Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 474
  1.    #21  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Right. But who fabricated the crisis? How comes all of a sudden Iraq is a big threat to the world requiring immediate action? What evidence is there that Iraq is more dangerous now than it was on September 10th, 2001 (when there was no urgency to move in)?

    No, but to claim that as justification for continuation of past policies is faulty logic. In my opinion, using a temporary public opinion shift to accomplish a just task is defendable.
  2. #22  
    Originally posted by yardie
    The key phrase here is if the SECURITY COUNCIL deem it not necessary -- not if the American or British deem it necessary. Good thing that the Security Council has Russia and China to tame the American hawk at the U.N.
    Yep, the heroes of Chechnaya and Tianemen Square will certainly defend world peace and the right of dissent against those nasty Americans.
  3. #23  
    Well if you want to look at things like that then you have to look at our Hero - the US of A. Great Power, supposedly have respect for Democracy and Human Rights. Yet:

    - they provide support for dictatorships and abusers of Human Rights (e.g Saudi Arabia).
    - they have detained thousands of Arabs and Muslims without charge
    - they spend 300 billion a year on the military while people in their major cities scavenge for food
    - they are against international initiatives such as Kyoto, the World Court
    -they tore up the missile treaty with Russia


    Originally posted by John Nowak


    Yep, the heroes of Chechnaya and Tianemen Square will certainly defend world peace and the right of dissent against those nasty Americans.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  4. #24  
    Invading Iraq has a just cause is debatable. The U.S has failed to provide proof that Iraq is a threat to the world. The only countries that it is a real threat to are its neighbours -- and they are not too keen about an invasion.

    I am convinced that public opinion is being shaped by the media. The media is becoming a great big propaganda machine. The media is not the message when the message being transmitted is bias.

    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    No, but to claim that as justification for continuation of past policies is faulty logic. In my opinion, using a temporary public opinion shift to accomplish a just task is defendable.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  5. #25  
    Waging a war based on hypothetical scenarios is setting a very dangerous precedent. Countries should not be allowed to attack other countries based on perceived/hypothetical threats.

    The U.S wants to attack Iraq because it knows that it cannot vigorously defend itself. Its like a bully picking on the little kid down the street and robbing his candy. Only in this scenario, the little kid is a small country and the candy is one of the biggest oil reserves in the world.


    Originally posted by Toby
    It might have something to do with the possibility of a person known to produce and pursue 'WoMD', who doesn't like us, willing to provide them to people obviously willing to _use_ those 'WoMD' against us whereas no one took such a possibility seriously (mistakenly) before 9/10/2001. Now, such an action is a very real potentiality. As usual, the unknown is more disconcerting than the known.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  6.    #26  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Invading Iraq has a just cause is debatable. The U.S has failed to provide proof that Iraq is a threat to the world. The only countries that it is a real threat to are its neighbours -- and they are not too keen about an invasion.

    I am convinced that public opinion is being shaped by the media. The media is becoming a great big propaganda machine. The media is not the message when the message being transmitted is bias.

    Of course invading Iraw as a just cause is debatable, but your statement that because the best time for it was years ago doesn't mean we shouldn't do it today.
  7.    #27  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well if you want to look at things like that then you have to look at our Hero - the US of A. Great Power, supposedly have respect for Democracy and Human Rights. Yet:

    - they provide support for dictatorships and abusers of Human Rights (e.g Saudi Arabia).
    I hope you're not equating the Saudi Regime with Sadam's. The US (or any other nation for that matter) is not always been right. Again, that is a horrible reason for not trying to be right this time around.

    - they have detained thousands of Arabs and Muslims without charge
    For all the stink that was raised over that, look at the situation now.

    - they spend 300 billion a year on the military while people in their major cities scavenge for food
    Don't imply that's an either or. It's not. Our military spending allows for the prosperity we all experience in this country.

    - they are against international initiatives such as Kyoto, the World Court
    But we are also the only people willing to stand up for the UN's legitimacy. Given the choice between supporting the UN and the two things you listed, I'd go with the UN.

