Preserved Topic: census: should the USA attack Iraq (Page 1 of 3)

I say no.

I don't think people like me could begin to understand. Then again, a 22 year old guy with no criminal record has a very good chance of being drafted, so I sure as hell hope we don't attack, but if we have too, well- thats life (or should I say death)

I say bust a cap in Saddam and let god sort it out. But thats just me.

Call me wierd, but doesn't this type of question belong in another section?

. . : slicePuzzle

-2 side comments-

... Inition... I think it's pretty safe to say that there won't be a draft if the USA were to attack Iraq, or vice-versa.

... Bugs... ya... absolutely.

to Bug: WEIRD!!!!!

There won't be a draft, period. The U.S. military is more than equipped to handle Saddam. American government just doesn't have the motivation to follow through with an full-fledged attack on Iraq. I also heard on one of the politics talk shows that if we do go after Saddam, we go directly after Saddam... which means we drop a Navy SEALs, or Spec. Forces team to kill him. Though, I'm not sure what U.S. Policy is on assassination. I don't think a draft, or an assassination will happen. It's easier for Congress to declare war on Iraq for a short time.

This really belongs in Philosophy...and there it goes...

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

I'll second Michael and ramsay on this: there won't be any more of a draft now (if we do invade) then there was the first time around. I was of draftable age when the Gulf War began, and one of the guys I worked with asked me if I wanted to go to Canada with him. I couldn't figure out if I should punch him in the face or laugh at him. Anyway, you don't have anything to worry about Inition.

Um, as for the actual question here (should the US invade Iraq)... hoo-wee, that's a tough one. I guess we have to ask ourselves if taking out Hussein is going to solve our problems. If the answer is yes, than we should invade. If the answer is no, then I think we should let events run their course. Do I personally think that taking out Hussein will solve our problems in that area? Probably not. I guess that's my answer.

I will say this, though: If the US does invade, we'd better be prepared to go all the way this time. And I don't just mean in war, I mean the whole deal--making sure another Hussein doesn't step into the gap, and making sure Iraq doesn't implode. That's the real challenge.




Cell 270

No.
That is, not unless the attack complies with the UN Charter.

The UN Charter (written mostly by the US) says one nation may attack another only if one of two conditions are met:
1) The UN Security Council specifically authorizes the attack
2) In response to a direct and immediate attack, and only in defense, and only as a short term solution until the UN Security Council gets their shit together to move forward on condition #1.

To date, neither of these conditions have been met.

Some may argue that Iraq violating some UN Resolution on weapons inspections satisfies condition #1.
This is a farce, a lie, blindly repeated by our Ministry of Information (Ted, Cokie, Geraldo, Peter and Dan) without the slightest hint of rational examination.

Scott Ritter, formerly a leading weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nation Special Commision (UNSCOM), has repeated over and over again there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There are no biological weapons plants. There are no chemical weapons productions facilities.

Still, some NATO jackass stands up last November, holds up a metal canister and says "if Saddam Hussein were to fill this canister with chemical weapons it could kill a lot of people"...
...no shit?
If anybody filled most any container with chemical or biological weapons and released it in a city it could kill a lot of people too.
But the journalists bite...and so do most of the US public.

Iraq has been asking the UN over and over again to sit down and have a meeting that exactly outlines the terms of the agreement. The US refuses. My take on this is that the US is making compliance such a vague idea, no matter what Iraq does the US could say Iraq is being non-compliant.

Just as in the prelude to Desert Storm, the US (represented by George and his band of self-rightous warmongers) is doing everything it can to make sure war is inevitable.
We will destroy, we will kill.
That is our God given right as superpower of the world, and nobody better give us so much as one cross look in the process.

All that being said, Hussein is not a nice guy. He is a bully, a murderer and a thief. We supported, encouraged his mischief when he was our bully, our murderer, our thief. Now that he wants a little for himself, well, let's have war.

I don't much care what happens to Saddam Hussien. It's the 1 million+ innocent people of Iraq that have died so far do to unjust sanctions and it's the many more innocent people that are going to die in the future that I care about.
And those who live? Their lives will not be better. The US will install a puppet regime in Iraq that will play the role Saddam played before he was public enemy #1 -- that of bully, murderer, thief...for the US.

your 21st century pinko, commie, psuedo-hippy, punk rock, anarchist, peacenik,
mobrul

You should care what happens to Saddam. He is a dictator, an oppressive dictator. He should be eradicated.

Fuck Iraq, just kill suddam and everything is taken care of.

Mobrul's a communist! uhh.. Lets sacrifice him to our Lord!

Seriously though, very well said, and I agree 100%
Killing Hussien serves only the purpose of allowing america to replace him with someone just as bad. It wont help the situation in the country. The same goes with attacking the country, or placing more sanctions on it. The only way those would work is if the current government would roll over at the thought of its people becomming victims, and make an enormous effort to make the changes neccessary to help its people, or if america was willing to make the same effort themselves after a "liberation". I don't believe that either side would do so, therefor I don't think that any action taken by america would serve any purpose except giving them another person to blame, and a campaign speach next election.

heh, I know there wont be a draft, I was just kidding about my situation. We (USA) will probably attack if the oil is in jepardy.

Dan: The elimination of Saddam Hussein (who isn't all that sane) will benefit the neighboring countries, which will improve our international relations in the process, and further our trade with the Middle Eastern nations. There's a lot more to ending Saddam's oppressive dictatorship than what meets the naked eye. If you're looking for accurate, unbiased news media... good luck. Or you can use the links below:

DefenseLINK (Dept. of Defense Newswire)

DefenseLINK (Dept. of Defense Newswire): Search Query? Saddam

quote:

---

"THIS (TRANSCRIPT) WAS PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. FOR OTHER DEFENSE RELATED TRANSCRIPTS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE, CONTACT FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE AT (202) 347-1400."

---

Have fun!

It's questions like these that make me wish I was Canadian...

