I do believe there is a middle ground and it would probably be easy to find if you exclude two factors from this current conflict.
1. Oil. Ignore the oil.
2. Weapons sales. Pretend you don't know anyone that profits off of weapons sales.
After that there will be a middle ground that isn't all that difficult to see.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*Lay-out* your middleground plan based on where we are today. Don't be cryptic. Don't drop "clues". I hope this isn't to the effect that "if we hadn't done such and such, then..." such a plan could work, but has absolutely no use for where we are *today*. That would not be a plan- just another complaint by an armchair world strategist ranting "things would be so different, if we had done what I said in '87" or some crap like that.
<strong>Define civilized world community. The UN is an absolute joke.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So there *is* nobody at the wheel, then? So who is to complain if *somebody* does step in to "regulate". Somebody like the US? Outside of that, you feel alright with anybody doing absolutely anything they please, right?
<strong> [quote]No, but I also don't trust North Korea with them...yet let's try diplomacy there...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This has already been repeated in this topic and addressed. Continuing to repeat it is just blind rhetoric- say anything, just for the sake of saying something. You could rationalize doing nothing always, so what is the point?
<strong> [quote]You think that he is "having trouble keeping the weapons properly inventories and documented"? You have got to be kidding me. I guarantee you that he knows exactly where his weapons are. He's hiding it from us. That's all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you concede they exist, and you are perfectly alright leaving them with Saddam? We only need to refer back your "pearl of wisdom" here, when we hear your contributions in the future. Basically you know he has the stuff, he knows he has the stuff, he isn't owning up to it or giving them up, and that summarizes to a major violation of the UN agreements passed when Saddam lost the war last time. If that isn't a reason to reinitiate combat operations (after giving endless opportunities to come clean), I don't know what is.
<strong>No one ever accused Bill Clinton of being in bed with lawyers or Jimmy Carter of being in the pocket of farmers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that's becuase subconciously everyone hates oil and knows it's bad for the country, and has secret desires to be a farmer.
But seriously, it's true, noone can argue that we're doing a good thing by sucking the earth's limited supply of natural resources out of the ground, converting them into something more dangerous and then pumping them into the sky, even though we have alterantives, just becuase noone has the guts to be different, except of course, GWB but unfortunately not in a good way, but he really is addicted to oil, and Tony Blair just sucks up to him because it's a great british tradition to suck up to the people with all the money and power, usually the USA.
But imagine what we could do if we spent all the money we're using to kill people into converting these countries to run primarily on gas. Except that just wouldn't work would it, because making the earth a better place for everyone would upset the oil industry, and the president of America wouldn't like that, therefore president Tony of mini-America wouldn't like that either, and we can't have that, we have to look after our oil industry, it's the only one we've got.
*Lay-out* your middleground plan based on where we are today.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no difinitive plan. I'm not claiming to know more than anyone else in the world. What I'm saying is that given all of the facts there is going to be a solution without the immediate need for war. I don't even have a problem resorting to war as a final option, but that's not what's happening.
People here and in the government are thirsting for the 'smoking gun' rather than for a warless solution. The U.N. Charter is founded on the principle that war should only be used in self-defense. Our Constitution requires that we uphold international treaties we sign like the U.N. Charter. It's the responsibility of the President and Commander in Chief to reconcile those two facts regardless.
Yes, the U.N. does allow for a preemptive strike, but only in the face of an immenent threat like Israel faced in 1967. Saddam is not an immenent threat even to his neighbors at this point in time. A possibility 10 years in the future does not require war now so it cannot be a legal option.
I don't have to come up with a solution because our Constitution forces the President to do it for me. If he does not abide by the Constitution he's sworn to uphold, a charge of treason is fine by me.
There is no difinitive plan. I'm not claiming to know more than anyone else in the world. What I'm saying is that given all of the facts there is going to be a solution without the immediate need for war. I don't even have a problem resorting to war as a final option, but that's not what's happening.
People here and in the government are thirsting for the 'smoking gun' rather than for a warless solution. The U.N. Charter is founded on the principle that war should only be used in self-defense. Our Constitution requires that we uphold international treaties we sign like the U.N. Charter. It's the responsibility of the President and Commander in Chief to reconcile those two facts regardless.
Yes, the U.N. does allow for a preemptive strike, but only in the face of an immenent threat like Israel faced in 1967. Saddam is not an immenent threat even to his neighbors at this point in time. A possibility 10 years in the future does not require war now so it cannot be a legal option.
