# Mr. Bush should be proud



## Ugg (Feb 15, 2003)

He seems to have generated the largest single protest ever seen in the entire world.  I'm sure the numbers will be disputed, but the fact remains that a whole lot of people stood up today and said no.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 15, 2003)

They just said in the telly that only on Rome over 2 millions were protesting...


----------



## Cat (Feb 15, 2003)

There seem to have been 110 million people protesting all over the world...
one million+ in Rome and London, half a million in Berlin, ~ 200.000 in Greece and Spain... 70.000 in Amsterdam, one of which was me 
There were a lot of Germans, Spanish, Americans and Iraqis too. 70.000 is regarded as quite a lot here actually. The organization expected only about 50.000.
It certainly lloks like something Bush and Blair can't simply ignore and dismiss ... I hope


----------



## Cat (Feb 15, 2003)

> He seems to have generated the largest single protest ever seen in the entire world.



One of the _good_ effects of globalization ....


----------



## Ricky (Feb 15, 2003)

People that were protesting shut down Academy Boulevard here by protesting _right in the street_...  One of the main arteries of Colorado Springs.  Copters are circling over the area and police are on the scene....
Some people just don't know how to protest a war.


----------



## Cat (Feb 15, 2003)

Strange as it may seem, normally you ask permission to protest and the whole thing is organized, so the police can divert traffic, extra public transportation is available, etc. Have things really gotten out of hand anywhere?


----------



## edX (Feb 15, 2003)

> It certainly looks like something Bush and Blair can't simply ignore and dismiss ...



i only wish this were true. however i am very afraid that you are overestimating Bush's ability to see beyond his own nose and to hear anything but his own words.


----------



## JetwingX (Feb 15, 2003)

imo i think bush is a monkey and acts like one too

i don't like the man...


----------



## chevy (Feb 15, 2003)

They are several people I don't like.

Bush is not the problem, he is an elected president. The problem is the american frustration and what the Bush administration is doing with this frustration.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 15, 2003)

I don't think we Americans knew who we were electing in the first place.  :\


----------



## edX (Feb 15, 2003)

there are many of us who would argue that Bush wasn't elected - he took control in the midst of scandal and confusion over our voting processes. it's fact that the majority of americans did not vote for him.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 15, 2003)

What I wonder is, would Gore have taken us into war?
Let's just trust in the fact that Bush won't be running a second term.


----------



## chevy (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *there are many of us who would argue that Bush wasn't elected - he took control in the midst of scandal and confusion over our voting processes. it's fact that the majority of americans did not vote for him. *



He was elected, and if the Florida count may be discussed, this is nothing comparable to a dictature where when you don't want a president you die.

And american new who he was... the son of GB.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *And american new who he was... the son of GB. *


Our current president changed drastically from when he first started out in office.  As soon as 9/11 hit, he immediately wanted to go after the people that attacked us.  Soldiers are still fighting there.  Now he wants to attack Iraq, *completely ignoring the fact that North Korea is the bigger problem, what with its nuclear weapons which we are sure they are in possession of, and it's going to cost thousands of American soldiers' lives if he doesn't act on this imminent threat.*
The fact remains that this small "threat" in Iraq is completely blindsighting Bush of the fact that North Korea's strike is _imminent._  We are not even 100% sure that Iraq is hiding anything.  While we're wasting time over there trying to look for weapons of mass destruction, they will be used on our forces in North Korea.
Some Commander-in-Chief we have.

EDIT-  Fixed some spelling mistakes and added a few things.


----------



## ksv (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> *Our current president changed drastically from when he first started out in office.  As soon as 9/11 hit, he immediately wanted to go after the people that attacked us.  Soldiers are still fighting there.  Now he wants to attack Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that North Korea is the bigger problem, what with its nuclear weapons which we are sure they are in possession of, and it's going to cost thousands of American soldiers' lives if he doesn't act on this imminent threat.
> The fact remains that this small "threat" in Iraq is completely blindsighting Bush of the fact that North Korea's strike is imminent.  We are not even 100% sure that Iraq is hiding anything.  While we're wasting time over there trying to look for weapons of mass destruction, they will be used on our forces in North Korea.
> Some Commander-in-Chief we have.
> ...



Actually, the USA is currently the _only imperialist nation_ in the world, and are the only ones threatening to attack other countries. 

What advantages would North Korea get by nuking the USA? And what can North Korea's missiles that are able to reach approx. 180 km do against the USA's thousands of nuclear warhead capable of reaching any target in the world?

It's pretty predictable though, that Iraq isn't the last country to get bombed and invaded by the USA this year.

"I'm against bombing Iraq, we should rather slaughter some civilians in North Korea" -that's a new one.


----------



## symphonix (Feb 15, 2003)

There were at least 100,000 protesting in Melbourne, too. Its obvious that the free people of the world find the idea of war repulsive, and won't support it no matter how much the government tries to stir up our fear and resentment.

And Ricky, North Korea hasn't expressed an interest in attacking any other country in fifty years. The nuclear reactors that they have activated were built for them BY THE AMERICANS under Clinton, in order to help them overcome a national power shortage that is crippling their nation.
In fact, the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons is ... the United States! The nation with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons is ... the United States! The biggest nation to have sponsored terrorist groups to overthrow foriegn governments in the last two decades is ... the United States! (Remember, they sponsored Saddam when he was just an Iraqi terrorist trying to overthrow the government) Most of the weapons and military hardward in the middle-east comes from ... the United States!

War is repulsive, and to go to war out of fear, ambition or hatred is a blight on humanity.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 15, 2003)

When George Bush Sr. was dealing with this same issue with Iraq, he had a meeting in Kuwait.  There was an attempt to harm him there, and it was directed by none other than Saddam.  Now, George Bush Jr. is not only attempting to get rid of the weapons there, but also, in my opinion, he's also trying to settle a personal score with Saddam because of his attempts to harm his father.

Just remember...  My opinions are worth as much as you paid for them.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> 
> The fact remains that this small "threat" in Iraq is completely blindsighting Bush of the fact that North Korea's strike is _imminent._  We are not even 100% sure that Iraq is hiding anything.  While we're wasting time over there trying to look for weapons of mass destruction, they will be used on our forces in North Korea.
> Some Commander-in-Chief we have.



The most dangerous countries are the ones that hide what they have.  N. Korea wants something.  If they were really going to strike, do you think they would announce to the world that they have nuclear weapons?


----------



## pds (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> it's fact that the majority of americans did not vote for him. [/B]



when was the last time a majority of americans voted for any president? or even the majority of registered voters? it would be interesting to poll those now frustrated with the whole Iraq war scenario (admittedly an extremely frustrating thing) to see how many were moved enough to vote when they had the chance.


----------



## adambyte (Feb 16, 2003)

btw, I'm currently taking a political science class, and it is taught from the "elitist" point of view.... that being that, in a true democracy, every person votes for and discusses issues directly (however, that's inefficient, considering how many people live in the u.s.), whereas, the U.S. is actually more of a republic... we vote for people to represent us.... it was the forefathers' way of leaving the public with influence, while still giving the "elites" most of the power to make laws and such. The elitists believe that the general public doesn't always know what's best for them, and that the "elites" of the government probably know better.

Edit: This has been "Food For Thought," brought to you by AdamByte.


----------



## Cat (Feb 16, 2003)

In the midst of all this talk of the end of time, war that is upon us, the free-people of the world rallying for peace etc. I really can't help myself of thinking about Civ:

OUR WORDS ARE BACKED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS!


I'm sorry, this is a serious issue and all that, but still ... 

In the protests I saw a sign with "Bush: get a Playstation if you want to play wargames!"


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> In the protests I saw a sign with "Bush: get a Playstation if you want to play wargames!"  [/B]



If Bill would give him an Xbox, I'd promise to not bash M$ this year . ..


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 16, 2003)

George Bush Jr. is a great president and a good and honest man.  I'm grateful he is serving our country as he is right now.
(just thought you'd all like to know where I stand, as dangerous as that might be.  )


----------



## fryke (Feb 16, 2003)

Must say, I've appreciated the call that went through the world... Peace... G.W., and sadly 'the USA', seemed to have forgotten about principles like that and the options they provide ever since 9-11.

Terrorism is a terrible thing. Hence the name. Solving this problem is a good cause. 'Going to war against terrorism' is not. Because it's basically fighting fire with matches. You can quote that or flame me in private messages about it. 

About that Playstation banner: I saw that, too! There were other funny ones, but the important thing, I think, is: The war hasn't yet started. Let's hope for a peaceful solution, although the odds look bad. The USA have never stepped back from starting a war when so many soldiers were already sent into the area...

And the worst problem with G.W. Bush's way... He can't stop. He'll go on until another president is elected. Why? Think one minute. Do you think he'll ever say the words: "We've won the war against terrorism." That'd be waiting for a punchline...


----------



## pds (Feb 16, 2003)

peace... absence of war... state of harmony...

I say again, while Saddam is a bad guy and probably should go, the point is to defeat terrorism and the fanatacism that poisons the Muslim world. The way to do that has much more to do with doing right by the Palestinians. That means assuring them of a contiguous, defensible homeland and supporting the development of a civil society. That will undermine Al Qaeda and Osama more than any outcome of an attack on Baghdad.


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 16, 2003)

War with Iraq is not the answer. However European countries (especially France) have a long history with Saddam. France built the nuclear plant for Saddam (in the 80's) plus sold Saddam Mirage jet fighters. They still sell him the spare parts for those fighters. So the Europeans should look in the mirror once in a while.


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Solving this problem is a good cause. 'Going to war against terrorism' is not. Because it's basically fighting fire with matches.*



Unfortunately, it's not OK to be wrong regarding how to deal with this issue.  On the one hand, what if:
- Saddam really doesn't have horrendous weapons of mass destruction and isn't aiding and abetting terrorists, or
- Inspections really are capable of containing him, and
- A war against him turns out to be 'messy'?

Thousands upon thousands of lives would be lost in vain.

On the other hand, what if he really does have or is developing nuclear, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, really is aiding and abetting terrorists and really is cunning enough to hide these things from inspectors for "long enough"?  The consequences are unimaginable.  Literally.

If the leaders of the United States, Britain, and almost all the countries of Europe are convinced that the latter is the case, which they are, can anyone criticise their decision that war must be made, aware of the cost?  No.

As the leader of this movement against Iraq, President Bush has an awesome and unfathomable responsibility laid upon his shoulders.  Let no one mock his intelligence, his integrity or his intent in this fateful hour.

