Topic: Hot Button Issues

[|BUG| Seven]

where the world is going to???     
what we will see next?
Shamu protesting in the streets against the IRAQ war?

may I say "I told you so" when I was giving my lonely battles back in the FS forums? 

the problem is now...you can't just take your troops from  Iraq.
There is a civil war mess there that you helped created.
You see in cases like this, a strong leader or dictator keeps a country united (may I remind you what happened in Yugoslavia when Tito died? rivers of bloods shed there as well).

USA is responsible for all these deaths Shamu that daily happen there. Maybe this would happen to Iraq anyway after Saddams death in the future but you triggered it. You can never know what that lunatic Saddam could have in mind. But you can't enforse freedom to nations. Iraqi ppl sooner or later they would get rid of this resume and they should have their faith in their own hands.
Instead they got an invasion that destroyed their country, a total anarchy that allowed the start of a civil war, dozins of thousands of deaths and a life of even more terror than when Sadam was ruling.

I really can't understand how your politicians and analysts didnt predict that a civil war would start after the capture of Sadam.
Or maybe this was their original plan from the beginning?
To divide Iraq for oil interests?

In any case I still fail to see why the Iraq war took place. The cons (civil war, loss of countless lives, feeding of terrorism against the western invaders, creating of more hatress against USA, more terrorism, division of a country) are much more than the Pros (getting rid of a ruthless dictator even in a non very civilized manner, finding the invisible WMD). Except if you count in the Pros the exploitation of Iraq's oil from the west.

But we can  have our diff opinions about this war.
The question is, how you can leave Iraq? How can you leave behind a war and the people of Iraq unprotected in the mercy of  the fighting parts? You can barealy protect them now, can you imagine what will happen when the US troops leave?. Their safety and prosperity is your RESPONSIBILITY. The moment you invaded them you are responsible for them. It would be a crime against humanity to leave them just like that. Maybe it's already a crime. 

I hope this will become a lesson to USA , that starting a war is not as easy as you might think, there are consequenses. The Afganistan front isn't going much better either. I don't even dare to think what will happen if you attack Iran.

This Bush guy must be the worst president ever. He already has so much blood in his hands. Are you proud about this guy? 

S (who is so bored at work..thank you Shamu!  ).

[|BUG| Shamu]

where the world is going to???     
what we will see next?
Shamu protesting in the streets against the IRAQ war?

may I say "I told you so" when I was giving my lonely battles back in the FS forums? 

Not quite, I still do not regret our entry and, also understand, I believe the reasons for war against Iraq went far beyond WMD. WMD was a convenient excuse that could be sold to the public.

Saddam was a threat to the area evidenced by his invasion of Kuwait, the gassing of the Kurds and his ongoing war with Iran.

If you are a threat to the area you are then a threat to oil.

If you are a threat to oil you are a problem.

And still, I do not object to the war but I object to how it has evolved.

What I object to now is the "peacekeeper" roll. Trying to impose democracy on people who have their own values and religious beliefs far different from ours, it simply will not work.

I do not like seeing our soldiers killed trying to change a religious based society that is not going to be impacted by our efforts.

The buggers hate each other, so align with the strongest faction and be done with it......do noy try to impose our form of government on another culture.

You go in and kick ass and then support the strongest faction. Get your troops out and let your support group take care of business in a way that gets it done.

Make a business decision, forget the moral right. Align yourself with the strongest faction, lend them financial and weapons support and get our ground troops out.

Want to send planes and rockets at select targets.....that's fine with me. It's the ground troops that should leave.

If you go back to my initial support of the war......it's still there, I just think it's being fought wrong.

I still support the initial invasion, it's the aftermath that is being screwed up.

Want to blame the war on something else?

You need to go further back to the end of WW II and the division of Palestine to create Israel. Muslim hatred toward the US and Britain can likely be traced back to this point and our continuing blind support of Israli military policies towards their neighbors.

