More innocent civilians will die. That gets me more than anything.
IRAQ invasion....yes or no
- Thread starter BurlyShirley
- Start date
Maybe if the US supported the UN it could function.
Well...the US would support the UN if they just did what they were told.
I think we can just close this debate now, you've summed up the problem in one sentence. (And I serously mean that.)Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well...the US would support the UN if they just did what they were told.
How about a UN resolution that everyone must do what the US says or else?
Im in favor of that resolution.
Anyway...this debate isnt over until we decide whether or not to invade Iraq...not that the UN is worthless...we already kind of knew that coming in.
Thing is, Iraq may have nukes and a leader insane enough to use them. Its our job, as leaders of the free world, to protect...and if we happen to get some oil on the way....so be it.
Word.
You are the guys that can make the UN worthwhile or not.
Likewise...
Thing is, the US does have nukes and a leader insane enough to use them.
Who gave you guys the job of leaders of the free world exactly?
Define the 'free world' ...
..and what a happy coincidence if you happen to get some oil on the way. 'S'funny how these happy coincidences occur so commonly for the US in it's role of defender of the free world I guess God really is on your side as Bob Dylan said...
When we say "defenders of the free world" it means we support democratic nations, or groups of people within those nations that are not democratic, but wish to be. We defend those who wish to be free. We gave ourselves that job when we became leaders of everything else in the world.
Spare me the "what is free" schpeal, because im basically saying anything not communist, and im sure you could point out a few discrepancies in that is well, but overall, we try to do good and there's been more good done then bad, so take it for what it is. Nobody can be perfect because power is corrupt at any level, its just that the US somehow either happens to have the least corruption, or manages its corrupt leaders pretty well...on the whole anyways.
GOD IS AN AMERICAN!
I think we Americans view it as something like the divine right of kings. I mean...essentially, we are in control. Im not religious by the way...im just speaking the common consensus.
About the nukes...well, at first glance...that argument could make some sense...but alas, its just kind of tacky. There are several nations that have nukes. We are ok with several of them, because (supposedly) we feel they will not use them for any type of personal gain, but rather as a last means of self defense...just as the US did in world war II.
Quick thought here, and I admit this may be very ignorant on my part....
People have asked "What gives the U.S. the right to decide who does and does not get to have nuclear weapons?"
I thought that was a United Nations sanction, not the U.S.
Am I wrong?
People have asked "What gives the U.S. the right to decide who does and does not get to have nuclear weapons?"
I thought that was a United Nations sanction, not the U.S.
Am I wrong?
Please stop. Please.Originally posted by BurlySurly
When we say "defenders of the free world" it means we support democratic nations, or groups of people within those nations that are not democratic, but wish to be. We defend those who wish to be free. We gave ourselves that job when we became leaders of everything else in the world.
Spare me the "what is free" schpeal, because im basically saying anything not communist, ...
GOD IS AN AMERICAN!
....but rather as a last means of self defense...just as the US did in world war II.
Especially stop using "we" because I truly hope the above doesn't represent all of "us" ("us" being all US citizens). "We" have NEVER acted as defender of the free world. "We" have always acted in our own interest (or at least what we believed to be our own interest). That meant defending those of similar ideology. Most of the time I believe that was a good thing, but let's not call it something it's not. Communism as it existed in the USSR and now exists in China is not freedom, but that doesn't mean that communism is inherently NOT free. Nor are republics and democracies imune from corruption and dictatorship. Somehow we find a way to support either if it serves our current interests.
And the use of the bomb in WWII was not a "last line" of self defense... it was the most efficient way we could think of to end the war quickly, given the Japanese mentality at the time. I will support it under that description... but f we truly valued Japanese civilian lives as much as we claim to value to lives of the world's civilians, we never EVER would have dropped those bombs.
I still believe that on the whole, as a net result, the USA has improved the condition of the world's people, BUT there is nothing divine about what we have done, and many things quite the opposite.
"We" the people of the United States have acted as defenders of the free world on numerous occasions that didnt serve any interest at all. This biggest example i can think of is World War II. It was defense...we gained nothing and lost lives.
