Topic awaiting preservation: US gears up for next Superpower (Page 1 of 1)

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/8904618.htm

Just one problem I can see - there isn't one.

Are they just using the publics current fear to channel a trillion dollars into the pockets of the friends in the arms industry? Are they getting ready to take on China in a few decades? Not as odd as it seems given China's possible massive military build up and the potential flashpoint of Taiwan:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YI140VGZSBPA0CRBAE0CFEY?type=worldNews&storyID=5291531&pageNumber=1

I am genuinely mystified.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

This may seem mystifying or odd to those in the West, I suppose, but in the East it's a no-brainer. China has always been the power in Asia, and the only thing that has prevented China from becoming a superpower to rival (indeed, to surpass) the U.S. is its own backwardness. China is slowly opening up and developing, though. The dragon is awakening. All the rest of us over here can do is hope that the dragon doesn't wake up on the wrong side of the bed...

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup | "Hooray for linguistic idiots and yak milk!"

I think that's a no-brainer also in "the West". Nonetheless, North Korea is another big ( not as big as the US or China obviously ) and dangerous power in Asia but it's a lonely and closed country.

On one hand, I'm amazed by the forthcoming discoveries this huge budget in R&D could do. But on the other and, I'd prefer to see all that money go into civil R&D, or better into a fair social security system.

I guess the powers that be look at it like 'what's the point of having a fair social security system if we are controled by China.'


< Ozone Quotes >

Gilbert Nolander: Well, it'd be even better, it would mean that ~2 billions people more now have a fair social security system.

It would be better. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying thats how they look at it.

General penis envy. (Oh look - that country has bigger bombs than us!)

It's the cold war getting ready to start up all over again... China would be in about the right place...



No, seriously. While wartime increases invention and modernization, it also costs an insane amount of money and lives. There are probably some good things that will come out of it in the long run, but not until we go through a whole bunch of bullcrap first. It's sad that it has to be that way...

(Edited by bodhi23 on 06-14-2004 22:54)

I believe this statement is absolute: war will always be with us.

Therefore I believe that to not be prepared for it costs more lives because the lack of preparedness tempts would be aggressors into thinking they can benefit from an attack. Allowing yourself to become a fat juicy target can actually lead to war. So even though peace through strength sounds utterly moronic, it starts to make more sense when you consider it in light of what we know to be true about human nature.

IM(never to be)HO of course

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Gilbert Nolander: oops, I hadn't completely understood your post let's put it on the use of single quotes close to an apostrophe, and last but not least on the count of my ( lack of ) english skills.

bodhi23: China is not that far from the ex-USSR. Uncle Sam will only have to shift his nukes a bit and voilà.

poi: North Korea is dangerous because it is run by a megalomaniacal putz. It is dangerous in the way that a dying man with a machine gun is dangerous--yeah, he might take out a few people on the way, but he's going down, and going down fast.

North Korea has no infrastructure and few natural resources. The Korean peninsula is very mountainous, and most of the good farmland is in the South. The climate in the North is also not very suitable for farming, and they are prone to climate-related natural disasters (floods, droughts, etc.).

Pyeongyang (P'yongyang) might be a model city, and the citizens might live fairly well (still nothing compared to well-to-do Seoulites), but outside Pyeongyang people are starving. To death. Defections have slowly increased over the years. In fact, defections to China (the easier of their two options) are such a problem that the Chinese government has cracked down hard on refugees lest their own people get overrun.

In a word, North Korea might pose a threat as a rogue state, but I honestly doubt even that. Why? Well, Kim Jeong-il may be a megalomaniac, and he may be a putz, but he's not stupid. He knows that North Korea could not survive a war. More importantly, he knows that his administration would never survive a war, and in the end, that's all that matters to him--that he retains power. Nuclear weapons, etc., are just bargaining chips for him. I doubt he would ever seriously consider using them, unless he felt there was absolutely, positively no other way.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup | "Hooray for linguistic idiots and yak milk!"

