|
|
Random Nonsense / Geek Stuff All those random tech ramblings you can't fit anywhere else! |
Thread Tools |
03-11-2003, 03:37 PM | #101 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Portugal, Europe
Posts: 870
|
Witch someone says he has but no real proof was presented . Even yesterday there was an announcement that alot of the "evidence" presented to the UN was fake. By the proper channels of the UN. So, witch is it?
Personally, i think he has something, but not relevant enough. Because if he does have anything relevant, it will (hope not) show up when the US army walks in Iraq. But thats the only way you can confirm that. Anyway, History is full of those revolutions. American Revolution, French, Portuguese, etc. They went up against overwhelming odds and won. PS: the portuguese revolution agains a fascism regime was in 1974. It's not that forgotten. PS 2 : http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/st...651594,00.html Terry Jones is always nice to read .
__________________
"we need more cowbell." Last edited by TerraMex; 03-11-2003 at 04:24 PM. |
03-11-2003, 04:55 PM | #102 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: portugal
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
|
|
03-11-2003, 06:13 PM | #103 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Portugal, Europe
Posts: 870
|
Yeah, the people who dont know jack.
If they got arrested because they said a "improper words", or for being in a group of 3 (in the streets), and beaten up and thrown in jail, i think they'd reconsider. If you recall your history, the country was totally black out of the world due to the effective censure. One interesting thing, the US still filters the incoming information in various ways, the people get a "distilled" version of the worlds events, and sometimes , a little to the side. Anyway, having a prime minister with a country in financial havok and making some tough calls, always looses voters. A good PM sees when the need to make those unpopular measures arrives and he chooses to go with them. Even if it costs him the next election. I voted PS , but im not that unhappy with PSD+PP government. Alot of what happened is not the executive's fault, they dont control the price of brent, neither directly control the confidence of the buyers, or the rules the UE has imposed on all countries due to the Euro Zone. Or even the declaration of war on iraq. What the government's doing is damage control. Of course there are always decisions better than others... I heard the other day an old man say "This government suck, I'm glad i didnt vote." I refrained myself from saying "If you didnt vote, than you gave your vote to the ones that did, so shut up." Nobody cares much about voting anymore, and it keeps getting worse because it's on sundays. But they always complaint when thing dont go their way. But the people put them there, those politicians, with those ideals, and beliefs... and we're stuck with them for 2 more years.
__________________
"we need more cowbell." |
03-11-2003, 07:50 PM | #104 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Gloucester, Virginia
Posts: 356
|
Quote:
And as a final note.... The US released a video of its new MOAB 21,000 lb bomb.... You don't want to be within a half-mile of that... So all those stupid people that are going to be human bomb sponages, errr sheilds I mean, looks like your friendly US AirForce has calculated in your mass to make sure you don't absorb too much of the explosion. Isn't that sweet
__________________
Dual Pentium!!! 933@1107 Liquid Cooled. |
|
03-11-2003, 08:13 PM | #105 | ||
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: portugal
Posts: 635
|
i agree with everithing you said about voting and all but this:
Quote:
Its the opinion of many, many ppl who even went on Ultramar war, they dont like the insecurity we are living in these days. Neither do I. Quote:
Today, all experts say we are 50. |
||
03-11-2003, 09:51 PM | #106 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Purdue University, USA
Posts: 141
|
great quote by charlie daniels, good post
|
03-12-2003, 05:34 PM | #107 |
Crazy Stupid
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dallas texas
Posts: 149
|
Lol I can see by some of the post that these are kids ..Its always fun to argue politics and world affairs with some one that dont or cant comprehend on whats realy going on in the world
Its simple we have to plant the seed of Democracy in the middle east .....If we dont none of us in the western world well be safe Its funny out of the whole middle east the only real democrated goverment is isreal and all its neighbors all pro Islam Arabs want nothing more than to wipe the isrealie people off the face of the earth Sorry folks Its time for the middle east to chang it ways and one way or the other its gona chang Its way past time for them to join the 2100 century and get out of the middle ages |
03-12-2003, 06:57 PM | #108 |
Crazy Stupid
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dallas texas
Posts: 149
|
PS 2 : http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/st...651594,00.html
Terry Jones is always nice to read I,m sorry TerraMex But Terry Jones is an idiot |
03-13-2003, 02:32 AM | #109 | |
Thermophile
