Fixation on Casualties and Collateral Damage?

Kraut

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
0
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
This is a selfish war. It's not the first.
Yes, I totally agree, this is not about fighting terrorism or WMDs or bringing peace and democracy to the poor Iraquis, this comming war has only one purpose, strengthen the US position in the middle east and thereby securing the middle east oil for the US. But will you achieve what you want? Is this war really in your nations best interest ? I dont think so. Why ?

Well, Bushs whole blind running towards war is destroying more than you want to preserve. You are going to war no matter what the UN says ? That'll greatly weaken the UN and thereby a politcal instrument that was used successfully by the US over the last few decades to influence world policy and strengthen their position. Not even will you lose this tool of influence but also managed to reactivate the old picture of America, the Cowboy nation that selfishly goes his way no matter what. You are wondering why there is so much hate towards the US in the world, why ppl burn your flag or even steer planes into your buildings ? I can tell you, that's not because ppl envy you and your wealth or hate your religion but because of the way America treats other nations. Your current actions in Iraq are so obviously selfish that you'll only increase the hate. And it is this hate that threatens Americas security, not some foreign government because your military is so strong that you must fear no attack. But your military can't protect you from the hate ppl feel, have a look at the Israelian/Palestinians problem, Israel has a vastly superiour military force but does this military protects its citizen ?? No, it can prevent a military attack by hostile nations but it can't prevent the terror that comes from hate.

It's the same now, you try to use your military to protect yourselv from the hate so many ppl in the world feel towards you but all you'll achieve is to produce more hate. THAT is the real threat for your security, not the abstract threat of Saddam in the middle east. Has Saddam the power to forcefully gain control over the middle east ? No, not now and probably not in 10 years even if the sanctions would be lifted. Has Saddam the power to gain control over the middle east by political measures ? No, the gulf states are far to selfish and dont trust each other, I can't see them unite similar to the EU to form a strong coalition. Does foreign nations and their increasing influence in the middle east are a threat to the US ?? Not in the near future and everything else is highly speculative. So there is no threat to US national interest in the middle east right now and therefor no need to go to war. This war will only increase the danger for your nation, and the short term advantage of a better strategic position in the gulf will be more than compensated by the increased isolation of the US in the world. So you have only very little to gain but potentially much to loose.
 

Cheetah772

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
316
Reaction score
0
Location
Silver Spring, MD
Country
llUnited States
Kraut

Hello Kraut,

Don't blame America for all troubles the world has witnessed in the last few decades.

The UN organization is an inefficient one, and already weakened by infighting more than America could have possibly done to the UN. The UN does not have willingness to express the necessity of using the military action to disarm Saddam effectively nor it does have any real political clout.

America is a superpower and does not need to bow before the UN and various organizations in its guest for more power or better protection from the threats of this world. Suppose your country, Germany, had become undisputed superpower in the world, I can freely guarantee you that your country will not bow before UN either.

I doubt any country that has political clout or military power would ever bow before the UN, it's just a political tool used by the nations to try keep America on its leash, nothing or less. You may accuse us of using the UN to push through action, fine with me, I don't care, because it is about America's national interests, not UN.

Deltapooh is right, we do have national interests at stake, and this may be about WMDs, but in long term, it's much more than that.

It is amazing to me that you will surrender your sovergeinty to a world organization without any real questions. Unlike you, I believe in the very nature of individualism, and that is what made America great in my eyes.

Don't blame Israelis for being unable to protect themselves from the hatred of Arabs, it is the Arabs who are responsible for this mess alone. Israelis won the wars fair and square, yet, the Arabs and Palestinians want to destroy the very existence of Israel, this is unacceptable. Don't you get it, Kraut? The Palestinians are not just rooting for independence, they are rooting for the destruction of Israel,and obviously, Israel cannot allow that to happen. It is the Palestianians who must stop sending suicide-bombers into malls and universities in Israel.