Why? Because. I simply don't like the fact that America can, would, and does use its power to push around smaller, less powerful nations. Don't get me wrong, I know Iraq is powerful, but the whole "I'm bigger than you, so I can make the rules" thing just sounds too arrogant to me.

and for the record: Yes, I am a small guy

Sidenote: Suho, didn't see the P1K celebration, but congrats!

[This message has been edited by Raptor (edited 07-19-2002).]

Statements like those, Raptor, are very common. Though, they are untrue in respect to the politics of America. People are very easy to criticize America... how sad...

For example, the following is fairly common amongst... people of this caliber:

quote:

---

Since Hermit is gone for an indeterminate amount of time, I will step up and
offer my lengthy commentary on the "debate" we have here. I'm no proper
replacement, but his absence is felt.

Before all else, I'd like to recommend a wonderful web site I stumbled upon
tonight:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/index.html

It tackled all these issues quite well.

>...i will not willingly pledge blind allegiance to some nation state which
>has drifted miles from the notions of its founding fathers which were a far
>sight wiser than the right-wing,
>"it's-ok-to-shove-this-and-that-down-your-throat-in-spite-of-it-being-uncons
>titutional-as-long-as-it-coincides-with-my(your
>politician)-value-systems" monkeys we have in place today. i typically can
>only honestly and goodheartedly "pledge allegiance" to a group or
>organization that either reflects my interests/values, embraces the notion
>of negative freedom, or aspires to not estrange any particular value system
>which at least doesnt massively compromise the elementary golden rule. i
>can currently pledge some sort of allegiance to the notions on which this
>nation was founded, but the current state is a far far cry from several of
>the key points which made this nations creation such an advancement in
>social development. at this point i'd sooner pledge allegiance to my
>beloved Brasil.

Ah, I love your entertaining rants. I feel the same way about the Czech
Republic. I am much more Czech at heart then I am American. But there are two
great redeeming qualities about the United States:

1) The diversity and lack of an indigenous and homogenous culture allows for
many different ethnicities and cultures to co-exist at least somewhat
peacefully. So you have many citizens whose first language is not English, and
keep living as though they never left their native culture. Those who do not
fully assimilate. In any major city one can immerse yourself in the miniature
pocket of another culture. The fact that there is no real truly "American"
culture is what I like about living here. I like the elements that are very
far removed from what is American, if that makes any sense.

2) The fact that I can express my un-American and anti-American to a certain
extent without severe penalties is pleasing to me. Of course, socially I may
be persecuted by my peers and always have been, but as long as I'm not lynched
and set on fire then I don't mind being unpopular and ostracized; I'm used to
it. Of course I am an unknown nobody in the public eye, so I can get away with
these things. I'm not going to bother dredging them up but we all know that
plenty of censorship exists. I'm merely saying that it's nice to be able to
walk down the street and exclaim, "America sucks!" without having and limbs cut
off.

Your post reminds me that when I was once in grade school I refused to
participate in the bogus Veteran's Day ceremonies and stand up for the Pledge
of Allegiance. I was one of two people who were pissed off by the mockery of
patriotism we had to witness. I left the whole farce and went back to the
classroom. I didn't get in trouble, I just got in some fights as a result.

So....

I don't understand what you are doing here. You write:

>
> When our actions reflect inconsistent beliefs we are guilty of hypocrisy.

Only last night you were in the #virus channel on IRC telling this arrogant
prick in another channel to "Debate the issue not the person. Attack the issue
not the person, etc, etc." But here you are calling my friends a bunch of
"dumb shits". I can think of better ways to introduce and endear yourself to
the congregation. So you subscribe to some of our ideas and goals-- hanging
out in the chat is a good strategy for interacting with other members. Flaming
people that have been here for years in your first string of posts is generally
not a good idea. Were it Everett we would applaud you, but I do believe some
people are making points which you are not considering, only retorting with
insults. However, if the whole Snowleopard/Rose/Will person could come around
eventually, there must be hope for you as well. Play nice. And remember that
a great deal of wisdom comes with age and experience, not from books or college
courses.

What our country was really founded on is slaughter of its natives ("Indians")
and it prospered through the exploitation of Africans. This tradition
continues today, in a lesser extent, through the hard labor that immigrants
endure for crap wages in order to live here. The "ideologies" and rights you
speak of, which our founding fathers endorsed were created for wealthy white
male landowners. They were not created for women of any ethnicity, foreigners,
or non-Caucasian and impoverished males. These basic democratic civil rights
are a relatively recent invention for anyone who isn't a wealthy white man.
It's been less than a hundred years that my entire gender has even been able to
vote or obtain higher education. I'd say those same when were ungrateful
dicks, considering they owed their very existence to the suffering of women,
just as all men do.

> If you've no sense of pride or patriotism, go to another country and see how
> well you do. The fact still remains that even our "anti-American" enemies, if
> given the chance, would move to America.

One of the best things for a typical American to do would be to live abroad.
Personally, I never missed the United States. One of the things that
perpetually irked me about the other countries I visited is the feeling of
hopelessness when it comes to lacking certain luxuries that we take for
granted. It's so easy to be lazy here. It's hard to give up customer service,
wait at least twice as long for anything, not have a vehicle. It's takes
sacrifice of the American slothful lifestyle.

But on the other side of the coin, there is a lot of freedom we are missing out
on. Most places in Europe, if I felt like smoking a joint, drinking some
whiskey, and having gay kinky sex in a public square on a Sunday, I may be
frowned upon but I most likely not be arrested, fined, harassed, hauled away
and such. We cannot express ourselves in the U.S. except in ways the religious
fundamentalist government allows. We cannot harm ourselves if we want to.
It's a constant war against Drugs, against Sex, against Pornography, against
Reason... in many ways it is a war against personal freedom. I feel MUCH more
confined and oppressed in this country than I have anywhere else.

> College is personal research you fucking idiot. College is questioning. It's
> education. Educations other countries don't even have. Oh, how I would like
> to send you fuckers to N. Korea. Maybe then you could give your "educated"
> opinion on America.