I wholeheartedly accept the fact that you may disagree with the United States' analysis of the evidence against Iraq.  I am dubious, while hopeful, of this evidence myself.  I do not pretend to know the truth of the matter.  However, I cannot accept the decision to deride President Bush's character and to suggest that he merely likes playing war games or is out on a personal vendetta against Saddam.  That is absolutely false.  President Bush is a good man.  He is not evil, he is not delusional, he is not false, he is not a warmonger.  He is good.

I support and applaud every single war protestor who hit the street yesterday to say that they believe the evidence against Saddam is not enough.  It is an honourable thing to forsake one's personal time to proclaim their belief in what they feel is the truth, especially in a matter as important as this one.  I do not know but that they may be absolutely correct.  I hope they protest again tomorrow, the next day and every day after that, and, if they are correct, I hope they are heeded.

I cannot abide those who would attempt to drag an honourable and deeply burdened man through the mud for no justifiable reason.

That is all.

OK, that's not all, but it's all for now.


----------



## fryke (Feb 16, 2003)

No justifiable reason? He is not evil, he is good?

The world hasn't got a problem with terrorism, the world has a USA-Problem. The problem being that a very, very simple man is on top of the nuclear power of this world. The problem being that he's leading armies to a war with simplistic images of good and evil. "We good. You evil. We kill. You die. We happy."

Listen to Bush or Powell speak... I mean, Powell in Germany a few days or weeks ago: "There are regimes in Europe not agreeing with the USA. They will have to accept not to be elected again." Huh?! An American talking _elections_?! And what right does he have thinking there's ONE way and ONE truth and that THE TRUTH is his?

'almost all the other countries of Europe'? You must be blind and deaf... Ignoring France, Germany, Switzerland and others... What should I say? It's a bit like denying there are computers not running Windows. Believe me: There ARE computers not running Windows. And mine is one.

We should urge the UN to install a basic democracy in countries in need of development. For example, the USA seemed to have some trouble lately regarding elections. Also, they have nuclear weapons and are threatening war all over the world. Maybe the US should be restricted and controlled. Urged to destroy all weapons of mass destruction. With a democracy installed and some level of control, maybe the world can again sleep tight and doesn't have to dream about the evil George W. Bush or the evil Colin Powell. Notice how simple and false this sounds to you Americans? Now try to listen with the ear of a European, an Iraqi...


----------



## Shifting (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *there are many of us who would argue that Bush wasn't elected - he took control in the midst of scandal and confusion over our voting processes. it's fact that the majority of americans did not vote for him. *



amen to that.


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 16, 2003)

Really, the blind and deaf comments weren't necessary.

I apologize for my remark about "most of Europe" if it was incorrect.  I was sincerely under the impression that it is the widespread view that this is the case.  Please explain to me why you believe it is not.  Here is why I believe it is:

16 of the 19 NATO members, including Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom are all supporting the U.S. and Turkey in their request to aid Turkey with additional military resources at this time.  France, Germany and Belgium are opposed, and Belgium is seeking compromise.  This, at minimum, highlights the split within Europe.

The prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, and the president of the Czech Republic jointly published their support of the United States in an open letter which you can read here:  http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200301\FOR20030130g.html

As you said, no country has yet declared war on Iraq, and no country has said yet that war must be waged on Iraq today.  Very few nations have declared themselves as of the view that it is time immediately for compliance from or war with Iraq.  It is my impression that most of Europe's leaders believe that Saddam "really does have or is developing nuclear, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, really is aiding and abetting terrorists and really is cunning enough to hide these things from inspectors for 'long enough'".

Yes President George Bush is good and no he is not evil.  He _is_ good.  Not perfect -- good, and striving to do the best he can with many other leaders of the nations of the world to save lives and help rid the world of terrorism.

Evil exists and is as real and classifiable as good is.  The moment we lose our ability to classify good and evil is the moment we lose meaning in life.  President Bush is not claiming that every member of the leaders of these countries is pure evil incarnate.  They may have helped an old lady across the street some time, who knows?  He is putting into simple words the attitude and methodology that needs to be applied in dealing with these countries:  they are evil.  Their basic tenets and philosophies of government are for the gain and evil purposes of those leading them.  They have as a purpose to gain personal power without regard for human life.  This is evil.  While the United States has done many regrettable things and made many even unexcusable mistakes, this same basic inherent evil cannot be said of it.  It is not founded or maintained on the  same evil principles upon which these countries are.  George Bush's statements are accurate and justified.  Colin Powell does not claim to know all truth.  He does not claim to be sure of what will turn out to be the best method to have dealt with Iraq.  He is sure that based on the evidence he believes to be true, it is imperative that the world act at once with firmness and real consequences against Saddam Hussein.  

Colin Powell, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and the many other leaders in the coalition are not pursuing war for personal reasons or for dishonourable intentions.  They are serving their countries and the world as faithfully as possible.  I profoundly admire Prime Minister Tony Blair and his commitment to stand up for what he believes is right, no matter what the cost.  If I may quote some of this admirable man's recent words:



> "I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour but sometimes it is the price of leadership and cost of conviction."





> "If we show weakness now, if we allow the plea for more time to become just an excuse for prevarication until the moment for action passes, then it will not only be Saddam who is repeating history.
> "The menace, and not just from Saddam, will grow; the authority of the UN will be lost; and the conflict when it comes will be more bloody."



These men's intentions are honorable, their intellects are sharp and their dedication to the good of mankind unwavering.  I say again, let no one mock or question their loyalties or intentions in this fateful hour.  Their information may be in error, just as their analysis of the threat of Saddam Hussein may be inadequate, but their character is not.  They may be wrong without being stupid, vengence-bent, or warmongers.

Perhaps the greatest reason to replace Saddam Hussein instead of containing him is for the people of Iraq themselves:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751951.stm

I repeat:  I do not claim to know that war _is_ the right course of action right now.  I praise decent people everywhere protesting war on the basis that there is insufficent evidence against Iraq.  What I cannot accept is mud-slinging against these good men.


----------



## toast (Feb 16, 2003)

> it's fact that the majority of americans did not vote for him



It's fact most Americans don't vote at all.

Much protest here in France too, as you could all guess 
Saw some extracts of Iraqi TV today - wow ! Astonishing work. Music played while the generals looked at Saddam, with a strange flame dancing in their eye (maybe Im overstating this last point  ).


----------



## Cat (Feb 16, 2003)

_Please explain to me why you believe it is not. Here is why I believe it is:
16 of the 19 NATO members, including Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom are all supporting the U.S. and Turkey in their request to aid Turkey with additional military resources at this time. France, Germany and Belgium are opposed, and Belgium is seeking compromise. This, at minimum, highlights the split within Europe.

The prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, and the president of the Czech Republic jointly published their support of the United States in an open letter. _

Yes, regrettably there is a split in Europe and yes, most governments are supporting the US, while the majority of the population is not. I can only speak for the Netherlands at the moment: The current government has fallen some time ago and the two major parties that are to form the new government are divided whether supporting the US or not. Thus there can be no clear statement at this moment whether the Netherlands support US thoroughly or not. The majority of the population is however against war, with or without UN support.

_It is my impression that most of Europe's leaders believe that Saddam "really does have or is developing nuclear, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, really is aiding and abetting terrorists and really is cunning enough to hide these things from inspectors for 'long enough'"._

I have to disagree, because both Dr. El Baradei and Dr. Blix have stated clearly that in no way Iraq has or is developing nuclear weapons, although in the past it tried to. Chemical weapons are 'unaccounted for', which can equally mean they don't have them or they have hid them. There are simply no facts of the matter as of now. Thus it seems to me that it would be a good idea to let the inspectors do some more research.

_Yes President George Bush is good and no he is not evil. He is good. Not perfect -- good, and striving to do the best he can with many other leaders of the nations of the world to save lives and help rid the world of terrorism._

Again I disagree. There are clear indications that the disarmament of Iraq is not the only reason for the war. Certainly the US as well as many other countries have economical interest in the Middle-East. Bush's motives are not simple and pure. Waging a war on a country in disarray is not a good way of saving lives. Attacking an other nation while not self under attack does no good to the cause of preventing terrorism.

_Evil exists and is as real and classifiable as good is._

unless you are a metaphysical realist a statement like this is simply meaningless. Good and bad do not indicate either objectively existing things nor objectively existing properties of things. What is good for me can be bad for you and viceversa. Mors tua, vita mea. Good and bad are categories that are subjective and depend on your personal view of the world, your cultural background, your beliefs, etc. They cannot be absolutely measured. 

_The moment we lose our ability to classify good and evil is the moment we lose meaning in life. _

A nice one-liner. How's this one: Life is neither good nor bad, but interesting.

_President Bush is not claiming that every member of the leaders of these countries is pure evil incarnate._

My impression was that he was more or less implying exactly this (Why the plural suddenly though?).

_He is putting into simple words the attitude and methodology that needs to be applied in dealing with these countries: they are evil._

I don't agree that any mode of reasoning _needs_ to be applied. I don't see the necessity. Many other people don't see this necessity, like the Iraqis, France, Germany, my humble self...

_Their basic tenets and philosophies of government are for the gain and evil purposes of those leading them. They have as a purpose to gain personal power without regard for human life. This is evil._

Ahum, you can easily put Berlusconi among these. He tries (and has partially succeeded) to pass laws that will prevent him from being judged for corruption. He tries to maintain personal power through tinkering with laws. Moreover, I am under the impression that the US have several 'personal' purposes in the Middle-East, like economical interests.

_While the United States has done many regrettable things and made many even unexcusable mistakes, this same basic inherent evil cannot be said of it. It is not founded or maintained on the same evil principles upon which these countries are. George Bush's statements are accurate and justified._

Bush's statements are not always accurate or justified. Some are plain wrong. E.g. Iraq poses hardly a threat to the Middle-East let alone to the US.

_Colin Powell does not claim to know all truth. He does not claim to be sure of what will turn out to be the best method to have dealt with Iraq. He is sure that based on the evidence he believes to be true, it is imperative that the world act at once with firmness and real consequences against Saddam Hussein._

Neither do I. The US and some European countries differ mainly in how to deal with the issue. The US seem to favor force, France and Germany (and Russia and China) seem to favor diplomacy. Since nobody has a clue on what is the best, we have to find out. First you send inspectors to Iraq to find out the facts, then you debate the facts and decide a policy. America seems a bit hasty to begin shooting though ...

