Boycott the Saudi's. dont buy their gas! <-----

If I would still believe in God, I would suggest he blesses everybody, including the Iraqi population.

One bomb may kill Saddam. Not many people will cry.

Who will be killed by the other bombs ?

What do you suggest by "Europe may be next" ? Do you suggest that no terrorism attack have been made in Europe yet ? Or do you suggest that Iraq organised 9.11 and that "they" will organize something similar in Europe ? Or do you suggest that Europe will be the next target of the US army ?

Yes, the danger is imminent, and this is why European diplomats work that hard to prevent it. We in Europe most often think that war is the last solution, the worst one. Sometimes it applies... most often they are better ways. Less impessive, less fun for TVs, less "orgasmic" for some people, less revengeful, less unwinding, less "kick-assing", but so much efficient on the long term.
 
I believe my President is just in going after this man who has defied the world through a diplomatic chess game.
Click to expand...

It would be just and justified if and only if he would go after him like any normal citizen goes after a criminal: not by beating him up but by trail and court, thus through the UN, and by proving his guilt. What unnerves the rest of the world is that the USA seem a bully rather than a police officer. Moreover the support the USA have given in the past to what they now call terrorists throw the shadow of empty rethoric on otherwise noble motives.

Didn't the USA unilaterally cancel treaties like Kyoto (environment) and ABM (nuclear non-proliferation)? Shouldn't the UN send some inspectors to check the nuclear developments in the USA?
 
Originally posted by Cat
Shouldn't the UN send some inspectors to check the nuclear developments in the USA?
Click to expand...
The thing is, the US doesn't have a history of violence toward other nations using atomic bombs or weapons of mass destruction unless it was defensive. Iraq has *relatively* recently invaded Kuwait, not to mention their country is a dictatorship, which in itself is bad enough IMO.
 
Originally posted by dixonbm
All I do know is that most Americans are willing to stand behind their president and destroy those who would threaten America.
Click to expand...

There is the problem! "destroy". The mentality I see behind this is:
a boy hits you in your face and you just hit back (not to say how much harder).

Does this make you different than the guy who hit you first?
 
Originally posted by Zammy-Sam
There is the problem! "destroy". The mentality I see behind this is:
a boy hits you in your face and you just hit back (not to say how much harder).

Does this make you different than the guy who hit you first?
Click to expand...

Do you have a better alternative? "Talking it over" usually isn't helpful with someone that just hit you, and there's no teacher to tell.
 
Well, that's the point! You and many other ppl (am not talking about Americans in general) are not able to see any other possibility than hitting back.
You ask me about alternatives? Alternatives to what? To war or how to solve any "problems"? I seperate boths, because they are irreconcilable.
Hitting back (war) is no solution!!
And than again: won't it make yourself a "felon" as well, no matter if someone else hit you first?

And you should admit: in these days there are many different ways to put other nations under pressure than war... We are no primates anymore!
 
Originally posted by Zammy-Sam
Well, that's the point! You and many other ppl (am not talking about Americans in general) are not able to see any other possibility than hitting back.
You ask me about alternatives? Alternatives to what? To war or how to solve any "problems"? I seperate boths, because they are irreconcilable.
Hitting back (war) is no solution!!
And than again: won't it make yourself a "felon" as well, no matter if someone else hit you first?

And you should admit: in these days there are many different ways to put other nations under pressure than war... We are no primates anymore!
Click to expand...
I have yet to hear any viable alternatives, from you or anyone else.
 
Alternative to what, Xaqintosh? What is it you think to solve with war, since "there are no other alternatives"?
 
as far as i see it, xaqintosh, Iraq has not "hit" america, so there is no reason for america to "hit" back. And if you say Iraq has threaten america, then one could argue that america has been a threat to Iraq for the last decades. Does that give Iraq the right to attack America? No. and for the same reason America has no right to attack Iraq.
 
dixonbm

I believe my country may be acting a bit rash.
Click to expand...

May Iraqis think the same the second before they die as their roof collapses on their heads, blown up by fragmentation bombs.

I believe my President is just in going after this man who has defied the world through a diplomatic chess game.
Click to expand...

