The Second American Revolution

MrsSkywalker said:
Here's a question: Hypothetically, if there were never any concerns about WMD and terrorist links, would there now be a coalition trying to free the Iraqi people?

I would like to think so, but I honestly don't know.

Watching Ari Fleischer just now, he basically said something along the lines of "we might not be doing this now" if Saddam had given up his WMD. From a literal point of view, the comment was inconclusive. But he later went on to re-emphasize that the purpose of the war was to disarm Iraq and that they were certain that they would find chemical and/or biological weapons at some point.
 
RussSchultz said:
PurplePigeon said:
The second article does make me reflect about how the dialogue about this war with Iraq has evolved. The debate at the UN revolved around claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and supported terrorism. However, in the past couple of days there has been a sudden shift in emphasis to liberating the Iraqi people.

Supposedly at least 1 of the missiles fired into Kuwait was a "non-existant" SCUD-B, as opposed to the missiles with shorter ranges.

Could be. I know that Scud's are considered weapons which Saddam should have given up, but to be honest I'm less concerned about those things than chemical and biological weapons. Scuds aren't exactly impressive and frightening pieces of technology by themselves, although if loaded with a more dangerous payload they could be.
 
PurplePigeon said:
Scuds aren't exactly impressive and frightening pieces of technology by themselves, although if loaded with a more dangerous payload they could be.

Exactly.

That's the reason why Scuds, or other missles with a range greater than 93 miles are forbidden. It's not that there's really a "problem" with Iraq having conventional weapons like that, it's that they can be used to deliver a chem/biochem payload well outisde its borders.
 
That's not reality. The authors took reality, chewed it up, and spat it back out into that dribble you call an article. It's the warped rantings of radicals who are relying on those that are easily manipulated to join their "cause". Seems to me they found a few recruits on these boards.

I didn't say that Saddm raped every person. Nor did I say he personally tortured ever single one. I said that he brutalized the 23 million Iraqis and is continuing to do so, and I stand by that statement. Some he has raped, some he has beaten, millions are starving b/c of him, and I'd say as a people they have been beat down so much that they are pretty thoroughly humiliated. Public exectutions over offenses so minor as to not even be illegal over here happen with alarming frequency. He took his own sons to a prison and made them shoot prisoners at point blank range when they were only 14, for cryin' out loud! His own sons! And these things he tells his country. He gets a kick out of seeing them squirm and cower. THIS IS BRUTALITY.

So, it is not an exaggeration at all. I was trying to ask those defending him at what point will they stop? Are you all waiting until he DOES make sure that every woman in Iraq is raped by his regime? Are you waiting until he personally tortures every single one? What will it take? How evil does evil have to be before you stop supporting it? That was my question.

These are people. People with wives, children, mothers....that just want to live in freedom and see their babies get married and graduate and laugh and just live. All I am saying, all I have been trying to say, is that it's easy to be idealistic when you are privileged enough to be able to make that choice...but it isn't always right.
 
epicstruggle said:
*bump* waiting for an intelligent reply to above post.
later,
Probably you mean you are waiting me reply to MrsSkywalker´s post in an intelligent way. Maybe you are expecting too much because my primary language is not English, my time is limited and the interpretation of what is intelligent depends much on the reader´s opinion/history/experience/stateofmind. Anyway:

MrsSkywalker
I dont wear a nice pair of rose coloured glasses, but maybe you (and some others) wear.

Officially US is going into premptive war to disarm Iraq from WMD. The deposition of Sadam and "liberation" of Iraq is a side effect. US says its actions will be backed by three UN resolutions (1441 and two other ones).

Now what I see is:
- The majority of the countries are not in favor of this action
- The animosity between influent countries are not good (Russia, China, France, Germany, etc...)
- There is no proof of WMD and/or connection to 9/11
- The UN and its inspectors blame US for the war
- The legality of this war is arguable
- The precedence of preemptive war is dangerous
- The arab world dont see it with good eyes
- Sadam may really put his own and other people and property in real danger during a war.
- The stability of the middle east is at risk.
- Some people argue how stable can be a democracy in the current Iraq.
- The post war uncertaints without the full UN post war support are higher.
- This war may have other reasons additionally to the alleged "premptive self-defense"

I am not so peacefull/idealistic as you think. In fact for me probably you are the idealistic one thinking that your country is in a saint crusade to liberaty Iraq. What after that? what will be the next country US will liberaty? Or what will be the next unilateral action US will take?

Have you ever considered the possibility of disarming Sadam to an acceptable level without a war (but with UN pressure backed by many countries?) and then the end of embargo? It could possibly help a lot the people of Iraq without endangering them. It could reinforce the respect and recognition of the international institutions and law. It could reafirm international relations. It could help improve the perception of the US in the arab world public opinion. After that some work could be negotiated to move the country to a democracy.

I like US very much. I like to buy the technology and equipment. I like to visit the different states. I like the action movies. The food is acceptable. Up to now US has more good than bad influenced the world. It is a wonderfull country but not perfect.

I want US to improve, specially to get wiser.
In fact some time ago I saw on TV an interresting pool where Saudits says that US is a great country but they are dissapointed by the way US treat the arab countries. Dissapointment is one interresting feeling because some people (including the dissapointed) confuse it with hate or other things. Other people simply hate US because of the colateral damage of its influencing in the area.

My personall experience is that the world is not perfect, that politicians cannot be trusted, there is always something behind the "good intentions" and many things (almost everything) has a price or can be negotiated. Then IMHO you are the one wearing the nice pair of rose coloured glasses :LOL:

In the end I hope that I am wrong and you are right. I hope this war will end soon with few casualities and loss of properties and full UN post war help and aid. That a democracy will flourish in the dessert. That Iraq´s properties and resources will be used to favour its people. That the international relations and institutions/law recognition will be back to the level before the war. That no undesirable side effect will happens and that the middle east will stabilize. Specially I hope that US is not devianting from its of good and responsible leadership of the world.
 
pascal said:
Have you ever considered the possibility of disarming Sadam to an acceptable level without a war (but with UN pressure backed by many countries?)

Have you ever considered that we do not believe Iraq can be disarmed to an "acceptable level" as long as a lying, decpetive, despodic Saddam is in power?
 
In fact for me probably you are the idealistic one thinking that your country is in a saint crusade to liberaty Iraq.

I have absolutely no dillusions about why the US went over there at all. I was speaking from MY point of view, why I'M glad we went over. The US is greedy and self serving as a whole. We don't make any qualms about that, and we shouldn't have to...it's a formula that has served us very well the past few hundred years...if it ain't broke, don't fix it ;) . We want to eliminate any threat he poses to us, and we want to make sure he's no longer in control of WMD. To the US lawmakers, the humanitarian efforts are a nice side effect. I know this, I am not ashamed of this, but from my point of view, it's the other way around. The US is not a saint nation, we have many problems just like every other country. I was speaking on an individual person level.

Have you ever considered the possibility of disarming Sadam to an acceptable level without a war

If we were dealing with someone who was willing to disarm if the terms were right, then that would be prefferable. But unfortunately we are not, as evidenced in the last 12 years. He lies. He thinks he's unstoppable and above the law. He has proven time and again that he can't be trusted, for anything. He proved that time and again, especially now that he's firing SCUDs at us when he said he didn't have any. He can't remain in power, and he refuses to give it up, so what is left?

The stability of the middle east is at risk.

There is no stability. That area has never in history been stable. Not once! Taking Saddam out is the first step towards stability.

Some people argue how stable can be a democracy in the current Iraq.

And others say it will. We won't know until it happens, but I don't think it's our right to tell them they can't even try.

I want US to improve, specially to get wiser.

Don't we all! :) There is no such thing as the perfect country. And, as far as the powerful countries in the world go, we are still relatively young. We're working on it.

Some love us, some hate us, and some just love to hate us. I know the US has selfish motives in most things, and that we are FAR from perfect, but I still wouldn't EVER want to live anywhere else.
 
pascal said:
The majority of the countries are not in favor of this action

Who Cares. What percentage of countries in the U.N. are democracys (hint <50%). Besides issues should be decided upon by thier own merits not through consensus. Do you think North Korea should be invaded. I do. Why should North Koreans have to suffer due to their leader. Do you think the U.N. would ever athourize this. No way. The U.N remindes me of that old saying about how a Jackass is a Horse designed by a committe. :cry:
 
The arab world dont see it with good eyes

the bulk of the Arab world dislike Saddam almost as much as we do, they know he's a danger to the region, they just have a complete lack of trust in US/UK intentions toward the region.
 
sure enough Heathen, but when people don't trust me i tend to respect that and not force my will on them. i wish i could say the same about our goverment. :(
 
but I still wouldn't EVER want to live anywhere else.

Funny, of all the countries in the West and the USA I'd rather live in Scandinavia than anywhere else. Scandinavia simply offers the highest quality of life to be found anywhere. The Scandinavian nations are founded on God. Our enviable position is blessed by God. Our laws and constitutions are examples for all other nations as they are given by God.

Btw, why are you amerikkkans complaining about Pascal's links? As faithful neo-conzervatives you're all perfectly aware of the "New American Century" doctrine that basically says what Pascal's links say. Drop the charade.
http://www.newamericancentury.org

Heil Bush! Pax Americana!
 
As faithful neo-conzervatives you're all perfectly aware of the "New American Century" doctrine that basically says what Pascal's links say. Drop the charade.

Sorry, dude, missed the "New American Century" crap. I was saying what I honestly feel. No charade involved.

Edit your link, too. You have too many ///s.

There you go :)
 
CosmoKramer said:
Funny, of all the countries in the West and the USA I'd rather live in Scandinavia than anywhere else. Scandinavia simply offers the highest quality of life to be found anywhere.

Excepting the unemployment, high taxes, low salary, xenophobic society, and outrageous cost of alchohol, I'd agree.
 
the unemployment

All Scandinavian countries have lower unemployment rates than the USA.

high taxes

While there are nuances Scandinavians in general like our high taxes because it enables the kind of society we want. We constantly reaffirm this through democratic elections. May of course change in the future, who knows.

low salary
Low relative to what? The US? Compared to most countries our salaries are high, especially the Norwegian salaries.

xenophobic society

Really? Didn't know that. You *should* elaborate such nonsense statements you know.

outrageous cost of alchohol, I'd agree.

I'd say the Danes would say disagree. Sweden and particularly Norway have high alcohol taxes, yes. Personally I think that is sound considering all the pain addiction and alcohol-related crime causes.
 
Quote:
xenophobic society


Really? Didn't know that. You *should* elaborate such nonsense statements you know.

Russ, dude, I'm with you. To help enlighten you CosmoKramer, here's a very interesting link.

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http:/...+countries&u=http://www.abo.fi/~tivirtan/&s=a

I went to askjeeves.com and actually was looking for unemployment rates in Scandinavian countries...guess xenophobia is a growing problem there.

CosmoKramer: This is the "enviable position" God has blessed? Huh. Must have lost that page of my bible.....
 
I went to askjeeves.com and actually was looking for unemployment rates in Scandinavian countries

Good for you - you saw the evidence for yourself. Currently Sweden's unemployment rate is 4.5% (http://www.scb.se). The other two Scandinavian economies are stronger. I believe the US rate is well over 5% and rapidly increasing as your economy is slipping at the moment.

...guess xenophobia is a growing problem there.

Nope, it is in decline. It was a growing problem 10-13 years ago. The only reason it was news in the first place was our long tradition of tolerance and respect for human rights. Even a tiny black spot in a brilliantly white sheet shows so to speak. Still, our problems were nothing like your continuing huge problems with racism.

This is the "enviable position"

Yep. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html

God has blessed?
I see irony is lost on you. What a surprise.

Must have lost that page of my bible.

Probably.
 
I hadn't looked lately. When I was looking to go ex-pat a few years ago, I considered Sweden (Stockholm). Unemployment was much higher there than in the US. (It appears its changed now and is lower).

At the time, also, housing was much more expensive, and yes, the culture was lily white and even among the liberal, open minded folks I was hanging out with had issues with the growing population of middle easterners.
 
Quote:
I went to askjeeves.com and actually was looking for unemployment rates in Scandinavian countries


Good for you - you saw the evidence for yourself. Currently Sweden's unemployment rate is 4.5% (http://www.scb.se). The other two Scandinavian economies are stronger. I believe the US rate is well over 5% and rapidly increasing as your economy is slipping at the moment.

Actually, the only articles that came up on the entire first page were linking unemployment issues with xenophobia. I'll take your word on the unemployment thing, but a 4.5% unemployment rate hardly fits the image of the euphoric land of dreams you are trying to paint.

Still, our problems were nothing like your continuing huge problems with racism.

Here's a neat little tid bit for ya. (Now, to be fair, I used figures that were available for all countries, so I am going with census info from 1997. I assume all numbers would be slightly larger now, but should not be too far off as far as percentages.)

In 1997, Scandinavia (I used Finland and Iceland in these figures as well, b/c the rest of the world lumps them in with Scandinavia) had a population of approximately 23,942,300 people total, with a minority population (non Nordic decent) of a mere 281,375. In doing the math, that figures out to 0.012% minority population. Of the ethnic groups listed, there were only five different ethnicities: Nordic, Lapp, Sami, Jew, and Middle Eastern decent (In the US Nordic, Lapp and Sami are all just considered caucasion).

In 1997, the US had an estimated population of approximately 271,290,000 people total, with a minority population of around 65,109,600. In doing the math, that figures out to about a 24% minority population. The ethnic groups listed were: Caucasion, African American, Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, Aluet, Polynesian, Native American and"other"...the "other" accounted for about .7%, or roughly 19,000,000 people.

To sum things up for you, we have a larger minority population than TWICE YOUR TOTAL POPULATION!!! It's awfully easy not to be prejudiced when everyone around you is the same. How large is the town you live in? How many different ethnic groups are there in your town? I live in a small town in the back hills of the tiny state of New Hampshire...anyone on this board from the US can tell you, there's pretty much mountains and cows up here and that's it. My town has a total population of only 3,500 people. Even in this middle of nowhere town we have families living here that are Colombian, two Cambodian families, a dozen or so African American familes, a group of Orthodox Jews, a few Irish immigrant families, and a Libyan family who sought political exile here...and we are considered in this country to have a very small minority population! And let's examine religions for a minute. According to the encyclopedia, in 1997 Scandinavia had a religious population of 99% Prodestant (mostly Lutheran) and 1% Roman Catholic. It mentioned that Scandanavia had "isolated" pockets of Russian Orthodox, Muslim, and Jewish, and most of those are in Denmark. Let's examine the US for a second. The encyclopedia said that in 1997, 48% of the population was Prodestant (Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ), 26% Roman Catholic, 3% Jewish, 3% Muslim, 2% Mormon, and that the rest was divided between Hindu, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Johva's Witness, and "isolated factions of the aforementioned religions".

We are the Great Melting Pot. "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...." Well, that happened, and like it or not, people bring their own cultures' prejudices with them. I can't stop an Iraqi immigrant from hating an Iranian immigrant...these things happen after years of cohabitating in the same area.

You have no race problems? YOU HAVE NO RACES!!! Let me extend an invitation. I want you to come over to the US, fly down to, say, Atlanta, GA, and walk around at night. Or Tampa, FL. Or Los Angeles, CA. Better yet, just spend the week in NYC. Then MAYBE you will gain some smidgen of understanding about how hard it really is to embrace differences, while overcoming them at the same time. I think we are doing a pretty good job. Nowhere else in the world has the diversity that we do, so go stick your nose up at someone else, b/c your argument just won't fly.


Wow! We came in 6th! Booh-yeah! What? Denmark is a sad little 14th? You can't pick and choose. When you are speaking about Scandinavia, you can't say, "Oh, I just meant one of the countries." When you are comparing one thing to a group of things, then to derive the proper comparison you must do an average of the individual parts of the whole. Let's look at it like this. I'll consider the three parts of Scandinavia listed in the same light as the states in America. Now, America was given an overall ranking of 6, which means that the average of it's parts equalled 6. Not too shabby, since I assume LA would drag things down quite a bit! Now, Norway was ranked 1, and Sweden was ranked 2, but sad little Denmark was only ranked 14. So 1+2+14 / 3= 5.6 repeating. Hmm. Pretty close.

I am not ragging on Scandinavia. Although cold, I'm sure it's a lovely place. However, elitists like yourself just get under my skin. You're not perfect. Neither is your country. No one's country is, get over it.
 
Back
Top