| VIP |
|---|
Subscribe to become a VIP member of SST!
· Request More Often
· Unshared Requests
· Request Countdown Timer
· Request Ready Indicator
· Your Request History
· Access To The VIP Forum
· Add More Favorites
:: Click Here To Upgrade ::
:: Give VIP as a Gift ::
|
|
|
|
View previous topic ::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Yvond
Lieutenant
Joined: Apr 02, 2002
Member#: 39
Posts: 178
   
|
 Posted:
Tue Feb 11, 2003 3:59 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
 
|
Sigh.
Esparvel's last point annoys me to no end.
First of all, The United States of America is a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. The fact that Gore didn't win the popular vote is specifically allowed for under Constitution---the Electoral votes are tallied as a result of both the House of Representatives and the Senate since each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census). This was done specifically to protect the smaller States and give them an influence and more power in the governing of the United States---so that the big States with large populations (such as California and New York) don't dominate the election every 4 years. Otherwise, what's the point of people who live in smaller States even going out to cast a vote???
This is the very fabric upon which the Constitution is based, and was the critical breakthough via the Connecticut plan (or Great Compromise), which took elements from both the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan while the Constitution was being drafted---and this allowed for two governing bodies in Congress so that there would be a constant tension between smaller States and larger States for the sole purpose of maintaining a delicate balance of power between the two. With regard to the Bush-Gore election, the small States had just enough influence to sway the election via the Electoral College. Hence Bush won, even though he didn't win the popular vote. Personally, I find this fact to be a great triumph of the Constitution, and it would be nice if people were finally able to recognize this for what it truly is. We don't live in a pure "Democracy", and hopefully, we never will.
Now it is true that the U.S. is too proud (ever notice we call ourself America, even though everyone in North and South America are Americans as well?), and I do not agree with the premise of this potential war, and fear the ramifications that are likely to ensue if we follow through with it. But unfortunately, people fail to understand either of these two things. They also fail to realize that there are fundamental reasons why Islamic nations hate those who are sympathetic to Israel, which is largely what got us into this predicament and the "War on Terror" in the first place. (Yes, yes, I know that there are other primary reasons, but this IS one of them). Because of this, no matter what, they always will hate us, and to some degree or another, they always will be at war with us.
The root of all this hatred, I believe, can be traced all the way back to the time of Abraham, since emnity was put between his two sons by God as a result of Abraham's initial lack of faith before his second son was born. Today, Abraham's descendents have given birth to the Islamic Nations (from Ishamael, his first son) and to Israel (from Jacob, the second). Everyone wants us to all get along, but until this world ends, we never will. And the reason is Spiritual. It would be nice for people to understand this as well, but I know this is asking quite a lot from people who won't even accept this line of reasoning as a valid arguement. But regardless, it's still reality. Ever notice that whenever U.S. is denounced by an Islamic nation, Israel is not far behind? Ever stop to consider why? That the hatred goes back much, much farther than just 50 odd years ago when the Nation of Israel was reborn after WWII?
At any rate, what we seem to be blind to in the U.S. is that the potential for terrorism in this country will rise exponentially the moment we decide to go in and invade Iraq. But because the focus of the government right now is to fight terrorism, and Osama Bin Laden has slipped through the net, the U.S. "needs" a new target, a new face if you will, in order to be able to continue to drum up its support for this very costly war. And not look stupid while doing so. Thus Iraq becomes a convienent scapegoat, instead of focusing all our efforts on trying to tie down an ellusive terrorist network.
Unfortunately, I fear that we may be allowed to go through with this war, partially for the purpose of allowing the United States to be broken and humiliated at some point down the road. How? By Chemical warfare? A Nuclear strike on the battle field? Perhaps, since contrary to EyeDae's inflamatory claims (and others) there is sufficient evidence pointing to Chemical weapons (at the very least) in Iraq. Does anyone even REMEMBER the Iran-Iraq War and the Chemical Weapons that were used? On their own troops even??? However, I believe that a much more likely scenario is that another, bigger, terrorist strike will hit this country, and its effect will be to cut the knees out from under us. I pray that it will not be so, but would not be surprised if it happens. We have been too proud, too arrogant, for far too long.
"God Bless America" has been our renewed motto, ever since September 11th. But why should He, since we don't even believe in Him anymore, and among the few of us who do, most refuse to willfully bow in humility so as to repent?
