Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

War in Iraq? Yay or Nay

Iraq

  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

Poll: War in Iraq? Yay or Nay (33 member(s) have cast votes)

War in Iraq? Yay or Nay

  1. I support war with Iraq. UN support is irrelevant. (20 votes [25.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.32%

  2. I support war with Iraq ONLY if UN support is gained. (14 votes [17.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.72%

  3. I do not support war with Iraq at all. (33 votes [41.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.77%

  4. I am undecided or I don't care. (12 votes [15.19%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.19%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 10:09 AM

But the problem of smuggled weapons into the US doesn't dissapear with Iraq being conquered. The fact that the British did find a ricin plant in London proves how easy it is to just move in and set up shop

so why risk stirring up the entire middle east against the US?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#22 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 11:01 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 5 2003, 04:19 PM, said:

The UN is only relevant if they choose to act.  Otherwise I say out the door with them.

I disagree.
The UN is relevant only if they are able to make their decisions and not act as the US puppet.
Ignoring the UN now will rob it of the little authority it still has, and we might pay dearly for that in future, more dangerous, conflicts.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#23 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 11:37 AM

Enmar, on Feb 18 2003, 08:03 AM, said:

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 5 2003, 04:19 PM, said:

The UN is only relevant if they choose to act.  Otherwise I say out the door with them.

I disagree.
The UN is relevant only if they are able to make their decisions and not act as the US puppet.
Ignoring the UN now will rob it of the little authority it still has, and we might pay dearly for that in future, more dangerous, conflicts.
I agree completely.

And to those supporting this war on the grounds that we need to stop him before he does something, I ask this question, not to be belligerent but because I want to know your thoughts.

By what right does the United States prance into Iraq (previously its ally in the conflict with Iran), impose guidelines that it knows cannot be adhered to, and then use the violation of said guidelines as an excuse to start a war?
Posted Image

#24 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 11:54 AM

one line of argumentation says that Iraq has never complied with the terms of surrender as set out at the end of the Gulf War. Because of that, the 'victors'  of the original war do hav the right to renew hostilities.

The only problem with that theory is that the original gulf war mandate was to secure Kuwait from agression, not to depose Saddam Hussein.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#25 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 02:25 PM

Quote

Godeskian:  But the problem of smuggled weapons into the US doesn't disappear with Iraq being conquered. The fact that the British did find a ricin plant in London proves how easy it is to just move in and set up shop.

Of course you are dealing with a matter of scale.  Iraq has literally produced quantities of these weapons far in excess of what any small lab is going to have a chance to produce and of a higher quality.  In addition you are not going to assemble and get materials for a nuclear weapon in your backyard without attracting some attention.  Furthermore even tinkering with most of these biological weapons require facilities far beyond what is going to be within reach of most terrorists.  

Quote

Una Salus Lillius: By what right does the United States prance into Iraq (previously its ally in the conflict with Iran), impose guidelines that it knows cannot be adhered to, and then use the violation of said guidelines as an excuse to start a war?

Uh Lil can you clarify that statement.  What do you mean by impose guidelines that cannot be adhered to?  The demand for Iraq to disarm their WMD arsenal is hardly a demand that is exactly impossible for them to comply to.  Or do you mean a demand that Saddam would be unwilling to comply with?  We should recall those “demands” were UN resolutions made by the same Security Council that has proven their impotency over the last decade or more.

In addition we didn’t bomb Iraq until their rubble was bouncing like for Germany or nuke them like Japan.  Or occupy them for several years and force them to accept those “nasty democratic institutions”.  We even screwed up and let Saddam fly attack helicopters.  So we must have been downright draconian during World War II.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#26 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 02:35 PM

not everyone considers Democracy to be the next best thing since sliced bread, especially if all you have ever grown up with, and have ever known is non democratic.

