| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Should the US invade Iraq? |
| Yes |
|
68% |
[ 13 ] |
| No |
|
31% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
MtnDwarf
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 May 2002
Posts: 36
|
sure we were foreworned of terrorist attacks of 9/11 but then again we get 100s of terrorist warnings a day and there really wasnt anything that set the 9/11 "warnings" apart from the others.
Also it is quite aparent people dont reolize the dire necessity of removing Hussane from power at this point. If you dont already know he is on the brink of developoing nuclear technology and if he does there is no doubt at all that he will use the first bomb that he gets on isreal. Knowing that there really cant be any argument against removing Hussane.
concerning pearl harber we probobly knew we were going to be hit so we did take most of our ships out of the docks in order to lessen our casualties but making claims that we accually helped the japonese facilitate these attacks is rediculous.
_________________
"It is impossible to better oneself without knowing ones weaknesses" |
Sat Jul 06, 2002 11:10 pm |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
I didn't get much sleep last night so I'm far to tired to respond to everything moondragon wrote so I'll do that tomorrow, for now I'll just respond to a few parts that I did agree with. I love this country very much and I'm proud to be an American, but I'm blinded by that into thinking that we're perfect; I think some of the high level people in the government are overzealous or are idiots or have any number of problems. In fact I think that people like Trent Lott and Santorium (I forget his first name), should not only be removed from power, they should thrown out of the country. These are the people mDrop was referring to in his last paragraph, which I completely agree with (at the last paragraph).
As per the part of one of my earlier posts 'You're very prejudiced aren't you? We're shooting/bombing terrorists not Arabs! Terrorists don't have a race or a creed, that would imply that they were human, which the members of Al Queda, and the leaders of the former Taliban are most defiantly not' I withdraw the first sentence, but still maintain that these people are sub-human, yes I know they had their reasons and I know what those reason are, but unless the one that says we are God's enemies is right, then those reasons do not justify attacking civilians. Just like I think Truman committed two atrocities when dropping the bombs in '45, not because he dropped them but because of his choice of targets.
Now to the policy moondragon was talking about the arming of our enemy's enemies. I think this is a terrible policy, and I think it should be changed immediately, or better yet many years ago. Yet even with this policy I still say our policies, as I whole are better than an isolationist view.
The UN, true we stopped paying our dues, but which country pays the largest percent of the UN's expenses? And the UN does very little watchdoggery (I know that's not a real word), mostly they just give practically meaningless sanctions. They have a revolving door security counsel and it is mandatory for everyone to get a turn! Syria is on it right now.
Someone said the people in Iraq are staring because of us this is not true. I've heard the numbers about children in Iraq starving because of us, but every shipment of food we've send it the past is seized, we'd give the people food if Hussein would let us. Did you know that during the Persian Gulf war Hussein's Republican Guard had standing orders to guard town in order to seize and destroy any food shipments that came in, just in case they were from America. And did you know that during that same war the CIA had an active operation who's sole purpose was to smuggle powdered milk into these towns?
Ok, I've already said far more than I had intended to today so I'll just leave it off with this, and respond more tomorrow.
@moondragon, if I add one more terrible fact that you either left out or didn't know to the part about that terrible policy will you at least say one nice thing about America?
We are the ones who trained Osama bin Laden himself. |
|
Sat Jul 06, 2002 11:10 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
@Suicidal Cockroach, about the prejudice, I think that what we were trying to say was that US is not only bombing and killing terrorists, a lot of innocent arabs get killed in the process. Just think about the bombing of that wedding party just couple of days ago.
And for killing civilians, it's not just a "priviledge" of the terrorists. A lot of nations do this and have done it. At the moment Israel is killing a lot of palestinian civilians and the other way around. In Vietnam war, a lot of villages were bombed with napalm just because there was a slight possibility that some of them could have contacts to the Vietkong. This has been done here too, In Finland, a lot of people were killed during the civil war just because they were either peasants or "middleclass", they didn't have to be active in either of the groups fighting.
