Iraq

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elvellon
You said:

“Well except for Japan - they hadn't attacked us. So why should we get involved? You're saying we should wait until Saddam Hussein actually does something before doing anything.”

And I completed:

“And, if memory is right, you declared war to Japan and Germany declared war to you afterwards.”

Meaning that after Pearl Harbour you declared war and Germany answered by declaring it in turn. The point was simply to show war was unavoidable, but since you clarified your position it becomes irrelevant.

I think that it's fairly obvious that if we had attacked Germany before it had gained solid bases in all those other countries, we would have won the war a lot more easily and with an incredibly reduced loss of life.

Your perception of the situation makes you believe History backs you up, not proofs.

I'd like to see the second interpretation, if you don't mind. I'd also like to hear you say how the countries of the world would have ended up certainly losing just as many lives if we had attacked early as if we hadn't. It's been shown that with these ruthless dictators, they're willing to manipulate the pacifist thinking in their favor. Saddam Hussein is actually using a far more transparent tactic than Adolf Hitler did, and his similarity to Hitler in terms of his ruthlessness and lust for power is visible from the beginning. With Adolf Hitler, we refused to see it. With Saddam Hussein, many are refusing to see it. Adolf Hitler conquered other countries and broke treaties he'd made, Saddam Hussein has attacked surrounding countries and broken his promise to the UN. Adolf Hitler murdered and tortured his own people (the Jews). Saddam Hussein murders and tortures his own people. Adolf Hitler killed his political opponents in his own country or sent them to concentration camps, Saddam Husseiun does the same thing. Hitler took over Europe and used their own pacifism against them, so Saddam Hussein's achieving the weapons of mass destruction (that all evidence points he has) would enable him to endanger the surrounding countries and ultimately potentially hold most of the Middle East hostage.

Jeepers, he's only one example, though a very obvious one. History is repeating itself, but thank God the Bush Administration can see it and is doing something about it!

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Sween
lets hear it for the austrilians. But why would anyone want to attack you? Hav you ever had a war with anyone? everyone likes the ozzies!!!

Well, terrorists did target us in the Bali bombings and we did take part in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf war. Not everybody likes us, and now we are hearing strong reports that terrorist attacks may be taking place here in the future...

[Elvellyn]

yes everybody loves australians, but why does everybody hate americans? are we that unlovable??

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellyn
yes everybody loves australians, but why does everybody hate americans? are we that unlovable??

Well if it's any consolation - Chirac is upset with the Eastern European countries who side with the US now. He said that the fastest way NOT to get admitted into the EU was to side with the US - "Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way," Chirac said.

Chirac lashes out at 'new Europe'
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- French President Jacques Chirac has attacked eastern European countries hoping to join the EU, saying they missed a great opportunity to "shut up" when they signed letters backing the U.S. position on Iraq.

But 13 countries either set to join the EU or in membership talks have signed letters supporting the United States.

Chirac said: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."

"It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

"I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac said.

Chirac called the letters "infantile" and "dangerous," adding: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, all of whom have dates for EU membership, joined EU members Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Portugal in signing a letter last month supporting Washington's stance on Iraq.

Ten other eastern European nations -- eight with entry dates and Romania and Bulgaria who are still in membership discussions -- signed a similar letter a few days later.

"Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way," Chirac said.

When asked why he wasn't similarly critical of the EU nations that signed the letter, Chirac said: "When you are in the family ... you have more rights than when you are asking to join and knocking on the door."

CNN European Political Editor Robin Oakley described Chirac's outburst as "pretty grumpy and imperious."

"For him to lecture these applicant countries or these accepted members on their way in was really behavior like the worst of what the French complain about in the United States," Oakley said.

"It was bullying really. ... It was very, very tough stuff. I think some of the other EU leaders will feel it was out of order.

Chirac's words have angered some of those aspirant nations with Czech Deputy Prime Minister Alexandr Vondr saying it appeared Chirac was trying to bully them.

And Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Adam Rotfeld told public radio: "France has a right to its opinion and Poland has the right to decide what is good for it. France should respect that."

European Commission President Romano Prodi said he was saddened rather than angry with the candidates because their pro-Americanism was a signal they had failed to understand that the EU is more than a mere economic union.

"I would be lying it I said I was happy," he told reporters. "I have been very, very sad, but I am also patient by nature, so I hope they will understand that sharing the future means sharing the future."

On Tuesday, leaders of the EU aspirants traveled to Brussels for a briefing on Iraq and endorsed Monday night's joint declaration by EU leaders.