To give you an example, i don't consider it strange to have an unelected head of state. Because i was raised in a country with one, holland still has one, and i am not one whit less democratic for it.

and scale is very unimportant depending on the material. a small attic shop can produce enopugh ricin to murder tens of thousands. Do you really think anyone cares, when ten thousand people in LA or Chicago die from a chemical weapon, whether it was made in Iraq or in some empty area of the US?

i very much doubt they will. what's more, my forcibly occupying Iraq an taking control of it's financial assets vis a vis the oil fields, you are reinforcing the opinion that Iraqi propaganda spews out that the US is an imperial power that cares nothing for them

Regardless of what the truth is, this is a game of perceptions, and right now, many people in the middle east perceive america to be the agressor. Where do you think all those young people will end up when they see american bombs blow up their homes, and american troops lining their streets.

i believe they will go straight into the arms of the terrorist groups.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#27 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 02:42 PM

Chirac finding pro-US stances hard to stomach

Quote

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, fully aware that the international body's future is on the line, began by appealing to the 15 EU leaders to act together. The international community, he said, demanded that their leaders unite around a common line.

He also told it to the heads of government straight: that if Saddam Hussein continued with his defiance, then the security council would have no option but to face up to its responsibilities - confront the Baghdad regime with military force.

Quote

Mr Chirac, who last year put off a UK-France summit after Mr Blair was supposedly "very rude" to the septagenarian politician, let fly at the eastern European EU wannabees, who came out in print so fervently in favour of the UK-US position and against the "old Europe" axis of France and Germany.

In a few well chosen mal mots, the French premier let rip, saying: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."

He went on in his best professorial tone: "These countries have not been very well-behaved". They had acted "recklessly" by not appreciating the "danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position".

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 18 February 2003 - 06:10 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#28 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 02:48 PM

CJ

The second quote breaks of very suddenly, was that intentional?

also, something interesting from the Gaurdian news paper, just for oyour perusing pleasure, and let me say upfront that i am only posting it. I am making no judgement regarding it's validity or lack thereof

warning, it is big

Quote

From George Monbiot in THE GUARDIAN today...


Our marches were unprecedented, but they have, so far, been unsuccessful. The immune systems of the US and British governments have proved to be rather more robust than we had hoped. Their intransigence leaves the world with a series of unanswered questions.

Why, when the most urgent threat arising from illegal weapons of mass destruction is the nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan, is the US government ignoring it and concentrating on Iraq? Why, if it believes human rights are so important, is it funding the oppression of the Algerians, the Uzbeks, the Palestinians, the Turkish Kurds and the Colombians? Why has the bombing of Iraq, rather than feeding the hungry, providing clean water or preventing disease, become the world's most urgent humanitarian concern? Why has it become so much more pressing than any other that it should command a budget four times the size of America's entire annual spending on overseas aid?

In a series of packed lectures in Oxford, Professor David Harvey, one of the world's most distinguished geographers, has provided what may be the first comprehensive explanation of the US government's determination to go to war. His analysis suggests that it has little to do with Iraq, less to do with weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with helping the oppressed.

The underlying problem the US confronts is the one which periodically afflicts all successful economies: the over-accumulation of capital. Excessive production of any good - be it cars or shoes or bananas - means that unless new markets can be found, the price of that product falls and profits collapse. Just as it was in the early 1930s, the US is suffering from surpluses of commodities, manufactured products, manufacturing capacity and money. Just as it was then, it is also faced with a surplus of labour, yet the two surpluses, as before, cannot be profitably matched. This problem has been developing in the US since 1973. It has now tried every available means of solving it and, by doing so, maintaining its global dominance. The only remaining, politically viable option is war.

In the 1930s, the US government addressed the problems of excess capital and labour through the New Deal. Its vast investments in infrastructure, education and social spending mopped up surplus money, created new markets for manufacturing and brought hundreds of thousands back into work. In 1941, it used military spending to the same effect.