I don't have to come up with a solution because our Constitution forces the President to do it for me. If he does not abide by the Constitution he's sworn to uphold, a charge of treason is fine by me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just want to reiterate that last few parts . . . with a !!
Y'know, THT already did such a fine job of playing "Whack-A-Mole" with his trusty 'reason and logic' mallet, that I feel much of what should be expressed already has.
I will point out a few things of note, however:
1) Precedent. The US, ignoring the UN and engaging in a 'preemptive' strike sets a really ugly and dangerous precedent. Given global disapproval (with the notable exception of Tony Blair), and many other, much more dire situations (Korea, to name one), to have the US invade a country for shaky/nonexistant reasons sets a dangerous precedent for the US and the rest of the world. Who will be next? What other weak premises will the States use to sieze the natural resources of foreign nations?
[quote]Well, I dont get it. People are so caught up with isolationism, actling like nothing is our worry. I cant understand why in God's name we should not take action against a country that has been and will continue to be a threat? Us NOT doing anything would be like ignoring a robber that has a gun to your head.
Bush isnt an evil, oil loving, mad man. He is the President and I am sure he knows the inner workings of the matter ten times beyond what the average citizen does. I hope we are going to attack for more than oil. But I wouldnt say that attacking JUST for oil is bad.
People need to realize that oil is the blood that runs though the veins of our economy, we need it...as idealistic as it may be to think that we are not dependant on oil, we are...and will be for a long time to come yet.
<hr></blockquote>
Prophetic words, Macintosh. Prophetic, because the US in the above analogy IS the robber, taking resources with force from Iraq. That's dangerous precedent, after which the USA simply cannot be trusted.
2) There's an interesting dichotomy between deep-rooted paranoia in American culture (news, etc) that somebody is out to get you, that the world is conspiring to destroy America. Then America makes a jackass of itself with unbelievably wack foreign policy, pisses off various parts of the world, creating 'anti-americanism'. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
3) Hipocrisy. The hipocrisy of starting war because some evil doer has 'weapons of mass destruction'. A country that poses no immediate threat to USA, Europe or anywhere outside the 650KM range of Iraq's missiles. Then North Korea pulls out of nuclear agreements, possesses Nukes and pulls wacky bullshit with UN, states that sanctions and not sending free food to North Korea is a 'declaration of war'. The USA does nothing. Talk of 'diplomatic solutions' emerge from the White house. So the Bush administration can figure out a peaceful way to end the korean crisis, but can't figure out a peaceful way to resolve the non-threat of Saddam Hussein?
4) Your government supposedly has its reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, yet can't release those reasons. It claims to have knowledge of all sorts of nasty weapons in Saddam's arsenal, yet won't say what or where.
You, as citizens of the USA should demand to know what they know. To ask for public approval for war, yet give no reasons is ludicrous. Only Randycat99 would agree to such a war. Demand full disclosure, or refuse to fight.
There is a belief, somewhere in the Bush-supporters that America is Good?, that it is the last bastion of incorruptibility, that the USA has it all figured out, and that other countries are Evil?, they need the USA's "help" (read: military invasion) to 'liberate' those under the rule of the evil doers.
Newsflash: Picking fights with foreign nations under shaky premises, commiting 'preemptive' (unwarranted) strikes make you, in Bush terms, Evil?.
<strong>There is a belief, somewhere in the Bush-supporters that America is Good?, that it is the last bastion of incorruptibility, that the USA has it all figured out, and that other countries are Evil?, they need the USA's "help" (read: military invasion) to 'liberate' those under the rule of the evil doers.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm curious - do you think Iraq's goverment isn't evil, and that the people shouldn't be liberated?
Newsflash: Picking fights with foreign nations under shaky premises, commiting 'preemptive' (unwarranted) strikes make you, in Bush terms, Evil™.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well some Americans do feel that our President is a vigilante and has no respect for the laws agreed to by the major powers of this world.
Bill Clinton had little respect for the image of the office of President of the USA but GW Bush seems to have no respect for the responsibilities as President of the most powerful nation.
GW Bush seems to be acting like a wild animal that has tasted blood ( Afghanistan ) and now wants to keep killing.
I am supporting the actions the US Military is taking, but I can not support the lunitic that is making the decisions.
[quote]I'm curious - do you think Iraq's goverment isn't evil, and that the people shouldn't be liberated?<hr></blockquote>
I think Iraq has its problems. I also think many other countries have much more severe problems, which sorta blows the whole 'we're doing this for moral reasons' BS out of the water. Koreans are starving and dieing because of the neglect/ineptitude of their leader, who is too busy churning out self-aggrandising propaganda and building nuclear bombs to care.
I also think America has its share of problems, 'little' problems like health care, poverty, crime, drug use, racism, education, economic decline, corporate and government corruption, etc.
For America to pull some sort of moral authority schtick is just a tad weak.
Iraq is not a nice place to live. Neither is anywhere else in the middle east, Africa, most of Asia, Latin America, etc. Sending american troops in to kill people and set up some sort of 'shamocracy' is not going to solve the hostility in the M.E. or lower anti-american sentiments in the region.
So to answer the above question, yes, I think hussein definately has an evil streak and is no moral authority himself. But I also think the American gov't is responsible for far more evil and corruption than Iraq can ever dream of achieving. America has much blood on its hands, all in the name of 'Freedom' and 'Good'.
Sorry, but I don't think Bush wants to invade Iraq for moralistic reasons. I don't see the world in blanket terms like 'Good?' and 'Evil?', and I sure don't see america as 'Good'.
Bush uses terms like 'Good and Evil' to simplify and propagandize his (and corporate America's) selfish motivations. It's about oil, about power, and about being chummy with Iraq's neighbor, Israel.
It's a shame that so many can see through the FUD and propaganda of countries like N. Korea and Iraq, but can't see through their own gov'ts'. You'd laugh if Hussein called America 'Evil' but swallow it when Bush makes sweeping statements about an Axis of Evil Darkie Foreigners whose interests conflict with America's own selfish interests.
The world doesn't want America's 'help' or 'liberation'.
Enjoy your war. Because you are paying for it, and will continue pay for it for the rest of your life.
So, has anyone heard the current plans for what happens after we successfully invade Iraq?
Well, we'll have a new leader democratically elected. Following this, the US will receive control of Iraq's oil production for 25 years from what I heard. Guess who's company is going to get the contract to do it? George W. Bush's? Yep.
But let's stay focused, this isn't about oil of course. it's about protecting the free world from the evil-doers.
Comments
<strong>
Wow, how childish of you.
I do believe there is a middle ground and it would probably be easy to find if you exclude two factors from this current conflict.
1. Oil. Ignore the oil.
2. Weapons sales. Pretend you don't know anyone that profits off of weapons sales.
After that there will be a middle ground that isn't all that difficult to see.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*Lay-out* your middleground plan based on where we are today. Don't be cryptic. Don't drop "clues". I hope this isn't to the effect that "if we hadn't done such and such, then..." such a plan could work, but has absolutely no use for where we are *today*. That would not be a plan- just another complaint by an armchair world strategist ranting "things would be so different, if we had done what I said in '87" or some crap like that.
<strong>Define civilized world community. The UN is an absolute joke.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So there *is* nobody at the wheel, then? So who is to complain if *somebody* does step in to "regulate". Somebody like the US? Outside of that, you feel alright with anybody doing absolutely anything they please, right?
<strong> [quote]No, but I also don't trust North Korea with them...yet let's try diplomacy there...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This has already been repeated in this topic and addressed. Continuing to repeat it is just blind rhetoric- say anything, just for the sake of saying something. You could rationalize doing nothing always, so what is the point?
<strong> [quote]You think that he is "having trouble keeping the weapons properly inventories and documented"? You have got to be kidding me. I guarantee you that he knows exactly where his weapons are. He's hiding it from us. That's all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you concede they exist, and you are perfectly alright leaving them with Saddam? We only need to refer back your "pearl of wisdom" here, when we hear your contributions in the future. Basically you know he has the stuff, he knows he has the stuff, he isn't owning up to it or giving them up, and that summarizes to a major violation of the UN agreements passed when Saddam lost the war last time. If that isn't a reason to reinitiate combat operations (after giving endless opportunities to come clean), I don't know what is.
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>No one ever accused Bill Clinton of being in bed with lawyers or Jimmy Carter of being in the pocket of farmers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that's becuase subconciously everyone hates oil and knows it's bad for the country, and has secret desires to be a farmer.
But seriously, it's true, noone can argue that we're doing a good thing by sucking the earth's limited supply of natural resources out of the ground, converting them into something more dangerous and then pumping them into the sky, even though we have alterantives, just becuase noone has the guts to be different, except of course, GWB but unfortunately not in a good way, but he really is addicted to oil, and Tony Blair just sucks up to him because it's a great british tradition to suck up to the people with all the money and power, usually the USA.