The candidates were upset over not being invited to Brussels for Monday's emergency summit on Iraq.

Britain and Spain had sought to have the candidates invited to Monday's summit, but France and Germany opposed the idea.

Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, denied they had been excluded from the summit because of their backing for Washington, insisting rules require the accession treaties be signed first.

Chirac sounds like a father scalding his children. For some reason I thought that France didn't control the EU - Chirac sounds like he does though.

[Millane]

yes everybody loves australians, but why does everybody hate americans? are we that unlovable??

nope your not that unloveable its just that Australians are extra loveable and the fact that the french dont like australians doesnt really worry me, they have got to be one of the least liked countries in the world
maybe its just that australia never really instigates wars and we only went to WWI for the mothercountry WWII Japan was going to take us over... and Vietnam was just a screw up anyway you look at it (but im not one of those wankers that would go out and spit at Viet vets because of the then Govt ) i think the weird thing is that there arent grudges held with these countries anymore, hey i speak japanese now
as for the situation in iraq well a few of my friends keep going peace rallying and ive got nothing agaisnt that but when they keep shouting NO BLOOD FOR OIL!! in my ear i really start losing it... and then all i heard last night is about how George Bush is the 3rd anti-christ actually that was pretty creepy

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Elvellyn
yes everybody loves australians, but why does everybody hate americans? are we that unlovable??

Well, at a personal level, there's probably a lot of envy involved in those feelings, but I think it works on all sorts of levels.

I would guess that people in the Arab world perceive the American position as being hugely hypocritical: no attempt to enforce the numerous UN resolutions against Israel, for example. Also, again from an Arab perspective, why should it be OK for the US to have (and use) weapons of mass destruction but not for anyone in the Arab world to have them?

More generally, lots of people believe that, over the years, the US has used foreign policy to undermine democratic governments and prop up corrupt dictatorships. Also, it looks pretty bad for the world's richest, most powerful country to launch an attack on a third world country.

Another issue is poverty. People starve to death all over the world, yet their economic policies are dictated by US-dominated financial institutions and markets, from the macro level right down to what seeds you can plant for next year's crop. The perception is that the US regards the rest of the world simply as a market for its products and that this drives all of its interventions.

The Bush regime has added a new dimension to this: disagreement with their views, even by their allies, is simply not tolerated. They have not entered into a debate, just decided unilaterally what is to be done. Their motives are regarded as being 100% to do with business. The current US government is perceived as being the most extreme right-wing the US has ever had.

Presumably most Americans wouldn't agree with these views, but if you can put yourself into that mind-set for a moment you might get a sense of why people are anti-American.

Personally, I think anti-Americanism is just racism by another name, and have no time for it.

cheers

d.

[Elvellon]

I think that it's fairly obvious that if we had attacked Germany before it had gained solid bases in all those other countries, we would have won the war a lot more easily and with an incredibly reduced loss of life.

And?!?
Please, read again what I was saying there:

“Meaning that after Pearl Harbour you declared war and Germany answered by declaring it in turn. The point was simply to show war was unavoidable, but since you clarified your position it becomes irrelevant.”

It has nothing to do with what you are saying. At the time JD seemed to be defending an isolationist stance, remember? He clarified the issue later, hence the last part of the phrase.

I'd like to see the second interpretation, if you don't mind. I'd also like to hear you say how the countries of the world would have ended up certainly losing just as many lives if we had attacked early as if we hadn't. It's been shown that with these ruthless dictators, they're willing to manipulate the pacifist thinking in their favor. Saddam Hussein is actually using a far more transparent tactic than Adolf Hitler did, and his similarity to Hitler in terms of his ruthlessness and lust for power is visible from the beginning. With Adolf Hitler, we refused to see it. With Saddam Hussein, many are refusing to see it. Adolf Hitler conquered other countries and broke treaties he'd made, Saddam Hussein has attacked surrounding countries and broken his promise to the UN. Adolf Hitler murdered and tortured his own people (the Jews). Saddam Hussein murders and tortures his own people. Adolf Hitler killed his political opponents in his own country or sent them to concentration camps, Saddam Husseiun does the same thing. Hitler took over Europe and used their own pacifism against them, so Saddam Hussein's achieving the weapons of mass destruction (that all evidence points he has) would enable him to endanger the surrounding countries and ultimately potentially hold most of the Middle East hostage.

Jeepers, he's only one example, though a very obvious one. History is repeating itself, but thank God the Bush Administration can see it and is doing something about it!