_Colin Powell, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and the many other leaders in the coalition are not pursuing war for personal reasons or for dishonourable intentions. They are serving their countries and the world as faithfully as possible._

In the light of the little attention they seem to pay to opinions that differ from their own, again I disagree and stress that all of them have economical interests in the matter. They have not, for instance intervened with the same emphasis in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine or the many civil wars, dictatorships etc. in Africa, where at least as many victims have been made, if the body-count is an argument at all.

_I profoundly admire Prime Minister Tony Blair and his commitment to stand up for what he believes is right, no matter what the cost._

I honestly appreciate your directness and candor in stating this. That is a good thing. You have presented many more and better arguments than others in this discussion and personally committed to them. That is admirable. Please don't take my observations as simple mud-slinging or flaming.

_These men's intentions are honorable, their intellects are sharp and their dedication to the good of mankind unwavering. I say again, let no one mock or question their loyalties or intentions in this fateful hour. Their information may be in error, just as their analysis of the threat of Saddam Hussein may be inadequate, but their character is not. They may be wrong without being stupid, vengence-bent, or warmongers._

I'm sorry, but I perceive reality a s being different. War is the last resort, they claim. Yet already all the necessary troops are massed at Iraq's frontiers. The countries that want to give the inspectors more time, so errors in the information can be minimized, are regarded almost as traitors. American officials mock France and germany as being 'old-europe', as if to say that they are not to be taken seriously. Bush speeches resemble increasingly those of war-bent fundamentalists. The attack on Afghanistan certainly was nothing more than vengeance. For the reasons that were give at the time of the invasion, the US would have had to attack them years before that! For the same reasons of removing undemocratic and oppressive regimes the US should attack China!

_Perhaps the greatest reason to replace Saddam Hussein instead of containing him is for the people of Iraq themselves._

Since Bush Sr. abandoned them to their fate the last time the US was there, I don't think they will be very grateful for the bombs of Liberty and Justice destroying their households and taking their lives...

_I repeat: I do not claim to know that war is the right course of action right now. I praise decent people everywhere protesting war on the basis that there is insufficent evidence against Iraq. What I cannot accept is mud-slinging against these good men._

Neither do I. I agree with you. We hold differing views and debate them. If I wanted simply to do a bit of mud-slinging I wouldn't have taken the pains to read your post thoroughly and respond point for point with arguments and reasons.


----------



## mdnky (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by adambyte _
> *...whereas, the U.S. is actually more of a republic... we vote for people to represent us.... it was the forefathers' way of leaving the public with influence, while still giving the "elites" most of the power to make laws and such...*



You have to remember that the majority of people at that time were unable to read or write.  This didn't change until the 1950's.  



> _Originally posted by adambyte _
> *...The elitists believe that the general public doesn't always know what's best for them, and that the "elites" of the government probably know better...*



Let me ask you this, do you?  If we went through scenerios of events, some you might choose right (10%), the majority you'll choose wrong (90%).  A computer tech or engineer may be great in their field, but not in someone else's.  Take a doctor out of the controlled envirement of a hospital and put them at the scene of a car wreck...you're asking for trouble.  They don't take in the "big picture", and that can be really BAD.  While being so caught up in trying to help the victim, they forgot to notice the smell of gas or the high voltage power lines on the ground.  Guess what, now they're a second victim or DEAD.  BTW, I've seen this happen many times with doctors and nurses, luckily none died but some were hurt bad.  12 years of advanced school may teach lot, but doesn't teach it all including common sense.


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 16, 2003)

*Yes, regrettably there is a split in Europe and yes, most governments are supporting the US, while the majority of the population is not. I can only speak for the Netherlands at the moment: The current government has fallen some time ago and the two major parties that are to form the new government are divided whether supporting the US or not. Thus there can be no clear statement at this moment whether the Netherlands support US thoroughly or not. The majority of the population is however against war, with or without UN support.*

Great, then we agree.

*I have to disagree, because both Dr. El Baradei and Dr. Blix have stated clearly that in no way Iraq has or is developing nuclear weapons, although in the past it tried to. Chemical weapons are 'unaccounted for', which can equally mean they don't have them or they have hid them. There are simply no facts of the matter as of now. Thus it seems to me that it would be a good idea to let the inspectors do some more research.*

I was under the impression that they have stated clearly that they have in no way seen evidence of Iraq developing or seeking to develop nuclear weapons.  Is that incorrect?  Whether it would be a good idea to let the inspectors do more research is beyond me at this point.  How much U.S./U.K./etc intelligence cannot be disclosed without being compromised?  Perhaps we will never know.

*Again I disagree. There are clear indications that the disarmament of Iraq is not the only reason for the war. Certainly the US as well as many other countries have economical interest in the Middle-East. Bush's motives are not simple and pure. Waging a war on a country in disarray is not a good way of saving lives. Attacking an other nation while not self under attack does no good to the cause of preventing terrorism.*

The potential for payoff is grounds for suspicion, it is not evidence.  You truly believe that this man, George Bush, is perverted enough to potentially kill thousands of innocent people, including many of his own, because he wants gasoline to be cheaper?  I am sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree.  Such is murder and is easy for the simplest mind to comprehend. This is a grown man who does comprehend the responsiblity laid upon his shoulders.  I do not believe he is so calloused or evil as this.

*unless you are a metaphysical realist a statement like this is simply meaningless. Good and bad do not indicate either objectively existing things nor objectively existing properties of things. What is good for me can be bad for you and viceversa. Mors tua, vita mea. Good and bad are categories that are subjective and depend on your personal view of the world, your cultural background, your beliefs, etc. They cannot be absolutely measured.*

No, actually I am not a metaphysical realist and it is very meaningful to me.  Metaphysical realism entails much more than I would ever consent to.    I agree that what is good _for_ you to live longer/prosper/etc. may be different than what is good _for_ me for the same things.  That is not, however, basis for claiming that universal truth does not exist.  That chopping off your head is not good for you to live longer is indisputable.  Neither does it exclude the presence of absolute right and wrong.  It is evil to kill another person for pleasure, for example.  No philisophical supposition can convince the honest man otherwise.  Good and bad are not subjective, they just take a whole lot more qualifiers than people are normally willing to attatch to them.  Saying that absolute morality is non-existent is merely the concession that man cannot know everything in combination with the denial of deity.  I concede the first and oppose the latter.  Good and bad are unchanging and unchangeable.  I know many disagree, but they are wrong.  

*A nice one-liner. How's this one: Life is neither good nor bad, but interesting.*

Hey, not too shabby!  Keep up the good work!  As expected, I have abandoned all former opinions to unite myself with the harmony that is that phrase.  

*My impression was that he was more or less implying exactly this (Why the plural suddenly though?).*

No he was not.  The plural because when he made his most memorable (original?) "evil" statement it was regarding the axis of evil:  Iraq, North Korea and Iran (I hope that's right...)  It is ridiculous to imply that any nation, let alone set of leaders, can be pure evil incarnate.


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 16, 2003)

*I don't agree that any mode of reasoning needs to be applied. I don't see the necessity. Many other people don't see this necessity, like the Iraqis, France, Germany, my humble self...*

Wow, you can speak for all the those people?  Forget the U.N., we've got Cat!     The public wants things they can understand and they want it concise.  President Bush was talking to the public when making these statements and trying to summarize what the present general position and intentions of the U.S. were toward these particular countries in the war on terror.  Obviously he doesn't sit in meetings with Colin Powell and say "OK, so Korea is bad, right?  What do we do with bad people?"  I sincerely hope you don't believe that.

*Ahum, you can easily put Berlusconi among these. He tries (and has partially succeeded) to pass laws that will prevent him from being judged for corruption. He tries to maintain personal power through tinkering with laws. Moreover, I am under the impression that the US have several 'personal' purposes in the Middle-East, like economical interests.*

You prove my point.  Although I am not familiar with the Berlusconi case, a superficial google scan seems only to show that the Italian government is trying and capable in large part of questioning and bringing to trial such a man.  I am not familiar with the case, however.  The very fact that it is _difficult_ and _newsworthy_ for him to do so is my very point.  It is not the presence of individuals who abuse positions of trust they gain from the people that I emphasize.  It is the correction and humanity that the _system_ put in place by evil leaders was meant to prevent and actually prevents from happening.  It is three things combined:  a totalitarianistic regime whose system of government negates the possibility of change by the people or for the people, _and_ whose leaders abuse that power for personal gain without regard to human life, _and_ who pose a threat to this nation.  Those who are merely a threat and a plague to their own people should be handled on an entirely different level.  Italy is more than  capable of dealing with this man (is it not?) and as far as I know U.S. intelligence has not determined any condoned hostile threat from Italy to the U.S. (should it have?  )

*Bush's statements are not always accurate or justified. Some are plain wrong. E.g. Iraq poses hardly a threat to the Middle-East let alone to the US.*

Indeed.  I did not mean to imply that all of Bush's statements were, but merely the ones I had been discussing.  I can accept the fact that you believe Iraq poses no threat.  I have no knowledge with which I can dispute that.  I hope if you are right war will not be waged. 

*Neither do I. The US and some European countries differ mainly in how to deal with the issue. The US seem to favor force, France and Germany (and Russia and China) seem to favor diplomacy. Since nobody has a clue on what is the best, we have to find out. First you send inspectors to Iraq to find out the facts, then you debate the facts and decide a policy. America seems a bit hasty to begin shooting though ...*

Amen to your second sentence.  (I was going to say "your first two", but that would be soooo rude!    jk!)  As for the rest, I can say nothing except perhaps....you may very well be right.

*In the light of the little attention they seem to pay to opinions that differ from their own, again I disagree and stress that all of them have economical interests in the matter. They have not, for instance intervened with the same emphasis in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine or the many civil wars, dictatorships etc. in Africa, where at least as many victims have been made, if the body-count is an argument at all.*

The United States has been heavily involved in the Israel-Palestine issue for a very long time.  Some would say they are on the wrong side.  Nevertheless, they are not passive in this matter.  Africa poses no threat to the United States, and it is not the United States' job to police the world.  There is no other country, no other situation *anywhere* in the world with such a consensus and history of consensus and actions pertaining thereto as there is in Iraq.  No one disputes that Saddam is a tyrannical and murderous leader.  Observe the present difficulty in reaching agreement in a matter with such widespread common ground and history of common action (through the U.N., no less).  Can you imagine attempting such action elsewhere?  Nor, as I said, should the U.S. presume to be the world's police force.  The leaders of this coalition against Iraq are indeed convinced that he poses a very clear a present danger to their nations' security and well-being.