Is that why we spend twice as much money from hard-working tax-payers to lock
our citizens up than we spend to educate them?

Although I have attended university for about five years so far, I am currently
S.O.L because I am not poor or ethnic, or rich enough to have it paid for. I
have cannot even receive money that I will pay back because of the fucking
policies that exist. It is impossible to get a college education in this
country unless you are extremely lucky, athletic, genius, work your ass off
(and then have your grades suffer), go deep into debt, or have wealthy parents.
Why is this? Because the money that could be going to help me finish getting
my degree is going to fund military operations that I am totally against; to
build fucking bombs to kill babies and innocent civilians, and arms to give to
Israelis so that they can help eradicate their neighbors. Yes, I am pissed
about this, because I have always worked hard and I'd rather have my tax
dollars go to health care (I've always been sick often) and education (I'd love
to finish school but I can't) than fucking guns.

> Remember the United States was founded on freedom. Who founded this country?
> Refugees from the oppressive British Empire at the time. There are some
> problems with our democratic republic but those problems are Human. And we're
> all Humanists right so we're not about to get rid of our own kind to make a
> perfect government! Shit, it's like you guys wanted Hitler to takeover the
> world.

"Refugees" who turned around and oppressed everyone else they came in contact
with through slavery and imperialism, among other things. Oh, and speaking of
Hitler, his main method was to use nationalism, heavy propaganda, and turning
his enemies against each other in order to procure power for his elite group.
That is what the United States does best. The US is just a lot more subtle.
As far as the other 'human problems' go, racial and gender inequality doesn't
appear to be going away any time soon...

> Did you know that the primary priority of the average member of Congress is
> to get re-elected? That's not bad. That's healthy! Why? Because the only way
> Congressmen and Congresswomen get re-elected is by doing good stuff for us.
> That means they need to get in the paper a lot and show us what they're doing
> for us. And if we agree with what they're doing then they get re-elected.


By means of heavy crafty propaganda! Yay! Not to mention slinging shit at
their opponents to make them look as bad as possible.

> I don't see why we shouldn't remove the borders between Canada and America.
> Perhaps, we shouldn't because we need to find better ways to control crime
> since we can't rid ourselves of criminal activity.


Why? The crime rate has been going down steadily. It's the prison population
that is rising. Besides the obvious like theft, rape, and murder, most
"crimes" in this country are imagined and completely subjective.

For example: (from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Prison_System.html )

>
> "The U.S. has both the largest prison population and the highest rate of
> incarceration in the world, including China and Russia. The U.S. incarcerates
> people at a rate more than 15 times that of Japan, and its prison population
> is more than eight times that of Italy, France, the UK, Spain, and Australia
> combined."


>
> The number of people in prison, in jail, on parole, and on probation in the
> U.S. increased threefold between 1980 and 2000, to more than 6 million, and
> the number of people in prison increased from 319,598 to almost 2 million in
> the same period. This buildup has targeted the poor, and especially Blacks.
> In 1999, though Blacks were only 13 percent of the U.S. population, they were
> half of all prison inmates. In 2000, one out of three young Black men was
> either locked up, on probation, or on parole. The military-industrial complex
> of the 1950s, with its Cold War communist bogeyman, has been replaced by a
> prison-industrial complex, with young Black "predators" serving as its
> justification."

As for your lecture on how great and wonderful the American system of
government because everyone gets to vote for everyone they want to, and all
turns out peachy in the end...

>
> *There are nearly four million persons currently or permanently
> disenfranchised as a result of laws that take away the voting rights of
> felons and ex-felons.
> * No other democracy besides the US. disenfranchises convicted offenders for
> life. Many democratic nations, including Denmark, France, Israel and Poland,
> permit prisoners to vote as well.
> * Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of the disenfranchised are not in prison
> but are on probation, on parole or have completed their sentences.
> * 1.4 million African American men -- 13 percent of the adult African
> American male population -- have lost the right to-vote, a rate of
> disenfranchisement that is seven times the national average. By comparison,
> in the 1996 general election 4.6 million African American men voted.
> * In Florida one in three African American men has permanently lost the right
> to vote.
> * In five states lowa, Mississippi, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming one in
> four black men (24% to 28%) have permanently lost the right to vote.

Speaking American corporations (I am now), along with the gluttony and
ignorance of most Americans, here is another great web site to look at:

http://www.eatveg.com/vegstuff/realities.htm

There are just under 250 million Americans. While they are devouring their
daily greasy McFodder like the silly beasts they are, 1.3 BILLION human beings
could be fed by the grain and soybeans eaten by U. S. livestock.
Meanwhile 40,000 children starve to death every day. While tribal African men
make a yearly dangerous trek across miles of desert to graze their cattle and
in search of water, risking their life to provide enough food for their
families, and some fight to protect their crops from deadly wild elephants,
fast food "restaurants" tempt children with plastic Disney characters as
another form of advertisement in their HAPPY Meals(tm)-- over 60 billion
Sold(out).

(another source- http://www.reutershealth.com/wellconnected/doc53.html )

>
> Enough food is produced in the US to supply 3,800 calories every day to each
> man, woman, and child, far more than any single person needs to sustain life.
> Such food has to be marketed and sold. In spite of the proven health risks of
> obesity, the government, insurance companies, and the medical profession
> spend very little money to oppose the billions of dollars that the food
> industry spends to promote food products.


>
> The prevalence of obesity (defined as a BMI of over 30) in the United States
> has risen dramatically over the past few years. It is now estimated that 61%
> of Americans are now overweight, up from 43% in the early 1940s. And
> according to a 2001 study, nearly 20% of American adults are obese. More
> children and adolescents are overweight in America than ever before.


> It is our ideologies that feed the fire in the American heart not soccer.


No, it's not soccer-- it's CHEESEBURGERS! Yep, that fire is not the warm glow
of pride, it's high cholesterol intake! As that web site mentions, the number
one cause of death in Americans is heart attacks from all the fatty, nasty
McSludge we consume!