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: France
Posts: 1,221
|
Quote:
- you made assessments without evidence. All ppl who posted here are full grown adults. - since you have nothing supporting your assessments, you have recourse to insults. - YOU don't seem to understand Middle East situation at all, nor what the incoming war is about. Israeli neighbours are very far from what you think they are. And Palestinians are not Iraqi. Besides Saddam is not a muslim (his government is Catholic). Check your sources before insulting people. I would detail that Charlie Daniels (who is that dude anyway) quote here, but i'm at work, no time for that. It's full of lies (that are easy to counter with verified facts), propaganda (ie pre-made sentences made to touch peoples sensivity, but with no relation with the problem at hand) and half truths (again all are easy to counter). I don't see one sentence in that letter that aint in these 3 categories, apart from pure insults. I'm 100% for having an adult argument. But use arguments, with evidence, and foundations, not insults. Insulting people won't make your point. Maybe that's what Mr Bush and Mr Powell do not understand... Notice how Terramex didn't have recourse to any insult, even a single time. Notice how he made arguments based on facts that are verified and easily verifiable. You can't counter that with "nonsense" and "idiocy", that doesn't hold any ground. |
|
03-13-2003, 03:29 AM | #110 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: on da case
Posts: 933
|
gmat is right novice, claiming that everyone that opposes your argument is retarded, won't bring home the cup.
your view of the middle east can be called a bit too simplistic. Sharon spells doom for his countrymen, but so does arafat in my eyes. so the solution is far far away in that country.
__________________
yo soy un tiburĂ³n |
03-13-2003, 09:52 AM | #111 |
Big PlayerMaking Big Money
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com
Posts: 4,782
|
Charlie Daniels is a country/western singer. He wrote "devil went down to Georgia" and a few tunes about the South rising again I think.
Not sure that he counts as astute in world politics, but he IS probably pretty well tapped in to the opinion of the average midwestern working class Joes who put Bush into office in the first place. Maybe I am being overly naive here, but isn't North Korea's idea that "If we are a nuclear power then the rest of the world has to accept us and trade with us and coddle us" partly true? Again. perhaps my naivity shines through here, but isnt that what we do with China? They have "most favored nation" status right? And an absolutely atrocious civil and human rights record? No big surprise, might makes right in the world. Same thing applies with the US. If we were to withdraw from the UN, then it would crumble in hours. Same thing again; might makes right. So how is this relevant? In my opinion the UN's stance of turning the other way while nations like Iran and Iraq and N.Korea develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs is basically giving these countries, who do NOT behave as befits civilized goverment, the exact wrong message. They have proven willing to starve their people,'s minds and bodies and run their nations into the ground in the name of increased military capacity. Why? Well if they have a big enough army with nasty enough weapons, then the world HAS to take them seriously right? Additionally, the UN would never approve military action against a nuclear power. Too much risk; just let them be and promote trade with them and they will eventually become modern and civilized. Isn't that our doctrine with China now? The fundamental question here is: Is this a slippery slope argument, or is it reasonable? If reasonable (it certainly seems to be), then the timing of the invasion and regime change is largely irrelevant. Is Saddam in full compliance with UN resolutions now? No. Was he in blatant violation when he kicked out inspectors as "US spies" years ago? Yup. I don't think there is a statute of limitations on violation of UN resolutions. The difference between the US and other large military powers throughout history is that we have NOT historically used our forces to conquer other countries and build an empire. Is this changing now? I am not sure. I think the whole "policeman of the world" policy is a bit misguided, but the real American empire is economic, and sometimes military force is needed to protect the global economic interests of our country. Does this mean we fight over oil or for money? Not exactly. It means that the US is well aware that the security of our nation and its future are directly connected to our economy, so protection of economic interests is in the national interest. This seems odd to the socialists I suppose, but then again the local ethic of "no one can be rich until the poorest of us are comfortable" seems pretty goddamned odd to someone with the potential to succeed financially who is living in a province with a large class of non-working/non taxpayers and low potential for turning this around. |
03-13-2003, 10:54 AM | #112 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: France
Posts: 1,221
|
You got the global picture. Is this a slippery slope argument ? Definitely.