Have you ever seen Israelis preempting the Palestinians with military action? No? Of course, there may be assassinations here and there, but I am talking about a general or mass military action, have you ever seen Israelis taken preemptive measures? No? No? Why? Because Israelis does not want to blow this up any more than already is necessary. Israelis are merely reacting to the measures taken by the Palestinians.

It is the Palestinians' fault alone.

Dan
 

arkai88

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Location
Eastern USA
Country
llUnited States
I'm not sure why some of you still continue to debate this same topic again and again. The chances that the European members of this forum will change their mind or their stance on a war in Iraq are pretty slim, probably about the same as most of us in the US changing our opinion.

Especially with Marko, I would have thought that you all had learned that he would say his grandmother was Hitler if he knew it would offend some of us in here and 'get our goats' so to speak.

I understand the desire to debate, but this simply has become the same thread over and over again with simply a different thread title. Just my 2c though - I now turn you back to the fun....
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
Kraut, I recognize your government has an agenda that differs from my own, and I respect that. It's why I am critical of Bush and Rumsfield's statements about Europe. However, your country's motives are just as selfish, twisted, and deadly as Bush's. Your country is not the voice of reason. Europe is not the center for everything moral.

Whether you realize it or not, your government, and those of your neighbors have agendas of their own. The benefits of not going to war and lifting the sanctions are clear. If the US wants cheap oil, there are better, less risky methods to go about it. So that argument is baseless, and outrageous.

There is no good right answer Kraut. Your call for tolerance and time is less risky for "you" and your country, not mind and the Iraqis. We can both post logical scenarios of positive, and negative outcomes for doing one thing or the other. I don't dismiss yours. And I urge you not to simply dismiss mine.

The way I see it, your path will get my country into a war. The only difference will be the date listed in the history books.

Europe, nor the US have the answers. Europe, nor the US care about the Iraqi people. Each are pursuing agendas that is in the best interest of their nations. So the ideal that Europe the glorious entity who wishes to bring peace and harmony through reasonable discussions is simply outrageous. Your government is playing it just as dirty as mine.
 

Kraut

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
0
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
Re: Kraut

Originally posted by Cheetah772
The UN organization is an inefficient one, and already weakened by infighting more than America could have possibly done to the UN. The UN does not have willingness to express the necessity of using the military action to disarm Saddam effectively nor it does have any real political clout.
The UN is no US policy aproval club, just because the majority of the nations presented in the UN does not aprove the US policy doesn't render them useless! The UN, in its final stage yet a long way down the road, could some day be the democratic world government and as in every democracy one voice cant dominate all others because thats a dictatorship.
As today you might see the UN as a debate club but this debate club represents the opinion of the worlds nations. It doesn't help your case if you ignore their opinion just because you don't like them. The fact that most nations does not see enough reason to go to war doesn't mean that they are not willing to use military force but that they don't see the need to use military force. That is a BIG difference !

America is a superpower and does not need to bow before the UN and various organizations in its guest for more power or better protection from the threats of this world. Suppose your country, Germany, had become undisputed superpower in the world, I can freely guarantee you that your country will not bow before UN either.
...nor does the rest of the world needs to bow before the US! If you want to get some you have to give some, if you try to go 100% your way without the willingness to form compromises don't be surprised if there is resistance!

It is amazing to me that you will surrender your sovergeinty to a world organization without any real questions. Unlike you, I believe in the very nature of individualism, and that is what made America great in my eyes.
Were is the problem ?? You have since long 'surrendered' your individual rights to democracy ! You are just one of 200 million americans that elected your current government, you personally have absolutely no influence on the current policy of your government.

Don't blame Israelis for being unable to protect themselves from the hatred of Arabs, it is the Arabs who are responsible for this mess alone. Israelis won the wars fair and square, yet, the Arabs and Palestinians want to destroy the very existence of Israel, this is unacceptable. Don't you get it, Kraut? The Palestinians are not just rooting for independence, they are rooting for the destruction of Israel,and obviously, Israel cannot allow that to happen. It is the Palestianians who must stop sending suicide-bombers into malls and universities in Israel.