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 16, 2003)

*I honestly appreciate your directness and candor in stating this. That is a good thing. You have presented many more and better arguments than others in this discussion and personally committed to them. That is admirable. Please don't take my observations as simple mud-slinging or flaming.*

Not at all (and thank you for the compliment).  I very much appreciate your views and your civil and thorough presentation of them.  Thank you.  I have much to learn from other countries and, as an American, even more than normal!    I still believe your accusations of President Bush's ulterior motives are unfounded and unjust, however.

*I'm sorry, but I perceive reality a s being different. War is the last resort, they claim. Yet already all the necessary troops are massed at Iraq's frontiers. The countries that want to give the inspectors more time, so errors in the information can be minimized, are regarded almost as traitors. American officials mock France and germany as being 'old-europe', as if to say that they are not to be taken seriously. Bush speeches resemble increasingly those of war-bent fundamentalists. The attack on Afghanistan certainly was nothing more than vengeance. For the reasons that were give at the time of the invasion, the US would have had to attack them years before that! For the same reasons of removing undemocratic and oppressive regimes the US should attack China!*

War may be a last resort and still be worth preparing for.  It is no bad thing to amass troups and withdraw them when a peaceful agreement is struck.  A great deal, the most important being human life, would be saved.  If the massing of troops lets Saddam know we mean business without actually having to do business, then here's to the massing of troops against Saddam.  Donald Rumsfield called France and Germany "old europe".  Have any other American leaders?  (I truly do not know.)  The attack on Afghanistan was most definitely _not_ vengence.  As much as the U.S. had wanted to depose the existing Afghanistan government for a long time (yes I know they aided them initially) the U.S. still gave Afghanistan more than ample opportunity to begin to hand over those responsible for the terrorist attacks and to dismantle the terrorist network it supported.  The U.S. is doing much against China.  It should do much more.  That does _not_ mean it should not take immediate action against Iraq, which is infinitely more possible than action against China.  I believe Bush's speeches resemble not a war-_bent_ fundamentalist, but a man who is either bluffing Iraq into compliance (yes, massing troops can be bluffing) or else a man who is determined that we have come to the last resort -- war -- and that more time for inspectors is not only needless but futile and extremely dangerous.  There is no war-bentness in that, just a determination to face the facts.  He may be wrong, but if so he is speaking from being misinformed, not from being a warmonger.

*Since Bush Sr. abandoned them to their fate the last time the US was there, I don't think they will be very grateful for the bombs of Liberty and Justice destroying their households and taking their lives...*

The U.S. was never "there" as in possession of Iraq.  President Bush was attacked very much at that time like the current President Bush is being attacked right now.  The last memorable major military campaign to the american public previous to the Gulf War was the Vietnam War.  It was imperative that President Bush define a clear objective and declare a clear victory and end to the war for clear and approved reasons.  That objective, victory, and the approved reasons were the liberation of Kuwait.  He could go no further.  You do remember international opinion of even the suggestion of coalition forces advancing further, do you not?  Instead, a more patient, peaceful solution to the Saddam problem was sought over more than 10 years.  Now the current President Bush is saying that time and circumstance have made the moment for concession or agression immediate.  Saying he is not correct is much different than accusing him of dishonorable ulterior motives.

*Neither do I. I agree with you. We hold differing views and debate them. If I wanted simply to do a bit of mud-slinging I wouldn't have taken the pains to read your post thoroughly and respond point for point with arguments and reasons. *

Fabulous!  Thank you for your point of view and your arguments and reasons.  Although I don't believe that point-for-point argumentation necessarily indicates the absence of a mud-slinging agenda, I definitely am grateful that yours was not one.


----------



## fryke (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *That chopping off your head is not good for you to live longer is indisputable.  Neither does it exclude the presence of absolute right and wrong. It is evil to kill another person for pleasure, for example.  No philisophical supposition can convince the honest man otherwise.  Good and bad are not subjective, they just take a whole lot more qualifiers than people are normally willing to attatch to them.  Saying that absolute morality is non-existent is merely the concession that man cannot know everything in combination with the denial of deity.  I concede the first and oppose the latter.  Good and bad are unchanging and unchangeable. I know many disagree, but they are wrong.*



Well, the problem is that you assume (!) that there is a clear definition of good and evil, and yet fail to see that the USA have been abusing the Middle East for years and decades, ignoring - or, if not ignoring, actually abusing - the goals and beliefs of the islamistic peoples. The USA fail to accept or even _see_ that attacks on the USA (like 9-11) are signs that their attitude in the Middle East is wrong.

The problem is that there ISN'T a clear good and evil here. For an outsider like myself, it's very, very clear that

a) the USA are wrong, and
b) the Iraqi are wrong.

Good and evil may be clearly defined if you want it like that. But for me, *WAR* is in all cases evil. There is no good war. There is no good in war. War is evil, and if the US walk on a path of war, they belong to the side of Evil. (If you want it simple, you get it simple.)


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *For an outsider like myself, it's very, very clear that
> 
> a) the USA are wrong, and
> b) the Iraqi are wrong.*


Amen.

May I add that war is wrong as well?  There are no exceptions to this.  Fryke makes this clear.


----------



## dafuser (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Well, the problem is that you assume (!) that there is a clear definition of good and evil, and yet fail to see that the USA have been abusing the Middle East for years and decades, ignoring - or, if not ignoring, actually abusing - the goals and beliefs of the islamistic peoples. The USA fail to accept or even see that attacks on the USA (like 9-11) are signs that their attitude in the Middle East is wrong.
> 
> The problem is that there ISN'T a clear good and evil here. For an outsider like myself, it's very, very clear that
> ...



It's lucky for you the USA doesn't see things as cut and dried as you do, otherwise you and the rest of Europe would be now be speaking German. Or do you think Hitler would of allowed you to stay neutral while he conquered the rest of the world because war is evil?

Europe seems to have forgotten the lessons history teaches us about giving in to dictators like Saddam. What happened when Europe tried to appease Hitler?


----------



## toast (Feb 17, 2003)

Dafuser, what you wrote above makes no sense when applied to history after 1945, date of first nuclear deterrent use.

If you need more precise explanations, check what Samy Cohen means in his book "The Atomic Bomb, Strategy of Terror".

War is a primitive, pre-Cold War means to win primitive domination. I understand African nations can still use war, but I don't understand post-industrial countries can still consider it as an option.

Hence, your post is obsolete since 1946 . No offense, don't worry !


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dafuser _
> *Europe seems to have forgotten the lessons history teaches us about giving in to dictators like Saddam. What happened when Europe tried to appease Hitler? *



"Peace in our time"


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *
> War is a primitive, pre-Cold War means to win primitive domination. I understand African nations can still use war, but I don't understand post-industrial countries can still consider it as an option. *



Be careful! Your statement looks like a very subtle form of racism.


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 17, 2003)

...posted the following stuff in the other war related thread but I think that it can relate here as well without changing a thing... Excuse me for double posting  

...is TOTALLY wrong!

You know what? All these mad governments in out troubled earth should let THEIR presidents and staff kick each other inside a box ring or something... They all are crazy and NOT good or evil!

If THEY had the REAL guts THEY should be the ones that had a REAL fight inside a ring or something...

War at ANY level: Weapons-based or psychological-based is ALL wrong...

If governments of this planet think that they MUST have wars again and again THEM and THEM alone should kick each other and not put soldiers, families, et al fight THEIR wars... They all DO wrong by sending innocent people to fight THEIR wars because simply THEY lack the guts... I guess we are all suckers for voting them (or not) in the first place: You know what? If people really don't like the wars of those foolish governments when they will give the order of attacking other countries ALL SOLDIERS should NOT obey: What? They gonna kill them all? Their own soldiers? But then again I forget: Those soldiers in the first place they lack the guts: They prefer to kill other people just for money or egoism (we are the good ones and you are the bad ones --then again Iraq has its own Holy War to declare against the US et al pigs).

A rant of mine or not, I simply say that governments know that they do the wrong thing by executing wars and they simply doing so because they lack the REAL weapons: Clear and pure minds and souls... Them all are rotten inside them methinks!  

Although I don't like George Michael I think his video clip which shows Bush, Blair et al, it sums governments of this troubled planet SO damn accurate that it is SO damn scary  

The one who wins a war is the one that he doesn't have to live a war in the first place cause when you live a war (you, yourself and not someone else) you know how REALLY wrong is firsthand... VERY small scale example of war: You fight with your bare hands someone who is VERY strong, maybe stronger than you... In the end even if you beat him giving him black eyes, blood all over his face and stuff, still you have your fists and body feel too much pain AND you have to clean your clothes and soul from this mess! And who knows even if you beat your opponent you may still go to the hospital for a week or more  

As for the ones who seem to believe that when we done talking we should start acting this is plain wrong: When you THINK that you done talking, talk some more... Or you know what? Maybe DON'T talk at all! Sometimes, silence gives better results than talking...

You know what? I must follow my own above advice


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 17, 2003)

"Originally posted by dafuser
It's lucky for you the USA doesn't see things as cut and dried as you do, otherwise you and the rest of Europe would be now be speaking German. Or do you think Hitler would of allowed you to stay neutral while he conquered the rest of the world because war is evil?"

While now we all HAVE to learn to speak at least english, german and french (plus our own language: Greek) if we want JUST to stay competitive in the job market... This supposed to be better? Or do you think that we are free people now? Hmmm...  

As for Hitler: He attacked other european countries... Correct me if I'm wrong: When exactly Sadam attacked US, Europe et al and the US MUST strike back? Or is it a matter of pre-strike? Then again european countries and US didn't pre-strike Hitler back then, did they?

"Europe seems to have forgotten the lessons history teaches us about giving in to dictators like Saddam. What happened when Europe tried to appease Hitler?"

People seem to forget or like to forget history lessons and not just Europe... Am I wrong also thinking that US put Sadam where he is right now? Oh, I forgot: Back then, it was ok to support him...


----------



## AppMan (Feb 17, 2003)

hmmm.. 
Lots of soap boxes here....

I lost a couple close friends on 9-11. I wonder if some of your opinions would change if you had too. 
If you think Saddam isn't aiding terrorists that is being naive. 
I think the U.S. is being very proactive in the War Against Terror but if you rather we nuke Iraq after another terrorist attack then I hope its your friends dying not mine.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Cat (Feb 17, 2003)

> Instead, a more patient, peaceful solution to the Saddam problem was sought over more than 10 years.