I dont know how familiar you are with WWII, but if you can recall the reason we dropped those bombs was because Admiral Nimitz, among many others estimated that it would cost nearly 1 million allied lives to conduct an amphibious invasion of Japan. 1 million lives.
What we did was easily justified when you consider the consequences of what would have happened if we didnt do it. Do you know the numbers of Chinese that died? Ever hear of Pearl Harbor?
Also...what did we gain form Somalia? What did we gain from Afghanistan? Nothing...its defense, plain and simple.
When i say "we" i dont necessarily refer to everybody here, I am in the military myself, so i am with a large group of people that works towards Americas goals in one way or another.
Communism...is NOT free. Hear that? Whats free about it? Ive never heard of a Free communist state..and if there ever was one, it obviously didnt work out to well.
I didnt mean to sound disrespectful
its just that the above attitude sets me off.
What makes you think we werent serving our own interest in WWII? We sat back and watched the war rage on, hoping desperately it wouldnt involve us. We knew Jews were being enslaved and slaughtered, but we chose to ignore it. We ignored the extermination of 6 million innocent people not bad for the defenders of the free world. We finally got involved when we realized Hitler might win, and we knew if he conquered Europe he wasnt going to stop at the Atlantic. We got involved to protect ourselves and NO ONE else.
I never said I was opposed to the use of the A-bomb in WWII. As I said above, it was the most efficient means of ending the war. But Im not under any illusions as to why we used it. Was an invasion of Japan going to be necessary? What was the likelihood of Japan attacking the mainland US? We decided that 600,000 Japanese civilian lives were worth less than 1,000,000 allied military lives. I dont envy Truman having to make that decision, and I respect the decision he made, but I wont wear it as a badge that says we, the people, defended the free world.
As for Communism, I am a firm believer in Democracy but they are not mutually exclusive. One is an economic system and the other is a system of government. Free MARKET and communism are opposites, but have a look at an Israeli kibbutz and youll see that one can be free, democratic and communist. The problem is youre equating Communist States which are in fact Dictatorships with Communism. That being said, im also a pretty firm believer in a free market economy. I just get riled when people get their terms confused and label certain things inherently evil.
What makes you think we werent serving our own interest in WWII? We sat back and watched the war rage on, hoping desperately it wouldnt involve us. We knew Jews were being enslaved and slaughtered, but we chose to ignore it. We ignored the extermination of 6 million innocent people not bad for the defenders of the free world. We finally got involved when we realized Hitler might win, and we knew if he conquered Europe he wasnt going to stop at the Atlantic. We got involved to protect ourselves and NO ONE else.
I never said I was opposed to the use of the A-bomb in WWII. As I said above, it was the most efficient means of ending the war. But Im not under any illusions as to why we used it. Was an invasion of Japan going to be necessary? What was the likelihood of Japan attacking the mainland US? We decided that 600,000 Japanese civilian lives were worth less than 1,000,000 allied military lives. I dont envy Truman having to make that decision, and I respect the decision he made, but I wont wear it as a badge that says we, the people, defended the free world.
As for Communism, I am a firm believer in Democracy but they are not mutually exclusive. One is an economic system and the other is a system of government. Free MARKET and communism are opposites, but have a look at an Israeli kibbutz and youll see that one can be free, democratic and communist. The problem is youre equating Communist States which are in fact Dictatorships with Communism. That being said, im also a pretty firm believer in a free market economy. I just get riled when people get their terms confused and label certain things inherently evil.
I forgot: Afghanistan and Somolia
Afghanistan... please, we are saving our own asses. We put the Taliban in place because we thought they would protect our oil pipeline interests. We helped kill one of the few muslim societies in which 50% of the teachers and 40% of the doctors were women, so that it would be easier to get some crude. So we're now trying to right one of our wrongs. I don't think that's exactly defenders of the free world, or NOT self-interested. I also believe our current actions to be a good thing.
Somolia... to be honest, I don't know this one as well, but I can guarantee that we were there either because we were afraid of escalation, to protect our own image on the world's stage, or to put cooperative people in power. My point isn't that we do evil things... it's that everything we do, the ultimate goal is our benefit. That's the way it SHOULD be (when it's done with foresight)... but my nausea meter hits 10 when I hear people claim that we're some kind of martyrs.