[/quote]

On the same post you are commenting I wrote:

“Personally I believe that, under the current situation, containment, being viable, is the best solution by far.”

And

”You will notice I’ve said, “under the current situation,” and not “in any circumstance.” That was a deliberate choice of words.”

That should clarify that I do not believe containment is always viable, and I expect it should answer the first part of your post.

As for why I think it is a bad example, there are several reasons, you will forgive me if I won’t make an exhaustive accounting of them, but a few are, quoting an earlier post:

“You keep comparing him to Hitler, yah, right. What do they have in common?

Let me answer that:
Saddan is immoral creature, greedy and ambitious. The only thing he believes is in his own welfare. But, his campaigns were a joke. He never managed to defeat Iran when he had the support and blessings of the US, and only tinny Kuwait could not resist him. Even so he only advanced to attack Kuwait because apparently he believed that the US wouldn’t object.


”Hitler was not even remotely comparable with Saddan, nor was Nazi Germany to Iraq. If you want to compare someone with Hitler would not be Saddan, it would be Bin Laden.
Like him, he is a fanatic with a cause, a dangerous one. Saddan only cause is himself. He is an opportunist, and can be contained, Hitler couldn’t be.”


And I’ll also to bring to your attention what Dunedan said:

All these Hitler analogies are utterly bankrupt. Iraq is a total mess, Germany in the late 30s was the second largest economy in the world, with the largest military machine. OK, both Hussein and Hitler are utter bar stewards who deserve to be tied up and shot with a blunderbuss loaded with their own *****e, but that's as far as it goes.

Hope this clarifies somewhat.

[Draken]

Ah sod all this.

Can we have another war with France? We used to be quite good at those!

[Finmandos12]

Time to refute Dunadan's points.

Also, again from an Arab perspective, why should it be OK for the US to have (and use) weapons of mass destruction but not for anyone in the Arab world to have them?

When was the last time we used nuclear weapons? Almost fifty years ago. Also, we do not use biological or chemical weapons.

More generally, lots of people believe that, over the years, the US has used foreign policy to undermine democratic governments and prop up corrupt dictatorships.

We have never undermined a democratic government. We have supported bad dictators in the past. But in these countries, the alternative (Communism) was even worse than the dictators we supported. You have to understand that there is not always a choice between good gov'ts and bad gov'ts: the choice is often between a bad gov't and an even worse gov't.

Also, it looks pretty bad for the world's richest, most powerful country to launch an attack on a third world country.

Whose fault do you think it is that Iraq stays as a third world country? Perhaps Saddam?

Another issue is poverty. People starve to death all over the world, yet their economic policies are dictated by US-dominated financial institutions and markets, from the macro level right down to what seeds you can plant for next year's crop.

The countries where people are starving are countries where the gov't is our enemy. None of our allied countries are starving to death.

The perception is that the US regards the rest of the world simply as a market for its products and that this drives all of its interventions.

If our government only cared about money, we wouldn't even bother standing up to these countries. We would just let them do whatever they wanted to, without taking the risk of war messing up the economy. If we only cared about Iraq for oil, we wouldn't have imposed sanctions. We would have lobbied the UN to drop sanctions on Iraq so we could trade with them.

The Bush regime has added a new dimension to this: disagreement with their views, even by their allies, is simply not tolerated. They have not entered into a debate, just decided unilaterally what is to be done.

Where have you been for the last three months? We've been trying to work through the UN to get it to enforce its own regulations. We have not invaded yet, we have tried to come to an agreement with our "allies."

Their motives are regarded as being 100% to do with business.

You wanna know who's motives are 100% business? France and Russia. Saddam owes them big debts and they don't want to see those debts erased.

The current US government is perceived as being the most extreme right-wing the US has ever had.

"Extreme right-wing?" Compared to Clinton, maybe. If Bush is so extreme, why does he have high approval ratings?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Finmandos12
Where have you been for the last three months? We've been trying to work through the UN to get it to enforce its own regulations. We have not invaded yet, we have tried to come to an agreement with our "allies."

I agree. But three months? Try going beyond six months now. The only reason why there are even inspections in there or that the world is even discussing this - is because the US said "fine - you won't do something about what the UN said in 1991 - 1998, we will". It wasn't until we started moving troops there that the wolrd listened to us.