Well, that is debatable... what happened from another point of view was that Iraq was heavily sanctioned and abandoned to its own... at that time, although internal opposition was ready and willing, there was no talk of regime change. Now after 10 years iraq is still a poor and devastated country, facing war yet again.


----------



## Cat (Feb 17, 2003)

Posted by jeb1138





> You truly believe that this man, George Bush, is perverted enough to potentially kill thousands of innocent people, including many of his own, because he wants gasoline to be cheaper? I am sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree. Such is murder and is easy for the simplest mind to comprehend. This is a grown man who does comprehend the responsiblity laid upon his shoulders. I do not believe he is so calloused or evil as this.



I do not think Bush is evil, yet I think that the results of the war he is proposing are going to be 'evil' 

The former war on Iraq made 200.000 victims among the Iraqis, mostly civilians. Millions of people will flee and be made homeless. A pre-emptive strike against Iraq is against international agreements and can constitute a dangerous precedent. By threatening to go on a solo tour the US are the first and foremost country to make the UN irrelevant. An attack on Iraq in this sense would lessen the importance and influence of international oragnizations and give more power to military strong countries to do what they please. The attack could moreover trigger a spiral of vialence in the Middle-East. As the US had enough of Iraq, Isreal can decide to have had enough of the Palestines and Turkey of the Kurds. Iran could feel threatened by he presence of US military forces. By attacking one nation, a whole culture will be alienated from the west. Terrorism will grow on these seeds of hatred. Oil prices will soar (even more than now) triggering a worldwide crisis in an already unfavorable situation. If the Oil-fields will be set to fire an environmental disaster will follow. Ash from Kuweit was found even in the Himalaya. An attack would not democatize Iraq. Democracy cannot be enforced. It is a long and painful road a population has to walk by itself, aided but not guided. 

For all these reasons I think this war is bad. For similar reasons I think war overall is bad.

[Joking:] Since there must be at least as much evil in the cause as in the effect, I think those that propose war, intending to bring about the above effects, are evil themselves.   [/Joking]


----------



## pds (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *Posted by jeb1138
> 
> The former war on Iraq made 200.000 victims among the Iraqis, mostly civilians. Millions of people will flee and be made homeless.  *



I guess that's a creative definition of the term victim. I don't mean to dismiss the whole argument, but if it's to be premised on the suffering of the victims, then it should be able to identify them correctly.

The terms under which the Coalition for the Gulf War was cobbled together included that Sadam would not be deposed. That was a condition for several of the Arab states to agree to the war. Therefore the issue of regime change was never allowed to be a military objective. Perhaps there would be less victims if it had.

Yes, after Desert Storm, Iraq was left to fend for itself and the sanctions regime did little to weaken the grip that the tyrant has on his people, but are those 200,000 victims of the war or victims of the peace - or perhaps victims of the recalcitrance of their own corrupt and repressive government?

The excess of victims is a direct result of the "let's let the inspectors take care of this."


----------



## Cat (Feb 17, 2003)

From BBC online:



> The daily briefings given by the allies used video footage and satellite pictures to show that military targets were being devastated and that every effort was being to avoid civilian casualties.
> 
> Terms like "collateral damage" and "surgical strike" were staples of the briefings which gave the bombing campaign the air of a computer game. In reality, the devastation on the ground was very messy.
> 
> ...



We'll see this again. Again there will be victims of war in aditoin to "victims of peace" (or lack of interest). The inspectors were meant to let Iraq disarm, not to help civilians build up their lives again, so it is not their fault either.


----------



## pds (Feb 17, 2003)

"Lack of interest" is an excellent way of putting it. 

Yes, once the fighting starts, there will be press conferences galore to naysay the devastation and there will be story after story about the victims to pluck on the heartstrings and help the entertainment media that calls itself news can sell more soap! War is to be avoided if at all possible.

But 314 doesn't equal 200,000 and that's the statistic I question.


----------



## Cat (Feb 17, 2003)

314 doesn't equal 200,000. 314 is the civilian deaths due to an error in allied intelligence reports. 200,000 is the number of total casualties, military and civilian, mostly the latter, based not only on operation Desert Storm, but also all the other attacks, the effects of the complete distruction of water and electricity supply etc. in the next ten years.

Now to some sources, I invito you to really read some of these:



> This study concludes that the child mortality rate today is at least
> double and that at least 170,000 children will die in the coming year
> from the delayed effects of the Gulf Crisis.
> 
> ...



From http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/91a/0122.html
Overview of the Harvard Study Team Report "Public Health in Iraq"

See also the Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/

And this report: http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1991/s91/s91lopez.html

Have a nice day and sleep well. These are some of the things I wouldn't want to happen anymore in my name.


----------



## sanfret (Feb 19, 2003)

It blows my mind that nobody recalls the Korean war, or the fact that China is North of North Korea and their biggest supporter. Until we stop buying that cheap TV for your girlfriend, China and North Korea has the US by the nuts. Additionally, North Korea is communist, Let us recall the us v. them mentality that that culture brew. They are supported by the largest standing army/country in the world. 

In ethonographic research you learn to understand cultural tendencies. Iraq is one that is tribal. Like it or not, they understand nothing but force. Korea, is one that says one thing and writes down another. Very typical of Asian countries, though they have communist philosphy thrown in to mix it up. Until the cultural influences are brought to light it is obsurd to lay the same policy for everything. 

Some people are bitter that they are "behind" another society, others that they have "different" views. One person can cause the world to die in a firey death. Don't let it be our preseident or our country leading the way.

Forcewise, you always take out the little guy (Iraq) before pursuing other objectives (North Korea). It is stupid to think that a two front war is a good thing. Or any front war for that matter.


----------



## mdnky (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Dafuser, what you wrote above makes no sense when applied to history after 1945, date of first nuclear deterrent use.
> 
> If you need more precise explanations, check what Samy Cohen means in his book "The Atomic Bomb, Strategy of Terror".
> ...



It makes perfect sense.  The way you talk Toast you would rather them use a WMD (biological or nuclear) on another country before anyone takes an action to stop it.  That is the same as saying we know you have pnemonia, but we won't give you antibiotics untill you're almost dead OR are dead.  That's not wisdom, it's ignorance.

Again, this is the same carelessness that led to WWI, and WWII.  We must use what we learned from history to avoid another major conflict.


----------



## mdnky (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *As for Hitler: He attacked other european countries... Correct me if I'm wrong: When exactly Sadam attacked US, Europe et al and the US MUST strike back? Or is it a matter of pre-strike? Then again european countries and US didn't pre-strike Hitler back then, did they?*



No, they did the exact same thing you want us to do with Iraq.  Baby it, place restrictions, do inspections, etc.  

In the end the same thing will happen if we don't do something about him, we'll wind up in a major conflict again...the really scarry thing is this:

It isn't the 30's or 40's...instead of worrying about those horrible things called airplanes and measly little bombs, we have to worry about WMD and nuclear attacks on the battlefield and at HOME.  How about the release of biological agents on civilian populations.  Have you ever seen what some of these biological agents do to a human?  IT ISN'T PRETTY.


Why lay around waiting for Saddam to attack?  That would be the most ignorant thing we could do.


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *Posted by jeb1138
> 
> I do not think Bush is evil, yet I think that the results of the war he is proposing are going to be 'evil'
> *



Thanks for the clarification.  I think, then, that we are very closely in agreement.  I don't think we can say that "the results of the war" are going to be evil, simply because I believe some results, if a war were to occur, would be very good.  Regime-change in Iraq _could_ be extraordinarily wonderful.  Or extraordinarily destabilizing.  The question in my mind is:  Whence the greater evil, and what are the evils that may occur?  That question I know I cannot answer because I know I don't have enough facts.  I also am sure that none of these leaders can know for sure which will be the better course, since they cannot foretell what tragedies may occur if war is not waged nor what tragedies might be avoided if war is not needed.  They (France, Germany, Britain, the U.S. etc.) can only use their best judgment with the information available to them.  I pray they do.


----------



## Cat (Feb 21, 2003)

> The question in my mind is: Whence the greater evil, and what are the evils that may occur?



I think we indeed do largely agree.  My point is that through inspection and diplomatic action we have a teeny weeny chanche of avoiding the consequences of war altogether. until there is an ever so slight chance of a peaceful solution, I think it is worth of giving it a try and will ultimately lead to the least evil.


----------



## banjo_boy (Feb 21, 2003)

I read earlier someone said we have been messing with the Middle East for decades now. Guess what! They (the Middle East) have been battling longer than most countries were around/ organized!

The US is not the only "aggressers" in the world. 10 years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait. There are so many battles in Africa it would make your head spin. Does anyone know how many people are killed in China each year? North Korea? Iraq? And these are their own people! Come on! We might look like aggressers because we don't sit on our butts and enjoy cheese and wine all day, but we are hardly the ones that started the whole thing.

My main challenge with these protest is that if the US and Britain drops the whole thing and in a couple months BOOM! Kuwait or the US gets hit again.What then? The US is going to be labeled as wimps, gutless to stand up to terrorists, and paper lions.

Our country was not founded by a bunch of ninnies. But nowadays, it's hard to find people who actually have solid beliefs in a world of "no absolutes". There is evil and there is good. Killing people is evil. However, in this case, involuntary evil has to fight voluntary evil. We didn't volunteer to get attacked 9-11. We want to protect ourselves and others.

The only thing I know is that if a small army of terrorists came into the MidWest, they would have no chance whatsoever.

For me, diplomacy. But, sometimes, kids have to be taken to the woodshed when words don't work.


----------



## Cat (Feb 21, 2003)

_There is evil and there is good._

Sure there is! Well simply have to nominate one persone judge of the world and let them point out what is good and what is evil! Everybody of course will agree, since good and evil are so easy to see and identify! And all those shades of grey is just postmodernistic nonesense. 

_Killing people is evil._

Best reason ever to start a war.

_However, in this case, involuntary evil has to fight voluntary evil._

There is no such thing as involuntary evil. For every bullet and every bomb, fingers press the trigger: there is a conscious and voluntary choice to kill and destroy.

_We didn't volunteer to get attacked 9-11._

Terrorism isn't a random natural desaster, but a directed attack. The people who attacked the US wnated to attack the US. They were not simply mad and irrational, maybe manipulatd and misguided, but they had reasons for attacking the US. As atheist still I'd like to echo some wise words: Who is without sin (or guilt depending on translation) throw the first stone. Is the US really so innocent?

