Falko 0 #26 November 3, 2004 QuoteWhy do people continue to use phrases like "unilateral" or "go it alone"? If it were the US only, that would be unilateral. You're right, it's the US, the UK, and... uuh... the Republic of Poland? [details here] Sorry for being sarcastic, but IMHO it's been an unilateral war in the way that the US and UK decided to "go in", after which a few countries followed, contributing little or no troops. Quote[...]I remember a UN resolution that clearly stated that Iraq possessed WMD, and the best intelligence of the civilized world backed that up. I also remember a resolution that stated that the WMD inspectors should go on with their work in Iraq, as they have done successfully in the years after the Gulf War. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #27 November 3, 2004 QuoteThere is no such thing as fighting for peace. Let's bring them home now, and send teachers and construction crews to replace the warriors. If we do not go this route, the US will get attacked again. I don't like the idea of doing anything that bends to the demands of terrorists, but I also hate violence more than I am attached to my national ego. Get 'em home...right now. + Brian, Blue skies to you, man. Oh maker of excellent skydiving gear! Can't think of anyone in skydiving for whom I have more personal respect and awe. I don't mean to flatter, but I wanted you to know that. Anyway, I agree with you about the need for peace. I worry, though, about the vulnerability of people like teachers and construction crews we might send to Iraq, given that the foes we currently face there don't seem willing to recognize goodwill or respect those who bring it enough to leave them unharmed. Here's hoping that now that certain things I care about are more likely to be safeguarded here at home (my 2nd Amendment rights, for one), Bush will open himself up to various alternative courses of action regarding establishing peace where there has been so much wanton bloodshed. Perhaps being free of the concerns of another reelection will make him amenable to alternative solutions. Once again, Blue Skies, -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrianSGermain 1 #28 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnyway, I agree with you about the need for peace. I worry, though, about the vulnerability of people like teachers and construction crews we might send to Iraq, given that the foes we currently face there don't seem willing to recognize goodwill or respect those who bring it enough to leave them unharmed. Here's hoping that now that certain things I care about are more likely to be safeguarded here at home (my 2nd Amendment rights, for one), Bush will open himself up to various alternative courses of action regarding establishing peace where there has been so much wanton bloodshed. Perhaps being free of the concerns of another reelection will make him amenable to alternative solutions. Once again, Blue Skies, -Jeffrey I hear you, and prudence in this matter is essential for the safety of all concerned, including the Iraqi people. I think the way to go may be to send people from other nations, rather than Americans. The international persona of the American people is not a terribly positive image right now, and will continue to present a target for hatred. If the US sends financial support for the reconstruction efforts, orchestrated and implemented by other nations or the UN, we will be doing the best we can right now. We have made a mess, and in this case the way to go is to hire an outside cleaning crew. Thinking that this is some kind of financial opportunity for America is exactly the kind of thinking that vilifies our country, and proves the viewpoint that we attacked Iraq for economic reasons rather than for security. If we want to be "big" about this, we will not try to gain anything. If Saddam was a danger, that danger is gone. Now we need to switch to the grownup job of helping them achieve a balanced economy and state of overall wellness. If the best way to do that is to step back so that we don't make matters worse, so be it. There are plenty of nations that would be happy to take over the job of the reconstruction. Neutral nations are the way to go here, peacemakers. Taking that step will be a message to the world that the US is growing up from the cowboy image that brings so much distain worldwide. We don't have to be that. +Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #29 November 3, 2004 QuoteBut we absolutely cannot make peace with guns. Guns help keep the peace. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #30 November 3, 2004 [Quote[...]I remember a UN resolution that clearly stated that Iraq possessed WMD, and the best intelligence of the civilized world backed that up. I also remember a resolution that stated that the WMD inspectors should go on with their work in Iraq, as they have done successfully in the years after the Gulf War. True...but what we didn't know at the time was the principles involved on the Security Council and Koffi Annan himself were raking in big coin for the Oil for Food Program. The last thing they wanted was the US screwing up thier cash cow...and...according to the Duelfer report... Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf But...this is old news.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #29 November 3, 2004 QuoteBut we absolutely cannot make peace with guns. Guns help keep the peace. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #30 November 3, 2004 [Quote[...]I remember a UN resolution that clearly stated that Iraq possessed WMD, and the best intelligence of the civilized world backed that up. I also remember a resolution that stated that the WMD inspectors should go on with their work in Iraq, as they have done successfully in the years after the Gulf War. True...but what we didn't know at the time was the principles involved on the Security Council and Koffi Annan himself were raking in big coin for the Oil for Food Program. The last thing they wanted was the US screwing up thier cash cow...and...according to the Duelfer report... Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf But...this is old news.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrianSGermain 1 #31 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut we absolutely cannot make peace with guns. Guns help keep the peace. Do you really believe that? Putting ourselves in situations in which we need guns is the real problem. Guns do not create peace, they just prolong a cease-fire. That is, until the other people that have guns believe they have enough fire-power to kill you. That is not real peace. The drama of war is addictive. The cycle of killing for revenge is a neverending one, a war that cannot be won. If we don't want to live in a world of war, we need to use our minds to create a real and lasting peace, rather than old ways that will lead us right back to where we are right now: insecure and afraid. Home Now Peace Simple... +Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #32 November 3, 2004 Unfortunately... " A period of peace is usually the result of a bloody war. The bloodier and longer the war, the quieter and longer the peace." - some old git who's dead. The point is that you don't achieve peace by being nice , you gain peace by being hard and nasty. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #33 November 3, 2004 QuoteYup, that's almost the same words Bin Laden uses to 'justify' 911. ________________________________ yeah it is very similar to their justification. The difference is that their core reason is they feel that American culture has made a very detrimental influence in their Islamic culture. That may be so but attacking the US isn't going to help their cause that much. This incorrect explanation of terrorist motivations for attacking the USA is what African scholar Mahmood Mamdani labels 'Culture Talk' in his book "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim". Culture Talk is based on the assumption that cultures have a tangible essence that defines them, and attempts to explain politics based on that assumption. Mamdani says, "Culture Talk after 9-11, qualified the practice of terrorism as Islamic. Islamic terrorism is thus offered both as a description and an explanation of the events of 9-11. It is no longer the market (capitalism), nor the state (democracy), but the culture (modernity) that is said to be the dividing line between those in favor of a peaceful, civic existence and those inclined to terror" . If we choose to explain terrorism as the weapon of a resentful premodern culture, we buy into the thesis of Samuel Huntington that there is an impending "Clash of Civilizations" because Islam is unwilling to accept our Western version of modernity. We cannot afford to make enemies of entire civilizations. Islam is a peaceful religion deeply respectful of freedom. The Islamic terrorism movement is a result of mainly US interference in the ME, the very notion of a Jihad based on terror was invented by the CIA as a way to mobilize Muslims against the USSR in Afghanistan. People like Bin Laden have used what they learned from the CIA in Afghanistan and turned it against those who they perceive to be their enemies, but this was never really based on the hatred of the good things we believe the West stands for, freedom, justice equality etc. They hate us becuase we support those who kill and oppress their people. I can give more examples if you feel like sending a PM, here's one that pissed me off the most. Economic Sanction on Iraq June 2000 Report to the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights says that the total deaths directly attributable to the sanctions ranged from 500,000 to 1,500,000 , with the majority being children. The US consistently used its veto on the Security Council's 661 Committee to block over 200 humanitarian contracts, including those to supply clean drinking water, the most essential to Iraq's childrens' health. It only once justified itself in 2001 when the Washington Post ran a story on $280 million worth of medical supplies being denied by the veto. The US claimed the vaccines could be used to produce biological weapons, but backed down when confronted with adverse publicity. Many high ranking UN aid administrators resigned in protest. Dennis Halliday said in 1998, "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. Is is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral" Who really killed more Iraqi civilians? Saddam or us?Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #34 November 3, 2004 QuotePutting ourselves in situations in which we need guns is the real problem. Guns do not create peace, they just prolong a cease-fire. That is, until the other people that have guns believe they have enough fire-power to kill you. That is not real peace. I think there are two basic problems here. First, it power and money corrupt; so, I do not know that it is possible to live in peace in our life time. Secondly, there are cultural issues in the middle east which begin with religion's role in politics and include the treatment of women. Until that changes, I do not believe there can be a utopian peace based on an enlightened/educated people. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
