Is it justified?
Monday, January 13, 2003 by @shu | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Is it justified? I mean the war against Iraq. Of course, the optimists may say, 'Look, it hasn't taken place as yet'. But it is clear to even the common observer that the Anglo-American governments are cranking up the war machine.
They are hell bent on taking unilateral action against a nation that is already destroyed by hunger and poverty, even after the UN weapons inspectors have found nothing. Doesn't this make their actions suspect?
Elsewhere, the N. government openly admits to having a nuclear weapons program, but no action is taken against them. The mere possibility of taking action too does not cross the mind of the very same leaders who threaten to blow Iraq into oblivion. Is it due to the fact that N. Korea possesses the capability to retaliate, or the fact that N. Korea does not have any oil reserves to quench the thirst of these oil guzzling, 'developed, first world' countries?
They are hell bent on taking unilateral action against a nation that is already destroyed by hunger and poverty, even after the UN weapons inspectors have found nothing. Doesn't this make their actions suspect?
Elsewhere, the N. government openly admits to having a nuclear weapons program, but no action is taken against them. The mere possibility of taking action too does not cross the mind of the very same leaders who threaten to blow Iraq into oblivion. Is it due to the fact that N. Korea possesses the capability to retaliate, or the fact that N. Korea does not have any oil reserves to quench the thirst of these oil guzzling, 'developed, first world' countries?
 |
|
Page 1 of 9 | |
|
|---|
Frogboy
Reply #2 Monday, January 13, 2003 9:11 PM
Reply #2 Monday, January 13, 2003 9:11 PM
Neither did. Or at least, neither has been shown to do it.
Of course Saddam has ruined his country. Straved his people. Tortures dissidents. And continues to try to obtain WMD that he has been shown to use. Shoots at US planes patrolling the UN security council authorized no-fly zones. Funds suicide bombers in Israel.
So is there a reason not to get rid of this guy other than "war is bad"?
I don't recall hearing much grumbling about going into Panama in 1989 to replace the regime there.
Of course Saddam has ruined his country. Straved his people. Tortures dissidents. And continues to try to obtain WMD that he has been shown to use. Shoots at US planes patrolling the UN security council authorized no-fly zones. Funds suicide bombers in Israel.
So is there a reason not to get rid of this guy other than "war is bad"?
I don't recall hearing much grumbling about going into Panama in 1989 to replace the regime there.
@shu
Reply #3 Monday, January 13, 2003 9:28 PM
Reply #3 Monday, January 13, 2003 9:28 PM
But there is no proof that Saddam did either. And weren't the people who blew up the WTC towers, America's own creations???
@shu
Reply #4 Monday, January 13, 2003 9:30 PM
Reply #4 Monday, January 13, 2003 9:30 PM
And is this policy of meddling in other people's affairs a national hobby in these nations or is it just another way of earning brownie points for the next presidential or general elections???
WOM
Reply #5 Monday, January 13, 2003 9:36 PM
Reply #5 Monday, January 13, 2003 9:36 PM
So I guess you are saying that we created the terrorists who blew up the WCT towers? I'am sure it's been proven that Saddam funds suicide bombers.
@shu
Reply #6 Monday, January 13, 2003 9:54 PM
Reply #6 Monday, January 13, 2003 9:54 PM
But WOM, what I have stated is a fact. The initial boost to the 'Jehadi' culture of terrorism was provided by the US and the mother-of-all-intelligence-agencies, the CIA. It funded and trained these fundamentalists against the Soviets in 1979. Now they are using the same Stinger missiles against their benefactors.
And about Saddam, if I dare refresh your memory, the US and GB found him a great ally in the Iran-Iraq war to help contain the growing influence of Iran in the region.
And about Saddam, if I dare refresh your memory, the US and GB found him a great ally in the Iran-Iraq war to help contain the growing influence of Iran in the region.
WOM
Reply #7 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:04 PM
Reply #7 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:04 PM
@shu, I know and that was one of the US's many mistakes. We should not have helped Iran, Iraq and the other countries over there that we have helped. Should have let them fight each other. Every time we help some country they turn around and bit us.
paxx
Reply #8 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:17 PM
Reply #8 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:17 PM
Prior to 1990, Iraq was the country in the middle east with the least poverty and the highest rate of alphabetisation. Iraq was known as one of the few middle-east countries to actually share the oil income with its people. Since then, poverty has greatly increased and alphabetisation is down. Probable cause is the embargos.
Not saying Saddam is a good guy, not even close. But compared to all the other dictators in the region, he's one of the least bad. And his people truly loved him. Except for the Kurds. Now, that is indeed the biggest issue about him. He totally massacred probably tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of Kurds (there are no official numbers, the number varies according to the sources). Now, somebody should have stepped in to stop that, but nope. Nothing was done. Funny how the real horrible thing Saddam did is ignored while he is blamed for things that aren't likely there (nuclear weapons).