The point is, a lot of killing is done based only on your nationality, social status or religion. Civilians are killed all the time and not by just terrorist, but by established armies who have no better reasons than the terrorists. And furthermore, only the high-level terrorists actually know what's really going on, most of the suicidal bombers are just desperate people who get caught in the net of these masterminds. Sometimes I feel so much greef and anger over this world that I understand how easy it would be to convert those feelings into a destructive behaviour. Not that I would ever do anything like that. This understanding doesn't mean that i would symphatise with these beasts, either. It's just that nothing is completely black or white, not even these things.
@Xen, true, so true. We could all get along if we really tried to. Hopefully that will someday be true, in the far future.
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Sat Jul 06, 2002 11:28 pm |
|
|
ffbj
High Emperor
Joined: 05 Feb 2002
Posts: 489
|
Regarding the British. the news covererage here often made mention of them. The special units in operation Anaconda, trained for fighting and manuvering at high elevations, for example. You may not realise it, but the contributions, both men and material, are greatly appreciated in this country. Tony Blair's eloquent and forthright stance against terror and his, and his countries support of the U.S. are both needed and respected. I guess it may seem at times that we take our allies efforts and support too lightly, but be aware that the general feeling here is one of gratitude towards the British.
I think with all the tensions and anti-american feeling in the Arab world that invading Iraq would be a mistake at this juncture. I also don't believe that it will happen any time soon. What do I base this conjecture on? Well I really can't get too specific, but I really think it is a ploy. A threat that will not be carried out. Btw the highway of death was not a slap on the wrist. After basically just slaughtering the Iraqis, Bush, out of compassion, called off the attack. This is a matter of record and not a subject for debate. Sometimes the American sense of fairplay gets in the way. This might have been the wrong decision militarily, but it was a decision to save lives. |
|
Sun Jul 07, 2002 1:07 am |
|
|
Krycek
Leader of the Senate
Joined: 07 Mar 2002
Posts: 314
Location: Primary Observation Complex |
quote:
Originally posted by mDrop
@MoonDragon, thanks for saving me a great deal of time by writing that previous post, I agree with you.
The US military has been mainly protecting the oil resources and other important assets that US wants to secure. US has also supported many dictators in South America, again to secure their own goals and to keep socialist and communist leaders from gaining power in there.
As MoonDragon said, US supplied most of the army for Al Queda, Iraq and also supports Israeli military actions agains palestinians. It seems strange how US picks the targets it wants to protect and the conflicts it wants to take part in. A lot of the hatred towards US is because of the actions they have taken in Middle-East and other parts of the globe. First the military and other agents go in, stir things up and generally make a mess of the situation. Then, when the other parties try to attack back or stop taking orders, the rest of the military goes there and bombs the country to pieces.
There are also a lot more reasons to current situation, one of the biggest is the economical gap between different countries. If more attention was given to helping the poor countries and listening to them instead of abusing them and attacking them, a lot of these confrontations could be prevented. If things keep going like they have in the past 20 years, I suspect things will get worse and we'll be witnessing a lot more violence and sadness all around the world.
Also, I admit there are times when it is necessary to intervene, Palestina/Israel conflict is the most important conflict ew should be focusing on. We need the peace and stability in the Middle-East or there will be hell to pay later on. Too many times the reasons are wrong and the actions unforgivable, though..
Agreed with you, but with some minor exception,Israel and Palestina don't want to make peace even if you'll use nukes on them,these guys are not happy if they don't wake up in the morning and shoot someone with their Ak-47.
What is strange is that the Pakistan and India are about to starting a war and I see that no one go there and try to make a peace offer,I mean these guys are ten times more dangerous(they announce that are ready to use nukes on each other) than Israel and Palestina conflict.
