|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
posted November 07, 2002 12:23 AM |
|
|
Pretty logical song, Wolfman...
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 07, 2002 12:39 AM |
|
|
So I said it....... wow nice of you to remember, my point being that no-one's country is innocent in the past, you made the point that our colonial past is not good, I pointed out that that was perfectly true, but that I am not ashamed going to loose sleep over it. Remind me how this makes me wrong? Did I say you should attack america for it's past because I think you will find I did not.
All I was saying is stop acting like your country has this god given right to be righteous and smug about the rest of the world's past and present actions and act like it's the only country around here with a democratic and free constitution. Sure we have problems here, but you are not the only freedom loving nation of the world and you do not do all that you can to promote and ensure freedom in the world. You do more than others sure, but there's so much more America and the rest of the western world should be doing.
I'm not making you out to be evil, just trying to make you see your country without the cheery view you have of yourselves and for once at least try to figure out why the rest of the world thinks the way that they do. You might get somewhere faster that way than assuming they must all be either morons/cowards or hypocrites because they see the world different from your government.
And as for the last bit........ Why the hell not? You are ignoring the UN now aren't you? As of right now I don't recall there being a resolution to invade iraq but you clearly wish to!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted November 07, 2002 04:04 AM |
|
|
Well said Oldtimer!! 
Privatehudson:
Just to bring up a point.
Quote:
I happen to not fall into the category of being against a regime change but I do despise the notion that invasion and bombing is the sole or even best solution. You might want to look at why others do not believe your country when you say these things, or just why they take different opinions.
There maybe other options; but if so, decisions ought to be made and actions taken, quickly. Let's just say it's not an easy job being a president and making decisions like that (I suppose, I've not been a president ... yet  ); but hey, let's give Bush some credit for at least he made a decision and is quick to action (despite his very tight golf schedule ). Like what oldtimer was trying to imply (I think), sometimes indecision or delay in action may turn out worse than a bad decision (Little Bush must have learned to thing or two from his old man)!
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 07, 2002 05:37 AM |
|
Edited By: bort on 8 Nov 2002
|
You've missed my point, Hudson. If people say "the US is attacking Iraq to steal it's oil" than they should be doing something to stop it. If people say "the US should not attack Iraq" then they should do something to stop it. There's a saying - "Put up or shut up." People can and should disagree with the US but they should do something about it.
You know what I think when I see Korean students sitting in the freezing cold in front of the US embassy with signs that say "stay out of Iraq?" I think "good! They're standing up for what they believe in." You know what I think when I saw the anti-war rallies in DC? I thought "GREAT! You're standing up for a good cause." You know what I think when I see abortion protestors? (I am pro-choice. I disagree with the protestors) I think "good! They're standing up for what they believe in." (when they shoot abortion doctors, I think something entirely different.) You know what I think when I see people marching against globalisation at IMF meetings? I think "good! They're taking a stand." You know what I think when I see some rich rock star speaking at a rally to forgive third world debt? I think "Good! At least he's doing something" You know what I think when I hear college kids in the coffee shop complain about how they have no power and nobody listens to them I think "what, you're an illiterate crippled mute?" Go out there and scream until somebody takes notice. You know why? Because if people are anti-abortion or anti-war or anti-globalisation and they stay at home and complain but don't get out there and take a stand then democracy is dead. People can and should disagree (I was at a benefit called "Seconding the First" the other day (1st amendment rights, if that wasn't obvious) and Bob Costas got up there and basically said "look, we're all liberals here, but remember that free speech goes both ways. Make sure that we never become the political correctness police." It thought that was a really good point.). But if they feel a certain way then they should do something about it because talk is cheap.
You say Europe wanted to invade Iraq in 1991? Did they introduce a resolution in the UN and bring it to a vote? Did they say, "well, okay US, you can go in and get Saddam out of Kuwait and then we'll take it from there and finish the job?" Or were they proposing that the US go in and take out Saddam while they stood at the sidelines and decried the civilian casualties the US was causing?
You've complained about how the US didn't want Europe to build a GPS because the US felt it would threaten the integrity of NATO. Well, did Europe then say "Hmm. That is an issue. Well, so be it, NATO was great during the cold war, but we figure we can defend ourselves now. Thanks, though."?
