VisorCentral.com - One Year On

Pages (24): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- One Year On (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=26965)

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-20-2002 06:14 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Right. But who fabricated the crisis? How comes all of a sudden Iraq is a big threat to the world requiring immediate action? What evidence is there that Iraq is more dangerous now than it was on September 10th, 2001 (when there was no urgency to move in)?

No, but to claim that as justification for continuation of past policies is faulty logic. In my opinion, using a temporary public opinion shift to accomplish a just task is defendable.

Posted by John Nowak on 09-20-2002 07:06 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
The key phrase here is if the SECURITY COUNCIL deem it not necessary -- not if the American or British deem it necessary. Good thing that the Security Council has Russia and China to tame the American hawk at the U.N.

Yep, the heroes of Chechnaya and Tianemen Square will certainly defend world peace and the right of dissent against those nasty Americans.

Posted by yardie on 09-22-2002 06:11 AM:

Well if you want to look at things like that then you have to look at our Hero - the US of A. Great Power, supposedly have respect for Democracy and Human Rights. Yet:

- they provide support for dictatorships and abusers of Human Rights (e.g Saudi Arabia).
- they have detained thousands of Arabs and Muslims without charge
- they spend 300 billion a year on the military while people in their major cities scavenge for food
- they are against international initiatives such as Kyoto, the World Court
-they tore up the missile treaty with Russia

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

Yep, the heroes of Chechnaya and Tianemen Square will certainly defend world peace and the right of dissent against those nasty Americans.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 09-22-2002 06:19 AM:

Invading Iraq has a just cause is debatable. The U.S has failed to provide proof that Iraq is a threat to the world. The only countries that it is a real threat to are its neighbours -- and they are not too keen about an invasion.

I am convinced that public opinion is being shaped by the media. The media is becoming a great big propaganda machine. The media is not the message when the message being transmitted is bias.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
No, but to claim that as justification for continuation of past policies is faulty logic. In my opinion, using a temporary public opinion shift to accomplish a just task is defendable.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 09-22-2002 06:25 AM:

Re: Speaking of some people...

Waging a war based on hypothetical scenarios is setting a very dangerous precedent. Countries should not be allowed to attack other countries based on perceived/hypothetical threats.

The U.S wants to attack Iraq because it knows that it cannot vigorously defend itself. Its like a bully picking on the little kid down the street and robbing his candy. Only in this scenario, the little kid is a small country and the candy is one of the biggest oil reserves in the world.

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
It might have something to do with the possibility of a person known to produce and pursue 'WoMD', who doesn't like us, willing to provide them to people obviously willing to _use_ those 'WoMD' against us whereas no one took such a possibility seriously (mistakenly) before 9/10/2001. Now, such an action is a very real potentiality. As usual, the unknown is more disconcerting than the known.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-22-2002 04:14 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Invading Iraq has a just cause is debatable. The U.S has failed to provide proof that Iraq is a threat to the world. The only countries that it is a real threat to are its neighbours -- and they are not too keen about an invasion.

I am convinced that public opinion is being shaped by the media. The media is becoming a great big propaganda machine. The media is not the message when the message being transmitted is bias.

Of course invading Iraw as a just cause is debatable, but your statement that because the best time for it was years ago doesn't mean we shouldn't do it today.

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-22-2002 04:22 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Well if you want to look at things like that then you have to look at our Hero - the US of A. Great Power, supposedly have respect for Democracy and Human Rights. Yet:

- they provide support for dictatorships and abusers of Human Rights (e.g Saudi Arabia).

I hope you're not equating the Saudi Regime with Sadam's. The US (or any other nation for that matter) is not always been right. Again, that is a horrible reason for not trying to be right this time around.

quote:

- they have detained thousands of Arabs and Muslims without charge

For all the stink that was raised over that, look at the situation now.

quote:

- they spend 300 billion a year on the military while people in their major cities scavenge for food

Don't imply that's an either or. It's not. Our military spending allows for the prosperity we all experience in this country.

quote:

- they are against international initiatives such as Kyoto, the World Court

But we are also the only people willing to stand up for the UN's legitimacy. Given the choice between supporting the UN and the two things you listed, I'd go with the UN.

quote:

-they tore up the missile treaty with Russia

First, it was an anti-missile treaty. Second, we did, but we did it by the book. The language was written into the treaty itself and we followed it exactly. I don't understand what the problem is.

Posted by Toby on 09-23-2002 04:01 PM:

Re: Re: Speaking of some people...

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Waging a war based on hypothetical scenarios is setting a very dangerous precedent.

I never said anything about waging war, and as of yet, we are not waging war on them to my knowledge. You asked why they were a threat to us.

quote:
Countries should not be allowed to attack other countries based on perceived/hypothetical threats.

Whether or not there's a crisis is one thing. It is extremely naive to think that there's not a _realistic_ threat. Should countries be allowed to flout UN Security Council resolutions based on perceived/hypothetical threats?

quote:
The U.S wants to attack Iraq because it knows that it cannot vigorously defend itself.

What about those chemical and biological weapons which it supposedly doesn't have which everyone is paranoid that Saddam will use if attacked? That's a pretty vigorous defense where I come from.

quote:
Its like a bully picking on the little kid down the street and robbing his candy.

