Kevin's Watch Forum Index
 HomeHome   MemberlistMemberlist   RegisterRegister   SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   FAQFAQ   StatisticsStatistics  SudokuSudoku   Phoogle MapPhoogle Map 
 AlbumAlbum StoresStores   StoresItems Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Iraq
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 142, 143, 144  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Kevin's Watch Forum Index -> Temp -> Coercri
View previous topic :: View next topic  

As of 2/19/06, how would you rate the Iraq War and its aftermath?
Total failure in all respects
43%
 43%  [ 36 ]
Terrible in terms of lives lost and a set back for U.S.-Middle East relations
28%
 28%  [ 23 ]
A major setback on the WOT, but democracy in Iraq at least
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
Difficulties were expected yet it probably had to happen
12%
 12%  [ 10 ]
Not too badly, although our intel networks must improve
2%
 2%  [ 2 ]
Think it has gone relatively well
6%
 6%  [ 5 ]
A complete success so far
2%
 2%  [ 2 ]
I don't care as long as I'm safe
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
I'm lost, where is the Mallory thread?
3%
 3%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 82

Author Message
danlo
Lord of Neverness


Joined: 06 Mar 2002
Posts: 20836

Thanks: 43
Thanked 56 Times in 56 Posts

Location: Albuquerque NM
3248 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 2005 Watcher of the Year1 Revelwood1 Skyweir


PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I abhor the discussion of politics--and, like Bannor, do caution restraint and advocate respect of other's differing opinions in a public debate forum. The fact that we can tolerate and respect each other's opinion may b our only saving grace in ever bcoming an 'enlightened' species.

My vow of ahimsa prevents me from condoning any violent action, but a very bad old voice I've buried back deep, deep, deep in my head occasionaly says, "Drop a crack Delta Force in2 Baghdad and assasinate Hussien and 50 of his top advisors instead of wasting taxpayers dollars on a ridiculous war that will force Saddam 2 put innocents in the way and take millions with him as he commits suicide in his bunker." Oil is a top motivator (among many including avoiding Enron-like guilt-blunders and the sad shape of the American economy) and u can b sure that Mr. Cheney is the man bhind the curtian. Aside from that occasional bad voice, that, oddly, said the same thing when Bush-daddy was in charge,--to quote the artist/cybrid, Joseph Severn, in Fall of Hyperion (When CEO Gladstone's entire political career hinged on the victory of the largest space armada ever assembled in 7 centuries vs the Ouster's fleet outside the Worldweb, w/98% approval of the inhabitants of all the 'civilized' planets recorded on the ALL THING), "I think it's stupid."

A full blown action could b pre-emptive of Armageddon--I leave u w/my post from the Current Affrairs 4rum @ the Hangar and this insightful commentary by ex-Marine, Philip Gold:

U're right it's not totally about Oil:
Quote:
Published September 12 - 19, 2002
An Anti-War Movement of One
A conservative breaks ranks with both the right and left to oppose an Iraq attack.
BY PHILIP GOLD

"Our national myth showed us that we were good, our technology made us strong, and our bureaucracy gave us standard operating procedures. It was not a winning combination."

So judged a wise historian, Loren Baritz, about how we wandered, open-eyed and fuzzy-minded, into Vietnam. Twenty years ago, when I first read his still-undiscovered masterpiece, Backfire, I cringed. So this is how we do things. This is us. It's going to happen again.

It's happening again. And of late, I've taken to constituting myself as an anti-war movement of one--a man of impeccable conservative credentials and long experience in the national-security field, a grumpy old Marine, who has grown infuriated with and appalled by both the conservative embrace of disaster and the enormity of the smallness of what passes for the anti-war movement today.

Yes, technology makes us strong, possessed of a military such as the world has never seen. But the myths now come to us less out of our own wishes and experiences than courtesy of an ugly cabal, half-Pentagon, half-media.

The Pentagon half: It's not so much el jefe, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (a good man and an excellent "SECDEF"), as some of the little jefitos running around. You want names? Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the denizens of the Defense Policy Board, an unpaid in-house think tank headed by Reaganite retread Richard Perle, a.k.a. "The Prince of Darkness," a moniker he earned in the 1980s for his love of confrontation for the sake of confrontation and of all things nuclear.

The media half? Again, not just the Big Guys, the Foxes (I like O'Reilly) and the MSNBCs (Nachman's cool). It's also a couple slick policy rags more notable for their influence than their circulation. The Weekly Standard and its allied P.R. machine, the Project for the New American Century, come to mind--the Bill Kristols, et al.

WHO ARE THESE people? Generically, they've been called "American Gaullists," after France's 20th-century all-purpose savior, Charles "France Without Greatness Isn't France" de Gaulle. But greatness without grace isn't greatness. The current D.C. version: America Without Greatness Isn't America. Let's go thump somebody. It'll be quick and easy and cheap and great, great fun and anyway, as a recent New American Century fax addressed to "opinion leaders" assures us, Baghdad won't be like Mogadishu because this time we have "the will to win."