If you want to see "shit for brains", you ought to work where I do, at a
temporary office job. It's very depressing, not only because of the mindless
job itself, but the work environment due to my clueless co-workers. They are
EMINEM-listening, Burger King-gobbling, Egg-McMuffin-swallowing,
television-watching, narrow-minded, astoundingly ignorant zombies. Most of
them haven't gone to college. Some of them actually abhor the idea being
exposed to foreign cultures. You'd think after reading about sick and dying
people all day (we deal with Medicaid insurance claims) with horrible diseases,
confined to their homes or a wheelchair, one would not sit there all day eating
glazed doughnuts. I can't have a normal conversation with nearly all of them
because we have nothing in common. I probably have permanent lacerations on my
tongue from biting down on it so much. Here is the kind of confounding
retarded assertions that I have to hear on a daily basis:

"Yuck, I wouldn't want to live in another country; that would be terrible."

"Ohmigod, I can't miss {insert inane television program here}; I have to find
out who wins! How can you not like watching TV?"

"I'm going to go work out tonight when I'm done for at least a half-hour. So
who's coming to McDonald's with me for breakfast?"

"Britney Spears is good music for walking with headphones."

"Are you one of those anarchist people?" [after I said that I wish I could
write "Stupid Jesus Freak" as a reason code for a return letter]

"Well, I don't understand vegetarianism because God put animals on this earth
for us to enjoy, so we should eat them."

What does one say to comments so retarded? I don't even know where to begin, so
I say nothing.


Let's face it-- our country (US) is fucked. I don't know about you, but I sure
feel like grabbing a six-pack of Budweiser or Miller beer, a frozen steak TV
dinner, some potato chips, and settling down on the couch to watch shows like
"American Idol" and "The Real World", interspersed with advertisements for
products to remember those deaths last year in NYC caused by the evil
anti-Christian terrorists. It's easier to just forget about it and become a
fat stupid slob. Oh, and while you're at it, make sure you raise your bratty
kids to be uncouth fat little Bush-voting pigs as well!


That is all.

-Kristy

---

[This message has been edited by ramsaydesigns (edited 07-19-2002).]

Also, as a Canadian you will pay higher taxes, deal with the medical system sucks for care of serious illness, and face the Canadian government whom controls 90% of the economy of Canada.

You can call America great all you want, and give me all the quotes you like, but you're not going to persuade me otherwise. This country (as do all, mind you) has underlying issues that need to be resolved, and we can resolve them.. but we don't. What it really boils down to is that, we're just lazy.

It was said somewhere else here on the asylum "racism, sexism, and all sorts of other -ism's," or something to that extent. Run a search for that, *if* I remember correctly it was an interesting thread.

No, we're not lazy. My Political Science: American Government/Californian Government professor lectured on Saddam and the events that will take place against him, today. He also mentioned that some people criticize America and will also say "we're lazy" just as you did. A guy in the back of the class also sparked the Saddam lecture.

By the way, that quote was ANTI-AMERICAN. Jeez... just goes to show you that you didn't read it. Actually, some of America's problems cannot be resolved without reform that is unwanted by the majority of the populous. It is mostly the liberals that speak in tongues and... verbally attack America. As you put it, "what it all boils down to is that" the rest of the world is experiencing a brain drain, which means the greatest minds, and entrepreneurs are coming into America this very year. "What it all boils down to is that" most liberals have never lived a third-world nation, or in an oppressive society dirtied with hunger, disease, poverty, and tyranny. It is different to visit the place for a few weeks than to live there for 1+ years. "What it all boils down to is that" most people don't realize that the rest of the world also has their share of problems. In fact, they have more problems than America does. Go to: http://www.al-qaeda.com/indexb.html and check out their forums. You'll see what I mean when I say "problems." But you can convince yourself that America is going down the drain and that I'm full of shit. I know I can't convince you otherwise and I don't want to try, Jermie.

Ok...I'm not sure how we got into a bash/don't bash America stump-hump here...I think the original question was 'Should the US invade Iraq?'

So to the original question - well, that depends. It depends on whether or not we (America) want(s) and is prepared to introduce instability into this oil-rich area. Because, like it or not, removing Hussein will result in just that...don't forget that the Kurds are in Irag (the northern part), and that Turkey really doesn't like the Kurds at all...and would just love to get a chance to hit them hard...

Also, consider the fact that Iraq's neighbor, Iran, doesn't like Iraq at all...esp. after fighting a long, 7 year war that ended in a stand-still (actually, the war never really came to an end...it's just at a stand-still, really). There is much more to this, but the point is, removing Hussein would really result in instability for the region...and that (from an American standpoint) is not in our best interests...oil prices would increase.

Now, for the folk of Iraq...well, 'liberating' them is a nice, idealistic picture, isn't it? But without a long range plan to help them 'get back on their feet', this picture becomes somewhat stained, now, doesn't it. One must consider that the entire infra-struckture of Iraq is basically destroyed...or non-existent. Hussein (along with the military) is the only thing that is keeping Iraq going...remove that, and what do you have?

So much for the stability question...let's consider the moral one.

On what moral grounds are we walking here? Well, he is a despot, a tyran, a dictator, who is more than willing to kill his own people for his own gains. And we helped 'create' him. And we didn't get rid of him before, when we had the chance. So, morally, it would seem like we are in the 'right', if you will. Also, it would go a long way to 're-establishing' the international picture of America...that it will do what it sets out to do...which is a huge deterent in and of itself. Fear is a powerful weapon, esp. in diplomatic arenas...not to mention downright war.

One thing that should be mentioned here...the UN. Though I really like the idea behind the UN, in it's present form, it's really just a 'helpless' entity...because it has no military arm (not one that is soley under the UN, that is). This is sort of like a little scrawny runt that stands before a pack of bullies and indignantly points out that beating the living crap out of him is against the law...which may be true, but that is not going to save the guy from an ass-whooping...the UN has no real 'teeth'. Crime and Punishment...more important than ever on a Global scale.