About Iraq,Saddam is a very dangerous "person" cause he already have mass destruction weapons(biological etc.),the only problem is that he needs rockets to use them on a target,let's hope for the everyone good that he will never have the chance to grab some rockets.
_________________
Guns don't kill people,people kill people!
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild= |
|
Sun Jul 07, 2002 2:05 am |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
@Kryzek, only the small extremist groups on both sides want to wage the war. In Israel, the support from the people has been slowly decreasing, don't know about the current situation though. With palestinians, it's harder to say since their leadership seems to be missing because of the various internal conflicts and different groups. The India vs. Pakistan situation is indeed strange. To put it bluntly, the financial danger for western countries is not big enough, since there are no invaluable natural resources in those areas, unlike in Middle-East. If there were some oil resources or something similar in Kashmir, I bet US and the rest of the NATO would have been there from the start.
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Sun Jul 07, 2002 2:29 am |
|
|
TheLonePaladin
Mighty Warrior
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 1808
Location: San Francisco, CA |
quote:
Originally posted by EverythingXen
War.
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again!
huoah
uhhh
good god y'all!
_________________
=Follower of Righteousness=
"Though the gates that stand between the mortal world and the immortal Realm of Chaos are now closed to me, still I would rather die having glimpsed eternity than never to have stirred the cold furrow of mortal life.
I embrace death without regret as I embraced life without fear." |
|
Sun Jul 07, 2002 2:30 am |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Suicidal Cockroach
@moondragon, if I add one more terrible fact that you either left out or didn't know to the part about that terrible policy will you at least say one nice thing about America?
Actually, one of the links I posted in my big post talked about that fact. I also said that I don't have any particularly strong negative feelings towards the US. At least not beyond the normal apprehensions towards someone who's seemingly ignorantly leading us to hell in a handbasket. But I don't bother with politics too much.
About saying "one nice thing about America?" Hmm... how two? Holly and Melissa.  Really nice... mmmm... Because of Melissa I almost ended up American too. What irony, eh?
_________________
(@) |
|
Sun Jul 07, 2002 4:59 pm |
|
|
Bilbo
High Emperor
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 1620
Location: New York |
quote:
Some of you are too young to remember the days of USSR's invasion of Afganistan and the 10 year war between Iraq and Iran. At the time, USSR was funding Iran's military and USA was funding Iraq. Iraq, kind of, won that war and became a power to be reconned with. You know what happened after that. But, most of Hussein's military might was bought with US dollars. During the same time, in Afganistan, the rebel fighters against the USSR invasion were actively funded by the USA, there was no secret about that. After the USSR realized they can never win in Afganistan, they pulled out and the best funded and armed group of people took over.
The problem with US and every other major country's foreign policy is that it is impossible to predict outcomes. At that time during the late 1970s and early 1980s, we were very anti-Iran in part due to a hostage crisis. We didn't want Iran to "win" their war again Iraq, and so we funded Iraq. Similarly, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, we chose to side with the Afghanis. Now we are confronting Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. While the choices seemed right 20+ years ago, they are having consequences that are anti-American today. It would have been very easy to disable Taliban leadership - there was a congress prior to the US declaring war where every major Taliban figure was in attendance - simply by dropping one bomb, but for good or bad, the US chose not to pursue that course. Now the US is still in Afghanistan (who knows what would have happened had the US acted differently), and trying to "finish up the job".
Al Qaeda presents a different problem, as they are multinational and blend into the surrounding countries. If the US wanted to permanently cripple Al Qaeda, and didn't care about consequences, they could have nuked every square inch of Afghanistan, killing every Afghani friend or foe, causing a lot of environmental damage and hurting foreign countries due to variable winds, as well as getting the rest of the world really mad at the US. Applying economic pressure to Al Qaeda and countries who support them (notes: the US has troops assissting the Phillipines in dealing with the Phillippine's branch of them; US has put a lot of pressure on Pakistan to clean up their act) seems to be the more practical way.
