Yeah Aragorn, many nations have developed nuclear capabilities or are currently researching it. The US doesn't try to depose their leaders (at least not all of them.) The fundamental question is whether the US has the right to invade a country and depose a leader it doesn't like.
-
-
yeah, until Bush gives us proof other than "I can smell their treachery" or "since they dont let our arms inspectors in, they must be hiding something" I dont think we should invade iraq.
This is another ploy for bush, I can see this from a mile out. The US urges the UN to respond, UN doesnt because its a peace-making organization, not the world's self-proclaimed police force. Bush sends in the troops anyways, making foreigners seem like sissy pacifists to the american public. When they attack, bush rallies the public and increases his approval rating through their blind patriotism.
Sad when a leader has to get the support of his people by attacking one country after another in search of imaginary terroristsComment
-
Yes, that is another problem with the US' foreign policy. The US will invade Iraq with or without the support of the world's nations. And right now, he has very scant support.
Right now, the US is going down one path, and the rest of the first world is going down the other. What will be the consequences in the future?Comment
-
I wasn't stating that peolple in America are dumb and ignorant, just people with narrow mins like you Solitude. And you call school a career??? You have a lot to learn, and i can almost gaurantee growing older and travelling will change your views. I'm also wondering how a government trying to pass a law tells you that all its citizens are stupid? I thought they were trying to oppose it?
Maybe in your little world you just ignore it and hope it will go away!
jackbenimblepantsComment
-
Firstly Id like to apologise for descending to childish levels in this debate, I obviously underestimated the level of understanding and should have kept my remarks aimed soely at Camera man and Solitude, but then like my aim in cs I think I sprayed a bit. In fact I haev been heartened by soem of the following remarks form Pants and Disabled. And it is just unfortunate that the US is seen as being represented by 'Sherrif' Bush. In response to Darlords comments, Yes I do think power has the necessity of obligation with it, the obligation is to excersise extreme restraint and use it wisely, this is why the truly powerful never seem so. We westerners, (yes I count myself being britishof english and arab parentageand being a muslim) have a great problem in seeing that other peole haev different points of views because we value our lifestyles sohighly. The amazonian tribesman who hunts for food and has no electricity or tv or nuclear missiles is no less a human than we are and probably enjoys his simpler life than we do, should we go make him drink coke and eat Mcd's? NO. But he will one day due to the inexorable march of 'globalization' which most unfortunately is Americanisation. I do not think fanatasism is admirable althought you dont know how many white normal people here have expressed privately that (ok terrible about lives but hey its a war) USA deserved a kick intha back side for fucking up the lives of thousands of vietnamese, for leaving Iraq the last time around and for doing nothing about the genocides in Bosnia and Serbia, damn sure that if the yugoslavs had oil youd have been there a hell of a lot earlier. I digress my key point about the balls to pull trigger is a simple one, One mans terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter. Bin laden is extrememly anti islamic, in his methods but he has cult following just as a lot of nutters out there do, (HI MOrmons hows it hanging) That guy has done my religion more damage in his actions than anyone ever in history. But anyway My final point (honestly) is just that Yes woith power does come obligation but it isnt to the biggest campaign contributor, or the powerful Jewish lobby or the NRAetc. It is to your own original ideals of truth, justice and the 'american way' essentially freedom of speech liberty equality. Why have you not enforced a homeland for the palestinians, Plebiscites for all I say let the Kashmiris (OMG another whole topic there-You ato assume that cos Pakistan and India have Nukes they are stupid enough to use them!! Idiots, US UK n Russsia and France havent used theirs...oh wait a minute oinly one nation has been fucked up enough to actually drop anuclear bomb on real people massacring thousands of people leaving the landscape radioactively scarred for years to come....? yes think about it) the palestinians and any other people who want freedom take a vote. Any way peace all, like I say lets keep the killing virtual yeah?Comment
-
Banana HammockComment
-
If anyone is going to mention 'freedom' again, you might want to enlighten yourself about 'protection'. In civilised countries, there is a trend growing that means less freedom of the individual means more protection for the individual from other individuals.