Quote:
And as for the last bit........ Why the hell not? You are ignoring the UN now aren't you? As of right now I don't recall there being a resolution to invade iraq but you clearly wish to!
Now this statement would be a whole lot more effective if you were able to say "I don't recall there being a resolution to invade iraq, but you clearly are" The US put a resolution before the UN. Anything wrong with that? The US argued that the resolution should be passed. Anything wrong with that? The resolution has not been passed, so tanks are not rolling into Baghdad. If the US invades without a resolution being passed, then and only then can you say "you are ignoring the UN now aren't you?"
You say Europe is offering peaceful solutions? Then bring a resolution to vote and see how the rest of the world feels about it. You say the US would veto it anyway? Fine. Make the US veto it. Make the US get up in front of the whole world and say "We are ignoring you. We are acting however we please."
It's easy to sit around and complain that nobody listens to you. Guess how many people listen to you if you never take a stand? ZERO. It's fun to sit around and say "oh, everybody is so foolish. I'm rational and enlightened but they don't listen to me." Well until Europe takes a stand, that's precisely what Europe is doing.
You seem to think I'm saying that Europe doesn't have the right to take a stand. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying Europe SHOULD take a stand. If they don't, then yeah, maybe they don't have a right to complain.
You say the government is ignoring the people? How many of the people write their MPs and let them know that? To those who do, good job, keep it up, to those who don't -- if you're not willing to at the very least put in the effort to lick a stamp, then quit your moaning. The thing about a democracy is that the people get a government that is no better than what they deserve. It happened in the US, we've got Bush. But the people who just sit around and go "boo hoo hoo" don't deserve any better than Bush.
Don't like the British government's support of the US? Write your MP and say "I feel that an attack is unjustified and I will vote accordingly."
Don't like Camp X-ray? Then SAY SO. Write your MP, but don't stop there. Join Amnesty International, they'll give you a lot more addresses to write to to put pressure on people in power to stop (Amnesty International doesn't always work, but it works a lot more than you think).
Donate money, volunteer but don't think that if you simply "determine whether these actions are right or wrong" you've done anything. You haven't.
You want to know why I think the EU is hypocritical? Because they "determine whether these actions are right or wrong" and then "sit back and simply allow America a free hand in world events."
Don't say it'll never make a difference anyway because I can guarantee one thing that will never make a difference -- saying "I don't think this will work" and then sitting back and letting it happen anyway. The US is powerful? So was the UK, but you know what India did? They said "We're going to make our own salt and weave our own cloth and if you shoot us down as we do so or bash our heads, we're going to keep making our own salt and weaving our own cloth until you kill every single one of us." You know what happened? India gained it's independence. Factory owners were powerful, but you know what the Unions said? They said "We're going on strike until you give us the treatment we deserve and if you beat us and blacklist us and hire scabs, we're going to keep going on strike until you blacklist every single one of us." You know what happened? Safer working conditions, higher wages, the weekend, employee health insurance plans, etc.
You're only powerless if you don't use what little power you do have.
Quote:
So I said it....... wow nice of you to remember, my point being that no-one's country is innocent in the past, you made the point that our colonial past is not good, I pointed out that that was perfectly true, but that I am not ashamed going to loose sleep over it. Remind me how this makes me wrong? Did I say you should attack america for it's past because I think you will find I did not.
You made up the comment "say oooo I dunno dropped a chemical defoliant on a nation......... oops you did do that didn't you?" I found this interesting in light of your earlier comments on "one massacre some time ago gives no-one the right to criticise the country today." So I was wondering if you now felt differently. Apparently, you do.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted November 08, 2002 02:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Pretty logical song, Wolfman...
Really? I thought the thread needed something lively.
____________
|
|
Cat
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Gonna Get Dirrty...
|
|
posted November 08, 2002 02:47 PM |
|
|
Update....
Just thought you would like to know that a verdict on the UN declaration regarding Iraq and weapons inspection should be passed soon, as the Russians have agreed that there is no "automatic trigger" placed by other over-zealous security council members.
