[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]Your making it sould like that The USA Controls Everthing buy using the word "Fail" [/B][/QUOTE]
Hmm... Certainly the USA doesn't control everything - What I meant was that it feels like SOME Europeans want the USA to fail in it's foreign policy no mater what route we take given the dead end - damned if you do, damned if you don't - scenario it felt like the USA seemed to be in and to a certain degree was helped into.
That's just my perspective - I know there are people even in our own country that would like the current foreign policy to fail horribly even at the cost of lives just so they feel vindicated and as if 'they were right.'
That's just my own feeling - I thought the rest of my post was sound.
Yes, the United States has lots and lots of weapons of mass destruction, which we've only used twice (nukes). And if you think you can make a good argument against their use, you are an idiot.
Saddam Hussein doesn't have the same track record as the US does when it comes to WMDs, now does he. He has used them to kill Kurds in the thousands. Why don't you tell me why you think you should waste your time talking about American weapons of mass destruction instead of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. And how will the Iraqi people benefit if you got your way and we didn't go to war?
What good has peace and international law ever done for people living under a tyrant?
So what will be the reprocussion of this,with the charter of the un effectively torn up with this up coming invasion.Now any other country can now invade another and will get away with it because the us/britian/australian forces did it.No matter how justified they feel they are still doing it outside international law.Just a couple of thoughts for you to ponder while you are all in your safe little houses;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Konrad [/i]
[B]I starting to suspect that many Germans and French want the USA to fail and have the shit kicked out of it [...][/B][/QUOTE]
It may be possible that you are right, but I doubt that they are "many". Most people, at least those I spoke with, do not have grown "Anti-American". Most see it as a terrible mistake that will cause unnecessary death and hatred in the region itself, against the USA, and worldwide (with unknown and terrible implications for the future)... and against *that* they raise their voice.
We have to make a clear distinction between the people and the European governments (as well as in the USA and in other countries), though. The latter are not against this war because of pacifism. Watching the growing unilateralism of the USA foreign policy, they see the time to, in the end, build their own empire. In this respect, they would of course like to see the USA weaken itself by this war. Please, don't count the "Anti-War people" towards this attitude.
In fact, the German government is violating our constitution because is *does* assist the USA war of aggression for instance by giving them overflight rights.
BTW, I am not sure: Was the authorization of war in the USA also given for a war *not sanctioned* by a UN Security Council resolution?
[QUOTE][B]SO: Iraq has been disarming to slowly and only because of US pressures which for two reasons we can't afford to keep up. The time has come to put an end to it. It is better to risk going in and removing Mr Hussein and establishing a Muslim oriented democracy and getting out in two or three years than occupying the Middle East for 15, 30 300 years. [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't agree with you on the reasons for Iraq disarming. It has not just happened because of US pressure.
And, I am sorry, but "The time has come to put an end to it" is such a meaningless sentence that I suppose it's one of the slogans that you were told again and again and which has burned itself into your brain. (No, I don't think you can't think for yourselves; I would not discuss here with you if I thought that.)
One thing in addition concerning the cost of the war(s). It is not the ruling elite, not the Oil companies (have a look at which US government member is paid by which company - most interesting), not the Military-Industrial-Complex who pay the price. You pay it, as well as me and the starving people all around the world who are squeezed out by multinational business. That is what "globalization" is about, in its core.
The direct cost of this war is estimated at around 200 billion (US number) US dollars. This sum would be enough to let the starving end on this planet, making terrorism a lot less powerful and taking a lot of power from the hands of such governments like the one of Saddam Hussein.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
or are you just going to skip the question and, in the words of one angry iraqi expatriate, [url=http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3]"play ping pong"[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
How and where did you find that mp3, where can I find more, and do you know the Iraqi guy's full name?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rogue Trader [/i]
[B]the international red cross said yesterday that only one civilian has died due to our bombing of baghdad.[/B][/QUOTE]
Makes sense to me. From what I hear, most of the bombing in Baghdad is concentrated in Saddam's government centers (which, if I remember correctly, were placed on the riverbank after the bulldozing of a chunk of Old Baghdad that was in the way), and included the Headquarters of such agencies as the Iraqi Secret Police, so the citizenry didn't much enjoy going around there and avoided the area.
Now, what I want to know is, how many Iraqi civilians died when all that antiaircraft fire came falling back down to the ground?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Language of Hope [/i]
[B]
One thing in addition concerning the cost of the war(s). It is not the ruling elite, not the Oil companies (have a look at which US government member is paid by which company - most interesting), not the Military-Industrial-Complex who pay the price. You pay it, as well as me and the starving people all around the world who are squeezed out by multinational business. That is what "globalization" is about, in its core.
