US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 6 of 85 | |
|
|---|
grayhaze
Reply #103 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:31 PM
Reply #103 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:31 PM
Sorry FL, that was a typo on the part of my tired mind. 
I meant that MPs are resigning. Also, Robin Cook may be the only one to have made the move so far, but there are plenty ready to follow his lead when the time comes.
I meant that MPs are resigning. Also, Robin Cook may be the only one to have made the move so far, but there are plenty ready to follow his lead when the time comes.
Bangkokboy
Reply #104 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:37 PM
Reply #104 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:37 PM
"I'm just very heavily against any US government with a Military man as it's President. The President is supposed to be a wise individual who is skilled at diplomacy and strives for peace." - grayhaze
i never realized that as a former military man i am solemnly obligated to being unwise, undiplomatic, and highly confrontational. thanks for bringing this obligation to my attention, and i'll try to do better in the future.
i never realized that as a former military man i am solemnly obligated to being unwise, undiplomatic, and highly confrontational. thanks for bringing this obligation to my attention, and i'll try to do better in the future.
grayhaze
Reply #106 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:48 PM
Reply #106 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:48 PM
I apologise if I've caused you offense Bangkokboy, but I still stand by my comment.
As a military man, Bush is likely to gauge success in terms of military superiority. He's also more likely to resort to what he knows best, ie military action, in cases where diplomacy breaks down. By contrast, an experienced mediator will try diplomacy until there is simply no other option.
If we really were down to the point where all possible options had been tried and had failed, would there be such a clear rift between nations? The fact is, there are still many ways to settle this thing relatively peacefully and with a minimum loss of civilian lives.
By making hostile threats from the beginning, Bush has backed himself into a corner. If he backs down, it's a sign of weakness. If he attacks, it's the use of unnessesary force. For the US, it's a lose-lose situation.
As a military man, Bush is likely to gauge success in terms of military superiority. He's also more likely to resort to what he knows best, ie military action, in cases where diplomacy breaks down. By contrast, an experienced mediator will try diplomacy until there is simply no other option.
If we really were down to the point where all possible options had been tried and had failed, would there be such a clear rift between nations? The fact is, there are still many ways to settle this thing relatively peacefully and with a minimum loss of civilian lives.
By making hostile threats from the beginning, Bush has backed himself into a corner. If he backs down, it's a sign of weakness. If he attacks, it's the use of unnessesary force. For the US, it's a lose-lose situation.
yrag2
Reply #107 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:56 PM
Reply #107 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:56 PM
I'm sure it's me, but I'm a little confused...unlike many of us Bush was never in the military and as far as know, still hasn't donned a uniform...I must have missed something.
WOM
Reply #108 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:01 PM
Reply #108 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:01 PM
If I'am not mistaken, Bush was a resevist or Nat. Guard. I don't think that really qualifies him as a military man that can fall back on his military experience.
grayhaze
Reply #109 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:03 PM
Reply #109 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:03 PM
Just a random link when searching for 'George W Bush' and 'military career' on Google: http://www.hereinreality.com/commander.html
Frogboy
Reply #110 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:04 PM
Reply #110 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:04 PM
The majority of people in the UK, according to polls, are against military action in Iraq. But in the USA, military action has broad support. There is more support now for action than there was in 1991.
yrag2
Reply #111 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:06 PM
Reply #111 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:06 PM
If I remember right, that was Clinton's gig (even though he got out of it by going to school in England (Rhodes Scholar). I don't think George ever smelled a barricks.
bakerstreet
Reply #112 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:08 PM
Reply #112 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:08 PM
sig: my point was in reference to the many claims that the US has no moral authority, and is hypocritical because we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic weapons. Those same people would never hint that we didn't have the moral authority to do *more* damage to the German people, under the same circumstances, and for the same reasons.
Why? Because we see the WW2 Nazi government as a genocidal machine, and we see the WW2 Japanese as simple combatants on the other side. Such opinions discount the millions that were oppressed, raped, tortured, experimented upon, and executed; and is either a racist or ignorant opinion...
The concept of 'peace as the only option' seems to be very negotiable when people feel deeply for those who are being victimized. If, though, the people are easily forgettable or enough unlike ourselves not to evoke emotion, we seem to have the moral obligation to look the other way, or feel ashamed if we bothered to do anything. So what if Saddam starves and gasses his people, it's much better than soiling our own hands stopping him? IS that because they are a different color, religion, or just out-of-site-out-of-mind? An ass in a previous post made the comment that it would take X number of years for Saddam to starve as many children as a war would kill. How utterly sickening.
