General discussions : Non mobile discussion : The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time.
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time.
Bookmark topic
What most people who disdain all those countries who have moved their troops/workers out of iraq in response to the dangerous situation there foot realise is that they would most certainly feel differently he it was their father/brother/close relative. Besides the rest of the world to put it bluntly grou profiteering as much from the situation as are the us and uk .so there is no reason why we should put our people in danger
This message was posted from a WAP device
--
Posted: 2004-08-04 00:34:04
Edit :
Quote
@vckay
Which country is it that you are from?
I would hardly have said that either the U.S. or the U.K. are profiting from Iraq, perhaps in a monetary sense, but even then the majority of the contracts to be won are actually being given out by the U.S. government so America is actually spending its own money.
You do make an interesting and very valid point in stating that someone may feel differently concerning the Iraqi situation if they had a relative or friend in danger there, but I can only agree with you to an extent. There is a global war being waged against terror at the moment, we do not have to like the leaders who are running that war, but we must realise that the only way to beat terrorists is to stand up to them combined with a strategy of destroying the root causes of terrorism.
The countries that pull their troops out of Iraq are not behaving cowardly, they are doing what they believe is best by their citizens; unfortunately it reinforces the terrorist's belief that they can and should achieve their goals through violence. War is a terrible thing and very unfortunately it means that sacrifices will have to be made and that people will probably die. I do not make that statement lightly or flippantly, it is simple fact.
There have been very few 'just wars', only WWII springs to mind, but I do believe that the War on Terror, despite the many flaws the West may have, is a just war. It is a just war because we are struggling to defeat an evil force bent on destroying our way of life, because we are faced with an enemy who kills randomly and indiscriminately, because we seek to protect freedom, because we seek to safeguard tolerance and because we do not want our world plunged into darkness.
The West may have many failings, but when it comes down to it we must stand together, a united front of goodness against the terrorist's evil. If we don't stand by those who need our help then who shall stand by us?
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2004-08-05 00:53 ]
--
Posted: 2004-08-04 02:30:25
Edit :
Quote
Umm that was a very interesting speech you made there. I am from india, a country that has been fighting its own highly localised war on terrorists of possible muslim origin. What you foot realise is that there is no global war on 'terror' , each country fights to protect its own interests . Why else would america consort with countries (that the 9/11 commision hinted as involved in that incident) namely saudi arabia and pakistan. For my country to join your war would make no sense at all , we wouldnt
This message was posted from a WAP device
--
Posted: 2004-08-04 05:10:43
Edit :
Quote
gain any economic or strategic benefits ( i don't see america waving any oil contracts or a permanent un seat in exchange for soldiers) whilst we would gain a new set of enemies who can easily attack us ( considering we are close by) and moreover who can easily attack vulnerable civilians ( there is a large indian populace in the middle east) besides alienating a sizeable already disaffected minority. On the other hand America,Australia and to some extent the u.k are not so vulnerable owing to their miniscule arab-muslim populace and the fact that they are not bordered by any muslim countries.Morever the worst comes to the worst you can quarantine all people of arab origin in prison camps ( as was done to japanese-americans during wwII).
--
Posted: 2004-08-04 07:46:24
Edit :
Quote
Hi Vckay ...
As an US Citizen who supports Bush I want to mention that I don't believe that just because a country, like the Philippines, pulls out of Iraq under terrorist threat means they are cowards or even bad in any way. I have posted in detail earlier in this thread that I understand that each country must do what it feels is in its best interest (as you've stated). But it cannot be simply dismissed that when terrorism succeeds in getting terrorist what they want, that it ultimately encourages terrorism.
And a problem in your logic about Muslims is that not all Muslims are fundamentalist extremists willing to use terror to further some cause. I'm still convinced that the vast majority of Muslims are unhappy that their faith is being used as an excuse to murder innocent civilians around the world. Every population has its extreme segments. Christians can look to right wing fanatics like Timothy McVey who killed so many innocents when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Just because McVey said he was doing the work of God (Jesus) by striking at the liberal US government (his own view) doesn't mean all Christians thought he was right.
The risk with this flaw in thinking is this truly global conflict can easily slip into what most would regard as a war between religions. Your analogy about Muslims being placed in concentration camps like the Japanese were in WWII would be correct except for one
Major Glaring Flaw ... it wouldn't be Muslims (a religion) that would be interned ... it would be
Arabs (a perceived race/ethnicity) that would be the target of profiling and exclusion ...
if your vision became reality. This points to the fact that this war isn't between Islam and Christianity (or any other religion - even if the terrorists claim so) but a war between political extremists who would replace governments around the world with Tyrannical Islamic-based (not true Islamic) theocracies and the Peoples of the world who would have liberty and freedom. Whatever reason/cause they use to attempt to justify the terrorism, it is not acceptable.
Historically - it took a while for clear lines to be drawn in global conflicts, and I fear it will be the same this time. It took the US almost 4 years to enter into World War I. It was over a year (??) from the beginning of World War II before the US got directly involved. For a while the US was neutral and had Nazi visitors/guests/diplomats in Washington. The war on terror, unfortunately, is shaping up to be a totally global conflict. You may claim that it is not a global war as countries act only in their own interest - but that is the way it has always been. Eventually, after enough attacks have happened, and enough people have died, and enough countries have been threatened, and enough atrocities (like 9/11) have been committed against people who desire peace ... the lines will be drawn.
Some claim that terrorism is growing because the US is in Iraq. They actually think that if the US didn't go to war with Iraq that terrorism would not be as big a problem any more? Is that true? Is there any logic to this supposition? In India, the Kashmir is a real hot spot. But if terrorists attacked in an attempt to drive India out, would the logic say "don't strike back or do anything that might provoke them or we will just make them mad?" Really? When and where do you stand up and say "enough"?
When do you fight back? Is it after they have taken hostages and blew up civilian airliners in mid air? Is it after they have bombed embassies? Is it after they attack your military? Is it after they drive car bombs into your city and kill civilians? Is it after they fly airplanes into your buildings in your most populated cities slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians? If not then - when?
And after all of this - could they hate us more? After all of this can they get more mad at us? After all of this, will terrorists like this ever be the kind of people who will be not only willing to be at as well as trusted at a negotiation table? Honestly?
And Is Iraq really a new reason for them to recruit? Why not!!! Sure, they can go around to all those inclined to be extremists and say "look what they've done, those infidel dogs! They have taken Iraq. They must be expelled." But what about their terrorist actions? Like beheading people? Like 9/11? Like the USS Cole? Like Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scottland? Don't these also energize the extremist communities? And what about when these atrocities are successful, like the train bombings in Madrid? Does this not also give would be terrorists a shot in the arm? So when do we stop blaming ourselves for terrorists being terrorists and start standing up to people who would purposely target innocent civilians and slaughter as many as they possibly can? When?
The US decided 9/11 was when. For you - you'll have to decide when for yourself.
--
Posted: 2004-08-04 22:35:32
Edit :
Quote
--
Posted: 2004-08-08 20:56:58
Edit :
Quote
Cute picture Axxxr.
But isn't it strange that WMD had even President Bush's opponent, Senator John F. Kerry, convinced that preemptive war with Iraq was necessary ... all the time between Gulf War 1 and the Democratic Primaries just a few months ago?
Quote:
1997: Kerry Warned Senate Of Saddam’s WMD Capabilities.
"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, p. S12256)
1998: Kerry Willing To Commit Ground Troops In Iraq.
KERRY: "I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing. ... [T]hen we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy." ABC’S COKIE ROBERTS: "And does that mean ground troops in Iraq?" KERRY: "I am personally prepared, if that’s what it meant." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)
1998: Kerry Said Saddam Had Chemical And Biological Weapons.
KERRY: "[H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)
2001: Kerry Said Saddam Has Used WMDs And Is Trying To Secure Additional Weapons.
SEN. JOHN KERRY: "it is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)
2001: Kerry Says Saddam "Acted Like A Terrorist."
KERRY: "He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)
2001: Kerry Says Need To Increase Pressure On Saddam.
KERRY: "I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11 ..." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)
2001: Kerry Says Iraq Part Of Global War On Terror.
KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance,
Saddam Hussein." (CNN’s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)
2002: Kerry Agrees With Goal Of Regime Change In Iraq.
"I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)
2002: Kerry Calls Saddam A "Renegade And Outlaw."
"... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)
2002: Kerry Wrote Saddam Inviting Enforcement If He Does Not Comply With International Community.
"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)
2002: Kerry Said Iraq’s WMDs May Be Given Or Sold To Terrorist Groups.