"God Bless America?" Not likely. |
|
 |
loveslave
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined: May 19, 2002
Member#: 98
Posts: 96
Location: Örebro, Sweden
 
|
|
Posted:
Tue Feb 11, 2003 5:32 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
That was a very good post, Yvond. I'd like to comment on a few things concerning democracy (@esparvel: democrazy? that's an interesting twist...) etc. And a disclaimer might be appropriate. I don't claim to know how politics work either in the US or in the EU. I just write from what I think.
quote:
This was done specifically to protect the smaller States and give them an influence and more power in the governing of the United States---so that the big States with large populations (such as California and New York) don't dominate the election every 4 years.
I don't think I see the logic behind this. This is not a critique of the US or Americans, it's just some thoughts about democracy and centralization of power. Suppose every citizen gets one vote, and all votes are worth equally much. Then all citizens, no matter where they live, get equally much power. Seems quite fair to me. In fact, giving smaller states proportionally more votes makes the people living there dominate the elections unfairly, or worse, letting only a few representatives vote on behalf of the entire state in as important matters as choosing a president or a ruling party.
The major problem here, I think, is too much centralization of power. The current trend in Europe, with the EU and all, is centralizing too, and I don't think it's a good thing. Having some form of "true" democracy in a more closely integrated union, where the central government has a lot of influence over the different nations, wouldn't work. That way France, Germany and the UK would dominate the politics and have (too much) influence on politics in Sweden, for example. Not good. If, on the other hand we adjust the votes so that smaller countries get more votes then the smaller countries would have an unwarranted influence over, say, British politics. Not good, either. And the problem again comes down to centralization. Cooperation is good. In fact, it is essential. But integration has its limits. You can't expect a central government to govern a very large area with a very large amount of people and still do it good. The way to go, I think, is small autonomous units (countries) that cooperate, without a superior government.
quote:
Otherwise, what's the point of people who live in smaller States even going out to cast a vote???
What state you live in doesn't necessarily dictate the way you vote, does it?
quote:
They also fail to realize that there are fundamental reasons why Islamic nations hate those who are sympathetic to Israel
What are? The election system in the US and balance of power between the states?
quote:
At any rate, what we seem to be blind to in the U.S. is that the potential for terrorism in this country will rise exponentially the moment we decide to go in and invade Iraq.
Exactly. Violence always leads to more violence. And fighting terror with terror just doesn't make sense.
quote:
contrary to EyeDae's inflamatory claims (and others) there is sufficient evidence pointing to Chemical weapons (at the very least) in Iraq
I'd be surprised of there were no chemical weapons, but I haven't seen any evidence that has convinced me. All I've seen is basically that Colin Powell says there is evidence, and some photos that don't actually prove anything to me. I can see why they wouldn't want to reveal their sorces, but I also know that just because some leading politician says something it isn't necessarily true. And this is equally true all over the world.
quote:
However, I believe that a much more likely scenario is that another, bigger, terrorist strike will hit this country, and its effect will be to cut the knees out from under us.
It could very well happen to the USA or any other country, but invading Iraq sure isn't going to make the risk any smaller. That will just make more people suffer, and hate the attackers.
"Love is the answer". How I wish it were as simple as that. |
|
|
|
loveslave
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined: May 19, 2002
Member#: 98
Posts: 96
Location: Örebro, Sweden
|
|
Posted:
Tue Feb 11, 2003 5:44 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowMo:
Okay, one last thing, I like SHORT posts, so I'll shut up, instead of boringly droning on and on and on.
Why? A long good post is better than a short good post.
USA may well have a (slightly) legitimate reason to invade Iraq. They probably do have illegal weapons, and Sadam Hussein is a dangerous leader (as are quite a few others, as mentioned before). But that would still not be a good reason to invade. That would only make the USA more enemies, and they have quite enough enemies as it is. And if there is an attack without the UN consenting, well... The UN is the best forum for cooperation we have, and if its treaties aren't respected then international relations are back to where they were 100 years ago, basically. |
|
|
|
Magma
Cadet 2
Joined: Nov 04, 2002
Member#: 263
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted:
Tue Feb 11, 2003 6:05 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
quote:
Originally posted by loveslave:
That was a very good post, Yvond. I'd like to comment on a few things concerning democracy (@esparvel: democrazy? that's an interesting twist...) etc. And a disclaimer might be appropriate. I don't claim to know how politics work either in the US or in the EU. I just write from what I think.
quote:
This was done specifically to protect the smaller States and give them an influence and more power in the governing of the United States---so that the big States with large populations (such as California and New York) don't dominate the election every 4 years.