Consider as well that irregardless on how America conducts itself...someone is not going to like it. That's how it always is with the Alpha member of a group...the others are always waiting to 'pounce' on the first signs of weakness...and in the Global arena, anything and everything can be regarded as a 'weakness'...

So let us change the picture for a moment...say for a moment that America is not a super power...and never was one. That all it was ever interested in was within it's own boarders, and never 'peeked' it's head outside of them. How would the world look today...

There will always be a 'top dog'....history proves this. So who would be in Americas stead? And would they have done a better job?
One would have to 'erase' all the things that America has contributed to World history...good and bad.

Of course, there would be other considerations, as well, but I think at the moment, these offer enough food for thought.

I personally would say, invade Iraq, but only under the conditions that Hussein goes, an UN intermediate appointed leadership assumes power (until the land is ready for local elections), and re-building of the infra-struckture takes place. Also, investigations in the Human Rights area should also take place...I'm sure that there are many in Iraq in need of such measures...

Otherwise, no. The instability in the Region would not be worth just removing Hussein from power.

Whew! Just reformat'd, repartition'd, and reinstall'd...

I believe that when America decides to eliminate the Saddam Hussein threat that they would also occupy Iraq until America convinces herself that Iraq is ready for a local government. Look what we're doing with Afghanistan... We're destroying the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda while re-building Afghanistan. We helped elect President Karzai and established an openly limited democratic Afghan government.

The American government is really trying to promote its peacekeeper status. Now, WebShaman, about the oil... while you may be correct you have to wonder why America has located a cheaper, more available oil source and has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Apart from that, I absolutely agree with you, WebShaman.

PS. (WebShaman) You're a really cool person and I respect you despite our differences in another thread.

yeah and north korea and wile we are at it pakistan

Perhaps this is a little off-topic, and maybe a little trivial to some, but how valid is the assumption that America knows what the people of a country halfway around the world want?

America chose democracy, as did many other countries - but many did not and are getting along perfectly well without it. A lot of countries are flourishing under a monarchy...even in the Middle Eastern region. Look at the United Arab Emirates - center of tourism today, not to mention flourishing economy and one of the higest rates of economic growth in the world. Pretty high up on the quality of life too, according to The Economist. And this is by no means the exception. A lot of Americans do not know about it (which I think reflects on their general knowledge more than on the country's success), and for the record, the UAE does *not* live off camels and goat-cheese, and is in many ways more civilised than New York :P

In many cases, if the people aren't happy with the way they are living, they will either leave, or make some changes, ala Khomeini and Iran. Having said that however, there are certain cases where international intervention is necessary - I just don't feel that such a decision is America's to make. Wouldn't it be great if there were some forum for countries around the world to get together and discuss issues like this and reach decisions for everyone's good? Oh wait, that's what the UN is for.

WS, perhaps it would have been better to have a few competing 'superpowers' that could keep each other in check...it might have been a little like a balanced game of chess then. Right now its a dozen pawns against one Queen - with a lightsaber.



.. One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor ..

The United Nations is a sad little organization. It used to have a purpose but it no longer does. They try to keep peace but no country has to listen to them. In fact, many ignore them. I feel pity for them...

One of my friend's visited the UAE and said that if you want to buy gold there... that's the place to buy it because it's cheap. The problem with many Americans and pretty much all foreigners to America (exclude educated political scientists) is that they are frightened of what they don't understand. It's too bad there's not enough political science in the public school systems under colleges. It'd be nice to have a more educated citizenry.

Aerosoul: There's a few exceptions to the "without a democratic government, we're doing fine" 'rule'. The UAE is one of them. But don't ignore the fact that the living STANDARDS in America are higher than almost any other country. .... .... ya we're off-topic!

For those of you eager to bad mouth the UN for its powerlessness...you can't have it both ways.
You can not, out of one side of your mouth, say the UN is ignored, has no military force of its own, is useless...
...while at the same time, say out the other side of your mouth, the US has the authority to attack the citizens of Iraq because they are violating UN weapons inspection resolutions, and insist on calling US attacks 'international coalitions.'

You can either say the UN could be a useful organization '...to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom...' and then do everything in your power to make that happen...
...or you can say 'fuck the world, Pax Americana baby, who's next! YeeeHaaaa!'

You have to decide who is the 'rogue state'.
Your choice -- just be consistant and let everyone else know which it is.

mobrul

Ok. I love the United States. Period.

If what the US government and media say about Saddam is half accurate, we should help the Iraqi people remove him from power. However, before we initiate any strike, we should come up with a plan to help the Iraqi people govern themselves after Saddam. No sense getting rid of him if one of his buddies can step in and pick up right where he left off.

Saddam has friends? That's a laugh.

mobrul - I think I said that the underlaying reasons for the UN are sound and moral...just that it has no way of 'inforcing' it's own 'laws' and rulings...which means that anyone can choose to ignore them without fearing the consequences from the UN. Of course, there are consequences when other lands that are members of the UN charter wish to 'impliment' the UN rulings...

And that is the problem. The UN should have an independant 'police' force, coupled with the ultimate authority (law-wise) that superceeds all others. However, it doesn't. All it really has is the 'security council', and those making up the security council are not going to indite themselves, now, are they? So think about it...is then, America, really a 'rogue state'? As a member of the security council, I don't think so. And America does respect the UN...when it is in Americas favor. And yes, that is the problem with all the security council members...not just the US.