Hussein is still not complying with inspections and still refuses to let his scientists be interviewed. He still has not turned over a list of scientists who had a part in the distruction of the weapons he has. He was asked to do these things under 1441 and again 5 days ago - Hans Blix has asked Iraq to comply with this, as of yet Hussein has not. Today the government of Iraq's attitude was that they don't really have to - the world is against the US now. As long as there is no pressure on Hussein - he feels he can do what ever he wants. And why not? - this how the world has reacted to him and all the world's dictators. The world is afraid of taking action and would rather the situation blow up in their face before paying attention. It was the same for Osama, the same with Hitler (Churchill lost his position because he was for taking PREEMPTIVE action against Germany/Hitler), North Korea, etc.

I find it rather disturbing that with ALL the suposed peace rallies - there was NO plackerts asking Hussein to step down, no one was screaming for Iraq to comply with inspections or give up their WMD.

As you said - we haven't invaded yet. if you look at the history of this thread - you'll notice that people were acting like we were invading in October.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Finmandos12
Time to refute Dunadan's points.

It's not me you need to be refuting them to. I'm just bringing the news. That was the point (someome asked why people around the world don't like America).

[Finmandos12]

It's not me you need to be refuting them to. I'm just bringing the news. That was the point (someome asked why people around the world don't like America).

Whatever. I was showing why those reasons are wrong.

Anyways, just try and beat those points. Mwhahaha!

[markedel]

On a more humorous note here's something topical and amusing

click and enjoy

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

[The Lady of Ithilien]

I find it rather disturbing that with ALL the suposed peace rallies - there was NO plackerts asking Hussein to step down, no one was screaming for Iraq to comply with inspections or give up their WMD.

Exactly. It's only safe to demonstrate against the civilized -- the uncivilized have a way of taking things personally and (at least right now) the means, if it bugs them enough, to do something about it. Like Sauron, their arm has grown very long.

It's about time someone gave them an impediment in their reach. This is going to happen and soon, after which it will turn out that the world was behind America and its present allies (bless them one and all) all the time.

R-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght.

A Briton, G. K. Chesterton, said in 1922: "What I say is that when we realise that this ('conception of a nation with the soul of a church') exists at all, we see the whole position in a totally different perspective. We say that the Americans are doing something heroic or doing something insane, or doing it in an unworkable or unworthy fashion, instead of simply wondering what the devil they are doing." from "What Is America?

I wonder how many who call America nasty names over this phase of the war on terrorism--and this includes some Americans, even some Americans who are old enough to know better--are simply doing it to be socially (or even in some parts of the world physically) safe, but really haven't a clue about America or 'what the devil we're doing.'

Don't worry. Protest without understanding doesn't have a very long half-life, and radiated a very dim light from the start anyway.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elvellon
And?!?
Please, read again what I was saying there:

“Meaning that after Pearl Harbour you declared war and Germany answered by declaring it in turn. The point was simply to show war was unavoidable, but since you clarified your position it becomes irrelevant.”

It has nothing to do with what you are saying. At the time JD seemed to be defending an isolationist stance, remember? He clarified the issue later, hence the last part of the phrase.

Very well, I wasn't talking about the isolationist stance but was talking about pre-emptive attack.

Originally posted by Elvellon
Saddan is immoral creature, greedy and ambitious. The only thing he believes is in his own welfare. But, his campaigns were a joke. He never managed to defeat Iran when he had the support and blessings of the US, and only tinny Kuwait could not resist him. Even so he only advanced to attack Kuwait because apparently he believed that the US wouldn’t object.


”Hitler was not even remotely comparable with Saddan, nor was Nazi Germany to Iraq. If you want to compare someone with Hitler would not be Saddan, it would be Bin Laden.
Like him, he is a fanatic with a cause, a dangerous one. Saddan only cause is himself. He is an opportunist, and can be contained, Hitler couldn’t be.”

The belief that Saddam Hussein can be contained is based on the belief that he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Must I remind you that the evidence at this point all points to his having such weapons?




And about Iraq being a less powerful nation, I don't see how that changes things. Since Saddam's country is less powerful, it causes him to seek other methods to gain the power he craves. Hitler's threat was in conventional weapons, Saddam Hussein's strength is in weapons of mass destruction. Armed with these weapons, he still would be a grave danger to surrounding nations. Particularly as larger nations would be cautious in attacking him, lest he should respond with these weapons he has created. From the stance the UN has taken so far, I doubt we can expect much more from it at this later point in time.

If Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction, by looking at his history, it can be seen pretty plainly that he would be a threat to the Middle East at large, and potentially to the West as well.