North Korea on the other hand DO have nuclear power, and deserves to be blown out of this earth. Sorry, I exagerate. The North Korean people shouldn't pay for its evil governement. Saddam is an angel when compared to KIM, the last Stalinist leader on the planet.
Not saying Saddam is a good guy, not even close. But compared to all the other dictators in the region, he's one of the least bad. And his people truly loved him. Except for the Kurds. Now, that is indeed the biggest issue about him. He totally massacred probably tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of Kurds (there are no official numbers, the number varies according to the sources). Now, somebody should have stepped in to stop that, but nope. Nothing was done. Funny how the real horrible thing Saddam did is ignored while he is blamed for things that aren't likely there (nuclear weapons).
North Korea on the other hand DO have nuclear power, and deserves to be blown out of this earth. Sorry, I exagerate. The North Korean people shouldn't pay for its evil governement. Saddam is an angel when compared to KIM, the last Stalinist leader on the planet.
@shu
Reply #9 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:24 PM
Reply #9 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:24 PM
Here are some facts that the western countries may or may not acknowledge:
1. History is always written by winners. So what you might read may not be the truth, it may just be one of its many manifestations, to glorify oneself and belittle others. History states that the WWs were the result of a single person's fantasies. Is it entirely true? Weren't all the colonising nations responsible for the tremendous loss of life and property? Though we are quick to blame the Nazis for the catastrophe, does anyone ever ponder why a civilised nation like Germany was drawn into the clutches of this grotesque phenomenon?
2. The world was divided into two halves and pitched against each other by the 2 superpowers. Countries were halved, families destroyed; all for what: A GAME OF ONEMANUPSHIP?????
3. Its been what 55 years from the end of WWII, but have the US returned the territories it claimed from Imperial Japan? Does it still not have bases in that nation?
4. Doesn't US still have apresence in the Gulf Countries of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait after more than 10 years since the end of the Gulf War?
5. Wasn't US the one who created Jehadi Terrorists in Afghanistan? Wasn't it the one who used Saddam as a ploy against Iran?
6. It claims to police the world. It says that weapons from Iraqi arsenal are not off hands to terrorists. But it is mum on the same issue in case of the banana republic of Pakistan. it also turns blind eye to the blatant proliferation of the Chinese Republic.
7. To avenge the death of 5000 people in the WTC disaster, it bombs Afghanistan back to prehistoric state, but neglects the death of more then 20000 Indian nationals in the proxy war waged by Pakistan in the Indian state of Kashmir.
Maybe its time to discard this myopic view, and President Bush can make a headstart by not trying to finish the Bush Senior's unfinished business of Iraq.
1. History is always written by winners. So what you might read may not be the truth, it may just be one of its many manifestations, to glorify oneself and belittle others. History states that the WWs were the result of a single person's fantasies. Is it entirely true? Weren't all the colonising nations responsible for the tremendous loss of life and property? Though we are quick to blame the Nazis for the catastrophe, does anyone ever ponder why a civilised nation like Germany was drawn into the clutches of this grotesque phenomenon?
2. The world was divided into two halves and pitched against each other by the 2 superpowers. Countries were halved, families destroyed; all for what: A GAME OF ONEMANUPSHIP?????
3. Its been what 55 years from the end of WWII, but have the US returned the territories it claimed from Imperial Japan? Does it still not have bases in that nation?
4. Doesn't US still have apresence in the Gulf Countries of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait after more than 10 years since the end of the Gulf War?
5. Wasn't US the one who created Jehadi Terrorists in Afghanistan? Wasn't it the one who used Saddam as a ploy against Iran?
6. It claims to police the world. It says that weapons from Iraqi arsenal are not off hands to terrorists. But it is mum on the same issue in case of the banana republic of Pakistan. it also turns blind eye to the blatant proliferation of the Chinese Republic.
7. To avenge the death of 5000 people in the WTC disaster, it bombs Afghanistan back to prehistoric state, but neglects the death of more then 20000 Indian nationals in the proxy war waged by Pakistan in the Indian state of Kashmir.
Maybe its time to discard this myopic view, and President Bush can make a headstart by not trying to finish the Bush Senior's unfinished business of Iraq.
@shu
Reply #10 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:26 PM
Reply #10 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:26 PM
Dear WOM, tell me an instance where the US has genuinely tried to help other nations. Anytime it has 'helped' a nation, it has had its own self-interest in mind.
@shu
Reply #11 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:28 PM
Reply #11 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:28 PM
sorry, that should've read oneupmanship. got bit carried away.
Frogboy
Reply #12 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:37 PM
Reply #12 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:37 PM
Shu, your knowledge on history or well reality is severely lacking.
By your argument, the United States had no reason to fight back against Japan after it bombed Pearl Harbor. After all, the fuel and metal that they used to build and power their planes came from the United States.
Secondly, while the US has bases in Japan, they are leased and are the sovereign territory of Japan. In fact, you go on and on about the US having bases in different countries. The US has bases where the countries have either asked or agreed to have them. When the leases expire and the people don't want them there, the US leaves (ala the Philipines).
The Afghanastan nonsense is even worse. You have it all mixed up. Not even sure where to start. Yes, the US trained Afghans to resist the Soviets when the USSR INVADED Afghanistan.
Secondly, Iraq attacked Iran, the US wasn't involved. When Iraq started losing the war, the US aided Iraq (Iran had just got done holding Americans as hostages so it wasn't that surprising that the US didn't want to see Iran conquer Iraq).
And then we get to the strange argument that while the US has no business "meddling", it is somehow our business to meddle in Kashmir. India is much more powerful than Pakistan, I don't think it needs the help of the US.
Incidentally, Afghanistan was already in a prehistoric state and I think if you actually talked to someone in Khabul, they will say things are BETTER now than when they were under the Taliban.
shu, if you want to spout out ignorant anti-american trash, please take it to a political site where the people there can properly thrash you for your ignorance.
This is a skin site. Or at the very least, a site where people discuss things with at least a basic knowledge of history, geography, or current events.
By your argument, the United States had no reason to fight back against Japan after it bombed Pearl Harbor. After all, the fuel and metal that they used to build and power their planes came from the United States.
Secondly, while the US has bases in Japan, they are leased and are the sovereign territory of Japan. In fact, you go on and on about the US having bases in different countries. The US has bases where the countries have either asked or agreed to have them. When the leases expire and the people don't want them there, the US leaves (ala the Philipines).
The Afghanastan nonsense is even worse. You have it all mixed up. Not even sure where to start. Yes, the US trained Afghans to resist the Soviets when the USSR INVADED Afghanistan.
Secondly, Iraq attacked Iran, the US wasn't involved. When Iraq started losing the war, the US aided Iraq (Iran had just got done holding Americans as hostages so it wasn't that surprising that the US didn't want to see Iran conquer Iraq).
And then we get to the strange argument that while the US has no business "meddling", it is somehow our business to meddle in Kashmir. India is much more powerful than Pakistan, I don't think it needs the help of the US.
Incidentally, Afghanistan was already in a prehistoric state and I think if you actually talked to someone in Khabul, they will say things are BETTER now than when they were under the Taliban.
shu, if you want to spout out ignorant anti-american trash, please take it to a political site where the people there can properly thrash you for your ignorance.
This is a skin site. Or at the very least, a site where people discuss things with at least a basic knowledge of history, geography, or current events.
davad70
Reply #13 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:41 PM
Reply #13 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:41 PM
Maybe we should also keep our "polls" closer to what people come to the site for as well.
WOM
Reply #14 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:43 PM
Reply #14 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:43 PM
@shu, to tired to really think right now, but I don't know of any nation that helps other nations without some kind of motive behind it.
Jafo
Reply #15 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:46 PM
Reply #15 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:46 PM
I have no problem with 'cause and effect'...Bin Laden knocks over the Trade Center, the US [and others] expunge the Taliban and its supporters. Quid pro quo...
Now. if Bin Laden only SAID he would knock over the Twin Towers, and the US [and others] expunged the Taliban and their supporters 'just in case he rally DID get around to doing it'..[quaintly referred-to as 'pre-emptive striking']...THAT is over-stepping the mark, and no amount of righteous chest-beating will alter the truth of the matter that the instigator of violence is the 'oppressor' and not the 'innocent victim'.
If Saddam is sufficient of a tyrant to oppress his own people and indulge in ethnic cleansing then it is the role of the UN to determine whether it is appropriate for outside action to be taken for the greater good of the world community and/or the iraqis themselves.
Nowhere is there a right granted by some 'almighty being' to empower the US and/or GB to take it upon themselves to intervene. {although the cynical will say it's political expedience.....election year, etc].
Once upon a time, the Imperial Japanese determined that the Pacific Fleet harboured at Pearl was a 'potential threat' to their sovereignty and influence over the region, and conducted a 'pre-emptive strike'.
THAT time, the US responded with a more 'realistic' sense of righting a 'wrong-doing', than they will ever be attributed with if and when they get all 'pre-emptive' with Saddam and his WMDs whether he has them or not.
It may come as a heart-rending realisation that even your OWN beloved country is not necessarily above reproach and incapable of doing wrong or making mistakes.