Bugs: I'm not saying you shouldn't be preapred to defend yourself but:

1. To the tune of a trillion dollars when the budget deficit is so bad?

2. Don't you feel the justification for gearing up against various 'threats' in recent years is bordering on the Orwellian?

quote:

---

Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

---

http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/1984/3

There seems to a constantly changing 'threat' which never gets fully realised - allies suddenly become our worst enemies and war seems to be declared for faulty, flawed or compeltely made up reasons. There are 'clear and present dangers' that a trillion dollars could go a long way to fixing - like the environment and interestingly reducing the US's reliance on fossil fuels from the Middle East would possibly be one of the most important moves in making the country safer and more secure esp. as our main ally out there and our main source of oil is the country that has to shoulder the major repsonsibility for the exporting of radical forms of Islam and the smothering of the more liberal traditions:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1238065,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

And now it looks like there will be a whole new generation of nukes (despite most of us thinking we already had more than enough and had rather got past the obsession with them):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/16/politics/16nukes.html?ex=1088049600&en=b35380d1c4612d28&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

My answer is simple. N. Korea should be nuked and the entire country should burn. China should follow suit. I have a view to create peace throughout the entire world so you all better hope I never get any real power.

My views:

There needs to be one last war - a war to end all wars. This war needs to put fear into the peoples heart. It needs to be so violent, and bloody, that nobody ever wants war ever again.. The bloodiest, the most violent, most horrible war ever. Countless will die for a greater cause.

Then all the weapons in the world should be thrown away.

Then the nations should unite to form one nation: The World Nation

Then all of the currency in the world, all of the different money, it all needs to become one type of currency. One kind of money (IE: The USA Dollar).

One laungage reigns supreme throughout the world. All humans will use it, English.

Then peace can reign supreme. With the hearts of the people changed - they will no longer want violence.




If I ever have any power I will do this. I need an army of 50,000 troops, high-tech equipment, mobile suits, my android body, and Ill do it all in one day.

Please visit my site. It is a site for GAMERS and OTAKU's. A great forum it is! Please visit me!



(Edited by The Black Hat on 06-17-2004 14:55)

Suho1004: Thank you. That's good to hear, from a "local", that Kim Jeong-il is not stupid enough to engage a war. And that is reign is in decline.

The Black Hat: Are you serious ?

I think the war you're talking about already happened. It's called WWII, and the holocaust. The "Wold Nations" are called United Nations and European Union. They have their armies : NATO and the Blue Helmets. Alas some people still wants to play the sherrif and refuse to give away their own sovereignty for a greater power ( a.k.a. UN ).

But I probably think that way, because the France ( and the whole Europe ) have highly suffered of WWI and WWII, and put high hopes in UN and EU to never see such things happen again.

Lol, it looks like we have a baby of years on our hands who hasn't spent enough time reading up on history to make any of the statements that are being made.

The first World War was thought to be the war to end all wars. There was terrible devistation and destruction, some 8.5 million millitary deaths, with something like 13 million estimated civilian casualties. Which quickly lead to the second world war with something in the neighborhood of 56.4 million people dying, and that doesn't include those wounded. So a giagantic war doesn't lead to less wars it leads to less stability. Because following the second world war, in which we did drop two nuclear missles didn't stop people from fighting and dying, it lead to a cold war, in which there was terrible instability and some minor wars in both Korea as well as Vietnam (minor in that 60 million people were not killed). If that isn't enough, we then jumped into Iraq, and we are currently fighting wars in both Iraq and Afganistan.

The above is not even counting all of the wars which involved only a limited number of nations. Such as the Russian Civil War.

Wars do not lead to peace, wars lead to new wars, bigger uglier ones. The general disposition of a populous after a war is not that of jubilation but a distrust of their nation, and a general apathy. Not the best situation for creating a world wide organization of peace and harmony. Some like to characterize the American 1950's as beautiful period of suburban living and clean cut lawns. While people had those, school children were being subjected to air raid drill and being taught that curling up in a ball in the middle of a school hallway might protect them from a nuclear explosion.

War does not bring peace. But maybe if we bring the death toll even higher we might be able to get peace? What would that be something like 500 million people? a billion people? two billion? What is a good number here? Do you have any idea the state and stability of the world would be if that many people were to lose their lives? We would be far less worried about finding world peace as to figuring out where the fuck we are suposed to find food, and what the hell happened to clean water.