The direct cost of this war is estimated at around 200 billion (US number) US dollars. This sum would be enough to let the starving end on this planet, making terrorism a lot less powerful and taking a lot of power from the hands of such governments like the one of Saddam Hussein. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes we pay the price, the people always pay the price, but you group all those companies and politicians in a seperate group as if they were not a part of the population. Yea its sounds real dramatic when you say we pay the price, but you conveniently miss out the fact that these companies and politicians also pay taxes, and will also suffer if the whole world goes to hell. They need a stable world in order to continue making profits and expanding their buisness. I will concede that exploitation does occur in many 3rd world countries by multinationals, but that does not mean that the purpose of globalization is to somehow create a world where corporations dominate the common people.
How exacly could those 200 billion end world hunger? Should we just give all those poor countries the money?, because I guarantee you that the majority of the governments we give that money to will either pocket the money for the politicians or use it for military puropses and to repress the very people we want to help. Ending problems like terrorism and world hunger are not just a matter thowing money at them. We have to use all the means we have including the military if nessesary to create a world where freedom and justice reign, not dictators and fanatics. Its so often the governments of impoverished nations that cause the suffering of its people, and prevent true economic and political reforms from creating an atmosphere where people can truly prosper and not just inch by on foriegn aid.
You want a better fairer world? then push the governments of the west to do what the U.S has finaly had the courage to do in Iraq, remove the cancer of the world by confronting those who dare to impose on their citizens regimes of oppresion, fanaticism, and darkness. Maybe this current action is motivated by issues ranging from oil to security to economics, but in my opinion it still serves as an exaple of what the free people of Earth must do to build a future where everyone can live in relative security and peace, with the liberty to pursue their dreams without some son of a bitch threatening them with persecution, torture, and excecution. We do that and terrorism will cease, we do that and the world economy will prosper, but it takes more than some peace rallies to do it, it takes action, it takes courage and sometimes it takes force.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TheEXone [/i]
[B]How exacly could those 200 billion end world hunger? [/B][/QUOTE]
So I take it you haven't seen the chain mail going around that shows how the Pentagon's budget could be used to solve all the world's problems? :rolleyes:
I have not seen that e-mail, perhaps you could post it here.
In any case it seems improbable that you could solve all the worlds problems with a mere 200 billion, and even if that would cover the cost of building up the entire third world, how could you deal with those countries such as Iraq, or N. Korea that prevent any reforms either economic or political from occuring?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TheEXone [/i]
[B]...In any case it seems improbable that you could solve all the worlds problems with a mere 200 billion... [/B][/QUOTE]
Anyone who thinks they can solve the worlds problems simply by throwing money around is on crack. Money itself solves nothing.. meaning the minute you pay someone to perform an action, it's no longer the money that's responcible for the change, but the person you paid, because they're the one who actually did it. No, I've not seen the chain letter either, but as I said, you can't solve problems by throwing money at them.
Such as the 'Food for Oil' program. How much of the money we (meaning the allies- including U.S., Britain, FRANCE those bastards and others) gave to Sadamm went for the Iraqi people? I've got news for you. Money would only fuck things up more.
Comments
[B]Your making it sould like that The USA Controls Everthing buy using the word "Fail" [/B][/QUOTE]
Hmm... Certainly the USA doesn't control everything - What I meant was that it feels like SOME Europeans want the USA to fail in it's foreign policy no mater what route we take given the dead end - damned if you do, damned if you don't - scenario it felt like the USA seemed to be in and to a certain degree was helped into.
That's just my perspective - I know there are people even in our own country that would like the current foreign policy to fail horribly even at the cost of lives just so they feel vindicated and as if 'they were right.'
That's just my own feeling - I thought the rest of my post was sound.
Saddam Hussein doesn't have the same track record as the US does when it comes to WMDs, now does he. He has used them to kill Kurds in the thousands. Why don't you tell me why you think you should waste your time talking about American weapons of mass destruction instead of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. And how will the Iraqi people benefit if you got your way and we didn't go to war?
What good has peace and international law ever done for people living under a tyrant?
[B]I starting to suspect that many Germans and French want the USA to fail and have the shit kicked out of it [...][/B][/QUOTE]
It may be possible that you are right, but I doubt that they are "many". Most people, at least those I spoke with, do not have grown "Anti-American". Most see it as a terrible mistake that will cause unnecessary death and hatred in the region itself, against the USA, and worldwide (with unknown and terrible implications for the future)... and against *that* they raise their voice.
We have to make a clear distinction between the people and the European governments (as well as in the USA and in other countries), though. The latter are not against this war because of pacifism. Watching the growing unilateralism of the USA foreign policy, they see the time to, in the end, build their own empire. In this respect, they would of course like to see the USA weaken itself by this war. Please, don't count the "Anti-War people" towards this attitude.
In fact, the German government is violating our constitution because is *does* assist the USA war of aggression for instance by giving them overflight rights.
BTW, I am not sure: Was the authorization of war in the USA also given for a war *not sanctioned* by a UN Security Council resolution?
