US MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ Y or N?
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Tue Mar 18, 2003 4:20 pm
My appologies...My knowledge of American history isn't the best, but I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who laid down great words, something along the line, 'truth, liberty, and justice for all'.
For a fledgling Gov't, and clearly one destined to great power, to start it's course with such strong sentiments for the 'every-day man' is, I believe, unparalleled in history. And it is this foundation of America that many people cling to to this day. Standing under the shadow of the great pillars of that vaunted Hall of Justice, proudly believing in these remarkable roots.
I think most of us know that corruption has eroded, if not the pride and spirit of those beliefs, certainly the infrastructure of Gov't, business, and foreign policy in America.
Of course the States isn't alone. What is Saddam hiding? He's hiding the vested corporate interest of France, Germany, Russia, India--a list undoubtably going on and on.
I'm not a great historian, but perhaps I don't need to be. I think most other countries, the larger, the more obvious the examples, have shown over the millenia what their interests trully are. America has only been doing it for the last hundred years or so. Not really enough time for people to see things objectively.
By pure logic, we know that the States, or Britain, or really any of many countries, could take Saddam out via assasination or some other coup method. That this hasn't happened leads one to wonder why. France wouldn't want to, or Germany, or Russia (to name a few) as Saddam enables lucrative business relationships with them.
So why hasn't the States? I postulate that the States isn't after Saddam. They are after crippling the corporate interests--factories, oil contracts, trades deals, etc etc, of those other countries. If they went in and assasinated Saddam, they'd still be left with some very large foreign business on Iraq soil. And it just wouldn't do to attack them directly. So--my theory, perhaps crazy, that part of what this war is about, is providing a convenient way for the States to actively target and destroy those other foreign corporate interests, all under the guise of 'collateral damage'.
Naturally, there are other, and perhaps more important reasons, for invading Iraq. But those can be exposed at another time.
Regarding the U.N.:
The United Nations was formed to take care of someone like Hitler, or to attempt unilateral decision making on how to treat 3rd-world war-lords, uprisings, and the like. The United Nations cannot work now, or, perhaps, ever again. Certainly not with the current parties holding major voting privalages whilst at the same time holding significant vested interests on issues being voted on. The term 'conflict of interest' comes to mind.
It was a fore-gone conclusion that the States wouldn't bother with the U.N. sanctioning of military intervention. Bush revealed a chilling note in his statement 'we've seen who has played their cards'. The U.N. has been used as nothing more than to show more clearly where people sit.
Which brings me to an oft-repeated theme. What gives the States less right than anyone else to take over the world? The States has the power, the financial back-bone, the technology, to control the world. Why shouldn't they?
Typically, this theme is brought up with allusions along the line of, would I prefer to be speaking French? Or German? Or Chinese? Why not the States? Someone has to do it.....
I could launch on all kinds of responses to this, either from confusion or playful desire to be devils advocate, but the truth is, in my mind, I havn't arrived at a clear reasoning of something of this magnitude, so I won't bother just blurting out whatever comes to mind, or whatever looks like it's something that the media propogates.
We are at war, gentlemen. Of that I think we all agree. However, it is not against Saddam. Let us understand that. It is against 'those who are either with us or against us'.
A man carrying a briefcase can steal far more than a hundred armed thugs.
For a fledgling Gov't, and clearly one destined to great power, to start it's course with such strong sentiments for the 'every-day man' is, I believe, unparalleled in history. And it is this foundation of America that many people cling to to this day. Standing under the shadow of the great pillars of that vaunted Hall of Justice, proudly believing in these remarkable roots.
I think most of us know that corruption has eroded, if not the pride and spirit of those beliefs, certainly the infrastructure of Gov't, business, and foreign policy in America.
Of course the States isn't alone. What is Saddam hiding? He's hiding the vested corporate interest of France, Germany, Russia, India--a list undoubtably going on and on.
I'm not a great historian, but perhaps I don't need to be. I think most other countries, the larger, the more obvious the examples, have shown over the millenia what their interests trully are. America has only been doing it for the last hundred years or so. Not really enough time for people to see things objectively.