Le Grand Charles, who knew from wars both world and colonial, would have scorned anything so stupid and so glib. These men aren't Gaullists. They're Prussians, a new aristocracy of aggression that combines 19th-century Prussian pigheadedness with a most un-Prussian inability to read a map or a ledger book, and a near total lack of military--let alone combat--experience. Ask these people to show you their wounds, and they'll probably wave a Washington Post editorial at you.

As for procedures--the procedures pertaining to going to war--the administration's strategy (or lack thereof) can only be described as bizarre. OK, so maybe they're practicing psychological warfare, or even their own brand of taqiya, an Arabic word connoting the right and duty of believers to lie to infidels. (Why not? The Islamic world seems to have adopted a Jewish communications strategy known as kvetching.) But when a president of the United States tells us that--not to worry--if he decides to go to war, he'll definitely ask the Congress for "support," and--again, not to worry--he'll "explain it" to the American people and we'll "understand," it's enough to make you join the anti-war movement.

What anti-war movement? When you look at what passes for "resistance" nowadays, you cringe in embarrassment that this is what's left of the left. Pompous. Arrogant. Self-righteous. Self-referent. Impotence chic at its finest. Punch up www.notinourname. net and read their "pledge of resistance." Or imagine my feelings--I almost said, "Feel my pain"--when I did a local church panel recently. A man in the audience asked if America would die like Rome, Nazi Germany, and the British Empire. One panelist agreed that, yes, America will die. The audience applauded.

And that's why I've come to be an anti-war movement of one, talking to anyone who will listen, not about how evil or how good we are, but about the world as it is and the vortex we're approaching.

On Sept. 10, 2001, the Beltway couldn't decide whether the defense budget should be $310 billion or $312 billion. The Weekly Standard crowd was demanding Rumsfeld's resignation for refusal to spend more money faster. Today, annual defense and homeland-security expenditures have swooshed past $400 billion. At this rate, we will spend more on defense in this decade than we did directly on all of World War II. So where's the world war?

All around us. Today, depending on how you count, there are between 60 and 100 international, transnational, civil, and regional armed conflicts under way. The world is at war. And we're getting ready for combat around the world. Since Sept. 11, we've been building foreign bases in central Asia, the Persian Gulf, and down the east coast of Africa. The Pentagon speaks of being there for "the long haul." We're concluding training and other agreements with dozens of countries and groups (note well: groups), and generally mucking about with a fervor not seen since the 1950s era of "Pactomania."

Alas, then as now and try as we might, we have few reliable or democratic allies. We have maybe half a dozen friends: Britain, Canada, Australia, Israel (sometimes), Turkey (a better friend to us than we've been to them), and, soon enough, Russia. Beyond that, we have relationships and hookups in ever-proliferating quantity and ever more complex and questionable quality.

SO WHAT'S THIS new struggle, these hundred conflicts already melding into yet another world war, about? Put simply: Maybe half the countries on this planet--and many of the poorest and most volatile--have borders that don't make sense politically, militarily, ethnically, culturally, economically, or ecologically. Before the Soviet collapse, borders were considered sacrosanct, virtually immutable, the sine qua non of national sovereignty. Now sovereignty is breaking down and busting up all over, and borders grow ever more unavailing and unreal. No amount of Western-style "nation building" can hold together nations that never should have been nations in the first place and shouldn't be now. And no amount of American muscle can police a world destined for a century of conflict over resources, religions, identities, and whatever else people care to massacre each other about.

Throughout the Cold War, we failed at Third World nation building, failures we could elide courtesy of local thugs and kleptocrats. During a decade that historians may someday call "The Wasted '90s," we blew it in Haiti, Somalia, and, to some extent, in the Balkans.

We're getting our first hard lesson in Afghanistan, whose continued existence as a collection of feuding tribes and warlords isn't worth the bones of an Arkansas grenadier. If we go into Iraq, if we get our "regime change" and then try to build them a country, the lesson will be harsher still. And as we fail, the chaos--and our involvement and implication in that chaos--will spread. It will spread through the Islamic world. It will spread through Africa. And the consequences and the violence will not be confined to those unhappy lands. Not to mention the fact that, from the jihadist point of view--they who recognize no legitimate borders save those of the Umma, the Islamic world under their brand of Islamic law--destabilization is exactly the opportunity they want.

So what's Iraq about? In the end, it's not about that nasty man or the nasty things he's collecting. It's about what the policy wonks call "destabilization." It's about taking the next step into a regional and a global chaos that could wreck this planet.

