Which country is biggest threat to peace? - Page 5

Pekka · January 14, 2003, 18:48

If we are too Americanized already, why don't you let us fight for you? Seems kind of stupid to say no for free troops .. Isn't the US the land of immigrants anyway? Bring me your sick and all, plus toss few soldiers.

I mean if I want to, I can easily join to some rogue countries soldier, enemy is already using it. What's wrong with ya'll?

TCO · January 14, 2003, 19:06

Why don't you move over with Dad?

Sava · January 14, 2003, 20:05

Sorry Doc, I don't blame Saddam for the deaths the US imposed sanctions have caused. Before the sanctions, Iraq was a better place. The sanctions have done little to affect Saddam's resources, and they've done little to get rid of him.

Strange to see a doctor defending mass murder

. You're probably a Bill Frist type

Ned · January 14, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Sorry Doc, I don't blame Saddam for the deaths the US imposed sanctions have caused. Before the sanctions, Iraq was a better place. The sanctions have done little to affect Saddam's resources, and they've done little to get rid of him.

Strange to see a doctor defending mass murder

. You're probably a Bill Frist type

Sava, Why do you and many others of the left say "US imposed sanctions?" It is "UN imposed sanctions," meaning the entire world imposed them.

Sava · January 14, 2003, 20:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Sava, Why do you and many others of the left say "US imposed sanctions?" It is "UN imposed sanctions," meaning the entire world imposed them.

Swimming in the sea of naivity again, eh Ned?

Ned · January 14, 2003, 20:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

Swimming in the sea of naivity again, eh Ned?

I'm sorry, Sava, it was the UN that got us into the pickle we are in. The resolution it passed in 1990 only authorized the coalition to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. This is a major reason why Bush did not finish the job (in taking Bagdad) and had to work through the UN to disarm Saddam. What they came up with is more UN crap - sanctions - that most liberals said would be effective in the first place in ousting Saddam from Kuwait. It is this liberal, anti-war mindset which is causing all the problems. It was imposed on Bush in order to get UN backing and to form the coalition.

So, sanctions have hurt the Iraqi people and have been ineffective in disarming Saddam. But this was highly predictable from the get go, wasn't it?

No, the US reluctantly went along with sanctions rather than taking out Saddam in '91. The sanctions were ill conceived then and remain ill conceived now.

Sava · January 14, 2003, 20:50

yeah, anti-war mindset is causing the problems, and not the imperialistic war-drums

I wonder if you read your posts before posting them because I'm sure they sound better in your head.

Ming · January 14, 2003, 20:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Sorry Doc, I don't blame Saddam for the deaths the US imposed sanctions have caused.

Then you need some more education. While Saddam builds new palaces, his people starve. Yeah, blame it all on the sanctions. Your biases are getting in the way of how your perceive reality.

Sava · January 14, 2003, 20:54

Funny how before the sanctions, thousands of Iraqi's weren't dying, yet Saddam was still hoarding the resources. It sucks when a little thing like "historical precedence" proves you wrong, eh Ming?

And let's talk about who armed Saddam, shall we? Or do you want to stick your head in the sand for that one, too?!

Ming · January 14, 2003, 20:59

Uhhh... your comments don't prove me wrong. Yes, Iraq was a better place before Saddam started the war. And since then, he has decided that his palaces are more important than his people... You are the one that is misguided here. And your attempt to shift the blame because Americans helped arm him doesn't change the basic fact that HE is allowing his people to die. Yes, the sanctions have limited what he can do... but it is HIS choice to allow his people to die.

Ned · January 14, 2003, 21:02

Sava, the anti-war mindset seeks to solve all international problems through sanctions. The problem is that these sanctions have harmed the people of the targeted country while not harming the leadership. So long as the people cannot vote, the suffer and die from the sanctions, while the leaders crassly blame the US for their misery.

The lessons of WWI/WWII are that one should not punish nations but their lawless leaders. Sanctions do not work except in rare cases. What they do is cause hatred and guys like Hitler.

Iraq has again proven that sanctions against dictatorships are useless. We should have taken out Saddam in '91. But the sanction-lovers prevailed in advising Bush and the UN. They are the one's responsible for the continuing mess that is Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Sava · January 14, 2003, 21:08

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Saddam is bad. My whole point is that the US, and the UN Sanctions are doing more harm to the Iraqi people than Saddam. And its grossly hypocritical to ignore this fact.

Ned, your errors are in your generalization of your perception of the "anti-war" mindset.

And what's funny, is that all of you are falling for this whole smoke-and-mirrors routine. Bush is keeping to focus on Iraq because as long as he stands at the podium spouting anti-Saddam rhetoric, the people don't stop to realize that he's a terrible president and turning America (especially the economy) into sh!t...