By pure logic, we know that the States, or Britain, or really any of many countries, could take Saddam out via assasination or some other coup method. That this hasn't happened leads one to wonder why. France wouldn't want to, or Germany, or Russia (to name a few) as Saddam enables lucrative business relationships with them.
So why hasn't the States? I postulate that the States isn't after Saddam. They are after crippling the corporate interests--factories, oil contracts, trades deals, etc etc, of those other countries. If they went in and assasinated Saddam, they'd still be left with some very large foreign business on Iraq soil. And it just wouldn't do to attack them directly. So--my theory, perhaps crazy, that part of what this war is about, is providing a convenient way for the States to actively target and destroy those other foreign corporate interests, all under the guise of 'collateral damage'.
Naturally, there are other, and perhaps more important reasons, for invading Iraq. But those can be exposed at another time.
Regarding the U.N.:
The United Nations was formed to take care of someone like Hitler, or to attempt unilateral decision making on how to treat 3rd-world war-lords, uprisings, and the like. The United Nations cannot work now, or, perhaps, ever again. Certainly not with the current parties holding major voting privalages whilst at the same time holding significant vested interests on issues being voted on. The term 'conflict of interest' comes to mind.
It was a fore-gone conclusion that the States wouldn't bother with the U.N. sanctioning of military intervention. Bush revealed a chilling note in his statement 'we've seen who has played their cards'. The U.N. has been used as nothing more than to show more clearly where people sit.
Which brings me to an oft-repeated theme. What gives the States less right than anyone else to take over the world? The States has the power, the financial back-bone, the technology, to control the world. Why shouldn't they?
Typically, this theme is brought up with allusions along the line of, would I prefer to be speaking French? Or German? Or Chinese? Why not the States? Someone has to do it.....
I could launch on all kinds of responses to this, either from confusion or playful desire to be devils advocate, but the truth is, in my mind, I havn't arrived at a clear reasoning of something of this magnitude, so I won't bother just blurting out whatever comes to mind, or whatever looks like it's something that the media propogates.
We are at war, gentlemen. Of that I think we all agree. However, it is not against Saddam. Let us understand that. It is against 'those who are either with us or against us'.
A man carrying a briefcase can steal far more than a hundred armed thugs.
- Allister Fiend
-
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 9:39 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida USA
by Allister Fiend » Tue Mar 18, 2003 4:21 pm
Originally posted by FLOPPY
And countries who dont listen to the US, are being dishonored, like France at the moment.
The french have done a great job of dishonoring themselves for decades, this is just one more example.
Originally posted by FLOPPY
If you call us your friends, why dont you listen to our arguments? Why dont oyu share us ALL your information you have on Iraq. Let us see that so called hard evidence you have of the WMD. We will believe you, will will fight with you.
You will see the hard evidence very soon.
Originally posted by Keekanoo
*dusts himself off*
It's not about Saddam being a very nasty evil man. There are millions of nasty evil men--many of them in U.S. penetentiaries.
huh, it's all about saddam being evil and nasty, if he was locked up he would not be a problem, put a few nukes and some deadly virus at the disposal of someone who belongs in a penetentiary and youve got a problem.
Also, at last count, 30+ nations support U.S. with 15 more keeping things under wraps (probably muslim countries). so much for unilateralism.
Allister Fiend
- Ralph Wiggum
by Ralph Wiggum » Tue Mar 18, 2003 6:40 pm
I already broke out the briefcase line in an earlier post, Keek. I'm not sure which way it cuts in your post however. Are you saying that the U.S. could have done a better job at stealing Iraq's oil if it had followed the French approach? If so, then I agree.
As for the U.N., when has it ever really worked? What has the U.N. ever been but a debating society? I was a little, and only a little, surprised to find out that the U.N. had only authorized the use of military force twice since its founding: during the Korean War and during the Gulf War. In fact authorization for the Korean War was an accident which only came to pass because the U.S.S.R. was boycotting the U.N. at the time.
I guess none of the other military actions that have taken place in the world since 1945 have been justified.
Full list of coalition countries:
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
As for the U.N., when has it ever really worked? What has the U.N. ever been but a debating society? I was a little, and only a little, surprised to find out that the U.N. had only authorized the use of military force twice since its founding: during the Korean War and during the Gulf War. In fact authorization for the Korean War was an accident which only came to pass because the U.S.S.R. was boycotting the U.N. at the time.