Of course, there are basic rules surrounding this theory... and less freedom often means less protection in more war-torn societies and those led by dictators etc. etc... but generally this rule holds. It's the kind of message that UK and US authorities are beginning to use as an excuse to bite away more and more privacy rights. That, along with the "if you have nothing to hide, why can't we watch you 24/7?"-type quote...Comment
-
Bacon-BuTTy wrote..
Nicely put.
Banana Hammock
onthatnotepantsComment
-
Edited by [user="10696"] @ [time="1031959218"]
Sure there are other third-world countries trying to develop nuclear weapons, but not all of those countries would aim their weapons at America and pull the trigger. Iraq may be a different story.
Not to mention Iraq is refusing to surrender the U.N. Arms Inspectors.
Now, even if they think we would still attack them after they gave us them - why not? Wouldn't harm anything - AND there would still be the "chance" that we would not attack them.
No support from other countries? Iraq's closest ally on the U.N. council has dropped support. Russia is in fact for now supporting the U.S. in everything short of military action - and that can change.
Britain, the French, AND China are also supporting the actions U.S. are taking at the moment.
No support from first world countries?Comment
-
Greek lawmakers = llamasComment
-
Ghengis wrote..
And who is to say another country, with the same knowledge America had at the time, wouldn't have dropped a couple bombs to end a war on two fronts?
oh wait a minute oinly one nation has been fucked up enough to actually drop anuclear bomb on real people massacring thousands of people leaving the landscape radioactively scarred for years to come....? yes think about it)
If Japan had the bomb, would they not have used it? And even then - would they have only used it on two cities?
But all of this is in the past, America and Japan are allies now - and this seemingly on-going argument has no relevance to the events going on today.Comment
-
Yes, The US has virtually no support from first-world countries. There is Britain and that is it. Russia is abstaining because they dont want to get on the US' bad side because they rely on US money and favour. France until very recently was against the US position in Iraq, they only recently changed their minds because they knew the US is deadset on invading Iraq, and so they believe they can at least gain some favour and influence by supporting the US. Every other first-world country is saying, "No", or at best "wait and see." In other words, they are too afraid to outright defy the all-powerful United States of America.
The US is still using its power and influence to bully its enemies, and allies, into submission. Isn't this one of the reasons the US was attacked by terrorists on Sept.11 in the first place?
What has the US to gain from attacking Iraq? Political solidarity. A chance to flex the war muscle. Possibly stopping Saddam Hussein from gaining nuclear weapons. Which is a very big if.
What has the US to lose? A total loss of credibility in the Middle East. Possible risk of destabilizing the Middle East into another larger war. Greater hatred and resentment among Arabs and Muslims. Proof that the US will "go it alone", and completely discount international consensus, as well as having a complete lack of respect for other nations.
For all this, the question of whether to invade Iraq has by no means a simple answer. I would even say that it is difficult to tell whether it is a good idea for the US to attack Iraq. But given the evidence, it appears it would be beneficial for the US to stay out of Iraq. There will be guaranteed consequences for the US if it does invade Iraq.
Unfortunately, all this is a pointless exercise because it is inevitable that the US will attack Iraq.Comment
-
Evil sheep, I agree with you totally, it seems that there is too much emphasis on appeasement from these 'lacky' nations of Bush's war mongering. Its a shame that the truly most wealthy nations the arabs themselves with all their oil, do not spend the vast sums on military might and development cos then they might gain favour. But perhaps they have the right idea to enbjoy their welth in opulent luxury for all, instead of spending cash on weapons... Lets not forget there are 1 billion Muslims out there, and Islam teaches us that Jews and Christians are our Brothers, so why ANYONE bombs anyone is a mystery to me. We should have a cs battle, and the winners get to decide the fte of the world, so come on Bush, Laden, get gaming, the MOUSE is mightier than the sword!!Comment
-
It takes what, a sneeze without a hankie to "destabilize the middle east into another war"? "Greater hatred and resentment" from arabs and muslims? Yeah, thanks. We've already hit the ceiling on irrational, fanatic towelhead "GRRR, WHITE DEVIL! Hey, HEY, COVER THAT SLUT'S HEAD MORE!" resentment.
YAY FOR EVERYONE. MORE ARMCHAIR POLITICAL ANALYSYS PLEASE.Comment
-
I'd just like to say, woohoo! The world has proven itself slightly less insane for once.Comment
Comment