Originally posted by kirksey9571) United states Have the most powerfull mass destruction and has /will use all the times against weakers oponents.
Here are the arguments that I hear most often:
1) He has weapons of mass destruction and has/will use them.
2) He is guilty of atrocities to his own people.
3) He makes the region politically unstable.
4) He has violated 1441 of UN charter.
Whether or not one believes or accepts these I guess are open to debate. I just listing what I most often hear. Kirk
2)These are things internal of each coountry, in the US and Others Us alies countries there are also atrocies, a weak argument.
3)That is not US Business.
4)Israel has violated more UN resolutions and no one tells them anything, US is plannig to violate UN resolution if not aprove iraks attact.
So, is very easy to fight against someone who is going to lose before starting, what do you thing???
Originally posted by bbarrWhenever the UK government decides to follow America's line, there are two likely reasons:
Have you heard any arguments for England's involvement in the war that have not been mentioned above? I'd like to canvas the arguments that have been presented so far by our respective governments.
1. The prime minister, cabinet etc believe that it is the right course of action.
2. The government decides that it is better to follow the US policy than to risk harming relations with the US. Benefits of relations with the US include favourable trading conditions and cooperation between respective intelligence agency, as well as a debatable amount of diplomatic influence.
In the case of war on Iraq, I believe 1. is the main reason, as Blair's position is a huge gamble politically. In other areas, 2. seems to be the main motivator behind the government's policy. For example, the US requested the use of bases in Britain to install early-warning systems as part of the National Missile Defence. The government agreed; however, even if this system worked, it would only protect the US and perhaps parts of Canada and Mexico; it would offer the UK NO PROTECTION WHATSOEVER, and would in fact turn us into a target for anyone wanting to fire long-range missiles at the US. I find it especially alarming that a Labour prime minister is so obedient to Bush, given the White House's political views.
I mean no disrespect to any Australians on this site, but I've heard that the Howard government is also sometimes described as being America's poodle. Is this the case?
Originally posted by Boby FisherOK< Boby, let's take these one at a time.
1) United states Have the most powerfull mass destruction and has /will use all the times against weakers oponents.
2)These are things internal of each coountry, in the US and Others Us alies countries there are also atrocies, a weak argument.
3)That is not US Business.
4)Israel has violated more UN resolutions and no one tells them anything, US is pl ...[text shortened]... is very easy to fight against someone who is going to lose before starting, what do you thing???
1) Yes, the US has the most powerful army in the world. However I don't see us amassing troups to take over smaller countries anywhere on the globe. If it were soley about oil, why are we not taking over countries like Iraq did with Kuwait?
2) These things tend to be "internal for each country" when there is a Republican president. Anybody remember Jimmy Carter's emphasis on human rights? Before the first bullet has been fired, Bush has violated more human rights than Saddam Hussein. NOT!
3) I would argue that the stability of the world is exactly that, a business. The free flow of oil is of vital importance to our economic health as well as the economic health of the mideast. When gas prices drop later this summer (I hope), remember this thread.
4) I would only say that if the US violates a UN resolution by attacking Iraq, at least they were more honest and up-front about it than Iraq has been. They were forewarned. At least more than the Israel's that died from the scud missles in '91.
Thanks for the debate, Boby. Kirk
Originally posted by kirksey957So why are Russia,China and France wrong?
OK< Boby, let's take these one at a time.
1) Yes, the US has the most powerful army in the world. However I don't see us amassing troups to take over smaller countries anywhere on the globe. If it were soley about oil, why are we not taking over countries like Iraq did with Kuwait?
2) These things tend to be "internal for each country" when there ...[text shortened]... than the Israel's that died from the scud missles in '91.
Thanks for the debate, Boby. Kirk
Linda.
Originally posted by missleadI didn't say they were wrong. The US has a completely different take on this than most of the world if for no other reason than 9/11 and that terrorists have expressed their dedication to more destruction of us, not France, Germany, or China. No resentment here that they will likely vote their conscience of a veto or "no" vote. Don't resent us for wanting to go Darwin (survival of the fittest) on them. That's all I'm saying and all are welcome to disagree. Kirk
So why are Russia,China and France wrong?
Linda.
hmm, the Balkans were mentioned by someone, glad the Americans went in there - because god knows Europe was doing nothing about the atrocities...and we all loved Clinton over here (Ireland) when he came over and helped with Northern Ireland. Helping in WW2 was decent of them too!😛
everyone has skeletons in the closet though. all of the major powers generally do whatever they want...if they can get away with it😛
Look what the Russians did to themselves, and the Chinese, and what the Spanish and Portugese did to South America (albeit a long time ago) and then theres the English(they messed up everywhere they left for gods sake) & French(Algeria anyone?) etc etc.