I don't think I see the logic behind this. This is not a critique of the US or Americans, it's just some thoughts about democracy and centralization of power. Suppose every citizen gets one vote, and all votes are worth equally much. Then all citizens, no matter where they live, get equally much power. Seems quite fair to me. In fact, giving smaller states proportionally more votes makes the people living there dominate the elections unfairly, or worse, letting only a few representatives vote on behalf of the entire state in as important matters as choosing a president or a ruling party.
The major problem here, I think, is too much centralization of power. The current trend in Europe, with the EU and all, is centralizing too, and I don't think it's a good thing. Having some form of "true" democracy in a more closely integrated union, where the central government has a lot of influence over the different nations, wouldn't work. That way France, Germany and the UK would dominate the politics and have (too much) influence on politics in Sweden, for example. Not good. If, on the other hand we adjust the votes so that smaller countries get more votes then the smaller countries would have an unwarranted influence over, say, British politics. Not good, either. And the problem again comes down to centralization. Cooperation is good. In fact, it is essential. But integration has its limits. You can't expect a central government to govern a very large area with a very large amount of people and still do it good. The way to go, I think, is small autonomous units (countries) that cooperate, without a superior government.
quote:
Otherwise, what's the point of people who live in smaller States even going out to cast a vote???
What state you live in doesn't necessarily dictate the way you vote, does it?
quote:
They also fail to realize that there are fundamental reasons why Islamic nations hate those who are sympathetic to Israel
What are? The election system in the US and balance of power between the states?
quote:
At any rate, what we seem to be blind to in the U.S. is that the potential for terrorism in this country will rise exponentially the moment we decide to go in and invade Iraq.
Exactly. Violence always leads to more violence. And fighting terror with terror just doesn't make sense.
quote:
contrary to EyeDae's inflamatory claims (and others) there is sufficient evidence pointing to Chemical weapons (at the very least) in Iraq
I'd be surprised of there were no chemical weapons, but I haven't seen any evidence that has convinced me. All I've seen is basically that Colin Powell says there is evidence, and some photos that don't actually prove anything to me. I can see why they wouldn't want to reveal their sorces, but I also know that just because some leading politician says something it isn't necessarily true. And this is equally true all over the world.
quote:
However, I believe that a much more likely scenario is that another, bigger, terrorist strike will hit this country, and its effect will be to cut the knees out from under us.
It could very well happen to the USA or any other country, but invading Iraq sure isn't going to make the risk any smaller. That will just make more people suffer, and hate the attackers.
"Love is the answer". How I wish it were as simple as that.
|
|
|
|
Magma
Cadet 2
Joined: Nov 04, 2002
Member#: 263
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted:
Tue Feb 11, 2003 6:20 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
As stated earlier the United States is exactly that a collection of "United States". Our forefathers feared the tyranny of a central government and topped off the Bill of Rights with the 10th Amendmant. In reality, local and state laws and mandates have more of a direct effect on our lives than the Federal government. Unfortnately, our Federal government has been forcing our States to pay protection to participate in the Union.
I believe that this terrorism has been spawned by the lack of credibility in the Middle East by the US. We have shown over and over again our lack of committment and follow-through which creates an incubator for anti-American sentiment. This goes back years and years of us consistly playing both sides of the fence. The breeding ground of terrorism ran rampant during the Clinton administration which was warned and did nothing. The breaking point unfornately was during the Dumbya administration. Sometimes the only way to avoid war is to show your committment to actually go to war.
QUOTE]Originally posted by loveslave:
That was a very good post, Yvond. I'd like to comment on a few things concerning democracy (@esparvel: democrazy? that's an interesting twist...) etc. And a disclaimer might be appropriate. I don't claim to know how politics work either in the US or in the EU. I just write from what I think.
quote:
This was done specifically to protect the smaller States and give them an influence and more power in the governing of the United States---so that the big States with large populations (such as California and New York) don't dominate the election every 4 years.
I don't think I see the logic behind this. This is not a critique of the US or Americans, it's just some thoughts about democracy and centralization of power. Suppose every citizen gets one vote, and all votes are worth equally much. Then all citizens, no matter where they live, get equally much power. Seems quite fair to me. In fact, giving smaller states proportionally more votes makes the people living there dominate the elections unfairly, or worse, letting only a few representatives vote on behalf of the entire state in as important matters as choosing a president or a ruling party.
The major problem here, I think, is too much centralization of power. The current trend in Europe, with the EU and all, is centralizing too, and I don't think it's a good thing. Having some form of "true" democracy in a more closely integrated union, where the central government has a lot of influence over the different nations, wouldn't work. That way France, Germany and the UK would dominate the politics and have (too much) influence on politics in Sweden, for example. Not good. If, on the other hand we adjust the votes so that smaller countries get more votes then the smaller countries would have an unwarranted influence over, say, British politics. Not good, either. And the problem again comes down to centralization. Cooperation is good. In fact, it is essential. But integration has its limits. You can't expect a central government to govern a very large area with a very large amount of people and still do it good. The way to go, I think, is small autonomous units (countries) that cooperate, without a superior government.
quote:
Otherwise, what's the point of people who live in smaller States even going out to cast a vote???
What state you live in doesn't necessarily dictate the way you vote, does it?
quote:
They also fail to realize that there are fundamental reasons why Islamic nations hate those who are sympathetic to Israel
What are? The election system in the US and balance of power between the states?
quote:
At any rate, what we seem to be blind to in the U.S. is that the potential for terrorism in this country will rise exponentially the moment we decide to go in and invade Iraq.
Exactly. Violence always leads to more violence. And fighting terror with terror just doesn't make sense.
quote:
contrary to EyeDae's inflamatory claims (and others) there is sufficient evidence pointing to Chemical weapons (at the very least) in Iraq
I'd be surprised of there were no chemical weapons, but I haven't seen any evidence that has convinced me. All I've seen is basically that Colin Powell says there is evidence, and some photos that don't actually prove anything to me. I can see why they wouldn't want to reveal their sorces, but I also know that just because some leading politician says something it isn't necessarily true. And this is equally true all over the world.
quote:
However, I believe that a much more likely scenario is that another, bigger, terrorist strike will hit this country, and its effect will be to cut the knees out from under us.
It could very well happen to the USA or any other country, but invading Iraq sure isn't going to make the risk any smaller. That will just make more people suffer, and hate the attackers.
"Love is the answer". How I wish it were as simple as that.[/QUOTE] |
|
|
|
Caray
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: Oct 17, 2002
Member#: 243
Posts: 408
Location: France
|
|
Posted:
Tue Feb 11, 2003 7:32 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yvond:
The root of all this hatred, I believe, can be traced all the way back to the time of Abraham, since emnity was put between his two sons by God as a result of Abraham's initial lack of faith before his second son was born. Today, Abraham's descendents have given birth to the Islamic Nations (from Ishamael, his first son) and to Israel (from Jacob, the second). Everyone wants us to all get along, but until this world ends, we never will. And the reason is Spiritual. [/QB]
Yvond, you sound exactly like the fanatics on the other side of the fence. That's terrifying.
_________________
My reality cheque bounced |
|
|
|
EyeDea
Lieutenant
Joined: Dec 09, 2002
Member#: 298
Posts: 204
Location: Vancouver Canada
|
|
Posted:
Tue Feb 11, 2003 11:23 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
quote:
Perhaps, since contrary to EyeDae's inflamatory claims (and others) there is sufficient evidence pointing to Chemical weapons (at the very least) in Iraq. Does anyone even REMEMBER the Iran-Iraq War and the Chemical Weapons that were used? On their own troops even???
Sufficient evidence ??!
Uh oh we here at the US have a picture of a truck leaving a compound, that’s all we really know, but we're going to say that there must be a chemical lab in that truck. That’s not evidence, that’s BLIND ASSUMPTION, worth nothing. For all we know, Santa Clause could be in that truck.
This phone conversation they conveniently captured. Iraq did at one point make weapons of mass destruction, a lot of them. So of course they are going to be scared witless if inspectors come and find some left over debris from years ago, which is why they are STILL cleaning up.
The spy planes that Iraq won’t allow: If you know that the US is just itching for war on your country, would you really allow a spy plane to take Area photos and map possible battle grounds? No, no you would not.
Evidence? I think not. I have a few other things to mention. I find it very interesting how the US is now boasting that they are getting support from other countries for this war. And the surprising similarity with all of them is that they are small countries. For ex. Finland, Latvia and Poland. Latvia is trying to get into the UN, so if they were to go against US wishes, say good-bye to the UN for Latvia. Major countries which don’t need to sit on the US’s lap like France, Germany, and of course Russia, they know whats up. And they are totally against the war, I wonder why they’re not worried about what the US will say.
And finally the utter and total disgrace known as Tony Blair. A president is supposed to reflect the wishes of his people, and Blair is doing anything but this. 80% of UK are NOT in favor of a war. There are protests and marches almost everyday. Blair, in his own country attended some college presentation in favor of the war, and got rocked by comments and questions he could not answer to. This is in his own country, by his own people!!
You really have to sit back for a moment and ask yourself, what exactly is the US going to war for? What exactly do they plan to do after bombing everything to shreds? Is this really worth countless lives ? What, because Saddam is a threat to the US? How? He cant eve reach the US, he cant even reach 150Km outside his own country, nor does he want to. So please think again, if you are in favor of war.
_________________
By responding in any way shape or form, you contractually agree that I’m right, and youre wrong. |
|
|
|
Yvond
Lieutenant
Joined: Apr 02, 2002
Member#: 39
Posts: 178
|
|
Posted:
Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:48 pm Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
What evidence has Iraq ever given that the Chemical Stockpiles it owns have been destroyed? What evidence has Iraq ever given that the Chemical Weapons used in the Iran-Iraq War were destoryed? What evidence has Iraq ever given the Chemical Weapons used in the Gulf War were destroyed? And don't bitch to me about this. There is a man who lives in Fort Collins, Colorado whose retinas burned off while he was fighting in the Gulf War--a primary effect of Mustard Gas. Certainly the Colliation forces didn't use it.
Don't you think that with war eminent, and the U.N. breathing down its neck, that Iraq would want to provide conclusive proof that they actually destroyed them? Why haven't they? Why won't they? You don't have to be that old to know that the answer is obvious...
And with respect to SlowMo's doubt that Osama Bin Laden was behind September 11th?!? I cannot believe what I am reading. Almost every single hijacker on those planes have been tied directly to his personal little terrorist network, Al Qaeda. And not all of it from U.S. sources---European sources (and not just Britain) were involved in proving this as well.
Man, guys. Live in denial all you want, but that doesn't change reality. The leader of Iraq is not a nice, innocent little person. Neither is Osama Bin Laden. I mean no disrespect to either of you, and everone is entitiled to their own beliefs, but some of these arguements just don't hold any water. So does that give us the right to go to war with Iraq? No, and I agree with you there. But with Al Qaeda? Definately. The two circumstances are entirely different.
I understand that the "proof" given by the U.S. isn't conclusive, but neither does a person need to tear a building down to prove that it's foundation is made of concete...
And as for my fears for the potential of increased terrorism, and Osama Bin Laden being responsible for it if we invade Iraq? Look no further folks, than here. Or here. |
|
|
|
EyeDea
Lieutenant
Joined: Dec 09, 2002
Member#: 298
Posts: 204
Location: Vancouver Canada
|
|
Posted:
Tue Feb 11, 2003 8:33 pm Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
quote:
What evidence has Iraq ever given that the Chemical Stockpiles it owns have been destroyed? What evidence has Iraq ever given that the Chemical Weapons used in the Iran-Iraq War were destoryed? What evidence has Iraq ever given the Chemical Weapons used in the Gulf War were destroyed? And don't bitch to me about this. There is a man who lives in Fort Collins, Colorado whose retinas burned off while he was fighting in the Gulf War--a primary effect of Mustard Gas. Certainly the Colliation forces didn't use it.
Ok Yvond, I respect your opinion very much, and I always take the time to read your posts because there are some well grounded ideas in them. This, however, is NOT one of those posts. First of all, the only chemical weapons the US is inquiring about are the 20 some odd tons of liquid anthrax that has not been accounted for by Iraq.
Lets start with how the US thinks the Saddam has this liquid anthrax. Well the answer is this: a lot of the criticism from the US is coming from a 1990(which in itself is outdated!!) declaration by Iraq. And yes at 1990 they had those 20 or so tons, and they have not been accounted for in the latest declaration from Iraq handed to the US and UN recently. So now we have Bush screaming, Iraq you’re hiding some stuff! This seems logical, I agree. Here is why its NOT.
Anthrax, in liquid form, has a sustained yield, when stored in liquid form, of about 11 months. After those 11 months it will be degraded and decomposed to the point where it is in no way harmful, nor can it be harvested to be harmful. They had it in 1990, its 2003, you do the math. That’s just a little more then 11 months isn’t it.
