Page 3 of 4
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:32 pm
by CM
HLD, honestly you are the first american who openly admits it is all for oil.
And i agree with your assessment of Syria and Iran.
The americans did well in Bosnia, tried their best in Somalia, and most recently in kosovo.
Americans aren't anti-muslims as so many think.
They just have selfish foriegn policy.
Also i would like to make a distinction the american people are far more pro a moral and right FP than the Govt is.
The govt seems to have adopted screw the world as long as we gain policy, which will ultimately be their downfall and frankly when the US loses power, the US will have a lot to answer for.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 2:51 pm
by fable
Originally posted by CM
HLD, honestly you are the first american who openly admits it is all for oil.
Don't write off the entire several hundred million of us just because the media is blanketed with politicians. A fair number of Americans, including yours truly, have been saying this ever since Dubyah's daddy tried to fake out the rest of the world, claiming he was saving Kuwait for Goodness and Honor.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:01 pm
by CM
Sorry Fable.
I should have said the first i have heard say that.
I haven't read your views on the issue so i wouldn't know.
My bad.
Sorry!
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:09 am
by fable
Originally posted by CM
Sorry Fable.
I should have said the first i have heard say that.
I haven't read your views on the issue so i wouldn't know.
My bad.
Sorry!
No offense taken, and like I wrote, they're not just my views, alone. I'm pretty sure a large number of Americans realized even at the time that we wouldn't be rushing in to save a nation with whom our relations had been friendly but distant, just to be Nice.
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:56 am
by VoodooDali
Originally posted by fable
No offense taken, and like I wrote, they're not just my views, alone. I'm pretty sure a large number of Americans realized even at the time that we wouldn't be rushing in to save a nation with whom our relations had been friendly but distant, just to be Nice.
Exactly. Just a couple years later, we sat by and let the genocide run rampant in Rwanda. Rwanda has nothing we care about (other than gorillas--but only the environmentalists care about them).
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 10:01 am
by fable
Originally posted by VoodooDali
Exactly. Just a couple years later, we sat by and let the genocide run rampant in Rwanda. Rwanda has nothing we care about (other than gorillas--but only the environmentalists care about them).
That was horrific. None of the wealthy, powerful nations did anything. Yugoslavia? Oh, definitely. Too close to home. Rwanda? Where is that?
And then, there's Tibet, the game China is playing of wiping out a population and its thousands-of-years-old culture. Trade, anyone?
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:24 pm
by Fezek
here are my points;
1) The US and its allies already has massive amounts of military hardware in the region ( the stuff used on Afghanistan). this includes alot of ( i hate this word) human intelligence.
2) The success the US has had in dealing with the regime in Afghanistan ie using local/regional militias has probably spurred the US into making similar tactical moves in Iraq. Not much you can do against US air support/ attacks combined with opposing forces localized in the region of assault.
3) the success the US has had in Afghanistan has probably riled/shocked the Iraqi government. It is probably as fractitious now as it has ever been. What better time to strike. A few well placed strikes and the game is up.
4) The no-fly zones imposed by the UN and maintained by US and to some extent the UK have pretty much cramped the military power of the Iraqi goverment in the north and south of the country.
5) Saddam has chemical weapons. Realistically they can only be used inside his own country and therefore on his own people. It wouldn't look too good if he gases his own people.
In short, a weakened iraqi government, a restricted Iraqi military, a localized ground force made up of Kurds and Shi'ites , the largest and most powerful air and navy, add some random events and voila ..a toppled Iraqi government, a victory for that man and higher oil prices to please the russians and the iranians.
But more importantly , Man United for the league.
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 3:56 pm
by nael
why would we want to over throw him? there are people a million times worse than him out there. when desert storm was being prepared, my father was in charge of runnign the wargames, and he beat the living crap out of the US army using what arms we suspected saddam had.
the fact is...he's an idiot (saddam, not my dad). let him stay, we can ***** smack him around any day of the week.
another of the little known truths about iraq is that they actually have one of the more progressive views (for fandamental islamic)about women in their culture. not only are they not forced to cover up completely, btu they are also allowed to hold all levels of jobs.
plus...he makes such good jokes still.
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 4:34 pm
by ThorinOakensfield
Saddam is not a fundametalist. He's not like the terrorists, and they're kind. he's a dictator, so in other words he is god.
He doesn't require men to have beards and any of the stuff the Taliban say. he's just a plain simple tyrant like any other bad dictator the world's had.
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 5:41 pm
by VoodooDali
Well, the other question is--if we did get rid of Saddam, who would replace him? Would he be any better? I wonder...
We have never been very supportive of democracy over there--the CIA toppled Mosadek (sp?) in Iran and put the Shah (a dictator) in his place.
Also, one thing I've come to realize is that democracy is very expensive. In Guatemala, where I used to live, the UN has finally managed to subdue the military. The price of this is crime so rampant that vigilante groups formed all over the country. The country cannot afford to pay police enough to keep them from being totally corrupt. A couple of my friends were mugged by cops there! I predict that they will install another dictator, and put the military back in power, since they at least had a more acceptable level of crime. The only way this would ever change is if they had true land reform and stopped being basically a feudal state. I would suggest that the same can be said for Iraq--the only way they could have a democracy would be if they had true land reform, and an established middle class.
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 5:53 pm
by Mr Sleep
Originally posted by VoodooDali
Well, the other question is--if we did get rid of Saddam, who would replace him? Would he be any better? I wonder...
No disrespect, but didn't HLD answer that question before in this thread, i believe it was his youngest son who is set to take power.
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:14 pm
by Tamerlane
Whats that quote I'm looking for?
