| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sr_erick
Senior Member
USA
1318 Posts |
 Posted - 23 February 2003 : 04:04:52
|
Nathan, I know you are playing devils advocate but you just spewed a lot more conversation. I for one disagree with plenty of what you had to say in your previous post and will get around to posting them tommorow.  |
Erick
Snowmobile Fanatics
|
 |
|
|
padawan
Junior Member
200 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 09:30:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by drirene
...The problem is what do you do with a guy who is a dangerous ego maniac! Appeasement doesn't work and war is horrible...
I really hope that Pres. Bush's primary reason for sending our troops in Iraq is to enforce his first duty to the nation - to defend it, foreign and/or domestic...
However, his (and that of the VP) close association to 'big business' belies the fact that America's hidden agenda in the Middle East today maybe to satisfy and quench our industries' reliance on fossil fuel. He alluded to this when he mentioned about our government's plan to speed up the development of sustainable hydrogen/electric energy source within 15-20 years in his State of the Nation (take this in reverse and one can deduce that we will have vast reliance on oil until such time that an alternate energy source is fully introduced).
Not that France, Russia and China have more honorable intentions (France, the largest oil contractor in Iraq today; China, technology and arms; and Russia, in the process of securing intercontinental pipelines from Iraq, snaking up the Black and Caspian seas and up to mother Russia) but taking up the banner of war in the name of black gold, in the guise of justice and peace only make the world distrust us more. Complicate this with our 'joined-to-the-hip' attachment with Israel and you have more than enough reasons to breed an army of suicide bombers and little Bin Ladens across the muslim world.
What's the way out? Beats me... However, for starters, perhaps we should tap into the Arab League nations, seek partnership with its leadership on how to rid of Saddam (take advantage of Colin Powell's diplomatic skills while he is around!), and show the world that we're making every effort to resolve a global problem (WMD in Middle East) with the help of its natives. All the while, we must pursue, in parallel, the most vigorous and aggressive programs (like how JFK committed our nation to place the first footprints on the moon in the 1960s) known to the world to develop and implement a sustainable hybrid fuel source which may soon replace our dependency on oil.
I'm not saying we should stop our plans to get into Iraq now, but clearly, we must have a more vigorous agenda in articulating a post-Saddam era with the help of the governments that run today's Middle East.
|
"...be mindful of the SnitzForce..." |
Edited by - padawan on 23 February 2003 09:46:23 |
|
|
|
dayve
Forum Moderator
USA
5820 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 11:11:49
|
If we don't go to war then please answer some of the following questions.
1. How much longer for inspections?
2. Should everything Sadaam agreed to in UN Resolution 1441 be adhered to word for word?
3. If Sadaam chooses to breech UN Resolution 1441 how should we handle the situation peacefully?
4. How do you prevent a person Sadaam, that has shown how much of an unmericful killer he can be, from launching a biological/chemical war against his enemies?
5. If the United States should not be involved in this conflict, then who should be?
those are just some of the questions. I always hear No War, No War, but instead of telling the United States what we should not do, please tell us what we should do, and lets be extremely logical about this. Share solutions that would work, not ideas that can be attempted. History has proven that forces must act upon adversaries that have the potential for great harm. Cuba and the bay of pigs is just one example that comes to my mind. We flexed our muscle there to prevent having missiles from Russia just 90 miles away from our coastline. That was definately a just cause.
|
 |
Edited by - dayve on 23 February 2003 11:12:07 |
|
|
|
padawan
Junior Member
200 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 13:07:18
|
1. How much longer for inspections?
No longer than the time it takes for the commanders on the ground to plan for a successful military strategy and for our politicians to help the country rally around our president.
2. Should everything Sadaam agreed to in UN Resolution 1441 be adhered to word for word?
He's been given enough time (12 yrs. ang going) to adhere to 1441's directives. Our problem is NOT making Saddam comply. We know he will not. Our biggest challenge is to do it in the way that mitigates extremism and further terrorist attacks on our soil.
3. If Sadaam chooses to breech UN Resolution 1441 how should we handle the situation peacefully?
We already know he has broken 1441. The subject goes back to point #1.
4. How do you prevent a person Sadaam, that has shown how much of an unmericful killer he can be, from launching a biological/chemical war against his enemies?
...or against his own people, and perhaps his own neighbors? The answer to this is we do not.
5. If the United States should not be involved in this conflict, then who should be?
We can never allow ourselves to watch the world go into a spiral from the sidelines. But I believe there has to be a drastic change in our foreign policy as to how we employ tailored solutions. We need not flex our muscles to show that we are powerful. We already are - military that is.
However, we must do more in the areas where we have serious shortcomings -- recognizing a multipolar world and admitting that 'forced democracy' can only backfire and hurt our social standings globally.
