take care m’luvlies
xx
Getting to the other side
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
insaineCRAZY
Yes, I agree to a certain extent, but not so much when things are current, public knowledge, printed in the newspapers and publicised on television. A certain amount of knowledge is expected on both sides.
This has been discussed many times, and while debateable, many consider the war in Iraq illegal because the US defied the UN. Again read the papers, this debate is common knowledge. I just haven’t got the time to dig up the information. You can’t cry ignorance for the rest of your life by pretending things didn’t happen.
Did I sat the US started Vietnam? No, and I suppose the US wasn’t there either. You can’t be serious when you suggest that the US were not the cause of fighting in Vietnam because that’s just utter rubbish.
The US took over the war, stomped all over the place, and continued the war for many years. To deny the US involvement in the Vietnam war, as you are trying to do, is just ridiculous. The US had many opportunities to stop the war, but they stuffed them all up. Like, Ho Chi Minh was pro US, until he got fed up with being ignored by arrogant Americans.
How stupid was that???? Not have good plan for post Iraqi invasion? Now, the situations one huge mess. Perhaps if the US had thought consequence of the Iraqi invasion, even for a second, then they might not have invaded the country in the first place. I mean we are not talking about a football game are we? No, this is an invasion of another country, and oops we forget to plane ahead.
I would suggest that the US had very few plans for Iraqi invasion other than shipping in troops, stomping around and expecting everyone to hail them as heroes as soon as they raise the “stars and stripes”. This fits with the comic book hero stuff that Bush likes so much. Didn’t hapeen did it. Reality Check
insaineCRAZY
Written by:
It is my opinion when someone represents a side in a debate, that they must produce the evidence to back up what they have said. It is also a matter of being polite and fair
Yes, I agree to a certain extent, but not so much when things are current, public knowledge, printed in the newspapers and publicised on television. A certain amount of knowledge is expected on both sides.
Written by:
if the UN declared the war in Iraq illegal, please provide myself and others some sort of visible proof that they did so.
This has been discussed many times, and while debateable, many consider the war in Iraq illegal because the US defied the UN. Again read the papers, this debate is common knowledge. I just haven’t got the time to dig up the information. You can’t cry ignorance for the rest of your life by pretending things didn’t happen.
Written by:
Stone, the US didn't start Vietnam, that was a French mistake, unless I am mistaking Vietnam and Korea... The US, though they lost many lives, were not the cause of fighting in Vietnam. Why is it, that the US is made out to be the bad guy in Vietnam, while the VC arnt?
Did I sat the US started Vietnam? No, and I suppose the US wasn’t there either. You can’t be serious when you suggest that the US were not the cause of fighting in Vietnam because that’s just utter rubbish.
The US took over the war, stomped all over the place, and continued the war for many years. To deny the US involvement in the Vietnam war, as you are trying to do, is just ridiculous. The US had many opportunities to stop the war, but they stuffed them all up. Like, Ho Chi Minh was pro US, until he got fed up with being ignored by arrogant Americans.
Written by:
The US didn't have a plan for post Iraqi invasion... well this is a common opinion, but unsubstanciated……. Come with it people, yes the US did not have the perfect plan, but show me something perfect that is man made!
How stupid was that???? Not have good plan for post Iraqi invasion? Now, the situations one huge mess. Perhaps if the US had thought consequence of the Iraqi invasion, even for a second, then they might not have invaded the country in the first place. I mean we are not talking about a football game are we? No, this is an invasion of another country, and oops we forget to plane ahead.
I would suggest that the US had very few plans for Iraqi invasion other than shipping in troops, stomping around and expecting everyone to hail them as heroes as soon as they raise the “stars and stripes”. This fits with the comic book hero stuff that Bush likes so much. Didn’t hapeen did it. Reality Check
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
"if i jump in the fire, will you?"
633 posts
Location: USA, wishing I was in SA
633 posts
Location: USA, wishing I was in SA
Posted:
wow , the world is quite a topic , hey ?
lets take a moment to breathe the sweet sigh of humanity. hope you got yours cause i got mine:)
ok , you guys can carry on now...
wow , the world is quite a topic , hey ?
lets take a moment to breathe the sweet sigh of humanity. hope you got yours cause i got mine:)
ok , you guys can carry on now...
i like breaking the Law , of Gravity !
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Hola, I pilfered this link from another great website...
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm
Rumsfeld denies any al-Qaida/Hussein link - really?! No sh*t Sherlock.
I thought it would be fairly appropriate considering recent discussion.
Or maybe I should go resurrect that news thread...
Ok, have a good day
xx
Hola, I pilfered this link from another great website...
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm
Rumsfeld denies any al-Qaida/Hussein link - really?! No sh*t Sherlock.
I thought it would be fairly appropriate considering recent discussion.
Or maybe I should go resurrect that news thread...
Ok, have a good day
xx
Getting to the other side
newbie
16 posts
16 posts
Posted:
There are two very sad points I'd like to point out...
1 it has been brought to my attention by an outside source that even if Iraq had any WMDs, and even if they used them against various targets around the world that the majority of the world would find some cause to say that it was the US's fault. That instead of being pissed off and wanting to send our troops into Iraq, there would be people protesting such action. "Perhaps we can talk..." type thought would be rampent. So anything I say here is being spoken to brick walls.
2 I guess people here think I am an expert on the US government, that I speak with all the knowlege that they have, unfortunatly this is a very wrong misconception.
So, why bother?
Maybe the US should have stormed into Ireland, wiped out the IRA... maybe after that gone after the other side since BOTH sides in Ireland are guilty of terrorisim.... the IRA is just a bit more named. I wonder if that would make the world happy, or sad?
Maybe then after obliterating whole cities in Ireland, the US should just do a blitz and take over the world... if they don't like what we do... lets just carpet bomb the entire area! Ohh look a peace rally... can you say FAE... maybe even some napalm?
I'm just being sarcastic here folks, but it seems that even if the US did nothing after Afganistan, that the world would still find something to complain about.
Aesop had a fable,
A man and his son went on a trip to the next town to sell some things at the market. So they packed their mule and left. Along the road someone said in passing "What a cruel old man, making the boy walk!" So the man put his son on the horse and the went on. Later down the road another passer-by said "What a lazy child making the man walk while he rides!" So the boy got off the mule and the man got on...
the story goes on and since I am just paraphrasing I don't have to finish it...
The moral of the story being, you can please some of the people all the time but you cant please all the people all the time... AKA damned if you do, damned if you dont!
I believe that the US is doing the right thing, end of story and debate for me... if the rest of the world doesn't see it then so be it... who am I to pass judgment on them?
As for my part in this story, I am done... so in parting with this topic...
Nobody truly knows what is going on or why things are being done they way they are except for the people in charge... the media only print what they want, never absolutly never the whole truth and nothing but the truth, no matter what side they are on... and it can be down right deadly to tell the whole world exactly what is going on all the time, especially to the soldiers on the ground and in the air. So, that only leaves the rest of the world one option... to make assumptions, and what do you do when you assume... make an ass out of u and me.
There are two very sad points I'd like to point out...
1 it has been brought to my attention by an outside source that even if Iraq had any WMDs, and even if they used them against various targets around the world that the majority of the world would find some cause to say that it was the US's fault. That instead of being pissed off and wanting to send our troops into Iraq, there would be people protesting such action. "Perhaps we can talk..." type thought would be rampent. So anything I say here is being spoken to brick walls.
2 I guess people here think I am an expert on the US government, that I speak with all the knowlege that they have, unfortunatly this is a very wrong misconception.
So, why bother?
Maybe the US should have stormed into Ireland, wiped out the IRA... maybe after that gone after the other side since BOTH sides in Ireland are guilty of terrorisim.... the IRA is just a bit more named. I wonder if that would make the world happy, or sad?
Maybe then after obliterating whole cities in Ireland, the US should just do a blitz and take over the world... if they don't like what we do... lets just carpet bomb the entire area! Ohh look a peace rally... can you say FAE... maybe even some napalm?
I'm just being sarcastic here folks, but it seems that even if the US did nothing after Afganistan, that the world would still find something to complain about.
Aesop had a fable,
A man and his son went on a trip to the next town to sell some things at the market. So they packed their mule and left. Along the road someone said in passing "What a cruel old man, making the boy walk!" So the man put his son on the horse and the went on. Later down the road another passer-by said "What a lazy child making the man walk while he rides!" So the boy got off the mule and the man got on...
the story goes on and since I am just paraphrasing I don't have to finish it...
The moral of the story being, you can please some of the people all the time but you cant please all the people all the time... AKA damned if you do, damned if you dont!
I believe that the US is doing the right thing, end of story and debate for me... if the rest of the world doesn't see it then so be it... who am I to pass judgment on them?
As for my part in this story, I am done... so in parting with this topic...