Have you ever seen Israelis preempting the Palestinians with military action? No? Of course, there may be assassinations here and there, but I am talking about a general or mass military action, have you ever seen Israelis taken preemptive measures? No? No? Why? Because Israelis does not want to blow this up any more than already is necessary. Israelis are merely reacting to the measures taken by the Palestinians.

It is the Palestinians' fault alone.

Dan [/B]
Well, I disagree, it's not the palestinians or israels fault alone, both sides are responsible for the mess they are in and both have to agree on some compromis to finaly live in peace together.

This is a hell of a complex crisis, and befor you blame all on the palestinians you have to remember that they once owned the land that is now Israel, how would you react if some Japanese settlers land in Los Angeles and declare the east coast of the USA as new Japan and that all Americans have to leave their hoeses to make room for the new arriving japanese families ?? Would you accept it ? I bet not.

Israel has a right to exist, I don't deny that, but the Palestinians have the equal right to live in their own country and as long as this basic requirement is not meat there is no chance for peace.

Have you ever seen Israelis preempting the Palestinians with military action? No? Yes, of course, just right now Israel is planing to re-occupie the gaza territory to prevent further attacks by Hamas. Thats preemtive. I know that the Israelis will argue that they are only reacting to terror acts and the Palestinians will use this occupation as reason for more terror acts. So both sids are only reacting because of the other sides moves... this is a neverending story.

If you really want to find somebody who is responsible for the current mess I'd say it's Sharon. His visit to the Tempelberg started the still ongoing Intifada, it was a cold calculated move, he knew how humiliating this was to the palestinians.

But just looking for culprits won't get us anywhere this conflict cant be resolved by force but only by talk.
 

Kraut

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
0
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
Originally posted by Deltapooh
Kraut, I recognize your government has an agenda that differs from my own, and I respect that. It's why I am critical of Bush and Rumsfield's statements about Europe. However, your country's motives are just as selfish, twisted, and deadly as Bush's. Your country is not the voice of reason. Europe is not the center for everything moral.

Whether you realize it or not, your government, and those of your neighbors have agendas of their own. The benefits of not going to war and lifting the sanctions are clear. If the US wants cheap oil, there are better, less risky methods to go about it. So that argument is baseless, and outrageous.
I can't see why Germanys position should be selfish, our position is to disarm Iraq if he still has WMDs and to control that he doesn't aquire WMDs. There are no talks about lifting the sanctions so all we want to achieve is a peacfull solution, there are no gains for germany here.
And I didn't said that you want cheap oil (you already have it, if I'm not mistaken you get your oil from Saudi Arabia a lot cheeper than other nations) but I said that you want to secure the oil regions for the future to ensure that the oil is flowing, to break the OPEC control, to secure your strategic position in the middle east.
The US clearly sees Saudi Arabia as a not very reliable oil country, a revolution is not too unlikely and would probably bring a not US-frindly government to the top, together with the troubles in Venecuela the possibilities of a new oil crisis in the near future is very real, that would increas the oil price dramatically and the reduction of the oil production could even be used as a weapon against the oil dependant western industries. That's why the US want to have a firm stand in the middle east and thereby control over the oil, even if they dont want to "steal" it (they said that the oil remains the property of the iraqui ppl), its enough to ensure that the status quo remains.


The way I see it, your path will get my country into a war. The only difference will be the date listed in the history books.

Europe, nor the US have the answers. Europe, nor the US care about the Iraqi people. Each are pursuing agendas that is in the best interest of their nations. So the ideal that Europe the glorious entity who wishes to bring peace and harmony through reasonable discussions is simply outrageous. Your government is playing it just as dirty as mine.
That you have to explain: why does a peacefull disarment of Iraq will get your country to war with Iraq?
Iraq will never declare war on the US, not even if they had nuclear weapons and long range missiles because there would be nothing to gain from that and a war has always a purpose, Saddam is no idiot and bombing the USA with nothing to gain but the nuclear retalliation strike is veeeery stupid. Thats why the cold war worked, neither side had anything to gain from a war because the answer would be nuclear.
Would Iraq be a potential danger for his neighbors ?? I don't think so, not even with the sanctions lifted. As I said, you only go to war if you expect to gain something from it. Saddam attacked Kuwait because he though he would get away with it. Now he knows he cant so he won't repeat his mistake. It s absolutely clear to him that any attack by him would have an immediately reaction so he wont attack in the first place. Plain and simple.
There will be no new Gulf War if not started by the USA !
 

Wolfe Tone

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Country
llIreland
Tiberius: re

‘Then they either didn't vote for the sanctions or by voting for the sanctions they were not responsible for the thousands of civilian deaths.’

The sanctions were imposed by the UN just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. At the time that might have made some sense but it is the US and to lesser extent Britain who have lobbied to keep them up. Ireland too voted in favour along with just about everyone else so we too are morally culpable.

Deltapooh, re
‘Most European nations are saying "so what Saddam has WMDs, let him, when he does something evil, then we'll address it." Does that sound like a population of caring people.’

Yes it does. If Saddam invades or attacks his neighbors again, then the world through the UN can address the problem then, I suggest through direct military assistance to the country that is attacked. I would support that. Is that not happened with Kuwait? However with the Iran-Iraq war it was the other way round with most of the major western powers backing the aggressor ( Iraq)…..strange world we live in!

Re
I don't see Europeans as anything more than selfish people who are willing to sacrifice people like me. If your government evaluates your foreign policy to promote and ensure America's well-being every day (sometimes it's important), then you should clean political house.

I don’t agree, most Europeans, esp. France and Germany + Russia know only too well how bad wars are. Its driven into their historical memory like a modern ‘Black Death’ experience. Most other European countries have seen wars in their own countries in the 20th century and major parts of their respective populations have therefore developed deep inhibitions against their governments launching wars on other countries. It’s not that wars have not been fought by European nations but these have usually been in areas where the location of the conflict has been considered part of their own territory, ie Britain’s wars in the Falklands/Malvinas, Northern Ireland/Six Counties, Russia’s war in Chechnya, France in Algeria etc.

Nobody wants to sacrifice you Deltapooh, the vast majority of people around the world are not anti American, they are pro American, for a lot of different reasons. But its not an open ended friendship. It’s a two way street. Like give something, get something in return. Look when 9/11 happened what was the world wide reaction? An outpouring of sympathy and grief from around the world for America. So you see you have plenty of friends, so don’t knock them. However the policy being pursued now by Washington is playing havoc with that…where will it all end? OBL is having a good laugh, that’s for sure!

Re
I hope I didn't come off harsh. Sorry if I did.

Yeah me too…..honestly no offense meant. If I did I apologize. Hey it’s a discussion board…..there’s no point coming here and agreeing with each other all the time!
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
I can't see why Germanys position should be selfish, our position is to disarm Iraq if he still has WMDs and to control that he doesn't aquire WMDs. There are no talks about lifting the sanctions so all we want to achieve is a peacfull solution, there are no gains for germany here.

First, Kraut, Germany wants to protect it's trade status with Iraq. Should war not occur, Saddam Hussein will certainly continue to look favorably on your country. If it does go forward, and go to crap in the long run, Germany has deniably for the people's plight, again, protecting it's status. I highly doubt Germany is willing to maintain the sanctions for very long given their previous efforts to secure contracts for Iraqi oil.

Secondly, I doubt Germany is willing to commit to the almost indefinite disarmament and containment operation. Even if Saddam complied fully with UN resolutions, one would still have reason to worry. Permanent disarmament will only occur if Saddam changes his view on WMDs. That means he must believe they are fatal to regime and serve little purpose. Given all the fuss we're making over them, I highly doubt he would believe that. Thus, a indefinite monitoring and containment effort would be required. I certainly would not support the situation.