Afghanistan... please, we are saving our own asses. We put the Taliban in place because we thought they would protect our oil pipeline interests. We helped kill one of the few muslim societies in which 50% of the teachers and 40% of the doctors were women, so that it would be easier to get some crude. So we're now trying to right one of our wrongs. I don't think that's exactly defenders of the free world, or NOT self-interested. I also believe our current actions to be a good thing.
Somolia... to be honest, I don't know this one as well, but I can guarantee that we were there either because we were afraid of escalation, to protect our own image on the world's stage, or to put cooperative people in power. My point isn't that we do evil things... it's that everything we do, the ultimate goal is our benefit. That's the way it SHOULD be (when it's done with foresight)... but my nausea meter hits 10 when I hear people claim that we're some kind of martyrs.
Dude,
You're getting me wrong.
I realize that in some way...everything we do is meant to be in our interest, but it isnt like we went in WWII as aggressors to capitalize off of the sitution....We were forced. Just like in Japan, we were kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place... in helping to defeat those countries....we defended the free world.
Your point about Afghanistan is well taken, as i was only speaking about our latest engagement, but still the fact stands...in the earlier conflict, that we were in one way or another combating the soviets...be it for oil rights or to stop the spread of a communist superpower...we kept the Afghans liberated...or at least we thought we did. Now even Michael Jordan misses a lay up from time to time, and the Taliban was a mistake, but what we've done now is for the better...i hope.
Is there even oil in Afghanistan?
Somalia was alot like the situation with good ole' Slobadan Milosevics(SP), basically a maniacal warlord was killing off thousands of people, and we stepped in to intervene....along with the rest of the UN. Somalia doesnt have any real resources for the US to capitalize off of, and there wasnt any real benefit to our being there, other than as a unique training opportunity for the military. We did a job there and left, sure it may have made us look good, but i dont think that was the motivation. In our role as the worlds police...we are expected to participate in such missions.
No Martyrs here.
You're getting me wrong.
I realize that in some way...everything we do is meant to be in our interest, but it isnt like we went in WWII as aggressors to capitalize off of the sitution....We were forced. Just like in Japan, we were kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place... in helping to defeat those countries....we defended the free world.
Your point about Afghanistan is well taken, as i was only speaking about our latest engagement, but still the fact stands...in the earlier conflict, that we were in one way or another combating the soviets...be it for oil rights or to stop the spread of a communist superpower...we kept the Afghans liberated...or at least we thought we did. Now even Michael Jordan misses a lay up from time to time, and the Taliban was a mistake, but what we've done now is for the better...i hope.
Is there even oil in Afghanistan?
Somalia was alot like the situation with good ole' Slobadan Milosevics(SP), basically a maniacal warlord was killing off thousands of people, and we stepped in to intervene....along with the rest of the UN. Somalia doesnt have any real resources for the US to capitalize off of, and there wasnt any real benefit to our being there, other than as a unique training opportunity for the military. We did a job there and left, sure it may have made us look good, but i dont think that was the motivation. In our role as the worlds police...we are expected to participate in such missions.
No Martyrs here.
For a different perspective on Somalia look here...
http://www.netnomad.com/hiddenagenda.html
or here
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/2002/0322somalia.htm
How can you (Burly Surly) enter a debate about US foreign policy with your high moral stance and then ask a question 'is there even oil in Afghanistan?' Have you actually looked into any of the issues?
With regard to Japan, one nuclear bomb I can accept as perhaps justified although there is a counter argument that it was a demostration for the benefit of the Soviets. The second bomb, dropped on civilians whilst the Japanese regime was seeking to find terms of agreement for surrender is highly questionable on moral grounds. There were certainly plenty of reasons to think that an invasion of mainland Japan would not be necessary, they were already a beaten nation and they knew it.
I guess it makes it easier for you to swallow the state department's propaganda whole but you are displaying an incredible level of naivety.
http://www.netnomad.com/hiddenagenda.html
or here
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/2002/0322somalia.htm
How can you (Burly Surly) enter a debate about US foreign policy with your high moral stance and then ask a question 'is there even oil in Afghanistan?' Have you actually looked into any of the issues?