____________
 Diwethaf Gloau Sylw y Gymreag
http://aozos.com/phpBB2/index.php
|
|
charm
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 08, 2002 10:41 PM |
|
|
Bush-wacked!
Quote:
2. The United States attacked it's weaker third world neighbor Mexico in 1846 resulting in the annexation of land, this area later became the U.S. states of California,
A little publicized fact: in 1812 Canada burned down the White House - the only country to EVER do so! Does this mean George Bush and his war-hungry cabinet should bomb Canada?
Quote:
"Much of the senior uniformed military opposes going to war any time soon, a stance that is provoking frustration among civilian officials in the Pentagon and in the White House -
Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet are reported to be posing skeptical questions about a military campaign and what happens after Saddam is gone,"
What's worse is that the White House has CNN and most other "News agencies" onside. While a few news programs touched on the tens of thousands of protestors outside the White House, it was mostly with the intention to marginalize the marches - they were shown, but always in the middle of the program, and the programming always ends with a focus on Bush or something to encourage war.
____________
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted November 09, 2002 01:51 AM |
|
|
bort said:
Quote:
You've missed my point, Hudson. If people say "the US is attacking Iraq to steal it's oil" than they should be doing something to stop it. If people say "the US should not attack Iraq" then they should do something to stop it. There's a saying - "Put up or shut up." People can and should disagree with the US but they should do something about it.
I agree, bort, and I did do something about it. I voted, and I voted for democrats (22 of whom, in the Senate, at least, voted against Bush's war resolution--the rest were cowards). You can see where that got me (and them). I lost, and they lost, much like the student protesters in Tienamin square who wanted to change China, but instead were shot. It's hard to argue for drastic social action when we know that fighting the system is a losing battle for most who try. One can affect change, perhaps, but at what cost?
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 09, 2002 05:43 AM |
|
|
Canada burned down the White House in 1812?
I was almost positive that it was the British when they couldn't get over losing their colonies to the "Yankees".
____________
|
|
HeyYou
Known Hero
and beloved food provider.
|
|
posted November 09, 2002 05:49 AM |
|
|
American History 101
http://www.newstribune.com/stories/082499/opi_0824990005.asp
British, 1814
____________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
~ Hanlon's Razor
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 09, 2002 12:49 PM |
|
|
Yes maybe in 1814, but it was during the war of 1812. Canada did not burn the capitol down.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 09, 2002 10:42 PM |
|
|
Canada was involved in the war as well, you invaded them first, and then british regulars with some canadian raised troops invaded, reaching washington soon after the americans abbandoned it. We continued and tried to sack boston harbour, but were driven off.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 10, 2002 01:13 AM |
|
|
Even so, I was not wrong. Canadien troops did not burn the White House down. Well, really no one burned it "down". Just chared it.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 10, 2002 01:19 AM |
|
|
I wasn't suggesting you were wrong, just clarifying a few things about the war. I'm sure there were some Canadian troops involved in the burning of the white house, but the majority as you say were British.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted November 10, 2002 01:30 AM |
|
|
Yes.
And as PH would say "Back on topic methinks"
This was an article from CNN.com
Worlds urges Iraq to comply with U.N.
Saturday, November 9, 2002 Posted: 7:51 AM EST (1251 GMT)
Blair: "The position of the international community is now unified and certain"
WHAT NEXT?
Iraq has seven days to accept the resolution's terms
Within 30 days, Iraq must send the U.N. a list of its weapons
Within 45 days, Iraq must allow inspections to begin
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Members of the international community have urged Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to take seriously a new U.N. resolution.
The landmark resolution, which was passed unanimously by council members on Friday after months of negotiation, requires Iraq's full compliance with U.N. weapons inspectors and warns of "serious consequences" if it fails to cooperate. (U.N. vote)
There was no immediate response from Baghdad, but Iraq's ambassador to the U.N. said it will be difficult for his country to comply with the resolution's demands. (Full story)
But British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington's staunchest ally against Iraq, was "delighted" by the outcome of the vote.
He said: "The position of the international community is now unified and certain.
