0
   

The US, UN & Iraq II

 
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 09:45 pm
Also, being a 'Brit' doesn't mean I am less qualified to give my opinion than you 'yanks'. If anything I've kept myself up to date with American and English news reports, and read opinions of both sides so as to maintain a broad perspective.

As a side issue, the US news reports have shown mainly the glories of the war while the UK has shown mainly the tragedies. More interestingly (something i'm still pondering over) is that the UK news began more anti-war and has slowly drifted the other way, whereas the US media seems to have done the reverse.
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 09:52 pm
perception wrote:
dafdaf wrote:

<I wasn't aware that I had to state that a prediction of the future was opinion over fact. >

Correct me if I'm wrong but the wording implied that you have an omniscient assertion that President Bushs actions have "left itchy scars that will take decades to heal" Really........... this seems more than a mere prediction or opinion?


you were accusing me of predicting the future. The quote you're now using is one of me stating my opinion of the present.

I'm a bit puzzled why you've become so defensive all of a sudden. You've started attacking my semantics rather than my arguments. And then you do it a second time:
Perception wrote:

As for your question to me ----Why did Bush invade? Why don't you ask me when I intend to stop beating my wife? You remind me of one of the Al Jazeera questioners at the CENTCOM daily briefing. If you would like to rephrase your question I will attempt to answer it .

We're all here to argue our views and hopefully to learn too. I for one am not here to pick fights and complain about precise wording.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 10:11 pm
dafdaf wrote:

<As a side issue, the US news reports have shown mainly the glories of the war while the UK has shown mainly the tragedies. More interestingly (something i'm still pondering over) is that the UK news began more anti-war and has slowly drifted the other way, whereas the US media seems to have done the reverse.>

Your opinion of the news reporting is mostly correct I believe and I will confess I had no idea the BBC editorial content was so left-wing, anti-war, Anti-American, when I was convinced the BBC news reporting was the least biased in the world. I still believe the News reporting is excellent but my blood pressure goes "off the chart" when listening to BBC editorial reporting. It is possible that the Iraqis would chase BBC out of the country as they did Al Jazeera when they realized they had been lied to just like the Iraqi minister of information.

I'm sure you consider yourself well informed but let me share some information with you. I lived in England four years and have been married to a Brit for the past 42 years. During that time I have learned a bit about England and English people but I realize I have only scratched the surface. Yet here we are in the second year of a fight to the death against terrorism but yet Brits seem to have a wealth of knowledge about America, Americans and Particularly a vast knowledge of American politics, motives and inside knowledge our entire motivational planning over the past 12 years. You may well be a genius but until that is proven pardon me if I seem a bit skeptical. I am a fan of 007 and MI-5 but I don't believe they share their knowledge with you or Steve 4100 or any other Brits on this forum.

In the meantime please continue.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 10:19 pm
dafdaf wrote:

<We're all here to argue our views and hopefully to learn too. I for one am not here to pick fights and complain about precise wording.>

If one is imprecise in wording does it not follow that same person would be imprecise with their arguments. Imprecise use of language is probably the cause of at least one war down through history.
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 10:27 pm
I didn't explain myself well. I meant that the UK news (not exclussively BBC I might add) showed more of the tragedies of the war than the US stations, whereas the US showed more triumphs than the UK did. That isn't to say that either side is biased or sneaking opinion into the broadcasts, but simply that there was some level of discrepancy. In such a situation, I tend to assume the truth is somewhere inbetween, but equally it could be that one media is spot on while the other imbelishes. Who knows.

Also, anti-war isn't necessarily anti-american. The general concensus i've been picking up with the people here is that they're very anti-bush, and yet pro-america. It literally is that we feel Bush' actions have been so ludicrous that it must be the actions of a sole man. Of course I don't speak for the nation as a whole. The best selling newspaper here (The Sun) is very pro-war. Only started buying it since the war.

Lastly, this whole us/them thing you seem to have when talking about the 'Brits'. For a start I can't understand how you can have been married for 42 years to a woman from somewhere in Britain, and yet refer to us as 'Brits'. It's like calling Swede's 'Scandinavians' all the time. It also troubles me that the images that fly to mind when you talk about the UK is James Bond and MI-5. Those really our figure-heads in the US? Sad

The topic that got us on to all of this though was opinion towards the US. Based on that, I actually think that us 'two Brits' are actually the best equipped to talk about it since we're not in the US. I don't claim to know half as much about America, Americans American politics and so on, but chances are that what i do know/believe is different to what you do. Hopefully this means we can educate each other.
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 10:29 pm
perception wrote:
dafdaf wrote:

<We're all here to argue our views and hopefully to learn too. I for one am not here to pick fights and complain about precise wording.>

If one is imprecise in wording does it not follow that same person would be imprecise with their arguments. Imprecise use of language is probably the cause of at least one war down through history.