So what do we do when the government's careening toward disaster, the anti-war movement's comatose, and the media keep us on perpetual spin? For starters, we dare to risk unilateral rationality. Which tells us that we've yet to begin to develop an effective strategy for coping with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, let alone the imminent fracturing of dozens of nations.

Iraq?

Not now.

info@seattleweekly.com

More about oil: Bin Laden (military trainer of HAMAS in Lebanon in the 80s, btw), if he is still alive is probably in Saudi Arabia, our buddy--which is a major supporter of terrorism and the gov't that spawned Bin Laden. Of course Pakistan harbored Bin Laden--even Kuwait hates us, despite what we did 4 them, now Germany and France think we'r idiots. The general news media is now totally controlled by the govt. No true info is getting out--I would think a little more about the issue and question where ur information is coming from...I 4 1 oppose this war and c the "Franco" proganista machine rolling and the "brownshirts" just around the corner. Because this time, as opposed 2 Vietnam, when the "comatose" anti-war movement finally wakes ups--no 1 in American will humor them. And that's a very scary prospect indeed.


Last edited by danlo on Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:51 pm; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Phoogle Map
Lord Mhoram
Boston Brahmin

Male
Joined: 08 Jul 2002
Posts: 9512

Thanks: 2
Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts


2455 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 Revelstone


PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sky, ya looking back my posts are kind of self-contradictory. Smile But the question is (or mine is): is Saddam crazy enough to attack a neighbor even if we've got troops in Saudi Arabia, and regardless of where the troops are we will attack him?? And what if he has a nuke, or is closer to making one then we think? A contained threat, is a threat nonetheless.

Quote:
with respect .. Iraq is a lot closer to Iran, Amman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria and Turkey.
That's really irrelevant who Iraq is closer to, the point is he's in missile range of Israel, and as demostrated in '91 is not afraid to use them.


Quote:
Now .. I would be more worried about Turkey and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia .. they are much closer and more convenient US-'friendly' targets.
True. I'll give you that, Saddam wants the Mid-East's oil, and will get it from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. But again, he's tried Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia has American forces in it, though I don't think its necessary.

Sky, you never answered my question. Are you denying the Iraqi threat?

Listen, do you think that Saddam is really going to make an effort to co-operate with UN inspectors. Do you think that tougher UN inspections will really result in a peaceful resolution? I'd like that to be true. I'm afraid it may not be. We'll see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Phoogle Map
[Syl]
Embattred


Joined: 26 Oct 2002
Posts: 12922

Thanks: 85
Thanked 58 Times in 56 Posts


3697 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Damn, sorry, Sky, I didn't know that was you (was posted as "Guest"). I wasn't crying in my boots or anything, I just thought the wording of the post seemed a little antagonistic and perhaps a little on the querulous side. Despite emoticons, the internet can be a very terse medium. I enjoy a good debate, just not like the debates they have in Knesset (if you've never seen footage... fist shaking, name calling, every once in a while a physical altercation). anyway, water under the bridge.

it's amazing how differently australia as a whole looks at the middle east compared to the US and UK (somewhere in between), in my experience.
_________________
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.
-George Steiner
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skyweir
Lord of Light


Joined: 16 Mar 2002
Posts: 21159

Thanks: 20
Thanked 83 Times in 83 Posts

Location: Australia
43511 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord's Staff1 Oath of Peace1 Furls Fire


PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No worries Sylvanus .. yeah 'guest' was me .. forgot to log-on Embarassed .. I hope you have read my responses to you cos' I really wasnt disprespecting your comments just disagreeing with 'some' of 'em.

It may seem that being down-under and away from the fray .. or possible fray .. that I am insensitive to the clearly unique US position since 9/11. However .. I share absolutely your anti-terorist outrage. As you know the terrorist attack on Bali was Australia aimed .. being a popular Australian playground. And our closest neighbour Indonesia has always been a strained relationship [East Timor] and no more than now .. because of the pro-jihad/al quaida factions there.

These are difficult times for all .. and no less a time of uncertainty for us either ..

When it comes to the Iraqi question .. I have made clear my concerns .. and Mhoram .. I have answered your question actually if you read my post my pov is there. However I will elaborate ..

I concur that Iraq is a 'potential threat' .. but as in law .. to commit an offense involving an act of threat .. the victim .. or potential victims need to 1. possess the apprehension of immediate/imminent violence .. AND 2. this apprehension of imminent violence must not be far-fetched or fanciful .. and yet it is nevertheless a subjective test .. if the person is timid .. then the law must judge the situation according to the nature of the victim .. you take your victim as you find them.

Understandably the US/&willing coalition .. have a heightened sense of fear .. concerning Hussein .. and still I question .. setting the far-fetched/fanciful elements aside .. the apprehension of imminent violence.

Sure Hussein has shown the potential for violence and inhumanity and is in all respects a vile tyrant .. but I do not believe Israel or any of his neighbouring states or even the US are in imminent danger of violence from Iraq.