You all realize that we tried all throughout Desert Storm (the US, that is) to kill/assassinate Saddamm, right? Why would now be any diffrent?

quote:

---

On the morning of August 2, 1990 the mechanized infantry, armor, and tank units of the Iraqi Republican Guard invaded Kuwait and seized control of that country. The invasion triggered a United States response, Operation DESERT SHIELD, to deter any invasion of Kuwait's oil rich neighbor, Saudi Arabia. On August 7, deployment of U.S. forces began. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660 and 662 condemned Iraq's invasion and annexation and called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces. On August 20 President Bush signed National Security Directive 45, "U.S. Policy in Response to the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait," outlining U.S. objectives - which included the "immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait," and the "restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government to replace the puppet regime installed by Iraq." -- from Operation Desert Storm: Ten Years After

---

It's obvious why now would be different: this is now and that was then. Science has prospered, technology has advanced, culture has developed, and unfortunately... the liberals are expanding. It is very possible that an assault on the Iraqian gangster, Saddam Hussein, would be successful. Our military technology is some of the most advanced in the world even if corporate military technology developers are restricted to retail technology. Our military is much stronger than in the past. It is smaller but has a technological advantage.

There's one true thing that has been kept from the American public. Politicians are covering up and have covered up that our military has not killed a lot of Taliban and Al-Qaeda members. America has eliminated the threat almost completely. Word is circulating around political chambers that Osama bin Laden is suggested to have disintegrated in a blast smaller than that of the events that occurred on 9-11. Whether his corpse is concealed by millions of pounds of sand and rock or converted to subatomic particles... it is unknown, but suggested. A squad of U.S. Special Forces has eliminated 1000+ Al-Qaeda members with the help of air support. Although there have been mishaps such as the two bombers that dropped bombs on the Canadians, it is relatively rare that our new military fails. Many think that when the bombs dropped on a building said to have been inhabited by innocents that what the politicians said were true. It is untrue. I've been told by reliable sources that the American ground units were witness to night-time anti-aircraft fire coming from that same building.

The ONLY reason why the U.S. Armed Forces fails at times (e.g. Vietnam) is because of political strength. President Carter took frail steps instead of the advised confident stride during Vietnam. The Vietnam War happened on baseless conditions. I won't get into that since it requires a history lesson . But this is my point: Operation Desert Storm is history. It's time to concentrate on the future.

By the way, if there isn't enough public support for an assault on the Iraqian gangster, Saddam Hussein, then it most likely won't happen, but there's a good chance that it will anyway. Have a nice night!

> Edited to fix URL

[This message has been edited by ramsaydesigns (edited 07-31-2002).]

ws - I agree with you on two counts.
1) The UN is fundamentally a good idea and is built upon a sound and moral ideal of justice, peace and law.
2) The UN has no way of enforcing it's rulings, thus, can be ignored without [much] fear of consequence.

So, the US, as a global leader, can do one of two things:
1) Use it's military might to bully around other countries; killing when they it is advantageous; turning a 'blind eye' when it is advantageous; encouraging and actually committing atrocities when it is advantageous.
2) step up to the plate, encourage other countries to live by the UN laws, and, more importantly, actually live up to them itself.

Currently, we are most definately following path #1. All patriotic stances aside, we are a bully. One can argue we do lots of great things in the world (absolutely true) and one could argue a lot of countries act as bullies from time to time (again, absolutely true), but neither of these arguements is to the point. In fact, they only exist to hide the point. The point is, just to repeat, we are bullies. We (The United States) often encourages war rather than do our best to stop it.

So, you are right, the UN needs to, in some way, have a policy by which it can enforce its rules fairly, justly and universally. The question becomes, should the US, as a - no - THE, so-called world leader, continue with the inadequecies or encourage a change?
I vote for encouraging a fair, just and equitable change.

Now, on to ramsaydesigns

I don't even know what you are trying to say.
You start with some uber-cleansed psuedo-history of late summer 1990, quoted from the book "Operation Desert Storm: 10 years after"
You then move on technology being more than it was 12 years ago...
...and this is my favorite "the liberals are expanding." Instead of a tirade on the fact that our country was founded by liberals, I'll just say I'm most certainly a liberal, and I'm most definately not expanding. I've weighed roughly the same for about 8 yrs now.

We didn't not kill Hussein because we couldn't, we didn't kill him because it was our foreign policy put in place by George I and his band of hooligans. We didn't kill him because there was nobody who was 'iron-fist[ed]' enough to take his place. That's what you don't get. US foriegn policy is not against Saddam Hussein. It is against him not being OUR bully.

You may not remember, but immediately after our invasion into Iraq, the Iraqi military was seriously in trouble -- virtually non-existant. At that time, there were a few local Iraqi pro-democracy, groups who banded together, got ahold of some Iraqi military weaponry and decided to mount a coup. By all accounts they would have easily succeded, even without US help.
Do you know what the US did?
We said 'no' and took their weapons away.
Now, ask yourself 'why?'
The reason is, we don't want a democracy in Iraq. We don't want the people voting and deciding how to sell their oil and who is going to profit from it. We want that decision making power in the hands of a ruthless thug who will kill anybody who gets in his way. We want that power in the hands of someone who would 'gas his own people'.

The embargos on Iraq over the last 12 years have accomplished the same thing. They have weakened the people, while making Saddam and the Iraqi army stronger, wealthier and more dominant. This is not 'liberal' crap; this is real, acknowledged fact.

There is so much talk about him 'gassing the Kurds -- his own people'. 'What kind of a leader would gas his own people?!?'
Well, let's open the history book and see how the US reacted when he did it. We encouraged him! He was our bully, then. He was putting down his own people to keep control of US oil interests. That's fine...until he decides he wants a little oil for himself...then he's a thug who 'gasses his own people.'

The hypocricy...the ignorance...the blinding arrogance...astounding.

So, is Saddam Hussein a 'gangster'...if by that you mean a murderous thug, the answer is a resounding 'yes'.
Did we have a problem with it when he was doing it for us? No.
Should we help the local population (who, contrary to popular US belief, actually doesn't really like him) overthrow him? Only under three conditions.
1) they ask for help
2) it is under the guidance of the UN
3) ulitmately a real democratic gov't is built

Minus anyone of those three things and the US is just as much a rogue state as Iraq, and George II is just as much a bully as Saddam Hussein.

mobrul

That was very interesting, mobrul, and agree with most of what you said. The problem lies here: We don't need Iraq for oil. We have much cheaper sources for oil... not mention we have the largest oil reserve in the world. Oil is one of the main points of conflict between us and them, but it is not chief.

