| |
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 |
Bilbo
High Emperor
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 1620
Location: New York |
Raw might doens't always win. Look at Vietnam. From the militarily superior side any war, it's a question as to how much a government wants to put into it to win. While winning a war is good politics, getting out a losing war (Nixon) can also be good if public support for the war is down.
The US-Israel connection is there, and not disappearing any time soon. Israel is our strongest ally in the middle east, a nuclear power with ongoing high-technological development which leads to technology transfers both ways. Any politician here who took an anti-Israel stance would not probably not be re-elected, as neither major party would support that person. (From Republican Ronald Reagan campaigning for 1980, "I strongly support Israeli sovreignty over a united Jerusalem" to Democrat Joe Lieberman being the vice-presidential candidate for 2000.)
World politics being what it is, and I'm no expert on it, so I don't know how true this recent (2002) rumor is: It was the US-Israeli connection which led to Desert Storm not marching on Baghdad to remove Saddam 11 years ago. Supposedly, if we had taken on Baghdad itself, there would have been a major chemical weapon attack on the population centers of Israel.
And the stories as of about a week ago is the US press based upon British political reports: the invasion of Iraq will begin next spring. It is supposedly a definite, with the plans being made now.
Back to national politics: 95% percent of political voting comes down to 1 of 3 things: 1) Political party pressure; 2) Getting re-elected; 3) Money for your constituency, which ties into being re-elected. Very rarely does a politician vote for something because it is the "right" thing to do. I remember a story from about 5-10 years ago IIRC, when a Texas (?) senator (I forget if it was a senator or representative, but it doesn't matter so I'll say a senator) put a bill before Congress to have a day named in honor of a person. He spoke to a few party people and influential people in the senate, and his bill past easily without research or opposition because it seemed the politically easy and expedient thing to do. After it passed, the senator then made an announcement and withdrew his bill. The man was a mass-murderer sentenced to death. The senator's point was taken, but it hasn't changed a thing and it was politics as usual right after that.
@Scrivener - I'm only a few years older than you, and my knowledge of the Vietnam era is incomplete (I remeber the withdrawl a little bit, but the US was already there when I was born). Other than to fight communism, I can't really say why we were there or why it went over into Laos and Cambodia. As to why certain weapons and defoliants were used, I can easily surmise 2 reasons: 1) We had weapons and wanted to test them out to make sure they worked; 2) We wanted to find out about the negative consequences of them too. The only way we know about the negative effects on people and the environment is to have them tested on people, which can only be done in a war situation. I believe, and I could be wrong, that the US government didn't initially know about the human cost of defoliating with stuff like agent orange. I'm sure they found out quickly. And then there was definitely the government cover-up after the fact. But that doesn't change my opinion that they didn't know about all the damage that would be done before they did it.
_________________
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= |
Mon Jul 15, 2002 1:32 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Bilbo, I think some of that last post was in response to me, not @Scrivener. Anyway... One of the reasons the US invaded Vietnam was indeed communism although I suspect the politicians felt it would play better to the electorate than it did.
Imagine if the situation was reversed; Vietnam, a world superpower invades the US because of it's internal political system (cme to think of, with George W Bush at the helm maybe that's not a bad idea...).
This sort of behaviour is outrageous and the world would not allow such wholesale destruction if it weren't the powerful US doing it.
I don't wish to escalate a friendly debate  but the idea of testing chemical weapons doesn't need a response. If Iraq was to "test" chemical weapons on you...
My point is simply that the US has a bad history of interference based on it's own political or economic reasons rather than to advance world harmony. With the power the US has comes a responsibility the US has a habit of abusing. The US often doesn't get criticism other nations would get because are leaders are too fearful (for economic or diplomatic) reasons to voice the truth.
Saddam is a terrible dictator; I am just asking that the US examine it's motives and think carefully of the consequences before overthrowing another government and potentially killing more civilians. |
|
Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:09 pm |
|
|
Marshall Medan
Capitan of the Dark Knights of Nekara
Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 1123
Location: Beriut Lebanon !!!!!! |
as a big supporter of the arab countries big cause i live in one now i say AMERICA SHOULD LEAVE THE MIDDLE EAST ALONE THE FOOLS
_________________
WHAT IS CHEESE WITH OUT EGGS ?????
<img src=http://www.locusinn.com/images/ryan/dragonball-gohan.gif>
[img]http://www.olympiquedemarseille.com/Multimedia/Images/indexlogo.gif[img]
--Moderator of the RPGDot Warriors--
ANY ONE WHO LIKES DRAGON LANCE IS SUPER COOL IN MY BOOK |
|
Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:40 pm |
|
|
Bilbo
High Emperor
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 1620
Location: New York |
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
Bilbo, I think some of that last post was in response to me, not @Scrivener.