[|BUG| Seven]

I do agree Sadam was a greater threat to the area, since after being ally with US he got really unstable, unpredictable and dangerous.

But I still don't see justifying the US+UK invasion.
There is no stability in the area anymore, on the contrary. Dividing Iraq will create more chaos and more wars in the Area (you really thing Turkey for example will leave the northen Iraq oils to the hands of the Curdish?). Plus the whole thing became the best recruiting reason for terrorists. USA is bleeing money and lives cause your soldiers keep dying over there.

Also the whole world sees a bad picture of the strength of the US army that seems powerless to win over there.
In my opinion it's not about how powerfull an army is, its about the motivation. Like in vietnam, the locals and rest of the Arabs see the American as an invasion force. You can't really beat that, you will always be the bad guy. You should have learned from Vietnam.

I also agree with you that you can't force freedom or democracy or your culture in another nation. In any case WHO you think you are to go and tell nations how to live and under what kind of way?
The only reason for me that justifies action is when we have genocides or ethnic clearance, for humanitarian reasons but even then "help" goes only when there are interests.

On a humanitarian level, people of Iraq suffer at least the same consuequences that if Saddam was in power. hundred(s) of thousands of innocent ppl have died.

Don't forget, before the war the quarantine of Iraq that led to sortage of medical supplies is responsible for the deaths of thousands of iraqi innocent children. How ethical is to keep forcing a country and a dictator by letting its children die??
And if Saddam is responsible for not giving up how much responsible is you for letting this happening? Nothing justifies the death of thousands of innocent children, not even the oils.
So the main problem behind this war is that it has been unethical from the very beginning. You haven't conviced nobody around the world.

I also think it's unfair to the american soldiers as well. People that mostly come from the less fortunate part of the american population are thrown to the meat machine for not a clear cause. It's really disgusting..

Does the majority of american ppl has any idea about the troubles and unjustice this war has created? I mean apart from supporting their troops, loosing money  and knowing Saddam was a really bad guy do ppl have realised how bad the whole thing is and will be for their country?
I can't believe ppl know and simply don't care.

S.

[|BUG| Shamu]

Some of this is where Seven and I really differ.

Personally I could care less about the "humanitarian" efforts that would be found to be acceptable. It's always the US who is being asked to "give" in support of humanitarian efforts.

I could care less about the ethnic cleansing or genocide....... perhaps I should repharse that.

I would not commit our soldiers for humanitarian efforts.

Embargos are fine, economic pressure is fine, financial aid a possibilty. I do not like sending our son's and daughters to die for some other countries family squabble or economic difficulties.

Police type actions have always been a losing cause.

For me to support a war it's business...... what is good for the US. Nothing more, nothing less. When Iraq invaded Kuwait that was business and warranted.

As far as the current invasion I am not sure, I do know gassing Kurds and torture in itself is not a reason for me to support an invasion. WMD looks like a fictional story but at the time was somewhat justifiable based on info we were provided.

Whatever the initial reasons IMHO it is time to get our ground soldiers out. I see nothing constructive by maintaining a ground force presence. Find the key players, try to form an alliance, support any alliance with weapons and money then get the hell out and hope your alliance kicks the others ass.

As for justfying the innvasion if WMD, to include nuclear and biological, had been found I could support the decision. With none found it's time cut our losses, pack our bags and get out.

Now don't go thinking I am going Liberal Seven, I would have no problem if the decision were made to turn both Iraq and Iran into glass.

[|BUG| DaveRegio]

Wow...I'll have to comment more tomorrow (really later since it's almost 4AM).

One quick note, Shamu, your Iraq position actually makes you more a conservative than a liberal. The philosophical roots of our war in Iraq is found in Wilsonian idealism, a very unconservative policy position in my view.  It should be no surprise that the current crop of conservatives (really "neoconservatives") were Democrats and turned "right" as a result of the Great Society and the Democratic Party's very leftward shift during the 1960's.

