Author Topic: Seems to me America is going about this the wrong way (Read 1943 times)

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #30 on:** March 17, 2003, 09:24:23 PM »

Urchin- you think it'd be the same today if, after the year of threatened US led military action, Saddam had disarmed and proven it?

If nothing else, 12 years of giving UN inspectors the run around has proven he is not disarmed and will not disarm.

This makes him a threat to neighboring countries, who are our allies.

Lots of other reasons may be feel good, or hearsay. But this is a very good reason, I'm sorry you can't see it as one... but it is the best reason to get rid of a mad dictator who has no desire to comply with a world organization- the UN.
-SW

N1kPaz · « **Reply #31 on:** March 17, 2003, 09:56:37 PM »

i agree...it will prolly alienate us for awhile, but i think in the long run it will work out. they will still want our products, and we will still want theirs, and finally they will hopefully become so americanized that they no longer feel anything but love for us.

and we for them.

Batz · « **Reply #32 on:** March 17, 2003, 10:24:09 PM »

Urchin Saddam gives money to Hamas and other "fundamentalist" terror organizations.

Khadafi gave money to the IRA.

Terror makes strange bed fellows.

Theres nothing really confusing about it. America through economic engagement, the so called "global market," isnt just about getting products for cheap. By engaging Nations and making them apart of this global market you open opportunities for more engagement. This what we have done with China.

The world wont turn on America as long as we remain engaged economically. It cost to much to run an empire and it cost to much to fight a war on the scale it would take to defeat the US.

The rest of the world wont turn on America because we dont threaten the whole world. The world is better off with America remaining strong.

But along with the shift in policy toward the Bush Doctrine the US will maintain techically superior weapons. But we have a thing called "nuclear deterent". No country or coalition of countries could possibly think they could challenge the US.

Saddam is a viable target for the implementation of the Bush Doctrine for the reason I mentioned above.

The President and folks around him believe that Saddam or any of those Nations mentioned in Bush's axis of evil speech may turn to terror organizations to strike the US.

Either we sit and wait and hope it never happens or we take preventative and pre-emptive action to protect ourselves. 9/11 showed just how much some will go to kill Americans.

So we take out Saddam, we loose a few fair weather friends short term and we free the Iraqi people and work for a liberal democracy in Iraq.

So what if we are wrong and Saddam never really would have used wmd. We still win.

On top of this dont under estimate the weight that this message will send to the rest of the world.

The war on terror and terror groups will continue. But if countries that in the past harbored terrorists realize that it may mean their demise maybe they will be less likely to aid them.

This only limits the capability of these groups. But we will still go after them.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #33 on:** March 17, 2003, 10:27:40 PM »

5000 Iraqi children die each month due to sanctions. 500,000 under 10 since 1993. And there are those who wish to continue the policy?

How can they sleep, knowing that during their eight hour rest, 47 more will perish.

>arithmatic edit

Hangtime · « **Reply #34 on:** March 17, 2003, 10:39:19 PM »

Quote

"Sacrifices must be made"

-translated last words of Otto Lilenthal

now there's an ironic sig under the circumstances.

i guess your gonna trot the 'starving children' noise around now in every thread, mcgroin?

answers the same. sanctions didn't work. saddam got palaces, france germany and russia got oil deals and arms contracts.

so now were going to get saddam.. and the 'starving children' will get the food they should have gotten, that we sent, that saddam waylayed and resold into the blackmarket.

the suffering will be over soon.

pick a new sig line, or drop the 'sacraficing the children' roadkill.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #35 on:** March 18, 2003, 12:11:44 AM »

Only a few threads, Hangtime.

My point is that the policy GWB is following may be more humane than following endless sanctions. Kofi Anan said today he wishes that the present crisis could have been resolved peacefully, but it seems sanctions are anything but peaceful.

It seems I am on your side on this issue, sorry I wasn't more clear.... and I started using Otto's last words as an avaition reference, after Columbia. If you are not familiar with the the story, Lilenthal was the foremost avaition authority prior to the Wright Brothers, and when he crashed his glider in 1896 and was mortally wounded, he was asked whether the effort was worth his life and he replied with his last words.

Though it may be misinterpreted as some sort of callous attitude, it is just meant as an understanding that all things have consequences, and some short term hardships may be outweighed by long term payoffs.

Hangtime · « **Reply #36 on:** March 18, 2003, 12:36:12 AM »

my mistake.. and i'm sorry i leaped again without looking. i seem to be getting testy lately... must be something i ate.

i'll go back to the rubber walled room quietly.