Sorry Dhruin, got the posts mixed up a second.
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
I don't wish to escalate a friendly debate but the idea of testing chemical weapons doesn't need a response. If Iraq was to "test" chemical weapons on you...
I'm not trying to justify. I'm just explaining possibilities. And I'd note that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its own citizens.
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
With the power the US has comes a responsibility the US has a habit of abusing.
With any power comes responsibility. I don't necessarily agree with your characterization as a "habit" of abusing. I also think that that regardless of your political ideology, if you examine the history of ANY country, you will find many things that you consider to be an abuse of power.
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
I am just asking that the US examine it's motives and think carefully of the consequences before overthrowing another government and potentially killing more civilians.
Asking is one thing. Getting a response is another. 
_________________
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= |
|
Tue Jul 16, 2002 12:51 pm |
|
|
txiabxyooj
Fox Spirit
Joined: 06 Dec 2001
Posts: 971
Location: here, there & everywhere |
quote:
Originally posted by Marshall Medan
as a big supporter of the arab countries big cause i live in one now i say AMERICA SHOULD LEAVE THE MIDDLE EAST ALONE THE FOOLS
i agree. i just wish the middle east would leave us alone. as a tax paying american i resent us spending any money in the middle east. whether it is on military or humanitarian efforts i wish we would just pull out. then, i wish the middle eastern countries would have the decency to get along without the rest of the world becoming involved. but, i can wish in one hand & crap in the other & i know which one will fill up first. the fact of the matter is that we are living in a world where countries interact and there are going to be disagreements. it is unfortunate that US interests lie in the middle east. when it comes right down to it the US wants oil & the middle east has it. so, there are going to be interactions between the two regions. i think the solution is for the US to develop other sources of energy and then pull entirely out of the middle east region. then, when there are problems in the middle east and they ask for help the US can remind them of all the fun we had there in the past & then decline any requests for aid. this includes the money the afghanistan just requested to help repair damage from their earthquake, this includes the money we dump into medical programs, this includes the money for grain in drought areas, this includes the money for education, also please stop sending your students to our colleges. see what i mean? there are many benefits to US involvement in the middle east & the US benefits from middle eastern participation in the US. sure there are some problems but the solution isn't total withdrawl and isolation from one another. by the way, who are the fools?
_________________
"The origin of things, if things have an origin, cannot be revealed to me, if revealed at all, until I have travelled very far from it, and many revolutions of the sun must precede my first dawn. The light as it appears hides the candle." --Santayana
=member of the worshippers of the written word=
=member of the Non-flamers' guild= |
|
Tue Jul 16, 2002 4:03 pm |
|
|
Marshall Medan
Capitan of the Dark Knights of Nekara
Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 1123
Location: Beriut Lebanon !!!!!! |
=Edit: Well Ryan, that's it. You're out for now.
Jaz=
_________________
WHAT IS CHEESE WITH OUT EGGS ?????
<img src=http://www.locusinn.com/images/ryan/dragonball-gohan.gif>
[img]http://www.olympiquedemarseille.com/Multimedia/Images/indexlogo.gif[img]
--Moderator of the RPGDot Warriors--
ANY ONE WHO LIKES DRAGON LANCE IS SUPER COOL IN MY BOOK |
|
Tue Jul 16, 2002 8:15 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
I trully doubt that immature anti-semitism will get you far. Especially when unnecessarily put in large bold font.
_________________
(@) |
|
Tue Jul 16, 2002 9:37 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
@txiabxyooj, I don't think stopping all aid is a good thing. A lot of the problems brewing in middle-East and Africa etc. are because of the huge economical and social gap between these countries and the rest of the world, as well as the same gap inside those countries.
Only by sharing the wealth and helping these countries get back on their feet we can ensure atleast some amount of peace in this sad muddy globe. And considering what we europeans did to Africa and what Americans have been doing in the Middle-East, as well as in other places, it would be only fair to repair the damage we have done.
BTW, I watched an interesting documentary about the NATO-bombings in Balkan area. They destroyd a huge amount of infrastructure that is now being rebuilt with UN money and USA has refused to take part in this. They also bombed a lot of chemical plants and factories, polluting whole towns and rivers almost beyond repair. This damage is also being repaired with UN money and USA has refused to take part in this too. And now, when USA faces the threat of being sued for these crimes by the new international war crimes court, they are threatening to pull out, not finishing what they started agains wishes of the UN. Some world policing allright.
