[Mr. ShockWave]

Originally posted by tubby
fourgivin1 said it well. i don't know of any country who's government is completely concerned about the good of all, that would defeat the purpose of government. the people elect officials to oversee the management of the country, thus any outside interest that would affect the economy or welfare of it's citizens falls into the governments area of concern. for instance, the gulf war was over who controlled the oil, can you imagine if saddam had gained control over the oil wells of the saudi region! we'd all be paying the price for that. now, we're considering going back over there, not for oil this time but for our own safety. those that believe it's none of our business to be over there will soon realize that if we don't make it our business, saddam will but it will be after much loss has occurred.
sorry, that was a bit off topic...anyway....
my point is, no governmental action will ever be totally non-self serving but that doesn't mean that it's always totally selfish.

Mmmmm, but is it not to your concearn that there is all this bull**** about safety for terrorism, and that needs to be stopped, but the person that they say was guilty of the attacks at 11 sept still is not caught, and frankly there is not much talk about getting him anymore, but more about getting others, Saddam now, but who does follow?? Iran? Somalia? help the russians at Chechnya or what I just red at CNN in Georgia?.
Or will he then go on thasing Osama Bin Laden??

Where would you bet your money........

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Mr. ShockWave

Mmmmm, but is it not to your concearn that there is all this bull**** about safety for terrorism, and that needs to be stopped, but the person that they say was guilty of the attacks at 11 sept still is not caught, and frankly there is not much talk about getting him anymore, but more about getting others, Saddam now, but who does follow?? Iran? Somalia? help the russians at Chechnya or what I just red at CNN in Georgia?.
Or will he then go on thasing Osama Bin Laden??

Where would you bet your money........

Yeah terrorism bothers me but terrorism and Iraq are only linked indirectly. Unless we realise why the terrorists exist and why they target certain nations getting rid of people like Bin Laden only inconveniences them. After all would the war on terrorism stop if George Bush was assasinated? I expect it would be pursued more diligently and with more support.

My original point was to refute a suggestion that the US government acts for the best interests of the world as one poster implied. I don't think that the US acts against the interests of the rest of the world at all times or that it completely ignores the needs of the rest of the world, it just seemed that some people here were rather blinkered in their view of their own goverment.

As for my money? I wouldn't bet it on a manhunt for Bin Laden, strategically that would not achieve that much, the removal of Saddam would achieve much more (albeit a more risky policy but if they could pull it off...). Bin Laden will make a convenient bogey-man for years to come, keep him on the run and restrict the damage he can do and the US gov is almost better off with him alive than dead, why spend millions trying to kill him?

 

[Mr. ShockWave]

Originally posted by fluff
As for my money? I wouldn't bet it on a manhunt for Bin Laden, strategically that would not achieve that much, the removal of Saddam would achieve much more (albeit a more risky policy but if they could pull it off...). Bin Laden will make a convenient bogey-man for years to come, keep him on the run and restrict the damage he can do and the US gov is almost better off with him alive than dead, why spend millions trying to kill him?

Has Saddam then done any damage to the US?? no.
why then spend millions on killing one man (and his army, but that is an side effect)

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Mr. ShockWave

Has Saddam then done any damage to the US?? no.
why then spend millions on killing one man (and his army, but that is an side effect)

I wasn't advocating it, just saying what I think George will want to do next. After all I seriously doubt that he's not going in there in one form or another.

Has Saddam done damage to the US? I have no evidence of it but it does some possible that he has indirectly assisted others to do so.

 

[Mr. ShockWave]

Originally posted by fluff
I wasn't advocating it, just saying what I think George will want to do next. After all I seriously doubt that he's not going in there in one form or another.

I know you didn't advocate it, but still it is an pursuit of just one man.

Originally posted by fluff
Has Saddam done damage to the US? I have no evidence of it but it does some possible that he has indirectly assisted others to do so.[/B]

okay, but then Bush has to pursuit Saoudi Arabia also, they also fund terrorists and even a lot of terrorists come from Saoudi Arabia, Look for that at Osama Bin Laden, he had a lot of Saoudies under his command in Afganistan, and still has, he him self is also an Saoudi , being outcasted from his family that is....

