THANK YOU U.S.
- Started
- Last post
- 61 Responses
- krist0ff0
personally i didn't find the war either entertaining or dramatic, but using the pretence of WMD for invading I think most would agree was simply not the real motive.
still, my point is that clearly sanctions were not working - yes saddam appeared to be getting stronger as his people weakened through starvation and illness. and if in excess of 500,000 iraqi children have died since 1991 as a direct result of sanctioning something had to be done.
i can't realistically envisage the sanctions having been lifted, so my concern, purely with the regards to the iraqi people, is that the current situation could not have continued and that something must have been done.
If only to prevent the humanitarian disaster (which was caused through economic sanctioning) continuing some action had to be taken. i am just interested what your opinions are on the alternatives.
- sower0
Multi-billion dollar technology can spot a sandgrain in a bug's eye. But yet, they can't find a single cannister of VX.
Why?
Ask Rumsfeld. He knows where it is, what it is, and where it came from. The answer to the last question he'll never give:
Some US/French/German chemical corp...
- mas0
whether you're opposed to this war or not, what is frightening (apart from the casualties on all sides) is the US attitude to international relations - this is taken from an article someone mailed me:
"This should be seen as a trial run. Iraq is seen as an extremely easy and totally defenceless target. It is assumed, probably correctly, that the society will collapse, that the soldiers will go in and that the U.S. will be in control, and will establish the regime of its choice and military bases. They will then go on to the harder cases that will follow. The next case could be the Andean region, it could be Iran, it could be others.
The trial run is to try and establish what the U.S. calls a "new norm" in international relations. The new norm is "preventive war." Notice
that new norms are established only by the United States. So, for
example, when India invaded East Pakistan to terminate horrendous massacres, it did not establish a new norm of humanitarian intervention,
because India is the wrong country, and besides, the U.S. was strenuously opposed to that action.This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is
permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack.The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the
United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may
sometime threaten it, then it can attack them.The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Security Strategy last September. It sent shudders around the world, including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition
to the war is unusually high. The Security Strategy said, in effect,
that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the imension - the only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S.
domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge." - ChomskyBeing the only superpower doesnt mean America should have the right to act in whatever way suits America.
- unknown0
i dont want to remember the big amount of dictators that the US has established along the world:
chile, afganistan, ecuador, blabla....
- krist0ff0
america is a very easy hate figure for many, many reasons, and their apparent global strategy is terrifying.
my question is though. considering we (the west including the UN) were responsible for creating the disaster in iraq - did we not owe it to the people to do something to help make their lives better.
now this DOES NOT mean I am pro-war or that I am pro-american. but I think it is very easy to criticise, especially considering the countries actions through history, america but what SHOULD we have done about the iraq situation?
- unknown0
mas, is preventative war bad?I'll bet countless people wish it had happened in 1939.
Do you suggest that if a country believes another country is about to attack that it should ignore it until something big happens?
No major weapons have been uncovered in Iraq yet, but that might be because this action was preventative. Would you rather believe someone that has been proven to be a dictator that approves of and uses torture, rape etc. on his own people or the leader of a democracy (not a perfect one, but as close as we get).
I wish you anti-American, conspiracy theorists would chill out. As soon as it's been proved that this is what the people of Iraq have wanted (at a cost I know) you're on to the next gripe.
- sower0
I'm not anti-american. Self-hate is not my thang....
I'm pro-LOVE!!!!
- mbr0
The UN made themselves responsible for Iraq, but could not uphold any of their own policies. What Bush did, declaring is selfish righteousness, was horrible, but what France did (and the likes of Germany and Russia), come in at second. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to downplay our govt horrendous actions, but I do believe the France held a trump card and played it against the UN in the name of their money's involved with Iraq. They were initially against the inspectors, for God's sake! If they had not been so adamant (and us not so quick to shoot) to go against anything suggesting upholding resolutions that they were part of, then perhaps we could have avoided war (a big PERHAPS, but them vetoing a 2nd resolution before one was made was stupid).
I do have an idealistic vision that the UN could be a democracy and influence new govts and further confrontations. To undermine that, or to go against it, suggests that humanity is not ready for world peace. And that's sad (Turkey didn't help matters w/ Nato, either).
My 2.5 cents. They are all fucked up and the world is a big hypocrisy, and yes, the US is the biggest and the easiest to hate.
May God have mercy on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Chirac ... oh, wait, I am not religious ;-)
- sower0
They are all fucked up and the world is a big hypocrisy, and yes, the US is the biggest and the easiest to hate.
*sigh*
- vespa0
krist0ff, unfortunately I think the problem is much bigger than the removal of one dictator... for reasons that are so much more than will fit in this little grey NT frame.
Perhaps a new New Deal would have been a solution... but we'll never know.
- krist0ff0
cheers vespa,
i don't have time to read that properly right now :-( but if it illustrates points about america economic policy and the IMF then i could HIGHLY recommend this book as well:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obi…
i completely agree that these little grey boxes are not really the time or the place to discuss situations so complex.
I was just interested in alternatives to the war, realistic ones, not just america is shit and war is bad. which i think you realise was my point.
- petzi0
vespa
i like you. because you care!
- mas0
Donnie - Depends on the circumstances - but the point i am trying to make is that for people who arent American, the feeling that International Relations are going to be settled the way the American government wants is very unsettling. there was massive public and international oppostion to this war but the U.S can do whatever the f*ck it wants because you are bigger than eveyope else. Im not anti american in a general sense, but i have been appalled by the way this 'war' came about, by the fact that it is a carbon copy of Daddy's unfinished business, by the ptopaganda on both sides. Whether you like it or not, while Bush is at the helm, America is scary. Do you defend his position on Kyoto? Thats when I started to get nervous.
By the way, Im irish, so I know that America can sometimes use its influence to intervene in a positive sense in a conflict like in Northern Ireland.
- ********0
Every Iraqi deserves a Pizza Hut, McDonalds and a Budweiser. Pure crap, don't eat it noooooooooooooooo!! Hee, hee ;)
- ********0
I do want to open up the first Pizza Hut or KFC, from what I know of it in Bahrain and Cairo they sell well. Seriously!
- ********0
anyone want to partner with me on this? 500,000 to start
- unknown0
mas - I'm not American, I'm Scottish.
There may have been massive public opposition to the war, but there was also massive oublic support for it (I think UK and US polls show more for than against).
So what we have here are 2 elected governments, with the support of the majority of their respective countries, taking action against a dictator who is treating his people badly and who our governments suspect of trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Your Daddy's war theory is a pretty pathetic argument. Should Bush not go to war with Iraq incase people like you say he's copying his Dad? The first one went to war because Iraq invaded Kuwait, the second because of suspiscion of weapons of mass destruction - hardly a 'carbon copy'.
I don't defend Bush's position on Kyoto, because I weigh situations up on there merit, not on who's involved.
And I can't believe you're worried about propaganda. Did you expect a war without one and do you not have confidence in yourself to see past it?
- ********0
se la vie
- Jamesh0
"Thank you to the United States for giving me back my life. I can now walk the streets freely and voice my opinion without fear of imprisonment or death. Thank you for caring about me.
Sincerely,
A citizen of Iraq"...
Your welcome. Now shut up and give me your oil.
- ********0
uh
duh