Kraut, Weapons of Mass Destruction alone is not the issue. If it were, the US should be dealing with North Korea and China, not worrying about Iraq. Saddam must change his views and behavior. As Collin Powell stated, regime change would occur if Saddam fully complied with UN resolutions. If he gave up the weapons on his own, the US would have no choice, but to wait. Instead of laying the weight of burden on Iraq, the world has conveniently demanded the US provide evidence Saddam has WMDs.

If Germany chooses to believe Iraq has complied, whether true or not, it will end it's mission.

The United States can not base it's security and interest squarely on the long term commitment of its allies. Everyone have their own interest. Once all this hype dies down, the world, including the US risk lapsing into the same foolish slumber that started all this crap.

The US, not Germany will have to address the long term issues in Iraq because we don't have a choice. The US, not Germany, will be the first to respond if you're wrong about Saddam. The US, not Germany has led the initiative against Iraq since the beginning. And it is the US, not Germany, that will put it to an end. (Ultimately, the Iraqi people have the final say.)

I do sincerely apologize for misinterpreting your comments. Yes, the US is concerned about the oil flow. We've had such a policy since FDR. However, everyone would benefit from the oil situation, not just the US. That's why I don't understand how people can turn against the US on this issue. The last time I checked, we all bought oil from the same spot. If the flow stops, we all suffer. If not from a lack of energy, from the brutal effect the world economy would suffer. The world should be concerned about oil flow, not just the US. If I'm not mistaken, Europe would suffer more from a oil cut than the US. So if anything, it's to the European's advantage.

However, again, that's not our only intent.

Iraq will never declare war on the US, not even if they had nuclear weapons and long range missiles because there would be nothing to gain from that and a war has always a purpose, Saddam is no idiot and bombing the USA with nothing to gain but the nuclear retalliation strike is veeeery stupid. Thats why the cold war worked, neither side had anything to gain from a war because the answer would be nuclear.
Would Iraq be a potential danger for his neighbors ?? I don't think so, not even with the sanctions lifted. As I said, you only go to war if you expect to gain something from it. Saddam attacked Kuwait because he though he would get away with it. Now he knows he cant so he won't repeat his mistake. It s absolutely clear to him that any attack by him would have an immediately reaction so he wont attack in the first place. Plain and simple.
There will be no new Gulf War if not started by the USA !


You don't need to go to war to impose your will Kraut. As I stated about the Iranian issue, countries would be less likely to oppose Saddam's agenda's if he possessed WMDs. That's the more likely threat. He already knows direct military action would bring about condemnation and a strong military response. So he will likely use a more indirect policy of silent terror and diplomatic dominance.

What Saddam can't achieve militarily, he will try diplomatically. I believe he would be more successful.

Also, Saddam is not going to live forever. His likely successors are no better than he is. Some might argue they are worse. We have to be concerned about that as well.

Again Kraut, while you might have a noble position, I don't believe your government does. Germany is covering German interest. If they weren't, you'd probably see a new government come next election. Germany is likely unwilling to meet all the requirements necessary to fulfill its plan. It would fall on the US and other allies to do so. If our soldiers are gonna be put on the line, they should serve the interest of America, not a Coalition of nations all pulling in different directions.
 
Last edited:

Tiberius

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
486
Reaction score
0
Location
California, USA
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Wolfe Tone
Tiberius: re

‘Then they either didn't vote for the sanctions or by voting for the sanctions they were not responsible for the thousands of civilian deaths.’

The sanctions were imposed by the UN just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. At the time that might have made some sense but it is the US and to lesser extent Britain who have lobbied to keep them up. Ireland too voted in favour along with just about everyone else so we too are morally culpable.

This is where I have a problem with your and seemingly many people's view of international affairs and 'law' You speak as if the imposers of the sanctions are morally culpable for the suffering. If this were true then there should never be any sanctions for anything or any attempt to impose consequences on wrong doers, well at least in the case of wrong-doers who would rather their people suffer than to obey the rules. It is this basic point of principle that, I believe, separates those who would support true international law from those who would allow anarchy.