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Mr. ShockWave


I know you didn't advocate it, but still it is an pursuit of just one man.

okay, but then Bush has to pursuit Saoudi Arabia also, they also fund terrorists and even a lot of terrorists come from Saoudi Arabia, Look for that at Osama Bin Laden, he had a lot of Saoudies under his command in Afganistan, and still has, he him self is also an Saoudi , being outcasted from his family that is....

Well I don't think we're that much in disagreement on many ways. It is the inconsistency in the US approach to oppressive regimes that we are both highlighting. That in turn points to the dishonesty inherent in justifying decisions on moral grounds when you apply that morality selectively and to your own ends.

Some posters seem to think that the US wishes to depose Saddam Hussein for the benefit of the Iraqi people or for the defence of democracy and freedom worldwide when the reasons are purely for the USA's own interests.

I would like to see a lot more honesty in stating reasons and motivation.

 

[fourgivn1]

On that I think pretty much everyone can agree......this is for sure.

HOWEVER......I WILL say that selective application of morality to conflicts in the past, doesn't mean that we should be unable to pursue action against anyone, ever. I know you aren't implying this...just wanted to put it out there.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by fluff


So you and I agree that the US government is motivated by self-interest and not the good of all?

And in case you forget the US subsidised the USSR to the tume of millions of dollars whilst the USSR were fighting against US-supplied freedom fighters in Afghanistan. That would appear to be a clear case of self-defeating conflict of interest but in fact was exactly what was desired, a war that neither side were able to win. All in the name of US self interest.

But you all knew that already yes?

Look at it from our perspective, yeah we pumped a ton of money into both sides of that thing, but it weakend the heck out of the USSR in the long run.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by MMike
Thank you!

But to read some of the other posts here, you swear that the entire US gov't and miltary should be up for sainthood.

I dunno. I would just be satisfied to hear a few of the people here just admit that their gov't and military weren't perfect. No-one....(ok maybe one person), thinks that the US has never done any good for the world. But it's pretty freaking naive to spout off that they ONLY do good....and are the ONLY ONES IN THE WORLD who have done good. That gets pretty tiresome and frustrating for those in the rest of the world.

To follow True's "I love it when people ignorant of a particular subject making sweeping statements about it"....it will never cease to amuse me how some people say that this is the greatest country to live in, when this is the ONLY country they've ever lived in. So then how would you know?

I'll be the first to admit that this country is flawed in a lot of ways. But having worked in more countrys than I care to count I can safely say that with very few exceptions this beats the alternative.

 

[Damn True]

....and there is a very direct link between Hussein and terror groups. There have been and are training facilities in Iraq, it has been proven that he has not only harboured them but supported them with equipment, money, visa's etc. Then we have that little matter of chem/bio weapons that he could easilly put in to the hands of a group of ner-do-wells.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True




Look at it from our perspective, yeah we pumped a ton of money into both sides of that thing, but it weakend the heck out of the USSR in the long run.

I have to admit to a weakness in that I would tend to look at a war from the perspective of the people involved in it, particularly those caught in the middle. I bet they would have been over the moon to know the damage they were doing to the economy of the USSR. Did they ever get paid for their help?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True
....and there is a very direct link between Hussein and terror groups. There have been and are training facilities in Iraq, it has been proven that he has not only harboured them but supported them with equipment, money, visa's etc. Then we have that little matter of chem/bio weapons that he could easilly put in to the hands of a group of ner-do-wells.

I guess it would be unwise to mention NORAID?

 

[Skookum]

As always i submit my views, without qualification or much knowledge.
When the U.S. participated in the last Iraqi war, i viewed it as being a war for financial interests from the gate regardless of what American media bombarded us with. There were many people I knew that agreed. When we left after liberating Kuwait and leaving the tribes of the north to die, it confirmed it historically. Ok that's our track record here.
Now when we have planes slam into the twin towers not simply destroying thousands of lives it shook the economy and not only our way of life, but that of many countries who now critisize us as well. It's a different ball game now, the war against terrorism is genuine to me for the reason that if the United States or any other allied nation gets a nuclear scud planted in there capitol, that will throw the entire world into a chaos that will rival the last 2 world wars.
Whatever the United States primary or secondary motivations into a war(which in and of itself is never a valiant thing, isnt supposed to be really) I'm put off by the skeptisism of others. America has more room for idealism than what some may think. But for this moment right now what's the point of our nation to say, "Hey you know, the world is right we're a bunch of self-righteous greedy pigs, and we really need to stall our actions to give time for some soul searching and study our motivations." Meanwhile Saddam puts the final touches on his Nuclear Scud.
If the buildings on fire and we push you out of the way to get to the hose, don't expect us to apologize.