The only war to end all wars is the one that eliminates every single last human being from the face of the earth. Its not the solution and it is probably part of the problem.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

As you seem so bored:

http://www.ozoneasylum.com/22222

Buy this book or get it out of the library and read it:

Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century
by Jonathan Glover

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300087152/

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

My plan would work. I know it would.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Please visit my site. It is a site for GAMERS and OTAKU's. A great forum it is! Please visit me!



_____________________________________________________________________________

quote:

---

My answer is simple. N. Korea should be nuked and the entire country should burn. China should follow suit. I have a view to create peace throughout the entire world so you all better hope I never get any real power.

My views:

There needs to be one last war - a war to end all wars. This war needs to put fear into the peoples heart. It needs to be so violent, and bloody, that nobody ever wants war ever again.. The bloodiest, the most violent, most horrible war ever. Countless will die for a greater cause.

Then all the weapons in the world should be thrown away.

Then the nations should unite to form one nation: The World Nation

Then all of the currency in the world, all of the different money, it all needs to become one type of currency. One kind of money (IE: The USA Dollar).

One laungage reigns supreme throughout the world. All humans will use it, English.

Then peace can reign supreme. With the hearts of the people changed - they will no longer want violence.




If I ever have any power I will do this. I need an army of 50,000 troops, high-tech equipment, mobile suits, my android body, and Ill do it all in one day.

---

You could have just said you supported Bush.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

*temporary lapse in hibernation*

quote:

---

Poi:But I probably think that way, because the France ( and the whole Europe ) have highly suffered of WWI and WWII, and put high hopes in UN and EU to never see such things happen again.

---

You forgot to mention the part where your nation and the so-called UN, in their hope to never see anything like that happen again, stand by idly and let those less fortunate than you suffer under dictatorships or other totalitarian regimes. Out of sight out of mind, right?

Speaking of WW2, if it wasn't for a particular nation "playing sheriff" and sending their young to die and sacrifice for your liberation, you would have all been pretty fucked.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 06-17-2004 22:34)

quote:

---

You forgot to mention the part where your nation and the so-called UN, in their hope to never see anything like that happen again, stand by idly and let those less fortunate than you suffer under dictatorships or other totalitarian regimes. Out of sight out of mind, right?

---

I wasn't aware the United States had significantly better policies towards those countries under dictatorships or other totalitarian regimes.

quote:

---

Speaking of WW2, if it wasn't for a particular nation "playing sheriff" and sending their young to die and sacrifice for your liberation, you would have all been pretty fucked.

---

If it wasn't for a group of nations "working together" we'd all be pretty fucked. It's silly to pretend the United States single handedly saved the day. It just didn't happen.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

(Edited by Jestah on 06-17-2004 23:01)

Yeah, and I thought that the whole getting into WW2 things was about a bunch of Japanese war planes bombing a whole lots of US battle ships, over in the Pacific... because before that I am damn sure we as a nation were in a state of isolationalism, with a president madly trying to get involved with congress blocking him from becoming involved.

I live in America, I love America, but I do think we suffer from the same type of problems that we mock other countries for, I don't think this country is perfect, I think we all need to put a whole lot of work in nomatter where we are to get things working even better than they are now. The price of trying to progress and trying to be free is that there are those elements who don't want the freedom, or don't understand their responsabilities in a free nation.

Freedom does not mean you do not have to work. Freedom means the oposite you have to work hard. You have to compromise, and you have to overcome. Freedom isn't easy, and it is still far from perfect.

Some more wars and more bickering between differing ideologies is not going to make it better. Sitting in a room and hashing out your differences are what will make a difference.

I am all for locking our world leaders in a room and making them hash out a plan for world peace, not letting any one of them leave until they all agree on the plan. Every single one of them, no country no matter how small gets left out. Rules that provide equal oportunity for all people no matter what.

If it is that or war, I take locking up the leaders in a heart beat.

Well, Jestah expressed my thoughts in his way, but this is too much for me to stay quiet.

Ramasax:

quote:

---

Out of sight out of mind, right?...Speaking of WW2, if it wasn't for a particular nation "playing sheriff" and sending their young to die and sacrifice for your liberation, you would have all been pretty fucked.