"we have NOT historically used our forces to conquer other countries and build an empire" -> it's not exact. Ask Mr Henry Kissinger, who knows a lot more than anyone else about that (he still holds information that judges would like to hear, but he said he would only talk to country leaders). Things are a bit more subtle now than before 1945. The Cold War changed a lot of playing cards in hands of superpowers. There's a good book by M. Gorbatchev if you want to know the Russian point of view. There are many good reads from the USA, and even some movies ("Nixon" comes to mind for a few quotes, and some movies on South America as well). For the USA point of view there are some ex-CIA agents who spoke up as well, but they held a lot of information... Also there are the US public archives, a real gold mine, and the best of it is they declassify a lot of things from the 50's and 60's right now. |
03-13-2003, 12:39 PM | #113 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Portugal, Europe
Posts: 870
|
Just some remarks.
>Maybe I am being overly naive here, but isn't North
>Korea's idea that "If we are a nuclear power then the >rest of the world has to accept us and trade with us >and coddle us" partly true? Not really. The Bush administration included them in the "axis of evil", so , they took some measures to avoid to go the same road that Iraq. " They have nuke? Who let them in the axis of evil? We didnt mean that, honest". Cant say it didnt work. Bush is much more peaceful when talking about North Korea, and reaching for a diplomatic solution. They are just... taking care of their economical and political interests. Isnt that you just stated about the US policy? Anyway, Korea just wants to be payed off. "Make it with the monetary aid and we'll go your way". Happened before in a number of occasions. > The Cold War changed a lot of playing cards in hands > of superpowers Well, Russia offered weapons to their "allies". The US sold them. You have to give them credit for it : extort money from a country in exange of weapons that permitted them to kill themselfs. Its like drug traffic in larger pakages. Happend alot during the cold war, and the more blunt examples are in the middle east (like afganistan), or even in corea. Both sides (russian and usa) played the strategic game. >The difference between the US and other large military >powers throughout history is that we have NOT >historically used our forces to conquer other countries >and build an empire. Well, the indians pop in my mind. The ones that survived were the ones that submitted themselfs to the settlers. Besides, its common knowledge the CIA incrusions in regimes that werent "sponsored" by the USA. Currently it works another way, due to the economical might and the use of markets, television, publicity , etc. , the "civilized" world its getting more "americanized" each passing year. It's a cultural takeover. This is getting down to a religious discussion .
__________________
"we need more cowbell." |
03-14-2003, 03:51 PM | #114 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: U.S.A = Michigan
Posts: 1,243
|
Well I just read todays newspaper. Seems that Bush and Blair have reached the end with the UN. The reports says they are discussing giving Iraqi a last warning and chance. If he doesn't comply, force will be used.
I must say that I admire Britians PM Blair. While Bush has majority support for war, Blair does not, yet he sticks to his convictions. I wish the US had more like that, some of ours are like that, but never enough. But then you can never have to enough men of conviction & resolve in any endevor. I did see that bomb demo a couple days ago. That monster is 40% larger than any (conventional) bomb up to now. Not only will it be a devestatingly deadly weapon, it will be one that demoralizes any who survive it or see the results of it's use. Also read some info about concerns about how Saddam may destroy his oil wells unleashing ecological pollution on a grand scale. NOt at all unlike what was done in the Kuwati oil fields 12 years ago. Also read about the large numbers of dams in Iraq. Some concern those could be breached or at least opened to cause flooding. But I could also see that being a two edged sword that could also in some cases be used aginst the Iraqis. As to Koreas getting the hand out they want (I do agree that seems to be the course they are following) I doubt very much they will be getting what they want from the US. More likly a strong effort to further isolate them with sanctions and economic pressures for now. And god knows where it may go from there. But if they attack south as they have threatened to do, they US will again be at war. And use of WMD by the north koreans would be the end of that nation. While nations of the stripe of North Korea and Iraqi have to be dealt with, I hate to see our fine armed forces people along with Britians being the only ones paying the ultimate price. We better well remember this lesson and do all we can for Britian. I know this much, I'll never support our nation risking the lives or our forces for those nations now doing all they can to obstruct the US and Britian in the UN. And if the UN ends up being a dead issure so be it. The time for debate is coming to a end. Time to support our people who may be going in harms way. |
03-14-2003, 06:10 PM | #115 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Portugal, Europe
Posts: 870
|
a fiew more remarks
1) I do admire him for standing up for his convictions, and i also think it's important that people do so.
