 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
The Iraq crisis of 2002-03 has only the most shallow, minimal similarities to the crisis of 1937-45. Comparisons are cheap, and as Q-cubed shows, usually based on mostly incorrect assumptions about similarities.
I find it amazing that so many decide to justify their actions based solely on the actions of others..does that not show a lack of personal responsibility?
Its like a man holding s bloody knife standing over the person who's throat he has just cut, yelling to the oncoming police "I am not guilty.. the guy behind me, who just massacred 20 people with a chainsaw, thats the guilty one!". The crimes of other never make you innocent.
People, like states, must take responsibility for their actions, because they, and no one else, made the decisions to act. No decisions is ever placed upon one..you always have choices, always. The question is how and why you justify the ones you made.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
Couple of points that don't get talked about much, but ought to be brought to light:
1) No nation needs to get the permission of any other nation to use its military. Russia isn't standing in line at the UN to get permission to grind the Chechins (SP) to dust, China isn't waiting for UN approval to smother Tibet, and France isn't skulking outside the UNSC waiting for a green light in the Ivory Coast....UNSC approval for US action in Iraq is a courtesy...*not* a necessity.
2) We're not exactly rushing headlong into war, here. Counting from Saddam's material breech of UN Resolution 694(?), some 3,000 days have passed...more time than the USA was involved in combat in WWI, WWII, and Korea combined. That's got to set a record for being the slowest "headlong rushes to war" I have ever seen.
3) The USA does *not* make a habit of charging off with guns blazing for the least little offense.
If it did, we would have invaded someone when the Cole got a big hole blown in it, or when our Marine Barracks got blown to bits, or when two of our African embassies were destroyed.
Did we?
Nope.
But we're trigger happy cowboys.
I see.
-=Vel=-
(could it be that we're just less likely to take $hit than Euros? If so, that's prolly not a bad thing!)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:26
|
|
I usually consider it bad taste to resurrect a dying thread to continue a personal debate, but since it's been resurrected by somebody else...
quote:
1.) The Us military is committed to attacking military targets and minimalizing the impact on the civilian population. |
What about dual-use facilities like bridges and power plants? Furthermore, the 'shock and awe' cruise missile blitz is clearly intended to intimidate the Iraqi population as a whole. Effective intimidation requires that civilians be killed.
quote:
2.) The Us is already stockpiling food and relief material to minimize the impact on the civilian population |
Enough food for 22 million people? Or enough food so that it looks like the US cares?
quote:
3.) By no estimate or projection that I have seen would any sizable part of the population become casualties, but just in case the US is stockpiling medical supplies and organizing Doctors and Nurses to help minimize the impact to the Civilian population. |
The UN is estimating between 100000 and 500000. Again, enough medical supplies to have an effect or enough to look good?
quote:
4.) Enforcement of UN resolutions are not "naked aggression" under any definition I know of. |
The resolution is far too vague to give a casus belli. Furthermore, this US administration is filled with people who despise the UN. Have they suddenly had a change of heart?
quote:
5.) Iraqi infrastructure will not only be rebuilt but will be improved as the country gets to enjoy the fruit of their oil revenue instead of it being pumped into presidential palaces, swiss bank accounts, financing of terrorism, and WMD |
How many state-owned Iraqi companies will be set up? How many juicy contracts will be dished out to Western corporations without competitive tender? How much of the Iraqi oil will go towards paying for the occupation?
quote:
6.) Depleted Uranium is just that...depleted. |
And incredibly toxic. And it never goes away.
quote:
7.) The Iraqi army is out classed. When they surrender we will cloth them, feed them, give them shelter, and access to a variety of services from religious to relief. |
It is impossible to surrender to missiles, planes and helicopters.
