|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
I can’t understand what right that George W. Bush and his cohort Tony Blair has in declaring war against Iraq for really no reason except to get a strangle hold on the Oil reserves and to perhaps finish what his father left behind. Is he so unsure of himself that he has to take on the mentality of a world Bully? What right does he have to declare the world his and impose American ideals (to those Americans on the MB please do not take offense – none is intended towards you)? The days of collecting countries and forming an imperial rule over the war is not acceptable but alas George and his “Dogs of War” do not seem to be listening to the world. They also seem to be hell bent for leather in destroying the United Nations institution, granted the U.N. may not be as affective as it could be but it is still a place where the countries of the world can meet, discuss and to hopefully bring to a halt world conflicts – perhaps it is a way of the U.S. to break away from paying the billions they owe the U.N.
It is time that the White House should listen to the peoples of the world and to stop the acts of war and aggression – and ask them selves why terrorist are focusing on them and on the United States – perhaps a look at foreign policy would be a good place to start and to look seriously at the way they look and treat the rest of the world countries.
I am sorry for the rant – I don’t usually post, but am an avid reader and support of this board. I apologies if I have offended anyone that was not the intent.
Thanks for reading and again I am sorry
Tim (Port Hope, Ontario Canada)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rbryce
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 216
|
|
|
I totally resolve not to start another argument,but it is my opinion,and I offer that opinion with the deapest respect,that you and some others spend a few months living in those countries.My idea would be to take up a collection of money and send you there.If you wish,just ask,and I will send you air fare to Iraq.One way of course.hehehe I truely wish you well and I think your concepts of peace are to be commended. Please remember that these despots are very gifted at twisting public opinion and its important that we do not fall victim to the false propaganda comming out of Iraq.As to prez Bush and his (buddy) Blair,just ask yourself what choice do these leaders have.Their arguments are just as valid as yours are.And they and millions of others have a hell of a lot at stake.Please,in all fairness,suppose the US kept its nose out of other countries affairs and just allowed those dictators to have their way.You can bet your last buck that those people would still hate,its their nature.JUST SAY NO TO BULLIES AND CRUSH THEM LIKE COCKROACHES.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
The underlying PROBLEM we cannto solve. It is a given that Saddam is a total shit, a murdering bastard, genocidal, and all the rest. But however much of a git he is, and he gives being a git a totally new set of parameters, UNELSS the case is proven beyond any doubt and the UN gives its backing, I do not beleive that an invasion of another sovereign state can be justified.
The moment prima facie proof of his breaking UN resolutaions erious enough to warrant a set of reprisals, then he should be crapped on with all necessary despatch.
This is not peacemongering or war mongering. We could DEBATE (which I detest) or DISCUSS (no winners or losers and the chance of changing minds) for ages and reach no conclusion.
The USA is the sole superpower left in the world. That does not give it the moral right to enforce its will on anyone else. What it does is to put in in a unique position of responsibility to use its power with wisdom, and to ensure that justice is SEEN to be done.
I think we might leave discussions about Iraq per se behind, and consider instead the fear of war, and the position of any bullying power, the USA included, Britain included, that raises its aggressive head and seeks to impose its will on others whether they like it or not.
For the record, I feel that Saddam must go. But I feel we missed our chance to do it cleanly. This "war" is dirty and foul.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
No Message Body
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
"Tim The Canuck", It is so good to see you *post*; you should speak up more often.
I don't see that any of our American friends would, or should, take exception to either your thoughts in general about the current proliferation of tensions and it's attendant looming spectre of renewed warfare, or to your view that America, and specifically Bush, Jr., [and his advisors] maybe pursuing their own agenda. My experience says that Americans are just as worried as we are.
Certainly America [the World at large too], as humankind's only present, and real, deterent against them, does have cause to be just a little anxious about the Kim's, the Hussein's, the bin Laden's, et al; but, on the other hand, it has been proven time and time again, that war is good for business, and America's economy (having recently enjoined Mexico and other Latin-American Nations under NAFTA) is just now entering the startup phase that we Canadian's experienced some 10-years or more ago (and it could be said have barely been able to recover from) with our ratification of of the initial NAFTA agreement, and it's near cataclysmic effect on our societal values, mores and ability to suitably provide gainful employment. They are facing within the next 10-years the potential loss of more than 2/3rds of their industrial workforce, and this must be weighing heavily on Bush's mind, and that of his advisor's, as they look to solutions to keep Americans working.