---

Please shut up. ( MadScis feel free to replace the rude words with some ### if you think it's necessary ) The US are as guilty as others for letting ( if not setting up ) dictatorship, totalitarian regimes and terrorists act. The US did not liberate the Europe alone. It seems you forgot that ~16 nations were involved in the D-Day. And without the huuuuuge effort of the whole Great Britain, the WWII certainly wouldn't have ended the way it has. Although the extremely difficult conditions in the occupied France there was some networks of resistance who helped to save many lifes and bombed some strategic sites. It seems you also forgot the extremely efficient operation "Fortitude" orchestred in the Great Britain and relayed in France by the resistance who disinformed the enemy troops to make the operation "Overload" possible.

Of course the operation "Overload" was a success in part thanks to the US, but without the many other countries it wouldn't have been possible. So please go read an History book.

poi, can you explain to me why France is not being hypocritical about Iraq?

The fact is that France did not want to remove Saddam Hussein from power. France preferred to leave the Iraqi people under his control. But just 50 years earlier the French were very happy that non-French armies invaded its beaches intent on "liberation".

I personally find your country's position on Iraq hypocritical because you didn't complain about your "liberation" from the Nazis but you did complain about Iraq's "liberation" from Hussein. Can you help me understand why freedom is good for the French and bad for the Iraqis?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

First of all, in WWII, we were in war and the French people asked some help via its resistance networks and the General De Gaulles.

Since the WWI and WWI, we ( the 191 member countries of the UN ) have learned a lesson ( at least I though so ) and settled some internationnal rules to avoid militarian conflicts when it's not absolutely necessary.

In the case of Iraq, that country wasn't in war, and neither the Iraqi people ( to my knowledge ) nor the position of its government clearly gave anyone the right to come and liberate/bomb/humiliate them. Not to mention that the reasons invoked by the US government at the time to remove Hussein were bogus. All this draws an important difference between the two situations.

The French government/people and many others accross the world disapprove the action of the Bush administration because it was based on not funded allegations. Nobody said freedom is not good for the Iraqi people neither that the regime of Saddam was fair and peacefull. Again, there's a subtle difference.

I can't help thinking that the blue helmets would have done a far better job to bug the Iraqi government and free the Iraqis. All that with less violence and in respect to the rules settled by the US and all the 190 other member countries of the UN.



(Edited by poi on 06-18-2004 05:07)

quote:

---

Nobody said freedom is not good for the Iraqi people neither that the regime of Saddam was fair and peaceful.

---

Then please tell me what I am to believe the French people wanted for the Iraqi people? If your government preferred to keep Hussein in power when they had every opportunity to join a coalition force to remove him, what does that say? The French are a free people, but it would seem to me that the French are not interested in extending that freedom to the Iraqi people.

If you didn't like the way we went about doing it, then there was ample opportunity to push for a plan of action in the many years preceeding our invasion. You cannot expect me to believe your president wanted Hussein deposed when he consistently opposed any form of action to remove him from power.

And you keep mentioning this resistance during WWII. The resistance was not the ruling entity of France at the time as the French government was allied with the Germans at the time. How can you say the resistance took precedent over the government of France? The government of France did NOT ask to be liberated.


Jestah said:

quote:

---

I wasn't aware the United States had significantly better policies towards those countries under dictatorships or other totalitarian regimes.

---

And so I say we should fix that and NOT follow the lead of countries who don't want to help. To say that the US intervenes only in a few places it has interests is like saying the sky is blue. Of course, we are not consistent in how we treat other countries. But I am utterly dumbfounded at the suggestion that because we don't do good *everywhere* that we should do good *nowhere*. And if you think the UN is the answer to this problem of oppression by brutal governments around the world, then you had better take a very long and close look at who sits at the UN... the very governments in question.

I am not against the concept that the UN was founded upon, I would just like to see it get back to it. The way it currently stands, the UN is not a force for good on this planet. It could be, but it currently is corrupt and ineffective.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 06-18-2004 06:38)

quote:

---

The government of France did NOT ask to be liberated.