Nobody truly knows what is going on or why things are being done they way they are except for the people in charge... the media only print what they want, never absolutly never the whole truth and nothing but the truth, no matter what side they are on... and it can be down right deadly to tell the whole world exactly what is going on all the time, especially to the soldiers on the ground and in the air. So, that only leaves the rest of the world one option... to make assumptions, and what do you do when you assume... make an ass out of u and me.
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Ok then… it was interesting…
Ok then… it was interesting…
Getting to the other side
Fireotographer on Hiatus
284 posts
Location: Cork, Ireland
284 posts
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posted:
what happened to this thread?
what happened to this thread? "I see," said the blind man.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
insaineCRAZY
You probably think most of us are anti-American. However, just because someone criticises American policy doesn’t make them anti-American. Many people seem to believe the US is doing the right thing, and I would suggest that many people also take it as granted that everything America does is the right thing. Everything Bush says is right, because he is the President, and hey even if he makes a mistake every now and again, then that’s ok, because he’s a good guy and he’s trying his best.
You said
Well that’s not quite true. For example, The UN sanctioned the first Gulf war when in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait with the aim of taking control Kuwait's oil reserves. For Gulf War 2, substitute Bush for Saddam Hussein and Iraq for Kuwait in and you will see my point (or something like that).
I don’t think war really solve anything, and often makes the situation worse. But having said that, as a species we haven’t learnt much, and sometimes intervention seems inevitable. In these situations, then maybe the US should be guided by the UN. I mean the UN has little chance of success if the US decides to usurp their decisions, just because they don’t agree with them.
If the US really wanted to make the world a better place to live, then perhaps it should destroy it’s stockpiles of WMD’s, and perhaps consider the implications of its actions.
insaineCRAZY
You probably think most of us are anti-American. However, just because someone criticises American policy doesn’t make them anti-American. Many people seem to believe the US is doing the right thing, and I would suggest that many people also take it as granted that everything America does is the right thing. Everything Bush says is right, because he is the President, and hey even if he makes a mistake every now and again, then that’s ok, because he’s a good guy and he’s trying his best.
You said
Written by:
It has been brought to my attention by an outside source that even if Iraq had any WMDs, and even if they used them against various targets around the world that the majority of the world would find some cause to say that it was the US's fault.
Well that’s not quite true. For example, The UN sanctioned the first Gulf war when in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait with the aim of taking control Kuwait's oil reserves. For Gulf War 2, substitute Bush for Saddam Hussein and Iraq for Kuwait in and you will see my point (or something like that).
I don’t think war really solve anything, and often makes the situation worse. But having said that, as a species we haven’t learnt much, and sometimes intervention seems inevitable. In these situations, then maybe the US should be guided by the UN. I mean the UN has little chance of success if the US decides to usurp their decisions, just because they don’t agree with them.
If the US really wanted to make the world a better place to live, then perhaps it should destroy it’s stockpiles of WMD’s, and perhaps consider the implications of its actions.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Well said Stone.
Insaine, this is not, and never has been, a personal attack on you (unless you said something silly, in which case I probably drew you up on it), but it is more an expression of the frustration many people have against American policies.
In the same way you passionately believe America to right, I passionately believe these actions to be terribly wrong.
You are proud of your opinions, as am I of mine - that doesn't mean to say either of us are 'right', or even if a 'right' can exist within this debate.
Anyways, take care
xx
Well said Stone.
Insaine, this is not, and never has been, a personal attack on you (unless you said something silly, in which case I probably drew you up on it), but it is more an expression of the frustration many people have against American policies.
In the same way you passionately believe America to right, I passionately believe these actions to be terribly wrong.
You are proud of your opinions, as am I of mine - that doesn't mean to say either of us are 'right', or even if a 'right' can exist within this debate.
Anyways, take care
xx
Getting to the other side
newbie
16 posts
16 posts
Posted:
The US, to this date, is the only country to use a nuclear weapon. Anyone breathing can see the irony in the fact that the one country with the gall to drop a weapon like that, is calling for the disarming of countries with WMDs.
But you have to ask yourself, should a police officer, who carries a gun, be allowed to enforce a regulation/law against a fellon from owning a gun?
If you follow the course of logic from the bottom to the top, you will see a few things.
It is a constitutional right, for Americans to own guns. Carry them, display them in gun racks in their vehicles. In my small south western home town, you can leagely carry a gun into the banks. In many states you would be supprised at what is leagle when it comes to firearms. The very basis of these laws comes from the assumption of responsibility. The person carrying the weapon must be proven responsible before they can carry the gun, IE a gun licence.