Europe does *love* to put people on trial once the vicitms are already buried, though. More of a show, i suppose. Punishment is a good substitute for effective action, i suppose. You get to feel all vindicated without all that messy fighting beforehand.
Why? Because we see the WW2 Nazi government as a genocidal machine, and we see the WW2 Japanese as simple combatants on the other side. Such opinions discount the millions that were oppressed, raped, tortured, experimented upon, and executed; and is either a racist or ignorant opinion...
The concept of 'peace as the only option' seems to be very negotiable when people feel deeply for those who are being victimized. If, though, the people are easily forgettable or enough unlike ourselves not to evoke emotion, we seem to have the moral obligation to look the other way, or feel ashamed if we bothered to do anything. So what if Saddam starves and gasses his people, it's much better than soiling our own hands stopping him? IS that because they are a different color, religion, or just out-of-site-out-of-mind? An ass in a previous post made the comment that it would take X number of years for Saddam to starve as many children as a war would kill. How utterly sickening.
Europe does *love* to put people on trial once the vicitms are already buried, though. More of a show, i suppose. Punishment is a good substitute for effective action, i suppose. You get to feel all vindicated without all that messy fighting beforehand.
yrag2
Reply #113 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:09 PM
Reply #113 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:09 PM
thanks for the link...I stand corrected. He was in National Guard and drunk at the same time...neat trick
grayhaze
Reply #114 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:09 PM
Reply #114 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:09 PM
My point Frogboy was that the major reason for that support in the US is the fact that Bush has been shouting from the rooftops about the (somewhat tenuous) links between Iraq and Bin Laden. He's using 9/11 as an excuse to rally support for an attack on the Iraqi people.
WOM
Reply #115 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:10 PM
Reply #115 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:10 PM
Thats the point I was making Grayhaze, Bush doesn't have any military experience. I've forgotten more than he ever new.
grayhaze
Reply #116 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:15 PM
Reply #116 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:15 PM
Nobody would argue in their right mind that Saddam isn't an evil man. Yes, he needs to be taken out of power in Iraq, and a new government put in place, but is the slaughter of the very innocents that we're trying to 'protect' the best way to achieve that goal? Will going to war guarantee that Saddam isn't still in power this time next year? Of course not.
I fail to see how going to war is the best way of removing Saddam. The US have already proven that they can't hunt down one man effectively without killing innocent people, so what makes them think they can do it this time? If it's Saddam they want, then why not have him taken out in a slightly more 'covert' manner?
I fail to see how going to war is the best way of removing Saddam. The US have already proven that they can't hunt down one man effectively without killing innocent people, so what makes them think they can do it this time? If it's Saddam they want, then why not have him taken out in a slightly more 'covert' manner?
Frogboy
Reply #117 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:15 PM
Reply #117 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:15 PM
Grayhaze, I think there are some areas we would agree on. I do think that Bush has handled diplomacy very poorly.
Let me use a skinning world example:
In the GUI Olympics, as you probably recall, we went through a lot of grief in trying to placate some of the other sites. We went through immense trouble to try to keep everyne happy. But realistically, as long as Stardock and deviantART were okay with it, we could have basically told the others to take a hike. But we didn't. That's because our goal was to try to forge a truly multi-site environment where each site was treated roughly equal. But more to the point, that is what diplomacy is about. There is nothing to be gained by stating the obvious.
Everyone knows that the US is the world's only "hyper power". What people resent and are uneasy about is the current administration's lack of effort to even try to be humble about it. Bush and Co basically seem to take the view "Tough shit." as their answer to any sort of international resistance or disagreement.
Sometimes, good diplomacy means playing politics. The Kyoto accords are a great example of that. Everyone in the know knew that Kyoto would never pass. The US couldn't pass it because its government doesn't have the authority to. Clinton knew this but he was willing to play politics. Bush knew it too but was unwillingto play politics and basically said that Kyoto is dead as far as the US is concerned. He did this with a bunch of treaties.
Some would say that Bush was just being truthful. True. How many husbands tell their wifes that they're too fat? There are other ways of handling the sitution and the Bush administration just can't seem to handle that very well and hence this is where we are left.
But the facts themselves haven't changed. Only percpetions. The current Bush policy is almost identical to the Clinton policy -- but without the smoothness.