Now. if Bin Laden only SAID he would knock over the Twin Towers, and the US [and others] expunged the Taliban and their supporters 'just in case he rally DID get around to doing it'..[quaintly referred-to as 'pre-emptive striking']...THAT is over-stepping the mark, and no amount of righteous chest-beating will alter the truth of the matter that the instigator of violence is the 'oppressor' and not the 'innocent victim'.
If Saddam is sufficient of a tyrant to oppress his own people and indulge in ethnic cleansing then it is the role of the UN to determine whether it is appropriate for outside action to be taken for the greater good of the world community and/or the iraqis themselves.
Nowhere is there a right granted by some 'almighty being' to empower the US and/or GB to take it upon themselves to intervene. {although the cynical will say it's political expedience.....election year, etc].
Once upon a time, the Imperial Japanese determined that the Pacific Fleet harboured at Pearl was a 'potential threat' to their sovereignty and influence over the region, and conducted a 'pre-emptive strike'.
THAT time, the US responded with a more 'realistic' sense of righting a 'wrong-doing', than they will ever be attributed with if and when they get all 'pre-emptive' with Saddam and his WMDs whether he has them or not.
It may come as a heart-rending realisation that even your OWN beloved country is not necessarily above reproach and incapable of doing wrong or making mistakes.
Jafo
Reply #16 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:52 PM
Reply #16 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:52 PM
Note to self...use more than two fingers when typing...
Jafo
Reply #17 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:54 PM
Reply #17 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:54 PM
BTW...for anyone unaware, I'm an Aussie, and currently we have 'people' in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and shipping enforcing the embargo in the Gulf...so we, too, are 'involved'...
@shu
Reply #18 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:56 PM
Reply #18 Monday, January 13, 2003 10:56 PM
Frogboy, I understand ur take on these subjects, and I don't blame you. I understand that the US was within its rights to wage war against Japan after the Pearl Harbour bombing. In fact it would have been wrong if the US hadn't done so. But do you really believe that a nation would like the armed forces of another nation on its soil??? How naive can one get?
I am sure that the US trained Afghanis in the 'right spirit'. The same 'spirit' it showed in assisting Iraq against Iran. I am sure that it had to do nothing, absolutely nothing, with its own interests in the region. It was not terrified by the prospect of the influence of either USSR or Iran.
What I meant in the context of Kashmir is exactly what you meant. India is a strong, powerful nation and it does not need the help of the US. But what it doesn't need even more is the moral policing that the US is keen on providing.
And please Frogboy, I am neither an American, nor one of those who enjoy America-bashing. And this is a skin-site and skins are made by artists. They are the most sensitive of all humans and things such as wars affect their art.
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL THREAD. IT IS TO ANSWER SOME VERY BASIC HUMANITARY QUESTIONS ABOUT THRIGHT TO EXIST!!!!
I am sure that the US trained Afghanis in the 'right spirit'. The same 'spirit' it showed in assisting Iraq against Iran. I am sure that it had to do nothing, absolutely nothing, with its own interests in the region. It was not terrified by the prospect of the influence of either USSR or Iran.
What I meant in the context of Kashmir is exactly what you meant. India is a strong, powerful nation and it does not need the help of the US. But what it doesn't need even more is the moral policing that the US is keen on providing.
And please Frogboy, I am neither an American, nor one of those who enjoy America-bashing. And this is a skin-site and skins are made by artists. They are the most sensitive of all humans and things such as wars affect their art.
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL THREAD. IT IS TO ANSWER SOME VERY BASIC HUMANITARY QUESTIONS ABOUT THRIGHT TO EXIST!!!!
Frogboy
Reply #20 Monday, January 13, 2003 11:01 PM
Reply #20 Monday, January 13, 2003 11:01 PM
We have a news group for political discussion:
news://news.stardock.com/stardock.discussion
And yes, lots of countries want bases. I am very surprised you really don't see why. Bases help local economies for instance.
The US has bases in the UK. Do you really think the UK is afraid or intimated by the US?
Whether a poster is a skin author, artist, or whatever, posting inflammatory posts based on ignorance is no excuse.
Post here where people are looking for this kind of thing and there are people who are knowledgeable on both sides of the issue:
news://news.stardock.com/stardock.discussion
news://news.stardock.com/stardock.discussion
And yes, lots of countries want bases. I am very surprised you really don't see why. Bases help local economies for instance.
The US has bases in the UK. Do you really think the UK is afraid or intimated by the US?
Whether a poster is a skin author, artist, or whatever, posting inflammatory posts based on ignorance is no excuse.
Post here where people are looking for this kind of thing and there are people who are knowledgeable on both sides of the issue:
news://news.stardock.com/stardock.discussion
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 9 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Monday, January 13, 2003 9:08 PM