 

[Damn True]

In ref to the "Last Iraqi war" we have not left the Kurds to die. We continued to, and still do enforce a "no fly zone" in Kurdistan preventing, or at least diminishing Husseins ability to impact those peoples lives in a negative way. Additionally our presance is protecting the UN convoys coming in from the north to bring aid to the Kurds.

 

[Mr. ShockWave]

Originally posted by Damn True
In ref to the "Last Iraqi war" we have not left the Kurds to die. We continued to, and still do enforce a "no fly zone" in Kurdistan preventing, or at least diminishing Husseins ability to impact those peoples lives in a negative way. Additionally our presance is protecting the UN convoys coming in from the north to bring aid to the Kurds.

but this "no fly zone" does not protect the Kurds from gas attacts, that were brought in by trucks....

so this protection is kinda nice but does not work that well.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Mr. ShockWave

but this "no fly zone" does not protect the Kurds from gas attacts, that were brought in by trucks....

so this protection is kinda nice but does not work that well.

Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick no?

All part of the mandate from (some peoples) precious UN

It's all that can be done in a soverign country. It's kinda hard to just occupy the joint.

 

[Mr. ShockWave]

we did it in Bosnia, Somalia, and other places, why not there

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Mr. ShockWave
we did it in Bosnia, Somalia, and other places, why not there

Because an "on the ground occupation" was a part of those UN accords. Not the case in Iraq. Are you asking us to stop following UN mandate?

Geez I sometimes wish we could.

 

[mikec918]

Originally posted by Mr. ShockWave

but this "no fly zone" does not protect the Kurds from gas attacts, that were brought in by trucks....

so this protection is kinda nice but does not work that well.

The Gas attacks on the Kurds occured in 1988 not after the War with Iraq
Bush I erged the IRAQI's to revolt and when they did we did nothing to support them. It was only when the Kurds became a problem for the Turks that we went in under Operation Provide Comfort in May of 1991. To provide Humanitarin Assitance. The no fly zones were established later.

 

[Mr. ShockWave]

well the mandate could be extended to that, but they didn't for some reason.

and also bush would like to strike saddam alone

 

[Damn True]

Just out of curiosity. In the esteemed opinions of non citizens: Has the United States done ANYTHING right in the past say.....100 years?

 

[slein]

i think it all started after the war or 1812

you guys were the first to think of everything, have done everything better, and will always be better.

how's that for placation?

 

[MMike]

Originally posted by slein
i think it all started after the war or 1812

you guys were the first to think of everything, have done everything better, and will always be better.

how's that for placation?

I'm torn between whether fire or the wheel was their best invention........

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by MMike


I'm torn between whether fire or the wheel was their best invention........

I thought is was a Canadian that invented the wheel? Though not much has happend since. .......and of course the wheel was NORTH SHORE APPROVED!

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by MMike
I'm torn between whether fire or the wheel was their best invention........

No, I think freedom is our most impressive mantlepiece.

Note for the clueless: I'm joking.

 

[MMike]

Originally posted by Toshi

No, I think freedom is our most impressive mantlepiece.

Note for the clueless: I'm joking.

I think you're forgetting about "soap on a rope".

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by MMike
I think you're forgetting about "soap on a rope".

I'd come up with a snappy retort, but instead I must instead just admit that you are correct. Soap on a rope is the ultimate achievement of humans. Not just of humans, even. Of AMERICANS.

 

[MMike]

Originally posted by Toshi

I'd come up with a snappy retort, but instead I must instead just admit that you are correct. Soap on a rope is the ultimate achievement of humans. Not just of humans, even. Of AMERICANS.

I win. I will now delete the thread........

 

[narlus]

Originally posted by Toshi

I'd come up with a snappy retort, but instead I must instead just admit that you are correct. Soap on a rope is the ultimate achievement of humans. Not just of humans, even. Of AMERICANS.

no way. the floating widget stands tall over the landscape of inventions.

guinness in a can, which is actually good? C'MON!!!!

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True
Just out of curiosity. In the esteemed opinions of non citizens: Has the United States done ANYTHING right in the past say.....100 years?

Yeah I'd say one or two things.

In terms of foreign policy (which after all is how most non citizens are affected by the US), wasn't the league of nations the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson?

The Marshall plan for the rebuilding of European nations trashed by WW2 (mainly Germany) was also pretty good.

GPS is rather handy (not really a foreign policy but it's nice that you guys let everyone else use it, of course you probably just want us all to rely on it so that you can get us lost when it suits you!)

In your opinion DT, what has the US done wrong in terms of foreign policy in the last 100 years or so?

(And who here knows who the USA was in an arms race with between 1920 and 1936?)

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by fluff

In your opinion DT, what has the US done wrong in terms of foreign policy in the last 100 years or so?

I'm not DT, but for the record, I don't spend time thinking about what we've done wrong....I sort of figured you'd let us know, fluff.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


I'm not DT, but for the record, I don't spend time thinking about what we've done wrong....I sort of figured you'd let us know, fluff.

Cop out!

The reason I asked the question is that the debate seems to have polarised around the question of whether the US is good or bad and that is is wholly one or the other. I can see that the US is not wholly bad I just want to see if others can also see that it is not without its flaws.

Examining any nation's foreign policy will generally lead to less than ideal results.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by fluff


Cop out!

So?

Originally posted by fluff

The reason I asked the question is that the debate seems to have polarised around the question of whether the US is good or bad and that is is wholly one or the other. I can see that the US is not wholly bad I just want to see if others can also see that it is not without its flaws.

Examining any nation's foreign policy will generally lead to less than ideal results.

Yeah I see your point, and while my posts may imply otherwise, trust me, I DO NOT think the US can do no wrong.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


So?

Oh, if you agree with me than that's fine!

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by fluff


Oh, if you agree with me than that's fine!

Haha! It's only if we disagree that you'll beat us into submission.

My argument was never that we could do no wrong. My argument lies with people who say there is NO (as in NONE) justification in pursuing punitive action of ANY sort against Iraq because there's 'no proof.' Just because the public doesn't see proof doesn't always mean there exists no proof. That's why classifications and clearances exist. Granted, I am not for an all-out war against Iraq, and I admit the US is self-serving at times. But then again, so is pretty much every other nation, and if we do NOTHING (in other words, if we turn the other cheek then we really WILL be in trouble.

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by fluff
who here knows who the USA was in an arms race with between 1920 and 1936?

hmm, which country was it? Japan was building up her military, but the US was hardly in a race with her...

 

[fourgivn1]

I was going to say either Russia or Japan, but like Toshi said, we weren't exactly in a 'race' or so I thought. I'm probably way off.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


But then again, so is pretty much every other nation, and if we do NOTHING (in other words, if we turn the other cheek then we really WILL be in trouble.

http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=88

Actually if you check the above you guys are fairly safe for now. I wouldn't feel so secure if I were in Isreal though.

It is mostly speculation or the word of politicians. That's not proof in my eyes. (Although we have seen use of some of this stuff.)

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by fluff


http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=88

Actually if you check the above you guys are fairly safe for now. I wouldn't feel so secure if I were in Isreal though.

Gee, and why is that?

It is mostly speculation or the word of politicians. That's not proof in my eyes. (Although we have seen use of some of this stuff.)

You mean you don't *GASP* take all politicians at their WORD??? Surely you jest. We're agreed 100% on that one.

BTW...you heard of StratFor? (www.stratfor.com) They're somewhat the same as IISS. I'm about to renew my subscription to them....they're a tad cheaper than IISS, it would seem, however. Although not 'cheap' though.

 

[fourgivn1]

I got one more post than fluff!!



(At least until he posts again. )