Unfortuneately, your form of conservative is a rare breed (although I disagree with that form of conservatism on several levels, it's more tolerable to me than modern liberalism and the various strains of big government conservatism).  Unfortuneately, it is my belief that mainstream conservatism has strayed from its intellectual roots and its principles and is now by and large a populist movement defining itself based on the current foreign policy position re: terrorism and Iraq as well as embracing the typical hot-button social issues that fuel our so-called culture war.  One can simply look at the Rudy Giuliani-Ron Paul exchange in the last Republican debate and listen to the response Rudy received when he responded to the statements Mr. Paul made about our foreign policy.  Pure populism in my view.


I'm painting with a bit of a broad brush here but it is late.

[|BUG| Shamu]

Uh-Oh.....Dave's here

Next thing you know OM will show up......or maybe even Feltan

It will be a test for Seven to see if she would ban Feltan or not

[|BUG| Shamu]

Dave, I suspect Isolationist could loosely be applied to me.

Not quite what it used to mean but could fit to a degree.

If I disagree with a countries moral or ethical behavior there are ways to protest that without a physical invasion.

Save physical presence for when they are truly a threat to us personally.

[|BUG| Seven]

yippieeee! Dave is here!!! it was about time mister!

now..how much of challenge is to express your thoughts in more simple english?  For us the dumb ones..ya know mate!

Feltan? eewwww...no way!


but there is worst....think if Daisy find us!!!     

S.

 

[|BUG| ttjoum]

i don't even dare to count how many times the word "war" appears in this thread.

I definitely vote against any kind of war, even support of it. Why? because a war never solved a problem only pain for all those who are involved and money for the constructors and people's hate.

Why none sees what history has to show us? All the empires collapsed under their weight and their spread.

Action gets reaction and it's never about who started it but whose left. Maybe none someday.

[|BUG| Shamu]

I can see Ttjoums point from a moral point of view but unfortunately it has not, historically, been reality.

Many countries historically have had a more successful existence, to include Greece, when they were a military power.

Perhaps Greece saw it's best days when they were a world power supported by a strong military presence and somewhat democratic government.

Passivity and good will unfortunately are usually trumped by aggressors if allowed. Human nature unfortunately, the "good guys usually do not win unless it's only a moral victory.

Of course it also depends on a persons point a view, my own is that I want to be the big guy on the block. Rather be looking down at someone from a position of powewr rather than looking up.

Let's face it, humans in general are a odd breed.

Heck, religion, to include Muslims, Jews, Christians, and almost all other religions publicly promote a peaceful co-existance. Yet what has killed and tortured more people than any other cause?

Religious beliefs.

Go figure

[|BUG| Seven]

I can see Ttjoums point from a moral point of view but unfortunately it has not, historically, been reality.

Many countries historically have had a more successful existence, to include Greece, when they were a military power.

Perhaps Greece saw it's best days when they were a world power supported by a strong military presence and somewhat democratic government.

Passivity and good will unfortunately are usually trumped by aggressors if allowed. Human nature unfortunately, the "good guys usually do not win unless it's only a moral victory.

Of course it also depends on a persons point a view, my own is that I want to be the big guy on the block. Rather be looking down at someone from a position of powewr rather than looking up.

Let's face it, humans in general are a odd breed.

Heck, religion, to include Muslims, Jews, Christians, and almost all other religions publicly promote a peaceful co-existance. Yet what has killed and tortured more people than any other cause?

Religious beliefs.

Go figure

Yes human race has a full history of violence. However we evolve. And there is this thing called progress. Things are better (even if sligtly) from the past. There is more respect for human rights that it was ever. And we progress in general cause we want to make our life better.
You can't use as an excuse "I am the strong guy in the block so I will do whatever necessairy". This is a very cynical approach that won't help you much to achieve peace. Who really likes the bully of the block?