"The goal is disarmament of all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
"If Saddam complies, that is the U.N. mandate fulfilled. I may find this regime abhorrent; any normal person would. But the survival of it is in his hands."
He warned the Iraqi president: "Defy the U.N.'s will and we will disarm you by force. Be in no doubt whatever over that."
China, France and Russia issued a joint statement saying they were satisfied that the resolution excluded the automatic use of force if Iraq did not comply.
The statement said: "Therefore, this resolution fully respects the competences of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations."
Australia also welcomed the resolution, saying it provided stronger authority for U.N. inspections than earlier resolutions.
Prime Minister John Howard said in a statement: "The resolution also sets out in clear terms what Iraq must do to convince the international community that it no longer poses a threat to its neighbors and to global security.
"The passage of the resolution vindicates the strong but patient leadership shown by President Bush on this issue."
Germany said it was now up to Saddam to show he is serious about peace and re-admit U.N. weapons inspectors.
Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said: "The resolution is a clear signal to Baghdad: Saddam Hussein must realise what serious consequences the non-observance of the resolution would entail."
The Palestinian Authority urged a peaceful resolution with Iraq, saying the recent U.N. Security Council resolution should not be a "prelude to war" in the Middle East.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat told CNN on Saturday: "War should not be an option.
"The international community should start to solve this matter through peaceful means. The Middle East region doesn't need a new war. It needs a substantial peace process."
The European Union's chief foreign envoy Javier Solana said the resolution reflected international "unity" and determination to bring Baghdad into line.
He said: "The views of the European Union are fully reflected in this text, particularly the key objective of the EU, namely vigorously to address the disarmament of Iraq and to do so within the framework of the U.N. Security Council."
China, which holds the rotating presidency of the U.N. Security Council, also indicated the next move would be Saddam's.
Chinese Ambassador Zhang Yishan told reporters: "The Security Council is sending a very clear message to Iraq, a message of peace, a message of good will, and a message of hope.
"And now the ball is in the hands of the Iraqi government."
The final language of the resolution was the result of a deal between the U.S. and France.
The difference was two simple -- but apparently crucial -- words. (Resolution text)
Jean-David Levitte, France's U.N. ambassador said his delegation was "satisfied" with the final draft.
"Now comes the time for implementing this resolution," he said.
Russia also opposed earlier language that would have authorised the use of force against Iraq in the event of non-compliance -- language known as "automaticity."
Washington eventually agreed to consult with the U.N. Security Council before taking any action in Iraq. (President Bush reaction)
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov told the Interfax news agency: "As a result of long and tense work, we have been able to change the draft, and this is an indication that the international community is capable of bringing positions closer together and find common solutions to some of the most difficult problems."
He said the unanimous vote by all of the Security Council's member was important because it demonstrated the council's unity.
UNSCOM, the U.N. Special Commission, was replaced in 1999 by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC.
Sergey Lavrov, Russia's U.N. ambassador, told CNN what action the council would take, if inspectors reported problems with Baghdad.
"[U.N. chief weapons inspector] Hans Blix and [International Atomic Energy Agency head] Mohamed ElBaradei, in that case, would have to present their case in very specific terms," he said.
"We would have to know what sort of failure there is.
"And we do rely on Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei as professionals, and as international civil servants, not to repeat the mistakes of UNSCOM in the past, when UNSCOM was reporting and interpreting the tiniest episodes as proof of lack of full cooperation."
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2002 04:53 AM |
|
|
Quote
“your country has this god given right to be righteous and smug “
hmmm sounds like a smug and self-righteous statement to me? Pot calling the kettle black?
Quote
“that's called diplomacy”
Excuse me….one second you say “YOU [USA] DOMINATE THE UN!” and the next second you say that it is diplomacy….if we dominate the UN why is there any need for diplomacy????? Pick you argument…don’t argue both sides.