...and let it not be the cause of another.


Good night all.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 10:35 pm
dafdaf wrote:

But the evils and cruelty the guy has spread is entirely irrelevent to how we choose to remove him.

I must strongly disagree. His acts of cruelty, oppression and deceit are our moral justification for removing him----and your assertion that diplomacy would have worked is not backed by any fact. Twelve years of diplomacy accomplished nothing---let me remind you that it was our deployment of overwhelming force that led to reinstatement of "inspectors". I use that word very lightly because Blix in my opinion was Saddams puppet.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 11:19 pm
dafdaf wrote:

<Also, anti-war isn't necessarily anti-american. The general concensus i've been picking up with the people here is that they're very anti-bush, and yet pro-america. It literally is that we feel Bush' actions have been so ludicrous that it must be the actions of a sole man. >

Ludicrous in relation to what? Many of his actions have been the result of an attempt to shield or gain local support for your PM who BTW I consider brilliant and eloquent. While Bush made a wrong judgement about Putin he made the correct judgement of Tony Blair. You and the world have based your judgement on his verbal inadequacies on the world stage--- your imprecise use of words caused a blip on my radar but I did not immediately jump to the conclusion that you are an idiot as the world did in the case of Bush.

In this country most of the anti-Bush crowd hate him because he "Stole the election" and is not the elected President. The premise being that he is crook and therefore they are justified in making any insult or accusation. Why then do 70 plus percent of our citizens agree with his actions thus far? I believe that high rating is justified mainly because he has yet to be PROVEN wrong.


I'm also off to bed and I like your thought that perhaps we can educate each other---that is a start in the right direction.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 11:59 pm
Perc,

George Bush is a crook. And he hangs with a lot of other crooks. And I can't agree with you that he has been legitimately elected. Ethics have always been a real problem with GW. And 70 percent approve now, if that figure is correct, because they have been sold a bill of goods on the war. No one liked Saddam. And so it's easy to be glad he's gone. But many in this country don't follow the news closely enough to know what to question about this war. All they know about is the sound bites. Of which there are many set up for the purpose of increasing GW's approval rating.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:05 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:


There are those who believe that without explicit UN support, the US is a dangerously out of control rogue state.


Ruled by a power hungry maniac.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 04:23 am
War, Syria ----
Don't want to follow war no more .....



In New York, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was "concerned that recent statements directed at Syria should not contribute to a wider destabilization in a region already affected heavily by the war in Iraq."

But the Bush administration is already talking about other punishments against Syria. Last week, a bill was reintroduced in Congress to, among other measures, strip Syria of landing rights at U.S. airports, cut diplomatic ties and limit U.S. travel to the country.

What oil? They got oil?

Got pipeline?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 05:31 am
Re: War, Syria ----
Gelisgesti wrote:
But the Bush administration is already talking about other punishments against Syria. Last week, a bill was reintroduced in Congress to, among other measures, strip Syria of landing rights at U.S. airports, cut diplomatic ties and limit U.S. travel to the country.

What oil? They got oil?

Got pipeline?


<gets a little impatient about the mutual knee-jerk reactions>

OK - way I see it - Assad's regime is one of the most repressive dictatorial ones in the region. It's a regime guilty of mass murder. Anyone in any way concerned about the fate of 'the ordinary people' should be hoping for some kind of action that would bring it to at least modify its ways.

There are also, I think we agree, very valid reasons to fear both the motives and the strategies of what those hawks within the Bush government, who are trying to set the course for Damascus now, are trying to do. What are they out for? What could they do and what consequences would that have?

So there's the rub. International pressure against Assad's Syria should be as welcome as any against a brutal dictatorship anywhere. But we don't trust the reasons why Rumsfeld c.s. would now be going after Syria, resp. what havoc they might wreck should they go about it in their typical way.

How do we react, then, in this dilemma? Surely not by a mere "hands off Syria" (replace by "hands off Iraq", hands off Serbia, hands off, who knows, Zimbabwe?) jerk of the knee? Hands off Assad my *ss - by all means, somebody go at him, and at Mugabe, Karimov, and all the rest of them - all I'm concerned about is that somebody going at them in the right way.

We should always have one eye for the fate of "the world" and one eye for the fate of the people in the country we're talking about. The people of Syria are not helped by a "hands off" approach. So at the very least we should come up with what strategies would be OK, would be justified in tackling the dictatorship there, when - with that other eye on the fate of the world's institutions and intercultural relations - we lambast Rumsfeld c.s. for the strategies they chose.
0 Replies
 
simple simon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 05:34 am
I hope someone goes after Bush the most evil one of all!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 05:54 am
timberlandko wrote:
Timing and location determined which buildings could be protected before they were looted. It was an operational matter, not political ... but go ahead and hang on to that straw ... there haven't been a lot of such straws to grasp, have there? The Attack went astoundingly well, Iran and North Korea show signs of having noticed, The Iraqi People appear increasingly grateful and cooperative, The UN watches in frustration, The Arab Street is quiet, The Axis of Weasel are scrambling to stay in the game and franticly trying to grab a piece of the Post-Saddam Pie, Global Terrorist Activity is way down, The Dow and the FTSE are up for the year, and Bush the Younger's Domestic Approval is around 70% over all, and above 60% among Democrats (Recent Poll Summary). The Nay-Sayers and Critics have not been very well supported as events have unfolded, there is little reason to expect their fortunes to change. Its hard to argue with success.... what more comment do you need, snood? Mr. Green


Thats quite some statements you have there, timber.

"Timing and location determined which buildings could be protected before they were looted. It was an operational matter, not political ..." SO its sheer coincidence that only the Ministry of Oil and, I believe, the Ministry of Defence are protected and the other ones looted? You are better in military strategy matters than I am, so perhaps you can explain how the location of these ministries in the city determined they were the only ones the US troops could get to in time?

"Global Terrorist Activity is way down" - question mark? How do you measure that one? Is way down from since when? Since America started the war, a month ago? Could you compare for us the amount of "Global Terrorist Activity" this past month with that of, say, the month before, or that of October 2002, to name but one random month? <shrugs> It sounds like mere rhetorics to me.

"The Iraqi People appear increasingly grateful and cooperative" - I'd say the evidence is mixed so far - hugs and kisses here, grumbling there, and political murder in Najaf. It's an impression.

"Iran and North Korea show signs of having noticed"? Anything about Iran we missed? Did their ongoing democratisation process of the past few years suddenly drastically speed up? And North Korea? Is the record anything more than mixed there? I for one remember this quote from Yahoo News:

Quote:
North Korea came close Thursday to admitting that it possessed nuclear weapons when it said allowing nuclear inspections would entail disarmament.

"The US demand for the DPRK's (North Korea's) scrapping of its 'nuclear weapons programme before dialogue' would lead to inspection and the resultant disarmament spark a war," Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.

KCNA said North Korea had learned from the war in Iraq (news - web sites) that it was a fatal mistake to bow to inspections as Baghdad had learned to its cost.

"The only way of averting a war is to increase one's own just self-defensive means," KCNA said.

"The Iraqi war launched by the US preemptive attack clearly proves that a war can be prevented and the security of the country and the nation can be ensured only when one has physical deterrent force, a military deterrent force strong enough to decisively repel any attack of the enemy with any types of sophisticated weapons."
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 05:58 am
Nimh, click on the link, when it comes up do a search of the page for 'rumsfeld' ....it's in there a bunch ...... read and ask the question 'how man other pipe lines are there?'


http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc1510.html
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:27 am
dafdaf wrote:
The notion of invading Iraq for a regimee change to reduce the threat of further terrorist attacks is cakc-handed. If anything, the US is more exposed than ever, and with international relations at an all time low.


I'd agree with you there, in that the US has made itself more likely to come under terrorist fire by waging this war - and even in America the majority of the population believes this, according to opinion polls, refusing to buy the government's case on this. But here I have a bit of a problem:

dafdaf wrote:
Suddenly GWB came to power, withdrew from ALL US peace talks, broke geneva conventions and treaties, and then bwham, two planes him the world trade center. Rather than own up to his mistakes, he mislead the population (of the west generally) into thinking that this action was the start of the mistakes, and not just one other repurcussion of everything leading up to it.


There's extremist Muslim terrorism, there's the frustration and resentment in the Arab world yielding the breeding grounds for such terrorism, and there's the new American unilateralism of the Bush gvt. There's all kinds of correlations there for sure. But the terrorism predates Bush. Al Qaeda predates Bush. Its attacks on American targets predate Bush, as does the increasing influence of its like in the Middle East.

What I'd agree with you on, is that the Bush unilateralism will make it just that much easier for Al Qaeda and its like to recruit new "volunteers" for its cause. But its cause itself doesnt depend on Bush. If another US government had acted wholly through the UN, it would have made it harder for Al-Qaeda to find supporters to act against it, but it wouldnt have made it any less eager to.

Analogy: Kerensky choosing not to pull out of WW1 in 1917 made it that much easier for the Bolsheviks to attract people to its cause of revolution; but its cause was revolution, and would have been revolution, no matter what Kerensky had done. To extremist radicals with a superlative conviction about the better world they want to replace current reality with, those ruling current reality are merely distinguished as the truly awful versus the merely weak, and they wont hesitate to act against either. So to say that Bush brought 9/11 upon his country by his policy actions of the previous year seems a very superficial assessment of what Al-Qaeda and like-minded organisations stand for. They do not care for the Kyoto treaty or Bush's rejection of the ICC - they are not a reactive political movement like those demonstrating on the street against Bush's war are - their rejection of America stems from a course they're steering wholly independent of the political turns of the day, inspired by a sense of a "holy goal" (literally holy in this case).

You are not going to eliminate terrorism like Al-Qaeda's with compromises. There's no compromising with holy truth. The terrorists themselves can only be stamped out, period. The part Bush c.s. are forgetting is that terrorists become terrorists, and when stamping out the current ones we should take care we are not creating new ones in the process. "Pumping empty" the breeding grounds for terrorism means tackling the sense of invalidation and intimidation in the Arab world, the resentment of American foreign policy, of current Israel policy, etc. Thats where the compromises come in, and when somebody does a better job at it than the Bush gvt currently does, the risks of future 9/11s can be reduced. But it couldnt have prevented 9/11 itself.

It's been the same with past forms of terrorism, "red" terrorism for example. You have to make the distinction between terrorists and the roots of terrorism. If you dont and you declare anyone remotely sympathetic to whatever justifications the terrorists bandy about the Enemy, you'll end up escalating the breeding grounds. If you dont and you declare all terrorism mere reflections of whatever misguided policies your government has taken lately, you deny the nature of the beast itself, and end up defenceless against those who really have no truck with any kind of compromise with existing society.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:46 am
to negate someone's observation for his alleged "imprecise wording" and at the same time justify George W. Bush is ludicrous.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:51 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
Nimh, click on the link, when it comes up do a search of the page for 'rumsfeld' ....it's in there a bunch ...... read and ask the question 'how man other pipe lines are there?'

http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc1510.html


I did. Knew the story of Rumsfelds 1980s Baghdad mission already. Know that his - and the US gvt's - involvement in trying to strike deals with Saddam, while knowing about his simultaneous use of chemical weapons, back then makes Rumsfelds current rhetorics about Saddam's chemical weapon use justifying this war sound very cynical. Its been posted here a coupla times.

But whats your point?

I mean, whats your point here, re: Syria? That "it's all about oil"? So? Then what? What opinions can we form about problems in Syria, problems in Saddam's Iraq, et cetera, independently of what Rumsfeld has us think about? If Rumsfeld proposes A, what kind of B would we propose, apart from "hands off [fill in countryname]"?

Not meaning to sound half as aggressive as I probably do - just frustrated - why are we only ever talking about what Rumsfeld wants or means or what really behind what Powell wants or thinks - have they robbed us of our ability to formulate our own analyses of Middle East problems, on what would be good policy responses to what clearly are situations that could do with change?

In case of Iraq, the counter-proposal was to give the UN more time, referring also to how the weapon inspections and other measures of this last decade had already taken away most of Saddam's means to harm. But how does one look to Syria? It hasnt signed the chemical weapons agreement, so it cant be enforced by UN inspectors to stick to it either. It has sponsored terrorism in much clearer ways than Iraq has. It is a fierce dictatorship.

You can place as many question marks with the Rumsfeld timing or intentions in putting the country on the agenda, but if it is to be, what would we suggest about it? What would your policy on Syria be, if you could determine US foreign policy? Not just "let it be", I hope?
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:54 am
This thread has been closed because its enormous length has made it extremely slow-loading. The successor thread is here: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6593

Of course this thread will not be deleted or moved and you can copy from it just like you would any other thread. Sorry for the interruption.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US, UN & Iraq II
  3. » Page 197
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/04/2021 at 01:40:17