Here's an angle that I'd like to hear from the current administration...
1. In the next coming weeks, we will do what it takes to lead the coalition of the willing to disarm Iraq's regime, be our remaining allies decide to partner with us, or risk the U.N. slide into irrelevance.we've started going this path, I believe
2. However, we reiterate that our goals will focus heavily on ensuring a WMD-free Iraq. Its oil and its management will be turned over to a group of industry experts chosen by the Arab League. Handover will take place no longer than the time it takes (say 6-9 months) to stabilize the political structure of a post-Saddam regime. We will work with all Arab nations to ensure that Iraq's future government is ran by Iraqis for Iraqis. Goal: to show the world about our true intentions and to repair our reputation among those that distrust the U.S. to the core.
3. On the home front, we will vigorously develop the next generation hybrid fuel that will enable us to setup the initial infrastructure which will replace reliance on fossil fuel. We will endeavor to complete the first stage (develop vehicles and fuel stations that will fully utilize the hydrogen/electric technology) in 3-5 yrs. We will work with our State governments to install 50% hybrid fuel stations in 5-10 yrs. and gradually phase-out redundant gas stations.
Goals: Give our country, the direction with regards to easing off of oil; show the world that we're not in the Middle East because we want to exploit their resources; prepare our country for a more environment-friendly future; assure our citizens that the U.S. remains a bastion of free ideas and a source of continued compassion to those who aspire to be us
these are just (realistic) ideas that come to mind...
The question now is... do we have the political might to pursue them in multi-pronged, multi-tasked, multi-paradigm approach. I believe we do. All it takes is for the president to outline, with clarity, honesty, and strength, to map the next stages of our history and for us all to help him accomplish the country we ought to be.
|
"...be mindful of the SnitzForce..." |
Edited by - padawan on 23 February 2003 13:19:37 |
|
|
|
PeeWee.Inc
Senior Member
United Kingdom
1893 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 13:24:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by dayve
If we don't go to war then please answer some of the following questions.
1. How much longer for inspections?
2. Should everything Sadaam agreed to in UN Resolution 1441 be adhered to word for word?
3. If Sadaam chooses to breech UN Resolution 1441 how should we handle the situation peacefully?
4. How do you prevent a person Sadaam, that has shown how much of an unmericful killer he can be, from launching a biological/chemical war against his enemies?
5. If the United States should not be involved in this conflict, then who should be?
those are just some of the questions. I always hear No War, No War, but instead of telling the United States what we should not do, please tell us what we should do, and lets be extremely logical about this. Share solutions that would work, not ideas that can be attempted. History has proven that forces must act upon adversaries that have the potential for great harm. Cuba and the bay of pigs is just one example that comes to my mind. We flexed our muscle there to prevent having missiles from Russia just 90 miles away from our coastline. That was definately a just cause.
This is very true.
Bay of Pigs was almost the end of the US. Thank God it was the Russians though. If it were Iraq in their position, it probably would have ended...everything.
|
De Priofundus Calmo Ad Te Damine |
|
|
|
Nathan
Help Moderator
USA
7664 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 16:09:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by dayve
If we don't go to war then please answer some of the following questions.
1. How much longer for inspections?
I suppose we can inspect thier weapons as long as we want . . . as long as we alow him to inspect ours.
quote:
Originally posted by dayve
2. Should everything Sadaam agreed to in UN Resolution 1441 be adhered to word for word?
3. If Sadaam chooses to breech UN Resolution 1441 how should we handle the situation peacefully?
The UN would very much like to pass some laws that would require gun control and superseed the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. Do you think the UN has the right to push us around? Would you like that very much?
quote:
Originally posted by dayve
4. How do you prevent a person Sadaam, that has shown how much of an unmericful killer he can be, from launching a biological/chemical war against his enemies?
Unfortually you don't.
quote:
Originally posted by dayve
5. If the United States should not be involved in this conflict, then who should be?
If the united states wasn't involved, there would be no conflict. |
 Nathan Bales
CoreBoard | Active Users Download |
|
|
|
Nathan
Help Moderator
USA
7664 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 16:14:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by dayve
Cuba and the bay of pigs is just one example that comes to my mind. We flexed our muscle there to prevent having missiles from Russia just 90 miles away from our coastline. That was definately a just cause.