@Bilbo, regarding the post about experimenting with weapons, for example in Vietnam: I think you are underestimating the scientists in U.S army. Ofcourse they knew the outcome of dropping napalm into civilian villages, as well as toxicating large patches of forest with stuff so toxic it couldn't be used on anything else, atleast on american soil.
And regarding Iran testing chemicals on their own population, during the testing of atomic bombs, a lot of radiation got into places it shouldn't have, polluting farms and increasing cancer rates. Everybody's doing the exact same things and then accusing the other party of being brutal and irresponsible.
Again, none of these things are worse than many countries are doing, but with great power comes great responsibility indeed and US has the tendency of first going far abroad to conflicts and then leaving things half-done, only creating more problems.
@Dhruin, good text, although it has to be said that most of the nations who fell under soviet control got the shortest end of the stick possible. At those times, some non-armed opposition from the US was certainly necessary.
We should all concentrate on (re)building the world and trying to get equal rights and possibilities to people everywhere, but nobody seems to care about that. War and multinational companies, the "globalisation" and short-sighted politicians will be the end of us.
_________________
"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 - |
|
Tue Jul 16, 2002 10:54 pm |
|
|
txiabxyooj
Fox Spirit
Joined: 06 Dec 2001
Posts: 971
Location: here, there & everywhere |
@mdrop, i think we agree totally. i was trying to make a point. you can't say that the US is all bad as was being suggested. rather, there are good and bad things that go on in any governments foreign policy. but, all we hear about are about are the lousey american's and their foreign policy. so, i was trying to point out that if you don't want any US involvement in the middle east then you had better be willing to give up the foreign aid as well. the point being, that with foreign policy you have to accept the bad with the good. when you have one country involved with another there are always going to be good things as well as bad. however, it seems that people think that they can get US dollars without US involvement in their countries; this is just naive. as far as an economic gap goes, you are right. this is the real problem & all 1st world countries have a social responsibility to help 3rd world countries catch up. this is why i think the US & all other major developed countries ought to be sending aid. however, don't expect the aid without the politics. like the old saying goes: "there is no such thing as a free lunch." also, regarding the UN. the US gives more money to the UN than any other single country, so when you refer to the US refusing to pay for damages done it only makes sense. why pay twice? the US wasn't over there in order to further US interests. rather, our troops were committed through the UN. it wasn't a US operation it was a UN operation. we shouldn't have been spending our time there in the first place, but then everyone would be accusing the US of ignoring its social obligations...the US just can't win. no matter what we do someone isn't going to like it...but as the old saying goes: "you can't make all of the people happy all of the time."
_________________
"The origin of things, if things have an origin, cannot be revealed to me, if revealed at all, until I have travelled very far from it, and many revolutions of the sun must precede my first dawn. The light as it appears hides the candle." --Santayana
=member of the worshippers of the written word=
=member of the Non-flamers' guild= |
|
Tue Jul 16, 2002 11:15 pm |
|
|
Potentated Knight of Ni
Protector of the Realm
Joined: 20 Apr 2002
Posts: 259
Location: Somewhere lost in Canada (I Know Where I am Not) |
Once the U.S. has "cleaned up" [i.e. remove leaders who cause havok and distress for their country and others] the middle east; there is hope for a new begining.
_________________
 We (me, myself, and I) are the the Knights who say "Nee"!=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild= |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 5:19 am |
|
|
Mattias Kreku
Magister of the Light
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 387
|
Some ignorant person wrote that the UN gets almost all its weapons, troops and fundings from the US. That is wrong. Ted Turner paid 1 billion dollars to the UN a couple of years back, but before that the US refused to pay ANYTHING to the UN. A few days/weeks (don't remember) after the attack on the WTC the US suddenly (and silently) paid all its debts to the UN and then asked for world support in bombing a third world country that, after 10 years of internal fighting, could not even begin to defend itself. Afghanistan was only geography. Do you ever stop to wonder how many innocent people were killed by the US in Afghanistan..? There are no "smart bombs". Only a tiny fraction of the afghani population were/are Al Qaida supporters. Yet they bombed the entire country, trying to make it sound like a full scale war against a country of terrorists. Did they catch bin Ladin? Nope. Did they kill a lot of people? Yup. Were they all Al Qaida? Nope.