Ming · January 14, 2003, 21:13

It is also grossly idiotic to not blame Saddam for his crimes against his own people. Pleople like you who believe his propaganda "that it's all the US's fault that people are dying" is his license to continue allowing his own people to die and suffer. In a way, you are also to blame for the deaths as well, because if people like you didn't believe his crap, he wouldn't have a reason to continue to let his people die for the sake of propaganda.

Pekka · January 14, 2003, 21:30

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
Why don't you move over with Dad?

1. We don't get along so well
2. That doesn't give me the green card I'd need
3. I'm over 21 (22), so.. that's about it.

I also agree, Saddam is the problem behind sanctions. I bet sanctions would have gone away if he just came down from power and ended his dictatorship. But he is a dictator, greedy bastard who does not give a damn about his people. He cries 'look at our children, they're dying' .. yep, so what are you going to do about it?

Ned · January 14, 2003, 21:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Saddam is bad. My whole point is that the US, and the UN Sanctions are doing more harm to the Iraqi people than Saddam. And its grossly hypocritical to ignore this fact.

Ned, your errors are in your generalization of your perception of the "anti-war" mindset.

And what's funny, is that all of you are falling for this whole smoke-and-mirrors routine. Bush is keeping to focus on Iraq because as long as he stands at the podium spouting anti-Saddam rhetoric, the people don't stop to realize that he's a terrible president and turning America (especially the economy) into sh!t...

I agree with you, Sava, that the sanctions are not affecting Saddam and are only hurting Iraq. I am not sure though that the sanctions are responsible for the deaths of 500,000 people. I think this is the fault of Saddam who would prefer to fund WoMD than buy food. But the fact that he chooses armaments over food is why 1) the sanctions do not work against dictators; and 2) why sanctions against regimes like Saddam do not harm the intended target, the dictator and his regime, but the people who have no defense against the dictator.

We are somewhat in agreement, Sava, that sanctions against Iraq are wrong.

This leads one to the conclusion, though, that Bush I should have removed Saddam in '91 and that Bush II should do it now - in order to end the sanctions regime an get on with our lives.

Pekka · January 14, 2003, 21:42

Yes, we need to take Saddam out now. Take him to the dark forrest. Behind the sauna. And let the new foreign troops do it

Sava · January 14, 2003, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
It is also grossly idiotic to not blame Saddam for his crimes against his own people. Pleople like you who believe his propaganda "that it's all the US's fault that people are dying" is his license to continue allowing his own people to die and suffer. In a way, you are also to blame for the deaths as well, because if people like you didn't believe his crap, he wouldn't have a reason to continue to let his people die for the sake of propaganda.

Okay, drop the stereotype and look at what I've written, then perhaps you can understand me better

Two wrongs don't make a right. Saddam is bad and should be gone. The UN Sanctions are wrong and should be gone. More Iraqis die from the the sanctions than from Saddam. Case closed. It isn't black and white Ming, just because I'm not a war-drum, mindless, flag waving buffoon, doesn't mean I'm a flower power, pinko, peacenik either

Ming · January 14, 2003, 22:00

You are making assumtions again... since when have I been screaming for an attack... oh that's right, heaven forbid the truth should effect your biased mind.

Let's see...

Saddam started a war...
Saddam surrendered...
Saddam agreed to terms...
Saddam didn't follow the terms he agreed too...
Sanctions were put in place...
Saddam still hasn't followed the terms needed to lift the sanctions...
Saddam spends his now limited resources on himself and his military, allowing his people to starve and die. He blames the US for all the deaths...

More people are dying because of Saddam... He uses the sanctions as propaganda and allows his people to die so that he has a better message...

Yes Sava... blame the US. He could have those sanctions lifted in a heartbeat. All he has do is HONESTLY come clean. But he won't. He would rather see his own people suffer so people like you can believe his little stories.

Again... people like you are as responsible for the suffering in Iraq as anybody... because you continue to believe his lies. Without you, he wouldn't continue allowing his people to suffer.

Maybe if you read what I've written instead of believing Saddam's lies... you will know where I'm coming from

Main_Brain · January 14, 2003, 22:12

Well but who comes after Saddam?
It seems like the Choice between a Dictatorship supressing the Majority and a Fundametalistic State closly related to Iran I guess...
I wonder wheter the US (goverment&corporations) would care about ME if the Oil was in Africa?

//ME like Middle East not like in 'me' but you already did know that didn't ya?

Ned · January 14, 2003, 22:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Main_Brain
Well but who comes after Saddam?
It seems like the Choice between a Dictatorship supressing the Majority and a Fundametalistic State closly related to Iran I guess...
I wonder wheter the US (goverment&corporations) would care about ME if the Oil was in Africa?

//ME like Middle East not like in 'me' but you already did know that didn't ya?

On this point, the answer is probably no. I believe Bush I would have been content to simply denouce Saddam for taking Kuwait if Saddam had not moved nine divisions to Kuwait's border with Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's gave Bush a call and asked for help. We sent in the Airforce immediately and then began putting together the coalition that was to eventually eject Saddam from Iraq - over strong Democrat opposition, I might add.

So no, the US would not have gotten involved in Africa because we have no vital allies in Africa. We are, however, allied with Saudi Arabia - because of OIL.

Ned · January 14, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
Yes, we need to take Saddam out now. Take him to the dark forrest. Behind the sauna. And let the new foreign troops do it

Pekka, it's a shame that we don't allow visa's and green cards to aliens who actually apply to and are accepted by the US Armed forces. Undoubtedly, the quality of such a soldier would often be as high or higher than many US citizen recruits.

Perhaps now that we have a Republican Congress we can fix this. The Democrats tended to view the US military as an employer of last resort for down-on-their luck Americans. Obviously, the last thing they wanted to do would be to allow aliens to take American JOBS.

Pekka · January 14, 2003, 22:36

Ned, I agree with you. I read from somewhere in the internet maybe 6 months ago, that some politician was saying that the US should open borders to anyone who wants to fight for the country. I think it would be a good plan. Maybe even make the service minimum of 6 years, but they'd be neutralized after 3 years, and they'd get some education in their spare time, college degree or something. These people would become valuable to the country. I mean, isn't that American way? I must be.

I keep my fingers crossed someone thinks this idea and they pass new laws fast. The fact remains, US needs more soldiers. Good for economy. Good future tax payers. 3 flyes at the same time.

It would make one hell of a campaign 'uncle sam needs you! Come and join the fight for the free world!' or some crap like that. This will happen at some point, I just hope it would come soon

Main_Brain · January 14, 2003, 22:40

Regarding SaudiArabia:
Are Americans aware of the Problems there Stationing of Troops created there? The Ruling ,mhh well Monarch Family would propably be the most correct name, has alot of Pressure from the Streets and the Congress/Ruling Scheiks to ask US Military to leave, whcih he of course cant do. It seems people there respect the US for saving them but feel mhh well 'occupied'. Also cultural Problems I guess.

I also heard that because of Logistic problems the US mostly has equipment there (speak tanks 'n stuff) because the Merchant Navy couldn't move this military Equipment fast enough in Time of Crisis? Is that true?

So well my Question would be would you agree that US Troop presence in the Gulf Region is generally problematic to Arabian States?

Pekka · January 14, 2003, 22:40

Now I'm on a mission. I will send e-mails to people who could put some wind under this idea. Sure i'm a furriner, but so what. It could give some politician even career to push it forward.

DinoDoc · January 14, 2003, 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
It would make one hell of a campaign 'uncle sam needs you! Come and join the fight for the free world!' or some crap like that. This will happen at some point, I just hope it would come soon

I made a thread on this awhile ago. The general consensus was that an American Foreign Legion would be a bad idea.

Ned · January 14, 2003, 22:46

Pekka, Write to Rumsfeld.

Pekka · January 14, 2003, 22:47

Can you give link to it, so I can read and make it sound like a good idea?

Pekka · January 14, 2003, 22:49

Ned, hey that is a good idea. I will. I just think he has secretaries screening it and they might drop mine from going to him, but I will definitely give it a try. I think I should focus on republicans.

Ned · January 14, 2003, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Main_Brain
Regarding SaudiArabia:
Are Americans aware of the Problems there Stationing of Troops created there? The Ruling ,mhh well Monarch Family would propably be the most correct name, has alot of Pressure from the Streets and the Congress/Ruling Scheiks to ask US Military to leave, whcih he of course cant do. It seems people there respect the US for saving them but feel mhh well 'occupied'. Also cultural Problems I guess.

I also heard that because of Logistic problems the US mostly has equipment there (speak tanks 'n stuff) because the Merchant Navy couldn't move this military Equipment fast enough in Time of Crisis? Is that true?

So well my Question would be would you agree that US Troop presence in the Gulf Region is generally problematic to Arabian States?

Main_Brain, I agree we really need to get our troops out of the ME. But the only way we can do that is by elminating the original problem that caused us to be there in the first place. It really is a travesty that we left Saddam in power when we really had the opportunity to finish the war. Unfortunately, we thought we could simply leave our troops there indefinetely - like in Germany or South Korea. But, obviously, the culture clash with the people of the ME is too severe making our long term presence impossible.

Hopefully, Bush II will act soon to correct an historical mistake. As soon a vialble successor regime is installed in Iraq, we can pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. As soon as Iraq is stable, I hope we withdraw from there as well.

DinoDoc · January 14, 2003, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
Can you give link to it, so I can read and make it sound like a good idea?

Check your pms!