But imagine what we could do if we spent all the money we're using to kill people into converting these countries to run primarily on gas. Except that just wouldn't work would it, because making the earth a better place for everyone would upset the oil industry, and the president of America wouldn't like that, therefore president Tony of mini-America wouldn't like that either, and we can't have that, we have to look after our oil industry, it's the only one we've got.
Andrew
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: Andrew Xt ]</p>
<strong>
*Lay-out* your middleground plan based on where we are today.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no difinitive plan. I'm not claiming to know more than anyone else in the world. What I'm saying is that given all of the facts there is going to be a solution without the immediate need for war. I don't even have a problem resorting to war as a final option, but that's not what's happening.
People here and in the government are thirsting for the 'smoking gun' rather than for a warless solution. The U.N. Charter is founded on the principle that war should only be used in self-defense. Our Constitution requires that we uphold international treaties we sign like the U.N. Charter. It's the responsibility of the President and Commander in Chief to reconcile those two facts regardless.
Yes, the U.N. does allow for a preemptive strike, but only in the face of an immenent threat like Israel faced in 1967. Saddam is not an immenent threat even to his neighbors at this point in time. A possibility 10 years in the future does not require war now so it cannot be a legal option.
I don't have to come up with a solution because our Constitution forces the President to do it for me. If he does not abide by the Constitution he's sworn to uphold, a charge of treason is fine by me.
<strong>There is no difinitive plan. I'm not claiming to know more than anyone else in the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...and the Truth finally comes out!
<strong>
There is no difinitive plan. I'm not claiming to know more than anyone else in the world. What I'm saying is that given all of the facts there is going to be a solution without the immediate need for war. I don't even have a problem resorting to war as a final option, but that's not what's happening.
People here and in the government are thirsting for the 'smoking gun' rather than for a warless solution. The U.N. Charter is founded on the principle that war should only be used in self-defense. Our Constitution requires that we uphold international treaties we sign like the U.N. Charter. It's the responsibility of the President and Commander in Chief to reconcile those two facts regardless.
Yes, the U.N. does allow for a preemptive strike, but only in the face of an immenent threat like Israel faced in 1967. Saddam is not an immenent threat even to his neighbors at this point in time. A possibility 10 years in the future does not require war now so it cannot be a legal option.
I don't have to come up with a solution because our Constitution forces the President to do it for me. If he does not abide by the Constitution he's sworn to uphold, a charge of treason is fine by me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just want to reiterate that last few parts . . . with a !!
I will point out a few things of note, however:
1) Precedent. The US, ignoring the UN and engaging in a 'preemptive' strike sets a really ugly and dangerous precedent. Given global disapproval (with the notable exception of Tony Blair), and many other, much more dire situations (Korea, to name one), to have the US invade a country for shaky/nonexistant reasons sets a dangerous precedent for the US and the rest of the world. Who will be next? What other weak premises will the States use to sieze the natural resources of foreign nations?
[quote]Well, I dont get it. People are so caught up with isolationism, actling like nothing is our worry. I cant understand why in God's name we should not take action against a country that has been and will continue to be a threat? Us NOT doing anything would be like ignoring a robber that has a gun to your head.
Bush isnt an evil, oil loving, mad man. He is the President and I am sure he knows the inner workings of the matter ten times beyond what the average citizen does. I hope we are going to attack for more than oil. But I wouldnt say that attacking JUST for oil is bad.
People need to realize that oil is the blood that runs though the veins of our economy, we need it...as idealistic as it may be to think that we are not dependant on oil, we are...and will be for a long time to come yet.
<hr></blockquote>
Prophetic words, Macintosh. Prophetic, because the US in the above analogy IS the robber, taking resources with force from Iraq. That's dangerous precedent, after which the USA simply cannot be trusted.
2) There's an interesting dichotomy between deep-rooted paranoia in American culture (news, etc) that somebody is out to get you, that the world is conspiring to destroy America. Then America makes a jackass of itself with unbelievably wack foreign policy, pisses off various parts of the world, creating 'anti-americanism'. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
3) Hipocrisy. The hipocrisy of starting war because some evil doer has 'weapons of mass destruction'. A country that poses no immediate threat to USA, Europe or anywhere outside the 650KM range of Iraq's missiles. Then North Korea pulls out of nuclear agreements, possesses Nukes and pulls wacky bullshit with UN, states that sanctions and not sending free food to North Korea is a 'declaration of war'. The USA does nothing. Talk of 'diplomatic solutions' emerge from the White house. So the Bush administration can figure out a peaceful way to end the korean crisis, but can't figure out a peaceful way to resolve the non-threat of Saddam Hussein?