Dictator A does something heinous (sp?). The international community rises up indignantly and imposes sanctions. Dictator A lets his people suffer while continuing the behavior that caused the sanctions. Therefor the international community is culpable for the suffering of dictator A's people? I do not, will not, can not buy this argument. The problem is the dictator, not the international community. I absolutely have no sympathy whatever for the position of anyone who would argue this.

Where I go one step further with this argument is that in my view, if sanctions are dealt with in this way (as Hussein is doing).
that is grounds for war. Because it clearly proves that the dictator is disregarding the international community at the expense of his own people. The answer is not to end the sanctions, but rather to stand up for the principle for which they were originally imposed.
 

Rooster

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
145
Reaction score
1
Location
Northern California
Country
llUnited States
Does anyone remember why there are resolutions? It is an agreement to a ceasefire from original Gulf War, Hence that is the legal argument that War can continue? He has never complied with original resoultions from 12 years ago. It is pretty simple to see the writing on on the wall...
 

Headshot

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Messages
157
Reaction score
1
Location
Detroit, USA
the writing on the wall is pretty clear, unfortunitely the french dont know how to read... guess they missed a couple years of school, some kind of occupation or something.
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
Yes it does. If Saddam invades or attacks his neighbors again, then the world through the UN can address the problem then, I suggest through direct military assistance to the country that is attacked. I would support that. Is that not happened with Kuwait? However with the Iran-Iraq war it was the other way round with most of the major western powers backing the aggressor ( Iraq)…..strange world we live in!

Many Kuwaitis perished because no one wanted to take decisive action. President Bush Sr later said that he and his NSA were the only one's actually thinking about going to war on August 3, 1990. He didn't push his administration in that direction until after he met with British PM Margaret Thatcher, who agreed that Saddam couldn't be allowed to just take Kuwait.

One of the side effects of our offensive policy is that people think America will "always" be gung-ho and redy for a fight. That's not true. Bush and his successor will meet rising opposition to military efforts. Hell, some Congress members believe removing Saddam would finally allow the US to withdraw all, but it's naval forces from the Middle East. Many argue it's not necessary since we were able to get oil during the early 1980's without ground troops. Many really want to put distance between the US and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Middle East in general.

No Administration can afford to completely abandon the Middle East. However, future President's are more likely to revert back to the old policies Wolfe Tone discussed in a previous post. Thus, if Saddam does make another move, particularly one based on diplomacy through terrorism, no one can depend on America to mount the kind of offensive needed to neutralize such a threat. A Chinese-Iraqi alliance is not impossible in the next ten years. Removing Saddam degrades that possibility, but doesn't remove it completely.

I should apologize for my somewhat imflammed behavior. There are better ways to express my opinion.

The current climate in the Middle East does degrade US power projection. Should we loose the support of Saudi Arabia, it would be far worse than just an oil problem. There is a sixty year agreement in place. The US would provide security and Saudia Arabia would continue to let the oil flow. There are military bases present that allows for rapid deployment of our forces and loosing them would cripple our response capabilities. Seizing Iraq might provide a solution, but there is no guarantee. Even if it did, the US would require between 10-20yrs to build the kind of infrastructure we have in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't take into account all the scenarios which could impede such a process.

For me, delaying invasion to allow further inspections would simply follow in line with our previous policy toward Iraq. Had the US and the Coalition simply took a strong stand in the early 1990's instead of waiting and waiting, maybe we could have avoided all this. Each nation has it's own agenda. The US wants to dictate foriegn policy. Europe wants to wait and debate. Niether side is right.

Does anyone remember why there are resolutions? It is an agreement to a ceasefire from original Gulf War, Hence that is the legal argument that War can continue? He has never complied with original resoultions from 12 years ago. It is pretty simple to see the writing on on the wall...

