Powerful nations manipulate the world to their advantage.

The countries that have WMD's are trying to stop the proliferation of WMD's to countries that would likely use them against them.

Any country in the position of those countries would act similarly. Countries with WMD's that don't perceive the likelihood of those weapons being used against them are less concerned with proliferation. Countries that perceive that those weapons might be used against their "enemies" might even encourage it.

I would argue that every country tries to influence and shape it's environment to it's advantage. Many European countries act through the EU, Arabic countries meet at the Arab League, terrorist organizations terrorize, OPEC cuts off the oil supply, countries sell arms to other countries that will most shape the globe to their advantage. The US does it, Russia does it, China does it, France does it, Britain does it. What nation doesn't do it?

I would also argue that for the most part countries try to wield influence in the world in direct proportion to their ability to do so. America's policies stand out to many right now because of its unprecedented ability to bribe countries into favorable positions. She also has a powerful army that she is willing to use for political aims.

Anti-americanism is on the rise. It has been for decades. Attacks on the world trade center occured not just in 2001 but also in 1993. Embassy bombings have been too commonplace for
decades.

Many in the world criticize the US for it's obsession with violence, it's capital punishment laws, it's continual war on drugs, it's environmental wastefulness and it's particularly religious population. It is interesting that America has many of these things in common with Middle Eastern countries.

The view of the US in the Middle Easy is largely negative. This is a direct result of it's foreign policy especially as regards to the most unifying factor in the Middle East - policy towards Israel. US policy in the Middle-East is always viewed there through the lenses of Zionism and Colonialism.

Once such positions were balanced by Soviet power. Many countries in the world looked to the US as a balancing force to the USSR. Pick a side. No doubt, some of those same people are now looking for something to balance US power. The Soviet vacuum has greatly upset the balance of power in the world.

Some people want to adhere to a "doctrine of fairness". Why can the US have WMD's and not everyone?

Many Americans adhere to a different "doctrine of fairness". If you had them first, would you want anyone else to have them? Not me. Bomb Saddam.

here is the argument I heard from a well noted arab american journalist:

if DEMOCRATIC elections were held in Saudi Arabia,
Bin Laden would have won!

if DEMOCRATIC elections were held in Egypt,
the most clerical party would have won!


same for Jordan...

do we wanna bring Democracy to the region?????

"don't wish something to much or you might get it"

hard for me to argue with this argument

Serge,

Agreed. Democracy in a land where the people hate us and the leaders don't isn't likely to make relations better. Possible, but not likely. Difficult to say. Sometimes people do peculiar things once empowered.

I'm all for taking out Saddam but have no hopes for democracy in Iraq as a long-term stabilizing effect.

so, Colin, where do we go from here?

Cross our fingers.

Wow. Glad to see someone MUCH smarter than me sees things the way I do.

Agreed. I am very leary of bringing democracy to such a place....

It's definitely not the 'fix all' many believe it will be....

It's easier to get new ideas into a democratic country than a dictatorship or monarchy.

Democratic countries are usually a little more open to information. Outside information and ideas is what makes the changes, not simply being able to cast a vote for your leader.

So while making Iraq a democracy may not fix everything, if the society can be opened up and new ideas injected and allowed to take hold, the long term changes should be for the better.

At least that's what I always thought.

Hey FATPad,

Nice to see ya over here. :-)

hehe. I couldn't help it. ;) GFY is being taken over by retards. I like posting retarded shit as much as anyone but damn...

Received this from my former roommate, a physicist with a law degree (can you say, "overachiever?" I knew you could!). Thought I'd share.

I have been in conversation via the internet with a war-supporter (for lack of a better phrase). He offered a three point argument (not his own, but one he felt had legitimacy), the first point of which was:

1. We have actually been "at war" with these terrorists for 22 years (he then provided a list of attacks on America, or foreign-American soil, such as the 1993 and 2001 WTC attacks, attacks on our embassies, and the USS Cole).

So, I did a little research, and based on the events he listed, America has lost approximately 166 people per year to terrorist attacks over the last 22 years. To put this in perspective, we lose 40,000 per year on our highways, and 550,000 per year to cancer. Overall, the risk of being an American and being killed by a terrorist on an annual basis is slightly more than being killed by lighting, and slightly less than being killed by an airline crash, if you only fly one round trip anywhere during the entire year.

