VisorCentral.com - American Interests vs. The World

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »
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)
-- American Interests vs. The World (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=32518)

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 01:29 AM:

International backing is exactly what it means. Having the support of a handful of countries to invade a sovereign nation is not international backing. The Persian gulf war had international backing. I believe even the French were involved.

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

When you say "international backing" you should be saying unanimous or unilateral backing since there are nations that do support the US on this. I consider your ignoring them arrogant.

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

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 01:34 AM:

Ok France have significant interest in Iraq... Can you make the same arguement for the rest of the world that is opposed to a war in Iraq?

Which country do you think will take over those oilfields and other interests in Iraq? Why are the biggest war pushers in the Bush administration all former oilmen? Bush, Cheney, Rice...

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

And you really think that all the nations opposing are doing it for high and mighty reasons? France opposes any war in Iraq because they have billions of dollars invested in Iraq. A french company has the rights to the two largest oilfields in Iraq, a french company (Alcatel) handles the telephone infrastructure. Peugeot has business dealings there. And last, but not least, France itself tried very hard to strike a deal in 1991 that would have given Iraq nuclear technology.

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

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 01:58 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

You bring up an excellent point. What is international law? The UN has no power that it can use without agreement from it's members. If the members can't agree, it's powerless. National governments don't, I repeat myself, don't "fall under international law and it's practices" unless they want to. International law lis just another way of saying, "Play our way or we'll beat you up. Since no one else can beat us up, why should we listen to the UN? We do so because we want to. Just like everybody else does.

I find it funny that the U.S. play the UN and international law card when they get their way..and dismiss them as irrelevant when they do not get what they want. For the most part, international law is enshrined in the many treaties that were signed over the centuries.

You, and the other, pro Iraq debaters keep talking about the US Vs. the world when it's not quite that way. You ignore countries agreeing with the US - or worse insult them and say they're just "lap dogs", or toadying up for later favors. What a load of gall. Yet other on your side of the issue blindly follow a country that is currying favor with a madman for later riches and influence. Get a grip.
[/QUOTE]

So all the other countries in the world are currying favor with tiny Iraq for future riches? Gimme a break! It wasn't me who counied the allies of the billing phrase. It was a writer for the New York times (stating the obvious).

If you think that we want a war your nuts. The US has lost more soldiers in the name of "international law" than any other country in the world. We have born the brunt of the cost and the manpower doing so for years. When you talk about "international law" you may mean the UN, but it's usually the US that everybody expects to do the dirty work.
[/QUOTE]

The U.S is -- rather the Bush administration is roaring for a war. The economy is tanking and people are losing billions per day in the stock market. A war is just the right cure. On the plus side -- the4 Bush administration will be out next year (you hear it here first) -- just like the first Bush administration more than ten years back. History tends to repeat itself.

What your seeing is not American "imperialism" or such, but the honest appraisal of a situation that needs mending - one which no one else wants to take up the mantle.
[/QUOTE]

And what exactly would that situation be?

Your bringing up Hitler and the Nazis doesn't help your case because it was the League of Nations (an International body and the precursor to the UN) led by a "let's not go to war" movement that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to sieze several smaller countries and gain the natural resources they needed to bring about that whole bloody mess. Millions died needlessly becuase of that feet dragging.
[/QUOTE]

Comparing Nazi Germany to Iraq is like comparing a rabbit to an elephant. Everyone know what happened when Saddam incaded Kuwait. The international community got together and kick him out. He is still paying for what he did.

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

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 02:02 AM:

NO I agree. But force in the U.N's name should have a U.N mandate.

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

Do you disagree that without force as a final option, the United Nations is useless?

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

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 02:20 AM:

See http://www.iso.org.au/socialistwork...ve/504/p7a.html

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I'd be surprised if you could support that. I have no evidence to the contrary, but I'd still be surprised....

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

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 02:22 AM:

Yes. This is true/ But the so-called evidence was presented as if it was gathered by the U.K itself.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Poor journalism, yes. But that doesn't mean it's false. If I were to plagiarize things from a scientific journal, that doesn't mean what I'm saying is necessarily false.

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

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 02:25 AM:

Is this so? Didn't North Korea made a deal with Clinton after being bribed in 1994? Didn't they just renegade on that deal? I think Bobby Mike;s arguement is more plausible than the one you are presenting. The U.S. is afraid of North Korea because it has nukes ot can use. Which begs the question: if Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was so dangerous, why is the U.S so anxious to invade?

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Because North Korea is relatively fresh in its outright flaunting of post cold-war international treaty and custom. Iraq has been doing this for over a decade.

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

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-09-2003 05:02 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie

I find it funny that the U.S. play the UN and international law card when they get their way..and dismiss them as irrelevant when they do not get what they want. For the most part, international law is enshrined in the many treaties that were signed over the centuries.