Quote
“NOW is a great organization”
sarcasm?….NOW is the most hypocritical organization on earth….here is the fornicator in chief… MR. sexual permissive, sexual harasser extraordinaire…not to mention the very credible accusation that he forced himself upon one woman….but what does NOW do…they defend the pervert….they have no standards and are but a puppet of the democratic party. Sad really cause there are some legitimate feminist views…the first wave of feminism was about equality…the second wave of feminism is about politics, victimization, and male bashing. NOW proves to be hypocrites to the maximum. They have no principles as seen most obviously in the Paula Jones situation…here a proven victim of sexual harassment…and who did they line up with….our great president Clinton. They really showed their colors! NOW disgusts me….not for what they in principle stand for…but for what they don’t stand for…namely women and right conduct!
Quote
“If you as a nation and people are not secure enough in your history and motives to have people question either then you clearly are an insecure bunch!”
Give me a break….UK is for a regime change…yet I have not heard barley any critics in this thread about the UK. It is obvious there is a biased mentality. The USA is unjustly scrutinized….people allege all sorts of conspiracy theories with no facts to back up their allegations….they just assume the worst. Debate….disagree…but to undermine our values and motive is dishonorable without any evidence. USA is not the issue…Saddam is….please argue the merits or lack thereof of a regime change instead of prejudicially attacking the USA. I don’t see any thread here that attacks the UK? Where is the allegation that Blair is just in it for the oil? I haven’t seen it here. Hmmmm bias? Hmmm prejudice?....hmmm nationalism? ...hmmm envy?
Quote
“Take a step back yourself and for once try and see why they do not support an invasion.”
I have full respect for people who LOGICALLY debate the facts…but this thread has degraded to people who don’t debate policy, but turn instead to the politics of the hatred. Quite off the topic to attack on the USA and our motives. Unless you are a back alley mind reader with a really fancy crystal ball….don’t judge our motives….you don’t know them! Time for a real debate not the politics of personal/national character attack.
Quote
“question your intentions when they believe you to be carrying out the worst of the options to remove hussain.”
Ummm what options haven’t we taken over the last decade? We have tried all that we can through diplomacy and trade…but it has had no affect.
Quote
“Did you listen when the european nations advocated an invasion of iraq to remove hussain in 1991?”
That is laughable…the UN did NOT support regime change at the time…that happens to include the EU. That fantasy is incredulous.
Quote
“don't expect the world to sign up with you if we disagree!”
First I don’t expect people to sign up if they disagree…but let us do what we think is right. Apparently with the UN giving unanimous support today…they seem to agree But even dismissing the unanimous approval…the point still remains that many people don’t’ seem to be able to debate the facts…all you seem capable of is to attack…. with your god-like perspective of the USA motives. You don’t offer proof all you seem to offer is mindless allegation.
Quote
“I can handle my countries past actions and questions about it's current ones.”
That is exactly the point…what does what the USA or UK did or do not do 100 years ago have anything to do with this thread??? Time to debate facts…and get off of our prejudices!
Quote
“*sighs*
*rolls eyes*
*looks heavenward as if asking the almighty to grant oneself the patience to deal with the cretins around oneself*
*sighs again just to make a point that the sigher is somehow superior to those whom the sigh is directed at*”
Thank you Bort…you captured my feelings exactly. When will people start to debate in logical fashion instead of retreat to their emotional hatred and illogical rhetoric!
Quote
“I'm not making you out to be evil, just trying to make you see your country without the cheery view you have of yourselves and for once at least try to figure out why the rest of the world thinks the way that they do.”
That has to be one of the most ignorant statements you have made. Your arrogance only exceeds your ignorance to make such a dense statement…..”cherry view”…oh thank you for enlightening us ignorant Americans…only you see the world objectively…thank you. Obviously you don’t know ANYTHING about America. Do you know certain people here made it impossible to fly flags in public libraries after 9/11? Do you know that people here have big rallies against the regime change? Do you know that after 9/11 the big liberals in the media thought it to be not objective to wear an American flag pin while on the news? Do you know there was GREAT debate in the congress over regime change? We have the most critical voices within our own nation….we don’t need the enlightened EU to criticize us…thank you very much…we are very much a democracy with a plurality of voices….so whatever you consider to be an open-minded message that we need to hear…we have already heard from our own people. You act like we are a bunch of brainwashed robots! Lets step into the real world.