With regard to Japan, one nuclear bomb I can accept as perhaps justified although there is a counter argument that it was a demostration for the benefit of the Soviets. The second bomb, dropped on civilians whilst the Japanese regime was seeking to find terms of agreement for surrender is highly questionable on moral grounds. There were certainly plenty of reasons to think that an invasion of mainland Japan would not be necessary, they were already a beaten nation and they knew it.
I guess it makes it easier for you to swallow the state department's propaganda whole but you are displaying an incredible level of naivety.
Nobody's answered my question though....
There is a UN resolution but the Dubya and his merry men think it is not tough enough. They seem more than a little disappointed that Saddam is doing his best to comply, outright defiance would give them the excuse and backing to go and get him.Originally posted by KrusteeButt
Nobody's answered my question though....
There's a little more to it than that but space is limited (here anyway).
I am trying to find a common ground to agree with you on here but "Saddam is doing his best to comply..." when? Now? Two years ago? Ten years ago? Saddam is not going to comply and never has attempted to seriously comply. The man is responsible for atrocitys that are truly evil. Nazi's and Saddam, two of a kind.
First...i dont have any real moral stance. I really dont have a stance...Im just kind of arguing.
About bombing the Japanese to impress the soviets...Yes, Ive heard that argument quite a bit. I dont know where you get this tainted info about Japan looking for terms of surrender before we bombed them though. From all ive read on WWII, it seems that the Japanese took even days after the bombs were dropped to surrender.
I dont know how you think that we could have just let them surrender without completely conquering that regime. I mean, to leave it in power would have most likely been a serious mistake. Either a full scale invasion, or the A bomb is what it would have taken to win the war to the end.
About oil in Afghanistan.. check this link...doesnt sound like much to fight for to me...although i am "incredibly naive"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html
I just want to add this little bit. During the Gulf War Iraq launched Scud missles at Isreal. Many of these missiles didn't hit their intended target, not because of our Patriot missiles but because their guidence systems were s#it. I mean if the government was worried about Iraqis buying Playstation 2 because the processors found within such systems were faster and more sophisticated than the computers they had...I doubt that we have to worry about them building an ICBM. Secondly materials and tools required to manufacture nuclear grade nuclear materials aren't something you can just buy at a corner store. The current state of technology and industry in Iraq does not allow them to build such tools/materials themselves and therefore must import them. But from who? Only a few sources have the capabilities to produce such equipment, and that equipment is closely monitored. I mean how does a company "lose" a multimillion dollar piece of equipment needed to enrich uranium?
On a side note...when was the last time you heard anything about Osama? Why is all the attention all of a sudden on Saddam?
Speaking on the side of "if's" IF Saddam has *****, well then we have to attack...
That's a whole lot of ifs....would you live your life by an if? IF I win the lottery tomarrow I wouln't have to work for the rest of my life....but I'm not going to quit my job just because of an "if".
Everyone on both sides raise a lot of good points. This is what a good discussion is about. But before you put ALL of the blame on Saddam (he is an evil man), also look to our own leaders. We gave him nearly EVERYTHING he has. Look at Noriega, he was this bad ass drug lord whom was on the CIA payroll, Al Quida....we trained them. Should we go to war? This is a moot point. What we should be doing is examining how these things start and address those points so that in 30 years another Saddam or Osama doesn't have the chance to fvck us.
Now whether what I have said is the TRUTH...I don't know if it is, neither do any of you people reading this...but I've looked at the evidence provided by both sides and I've come up with my own "truth". NONE of us can know what the real truth is unless we are Bush, Osama or Saddam. Like my sig says there's always 3 sides to a story, your side, their side, and the truth.
Ok, badly phrased...
What I meant was that given his position do you really expect him to roll over an give in completely? Any leader of a state is not going to be particularly forthcoming in terms of allowing instant access to any building in the land. How do you think the US or the UK would react in similar circumstances? Saddam knows that the US really want to nail him and he does not seem to want an invasion. He did comply with the original UN resolution (eventually) when the threat of war seems imminent but now that´s not good enough for the US who are looking to be able to breeze in and out of anywhere they want at any time, is it surprising that he´s dragging his feet?
That´s what I meant, he´s doing the best he can as Saddam Hussein given that he hates the west and sees them as a threat.