The whole thing is aggravated by France. Who seems to exist only to increase the temptation of the Bush administration to say "Tough shit. Whatcha gonna do about it?" I know that even I, when seeing France's behavior, want to just say "Too bad. Nothing you guys can do about it but we'd love for ya to try" which is of course a terrible attitude to have.
It is easy to throw all the problems in the world at the US's feet. Just like it was easy for some to throw all the problems in the GUI Olympics at Stardock's feet. But France (like Shoggot) and Iraq in my view are the ones that people should be taking hard looks at. Bush may be an undiplomatic ass but the facts are on his side.
Let me use a skinning world example:
In the GUI Olympics, as you probably recall, we went through a lot of grief in trying to placate some of the other sites. We went through immense trouble to try to keep everyne happy. But realistically, as long as Stardock and deviantART were okay with it, we could have basically told the others to take a hike. But we didn't. That's because our goal was to try to forge a truly multi-site environment where each site was treated roughly equal. But more to the point, that is what diplomacy is about. There is nothing to be gained by stating the obvious.
Everyone knows that the US is the world's only "hyper power". What people resent and are uneasy about is the current administration's lack of effort to even try to be humble about it. Bush and Co basically seem to take the view "Tough shit." as their answer to any sort of international resistance or disagreement.
Sometimes, good diplomacy means playing politics. The Kyoto accords are a great example of that. Everyone in the know knew that Kyoto would never pass. The US couldn't pass it because its government doesn't have the authority to. Clinton knew this but he was willing to play politics. Bush knew it too but was unwillingto play politics and basically said that Kyoto is dead as far as the US is concerned. He did this with a bunch of treaties.
Some would say that Bush was just being truthful. True. How many husbands tell their wifes that they're too fat? There are other ways of handling the sitution and the Bush administration just can't seem to handle that very well and hence this is where we are left.
But the facts themselves haven't changed. Only percpetions. The current Bush policy is almost identical to the Clinton policy -- but without the smoothness.
The whole thing is aggravated by France. Who seems to exist only to increase the temptation of the Bush administration to say "Tough shit. Whatcha gonna do about it?" I know that even I, when seeing France's behavior, want to just say "Too bad. Nothing you guys can do about it but we'd love for ya to try" which is of course a terrible attitude to have.
It is easy to throw all the problems in the world at the US's feet. Just like it was easy for some to throw all the problems in the GUI Olympics at Stardock's feet. But France (like Shoggot) and Iraq in my view are the ones that people should be taking hard looks at. Bush may be an undiplomatic ass but the facts are on his side.
Frogboy
Reply #118 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:20 PM
Reply #118 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:20 PM
Regarding US public opinion, most Americans don't think that Iraq and Al Queda have any significant ties. I know I sure don't. I am in favor of action for numerous reasons including the simple fact that this guy has been violating the cease fire terms for 12 years now and after 9/11, we can no longer afford to allow dictactors of rich countries to obtain weapons of mass destruction if we can help it. Look at North Korea. Now he has WMD, which makes our options there much more restrained. We don't want Iraq to end up in that position.
That's pretty much how most Amreicans feel.
That's pretty much how most Amreicans feel.
grayhaze
Reply #119 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:29 PM
Reply #119 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:29 PM
I may be wrong, but I don't see France in quite the same light that they are seen in the US. You have to remember that the US media is extremely patriotic, and therefore do everything within their power to dirty the name of other nations when they aren't quite as pro-American.
The French want peace. It's as simple as that. They see that there are other options aside from military action, and quite rightly believe that the US government haven't done everything they can before resorting to threats of attack.
Now, I never thought I would find myself defending the French, but I honestly believe they are in the right here. It's not a case of 'whatever you want we'll try and stop you getting it'. It's a case of favouring peaceful solutions over killing.
The French want peace. It's as simple as that. They see that there are other options aside from military action, and quite rightly believe that the US government haven't done everything they can before resorting to threats of attack.
Now, I never thought I would find myself defending the French, but I honestly believe they are in the right here. It's not a case of 'whatever you want we'll try and stop you getting it'. It's a case of favouring peaceful solutions over killing.
Jafo
Reply #120 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:36 PM
Reply #120 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:36 PM
As a quaint point of diverting interest...in my lifetime I have been irradiated by nuclear 'weapons' belonging to 2 individual countries.....England and France.
I'm an Australian.
Silly bastards didn't realise I'm a Tasmanian so already had two heads...
I'm an Australian.
Silly bastards didn't realise I'm a Tasmanian so already had two heads...
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 6 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #101 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:22 PM
Only Robin Cook so far...