However, he was elected to preside an adminstation to run a country. And when 85% of the country and almost all the administration is against him, and some have left office because of that, he should stop talking for the whole country, but make it a personal position, and not as a PM. Because Tony Blair , the man, and Tony Blair the PM , have two different jobs to perform, with different agendas an prioritys. If there was a national sentiment of US support, then yes, i'd have no problem with that. However, thats not the case. It would be like taking a referendum in wich the "yes to something" wins but the president doesnt agree and maintains the current legislation. They're there for the people, not for themselfs. 2) Korea has no intentions of doing anything to anyone, same as current Iraq. They just dont want to be pushed around. So, make it with the big guns. In the end, probably after a good sized conversations , things will cool down. As long as the US dont declare war on them or something (again) , then it's safe to assume that its a more quiet stadoff from the military point of view. 3) It happens. Things are never simple. Take Kosovo, First incrusions of peacekeeping missons, no americans troops, but the USA were dictating several points in the UN and securty council. However, until american troops went to the terrain, there were losses in the blue helmets, portuguese, british, german, etc. But not american. Sure, an international task force would have casualties from all countrys participating. Much more fair. >I know this much, I'll never support our nation risking >the lives or our forces for those nations now doing all >they can to obstruct the US and Britian in the UN Read 1) , and so, its an unauthorized use of military personnel. And let me say it again. Those nations think (and with good reason) that Iraq is not , let me say it again, not a threat to the world. I have to agree on that. Saddam has been the US dog for the past 12 years, now , when the US felt they needed a target, he's it. Of course, the rest of the UN wasnt fooled. A clear and present danger (like 12 years ago) or even in Kosovo , most countrys understood the need of interventions and peacekeeping missions. They're not as stupid as you might think . And they probably have access to the same intelligence and reports that the US have. However, in this particular case, they have analized the data, and the conclusions are well known. Instead of being outraged against those countrys, i'd be against the US government for risking the lives of good men and women when there was no need for it. The problem isnt just security, it's the way the US conducts foreign policy (covert or not), and both those points need to be dealt internally , not by searching for the boogie man in a distant country. but thats just my 2 cents. PS : It's my strong belief that if Iraq was a real danger, the problem would have been dealt , and even with the UN approval, alot longer ago.
__________________
"we need more cowbell." |
03-14-2003, 08:19 PM | #116 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: U.S.A = Michigan
Posts: 1,243
|
Blair has my respect for doing the hardest thing a elected rep of his people can do. Lead where it isn't populer, but that is yet the right way to go.
I don't expect you to agree with my views and by now I'd think you know the same. As to the US leadership by Presidant Bush, he does have the majority of the nation behind him, his road is far easier than Blairs. The UN may well go the same route as the leage of nations did. For some years now it's been no more effective. Had the UN taken a strong/firm stand with Saddam it may have been possible to convince him to disarm. A devided international voice has insured that isn't going to happen. I frankly see not one thing the US has gained by membership in the UN for the last 50+ years. The UN has gained hugly by our membership on the other hand. We supply a massivly disproportionate share of both cash and troops. (I'd be glad to see the US scale back that support, although I realisticly don't think the US as a whole is to that point, although not so far from it as the UN would like to think.) Scale back support in both troops and cash to just the amount equal to our percentage of the membership. Then let us see how quickly the other nations step up to pay a full membership share. Only good reason to even stay to that degree is to use the veto to block passage of agendas we dislike. The Iraqi leadership has had years to disarm and hasn't. My main hope is that our troops are not to constrained in combat. Rather a few more of them come home than worry about civilian casualtys in the citys of Iraq where the leadership of Iraq will no doubt try to focus the conflict. A further example of the disregard they have for their own people. Iraq's leadership is prepared to use the Iraqi civilian population as a buffer to slow/hinder US forces. Saddam would gladly see the Iraqi people die to maintain his armed forces to keep himself in power. I'm sorry to say that I think that the Iraqi goverment is going to be changed by force. I'll not miss Saddam by any means. But do regret only the cost in young British and American lives, no matter how few. |
03-15-2003, 06:29 AM | #117 | ||||||
Thermophile
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: France
Posts: 1,221
|
Quote:
Democracy = the Power of the People, litterally. People elect someone to be their voice. Not a dictator that imposes his own agenda. Aren't the USA in Iraq to fight for those ideals ?... Quote:
Quote:
And the membership fee is related to the 'richness' of the country. That's only fair. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
03-15-2003, 10:25 AM | #118 | |
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
|
Re: a fiew more remarks
Quote:
His personal point of view has nothing to do with anything: having a personal opinion that matches one's professional opinion is a luxury. |
|
03-15-2003, 12:28 PM | #119 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Portugal, Europe
Posts: 870
|
Quote:
He must convince them that what he's doing is right ( imo , it isnt, oil for blood never will be ) , and get some decent support from the general population. And his own administration for that matter, something he doesnt have. In the end, the people dictate the outcome. A democracy also means that the people have a right to question the choises of their own government, and even demand changes. In this particular case, you dont go to war without first getting support, at least from the house of commons.