As to India and Pakistan, at least according to the US press tensions have declined there so that declared war is less likely now. The US press has not been giving credit to US diplomacy on this issue.
As to Palestine and Israel, both sides alternate between wanting US involvement and not, as they belive it suits their purposes politically. A war there would be very one-sided, with Israel winning, and any surviving Palestinians being exiled. The only reason that this hasn't happened is the fact that US support for Israel would be diminished, unless it was sufficiently provoked so as to be "self-defense". (I don't believe Israel cares what the UN and the rest of the world think.)
What war these days comes down to for the US is how acceptable "collateral damage" is under the circumstances. The US bombed the city of Kabul, aiming primarily at military / political targets, but unavoidably killing civilians in the process. Saddam Hussein could easily be bombed out of existenece, but hasn't been because of concern that killing to many Iraqi civilians in the process would have negative repercussions for the US. (As well as official US policy of not assassinating foreign heads of state being the other reason this hasn't happened.)
China does not seem to be doing much on the world stage these days, for whatever reason. While they are a military power, those muscles don't seem to be being flexed right now. I'm more concerned about the North / South Korea situation, where tensions have not settled down yet. We'll have to wait and see on both of these fronts.
And let me thank all UK, Canadian, Australian, German, and other national troops who have fought beside the US during the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yugoslavia, etc. Since I have been talking foreign policy, I have addressed my post in terms of the US. I do not mean to ignore other countries' contributions.
"War, what is it good for, absolutely nothing" - that in itself is sloganeering. Not to be cynical, but were it not for military R&D funding we would not be using computers to have chats over the internet, as neither would probably exist today. And while the Kuwaitis may not be kissing NATO for liberating them from Saddam Hussein, they sure are happy that Desert Storm kicked Iraq out of their country. Ditto for the countries liberated by the US, Russia and UK at the end of WWII. Not all war is right, but some of it is necessary and just. Larry Niven, a SF/Fantasy author, has written fanstasy novels and short stories with the theme that you just can't get rid of war, but it is the intent that matters.
As to my personal opinion as to whether we should invade Iraq, my answer is a qualified yes. I qualify it only because the US will not assassinate him directly, which I think would reduce the death toll and achieve the same purpose. Of course, I am neither seer nor oracle to see what the long term future results of this would be. But if we do nothing, we are paralyzed and nothing is ever accomplished. And I say this because of my concern for what Hussein would do with a nuclear device to innocent people, if he ever got his hands on one, which is what he is trying to do.
_________________
The world itself shifts and changes and fades to mist like the strings of a minstrel's harp, and mayhap the dreams we forge are more enduring than the works of kings and gods.-Robert E. Howard
=Member of the RPGDot Shadows, The Nonflamers' Guild, and The Alliance of Middle Earth= |
|
Sun Jul 07, 2002 7:26 pm |
|
|
ffbj
High Emperor
Joined: 05 Feb 2002
Posts: 489
|
Thanks for putting things in historical perspective. Nice to read someone who actually knows what he's talking about. Not just some sloganerring pablum. 'U.S. bad, third world good.' There are many conflicts that have been going on long before the U.S. even existed. The Crusades, for example, which,
the Arabs point to as a seminal and destructive event, in their formation of anti-western attitudes, occured 600 years before the U.S. was even established. But, of course, they just blame the all inclusive West, for their problems. If the U.S. pulled every agent, and military force from every country how would things
be then? If you think things would be better, more stable, etc... You are completely kidding yourself. But I do agree the U.S. should spend less time and effort trying to run the world. Legitimately helping people with food aid,
equipment, etc... no military. But as events related to 9/11 unfold I think we have seen, and will continue to see a more active military presense of the U.S. and it's allies throughout the world. |
|
Mon Jul 08, 2002 11:16 pm |
|
|
Scrivener
Noble Knight
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 223
Location: Australia |
It seems there are two strands to US foreign policy:
One is the kind where you guys see something evil happening and you try to do something about it.