---

I probably didn't made myself clear. I meant that to my knowledge the Iraqi people ( and not the Iraqi government of course ) didn't asked to be liberated. And the position of its governement didn't justified a military intervention based on the reasons invoked by the Bush administration.

Of course the French people wanted/want that the Iraqi live in a free country, but we consider we don't have the right to decide for them.

The fact is that the Bush administration justified the war by as story of WMD and link with Al Qaida. At the time, that same administration failled to give a single proof of its allegations at the council of security of UN while there was some inspectors of UN were examining many sites to search forbidden weapons in vain. Thus the reasons invoked by the US were null and couldn't legally lead to a military action. Case closed.

On the other hand, if some real and proved violations of a resolution of UN had been invoked for a military actions in Iraq, the blue helmets ( including some French troops ) would have been sent. But we're still waiting for such a reason.

If the Iraqis had requested the help of the UN or NATO to free them from the regime of Saddam it would have been a completely different story. The NATO would have reacted in conscequences and with the collaboration of the Iraqis. Alas it didn't happen that way.

During WWII, the French resistance have been initiated by the General De Gaulles who did act of disobedience towards the government of Vichy who had surrendered to the Nazis ( please to not refer to them as Germans, because not all the Germans were Nazis, and many soldiers in the SS had for sole the choice to go to jail and die or to live and join the Nazi army by force. A bit like many French were enrolled by force as task force to build some rail roads/vehicules/... for the Nazis ). His call did snowball and many people joined the movement with the will to free their country. In that that the resistance expressed its own will and not that of the occupying power and collaborating government of Vichy, it was representative of the legitimate to ask some help..


At last, we've had that kind of discussion ~15 months ago and I'm fed up to give my opinion to some persons who don't want to hear it and/or interpret it differently. Now, if you want to keep talking about the reasons of war in Iraq and its disapproval by many countries, I suggest you to open a Nth thread on that subject..

I have many things I would like to still discuss with you on this topic because it is not often I get to hear opinions from French nationals and I appreciate very much the opportunity. You are quite right that Emperor's thread has been hijacked for yet another discussion of Iraq. Let's return to the topic he started. I have yet to answer the questions he last posed to me and I'll turn my attention to them. Perhaps we can discuss these other things at a later time in another thread.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

poi: Please shut up.

---

I love you too poi.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

poi, can you explain to me why France is not being hypocritical about Iraq?

---

I would imagine the most hypocritical attitude to Iraq would be one whereby you cosy up to them for decades supplying them with military knowhow (including biological warfare agents) until you decided you wanted to take them out for invading Kuwait when they thought they'd been authorised by the US. Then not finishing the job and imposing sanctions leading to widespread oppression and death. Then invading on bogus pretexts causing more death and oppression and possibly making the region more unstable and potentially furthering the ends of another state that you currently consider an enemy. Or something.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

^Well said, Emps!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Damn all the countries to hell. I say that chaos should reign!

_____________________________________________________________________________

Please visit my site. It is a site for GAMERS and OTAKU's. A great forum it is! Please visit me!



_____________________________________________________________________________

WS, well said? Just a few threads ago, you explained why we cozied up to Iraq. I think it has something to do with higher priorities related to the Cold War. Have you changed your position on that and now you think it was not a higher priority at the time?

Emps, I was not discussing our hypocrisy. I was trying to get poi to acknowledge his country's hypocrisy. The French are interested in setting themselves up as the world's protection against the US, as stated by their president. Their opposition to invading Iraq was partly to keep us in check and to continue to do business with Hussein. They are no more interested in Iraqis than anyone else, and it is their haughty attitude about it that I was addressing. I am not going to sit here and try to convince anyone that the US is without faults, and I don't think I've ever said that anyway.

quote:

---

Bugs: I'm not saying you shouldn't be preapred to defend yourself but:

1. To the tune of a trillion dollars when the budget deficit is so bad?

---

I can't believe that the budget deficit is really a concern to the left. I say that because if the Left were in power right now they would be spending just as much if not more money on other things. Out of control spending seems to be a problem shared by both parties in America and I don't see any end to it. I'm not happy about how much Bush is spending. (Jestah take note, I criticized the Bush)

quote:

---

2. Don't you feel the justification for gearing up against various 'threats' in recent years is bordering on the Orwellian?