"I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)
2002: Kerry Said President Has Right To Act Unilaterally.
"But the president, as I also wrote in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally protect [sic] the interests of our country." (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 9/17/02)
2002: Kerry Said US Has Right To Protect Our Security.
"If the UN fails to cooperate, ‘we always reserve the right to do what we need to do to protect our security,’ Kerry said." (Susan Milligan, "Confronting Iraq," The Boston Globe, 10/4/02)
2002: Kerry Voted For Iraq War Resolution.
(H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02,
Kerry Voted Yea)
Source:
KerryOnIraq.com
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
Check out JibJab.com[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-08-08 22:55 ]
--
Posted: 2004-08-08 23:53:27
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-08-04 22:35:32, Patrick-in-CA wrote:
Hi Vckay ...
As an US Citizen who supports Bush I want to mention that I don't believe that just because a country, like the Philippines, pulls out of Iraq under terrorist threat means they are cowards or even bad in any way. I have posted in detail earlier in this thread that I understand that each country must do what it feels is in its best interest (as you've stated). But it cannot be simply dismissed that when terrorism succeeds in getting terrorist what they want, that it ultimately encourages terrorism.
And a problem in your logic about Muslims is that not all Muslims are fundamentalist extremists willing to use terror to further some cause. I'm still convinced that the vast majority of Muslims are unhappy that their faith is being used as an excuse to murder innocent civilians around the world. Every population has its extreme segments. Christians can look to right wing fanatics like Timothy McVey who killed so many innocents when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Just because McVey said he was doing the work of God (Jesus) by striking at the liberal US government (his own view) doesn't mean all Christians thought he was right.
The risk with this flaw in thinking is this truly global conflict can easily slip into what most would regard as a war between religions. Your analogy about Muslims being placed in concentration camps like the Japanese were in WWII would be correct except for one
Major Glaring Flaw ... it wouldn't be Muslims (a religion) that would be interned ... it would be
Arabs (a perceived race/ethnicity) that would be the target of profiling and exclusion ...
if your vision became reality. This points to the fact that this war isn't between Islam and Christianity (or any other religion - even if the terrorists claim so) but a war between political extremists who would replace governments around the world with Tyrannical Islamic-based (not true Islamic) theocracies and the Peoples of the world who would have liberty and freedom. Whatever reason/cause they use to attempt to justify the terrorism, it is not acceptable.
Historically - it took a while for clear lines to be drawn in global conflicts, and I fear it will be the same this time. It took the US almost 4 years to enter into World War I. It was over a year (??) from the beginning of World War II before the US got directly involved. For a while the US was neutral and had Nazi visitors/guests/diplomats in Washington. The war on terror, unfortunately, is shaping up to be a totally global conflict. You may claim that it is not a global war as countries act only in their own interest - but that is the way it has always been. Eventually, after enough attacks have happened, and enough people have died, and enough countries have been threatened, and enough atrocities (like 9/11) have been committed against people who desire peace ... the lines will be drawn.
Some claim that terrorism is growing because the US is in Iraq. They actually think that if the US didn't go to war with Iraq that terrorism would not be as big a problem any more? Is that true? Is there any logic to this supposition? In India, the Kashmir is a real hot spot. But if terrorists attacked in an attempt to drive India out, would the logic say "don't strike back or do anything that might provoke them or we will just make them mad?" Really? When and where do you stand up and say "enough"?
When do you fight back? Is it after they have taken hostages and blew up civilian airliners in mid air? Is it after they have bombed embassies? Is it after they attack your military? Is it after they drive car bombs into your city and kill civilians? Is it after they fly airplanes into your buildings in your most populated cities slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians? If not then - when?
And after all of this - could they hate us more? After all of this can they get more mad at us? After all of this, will terrorists like this ever be the kind of people who will be not only willing to be at as well as trusted at a negotiation table? Honestly?
And Is Iraq really a new reason for them to recruit? Why not!!! Sure, they can go around to all those inclined to be extremists and say "look what they've done, those infidel dogs! They have taken Iraq. They must be expelled." But what about their terrorist actions? Like beheading people? Like 9/11? Like the USS Cole? Like Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scottland? Don't these also energize the extremist communities? And what about when these atrocities are successful, like the train bombings in Madrid? Does this not also give would be terrorists a shot in the arm? So when do we stop blaming ourselves for terrorists being terrorists and start standing up to people who would purposely target innocent civilians and slaughter as many as they possibly can? When?
