Political Thread - CLOSED


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Political Thread - CLOSED

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 12 · Next
Author Message
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 26946 - Posted: 16 Sep 2004, 4:11:18 UTC
Last modified: 31 Dec 2004, 6:13:06 UTC

THREAD CLOSED

ChinookFoehn
Send message
Joined: 18 Apr 02
Posts: 462
Credit: 24,039
RAC: 0
Message 26954 - Posted: 16 Sep 2004, 4:57:31 UTC - in response to Message 26946.
Last modified: 17 Dec 2004, 5:00:31 UTC

ChinookFoehn
Send message
Joined: 18 Apr 02
Posts: 462
Credit: 24,039
RAC: 0
Message 26959 - Posted: 16 Sep 2004, 5:13:57 UTC - in response to Message 26955.
Last modified: 17 Dec 2004, 5:01:20 UTC

Profile keithw1975
Send message
Joined: 10 Dec 99
Posts: 20
Credit: 85,882
RAC: 0
United States
Message 27293 - Posted: 17 Sep 2004, 11:47:29 UTC
Last modified: 17 Sep 2004, 11:59:25 UTC

We only have a small part of our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They just called home a bunch of our troops from South Korea and other areas around Europe. I am sure it would be that big of a deal to take on Iran, but you would ever have to. Iran is a case where you don't care about regime change. You could do everything you needed to with planes and precision strikes.

I sure wish we had a working missile defense system, that way we could just ignore them as well as China and N. Korea and just let the Europeans deal with it and show the stupid U.S. how it should be handled. LOL

Profile Petit Soleil
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 46,577
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 27327 - Posted: 17 Sep 2004, 13:27:30 UTC - in response to Message 27293.
Last modified: 17 Sep 2004, 19:31:59 UTC

> We only have a small part of our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They just
> called home a bunch of our troops from South Korea and other areas around
> Europe. I am sure it would be that big of a deal to take on Iran, but you
> would ever have to. Iran is a case where you don't care about regime change.
> You could do everything you needed to with planes and precision strikes.

Yea it would certainly not be a big deal to take on Iran but I wonder why Bush didn't do it first place. After all most of the highjakers where Iranians and the money to build 9/11 attack was comming from Iran. Maybe it was not a good idea after all since half of US belong to them and since BUSH is a great friend of the royal familly for is OWN interests....Stop being so naive, You see the mess USA has created in Irak, well you can multiply it by 1000 if US attacks Iran. Anyway why Israel has the right to have american nukes, take on palestinian's lands and the Arab world should just watch and keep quiet. I guess it would not be a good idea also for the growing anti american sentiment arround the world.

> I sure wish we had a working missile defense system, that way we could just
> ignore them as well as China and N. Korea and just let the Europeans deal with
> it and show the stupid U.S. how it should be handled. LOL

Deal with what? An american problem? No way. The problem in this part of the world is because of blinded american support to Israel. After all why not.Israel is building a wall to seperate them from arabs, America will have a missile shield....Like you say LOL but time will tell who will really laugh
in a not so long time period. For now Europe doesn't have problem with China or Iran or any other arabs country, except those who followed US in this illegal and not justified invasion of Irak. Those are slowly waking up, Spain realized at a great cost, the polish are at 80% in favor of bringing their troops back home, and Italy will break under the pressure of France, Russia, Germany and Spain. As for the British, well, are they really Europeans ? They don't have Euro, their foreign policies and interest are much closer to those of US than Europe. Actually the British themselves don't feel as European. Time will tell that it was a big mistake. Irak and Afguanistan will never become a US democraty, the Taliban will come back, Actually they have never gone very far, and Irak will end up in a civil war.

Good job Georges ! BRING EM' ON !!!

-.-. --.- -.. -..- . - --... ...-- .-.-. -.-

Profile keithw1975
Send message
Joined: 10 Dec 99
Posts: 20
Credit: 85,882
RAC: 0
United States
Message 27362 - Posted: 17 Sep 2004, 14:49:07 UTC

Unless I am mistaken the Isrealies will do pretty much whatever the U.S. asks them too. Sure they may say contrary things in public when it comes to how much force to use to make it look like the U.S. is trying to stop them but I think in reality Isreal is a tool the U.S. uses to do things it knows would look bad to the rest of the world if they did it.

Profile Petit Soleil
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 46,577
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 27366 - Posted: 17 Sep 2004, 15:03:26 UTC - in response to Message 27362.

> Unless I am mistaken the Isrealies will do pretty much whatever the U.S. asks
> them too. Sure they may say contrary things in public when it comes to how
> much force to use to make it look like the U.S. is trying to stop them but I
> think in reality Isreal is a tool the U.S. uses to do things it knows would
> look bad to the rest of the world if they did it.
>

If it is the case then the US foreign policies is even worse than I thought.

