Pro/Forums - View Single Post - World politics, alternative fuels, and an odd GPU comment (was Ati's 9800 is out)

TerraMex · 03-14-2003, 06:10 PM

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.

03-14-2003, 06:10 PM	#115
TerraMex 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."