You forget the fact that Saddam is manufacturing biological weapons. I know where you'd say, "So what?" Because not only does the United States have bio-weapons but so does virtually every other country. It's about power. It's about who's in charge of what and why. It's about money, oil, and the power dance.

I hate anyone who says they want peace but are disturbed by war. You must have war to establish peace. Those who are pro-peace and anti-war... "the hypocrisy...the ignorance...the blinding arrogance..." it's "astounding."

The problem with Americans today is that they lack the intelligence, nationalism, and faith in our leader. Why do most Americans distrust George Bush, Jr.? (It's not George Bush I/II... America is not Britain... and we're certainly not an empire.) Because he comes from an incredibly wealthy family, his father was the former president, and he has connections in the oil industry. People attribute the crash of the largest corporations in the world to Bush, Jr. because of his connections with that industry. It's an irrational and stupid way to think.

It's also irrational to even compare George Bush, Sr. and George Bush, Jr. They are two completely different people. "Like father, like son" is no longer applicable to the modern world... atleast... generally speaking.

In the ideal (dream) world, peace can exist without war. The ideal (dream) president would be a Good King Wenceslas with no flaws. IT CANNOT BE THAT WAY. GET OVER IT! Why? Because we're human. When humans cease to exist and artificial intelligence takes over the world... only then would there be the possibility of an ideal world. Nobody is perfect.

Oh and... mobrul... You're not a liberal in the sense I was thinking of... The liberals I know of all hang out at http://www.churchofvirus.com/bbs/ and use big words like memetic, etc. and dream up ideal governments and ideal philosophies. Aside from that, a liberal will never win the Presidential Election.

quote:

---

Currently, we are most definately following path #1. All patriotic stances aside, we are a bully. One can argue we do lots of great things in the world (absolutely true) and one could argue a lot of countries act as bullies from time to time (again, absolutely true), but neither of these arguements is to the point. In fact, they only exist to hide the point. The point is, just to repeat, we are bullies. We (The United States) often encourages war rather than do our best to stop it.

---

It's impossible to lay blame at any one source. I say it's everyone's fault for being alive. Eh? If you cannot enjoy life that was given to you as a gift, then give the present back to someone who needs it. In other words, donate to a charity (not the Red Cross... they're worse than the IRS). The best charity to donate to is either a children's charity or a disabled veterans charity.

I'm getting off-topic here. Latas...

quote:

---

...and this is my favorite "the liberals are expanding." Instead of a tirade on the fact that our country was founded by liberals, I'll just say I'm most certainly a liberal, and I'm most definately not expanding. I've weighed roughly the same for about 8 yrs now.

---

Now this quote is MY favorite. Take a long look at Ted Kennedy. What do you see?

I think we(USA) should just make a choice and stand by it. Don't be a peacekeeper when we have obvious interests in an ally(Isreal & Palistine) Either stand by our ally or don't be an ally with them. Stop trying to be friends with people you don't really want to be friends with. Time after time we'll go into a country remove the current government and replace it with another government that we'll remove in another five or ten years. If we want the place run the right way we should run it ourselves. Depose the current government and take over. Thats the way it worked in Medival times. You walked in killed everybody and took the land. Wars should work BraveHeart Style too. One, maybe two big battles and there aren't enough able bodied people left to fight anymore. I'm just tired of all of this ridiculous attempt to mediate a situation that we don't REALLY want to mediate. Let Isreal and Palistine destroy each other(or watch Isreal level Palistine in any case). Finish Saddam like we should have during Desert Storm. If we don't want something from the country or we aren't joining an ally I think we should stay out of it. If we truly gain security from offing Saddam... go for it. If we gain nothing... stay out of it. Nice, Simple, Clean cut ideas that always work. Screw world politics. We're allies with our allies for a reason. Take a stand on how we deal with our allies. Most of what's going on in the world wouldn't be if we said "We will militarily support our allies without question, Always, Without fail." Do you really think Palistine would ba attacking Isreal if the USofA was holding that card and everybody knew it? As it stands now nobody knows what the USA will do so they take the chance and perpetuate the violence. It should be policy to adhere to our allies. That's what being an ally means. I understand this was meant to be a "Do we invade Iraq" issue but I think it's intertwined with the Isreali/Palistinian issue as far as the US deals in world politics. It was a good example N-E-Way.

GrythusDraconis

quote:

---

If we don't want something from the country or we aren't joining an ally I think we should stay out of it. If we truly gain security from offing Saddam... go for it. If we gain nothing... stay out of it.

---

And we'll know what our gains and losses are beforehand how?

quote:

---

Screw world politics. We're allies with our allies for a reason. Take a stand on how we deal with our allies. Most of what's going on in the world wouldn't be if we said "We will militarily support our allies without question, Always, Without fail." Do you really think Palistine would ba attacking Isreal if the USofA was holding that card and everybody knew it? As it stands now nobody knows what the USA will do so they take the chance and perpetuate the violence. It should be policy to adhere to our allies. That's what being an ally means.

---

No, I am sorry. That's not how it works.

Though some of the things said by GrythyusDraconis do have a basis in reality (being consistent, for one, on foriegn policy, one of the US' weakest areas), it is hardly realistic to suggest that America should start invading (and thereby conquering and assimilating) lands because where does it then end? With the whole world? I'm sorry, but I just don't support that. Yes, it may seem like the 'easy' solution, but it really wouldn't solve anything (as the imperial age showed), because nobody is happy with an invader. No, the days of conquering and world conquest are dead. This is not a solution. I would even go so far as to say, it is downright wrong. Might does not make right.

So, without that option to consider...one has to start dealing with shades of grey...and not black and white. And that is a whole lot harder, and much more complicated.

This is, of course, not helped by the changing of the American governments direction every 4-8 years, which of course then has the following effect of changing the direction of Americas foreign policy. Personally, I would like to see the Foreign policy dept. be seperated from this mess...to allow for a strong, clear, steady approach. However, I don't see this happening in the near future...