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2912
Credit: 6,720,503
RAC: 1,931
United States
Message 27443 - Posted: 17 Sep 2004, 20:38:53 UTC
Last modified: 17 Sep 2004, 20:57:45 UTC

This is an interesting thread so I thought I’d step in.

While I agree that Korea is and has been more dangerous than Iraq, there was a huge legal difference between the two situations (this also relates to Iran). After the first Gulf War, the one to liberate Kuwait, the coalition forces halted their advance on Baghdad in part because of pressure from the Saudis, but only after an agreement had been signed that said Baghdad would rid the country of Weapons of Mass Distraction (WMD), and allow international inspections conducted by the United Nations to enforce the agreement. There were other agreements, including being prohibited from firing upon or taking any aggressive action (like fire control radar locks) towards coalition troops that remained in the area.

Saddam’s military repeatedly violated these agreements, and ultimately (during the Clinton administration) kicked the UN inspectors out of the country. These violations of the agreement that had been struck after the Gulf War, became unbearable after the 9/11 attacks on United States. Given that Saddam had a history of stockpiling and using WMD – and now he was refusing to allow confirmation of efforts to destroy them – that alone should have been sufficient to take action, but the UN (in a stunning act of international cowardice) refused.

Neither Korea nor Iran are under any obligation stemming from a cease-fire agreement that ended armed conflict (even though they are nominally signatories to the largely worthless Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty). George Bush’s greatest mistake was relying so heavily on faulty intelligence (also generally believed by every world power) that WMD were still in Iraq. Though he also mentioned humanitarian concerns to justify the war, he would’ve been on much more solid ground had he explained the violation of the first Gulf War agreement, which after 9/11, we could no longer live with.

When it comes to support from most other European nations and NATO, at least in the case of the Germans and the French, it appears that they had economic interests that were certainly harmed by the war. Whether that worked into their decision not to support the United States, or just their abiding hatred for our president (a hatred shared by many in this country, but that’s another issue), I do not know. It has been argued that the war was based on American lust for oil (that was neither true during the Kuwait war nor this one); or because George W. Bush had a personal dislike for Saddam (while this may be true, it is insulting and disingenuous to believe that Bush and the vast majority of the United States Congress would choose to go to war based on a personal feud).

As for the 9/11 commission report, which has been widely reported to deny a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, I have not been able to find such a statement in the report. It does say that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, but that is a much narrower statement than what is being claimed in the news media.

Finally, it would be racist to claim that the Iraqis (or Muslims/Arabs/Middle Easterners, I've heard all these) are incapable of a democratic government, and United States will do everything in its power to help the Iraqis establish such a government. Until their political structure is strong enough, it would be prudent for coalition forces to remain in that country. The vast majority of Iraqis are thankful that Saddam is gone, and that coalition forces are assisting in the rebuilding of their country.

Profile Carl Christensen
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 99
Posts: 143
Credit: 4,106
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 27468 - Posted: 17 Sep 2004, 21:47:50 UTC - in response to Message 27443.

> be prudent for coalition forces to remain in that country. The vast majority
> of Iraqis are thankful that Saddam is gone, and that coalition forces are
> assisting in the rebuilding of their country.

well the Iraqi soccer team in the Olympics would disagree! ;-)
As far as "democracy in Muslim lands" -- there's Turkey, and it would help if US allies such as Pakistan were a democracy instead of a military dictatorship. As an American living overseas, I imagine that these sorts of hypocrisies is what causes massive mistrust of "American democracy." Sort of like when Chile democratically elected Allende and Kissinger didn't like that; so a convenient right-wing military coup (a la Pakistan) "took care" of that, on Sept 11 '73.

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2912
Credit: 6,720,503
RAC: 1,931
United States
Message 27500 - Posted: 17 Sep 2004, 23:21:13 UTC - in response to Message 27468.
Last modified: 17 Sep 2004, 23:35:26 UTC

> well the Iraqi soccer team in the Olympics would disagree! ;-)

Are you talking about the 2004 Iraqi team or the one tortured by Saddam's son?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/07/MN175617.DTL
I heard what the Iraqi team said during the 2004 Olympics--might there have been a reason to say such things when their homes and families back in Iraq were at risk in an, admittedly, dangerous and unstable situation? Are you saying that you disagree that it is better that Saddam is gone?