Quote
“You are ignoring the UN now aren't you? As of right now I don't recall there being a resolution to invade iraq but you clearly wish to!”
LOL…guess you are incredibly wrong on that one….haha. The UN backed the resolution. But even if UN didn’t back it….your government did…and the USA did….the day nations loose their sovereignty to the UN is the day that Hitler would seem like a grand dictator! One world government over my dead body…we died for freedom from Britain once before…and we will gladly die again if others try to dictate to us again. So when exactly did the UN become God????
Quote
"look, we're all liberals here, but remember that free speech goes both ways.
AMEN…I hope that both liberals and conservatives heed that phrase
I got to say….Bush has stood up against immense criticism and world scrutiny…and won…a leader all of the fools dismissed! Even so….got to say Blair is even more impressive with his resolve given so many in the EU and UK that don’t have the courage of convictions save his leadership. Here’s one to Blair!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 10, 2002 05:36 AM |
|
|
I don't have the time or the inclanation to go over all of it as we clearly disagree and it brings out some, how shall we say emotional reactions. Just to clarify though.
Diplomacy - No my point was all nations use diplomacy often as a way of making it look as if they care about other nations opinions when often they do not. Not always the case admitedly, but often it is so.
The UK, you don't see a thread then I suggest you make one, it's in your power to do so after all. Hell I wouldn't be suprised if we did go after Iraq to simply keep in with america, or at least that's more close to the real reason than what our politicians tell us. My point there being you don't start off a debate by deciding certain areas are "off limits" ie well we cannot discuss the moral integrity of the allied nations as they are in the right. Debates are about the whole issue, if this debate means we have to stay away from the morale rights and wrongs of one side and simply discuss what the other has done right and wrong then it is not a debate, it is an assasination.
Quote:
don’t judge our motives….you don’t know them!
Exactly what I mean above. You want a debate that starts with the notion that the USA and her allies are the right cause here, no discussion allowed. That simply makes it easier as it becomes an assasination of one country/person which is simple given the evils of Hussain. But please feel free to determine what I can and cannot bring up as a relevant issue.
Quote:
That is exactly the point…what does what the USA or UK did or do not do 100 years ago have anything to do with this thread??? Time to debate facts…and get off of our prejudices!
Do try and read all of the quote you mentioned, I said Questions about it's current ones. Those are very relevant I think you will find.
Quote:
we died for freedom from Britain once before…and we will gladly die again if others try to dictate to us again
Interesting, I do hope you treat Iraqui soilders with a similar attitude, or the prisoners you carted off to camp xray for defending their country (as you never did prove their guilt in being members of terrorist groups).
Quote:
LOL…guess you are incredibly wrong on that one….haha. The UN backed the resolution. But even if UN didn’t back it….your government did…and the USA did
So glad I gave you amusement there. Pity you did not notice I wrote that before the resolution was agreed. It should prove interesting to see just how many of these backers actually send any contingents to fight in an invasion and how many of those that do send troops send more than a token force. Somehow I think it will be the British and Americans forced to lead the way again.
After this I think I will stay quiet. You want a debate on your terms, you don't want to hear about the other side of the story, or why other nations wish to have your motives explained. People are presumably expected to just hear that america is involved and assume it is a righteous and good way of regime change. Feel free to assume me some sort of fool/anti american for simply stating the other side of the argument, or not begining with the assumption that America MUST be right. I clearly don't have the view of the world that you americans have. My appologies for seeing it in an alternative manner, or wanting to bring into the debate something you clearly have some trouble discussing.
In the meantime, I continue to assert that the bombing and invasion of Iraq are wrong. I couldn't give a damn if the entire UN said it was right, and certainly not because somebody elses leader said so, not even my own. I wish luck to those poor armed forces personnel that have to go into combat in a war that should never happen and should never have had to happen. I only wish that if the invasion goes ahead that this time the allies bother to actually secure the peace in Iraq. It is one thing to win a war, a completely different one to secure peace.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 10, 2002 06:15 AM |
|
|
|
Dargon - don't want to go way off topic into the what non profit organization is better - but what's wrong with being a puppet of the democratic party?