__________________
"we need more cowbell." |
|
03-16-2003, 03:44 AM | #120 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: U.S.A = Michigan
Posts: 1,243
|
Gmat
On your first point about Blair, we clearly have very differant veiws on what makes a good leader. What you seem to admire is someone who leads according to the latest opinion poll. That isn't enough. The leader who bucks the polls does so at his peril in the next election, as Blair well knows. That is why I like the man, he still does what he feels is best for his country and countrymen, even when it makes him unpopuler. Dictators as you'd like to paint him don't stand for election(s). Often times they come to power by coup, and once in power they don't hold elections. 2) Polls can and do give the answers those posing the questions want to hear. As most of the media in this country have been repeatedly proven to have a liberal bias the poll results you quote are both correct, and misleading. Most polls taken in this country are biased, and have been for a long time. If it makes you feel good to think the US people are agisnst going to war, fine. But while you tell yourself that the people of the US are aginst Bush, remember, it's a lie. Not the first one by a long shot put forward by our media to try to influance the direction public opinion will take. And I don't for a moment think it will be the last. I wish the majority of news org. in this country were honest, but that isn't the truth either. 3) You need to do some checking into just who has paid by far more than any other nation. The US. Not as much as the UN would like? Tough. Let each pay a equal amount of the cost, as they have a equal voice. And as to the idea of the richest pay most, that is a good socialist point of view, does not equate to fair. I'll stick with my last post on the UN, including the part about both amount to be paid into it, and the use of the veto. And you are dead wrong on the veto issure, just look at how the French are using theirs right now. If you read up on that you'll find a number of other countrys also have that power. I'm just saying we should for the most part stop concerning ourselves with a body that has done Nothing for this country. And that is exactly what the UN has done for the US, nothing. Pretty crazy to keep paying a premium to a organisation that operates as the UN does. It's time the UN finds out that we will no longer pay a dispraportionate share of costs while getting nothing but more demands and hassels for the trouble. 4) They have only in the last 10 days or so started disclosing and destroying the long range missles they were to have gotten rid of long ago. I get pissed when hearing people claim this, "he doesn't have any, you havn't proved it well enough." What crap. The chemical artillery shells found mean nothing of course, nor the missles, nor remote controled planes, ect. ect. I don't expect the man to make it easy to find this stuff and he hasn't. But you don't need chemical artillery shells unless you intend to use them, and you are safer yourself not filling them until needed. Just why do you think he didn't destroy the missles and shells before now? There is no doubt about if he has WMD or not. The only doubt is what is going to be done about it. On you're last post we do agree that there is no agreement. And on the subject of Saddam and the UN that is about all we'll agree on. |
03-16-2003, 05:21 AM | #121 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Portugal, Europe
Posts: 870
|
1) Blair .