4) Your government supposedly has its reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, yet can't release those reasons. It claims to have knowledge of all sorts of nasty weapons in Saddam's arsenal, yet won't say what or where.
You, as citizens of the USA should demand to know what they know. To ask for public approval for war, yet give no reasons is ludicrous. Only Randycat99 would agree to such a war. Demand full disclosure, or refuse to fight.
There is a belief, somewhere in the Bush-supporters that America is Good?, that it is the last bastion of incorruptibility, that the USA has it all figured out, and that other countries are Evil?, they need the USA's "help" (read: military invasion) to 'liberate' those under the rule of the evil doers.
Newsflash: Picking fights with foreign nations under shaky premises, commiting 'preemptive' (unwarranted) strikes make you, in Bush terms, Evil?.
<strong>There is a belief, somewhere in the Bush-supporters that America is Good?, that it is the last bastion of incorruptibility, that the USA has it all figured out, and that other countries are Evil?, they need the USA's "help" (read: military invasion) to 'liberate' those under the rule of the evil doers.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm curious - do you think Iraq's goverment isn't evil, and that the people shouldn't be liberated?
<strong>...
Newsflash: Picking fights with foreign nations under shaky premises, commiting 'preemptive' (unwarranted) strikes make you, in Bush terms, Evil™.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well some Americans do feel that our President is a vigilante and has no respect for the laws agreed to by the major powers of this world.
Bill Clinton had little respect for the image of the office of President of the USA but GW Bush seems to have no respect for the responsibilities as President of the most powerful nation.
GW Bush seems to be acting like a wild animal that has tasted blood ( Afghanistan ) and now wants to keep killing.
I am supporting the actions the US Military is taking, but I can not support the lunitic that is making the decisions.
I think Iraq has its problems. I also think many other countries have much more severe problems, which sorta blows the whole 'we're doing this for moral reasons' BS out of the water. Koreans are starving and dieing because of the neglect/ineptitude of their leader, who is too busy churning out self-aggrandising propaganda and building nuclear bombs to care.
I also think America has its share of problems, 'little' problems like health care, poverty, crime, drug use, racism, education, economic decline, corporate and government corruption, etc.
For America to pull some sort of moral authority schtick is just a tad weak.
Iraq is not a nice place to live. Neither is anywhere else in the middle east, Africa, most of Asia, Latin America, etc. Sending american troops in to kill people and set up some sort of 'shamocracy' is not going to solve the hostility in the M.E. or lower anti-american sentiments in the region.
So to answer the above question, yes, I think hussein definately has an evil streak and is no moral authority himself. But I also think the American gov't is responsible for far more evil and corruption than Iraq can ever dream of achieving. America has much blood on its hands, all in the name of 'Freedom' and 'Good'.
Sorry, but I don't think Bush wants to invade Iraq for moralistic reasons. I don't see the world in blanket terms like 'Good?' and 'Evil?', and I sure don't see america as 'Good'.
Bush uses terms like 'Good and Evil' to simplify and propagandize his (and corporate America's) selfish motivations. It's about oil, about power, and about being chummy with Iraq's neighbor, Israel.
It's a shame that so many can see through the FUD and propaganda of countries like N. Korea and Iraq, but can't see through their own gov'ts'. You'd laugh if Hussein called America 'Evil' but swallow it when Bush makes sweeping statements about an Axis of Evil Darkie Foreigners whose interests conflict with America's own selfish interests.
The world doesn't want America's 'help' or 'liberation'.
Enjoy your war. Because you are paying for it, and will continue pay for it for the rest of your life.
[ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: 1337_5L4Xx0R ]</p>
Well, we'll have a new leader democratically elected. Following this, the US will receive control of Iraq's oil production for 25 years from what I heard. Guess who's company is going to get the contract to do it? George W. Bush's? Yep.
But let's stay focused, this isn't about oil of course. it's about protecting the free world from the evil-doers.
<strong>So, has anyone heard the current plans for what happens after we successfully invade Iraq? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but do you have a link?