> As far as "democracy in Muslim lands" -- there's Turkey, and it would help if
> US allies such as Pakistan were a democracy instead of a military
> dictatorship. As an American living overseas, I imagine that these sorts of
> hypocrisies is what causes massive mistrust of "American democracy." Sort of
> like when Chile democratically elected Allende and Kissinger didn't like that;
> so a convenient right-wing military coup (a la Pakistan) "took care" of that,
> on Sept 11 '73.

I agree that we have made mistakes in the world in the past, but what does a coup in Chile in 1973 have to do with Bush in Iraq? Isn't that a long (30 year) stretch? It's clear you disagree with me, but my premise is sound: we had a legally sound justification for the war (which doesn't apply to either Iran or North Korea). And this focus on the lack of WMD, while relevant, should not distract from the reality of the situation, today: that the Iraqis and the world are better off with Saddam gone.

P.S. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm curious that you say you are American, but you list the United Kingdom in your SETI profile?

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 27523 - Posted: 18 Sep 2004, 0:33:28 UTC - in response to Message 27366.

> If it is the case then the US foreign policies is even worse than I thought.
>
I'm pretty sure you already think the worst.

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 27526 - Posted: 18 Sep 2004, 0:40:27 UTC - in response to Message 27468.

> well the Iraqi soccer team in the Olympics would disagree! ;-)
Thats because Bush decided to air campaign commercials involving Iraq in the Olympics. Being happy that they were liberated from Saddam and his croanies doesnt mean they were happy being exploited in a US political contest.

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2912
Credit: 6,720,503
RAC: 1,931
United States
Message 27531 - Posted: 18 Sep 2004, 0:54:29 UTC - in response to Message 27526.

> > well the Iraqi soccer team in the Olympics would disagree! ;-)
> Thats because Bush decided to air campaign commercials involving Iraq in the
> Olympics. Being happy that they were liberated from Saddam and his croanies
> doesnt mean they were happy being exploited in a US political contest.
>
>
I have to say, that I'm not happy that Bush used the Iraqi participation in the Olympics to the benefit of his presidential campaign, but politics is a strange and sometimes dirty business. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I think his point was related to a greater freedom for all Iraq, but he shouldn't have reduced that message to specify the atheletes, if for no other reason than the security of the teams.

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 27533 - Posted: 18 Sep 2004, 1:01:07 UTC - in response to Message 27531.
Last modified: 18 Sep 2004, 1:08:26 UTC

> > > well the Iraqi soccer team in the Olympics would disagree! ;-)
> > Thats because Bush decided to air campaign commercials involving Iraq in
> the
> > Olympics. Being happy that they were liberated from Saddam and his
> croanies
> > doesnt mean they were happy being exploited in a US political contest.
> >
> >
> I have to say, that I'm not happy that Bush used the Iraqi participation in
> the Olympics to the benefit of his presidential campaign, but politics is a
> strange and sometimes dirty business. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I
> think his point was related to a greater freedom for all Iraq, but he
> shouldn't have reduced that message to specify the atheletes, if for no other
> reason than the security of the teams.
>
>
MAYBE if he had left it at that everything wouldve been OK but then he had to announce that he was going to Athens and watch the soccer team play. Now thats exploitation. Then when they didnt want him the Bush administration was going to send Collin Powel. Of course that also fell thru.

Profile FalconFlyProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Oct 99
Posts: 393
Credit: 16,079,096
RAC: 306
Germany
Message 27542 - Posted: 18 Sep 2004, 1:19:51 UTC - in response to Message 27531.
Last modified: 18 Sep 2004, 1:21:12 UTC

Hm, I can only hope these are not serious military considerations.

I mean, it's easy to go out and lay down Bombs and alike special Ammunitions onto other countries (famous sentence I've often heard was "because we can")...

...but the term "global de-stabilization" comes to mind, since no empire ever existed to successfully rule/police/control every spot on this planet over time.

History shows, that all nations/empires that ever tried to take on this task (rather: conquest), eventually suffered utter annihilation themself in the end, despite employing superior assets and technology all along.

IMHO, the more wars are raged on this planet, caused by individual governments' beliefs as to what is right/wrong by supressing other cultures/nations with military force, the closer we creep towards a World War III type scenario.

Given the current (last ~20 years) development and continuing it (in theory) into the next decades, it is only a question of time until someone desperate (or full of hatred/revenge) enough is able and willing to employ the first Biological or Nuclear retaliation within and against the territory of the United States.

What happens then, cannot be forseen by any means but it sure won't help our civilization.

The fine art of Diplomacy seems to have all but vanished to the widespread availability of 'apparently' sufficient/low-risk military Options it seems.

One could get the feeling that the planet's delicate and fragile balance of power is being permanently and deliberately shaken, with the clear goal of creating an atmosphere of latent worldwide instability.
Whatever reason those involved might have for doing it, there must be a terribly large amount of power or profit in reach for them, otherwise they'd have to be insane fools to risk so incredibly much in order to get hold of it.
___________________________________________
<p>Scientific Network : 36200 MHz «» 8204 MB «» 815.0 GB </p>

Profile Petit Soleil
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 46,577
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 27606 - Posted: 18 Sep 2004, 5:19:27 UTC - in response to Message 27500.

> P.S. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm curious that
> you say you are American, but you list the United Kingdom in your SETI
> profile?

Carl wtote "As an American living overseas"
His post was 5 lines long. How could you missed it ?

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2912
Credit: 6,720,503
RAC: 1,931
United States
Message 27608 - Posted: 18 Sep 2004, 5:46:16 UTC - in response to Message 27606.
Last modified: 18 Sep 2004, 5:57:58 UTC

> Carl wtote "As an American living overseas"
> His post was 5 lines long. How could you missed it ?
>
>
I did read that, but in SETI one can declare any country to be their home, for stats purposes, no matter where one lives (am I wrong?) Yet, he declared the UK rather than the US to be his home country.

Edit: I don't mean this as a criticism, I am (and I said I was) just curious.

Profile Petit Soleil
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 46,577
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 27611 - Posted: 18 Sep 2004, 6:02:02 UTC - in response to Message 27500.
Last modified: 18 Sep 2004, 6:02:32 UTC

> I agree that we have made mistakes in the world in the past, but what does a
> coup in Chile in 1973 have to do with Bush in Iraq? Isn't that a long (30
> year) stretch? It's clear you disagree with me, but my premise is sound: we
> had a legally sound justification for the war (which doesn't apply to either
> Iran or North Korea). And this focus on the lack of WMD, while relevant,
> should not distract from the reality of the situation, today: that the Iraqis
> and the world are better off with Saddam gone.

It has to do with Irak because it's the same kind of mentallity that US do what
ever they want when they think it could be good for them. Nothing has changed.
You must remember on the news channel during the fight between US and FRANCE
over Irak, US media where showing Chirac shaking hands with Sadam all the times.
That was taken in the 70's. Did they ever show rumsfeld doing the same ? The US
Government is doind misinformation and the medias are playing the game. Last
US air strike over Irak killed a lot in insurgents on US news. Well on every European
news, even your "allied" it says it killed woman and childrens and showed a little girl
arriving at hospital. Do the Irakis are better of today ? I'm not so sure. It was certainly
easy to remove Sadam, it took what 3 weeks before "mission acomplished" but the
aftermath....The country has become a terrorist paradise. One thing I found very funny
is the fight over insurgencies. Who is in the right to fight who ? Who has invades who ?
Those insurgents are on their land. they were born there. they have the rights to be there
and deffend their interrest with what they have. US did not have the right to invade Irak
period. Bush needed 9/15 votes at the security concil but he had I think 4 or 5 other
country in favor. France did not VETO for it was not necessary anyway. The truth is US
has created a huge mess in that region illigaly. not for WMD (remember that period when
everybody well UK and US said Sadam could strike nuke attacks in 40 minutes ect.) not to
free Iraki people. And what about the illigal prison in cuba ? how many innocent are there
just because they had a taliban look ? No I am really against US foreign policy and it would
be time for US to start asking themselves the real questions and not doing everything under
the sun because it is good for them and because they have the weapons to do it. Chirac said
a few days ago that "we have oppened a pendor's box" Note that he said "we" not US but
this is so true.

Profile Petit Soleil
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 46,577
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 27613 - Posted: 18 Sep 2004, 6:05:18 UTC - in response to Message 27608.

> > Carl wtote "As an American living overseas"
> > His post was 5 lines long. How could you missed it ?
> >
> >
> I did read that, but in SETI one can declare any country to be their home, for
> stats purposes, no matter where one lives (am I wrong?) Yet, he declared the
> UK rather than the US to be his home country.
>
> Edit: I don't mean this as a criticism, I am (and I said I was) just curious.
>

I know you were not critisizing him. I thought the country was due to the email
adressed you use when registering for SETI (.UK .FR) perhaps I am wrong but thats
what I have always thought.

ChinookFoehn
Send message
Joined: 18 Apr 02
Posts: 462
Credit: 24,039
RAC: 0
Message 27614 - Posted: 18 Sep 2004, 6:15:06 UTC - in response to Message 27608.
Last modified: 17 Dec 2004, 5:01:42 UTC

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 12 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Political Thread - CLOSED

Copyright © 2014 University of California