And the US is just as much evil in its doing in the Gulf war and Vietnam, as Iraq was in the gulf. The US’s use of depleted uranium and “daisy cutters” is discusting. Just like their use of Napalm in Vietnam. So please don’t sit there and make an appeal to emotion by saying “oh no Iraq burned a soldier in the gulf, they must be punished”. Ofcourse it is wrong to hurt another human being even to that harsh extent, but what do you expect to happen in a combat conflict .. people holding hands ? No there will always be NEEDLESS casualties in war. Yet, it’s the US that wants to go to war, not Iraq. Secondly I ask again .. WHAT GOD DAMN SUFFICIENT PROOF IS THERE??!!!! HOW in the hell is Iraq a threat to the US! Bottom line is Iraq is not. This has and always will be about Oil.
_________________
By responding in any way shape or form, you contractually agree that I’m right, and youre wrong. |
|
|
|
 Cocles
Commodore
Joined: Mar 06, 2002
Member#: 15
Posts: 2587
Location: Los Angeles, CA
    |
|
Posted:
Tue Feb 11, 2003 10:59 pm Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
Wow, Eyedea. Getting a little hot under the collar there aren't you? |
|
|
|
SlowMo
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: Mar 20, 2002
Member#: 29
Posts: 390
Location: Ghent, Belgium
|
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 12, 2003 1:26 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
Amen, Eyedea, my main man! It's always about the oil! Somebody give Eyedea's stars back, now!
_________________
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -- Gary Larson |
|
|
|
Cocles
Commodore
Joined: Mar 06, 2002
Member#: 15
Posts: 2587
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 12, 2003 1:50 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
Is there a doctor in the house?!!! We've got to save Eyedea from the Waffle stuck to his ass!
Oh the humanity.
Put up your dukes, SlowMy! |
|
|
|
SlowMo
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: Mar 20, 2002
Member#: 29
Posts: 390
Location: Ghent, Belgium
|
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 12, 2003 2:08 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
Don't be jealous Cocles, I can handle more than one ass.
Oh btw : my support went to Eyedea, because instead of giving old information he stated the bottom line : iraq has oil, and we want it.
_________________
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -- Gary Larson |
|
|
|
Caray
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: Oct 17, 2002
Member#: 243
Posts: 408
Location: France
|
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:15 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
Yvond,
Not many people think that Bin Laden wasn't behind the 9/11 (sorry SlowMo but that's the truth). When the US went to Afghanistan I cheered and was all for it, many countries offered help (most of it was refused) and money (which was accepted). The military help was put under US command and noone said a word of complaint, that was only fair. When the US said they would do the fighting and the rest could do the clean up there were grumbles and complaints but also agreement in the end.
However, once Bin Laden had been routed we were shocked to hear Bush say : all right, now on to Saddam because I say so. Whatever it takes, we will take him down. Now shut up and follow.
There were a few problems with that :
1/ Saddam had less proved links with Al Quaeda that Pakistan, US new friend
2/ Bush had never hidden the fact that he wanted to take Saddam down
3/ When Bush said that he would go through the UN but would attack even if the inspectors came with a clean bill of health, it didn't leave a lot of leeway to manoeuver OR pressure Saddam into obedience and that made everyone furious.
4/ The US governement claimed they had proof but refused to give them to the inspectors to check the sites because (and that's a quote) they were too stupid.
Given that, yes I'm against that war. It has very little to do with terrorism and a lot ot do with personnal peeve and oil.
And before you bring it up, yes, I think that Saddam is a bastard who deserves to be shot, like all dictators.
_________________
My reality cheque bounced |
|
|
|
SlowMo
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: Mar 20, 2002
Member#: 29
Posts: 390
Location: Ghent, Belgium
|
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 12, 2003 6:42 am Post subject: [OT] Iraq and US Politics |
|
Did you guys ever consider the fact that saying Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 is like saying Yasser Arafat is responsible for the suicide bombings in Israel.
I'm sorry, I think it doesn't make sense to pinpoint the blame of a suicide terrorrist attack to just one person, as horrible as the attacks may have been.
And call me naive, but I still firmly believe in the principle that a man (and yes, even a woman) is innocent until proven otherwise. (And this also applies for the charges against Iraq, since when must a country prove not to have weapons, let alone how???)
And don't get me wrong, Saddam is not a good guy, but I believe that the Iraqi people themselves are the only ones who have the right to deal with him.
_________________
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -- Gary Larson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