After the war, its massive spending in Europe and Japan permitted America to offload surplus cash, while building new markets. During the same period, it spent lavishly on infrastructure at home and on the development of the economies of the southern and south-eastern states. This strategy worked well until the early 1970s. Then three inexorable processes began to mature. As the German and Japanese economies developed, the US was no longer able to dominate production. As they grew, these new economies also stopped absorbing surplus capital and started to export it. At the same time, the investments of previous decades began to pay off, producing new surpluses. The crisis of 1973 began with a worldwide collapse of property markets, which were, in effect, regurgitating the excess money they could no longer digest.

The US urgently required a new approach, and it deployed two blunt solutions. The first was to switch from the domination of global production to the domination of global finance. The US Treasury, working with the International Monetary Fund, began to engineer new opportunities in developing countries for America's commercial banks.

The IMF started to insist that countries receiving its help should liberalise their capital markets. This permitted the speculators on Wall Street to enter and, in many cases, raid their economies. The financial crises the speculators caused forced the devaluation of those countries' assets. This had two beneficial impacts for the US economy. Through the collapse of banks and manufacturers in Latin America and East Asia, surplus capital was destroyed. The bankrupted companies in those countries could then be bought by US corporations at rock-bottom prices, creating new space into which American capital could expand.

The second solution was what Harvey calls "accumulation through dispossession", which is really a polite term for daylight robbery. Land was snatched from peasant farmers, public assets were taken from citizens through privatisation, intellectual property was seized from everyone through the patenting of information, human genes, and animal and plant varieties. These are the processes which, alongside the depredations of the IMF and the commercial banks, brought the global justice movement into being. In all cases, new territories were created into which capital could expand and in which its surpluses could be absorbed.

Both these solutions are now failing. As the east Asian countries whose economies were destroyed by the IMF five years ago have recovered, they have begun, once more, to generate vast capital surpluses of their own. America's switch from production to finance as a means of global domination, and the government's resulting economic mismanagement, has made it more susceptible to disruption and economic collapse. Corporations are now encountering massive public resistance as they seek to expand their opportunities through dispossession. The only peaceful solution is a new New Deal, but that option is blocked by the political class in the US: the only new spending it will permit is military spending. So all that remains is war and imperial control.

Attacking Iraq offers the US three additional means of offloading capital while maintaining its global dominance. The first is the creation of new geographical space for economic expansion. The second (though this is not a point Harvey makes) is military spending (a process some people call "military Keynesianism"). The third is the ability to control the economies of other nations by controlling the supply of oil. This, as global oil reserves diminish, will become an ever more powerful lever. Happily, just as legitimation is required, scores of former democrats in both the US and Britain have suddenly decided that empire isn't such a dirty word after all, and that the barbarian hordes of other nations really could do with some civilisation at the hands of a benign superpower.

Strategic thinkers in the US have been planning this next stage of expansion for years. Paul Wolfowitz, now deputy secretary for defence, was writing about the need to invade Iraq in the mid-1990s. The impending war will not be fought over terrorism, anthrax, VX gas, Saddam Hussein, democracy or the treatment of the Iraqi people. It is, like almost all such enterprises, about the control of territory, resources and other nations' economies. Those who are planning it have recognised that their future dominance can be sustained by means of a simple economic formula: blood is a renewable resource; oil is not.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#29 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 07:23 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Feb 5 2003, 08:29 AM, said:

<font color='#FF0000'>Yup interesting and frightening too.

I know that we probably have diametrically opposed views on this buy imho Bush has done a total snow job on the public here and they're buying it hook line and sinker.

That's just my views and I am not trying to insult anyone.  It's just how I feel.  :(</font>
I just wish we knew what the hell is REALLY going on.  Saddam's been squatting there for years and we never bothered with him until now. And 9/11 isn't a good enough reason - if it were we'd be attacking Saudi Arabia.  :suspect:
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#30 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 07:40 PM

^

up, and I still don't see any answers to my question, only evasions by referring to WW2.  I don't want to talk about WW2 I want to talk about Iraq.  And the point I'm trying to make here is that it's a house of card engineered by two Bush's.  First we go in shooting (and excuse me but no way was the motive anything other than concern over oil--worry about Kuwait my ass-and it's not like Kuwait has the greatest record when it comes to human rights), impose the rules, and then oh isn't that convenient, now we say they're violating rules imposed on them by us under questionable circumstances.  How Convenient.