[QUOTE][B]SO: Iraq has been disarming to slowly and only because of US pressures which for two reasons we can't afford to keep up. The time has come to put an end to it. It is better to risk going in and removing Mr Hussein and establishing a Muslim oriented democracy and getting out in two or three years than occupying the Middle East for 15, 30 300 years. [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't agree with you on the reasons for Iraq disarming. It has not just happened because of US pressure.
And, I am sorry, but "The time has come to put an end to it" is such a meaningless sentence that I suppose it's one of the slogans that you were told again and again and which has burned itself into your brain. (No, I don't think you can't think for yourselves; I would not discuss here with you if I thought that.)
One thing in addition concerning the cost of the war(s). It is not the ruling elite, not the Oil companies (have a look at which US government member is paid by which company - most interesting), not the Military-Industrial-Complex who pay the price. You pay it, as well as me and the starving people all around the world who are squeezed out by multinational business. That is what "globalization" is about, in its core.
The direct cost of this war is estimated at around 200 billion (US number) US dollars. This sum would be enough to let the starving end on this planet, making terrorism a lot less powerful and taking a lot of power from the hands of such governments like the one of Saddam Hussein.
or are you just going to skip the question and, in the words of one angry iraqi expatriate, [url=http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3]"play ping pong"[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
How and where did you find that mp3, where can I find more, and do you know the Iraqi guy's full name?
I originally intended it to be more or less comic relief, bit it DOES say something about some people....
On the subject of the europeons just wanting to see the US fail i think thats a little true, but only regarding France.
Dont forget france was vetoing and saying no to a new resolution concerning Iraq before Iraq was.
strange isnt it.
[B]the international red cross said yesterday that only one civilian has died due to our bombing of baghdad.[/B][/QUOTE]
Makes sense to me. From what I hear, most of the bombing in Baghdad is concentrated in Saddam's government centers (which, if I remember correctly, were placed on the riverbank after the bulldozing of a chunk of Old Baghdad that was in the way), and included the Headquarters of such agencies as the Iraqi Secret Police, so the citizenry didn't much enjoy going around there and avoided the area.
Now, what I want to know is, how many Iraqi civilians died when all that antiaircraft fire came falling back down to the ground?
[B]
One thing in addition concerning the cost of the war(s). It is not the ruling elite, not the Oil companies (have a look at which US government member is paid by which company - most interesting), not the Military-Industrial-Complex who pay the price. You pay it, as well as me and the starving people all around the world who are squeezed out by multinational business. That is what "globalization" is about, in its core.
The direct cost of this war is estimated at around 200 billion (US number) US dollars. This sum would be enough to let the starving end on this planet, making terrorism a lot less powerful and taking a lot of power from the hands of such governments like the one of Saddam Hussein. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes we pay the price, the people always pay the price, but you group all those companies and politicians in a seperate group as if they were not a part of the population. Yea its sounds real dramatic when you say we pay the price, but you conveniently miss out the fact that these companies and politicians also pay taxes, and will also suffer if the whole world goes to hell. They need a stable world in order to continue making profits and expanding their buisness. I will concede that exploitation does occur in many 3rd world countries by multinationals, but that does not mean that the purpose of globalization is to somehow create a world where corporations dominate the common people.
How exacly could those 200 billion end world hunger? Should we just give all those poor countries the money?, because I guarantee you that the majority of the governments we give that money to will either pocket the money for the politicians or use it for military puropses and to repress the very people we want to help. Ending problems like terrorism and world hunger are not just a matter thowing money at them. We have to use all the means we have including the military if nessesary to create a world where freedom and justice reign, not dictators and fanatics. Its so often the governments of impoverished nations that cause the suffering of its people, and prevent true economic and political reforms from creating an atmosphere where people can truly prosper and not just inch by on foriegn aid.
You want a better fairer world? then push the governments of the west to do what the U.S has finaly had the courage to do in Iraq, remove the cancer of the world by confronting those who dare to impose on their citizens regimes of oppresion, fanaticism, and darkness. Maybe this current action is motivated by issues ranging from oil to security to economics, but in my opinion it still serves as an exaple of what the free people of Earth must do to build a future where everyone can live in relative security and peace, with the liberty to pursue their dreams without some son of a bitch threatening them with persecution, torture, and excecution. We do that and terrorism will cease, we do that and the world economy will prosper, but it takes more than some peace rallies to do it, it takes action, it takes courage and sometimes it takes force.
[B]How exacly could those 200 billion end world hunger? [/B][/QUOTE]
So I take it you haven't seen the chain mail going around that shows how the Pentagon's budget could be used to solve all the world's problems? :rolleyes:
In any case it seems improbable that you could solve all the worlds problems with a mere 200 billion, and even if that would cover the cost of building up the entire third world, how could you deal with those countries such as Iraq, or N. Korea that prevent any reforms either economic or political from occuring?
[B]...In any case it seems improbable that you could solve all the worlds problems with a mere 200 billion... [/B][/QUOTE]
No but you could certainly solve all of mine!
:D :p