Who will hold a silent minute for the innocent afghani people who have died from US bombs? The only difference between the WTC bombings and the US bombings in Afghanistan is that there are no live cameras around to bear witness to the devastation.
Did you hear the most recent news? The US has demanded that their soldiers be excluded from the "war courts" (don't remember the correct term) around the world. That means that if an american soldier rapes and kills an iraqi girl he cannot be prosecuted for the crime, neither by the UN or iraqi courts. Anyone remember Vietnam..?
"The lighthouse of democracy in the world".. It's beginning to remind me of the Third Reich. |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 5:27 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Please refer to me by my actual name.
Allow me to point out USUN PRESS RELEASE #196: "...the United States remains the UN's largest source of financial support."
The United States government alone contributes over 25 percent of the United Nations' budget. Don't believe me? Look here.
That's more than anyone else.
However, that does not include peacekeeping costs, of which the U.S. pays an additional 31 percent. Meanwhile, China pays less than 1 percent, while Russia, Great Britain and France pay between 5 to 8 percent of these peacekeeping costs and only a fraction of what the U.S. pays in dues.
What is still worse is that Americans are heavy laden with taxes to support an anti-American global system that is rife with corruption and mismanagement. According to U.N. Under Secretary General Karl T. Paschke's third annual report, the U.N. exhibits a disturbing pattern of sloppy management, petty criminality, cronyism and nepotism. "So while we look to the U.N. as the world's policeman, its ability to police itself is quite another matter."
We have the right to withhold funding to press for reform. Ted Turner can take his 1 billion dollars and shove it up his butt.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:05 am |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
The United States government alone contributes over 25 percent of the United Nations' budget. Don't believe me? Look here.
This number is outdated. The contribution of the US (country, NOT government!) to the UN budget for 2001 (after discount for personnel) was exactly 266.943.927 $US. Thatīs 22,00 % of the budget.
http://www.uno.de/presse/2001/unic315.htm
quote:
That's more than anyone else.
This depends on the assessment basis. The absolute numbers can be found in the table above, but what about, for example, the amount of $US per head:
1.San Marino 4.75
2.Monaco 4.05
...
9.-10. Sweden, Seychelles 1.57
USA, Japan, Germany, etc. not in the first 12!
(Source: same site, a more complicated page)
quote:
However, that does not include peacekeeping costs, of which the U.S. pays an additional 31 percent. Meanwhile, China pays less than 1 percent, while Russia, Great Britain and France pay between 5 to 8 percent of these peacekeeping costs and only a fraction of what the U.S. pays in dues.
I didnīt search for up to date numbers, but again, what is the assessment basis for the funding? Equal share per country, equal share per habitant, average real income * number of habitants?
quote:
What is still worse is that Americans are heavy laden with taxes to support an anti-American global system
Absurd. The United Nations are an institution of 189 <i>equal</i> members. The US only get into trouble when they think their big contribution to the funding buys them more than 1/189th of the influence. The consequence of confrontation course (instead of integration as intended by the Charta) is being replaced by one nation or the other in certain committees.
quote:
that is rife with corruption and mismanagement. According to U.N. Under Secretary General Karl T. Paschke's third annual report, the U.N. exhibits a disturbing pattern of sloppy management, petty criminality, cronyism and nepotism. "So while we look to the U.N. as the world's policeman, its ability to police itself is quite another matter."
Sounds correct.
quote:
We have the right to withhold funding to press for reform.
Bullshit!
You signed the contracts to become a member of the UN. Pacta sunt servanda.
Pay your dues or cancel your membership and let the UN headquarter move to another country. My personal opinion is that the UN should have made this decision for the USA and the other nonpaying countries.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 9:29 am |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
@txiabxyooj, I disagree. Giving humanitarian aid to a country doesn't justify interfering with their politics and internal concerns. That is the bacis problem of the US. You somehow think that you have the right to just step in on a conflict, never mind the opinion of the rest of the world, including your allies here in Europe.
You are losing friends fast all over the globe if you don't realize that you are not the only one making the decisions, like Gorath said, UN is a coalition of equal members, you don't get any priviledges.
_________________
"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 - |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 10:51 am |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
Once the Middle East has "cleaned up" [i.e. remove leaders who cause havok and distress for their country and others] the U.S; there is hope for a new begining.
Doesn't sound right, now does it? What makes you think the above is any different than:
quote:
Originally posted by Potentated Knight of Ni
Once the U.S. has "cleaned up" [i.e. remove leaders who cause havok and distress for their country and others] the middle east; there is hope for a new begining.
_________________
(@) |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 3:15 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:31 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
