US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 7 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #122 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:46 PM
Reply #122 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:46 PM
That's ok - our sheep glow in the dark thanks to Chernobyl 
yrag2
Reply #123 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:50 PM
Reply #123 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:50 PM
I can still find my kids in the dark 24 years later cause of three mile island
Frogboy
Reply #124 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:56 PM
Reply #124 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:56 PM
In my eyes, the French want to preserve a client.
How can you possibly talk about the French wanting peace while they butcher people RIGHT NOW in Ivory Coast.
How can you possibly talk about the French wanting peace while they butcher people RIGHT NOW in Ivory Coast.
paxx
Reply #125 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:05 PM
Reply #125 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:05 PM
OK, a few points to set records straight:
1- France is not the only country in the security counsil to not be in favor of the war. It most probably would never have had to oppose its veto simply because the resolution would never have passed in the first place. That is preceisely why the vote never took place. The US would have be perfectly happy to get a general vote in favour, even if France would have ooposed its veto. The US would have then went to war knowing it got a mojority support with only one fiend country opposing it. But the fact is that of the 9 required votes, the US only recruited 2 other supporters (UK and Spain). 3 votes in total. That's a far cry from the necessary 9 out of 15. Maybe with a little more persuation (money) the US could have gotten another 2 or 3, but no enough. Result: no vote was taken. The US could not risk to have a vote AGAINST war.
2- About the US citizens support, it's all about marketing. Governement spend a lot of money and effort giving a positive image of war. They plead to citizens' patiotic fiber. If the US were to want to invade Canada for example, I'm have total confidence in the government's persuation abilities to get the population's support. They could say all sorts of things, starting with how we are socialists, maybe they could even find some ways to prove that we habour some terrorists. Or maybe - probably - all sort of nice things I can't even think of. They really only need to have a motive in the first place, then convincing the population would come naturally. I love Americans, but I must say it's quite easy to play with their patriotic feelings, and the government knows it. Having said that, the US would never invade Canada, or any other western country for now, simply because it would just not be worth it. But if they wanted to, they could, and nobody would ever be able to stop them. That's why America is dangerous. It's too powerfull, and it's frightening.
I really hope that EU develops strong, both economically and militarely. Only then will we live in peace, when World powers are balanced.
Again, Lets be clear. I'm not saying that it's likely to happen (US invading a western country), it's not. But what I'm getting at is that it CAN. And you never know what the future will bring us. You never know who your friends will be.
Sure Roman times were peacefull. Pax Romana they called it.
1- France is not the only country in the security counsil to not be in favor of the war. It most probably would never have had to oppose its veto simply because the resolution would never have passed in the first place. That is preceisely why the vote never took place. The US would have be perfectly happy to get a general vote in favour, even if France would have ooposed its veto. The US would have then went to war knowing it got a mojority support with only one fiend country opposing it. But the fact is that of the 9 required votes, the US only recruited 2 other supporters (UK and Spain). 3 votes in total. That's a far cry from the necessary 9 out of 15. Maybe with a little more persuation (money) the US could have gotten another 2 or 3, but no enough. Result: no vote was taken. The US could not risk to have a vote AGAINST war.
2- About the US citizens support, it's all about marketing. Governement spend a lot of money and effort giving a positive image of war. They plead to citizens' patiotic fiber. If the US were to want to invade Canada for example, I'm have total confidence in the government's persuation abilities to get the population's support. They could say all sorts of things, starting with how we are socialists, maybe they could even find some ways to prove that we habour some terrorists. Or maybe - probably - all sort of nice things I can't even think of. They really only need to have a motive in the first place, then convincing the population would come naturally. I love Americans, but I must say it's quite easy to play with their patriotic feelings, and the government knows it. Having said that, the US would never invade Canada, or any other western country for now, simply because it would just not be worth it. But if they wanted to, they could, and nobody would ever be able to stop them. That's why America is dangerous. It's too powerfull, and it's frightening.
I really hope that EU develops strong, both economically and militarely. Only then will we live in peace, when World powers are balanced.
Again, Lets be clear. I'm not saying that it's likely to happen (US invading a western country), it's not. But what I'm getting at is that it CAN. And you never know what the future will bring us. You never know who your friends will be.
Sure Roman times were peacefull. Pax Romana they called it.
yrag2
Reply #126 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:07 PM
Reply #126 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:07 PM
Frogboy I think you're wasting your breath, but.... This thread really troubled me earlier because people stopped being objective and turned to insults. For those people I don't care what they think and when I don't care they don't matter. Sorry all you history revisionist 
grayhaze
Reply #127 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:28 PM
Reply #127 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:28 PM
Finally, paxx, it's good to see someone talking some sense. You managed to get across a couple of the points I tried to make in a much better way. 