To my knowledge, WebShaman, the United States does not have a department strictly devoted to making foreign policy. These are some facts on U.S. foreign policy:

I. The Constitution and the Modern World
Compared to every other democracy, the U.S. makes its foreign policy in a cumbersome way. The framers of the Constitution, wary of impulsive decisions that could draw the country into war, built into that document a number of safeguards that have prevented tyranny, but sometimes at the cost of speed and efficiency. These safeguards frequently pit Congress against the executive branch, make it difficult to develop and implement a cohesive foreign policy, create uncertainty as to what that policy is, and give foreign governments and interest groups openings to apply pressure at many points to influence policies in their favor.

The complexity of foreign policymaking has greatly decreased with the blurring of the distinction between foreign and domestic issues. More and more the two overlap as a consequence of global economic interdependence. U.S. tax policy and business regulation is domestic, but it affects American manufacturers' costs of doing business and the competitiveness of their products. American labor laws affect the number of workers hired and the number of jobs available in the U.S. and at what cost. In fact, almost every law relating to business or labor or farmers also has an impact on American foreign trade. This, in turn, affects our diplomatic and military positions.

Finally, developments that the framers could not have foreseen have added to the complexity of policymaking. These include the growth in the outreach and influence of information technology (the Internet, global communications, etc.), political organizations, and special-interest groups.


II. The President and Congress
The President is most responsible for the foreign policy of the United States. The Constitution divides power, as you know, between three branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, and gives each some power to check or block the others. Although there are some restraints that can be used by Congress, our system clearly gives the authority to manage America's foreign relations and military defense to the chief executive - the only nationally elected official.

The President's foreign policy powers under the Constitution are few and restricted. He serves as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces; appoints ambassadors and other public ministers, with the consent of the Senate; and makes treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators approve.

Democratic nations usually require civilian supremacy over the military because elected representatives are more likely to pursue national goals, in the light of long-term considerations and overall domestic factors. The military, on the other hand, are more inclined to focus on immediate results through the use of armed force (that is, after all, their job). Generals prefer to commit to combat only when there is a clear-cut objective and they have sufficient force to do the job quickly.

Realizing this, the framers designated the President to be the supreme commander of the armed forces. As such, he is responsible for selecting top command officers and for determining the missions for each branch of service. Naturally, the President delegates most of these tasks to subordinates in the Department of Defense. Yet here, too, he must share power with Congress, which must approve top commanders and has the authority to decide on each year's defense budget.

Although the President commands the military forces, the power to declare war rests with Congress (which has only exercised this right five times in our history, always in response to a presidential request). WW II was the last official "war" which illustrates the changes in the nature of international conflict.

The framers deliberately made treaty-making difficult so that the country could not enter into alliances lightly (due to fear of "entangling foreign alliances" that might lead to war). The difficulty of convincing two-thirds of the Senate to consent to controversial treaties has prompted most presidents to substitute "executive agreements" with other countries for treaties. Although lacking the same binding legal force as treaties, most "deals" between the U.S. and foreign leaders today take the form of executive agreements.

Conducting effective foreign relations require one voice, a degree of secrecy, and sometimes swift decisions; a single person better handles such decisions, partly because he - unlike Congress - has the necessary staff and information at his command. Information reports on events in other states are received by the State Department from nearly 25,000 people at 250 embassies and consulates, and a vast amount of information is collected from the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The White House staff (National Security Advisor, et al) assists the President in making decisions by sifting and analyzing this data.

Since the Vietnam War, however, Congress has become more assertive in foreign affairs, partly in reaction to what Congress saw as the executive's abuse of military power (in Vietnam and C*****n's many interventions), and partly due to the fact that money has become more important in carrying out foreign policy - and Congress controls the money. This constitutional authority of Congress to tax and control government spending - the "power of the purse" - is its most important. Although the President cannot spend money not authorized by Congress, he has always been granted some latitude for emergencies.

The President also has two additional informal but influential powers in foreign affairs. One of these is the ability to determine the national agenda - to bring issues to the forefront of public attention and concern. The other - perhaps his most important - is the power to commit the nation to a particular course of action diplomatically. Once he does so, it can be extremely difficult (or dangerous) for the President's opponents to alter that course (e.g. Cold War containment, Persian Gulf access and stability, protection of Taiwan, a strategic defense system, etc.).

-- This is an excerpt from Dr. Newbrough's manuscript, "America & The World: Essentials of Foreign Policy." (Chapter Six, Sections I/II) --

No-no-no You misunderstood my intended statement, WS. We DON'T wish to be a dictator or a conquerer. That's my point. Quit stirring things up more then they are hoping for a "Good" government to show up on the flip side of the coin when it lands. Conquer and Rule wasn't my intended meaning at all that would be wrong and savage.

As far as knowing what our gains/losses are before hand... How do we know now what our gains and losses are before we take any sort of action now? We look back on the past actions of similar thought and tally the results. As of most recent count I don't think we have a very good track record as far as saving actual people in the places we've tried to help. We remove one gov'mt and replace it with another that we'll try, and probably succeed, in replacing in 5-10 years. it's a cycle that needs to stop.

Would you mind explaining to me why "that's not how it works" Ramsey? I need a few qualifiers as to why it doesn't work that way. It's hardly an arguement if you have no reasons. It's like saying "Because" all the time.

Basically I look at it this way. An ally is a friend... A true, through and through friend. If your friend asks for help, you give it to them. If they piss you off you tell them so. I fthey continue to piss you off you stop associating with them as much until soon... they aren't your friend anymore because they obviously didn't value your friendship enough to look at what they were doing that was pissing you off. Does that make any more sense to you? Politics is a world of feints, thrusts and ripostes that never really finish anything because nothing is real. Everything moves on assumptions. it's all an attempt to outmaneuver someone and fooling yourself into thinking you got a victory in there somewhere.

BTW: Yes, my name is slightly different... I mis-keyed it last time.

GrythusDraconis