VisorCentral.com Pages (10): « 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)
-- Powell (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=32028)

Posted by ToolkiT on 02-11-2003 04:36 AM:

Re: Regarding the lively discussion on Iraq:

quote:
Originally posted by Beagle92
I agree with most people in that every possible peaceful means to end the problem with Iraq should be sought. But there must be an endpoint. The disagreement is in where that endpoint lay.

Thats only part of the disagreement, the other (IMHO more important) part is WHO should do the military interaction.
In my opion this should be the UN, not a small group of countries acting on their own.
According to international law you can only attack when being attacked yourself. The UN is there to 'police' the world.
Since Iraq did not attack the US it would be illegal to attack them, simple as that. No matter how bad a ruler of a country is no country has the right to act outside the UN...

quote:
Originally posted by Beagle92
The difference between the United States and the allies which oppose military action isn't just ideology, it's also a matter of security. Sept. 11 has shown us that the U.S. is a prime target for terrorists and rogue nations and that it is vulnerable.

The allies are just as vulnerable, heart of the bali bombing?
Ever realized that the worlds biggest muslim country is in australia's back yard?
Do you realize how many muslims live in the UK?

The question why 9-11 happened is never asked nor answered..but that's a whole different story

quote:
Originally posted by Beagle92
If the U.S. government has evidence that Iraq is an imminent threat then military action is necessary, U.N. be damned.

IF...thats a very big if...No solid proof has been supplied that Sadam had anything to do with 9-11...

Also: damn the UN, damn the world, damn yourself... This is the key issue. The UN is there for a reason... to prevent escalation of violence. If the US thinks it is above the UN, it sends out a signal to the world... that signal is not the right one...
The world and middle east is vragile enough as it is, we really dont need an escalation...


quote:
Originally posted by Beagle92
For reasons of security (for instance, keeping our foreign intelligence agents and intelligence aquisition methods safe) I do not expect my government to disclose everything it knows about what is going on in Iraq.

I do not expect them to disclose it to you or me, however I do expect them to disclose it to the UN...

quote:
Originally posted by Beagle92
The idea that we want the oil is ridiculous. Did we assume control of Kuwaiti oil after we liberated them?

It is not rediculous that people think this... why else would Bush go for Iraq and not North Korea, which has without doubt has nukes...
Given that I think it is something else, but I'm not sure what his hidden agenda is... but something sure doesnt add up...

quote:
Originally posted by Beagle92
The Bush administration has decided that, in a post 9/11 world, the Iraq problem must be dealt with swiftly.

again can you explain the link between 9-11 and iraq?
Besides the fact that al quaida and iraq both have the muslim religion I havent seen any link...
The bush gov did a hell of a marketing job making the US population believe there is a link...

quote:
Originally posted by Beagle92
We can no longer sit on our hands and wait for the problem to go away. It is time to take the bull by the horns. Saddam Hussein is a sadistic dictator who has been terrorizing his people and playing with the world for 12 years.

Agreed, Saddam is a sadistic dictator who should be handled with....
But he's not the only one... why is the bush gov singling him out??

quote:
Originally posted by Beagle92
Moreover, the anti-war activists have been playing right into his hands. Saddam is the Joseph Stalin of our time. We've sent our own troops to protect Kuwait, Kosovo, South Korea, South Vietnam, Somalia, etc. This time it is to protect ourselves.

The 'WE' you are talking about here is the UN....of which I agree with you has a majority of US troops, yet there still is a huge difference.

I'm not saying the UN is perfect.. far from it, however with all its weaknesses the UN is the only body with the right to handle these things...

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by Abid on 02-11-2003 02:45 PM:

Sovereign Nations

There is no justification to invading, bombing and wiping out the admistration of any sovereign country.

No matter what the reason unless there is proof of misdeeds against others. How you define misdeeds is up to you.

But America has been invading, bombing and wiping out countries for years and you don't even know it.