The bully is Saddam. The kids down the street are 'his people'. At worst, the US is a bigger kid than the bully determined to give the bully some of his own medicine. Whether or not it does, it won't stop the bully from getting at the kids down the street.

quote:
Only in this scenario, the little kid is a small country and the candy is one of the biggest oil reserves in the world.

If we wanted Saddam's oil that bad, we'd have taken it the first time. Regardless of what you think about the younger Bush, you can't be silly enough to think that all of this is a ploy over oil. Finishing what daddy started? It's a stretch, but I could believe it. Going after Saddam simply because he's an 'evildoer'? Not as much a stretch, and I could believe it. All of this just about oil? I've only seen a few contortionists that could stretch that far.

Posted by Toby on 09-24-2002 07:40 PM:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002327 This guy is my Scott Ritter of Iraq policy now.

Posted by Toby on 09-24-2002 07:46 PM:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2002Sep23.html This guy's good too.

Posted by John Nowak on 09-24-2002 08:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
First, it was an anti-missile treaty. Second, we did, but we did it by the book. The language was written into the treaty itself and we followed it exactly. I don't understand what the problem is.

And Yardie somehow misses the fact that the Russian Federation ultimately settled this with the US government.

Posted by John Nowak on 09-24-2002 08:48 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
- they are against international initiatives such as Kyoto, the World Court

Good for us. Personally, I'm far too worried about the coming ice age and global famine by 2000 predicted in the 1970s to fret overmuch about Kyoto.

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-24-2002 08:55 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2002Sep23.html This guy's good too.

Great set of articles.

quote:
There are more than 200 Russian companies in Iraq, doing deals that total at least $4 billion.

$4 billion? Give me a break. That will sway Russian opinion? In situations like this we need to use our most potent weapon: American Productivity. Because we are the largest economy on the planet we can use our pocketbook to essentially make sure when we act against our enemies the damage to friendly (yes, Russia!) nations is limitted.

Posted by Toby on 09-27-2002 02:48 PM:

Christopher Hitchens has left The Nation. He's still got things to say, though.

Posted by yardie on 09-29-2002 08:42 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Speaking of some people...

Please enlighten me. Why exactly does the U.S want to invade IraQ?

OK they have so called waepons of mass destruction and possess chemical and biological weapons. Doesn't other countries including the U.S. possess weapons of mass destruction as well?

OK some argue that Iraw that Saddam uses his using his weapons against his own people.... well guess what folks? The crippinling sanctions against Iraq is also being used as a weapon against the Irawi people..and with deadly results.

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Going after Saddam simply because he's an 'evildoer'? Not as much a stretch, and I could believe it. All of this just about oil? I've only seen a few contortionists that could stretch that far.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 09-29-2002 08:46 AM:

Were you surprised that Russia settled with the U.S? For a couple billions of dollars and a blind eye to the Chechen situation -- the U.S can get the Russians to agree to anything.

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

And Yardie somehow misses the fact that the Russian Federation ultimately settled this with the US government.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 09-29-2002 08:49 AM:

Are you kidding me? Even the EPA say that Global Warming is a real phenomena..not hypothetical.

"I should have..." always come too late.

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

Good for us. Personally, I'm far too worried about the coming ice age and global famine by 2000 predicted in the 1970s to fret overmuch about Kyoto.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 09-29-2002 08:51 AM:

The articles ..especially the first one were nothing more than a rehash of the same old Republican/Hawkish arguement.. That Iraq poses a threat to its neighbour blah blah. I do not see its neighbours getting worried. Why should the U.S be worried?

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Great set of articles. $4 billion? Give me a break. That will sway Russian opinion? In situations like this we need to use our most potent weapon: American Productivity. Because we are the largest economy on the planet we can use our pocketbook to essentially make sure when we act against our enemies the damage to friendly (yes, Russia!) nations is limitted.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by Toby on 09-29-2002 02:06 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of some people...

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Please enlighten me. Why exactly does the U.S want to invade IraQ?

Ultimately, the US doesn't want to invade Iraq.

quote:
OK they have so called waepons of mass destruction and possess chemical and biological weapons. Doesn't other countries including the U.S. possess weapons of mass destruction as well?

Nearly all of the other countries that possess nuclear weapons (by treaty, none should possess chemical or biological of the sort being discussed with Saddam) are relatively stable and unlikely to use them on their own or other peoples. Saddam has demonstrated a willingness to do both.

quote:
OK some argue that Iraw that Saddam uses his using his weapons against his own people.... well guess what folks? The crippinling sanctions against Iraq is also being used as a weapon against the Irawi people..and with deadly results.

Who is using it as a weapon against them? The terms are supposed to provide them with enough funds and food to live on. If those funds and food are not getting to the intended people, then it seems that it's _more_ reason to oust Saddam, not to appease him by lifting sanctions.

Posted by Toby on 09-29-2002 02:09 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Are you kidding me? Even the EPA say that Global Warming is a real phenomena..not hypothetical.

"I should have..." always come too late.

And in the case of such religious 'global cooling' or 'global warming' alarmist propaganda, "we were wrong" never comes at all...only the next alarmist doomsday scenario.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15 PM.

Pages (24): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page