Lil
Posted Image

#31 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 07:57 PM

Godeskian, on Feb 18 2003, 06:50 AM, said:

also, something interesting from the Gaurdian news paper, just for oyour perusing pleasure, and let me say upfront that i am only posting it. I am making no judgement regarding it's validity or lack thereof
Sounds like some communist or ultra-socialist. What are the political leanings of 'The Guardian' in general? Do they have a website?

So now we are just evil personified, not even given credit for rebuilding Europe and Japan????

Screw them. Pull the aid, food, and military from the Eastern hemisphere! After all, we only feed half the countries over there. Our farmers could do much better for themselves growing more expensive crops that however feed less people.

And as far as Pakistan and India are concerned, no on is ignoring them !!! What planet is this person on??? There has been a lot going on at that front for a couple of years now, at least. Why does everyone think we can only do one thing at a time? We wouldn't even be around if that were true.

#32 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 08:28 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 18 2003, 06:44 AM, said:

Interesting article.

To be blunt, I've thought the French and Germans have been playing a game. If I remember correctly, one of the major obstacles in the formation of the EU was the fear by most, if not all, the other nations that the Germans (and the French by default) would have too much power.  And too be honest I think that suits the nation of  Germany/France just fine. I think the tactics have merely changed in their quest for power. They are trying to assert themselves as the leaders of Europe, the speakers for everyone. They thought going up against the US would gain them points. They are just trying to gain power for themselves, and think they can gain it by going against the world's only remaining super-power. Kind of remind me of the terrorists that way. If you want to make a name for yourself, go after the big kid on the block.

And why are the French suddenly so worried about thousands of people being killed? It certainly won't be their people, no matter what happens, since they are always so useless. And the definitely have NO history of worrying about anyone else, quite the contrary!

As an aside, I'm not sure why we are the worlds last super-power, as I constantly hear.  I guess everyone's forgotten about China???

#33 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 08:31 PM

nm double post

Edited by Talkie Toaster, 18 February 2003 - 09:22 PM.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#34 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 08:40 PM

StarDust, on Feb 18 2003, 05:30 PM, said:

As an aside, I'm not sure why we are the worlds last super-power, as I constantly hear.  I guess everyone's forgotten about China???
For my money, China is hardly a competitor with the US. They are certainly starting to increase their economic power, but when compared to their size it is a cosmic joke.

The US is the world's only standing super power.

The Guardian is a fairly leftist paper- if not quite as much as the Mirror. Actually, the only widespread right wing paper in Britain (that I know of) is the Telegraph.

Edited by Talkie Toaster, 18 February 2003 - 08:42 PM.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#35 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 08:40 PM

Godeskian, on Feb 18 2003, 03:56 AM, said:

one line of argumentation says that Iraq has never complied with the terms of surrender as set out at the end of the Gulf War. Because of that, the 'victors'  of the original war do hav the right to renew hostilities.

The only problem with that theory is that the original gulf war mandate was to secure Kuwait from agression, not to depose Saddam Hussein.

Iraq lost the war, the war they started by the way. Countries that surrender do not usually get overthrown. One does not mean the other.

As a condition of Iraq's surrender, and as a condition of them not being obliterated, they were suppose to do certain things. Very simple really. The original intent was not to overthrow Saddam, but make him impotent as far as the rest of the world was concerned. Those where the conditions of surrender, conditions they agreed to.

Instead, they didn't do those things, they've played games, and they've gotten even nastier.

I saw a news show about Saddam's oldest son and how awful he is. He considers rape sport. And Iraq is the only country where their Olympic team has it's own prison. And the son is in charge of it. When various atheletes didn't do "well enough" in the olympics, they were tortured and imprisoned. And the list goes on and on. And this is an example of why just overthrowing Saddam could be a bad idea, because his son is considered worse and could probably take over. This is in part why overthrowing the government totally and building a democratic one would be preferable. It isn't just a matter of waiting for Saddam to get old and die.