You're inverting roles. The USA are the ones playing with world influences. Kissinger, Brzezinski, they all confess it in their works. Read "The Grand Chessboard", 1997, Public Press, for instance.

All I do know is that most Americans are willing to stand behind their president and destroy those who would threaten America.
Click to expand...

You should read polls a bit more. Only one American out of two declares him/herself ready for war without UN approval [source: AP].

I leave those in Europe with some words. You might be next.
Click to expand...

Let me laugh at you on this one. I have strictly nothing against you or your opinion, but this statement is not only paranoid, it's completely ridiculous to anyone who knows the geostrategic positions respectively held by the US and by Europe.

I have said my piece. I do not intend to comment anymore in this column.
Click to expand...

That's what Bush said to the UN a few days ago. Democracy dies at this point.

xaqintosh

The thing is, the US doesn't have a history of violence toward other nations using atomic bombs or weapons of mass destruction unless it was defensive.
Click to expand...

Nicaragua. Vietnam. Chili. You want more ? I have a ~25 countries list somewhere in my American Foreign Policy class notes.

"a boy hits you in your face and you just hit back (not to say how much harder)."
Do you have a better alternative?
Click to expand...

Yes. Read last French/German UN paper. It's a viable alternative.

War has never, never solved any world conflict. It may have transformed them (WW2), or replaced them with other ones (WW1), war has never been a long-term solution. War is an irrational way to solve nothing and to delay, amplify and distort problems that can be solved in peaceful means, which are the only means that should be accepted as democratical.

If you want a full Internation Relations class, why not. For the moment, I hope the very restricted amount of info I posted will suffice. PRITHEE, people on the US side, check history books before talking of Iraq, of internatl. 'chessboard' relations, of OPEC oil, of war as a solution, of Yurop.
 
Originally posted by Decado
as far as i see it, xaqintosh, Iraq has not "hit" america, so there is no reason for america to "hit" back. And if you say Iraq has threaten america, then one could argue that america has been a threat to Iraq for the last decades. Does that give Iraq the right to attack America? No. and for the same reason America has no right to attack Iraq.
Click to expand...
I don't think I specifically said we *should* attack Iraq, and I currently don't believe we should. I was just responding to the post about how hitting back is not a good alternative. My opinion on this is not to go to war with Iraq but to systematically remove the government (i.e. Saddam Hussein et al) and replace the dictatorship with a democracy.
 
Oh, sorry... i missunderstood you. yes, i am too of the opinion that Hussein doesnt seem like the ideal ruler.
 
Not to flame anyone, but this whole topic about impending war is getting old. You would think after a quick review of history, we would learn the leason or at least understand, of when it's time to quit bickering like children and smother a situation.

Had this been done in the late 30's we most likely wouldn't read about a thing called WWII or have anything to remember of Sept. 1st 1939.

Today the US is partly to blame, had had it been taken care of during the first Gulf conflict we wouldn't be here.


Speak softly and carry a big stick...
 
The thing is, the US doesn't have a history of violence toward other nations using atomic bombs or weapons of mass destruction unless it was defensive. Iraq has *relatively* recently invaded Kuwait, not to mention their country is a dictatorship, which in itself is bad enough IMO.
Click to expand...

I can never remember, maybe Toast can help me out: were it the british or the americans who bombed Dresden, an internationally recognized red-cross city, right at the end of WWII? Also AFAIK the only two atom bombs ever used in war were dropped by the USA. Utterly destroying two cities full of civilians doesn't sound very much like a defensive measure, it's more like terrorism and intimidation. Unlike Machiavelli said, ends do not justify means. Democracy is not something you can enforce by a war. You'll only create resentment, fear and anger. In this case there is a higher authority to which an appeal can be made: the UN. Besides the american plans, there are others, like the German/France plan, which moreover is supported by Russia and China. If you want law and order, don't be the first one to disobey.
 
Cat :

The American Flying Fortresses called B17 (codename: Marauder) bombed Dresden February 14th 1945 using 13.000 tons of phospore bombs, which are incendiary bombs. They were being escorted by Mustang airplanes in their nightly task.

Source: book by Anthony Kemp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top