You totally missed my point about International Law, which is that it is only as good as the force backing it up. Your point about it being "inshrined by treaties, etc." is irrelevant because international law usaully has nothing to do with things earlier than 50 years ago.

So all the other countries in the world are currying favor with tiny Iraq for future riches? Gimme a break! It wasn't me who counied the allies of the billing phrase. It was a writer for the New York times (stating the obvious).
.
[/QUOTE]

No, probably France and Germany

The U.S is -- rather the Bush administration is roaring for a war. The economy is tanking and people are losing billions per day in the stock market. A war is just the right cure. On the plus side -- the4 Bush administration will be out next year (you hear it here first) -- just like the first Bush administration more than ten years back. History tends to repeat itself.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, so we want to start a war soley for our economy? Sounds horrible. Has nothing to do with a madman hellbent on dominating the mideast with proscribed weaponry (Proscribed by international law).

And what exactly would that situation be?
[/QUOTE]

See above

Comparing Nazi Germany to Iraq is like comparing a rabbit to an elephant. Everyone know what happened when Saddam incaded Kuwait. The international community got together and kick him out. He is still paying for what he did. [/QUOTE]

Well, I told you it probably wasn't the best idea to try the WWII card. You notice that you actually said invaded? Do you think we should wait until Saddam tries something again? (and the International community just didn't get together, there was quite abit of opposition to that US led coalition) The fact that Iraq is probably the only truly facist (by defination) country left around shouldn't surprise anyone either. I wouldn't call him/Iraq a rabbit. Rabbits are harmless. Maybe you should say bobcat. Still a small animal, nowhere as big, or dangerous as an enraged elephant, but it's still dangerous. If one starting killing sheep wouldn't you still have to deal with it?

Your challenge here is not that you're trying to make the US appear dangerous. We are dangerous. Our mere existence threatens alot of peoples preconceived notions about how things ought to work.
Your challenge lies in trying to make a Saddam led Iraq appear harmless. You can't do it. When Libya calls you a threat to peace in the Mideast, and you are another Arab nation and not Israel, you know something is not right.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-09-2003 06:52 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Is this so? Didn't North Korea made a deal with Clinton after being bribed in 1994? Didn't they just renegade on that deal? I think Bobby Mike;s arguement is more plausible than the one you are presenting. The U.S. is afraid of North Korea because it has nukes ot can use. Which begs the question: if Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was so dangerous, why is the U.S so anxious to invade?

First it's not renegade. Second, you just said they "just" went back on their word. Isnt' that my point?

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-09-2003 06:54 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
See http://www.iso.org.au/socialistwork...ve/504/p7a.html

That's a nice impartial source.

Of course it does nothing to further your point. It just says we are not going to let our enemies be stronger than us. To which I say "duh." If you didn't think that, you're incredibly out of touch.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-09-2003 06:56 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
NO I agree. But force in the U.N's name should have a U.N mandate.

ANd if the UN has made it clear it will never give such a mandate?

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 01:44 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

No, probably France and Germany
.

That is two out of how many?

Oh, so we want to start a war soley for our economy? Sounds horrible. Has nothing to do with a madman hellbent on dominating the mideast with proscribed weaponry (Proscribed by international law).
[/QUOTE]

This is horrible I agree. But goverments have been starting wars to get people's minds of the economy for centuries. The U.S has reached a point of no return. If Saddam shows that he is totally disarmed, they stull have to go to war.

Israel, thanks to billions of dollars of U.S taxpayer's money, is and will always be the dominant player in the mideast/North Africa region.

Do you think we should wait until Saddam tries something again? (and the International community just didn't get together, there was quite abit of opposition to that US led coalition) The fact that Iraq is probably the only truly facist (by defination) country left around shouldn't surprise anyone either. I wouldn't call him/Iraq a rabbit. Rabbits are harmless. Maybe you should say bobcat. Still a small animal, nowhere as big, or dangerous as an enraged elephant, but it's still dangerous. If one starting killing sheep wouldn't you still have to deal with it?
[/QUOTE]

What exactly is Saddam going to try again and with what? Saddam has nothing to be a threat to anyone. He was severely weakened during the Guld War, and has remained that way thanks to the tight sanctions that have been imposed on him. If Saddam was a great threat, the U.S wouldn't be so anxious to take him on. Americans don't like to see their sons and daughters coming home in body bags -- especially for a war that a lot of them do not understand.

Your challenge lies in trying to make a Saddam led Iraq appear harmless. You can't do it. When Libya calls you a threat to peace in the Mideast, and you are another Arab nation and not Israel, you know something is not right. [/QUOTE]

Interesting that you bring up Libya. Isn't it one of the countries that is opposed to the U.S invasion?