America has been throwing it's huge financial muscles around invading and wiping out whole continents, setting countries back for generations with anyone accusing them of any misdeeds.

America has been dumping Hollywood on the world wiping out entire cultures from the face of this earth and the wiped out are smiling when it is happening to them.

No wonder why terrorism exists. You think that wiping Saddam out will stop it?! Fat hope!

The only solution is for America to offer countries to join as the next State of America and keep doing so until the whole world is America. Think about it before dismissing this idea. It works.

Posted by K. Cannon on 02-11-2003 05:27 PM:

Re: Sovereign Nations

quote:
Originally posted by Abid
The only solution is for America to offer countries to join as the next State of America and keep doing so until the whole world is America. Think about it before dismissing this idea. It works.

Um. seems to me that this is more "egotistical" than ever, which is one of the complaints other countries have about the USA.

How about it ToolkT? Want Australia to become the 51st state? Didn't think so, and I don't blame you a one bit.

Posted by jhappel on 02-11-2003 10:00 PM:

I usually tru to stay as far away from political discussions here as possible. Possibly because I am so involved with politics here at home among other reasons. As I am sure a lot of you remember from a previous signature I am very much opposed to war, especially a unilateral one and have no love for the current US administration. In fact I have worked very hard to keep it from coming into power in the first place and in trying to show its illegitimacy(sp){so don't get on my case}. But................

quote:
America has been throwing it's huge financial muscles around invading and wiping out whole continents, setting countries back for generations with anyone accusing them of any misdeeds
I challenge you to find ONE example of America wiping out any continent or setting back any country for generations.

I don't mind lively discussions, but if you're going to join them base your arguments on fact or even on beliefs (as long as you let everyone know they are your beliefs). Don't just make up lies and spout them out as if they are true.

[End of rant and slinking back into my lair to only lurk around political discussions]
edited to correct spelling error

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by ToolkiT on 02-11-2003 10:06 PM:

Re: Re: Sovereign Nations

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

How about it ToolkT? Want Australia to become the 51st state? Didn't think so, and I don't blame you a one bit.

Did you see the meeting between Bush and Howard (aussie prime minister) yesterday?
Bush seems to think australia does, Howard is still confused while the population here sure doesnt...

Bush seems to have placed Australia in 'the aliance of willing' while the aussie public is not for an attack on Iraq...
Many feel howard cheated its population... Howard however is slowly backing out though. It was very funny to see the reaction when Bush said Australia is in 'the aliance of willing' ... Bush seemed to realise at the spot he was jumping the gun so he quickly added 'What that means is up to John (Howard)'...

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by ToolkiT on 02-11-2003 10:56 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by jhappel
I challenge you to find ONE example of America wiping out any continent or setting back any country for generations.

I don't mind lively discussions, but if you're going to join them base your arguments on fact or even on beliefs (as long as you let everyone know they are your beliefs). Don't just make up lies and spout them out as if they are true.

I have to agree with Jhappel on this one. Especially on the 'wiping out any continent ' bit. This is simply nonsense.

However there is a bit of thruth in 'setting back any country for generations' the bombing of afganistan I'm sure cripled the progress of a lot of innocent people out there...
Going back to the Post WWI era, the strick economic sanctions realy crippled Germany leading to the rise of Hitler due to the frustration of the german people... Luckily the US realized that so they didnt make the same mistake after WWII... But it seems history goes around in circels and it looks like we are back at WWI...