Slightly off topic but still relevant...
North Korea have just announced a nuclear weapons programme (which probably means they´re either already there or very close), do we have a UN resolution proposed against them? Or against Pakistan or India for that matter?
Whilst Saddam is not a man I would invite to dinner his regime is no less legitimate than many others (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan) that we are not proposing to invade. Why is that? Because he is not a US lapdog. That is what this is about. The US is not in any danger from Iraq directly.
The largest destabilising influence in the middle east is Isreal who receive an incredible amount of US aid both militarily and financially. Now I have no beef with the Isrealis but their policy on the Palistinians is appalling, so much so that members of their own armed forces are speaking out about the fact that is (in their opinion) illegal and they are refusing to partake in it any more.
All I ask to see is evidence of the Iraqi threat, rather than simple demonisation of one man. Give me that and I will reconsider my ´no´position.
North Korea have just announced a nuclear weapons programme (which probably means they´re either already there or very close), do we have a UN resolution proposed against them? Or against Pakistan or India for that matter?
Whilst Saddam is not a man I would invite to dinner his regime is no less legitimate than many others (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan) that we are not proposing to invade. Why is that? Because he is not a US lapdog. That is what this is about. The US is not in any danger from Iraq directly.
The largest destabilising influence in the middle east is Isreal who receive an incredible amount of US aid both militarily and financially. Now I have no beef with the Isrealis but their policy on the Palistinians is appalling, so much so that members of their own armed forces are speaking out about the fact that is (in their opinion) illegal and they are refusing to partake in it any more.
All I ask to see is evidence of the Iraqi threat, rather than simple demonisation of one man. Give me that and I will reconsider my ´no´position.
Those silly Brits are always misspelling words.
I say it's time for a "regime change".
Time for little George to finish the job the big George started.
Time for little George to finish the job the big George started.
I know I am not exactly P.C., but I will state my opinion anyway. Kill Saddam! F*@k the Arabs!
Most, not all, Arabs have zero value on life. Most would have no problem slitting anyone's, including other Arab's, throats for no reason at all! I spent a total of 3 years in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Most civilians have no idea of the cruelty that Arabs unleash. Remember, Islam is the only religion that if you kill innocent people, you go to heaven.
Palestine? I have a simple plan to solve that problem. Tell the Palestinians that they have 1 week to leave. Then after that time period, deport the women and kids, and then kill what's left!
The world would be a much better place without Muslims. No one wants to say it, but a lot of people think it.
Most, not all, Arabs have zero value on life. Most would have no problem slitting anyone's, including other Arab's, throats for no reason at all! I spent a total of 3 years in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Most civilians have no idea of the cruelty that Arabs unleash. Remember, Islam is the only religion that if you kill innocent people, you go to heaven.
Palestine? I have a simple plan to solve that problem. Tell the Palestinians that they have 1 week to leave. Then after that time period, deport the women and kids, and then kill what's left!
The world would be a much better place without Muslims. No one wants to say it, but a lot of people think it.
Thats not a very Christly thing to say.
Im sure that you feel this strongly for one reason or another, but while im in agreement with you about ousting Hussein, I cant say that we should get rid of all the Muslims. Yes, that would be Genocide and we'd be no better than the Nazis.
BurlySurly, your right. Genocide is not the RIGHT way to solve the Muslim problem. But what do you do? If you don't agree with MOST MUslims, they want you dead.
I never heard of a Jew going to Palestine and blowing up innocent children. Only Muslims and loonatics do that.
I never heard of a Jew going to Palestine and blowing up innocent children. Only Muslims and loonatics do that.
Well, there's no way to make this sound good, so I'll just make it very understandable.
I dislike anyone so stuck in a mindset and commited to a cause that they'll completely lose focus on enjoying life, just to prove some benign and useless point.
Vegans, Feminists, Muslims, Nuns, Southern Baptists, Catholics, Hindus, Hippies, Black Power Picketers, Confederates, Republicans, Rollerbladers, Cat lovers and Scientology freaks all piss me off.
I dont like such causes. I dont like people willing to die for them.....but alas....it is a part of life that we must deal with.....like Mosquitos and Poison Ivy. It does no good, its just there....We have to buy a repellent or a cure and learn to live with it.