Your also missing one huge piece of this puzzle. The United States owned cuba at the turn of the century. We aquired the island from Spain as part of the Treaty of Paris that ended the Spanish American War. When we choose to give Cuba their independance, we reserved the right to take them back if we ever chose to. So the Bay of Pigs invasion was actually legal under the treaty that granted Cuba its independance. |
Nathan Bales
CoreBoard | Active Users Download |
|
|
|
dayve
Forum Moderator
USA
5820 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 17:31:12
|
Nathan that is a good point, and you kind of reinforced my feelings towards Iraq because of the term "legal". Legally Sadaam is supposed to disarm under the UN Resolution 1441 or face "legal" actions which can be in the form of an attack by US Forces. I know it sounds like I may be stretching it a bit, but law is law.
and in response to my 5 questions, you're basically saying everyone should sit, wait and watch... that my friend is a very dangerous option, one that I totally disagree with. |
|
Edited by - dayve on 23 February 2003 17:32:52 |
|
|
|
Nathan
Help Moderator
USA
7664 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 18:02:29
|
Attacking Iraq is an act of war and will make it perfectly legal for him to strike us back with a clear conscience.
Americans don't start wars. Hitlers start wars. |
Nathan Bales
CoreBoard | Active Users Download |
Edited by - Nathan on 23 February 2003 18:03:18 |
|
|
|
padawan
Junior Member
200 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 18:20:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
Attacking Iraq is an act of war and will make it perfectly legal for him to strike us back with a clear conscience.
Americans don't start wars. Hitlers start wars.
IMHO, the upcoming confrontation in Iraq is not the start, but rather the continuation of a long and fruitless effort to make Saddam comply. The ceasefire put in place after Gulf War I specifically itemized the tasks that Iraq needs to do for it to be accepted back into our so called global community. Resolution 1441, is but another resolution aimed at asking Saddam to come clean, once and for all, after 12 years of dancing around the U.N.
You're absolutely right. Americans don't start wars. They do have the moral obligation to finish it, though, (if others loose their backbones along the way) so that a lasting peace can finally be achieved.
|
"...be mindful of the SnitzForce..." |
|
|
|
Nathan
Help Moderator
USA
7664 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 18:25:48
|
| The restrictions we put on Iraq 10 years ago remind me of cirtian restrctions we put on another country after World War 1 |
Nathan Bales
CoreBoard | Active Users Download |
|
|
|
padawan
Junior Member
200 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 18:41:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
The restrictions we put on Iraq 10 years ago remind me of cirtian restrctions we put on another country after World War 1
The humiliation of (soon, a certain) defeat does have its parallels. It can lead to blind nationalism (among the arab nations) that may sweep fire across the Middle East. It's more the reason that we need to involve the nations of the Arab League in resolving this crisis... show them that we're there to give Iraq back its country, not to take it away or exploit it the ground. |
"...be mindful of the SnitzForce..." |
|
|
|
Carefree
Advanced Member
Philippines
4224 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 19:36:21
|
quote:
We are talking about war, killing innocent people! How can one find value in that? Is refusing discussion forbidden here? Or what?
I also don't understand why you are pushing me. It is not me what we talk about. It is the United States gývernment's criminal activities and all the suffer they cause all around the world, this time to Iraqis and to Turkey.
The United States government's criminal activities? Were WE the ones who hijacked planes and bombed innocent people? Were WE the ones killing Kurds? Were WE the ones invading Kuwait? Seems some people can twist history very well.
Let's put the blame where it belongs. In all the history of Muslims, they have been constantly at war. If there was no one else to war with, they warred amongst themselves. Everywhere you have one Muslim, they are fighting with someone else.
|
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 20:28:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
The restrictions we put on Iraq 10 years ago remind me of cirtian restrctions we put on another country after World War 1
The restrictions on Germany came largely from the European allied powers who sought revenage for the death and destruction caused by "the Great war". I don't think that that kind of revenge factored into the terms placed on Iraq at the end of the Gulf war. Although I'm sure some Kuwaitis would have been happier if it was.
I think the situation with Germany is a little different from those of 1918. Post WWI Germany wasn't expected to lob nuclear weapons at any country in Europe in under 30 minutes or cause major public health disasters with cultured viruses/bacteria.
|
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
|
|
|
Nathan
Help Moderator
USA
7664 Posts |
Posted - 23 February 2003 : 20:32:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carefree
The United States government's criminal activities? Were WE the ones who hijacked planes and bombed innocent people?
No, but nither was Iraq. Nither was North Korea. And in all right, nither was Afghanistan.
quote:
Originally posted by Carefree
Were WE the ones killing Kurds? Were WE the ones invading Kuwait?
Well, it does seem to me that only a few years ago we enslaved a large chunk of our population just because their skin color was different. Then a few years after that we put another large chunk of our population in intunment camps just because we were mad at thier mother-country. You also can't deny that America started as a bunch of rebelious trators.
quote:
Originally posted by Carefree
Seems some people can twist history very well.
Histroy can be warped more than one way.
As to the last comment you made. Just don't go there. |
Nathan Bales
CoreBoard | Active Users Download |
Edited by - Nathan on 23 February 2003 20:33:03 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