At the end of the day, Americans will believe what their government and the media want them to believe. It's one of the main problems with a hightened sense of patriotic pride - it can cloud objective thought. I'm not saying that Americans can't think for themselves, but they seem to be a lot more susceptible to the spin their government feed them. In this country, I think we're a lot less likely to believe what our government tell us without independent proof.
At the end of the day, Americans will believe what their government and the media want them to believe. It's one of the main problems with a hightened sense of patriotic pride - it can cloud objective thought. I'm not saying that Americans can't think for themselves, but they seem to be a lot more susceptible to the spin their government feed them. In this country, I think we're a lot less likely to believe what our government tell us without independent proof.
grayhaze
Reply #128 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:30 PM
Reply #128 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:30 PM
Anyway, I'm off to bed to get some sleep. Let's just hope there's a world to wake up to this time next week... 
Frogboy
Reply #129 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:30 PM
Reply #129 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:30 PM
OH I see Paxx. The reason I'm for action is I'm brainwashed by marketing. Your opposition, however, is due to deep thinking.
Right...
That's the thing about the "elite left" I've noticed. Those who disagree with them always assume that the common man is just a week minded sheep ready to be molded by the power of the day.
It could't possibly be that Americans truly believe that Iraq is a threat after 12 years of consideration and is expressing its desire to rid the world of him through its democratically elected government. Because you don't agree with that view and therefore no reasonable, rational person could possibly hold an opinion that differs from yours?
And no, 9 votes in the UNSC wouldn't have done it because a veto is still a veto. Not that I particularly care what Camaroon or Guinea think on the issue (which shows the absurdity of the UNSC in the first place). I'm sure if we had gone in and intervened in Rwanda to prevent the killing of hundreds of thousands of people (Which the UN failed to do anything about) we'd see the same claims.
This is precisely what Bakerstreet is talking about. If it's white people that are being slaughtered, then we apparently can't spare any expense in saving htem. But if they're not white, apparently all sorts of hoops have to be jumped through to save them. If Rwanda or Iraq were in Europe they would have been dealt with years ago with or without UN authorization and no one would say boo about it. Is Iraqi life or Rwanada life less valuable? I'd say no. They're just as important as a Kosovar. And even if you take all the geopolitical reasons out of it, the bottom line is that Saddam has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his people in his quest to obtain weapons of mass destruction. He needs to be removed.
Right...
That's the thing about the "elite left" I've noticed. Those who disagree with them always assume that the common man is just a week minded sheep ready to be molded by the power of the day.
It could't possibly be that Americans truly believe that Iraq is a threat after 12 years of consideration and is expressing its desire to rid the world of him through its democratically elected government. Because you don't agree with that view and therefore no reasonable, rational person could possibly hold an opinion that differs from yours?
And no, 9 votes in the UNSC wouldn't have done it because a veto is still a veto. Not that I particularly care what Camaroon or Guinea think on the issue (which shows the absurdity of the UNSC in the first place). I'm sure if we had gone in and intervened in Rwanda to prevent the killing of hundreds of thousands of people (Which the UN failed to do anything about) we'd see the same claims.
This is precisely what Bakerstreet is talking about. If it's white people that are being slaughtered, then we apparently can't spare any expense in saving htem. But if they're not white, apparently all sorts of hoops have to be jumped through to save them. If Rwanda or Iraq were in Europe they would have been dealt with years ago with or without UN authorization and no one would say boo about it. Is Iraqi life or Rwanada life less valuable? I'd say no. They're just as important as a Kosovar. And even if you take all the geopolitical reasons out of it, the bottom line is that Saddam has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his people in his quest to obtain weapons of mass destruction. He needs to be removed.
MrGupps
Reply #130 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:34 PM
Reply #130 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:34 PM
what i dont understand is this idea. Iraq and Korea have weapons of mass distruction, so? America has the second most nucleur weapons out of any other country. Does America want to be the only powerful country on the face of the earth? According to them when they posses weapons its 'self defence' if another country posess's weapons its a 'threat to peace'. George W. Bush THE AMERICAN LEADER is a threat to peace; he is the person in the UN most enthusiastic to go to war.
Frogboy
Reply #131 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:35 PM
Reply #131 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:35 PM
BTW, Paxx, I am not surprised you favor the EU. The EU is set up so that it does not have to be directly elected by the people. Those "masses" you apparently believe are so easily brainwashed.
History has shown that governments who are directly responsible to the people are less aggressive when compared to their overall power than governments whose leaders are insulated from the people.