    -they tore up the missile treaty with Russia
    First, it was an anti-missile treaty. Second, we did, but we did it by the book. The language was written into the treaty itself and we followed it exactly. I don't understand what the problem is.
  8. #28  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Waging a war based on hypothetical scenarios is setting a very dangerous precedent.
    I never said anything about waging war, and as of yet, we are not waging war on them to my knowledge. You asked why they were a threat to us.
    Countries should not be allowed to attack other countries based on perceived/hypothetical threats.
    Whether or not there's a crisis is one thing. It is extremely naive to think that there's not a _realistic_ threat. Should countries be allowed to flout UN Security Council resolutions based on perceived/hypothetical threats?
    The U.S wants to attack Iraq because it knows that it cannot vigorously defend itself.
    What about those chemical and biological weapons which it supposedly doesn't have which everyone is paranoid that Saddam will use if attacked? That's a pretty vigorous defense where I come from.
    Its like a bully picking on the little kid down the street and robbing his candy.
    The bully is Saddam. The kids down the street are 'his people'. At worst, the US is a bigger kid than the bully determined to give the bully some of his own medicine. Whether or not it does, it won't stop the bully from getting at the kids down the street.
    Only in this scenario, the little kid is a small country and the candy is one of the biggest oil reserves in the world.
    If we wanted Saddam's oil that bad, we'd have taken it the first time. Regardless of what you think about the younger Bush, you can't be silly enough to think that all of this is a ploy over oil. Finishing what daddy started? It's a stretch, but I could believe it. Going after Saddam simply because he's an 'evildoer'? Not as much a stretch, and I could believe it. All of this just about oil? I've only seen a few contortionists that could stretch that far.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #29  
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110002327 This guy is my Scott Ritter of Iraq policy now.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #30  
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #31  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    First, it was an anti-missile treaty. Second, we did, but we did it by the book. The language was written into the treaty itself and we followed it exactly. I don't understand what the problem is.
    And Yardie somehow misses the fact that the Russian Federation ultimately settled this with the US government.
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by yardie
    - they are against international initiatives such as Kyoto, the World Court
    Good for us. Personally, I'm far too worried about the coming ice age and global famine by 2000 predicted in the 1970s to fret overmuch about Kyoto.
  13.    #33  
    Originally posted by Toby
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Sep23.html This guy's good too.
    Great set of articles.
    There are more than 200 Russian companies in Iraq, doing deals that total at least $4 billion.
    $4 billion? Give me a break. That will sway Russian opinion? In situations like this we need to use our most potent weapon: American Productivity. Because we are the largest economy on the planet we can use our pocketbook to essentially make sure when we act against our enemies the damage to friendly (yes, Russia!) nations is limitted.
  14. #34  
    Christopher Hitchens has left The Nation. He's still got things to say, though.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #35  
    Please enlighten me. Why exactly does the U.S want to invade IraQ?

    OK they have so called waepons of mass destruction and possess chemical and biological weapons. Doesn't other countries including the U.S. possess weapons of mass destruction as well?

    OK some argue that Iraw that Saddam uses his using his weapons against his own people.... well guess what folks? The crippinling sanctions against Iraq is also being used as a weapon against the Irawi people..and with deadly results.


    Originally posted by Toby
    Going after Saddam simply because he's an 'evildoer'? Not as much a stretch, and I could believe it. All of this just about oil? I've only seen a few contortionists that could stretch that far.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  16. #36  
    Were you surprised that Russia settled with the U.S? For a couple billions of dollars and a blind eye to the Chechen situation -- the U.S can get the Russians to agree to anything.


    Originally posted by John Nowak


    And Yardie somehow misses the fact that the Russian Federation ultimately settled this with the US government.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  17. #37  
    Are you kidding me? Even the EPA say that Global Warming is a real phenomena..not hypothetical.

    "I should have..." always come too late.

    Originally posted by John Nowak


    Good for us. Personally, I'm far too worried about the coming ice age and global famine by 2000 predicted in the 1970s to fret overmuch about Kyoto.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  18. #38  
    The articles ..especially the first one were nothing more than a rehash of the same old Republican/Hawkish arguement.. That Iraq poses a threat to its neighbour blah blah. I do not see its neighbours getting worried. Why should the U.S be worried?


    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Great set of articles. $4 billion? Give me a break. That will sway Russian opinion? In situations like this we need to use our most potent weapon: American Productivity. Because we are the largest economy on the planet we can use our pocketbook to essentially make sure when we act against our enemies the damage to friendly (yes, Russia!) nations is limitted.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  19. #39  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Please enlighten me. Why exactly does the U.S want to invade IraQ?
    Ultimately, the US doesn't want to invade Iraq.
    OK they have so called waepons of mass destruction and possess chemical and biological weapons. Doesn't other countries including the U.S. possess weapons of mass destruction as well?
    Nearly all of the other countries that possess nuclear weapons (by treaty, none should possess chemical or biological of the sort being discussed with Saddam) are relatively stable and unlikely to use them on their own or other peoples. Saddam has demonstrated a willingness to do both.
    OK some argue that Iraw that Saddam uses his using his weapons against his own people.... well guess what folks? The crippinling sanctions against Iraq is also being used as a weapon against the Irawi people..and with deadly results.
    Who is using it as a weapon against them? The terms are supposed to provide them with enough funds and food to live on. If those funds and food are not getting to the intended people, then it seems that it's _more_ reason to oust Saddam, not to appease him by lifting sanctions.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Are you kidding me? Even the EPA say that Global Warming is a real phenomena..not hypothetical.

    "I should have..." always come too late.
    And in the case of such religious 'global cooling' or 'global warming' alarmist propaganda, "we were wrong" never comes at all...only the next alarmist doomsday scenario.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions