US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 4 of 85 | |
|
|---|
paxx
Reply #62 Monday, March 17, 2003 8:05 AM
Reply #62 Monday, March 17, 2003 8:05 AM
Heck, even my own country only think of its best interest.
Canada was refusing to take position for a long time. They've been having a dispute with the US about Canadian lumber exports to the US, and as long as the matter was still not resolved, the Canadian governement was being vague about its position with this war. About 2 weeks ago, the US government definalty closed to door and refused to discuss any further the Canadian lumber question. The very next day, the Canadian governement officially took position, for the first time, against War in Iraq.
It's all really about money, diplomatic realtionships and economic alliances. Nobody cares about the dying children.
Canada was refusing to take position for a long time. They've been having a dispute with the US about Canadian lumber exports to the US, and as long as the matter was still not resolved, the Canadian governement was being vague about its position with this war. About 2 weeks ago, the US government definalty closed to door and refused to discuss any further the Canadian lumber question. The very next day, the Canadian governement officially took position, for the first time, against War in Iraq.
It's all really about money, diplomatic realtionships and economic alliances. Nobody cares about the dying children.
craeonics
Reply #63 Monday, March 17, 2003 8:16 AM
Reply #63 Monday, March 17, 2003 8:16 AM
I worry for the day when countries are run by businessmen. Perhaps some already are.
WOM
Reply #64 Monday, March 17, 2003 8:26 AM
Reply #64 Monday, March 17, 2003 8:26 AM
Starting to sound like that movie Roller Ball where the world was run by corporations. That what ya mean craeonics? 
paxx
Reply #65 Monday, March 17, 2003 9:28 AM
Reply #65 Monday, March 17, 2003 9:28 AM
Countries aren't run by corporation, but corporations run the governements, which in the end comes out to the same. 
Lecrayon
Reply #66 Monday, March 17, 2003 9:41 AM
Reply #66 Monday, March 17, 2003 9:41 AM
A logical conclusion would then be that democracy doesn't work
KarmaGirl
Reply #67 Monday, March 17, 2003 10:53 AM
Reply #67 Monday, March 17, 2003 10:53 AM
I am thinking that, unless people quit attacking each other in this thread, it needs to be dropped.
As I said before, this is a volatile topic that can lead to hatefulness among members of this community.
If people want to *debate* the current political actions, then that is OK. But, if people are going to attack each other (which has already started) this thread needs to be dropped.
We don't need a war between our own community.
As I said before, this is a volatile topic that can lead to hatefulness among members of this community.
If people want to *debate* the current political actions, then that is OK. But, if people are going to attack each other (which has already started) this thread needs to be dropped.
We don't need a war between our own community.
craeonics
Reply #68 Monday, March 17, 2003 10:58 AM
Reply #68 Monday, March 17, 2003 10:58 AM
If we had any real democracy that is. As in: everyone gets a say on decisions. Would be unpractical, perhaps. Maybe not.
Right now the best you can get is indirect democracy, where you pick someone and hope enough others pick said bloke or bird and then pray that he or she sticks to what he or she said when he/she was campaining.
WOM: can't recall said movie (though I've seen it).
Right now the best you can get is indirect democracy, where you pick someone and hope enough others pick said bloke or bird and then pray that he or she sticks to what he or she said when he/she was campaining.
WOM: can't recall said movie (though I've seen it).
craeonics
Reply #69 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 AM
Reply #69 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 AM
Karma, see here: https://www.wincustomize.com/msgboard.asp?BID=WC&id=124907
JamMeister33
Reply #70 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:04 AM
Reply #70 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:04 AM
And your point is craeonics? I was only kidding and IP knows that.... he really does need to get some sleep!!!
paxx
Reply #72 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:07 AM
Reply #72 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:07 AM
Karma, I don't think anything really bad has been said.
So far, the debate seems to say that money rules, in any country.
So far, the debate seems to say that money rules, in any country.
JamMeister33
Reply #73 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:08 AM
Reply #73 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:08 AM
Alright, I see, it jumped to the bottom of the page when I opened it...
You meant the top part of the page....
You meant the top part of the page....
c242
Reply #74 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:18 AM
Reply #74 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:18 AM
I did not want to touch this threat as a german. Just wanted You all to remember before judging about any other country : Every country has it's dark points in history...
Frogboy
Reply #75 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:23 AM
Reply #75 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:23 AM
David, the US's preemptive strategy was put into place after 9/11. Similar documents (Written by the same people) have floated around since 1990 btw. But it took 9/11 for the US to take the view that it must take on emerging threats before they have fully matured.
Frogboy
Reply #76 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:36 AM
Reply #76 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:36 AM
I certainly have no objection to people discussing political issues here.
What does bug me a bit is lazy intellectualism. People who believe that pithy statements are a substitute for a real argument.
Examples:
"The US sold Iraq weapons in the 80s.." And? The US did trade with Germany in the 30s. The US GAVE weapons to the Soviet Union in the 40s.
"Corporations run the world." And the evidence for this? None. It also, IMO, displays a certain lack of knowledge on history. You want to compare corporate control of governments today to what it was in say 1900? No comparison. But it seems lke some people feel it makes them look enlightened to say that kind of thing. Of course, the're usually the same people who think that war on Iraq is about oil..
"The US just wants Iraq's OILLL.." Iraq's GNP is 24 billion. Iraq isn't worth nearly enough to cover the cost of a war. It isn't about oil anymore than liberating France was about French wine (which incidentally is worth probably in the same neighborhood as Iraqi oil).
People can throw double standards around all day. It solves nothing.
At the end of the day, it comes down to this - Iraq is lead by a horrible dictator who is responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Most observers agree that Saddam's redirection of the oil for food program costs at least 20,000 lives each year, mostly n children. He has violated 17 UN resolutions. The last of which explicitly states serious consequences if he did not IMMEDIATELY disarm. Iraq is located in the center of an area that keeps cranking out terrorists. Terrorists who have received financial support from Saddam (such as suicide bombers in Israel whose familiars are paid by Saddam).
History has shown that military action does NOT create more worldwide terrorism. The same thing was said in 1991. Additionally, despite the horrific human costs of World War II, Korea and Vietnam, you do not see terrorists from those countries.
Just because someone says something does't make it true. Just because someone says doing X will create more terrorism doesn't mean its true. Especially when history has shown the opposite to be true.
And the bottom line is, that's why it chaffes me when I read some debates on this subject. The Internet is a great equalizer. It allows people who have (obsessively) studied up on this thing over the years to talk to people whose knowledge on the subject is little more than buzz words and witty remarks in the absence of a coherent argument. Whether you agree with the war on Iraq or not, the anti-war protests, based on their signs, seem to be completely devoid of any knowledge on what these issues are about. And the same can be said of many debates on the Internet (on both sides).
What does bug me a bit is lazy intellectualism. People who believe that pithy statements are a substitute for a real argument.
Examples:
"The US sold Iraq weapons in the 80s.." And? The US did trade with Germany in the 30s. The US GAVE weapons to the Soviet Union in the 40s.
"Corporations run the world." And the evidence for this? None. It also, IMO, displays a certain lack of knowledge on history. You want to compare corporate control of governments today to what it was in say 1900? No comparison. But it seems lke some people feel it makes them look enlightened to say that kind of thing. Of course, the're usually the same people who think that war on Iraq is about oil..
"The US just wants Iraq's OILLL.." Iraq's GNP is 24 billion. Iraq isn't worth nearly enough to cover the cost of a war. It isn't about oil anymore than liberating France was about French wine (which incidentally is worth probably in the same neighborhood as Iraqi oil).
People can throw double standards around all day. It solves nothing.
At the end of the day, it comes down to this - Iraq is lead by a horrible dictator who is responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Most observers agree that Saddam's redirection of the oil for food program costs at least 20,000 lives each year, mostly n children. He has violated 17 UN resolutions. The last of which explicitly states serious consequences if he did not IMMEDIATELY disarm. Iraq is located in the center of an area that keeps cranking out terrorists. Terrorists who have received financial support from Saddam (such as suicide bombers in Israel whose familiars are paid by Saddam).
History has shown that military action does NOT create more worldwide terrorism. The same thing was said in 1991. Additionally, despite the horrific human costs of World War II, Korea and Vietnam, you do not see terrorists from those countries.
Just because someone says something does't make it true. Just because someone says doing X will create more terrorism doesn't mean its true. Especially when history has shown the opposite to be true.
And the bottom line is, that's why it chaffes me when I read some debates on this subject. The Internet is a great equalizer. It allows people who have (obsessively) studied up on this thing over the years to talk to people whose knowledge on the subject is little more than buzz words and witty remarks in the absence of a coherent argument. Whether you agree with the war on Iraq or not, the anti-war protests, based on their signs, seem to be completely devoid of any knowledge on what these issues are about. And the same can be said of many debates on the Internet (on both sides).
paxx
Reply #77 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:40 AM
Reply #77 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:40 AM
Everybody believes what he wants and listens to who he wants to listen. That's why there are wars in the first place, and people to support them.
Chef Garry
Reply #78 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:48 AM
Reply #78 Monday, March 17, 2003 11:48 AM
War has always been about economics. This one is no different and remember "the first casualty of war is truth".
grayhaze
Reply #80 Monday, March 17, 2003 2:20 PM
Reply #80 Monday, March 17, 2003 2:20 PM
I simply couldn't be bothered to read the bulk of stuff said here already, because I'm sure the majority of it comes down to the usual patriotic nonsense mixed with a lack of political knowledge.
One comment that did stand out on my way through though was this:
'If we destroy Iraq, that's one less place for Bin Laden to hide.'
This strikes me as a typically American point of view. My apologies to all the Americans here, but you have to admit there's a certain lack of common sense throughout the US Military.
I disagree with this war. Not because I think Saddam Hussein is anything better than the monster we know him to be, but because of the need to make up 'excuses' to go to war. I'm sick of George Bush using terrorism as an excuse for military action.
My one enduring memory of recent weeks will be of a news broadcast I sat through one night. After a long report on the impending war and the discussion about how George Bush is trying to disarm a dangerous nation of all it's weapons of mass destruction, the news moved on to the proud unveiling of the world's biggest man-made bomb. An American bomb. A weapon of mass destruction.
Maybe we should be paying more attention to disarming the real global threat - America.
One comment that did stand out on my way through though was this:
'If we destroy Iraq, that's one less place for Bin Laden to hide.'
This strikes me as a typically American point of view. My apologies to all the Americans here, but you have to admit there's a certain lack of common sense throughout the US Military.
I disagree with this war. Not because I think Saddam Hussein is anything better than the monster we know him to be, but because of the need to make up 'excuses' to go to war. I'm sick of George Bush using terrorism as an excuse for military action.
My one enduring memory of recent weeks will be of a news broadcast I sat through one night. After a long report on the impending war and the discussion about how George Bush is trying to disarm a dangerous nation of all it's weapons of mass destruction, the news moved on to the proud unveiling of the world's biggest man-made bomb. An American bomb. A weapon of mass destruction.
Maybe we should be paying more attention to disarming the real global threat - America.
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 4 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Monday, March 17, 2003 8:00 AM
Tha's how the World works now. Nobody really cares about the people, Iraki or others. Not France, not Germany, not Russia, not the US and not the UK. They all try to pull the strings to serve their best economic interests. That's sad, but a fact of life, today, yesterday, and always.