Ttjoum is right, history is also full with examples of strong nations and empires that eventually fell and with a bang.
And in any case, where is action there is reaction. And violence brings more violence.

USA is nowdays the daemon in the eyes of most of the world. Think about how things have been envolved from WWII where you were the good guys who helped a lot to save the word till nowdays. It can't be a conspiracy or a coinsidence that all these people around the globe deslike your actions or even hate you for those. You must have done something wrong.

You are the only super power left, nations expect justice from you, not invading countries and killing thousands for financial interests. Your president is called "the leader" of the free world, maybe he is supposed to act as one?
Times have changed.
People can be informed globaly, people can react, the 11/9 is the proof. And those people are not uneducated blind religious fanatics who can be easily manipulated. Remember, the London attacks..one of the terrorists was a teacher, born and raised in a western society, not a poor bastard who has promised the paradise.

Its a very complicated period but maybe you were supposed to give the good example, not try to rule under the iron boot.
Or maybe you can't. I  much doubt you really have any saying in what happens in the world these days, you just make it worse..

S.

[|BUG| Shamu]

Actually Seven, I think our response has been very mild, far from the "boot" that could be applied.

While the methods can be debated, both here and abroad it cannot be said we took over the country.

As for the attitude you put in quotes "You can't use as an excuse "I am the strong guy in the block so I will do whatever necessairy"." The way it is written implies it is what I said.

Quotes imply someone said that, I did not, so who are you quoting?

I did not, I did say I would rather be in a position of power than one of weakness.

If you also think that is the attitude in the US, with power giving us the right to do what we want you are badly mistaken. Considering the power we have the truth is massive restraint has been shown.

Look at the initial war, Desert Storm, is there any doubt that restraint was not shown when our allied forces broke off the war?

Turns out that the restaint shown at that time may well have been a big mistake and caused the unnecessary persecution of many Iraqui's by Saddam.

[|BUG| Trauma]

I have to ask a question that is burning within me here. I keep seeing and hearing this "financial gain" and "they did it for oil" all the time. I dont see how this is possible. Have you noticed an increase of oil and the reduction in the price of fuel due to its abundance? No because we dont have it. So please someone tell me where all this oil is that we supposedly went after and received. Seems that it would drive down prices long ago if this were true.

     |Bug| Trauma

[|BUG| Shamu]

I have to ask a question that is burning within me here. I keep seeing and hearing this "financial gain" and "they did it for oil" all the time. I dont see how this is possible. Have you noticed an increase of oil and the reduction in the price of fuel due to its abundance? No because we dont have it. So please someone tell me where all this oil is that we supposedly went after and received. Seems that it would drive down prices long ago if this were true.

     |Bug| Trauma

Actually I suspect oil from the Iraq has decreased because of the current state of affairs but I also think that when Iraq invaded Kuwait there was a valid concern aboout supply.

Certainly in Iraq production has decreased and profits are supposed to be used for recovery in that country.

To my knowledge "financial gain" was never an issue.Protection of supply however was, especially during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. I suppose protection of supply could be interpreted of some kind of financial gain.

But I also have no doubt that good old capitalism keeps the price high. After the last crisis, to include Katrina which supposedly had a devastating effect on oil production, the oil companies recorded record profits.

Also price fixing by the producers such as the Emirates, Venezuela and Mexico is a significant factor. The producers meet regularly to control availabilty and price with little or no input from users.

And while we complain about 3.00 per gallon we are still one of the lowest prices per gallon world wide if I am not mistaken.

I believe England, Germany and maybe even Greece have much higher prices per gallon than the US.

Interesting issues to speculate about but the thing is we simply do not know what would have happened if alternative courses had been followed.

Maybe someday we will find a parallel universe where the alternative can be found

[|BUG| ttjoum]

The "financial gain" is never for the people but for the companies.
Some will reconstruct cities and some will gain from the extra oil, what people will get in their wallet is a joke from another galaxy.