"Absolute power corrupts"
I think thats it. However in disposing Saddam, sorry I haven't read the rest of this thread. It would create a terrifying power vacuum. And this is the Middle-East we are talking about here, I shudder to think what influence and more or less impact, Iran would have on the people of Iraq.
And secondly with the exception of the Kurds, don't most Iraqis still despise the U.S for their continual presence in the northern and southern region. Like Iran you might get someone who turns out to be even worse Saddam. Thats where my quote comes in
.
And on a minor note, to Fezeks (5)
During the gulf war, Saddam approved for missles to be fired over to Israel, so he does have the range if he see's fit to use it.
Well that my 2 cents.
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 6:37 am
by Fezek
Originally posted by Tamerlane
And on a minor note, to Fezeks (5)
During the gulf war, Saddam approved for missles to be fired over to Israel, so he does have the range if he see's fit to use it.
Well that my 2 cents.
Good point. I'll expand a little on one of my points. the US and the UK are enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and the south of the country. They have also been taking the opportunity to destroy any military hardware within close proximity to those areas. Also the allies have been targeting military installations inside Iraq proper. I can't conceivably see how the Iraqi governmant has the hardware to make a direct assault on Israel. Also the Israeli state has perhaps the most advanced anti-ballistic missile defence systems in the world. Don't get me wrong , anything is possible. But I find a successful assault on Israel highly unlikely.
Oh and here is an interesting article
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news ... 818011.htm
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 8:18 am
by Maharlika
Nothing at the moment.
Not unless there is "Clear and Present Danger" to have this "Executive Order" and have SH blasted into non-existence.
My sympathies to the people of Iraq. A lot of them had to suffer for having SH for a leader.
If and when warranted, I like the idea (Tom Clancy's) of having to accurately pinpoint the targeted person and blast him with mini-bombs using the F-117s.
That minimizes *ugggh! this word again* collateral damage and leaves other people from unnecessarily getting injured.
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 8:35 am
by fable
Whats that quote I'm looking for?
"Absolute power corrupts"
Humbug.
This is the kind of thing conventional high school history that has less to do, IMO, with the realworld than with teaching the myth about democracy being superior to all other forms of government. (No one ever says how it is supposedly superior. I think we are supposed to believe that if you overthrow a dictatorship, its people are going to suddenly be cleaner, brighter, earn more money, live in bigger houses, have more to eat, and possess sunnier dispositions, just from knowing that they can now go out every X number of years and vote in one of several lawyers or industrialists they never saw before, and will never see again. -So I'm being cynical. Sue me.
)
But there have been dictators with tremendous power (in contextual terms) who were very bad, and others who were exceptionally good rulers. I can't think of a single one who was actually corrupted over the years by the amount of power they wielded. Was Marcus Aurelius corrupted by having vast power over the full might of the Roman Empire at its strongest? Was Napoleon any more corrupt when he escaped from his first exile to lead France again, than when he first took power in France? The long line of Japanese emperors who ruled Japan before the medieval period of the warlords certainly weren't corrupt, however you judge their actions, and the Turkish sultans of the Ottoman Empire either began steeped in corruption, or remained free of it; they weren't corrupted by the office.
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 9:06 am
by Maharlika
Originally posted by fable
Whats that quote I'm looking for?
"Absolute power corrupts"
Humbug. This is the kind of thing conventional high school history that has less to do, IMO, with the realworld than with teaching the myth about democracy being superior to all other forms of government. (No one ever says how it is supposedly superior. I think we are supposed to believe that if you overthrow a dictatorship, its people are going to suddenly be cleaner, brighter, earn more money, live in bigger houses, have more to eat, and possess sunnier dispositions, just from knowing that they can now go out every X number of years and vote in one of several lawyers or industrialists they never saw before, and will never see again. -So I'm being cynical. Sue me. )
Reminds me of our President of the Commonwealth, Manuel L. Quezon who said that he'd rather see our country run like hell by Filipinos, than one efficiently run by Americans.
As to an "absolute powerful" leader of the state, what do you think of Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore?
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 11:01 am
by nael
"power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." ...that's how the saying goes. and here's a follow up that all you aetheists will enjoy...
"if absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?" -
and one more quote," It is not power that corrupts, but fear. the fear of losing power corruptsthose who wield it, and fear of the scourrge of power corrupts those who are subject to it." - aung san suu kyi (nobel peace prize winner for some year or another)
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 9:01 pm
by VoodooDali
Originally posted by nael
"power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." ...that's how the saying goes. and here's a follow up that all you aetheists will enjoy...
"if absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?" -
and one more quote," It is not power that corrupts, but fear. the fear of losing power corruptsthose who wield it, and fear of the scourrge of power corrupts those who are subject to it." - aung san suu kyi (nobel peace prize winner for some year or another)
Some more power quotes:
Power does not corrupt men; but fools, if they get into
a position of power, corrupt power.
- George Bernard Shaw
Power corrupts, but lack of power corrupts absolutely.
- Adlai Stevenson
Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell
people you are, you aren't.
- Margaret Thatcher
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test
a man's character, give him power.
-Abraham Lincoln
The power to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared
to the power of the Force.
- Darth Vader
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 9:34 pm
by Silur
Well, all I can say is that _if_ something is done, let's hope it isn't as messy as the last time...
By chance, I saw half of a documentary regarding the use of depleted uranium shells in the Gulf. They also have a website, which
can be found here. Not to add to the rampaging conspiracy theories running wild in the US, but it does show a completely different picture from the "CNN surgical precision war".
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 10:09 pm
by nael
Originally posted by VoodooDali
The power to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared
to the power of the Force.
- Darth Vader
is there nothing one can't learn from star wars?