While this is true, the US technically nullified the agreement by allowing Iraq to continuously breach the Resolution without punishment. There is no multilateral position on Iraq. Everyone is out for Number #1. Had the US really been concerned with WMDs and Iraq, we would have cancelled his butt in the early 1990's Instead we listened to some of our allies and combined with our own pathetic inability to create foreign policy based on unilateral common sense has brought us to where we are not. Multilateralism only works when all sides are willing to work together and compromise. Neither the US nor many EU members desire that. There hasn't been a united front on Iraq since April 3, 1991.

However, the Bush does not have to continue a failed policy on Iraq. The other nations might disagree, but such is life. We're all get over it. If not, everybody is gonna have grab a gun and start shooting. The current situation between The US and Germany and the rest is really just politics. If the other side really wanted to stop the US, they could. The US can't do without Europe. And Europe can't do with the US. Everyone doesn't have a choice, but to kiss and make-up for we all recognize the consequences of not doing so.

the writing on the wall is pretty clear, unfortunitely the french dont know how to read... guess they missed a couple years of school, some kind of occupation or something.

Actually France could read it. Unfortunately, Bush used a magic pen, and forgot to give one to the French and Germans. Then he calls them old! :rolleyes:
 

Tripps

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Messages
622
Reaction score
0
Location
New Zealand
Country
llNew Zealand
I find it intriguing that so many here are talking about "my countries interests" and "my land" and who owns what, almost childish...

I find it acceptable to have patriotic feelings, hell, i'll be the first to jump up and down when the country I was born in wins a world cup, but this is like my left hand fighting my right testicle....

Are we not all humans? All share this planet? What effects one country effects others.

The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.

I agree that the UN is hamstrung, its a catch 22 situation, nobody wants to help the UN do its job, and on the other hand no one believes the UN can do its job, until such time as nations help the UN achieve its goals, it will never do so.

I personally do not agree with the attack on Iraq, until such time as Saddam does attack another country, to do anything beforehand is foolish.
You could compare this to your own neighbourhood, would you go attack the guy down the street simply because you assume he is a threat? If that were the case, there would be chaos everywhere. And would your courts find favour in your actions?
Quite simply, NO.

For those that believe this is pre-emptive, to deny any attack on US soil/citizens whatever, then the US had better start invading every country on earth, because there is at least someone there in EACH country quite capable of doing harm.

If on the other hand, like in 1990, Iraq does attack someone, then force is justified.
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
Originally posted by Tripps
I find it intriguing that so many here are talking about "my countries interests" and "my land" and who owns what, almost childish...

I find it acceptable to have patriotic feelings, hell, i'll be the first to jump up and down when the country I was born in wins a world cup, but this is like my left hand fighting my right testicle....

Are we not all humans? All share this planet? What effects one country effects others.

The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.

I agree that the UN is hamstrung, its a catch 22 situation, nobody wants to help the UN do its job, and on the other hand no one believes the UN can do its job, until such time as nations help the UN achieve its goals, it will never do so.

I personally do not agree with the attack on Iraq, until such time as Saddam does attack another country, to do anything beforehand is foolish.
You could compare this to your own neighbourhood, would you go attack the guy down the street simply because you assume he is a threat? If that were the case, there would be chaos everywhere. And would your courts find favour in your actions?
Quite simply, NO.

For those that believe this is pre-emptive, to deny any attack on US soil/citizens whatever, then the US had better start invading every country on earth, because there is at least someone there in EACH country quite capable of doing harm.

If on the other hand, like in 1990, Iraq does attack someone, then force is justified.
Well said. Pre-emptive action is ludicrous, a super-power should show restraint and resilience not insecurity and paranoia.
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
Originally posted by arkai88
I'm not sure why some of you still continue to debate this same topic again and again. The chances that the European members of this forum will change their mind or their stance on a war in Iraq are pretty slim, probably about the same as most of us in the US changing our opinion.

Especially with Marko, I would have thought that you all had learned that he would say his grandmother was Hitler if he knew it would offend some of us in here and 'get our goats' so to speak.