SLO · « **Reply #37 on:** March 18, 2003, 09:16:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
my mistake.. and i'm sorry i leaped again without looking. i seem to be getting testy lately... must be something i ate.

i'll go back to the rubber walled room quietly.

yes hang...I've noticed that too...very very aggressive responses.

Saddam had 12 years.....he mis-played his cards......now he gonna pay for it.....

but don't forget....Black an White(4 or against us) Foreign Politics does NOT work.....

but I agree on a few points Urchin has made.....

Urchin....
Why Iraq? Will America only bully toejampot little Third World countries with no big friends? Or, on a more frightening note, will Bush decide that North Korea and China need "regime changes" too?

good point urchin.....

Toad · « **Reply #38 on:** March 18, 2003, 09:58:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SLO
Will America only bully toejampot little Third World countries with no big friends? Or, on a more frightening note, will Bush decide that North Korea and China need "regime changes" too?

No, we only bully sh*tpot little Third World countries that have invaded their neighbors, slaughtered their own people in genocidal campaigns and proceeded to research, build and deploy Weapons of Mass Destruction while ignoring UN Security Council resolutions against doing that for over 12 years.

But I'm not surprised you haven't noticed that.

China and NK? Who knows? Do you know if the UN Security Council will pass resolutions directing them to disarm for the next 12 years? That would be a considerable factor, I think.

Toad · « **Reply #39 on:** March 18, 2003, 10:04:49 AM »

A recent editorial in the local paper made a point about those who would "betray an ally for the sake of a dictator".

Puts the spotlight right on the issue, I think.

No one wants this war. It's more than clear that Hussein has ignored the SC resolutions for over a decade. Blitz just put out an 89 page list of disarmament issues that remain to be addressed. 89 pages after more than a decade of work by the UN to disarm him.

Then there's 1441 and its unanimous passage more than 4 months ago. With just a small amount of progress since then. 89 pages remaining.

When the question was finally called there were those who would rather side with a dictator than an ally.

There seems to be quite a lot of that shown on this BBS as well.

SLO · « **Reply #40 on:** March 18, 2003, 01:06:42 PM »

Toad......

Yes he's been lyin for the past 12 years.....but ya knew that...right?....so why the big hurry now....is there a mortal danger to America now...or is the bush govr. applyin the new preemptive doctrine.

as for genocide(more like mass cruelty....thats a terror regime)....use of Wmd's(against Iranians in Kurd territory....and crushing the kurd uprising).....he was losing(the war with Iran)....he used his last recourse....do I agree with said course.....of course not

but lets not forget China, Korea....have had a bad human rights violitions too.....by.....Terror...surpr essions....force of arms(Tin. square remember)

as for research...pretty much every country has a RIGHT to do it.....ya did it....so can others.

see Toad...ya gotta understand 1 point thats NOT important to Americans like yourself...but which is VERY important to Canadians like me.....

we do not have a military able to cross oceans and attack any at OUR will....so we do have to use the ONLY recourse at our disposal......UN

you on the other hand have NO need of the UN......

by you discarding the UN to apply your new PREEMPTIVE DOCTRINE....puts the rest of us in a sensitive spot.....

I don't wanna agrue.....just hope you understand OUR pov on the UN issue.......

Wish your boys safe journey....Hit em fast...Hit em hard

Toad · « **Reply #41 on:** March 18, 2003, 02:23:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SLO

Yes he's been lyin for the past 12 years.....but ya knew that...right?....so why the big hurry now....

You recall SC resolution 1441 last November, correct? It was spelled out to him that it was a "last chance". Now you're nearly 1/2 a year farther down the 12 year long road... not exactly a big hurry is it?

I don't approve of it without the UN SC clear backing, but it was also clear that France wasn't going to budge. Heck, they said that outright. So I'm not suprised Bush is going ahead.

But to characterize this 12 year journey, in light of 1441 the last 5 months as a "big hurry" is just ....... a joke.

Quote

Originally posted by SLO

as for genocide(more like mass cruelty....thats a terror regime)....use of Wmd's(against Iranians in Kurd territory....and crushing the kurd uprising).....he was losing(the war with Iran)....he used his last recourse....do I agree with said course.....of course not

Like so many others, you have failed to do your homework. The fight against the Kurds absolutely qualified as genocide. Estimates range from 100,000 to 180,000 Kurds killed, men, WOMEN and CHILDREN. All means, including WMD, used to kill them.

Please do a bit of research on "Anfal" in a search engine and read particularly what Human Rights Watch had to say about it.

Your "mass cruelty" shows the depth to which you do not understand what happened during the Anfal.

This does not adress the murder and torture that goes on in his prisons. Including reportedly torturing children in front of their parents.

Quote

Originally posted by SLO

but lets not forget China, Korea....have had a bad human rights violitions too.....by.....Terror...surpr essions....force of arms(Tin. square remember)

No indeed! Let us not forget!

Let us not forget that China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto capability.

Should we choose to engage them on the items you mention and threaten "serious consequences" in a resolution against them if they fail to comply, do you think they'll veto it?

If so, will Canada put her massive military at our disposal if the US decides to invade China after the veto?

I'm guessing that'd be "no"; how about you?

North Korea? I think you'll get your chance to show your views again here real soon.

It's the UN blue flag that flies over the Korean DMZ. The UN IAEA has referred NK's violation of and susequent pull out from the Non Proliferation Treaty to the UN Security Council to deal with. This is the way the IAEA works.

Now, what do you think the SC will do? Particularly in light of the SC's recent actions.

I'll wager the US is going to let the SC take the lead on NK just to make a clear point. The SC will do NOTHING; it can do NOTHING. There is no "spine" in the SC.

The SC has authorised the use of force two times. Once in Korea when the Soviets were boycotting and in the Gulf last time.

The SC couldn't reach an agreement to use force in the Balkans when the slaughter was indisputable. It took an illegal use of NATO forces by Clinton to militarily intervene there.

Once again, it will be the US that resolves the NK problem, most likely thorough paying the blackmail price. Which really won't resolve anything. After all, that's what Clinton did in the Agreed Framework and they almost immediately violated that with a uranium enrichment program.

Quote

Originally posted by SLO

by you discarding the UN to apply your new PREEMPTIVE DOCTRINE....puts the rest of us in a sensitive spot.....

Yes. it does.

You have to decide to trust and stand with a longtime ally that has come to your aid EVERY time you asked OR you have to decide to stand with a dictator that has attacked his neighbors, used WMD against them and his own people and conducted a genocidal operation against a minority group in his own country that resulted in 100K-180K deaths of men, women and children.

Apparently that is a "tough decision" for some of our "allies".

SLO · « **Reply #42 on:** March 18, 2003, 02:53:46 PM »

explain the diff. in killing 100 000 in 1 week with Wmd's.....and 100 000 in 6 months by arms......

Canada never...I REPEAT NEVER needed your help when it came to defending my country....you presume too much.....

and yes we will help with our MASSIVE military if ya do tango with china....or 3 ships and our arsenal of BB guns will be great against the chinese:eek:

I gotta go soon....will ask more tommorrow.....unless basement is finished an i can plug me puter back...then i'll ask more soonish...

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE....

here try this:rolleyes:

Toad · « **Reply #43 on:** March 18, 2003, 09:00:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SLO
Canada never...I REPEAT NEVER needed your help when it came to defending my country....you presume too much.....

You Canadians weren't/aren't part of the Commonwealth?

I did indeed presume you were. And our record of aid to the Commonwealth is well known.

No comment as to the confirmed genocide in Iraq I see.

The same folks that oppose the Iraq operation would be absolutely ballistic about going against China. You know it, too.

And, of course, no response to the the clear choice YOU have. Stand with a longtime trusted ally or stand with a genocidal dictator.

It doesn't seem so tough for you, given what you've posted the last few weeks. It's pretty clear you were able to make a choice.

As for your 100,000 remark, it's not really clear to me.

If you're referring to the Anfal, it was a long, drawn out operation that was specifically designed to kill Kurdish men, women and children using all available weaponry. I take it you have not read the Human Rights Watch 13 Chapter discussion of it that is posted on the web.

So, in that light, I can make no sense of your remark.

Unless it is that if you kill 100K in one week with WMD and 100K in 6 months using conventional arms..... then you can I assume use WMD to kill 2,400K in 6 months using WMD, a much greater total than by conventional arms.

Lazerus1 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 18, 2003, 09:26:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SLO
Toad......

see Toad...ya gotta understand 1 point thats NOT important to Americans like yourself...but which is VERY important to Canadians like me.....

we do not have a military able to cross oceans and attack any at OUR will....so we do have to use the ONLY recourse at our disposal......UN

you on the other hand have NO need of the UN......

Wish your boys safe journey....Hit em fast...Hit em hard

Don't mean to interject here, but Canada has another recource, and an invaluable resource. Look south my friend. Any attack ever made on Canada would be viewed as an attack on the USA. We are friends that will never leave you, unlike some of those that hold positions on the UNSC and could veto any multilateral support.