VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:32:36 03/04/03 Tue
Author: Icon
Subject: Commentary
In reply to: X 's message, "Here's someone I agree with." on 23:29:14 03/03/03 Mon

>If the U.S. does not stop terrorism, it will come after us
>again. Whether you like Bush or not isn't the question,
>it's about maintaining the safety of the U.S. and
>everything that it stands for.

As Bush is the man guiding the entire course of the US, I'd say we have to consider his qualities in any consideration. Agreed, "like" is irrelevant, but other attributes are not.

>This war is NOT preemptive. It is a continuation of the
>Gulf War. A peace treaty was never made, just a cease
>fire.

Odd how no one, not even the US Government has seen fit use that argument. And it is common now for peace deals not to be brokered. The UK was technically art war with Argentina for many, many years beyond the end of the Falkland War.

>The burden of proof was placed on them...it is not for the
>world to bring evidence against Iraq that says they have
>weapons, it is up to Iraq to show the world that it
>doesn't. They have not and they refuse to do so.

Any scientist will tell you the near impossibility of proving a negative. The Weapons Inspectors are in there doing their best with this job, I say let them keep going. I don't see what the sudden hurry is after 12 years waiting.

>I personally believe the U.S. is doing the right thing.

Fundamentally, so do I, am a lot more uncertain about their methods of doing so though.

>North Korea is not part of the War on Terror and would be
>a distraction from current goals.

This whole "War on Terror" needs to be examined as a concept, and as Briton living in London at the height of the IRA campaign I can speak with perhaps a little experience.

Terrorism is not a place, it is a concept, a destructive, malicious concept. How exactly does one declare war on a concept? Especially one which thrives on persecution (real or imagined) and loves nothng more than a martyr.

Iraq is, as I have agreed, in the hands of an evil, evil, man. But they were not involved in 11th September, which, as I also stated, was manned mostly by Saudi Arabians, co-ordinated from an Afghan group. Al-Qaida seeks rule by Sharia law, which is anathema to secular rulers such as Saddam. There is no love lost there.

I would also point out both sides in the US failing to take action to prevent the activities of NorAid and their ilk, "charities" which directly funded the Northern Irish "Freedom Fighters", who were also terrorists in every eyes but their own.

>It’s a terrible
>situation with them, but they aren’t giving weapons of
>mass destruction to terrorist groups.

I think that there are enough countries out there which would which make slecting Iraq seem a little like victimisation.

And I would point out that the likes of Donald Rumsfeld actually DID sell WDM to Saddam in the past, and the Allies did help arm Bin Laden when it suited them.

>Those against the war I have to wonder about.

In what way, for daring to disagree, or having different views?

>I have no respect for the nations who are in opposition to
>it because they fail to provide any legitimate reasons
>against war, but seem to have plenty of self-interests
>that are biasing their opinion.

True, though I can see self-interest in the part of those promoting the war too. To kinda-quote Bab5 "The universe operates through the delicate interaction of three forces; Matter, energy and enlightened self-interest"

>As for the UN, in my mind, they have made themselves
>illegitimate. Though, I have little respect for it as an
>institution, anyway. It is made up of many dictators and
>extremists, many of which are anti-America…thus I have
>little reason to respect any of their decisions. Their
>stance on Israel alone makes me loose tons of respect for
>them.

And the American stance on the same is the cause of a good deal of that distrust of the US.

>As for Icon’s statement, “they’re called ‘occupied
>territory’ for a reason” (in reference to the West Bank)—
>that shows a lack of historical understanding; those lands
>were taken from Jordan, not any other nation. Besides
>that, they were occupied during an attack by the Arabs
>against Israel. Israel was not the aggressor and should
>not pay a price for winning a war.

Though by their continued occupation they are in violation of UN resolutions. Why is it good enough to justify the situation in Iraq, but not enough to penalise the Israeli government for their actions (The PLO are terrorists, no question, but the Israeli Governments actions seem little better)?

>There is very little you can say against him that would
>actually stick (the closest thing would be the economy,
>but the president does not have that much power to change
>things under short periods of time.

Well, I could mention the Kyoto accord and the refusal to accept that other countries do not automatically treat the US as being perfect, but that last one's more of a cultural thing than individually assigned to him.

We could also mention the farrago of an election process which did not help his easing into public office.

>but that’s just my opinion, and I appear to be in the
>minority on this board.

Hey, your views are clearly heartfelt and considered, I respect that, minority or not.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.