The other is the kind where you guys will run roughshod over anyone in the pursuit of US national and corporate interests. ("Kissingerism")
Of course these two motivations (benevolence and selfishness) exist together in almost every human being. It's not surprising that they characterize US foreign policy.
But since you are the most powerful country in the world, you also have more responsibilities to act well.
So even though you guys act better than 95% of the other countries in the world, that little strand of selfishness causes a lot of pain and resentment, just because you have so much power.
Good luck! Maybe if you have a big recession everyone will forget about you... |
|
Mon Jul 15, 2002 8:50 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Bilbo - your explanation that the US could not predict some of the outcomes is a perfect example of some the flaws in US foreign policy.
The US should have stayed out of the Iran/Iraq conflict and probably Afghanistan. Some of the real reasons behind the US involvement include a silly, childish reaction to Soviet support (for Iran) as part of the cold war.
There are are large number of examples where the US has taken (unilateral or non UN-sanctioned) military action to intervene in other countries not to act as a humanitarian but to protect it's own economic or political interests or even to play to the electorate at home.
Vietnam is a good example. In addition to conventional warfare the US used defoliants, herbicides, toxic gases and napalm. Some areas can't be cultivated to this day. Thousands of US soldiers have suffered from exposure to these chemicals not to mention the civilians of Vietnam. To what avail? Why were you there? Why did you use chemical warfare? Why did you extend the campaign to Laos and Cambodia?
This is the sort of arrogance that the US often applies in it's foreign policy.
There is no doubt that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation and the US should persue it's members. However, while the US supports Israel without question and without thought for the displaced Palestinians there will be those who blame the US.
It's interesting to note that the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis but this is rarely mentioned and the US has placed no pressure on Saudi Arabia to curb or investigate terrorism. Why? Oil and US bases.
The bottom line is that the US should not invade Iraq unless it can be sure of the outcome (will another dictator take Saddam's place?) and the purity of it's motives. |
|
Mon Jul 15, 2002 10:56 am |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
I think that was well said by Scrivener. Unfortunately that two-part policy is what you often get in a two party system. While I agree that as the most powerful country we have more responsibility to act responsibly, the only way I can see to clean up the problems in the system are to get the Republicans and Democrats to stop arguing. There isn't a chance in hell of that happening any time soon. 
Of course I not apposed to throwing people like Trent Lott and Bill Clinton out of the country, that would be a good start. |
|
Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:01 am |
|
|
Scrivener
Noble Knight
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 223
Location: Australia |
It's not just rightwing versus leftwing. It's more like game theory: cooperation, competition, defection. International relations, and especially international trade, is just a free-for-all with no enforceable rules. Raw power always wins. In fact, cooperation between rich and poor would lead to a better outcome for both sides in the long run, but because every one is scared of getting ripped off or losing out in the short run, they can't make any progress. Just like the Elves say in Arcanum: If humans lived for 600 years they would be more responsible! |
|
Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:52 am |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
I know that it isn't all because of partisan politics, but it has become common place for members of Congress to vote for bills simply because their party wants them to, so they often vote yes on bills that they don't agree to, and vice versa, because they are afraid of loosing their party nomination come next election, and it seems that the parties sometimes put up bills for the sole purpose of spiting the other. I think that's part of why we end up doing things like the backing of bin Laden against the USSR, and not removing Hussein ten yeas ago, the Republicans what to look proactive so they try to go too far, and the Democrats always want to take the opposite side as the Republicans so they try to have us do nothing, and after countless hours of arguing we end up doing something that probably won't work for the reason that it's what neither side wants.
(I know those are run-on sentences but it was meant is a mini-rant, I would say I was trying to be like Dennis Miller, but I haven't yet memorized my thesaurus.  ) |
|
Mon Jul 15, 2002 12:43 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