The US decided 9/11 was when. For you - you'll have to decide when for yourself.
First and foremost, I wish to point out that my views in no way were meant to cause offence to the largely innocent muslim populace ( I apologise for any implied insult).I did not advocate that muslims in America be sent to concentration camps, It was merely one of the options that an american government might take ( considering that it has been done before) in the event of a major terror attack.
There have been various reasons why many countries ( that have been fighting terrorism long before lockerbie and 9/11 ) are reluctant to join the American war on 'terror'.
These include
-America's short sighted foreign policy.The US administration actively supported AND still supports the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia who have been very successful in exporting an extremist form of Islam ( which incidentally most muslims abhorr).
To make it short and sweet, American dollars are greasing the wheels that terrorists run on.
-America's amazingly convoluted policy in the middle east. I understand the american support for Israel in the fifties and the sixties.( Israel was a state made of brave men and women who fled a life of hardship to come to the chosen land and were besieged by enemies on all sides).But it is plain ridiculous to support them now. Israel to put it plainly is fighting a war which is against all american values.
-To pick an example which I will be more able to explain- America's policy in South Asia- I get America's support for Pakistan during the cold war, what seems strange is that the america's closest pals in the war against terror include a corrupt islamist dictatorship which had strong links with the Taliban, which has sponsored and continues to sponser islamic terrorism against India and many other countries in the region for over a decade.
So basically the Bush Administration is in cahoots with all the guys who are suspected of masterminding the WTC bombings.
Incidentally, you asked when our breaking point would be reached, as to when we would stop giving ground to terrorists and going after them. There are people in the Indian government who advocated that we do ( go after terrorists in training camps in pakistan) as the Americans have done in Iraq and Afghanistan but strangely it seems that America prefers to support the enemies of secular democracies who have always wished the American people well.I advise America to take a good hard look at its own foreign policy and then carefully choose allies for the war on terror (if it wishes for such an operation to be global)
i
/V/C/
--
Posted: 2004-08-09 10:24:41
Edit :
Quote
@vckay
Your point is somewhat convoluted and even flawed in places. The first major flaw in your statement is that Israel is fighting a war, which is direct contrast with American values. I would like to forward the idea that a war to protect one's people against extremists intent upon killing as many people as possible, irrespective of age, class, gender or any othe rmitigating factor is not something, which would be in contrast to American values. Ofc ourse Israel has committed many questionable acts in fighting the Islamic extremists, but I would like to point out that any nation, which is surrounded by enemies and is constantly in fear of attack, such as Israel is, may very well resort to desperate measures to protect itself; of course this does not excuse Israeli atrocities.
American alliances with undemocratic nations are what is known as 'being realistic'. America needs Pakistani support in the War On Terror, that support could be had by diplomatic means or it could be had through invasion to install a friendly government; I'm not surprised the U.S. has chosen the former method. One must remember that the U.S. or any other Western nation does not want to be seen as supporting Pakistan or India above the other thus fuelling the very tense situation that exists between the two nuclear powers.
U.S. foriegn policy is somewhat short sighted, but I think that we are at risk of being too harsh upon it, after all the end of the Cold War created a great deal of uncertainty and no nation really knew what to do anymore with regards to defining threats. The U.S. and the rest of the West is only now realising how to organise their foreign policies to suit the changes that have occurred over the past decade and a half.
There seems to be an awful anti-American culture at the moment, whereby the U.S. is blamed for everything that goes wrong in the world and it seems that it is fashionable to dislike America and American values. This is actually quite a sad state of affairs when one considers that it is chiefly due to the U.S. that democracy and freedom prevailed during the Cold War and we are able to have this very discussion.
--
Posted: 2004-08-10 17:13:10
Edit :
Quote
My theory might be flawed but there is on denying the fact that the killing of a three year old child is against the values of 'any' country.my country is surrounded by enemies too, yet i dont see the army considering young children as legitimate targets.moreover the idea that america somehow made the world safe for democracy is just ridiculous. India was very close to the soviet uniono for most part of the cold war, yet consistently maintained its vibrant democracy. I cant say the same for other us allies
This message was posted from a WAP device
--
Posted: 2004-08-10 21:14:44
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