---

Honestly, no. I look at history. In the past century, what was said at various times? "Peace in our time" "The war to end all wars" There were people then who believed as some do now, that we are very close to eliminating the need for war. They were wrong then and I believe they are wrong now.

We have been caught very much unprepared for the wars we needed to fight in the last century. Many soldiers died needlessly because of inadequate equipment and weapons in the early stages of those wars. Why was this? Because we believed, naively, that perhaps the "threats" had gone away or perhaps the "threats" would not affect us.

I think it is prudent and ultimately safer for the world for nations such as ours to have very strong militaries. I'm including nations other than the US in that statement (even France) as well as excluding others like Hussein's Iraq and the DPRK.

I don't think we are anywhere close to being too prepared for future "threats". I think we should be asking ourselves how well we will be fighting the next war and not whether we will be fighting the next war.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

you explained why we cozied up to Iraq

---

Yes, I did. And I stand by why we did it. But it is still well said from Emps. As for

quote:

---

Have you changed your position on that and now you think it was not a higher priority at the time?

---

I have never, ever changed my position on that, and I have not changed my position on Iraq. I quite frankly never considered Iraq a high priority...

North Korea and Iran are different stories, altogether. Afghanistan was (and still is) important. Iraq?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-18-2004 19:54)

quote:

---

And so I say we should fix that and NOT follow the lead of countries who don't want to help. To say that the US intervenes only in a few places it has interests is like saying the sky is blue. Of course, we are not consistent in how we treat other countries. But I am utterly dumbfounded at the suggestion that because we don't do good *everywhere* that we should do good *nowhere*. And if you think the UN is the answer to this problem of oppression by brutal governments around the world, then you had better take a very long and close look at who sits at the UN... the very governments in question.

---

Bugimus, the problem isn't individuals choosing to be governed by dictatorships and other oppressive governments. The problem is forcing and supporting dictatorships and other oppressive governments on others. This is something the United States has a long history of.

It must break your heart that people choose to be governed anyway they please and not by the Church of Bugimus.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

Jestah, if you believe we have a long history of forcing oppressive governments onto other peoples, then why are you opposed to us correcting that mistake by removing one oppressive government from a particular people?

Do you believe the Iraqis *chose* to be governed by Hussein? When they "voted" 99% for him in the last election, do you think that actually reflected their desire to be "governed" by his regime? Remember the LATimes headline the day after the elections? "Iraqis overwhelmingly vote for Hussein" as if the votes cast were no different than votes cast in France during their elections.

And one more thing, I know this is hard for you to accept, but I do not favor forcing our will onto other nations just because they don't do things the way we do. I know of not one democracy on this planet that I would favor military action against even though there are plenty of things I disagree with them on. I do know of several other nations that have horribly oppressive governments that I would consider military action against depending heavily on the situation. I do not believe all governments are created equal. Do you? What did you think of South Africa for instance before apartheid was abolished? What about Israel now, don't you believe they are intent on oppressing the Palestinians? Do you approve of the genocide occurring in the Sudan?

[edit]... and when your man went against the UN and bombed Serbia, were you condemning it? And if you were too young to have been at the time, do you now condemn Mr. Clinton's illegal action in that part of the world? [/edit]


WS, my question was not whether you supported invading Iraq, I know you didn't. My question was whether or not you changed your position on cozying up to Iraq during the Cold War to prevent the Soviets from getting that warm water port they always wanted. I thought you were making the case that it was justified to do what we did at the time.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 06-18-2004 22:16)

quote:

---

Jestah, if you believe we have a long history of forcing oppressive governments onto other peoples, then why are you opposed to us correcting that mistake by removing one oppressive government from a particular people?

---

What did I say above? Its not our place to interfer in how people choose to be governed. If people in the Arab world choose dictatorships its none of your business.

quote:

---

Do you believe the Iraqis *chose* to be governed by Hussein?