#36 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 08:59 PM

Quote

StarDust: To be blunt, I've thought the French and Germans have been playing a game. If I remember correctly, one of the major obstacles in the formation of the EU was the fear by most, if not all, the other nations that the Germans (and the French by default) would have too much power.

Chirac lashes out at 'new Europe'

I think that article from the Herald shows just how cornered in and desperate France is getting.  They gambled thatn they could take control of the EU by facing off against the US here.  Instead they found that Britain, Italy, Denmark, Spain, and Portugal are all standing with the United States.  Then they get hit by the double punch of finding out that the Eastern European countries are overwhelming pro United States.  

In other interesting news US Intelligence Officials have released some dirt on Germany and North Korea.  That ship that was intercepted transporting Scuds last year to Yemen also carried a large shipment of sodium cyanide from Germany to North Korea.  Sodium Cyanide is one of the key materials to make sarin.  I wonder how much more dirt is out there in Iraq about French and German activities.    

The change of opinion by the Security General is refreshing to see.  

Quote

StarDust: Sounds like some communist or ultra-socialist. What are the political leanings of 'The Guardian' in general? Do they have a website?

The Guardian is about one step above the socialist publications in my opinion.  It still though makes the New York Times look like the mouth of the Republican Party.  I’ll get back to the article later when I have some more time to hit on some key points.    

Quote

StarDust: Screw them. Pull the aid, food, and military from the Eastern hemisphere!

I say send Eastern Europe all the aid and help we can.  If anything the Eastern European former Soviet Bloc countries hold the United States in very high regard.  That would be the very factor that has the French government so hopping mad right now. They won’t fall in line behind the French and Germans.  

Ship gets arms in and out

Quote

Godeskian: The second quote breaks of very suddenly, was that intentional?

Uhm I could say it was some brilliant plan on my part but more like I was sleepy and over highlighted text. ;)


Quote

Lil: I still don't see any answers to my question, only evasions by referring to WW2. I don't want to talk about WW2 I want to talk about Iraq.

Those who forget history are often the ones who get the joy of reliving it in very wonderful situations and often the most violent parts.  

Secondly you didn’t clarify how the UN resolutions were forced on Iraq by the US when they were the UN?  And why they are something Iraq can’t comply with?  All they have to do is stop playing games and turn over the weapons.  

Quote

Lil: And the point I'm trying to make here is that it's a house of card engineered by two Bush's. First we go in shooting (and excuse me but no way was the motive anything other than concern over oil--worry about Kuwait my ass-and it's not like Kuwait has the greatest record when it comes to human rights).

I suppose the Bush’s also bribed Saddam to invade Kuwait in the first place?  Secondly it is well documented that it was Kuwait and Saudi Arabia who approached the UN and the US to evict Iraq from Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia. Next point I suppose the Democrat President Clinton was it in on it too with the Bush’s?  Lest we forget his half brained attempt of military action with Operation Desert Fox.  Or the fact the Iraqis started firing at US aircraft during the Clinton Administration.  We’ve been in a low scale conflict with Iraq since the Clinton Administration.      

Quote

Lil: impose the rules, and then oh isn't that convenient, now we say they're violating rules imposed on them by us under questionable circumstances.  How Convenient.

Those rules were imposed in part because Iraq had this nasty habit of firing Scud missiles at Israel during said war in an attempt to score support for it.  It was only the quite threat of nuclear retaliation against Iraq that kept their chemical weapons out of the war and the on and off success of the Patriot missiles defending Israel that kept down causalities.  

Quote

Rhea: And 9/11 isn't a good enough reason - if it were we'd be attacking Saudi Arabia.

Last time I checked the Saudis may have their hands in a lot of dirty business but they aren’t producing weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN resolutions.  Iraq is in a rather useful place as a jumping stone to Saudi Arabia if it ever comes to that.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 18 February 2003 - 09:09 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#37 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 09:14 PM

Rhea, on Feb 18 2003, 11:25 AM, said:

And 9/11 isn't a good enough reason - if it were we'd be attacking Saudi Arabia.
Um.........