I guess none of the other military actions that have taken place in the world since 1945 have been justified.
Full list of coalition countries:
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
- [WEF]Herr Renz
by [WEF]Herr Renz » Tue Mar 18, 2003 6:46 pm
Originally posted by Allister Fiend
You will see the hard evidence very soon.
Allister Fiend
the war starts in two days, the point is that we would like to have the "hard evidence" before you see... to keep it logical
and if there's hard evidence? why didn't they just telled it? it would be much better for them if everyone supported them with there "war" ...
- COL.BUKKAKE
by COL.BUKKAKE » Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:32 pm
[quote]Originally posted by [WEF]Herr Renz
the war starts in two days, the point is that we would like to have the "hard evidence" before you see... to keep it logical
and if there's hard evidence? why didn't they just telled it? it would be much better for them if everyone supported them with there "war" ... [/QUOTE
I really dont think it would matter to Belgium or France, if Saadam were top walk up and spray the chemicals on your PM's mothers ass.
By the way ask the Germans why they would send their top chemical and biological defense scientists to assist the USA in Iraq, since there arent any WMD to be afraid of.
the war starts in two days, the point is that we would like to have the "hard evidence" before you see... to keep it logical
and if there's hard evidence? why didn't they just telled it? it would be much better for them if everyone supported them with there "war" ... [/QUOTE
I really dont think it would matter to Belgium or France, if Saadam were top walk up and spray the chemicals on your PM's mothers ass.
By the way ask the Germans why they would send their top chemical and biological defense scientists to assist the USA in Iraq, since there arent any WMD to be afraid of.
- {AsB}CHARGED
by {AsB}CHARGED » Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:35 pm
guys you are totally forgetting the fact that thsi war was inevitable, it was just being prolonged for 12 years, and was escalating, without getting this taken care of, we'd all be in danger from saddam, their rich, they have weapons and they can attack. we need to jump on the ball. adn im trying to respect everyones opinions, but i hate hippies, stop being so peace loving, sometimes war is necessary
by bayotanzk » Wed Mar 19, 2003 12:04 am
Keekanoo,
We know the only way to win a conflict with an aggressor ( and that is what iraq is to the american people), is complete and total unconditional surrender. No terms what so ever. Worked with germany, though I believe the fellows on the western side were much happier than those on the eastern! Worked with japan, hell we wrote there constitution! Has not worked in north korea as current events clearly show.The world said it would not work in either country (fr, ger), over fifty years and going strong. All or none, it is the only real way, total submission!
We want this to end. One agressor at a time if necessary. The resolve and overwelming majority of Americans in support of this action is all that is necessary. Most do support! Once it starts, even more!!!
Now we all know that the current position of france, germany, russia, and the US has nothing to do with money or power. We want the madman stopped and the others may want to continue a business relationship. This will not be allowed. When the smoke clears and the sand cools off (after our massive weapons test ) and all the dirty laundry is laid out on the floor, we will know why the countries that opposed the United States did so with such conviction. They would not be selling any UN outlawed goods? I forgot, the UN has no power. We do. We will put an end to this. Will this end all terrorism? No. But to sit back and watch this nut gain more power and possibly get a nuke. Foolish.
The damage is done, politically. The UN is worthless. Nato a joke. Americans will not quickly forget those who turned their backs. We will forgive like most people do. It takes time. Many may not forgive or forget..
The true indicator will come in the near future. france depends on tourism for much of it's income. Not buying goods and products made in france is a start. 5 billion was spent last year on tourism in france by Americans. I believe this is acurate, if not it was a pile of money to say the least. I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that many Americans will travel there for vacation. We tend to travel to places friendly toward our country and people. I hear Spain, Italy, and the UK are great places and I have always thought that Denmark would be a nice place to vacation. Let's watch and see!!!!!!
We know the only way to win a conflict with an aggressor ( and that is what iraq is to the american people), is complete and total unconditional surrender. No terms what so ever. Worked with germany, though I believe the fellows on the western side were much happier than those on the eastern! Worked with japan, hell we wrote there constitution! Has not worked in north korea as current events clearly show.The world said it would not work in either country (fr, ger), over fifty years and going strong. All or none, it is the only real way, total submission!