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by triplespear on 02-12-2003 02:32 AM:

Our country has backed many tyrranical regimes to ensure access to interests: Pre-Ayatollah Iran, Pre-Castro Cuba, among others ( Panama, South Vietnam, etc.)were run by criminals with the same attitudes toward their people as Saddam Hussein. We even supported Hussein when it served our political needs.
Sure, Secretary Powell has shown evidence that WMD hanky-panky is going on in Iraq, but the essential, frustrating question remains: "Why does that take priority over all other public policy?" The connection between Iraq and fundamentalist terrorism is specious, so what is the real reason? Is Saddam's treatment of his poeple worth your life or your brother's/son's/father's life, given on a distant battlefield?
It frustrates me to know that a President who didn't serve his country in war ( his father kept him in the National Guard) is so willing to send other people's kids into battle.
The bottom line is this for me: We have no right initiating an unprovoked, pre-emptive war with anyone.

__________________
Got Darts?

Posted by ToolkiT on 02-12-2003 02:34 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by triplespear
The bottom line is this for me: We have no right initiating an unprovoked, pre-emptive war with anyone.

Very well put! I couldn't agree more!

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by K. Cannon on 02-12-2003 03:02 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Sovereign Nations

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
Bush seemed to realise at the spot he was jumping the gun so he quickly added 'What that means is up to John (Howard)'...

Hey, see there! And you nay-sayers claim he can't think on his feet

Posted by BobbyMike on 02-13-2003 06:18 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

I have to agree with Jhappel on this one. Especially on the 'wiping out any continent ' bit. This is simply nonsense.

However there is a bit of thruth in 'setting back any country for generations' the bombing of afganistan I'm sure cripled the progress of a lot of innocent people out there...
Going back to the Post WWI era, the strick economic sanctions realy crippled Germany leading to the rise of Hitler due to the frustration of the german people... Luckily the US realized that so they didnt make the same mistake after WWII... But it seems history goes around in circels and it looks like we are back at WWI...


Umm weren't the Strict economic sanctions brought about through the will of the League of Nations (the Pre-UN) and consequently wasn't the same organisation responsible for letting Hitler get away with so much, setting up the atrocities of WWII?

Didn't it take the United States deciding to become non-isolationist and throw it's economic might into the war that slowed the Germans down enough that the US and Russia could crush the Axis movement? Since England was the only country not yet under German control (barring Switzerland which had a business arrangement) you can thank the Americans for letting you have your culture back.

Our problem seems to be that we inherit other countries problems with an alarming tendency (Afghanistan, Vietnam, WWI and WWII, Korea, Taiwan, Somalia, etc.)

(The US wasn't solely responsible for what happened after WWII, that was a joint effort of all the nations involved.)

The UN is not exactly the best model for peace and love. Because of it's ability to act decisively and quickly, miliions of innocent civilians have died while waiting for help from the UN, in countries like Serbia, Somalia, Uganda, etc.

The problem seems to be an active dislike of committing forces to stop aggressive actions by rogue powers. It's one thing to dislike war (I personally think you have to be crazy to like war) and another to sit around and dither, when you have military might, and watch as people are terrorized and killed.

The flaw in organisations like the UN is that they are designed to work under the assumption that everyone "just wants to get along", but since no-one "just wants to get along" the model breaks down. The UN sanctions a nation, and other nations find ways to conduct trade around the sanctions. It sets forth edicts, and nations ignore them. It's a flawed model that can't work in our world.

As long as governments exist where the power can reside in the hands of one man/woman/small group, with no checks or balances, and they can actively take part as an equal in the UN you can't even expect such an organisation to be effective.

I feel that the general consensus of anti-war sentiments seems to revolve around the idea that the US is an awful war-mongering group of idiots, led by an awful war-mongering idiot President, backed by an awful war-mongering idiot Congress bent on world domination (military, economic, culture). Sorry to inform you - The USA is already there, we don't need a war for any of those reasons.

The US does need to contain Saddam, something the UN has proven itself to be incapable, or unwilling to do with "diplomacy".

Back to the WWII analogy - If you want to play Chamberlain and stick your head in the sand because you refuse to see evil, do so, just don't expect others to stick their heads in the sand too. That way only leads to the slaughter of more innocents.

America is the largest, powerful "free" country in the world right now. We have the responsibilty and the right to do what we feel is necessary and right, with or without the will of the UN. Since the UN can't seem to make any nation do anything without their agreement I can't really see an alternative.

As to your analogy on firearms and Texas. The result of such a predicament would be removal/restructuring of the law enforcement enforcement agency. So maybe it's time to disband the UN and try something else?

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

Posted by BobbyMike on 02-13-2003 07:05 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by triplespear

....It frustrates me to know that a President who didn't serve his country in war ( his father kept him in the National Guard) is so willing to send other people's kids into battle....


Many people have served in the military and not been in combat. Actually the majority have.
We do have a non-volunteer military too, it's not like those "kid's" didn't know what they were getting into when they signed up.

As a formerly active Marine I never met anyone who signed up who was ignorant of the fact that they might get sent somewhere to get killed. The military can be a dangerous place.
(Actually everyone I know that I served with, who died in military service, did so in an accident.)

BTW his job description includes the fact that he has to be willing to "send other people's kids into battle". Can you name a President who hasn't felt the need to do so at some time?


GW Bush in The National Guard

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

Posted by triplespear on 02-13-2003 10:12 PM:

The point is not that he didn't serve in the war, it's that his social position kept him out of it. This president is the epitome of an overachieving underachiever, a true silver spoon character. Having served in the US Air Force during Desert Storm, I know that volunteers know what they're getting into. However, GWB clearly sought to at least avoid serving in the war directly using his social connections, a priviledge most poor draftees did not have. It wasn't illegal, but it wasn't honorable either.

__________________
Got Darts?

Posted by John Nowak on 02-14-2003 01:03 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Powell

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

Funny you say that.. US is threatening to attack iraq and hence a hostile regime... US has chemical weapons too...


Do you have any evidence that the United States has a chemical weapon arsenal?

Posted by John Nowak on 02-14-2003 01:06 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

However there is a bit of thruth in 'setting back any country for generations' the bombing of afganistan I'm sure cripled the progress of a lot of innocent people out there...


That would be why something between one and two million Afghani refugees went home after the Taliban was removed, I suppose.

Posted by yardie on 02-14-2003 02:57 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Powell

I think the U.S. is more a threat to world peace than Iraq ever will be. If chemical and biological weapons are so bad.. Why does the U.S. have it?


quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer


You can honestly say the US is equivalent to Iraq? I don't know what to say.

[b]
The UN has shown no resolve in backing up what they themselves have said. I honestly hold no strong opinions about this possible action, but for the UN to demand full disclosure and then do nothing when they are ignored does not bode well for the future.

[b]Again, you cannot seriously tell me you think the US gov't is the same as the Iraqi one.

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

Posted by yardie on 02-14-2003 03:08 AM:

Re: Regarding the lively discussion on Iraq:

And how is ousting Saddam going to protect the American people? If anything it is goign to make things worse. A lot more arabs and muslims will be inflamed (sp).

If the U.S. is going to attack another sovereign country that is not an imminient threat, it better show the international community to the evidence.

Your statement that "I do not expect my government to disclose everything it knows about what is going on in Iraq." is scary. Imagine being tried, jailed and executed without knowing the evidence against you!


quote:
Originally posted by Beagle92
I agree with most people in that every possible peaceful means to end the problem with Iraq should be sought. But there must be an endpoint. The disagreement is in where that endpoint lay. The difference between the United States and the allies which oppose military action isn't just ideology, it's also a matter of security. Sept. 11 has shown us that the U.S. is a prime target for terrorists and rogue nations and that it is vulnerable. If the U.S. government has evidence that Iraq is an imminent threat then military action is necessary, U.N. be damned. For reasons of security (for instance, keeping our foreign intelligence agents and intelligence aquisition methods safe) I do not expect my government to disclose everything it knows about what is going on in Iraq. The idea that we want the oil is ridiculous. Did we assume control of Kuwaiti oil after we liberated them? The Bush administration has decided that, in a post 9/11 world, the Iraq problem must be dealt with swiftly. We can no longer sit on our hands and wait for the problem to go away. It is time to take the bull by the horns. Saddam Hussein is a sadistic dictator who has been terrorizing his people and playing with the world for 12 years. Moreover, the anti-war activists have been playing right into his hands. Saddam is the Joseph Stalin of our time. We've sent our own troops to protect Kuwait, Kosovo, South Korea, South Vietnam, Somalia, etc. This time it is to protect ourselves.