---

How should I know how they want to be governed? All I know is they didn't ask for our help. They don't want us in their country. They haven't supported us since we've been there. They've actually gone as far as to raise an army against us. Oddly enough you look at those actions and suggest they wanted our help.

quote:

---

[edit]... and when your man went against the UN and bombed Serbia, were you condemning it? And if you were too young to have been at the time, do you now condemn Mr. Clinton's illegal action in that part of the world? [/edit]

---

I don't have a man. You might be a cum stain on <insert Republican name here>'s pants but I simply vote what I feel is right. Those in Serbia wanted our help. Those in Iraq didn't.

"My father never felt the need to wrap himself in anybody else's mantle or pretend to be anybody else. I don't know what's wrong with these people -- they have to keep invoking him. It is their administration, their war. If they can't stand on their own two feet, they're no Ronald Reagans, for sure." - Ronald P. Reagan.

quote:

---

And one more thing, I know this is hard for you to accept, but I do not favor forcing our will onto other nations just because they don't do things the way we do.

---

Its tough not to laugh at you when your next sentences are you wouldn't attack people similar to you and you'd consider attacking people different then you are.

"My father never felt the need to wrap himself in anybody else's mantle or pretend to be anybody else. I don't know what's wrong with these people -- they have to keep invoking him. It is their administration, their war. If they can't stand on their own two feet, they're no Ronald Reagans, for sure." - Ronald P. Reagan.

quote:

---

What did I say above? Its not our place to interfer in how people choose to be governed. If people in the Arab world choose dictatorships its none of your business.

---

That's easier to accept when those problems are allowed to grow over many years until such time that they come after you. We have ignored the problems in the Arab world for many years for some good reasons and also for some very bad reasons. But ignored them we have and now that the Soviets are no longer our main concern, Islamic terror has finally settled onto our plate of things to deal with.

Anyone that looked at the situation could see that it was going to come to this but no one really had enough desire to take any preventive steps many years ago.

We have a fundamental disagreement, Jestah, about whether we have a right to interfere with other nations affairs. I believe there are times when it is justified. On a case by case basis, I will make my decision on whether to interfere or to leave it alone. Perhaps the difference is that I don't rule it out, I think you're saying that you do rule out any interference. But that would lead me to ask under what circumstances you would favor any interaction in this world of ours. There are many ways to interfere with others you know and not just militarily. Do you rule it all out? I'm just curious.

quote:

---

How should I know how they want to be governed?

---

Or why should you care? Another difference raises its head. I do care about other peoples of this earth and I do desire better things for all. You can criticize what policies I favor in an attempt to further that goal and quite possibly they are flawed BUT never let it be said that my intentions are flawed. I have asked many times for those of you opposed to our actions to show me the better way. I reject out of hand a solution of isolationism if that is what you offer. I will consider any other solutions that seek to better the conditions for people across this globe of ours. All you have offered me to date are completely unworkable solutions I'm sorry to say.

quote:

---

Those in Serbia wanted our help. Those in Iraq didn't.

---

How do you know that? And besides, even if they did want our help, how can you justify an attack on another nation that violated international law? I don't recall the UN Security Council authorizing our military intervention in that part of the world. So tell me, do you condemn the action taken by then President Clinton? If not, how does that speak to your condemnation of Bush?

quote:

---

...you wouldn't attack people similar to you and you'd consider attacking people different then you are.

---

Similar to me? You mean people who live under free democracies? You mean you really don't see a moral differnence between democracy and dictatorship? I believe there is a difference and I believe it is in our interests to get as many countries as we can to adopt policies that promote more freedom, democracy, and proserity for all their citizens.

You seem to believe that we are attacking the Iraqi people. I don't think that is an accurate way of viewing what is going on. The same Iraqi people for the most part consider us to be occupiers of their land and that we are. But the same people WANT US TO REMAIN until such time as a stable Iraqi government is established. Look at the polls if you don't believe me. The Iraqis have not raised an army against us and I'm at a loss to understand where you are getting that from unless you are referring to Al Sadr's militia. This is the same guy you were praising the other day but guess what? He is now backing down contrary to your predictions. The other militias that existed have voluntarily disbanded in order to lend support to the new prime minister. So I really think you need to update your data on what is happening in that country before you say "they" have raised an army against the coalition troops.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 06-19-2004 00:02)