My point (and, I am making one), is I think that as a matter of policy, the U.S. should have examined, and still needs to examine, the overall risks to Americans from acts of terror in formulating an appropriate response.

I think these are the kinds of things we need to be pointing out to our elected representatives (which, obviously, excludes Mr. Bush).

This is the same gal who's been getting trouble from one of our senators for speaking publicly about her opposition to a bill the senator authored, which if passed, would cripple the ability of many medical facilities to detect and treat certain cancers.

She always was a rebel. :moon:



Last edited by Rox at Mar 28 2003, 08:09 AM

Ditto! Nice to see you her FP!

I agree with what you say to a point, but again, these people live a very different lifestyle and things that might pass in the 'west' easily might be very difficult to pass in that region.

I'm hoping for the best, but I do have doubts....

Rox,
That's a very interesting post....

yer what if they vote saddam back in!

yer what if they vote saddam back in![/b][/quote]
exactly!

Received this from my former roommate, a physicist with a law degree (can you say, "overachiever?" I knew you could!). Thought I'd share
************************************************** *****

Received this from my wife, a music conductor with a law degree (can you say, "overachiever?" I knew you could!). Thought I'd share:

"Saddam's regime must go"


bring your friend over and let her "mud wrestle" with my wife
;-))

I'll put $1000 non Sue,
wanna wage $1000 on your room mate?
;-)))

Rox - there is a huge part to the equation that your friend didn't factor in
What happens if we continue to allow terrorist attacks and they increase?


and that is a antagonist B.S. statement - President Bush is the duly elected President of the United States of America

Hehehe I invited her over here to look a little bit ago, before I saw your post, Serge. So I just IM'd her your gauntlet. :awinky:

What's funny is I know she & LL would get along smashingly! And, call me crazy, but I happen to LOVE watching lawyers argue. I don't know about mud wrestling; at our age it's really not dignified! LOL

Well, I won't presume to argue on her behalf, but my thought is that I don't really see how this action is "not allowing" terrorism. I happen to believe it will most likely make things worse on that front. Though I'd be ecstatic if I were completely wrong.

Antagonist, perhaps. It's one of the reasons I love her. BS? I dunno... I'm sure she has points to argue that have convinced her otherwise. You know how lawyers are! :D

in this case I just spank her
;-)))

Well, hey, she might like that :P

Colin, you ask "Why can the US have WMDs and not anyone else?"
The US doesn't go around gassing people for the hell of it. Yes, we have WMDs - a helluva lot of them - but we don't use them say, like Saddam uses his. Gassing his own people for the simple "fun" of it.

I guess "responsible use" would apply? Not that there can really BE responsible use with weapons like that, IMHO.

I've heard from a couple of different places that Iraqi forces have been seen in full chemical suits setting up 50-gallon drums of something (they don't know what) in the path of the forces in the North.
If they're in full chemical suits, what's in those drums? Could be just psychological warfare, but then again... :(

Not selling them to other countries would be a good start.

Anything prior to Gulf War I falls into the category of "that was then, this is now." :ph34r:

Who gets to make this decision as to who is responsible enough and who isn't? Why? The whole point of my post is to show that there are two sides to any of these issues and I think that each side is arguing from a valid viewpoint, theirs. The US and a few other powers-that-be are leveraging their power in order to keep the game rigged in their favor. Not that I think there is anything wrong with that. That's the way the world is.

The US has a long and sordid history of using WMD.

What changed? I don't think the US is suddenly on a higher moral plane. I think that the reason we don't use WMD is that we are so good with our conventional weapons that we try and force everyone to play by the rules that most benefit us.

I don't think there's such thing as "responsible use" of weapons. It's self-interest. I hardly consider killing tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers "responsible use".

I am very pro-war. 100%. As much as you. There's a reality to be faced here though. Thousands of bullets and bombs do cause mass destruction and suffering. The game is rigged in our favor.



Last edited by Colin at Mar 29 2003, 05:49 AM

Colin, I want to KISS YOU!!! (sorry amanda)

that was such a well structured post i don't know which bit i liked most ...

i think this bit ...

>>The US and a few other powers-that-be are leveraging their power in order to keep the game rigged in their favor.


or this ...


>>I think that the reason we don't use WMD is that we are so good with our conventional weapons we try and force everyone to play by the rules that most benefit us.