quote:
1.) Saddam comes clean now. Not tommorrow and not in parts. |
Whatever Saddam does he will be accused of playing games. Logically, there is nothing whatsoever he can do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
puglover
|
|
PrinceBimz: Very good. Excellent point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
It's in YOUR best interest for America to keep paying for Saddam's continued "containment" and so it's no surprise you're not in a big hurry to see that change
You are correct. The Euros who for years chided the US for propping up tinpot dictators now find themselves at the opposite end of their own criticism. All of sudden when its THEIR interests at stake then, well, maybe ol' Saddam's not such a bad guy afterall. Here ya go Mr. Hussein, let's help you build some more chemical plants...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
the Europeans didn't put Saddam in power
Oh, so that makes it OK then? Besides the post-Cold War world is a different place now. Shall I dredge up all the colonial gov'ts that Europe has installed?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
Doesn't make it right, but we are making comparisons, not absolutes, no?
Yes, yes. However, RIGHT NOW Saddam is a tinpot dictactor. In the past, Europe has scolded the US for supporting other tinpots irregardless of how they came to power. Europe RIGHT NOW finds itself in the very position that it used to scold the US for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
Yes, they're totally against simplistic, black & white worldviews...
Well, I doubt you'll find even one person here who thinks Saddam is anything but a brutal dictator. That's just about as black & white as you can get.
The question is what do we do about it? I'm not saying war is the answer, however perhaps a bit more than yet another sternly worded resolution is the right thing to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
Europe isn't supporting Saddam.
Oh please. Europe had to be dragged screaming and kicking to impose sanctions on Saddam. What do you call ignoring his snubbing of the UN plus allowing private industry to invest in Iraq?
I suppose I could claim that the US never supported the brutal regime of South Africa since technically we wagged our diplomatic finger at them for being bad boys.
It's all about money. Those that are getting it don't want the gravy train shut down.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
SANDMAN:
Bad taste: Nah, always interested in your opinion...even in a ressurected thread.
Infrastructure: Inevitably and regrettably infra structure suffers during war. This point is not about that short period of time. Over a fairly short time, as Iraqi oil money is put to use for the Iraqis, the infrastructure will be better than it is now.
Cruise missles: Are you really under the impression the US will fire them at civilians to create terror, or were you just trying to bolster your infrastructure argument? If the former, you have not been well informed on US military doctrine or the stated goals of this operation.
Food: Yes, enough food for 22 million people. US already making plans to utilize the current UN food distribution system that would be helping feed these 22 million if Saddam wasn't stealing from it.
Casualty estimates: I have been all over the UN site looking for this estimate. I have heard nothing near this high for civilian casualties from any source. Maybe you could help me out here. Having a pretty good understanding of the supposed US war plan, I can't imagine that it would even be 10% of your low figure.
Casus Belli: This is not supplied by the resolution, but rather by the total non-compliance with not only the international will but also cease fire violations, mass murder, financing of terrorism, attacking his neighbors, diverting Iraqi national income for personal purposes, summary executions, former use of weapons of mass destruction, etc...
Juicy western contracts: Are you upset because they will be US contracts and no longer French contracts. Do you know who builds most of the infrastructure in the middle east? Most major projects are already "juicy western contracts". The point here is that their will be more of them than there is now and the Iraqi people will be better off for it as they will have a better infrastructure than they do now.
Oil revenue to pay war debts: Yep! If you were oppressed than this would probably be a small price for you to pay. In any event, the amount of oil revenue that is going to the benefit of the Iraqi people should increase as these 10's of billions that Saddam is syphoning off are now going to be in the mix.
Toxicity of depleted uranium: Lead is also toxic and never goes away. Depleted uranium is not radioactive. It is no more toxic than many other kinds of metals.
Impossibility of surrender to air units: My advice to the soldiers...leave now and avoid the rush. Soldiers are legitimate targets. Obviously an air attack will not take out even the majority of them. The rest are advised to surrender at their earliest opportunity.
Saddam accused of playing games: Probably correct. Its just hard to get past that TWELVE YEAR TRACK RECORD and believe the little bugger has just turned into a really nice guy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2003 00:15
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, hint me here if I'm completely off-track)
WTF were you in Yemen for?
|