The EU constitution requires few if any direct elections of those in charge. I'll put my trust in the people thank you. Not elites. But yea, you hope Europe becomes miltarily strong eh? Yea, Europe's been a real force for peace when they've been militarily strong... Sheesh. Paxx, do you recognize just how anti-American you really sound? US spends months working through the UN and then takes action in Iraq nd the US is a huge threat but France invades the Ivory Coast at the same time unilaterally and that's apparently okay? Sheesh.
History has shown that governments who are directly responsible to the people are less aggressive when compared to their overall power than governments whose leaders are insulated from the people.
The EU constitution requires few if any direct elections of those in charge. I'll put my trust in the people thank you. Not elites. But yea, you hope Europe becomes miltarily strong eh? Yea, Europe's been a real force for peace when they've been militarily strong... Sheesh. Paxx, do you recognize just how anti-American you really sound? US spends months working through the UN and then takes action in Iraq nd the US is a huge threat but France invades the Ivory Coast at the same time unilaterally and that's apparently okay? Sheesh.
MrGupps
Reply #132 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:37 PM
Reply #132 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:37 PM
im not tryin to be anti american here im just saying they shouldn't immediatly point fingers read my posts 93 and 97 and ull see that im fairly nuetral on this issue
Frogboy
Reply #133 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:44 PM
Reply #133 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:44 PM
MrGupps: It's very simple: Dictators with WMD are dangerous. Democracies with them are much less so.
The US doesn't threaten to nuke people. North Korea lobs missiles over Japan in "tests". If you can't see the difference there's nothing I cna do for you.
Moral equivalence is a dangerous thing. It's easy to talk about these things as if they are purely theoretical things. But let's face it, a world without the US and UK would be a dramatically worse place. Like it or not the US and UK have been a force for good in this world. It was, after all, the US and UK that created the United Nations to begin with. As well as the other international institutions that have today. As well as the worldwide movement towards representative government.
Too many people take these things for granted and I thnk that's a real shame and slightly dangerous. The world we have today, that is relatively peaceful, didn't happen by accident. People throw around terms liek Nazi's and Communists as if they are just political labels. But they were once real forces. Forces that were nearly successful in conquering the world. Do you think any of us would be able to have what we have today under those systems? And those systems were defeated not by diplomacy. Not by the French. But largely by the US and UK.
When it comes to identifying and vanquishing evil in the world, the US and UK have a pretty good track record I'd say.
France, btw, didn't think Hitler was evil enough to even fight for their own capital. Their track record when it comes to dealing with world menaces is terrible. During the 80s there were plenty of people who said Reagan was going to start World War III. Instead, the Soviet Union fell and now eastern Europe is free and so is Russia and other parts. It's no wonder they side with the US today. And think of the changes that has brought. Even here on WinCustomize -- SkinStudio is developed by Adam in Poland. Think we would be able to work together, over the Intenret today if it weren't for that "warmonger" Ronald Reagan?
There are bad people in the world. We must not play the game of moral equivalence. It is a dangerous game that leads to complacency. Accusing the US of being a threat to the world ignores history.
The US doesn't threaten to nuke people. North Korea lobs missiles over Japan in "tests". If you can't see the difference there's nothing I cna do for you.
Moral equivalence is a dangerous thing. It's easy to talk about these things as if they are purely theoretical things. But let's face it, a world without the US and UK would be a dramatically worse place. Like it or not the US and UK have been a force for good in this world. It was, after all, the US and UK that created the United Nations to begin with. As well as the other international institutions that have today. As well as the worldwide movement towards representative government.
Too many people take these things for granted and I thnk that's a real shame and slightly dangerous. The world we have today, that is relatively peaceful, didn't happen by accident. People throw around terms liek Nazi's and Communists as if they are just political labels. But they were once real forces. Forces that were nearly successful in conquering the world. Do you think any of us would be able to have what we have today under those systems? And those systems were defeated not by diplomacy. Not by the French. But largely by the US and UK.
When it comes to identifying and vanquishing evil in the world, the US and UK have a pretty good track record I'd say.
France, btw, didn't think Hitler was evil enough to even fight for their own capital. Their track record when it comes to dealing with world menaces is terrible. During the 80s there were plenty of people who said Reagan was going to start World War III. Instead, the Soviet Union fell and now eastern Europe is free and so is Russia and other parts. It's no wonder they side with the US today. And think of the changes that has brought. Even here on WinCustomize -- SkinStudio is developed by Adam in Poland. Think we would be able to work together, over the Intenret today if it weren't for that "warmonger" Ronald Reagan?
There are bad people in the world. We must not play the game of moral equivalence. It is a dangerous game that leads to complacency. Accusing the US of being a threat to the world ignores history.
KarmaGirl
Reply #134 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:45 PM
Reply #134 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:45 PM
Grayhaze, you know I love you, but saying "Americans will believe what their government and the media want them to believe." is quite offensive.
I take everything that "my" government does with a grain of salt. I also don't believe in everything they do (especially during the Clinton years.) I am patriotic, but that doesn't mean that I believe everything the media and government pushes my way. It doesn't take a brain child to know that the media is going to push for war (why wouldn't they? gives them something to report about). And, do people really think that, with technology as it is, we don't get our "news" from other places, too? Do people think that it all comes from just the US? I read articles from all over the world. My opinions are my own. I read the stats, and read about the suffering (not just reported by the US). It doesn't take much to see that Saddam is killing his own country, and there is no way that they can over throw him. Bush has requested Saddam to leave. There would be no war if Saddam would step down and leave, but he won't. He doesn't want peace.
I take everything that "my" government does with a grain of salt. I also don't believe in everything they do (especially during the Clinton years.) I am patriotic, but that doesn't mean that I believe everything the media and government pushes my way. It doesn't take a brain child to know that the media is going to push for war (why wouldn't they? gives them something to report about). And, do people really think that, with technology as it is, we don't get our "news" from other places, too? Do people think that it all comes from just the US? I read articles from all over the world. My opinions are my own. I read the stats, and read about the suffering (not just reported by the US). It doesn't take much to see that Saddam is killing his own country, and there is no way that they can over throw him. Bush has requested Saddam to leave. There would be no war if Saddam would step down and leave, but he won't. He doesn't want peace.
Dangeruss
Reply #135 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:51 PM
Reply #135 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:51 PM
"It's very simple: Dictators with WMD are dangerous."
Hey!!! Oh... dangerous not Dangeruss, had me a bit woriied there...
Hey!!! Oh... dangerous not Dangeruss, had me a bit woriied there...
Koasati
Reply #137 Monday, March 17, 2003 8:56 PM
Reply #137 Monday, March 17, 2003 8:56 PM
Yes, we brain dead Americans will believe anything our government tells us, and we like to buy bridges, from strangers, in dark alleys too! 
paxx
Reply #138 Monday, March 17, 2003 9:05 PM
Reply #138 Monday, March 17, 2003 9:05 PM
Well, Frogboy, sometimes you can't see the forest when you're nose is facing a tree.
What I mean is that if you can't see how patriotic Americans are, you need to step back a few steps and look again. Nothing wrong with patriotism, I guess, except that it can easily be manipulated.
And BTW, he who's house is made of glass should not throw stones at other people's house. You're the one who said that anybody who doesn't share your opinion is misinformed, not me.
What I mean is that if you can't see how patriotic Americans are, you need to step back a few steps and look again. Nothing wrong with patriotism, I guess, except that it can easily be manipulated.
And BTW, he who's house is made of glass should not throw stones at other people's house. You're the one who said that anybody who doesn't share your opinion is misinformed, not me.
joetheblow
Reply #139 Monday, March 17, 2003 9:14 PM
Reply #139 Monday, March 17, 2003 9:14 PM
War vs Peace.
I don't want war at all. Yet I have seen nothing really from those who don't want war along side with me to really prove why the US should not go in. Even this artical ( http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/01A33C10272BF7A2CA256CE500837A10 ) dos not really show much except someone in the know doesn't want war.
I hear how Bush is evil or Americans are being brainwashed. Conflicts. I hear how war will kill many people and possibly start a world war.
I still find myself not wanting war. I do belive that it can be avoided, but the side I am on has not relly come up with a solution for that. Inspectors are not police officers; they are there to see what Saddam gives them not to find anything.
Is it possible that the want for peace really means, "As long as I don't get involved, they won't target me?"
I don't want war at all. Yet I have seen nothing really from those who don't want war along side with me to really prove why the US should not go in. Even this artical ( http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/01A33C10272BF7A2CA256CE500837A10 ) dos not really show much except someone in the know doesn't want war.
I hear how Bush is evil or Americans are being brainwashed. Conflicts. I hear how war will kill many people and possibly start a world war.
I still find myself not wanting war. I do belive that it can be avoided, but the side I am on has not relly come up with a solution for that. Inspectors are not police officers; they are there to see what Saddam gives them not to find anything.
Is it possible that the want for peace really means, "As long as I don't get involved, they won't target me?"
mossedmoon
Reply #140 Monday, March 17, 2003 9:28 PM
Reply #140 Monday, March 17, 2003 9:28 PM
When it comes to any governmental structure, I view it with a skeptical and mistrustful eye, especially my own in the USA, and I try not to understand these times with an ethnocentric skew. I was a Vietnam vet caught up in the leftist revolution of the peace movement back in the 60s and early 70s. So yes, I cry for peace. But I also understand the need for war, this war, and need is past due.
I was wondering paxx, which niche would you place me in?
I was wondering paxx, which niche would you place me in?
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 7 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #121 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:44 PM