Saudi Arabia is the only nation in the world which could declare jihad against the West and actually get a response. After all, the holiest spots in Islam are within its borders-- an attack on Saudi Arabia is an attack on Islam.

I think they're going after Iraq because they *can't* take down the house of Saud yet. They know how hot it'd be if they started rattling their sabre in King Fahd's face. They know full damn well how powerful an adversary can be when they're all rankled with religious fervour. It's dangerous stuff to toy with.  

That's why I have to sympathize with the French and Germans. They've had really open immigration policies for years --in fact, one of the key reasons Le Pen had such a strong showing in the recent French presidential elections was as a reaction to the large Muslim populations in urban areas of France. Germany has an even bigger problem, and Schroeder is walking a straight-razor right now trying to keep in-but-out of all the big stuff. Of course, we just view it as them being obstinate, as them being in Saddam's pocket-- sure, some of that is true, but they have their own issues to deal with. They have to cater, at least in lip service, to those portions of their population which are sick and tired of being on the business end of reactionary hatred. The Muslims in France and Germany would like to see their homelands liberated, sure-- but they know the cost in civilian lives will be just as severe. (Don't tell me otherwise; no war in history has been simply between armies-- civilians always suffer for a war on their land.)

Not only that, but Tony Blair's approval ratings have plummetted --and over two million people protesting in London over the past weekend are proof enough of that. To say nothing of the protests in California, France, Germany, Sydney, and around the world.

It doesn't matter at this point what the UN or global public opinion or whoever says to Bush: Saddam's days are numbered at this point no matter what. He's not backing down, so really, what's the point of protesting?

When all you have is a hammer, sooner or later everything looks like a nail. Bush has wielded his precious "doctrine of you're either for us or against us" just like one. You'd better believe the world is just one big nail to him at this point.

Except, of course, for, you know, the "kitchen issues"-- healthcare, the economy, education, that sort of thing. (And I'm quoting one Republican pundit or another with that term, "kitchen issues"-- his word, not mine.)

It's hard to actually work to solve problems. It's easy to wave a flag and point somewhere else, then go out and make more problems.

Just me, rambling.

:cool:

Edited by Hawk, 18 February 2003 - 09:50 PM.

“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#38 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,213 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 09:37 PM

Hawk, on Feb 18 2003, 10:16 AM, said:

I think they're going after Iraq because they *can't* take down the house of Saud yet. They know how hot it'd be if they started rattling their sabre in King Fahd's face. They know full damn well how powerful an adversary can be when they're all rankled with religious fervour-- I mean, that's where most of Bush's core support comes from anyways, isn't it? Christian right types who are mostly upper/middle-class and have nothing better to do with their millions (now that they're saving with all them tax cuts) than to buy votes for Bush so he can go out and whup the asses of those godless Arab bastards? And so on?
Wow! Thanks for seeing all of us "middle class" Christians as war loving, Arab hating people. It's because of this kind of generalization why I almost left Slipstream. I did stop posting as much. I felt (and starting to feel) un-welcome because I am a Christian, and now add to that middle class.  It it insulting to think that so many see my support for Bush as a desire to whupass on someone.

*sigh* Can't we carry on a conversation on politics without attacking someone?

I problably should go with my instincts here and just shut up. We hatefull and evil Christians have a world to destroy. ;)

Edited by Lover of Purple, 18 February 2003 - 09:41 PM.


#39 Aurora335

Aurora335

    not a force to be reckoned with

  • Islander
  • 634 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 09:46 PM

LoP, I think it's hard to be a Christian in today's society. As for politics. . . doesn't everyone attack everyone else to make themselves feel better?

By the way, I'm predicting that if there is going to be a war/conflict/military action, it will take place on or about March 3rd. I hope I'm wrong and we don't have one at all.

Aurora

#40 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 09:50 PM

I got a little too ranty there, LoP. I'll edit that part out. Sorry.
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users