Well, just like you said, if there were elections tomorrow, he'd probably loose . The thin line between a good leader and having more of a dictator attitude is crossed when most of his executive is against him. He hasnt even consulted the House or most of his ministers. Taking a decisive action like this, doesnt really say if he's a great or not leader, just says he doesnt listen to anybody. I've heard a few news on Sky that there were some talks of giving him the boot. 2) I wish the majority of news org. in this country were honest, but that isn't the truth either. Agreed. Most of the current media is more interested in rating than is on giving an imparcial view on a subject. It a general problem, even here in europe , but for what i've seen in CNN, ABC and a few others, it not as worse. But raises an older issue. Because what you see/hear may not be representative of the truth, shouldnt you be more open to other points of view, or at least giving them some attention? 3) The UN doesnt exist for the sole benefict of "a" country. It has a vast amount of programs since education to enviormental issue , or even economical, that are being dealt with. And those are priceless. The inter-relations between countrys and those programs have worked in the past and hopefully , continue to do so. However, in more specific, the US, they have used the US to pass points and resolutions they feel they needed, and put pressure on some countrys , etc. It has been a good tool . AND , several economical and trade agreements, and many other , have been made through the UN. Just because it doesnt show up on CNN, doesnt mean it didnt happen, or it isnt relevant. So my answer is yes, it has done something. 4) They have been disclosing more than you think in these past months. But if you read the others posts, what we (at least I) said was that Iraq probably has something, but it is not that relevant. It's like saying he's armed , but what he has is a pop gun. The US has nukes, has he used them lately, or even during the cold war? No. They're dissuasion weapons. And most of the times , dissuasion is the best weapon. Back to Iraq, have you seen those weapons? The ones i've seen on tv are rusty , dirty, and dented. However, they're "weapons of mass distraction" (pun intended). Wich makes perfect sense . Attacking an Iraq with little or no weapons worth of record would assure a clear and low casualty win. If the main purpose is control over the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world, makes even more sense. Or that's just a coincidence? The real breach between the UN is devided in two main issues: 1) Are they going for the oil ? Most think so. And the US havent given any real effort to prove them wrong. 2) Going to war without an UN resoltution. There are proper channels. The US are a part of the UN, and they have signed an agreement on what those channels are. It a question of respect. And they again insulted the UN by calling them irrelevant. They're not a dog that you command at free will. Besides, in the past, the US is the country that used the most the veto option in the securty council. It's the old "it's my way, or the highway". Now it backfired.
__________________
"we need more cowbell." |
03-16-2003, 07:59 AM | #122 | |||||||
Thermophile
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: France
Posts: 1,221
|
Quote:
It's 3 million people on the streets of each main European country. (apart from France where the opposition to war is the least important... go figure). So many people on the streets didnt happen since a *long* time. When you're having a reaction of that scale, no poll is needed. Something's wrong. Also when members of your *own* political party want to kick you out... something's very wrong. Quote:
Quote:
Second - your idea of a membership fee to the UN is plain wrong. That would exclude nearly every other country from the UN, apart from the 5 richest. The problem is, they represent a tiny minority of the worlds population. Of course according to you, the USA should be the only member of the UN... The only way is a proportional fee and you know it well. You cannot ask the sum paid by Russia or USA, to an african country... Quote:
The US used it more often than anyone else and no one started a war over it or backed ones membership from the UN... And now the French and the Russian shouldn't have the right to oppose their veto ? Come on. Quote:
Anyway, what Terramex said. It's not the pet dog of the USA. The USA should be a citizen of the world, not a spoiled bully kid. Quote:
Seriously. Don't you remember the *last* time Saddam had weapons menacing a nearby country ? Don't you remember the immediate reaction ? Don't you think that Iran intelligence and the Mossad know every square inch of Iraqi desert ? Why didn't they react this time around ? They're morons ? They surrendered ? they're blind maybe ? After all they're the first ones concerned by this affair. Quote:
|
|||||||
03-16-2003, 10:07 AM | #123 | |
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
|
Quote:
Iraq could have done very well by using oil profits to educate every countrymen, and make Iraq the technological focus point of the world. That's what I would have done. But instead, when the oil runs out, Iraq will become a third world country, simply because its leaders didn't have the foresight to realize that the country depends on a single finite resource for an economy. The UN isn't irrelevant, that's not what the US is "saying". Instead, the US is advancing that Iraq is a threat to its own security, as well as the rest of the world, and fully intends to declare war on Iraq, if the UN cannot "get it together" to realize the extent of the threat. I think that what's most frustrating is that the US representatives have been presenting their case in such a way that it looks like they have a higher agenda, and that's what everyone else really wants to know: what are you really trying to do, and why? The US would like nothing more than to force a democratic government upon Iraq, but I don't think that the UN has it as a purpose to do anything like that: if a country is a dictatorship, then it's a dictatorship, period. Cuba is still well represented. There is some history behind this american purpose, where the US has made generous donations to various countries, with some reservations, in order to promote democracy. So the UN is not going to allow the US to topple Iraq, because that's not what the UN is for. The US will have to declare war upon Iraq, and in order to do that, it MUST absolutely do so as part of a coalition, which now appears to include the UK, or at least have UK on its side. President Bush must obtain permission from Congress, in order to declare war on another country. As it stands, Bush won't get it. This is going to be a diplomatic effort that could very well take at least a year, but rest assured, the US troops will remain abroad, just to press the issue. It's the old: possesion is 9/10 of the law: we're here already, so why not just go? |
|
03-16-2003, 11:03 AM | #124 | ||||||||
Thermophile
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: France
Posts: 1,221
|
Quote:
Quote:
The US is overly dependent on Saudi Arabia to provide their oil. On a market, having a single monopolistic source is unhealthy. Moreover, S.A. is the main source of funding for international terrorism, and the breeding grounds for Al Quaida and the likes. The US want to detach from these people, and that's undestandable. Economically, who will pay this war. Eurpeans and Russians. Look at the markets and see how the dollar is falling. Once the war is over, Bush administration will print more money to fuel inflation, and catapult the US economy forward. That's how all wars have been done. Try and ask an economist he'll get into the details (i did, that was insightful). No wonder then, that Chirac and Poutine are opposed... Because EU and RU have everything to lose there. So sorry, the reason is a bit more complex than just "good vs evil"... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh let's take an example. Timor. Nobody cared, for years, about torture, policy of terror, etc. Until they discovered oil resources there. All of sudden the US were out to "restore democracy". Aint that funny. And the fact that Iraq has the 2nd biggest oil resoucres has nothing to do with that war. It's just for democracy. Quote:
Ah i forgot there's nothing on Cuba apart from tobacco. Too bad for them. Fidel Castro has killed lots of ppl, or jailed them for their ideas, just like any other dictator... Anyway go and read a bit (or talk to ppl in the know) about the UN. Quote:
Do you know about South America ? Did you read the (now open) archives on Mr Kissinger's policy ? Besides in our current situation: US representatives have been visiting African countries (those which have a voice at the UN security council, not the others), to promise them some financial help in exchange of their voice at the council... So "generous". Quote:
On the other hand, many people around the world (even in the US), believe in the "right for the people to dispose of themselves". This is key. If the Iraqi would want to change the regime, they'd do it. If they had problems to do so, the UN or secret services would help them. |
||||||||
03-16-2003, 12:41 PM | #125 |
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
|
I should have written: "the US would like nothing LESS]..."
gmat: are you saying that the middle east is a stable region? I mean, with its own problems, or course. Attacking the US will not prevent the US from depending on outside countries for oil, but if the ME is "more stable" and more "democratic", then the price of this oil would drop, which will lower the trade imbalance. I've already mentionned that the US depends on outside countries for 40% of its oil. So the problem is that Saddam is using oil profits to wage war on neighbouring countries (Kuwait) and funds terrorism. He is an immediate threat not only to the US, but to the rest of the world as well. Maybe I was too harsh in my choice of words: the UN is not in a position to either: fix all of the problems with Iraq or not in a position to allow itself to sanction an act that would have repercussions outside of its mandate. That's the problem with the US: they can't openly admit that what they propose has repercussions outside of what the UN will allow, and I guess they're trying to find a compromise, one of which is to instaure a temporary government made up of representatives from various countries. About Cuba, I meant to say that, although it is a dictatorship, it is represented at the UN. Wether its citizens are mistreated or not, is up to Cuba to answer, through their representative at the UN. They are already facing sanctions, and they've opted to do nothing and suffer. That's their (Fidel's) choice. It certainly isn't over, and it will come up again. I don't believe that the UN has it as a mandate to promote democracy. I do believe that the US has promoted democracy through its "contributions" to third world countries, in the form of "restrictions". An example would be to offer a 3W country a complete aqueduct system (built locally), but with the provision that the water be sold, not freely given. It serves two purposes: 1) it helps ensure that the aqueduct will have funds for maintenance b) it imposes an economic structure that is capitalistic, and therefore democratic. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|