The fellon, who has proven him/herself unresponsible, proven that they are not a good choice to carry a weapon.
The police officer, is trained and regulated on how s/he can use their gun. The fellon is not.
When it comes to WMDs the same concept should be taken into effect.
Yes, the USA has dropped two nukes, however they did not do it as a form of terror, they did it to save lives, not only American, but Japanesse too. Though I doubt that was really part of the plan, the emmence fighting it would have taken to take control of Japan's main island would have cost far more lives than the two nukes took. So in the end lives were saved on both sides.
The US has proven, thought it has used nukes, that they are responsible in the use of them.
Saddam, on the other hand, can be seen as a fellon. He attacked another country without cause. Should he be allowed to own WMDs?
Do you see the connections to my analogy?
Though a cop has a gun, and some have used them, they are responsible with the weapon untill proven otherwise. The same goes with all citizens.
The same should be true with WMDs and all countries. If the country is responsible with the weapons, is it really wrong for that country to have WMDs?
Why ask if the US should disarm? Why not ask the French?
Stone, you think the US went into Iraq for oil. This is an unsubstanciated opinoin. Any argument that you can come up with to support said opinoin really has no sway on anything. You can not prove it. There were other reasons to go into Iraq. Several have been stated here.
Some people see a possible answer as to why, and they run with it. It is common mistake, called jumping to conclusions. It is okay, we all do it. I wonder, other than someone elses opinion, can you come up with anything to back up your opinion?
I can come up with things to back up the idea that the US went into Iraq for other things.
As firepoise said, we are each right to ourselves, maybe we are both wrong, maybe there is no right. All we can do is stand on our own opinoins and carry on.
The US, to this date, is the only country to use a nuclear weapon. Anyone breathing can see the irony in the fact that the one country with the gall to drop a weapon like that, is calling for the disarming of countries with WMDs.
But you have to ask yourself, should a police officer, who carries a gun, be allowed to enforce a regulation/law against a fellon from owning a gun?
If you follow the course of logic from the bottom to the top, you will see a few things.
It is a constitutional right, for Americans to own guns. Carry them, display them in gun racks in their vehicles. In my small south western home town, you can leagely carry a gun into the banks. In many states you would be supprised at what is leagle when it comes to firearms. The very basis of these laws comes from the assumption of responsibility. The person carrying the weapon must be proven responsible before they can carry the gun, IE a gun licence.
The fellon, who has proven him/herself unresponsible, proven that they are not a good choice to carry a weapon.
The police officer, is trained and regulated on how s/he can use their gun. The fellon is not.
When it comes to WMDs the same concept should be taken into effect.
Yes, the USA has dropped two nukes, however they did not do it as a form of terror, they did it to save lives, not only American, but Japanesse too. Though I doubt that was really part of the plan, the emmence fighting it would have taken to take control of Japan's main island would have cost far more lives than the two nukes took. So in the end lives were saved on both sides.
The US has proven, thought it has used nukes, that they are responsible in the use of them.
Saddam, on the other hand, can be seen as a fellon. He attacked another country without cause. Should he be allowed to own WMDs?
Do you see the connections to my analogy?
Though a cop has a gun, and some have used them, they are responsible with the weapon untill proven otherwise. The same goes with all citizens.
The same should be true with WMDs and all countries. If the country is responsible with the weapons, is it really wrong for that country to have WMDs?
Why ask if the US should disarm? Why not ask the French?
Stone, you think the US went into Iraq for oil. This is an unsubstanciated opinoin. Any argument that you can come up with to support said opinoin really has no sway on anything. You can not prove it. There were other reasons to go into Iraq. Several have been stated here.
Some people see a possible answer as to why, and they run with it. It is common mistake, called jumping to conclusions. It is okay, we all do it. I wonder, other than someone elses opinion, can you come up with anything to back up your opinion?
I can come up with things to back up the idea that the US went into Iraq for other things.
As firepoise said, we are each right to ourselves, maybe we are both wrong, maybe there is no right. All we can do is stand on our own opinoins and carry on.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [proud] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Pungent Poi [14 replies]
- Forums > injury [1 reply]
- Forums > First Injury [3 replies]
- Forums > fun times [2 replies]
- Forums > HOW LONG HAVE WE ALL BEEN SWINGING FOR [31 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com