I understand the desire to debate, but this simply has become the same thread over and over again with simply a different thread title. Just my 2c though - I now turn you back to the fun....
This 'anti-american' bull gets my goat. You sound ridiculous, just because I do not agree with war it does not mean I dislike AMericans, do you understand ? My grandfather is an American who actually served in the USAF, so don't tell me I am an anti-american, I may be 'anti-american current administration policy', but not anti-american, so please for the sake of democracy and dignity get a grip of your insecure ramblings.
 
Last edited:

Headshot

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Messages
157
Reaction score
1
Location
Detroit, USA
Originally posted by Tripps
I find it intriguing that so many here are talking about "my countries interests" and "my land" and who owns what, almost childish...

I find it acceptable to have patriotic feelings, hell, i'll be the first to jump up and down when the country I was born in wins a world cup, but this is like my left hand fighting my right testicle....

Are we not all humans? All share this planet? What effects one country effects others.

The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.

I agree that the UN is hamstrung, its a catch 22 situation, nobody wants to help the UN do its job, and on the other hand no one believes the UN can do its job, until such time as nations help the UN achieve its goals, it will never do so.

I personally do not agree with the attack on Iraq, until such time as Saddam does attack another country, to do anything beforehand is foolish.
You could compare this to your own neighbourhood, would you go attack the guy down the street simply because you assume he is a threat? If that were the case, there would be chaos everywhere. And would your courts find favour in your actions?
Quite simply, NO.

For those that believe this is pre-emptive, to deny any attack on US soil/citizens whatever, then the US had better start invading every country on earth, because there is at least someone there in EACH country quite capable of doing harm.

If on the other hand, like in 1990, Iraq does attack someone, then force is justified.
we all share the same earth? ahh you have a lot to learn about international relationships. the problem is that no one wants to share, so why bother trying. if bush wants a war, hes going to get it, and because 49 % of america voted for him, i suppose ill be proud of our leader.
 

arkai88

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Location
Eastern USA
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Tripps


You could compare this to your own neighbourhood, would you go attack the guy down the street simply because you assume he is a threat? If that were the case, there would be chaos everywhere. And would your courts find favour in your actions?
Quite simply, NO.

That's quite true, if a known murderer/rapist moved into my community I would certainly wait until he murdered and raped my wife to do anything about it. Get real.

The whole point is that the murderer should never have been allowed into your neighborhood in the first place.
 

Tripps

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Messages
622
Reaction score
0
Location
New Zealand
Country
llNew Zealand
Originally posted by Headshot


we all share the same earth? ahh you have a lot to learn about international relationships. the problem is that no one wants to share, so why bother trying. if bush wants a war, hes going to get it, and because 49 % of america voted for him, i suppose ill be proud of our leader.
No, I just dont have to accept that current form should be the norm.
People do want to share, unfortunately just not enough.
It attitudes like 'so why bother trying' that perpetuate the problem.

I wonder if people of Nazi Germany were proud in 1945 after they were initially proud of their leader because they all voted for him....
 

Tripps

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Messages
622
Reaction score
0
Location
New Zealand
Country
llNew Zealand
Originally posted by arkai88


That's quite true, if a known murderer/rapist moved into my community I would certainly wait until he murdered and raped my wife to do anything about it. Get real.

The whole point is that the murderer should never have been allowed into your neighborhood in the first place.
So, if a person who had commited murder or rape moved into your area, you would straight away go out and attack that person?

I would like to follow your "real" when the cops came and arrested you.
What would be your defense in court? "I'm real!"

Your point is, amusing, considering who put him there in the first place...

My thoughts is rather that appropriate authorities should deal with the dude in your street, and that appropriate authorities should deal with Iraq, and just like 'the people' give the police and courts their power, 'the countries' should give the UN the power to do its job.

cheers
 

markoy

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
"Take away Pearl Harbor and Marko would be writing in German Today."


- actually made me laugh.
 
Top