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

Posted by yardie on 02-14-2003 03:17 AM:

Arrow Re: Re: Re: Sovereign Nations

It is funny really. The British and Australian governments are sending their troops to help the Bush War Party while the majority of their citizens oppose the war. A part from the U.S, I have yet to see a poll from any country that has majority support for a war against Iraq.


quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

Did you see the meeting between Bush and Howard (aussie prime minister) yesterday?
Bush seems to think australia does, Howard is still confused while the population here sure doesnt...

Bush seems to have placed Australia in 'the aliance of willing' while the aussie public is not for an attack on Iraq...
Many feel howard cheated its population... Howard however is slowly backing out though. It was very funny to see the reaction when Bush said Australia is in 'the aliance of willing' ... Bush seemed to realise at the spot he was jumping the gun so he quickly added 'What that means is up to John (Howard)'...

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

Posted by yardie on 02-14-2003 03:22 AM:

Arrow

Well said triplespear. I have been argueing these points forever on these boards.

quote:
Originally posted by triplespear
Our country has backed many tyrranical regimes to ensure access to interests: Pre-Ayatollah Iran, Pre-Castro Cuba, among others ( Panama, South Vietnam, etc.)were run by criminals with the same attitudes toward their people as Saddam Hussein. We even supported Hussein when it served our political needs.
Sure, Secretary Powell has shown evidence that WMD hanky-panky is going on in Iraq, but the essential, frustrating question remains: "Why does that take priority over all other public policy?" The connection between Iraq and fundamentalist terrorism is specious, so what is the real reason? Is Saddam's treatment of his poeple worth your life or your brother's/son's/father's life, given on a distant battlefield?
It frustrates me to know that a President who didn't serve his country in war ( his father kept him in the National Guard) is so willing to send other people's kids into battle.
The bottom line is this for me: We have no right initiating an unprovoked, pre-emptive war with anyone.

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

Posted by yardie on 02-14-2003 03:29 AM:

Arrow Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Powell

Whether they have an arsenal or not is anyone's guess. This site have soem interesting info though: http://www.sunshine-project.org/pub.../pr240902.html.

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak


Do you have any evidence that the United States has a chemical weapon arsenal?

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

Posted by ToolkiT on 02-14-2003 05:06 AM:

just to show I'm not the only person who shows things out of context to get the point across:

quote:
Terry Jones is of Monty Python fame, and this was published in The
> Observer.
>
> "I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
> he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been
> really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the
> street.
> Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give
> me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for
> me,
> but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his
> place few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well
> hidden.
> That's how devious he is.
> As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good
> sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the
> street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one
> by one.
> Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the
> police?
> But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need
> evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come
> up with
> endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-
> emptive
> strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do
> terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.
> Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic
> firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently
> that's been a little difficult.
> Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do
> is
> run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
> That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and
> children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us
> in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way. Mr
> Bush
> makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that
> Saddam
> is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction -
> even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much
justification
> for
> killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.
> Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are
> dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite
> frankly
> - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped
them
> all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply
> using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts
her
> up. Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough
> reason for the President, it's good enough for me.
> I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out
> in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers,
> galactic
> outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand
> them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire
> street to
> kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing
> -and,
> in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one
street."
>
> -- Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame) Sunday, 26 January 2003, The
> Observer.
> England.

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:16 PM. Pages (10): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.4
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2016.