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: 04:02:30 03/09/03 Sun
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: My two cents
In reply to: Icon 's message, "Commentary" on 15:32:36 03/04/03 Tue

I agree with pretty much everything Icon and Bat have said so far.

As Icon pointed out, the entire concept of a war on "terror" is a dubious one. Furthermore, simply labelling all terrorists as being 'evil' is to fail to understand the issues that people are fighting for. Many people resort to terrorism because they feel that there is no other means for them to fight oppression -- terrorism is the tool of the oppressed. Certainly not all terrorist causes are just - many are not - but some are not simply entirely malicious either. Remember that the American War of Independence started off as nothing more than a series of terrorist strikes against the British Empire (blowing up boats, dumping tea into the ocean etc). The Palestinians are forced to use terrorism because there is little else they can do against an Israeli army that is so heavily backed by the US.

Then there is this entire issue of the US supposedly waging war on "rogue" states. I would not protest the claim that North Korea, Iran and Iraq are "rogue" states -- but what about the United States? They're the ones who are currently calling for war and amassing military forces around Iraq and are prepared to begin a war with or without UN approval... gee, that kinda sounds like something a rogue state would do.

How would most Americans feel if another country were to surround the US with hostile forces? It's a pretty aggressive move.

I agree that Saddam Hussein is exarcerbating the situation by not fully cooperating with the UN Weapons Inspectors - but at the same time, Iraq is currently NOT poised to strike anyone. As Icon pointed out, we've waited 12 years so far, so what's the hurry? Why didn't the US kick a fuss when Iraq expelled the UN Weapon Inspectors a few years back? It seems that Bush just wants to pound Iraq because he's getting sore since he still can't find Osama Bin Laden. (and there's still the danger that a war on Iraq may force the state of Iraq and Al Qaeda - who currently have no love for each other - to ally themselves against a common foe, which would make two enemies unite into a larger contingent to fight against).

As for the accusation that Hussein is leaving the US little choice by to attack -- again, what bollocks. Just two weeks ago Saddam Hussein said that he was prepared to engage George W. Bush in an internationally televised debate. I thought that was a rather noble motion on Hussein's behalf -- that he was willing to at least open some direct line of communication with the US President, live, and in front of a world audience. Yet the US President flatly rejected this offer. Why?
It would have given George Bush the opportunity to directly question and debate the Iraqi President. An opportunity for both leaders to present their cases in front of the people of the world. It doesn't seem to me that the US has exhausted every alternative to war...

That being said, I do also think that it's very stupid of the Iraqi President to play around with the United Nations. Saddam isn't being totally honest or open with the UN.

>>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.

...then there's the US treatment of POWs from the campaign in Afghanistan. They're regarding them as animals... which in concept reminds me of the way the Nazis and Japanese regarded their prisoners.

[ 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.