I believe in this war for the sole reason that there is NO WAY I want a nation or group of nations that HATES us and our way of life to be STRONGER than we are. Not because of liberation of people or 'showing them how good we have it' or 'saving' anyone. IF we win this war, we will most likely not have improved things for anybody but ourselves.

All of the other reasons are excuses.

that's fine. but they are still nothing more than excuses.

Let me go further.

If an Iraqi national were to blow up the West Wing of the White House with a grenade launcher, we'd call that a terrorist action and many people would be outraged. If we launch 40 cruise missiles at Saddam Hussein's location that is an attack on "command and control". By all accounts, both weapons are permissible in war.

Not to say that any of this is wrong. It's very clever actually.

If we actually wanted a fair fight, we'd buy some old Russian weapons, throw away our night vision equipment, take our planes out of the air, and turn off our satellites.

We don't want a fight fair fight. We will continue to say things to force Iraq to fight on worse and worse terms if possible. Pretty smart.

Maybe half of us feel that dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan was the right decision at the time, me included. For those of who do, why? When is using WMD permissible? To save our soldier's lives is our answer. Why would we expect someone else to act on a higher plane than us?

If any of our countries were attacked with conventional weapons and we were losing that war and would be forced to surrender soon, I have little doubt that we'd resort to WMD if the threat back against us from WMD was not too great. Of course, if IRAQ uses WMD in this particular instance the outcome of the war will not be changed and the coalition case will be proven.

hahahahahhaahhaahah, send her in
;-)))

Uh, Colin,
I guess you missed the news of the last few days...
A Chinese-made Silkworm missile landed in a mall in Kuwait
The Russians and the Syrians have been shipping military hardware (including night-vision goggles) into Iraq even as the war goes on.

BTW, I believe that takes care of the countries who opposed another UN resolution authorising the use of force.
We now know of:
China
Russia
France
Germany
Syria

Also, for those who demand a 'smoking gun'...it is confirmed that the Coalition has captured rockets with loaded chemical warheads.

I also just fired off several emails suggesting that we no longer accept the surrender of clothed Iraqis.

Torone,

What does ANY of this have to do with ANYTHING I said?

You should read what you are commenting on before commenting. Save us both a lot of time. Thanks. :nyanya:

To look at it the way you are describing would change the way I see the lead up and planning to this war.

In essence, the coalition is set to win EITHER WAY ... (unless of course iraq does use their WMD's and blows up half of the world)

Our forces are trying to push them into using weapons they've sworn to the UN they don't possess ... the only way iraq could win this battle is to fire back with bigger bombs than ours, and the only bigger bombs they have are banned bombs so if or when they use them THEORETICALLY the rest of the world should jump in and help ....


Torone, you are a dangerous man. thank god you are a powerless creton like the rest of us.

"If we actually wanted a fair fight, we'd buy some old Russian weapons, throw away our night vision equipment, take our planes out of the air, and turn off our satellites."
Just trying to bring you up-to-date... :D

"If we actually wanted a fair fight, we'd buy some old Russian weapons, throw away our night vision equipment, take our planes out of the air, and turn off our satellites."
Just trying to bring you up-to-date... :D[/b][/quote]
Oh, Haha! My bad. ;-)

i think that the bigger problem in the world is that everyone historically as with today acts in their own national interest... and the desparity of each countries ability and that of the US to influence world events and politics is continually growing.

its important to note that the international community is not against the war with Iraq. they world are against the US going outside the UN Security Council to attack Iraq. the majority of the International "friction" is about that issue... not the war itself. if the UN Security Council said "hey man, bomb the fucker... the world would be right behind them"

the political resistence is largely about pressure on the US to play by the same rules that others are confined by both economically and militarily.

its also important to note in the discussion of "for or against the war" that the UN, Arab countries and International community in all its statements of condemnation is MUCH more eager to discuss post-Saddam Iraq, Humanitarian aid and reconstruction than they are to talk about how to stop the military action.

i think that all parties outside of Iraq are both right and wrong. no fear, concern or argument either side whether "for" or "against", is any stronger than those of the other side. The status quo in the middle east cannot be proven to be any less shaky than the idea of taking out Saddam Hussein.

i dont think that the US is right to act outside of the UN.... but i think the UN as a whole, is more in need of being slapped back into reality than the US is.

"war is the natural state of mankind. great leaders understand this. they are not fooled by utopian visions about world peace; they face evil and deal with it."