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: 20:37:48 03/10/03 Mon
Author: WarCore
Subject: hrmm
In reply to: Icon 's message, "Oooh, start with the easy ones...." on 13:07:34 03/03/03 Mon

>>Well, for statrers I ahve to say I think that no matter how complicated it seems, it's more complicated than that.

true.

>>Bush I distrust. This is the man who said he's doing because "This is the man who tried to kill my Daddy". As one commentator put it, that's a reason to round up a posse on horseback, not risk WWIII.

so after stating a fact you decide to use simplistic reasoning for starting a major war? Note that Bush Senior went against Saddam. Note that Clinton went against Saddam. Note now Bush Jr. is going against Saddam. If Bush has reasons of honor why did Clinton do something? hmm? faulty reasoning.

>>Saddam is evil, let's not kid ourselves. He's a vicious, power hungry tyrant the world, in ideal situations, would be better off without.

True.

>>Trying to like Saddam to Al Qaida is nuts, it represents everything he is against and vice versa, Bin Laden et al would cheerfully assassinate him themselves.

False. Research. The things Saddam has done in public have been worst than the things done in silence by Al Queda. His violent relocation program is just one of the things he's done.

>>I wish I could genuinely feel that the American decision to deal with Iraq was something more than sour grapes from the Gulf War, but I can't. The arguments used seem valid in and of themselves, but the concentration on Iraq seems to be overly convenient.

Sour Grapes? US casualties were minimal and the only thing that held the US at bay was it's agreeing to US restrictions on going further inland. How is this sour grapes against Iraq? Nonsensical argument.

>>There are numerous countries in violation of UN Statues, (the US being one of them).

List the numerous countries and which resolutions they are violating and if so does this give credence to the UN's inability to enforce their own statues? This claim needs more evidence to be accurate.

>>Israel is probably the most contentious one at the moment, with it's position regarding the Palestine (They're called "the Occupied Territories" for a reason). I find the blanket US support for Israel to be deeply disturbing if they expect to be able to find allies in the region for their own war.

Sadly the area is volatile and any moment things quiet down another 20 people die at a palestinian suicide bomber. I find it disturbing that you find more support in Palestinians attacking busses and areas filled with children than military containment.


>>Of course, they have Saudi Arabia on side, but as this is where most of the 9-11 terrorists came from, and which has a truly awful human rights record in it's own right, one has to wonder why, could it be... oil?

Don't be completely absurd. About 4% of the 28% off oil that comes from Arab states comes from Saudi Arabia. Do your research on the DoE before spewing nonsense.

>>America seems to want to take a larger role in world security, but only on it's terms.

The terms of the UN and other countries have benefited no one. Yugoslavio under Milosovich was suffering a modern day ethnic cleansing policy and the UN stood by and watched while the US dismantled the leadership thereof. If there were others willing to step to the plate let them.

>> This would be fine if America was being led by a fine upstanding, unimpeachable figure with spotless morals and a genuine belief in truth justice and the America way, but as neither Superman nor President Bartlett are alas, available, what with being fictitious nd everything, it's not.


>>As regards Tony Blair, he does, no matter what else you might think of him, appear to believe sincerely in the justness of the cause. I'm not sure whether that heartens me, or frightens me.

Feelings are strange like that. Maybe you're in love? (j/k)

>>We have him to thank for getting the US to use the UN, but since the US was ejected as a member of one of the most important panels of the UN, and promptly sulked by not paying any of the UN dues it owed for several years, that hardly impresses me, especially when they seem hell bent to circumvent it if the UN dares to disagree with it.

Mindles drivel

Not paying dues why? Because the US couldn't pay? Or perhaps any military or peacekeeping campaign that has been sent out was at the cost of US moneys? Or was it because this is fiction? Who knows? Evidence? Yes? No?

>>Me? I personally am more concerned about matters like, in no particular order;

1) stockpiled weapons from the former ussr have either been found defunct or missing. If they're missing there has been conjecture that it winds up in the hands of terrorists and even Iraq.
2) the possible threat of North Korea affects the region. China and Japan should have more fear about a nuclear cable Korea than other countries. If you are from that area I understand your concern.
3) the ramifications of the Israel/PLO situation has been felt for 50 years. A country smaller than new jersey affecting the world thusly...your interest is justified.
4)tyranny of Mugabe and not Saddam or former Milosovich or in North Korea?
5)possible problems between India and Pakistan have been going on for years since the establishment of Cashmere.

>>than I am about one dictator, however loathesome (and he is) who has been succesfully contained, if not controlled, for 12 years. Deal with him as the UN decrees, but there are greater threats around IMHO.

US Policy in 1939 may have saved many people if they didn't think this way back then. Amazing that the lessons of the past have yet to be learned.

[ 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.