You mention, "oil" and the Middle-eastern wealth of resources in this area as being a possible motive; and whilst this may be true of much of Europe and the Third-world, America does not rely exclusively on Middle-eastern oil to fuel their dreams, obtaining most of their fossel-fuels from firstly Venezuela, secondly Zaire and thirdly Canada, with the Middle-east accounting for less than 25% of their needs, with it ideally - were the American industrial complex to accept suitable alternatives - not being required at all. It burns me no-end, that we in Canada must pay nearly twice as much, and sometimes more, at the pump to fuel our vehicles than Americans do, but understand that we do so, inorder to continue to fuel theirs at less than half the our price. We do this because we have the reserves that are capable of fulfilling their needs, and under the terms of NAFTA are prohibited from doing otherwise.
As a man, who himself, and through his family enjoys a military background, I have great empathy for those currently serving in the American Armed Forces, as it would definitely appear that now is not a good time to be pursuing a military career, what with public support vaivering in many sectors, and the draft once more being quietly implemented. What has been, and is being, declared by the media [fostered no-doubt by Washington], as a show of non-support from the public for those in uniform, is not that at all, but an out-right rejection of war as being the only solution to the World's ills.
Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rbryce
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 216
|
|
|
At issue is wheather or not a people of a given nation be subject to the whims and despotism of a criminal and his minions.Its true that the middle east has vast oil reserves and such,but every drop of oil that comes out of these countries is paid for in cash.The thing is,that the general population does not see one red cent comming their way to improve their lives.Only the rulers and entrenched religious order seem to profit.Not only that,but the income from these resources seems to fuel their grand evil schemes.The sad part is that those persons with their heads in the sand seem to make things worse.I dont think that this board is going to make things better world-wide,but I do think that we can band togeather and just say NO to despotism and murder! rob PS The prof of the matter is the seeming willingness to use chemical and bio weapons.Remember Saddam setting all those oil fields ablaze--That action alone shows that the man must be stopped AT ANY COST.Please remember also that many of his people support him and are willing to spread this cancer even at the cost of their own lives with this religious fanatism. rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Actually no.
At issue is whether the United Nations authorises action against Iraq.
Religious zeal does not come into it, nor does any "seeming willingness to use" anything.
As a rearguard action any general would set fire to oilfields to hinder following troops.
What is at stake here is that justice be done and SEEN to be done. A US/British Lynch Mob is not required, and this is lynch mob stuff we have now.
The man is a total shit. A murdering shit. When it is proven beyond all doubt that he must be stopped and the United Nations backs it, then and only then can a civilised world perform the unpleasant surgery. Before then the USA and Britain are the aggressors.
One must separate emotional disgust at Saddam and people like him from action. The case is not proven. When it is proven, then go get him. I will not ask my son to die because a gun toting president and his british sidekick has said so.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
What you have said is all true and makes a tremendous amount of sense. My feeling is that part of the American problem is I suppose cleaning up the mess they created when they totally supported Hussein and gave him the weapons and the mustard gas, and because of their meddling, they have to clean up.
But you mention that war creates jobs and helps economies, but in this case will it not cause the world to spin into another recession which will hinder business growth and make us pay more at the pumps (what else is new) and push us into another econmicial slump. To me, this war is going to hurt the world and pull nations further apart, more then help it and for that I am worried and sorry.
Well neighbour Canadian - I always watch your writings with interest
Tim Port Hope - Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
This "war" is not going to be a war. It will not create more than a small splash of positive economic growth before it is over. It is an invasion of a pathetic state (albeit one governed by a brigand) and will be over after the expenditure of a few million dollars of unpleasant explosives.
"Classic" wars such as the first, second, Korean, Vietnam, and to a limited extent The Faklands were of sufficient duration both to kill off a large number of "otherwise to be unemployed" men, and also to create a major cash bonus for the arms and allied industries.
This is pissing in a tinpot state. IF the UN mandates it, that is.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
But I can think of nothing more supportive of our troops than to not want them to be shot, wounded, maimed, or killed needlessly. Warmongers must try to discredit pacifists by calling them non-supportive and conjuring up images of the way the troops were treated upon their return from Vietnam. The argument against war is far too strong at this point and if you can't discredit the argument, then attempt to discredit those who are making it.
This war will not be fought because the US wants to rid the world of a despot. There are plenty of Saddam Husseins in the world. Some even have more capability to make and utilize weapons of mass destruction than he does. Yet Bush and his cronies are not vowing to go after them.
This war is about oil. Despite the percentage of oil now gotten elsewhere, Bush and his big oil buddies would love to get their hands on Iraqi oil. Currently it is France, Russia, and Germany that hold leases and agreements with Hussein's government to develope the oil fields once the UN lifts it's embargo. A US lead war would most certainly result in a new government and the cancellation of those agreements. Since the US would be installing and overseeing the government there is no doubt who would be moving into those oil fields.
My son-in-law is in the Marines. My brother is in the Army reserve. I am not non-supportive of our troops. I would love nothing more than to see all of them come home safely. But I don't want to see them subjected to war so that Bush and his buddies can control more oil. Show me that Saddam does indeed HAVE weapons of mass destruction and I can support a war. What I can't support is sending our troops to die needlessly so that Bush and his cronies can become even richer.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
I haven't seen you around for quite some time.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rbryce
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 216
|
|
|
Please be specific when you accuse America of providing Mustard gas and other weapons. I was under the impression that Russia and China were the biggest providers of these weapons. I do think that it be reasonable to expect you to back up your assertion that America provided mustard gas and other chemical weapons.Please give us ALL prof that America provided biological weapons.By the way,where did Iraq get all its fighter jets and armored carriers. Enough of this America bashing I am damned sick of it.I personally believe that had it not been for America AND THE LOSS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND OF AMERICAN LIVES,both the britts and most of the world would be speaking either Russian or German.And I earnestly hope you bleeding hearts remember the 40,000,000 dead of wwII.Thats right I said 40,000,000 DEAD. Timmy I dearly love you and respect you,but I have to say that some Britts have lousy memories.Why in hell did you think Hitler made the decision to leave off England and invade Russia.The answer seems pretty simple.He was scared shitless of America entering the war.Thats right,big ol bad ass America with all its corperate greed and military industrial complex.Your biggest hero and mine,Churchil,sait it best--HOW SOON WE FORGET. In closing,what the hell do you think will happen when Korea and other despotic rulers get their hands on nuclear materials and other radioactive isotopes and start blackmailing the world. You say LET THE UN handle that.Those stupid bastards couldnt find the flush toilet in broad daylight.France is one good example. As far as the money,and its in the billions,that the US owes the UN,tough shit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rbryce
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 216
|
|
|
Simple solution--let the UN run the oil fields.Those nations that put up the bucks and effort to clean house would get their fair share of the oil.The hard part would be in seeing ahat the common people of Iraq benifit. rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Nobody has declared war on anybody. In the US only Congress is authorized to declare war on a legally-recognized country. As of today, the US Congress has not done so. No shots have been fired by either side except for minor violations of the UN mandated rules which were imposed on Iraq following the Gulf War in 1991.
2. Since the UN set down rules for Iraq to live by there have been seventeen resolutions voted on and passed by the UN dealing with Iraq's almost continuous flauting of the UN's directions.
3. Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction already against his own people and the Khurds living in northern Iraq along the Turkish border. The fact that he has them has never been a point of contention in the UN Security Council.
4. The major point of contention within the UN is whether Hussein has continued to manufacture such weapons since the Gulf War, and whether he has properly disposed of the existing weapons as directed. The U.S> and U.K. are trying to enforce the punishment phase of those seventeen resolutions, while France, Germany, Russia are seeking continued monitoring and inspection.
5. The reasons behind Bush's push to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions and many and not totally known to the general public. He has stated, however, that it is "of vital American interest" (political buzz words meaning we are willing to go to war over this) that Hussein disarm, along with North Korea. Blair has been made privy to these reasons and moved his support to Bush.
6. Since the inception of the United Nations (first as the League of Nations) in 1949 there have been many instances of UN "police action", none of which actually succeeded in accomplishing their original goal, but did succeed in preventing world war.
7. Throughout world history the "superpowers" of the world have been the policeman when a consensus of world opinion has not been reached prior to critical situations.
That said, my personal and humble opinion, is that Saddam Hussein and Kim Jung Il needs to be removed from their positions of power and oppression, but I also believe (after 24 years of military service) that there are other methods that can be used short of sending massive armies into the cauldron of hell. So while I understand the different elements of this particular situation and most of the reasons why we are on the brink of massive armed conflict in the Middle East, I am not in favor of this method of enforcement. The method I favor would be condemned by the world the day it happened, but forgotten tomorrow.
Hugs, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will not enter this debate, so long as a few keep things civil. I feel responsible for things getting out of hand before.
But (and I am truely sorry for saying this) someone who suggested flying another over who advocated peace I have two simple questions.
1. Have you learned a culture in that part of the world? Not a weeks vacation but lived there. Why would you offer a solution that helps no one?
2. What makes you so ready to kill, (or have someone kill in your name)? What put you in that place? Do you hate them all? Why?
Sorry that was six questions ..... hehe
Please keep in mind I just want to learn about you to better understand your points. NOT to start a fight.
I have many views as you well know. One might be: If we know where the weapons are to bomb them, why can't we give the same coordinates to the UN inspectors that we would give to the pilots? Or, are we just going to keep killing till we find them?
Again Thanks Tim, you great Canadian hunk you! hehe
Kevin
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...for me to ask you, rbryce, which branch of the U.S. Armed Forces you have volunteered for? I mean, it seems that if you are so gung-ho to send others off to fight a war designed to give Mr. Bush and his cohorts even greater control of the world's oil while at the same time saving some family face, then you would be equally as gung-ho to join up.
Have you noticed that no family member of anybody in the Bush Regime (notice I say "regime" and not "administration") will be participating in this war, nor (it seems) will any family of Congressmen (who, by the way, signed over to Bush in such a cowardly way their Constitutionally-mandated responsibility to be the body of the U.S. Government charged with officially declaring war, just to avoid being labelled "unpatriotic")? It was the same situation during Vietnam, too. Strange how that always seems to be the way, isn't it? I still say the best way to solve the situation would be to put Bush and Saddam in a boxing ring and let them duke it out. They could televise it on Pay-Per-View at about $50 per household (the going rate for a professional boxing match on Pay-Per-View these days), with proceeds going to feed and house the needy in both countries. I'm not a boxing fan, but that's one "Pay-Per-View" I'd definitely sign up for.
Yes, Saddam is a despotic tyrant who the world would be much better off without; but "Benito" Bush, by his actions, is showing himself to have been cut from the same moldy piece of fascistic cheesecloth. Let's face it: like most dictators, he gained power in a most questionable way, and he now wields that power in a dangerously unseemly manner. So the world would be much better off without him as well.
Before you go off pell-mell into battle, consider if what you're fighting for is really what you want to be fighting for; and by all means, don't have the temerity neither to expect others to blindly follow you and your beloved leader (remember what Ben Kenobi said: "Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"), nor to demand of others that they relocate to another country simply because they had the nerve to dissent from the "official party line" (isn't that exactly what we accuse other despots like Saddam of doing?).
I apologize, Steve. This just really pushed my button.
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, "Tim the Canuck". I got so carried away there I forgot it was actually your thread I was replying to.
Well, at least you now know that there is at least one person in the United States (although I'm sure there are millions more, including other denizens of this message board) who not only took zero offense from anything you said, but who also agrees with you completely. I consider myself a citizen of the world who just happens to live in the United States. So much of what the United States government does (especially the current inhabitant of the White House) actually makes me ashamed to call myself a U.S. citizen. I know such thoughts can get me shot for treason; so I was wondering, Tim, if you have a room to rent.
Great to see you posting again (I was wondering what happened to you). I hope this turns out to be more than just a "one-off".
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alex already has one of the best weapons known to mankind: a clarinet. He needs no other (especially the way he "wields" it).
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
But bush would never support such a thing. It would completely defeat the real purpose of going to war.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
I am worried, no I am scared - is more descriptive! 
Re: I am worried, no I am scared - is more descriptive! 
TOTALLY AGREE TIMMY 
A BIG thanks to my Canadian friend!!!! 
Would it be terribly out of turn... 
Re: Would it be terribly out of turn... 