And I dont think that US or UK intelligence have provided information to the contrary .. that shows any evidence of aggressive intent against the US ..

Remember the Ayatolla hostage crisis in Iran that saw the end of the Carter regime and Regan's 'climb to fame'. The subsequent Iraq/Iran War .. that followed .. saw Iraq receiving the backing and support of the US .. Hussein was supplied US weapons and aid and lauded as a 'good guy' irrespective of his clear military aggression .. The Iran/Iraqi War was a bitter war .. and all along Iraq was backed by the US ..

Following the Iraq/Iran Waar .. as a military dictator Hussein's then expansionist agenda had his eyes on the Oil fields of Kuwait .. When Iraq attacked Kuwait ..Iraq was not attacking the US and did not expect to be retaliated against by US/western powers .. However US/Iraqi relationship had changed .. now Hussein threatened to control the global oil market .. and financially disadvantage the US/west .. and a relationship with Hussein was no longer a relationship of convenience.

Interesting to note that when Iraq was fighting a war and losing.. on its home soil .. it did not use weapons of mass destruction in its defense!

There was probably a good reason that they didnt use them .. cos the US would have retaliated with the same. Iraq had every reason not to taunt a clawing tiger who could rip it to shreds.

The same applies today .. Hussein is a politician .. he doesnt have a geo-political jihad of an Osama bin Laden to invest in or perpetuate .. with respect US and Iraq ideology is not that different .. both make relationships of convenience .. What has Hussein got to gain by giving WMD to terrorists .. apart from gaining a powerful enemy in the US/ a clawing tiger. He isnt motivated by a desire for religous power .. Hussein is an old fashioned political dictator ..

Hussein's financial concern in Palestine .. is about obtaining credibility in the Arab world. As we have seen from the articles Syl linked .. Hussein's talk re: Palestine is little more than bravado .. he has had a long time to have done something in respect to Palestine .. but he knows it is not a credible agenda.

MY ultimate point is that it is really hard to justify an attack on Iraq based on: 'threat' .. they havent given WMD to terrorists in the past nor have they used them against the US when they would have been most likely to [ie Kuwait] .. so why the urgency to attack them now??

There has been no 'sabre rattling' on Hussein's part .. he has had these weapons for years and has not acted against the US .. They see Iraq as a potential threats but thats nojustification .. the world is full of potential threats ..

Any state that has the potential of WMD and a grudge against the US could represent a threat .. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are very different people following different agendas There goals and there methods for obtaining these goals are entirely seperate .. even with the US with a common enemy of sorts .. the 2 have very little incentive to work together as their goals are so different.

What has become clear over the Korean incident ..is this .. if you actually acquire nuclear capability then you are safe from any form of conventional military attack by the US.

This out-moded idea of being safe behind your national sovereignty is no longer valid .. if the US can attack based only on your 'potential' to be a threat .. there is no hiding behind national sovereignty any more ..

What the US is unintentionally doing .. is encouraging nuclear proliferation ..

Its of little benefit in having mustard gas .. or anthrax .. if you havent got nuclear capability .. if you've got a nuclear bomb you can snub your nose at the US .. or even threaten to attack the US [as:Korea who recently claimed the right of a pre-emptive strike against the US military] and you then secure your safety.

And incidentally .. here's Iraq who has not threatened the US .. as Korea has .. but only has the 'potential' to do so .. but we see that thats enough as far as the US is concerned .. because I wager Iraq does not have the nuclear bomb and I think the US knows they dont have the nuclear capability with which to repell US aggression!
_________________
health and healing

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'

EZBoard SURVIVOR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae


Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 18824

Thanks: 100
Thanked 100 Times in 96 Posts


12008 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Foul Duck1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been trying to write on this topic for days. Started a couple of times, and couldn't keep to a topic. I'm going to be brief now, just making/supporting one point.

I'm reminded of a conversation on <I>Star Trek: The Next Generation</I>, between Riker and the Guardian of a long-dead civilization who woke up when the Enterprise and a Ferengi vessel showed up at the planet:
Quote:
Guradian: <I>"What of them? Shall I destroy them?"</I>

Riker: <I>"Then they would learn nothing."

"A most interesting conclusion! But... What if they never learn, Riker?"

"Is this a test also?"

"In life, one is always tested."

"I see them much as we were several hundred years ago. But posessing the technology they now have, they are very dangerous. But we can hardly hate what we once were. They may grow. And learn."

"And learn ways to destroy you."

"Well, our values require us to face that possibility."</I>

Skyweir said it very well:
Skyweir wrote:
I do not believe pre-emption is a sound or supportable ground for aggressions without a compelling and credible reason, which I do not perceive the US having supplied thus far.

I haven't heard sufficient reason either. It may be that the line between those who <I>could</I> be a threat and those who <I>will</I> be a threat is thin, but I'm not convinced. I was born in the US, and I know full well that my government is every bit as capable of lying as Iraq's is. I fear we will begin a policy of taking down governments that we don't like, just because we don't like them. Not like we haven't tried before. On the one hand, why shouldn't we? Should I sit back and do nothing when I know my neighbor is abusing his children? And should we sit back and do nothing when we know a government is torturing, gassing, starving, or shooting whole segments of its population? What's the difference? Wrong is wrong, and I don't like the idea of not trying to stop it. And we know that Saddam (and the other dictators in yesterday's <I>Parade</I> article) are not going to stop if they are not forced to.

On the other hand, can I think that the US should be in charge of the world's safety? It's an impossible job. Maybe it's up to each group/country to stand up to the dictators, despite the risk, and decide that their lives are not going to be at the mercy of a monster. (Which makes me question if we should step in when we see them trying, and getting wiped out by the government's vastly superior power. Like in China at Tianenman Square.)

Damn! I'm going to stop now. I just can't make a solid statement here!


And I agree with those who say that the UN is useless. The evil governments ignore it, and count on the good-will and guilt of the others to follow it. They know that we bind ourselves, and that we won't bind them. And we know that we've never discussed such actions against someone of serious size and power, like the Soviet Union or China.


[Hey danlo, in light of your ahimsa vow, I'm surprised you didn't say anything during that big debate about Mhoram's decision to abandon Kevin's Lore. NO, I'm not trying to start it up again. Smile Just observing. But iirc, you had gotten a new book around then, and weren't posting much at all. Unless I'm remembering the wrong person.]
_________________
We are not required to save the world. We are required to stand up as truly as we can for what we love. -SRD

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger Phoogle Map
danlo
Lord of Neverness


Joined: 06 Mar 2002
Posts: 20836

Thanks: 43
Thanked 56 Times in 56 Posts

Location: Albuquerque NM
3248 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 2005 Watcher of the Year1 Revelwood1 Skyweir


PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right u r F&F and I have been chided by the Duchess by not participating in ur discussion--I will endevour 2 add my twocents there!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Phoogle Map
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae


Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 18824

Thanks: 100
Thanked 100 Times in 96 Posts


12008 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Foul Duck1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

danlo wrote:
...I have been chided by the Duchess...
Hmmm, sounds kinda sexy. Very Happy
_________________
We are not required to save the world. We are required to stand up as truly as we can for what we love. -SRD

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger Phoogle Map
[Syl]
Embattred


Joined: 26 Oct 2002
Posts: 12922

Thanks: 85
Thanked 58 Times in 56 Posts


3697 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 6:28 pm    Post subject: and now something completely different Reply with quote

chided by the duchess, eh guv'nor? say no more. wink wink.

back on topic... i guess that's the crux of my thoughts on the subject. if there was an effective world body that had a consistent track record that wasn't composed of various factions fighting for their own self interests, i'd say follow their lead. sadly, we're a long day from the UFP.
_________________
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.
-George Steiner
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skyweir
Lord of Light


Joined: 16 Mar 2002
Posts: 21159

Thanks: 20
Thanked 83 Times in 83 Posts

Location: Australia
43511 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord's Staff1 Oath of Peace1 Furls Fire


PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I appreciate and agree with your comments F&F .. and this is a great discussion!

I for one would love to live under such a concept as .. a United Federation Of Planets .. I think .. and silliness aside [being pure fiction at this time Wink ] .. it underlies the most noble of attitudes/virutes.

Fist and Faith wrote:
And I agree with those who say that the UN is useless. The evil governments ignore it
Thats an interesting comment .. 'evil governments' .. and most assume the states which render such an international body as the UN less-effective .. are those rogue regimes .. which are so glibbly called 'evil' .. most of them are not even signatories to UN protocols let alone members .. but there are many that are. 'Evil governments' which frequently defy the UN are not only the smaller rogue states.

The nations which need to abide by the UN .. are those that should be setting the example .. the wealthier western powers predominately .. US .. UK .. Australia .. Canada .. NZ .. [more wealthy democracies of the Commonwealth] France .. Germany .. etc [more wealthy European states] .. but all too often the most powerful are guilty of snubbing their noses in defiance of the UN .. whenever it is not in their interest to comply .. or are when these states are criticised about their own poor performance re: Environment, Human rights, International agendas .. etc..etc..

These powers are guilty of double standards .. calling on the UN power and authority for moral/legitimacy when they want it .. and rejecting UN power and authority when inconvenient or too demanding economically/geo-politically.

The only way the UN .. or any international body in the future .. can function .. is for member states to respect its power and authority to act and fulfill its regulatory and intermediary function.


Fist and Faith wrote:
can I think that the US should be in charge of the world's safety?


It is an impossible job for any one nation .. not only impossible but steeped with political uncertainties .. and imho .. more importantly moral/ethical ambiguities. Managing world safety is not the job of any one nation .. nor should it be ... this is an international responsibiltiy .. that must be handled through an international body empowered by international consensus and law ..

The UN for now .. cos thats all we have .. but who knows what the future will hold .. the UN Security Council is insufficient for a mission of such magnitude .. particularly because of the limit on permanent members [with right of veto] ~ [being the select victors of WW2]

If one nation assumes this role .. then how can they divorce their own independant agenda from this role? If its for the benefit of 'international/global interest' .. then it needs to be under the lead of an international body .. which is representative .. imho .. unlike the UN ..

but as I say .. thats all we got .. so it has to suffice .. at least in the short term.
_________________
health and healing

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'

EZBoard SURVIVOR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Skyweir
Lord of Light


Joined: 16 Mar 2002
Posts: 21159

Thanks: 20
Thanked 83 Times in 83 Posts

Location: Australia
43511 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord's Staff1 Oath of Peace1 Furls Fire


PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oh and .. p.s what recent thread re: Kevin's Lore and the Oath of Peace?? Confused

a new one??
_________________
health and healing

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'

EZBoard SURVIVOR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae


Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 18824

Thanks: 100
Thanked 100 Times in 96 Posts


12008 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Foul Duck1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 2011 Watchies


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I started a thread called "Let's hear it for Mhoram", where I gave several of my favorite quotes by or about Mhoram. Drinny said that he thought one of them showed a weakness of Mhoram's, and the debate was a WHOLE lot of fun! Smile
_________________
We are not required to save the world. We are required to stand up as truly as we can for what we love. -SRD

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger Phoogle Map
duchess of malfi
Mother of Dragons, Slayer of Lies

Female
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 11104

Thanks: 37
Thanked 32 Times in 29 Posts

Location: Michigan, USA
11969 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Rubber Duck1 Foul Duck1 2007 Watchies


PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I try to stay away from political arguments, but I just wanted to update Sky on something I told her over at Lord Mhoram's board. Remember how I told you I didn't think the government was completely serious about attacking Iraq at that time because they haven't had us make our preparations yet? (for those who don't know I work in a US government hospital and they had us do certain...things...before Desert Shield became Desert Storm). Well, a couple of weeks later and they STILL don't have us making any of those preparations...so either they still aren't completely serious, or they're very ill prepared this time around...
_________________
Love as thou wilt.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skyweir
Lord of Light


Joined: 16 Mar 2002
Posts: 21159

Thanks: 20
Thanked 83 Times in 83 Posts

Location: Australia
43511 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord's Staff1 Oath of Peace1 Furls Fire


PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes thankyou duchess .. I read this you posted on another forum .. and it is heartening ..
_________________
health and healing

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'

EZBoard SURVIVOR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Lord Mhoram
Boston Brahmin

Male
Joined: 08 Jul 2002
Posts: 9512

Thanks: 2
Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts


2455 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 Revelstone


PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, here's a question. How does one disarm Saddam Hussein without going to war, keeping in mind his record of dishonesty with the United Nations??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Phoogle Map
Skyweir
Lord of Light


Joined: 16 Mar 2002
Posts: 21159

Thanks: 20
Thanked 83 Times in 83 Posts

Location: Australia
43511 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord's Staff1 Oath of Peace1 Furls Fire


PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

well thats precisely the point good Mhoram!!

disarming Iraq is not the sole interest of the Bush Administration is it?

If it were the inspectors would be doubled/tripled and UN peace keeping forces would be posted inside Iraq to accomplish the job .. but the US is blocking these efforts to increase the Inspection process .. cos they want to invade!

Its not just about disarmament .. its also about removing Hussein .. and a war is the most convenient way of doing that ..

dont bother with the assassination attempt tack .. cos it has been tried and hasnt worked ..

come what may the Bush Administration will have their war .. and they can laud all manner of noble reasons .. for doing what they will do .. but non that will ever justify their actions within the current climate.
_________________
health and healing

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'

EZBoard SURVIVOR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Damelon
Lord


Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Posts: 8100

Thanks: 11
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

Location: Illinois
2342 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Member of Linden's Army1 Rivenrock1 Coercri


PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skyweir wrote:
If it were the inspectors would be doubled/tripled and UN peace keeping forces would be posted inside Iraq to accomplish the job ..


And how would UN peace keeping forces or inspectors have been inserted in Iraq, since Saddam chased the inspectors out years ago?
_________________
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. ~ Carl Sagan

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Skyweir
Lord of Light


Joined: 16 Mar 2002
Posts: 21159

Thanks: 20
Thanked 83 Times in 83 Posts

Location: Australia
43511 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord's Staff1 Oath of Peace1 Furls Fire


PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

with respect I think thats missing the point Wink Razz .. we're talking now .. not ancient history in Iraq Wink Wink

Today inspectors are in Iraq and are doing their job .. the point is the question Mhoram posed ..
Mhoram wrote:
How does one disarm Saddam Hussein without going to war, keeping in mind his record of dishonesty with the United Nations??


So perchance .. Mhoram is suggesting that the task of disarmament cannot conceivably be accomplised without a military offensive .. *but has anyone considered the outcome of a military offensive if Iraq does possess WMD?

mmm .. just a thought ..

however .. not really the point

.. War is not the only nor even the most effective way of disarming a nation

.. you wanna try launching a war in Korea as a means of disarming this state? .. I think not .. not now they assert nuclear capability ..

.. and evenso I cant think of any historical/legal precedent where this kind of action has ever been demanded of a state. Though, we do live in different times .. and we are unorthodoxically setting new precedents

There have been proposals by France and Germany .. as you are aware .. of increasing the inspection force and placing peace keeping troops in Iraq to hasten the task ...

I support such a measure .. but no matter .. it won't satiate the Bush Adminstration's agenda of removing Hussein.

and as rising criticism is levelled against France and Germany's approach to Iraq .. it must be remembered that the French and German exerience with War is very different to US, UK .. and even I may say the Australian experience ..

Even though France fought on the winning side of both WW's .. they were left with a ravaged country .. Germany as you know was levelled in both wars .. Vietnam was a real problem for the French .. and by and large .. so as far as the French and German experience they have come out learning that war ultimately causes more problems than it solves .. and that WAR is the ultimate a failure of diplomacy ..

.. hence their desire to explore diplomatic solutions prior to any acts of aggression.

Whereas the anglo-world experience came out with a very different world view .. that war is a virtuous sacrifice not to be cringed from .. that if we persevere WAR will bring about an ultimate benefit for the greater good.

The US see themselves as having created democracy out of war [US v UK 1776].. indeed the War of Independence gave birth to democracy at the point of a gun

.. to take the courage to stand against oppressors and lie down their lives if necessary .. thus inheriting their deemed manifest destiny to defend democratic principles ..

All noble desires indeed .. but will this rationale lead to realising ultimate good or ultimatedestruction?

The US is currently stirring the pot in the Middle East .. and if they're not careful it will boil over and blow!!

The Iranians are no lovers of Iraq .. but even they would far rather have Hussein in place .. than have the US in charge of Iraq .. and this feeling runs common among many of the middle east even those friendly to the US.

.. and here's Iran way more rogue than Iraq because of the volatile fact that Iran is run by religous fundamentalists who are very close to possessing nuclear capability .. what will be done in response to that?

Well we know that Iran is next on the list on par with Korea .. Its all easier said than done .. and this interventionist US agenda will/is spark/ing a wave of militant anti-american feeling .. all though the middle east .. Africa and Asia .. We're looking at a powder keg! .. an region imo which is best dealt with diplomacy .. not with aggression! ..

And as a rule .. a powder keg .. isnt diffused with fire and explosives!!

anyway .. I'm getting off target .. you see the US have the perception that they are back-burning here in the middle east/taking preventative measures .. as you do when you face an extreme bush-fire season .. but how often do we see back-burning get out of control??

and the middle east is a way more explosive region imo ..

The Saudi Arabians are non-democratic US allies .. who the US have always supported including the Shah ~ THE ruling family! A completely autocratic rule/regime .. and the Saudi's have always had the support of the US ~ their buddies in OIL Wink .. Why havent the US encouraged democracy imposed in Saudi Arabia??

Well just why would the US bother?

A democracy would leave this important and extremely valuable state under the control of a popular leader .. and even risk that popularly elected leader being one not friendly to the US ..

Currently, the US have a leader/ally .. who is friendly to the US .. and are good reliable pro-US suppliers of oil in the middle east

.. but these aggressions against Iraq have the traditional pro-US Saudi's spooked too .. they are rightly concerned about the backlash of US interventionist policy in the middle east!

Look what happened in Iran .. once the Shah was deposed by a popular uprising?? Who took his place?? the Ayatollah Komeini (sp?) .. a very anti-US leader ..

A simplistic approach to this deeply complex geo-politcal conundrum .. is unlikely to produce the desired result.

Iraq is the spark .. like the assasination of the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand was to WW1. .. I feel we need to tread carefully and take more measured responses to our actions in the middle east ..
_________________
health and healing

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'

EZBoard SURVIVOR


Last edited by Skyweir on Tue Mar 04, 2003 9:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Damelon
Lord


Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Posts: 8100

Thanks: 11
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

Location: Illinois
2342 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Member of Linden's Army1 Rivenrock1 Coercri


PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skyweir wrote:
with respect I think thats missing the point Wink Razz .. we're talking now .. not ancient history in Iraq Wink Wink


I think it's a very salient point now. There is no reason to believe that it's anything other than the 150,000 soldiers massed in the Gulf that has made Saddam change his mind and allow inspectors back in the country. There is no reason to believe that inspections would be completed if they leave, or that the will would remain in the UN to continue the inspection program. The debate in the UN with France and Russia leading the argument, before the US sent troops to the region, was not that inspections should continue, but that sanctions against Iraq should be lifted. No pressure was applied by the UN to make Saddam comply.

As for the motives of France et. al, I don't share your opinion that their government's opposition is based on their own experiences in WW2. That's rather charitable. They have their own axes to grind in that region. Wink

Democracy is a rare fruit in the Arab countries. In fact the only nations in the region that could be called democratic are Turkey, and Israel. Non Arab states. Much of the problem in the Arab countries though is more a self-perception problem of them appearing weak in world. The perception among the Arabs is that the US ignores their Arab issues in a way that it doesn't with other non-Arab countries, and is unsympathetic to them.

Opposition to the US and its policy in the region derives ultimately not from US policy in Iraq, but US policy towards Israel. Saddam has ever endevored to link his policy to the Palestinian situation. That combined with the weapons he is capable of making, and his capacity for using those weapons to further his goals, makes him the most dangerous leader in the Mideast. He should not have been allowed, as the UN allowed him to do after he kicked out the inspectors, to remain unobserved. Saddam will not cooperate with the inspectors without the threat of force.
_________________
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. ~ Carl Sagan

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Lord Mhoram
Boston Brahmin

Male
Joined: 08 Jul 2002
Posts: 9512

Thanks: 2
Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts


2455 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord Mhoram's Victory1 Revelstone


PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sky, yes we forged out our country through war, fought for our country in war again (1812) and fought for land with other countries to create the country we now see (Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, etc.)

What I was trying to say was, how do we disarm without taking out Saddam??? But what is the Bush Administration trying to do? Disarm or oust Saddam? Oust him, and I'm all for it, whether it takes military action or heavy diplomacy to force him to resign, there are plenty of scenarios. Lets just wait and see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Phoogle Map
Skyweir
Lord of Light


Joined: 16 Mar 2002
Posts: 21159

Thanks: 20
Thanked 83 Times in 83 Posts

Location: Australia
43511 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Lord's Staff1 Oath of Peace1 Furls Fire


PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2003 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Damelon wrote:
As for the motives of France et. al, I don't share your opinion that their government's opposition is based on their own experiences in WW2. That's rather charitable. They have their own axes to grind in that region


If this is the oil debate .. imho .. its as superficial and as sound as asserting the only reason Bush wants to launch a military strike against Iraq is so the US can gain control of Iraqi oil fields.

Sorry ... I dont buy this rationale from either side .. I dont believe oil .. is France and Germany's rationale for taking an anti-war stance. And lets not forget that Russia is also allied to France and Germany in this desire to explore all possible political and peaceful remedies prior to any acts of aggression/war.

I dont want to keep repeating myself .. so forgive me if I cover ground already touched on.

Disarming Iraq is not all the Bush administration have in mind it would seem. What I object to is the lack of openess, honesty and provision of a supportable rationale by the US as to the extent of their true agenda against Iraq.

Damelon wrote:
There is no reason to believe that it's anything other than the 150,000 soldiers massed in the Gulf that has made Saddam change his mind and allow inspectors back in the country.


I absolutely agree!!

Quote:
No pressure was applied by the UN to make Saddam comply

I cant agree with this assertion .. it was UN resolution 1441 that enables the threat of aggression against Iraq in the case of non-compliance. Sure the US, UK etc.. and massing forces adds significant force to that threat ..

Instigating resolution 1441 was probably the US's biggest mistake .. cos they have instigated a process and are threatening not to allow its completion.

Damelon wrote:
[Hussein should not be allowed to] ... remain unobserved. Saddam will not cooperate with the inspectors without the threat of force.


Yes you could be right .. it has proven to be a great motivating factor.

Mhoram .. the US as a nation rose up against the Brits in their fight for Independence .. and thus won democracy .. In this case I believe for democracy to be won in Iraq or any other middle eastern or asian nation .. it is the nation ~ the people who need to share that same desire and act themselves in the pursuit of liberty and democratic ideals.

Rather than have it imposed on a people who have never had it or to some degree may not even want a western democratic regime.

War is the failure of diplomacy .. the most effective way to deal with this region is via diplomatic measures not aggression. Cos it is a powder keg of immense proportions.
_________________
health and healing

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'

EZBoard SURVIVOR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Kevin's Watch Forum Index -> Temp -> Coercri All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 142, 143, 144  Next
Page 2 of 144

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by Earthpower © Kevin's Watch