_We want to protect ourselves and others._

Do you think to have the right to interfere with others for their own good? You assume quite a responsibility then... Why did the allied forces then did not at all supoprt the rebellion ensuing the Gulf War? Because of not so noble agreements with the neighboring countries? Where were our ideals then?

I am disappointed...


----------



## banjo_boy (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> _Killing people is evil._
> 
> Best reason ever to start a war.



I don't get this one.

Another, countries (us too) could take a lesson fro Santa Ana, general of the Mexican army that defeated the Alamo. His armies were order that they not to kill anyone but men with arms against them. But, we nowadays, don't care about history. We just care when the next Tom Cruise movies is coming out.



> _However, in this case, involuntary evil has to fight voluntary evil._
> 
> There is no such thing as involuntary evil. For every bullet and every bomb, fingers press the trigger: there is a conscious and voluntary choice to kill and destroy.



So, if someone who comes up to you and broadsides you with a 2x4, you will do absolutely nothing... I doubt anyone has that restraint.



> _We didn't volunteer to get attacked 9-11._
> 
> Terrorism isn't a random natural desaster, but a directed attack. The people who attacked the US wnated to attack the US. They were not simply mad and irrational, maybe manipulatd and misguided, but they had reasons for attacking the US. As atheist still I'd like to echo some wise words: Who is without sin (or guilt depending on translation) throw the first stone. Is the US really so innocent?



No, but you are using that Biblical passage out of context. The woman who was to be stoned, by law under Old Testament law, commited adultery. This was a personal sin that did not affect anyone but the adulterers. The mob then dispersed. Jesus said the the woman, "Go and sin no more." (John 8)

And yes they are wise words.



> _We want to protect ourselves and others._
> 
> Do you think to have the right to interfere with others for their own good? You assume quite a responsibility then... Why did the allied forces then did not at all supoprt the rebellion ensuing the Gulf War? Because of not so noble agreements with the neighboring countries? Where were our ideals then?



We can use that agument with 9-11. The firemen didn't have the right to go into the buildings to interfere with the people for their own good.

You would sit and watch some one get the crap beaten out of them. I seriously hope not.

Also, are we not to help each other globally? Since globalization is so huge, why suddenly is everyone so happy in their own countries, thinking they will not get hit next.



> I am disappointed...



What happens if we do stop? I guess we will just live in a world hoping some misguided and misinformed people doesn't bomb us.

I am not for this because not all our allies are supporting it, but I really don't want to see more killing by these loons.

BTW, these misguided people are trained from childhood in schools. These are 2nd and 3rd generation misguided people.

I am disappointed that people will let lunatics run around unchecked.


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *There is evil and there is good.
> 
> Sure there is! Well simply have to nominate one persone judge of the world and let them point out what is good and what is evil! Everybody of course will agree, since good and evil are so easy to see and identify! And all those shades of grey is just postmodernistic nonesense. *


I couldn't have said the 'postmodernistic nonsense' bit better myself! Well put!  

I believe that what you call greyscale is actually dithering.  Life may be complex, but I don't believe it's ambiguous.  I recognize that that's one place where people who believe in absolute standards, absolute good, and absolute evil part with those who don't.

I believe that absolute standards _exist_ unalterably, that God _comprehends_ and _acts_ in complete harmony with them, and that I can _discover_ them by employing my intellect and seeking help, revelation, and confirmation of past revelation from God.  I do believe it is impossible for me to comprehend all truth as a mere mortal, but that does not preclude its existence, and it _does_ mean that I should try to learn and live by as much truth as I can so that I may align myself with what is good and shun the evil.  Because?  Because it is right.

We cannot always agree on what is right and what is wrong.  Very true.  None of us can know everything.  Nor can any of us know of ourselves what another person's motives or purposes are.  These facts are some of the most compelling reasons that exist for us to stand and fight in the best way possible for that which we do believe to be true and good.  We _do_ know some things and we _do_ know our own motivations better than we know any other's, and we _should_ stand up for those things which we know to be true.

Regarding the existence of good and evil and the fight for what we believe is good, I respectfully defer for a moment to Mahatma Gandhi, who most likely would have employed an entirely different approach than any of the leaders on the political forefront right now,  don't you think?  With regard to Satyagraha (nonviolent resistence for the purpose of political reform) he once said: 





> _Originally posted by Mr. Mohandas K Gandhi_
> *The doctrine of Satyagraha works on the principle that you make the so called enemy see     and realize the injustice he is engaged in. It can work only when you believe in God and the goodness of the people to see that they are wrong. As a satyagrahi, I do believe that non-violence is a potent weapon against all evils. *


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *If THEY had the REAL guts THEY should be the ones that had a REAL fight inside a ring or something...*


  I think leaders of nations do this more than you give them credit here.  Especially leaders who stand up for what they believe.  They take very real risks.  Saddam attempted to assassinate the first President Bush even after he was out of office, for example.  But I agree -- it could be very interesting to do what you say.  It would _certainly_ result in different candidates being elected.  Can anyone say "Jesse Ventura for President"?  Campaign slogan: (and actual quote!) "Wrestling is ballet with violence."  I'm not sure Saddam Hussein would be willing, however...


----------



## Cat (Feb 22, 2003)

Posted by banyo_boy:


> Another, countries (us too) could take a lesson fro Santa Ana, general of the Mexican army that defeated the Alamo. His armies were order that they not to kill anyone but men with arms against them.


This is a bit out of context, since in this case we are talking about an ongoing conflict where clearly one side was attacking the other. His order was a good one, I hope that, unlike last time, the US forces will follow it too...



> But, we nowadays, don't care about history. We just care when the next Tom Cruise movies is coming out.


 I don't get this one ...



> So, if someone who comes up to you and broadsides you with a 2x4, you will do absolutely nothing... I doubt anyone has that restraint.


 Wrong example, since you ahve to take into account our previous histories: Did I ever threaten or harm the guy? Did he previously harm me? Does he clearly and undoubtedly try to attack me? Certainly I wouldn't attack him or provoke an attack by drawing a weapon, which is more or less what the US is doing now with Iraq...



> No, but you are using that Biblical passage out of context. The woman who was to be stoned, by law under Old Testament law, commited adultery. This was a personal sin that did not affect anyone but the adulterers. The mob then dispersed. Jesus said the the woman, "Go and sin no more." (John 8)


Why is it out of context? We are accusing Iraq of having sinned against UN resolutions, the punishment seems to be war, and america seems to be very eager to get to the stone throwing part... while it hasn't yet even concludively been proven before the UN that Iraq has in fact sinned...



> We can use that agument with 9-11. The firemen didn't have the right to go into the buildings to interfere with the people for their own good.


You seem to miss my point by trying to apply it to an entirely different context. If asked, the people in the Towers would have consented. Moreover all of them were in clear and present danger.
I have some doubt that the Iraqi people would ask the americans again to help them, since last time they didn't. Claiming to be working in the interest of the population, while killing it is a bit far-going meddling...
Rather take this example: a women is delivering a child, both could die in the process... who do you save? Mother or child? SAving the one implies risking the others life.. are you ready to take this kind of decisions? Are you ready to decide that you well can sacrifice 200.000 Iraqi's in order to better the other's lives? That is a great responsibility you are taking then ...



> You would sit and watch some one get the crap beaten out of them. I seriously hope not.


 Again, by the use of a far fetched example you misinterpret what I am saying. I would try to separate two guys fighting, I would stand up for the victim of a bully, but I would not go and beat up someone before he even lifts a finger. I would try to talk them out of fighting, not hit them myself!



> Also, are we not to help each other globally? Since globalization is so huge, why suddenly is everyone so happy in their own countries, thinking they will not get hit next.


 Helping each other by starting wars is a very interesting perspective on globalization... I'm not at all happy in my country, I'd like it (the Netherlands) to integrate better into Europe as a whole, to drop barriers to immigration and import, to spend more on help to third-world countries, to invest in clean and durable sources of energy for the good of the entire planet etc. Hitting someone is one of the best methods to be hit back: it's called Newtons Law of SocioDynamics and Escalation ... to every hit corresponds a hit back of opposite verse and equal or greater force ...



> What happens if we do stop? I guess we will just live in a world hoping some misguided and misinformed people doesn't bomb us.
> I am not for this because not all our allies are supporting it, but I really don't want to see more killing by these loons.
> BTW, these misguided people are trained from childhood in schools. These are 2nd and 3rd generation misguided people.
> I am disappointed that people will let lunatics run around unchecked.


Instead of bombing them, you could try to build them schools, instead of destroying their electricity and water supply, you could try to help them, instead of leeting them remain poor and misguided and victims of religious fundamentalism, you could try to educate them.

You too are misguided since your childhood in believing that the way you view the world is the good one. So do I.  But at least I try to overcome my limits, while you seem just comfy inside them. Don't american children get brainwashed too from their early childhood, by letting them sing nationalistic songs and swear undying loyalty to their homeland? Where's the difference?


----------



## Cat (Feb 22, 2003)

Posted by jeb1138:


> I believe that absolute standards exist unalterably, that God comprehends and acts in complete harmony with them, and that I can discover them by employing my intellect and seeking help, revelation, and confirmation of past revelation from God. I do believe it is impossible for me to comprehend all truth as a mere mortal, but that does not preclude its existence, and it does mean that I should try to learn and live by as much truth as I can so that I may align myself with what is good and shun the evil. Because? Because it is right.


Since you know you don't know all the truth, how can you decide whether or not somthing is a part of the ineffable grand design that you cannot (yet) comprehend? Are you ready to take decision that are no more than a bet (like Pascal)? If you lack knowledge of the absolute truth, in a phenomenological sense, there is no such thing as an absolute truth, i.e. if it can principally have no effect whatsoever on my existence, it may as well not exist. Still it is true, that "The good life for man is best spent in seeking the good life for man"!

Good post jeb


----------



## chevy (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *
> I believe that absolute standards exist unalterably, that God comprehends and acts in complete harmony with them, and that I can discover them by employing my intellect and seeking help, revelation, and confirmation of past revelation from God.  I do believe it is impossible for me to comprehend all truth as a mere mortal, but that does not preclude its existence, and it does mean that I should try to learn and live by as much truth as I can so that I may align myself with what is good and shun the evil.  Because?  Because it is right.
> *



Your way of thinking is sooo... middle age.

We had several wars and cruisades in Europe, and a very painful inquisition because of that type of thinking.


----------



## banjo_boy (Feb 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _Instead of bombing them, you could try to build them schools, instead of destroying their electricity and water supply, you could try to help them, instead of leeting them remain poor and misguided and victims of religious fundamentalism, you could try to educate them.
> 
> You too are misguided since your childhood in believing that the way you view the world is the good one. So do I.  But at least I try to overcome my limits, while you seem just comfy inside them. Don't american children get brainwashed too from their early childhood, by letting them sing nationalistic songs and swear undying loyalty to their homeland? Where's the difference? [/B]



They have to want to learn first. You can not teach something without a want to learn.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between Country loyalty and fanaticism. To be proud of your country is one thing. To be proud and to WANT to kill people who don't believe what you do is another.

I don't want this war as much as anyone else. My question still is: Why are we so gitty with the idea of gloabalization and "everyone getting along" , but if someone is in trouble we "should keep to ourselves".

If all the anti-war, UN loving people have their way, guess what? 9-11 is going to happen again and it will be worse than before just because the world didn't keep everyone else in check. I do not want this war at all just because my neighbors in Iraq and elsewhere, fellow humans, will get hurt or die. Guaranteed there will be civilian deaths. Why would anyone want it? But, why would we not want to protect innocent lives from future dangers? We can not sit down and tell Sadddam that he is wrong and should be educated to do right. We also can't sit around singing Kumbya thinking that just because we are doing that, Saddam is going to stop funding terrorism and his own weapons.

So if all of us were misguided as children, how do you know you are pursuing the "right" ideals. If we were misguided by our parents and teachers, who misguided them? Their parents. Domino effect! Everyone in the world, from the very beginning, is then misguided! And we are just plodding along in this thing called time and space trying to make sense of what life is for. So, it looks like we are pretty limited because there is nothing else outside of being misguided.

Also, our society now could care less about educating the mind about math, literature, reading, and especially history. But they are concerned about the latest movie or newest CD. And yes, other do understand what I am talking about.

It has become very obvious also that the tolerance level became very intolerant when it came to jeb1138's comment.

BTW, think globally! That "type of thinking" has also been the reason for the rise of many countries and laws. Yes, the wars and cursades were stupid (the stupidest thing in Religious history), but you tell me what is bad about the education of the lower case when the Protestant Reformation happened. Education was only for the rich and clergy. Religion, Christianity especially,  has done more for the world that most could even imagine.

Well, Jeb! Let's pick up our "Middle Age thinking" and move on. I guess the "enlightened" folk want to be alone in "their misguidedness".


----------



## AdmiralAK (Feb 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *there are many of us who would argue that Bush wasn't elected - he took control in the midst of scandal and confusion over our voting processes. it's fact that the majority of americans did not vote for him. *



This is a big thread, sorry if I am repeating a point, however there are 3 points I want to make here (about my friend Ed's comment and the thread).


1) The voting system in the US does not take into account majority vote. The electoral college has power to elect when all is said and done. The democrats in my view tried to twist the process that has been in place since the founding of our republic to get his way.  That is wrong.


2) The two party system sux big time. we, as the american people, need to create more parties that represent US (us not U.S.) the people who vote. All too often we compromise because there are only two choices and we do not vote our conscience  but we vote for either of the lesser of 2 evils, or to spite someone.  -- We as americans have sooooo much choice as consumers, but when we go to vote there are only two choices.



finally
3) what I am saying might be controversial but here it goes, I am FOR the war. I am for the war as a last resort. Saddam must be kicked outta there and never come back. Period. I do not support inspections. We had inspections during the clinton years and what did it get us? Almost no where. With a decade to conceal any weapons that they might have, inspections are even more useless, and to consider that inspections are being held up because "someone doesnt have a key" --- that my friends is a load of bull  --- Diplomacy should be first and foremost, however the option of war should not be discounted.




Admiral


----------



## toast (Feb 24, 2003)

_My own words were:
"War is a primitive, pre-Cold War means to win primitive domination. I understand African nations can still use war, but I don't understand post-industrial countries can still consider it as an option."

*Satcomer: *Be careful! Your statement looks like a very subtle form of racism._

Must be a VERY subtle form of racism then, 'cause I jus't figure out what's racist in my post. African people are just our equals (if not our superiors according to some anthropologists), while African states are politically speaking primitive. This is debatable, if you want to launch the topic start a thread and tell me by PM. Be ready to defend your point, though.

_*mdnky*: The way you talk Toast you would rather them use a WMD (biological or nuclear) on another country before anyone takes an action to stop it. _

Yes. That's justice. If you want to write theory of justice again, take some time to do it. Don't you understand 'pre-emptive strike' is nonsense ? If pre-emptive strike policy was applied, the US would be immediately bombed, just after Pakistan and India. This makes no sense.

_Again, this is the same carelessness that led to WWI, and WWII._
No, you are wrong again. WWI and WWII have much older factors than 1911 and 1933 events. And Iraq is certainly not starting WW3 tomorrow, that's US propaganda which shows a complete ignorance not only of contemporary history (starting from 1900 to nowadays), but also of immediate recent actuality.

I'll repeat again: parallels between WWars and Iraq are what is to be called propaganda. Do I need to explain that ?


----------



## Cat (Feb 24, 2003)

> So if all of us were misguided as children, how do you know you are pursuing the "right" ideals.


In fact, I don't. But I try to check whether they are right. I call them in question. I debate them. I try to overcome my limits, and do not simply acceptem as dogmatically given. Thus I strife to improve my opinions and actions.



> If we were misguided by our parents and teachers, who misguided them? Their parents. Domino effect! Everyone in the world, from the very beginning, is then misguided!


 ROFL! The funny thing is, you are right! Everything you were taught created prejudices in you. They are not necessarily false or wrong or bad, but they are prejudices in that they form and condition your decisions and opinions before having had any real experience. Nobody can prevent starting without prejudices of this kind, but everybody should IMHO try to accept that they are in fact a very limited (and limiting) factor in the way you percieve, judge and react to the rest of the world. Thus you should try to improve them, not raising them to dogmas. Question them and strenghten, change or otherwise improve them through debate and research! I cannot guarantee the results will be absolutely right, but at least the method is.



> And we are just plodding along in this thing called time and space trying to make sense of what life is for. So, it looks like we are pretty limited because there is nothing else outside of being misguided.


Yes indeed, and that is very sad... the tragic human condition... life is absurd. Have you ever read Baudelaire? Beatiful in a very horrific way, is his short poem _Le Cadavre_ (my French isn't perfect...) "The Corpse". Reminds me of Keats sometimes... *deep sigh* or Leopardi ... beatiful... and in the end we're  all gonna die anyway ... *deep sigh* ... oh well .... *shrug* ... like Italo Svevo said in "La coscienza di Zeno": "Life isn't good or bad, but interesting."


----------



## doemel (Feb 25, 2003)

_I read earlier someone said we have been messing with the Middle East for decades now. Guess what! They (the Middle East) have been battling longer than most countries were around/ organized!_

it was atually me who said that. i do agree that "they" have been battling around for a long time. but so has every other people for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. so this point is invalid as stated by you.

_The US is not the only "aggressers" in the world. 10 years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait. There are so many battles in Africa it would make your head spin. Does anyone know how many people are killed in China each year? North Korea? Iraq? And these are their own people! Come on! We might look like aggressers because we don't sit on our butts and enjoy cheese and wine all day, but we are hardly the ones that started the whole thing._

you miss the whole point. while i agree that the US is not the only aggressor (they are also not the only ones claiming to be "good" or "righteous" or whatever term they use to set themselves apart from their adversary) i still want you to realize that a lot of the conflicts you're talking about (Africa, Middle East...) are a direct or indirect result of first European imperialism and these conflicts would probably not exist if we didn't go there, define territorial constraints at will and split up ethnic groups lumping them together with other ethnic groups in the first place. take a look at a history book. you'll certainly find nice colorful maps of how exactly the brits, frenchies, dutch and at one point even the germans and italians split up that huge pie a.k.a. Africa. then try to find a map that shows which people lives in which country and you'll see that even after decades of bloody conflicts, ethnic cleansing and genozide the borders are still arbitrary.
the situation in the Middle East is not very different.


_My main challenge with these protest is that if the US and Britain drops the whole thing and in a couple months BOOM! Kuwait or the US gets hit again.What then? The US is going to be labeled as wimps, gutless to stand up to terrorists, and paper lions._

if we'd follow you logic we would have to bomb the Saudis first. but...oh no! we have very important oil deals with the Saudis and they don't stand in our way to more oil, so we can't bomb them! is that how you'd justify that the US is not doing anything about the country that was a major investor in the Al Qaeda network? i hope not.
i for my part have not seem any evidence of Iraq supporting terrorists more than most of it's neighbor countries. you'll quite likely find someone in about every large country on this planet that is somehow connected to a terrorist group and even supporting it. does that mean we should bomb all these countries? i don't think so. 9/11 and Iraq are two totally different issues, so let's PLEASE keep it that way. i am sorry about what happened on 9/11 but quite frankly: you've already had your revenge in Afghanistan. and speaking about Afghanistan: the US still has not installed a regime there that would better the situation of the population, namely the women and children. i for my part fear they again took side with someone that might get back at them in the future. it's happened repeatedly before and i don't see the US govnt. having learned the lesson yet.


_Our country was not founded by a bunch of ninnies. But nowadays, it's hard to find people who actually have solid beliefs in a world of "no absolutes". There is evil and there is good. Killing people is evil._

i don't think we're getting anywhere with the "good-and-evil-does it-exist?" debate. i for my part beliefe that there are indeed shades of grey in the world and that what a certain shade of grey is to me is probably something else for you.
i do agree though that killing is evil (for me). and i refer to any kind of killing, no matter who you are and on which side you are.


_However, in this case, involuntary evil has to fight voluntary evil. We didn't volunteer to get attacked 9-11. _

there is no such thing as involuntary violence.


_We want to protect ourselves and others._

so does everyone else.


_The only thing I know is that if a small army of terrorists came into the MidWest, they would have no chance whatsoever.

For me, diplomacy. But, sometimes, kids have to be taken to the woodshed when words don't work. _ 

there's a huge difference between punishing only the culprit and punishing all the people that happen to live in the same country as the culprit.


----------



## toast (Feb 25, 2003)

Doemel just made a very ture point about Afghanistan that deserves careful reading and thinking here.

I've been working on a strange problematic today in class: are democracies the best regime to propagate democracy elsewhere (ie outside their borders) ? In other words, are democracies the best exporters of their own values ?

*AdmiralAK*: _ 2) The two party system sux big time. we, as the american people, need to create more parties that represent US (us not U.S.) the people who vote._

Multipartism is not systemically better than bipartism. I live in a multipartist country, where all parties can be positioned on a bipolar scale (from x-left to x-right). Therefore, there is no more political diversity in my country than in yours.
Plus, the actual American party system (money, money, lobbies, money, more lobbies, more money) makes birth of new parties a fantasy. Think about it, find some examples, you'll make it by yourself.


----------



## Ugg (Feb 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> Multipartism is not systemically better than bipartism. I live in a multipartist country, where all parties can be positioned on a bipolar scale (from x-left to x-right). Therefore, there is no more political diversity in my country than in yours.
> 
> I agree with what you say, Toast, however, the one aspect of multipartism that IS better is that it allows ALL people to have a voice in their govt.  One of the biggest problems with a bipartist system is that a large percentage of the voters are left without a voice.  Some people speculate that this is why the voter turnout is so low in the USA.  Of course, we might just be lazy, apathetic couch potatoes too


----------



## doemel (Feb 25, 2003)

_Multipartism is not systemically better than bipartism. I live in a multipartist country, where all parties can be positioned on a bipolar scale (from x-left to x-right). Therefore, there is no more political diversity in my country than in yours.
Plus, the actual American party system (money, money, lobbies, money, more lobbies, more money) makes birth of new parties a fantasy. Think about it, find some examples, you'll make it by yourself. _ 

I couldn't agree more, but I think the real problem in the US system is not the bipartism, it's all the lobbying. It is a legal form of corruption! Keep in mind that corporations or individuals that have enough dough can "buy" both parties (not that the difference is all that fundamental) and therefore they have things their way in any case. We see it in sports: Why is there so much corruption in sports that involve lots of advertisment/licence and other money? And why should it be different in politics? I recommend to put strict limits on the money that can be received for electoral campaigns and you'll have a system that's more democratic (for the people). This might even get the couch potatoes to be more active politically. And it opens the door to mulitpartism.


----------



## Ugg (Feb 25, 2003)

I agree, however the people who receive the money are the people who make the laws.  I believe that it would be very difficult to undo the current system.  There have been some efforts and maybe in the future more will appear and succeed.  Corruption, nepotism and the building of family dynasties has never been more apparent than during the current administration.  It's not just the administration but the entire republican party.


----------



## Cat (Feb 26, 2003)

I think multipartism is better than bi-partism because:
1) People need to make less compromises in voting because more choice is offered.
2) two big ruling parties will necessarily gravitate towards the static centre, where most people are anyway, while smaller parties at the fringes are mostly the ones advoking change, progress etc.
3) bi-partism necessarily is composed of two big parties that are assured of alternating leadership of the country, which makes them quite sure of their power and self-indulgent, which makes them less interested in what the public opinion really is and more interested in their own affairs (= internal issues to the party). More parties presuppose smaller parties. Smaller parties presuppose more efforts to actually interest the voters in the relevant issues, which may lead to more political partecipation an debate.
4) Bi-partism concentrates the power where there should be none. Parties (as a whole) are not to rule, but the elected representatives are. 

These are my illusions, what are yours?


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mdnky _
> *No, they did the exact same thing you want us to do with Iraq.  Baby it, place restrictions, do inspections, etc.
> 
> In the end the same thing will happen if we don't do something about him, we'll wind up in a major conflict again...the really scarry thing is this:
> ...



Look, we have this thing that we call action-reaction in nature and in general...

So far, it seems that Mr.Bush seems to enjoy being the action part...

Which makes me wonder: What is going to be the reaction? Sadam? Osama? Other fanatics maybe? All these at the same time? Or something worst that we cannot possibly imagine?

I bet Mr.Bush could not see that VERY bad day for humanity of 9-11 and I really hope that he isn't trying to play the Wrath of God part aka Revenge/Avenge for that day too... I think that the coming war will teach Mr.Bush a very serious lesson and I hope that HE is going to be the one and only to have that lesson and not innocent people all over the world: When you start a war be more than sure that you can end it too and not simply start an ongoing vendetta...

War is a mess even when you have the "upper" hand... But I think that Mr.Bush never really understood anything about the Vietnam (9-11 or other war activities around the globe) or the hell that he is going to unleash by going into War. Is really Sadam a threat or someone has to look himself in the mirror? You know? Sometimes the enemy can be within ourselves... Or if you prefer within US of A...


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *  I think leaders of nations do this more than you give them credit here.  Especially leaders who stand up for what they believe.  They take very real risks.  Saddam attempted to assassinate the first President Bush even after he was out of office, for example.  But I agree -- it could be very interesting to do what you say.  It would certainly result in different candidates being elected.  Can anyone say "Jesse Ventura for President"?  Campaign slogan: (and actual quote!) "Wrestling is ballet with violence."  I'm not sure Saddam Hussein would be willing, however... *



You know what I really was trying to say: The same people who like to govern our earth when it was time for them to order a war THEMSELVES must go to war... Be it on a ring or the battlefield itself... 

Of course you have heard of Alexander the Great?! He HIMSELF was leading his army when it was time for action and not as a coward staying behind and giving orders... And yes, times changed and nowadays we have generals and stuff but still they lack a VERY important characteristic of a TRUE leader: Brains & Guts... And not JUST brains which you know what? In the end I believe that the majority of modern leaders lack this too! Who in his right mind would start a war without REAL reasons? And you know? I may be wrong on this but we have yet to see let alone figure the outcome of the war that Mr.Bush "thinks" that he already won...  

The coming war sure isn't another Black Hawk Down, Rambo, Saving Private Ryan, et al movie you know... I'm sure that Hollywood loves Mr.Bush because in the coming years they will get the chance to film MANY war and terrorist movies! I just hope that they will find people to watch them too!  

To put it simply: War sucks! War without reasons sucks more! War with dumb reasons sucks infinity times more!


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeb1138 _
> *  I think leaders of nations do this more than you give them credit here.  Especially leaders who stand up for what they believe.  They take very real risks.  Saddam attempted to assassinate the first President Bush even after he was out of office, for example.  But I agree -- it could be very interesting to do what you say.  It would certainly result in different candidates being elected.  Can anyone say "Jesse Ventura for President"?  Campaign slogan: (and actual quote!) "Wrestling is ballet with violence."  I'm not sure Saddam Hussein would be willing, however... *



You know what I really was trying to say: The same people who like to govern our earth when it was time for them to order a war THEMSELVES must go to war... Be it on a ring or the battlefield itself... 

Of course you have heard of Alexander the Great?! He HIMSELF was leading his army when it was time for action and not as a coward staying behind and giving orders... And yes, times changed and nowadays we have generals and stuff but still they lack a VERY important characteristic of a TRUE leader: Brains & Guts... And not JUST brains which you know what? In the end I believe that the majority of modern leaders lack this too! Who in his right mind would start a war without REAL reasons? And you know? I may be wrong on this but we have yet to see let alone figure the outcome of the war that Mr.Bush "thinks" that he already won...  

The coming war sure isn't another Black Hawk Down, Rambo, Saving Private Ryan, et al movie you know... I'm sure that Hollywood loves Mr.Bush because in the coming years they will get the chance to film MANY war and terrorist movies! I just hope that they will find people to watch them too!  

To put it simply: War sucks! War without reasons sucks more! War with dumb reasons sucks infinity times more!


----------



## toast (Feb 26, 2003)

*doemel*:_I think the real problem in the US system is not the bipartism, it's all the lobbying. _

Lobbying is a consequence of the US financial laws that apply to parties and to their campaigns. Hard and soft money concepts are impossible to conceive for French people, for instance.

*Ugg*: _the one aspect of multipartism that IS better is that it allows ALL people to have a voice in their govt._

Yes, obviously. However, multipartism also fragments the global political trends, in such a way some political parties find it problematic to create consistant coalitions and parliamentary groups.

*Cat:*
_1) People need to make less compromises in voting because more choice is offered._

Consensus is the basis of presidential, parliamentary or semi-presidential semi-parliamentary political systems, don't forget that.
On a very theoretical point of view, compromise begins bipartism (people find a compromise, thus create a big, strong party, hence only two trends appear) and ends multipartism (people create many small parties, then regroup for elections).
Both result in agglomerating votes.

_2) two big ruling parties will necessarily gravitate towards the static centre, where most people are anyway, while smaller parties at the fringes are mostly the ones advoking change, progress etc._

You are very right on this point. Don't imagine, though, that those parties have a big audience: they are, most of the time, ignored by 90% of the population, the 10% left being just a bit more curious then the rest.

_3) bi-partism necessarily is composed of two big parties that are assured of alternating leadership of the country, which makes them quite sure of their power and self-indulgent, which makes them less interested in what the public opinion really is and more interested in their own affairs (= internal issues to the party). More parties presuppose smaller parties. Smaller parties presuppose more efforts to actually interest the voters in the relevant issues, which may lead to more political partecipation an debate._

False: those are presuppositions, which do not apply in multipartist reality. I'll take my own country as an example where multipartism has not led to more debate than bipartism.
Again: where you don't find an insitutional separation in two parties, you find an ideological separation which finally regroups   all parties to two left/right trends.

_4) Bi-partism concentrates the power where there should be none._

Americanocentric point 
You will find example of bipartism where the parties don't have the same (financial) influence as in the US.


----------



## Cat (Feb 26, 2003)

> _2) two big ruling parties will necessarily gravitate towards the static centre, where most people are anyway, while smaller parties at the fringes are mostly the ones advoking change, progress etc._
> 
> You are very right on this point. Don't imagine, though, that those parties have a big audience: they are, most of the time, ignored by 90% of the population, the 10% left being just a bit more curious then the rest.



True, but it's those 10% that make it worthwhile for me to vote, instead of beginning aparty by myself...  
Moreover small parties can take more radical and progressive stances and position, which, in a watered-down form, can be taken over by the centrist mainstream partis. They are useful as organs that make proposition which other parties would not come up with and, however small, generate pull, by getting media attention, comparing in debates and challenging the ruling parties etc.

You're probably right on 3) ... maybe more hopes and idealism there than realistic political analysis ...  however I said "_may_ lead to more political partecipation an debate." 



> _4) Bi-partism concentrates the power where there should be none._
> 
> Americanocentric point
> You will find example of bipartism where the parties don't have the same (financial) influence as in the US.


Point taken! In fact I had the US in mind when I wrote this ...

About hulkaros point: It might happen, since Saddam has challenged Bush to a public TV debate ... Well, OK: it won't happen probably, but this is as close as it gets anyway.  Would be definitely nice to see though.


----------