American foreign policy is not far-sighted though. a few of their old friends aint friendly no more. we all see the problems when the 'baddies' get to keep their cool toys they got for christmas.
Israel even has a few Nimbus2000's (damn i wanted one of those!)
well, i suppose it(war on Iraq) would make a good book anyway.
only fueling the fire though - the inevitable war on iraq will only send more poeple into the anti-american camp - the taliban and similar terrorist organisations will be raking in thousands of new conscripts. i bet they are delighted. (if you catch my drift)
alot of interesting things in the news at the moment about all this.
ah well, we all knew what we were in for when the hawks got into power.
Originally posted by kirksey957I think we should talk more.
I didn't say they were wrong. The US has a completely different take on this than most of the world if for no other reason than 9/11 and that terrorists have expressed their dedication to more destruction of us, not France, Germany, or China. No resentment here that they will likely vote their conscience of a veto or "no" vote. Don't resent us for ...[text shortened]... urvival of the fittest) on them. That's all I'm saying and all are welcome to disagree. Kirk
I don't want our troops wasted,because some fat ass dosn't know how to talk.
Linda
Originally posted by kirksey957What do you think we're doing? We have amassed 300,000 troops who are poised to take over Iraq. You may argue that it's for a "good cause", but that doesn't alter the fact that that is exactly what we are planning to do.
...1) Yes, the US has the most powerful army in the world. However I don't see us amassing troups to take over smaller countries anywhere on the globe...
Originally posted by kirksey957That's not what 'survival of the fittest' means at all. Suppose you have an isolated hillside somewhere populated only by grass and goats, when a new species moves in. Which would be more of a threat to the goats' survival, wolves or sheep?
I didn't say they were wrong. The US has a completely different take on this than most of the world if for no other reason than 9/11 and that terrorists have expressed their dedication to more destruction of us, not France, Germany, or China. No resentment here that they will likely vote their conscience of a veto or "no" vote. Don't resent us for ...[text shortened]... urvival of the fittest) on them. That's all I'm saying and all are welcome to disagree. Kirk
Answer: The sheep. The wolves will kill and eat the goats, but as goat numbers are reduced, the wolves will have less to eat, so their numbers will stabilise, with some balance between wolves and goats (with fewer goats than before, but not by much.) On the other hand, the sheep could, by being 'fitter' than the goats, eat more grass and reproduce more until there is no more grass left for the goats, driving them to extinction.
If you're talking about fighting back when your survival is threatened, the survival of the US as a country is not threatened by terrorists; although it was clearly an atrocity, more people are murdered each year in the US than were killed on 11th Sep 2001. The reaction this trauma has been understandable; that doesn't make it laudable. The survival of the US as a democracy, however, is somewhat more fragile, and perhaps this is what the terrorists are aiming to destroy.
As a rule, the methods by which people will kill for a cause are as follows: If they can afford an army, they will make one, and aim for conquest (eg Nazi Germany); if they cannot, but can afford a militia, they will make that, and aim for damage (eg the Viet Cong); if they cannot form even a militia, they will become terrorists, and aim for fear (eg Al Qaeda). Each level of intensity is more of a threat, but easier to fight against.
Sorry, I went off the beaten track there. I can see the point of going to war with Iraq, but it hasn't got anything to do with a 'war on terror'; the only way to combat terrorism in the long term is to reduce the levels of recruitment of such groups. It will take some years before any benefit of the war is seen in oil prices, as Iraq's infrastructure will be ravaged and trade agreements disrupted.
I believe the moral split comes from an individuals priority. If your highest priority is self preservation, then war may well seem like a justifiable action. If your priority is the good of the masses, then war is completely against your standpoint.
On the personal note, I do not want the war to happen. In truth, I despise the very concept of it. I take the majority of my moral principles from three things: The Bible, the warriors code as taught to me by my father, and self reflection. Primarily self reflection. I am willing to put myself AND my loved ones in danger if it is for the greater good. I understand how many people may not be willing to do this, but I am. I know many war supporters believe that they are justified in killing foreigners, in this case in Iraq, to "protect" their own home. To these people I must state that while I respect your right to your opinion, I must oppose you in this with all of my ability. I refuse to condone the killing of innocents to possibly save other innocents. The people in Iraq are just like us here in the US. The same sun and stars are loved with the same human hearts. Their blood is as red as yours and mine, and I will not spill it willingly.
It is easy to forget that terrorism is a concept, not a people. We can hunt "terrorists" for the next thousand years and not eliminate the threat of it. There will always be those to whom words will not reach. It is a sad day in the US to me, for I have come to believe that my own people have become equally as deaf.
Any fool can swing their fist, but not everyone has the courage and skill to stand in its way. Any fool can stand in their ways with a closed mind, but few are they who can listen and learn. This is the pitiful sad truth the world. May God help us, for we will not help ourselves.
:'(