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

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 01:47 PM:

North Korea has been flexing its muscle in the region for years. What does the U.S do? Complain and bribe them some more.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
First it's not renegade. Second, you just said they "just" went back on their word. Isnt' that my point?

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

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 01:51 PM:

Well that was the fastest source I could find by searching Google.com. In any effect facts are facts regardless of the source.

Yes it says that the U.S will not make its enemies becime stringer than it. But today's friends can be tommorow's enemies. Case in point -- Saddam's Iraq.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
That's a nice impartial source. Of course it does nothing to further your point. It just says we are not going to let our enemies be stronger than us. To which I say "duh." If you didn't think that, you're incredibly out of touch.

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

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 01:55 PM:

A country should only invade another country without UN mandate if the country is an immediate threat. The U.S. has failed to demonstrate that Iraq was or is a threat to them. What would prevent the U.S from invading Iran in the future? What would them prevent them from invading Cuba and other countries that are run by goverments that they do not like? Imagine a gun man going around your neighbourhood shooting people that they do not like or see as a threat to them.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
ANd if the UN has made it clear it will never give such a mandate?

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

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-09-2003 10:32 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
A country should only invade another country without UN mandate if the country is an immediate threat. The U.S. has failed to demonstrate that Iraq was or is a threat to them. What would prevent the U.S from invading Iran in the future? What would them prevent them from invading Cuba and other countries that are run by goverments that they do not like? Imagine a gun man going around your neighbourhood shooting people that they do not like or see as a threat to them.

The key issue is the UN has voted repeatedly for something to happen, and when they are called upon to back up their words, they do nothing. If the UN wants nothing to be done in Iraq, they should say as much. Stop dilly dallying. Again, I'm not sure if war is the right answer, but the way Germany, France, et al. are approaching this is wrong.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by ittherapy on 03-10-2003 06:09 AM:

canadians

Its seems from here to look as if the world has never been in a worst state.....what are we to do ......the world is going to war whether we like it (we do not ) or not....the 17th is getting closer.... North Korea is flexing its muscle.....and now Iran too is going the nuclear route.....where will this end ...and how.....is the world turning against America because of its power. and earlier popularity. Unfortunately I think that the some governments have come across to strongly and it has started to turn the tides of popularity...I remember when being a westerner was the thing to be.... go over to Europe or Asia stick a flag patch on your backpack and everyone loved you.... now they want to kill you.... this is so said.... never in my remembrance have so many countries been so divided.....or people within there counties been so divided...racism, hatred, fear mongering....outright violence...has never been higher........this is surely the beginning of the end.....I truly fear for the future of my children......

And yet so many people are fearful of the same thing.... why do we allow this to happen

I realize that our canadian politicians have a problem speaking when they should not ...but generally canadians are good people...we dont want to see a war...but we want the people of Iraq to be free of oppression as the entire would should be free as well.............

saying no to war does not mean saying yes to Sadam.

lets get it together people we can make a change we can make all people welcome we can change the world...(not just a dreamer).how can we change the world....well we changed it to all this didnt we ?

thanks for your time.

Andrew

__________________
I am Landrew, I am all he was and is.

Posted by TreoMreo on 03-10-2003 08:11 AM:

I thought LOTS of Americans themselves admit that George Bush is a bully and he is a worse threat to the world than El-Kaide or any other terrorist group...

I personally know some of these people...

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-10-2003 02:37 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
NO I agree. But force in the U.N's name should have a U.N mandate.

Okay. So we agree that force should be the last option...now, how do we decide when force is needed?

You can't just take a "yes/no" vote from each country and if the majority says "yes" then you go.

I understand that the problem is that a lot of people don't trust W. But the point that Canadians are "good people" applies to Americans, too. We are mostly a "good" people.

Although society and the world have greatly advanced, scientifically, socially, politically, the fact remains that a Country should be able to decide it's own course of action. Sure, it'd be nicer if every Country agreed, but that is just not possible. Nor is demanding that a Country hold back b/c not all other Countries agree reasonable/feasible.

Honestly, I still believe the basic problem is that we don't agree on when force is necessary. Y'all don't think there is evidence that Saddam needs to be taken out, ergo y'all do not believe force is necessary. We do, ergo, we do.

Again, okay. So we agree that force should be the last option...now, how do we decide when force is needed?

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-10-2003 02:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by TreoMreo
I thought LOTS of Americans themselves admit that George Bush is a bully and he is a worse threat to the world than El-Kaide or any other terrorist group...

I personally know some of these people...

and LOTS of Americans do not.

Anecdotal evidence isn't really any evidence at all.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 PM.

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