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2002 07:24 AM |
|
|
Quote
“The UK, you don't see a thread then I suggest you make one, it's in your power to do so after all.”
That is my point again…this isn’t a “what are the USA underlying motives” thread…yet too many have made it into one. The topic is “attack Iraq”. Debate is about facts…not allegations…so no I won’t make up a pseudo debate thread about questioning UK’s motives…cause to be frank I don’t know them so I will refrain from groundless accusation.
Quote
“Hell I wouldn't be surprised if we did go after Iraq to simply keep in with america”
See you seem to allege UK’s motive might be too kiss America’s butt. Granted it is a negative motive…but not near the war crime type of allegations that I have seen here against USA. Lets see we are doing it for oil, we are doing to restore our economy, we are doing it to make up for the first Bush president “not finishing the job”. Those are all horrific motives. So if you make those kind of outrageous claims then don’t be surprised when people react to such allegations.
Quote
“You want a debate that starts with the notion that the USA and her allies are the right cause here”
That is not the case. If I debate anyone’s views about the regime change...it would not be a fair debate for me to bring up your motives since I don’t know your motives. I could debate the logic and reasoning of your arguments but to mind read what your motives are without a shred of evidence degrades a debate into a Jerry Springer show. Likewise to guess about USA motives particularly given your negative attribution of our motives is not true to debating principles. Granted it is a form of thought that we all engage in….but it is best left unsaid unless you can support it with facts. Otherwise it is asinine to furthering discussion. I could say that France’s resistance to the regime change is motivated because their leader has a homosexual attraction to Saddam…but since I have no evidence…to enter that kind of allegation into a debate would be pitiful.
Quote
“Somehow I think it will be the British and Americans forced to lead the way again.”
Isn’t that typically the case no matter what the UN mandate is?
Quote
“You want a debate on your terms, you don't want to hear about the other side of the story, or why other nations wish to have your motives explained.”
First of all to understand one’s motives is an immensely complex process. The USA has given you numerous solid reason’s for our motives….but you don’t seem to want to listen to them and instead would like to hear some really juicy negative motive. The most obvious motive should be the accepted motive…that is a basic law of analysis….so we are proposing regime change because 1. Saddam has violated his terms of surrender 2. has supported terrorists 3. most likely is accruing weapons of mass murder. None of those facts are in dispute. There are simple and factually based motives….but no… people don’t want to debate the facts…but instead create allegations.
Quote
“the assumption that America MUST be right.”
I have seen you debate in a solid manner in the majority of your posts you insightfully appeal to historical facts or statistics….but lately you seem to be forsaking the principles of sound debate. So no you don’t have to assume the USA is right in supporting regime change…you can question the facts about the danger Saddam is to the world, you can question the legitimacy of his terms of surrender, you can argue about the concept of violating the sovereignty of Iraq, you can debate about the costs of death through a regime change, etc. Those are legitimate debate type areas….it is only when you start to mind read, to pretend you are a global psychotherapist who can divine the true motivations of countries… that is when you move from debate towards mere rhetoric.
Quote
“I only wish that if the invasion goes ahead that this time the allies bother to actually secure the peace in Iraq.”
Here is a revolutionary concept…why don’t the people of Iraq secure the peace of Iraq. Sure we can give them a helping hand…but to delegate responsibility to the rest of the world is not wise. Each country is responsible for themselves.
Quote
“I continue to assert that the bombing and invasion of Iraq are wrong. I couldn't give a damn if the entire UN said it was right”
Good….we finally agree upon something. The UN is not the arbitrator of right and wrong. The UN is not the global god. But given all your previous statements about needing a UN resolution and to listening to the will of the global community…I am surprised that you don’t back up those previous claims. One would think with all the confidence you credited to the UN that you would now support a regime change given the UN is the almighty declaration of right and wrong. If the UN struck down the resolution I would still think regime change is the right thing to do.
Quote
“but what's wrong with being a puppet of the democratic party? ”
Nothing I guess if you acknowledge your puppet nature instead of pretending to stand up for some principle
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 10, 2002 07:21 PM |
|
|
I am just waiting for someone to say the English speaking countries have it in for the world.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