While the ambition Hitler and Saddam had is the same, the methods by which this goal can be accomplished have changed with the times. I still am waiting to hear the alterate interpretation that I asked for, Elvellon. I'm waiting to hear a strong reason why they aren't similar, and why we shouldn't learn from the past.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Lady of Ithilien
I wonder how many who call America nasty names over this phase of the war on terrorism--and this includes some Americans, even some Americans who are old enough to know better--are simply doing it to be socially (or even in some parts of the world physically) safe, but really haven't a clue about America or 'what the devil we're doing.'

Don't worry. Protest without understanding doesn't have a very long half-life, and radiated a very dim light from the start anyway.

You might find this interesting. Someone went out into the demonstration in NY to get an idea of anti-war demonstrator's thoughts. He video taped them and put it on his website. The video takes a while to download without a high speed modem. I just let it download while I did other things - and then watched it.

Protesting the Protesters

Some of his questions really had them stumped. I like how he confronted them about the war for oil and asked them why the US just didn't go in during the Gulf War and take the oil.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Dunadan
The current US government is perceived as being the most extreme right-wing the US has ever had.

Dunadan , the most right wing? more so then Reagan even? I find that very hard to believe. How did Europe see Reagan? Bush and his business cronies are sort of standard right wing in my book. Reagan was much more arch conservative in principal though.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Dunadan , the most right wing? more so then Reagan even? I find that very hard to believe. How did Europe see Reagan? Bush and his business cronies are sort of standard right wing in my book. Reagan was much more arch conservative in principal though.

From what I remember - Europe thought of Reagon as a simpleton who knew nothing about foreign politics - in particlar during his first term. There were COUNTLESS demonstrations when he put more missiles in Germany. Europeans felt that he was going to incite WWIII. Instead - the Berlin Wall ended up coming down and the Soviet Union dissolved. Today we are allies with Russia.

Also - concerning Bushes "business cronies" - do you remember Clinton's first cabinet? Clinton basically brought in all his old drinking buddies to be his advisers. Clinton very much acted like the Beverly Hillbillies - except instead of going to Beverly Hills - he ended up in the White House.

[jerseydevil]

This is rather interesting...

Secret Saudi Plan
Feb. 20 — The crown prince of Saudi Arabia has recently transmitted a secret proposal to the Bush administration, using one of his own sons, Prince Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah as an emissary, rather than officials from the Saudi Embassy in Washington, sources told ABCNEWS.

The Saudis are proposing that after Saddam Hussein's fall, Saudi Arabia should lead a coalition of Islamic nations to occupy Iraq while a transitional Iraqi government is established. According to the Saudis, the Turks would play the leading role in the Islamic force.

Senior government officials told ABCNEWS that according to the crown prince, an Islamic occupation force would defuse the anti-American hostility that is sweeping the Middle East and putting pressure on moderate Arab governments that are allied with the United States.

The Saudis would then be free to crack down on the extremist Jihadis in the Kingdom who are allied with al Qaeda or are sympathetic to Osama bin Laden.

Right now, Saudis feel a full scale crackdown would look like the kingdom is doing American bidding, at a time when President Bush is very unpopular there.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer reacted to the story by calling it "laughably wrong." He added, "There is no truth to it."

The crown prince has also been instrumental in making secret overtures to Saddam through his son Qusai, offering Sadam refuge in Saudi Arabia if Saddam were to chose to leave before hostilities break out.

It appears that no Saudi emissary has had the temerity to make the refuge offer directly to Saddam. The only word the United States has heard back on the Saudi overtures to Saddam is: "no."

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Dunadan , the most right wing? more so then Reagan even? I find that very hard to believe. How did Europe see Reagan? Bush and his business cronies are sort of standard right wing in my book. Reagan was much more arch conservative in principal though.

Right-wing executive + right-wing legislature + right-wing judiciary = most right-wing US government, probably ever. This translates to a small group of people who have an unparalleled opportunity to restructure US politics according to their own, business-driven agenda. Worrying times for the rest of us, especially those who care about turning our planet into a toilet.

Clinton achieved diddly squat in office because his relatively "left-wing" (I use that term very loosely ) executive was hamstrung by Congress and was nearly hounded out of office by right-wing federal prosecutors.

JD, the collapse of communism had nothing at all to do with Reagan. He, like Bush Jr, was little more than a block of wood with some strings coming out the back. The lasting legacy of his era is a Supreme Court packed with right wingers.

ANyway, back on topic, at least the Saudis are acknowledging that they're harbouring far more terrorists than Iraq is

cheers

d.