I don't know where to begin addressing this... I'll give it a shot though.
"MOST Muslims..."
Is that figure based on statistics or experience? You are aware that Islam is practiced by hundreds of millions of people? More than Christianity or Judaism. You are saying that more than half of them would rather you be dad than alive...WRONG. Some Muslim extremists want you dead. A combination of oil money, and poorly organized governments (largely due to American puppetting and manipulation), and horrendous living conditions have allowed these extremists to organize better than say Neo-Nazis, and with a lot more anger to be mis-directed at Western civilians.
Lots of Palestinian children have been killed or murdered (depending on your perspective and the true facts that might never be known) in the last 30 years. Maybe not by suicide bombers, but their deaths were not an inevitable by-product of conflict. You think hundreds of Israeli soldiers are refusing postings in the occupied territories because they are afraid of extremists? Or because they are sick of beating down the innocent at the behest of an extremist government?
Please try to read the hypocrisy on your own statement.
Thats a bit fetched.....
There was violence and poverty in the middle east long before America got involved, and it'll probably be there long after America is gone.
Not to say we're really helping at all, but you cant say that its largely our fault.
i think some people should live in a occupied land for a while i bet their political views would change drasticly.
I would catagorise all those groups as people who just will not back off and enjoy their alleged enlightenment and leave me alone to enjoy my alleged enlightenment.
Now as far as Iraq, if Shrub is hell bent on doing it, he better finish the job, unlike his daddy Bush, who effed up the deal...
Oh, and we as a society should make darn sure the people who have the least power and resources are cared for in the aftermath...
Just the poorly organized government part is largely our fault. They might have better or worse government without us, but it's hard to say, as either we or the USSR have had a hand (sometimes a big one) in every regime that's come to power in the middle east in the last 60 years or so.
And before we were F-ing up the middle east, the europeans were having at it. The place was once the intellectual capitol of the world... now reduced to rubble. It's cheap and easy to blame it on Islam, but I don't believe that is a fair or accurate.
1. True, when exactly did the tide change?
2. I don't claim to be any expert on Islam, but the faith seems ripe for exploiting sexism and racism. That plays a big role in why the midlle east is as wacked as it is...And yes some people twist the Holy Bible around too, I know this, just not on such a wide spread damaging level as the Koran seems to be....
Wow, what a poor grasp of Islam you have.
And the Palestinian issue.
There's a lot of people who think the world would be a better place without the USA but that doesn't make it right.
Once again I am stunned by your statements. Did you know that Detroit has a higher infant mortality rate than Libya? Do you realise that Islam has an in-built welfare state that exceeds anything the West had prior to 1900? (And better than some have today?)
Once again I am stunned that you have brought yet another irrelevant point to this conversation.
All i said was that the US was not the immediate source of violence. How can you argue with that when you and the rest of the world know that the middle east has been in a constant state of war since long before the US was even created?
What the hell does that have to do with infant mortality rates in detroit?
That would be relevant to your poverty statement....
There has been violence throughout the world throughout history, something to do with human nature I guess.
Weapons of mass destruction certainly started with the US though. I take it you are aware that in terms of tonnage of explosive (i.e.relative to destructive capability) more bombs have been dropped on Iraq since the Kuwait invasion than were dropped on Germany in the second world war?
Outside of the two world wars the US has killed more people in military action than any other nation too (between 2 and 3 million in Vietnam alone depending on whose figures you prefer).
How's this for a proposition for you? The US acknowledges that the UN should be the policemen of the world and they (along with all others) turn over all their weapons of mass destruction to the UN where the security council can decide who should be bombed?
It is a pity that Ronald Reagan turned down Gorbachev's offer to completely eliminate nuclear weapons just a few years back. I guess it wouldn't do not to have a bigger stick than the other boys in the playground eh?
The short (incomplete) response to both 1 and 2: The Crusades.
To be honest, I do believe we need to invade Iraq. Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons is a scarier prospect than those same weapons in India, Pakistan, China, Israel, and even North Korea. But I find the precedent we're setting under the motivations of Bush Jr. terrible. I cannot imagine having a worse president given the current state of the world.