We want this to end. One agressor at a time if necessary. The resolve and overwelming majority of Americans in support of this action is all that is necessary. Most do support! Once it starts, even more!!!
Now we all know that the current position of france, germany, russia, and the US has nothing to do with money or power. We want the madman stopped and the others may want to continue a business relationship. This will not be allowed. When the smoke clears and the sand cools off (after our massive weapons test ) and all the dirty laundry is laid out on the floor, we will know why the countries that opposed the United States did so with such conviction. They would not be selling any UN outlawed goods? I forgot, the UN has no power. We do. We will put an end to this. Will this end all terrorism? No. But to sit back and watch this nut gain more power and possibly get a nuke. Foolish.
The damage is done, politically. The UN is worthless. Nato a joke. Americans will not quickly forget those who turned their backs. We will forgive like most people do. It takes time. Many may not forgive or forget..
The true indicator will come in the near future. france depends on tourism for much of it's income. Not buying goods and products made in france is a start. 5 billion was spent last year on tourism in france by Americans. I believe this is acurate, if not it was a pile of money to say the least. I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that many Americans will travel there for vacation. We tend to travel to places friendly toward our country and people. I hear Spain, Italy, and the UK are great places and I have always thought that Denmark would be a nice place to vacation. Let's watch and see!!!!!!
486 dx 50 -32 megs ram -8 meg vid card -120 meg HD -14"vga monitor, dos 5.0
- Rule of Wrist
by Rule of Wrist » Wed Mar 19, 2003 12:14 am
I disagree that it would be "easy" to assasinate ol' Saddam.
First, the guy never stays in one place for more than one night. He has probably ten lookalikes to draw fire away from him. He has multiple underground complexes across the country to hide in that are self sustaining for long periods of time.
It would be possible to take him out using sophisticated intelligence and weapons. However, this would immediately mark it as an american operation. No one in Saddam's own country would be able to pull it off, and the world knows this.
This is the rub. Open assasination is not considered a viable method of conducting foreign policy in this country (the US)or throughout the world. Covert assasination is another story, but in this case, it would not be possible to make it look like somebody else or an act of god or something. A smart bomb isn't considered an act of god by most....
So the only other way to forcibly remove Saddam from power is to invade.
Keekanoo, I understand where you are going with your thoughts. It may be right for the US to act in this manner this time, but what about the next time? What if the next time involves no moral questions about whoever the US target is? This is a real danger.
The US people, I think, are not going to let something like that happen. I know where you will take this, that anybody can be lied to and propagandized(or that this has already happened).... but I think there are enough people in this country smart enough to know the difference, and that abuse of US power will be prevented.
First, the guy never stays in one place for more than one night. He has probably ten lookalikes to draw fire away from him. He has multiple underground complexes across the country to hide in that are self sustaining for long periods of time.
It would be possible to take him out using sophisticated intelligence and weapons. However, this would immediately mark it as an american operation. No one in Saddam's own country would be able to pull it off, and the world knows this.
This is the rub. Open assasination is not considered a viable method of conducting foreign policy in this country (the US)or throughout the world. Covert assasination is another story, but in this case, it would not be possible to make it look like somebody else or an act of god or something. A smart bomb isn't considered an act of god by most....
So the only other way to forcibly remove Saddam from power is to invade.
Keekanoo, I understand where you are going with your thoughts. It may be right for the US to act in this manner this time, but what about the next time? What if the next time involves no moral questions about whoever the US target is? This is a real danger.
The US people, I think, are not going to let something like that happen. I know where you will take this, that anybody can be lied to and propagandized(or that this has already happened).... but I think there are enough people in this country smart enough to know the difference, and that abuse of US power will be prevented.
- Sidekick Floppy
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:54 pm
- Location: Belgium
by Sidekick Floppy » Wed Mar 19, 2003 8:24 am
Originally posted by rust
Washington (com)Post Wed 3-19-03
71% in US back war:most in Europe opposed.
God Bless the troops.
I rather say:
God bless the casualties.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests